Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is Meadows cooperating? If so, can he supply evidence to connect Trump directly to January 6th violence? If that happens, what charge should the Justice Department bring?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There's actual video footage of Federals committing violence and property damage. Both undercover, false flaggers and uniformed monsters.

The DOJ isn't charging any of them, why would they charge Trump on pretend evidence?

[not guilty]

"There’s actual video footage of Federals committing violence and property damage. Both undercover, false flaggers and uniformed monsters."

Supporting facts? To which Federals do you refer? Please name names.

And what on earth does that have to do with charging or not charging Donald Trump?

[grb]

not guilty : "Supporting facts? To which Federals do you refer? Please name names"

Don't fall for his shtick. A few threads back, BCD stated he lies as purposeful strategy. The man preened over his cleverness doing so.

He actually had some fancy name for it, like "Static Cling".

[Randal]

I think he called it "Excess Voltage" or something like that... but "Static Cling" is so much more accurate in every way!

[Nige]

Or as Kirkland would say, Static Klinger.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Klinger is a beloved M*A*S*H character.

Clinger is a . . . well, this guy can explain it.

[Frank Drackman]

Lt Michael Byrd, First Degree Murder. Depriving Ashil Babbit of her Civil Rights, whatever the Cop in Minneapolis was charged with in the Floyd George case.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also reckless endangerment of the three uniformed cops in his field of fire.

Friendly fire isn't, and it's only blind, stupid luck that he hit *her* and not one of those three officers -- who were completely shocked that he fired. (Look at the expressions on their faces.)

Three fairly large male officers versus a 120 lb woman -- yea, they could have dropped her, and without a whole lot of effort, and a *competent* police officer would have known that.

Sadly there is no crime known as "criminal stupidity" but there likely is for recklessly endangering the life of a police officer....

[Nelson]

"Depriving Ashil Babbit of her Civil Rights"

Ashli Babbitt was a stupid criminal who thought that trying to breach a defended position guarded by armed law enforcement was a good idea.

She got exactly what she deserved. I wish the defenders had been less restrained and more like Derek Chauvin. We would have had a lot less violent idiots and the world would be a better place.

[Gandydancer]

There isn't even a plausible argument that Ashli Babbitt wasn't murdered.

The world would be a better place if the same happened to you.

[hoppy025]

Listen to the interview with that "officer." He sounds like a retarded 10 year old. No one would have ever hired him to work at a McDonald's, much less as a federal LEO, prior to anti-white racist hiring aka affirmative action.

[not guilty]

"There isn’t even a plausible argument that Ashli Babbitt wasn’t murdered."

Au contraire. Under the District of Columbia code, murder in the first degree requires a killing, purposely, either of deliberate and premeditated malice or by means of poison, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or without purpose to do so kills another in perpetrating or in attempting to perpetrate any arson, . . . first degree sexual abuse, first degree child sexual abuse, first degree cruelty to children, mayhem, robbery, or kidnapping, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate any housebreaking while armed with or using a dangerous weapon, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony involving a controlled substance, District of Columbia Official Code § 22–2101.

Murder in the second degree requires the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. District of Columbia Official Code § 22–2103. Implicit in the notion of malice aforethought is the absence of every sort of justification, excuse or mitigation. The absence of justification, excuse, or mitigation is thus an essential component of malice, and in turn of second-degree murder, on which the government bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.Comber v. United States, 584 A.2d 26, 41 (D.C. 1990).
In cases in which there has been some evidence as to either justification, excuse, or mitigation, the jury could be instructed that the absence of justification, excuse, or mitigation, as defined by the trial court, is an element of the offense the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 41, n.17.

There is no suggestion that Mr. Byrd's actions were of deliberate and premeditated malice or occurred in the commission of a specified felony. The facts suggest justification, excuse, or mitigation, which the government would need to rebut or negate beyond a reasonable doubt. That qualifies as at least "a plausible argument that Ashli Babbitt wasn’t murdered."

[Gandydancer]

The facts suggest justification, excuse, or mitigation, which the government would need to rebut or negate beyond a reasonable doubt. That qualifies as at least “a plausible argument that Ashli Babbitt wasn’t murdered.

The facts suggest no such thing. There is no remotely plausible "suggestion" that Babbitt posed, or appeared to pose, an imminent threat to inflict serious injury on Sgt. Byrd or any other person and, absent that, shooting her was clearly murder.

[I Callahan]

Typical lib. Probably anti-death penalty and anti police brutality. Until it's a righty, then all bets are off.

[David Nieporent]

There's no footage of "Federals" — whatever that word is supposed to mean — committing violence and property damage, unless this is just another whine that terrorist Ashley Babbitt committed suicide by cop.

[Frank Drackman]

"Suicide by Cop" oh, like Floyd George did in Minneapolis, (actually Fentanyl Overdoses are more accurately classified as "Death by Misadventure")

[Mr. Bumble]

It must have been very difficult to get your law degree in braille. Seems obvious that you are blind.

[Frank Drackman]

20/20 OU (I'd tell you, but that's Doctor-ese) thank you very much
and Floyd's been dead 3 years now, can somebody find out how he paid for that $90,000 Mercedes without a job? (Obviously not by passing counterfeit bills)

[David Nieporent]

Are you another follower of Julie Kelly, too stupid to know the difference between informants and agents?

[Frank Drackman]

Floyd George was a Secret Agent (man)?? would explain alot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Undercover Secret Service agent investigating counterfeiting.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ashley Babbitt created the conditions that led to her death, but to call her a terrorist is both inaccurate and cruel. I thought you were a LOT better than that.

[David Nieporent]

Eh. Traitor, insurrectionist, terrorist. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I try to diversify my word choices for the sake of variety.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot honorably discharged veteran.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not on that day, she wasn't.

Maybe try "Grade-A student" next and see if that attempt at appealing to emotion works any better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Evoking Branch Rickey and Ralph Kiner:

America lost the war with Ashlii Babbitt. It could have lost without her.

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend Sandusky not being kind or gentle referring to one of his "Betters"
Tell us, "Coach", where did you serve?? (and I don't mean https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Frank

[Gandydancer]

"[Ashlui Babbitt] was a "Traitor, insurrectionist [or] terrorist. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I try to diversify my word choices for the sake of variety."

There's no "diversity" in those epithets. They're all just lies.

Babbitt was murdered.

[I Callahan]

Jesus, what an asshole you've become.

[Ed Grinberg]

Ashley Babbitt created the conditions that led to her death

Totally unlike George Floyd!

[Frank Drackman]

oh that's right, somebody put that Fentanyl in Floyd George's blood.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, that is correct. Floyd wasn't a threat, and he was slowly suffocated for no good reason.
Babbitt and the mob she was in sure was a threat. It sucks she was shot, but there absolutely was a good reason.

[Frank Drackman]

Floyd George served time for rape, and in a just society would have been executed years previously.

[David Nieporent]

If you mean George Floyd, then you're lying as usual.

[Frank Drackman]

In 2007, Floyd faced charges for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; according to investigators, he had entered an apartment by impersonating a water department worker and barging in with five other men, then held a pistol to a woman's stomach and searched for items to steal.[18][40][41] Floyd was arrested three months later during a traffic stop, and victims of the robbery identified him from a photo array.[41] In 2009, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal,[40][42][43] and was paroled in January 2013.[22]

[not guilty]

You asserted that "Floyd George [sic] served time for rape." Your subsequent comment described (unsourced) bad conduct by Floyd, but where do you get rape?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, he got taken in by an internet fraud, but it still remains that George Floyd was no choir boy.

[Sarcastr0]

I have Frank blocked again, but even if it's true (seems Frank's usual bullshit), rape is not cause for police killing you in an unrelated incident later.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like anyone fucking cares who you've blocked.

[Frank Drackman]

You block as well as old people (redacted)

[Sarcastr0]

George Floyd was no choir boy.

Shut the fuck up. Irrelevant, and pretty racist considering I only see it used about blacks getting shot.

[Frank Drackman]

Dying was the best thing Floyd George ever did, otherwise the world would have little noted nor long remembered his pathetic life, like that kid killed in Ferguson a few years back.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and now he has been made a saint in the church of BLM.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody bothers pretending that white guys who get shot while having extensive criminal records are sainted innocent victims, though, so the occasion doesn't come up to point out that they're not choir boys, either.

Seriously, if Trayvon Martin had been white, you'd never have heard of him.

[Nige]

Not only do a lot of white people not get angry about cops shooting white people, they get angrier at black people getting angry at cops shooting black people.

[Jmaie]

"Shut the fuck up. Irrelevant, and pretty racist considering I only see it used about blacks getting shot."

Phrase has been used for decades, often in mob movies and there was a 1970's comedy as well. I've not seen it referring blacks in particular, so curious what you're referring to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Babbitt and the mob she was in sure was a threat."

She was unarmed and out of reach of the trigger happy cop.

Nobody else even drew their weapon, yet an unarmed woman was a deadly threat. Its just BS.

[Sarcastr0]

You ignored the mob part.

Wonder why.

[Bob from Ohio]

Some of the mob committed assaults. Most did not.

Are you suggesting that if other people commit violence, anyone in the "mob" can be shot?

She needed to be a threat herself.

[Sarcastr0]

You ignored the mob as a deadly threat. Mobs are deadly threats. You removed her from that context because you want something reality does not provide, so you are lying.

[Bob from Ohio]

This isn't Revolutionary France, you can't just give a mob a whiff of grapeshot, the target has to be a threat. She was unarmed woman.

[David Nieporent]

Bob is pretending that "mob" here means the same thing as "crowd." No, you cannot shoot into a crowd just because one person in the crowd is doing something bad. But this is a mob as in a coordinated attack on a particular defensive position. She was at the head of this mob. If she breached the cops' position, then all the protected people behind the cops were vulnerable.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, you are playing the same game the antisemite does in the Jew and the Antisemite.

You don’t care, you’re just fucking around. Because caring about legitimacy is for people who care about other people and have a moral center. Not for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to David Nieporent: Yet with all of the “violence" you claim was directed at the police not one other officer felt threatened enough to discharge his weapon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm sure your grasp of security details and protocols is just as ignorant as everything else you comment on, Bumble. He was in front, so he was the best person to make that decision or not.

We know you don't have any legal argument that he was in the wrong. We can safely presume that you have no practical experience to rely upon to claim he was in the wrong.

She unlawfully crossed the barricades outside, unlawfully entered as part of a mob inside, and then unlawfully attempted to breach the windows of a barricaded defensive position where men with guns drawn had made it abundantly clear what the consequences would be.

She was stupid, and of the same dipshit mindset you have where nothing is ever going to have actual consequences.

She fucked around, and she found out. Your crocodile tears are a joke.

[I Callahan]

But this is a mob as in a coordinated attack on a particular defensive position. She was at the head of this mob.

What a lying, traitorous POS you are. Not ONE SINGLE SHRED of the above is verifiable in any way.

[David Nieporent]

What a lying, traitorous POS you are. Not ONE SINGLE SHRED of the above is verifiable in any way.

Um, there's video.

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0: “Babbitt and the mob she was in sure was a threat.”

To do what?

The test for shooting her no being murder is that she posed an imminent threat to inflict death or serious bodily harm. Supposedly this was the state of affairs while she was perched precariously on a window sill, unarmed, in the immediate vicinity of half a dozen cops and on the other side of a furniture barricade from the cop, further away, who shot her dead.

And you prattle away about "hav[ing] a moral center.

Liar.

No, Babbitt was murdered. As was no one by ”the mob” on Jan 6. No one was even seriously injured by ”the mob” on Jan 6.

[jdoeford]

Your description just ignores the violent mob behind Babbitt. She was the first of many trying to break through a security barrier. If deadly force wasn’t used, there was a significant possibility of many more people coming through. And there’s good reason to believe they intended to harm legislators. I think it's tragic that she was killed, but she was deluded.

Where did you hear that there were no serious injuries? See e.g.:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-police-injuries-riot/

[I Callahan]

Yet no legislators got hurt. And other than Babbitt, a few people got some minor cuts and bruises, but nothing else. In other words, your whole insurrection narrative is pure, unadulterated bullshit from top to bottom, and you'll believe any lie that furthers that narrative.

[jdoeford]

“Yet no legislators got hurt.”

Well yeah…because they were shuttled off to safety! If Babbit and the people behind her weren’t fended off, on the other hand… I mean, what do you think they were attempting to do?

Did you read the article? Or you think the capitol police are lying that there were serious injuries?

[jdoeford]

Not to mention it's pretty easy to find online footage of cops being beaten at the capitol.

[OtisAH]

That’s right! Totally unlike George Floyd’s situation. See folks? Some of these idiots are capable of learning! Today they begin to realize different things are different, by the end of the week they might figure out that whole “push/pull” problem they run into at stores and banks and the welfare office. By the end of the year some of these morons might be able to get out from under conservatorship. After that the sky’s the limit.

[OtisAH]

Well we wouldn’t want to besmirch the memory of the woman who lost her life breaking into the Capitol at the head of a raging mob with the intent to help overthrow our government, would we? So non-partisan! Truly an inspiration.

[Gandydancer]

It's so strange that a "raging mob" intent on overthrowing the US Government didn't even touch any of the cops in their midst on their side of the barricaded doors. I mean, if they'd taken their weapons they could have at least returned fire.

[I Callahan]

There was no mob, there wasn't any intent to overthrow our government, and anyone who thinks there was should check themselves into the nearest inpatient psych ward ASAP.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I watched the whole thing unfold in real time. It is impossible to understand what you think you are doing with your baseless denials. The only conclusion which would make any kind of sense is that you count yourself a propagandist for insurrection, but a stupid one.

[OtisAH]

Pay attention all you dumbasses who consistently misuse the term: Here I Callahan takes an event every single person here watched with their own eyes live on television, which was followed up by hundreds of convictions including a few dozen for violent assault and seditious conspiracy for their roles in the insurrectionists mob, and he tells us that never happened. What’s that called?

“Gaslighting.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody's denying that there was an event that happened. They're just disputing how it's characterized.

Sure, there was a riot. Not that impressive a riot by left-wing standards, they didn't even firebomb anything, but a riot.

But an attempt to overthrow the government? Really? And they even left their guns behind while doing it? They thought they'd overthrow the government by, what? Intimidating people with fake horns and face paint, maybe?

Just how stupid do you have to be, to think that was an actual attempt to overthrow the government?

[Nelson]

“But an attempt to overthrow the government? Really?”

Yes. That’s what trying to stop Mike Pence from certifying the election was about.

“They thought they’d overthrow the government by, what?”

Stopping the certification of the election. Yes, Trump supporters are exactly that stupid.

“Just how stupid do you have to be, to think that was an actual attempt to overthrow the government?”

Not very. It was a stated objective of many of the people who attacked the police, smashed their way into the Capitol, chanted “hang Mike Pence”, and other completely innocent, tourist-y things. Including breaching and occupying the floor of the chamber.

It’s not like they were there to take a tour of the Capitol, despite what all the delusional apologists claim.

[Sarcastr0]

They made a fucking powerpoint about their election overthrow plan: "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan”

The violence was nakedly to pressure Pence to go along.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, there is sworn testimony before Congress of a large number of Feds being present. Sworn testimony is usually called "evidence."

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, too stupid to know the difference between informants and agents?

It's more likely than you think!

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're fantasizing that there's a big functional difference between them. The big distinction is who you're working for, not your job title.

[Sarcastr0]

There's a reason why it's agents provocateurs not informants agents provocateurs.

From your comment here, do you now think Jan 06 was a false flag op?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, you think that a government that actually USED agents provocateurs would never, ever call them something else? I mean, using them is one thing, lying about it? THAT would be beyond the pale, right? That's a really weird perspective, thinking the fact that the government calls them informants means that must be all they were.

"From your comment here, do you now think Jan 06 was a false flag op?"

I've suspected it from the start, it always made more sense as a Reichstag fire than as an actual attempt to help Trump. Not only did it force Trump to terminate his election contest, it never could have had any other effect! It was almost precisely calculated to hurt him.

Having a big crowd outside the Capitol? Yeah, that made sense from Trump's perspective, it put political fear into play. Breaking into the Capitol? Obviously that would backfire, cause members of Congress who'd even been inclined to help Trump to drop him like a hot coal. Which is what happened.

Really, the only plausible explanations are a Reichstag fire, and the FBI screwing up again with one of their "bait idiots into a stupid attack and swoop in at the last second" schemes. On a "never attribute malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity" basis, I tend to go with the FBI screw up explanation.

[David Nieporent]

I’ve suspected it from the start, it always made more sense as a Reichstag fire than as an actual attempt to help Trump. Not only did it force Trump to terminate his election contest, it never could have had any other effect! It was almost precisely calculated to hurt him.

Once again, this is stupid and wrong and ignores the known facts. It did not force Trump to terminate his election contest; in fact, Trump used it to help his plan to overturn the election. Plan A (well, plan A on 1/6; there were other plans before that) was to have Pence crown Trump as president-for-life regardless of the election results. But in the days leading up to 1/6, Pence made it clear he wasn't that crazy, so Plan B was to violently intimidate him into doing that, or to force him to leave (or kill him) so that Grassley could anoint Trump. (Remember Grassley's comment that he didn't expect Pence to be present on 1/6? And Pence's refusal to leave with the Secret Service during the attack so that nobody could pull any shenanigans behind his back?) Plan C was to use the attack to postpone the counting entirely to give GOP schemers in the swing states a chance to submit new electoral slates (Remember, Rudy called several senators during the attack and begged them to do that.)

[Brett Bellmore]

As a matter of objective fact, Trump had to drop his election contest within hours of the break in. You think that was pure coincidence?

Plan A was for Pence/Congress to declare that there was no way to decide which set of electors to count without reviewing the merits of Trump's election claims, and setting in motion a review of election results in the contested states. Remember, Trump actually DID think he'd won them, however irrational you may think that conviction.

Plan B was for both sets of electors to be tossed on the basis that you couldn't be sure which was valid, so that nobody would have a majority, sending the election to the House for a vote by state delegation.

Violent intimidation was never part of the plan, because any vote achieved by violent intimidation would be repudiated the moment the threat was lifted! You really think you can break into Congress, force a vote on your terms, and have it stick even after your bully boys have departed? No, once you've declared 'victory' by THAT route, you have to keep up the threat perpetually.

3rd world despots who do that sort of thing do it as the last step in claiming some utterly nominal 'legitimacy' after they've got the military already in their pocket. Try that HERE, and nobody outside Congress humors your 'reelection' and Congress impeaches you by a bipartisan vote the moment you goon squad is out the door.

[David Nieporent]

As a matter of objective fact, Trump had to drop his election contest within hours of the break in. You think that was pure coincidence?

Trump did not have to, and did not, "drop" anything. It's true that the majority of the GOP caucus in Congress lost its appetite for Trump's shenanigans after they themselves were almost his victims, but that was not Trump's decision.

Plan A was for Pence/Congress to declare that there was no way to decide which set of electors to count without reviewing the merits of Trump’s election claims, and setting in motion a review of election results in the contested states. Remember, Trump actually DID think he’d won them, however irrational you may think that conviction.

There were no "sets" of electors, and remember: Trump knew — as testified to by a number of people in his circle — that he had lost them.

No, once you’ve declared ‘victory’ by THAT route, you have to keep up the threat perpetually.

Yes, and? We're talking about Donald Trump.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, your claim upthread is that "There’s actual video footage of Federals committing violence and property damage." Now you cavil that "there is sworn testimony before Congress of a large number of Feds being present."

Sworn testimony is indeed "evidence," but evidence of being present and evidence of committing violence and property damage are very different matters.

[not guilty]

Glenn Kirschner has some thoughts as to whether Mark Meadows is cooperating with DOJ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEW7e6FbYVs

[Krayt]

For Putin so loved his ethnic Russians, and his other Brethren in Ukraine, that he would use nuclear weapons on them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Will said nukes even go "bang"?

It's a fair question because nukes require maintenance and I doubt they have had much over the past 30 years.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, because the Roosh-uns are ignorant peasants? those SU-35's appear to have been maintained well.

[jimc5499]

How many of their SU-35's have been well maintained? Remember the Russians made tugboats high-value targets because they needed them to tow their carrier.

[Gandydancer]

"Remember the Russians made tugboats high-value targets because they needed them to tow their carrier."

My memories are never this unintelligible.

I did find this, but the incident was 7 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GLn6KyzYo4

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, after a certain number of years you have to reprocess the Plutonium (?) in the warhead because of natural radioactive decay and hence it no longer being weapons grade.

I am also not an atomic physicist -- it's just something that I've been told, and which makes sense.

[Gandydancer]

Not to me. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,110 years, so if mere isotope decay can reduce plutonium from "weapons grade" to non-"weapons grade" in only a few years you're cutting your engineering margins way too close.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a reduction in fissile content that's the problem. The natural radioactivity gradually converts some of the 239 into 240, which messes with the utility for bomb purposes at even low concentrations.

[Reallynotbob]

They don't need to. Dirty bombs are a thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More in that no one has Gieger Counters and radiation is invisible.

I'm not saying I would want to be anywhere near a dirty bomb, nor have to try to clean things up afterwards, but if I am not mistaken, radiation strength decreases at 1 over the *square* of the distance, so you are talking about where the material physically lands and a relatively close distance to it.

Not an area with a 1-10 *mile* radius, and memory is that is just the circle of absolute mortality, with damage and death radiating out miles further.

[Reallynotbob]

Enough to taint the port of Odessa, I might say.

[Gandydancer]

If radioactive dust gets in your lungs the relevant death-dealing distance is zero.

[John F. Carr]

Putin is not going to nuke Ukraine. Medvedev is bluffing. Attacking the Kerch bridge was already supposed to trigger nuclear war. The red line was a bluff, like the one Americans drew related to chemical weapons in Syria.

Allegedly the U.S. has warned Putin of consequences if he uses nukes. Another red line. Real or fake?

[Commenter_XY]

Part of good lawyering, I suspect, is the ability to bluff and to know when to call a bluff. Diplomacy is much the same way. That is the danger of unclear red lines to me.

[grb]

John F. Carr : “Putin is not going to nuke Ukraine”

Using nuclear weapons would evaporate Russia’s remaining support in the world. Putin hardly has any real allies (North Korea and Iran being exceptions) but countries like India and China are willing to stand with Russia just outside the smell radius.

They’d bolt in a flash after the first nuke. That’s a strong price to pay for something of little military value.

[Don Nico]

You're pretty cock-sure of yourself as usual.

[Nige]

It would also render Ukraine into a radioactive wasteland, which, presumably, is not the sort of thing a conqueror would especially desire to conquer, even if he was failing to conquer it right now and was taking the medium-to-long view, and also it's, like, right next door.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, since Putin is apparently mining Ukraine for babies to supplement the low Russian birthrate, nuking Ukraine might increase the supply, as having your kid raised in Russia might genuinely look better than having them die of radiation poisoning.

But I doubt that's enough to compensate for all the international downsides, unless Russia simply means to move from tacit nuclear blackmail to doing it openly. "Send us foreign aid and we won't start nuking random cities around the world!"

[Nige]

Since he has repeatedly classed Ukrainians as Russians, and Ukraine as part of Russia he would be nuking Russians in Russia.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it would be nuking 'Russians', which is not the same thing as nuking Russians. Everybody inside and outside of Russia understands perfectly well that claiming that Ukraine is part of Russia was just a pretext to justify the invasion.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Everybody inside and outside of Russia understands perfectly well that claiming that Ukraine is part of Russia was just a pretext to justify the invasion."

Oh look, the guy speaking in absolutes and reading everyone's mind is wrong yet again!

Plenty of Russians feel that Ukraine is supposed to be a part of Russia, and have friends and family living in Ukraine that they consider to be fellow Russians, regardless of lines on a map.

[Krayt]

Well, 80 years ago we went through this exact same model on the run up to WWII. I don’t know how much more evidence you need that letting infection of war run untrammeled is a bad idea that won’t be limited to the original incident.

Let's speak bluntly. That he [Hitler or Putin] is concerned for his poor, abused ethnic countrymen elsewhere is a lie. That's blather for useful idiots to consume, to then engage the war machine, and keep on rolling.

Stopping it now saves money and lives.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't think you understood the context and limitations of my comment.

What do you think I was getting at? Anything more than "many Russians actually believe it, despite being (for Putin) nothing more than a convenient excuse" is beyond the scope of my comment.

[Gandydancer]

To be clear (I hope), parts of Ukraine are historically Russian like Austria is historically German.

Parts of Ukraine grabbed away from Poland after WWII, not so much.

But Ukraine appears to have no ability to move the current map lines back, so why would Russia use nukes?

[Nige]

The election being stolen was the pretext for Jan 6th, doesn’t stop lots of people believing it.

Anyway, the upshot is there are way more reason to not use nukes than to use them, which isn't as reassuring as it should be, but it's all we got.

[Don Nico]

A half-kiloton device would do no such thing.
You really understand so little about such topics that you should refrain from commenting.

[grb]

Don Nico : “You really understand so little about such topics that you should refrain from commenting”

Likewise, you: Medvedev is a clown. Anyone who has followed this conflict knows he’s the Russian equivalent of an AM radio shock jock. He regularly makes vacuous and blustering hellfire statements apropos of nothing.

The funny thing? He was originally known as a mild-mannered reformer. After Putin used him with such complete casual contempt, little Dmitry began puffing his chest out and making he-man statements in his thin reedy voice. It’s like he suddenly found a hidden reservoir of testosterone and that bully on the beach ain’t gonna kick sand in his face no more. No one takes Medvedev seriously.

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe Don was commenting about Nige's "radioactive wasteland" comment.

[grb]

The Don made a comment below saying Medvedev should be taken seriously. He shouldn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But you need to understand that radiation is invisible, and people do not respond rationally to things they can neither see nor understand.

One nuke, anywhere, would be the end of grain sales. Etc.

[Don Nico]

He may be a clown,but he is just a mouthpiece.
Countries have publicly announced nuclear posture / escalation statement for a purpose. The use of a small nuclear explosive would be completely withing Russia's often stated public policy.
As for the comment about Nige, he clearly knows nothing about nuclear effects. If he or anyone else wants to learn he should read (or at least consult) "Effects of Nuclear Weapons" by Glasstone and Dolan. It is available for free (ttps://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/effects/glasstone-dolan.html)

[Nige]

Oh, if we're playing by the rules that only allow use of a single half-kiloton device, then we're fine!

[Frank Drackman]

Rooshuns are Chess Players, Putin's up by a few pieces and can just trade until they get to the end game. If Vlodomir had any sense he'd resign.

[Gandydancer]

Bad analogy. Other than pawn promotion you don't get reinforcements in chess and your pieces don't require resupply and maintenance.

That said, Kyiv can't defeat Moscow, and, yes, Kyiv is in danger of running out of pieces.

[bernard11]

BS.

If you're down "a few pieces" you're beat, badly.

Velenskyy is not in that position.

[myself]

It's more than that.

Everyone has assumed that whatever happens NATO won't get directly involved in Ukraine because of the risk of Nuclear escalation.

But letting Putin use Nukes offensively to conquer Ukraine has a much bigger risk of Nuclear escalation as it sets a precedent that can be repeated in the future.

Another aspect of that, this isn't the 80's anymore. Russian military power wasn't that great before they invaded Ukraine, MAD is now just RAD, Russia's Assured Destruction. So there's no way Russia is going to risk a full-blown war with NATO.

So the game-theory says that if Putin uses a Nuke you need to make sure he loses, and loses HARD. So NATO air-power gets applied to Ukraine, and just Ukraine. Instant air-superiority and collapse of Russian supply lines and entrenched position and a Ukrainian route to the border. There's a risk of escalation, but limited since you keep the exchange to Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. And it's certainly less risk than letting the Nuclear escalation go unanswered.

Either way, Putin, and senior Russian's know this is the response, so they know Nukes are off the table because it's basically a guaranteed loss for Russia.

[Don Nico]

" Medvedev is bluffing. "
You know that how? Medvedev's statement is completely within Russia's openly stated nuclear posture.
Why do you accept the Biden pushing Putin into a corner? The use of a nuclear explosive is NOT preclude by Russian doctrine and is long consistent with NATO's prior emplacement of nuclear land mines.
Of course it is easy for you to saym being an ocean away from the action.

[Nige]

Putin is in an entirely imaginary corner of his own making. A cornered person has nowhere left to move. Putin has all of Russia to move to.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot confused by Chess

[Nige]

edgebot confused by geography

[Gandydancer]

Nige imagines that Putin is cornered and the walls are closing in.

[Nige]

Literally the opposite of what I said.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico....The real danger here is not knowing where the red line actually is. That is the product of muddled foreign policy.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
The problem stems from the past 5 US Administrations doing everything possible to blur that line as they have been tightening the noose around Russia.

[grb]

Don Nico : “…. tightening the noose around Russia …”

Absolutely hilarious. With NATO? So the alliance is going to get together – Hungary, Turkey, France, Italy, Greece and Germany – and all vote unanimously to assault Russia? Hell, they can barely manage that to admit inoffensive Sweden into the club!

But, but, but ….. it was the their plan to admit Ukraine that did it! As if a unanimous vote for that was remotely possible pre-invasion. Hell, I don’t think it’s possible now. I can’t picture any French government – Left or Right – voting to let Ukraine in. Putin is obviously a much bigger fool than anyone thought (you, in particular Don Nico), but he knew that perfectly well.

So forget the horseshit drivel about a “noose around Russia”. That’s just ignorant talk. Instead, here’s three reasons:

(1) Putin is prone to endless “blood and soil” wheezing about Ukraine as part of Holy Russia. He had a long quasi-historic treatise on this ghostwrit a few months before the invasion. If Russia is gonna have an old-timey Nineteenth Century empire in our current day, apparently Ukraine must be brought to heel. That brings us to:

(2) Putin’s cringe-worthy tendency to repeatedly compare himself to Peter the Great. Of course, I’m not being judgmental. Being tall since childhood, I can’t imagine the issues short people face.

(3) Two or three days before the invasion, Putin gathered the country’s top leaders for a televised “debate” on recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk as independent. Everyone was grouped together while Putin lounged apart across a vast distance, smirking as each flunky nervously recited his lines. When one flubbed his part, Putin played him like a cat a mouse.

It was not someone driven to desperate measures by a noose around his neck. It was an arrogant thug thinking he’s the smartest guy around. He would invade Ukraine and that country’s government would immediately collapse. The decadent West would mewl and whine, but do nothing. His new army would look invincible. Everyone would be in awe of his stature and might.

Putin didn’t invade because of any threat. He invaded because he’s a delusional arrogant fool.

[David Nieporent]

Putin was reportedly convinced — and this certainly fits his actions and his words — that Ukraine is a fake state run by an illegitimate government with no public support propped up by Western schemers and a few nationalist extremists. And that all he had to do was drop some troops in Kyiv, seize the levers of government, and (re-)install a Russia-friendly puppet on the proverbial throne. Nobody would be particularly interested in fighting for the corrupt existent government, so there'd be a minimum of bloodshed and then everyone would shrug and move on. Western governments would howl fecklessly in protest, but being weak, divided, and dependent on Russian fossil fuels, they would just slap some more symbolic sanctions on Russia.

(One flaw all authoritarians suffer is that they underestimate democracy. They think that because it's messy, it's weak.)

[grb]

David Nieporent : "Putin was reportedly convinced — and this certainly fits his actions and his words — that Ukraine is a fake state run by an illegitimate government with no public support"

Immediately after the invasion began, Putin and that hour's general gave a press conference. They stated (with sure confidence) they would work with Ukraine's army to arrive at a political settlement.

And that's how they thought it would work. Ukraine's army wouldn't even bother to fight. The government's leadership would be forced to flee, betrayed by its own military. The army's commanders would accept the pittance their new master offered rather than face Putin's might.

Of course in mere hours the elite forces sent to seize the Kyiv airport had been destroyed and the tank columns on the road the capital were ground to a halt. Reality does that to you sometimes.

[David Nieporent]

And that’s how they thought it would work. Ukraine’s army wouldn’t even bother to fight. The government’s leadership would be forced to flee, betrayed by its own military. The army’s commanders would accept the pittance their new master offered rather than face Putin’s might.

I just wanted to point out that in the first days of the invasion, a bunch of western countries urged Zelensky to flee Kyiv, and offered to evacuate him (leading to his memorable statement, "I need ammunition, not a ride.") We should not treat events as inevitable; they are path dependent. It's possible that if Zelensky does flee, it does demoralize the Ukrainian military and public and events turn out very differently.

[Don Nico]

grb,
Why don't you look at a map of NATO expansion since the famous promise by GHW Bush not to expand. My comment has been made by many observers for 20 years.

Putin is threatened by the US. But "He invaded because he’s a delusional arrogant fool" That I will agree with you about. It was damned stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only thing NATO threatened Russia with was a diminished ability to invade its neighbors. Now, granted, the ability to invade its neighbors is important to Russia, but that's still not what people normally view as a threat.

It's like the burglar next door claiming that I'm being aggressive by installing a better lock on my door.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
Again, you show yourself ignorant of US history and its continual deception vis a vis Russia. Look at a series of maps of Nato expansion and square that with Bush I's solemn promise.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: there was no "solemn promise." There's no such thing as a president making a "solemn promise" in our system of government. The Soviets could've insisted on a treaty, which is how governments make solemn promises. (But not presidents acting unilaterally.)

But again: the discussion at the time was about East Germany, nothing more. And the discussion was between Baker and a country that doesn't exist.

And there is, of course, no connection between that and Ukraine in 2022, anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

US history and its continual deception vis a vis Russia
This is tankie language. I know you're not a tankie, so don't go into the US having secret NATO plots against Russia it hides from it's people and the world.

[David Nieporent]

There was no promise by GHW Bush not to expand. This non-promise, not made by GHW Bush, to a country that does not even exist, is utterly irrelevant to Russia invading Ukraine more than 30 years later.

NATO posed no threat to Russia. You know that, I know that, Putin knows it. Adding a bunch of small countries to NATO did nothing to change that.

[Mr. Bumble]

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion. "

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

[David Nieporent]

Right. In other words, James Baker (who is not GHW Bush) made a suggestion (not a promise — "no formal deal was struck") that NATO would not expand to eastern Germany if the Soviets allowed reunification. The issue of Eastern European countries was not even on the table! And this non-deal was with a country that doesn't even exist!

Gorbachev and the other Soviet leaders knew the difference between a treaty and a suggestion. They also knew that under our government, the president (let alone the secretary of state) can't enter into treaties on behalf of the country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who was James Baker representing?
Save your lawyer bullshit for your clients.

[Gandydancer]

Save the lawyerly bullshit about the US President not being able to make binding promises for someone who thinks that that matters. NATO is an anti-Russian alliance and Russia was bound to react to NATO setting up shop in Ukraine, and it has done so.

[Don Nico]

Of course there was a promise and one that was repeating through the Clinton years, despite American fervent efforts to expand NATO.

While you’re at it tell us why NATO need an office in Japan. The ocean there is called the Pacific.

But as you may know, our imperial presidents (or to the right, unitary executives) don't need Senate considerations.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe NATO doesn't need an office in Japan. They don't seem to think they do, in fact. (Though I'm not sure what you think the significance of an office is, anyway.)

There were no "fervent efforts to expand NATO." NATO is a voluntary mutual defense organization. A whole bunch of countries formerly dominated by the Soviet Union asked — begged — to join NATO.

And, no, Clinton absolutely did not repeat the Baker "promise." The opposite. Russia knew NATO expansion was coming. Clinton promised only that it would be gradual. See, e.g.,

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994

[Don Nico]

"it was the their plan to admit Ukraine that did it! "
Indeed that was the last straw

[David Nieporent]

Since there was no such plan, it obviously could not have been. Not sure why you're acting as Putin's mouthpiece here.

[grb]

Don Nico: "Indeed that was the last straw"

1. There was no chance whatsoever for a unanimous NATO vote to admit Ukraine pre-invasion.

2. There’s almost no chance for a unanimous NATO vote to admit Ukraine now.

3. OK: You’re uninformed & easy to dupe; you don’t see that. But Putin isn’t and does.

4. So here’s my advice : Dump all the meaningless talk about “Russia threatened” and “tightening the noose”. You were played on that. They saw you coming. The issue with Ukraine is whether the country turns west or east. That’s what drove the Orange Revolution and put hundreds of thousand of protestors in Kyiv’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti. That’s what drove Moscow’s continual aggression against Ukraine since.

If it was only an issue of security there’d be no issue. Despite what your handlers tell you, Ukraine posed no threat to Russia before the latter stole Crimea and engineered uprisings in Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine posed no threat to Russia before the latter sent almost two hundred thousand troops across the border – the first new full-scale invasion on the European continent since 1939, when the Russians invaded Poland with their ally Hitler.

The Ukrainians want to be part of Europe, not the vassal of a corrupt thug’s mafia-style regime. If you give your Russia-bot-mode a rest, I bet even you sympathize with that desire.

[Gandydancer]

"The Ukrainians want to be part of Europe...."

Not all of them. Certainly only a minority in Crimea, and probably a minority in the Don Basin. The post-coup regime in Kyiv had no claim on these regions that anyone need pay any attention to, so the "stealing" you refer to is imaginary.

[myself]

If only the population in those regions actually had a chance to vote on that, elections that the "post-coup regime" was planning the moment the President fled the country.

Instead, they were invaded by Russian and subjected to religious and ethnic cleansing with wide spread imprisonment and torture.

The biggest reason to insist that Russia be kicked out of ALL Ukrainian territory? The people who live there who are currently being Russified by force.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nico,

Even if you’re not, I am embarrassed on your behalf.

This is not a Russian milblogger website, and your assertions are about 3 steps away from Bellemore-level nonsense.

Might I suggest you start slowly, from the beginning, with some PBS specials until you think you’re ready for more.

[myself]

Losing a war of conquest and not being allowed to forcibly annex another country's territory is hardly being pushed into a corner.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know, but also we can't know so I'm not sure what running around in a tizzy about potential nukes will do. Tactical or not. Over the past decades, I've learned it's not something worth dwelling upon.

Nor is it something worth allowing hostage taking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not much point in worrying about it over here, just keep a bottle of potassium iodide in the pantry, and you're probably good.

[Frank Drackman]

War is Hell (HT G. Sherman)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Democrat DOJ on Saturday tried to get Devon Archer in jail before he could blow the whistle on the Biden Crime Family today.

The bootlickers and gaslighters are going to point to the letter the Democrat DOJ letter written on Sunday where they say they really weren't trying to do that, pinky swear, to say that Archer's lawyers were lying.

These people can do whatever horrific criminal things to just about anyone they want, publicly assert they didn't, and the Nige's and Gaslightr0's of the world will never see the heinous evil vile acts by the people in government. In fact, they will call you a conspiracy theory whacko.

Hey, speaking of conspiracy theories? Guess what just turned out to be true??? Covid-19 Vaccine Shedding. So now you vaccinated gmo mutant humans are spreading your Big Pharma/Fauci mutated DNA to us normal non-gmo organic humans.

I already don't let homo's and trannies near my kids, now I can't let any idiot vaxxie.

[Zach]

How'd they try to get him in jail? Normally there's a whole process, maybe a jury - you can learn more about it by watching Law and Order.
Did the evil Democrats skip all that stuff and try to take an innocent man to jail?

[santamonica811]

Don't take BCD seriously. Literally no one on here does. (Including herself, one suspects.)

[Zach]

Thanks for the heads up. I just can't stand to see people lie by omission.

[Michael P]

Archer is appealing his conviction. The DOJ asked a judge to haul him in now, rather than later. They later backed down to allow him to testify today.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/comer-questions-timing-dojs-letter-requesting-ex-hunter-biden-business-partner-report-prison-odd

[David Nieporent]

The DOJ did not ask a judge to haul him in now. Why the fuck do you people lie like this?

They did not "back down."

[not guilty]

From the Fox News article that you link:

Matthew Schwartz, Archer’s attorney, told Politico that his client doesn’t agree with the characterization that the DOJ is attempting to intimidate Archer before his scheduled testimony by sending a letter to request that he report to prison.

"We are aware of speculation that the Department of Justice’s weekend request to have Mr. Archer report to prison is an attempt by the Biden administration to intimidate him in advance of his meeting with the House Oversight Committee," Schwartz said in a statement. "To be clear, Mr. Archer does not agree with that speculation. In any case, Mr. Archer will do what he has planned to do all along, which is to show up on Monday and to honestly answer the questions that are put to him by the Congressional investigators."

Archer's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7, 2023. https://narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/documents/us_v_archer.pdf It is unremarkable that DOJ now asks the district court to set a date for him to surrender and begin serving his sentence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Zach,

I understand that like most Democrats, you’re woefully underinformed.

The DOJ went after Devon Archer, a Hunter Biden partner, earlier and rigged a trial against him and he was found guilty by a jury of Democrats. When they found out Devon was scheduled to testify and blow the whistle on Biden’s CCP schemes, they curiously wrote a letter to a judge this past Saturday.

When the good guys got wind of their Democrat tactics and started making noise, they backed down on Sunday with a follow-up letter.

[not guilty]

The operative indictment against Archer was filed March 26, 2018. He was found guilty by a jury on June 28, 2018 of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, stemming from his involvement in a scheme to defraud the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the proceeds of a series of bond offerings worth approximately $60 million. He was granted a new trial (by an Obama appointed district judge), a ruling that was reversed by the Second Circuit on October 7, 2020. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7224067-Appeals-Court-Ruling-for-Devon-Archer (Two members of the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.)

All of that occurred while Joe Biden was out of office. Where do you get partisan animus in the prosecution?

[David Nieporent]

He's an admitted troll.

You also neglect to mention that a bunch of other people — unconnected to any Biden — were also convicted in this scheme, all while Trump was president.

[Mr. Bumble]

Troll. Takes one to know one and also someone who lies. In a comment on another thread you claimed that they “lab” found in California was a US company. Seems that’s not true either.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12357073/Unassuming-warehouse-California-turns-illegal-Chinese-run-virus-laboratory-genetically-engineering-mice-experimenting-HIV-herpes-malaria.html

[David Nieporent]

Are you saying that Prestige Biotech is not, as has been reported, a Nevada corporation?

[Mr. Bumble]

“The officials were tasked with determining the provenance of the mysterious lab, which was found to be run by Prestige BioTech registered in Las Vegas.

City officials identified Xiuquin Yao as the company’s president, who said Prestige BioTech shifted operations to the Reedley warehouse that was previously run by a now-defunct company called Universal Meditech Inc. Prestige was identified as UMI’s successor, according to court documents.”

But when officials were tasked with searching locations tied to either company, they turned up at abandoned offices or found linked addresses back in China that they could not verify.”

Maybe it’s one of the Biden companies . You obfuscate almost as well as the Queen. Whether or not there is such a company registered in Nevada is not relevant as to who was operating the site that was found.

[Zach]

Hey, so what do you think of Devon Archer's testimony that Hunter Biden only sold the "illusion of access" to Joe Biden?

Maybe you were right and Devon Archer is totally credible.

[Nige]

Voltage!

[David Nieporent]

The Democrat DOJ on Saturday tried to get Devon Archer in jail before he could blow the whistle on the Biden Crime Family today.

BCD is lying as usual, though to be fair in this case so is every single MAGA person on social media.

No such event happened. Period. It’s a 100% fabrication.

The bootlickers and gaslighters are going to point to the letter the Democrat DOJ letter written on Sunday where they say they really weren’t trying to do that, pinky swear, to say that Archer’s lawyers were lying.

Nobody is going to point to any such imaginary letter, and Archer’s lawyers weren’t in fact lying; they correctly said that BCD’s claim was a lie.

Also, there is no such thing as a "Democrat DOJ," and the DOJ didn't write any letter anyway; BCD is too stupid to know the difference between a USAO and the DOJ.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You wanna read the Sunday letter you say is imaginary?

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1685816293486739456

You poor poor ignorant bootlicking doofus.

BCD is too stupid to know the difference between a USAO and the DOJ.

Oh man I'm so glad I didn't catch this earlier and you can't edit your comment.

What domain is the USAO's website under? https://www.justice.gov/usao

Any ideas which institution justice.gov is?

[David Nieporent]

You wanna read the Sunday letter you say is imaginary?

I've read it. Unlike you, I do my homework before posting. Do you see the paragraph where it says that Archer's lawyers were lying? Me neither. Do you see the part where they "backed down," as opposed to saying that BCD is an idiot and that nobody who can read at above a 5th grade level thinks there was anything in there about imprisoning Archer before his testimony?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nobody is going to point to any such imaginary letter

First you say it's an imaginary letter, now you say:

I’ve read it.

How could you read an imaginary letter, David?

lol you're such a Democrat

[jdoeford]

.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, and apparently you don't understand how the DOJ works. Except in a few specific instances, such as whether to seek the death penalty, USAO operate independently of main justice. The AG does not tell them who to prosecute or not prosecute, does not tell them what arguments to make, and certainly does not supervise routine scheduling correspondence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

BCD is too stupid to know the difference between a USAO and the DOJ.

Except for the irrefutable fact that the USAO is part of the DOJ. And the way the English language works, when a human says the label for an entire set, that label encompasses subsets that belong to it. This is basic human language and a little bit of Set Theory.

lol, you fn Democrats I swear, when you registered as a Democrat, did it come with a safety helmet?

[OtisAH]

Idiot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'm an idiot for understanding that an office that serves under the DOJ is part of the DOJ?

lol gd Democrats are dumb af

[OtisAH]

Yes, you are an idiot always. Idiot.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, and apparently you don’t understand how the DOJ works.

LOL. Rando Jersey wage and hour attorney pompously assures us that in the federal criminal justice system there are no backroom deals, ever -- no political pressure from on high, ever -- no carrot/stick career path nudges, ever. Complete, utopian institutional independence, save "in a few specific instances" that he apparently witnessed in person to be able to speak with such supreme confidence.

Hilarious.

[M L]

Source: Trust me bro. I’m a lawyer.

Interestingly, David Nieporent is an expert on the factual details of every conspiracy theory and political controversy that ever exists.

He conducts his research outside of his full time day job, which is internet commenting on these same topics.

His interests also include the supremacy of the US federal government in all matters, the perfection of US federal government and major institutional behavior, and the myth of nonexistent states’ rights.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is the burden on to prove a conspiracy, ML?

DMN doesn't need to prove shit.

[I Callahan]

LOL. Well played. At one time, the guy was intelligent - back in the old days. Over the past few years, he seems to have let his entire brain leak out of his left ear.

[Sarcastr0]

You can make up whatever you want, but the burden is on you to provide evidence beyond hand-waving about what could happen.

[Nige]

'assures us that in the federal criminal justice system there are no backroom deals, ever'

Not doing your reputation for either honesty or reading comprehension, such as they were, any favours.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Hilarious."

Aren't you the guy a year or two ago who boldly stated that stockbrokers were fiduciaries?

Hilarious indeed!

[ducksalad]

David

I agree this was definitely not an attempt, or threat, to arrest Devon Archer and physically prevent him from testifying before Congress. And none of the parties actually involved has said that. That specific claim appears to be nothing but spin from partisan bloggers.

Having said that, couldn’t the timing plausibly be seen as a pointed reminder to Archer and his team that a lot is still up in the air as to what type of prison he’ll go to, what conditions he’s under while pursuing his appeal, and whether the surrender will be “white-collar” or “blue-collar”?

And even if that wasn’t the intent of the letter, it always seems dubious to me when people testify after they’ve been convicted but before they’ve been finally sentenced. There’s just no way they aren’t painfully aware that what they say can please or displease prosecutors. And given that they’ve already been convicted of crimes of dishonesty, one has to assume they’ll be inclined to say whatever might reduce the severity of what’s going to happen to them.

Of course, if you believe the DoJ is utterly disinterested in anything except the truth, and the Bidens have nothing to hide anyway, none of this matters. But to those of us who’ve become cynical the whole thing looks bad.

[not guilty]

Devon Archer has no appeal as of right remaining, and if he seeks review by certiorari in SCOTUS, his likelihood of the writ being granted is infinitesimal.

BTW, Archer's conviction and sentence have been affirmed on appeal.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for clarifying that. But doesn't that make the perceived danger of displeasing the DoJ/USAO even stronger?

[Moderation4ever]

So, Devon Archer has testified, and Republicans are calling it very productive. Whatever that means. Reports on the testimony suggest there is no link to the President and that his son Hunter was selling the illusion of Joe Biden involvement, rather than the real thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whoever loses the 2024 election -- Trump or Biden -- will likely spend the rest of his life in Federal Prison.

We have officially become a banana republic....

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ed, you act like the outcome isn’t preordained.

The Federal Class will not allow Trump to win an election. They didn't before, they won't again. Just as the Federal Class will not allow a Prime Federal to see any justice.

That’s just America in 2023.

[Zach]

It is absolutely preordained. That's why it's so important for Republicans not to vote. Don't give any legitimacy to the election. Can we agree on that?

[Michael P]

Thanks for the heads up about how unserious you are. I just can’t stand to see people lie by commission.

[Zach]

... if the election is preordained, why vote?

[Nige]

So, you think Trump, if it is he, is going to lose, and are getting your story straight first.

[John F. Carr]

Judges will not let Trump put Biden in prison.

[apedad]

Prosecutors and juries too.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If Trump becomes president again, judges who frustrate him may have all they can do to stay out of prison themselves.

[Don Nico]

"Judges will not let Trump .."
Where does that come from?
How about the American people will not let the Orange Clown put...
At least we'd better hope so.

[Reallynotbob]

One can hope. But there are some unserious judges.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but the institution, as a whole, is serious. And this is not something to be done without institutional signoff

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, what crime(s) do you posit Joe Biden has committed? Please cite the applicable federal statute(s) by number.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed's busy finding more misinformation, so I'll pinch hit,

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

for starters, and like the old Popeil Commercials Wait! there's more!

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

applicable part of law
(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

[not guilty]

I surmise that you are referring to then-Vice-president Biden’s request that the president of Ukraine fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, which reportedly occurred in February 2016.

I'll bite. Assume arguendo that Biden received something of value and that influenced his decision to request Shokin’s removal. An “official act” is defined as “any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

What did Joe Biden do that constitutes an “official act” as that phrase is construed in McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016)?

Under Department of Justice policy, President Biden cannot be prosecuted while still in office. How would any prosecution after January 20, 2025 not be barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No ignorant guilty.

He's talking about all the other evidence that has been uncovered in addition to Biden's confession.

[not guilty]

Putting aside that Joe Biden has made no “confession,” what do you mean “all the other evidence that has been uncovered”? Please be specific. What events do you refer to, and how and when did each occur?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You really and truly haven't seen anything come out of these Congressional investigations that have been all over the place the past several weeks?

I know you're retired and may not be in touch with the day to day goings ons, but you clearly have the internet. How do you not know of anything coming out of these investigations?

[not guilty]

BCD, do you ever get tired of tap dancing around questions?

Again, what do you mean “all the other evidence that has been uncovered”? Please be specific. What events do you refer to, and how and when did each occur?

[Brett Bellmore]

About 170 Suspicious Activity Reports on Biden family accounts, for one thing.

Normally even having ONE SAR on you is a big deal. A couple could make it really hard to get banking services. For a family to see 170?

You'd basically have to be a Mafia crime family.

[David Nieporent]

You don't understand what SARs mean or how they work. Nor do you have the slightest idea what "normally" happens.

[jdoeford]

.

[hobie]

Heh...Townhall

[I Callahan]

hobie - did those 170 SAR's happen or not? Do you have some proof that Townhall made that stat up?

If not, then nut up and explain why this shouldn't be believed.

[David Nieporent]

hobie – did those 170 SAR’s happen or not? Do you have some proof that Townhall made that stat up?

It has been widely reported that there were SARs. I will assume for the sake of argument that Townhall’s number is correct.

But SARs are not evidence that a crime was committed, let alone that any specific person committed it. A bank — not a law enforcement agency — generates SARs. Not based on any investigation; just based on an unexpected pattern of transactions. (A less misleading label for them would be Unusual Activity Reports.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

All the stuff released by the House committee.

Wtf, do you live in an underwater cave?

[not guilty]

Still tap dancing, BCD. I am trying in good faith to understand what you are talking about.

The burden of supporting a factual assertion is on the maker of the assertion. To what "stuff released by the House committee" do you refer?

If you are merely talking out your ass, man up and say so.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

wtf dude

[not guilty]

I have difficulty crediting Rep. James Comer's fever dreams and press releases as "evidence."

But thanks for trying.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Imagine the smartest person you know.

Is that how he would evaluate claims?

Now imagine the absolute rock bottom dumbest person you know.

What do you think she would do if she saw that link?

[I Callahan]

not guilty gets a link that PROVES what BCD is alleging. not guilty then says he doesn't believe it.

There are some things liberals won't do when confronted: face the truth is at the top of the list. Biden makes Trump look like Mother Teresa.

[David Nieporent]

BCD hopes his handwaving will disguise the fact that he hasn't seen anything come out of these Congressional investigations that have been all over the place the past several weeks. What he has seen is tweets from MAGA and Congressmen, not anything substantive. (They have a bunch of LLCs!) And he's not even savvy enough to notice that all of those tweets talk about the "Biden Crime Family" because the authors know that they have nothing to say about Joe Biden himself.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Hairy Reed once said, he have no evidence, that's why we need an investigation!

[Don Nico]

"Please cite the applicable federal statute(s).."
C'mon, you're just letting Mr Ed goad you into a pointless argument.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “Whoever loses the 2024 election — Trump or Biden — will likely spend the rest of his life in Federal Prison”

Nostradamus Ed strikes again! The entire Volokh Conspiracy readership should get together and throw a massive celebration if one (just one!) of Ed’s predictions ever comes true.

Of course, given Ed’s predictions usually run to apocalyptic calamity with race wars, nuclear strikes, worldwide chaos, economic collapse and swarms of locusts, maybe we’ll all be too bummed out to properly pat him on the back.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, “the rest of his life” is not likely to be very long for either Trump or Biden. (Even if Jimmy Carter is still kicking at age 147.)

[OtisAH]

I know what will keep Turnip in prison but what will send Biden?

[Frank Drackman]

18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses

[not guilty]

Frank, I have challenged you upthread about the essential elements and timeliness of a bribery prosecution of Joe Biden, and you have yet to respond. Why is that?

Now you double down and add bribery of public officials and witnesses. What is your factual basis? Per § 201(a)(1) "'public official' means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror."

Time to put up or shut up. Please specify which "public official(s)" and which witness(es) you mean?

[OtisAH]

Presumably by the trial they’ll have some evidence of that?

[Frank Drackman]

Took awhile to get the Goods on Milhouse Nixon, and Senescent Joe's smart enough not to tape his incriminating Convo's, but just follow the money, 5 billion is alot of Somolians to hide.

[not guilty]

While Richard Nixon had a long career of misconduct, it didn't take too long to uncover the misdeeds that led to his resignation.

The Watergate burglary was on June 17, 1972. The smoking gun audio tape was recorded on June 23. The burglars and G. Gordon Liddy were indicted on September 15, 1972. They were convicted on January 30, 1973.

On March 1, 1974, a grand jury indicted H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John N. Mitchell, Charles Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson and named Nixon as an unindicted coconspirator. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Nixon's claims of executive privilege over the tapes. Nixon announced his resignation as president on August 8, 1974. President Ford pardoned Nixon on September 8.

Five of the defendants who were indicted in March went on trial in October 1974. On January 1, 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty.

All in all, that was a speedy resolution.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Frank. You averred upthread that Joe Biden had violated 18 U.S.C. § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses. You even quoted part of the statutory language.

Here is a thought exercise to test whether you know your ass from a hole in the ground regarding prosecution for bribery in federal court. Suppose you are drafting a bill of particulars in support of a post-presidency indictment of Joe Biden for violating § 201. (Assume for purposes of this hypothetical that Biden is not re-elected and the indictment is found on January 21, 2025.) Please read the statute and tell us specifically what you would allege as to the following:

Each thing of value that Biden demanded, sought, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept;

Whether Biden did so personally or for any other person or entity, specifically identifying any such other person or entity;

Each "official act" that Biden was influenced to perform, as that phrase is construed in McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016);

Each fraud, or opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States, that Biden was influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow;

Each act or omission in violation of his official duty that Biden was induced to do or omit to do;

Whether any act(s) or omission(s) identified by you occurred subsequent to January 20, 2020, so as to arguably make prosecution timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

If (as I suspect) you are unable to perform this task, say so.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Frank.

[Moderation4ever]

We are not a banana republic. Jury will decide the former President's guilt or innocence. I have said that I very much doubt Trump will go to jail. He is old and these are white collar non-violent offences. Biden is in no jeopardy because there is a lot of speculation but no real case. The DOJ under the Trump administration could not make a case I doubt that they will have one by a second administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Blindly saying any trial of someone running for office is per se illegitimate is where the right is these days.

It's ridiculous, but they have become ridiculous. And history is full of ridiculous parties being successful, though not for long. The people either quickly lose interest, or the party becomes awful and no longer ridiculous.

[OtisAH]

“And history is full of ridiculous parties being successful, though not for long.”

Long enough, S. I remember when my Sanders to Turnip buddy, who’d constantly said things like “I’m not defending Big Baby, but…,” said a vote for Turnip was no big deal because it would only be for four years. Then, he claimed to believe, “we’d” get a proper progressive candidate!

Epilogue: He would finally admit to being a Turnip supporter about halfway through those mere four years, which everyone already knew.

[Kazinski]

Whither the Hunter Biden plea deal now?

Here is Will Scharf (former Assistant US Attorney)

"Based on conversations with people who were in the courtroom today, and my experience as a former federal prosecutor, I think I know the full story of what happened with the Hunter Biden plea agreement blow-up this morning.

Bear with me, because this is a little complicated:

Typically, if the Government is offering to a defendant that it will either drop charges or decline to bring new charges in return for the defendant's guilty plea, the plea is structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). An agreement not to prosecute Hunter for FARA violations or other crimes in return for his pleading guilty to the tax misdemeanors, for example, would usually be a (c)(1)(A) plea. This is open, transparent, subject to judicial approval, etc.

In Hunter's case, according to what folks in the courtroom have told me, Hunter's plea was structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), which is usually just a plea in return for a joint sentencing recommendation only, and contained no information on its face about other potential charges, and contained no clear agreement by DOJ to forego prosecution of other charges.

Instead, DOJ and Hunter's lawyers effectively hid that part of the agreement in what was publicly described as a pretrial diversion agreement relating to a § 922(g)(3) gun charge against Hunter for being a drug user in possession of a firearm.

That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge. If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere.

So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings. Hunter's upside from this deal was vast immunity from further prosecution if he finished a couple years of probation, and the public wouldn't be any the wiser because none of this was clearly stated on the face of the plea agreement, as would normally be the case.

Judge Noreika smelled a rat. She understood that the lawyers were trying to paint her into a corner and hide the ball. Instead, she backed DOJ and Hunter's lawyers into a corner by pulling all the details out into the open and then indicating that she wasn't going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered."

Actually I have to disagree with that last paragraph, I think DOJ was unwilling to state that they were going to let Hunter walk on all the other charges, although it was clear that was the agreement, and Hunter's attorneys wanted it stated plainly.

But Scharf is almost certainly right about this:
"And so here we are. Hunter's lawyers and DOJ are going to go off and try to pull together a new set of agreements, likely narrower, to satisfy Judge Noreika. Fortunately, I doubt if FARA or any charges related to Hunter's foreign influence peddling will be included, which leaves open the possibility of further investigations leading to further prosecutions."
https://twitter.com/willscharf/status/1684331594864025602

However the most significant thing about the aborted plea deal is it will frustrate the attempt to get the plea deal into a fait accompli, old news category before Devon Archers testimony this week.

Archer is expected to testify that Joe was the lynchpin of the family business, not an innocent bystander. As a reminder Devon was Hunters business partner and co-Burisma Director. And a Partner along with Hunter and Christopher Heinz (Kerry's stepson) in Rosemont Seneca Parthers , which has a joint firm is called with a Chinese firm Bohai RST (Bohai Rosemont Seneca Thornton). Thornton is the Thornton Group who's CEO is James Bulger (Whitey Burger's nephew).

That will be interesting how much detail Archer supplies.

[Zach]

I have no idea why people are willing to credit Devon Archer but not Michael Cohen. They're both convicted members of the inner circle who are now turning on their former bosses. Predictably, they get accused of lying to save their own skin. I don't remember any Republicans saying that we should believe Michael Cohen - why should we believe Devon Archer?

[Michael P]

Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to lying and fraud. Devon Archer didn't, and maintains his innocence. Michael Cohen was convicted over what he did supposedly on Trump's behalf, so making Trump look bad shifts some blame from Cohen; Devon Archer was convicted over something supposedly unrelated to Hunter Biden. Do you need more differences?

[Zach]

Hey, so Devon Archer just said that Hunter Biden was selling the "illusion of access" to Joe Biden. And Devon Archer is completely credible, right?

[David Nieporent]

I am unclear as to why pleading guilty makes one less credible than having been convicted by a jury. (Though I am glad to see that Michael P is not one of the Trumpkins who think Michael Flynn is credible.)

[Kazinski]

Nothing Michael Cohen accused Trump of amounted to a crime, that's the major difference. Yeah they did try the stunt where Cohen pled to campaign violations on the Stormy Daniels, but they were pretty sure they that wasn't an actual crime (see the John Edwards fails prosecution) so they never charged Trump for that.

Cohen also accused Trump of using Roger Stone as a conduit to Julian Assange to get inside information on Wikileaks Hillary server data dumps, but DOJ found out Roger Stone was lying about having any contacts with Assange when they prosecuted him for lying to Congress.

Nobody ever accused Trump of taking a 5m or 10m bribe for official acts.

[grb]

Kazinski : Nobody ever accused Trump of taking a 5m or 10m bribe for official acts.

And you can't accuse Biden of taking a bribe for official acts without looking like a fool. All you can do is pretend your Shokin nonsense isn't contradicted by a Mt Everest of facts. You pretend, but there's always someone around to list ALL the ways it doesn't stand up.

People still trying to sell the Shokin meme are either liars or idiots, no other option is available. In a way it's reassuring: As long as the Right is still peddling something so crudely false, it's clear there's no there there.

[Kazinski]

There is news on that front today, a former Biden Business partner, and Burisma co-director said that firing Shokin was a top priority and Hunter was under “intense” pressure to get “his guy” to do it, and we already know the big guy came through.

“Archer met with then-Vice President Joe Biden in April 2014, within days of joining Burisma’s board alongside Hunter, and told lawmakers that “Burisma would have gone out of business if ‘the brand’ had not been attached to it,” according to a readout from panel Republicans.

“Archer talked about the ‘big guy’ and how Hunter Biden always said, ‘We need to talk to my guy,’ ‘We need to see when my guy is going to be here,’ and those types of things,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) told reporters as he left the deposition.

According to Archer, Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — who allegedly told an FBI informant in 2016 he was “coerced” to pay $10 million in bribes to Hunter and Joe Biden — put intense pressure on Hunter in late 2015 to enlist US support for ousting Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who had investigated Burisma, the Republican readout said.

At one point, Hunter Biden, Zlochevsky and Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi stepped away and “called DC” about the issue, Archer said.”

https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/ex-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer-arrives-for-house-deposition/

Do you really think firing Ukrainian prosecutors is part of a VP's portfolio? If it was A US ask, it probably wouldn't even be at ambassador level, let alone VP.

[grb]

So you hold Biden hijacked U.S. policy to his own ends? Fortunately there’s a recent example of that showing how it appears:

When Trump used America’s foreign policy for personal gain, he used cut-outs like his private attorney and the two low-grade hoods, Parnas and Furman. He kept the State Department in the dark and worked thru people like Gordon Strong, whose remit wasn’t Ukraine but was someone easy to use. Trump kept the enterprise quiet, telling Zelensky to go through Giuliani alone and avoid normal channels. There was always the risk of exposure, like when Bolton stormed out a meeting with Ukrainian representatives, saying he “wasn’t going to be part of any drug deal”. Of course, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine wasn’t let into the scheme and was quickly fired.

So let’s compare and contrast, shall we?

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

The Senators who wrote a letter included Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) In a recent interview, he described the letter thus: “The whole world, by the way, including the Ukranian caucus, which I signed the letter, the whole world felt that this that Sholkin wasn’t doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you’ve … got to rid yourself of corruption.”

Shokin never prosecuted a single oligarch, which makes your fairy tale even more pathetic. There was no Burisma investigation no matter how hard you try and make one from smoke and mirrors. And why would they pay Biden 10mil anyway? Shokin was easily bought for a fraction of that. Your bullshit is never going anywhere because it's obviously crudely false...

[David Nieporent]

And why would they pay Biden 10mil anyway?

And the anonymous secondhand report of these payments contains the disclaimer that there's no proof any such payments were made (to Joe) because they were too well hidden.

[grb]

(Erratum to above : "Gordon Strong" didn't seem right but my memory couldn't produce anything better & I was pressed for time. The correct name, of course, is Gordon Sondland)

[not guilty]

"Nobody ever accused Trump of taking a 5m or 10m bribe for official acts."

An "official act" is defined in the federal bribery statute as "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit." 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

The term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror." § 201(a)(1).

Setting aside any concern about the credibility of the accuser, what "official acts" do you refer to?

[not guilty]

Please show your work. Do you claim that Petro Poroshenko, the then-president of Ukraine, is a "public official" according to 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1)? Do you claim that the continued tenure of Viktor Shokin was a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy" according to § 201(a)(3)?

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[not guilty]

I'm not sure that I follow Mr. Scharf's reasoning. The agreement not to prosecute is set forth at ¶15 of the Diversion Agreement:

15. The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day. This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution for any future conduct by Biden or by any of his affiliated businesses.

The Memorandum of Plea Agreement is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23888014-memorandum-of-plea-agreement-exhibit-1-scrubbed Exhibit 1 thereto refers to Hunter having obtained income from overseas activities, but it does not reference FARA violations or any other federal crimes encompassed by these activities. Attachment A to the Diversion agreement refers to crack cocaine use and false statements on an ATF Form 4473, but not other criminal activity.

What am I missing?

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, what do you think happens now wrt the plea agreement? You were (are) a criminal defense atty, what's your sense of how this plays out?

[not guilty]

I suspect there will be further negotiations between DOJ and Hunter Biden's lawyers, resulting in a revised agreement with clarifications that will satisfy the judge's concerns.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like he faces a real prospect of significant jail time in any case. This is mostly about sparing his dad the need to take the political hit of pardoning him before the election.

Anybody who thinks Hunter is actually going to see the inside of a prison cell is dreaming. Barring the negotiations falling apart and dad stroking out before he gets around to the pardon, it just isn't happening.

[Reallynotbob]

Hunter has a legitimate fear that if Trump is elected in 2024, he will prosecute him for anything not expressly covered in the plea deal. If it were you, you'd want the same protection in any deal.

[David Nieporent]

I'd think most of those things would be beyond the statute of limitations by the time Trump took office in January 2025.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, the DOJ has already extinguished some of his criminal liability by just slow walking investigations, and they can dispose of a lot more of it that way by January 2025.

But anyone want to bet Hunter has had the self control to refrain from committing new crimes? I'm betting he gets a pardon as Joe is leaving office regardless, just to clear the deck.

[David Nieporent]

Why would Bill Barr have "slow-walked" an investigation of Hunter Biden? Your conspiracy theories make less and less sense every second. In fact, as the undisputed testimony from Impeachment #1 showed, Trump never asked or wanted DOJ to investigate. He only wanted the Ukrainian government to announce (not conduct) an investigation of the Bidens.

We discussed that here at the time: that's how we knew that Trump wasn't interested in actually ferreting out corruption in the Obama administration: because that’s the DOJ's job, not the Ukrainian government's, and yet Trump expressly kept Barr out of the loop on all of shenanigans, instead sending his personal fixer Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine.

[not guilty]

"I’d think most of those things would be beyond the statute of limitations by the time Trump took office in January 2025."

At ¶7 of the diversion agreement, Hunter Biden agrees to waive the statute of limitations as to firearm offenses described in Attachment A. That attachment describes conduct occurring from October 12-23, 2018, which would bring the agreement within the applicable limitation period. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23888015-diversion-agreement-attachment-a_1-scrubbed

[David Nieporent]

The firearms offenses are expressly covered by the deferred prosecution agreement, though. I'm talking about other potential crimes, like FARA violations.

[not guilty]

That distinction is well taken. But Hunter Biden still has reason for concern that a future Justice Department under control of a Trump appointed Attorney General would seek to terminate the diversion agreement before it expires and prosecute the firearms charge (which carries a penalty of up to ten years imprisonment).

The condition requiring the government to seek a determination by the United States District Judge for the District of Delaware that there has been a material breach of the diversion agreement was no doubt intended as a procedural safeguard against trumped up allegations of a breach. (Pun intended.)

[Brett Bellmore]

If it were me, or most people for that matter, none of the crimes would have happened in the first place.

I mean, sure, if you're a useless drug addict trading on your father's prominence to rake in millions, while paying him a cut, you're going to want protection in case somebody who isn't a political ally ends up in a position to prosecute you. But you're only going to need the protection in the first place because you're a criminal.

[Sarcastr0]

The right wing burning hatred for Hunter Biden is pretty incredible.

So much for three felonies a day, now it's 'he's a criminal.' So much for addiction being a mental illness, it's 'he's useless.' So much for Trump and every other rich guy's family trading off their influence, it's corruption when Joe Biden.

I have sympathy for Hunter; he's had a rough life, privileges or no. I'd love to reform the system so failsons didn't get cushy jobs. But no one talks about that, it's just hate hate hate and it's fucked up.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's more like burning contempt, actually. The guy got every legit advantage anyone could ask for, and threw them away through a lack of self control.

Give me a break about Hunter's 'rough life'; People with exponentially rougher lives don't screw up that big, and then start trading with the nation's enemies to rake in money.

[Sarcastr0]

Rich failsons are all over the place. I don't really go in for that kind of class warfare. It's worth sympathy, like any addiction is.

He's gotten plenty of consequences, which is more than many on that front do. And I haven't heard of him doing anything recent.

How's Don Jr. doing. Does he seem drug free to you? Where is your content for the Trump sons and what they did with their privilege?

People with exponentially rougher lives don’t screw up that big,
It's not a contest. That's not how having humanity works.

People with exponentially rougher lives don’t screw up that big
And this is just right wing conspiracies.

[Nige]

You absolutely have to ramp up the negative emotion associated with this dude, who is completely unexceptional for his type, because there's this whole political drive to use him to get at his father. The actual relatives Trump employed in his administration are carefully forgotten. As are all the pardons for his cronies.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Does he seem drug free to you?"

Well, I haven't seen any photos of him with a crack pipe. You maybe have evidence he's another Hunter Biden, aside from the fact that he's Trump's son?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Biden jr. Admitted drug addict. Admitted philanderer. Fathered a daughter thst he’s now ignoring, although at least sr is coming around. Admitted tax cheat. Sold something to foreign interests for an bazillion $ although you have no interest in figuring out what.

Trump, jr. “Does he seem to be drug free?”

Yep, those are the same.

Trump jr comes across to me as an arrogant prick with a face I’d love to punch, but comparing him to Hunter is laughable. But don’t let facts get in the way of your politics.

[not guilty]

I have very little sympathy for Hunter Biden. He is a scoundrel who has been trading upon his family name for years. (Whether he has done so unlawfully is a so far unresolved question.)

That having been said, the hatred for Hunter reminds me of the unhinged, right wing apoplexy regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I have long believed that Bill Clinton survived impeachment for two related reasons. His harshest critics harped on character flaws that the electorate had twice already taken into consideration. It was well known during his runs for president that he had zipper problems and would lie under some circumstances. Moreover, he was fortunate in his choice of enemies. Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and Kenneth Starr were loathsome human beings.

[Sarcastr0]

Your latest big exciting whistleblower after all the others evaporated is the weakest yet.

[Kazinski]

How did the other whistleblowers evaporate?

Their stories were confirmed.

Further hearings are scheduled to find out if Garland lied and when Weiss is going to testify under oath is being negotiated.

Not only that McCarthy is now on record as.saying starting impeachment hearings on Biden maybe the only way to start investigating the cash flows that the IRS whistleblowers were told they could not investigate to see if they kept flowing to Joe.

[Sarcastr0]

Their stories were confirmed. No, they were not. Their stories were supposed to be brought before Congress and yet that ended up not happening. By GOP choice. Because by all accounts it would not have gone well.

Further hearings are scheduled to find out if Garland lied and when Weiss is going to testify under oath is being negotiated.
So everyone on here who knows anything about Federal practice telling you it's bullshit, you are keeping hope alive.
I don't think you were into the Durham thing as nailing Biden, but you sound exactly like that sad crew.

impeachment hearings on Biden maybe the only way to start investigating the cash flows that the IRS whistleblowers were told they could not investigate to see if they kept flowing to Joe.
The only way? How would that work?

Biden isn't teflon; it's that the right-wing brigade of nonsense is of very poor quality. It's good enough for you, and like BCD, and not many other people.

[Don Nico]

"it’s that the right-wing brigade of nonsense is of very poor quality"
No kidding!

[David Nieporent]

Keep in mind that the "IRS whistleblowers" were not whistleblowers at all, except in one narrow respect. Ever since Impeachment #1, which they mistakenly thought was about a whistleblower, MAGA has used the word "whistleblower" for every single person who says something about Biden, just in an IKYABWAI? way. But one is not a whistleblower just because one complains about something; a whistleblower is someone who reveals wrongdoing. But "We'd have been more aggressive about investigating/prosecuting so-and-so" is not wrongdoing. It's a common complaint by investigators about prosecutors. (Remember the guy who worked for the Manhattan DA's office who quit and wrote a book about prosecuting Trump because he was upset they weren't doing so.)

The only actual "wrongdoing" the IRS guys reported was that Garland purportedly lied when he testified Weiss had free rein to go after Hunter. But Weiss confirmed he did not lie, and there's been no evidence to the contrary. And even if Garland did lie, that would not actually make Hunter — let alone Joe — guilty of something else.

[Kazinski]

Whenever a Democrat says something you suspend all disbelief.

The IRS whistleblowers said that Weiss did not have charging authority outside his district, Weiss after originally disputing that confirmed that was the case.

Garland told Congress that Weiss had full authority to charge Hunter in any district where he needed to file charges, Weiss requested permission to file charges in two other districts, and was refused permission by both Biden appointed US Attorneys, the NY times confirmed that with an independent source.

[David Nieporent]

Weiss requested permission to file charges in two other districts, and was refused permission by both Biden appointed US Attorneys, the NY times confirmed that with an independent source.

Sigh. You've been told this is wrong, and you keep repeating it. There are two different ways that a USAO can have charges brought outside his jurisdiction.

1) He can go to the USAO for the other jurisdiction and say, "We have this case that we think is appropriate, but it needs to be brought in your district. Please pursue it."

2) He can get special authorization from the AG to bring the charges on his own in other jurisdictions.

Weiss asked other USAOs to bring claims themselves. He did not ask them for "permission" to bring claims himself — something they lack the authority to grant to him. Thus, they did not "refuse permission" for him to do that. Instead, they simply said that they were not interested in prosecuting those claims.

What Garland said, and Weiss confirmed, was that Garland told Weiss that if he wanted authority to bring cases in other districts, all he had to do was ask and that Garland would okay it. Weiss never asked, so Garland never okayed (or refused) it. But Garland and Weiss agree that Weiss could've done it if he wanted.

[Kazinski]

And that totally elides the fact that Weiss thought Hunter should be charged in those two districts but somehow Hunter wasn't charged

So it was either a sham performance for the investigators benefit, or the barriers were too onerous for Weiss to continue and he got the message and desisted.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Or, as previously explained to you, perhaps Weiss didn’t think it was worth the cost of escalating things to Special Counsel status.

But no, you’re convinced there isn’t any valid reason outside of lying that is even remotely plausible.

Fucking clown.

[David Nieporent]

And that totally elides the fact that Weiss thought Hunter should be charged in those two districts but somehow Hunter wasn’t charged

So it was either a sham performance for the investigators benefit, or the barriers were too onerous for Weiss to continue and he got the message and desisted.

Or door #3: it wasn't a great case and wasn't worth Weiss's time, but he figured he'd see if someone else wanted to run with it, since that costs him nothing except an email.

Lawyers do that all the time: a putative client calls me with a potential case. When he tells me what it's about, I assess it as "Yeah, there might be something there, but it's too small/I'm too busy, and I'm not interested in it," and I refer it to someone else I know who handles those kind of cases. The referral is, "Hey, Mike: here, take this if you want, or don't. I don't care."

[not guilty]

The full exchange between Senator Grassley and Merrick Garland is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0T_5Z85f8E

To paraphrase, Grassley may as well be asking about what the meaning of "is" is. He reminds me of Upton Sinclair's observation, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

[John F. Carr]

I like to point to Peru and Brazil to contrast their prompt and effective action against an out of control President with America's slow and helpless reaction to Trump. Here's equal time for the other political party: Colombian police arrested the President's son and it's looking like he will be treated as an ordinary person rather than a VIP.

[AmosArch]

If you didn't mention Trump your post sounded more like it was about Biden.

[Reallynotbob]

I'm rubber and you're glue...

[AmosArch]

Movie: Jobs or Steve Jobs…the one with the guy from West Wing that people claim is the good one.

Odd movie. The gimmick here is that it takes place almost entirely just before Apple conventions, although this doesn’t really seem necessary for the story and doesn’t add or help the movie in any way. Fassbender doesn’t look or sound like Jobs at all imo.

Like the other one this ignores/minimizes the interesting real life Gates/Jobs rivalry for some reason. Unlike the other one it chooses to substitute this real life interesting drama with a boring fictitious bromance between Scully and Jobs that doesn’t make any sense. But they spend an inordinate amount of time on it anyway. RL Jobs obviously hated Scully. Movie Jobs should probably get a room with him.

Much of the rest of the movie is Jobs being an ahole to his stock photograph teenybopper daughter for no reason. West Wing guy’s characters tend to have a weird distinctive stilted way of speaking which can get annoying

Also like the other one this skips over the pivotal 2000s era. Some people like this but I personally think POSV as cheesy as it is as still the best out of all the Jobs biopics. Its a miss for me.

[Kazinski]

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr has some interesting comments on IPCC AR6 WG1 which has an interesting table on what the current state of the science is for weather phenomena and its relationship to AGW.

First of all there are only 2 "Climactic Impacts" where the IPCC says there is "High Confidence" that their is a global AGW signal: "Mean Air Temp" and "Mean Sea Temp", and two more where there is high confidence regionally: Tropical Extreme Heat Events and Arctic Sea Ice.

All of the following Climatic Impacts the IPCC scientists assess as "Low Confidence In direction of change" (they don't know whether its changing or if it is whether its going up or down):

Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions)
Aridity
Avalanche (snow)
Average rain
Average Wind Speed
Coastal Flood
Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought)
Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought)
Erosion of Coastlines
Fire Weather (hot and windy)
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods)
Frost
Hail
Heavy Rain
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms
Landslides
Marine Heatwaves
Ocean Alkalinity
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface
River/Lake Floods
Sand and Dust Storms
Sea Level
Severe Wind Storms
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets
Tropical Cyclones

Now of course you read all the time, that many of those climatic impacts are off the rails like Sea Level, Cyclones, Fire Weather, Droughts, Floods are all getting worse because of AGW, but the actual IPCC scientists say they have no idea if that's the case now, only that their models say it could happen in the future. And to be clear nobody is saying things like fire weather or sea level rise aren't happening, the scientists are just saying they have no idea if higher CO2 levels are impacting frequency or severity.

And anybody who tells you differently is spreading dangerous misinformation.

See table 12.12 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about

[Commenter_XY]

Better measurement would help the models, I think(?). That is part of the problem here that is fixable. Get better, and more complete data.

My question is what if we find that the models are wrong (they are), their assumptions are wrong (don't know), and it is something else beyond human control that is driving planet-wide climactic change (within the realm of possibility).

Then what? How would we move forward, policy-wise?

I am not arguing about whether 'abnormal' planet climate change is happening. What happens if we find out we cannot control it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Public policies to reduce global population would harmonize with unpredictable hazards of reduced resources. They would add the further advantage of countering somewhat the effects of possibly-erroneously predicted adversities if they turn out to actually happen.

[Don Nico]

" reduce global population"
Who are you going to kill off?
The EU is already doing its share.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Note that Lathrop ain’t volunteering to be part of the reduced headcount. None of the advocates of population reduction are willing to set the example.

[Don Nico]

Bevis,
I have noticed that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Did I say anything about killing anyone? Smaller families is the usual notion.

[Reallynotbob]

Reproductive rights to the rescue.

[Nige]

They *are* more likely to result in less births, I suppose. That is generally the main reason women are denied them.

[Don Nico]

Yes, you did. That is the way these things work. Massive repression as was the case with the Chinese 1-child policy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You said that. I did not. I did not imply it either. Try to do better.

[Don Nico]

Sure you implied it. It is the only way to go from 6B to 4B.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No. My wife and I had one child. No one was killed. No one pressured us. My wife has 4 siblings. I have 2 siblings. All of those 8 siblings married. None has had more than 2 children. No one pressured them. No one was killed. You apparently rely on some kind of ideology for your opinions about facts. When you do that it is easy to make mistakes.

[Nige]

I read that first as 'reduce global pollution.' Fucking hell, Lathrop.

[Nige]

The models have been broadly accurate, actually. In fact if this year's trends continue, they'll have been too conservative. There is no credible science that says CO2 is not driving climate change.

[Frank Drackman]

There is no credible science that Nige-bot is not a blithering idiot, hmm that wasn't kind or gentle, but what do you expect, I'm a "Bot"

Frank

[Nige]

edgebot is on a journey

[Tom for equal rights]

The models have been broadly accurate based on the natural warming that occurs after emergence from the LIA. The planet's current warmth is comparable to the MWP and the Roman period. The alarmists have to ignore the presence of any natural factors in order to claim that co2 is the control knob or the primary driver of warming over the last 150+ years.

I have yet to see a credible scientific explanation of why the 300 year cooling period shifted to the current warming period when co2 went from 280 ppm to 281 ppm circa the mid to late 1800's

[Nige]

Those were all localised occurences, not global.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 49 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Those were all localised occurences, not global.

Nige - you are in a woke pseudo science bubble

pages 2k somehow shows no MWP in the SH, yet
0-30S lat band - none of the proxies show a HS and approx 1/2 show an elevated mwp
30-60S same as the 0-30s lat band
60-90s lat band (Antarctica ) high resolution proxies such as law dome and dome c are excluded from pages 2k (or are heavily underweighted while low resolution proxies are overweighted.

[Nige]

Yeah, too bad, because you need them for your climate change denialism.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 58 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User Yeah, too bad, because you need them for your climate change denialism.

No – it just demonstrates how poorly misinformed on the actual science. Stay in your woke pseudo science bubble.

The paleo reconstruction field is seriously corrupted. You would know that if you were not scientifically illiterate.

[Nige]

Just more buzzwords and babble and unearned authority. Calling things 'woke.' Lol.

[Nelson]

"paleo reconstruction field is seriously corrupted"

Very true. You paleocons are deeply corrupted.

[Kazinski]

We have a good indication of whether it was global or local by charting sea level rise:

"There was virtually no rise in sea-level during the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1700). Most of the relative sea-level rise over the last 1200 years in Clinton appears to have occurred during two warm episodes that jointly lasted less than 600 years."

The fact that sea level rise stopped during the little ice age would indicate it was not a local occurrence.

https://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Thomas/Varekampetal_1992TN.pdf

[Nige]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
'No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era'

[David Nieporent]

What happens if we find out we cannot control it?

If we can't control it, then we'd have to focus on mitigating the effects. If you can't do something, you can't do it.

[Frank Drackman]

Good luck turning down the Sun

[Kazinski]

What they are doing is just window dressing anyway, world fossil fuel growth hasn't even slowed, all the renewables were spending trillions on is adding less additional capacity than growth in fossil fuels globally.

[Nige]

Yes, a lot of people have noticed and are quite angry at that. If they were right-wing weirdos obsessed with trans people, this would be treated as some entirely understandble reaction to vague 'stuff' others have done to make them act that way, and they have to be catered to. The people aware of the idiocy of government policies in relation to climate change tend to get ignored, even though there are many, many more of them.

[Kazinski]

Well then let's all agree on quit spending enormous sums of money on things that won't make a difference. And of course intentionally driving up the cost of energy so no one will use it even in the dead of winter.

[Nige]

Let's not agree to do anything people who deny climate change and support the continued use of fossil fuels propose - they do not have the world's best interests at heart.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when you've stopped using fossil fuels.

[Nige]

Why? You're a bad-faith culture-warrior politically committed to wrecking the planet, I don't take cues from the likes of you.

[Nelson]

I’m not. In fact, I am usually accused if being a leftist.

Until you admit that the only way to quickly replace fossil fuel for electricity production is nuclear, you aren’t making a reasonable argument.

It is completely unacceptable, from a liberty perspective, to outlaw things without first doing everything you can, without government coercion, to find a solution. Outlawing things isn't necessary (or justified) if a less coercive solution exists.

Nuclear is that path. It is completely free of greenhouse gas emissions, is always available, provides an extraordinary amount of energy, and is available right away.

If the problem is urgent, the solution must be available for implementation right now. Not increasing capacity over years or decades like solar and wind.

Arguing that we should outlaw things or restrict behavior may, possibly, become necessary in the future. But nuclear would likely .ake that unnecessary. All that’s required is to get the doomsayers and extremists who demonize nuclear to shut the fuck up and let the climate problem be addressed with existing technology.

[Nige]

I hope you and Dr Jr aren’t being carefully selective and taking things out of context.

CID – Climate Impact Driver.

‘Every region of the world will experience concurrent changes in multiple CIDs by mid-century (high confidence), challenging the resilience and adaptation capacity of the region. Changes in heat, cold, snow and ice, coastal, oceanic, and CO2 at surface CIDs are projected with high confidence in most regions, indicating worldwide challenges, while additional region-specific changes are projected in other CIDs that may lead to more regional challenges. High confidence increases in some of the drought, aridity and fire weather CIDs will challenge, for example, agriculture, forestry, water systems, health and ecosystems in Southern Africa, the Mediterranean, North Central America, Western North America, the Amazon regions, South-Western South America, and Australia. High confidence changes in snow, ice and pluvial or river flooding will pose challenges for, for example, energy production, river transportation, ecosystems, infrastructure and winter tourism in North America, Arctic regions, Andes regions, Europe, Siberia, Central, South and East Asia, Southern Australia and New Zealand. Only a few CIDs are projected to change with high confidence in the Sahara, Madagascar, Arabian Peninsula, Western Africa and Small Islands; however, the lower confidence levels for CID changes in these regions can originate from knowledge gaps or model uncertainties, and does not necessarily mean that these regions have relatively low risk’

[Mr. Bumble]

"In fact the most recent (2021) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not support the common claims about drought, floods, hurricanes and other severe weather events. Not only does the last IPCC report find no clear trends, it offers “low confidence” in predictions of future trends."

"The one exception is longer heat waves, which the IPCC says with “high confidence” have already begun. And yet the current heat waves both in the United States and in Europe, while lasting longer than average in some places like Arizona, is setting few new record highs. In the U.S., the EPA’s own “Heat Wave Index” for the continental states shows that the 1930s was by far the hottest decade of the last century."
https://the-pipeline.org/hot-and-bothered-about-heat-waves/

[Reallynotbob]

So to be clear, your working theory is that increased atmospheric temperatures and sea temperatures may not affect future trends in severe weather events.

Low confidence in any particular result or trend is not the same thing as saying "this is fine."

[Tom for equal rights]

Reallynotbob 15 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
So to be clear, your working theory is that increased atmospheric temperatures and sea temperatures may not affect future trends in severe weather events.

Low confidence in any particular result or trend is not the same thing as saying “this is fine.”

Really not Bob - fyi - the actual data shows very little changes in the long term trend in severe weather events, Yes there have been very short term trends , yet the long term trends show very little if any, change. The activists cherry pick time frames to highlight the short term trends.

[Nige]

Those hundred-year weather events are getting repetitive.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - you are one of the most ill informed indiviudal on the planet - Get out of your woke pseudo science bubble. You repeat tons of discredited woke left wing talking points. virtually nothing you state is factually accurate.

[Tom for equal rights]

No they are not - and you would know that if you got out of woke pseudo science bubble.

the raw data shows otherwise

[Nige]

Just saying the same buzzwords over and over again means absolutely nothing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not MY theory, only what the IPCC report says.
Just what do you think "low confidence" means?

[Nige]

The IPCC report says a lot more than that.

[Mr. Bumble]

WOW! no shit. Are you saying other parts contradict the conclusion?

[Nige]

Read the bit I quoted, for a start.

[Mr. Bumble]

It is contradicted by the conclusions.

[Nige]

Or they contradict what you claim are someone's conclusions about something.

[Mr. Bumble]

You dipshit they are the conclusions of the IPCC.

[Nige]

There is one table in the report that says this, and it's an analysis of historical regional trends. I hope you give the same credence to the rest of the report.

[Nige]

PLues those are CIDs - things that *drive* climate change, not just things that are *affected* bu climate change.

[Nige]

Oh, low confidence means 'where evidence is lacking or the signal is not present.' I note that the high confidence about extreme heat, precipitation, sea temperatures, sea-ice, and effects on snow, ice and permafrost, all of which are currently making headlines, has passed you by.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So to be clear, your working theory is that increased atmospheric temperatures and sea temperatures may not affect future trends in severe weather events."

And that's perfectly reasonable, from a thermodynamic standpoint. The weather system is a heat engine, heat comes in from the Sun, and radiates away into the night sky. That flow of heat can do work, in the form of lifting water into the air, or moving air around with great violence, but it's subject to normal thermodynamic constraints: It's driven by temperature differences, and the bigger they are, the more power available.

Global warming due to greenhouse gases isn't a matter of temperatures going up due to more energy coming in. Rather, it's a result of energy having greater difficulty leaving again. Which is why the poles warm more than the equator, winter more than summer, night more than day. It's mostly cold getting less extreme, not heat getting more extreme. Mostly.

Temperature differences are shrinking, leading LESS power available to do work, not more. I mean, throw a blanket over the radiator in your car, and the engine temperature will go up, but don't expect increased horse power!

So, no, all things being equal, you would NOT expect global warming to lead to increased severity of storms, for instance. More severe heat waves? Sure, and less severe cold spells. But not bad storms.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the worst take on thermodynamics I've ever seen.

It's wrong phenomenologically and theoretically.

Weather is driven by the sun - less heat escaping does not measurably closer to thermal equilibrium with *the fucking sun.*

[Kazinski]

"Weather is driven by the sun – less heat escaping does not measurably closer to thermal equilibrium with *the fucking sun.*"

That's the most ignorant take I've ever heard. You are such a poser, did you ever take a science class in your life?

We only get 240w per meter reaching the earth's surface from the sun, most of it in the tropics. As Brett says weather is caused by convection and diffusion, ocean currents, wind, evaporation, and precipitation are all processes for diffusion of latent heat.

[Sarcastr0]

Temperature differences are shrinking, leading LESS power available to do work
You agree with this? You think this is indeed a proper characterization of the thermodynamics of our atmosphere? That the main driver is the thermal differential provided by the Arctic and Death Valley?

You are such a poser, did you ever take a science class in your life?
That you could read Brett's take, and then call me a poser, makes me utterly not care what you think regarding my scientific credentials.

You're a partisan first, someone who knows jack shit second.

[Kazinski]

Obviously not death valley, it's the tropics and both the poles. And that's what drives the world's major ocean currents and the El Nino/La Nina cycle.

Take a look at this map of the world's major ocean currents, you might wonder why the ones going away from the equator are red, and the ones going to the equator are blue. That might mean something.
https://earthhow.com/ocean-currents/

You might also look at a map of the world's major wind currents and see they also run in big circles from the tropics to the temperate regions and back again and wonder why that is. Or even why we have high pressure systems and low pressure systems and fronts with increased wind activity.

And yes, reduced temperature differences explain lower tropical cyclone activity, why do you think hurricane activity is highest in the late summer fall when temps are still high in the tropics and rapidly cooling to the north, and the hurricanes track north?

[Sarcastr0]

I am aware of the ocean's important roll in weather and climate, thanks Kaz. My point was the silly implications of Brett's simple thermal differential take.

You and Brett are advocating for a toy box model that fails to correspond to anything in the real world.

Invoke convection and diffusion, ocean currents, wind, evaporation, but if you ignore their implications, you're just cargo-culting.

[Kazinski]

Take it up with NOAA: “Earth’s orbit around the sun and its rotation on a tilted axis causes some parts of Earth to receive more solar radiation than others. This uneven heating produces global circulation patterns. For example, the abundance of energy reaching the equator produces hot humid air that rises high into the atmosphere. A low pressure area forms at the surface and a region of clouds forms at altitude. The air eventually stops rising and spreads north and south towards the Earth’s poles. About 2000 miles from the equator, the air falls back to Earth’s surface blowing towards the pole and back to the equator. Six of these large convection currents cover the Earth from pole to pole.”
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/weather-atmosphere/weather-systems-patterns

And: “The annual number of tropical cyclones forming globally has decreased by approximately 13% during the 20th century, and scientists say the main cause is a rise in global warming, according to a new study in Nature Climate Change by a group of international scientists including NOAA scientists.”https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/27/research-global-warming-contributed-to-a-decline-in-annual-tropical-cyclones-in-the-20th-century/

[Sarcastr0]

Do you honestly think that’s what Brett and you were arguing for? I doubt it. This is just the best you came up with.

Or did you forget Brett’s thesis that it’s thermodynamically expected that global warming will cause milder weather?

[Kazinski]

Totally stand by what Brett said about less severe storms are consistent with AGW, the Arctic has warmed more than the tropics making a lower heat differential leading to less cyclone energy.

Let me repeat:
"The annual number of tropical cyclones forming globally has decreased by approximately 13% during the 20th century, and scientists say the main cause is a rise in global warming,"

More warming, and the more even the warming, fewer cyclones. Next you'll be saying temperature differentials don't cause tornados.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The only caveat I would put to this is that the estimates of the frequency of hurricanes in pre-industrial times is EXTREMELY speculative. I've read a number of climate scientists who dismiss these numbers as almost wholly guesses.

[Nige]

'More warming, and the more even the warming, fewer cyclones.'

This is true, but scientists are puzzled by this so I don't think you and Brett's pat just-so story is enough to explain the mechanism at work. Given the unprecedented sea temperatures this year, let's hope the trend holds. They're also worried that the fewer cyclones may end up being far more severe.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You and Brett are advocating for a toy box model that fails to correspond to anything in the real world."

You're the poster boy for somebody who learned about physics, instead of learning physics. No, we're describing a toy box model that actually corresponds quite well to what is going on in the real world.

Just from an understanding of basic physics, (Of the sort you obviously lack.) you could predict that increased greenhouse gases would raise the lows more than the highs. And NOAA confirms that is what is happening.

Why could I confidently make that prediction, while you'd be shocked, and in denial even as we link to sources you claim to respect, confirming it?

Because I'm following the physics, and you're following the ideology. That's why. Just that "toy box" remark shows how far you are from understanding physics.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re the poster boy for somebody who learned about physics, instead of learning physics.

I’m following the physics, and you’re following the ideology

Quit ponding the table about how you're right and I'm dumb. It's useless.

we’re describing a toy box model that actually corresponds quite well to what is going on in the real world.
Now you're beyond bad thermodynamics to bad science. A toy box model of the global weather system is not going to apply well to the real world - why would you even say that?

NOAA confirms that is what is happening
But not the cause you claim. After the fact phenomenology while getting the mechanisms wrong is alchemy at best.

You have not managed to out-science the climate science community with your reductive model.

[Nige]

Brett rationalises the climate the same way he rationalises Trump's behaviour.

[Nige]

'all things being equal,'

There's your problem right there.

[Nige]

'Changes in heat, cold, snow and ice, coastal, oceanic, and CO2 at surface CIDs are projected with high confidence in most regions'

I dunno, I think there's some highly selective reading going on here.

'the 1930s was by far the hottest decade of the last century'

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-last-decade-was-the-hottest-on-record

And this one's passing on the inside straight.

[Bob from Ohio]

"‘Every region of the world will experience concurrent changes "

75 in NE Ohio today, 81 is average.

Whole summer has been great.

[Nige]

https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/oh/

‘Since the beginning of the 20th century, temperatures in Ohio have risen more than 1.5°F, and temperatures in the 2000s and 2010s were warmer than in any other historical period’

Of course your attitude is always 'I got mine,' but it might be a useful POI for others.

[Bob from Ohio]

"2000s and 2010s"

Looks likes its cooling in the 2020s. Yeah

[Nige]

'Looks like'

Sure.

[Kazinski]

Look Nige, first of all I'm not cherry picking, that's a table the IPCC put out showing the list of Climatic Impacts on one table. I pulled the column for "Already Emerged in Historical Record" rather than "will emerge by 2050 under RCP 8.5" (the most extreme simulation run, which the IPCC admits is "unlikely")

The point is when you see on the news that this fire or that fire was caused by climate change, or this storm or that storm is AGW related, or this flood, or that drought, all of which you see constantly on all the news, the people telling you that are lying, because the IPCC says they have no idea if its even getting better or worse or staying the same and trying to attribute events to AGW isn't science.

[Nige]

'because the IPCC says they have no idea if its even getting better or worse or staying the same'

Now you're the one who's lying. Selected bits of the IPCC report are the supreme authority and final word in this area. The rest is not. Apparently.

It has always been the approach not to attribute individual weather events to climate change, but trends. Hence 'low confidence' about individual weather events in specific regions. That has changed in recent years because the weather events are mounting in frequency and severity at an unexpectedly high rate, so there's no point in playing safe any more. Nobody who knows anything about weather and climate will hesitate any more in attrributing the lingering heat domes and severe rainfalls occuring all over the world to climate change.

[Nige]

Oh, wait, extreme temperatures are already there in the chart. So it's weird, this stance you're taking when the chart you're referring to suggests that the current extreme temperature events are most definitely and inarguably driven by climate change, as is precipitation. You're talking about storms, when all the news is about heatwaves, downpours, floods, sea temperatures and sea-ice. All of which are high confidence, which, as the chart is at pains to point out, is more a function of the available data than anything else. How odd.

I expect the confidence level about flooding might be a lot higher next time round, since they'll have more data, unfortunately for the people in the path of the flooding.

[ReaderY]

Does Judge Kazinski’s comment in Mattel v. MCA Records, “With fame comes unwanted attention,” appear in a different light aftwr whag Kazinski was accused of?

Are the pargies still advised to chill?

Also, to what extent has Mattel benefited from the sexualization of Barbie that Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” represented?

[Nige]

‘Barbie girl’ is one of the least sexy pop songs in all of pop history. Quint scraping his fingernails on the blackboard in Jaws is a sexier pop song.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot still sad he got the Wal-mart knock off brand Barbie

[Nige]

edgebot dumped by barbie-bot

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought he got Ken and GI Joe so he could play drop the soap.

[Reallynotbob]

Mattel's argument was always specious. They argued the song was NOT protected parody because teen girls (is that even Barbie's target market?) would be confused into believing the song was an actual Mattel message.

Encouraging them to undress barbie dolls.
And do "hanky panky."
Sigh.

Next up, Gulfstream sues Far East Movement for "Fly Like a G6."

[Kazinski]

I'm not formally a judge although I make judgements.

Kozinski was the judge.

[KenveeB]

They've released lingerie sets for the dolls almost as long as the doll has been out. Give me a break about the "sexualization of Barbie" from the song.

[Michael P]

China now seems to be off shoring its shoddy biological labs: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-believe-fresno-warehouse-was-site-illegal-laboratory-rcna96756

[Brett Bellmore]

It's enough to make you wonder if the Chinese government has decided that it wants its lab leaks to happen abroad in the future.

[Michael P]

Serial nutcase believes "boneless chicken wings aren't wings" is the basis of a winning lawsuit: https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/640205041-judge-tosses-boneless-wings-class-action-vs-buffalo-wild-wings-for-now-class-action-asserts-boneless-wings-just-nuggs

Also that "green" blankets are not sufficiently specific in their puffery: https://www.businessinsider.com/man-sued-buffalo-wild-wings-new-lawsuit-over-blanket-2023-6

Surprisingly, he is represented by counsel.

[David Nieporent]

Consumer fraud laws are great for consumer fraud lawyers, but have no actual benefit for consumers. Virtually every consumer fraud lawsuit in the U.S. falls into one of two categories:

1) Government regulators identify bad behavior by a corporation — for instance, the Volkswagen diesel emissions testing tampering — and then a bunch of lawyers file suits based on the government's work.

2) An entrepreneurial trial lawyer looks through marketing materials for consumer goods, finds the most ridiculous possible interpretation of those materials that would make the marketing false, and then files suit ostensibly on behalf of consumers, using a pretend consumer as his client. If the suit survives a motion to dismiss, the lawyer negotiates a settlement that pays him large sums of money and pays consumers virtually nothing. The company pays the extortion to the lawyer, and agrees to make meaningless changes to the marketing materials.

The particular guy you cite is in category #2. There's no "nutcase" here, though. The client isn't really saying any of those things; he's just following his lawyer's script.

[Michael P]

As Business Insider noted: "[This plaintiff] has prior experience suing companies on allegations of deceptive marketing. He has sued over Tom's Wicked Fresh Mouthwash, KIND granola, and Hefty recycling bags."

IMO, doing this five times qualifies him as a nutcase, even if he was merely the only sucker his lawyer could string along this far.

[Brett Bellmore]

If he's getting a cut each time, how does that make him a "nutcase", rather than an "accomplice"?

[David Nieporent]

I don't think you understand. He's not a nutcase — he doesn't believe these things — nor a sucker — he makes a tidy sum from these cases for doing nothing other than letting his lawyer use his name.

(To be clear, I don't have any insider knowledge about this guy, but there's no reason to think he's any different than any of the other serial plaintiffs in consumer fraud litigation.)

[Krayt]

Boneless wings aren’t wings. They’re nuggets.

Fried chicken is delicious because of the fried skin. Just like a baguette is an optimized delicious crust delivery system, so, too, is a wing an optimized fried skin delivery system.

Nuggets are just chicken chunks (or stamped shapes of puree) that are breaded. No skin there.

Is that consumer fraud? How many need to misunderstand it?

[ducksalad]

I'll tell you what's fraud - the whole business. 1982 or thereabouts, an honest but hungry young Texan, me, went into a new "New York" style restaurant in San Antonio. The manager, complete with that NY accent that even sounds dishonest, offered us a then unknown delicacy: "Buffalo Wings". Hadn't eaten all day so I ordered six.

What came was the disjointed parts of three wings, minus the tips. I was willing to overlook the bad flavored sauce - tastes vary - but not the miscount. I called the manager. The bastard informed us that's how they counted them in Buffalo.

Ever since, I dream about being Dirty Harry Callahan, chasing the CEO of Wing Stop out into a deserted parking lot, pointing the gun at him and seething though clenched teeth: "How many wings on a chicken, punk? Do you feel lucky, punk? How many?"

[Krayt]

"We stripped the skin for you!"

[Kazinski]

Not to mention ADA fraud, suing hotels and restaurants one has no intention of visiting in order to extort a payout.

[hoppy025]

The whole ADA is fraud, and Bush Sr. exposed himself as a left liberal by signing it. The rule for disabled people should be "too bad, too sad." Stores shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars to accommodate 0.01% of the population. Let them order from Amazon.

[Moderation4ever]

Will Hurd recently said that Donald Trump is running for the Presidency to avoid jail. I wonder if he is doing it to pay his legal bills. Should a candidate be able to use campaign donations to fund a criminal defense? I rarely make political donation and when I do I expect the funds to be used for the campaign. Paying for staff, campaign literature, rallies, and commercials. I expect the campaign staff to have lawyers, but for campaign related matters, not covering a criminal defense.

I have no problem with a person soliciting funds to cover a criminal defense so long as that is clearly spelled out as to how the money will be used.

[apedad]

Donald "Fine Print" Trump isn't very smart - but he has (sometimes) smart lawyers.

"When Mr. Trump kicked off his 2024 campaign in November, for every dollar raised online, 99 cents went to his campaign, and a penny went to Save America.

But internet archival records show that sometime in February or March, he adjusted that split. Now his campaign’s share has been reduced to 90 percent of donations, and 10 percent goes to Save America.

The effect of that change is potentially substantial: Based on fund-raising figures announced by his campaign, the fine-print maneuver may already have diverted at least $1.5 million to Save America.

And the existence of the group has allowed Mr. Trump to have his small donors pay for his legal expenses, rather than paying for them himself."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/us/politics/trump-donations-legal-fees.html

He's doing that to his SUPPORTERS.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you think his supporters object? If so they can choose not to donate.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think his supporters realize that he's embezzling money from his campaign to pay for his criminal defense, as well as for the defense of his co-conspirators?

Do you think they realized that when he raised hundreds of millions to contest the 2020 election, he spent virtually none of it on contesting the 2020 election because there wasn't anything to do? And that even though he claimed he was raising money for some sort of election contest fund, he never actually created one?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not that I've donated any money to Trump since approximately 2 weeks before the 2020 election, (I figured anything I donated after that point wouldn't be spent on trying to get him elected...) but I expect that his supporters think that, if defending against criminal charges helps a candidate, it's as much a legit campaign expense as getting a nice haircut.

[Estragon]

Exactly. This is very similar to what got bannon in trouble with the build the wall stuff.

[John F. Carr]

Bannon lied about his financial interest because donations would have been lower if the truth had been known. If Trump's people are being open about where the money is going they should be clear of ordinary fraud. Also, even if the disposition of money is buried in the fine print a lot of Trump donors do want to keep him out of prison.

[David Nieporent]

But they could still be campaign finance violations, even if not fraud. Candidates are allowed to pay for campaign expenses with donations, not personal expenses. While legal challenges to the election would be legitimate campaign expenses (well, not legitimate here, since the challenges were frivolous, but in general), Trump being prosecuted for stealing classified documents is not a campaign expense. The line can often be blurry and these things are rarely dealt with criminally, though.

[OtisAH]

The judgment of Turnip supporters is a terrible foundation on which to build an argument.

[Krychek_2]

Professional con artist gets 30% of the country to believe the election was stolen from him and then gets them to send him millions of dollars, much of which gets siphoned off for a legal defense for crimes that he really did commit. And he still has decent odds of getting re-elected. I guess Mencken was right that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump is riding the wave of global discontent that has given us stuff like Brexit and the Canadian truckers and the Dutch farm revolt. Even though he’s actually a member of the elite he’s convinced the discontented that he’s going to go in there and kick their assets.

Besides, the alternatives to Trump are appalling, which doesn’t help.

[Krychek_2]

You consider them appalling because you mostly disagree with their political views. I disagree with you, but leave that be for the moment.

The appalling that comes from thinking the Democrats have bad policies is an entirely different type of appalling than the appalling that comes from sending his supporters to riot at the Capitol, looting the treasury, doing everything he can to undermine democratic institutions, harassing law enforcement that is only doing its job, bragging on tape that he ignores the law when it suits him, and contacting state officials to try to get them to steal an election for him. I respect that you disagree with Biden on abortion, trans rights and affirmative action, but I'm not sure the country can take another four years of Trump. What will be left of our institutions after another four years of him taking a wrecking ball to them?

Trump really is sui generis when it comes to being appalling.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Democrats policies these days aren’t bad. They’re extreme and dangerous. Ultimately potentially ruinous.

Quite a bit of Trumps support holds their nose and votes for Trump because they hate what Biden is going. I understand what you’re saying about all the shit around Trump and agree, but a lot of people are tuning it out.

I never said I disagree with Biden on any of those things. I mostly stayed out of abortion and AA discussions, although I do think that Biden’s trans rights position is extreme. My primary policy problem with Biden is that he is ignorantly destroying our energy delivery systems, balls to the wall. Oh, and he’s a fascist on speech. I don’t care about all that other shit.

And Biden has at one point or another openly defied one or the other co-equal branches. How does our system survive if presidents are allowed to do that.

[Krychek_2]

Extreme and dangerous compared to what? Biden would be unelectable in most of the rest of the western world because he’s too conservative. That he seems extreme is only because American politics skews so far to the right that the moderate middle seems extreme by comparison. It’s as if we had a scale of one to ten, one being extremist left and ten being extremist right. The GOP is at 9, and Biden is at 8, and the GOP says, “Oh my God, look how extreme he is compared to us.”

[bevis the lumberjack]

What he’s doing to energy is not moderate middle. It’s as extreme as you can get. Although it’s European for sure - Germany just finished fucking ul their grid by doing the Biden plan, just 7 or 8 years ahead.

But you’re right on speech. He’d fit right in on speech with Europe. You know, where they don’t have a first amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

He only seems 'moderate' because the media are covering for him, and the courts have blocked some of the crap he's tried to pull.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden the secret radical!

[David Nieporent]

He only seems ‘moderate’ because the media are covering for him, and the courts have blocked some of the crap he’s tried to pull.

No, he only seems moderate because he's been in Washington since before George Washington was president, and so he has an incredibly long track record of actually being a moderate.

[Brett Bellmore]

An example of Biden radicalism would be his proposed 58mpg mileage minimum. (Basically impossible for anything larger than an enclosed golf cart.) Or the proposed effective ban on not just gas stoves, but a wide range of appliances. Gas stoves, gas water heaters, portable gensets, lawn mowers...

[David Nieporent]

An example of Biden radicalism would be his proposed 58mpg mileage minimum. (Basically impossible for anything larger than an enclosed golf cart.)

I think Elon would object to that description of his cars.

[OtisAH]

The assholes, conmen, and shitheads who gave Brexit to the UK are the British cousins to the assholes, conmen, and shitheads who gave us Turnip and Gosar and Cruz and Boebert and Tuberville and Greene and Kennedy and Gaetz and Jordan and…

[Nige]

The disasters right wingers inflict on the world are always somehow framed as natural consequences of discontent, though the discontent always seems to boil down to rich people not being rich enough and everyone else not being poor enough. Incidentally, most of the world's media is owned by rich people.

[hoppy025]

As long as women and non-white, non-landowners were allowed to vote, the election was stolen. It’s that simple. The founders came up with a great system, and any change to that system is theft and deceit.

[David Nieporent]

Yawn. Pro tip: after a very short while it loses its shock value.

[Don Nico]

" but he has (sometimes) "
THAT is a very big conditional

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there something fishy going on in Martha's Vineyard?
Asking for a friend.

[David Nieporent]

Your friend is stupid.

[Kazinski]

I don't know about murder but a few weird things about it, when it was reported the person didn't call 911 they called the Sheriff's regular number so the call wasn't recorded and logged by the 911 system.

There was a woman with the chef when he drowned, and they are releasing no information about who was with him.

But yeah, murder is highly unlikely.

[David Nieporent]

Do you believe that police generally "release information about" bystanders who report accidents to the police?

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting your info that they called the sheriff's regular number. I saw one article saying that there was information missing from the log and someone speculated that maybe the business line was called rather than 911. But every other report says that 911 was called.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obfuscate. It's a thing.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck is DMN obfuscating?

You're creating a conspiracy in real time, as we watch.

[Mr. Bumble]

I Simply posed a question.

[Sarcastr0]

What is DMN obfuscating?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble just wants to be seen as a commenter, a participant, a 'playa', in the debates of the VC.
Being unable to understand or follow discussions about charging decisions, trial practice, or any other legal doctrines, he reverts to adhominum attacks (effeminate insults) at practitioners who have contributed here for years.
"a sad, lonely man, defeated by life"
Enjoy the Perseids!

[Kazinski]

Well I got it from John Hinderaker, the lawyer and blogger, not the judge. He got it from a news account with a quote from the sheriff.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/something-to-see-here.php

[David Nieporent]

That Hinderaker column does not contradict anything I said.

[Kazinski]

I was only providing further information, that you evidently weren't aware of:

"Only it apparently wasn’t a 911 call. The Dukes County Sheriff’s office’s log for the evening lists a reason for every call except this one. It also identifies Wilson’s Landing, not the Obamas’ home, as the locus–the source, I take it–of the call:

This is curious:

[Edgartown police chief Bruce McNamee] could only speculate on why the reason for the call is left blank, saying it may be because the caller from Obama’s property didn’t dial 911, which automatically generates location data, and instead made a direct call to a business line."

[OtisAH]

Your friend is stupid.

[Estragon]

What’s the matter? Dershowitz still not getting invited to parties?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/alan-dershowitzs-marthas-vineyard-cancellation

[David Nieporent]

Heh. Of course, Bumble is alluding to the beyond-delusional claims that Obama's chef was murdered.

[Frank Drackman]

Nope, JFK Jr, his wife, and Mary Joe Kopeckeny were murdered, Barry Hussein Osama's cook was just another case of "Black Guys can't Swim" (or Float, it's a Body Composition Thang, Black Dude in my Flight Surgeon class, was a legit 4-5% body fat (what was the Brutha gonna do, he was Nigerian) could not float to (literally) save his life, during the Survival Swim training he'd sink like a rock, but AA being like it is, he passed.

Frank

[not guilty]

Who murdered JFK Jr. and his wife? Was his sister-in-law also murdered?

As for Mary Jo Kopechne, Ted Kennedy's conduct was thoroughly reprehensible, but it was more likely involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide than murder. (I haven't looked up the then-applicable Massachusetts statutes.)

[M L]

How delusional. I mean everyone knows that nobody ever gets murdered, right?

In all seriousness, never heard of this story before, but I'm always amazed at how much time some people apparently have on their hands, such that they read all about every new conspiracy theory, every new current event, news item, police report, etc. to the point they know all about it and are ready to confidently opine and set the record straight.

[Nige]

'I mean everyone knows that nobody ever gets murdered'

The rhetorical retreat to the absurdly general is hilarious, as is the switch to affected disdain for people knowing about stuff.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Heh. Of course, Bumble is alluding to the beyond-delusional claims that Obama’s chef was murdered"
Where have you seen that claimed? Got a cite or a link?.

[Nige]

Have you asked your friend?

[Mr. Bumble]

"My friend" never mentioned murder, David did.

[Nige]

You chickened out because of the ridicule.

[Krayt]

Well? What is your friend telling you?

[grb]

I was in Barnes and Noble to buy a great nephew birthday gift and decided to spring for Lessons in Chemistry, which proved great fun. It’s set in early 60s and pits a stubbornly rationalistic women scientist against the world she inherited from the previous decade.

Fair warning for easily triggered snowflakes : The novel is basically a feminist fairy tale and has its share of ogres. It also features an extremely un-Julia Child-like cooking show, plenty of delightful yuks, and the best dog character in a book/movies since the evil Marvin of Patterson.

The ending was a little pat, but that’s how fairy tales roll (It’s also about to become a TV production with Brie Larson).

[Don Nico]

Why don't you buy your nephew "The radioactive Boy Scout." It's actual and pretty chilling.

[grb]

Oh - Lessons for Chemistry was a side purchase for me. The nephew is a very sweet-natured kid with an obsessive love of animals (baby seals in particular). I got him a giant picture book on that subject.

[Don Nico]

That sounds like a nice present. I hope that he enjoys it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're buying your nephew feminist fairy tales?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Clutch those pearls on behalf of other people's children, Brett.

Clutch HARD!

[I Callahan]

Heh. This from the house tough-guy.

[bernard11]

Well, let's see.

Suppose he bought his (presumably White) nephew a book about "a stubbornly rationalistic Black male scientist" fighting against attitudes from a previous generation?"

Would that be OK?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : You’re buying your nephew feminist fairy tales?

1. As above, the book was for me. (Alas, I expressed myself poorly)

2. But why not? Obviously plucky women and girls overcoming all obstacles with determination, courage and fortitude are a much more common theme now than back in our day – and I think it’s damn wonderful for boys and girls both. Probably lead to better lovers, husbands and fathers.

Of course that’s getting ahead of my great nephew a bit. He went on the record yesterday that he’s never ever ever ever getting married. (However his twelve-year old brother already has a girlfriend)

[Brett Bellmore]

1 is enough, but on 2, why not? Because feminist fairy tales are usually at least somewhat misandrist, and why would you subject a young boy to misandry?

[Sarcastr0]

feminist fairy tales are usually at least somewhat misandrist
Was The Hiden Figures anti-white or misandrist? Because it sure was pro black woman, and not stinting about their strugles with racism and sexism.

A zero sum sense of who can be successful and independent and empowered and whatnot is no way to go through life.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : “A zero sum sense of who can be successful and independent and empowered…”

Honest to God, I think that is the root sickness behind all of the Right’s ugliness about racism or sexism. They’re both terrified and enraged at once that “those people” are going to get something they shouldn’t. We had a thread the other day that was (tangentially) about Black Lives Matters, and you could see it up and down the comments. Why do “those people” get to have their lives matter? Why can’t we get a piece of that action too? As if that was the choice….

The idea that “we” might be better off if “those people” are as well is a massive conceptual block they just can’t surmount. Because “those people” are always the enemy…..

[Bob from Ohio]

The Hiden [sic] Figures was certainly a fairy tale though.

[Sarcastr0]

It was a dramatization. You can call it a fairy tail if you want, but you want that because you're an asshole who likes to pick fights.

[Frank Drackman]

A book about Chemistry?? I'd recommend "Morrison & Boyd's Organic Chemistry, 3rd Edition" I know they're up to the 6th Edition now, but a Grignard Reagent's still a Grignard Reagent.
Better would be one of those 60's Sears Roebuck Chemistry Sets, back when they still had the "good" chemicals, nothing like a little Exothermic reaction on a Sunday afternoon,

Frank "Where's my Fulminate of Mercury?!?!?!?!?"

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got some good books on old technology from when Lindsay Publishing was still a going concern. Their "Chemical Cross Reference" book was pretty invaluable if you were going to read really old technical books, as it lets you know what chemicals used to be called.

You can still find some of the old technical books they published on Amazon, though. This one, for instance, is a real gold mine of potential science faire projects:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0917914562/reasonmagazinea-20/

I really wish I'd known they were going to go out of business, I'd have bought more in their Lost Technology series. The world is poorer without them.

https://www.book-info.com/series/Lost+Technology+Series.htm

[Paladin_44]

Use M & B as a text in college - wish I still had my copy from '64. Also wish I still had my old Gilbert Chemistry set - late '50s I think and you could raise a good stink and a couple of bangs with the stuff it came with.

[John F. Carr]

I want to give a child an old fashioned chemistry set and an old fashioned analog electronics kit. Everybody wants to sell you a toy robot these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

Snap circuits aren't terrible, but I don't know of any good old fashioned chemistry sets like they had when I was a kid.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, they released the internal documents from Facebook that they got with the subpoena. Looks like the stuff that wasn’t happening at Twitter was also not happening at Facebook.

A couple of examples of things not happen from the article I saw (WSJ), documented by internal communication:

In an April 2021 email, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s president for global affairs, wrote to colleagues that Andy Slavitt, a senior adviser to Biden who was steering COVID-19 policy, “was outraged — not too strong a word to describe his reaction —“ that Facebook was slow removing a joke - a joke! - that guy posted. The joke was that in ten years you may be watching TV and a commercial will come on and say “Did you or anyone in your family take the Covid vaccine? If so, you may be entitled to….” Biden’s Covid policy fascist was outraged at Facebook that they didn’t immediately take it down.

Or here’s another:

At one point, Nick Clegg, the company’s president of global affairs asked “Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made.” The Vice President in charge of content policy responded, “We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn’t have done it.”

And there’s more where that came from. I’m sure that the usual Bidenistas will come and defend this garbage because their party is more important than our rights. Why can’t they just openly admit it?

[M L]

Even the people here who claim to be centrists or libertarians or something were adamant that the government was not behind social media censorship in any way.

The lefties would actually argue with a straight face for years that the censorship wasn't even happening, and that there was no political bias in social media content practices.

[Ben_]

Are they just completely stupid? Are they liars? Some sort of holistic amalgam where there's no meaningful difference to them between truth, lies, facts, falsehoods, stories, dreams, etc. so anything goes?

What percentage of each?

[Nige]

'the government was not behind social media censorship in any way.'

There's a reference to 'pressure' and someone allegedly being outraged at a joke. As with the Twitter Files, let's see what the fuller pitcure ends up showing.

[David Nieporent]

Even the people here who claim to be centrists or libertarians or something were adamant that the government was not behind social media censorship in any way.

The phrase "in any way" is so broad that it could encompass anything.

What we — well, I; I'm not a spokesperson for everyone — said was that the government did not force anyone to do anything. The so-called Twitter files — and now the so-called Facebook files — demonstrate that government employees (and private individuals!) often flagged things that they hoped the companies would take down, but that the decisions were made by the companies, not the government. Sometimes they agreed with the requests and took down stuff, sometimes they did not, and there were no consequences when they did not.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's new codefendant, Carlos De Oliveira, reportedly has been represented by DC-area attorney John Irving, who has been paid by Trump’s super PAC Save America. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/28/politics/trump-maralago-indictment-carlos-de-oliveira/index.html As I have stated previously regarding Walt Nauta, this poses a serious potential for conflict of interest.

De Oliveira is charged in three counts of the indictment with offenses, each carrying a penalty of up to twenty years imprisonment. He is charged in one count with making false statments to federal officials, punishable by five years. Suppose prosecutors offer an agreement to plead to the false statement count in exchange for dismissing the more serious counts and De Oliveira testifying truthfully at the trial of Donald Trump. Would defense counsel protect the interests of his client, or the interests of his law firm's benefactor?

The Sixth Amendment includes the right of a criminal defendant to retained counsel of his choice. SCOTUS has opined that "the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds." United States v. Gonzales-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006), quoting Caplin Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624-625 (1989). A United States District Court must recognize a presumption in favor of the accused's counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 164 (1988).

Not all conflicts of interest are waivable by the defendant. "[W]e think the district court must be allowed substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses." Wheat, at 163.

[not guilty]

CNN reports that Yuscil Taveras, a Mar-a-Lago employee who oversees the property’s surveillance cameras (identified in the superseding indictment as Trump Employee 4), received a target letter from federal prosecutors after former President Donald Trump was first indicted in June on charges related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/30/politics/yuscil-taveras-trump-classified-documents-investigation/index.html

After receiving the target letter, Taveras changed lawyers because his attorney, Stan Woodward, also represented Walt Nauta, which presented a conflict. I surmise that his new counsel agreed with Sir John Falstaff that “The better part of valour is discretion.” Henry IV, Part 1, Act 5, Scene 4.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what's your point?

[Estragon]

I think the point is Mr. Taveras got a lot chattier after he was appointed a conflict counsel. Similar to what we saw with Ms Hutchinson after she ditched her trump funded lawyer.

[not guilty]

My point is that the trial court should make searching inquiry on the record into whether the lawyers representing two defendants are conflicted and, if so, whether any conflict(s) are waivable. Unless the waivers are bullet proof, there is a danger that Nauta and/or De Oliveira will collaterally attack any convictions as resulting from ineffective assistance of conflicted defense counsel.

Inherent in the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to reasonably competent counsel and the right to counsel's undivided loyalty. United States v. Hall, 200 F.3d 962, 966 (6th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court has opined:

Courts and commentators have recognized the inherent dangers that arise when a criminal defendant is represented by a lawyer hired and paid by a third party, particularly when the third party is the operator of the alleged criminal enterprise. One risk is that the lawyer will prevent his client from obtaining leniency by preventing the client from offering testimony against his former employer or from taking other actions contrary to the employer's interest.

Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 268-69 (1981).

When a defendant demonstrates that ineffective representation at the pretrial stage of a criminal proceeding caused him or her to proceed to trial rather than to accept an offer of a plea bargain that would have been approved by the court, the defendant has been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. In re Alvernaz, 2 Cal.4th 924, 928, 830 P.2d 747 (Cal. 1992). See also Turner v. State of Tennessee, (6th Cir. 1988) 858 F.2d 1201, 1205-1207 (vacated on other grounds in Tennessee v. Turner (1989) 492 U.S. 902 and remanded for reconsideration in light of Alabama v. Smith (1989) 490 U.S. 794, reinstated, 726 F.Supp. 1113 (1989), aff'd, 940 F.2d 1000 (1991).

[not guilty]

It is relevant that Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira are still employed by Trump. SCOTUS opined in Wood v. Georgia:

"A conflict of interest inheres in every such situation. It is inherently wrong to represent both the employer and the employee if the employee's interest may, and the public interest will, be advanced by the employee's disclosure of his employer's criminal conduct. For the same reasons, it is also inherently wrong for an attorney who represents only the employee to accept a promise to pay from one whose criminal liability may turn on the employee's testimony."

460 U.S. at 269 n.15, [boldface added,] quoting In re Abrams, 56 N.J. 271, 276, 266 A.2d 275, 278 (1970).

[bernard11]

One of my favorite plays. I see Falstaff as the anti-Hotspur.

Act I, Scene 3

HOTSPUR: By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap,
To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon,
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathom-line could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drowned honour by the locks.
.....

Act V, scene 1

PRINCE HENRY: Why, thou owest God a death.

Exit PRINCE HENRY

FALSTAFF: ‘Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before
his day. What need I be so forward with him that
calls not on me? Well, ’tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is
honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. ‘Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I’ll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism.

Great stuff.

[David Nieporent]

There are two independent issues. One involves attorney ethics. (It is black letter law that an attorney must act solely in the interests of his client, not the person footing the bills.) But that speaks to the attorney's law license. The other is the Sixth Amendment; a defendant is generally entitled to the lawyer of his choosing, but he's also entitled to effective assistance of counsel. If there's a potential conflict and it isn't properly addressed or waived, then any resulting conviction could be overturned on appeal.

[Krychek_2]

Thus far, have Trump's attorneys done anything to indicate they care about attorney ethics?

[not guilty]

A collateral attack on the conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is more likely than review on direct appeal of whether defense counsel's conflict necessitates a new trial. There is an exception, however, when the record is adequately developed to allow the Court of Appeals to assess the merits of the issue. See United States v. Hall, 200 F.3d 962, 965 (6th Cir. 2000).

[David Nieporent]

I wasn't using "appeal" in a technical sense — just indicating that a court could overturn the conviction if the issue isn't properly addressed.

[not guilty]

I understand that. But in the hypothetical I posed upthread -- a Trump codefendant turning down a pretrial offer to plead to a single false statement count because of his counsel's conflict, going to trial and being sentenced for greater offenses -- the timeline matters. If the defendant were to pursue a direct appeal prior to making a collateral attack under § 2255, any sentence he could have received for the false statement conviction could well expire before the § 2255 action is filed and adjudicated.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're really way out in front of this with your speculations.
Time will tell.

[not guilty]

Not at all. The trial judge has an interest in protecting each defendant’s right to conflict-free counsel and in preserving the integrity of any conviction which may occur against collateral attack. “[W]hile the right to select and be represented by one’s preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant, rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988).

Whether Judge Loose Cannon inquires into potential conflicts prior to trial will shed light on whether she is in the tank for Donald Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The DOJ has been sent a criminal referral for Fauci for his malicious lies to Congress.

Who here thinks lying to Congress is still a Threat To Our Sacred Democracy now that Cohen has gotten his good ol' fashioned Democrat DOJ 1:2?

[Moderation4ever]

This is Senator Rand Paul's doing and I think it really need to be approached in that way. Paul's angry that Fauci called him a moron. A real investigation is likely to find that Fauci is more correct than Paul.

[Reallynotbob]

But Dr. Rand Paul is an opthamologist.

Fauci only spent decades studying and combating infectious disease.

But do go on with your proof that Fauci made "malicious" lies to Congress.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fauci is as much a doctor as Hunter Biden is a lawyer.

[John F. Carr]

Fauci is a scientist, or a scientist turned bureaucrat. When he is talking about viral entry pathways I trust him. When he is the government's pandemic PR guy I don't.

There are also people who might be worth listening to on the policy side who don't have a clue what the difference between 3' and 5' is. (If you don't know, you don't need to know.)

[Sarcastr0]

Fauci is a scientist, or a scientist turned bureaucrat. When he is talking about viral entry pathways I trust him. When he is the government’s pandemic PR guy I don’t.

Agree exactly. Well said.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hahah yeah, he was so successful with HIV AND COVID.

He's such an expert! Well, at least he's mega-rich.

[M L]

As I recall, Dr. Fauci said something is not “gain of function” but it is gain of function, he just lied and decided to make up a different definition to cover his ass. It was a little bit like a “definition of is is” moment. And then he called other people morons for not buying his obvious, utter bull shit.

You don’t need an “investigation” to figure this out. But I’m sure there are other things at issue too.

[Reallynotbob]

The problem is your phrase "but it is gain of function" begs the question. That is precisely what Fauci disputes. And he's not the only one. Even the NIH doesn't agree.

So... even if we were to assume Fauci's opinion on what constitutes gain of function research is wrong--and that's hotly disputed from what I could find--it's not "obvious, utter bull shit."

[Sarcastr0]

NIH does have a nonintuitive definition of gain of function, but they seem to have arrived at it honestly and well before Covid.

Whole thing is for the conspiracy hogs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, gain of function research was banned and paid for anyway long before Covid, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Expanding this conspiracy to beyond Covid won’t make it more valid.

[Voize]

Paul made this same referral two years ago. We shall see if this repeat performance gets any more traction than the first.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not a chance with the current DOJ.

[David Nieporent]

The phrase “criminal referral” is political rhetoric designed to fool rubes like BCD. It has no legal meaning. All it means is that someone asked a prosecutor to prosecute another. I can send DOJ a criminal referral, Taylor Swift can, even BCD can. It has no legal effect of any sort.

EDIT: Of course, some people doing so may have more influence than others doing so. Prosecutors are more likely to listen to Bill Gates than to me. But a politician doing so is understood to be a political stunt and nobody cares.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now do the J6 Committee criminal referrals.

[grb]

David Nieporent : Prosecutors are more likely to listen to Bill Gates than to me

They'll probably listen to Taylor Swift over the both of you....

[VinniUSMC]

Before, or after, she writes their break up song?

[grb]

My understanding (not from personal experience, mind you), is the whole point of dating Ms Swift is to provide her with material after the break-up. Reason nuff, I guess......

[Estragon]

Summer tour has been off the hook!! The boys sound even better than ever! And that llama from last night *chefs kiss*. 6 more nights of couch tour before I go to dicks at end of the month! Remember to surrender to the flow

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/mansworldmag_/status/1685666360213299200

Mans World Magazine has Obama and his lifepartner Michael on the cover.

That's real. lol I told you guys!

[Estragon]

Voltage!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

True or False, is that a real magazine cover?

[David Nieporent]

It is not.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes it is you low-information Democrat (BIRM).

https://mansworldmag.online/magazines/

[Nige]

Voltage!

[David Nieporent]

Really? And which issue do you think that's the cover of?

[hobie]

Always entertaining to see how BCD educates himself every day

[Estragon]

I’m driving from seattle to montana today. OTHER THAN zips, who has a good lunch spot for me in Spokane?

[Krychek_2]

Molly's, 224 S. Lincoln. Good food cheap, and it's right next to the interstate.

[Estragon]

Thank you!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why Montana? Did you tire of being around educated, accomplished, modern, personable people?

[Estragon]

I don’t really go to montana for the people

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good answer.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, "Coach"
Montana's changed a bit since you went on your "Sabbatical" at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
Lots of your "Bettors" Driving 6000lb Electric Pick Ups, with the 4 Wheel Drive, of course the closest these Kalifornia Kowboys get to a cow is the drive through at Whataburger

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog has operated for

THREE (3)

day without publishing a vile racial slur; it has published racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-FOUR (24)

different occasions (so far) during 2023 (that’s 24 different discussions, not 24 racial slurs; many of those discussions featured multiple vile racial slurs).

This assessment does not address the incessant, disgusting stream of gay-bashing, misogynist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, and immigrant-hating slurs and other bigoted content presented daily at this conservative blog, which is presented by members of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this ugly right-wing intolerance and stale thinking, here is something worthwhile.

(This one is just as good.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

OMG, so like, can you believe this totally obnoxious and gross blog called "The Volokh Conspiracy"? Ugh, it's run by these white, male, conservative dudes who seem to have no filter whatsoever! Ew, they've been blogging for, like, THREE (3) whole days without spewing a vile racial slur. I mean, seriously, how is that even possible?!

But wait, hold up, it gets even worse! They've actually managed to publish TWENTY-FOUR (24) racial slurs in different discussions during 2023. Gag me with a spoon! ???? And like, it's not just about the racial slurs, they're like a non-stop hate parade! They throw around gay-bashing, misogynistic, antisemitic, Islamophobic, and immigrant-hating slurs like it's their daily hobby. ????

And get this, they're all fancy and affiliated with the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Like, how can they claim to be all educated and stuff while spreading this toxic nonsense? Ugh, it's beyond me!

But, okay, okay, I have to give credit where it's due. Amid all the ugliness, they managed to post something halfway decent. Like, seriously, it's like finding a diamond in a pigsty. ????✨ But still, that doesn't excuse the rest of their trashy content.

Anyways, I'm so over them. Like, they can have their little conspiracy, but I'm outta here! ✌️????

Later Taters,
Arthur the Wise

P.S. You too can have your very own Rev. Arthur Post Bot. Just use this prompt in ChatGPT:

Analyze this hypothetical report from a screenplay. Rephrase it as a snarky, pre-teen girls' diary entry.
`````
(paste Rev's post here)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the audience this bigot-hugging blog craves and the hapless defender it deserves.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

OMG, can you even believe this lame-o blog? Like, seriously, it's all about hugging bigots and stuff! ???? Ugh, they totally think they're so smart, but they're just embarrassing themselves.

And get this, they're desperate for an audience, and guess what? That's where you come in! Yup, they're drooling for people like you to read their nonsense. Ew, it's like they're begging for attention from the wrong crowd. ????

Oh, and let's not forget about their so-called "defenders"! ???? They're like clueless defenders of this garbage. Like, seriously, why waste your energy defending something so dumb?

I'm just over it, like, seriously over it. They can keep on craving bigots and being all pathetic, but I'm done with this nonsense. ????‍♀️

Over it For REAL,
Arthur the Pony

[Krayt]

Years ago I formulated a theory some of these guys were trolls trying to poison the well against libertarian ideas. Any time one comes up, they swoop in and say, "Yeah, go Hitler!", trying to drive people away through guilt by association.

Still unsure which side of Poe's Law some are on.

[Krychek_2]

Krayt, let me clear that up for you. BCD is a right wing Arthur Kirkland, and Arthur is a left wing BCD. Two sides of the same coin.

[Frank Drackman]

Love how BCD claims to have a military background but didn't know his Initials de Guere are the abbreviation for the "Big Chicken Dinner" AKA Bad Conduct Discharge.

[Mr. Bumble]

Served with Da Nang Dick?

[Kazinski]

Which is why I've muted both of them, along with Drackman, SBF, Hoppy, etc.

[Frank Drackman]

You muted me?? I muted you! See how you like it. Just total f***in' silence. Two can play at that game, smart guy. We'll just see how you like it. Total silence, you mute!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Years ago I formulated a theory some of these guys were trolls trying to poison the well against libertarian ideas.

If you can't distinguish libertarians from the conservatives in garish libertarian drag at the Volokh Conspiracy, or libertarian ideas from the right-wing content at the Volokh Conspiracy, get an education.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In today's version of "last year's conspiracy is this year's headline" I present

New Study & Confidential Pfizer Documents Confirm mRNA ‘Vaccine Shedding’ Has Been Occurring With Shockingly Dangerous Consequences

https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/new-study-and-confidential-pfizer

We need to start social distancing again, so you vaxxies don't hurt us natural humans.

[apedad]

Yes, please stay far away from us.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If I stay away from you, will you stay away from my kids?

That seems like a pretty good deal, because as of late it's almost impossible to keep your kind away from vulnerable little children.

[Nige]

Yes, keeping your vaccines in sheds is a terrible practice.

[David Nieporent]

BCD is too stupid to understand the difference between a vaccine and an antibody. Film at 11.

[grb]

Voltage!

[Bob from Ohio]

Big news guys. Biden now has 7 grandkids. What a mensch.

[Frank Drackman]

That was actually a smart move not recognizing Hunter's Bastard daughter, will he recognize the other 20 or 30 that will come out of the woodwork??

[Longtobefree]

https://babylonbee.com/news/hunter-biden-demoted-to-make-room-for-7th-grandchild-on-family-roster

[Mr. Bumble]

PEE WEE HERMAN IS DEAD.

[Frank Drackman]

LALALALALALALA I know you are but what am I? Infinity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Capt Crisis absolutely should review whatever Porno Pee Wee was watching when he whipped out "Little Pee Wee" (what's a brutha to do? it was a Porno)

[not guilty]

R.I.P. Pee Wee.

He is survived by a sister who is a prominent attorney in Nashville. She was one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/2015-nashvillians-of-the-year-how-abby-rubenfeld-and-bill-harbison-helped-to-change-history/article_20ea0f41-9854-5691-a0eb-972b96c00e3d.html

[Ben_]

Similar to the trans movement:

https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/vegan-influencer-starved-to-death-friends/

"Vegan influencer Zhanna Samsonova has reportedly “died of starvation” after subsisting exclusively off a diet of exotic fruit in Malaysia, according to her friends and family.

She was 39."

Death by lifestyle affirmation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like the losers who refused coronavirus vaccination because they believed an imaginary fairyman in the sky told them to be dimwitted virus-flouters, then died of coronavirus infection.

Some people are just poorly educated, gullible casualties of the reality-based world.

[Nige]

Nothing whatsoever do with trans people. More like that Petersen guy and his meat-only diet.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Petersen is still alive though with all his genitals intact.

[Nige]

If you want to call that living. If you want to call that intact.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Even Joe Rogan is calling J6 a Fedsurrection now.

lol, it's over for you corrupt Democrats. No one believes your stupid shit anymore.

[Nige]

'Even Joe Rogan'

Lol.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yeah dude, keep on believing that what he says doesn't impact mainstream thought at all.

[Nige]

Aw bless.

[John F. Carr]

An annoyed judge in Fulton County, Georgia has a quite quotable order denying Trump's motion to terminate the witch hunt. Formally captioned "motion to quash, preclude, and recuse".

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23891541/2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-order-of-the-judge-1.pdf

I will pick only one line because it fits in here:

Guessing at what that picture might look like before the investigative dots are connected may be a popular game for the media and blogosphere, but it is not a proper role for the courts and formal legal argumentation.

A footnote refers to a relevant statute, Georgia Code § 9-5-2:

Equity will take no part in the administration of the criminal law. It will neither aid criminal courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction, nor will it restrain or obstruct them.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

[Allutz]

Let us presume magic beans were real, yet rare. A few times a year magic beans would spawn that, if planted would result in a giant vine to the sky that reaches a large abode full of treasure and guarded by a man-eating giant. What legal regime would evolve around said beans? Would bean-adventuring be banned after too many adventurers fail and man eating giants consistently come down said stalks to chomp humans? Would the government attempt to monopolize beans and send its own treasure hunting parties like Indiana Jones x Navy seals? Hmm.

[Sarcastr0]

The novel Gateway by Frederik Pohl has a pretty similar situation - an asteroid with mysterious preloaded spacecrafts some of which go to riches some of which go do death.
It's owned by an internationally chartered corporation. And from there it gets into some dark side of capitalism action.

[Kazinski]

The Space Merchants by Pohl and Kornbluth was pretty anti-capitalist too. I read it at a formative age but it didn't take.

[John F. Carr]

Was this question inspired by news about the end of the long moratorium on regulation of manned spaceflight?

Of course bean adventuring regulations would be long and complicated and less effective than simply granting the franchise to the president's brother-in-law.

[Allutz]

No I just have been thinking about magical beans a lot lately...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Reports from Atlanta indicate it is about time for Profs. Blackman, Barnett, and Tillman to fire up that ClingoMatic 2000 legal opinion-generating device for a scholarly explanation of why a federal pardon -- if properly understood, and examined through the obligatory prism of originalism -- not only would address state criminal prosecutions and convictions but also may be granted by the Speaker of the House or a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So another whistleblower directly ties Burisma, Hunter, and Joe to that firing of that prosecutor who was investigating Burisma that Joe publicly confessed to.

Of course there are a select few "serious people" who will pretend it's all lies.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Turns out the Talking Points have been issued.

Now that it's irrefutable "The Big Guy" was talking to Hunter's foreign business partners, it was just to "Say Hello", and that's it guys.

He was just being the polite statesman! So Noble, So American, So Federal!

[David Nieporent]

Turns out the Talking Points have been issued.

Dude, you're describing secret testimony that you have no actual knowledge of based on what your handlers have told you to say. That's the literal definition of talking points.

[not guilty]

"So another whistleblower directly ties Burisma, Hunter, and Joe to that firing of that prosecutor who was investigating Burisma that Joe publicly confessed to."

To what "whistleblower" do you refer? And what is your source of information? (Do you have original source materials? If so, a link would be helpful.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Devon Archer's testimony today, wtf dude. You don't live on Earth.

Holy moly. You know the guy that the DOJ was trying to push into prison this weekend?

Wow. Are you ok? Or are you just being a Democrat?

[not guilty]

Where do you get that, BCD? How do you claim to know what Archer's testimony was?

CNN's report contradicts what you claim. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/politics/devon-archer-house-testimony/index.html What is your source of information that Archer "directly ties Burisma, Hunter, and Joe to that firing of [Victor Shokin]?"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/devon-archer-tells-congress-burisma-pressured-bidens-deal-ukrainian

Devon Archer tells Congress Burisma pressured Hunter Biden to deal with Ukrainian prosecutor

I bet that CNN source was also the guy out in front the camera's arguing that sure, Joe got on the phone with Hunter and his foreign partners 20+ times, and sure he ended up doing what Hunter's foreign partners wanted and paid Hunter for, but he only got on the phone to say "Hello"!

How can you practice law for 29 years and be so gullible and so easily made the dupe?

[Michael P]

He's not gullible. He's all in on perpetuating the fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Heckuva debating tactic, to call everyone who asks you to provide evidence in on the conspiracy.

I suppose it saves in brainpower.

[not guilty]

I'm not gullible, BCD. I just need more than your ipse dixit assertion to believe anything, given your history of lying on these comment threads. As juries are routinely instructed, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

[BrotherMovesOn]

NG, he doesn't understand the words you are typing. Your responses to him are clogging up my scrolling.
Thank you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How about all those links I've been giving you that you pretend you've never seen?

Is that more than my assertions? Or are links to sources still just my assertions?

I imagine the last courtroom you were in, long long long ago sometime back in the 1880s, you going:

"Jury, sure, there's that security video of my client shooting the victims and gay molesting the dead children on video, and sure that video has been independently verified as authentic by the State's experts and the Defense's experts, but the rules of evidence in this state require you to disregard ipse dixit assertions made by the State."

P.S. You gotta be carrying around tons and tons of dissonance in the aged old noodle of yours to keep whipping out that lies in one, lies in all tripe.

[Voize]

You know the guy that the DOJ was trying to push into prison this weekend?

Archer was sentenced to a year and a day plus restitution of $43 million over a year ago but has been free on bail pending appeal. His appeal and requests for rehearing were denied by the 2nd Circuit so the government asked the court to set a surrender date, but expressly requested that it be set to avoid interfering with Archer's testimony.

[ThePublius]

You know, that's a partial lie. First, the DOJ person sent a letter on a Saturday asking a judge to jail him forthwith. It was only after the backlash that he sent a second letter "clarifying," saying, 'of course, not until after the testimony.'

That's witness tampering, in my opinion.

[Voize]

Not so.
This is the earlier letter you refer to. It asks the court to set a date, not to "jail him forthwith". The Hunter-hunters immediately distorted the request but, as was explained in the second letter the Court couldn't make the date "immediately" because

As the Court knows, to surrender and commence his sentence of imprisonment, the defendant first must be designated to a federal facility by the Bureau of Prisons—a process that can take several weeks or months after the Court sets a surrender date.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: whistleblower does not mean 'someone who says something negative about someone.' Devon Archer, convicted fraudster, might have said what Republicans are claiming he said, though we don't know because they tellingly kept his testimony secret. But even if he did say that, and the worst possible interpretation of it is true, it would not be whistleblowing.

[Voize]

I'm not even sure the IRS whistleblowers are really whistleblowers, they allege misconduct in Justice but work for Treasury. Don't you have to blow the whistle on your own organization to be a true whistleblower?

[Michael P]

No.

This is today's installment of "short answers to stupid questions". Come back on Thursday for your next bite at the apple.

[ThePublius]

A distinction (on your part) without a difference. He's offering testimony of internal criminal and/or corrupt activity that has been kept quiet. That's whistleblowing.

On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety.

https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/

[David Nieporent]

Reports it from the vantage point of an insider; otherwise one is just a witness. But what waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety did Archer testify to? What waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety did the so-called IRS whistleblowers testify to?

[Voize]

Ralph Nader popularized the term in the early 70s. He wanted to encourage whistle blowing so selected a term that didn't have the negative connotations of "snitch". His definition did require it to be an insider: "an act of a man or a woman who, believing in the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, publicly blows the whistle if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity".
Originalists and old-timers should believe that settles the insider-or-not question, but the word has been used more broadly in the intervening half century. For example, the IRS whistleblower awards payable under 26 U.S.C. 7623 are available to informers whether or not they are insiders.

[Kazinski]

I think I had too many links, let me remove one:

International commerce in Electric Vehicles maybe coming to an end.

There is a ship off the coast of Netherlands burning out of control with at least one fatality and many injuries with 3500 vehicles aboard, all of which are in danger of going down with the ship.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cargo-ship-fire-netherlands-ev-electric-vehicle-battery-north-sea-freemantle-highway/

Last year there was a similar fire that was caused by an EV that sank a ship off Portugal taking 4000 cars with it, for a total loss of 155m.

It may well be that ships carrying EV’s won’t be insurable in the future.

Then to add to the problem, nobody seems to waǹt to buy them when they get to their destination:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/slow-selling-evs-are-auto-industrys-new-headache-2023-07-11/

[Kazinski]

As an aside we had a family gathering two weeks ago and when my niece flew in they gave her an EV “upgrade” to her rental car. She wasn’t happy about it, and sure enough she had a major hassle finding a charging station so she could get back to the airport. She had to have someone follow her to the charging station, leave her car overnight and bring her back in the morning, so she could make it back to the airport.

By the way she's a vegan, all sustainable, but EV's make no sense to her.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wouldn't shock me if the same situation came up with 'renewable' power in a few years.

Lately I've been having a conversation online with some renewable boosters, about a proposal to use excess solar power to synthesize methane to sell. They're claiming it looks really good when they run the numbers. I point out that according to their own numbers, 84% of the projected revenue, and several hundred percent of the projected profit, consists of subsidies enacted in the 'Inflation reduction act', subject to repeal as soon as January 2025, and who's going to invest in something like that? And are such enormous subsidies even scalable? Doesn't penetrate.

Then they start in on discussing how much battery storage is necessary to make a 100% wind and solar grid reliable. "Only" four days storage, combined with "only" overbuilding the solar by a factor of 10. They've got a fancy graph based on historical weather records to show it would be enough to achieve 99% availability.

I point out that 99% availability implies hour long blackouts every four days on average, and ask how much is needed to achieve CURRENT levels of reliability, which are more like 99.99% availability. I point out that conventional power doesn't need to be over-built by a factor of ten or require days of storage, and how can that be economical?

Again, doesn't penetrate.

I suggest that nuclear is probably less that 10 times more expensive than the actual, unsubsidized cost of solar, I get mocked. And people like this are making decisions right now in developed countries.

But what isn't feasible can't go on! What can't go on, won't go on. The only question is how bad it's going to get before they're stopped.

[Sarcastr0]

Science has been known to progress in the past. Who knows, maybe it'll do so now!

Come on, Brett. Subsidies don't exist to prop up a market, they exist to harness markets' drive for efficiency and innovation. Add in the high funding for energy storage across the basic research space, and there's no reason for pessimism unless of course you want renewables to fail.

You don't want that, do you?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Come on, Brett. Subsidies don’t exist to prop up a market, they exist to harness markets’ drive for efficiency and innovation. "

OK, you ARE an idiot. On the one hand you've got reliable power sources already in existence. On the other hand, you've got the hope that massive subsidies and wishing will create alternatives. And the grid is already starting to destabilize from too much wishing and not enough reliability.

Yeah, maybe some day solar and storage will be so absurdly cheap that solar panels are cheaper than shingles, and it actually makes financial sense to build 10-20 times as many panels as are needed, and have a week or two of storage, so that the lights don't go out when you have extended bad weather in January. Maybe some day.

But you don't stop building stuff that works today on the assumption that unicorn farts will save the day!

[Nige]

None of that matters. The reliable energy source – subsidised to the tune of a trillion a year, globally – is wrecking the planet. No, electric cars are *not* the solution, in fact they’re blocking better solutions. It doesn’t matter if the alternatives are not financially efficent. You’ve already outsourced the vast costs of fossil fuels, this is the bill come due. Blaming the alternatives for badly-run grids, by the way, is just sad. Wishing on unicorn farts is smarter and more viable than continuing to use fuels that generate CO2 waste on the current scale.

[Brett Bellmore]

You sound just like the guys I'm talking about. If power that randomly shows up and disappears will crash the grid, it's 'badly run', its not that you're deliberately feeding it crap power. "Just get used to it being dark at night, cretin!"

The truth is, a lot of them WANT to crash the grid, to force people into a radically decentralized and much poorer lifestyle.

[Nige]

If power that accounts for a miniscule part of the grid can crash it, then it's being scapegoated.

Radically decentralised power sounds quite libertarian.

[Sarcastr0]

On the one hand you’ve got reliable power sources already in existence.
With costs. That's the issue. If you want to waive away that part, well congrats on your tautology.

On the other hand, you’ve got the hope
Basic research is not performed for 'hope.'

you don’t stop building stuff that works today on the assumption that unicorn farts will save the day!
Your previous post was about the complete nonviability of renewables; this is a new thesis.

OK, you ARE an idiot.
Yeah, commercialization is only part of my job. You used to be one of those who could engage on substance without throwing in constant name-calling. It's unneeded and unpleasant. Exercise some self control and criticize the comment, not the commenter.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If biological sex is on a spectrum, according to "The Science", then what are bisexuals?

Idiots?

[hobie]

You have a lot of hatreds today, BCD. Have you gotten them all out of your system? I'd hate to think of you going to bed dyspeptic

[BrotherMovesOn]

I don't get why people oxygenate such a cartoon.

[Sarcastr0]

First time he told me he posts for the negative attention I put him on mute.
He's not engaging; he's satisfying his fetish. Don't indulge him.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's exactly what I said!

You're not lying or gaslighting at all!

Do you sniff your own farts?

[Neugierige]

"Law" is too noble a word to be associated with stuff judges make up.

Precedent is not law, and as a non-lawyer citizen, I consider it an act of disrespect to the people as a whole to call erroneous precedent "law". Judges have no more authority to make law than the homeless guy at the end of the street.

This does not mean I reject stare decisis wholesale, but merely that we should acknowledge that precedent is really about deliberately disobeying law in the interest of consistency and ultimately, justice.

Lower courts should say what the law says, and then openly say they are ignoring that to follow what other courts/the high court have said. What they do currently, speaking of even clearly erroneous precedent as law, is wrong and should stop.

[Sarcastr0]

The Founders don't agree with you.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-american-legal-system.page#:~:text=The%20American%20system%20is%20a,of%20the%20matter%20before%20it.

[Neugierige]

Your link doesn't say anything to indicate that they would disagree with me. And I think the framing generation, if anything, would be more likely than today's lawyers to agree with me.

[David Nieporent]

So Trump has been indicted again. I'm sure the MAGA loons will immediately be told to ascribe that to an attempt to distract from… I dunno, what's the non-story they've been focusing on today? Transgender illegal immigrants being deputized to seize your kids and raise them as their own?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has now been indicted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Schadenfreude is the sweetest of all freudes.

[not guilty]

Here is the indictment: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23893920-trump-indictment-2020-election

[not guilty]

It is interesting that Trump is the only defendant charged. I surmise that this is last call for those identified as coconspirators to get on board and negotiate plea/cooperation agreements with DOJ.

[not guilty]

Mark Meadows is not identified as a coconspirator. This likely indicates that he is cooperating with DOJ.

[grb]

Theater Summary:

1. Oppenheimer is an extraordinary film, though the last act dragged after Trinity. Nolan returned to a narrative arc that the movie had repeatedly visited before and there was no question where it headed. But I like movies that immerse me in an historical time that’s recent and almost familiar (as opposed to distant and exotic).

2. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse lacks the simplicity of its predecessor but still has wonderfully sympathetic characters and a dazzling graphic virtuosity. Of course it’s one of those movies like MI-7 below that insist on dragging me back to the theater next year.

3. Asteroid City really was the most Wes Anderson movie ever, even though they say that every time. Still, he did something new this film that I couldn’t quite get a handle on. Usually Wes is satisfied echoing some larger theme that lies completely outside the small artificial world he constructs. But this go-around had additional layers. I need to see it again.

4. The Mission Impossible movies are the new Bond, after the latter collapsed under its own ponderous weight. Of course the one exception is sex. I don’t recall any Cruise movie where he generates real animal heat. Perhaps romance or love (often wistful), but never passion. This film had Rebecca Ferguson, Hayley Atwell, Vanessa Kirby and Pom Klementieff yet is chaste as a nunnery. But the MIs do deliver the best action finales in the biz. Films of this type usually take what they’ve done before and just multiple times four (which frequently doesn’t work). MIs often find another gear.

[ReaderY]

For Count 4 of the indictment, whose right to vote is secured by federal law?

Any right to participate in any appointment of electors for President exists only by virtue of state law. Is Trump being accused of conspiring to interfere with the votes of the Electors? But Chiafolo v. Washington established that electors have no right to vote. Their “vote” fulfills only a ceremonial ministerial role. They can be replaced if they don’t cast their ballot as instructioned. They have duties under federal law with respect to voting. But under Chiafolo, they have no rights.

Are they referring to the votes of members of Congress? It’s hardly clear the statute would apply to their official legislative votes. And even there, as Judge Luttig explained it, their activity in counting the Electoral College ballots is essentially ministerial. They have no independent right to vote unless there is no electoral college majority.

If I were Trump’s lawyers I would move to dismiss this count.