Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

On Monday Devon Archer confirmed what we already knew that Joe Biden got Viktor Shokin fired as Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Everytime this comes up its asserted that its not true because Shokin wasn’t even investigating Burisma.

And it maybe true that the investigation might have been inactive at that time.

Why was it inactive? Because Zlochevsky had fled the country and was a fugitive from Ukrainian Justice for the entire tenure of Shokin as PG.

Here’s the timeline of the relevant facts:

February 2014 Joe Biden made Point man on Ukraine. April 2014 – the Serious Fraud Office of the United Kingdom froze approximately $23 million belonging to companies controlled by Zlochevsky, founder and 50% owner of BurismaApril 2014 Hunter Biden and Devon Archer become directors of Burisma, Hunter paid 80k per month. December 2014 Zlochevsky flees Ukraine Jan 2015 Zlochevsky put on corruption wanted list Feb 2015 Shokin made Prosecutor General of UkraineDec 2015 Zlochevsky puts “intense pressure” on Hunter to get Shokin fired. March 2016 Joe gets Shokin fired.

December 2017 Zlochevsky “cleared” February 2018 Zlochevsky returns to UkraineJune 2018 Zlochevsky uncleared, investigation reopened, Zlochevsky flees again.April 2019 Hunter resigns from Burisma Board. Today: Zlochevsky still a fugitive, reportedly in Monaco.

So to recap, for most of the time Hunter was on Burisma’s board, Zlochevsky was a fugitive. Including most of the occasions Devon Archer says Joe Biden was on Speakerphone with Burisma.

So first all we should all be able to agree that Joe Biden having any role firing a Ukrainian prosecutor when his son’s boss is a fugitive from Ukrainian justice is wrong. Second claiming it was at Obama’s orders is just saying Obama was in on the grift, I think its just after the fact covering for Joe when he couldn’t keep his mouth shut.

[santamonica811]

Kaz, acting more bullshit crazy than usual.

Occam's Razor. Biden worked for Obama. Obama (and everyone else in the fucking civilized world) wanted the guy fired. Biden puts the hammer down and the guy gets fired. NO ONE raised an eyebrow at this, at the time. Why? Because a VP carrying out a president's directions is so commonplace that, well, none of those eyebrows was raised. The fact that all of Europe also wanted him fired makes it even more expected and ordinary.

But, Kaz, you do you. Whatever prevents those demons inside your head from screaming.

There have been about 15-20 polls, over several years; and they--consistently--all show that 60-70% of Republicans don't believe that Biden was fairly elected. I swear; the moron wing of my Republican party is fucking retarded. Okay, that's no surprise . . . but how is it that way over half of Republicans are this batshit and/or willfully stupid? It is depressing.

[Kazinski]

Have you ever seen me assert Biden wasn't fairly elected?

No, the only assertion I'm making is that Biden is a crook.

And as for nobody saying anything about the firing at the time, well that's because nobody knew about it until Biden shot his mouth off about it in Jan. 2018. Until then nobody knew or cared or had any idea that Biden's fingerprints were all over it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is literally nothing that will change these peoples minds about their fawninf for their Government Elites.

[apedad]

Your statement is true for you too.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That’s not true at all, apedad.

I used to think the US Government was a shining beacon of light, showing the entire world what humans can do when they self-govern and are living as freely as possible.

Now, given the data, I believe the US Government is the greatest threat to human freedom that world has ever seen.

I used to think our institutions were righteous and moral.

Now, after seeing evidence the contrary, I believe our institutions are evil and should be burned to the ground.

I used to think civil servants were sacrificing greater reward out of a noble spirit to serve the common good.

Now, with everything we see, I believe most civil servants are mediocre midwits getting 100% more reward, in terms of total compensation, with no expectations for merit, and no accountability for any misdeeds.

I used to think the CIA was an elite agency filled with the best and brightest risking their lives in foreign countries to spread democracy, freedom, and liberty.

Now, seeing the facts, I know the CIA is a corrupt, evil, and incompetent institution whose turned its sights inwards spreading evil, murder, drugs, human trafficking, and greed.

I used to admire the FBI, thinking they were nobile agents, protecting this country from harm.

Now, that they’ve unmasked themselves, I know they are a bunch of faggots who make up the largest Domestic Terrorist organization in US history.

I used to believe that Democrats were just good Americans who simply believed in different policies.

Now, knowing what I know now, I know that Democrats are tyrant-enablers and are working to usher in government tyranny. We don't have a shared history, we don't have a shared culture, we don't have shared hopes for the future, we don't have anything in common. In fact, everything a Democrat wants is a direct threat to my, and my family's freedom, liberty, and prosperity.

See? Given evidence, I can change my mind. How about you?

[Davedave]

Hahahaha. Ahahahahahaha. Hahahaha. ROFL. LOL. PMSL.

Get help.

[grb]

Voltage!

[grb]

Kazinski : “And as for nobody saying anything about the firing at the time, well that’s because nobody knew about it until Biden shot his mouth off about it in Jan. 2018. Until then nobody knew or cared”

Kazinski is a buffoon. Once more:

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.”

[bevis the lumberjack]

So, it wasn’t this, what was it? What did those foreign entities get for all that money they paid?

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : "... (gibberish) ... foreign entities ... (gibberish)"

What "foreign entities"? Lindsey Graham and Rob Johnson? The U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine? The State Department?

To be honest, I'm glad you and Kazinski are still pushing this jokey meme. As long as the chief "evidence" of the Biden Crime Family is a story that falls apart at the contact of a fingertip, I know there's really no there there.

Of course when your "super star witness" produces nothing more than Hunter used to let his biz buds listen when he called dad to discuss weather and sports, that's a sign too.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re ignoring the elephant in the room. What did they get for the millions they gave Hunter?

None of you "nothing to see here" people are willing to answer this question. Everybody out here in normal world sees it and understands the deal, but you just can't bring yourself to admit fault in your politicians. The devotion people like you (like the Trumpistas) give to these chuckleheads is beyond my understanding,

I hope you’re deliberately being ignorant and not really this stupid.

What did the Ukrainians and the Chinese that gave Hunter tens of millions of dollars get for it? Answer the question without resorting to name calling.

[Nige]

At least we’ve stripped away the false accusations of wrongdoing and are resorting to ‘why do people at a certain corporate level get paid so much money?’ which is a common enough question. (And it doesn't even preclude wrongdoing! Just not the wrongdoing that is required by Republicans.)

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : "What did they get for the millions they gave Hunter?"

I'm ignoring nothing. Go back and do some research. At the exact same time Hunter got his board seat, Burisma also gave a seat to an ex-president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski. The guy has given cheerful interviews where he laughs & admits he got the position on name alone.

Also at the same time, Burisma announced a new board chairman, Alan Apter, who was a respected financier in the U.S. and Europe. The company also brought in a prestigious accounting firm to do their books. All these things happened at roughly the same time.

They were trying to purchase respectability, and buying the Biden name (however soiled) was probably the cheapest measure they took.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Lol. Nothing says respectable like a drug addled never-do-well completely irresponsible idiot.

And you’re completely ignoring the Chinese, of course.

Are you really this gullible? Biden and co are dirty. There’s no other plausible explanation. You can spout this stuff all you want but the majority of the people see it.

Just like they do with Trump. You partisans aren’t fooling anyone but yourselves.

[grb]

Wanna see their press release?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5980032-Burisma-Announces-Hunter-Biden-s-Appointment-to

[Nige]

'There’s no other plausible explanation.'

If that was the standard Trump would have been convicted a while ago.

[bernard11]

Companies put "names" on their boards all the time.

Just go look at the annual reports of large American companies. No one knows Hunter is a drug addict. He's the President's son, with some sort of trumped-up biography, and that is thought to buy respectability, like it or not. It is also, especially in the case of politicians' relatives, sometimes thought to buy access, though this often proves incorrect.

[grb]

Also, Bevis, is this what you’re reduced to? After Trump’s inauguration, Mar-a-Lago doubled their fees. For that investment, everyone who paid got a sure chance to make a pitch to the President. The NYT did one article listing business names and details of this naked Pay for Play setup.

One article, completely ignored. Not the thousands of articles and hysterical coverage on little Hunter’s money-grubbing ways. A few days back I did a comment on Jared Kushner & 666.

Nope; not the anti-Christ, but a building address on Madison Avenue. Kushner bought the skyscraper and it proved a white elephant that threatened to drag Kushner’s business under. While Jared was running Trump’s transition, he was also going around the world begging for money to save his corporate skin. He approached officials in Qatar, businesses tied to the rulers in Beijing and the former foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates. It was reported on the business pages but unnoticed elsewhere.

So I’m pretty sure you’re ignoring a whole lot more “elephants in the room” than I am. I never had any illusions about slimy little Hunter Biden. I didn’t need to do a Captain Renault-routine to discover it either....

[bevis the lumberjack]

I have never supported Trump. I have never excused his greed and corruption. No point in throwing Trump’s bullshit in my face.

Except that you’re doing it to defend or distract from Biden’s corruption.

But hey, guess what? Both Trump and Biden can be corrupt simultaneously independent of each other. The difference between you and me is that I condemn both, while you (and your side) condemn one and excuse the other.

Save me your fucking piety. You are an enabler of political corruption. Don’t get to complain when someone else does it.

[Nige]

'Both Trump and Biden can be corrupt simultaneously independent of each other.'

This is 'balance.' If Trump is corrupt, Biden must be, too. Even if the accusations of corruption are completely devoid of evidence.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “defend or distract from Biden’s corruption”

I know it’s rude of me to ask, but what “corruption” that exists in anywhere in any form more substantial than fancies in your head? Right now people are shrieking in horror because Hunter got biz associates a handshake with daddy. The sheer hypocrisy behind that reaction is off the charts.

You laugh over the idea of Burmisa buying the Biden name, but you’re the one clueless. First, this was a time before Hunter became the embodiment of all evil. This was before MTG ogling young Biden’s naked butt in an open secession of Congress (though I’m not sneering, middle-aged women have sexual needs too).

Perhaps Burmisa did due diligence and found Hunter was a mess, but what did they care? All they were doing was buying a press release and famous name to add to their board list.

In short, you have one commonplace – a rich kid sponging off his daddy’s name, a second commonplace – a company willing to exploit that cheap, and nothing more. The one attempt to go something further – the Shokin Story – is so fucking absurd it’s beyond laughable.

Yeah; you’re not a Trump supporter. God knows you’ve said that often enough. But you could have done a Hunter-level rant on Trump’s public-private entanglements every week of every year throughout his presidency. Strangely, I don’t recall you doing that – despite your even-handed approach to corruption.

Of course I didn’t either – the stuff was too there, too obvious, too gross. Strangely, I seem to be more consistent than you….

[David Nieporent]

None of you “nothing to see here” people are willing to answer this question.

Because, to quote the expert witness Mona Lisa Vito, it's a bullshit question.

There is no way to answer a vague question about "they" and vague allusions to money. If you want to ask about a specific payment by a specific person or entity, the question may, or may not, be answerable.

[bernard11]

Bevis,

Read this.

Kazinski should also.

A sample:

On Thursday, the Oversight Committee released a transcript of Archer’s testimony — testimony for which Comer wasn’t present. What Archer said not only doesn’t comport with the presentations made by Comer and Jordan on television (which were obviously wrong from the outset), his testimony undermines the idea that Burisma wanted Shokin fired, that Zlochevsky paid any bribe — and, crucially, that Joe Biden was involved in any of this.

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping “set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C.”

He said that Biden’s last name helped — and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

“The announcement of my guy’s” — his father’s — “upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands,” the email read. “In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation.”

IOW, Comer and Jordan are big fucking liars and no one should believe a word they say.

[David Nieporent]

IOW, Comer and Jordan are big fucking liars and no one should believe a word they say.

There's a reason Pelosi wouldn't let Jordan on the J6 committee, and it's not Brett's conspiracy theory that she hoped doing so would trick McCarthy into pulling all the GOPers off the committee so it could do its work without any GOP input.

[bernard11]

Sorry about the typo.

Here is the link.

[grb]

bernard11 : “IOW, Comer and Jordan are big fucking liars and no one should believe a word they say”

Obviously. But here’s what I don’t get: Right-types like Kazinski have been triumphantly crowing over Comer’s lies and now realize they were burned. In that situation I’d be furious. It wouldn’t matter I was fed pleasing lies. I’d still hate being someone’s gull.

But I never get the impression that Kazinski-types care.

[OtisAH]

You forgot “was extensively covered in the media at the time.” It’s why The Media playing along as Turnip rewrote history six years later is so incredible.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, what federal statute(s) do you claim that then-Vice-president Biden violated in regard to urging the president of Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin?

[grb]

Yep. What federal statute(s) are broken when a Veep follows the foreign policy aims of the President, White House, State Department, and a bi-partisan coalition of Senators?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Kazinski. What federal statute(s)?

[Kazinski]

Well he did take a 5m dollar bribe, I didn't even include that on the timeline.

That would violate the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution (Tillman and Blackman notwithstanding), and clearly an impeachable offense, so lets just go with that.

[not guilty]

I asked for a statute, but since you bring up the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, (art. I, § 9, cl. 8,) which King(s), Prince(s), or foreign State(s) do you posit paid Biden?

[grb]

Kazinski : "Well he did take a 5m dollar bribe.... (and more lies)"

They released the transcript of Archer’s testimony and – surprise !! – all the exciting new developments you claimed occurred didn’t happen. Archer testified there was no request to Washington over Shokin, Burmisa didn’t consider Shokin a threat, and they worried more about who would replace him.

Now I don’t blame you for peddling lies, Kazinski, because you’re just a dupe. Your handlers fed you bullshit and you gobbled it up with a sloppy grin on your face. It’s not your fault you’re so gullible.

On the other hand, by now you should know all your treasured sources treat you like a fool. By now you should be angry that they fed you such horseshit (if we allow you any self-respect). By now you should be embarrassed over making claims that blew-up in your face.

By why do I suspect you’ll let the same sources humiliate you over and over again?

[jimc5499]

My getting six mail in ballots when I didn't request even one might have something to do with it. Changes in the election laws that were supposed to have gone through the Legislature, but, didn't, might have something to do with it. Witnessing a voter select a straight Republican ticket, have their vote come up for Biden, might have something to do with it. Seeing it happen four separate times in the fifteen minutes I was at the poll, might have something to do with it.

[grb]

Golly. What a helluva story! Now do one more believable, with dragons, elves, and fluffy purple unicorns.....

[bernard11]

Witnessing a voter select a straight Republican ticket, have their vote come up for Biden, might have something to do with it. Seeing it happen four separate times in the fifteen minutes I was at the poll, might have something to do with it.

Let’s see.

You saw four separate voters, in a fifteen minute span, vote a straight Republican ticket.

How are you able to see others’ votes, much less four separate times? Do they not have voting booths where you are?

How were you able to tell that their votes “came up for Biden?” Did you hack the machine or something, with all those people watching?

Did you mention this to anyone at the time, like a normal person would have done? Did the four voters mention it, or were you the only one who saw the switch?

You’re completely full of shit, not even good at making up lies.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Please, no more recaps.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You've done it, Scrappy Doo!

When will you be sending your findings in to Gym Jordan?

[Kazinski]

Yeah, not much in the way of refuting those facts I notice.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I recall you claiming things were facts. I don't recall reading any cited sources, just your conclusions to your own story.

[Nige]

Doesn’t the released transcript refute your conclusions quite comprehensively?

[David Nieporent]

Why was it inactive? Because Zlochevsky had fled the country and was a fugitive from Ukrainian Justice for the entire tenure of Shokin as PG.

False. That's absolutely not why it was inactive, both because that makes no fucking sense and because we know for a fact that Shokin was refusing to pursue him legally. You know those assets frozen in the UK? They were ultimately unfrozen, because Shokin refused to send simple documentation to the UK to justify that they remain frozen. The UK kept begging him for it, and he wouldn't do it. So the UK had no choice but to unfreeze them.

[Kazinski]

Here Dave, here is the Ukrainian language source that Wikipedia cites for him being a fugitive, keep in mind this article is from 2017, the charges that the article says were dropped were reinstated in 2018.

“In mid-January, the gas production company Burisma loudly announced the completion of all procedural and court cases in Ukraine against its president Mykola Zlochevskyi, who was the Minister of Ecology in the government of Mykola Azarov, and in 2014, along with other ex-officials, fled Ukraine.

After his escape, the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (GPU) initiated criminal proceedings against Zlochevskyi under the third part of Article 368-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, suspecting him of illegal enrichment and legalization (laundering) of money obtained through criminal means. However, within two years, the GPU closed these cases.

https://www-dw-com.translate.goog/uk/%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%84%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BA-%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%B4-%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%8F%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C-%D0%B2-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%83/a-37434241?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Here is an article from 2020 from the Organized Crime and Corruption Project that states: “Ukraine’s anti-graft officials said on Saturday that they have detained three people who offered them a record US$5 million bribe to drop a criminal case against Mykola Zlochevsky, a former minister and owner of a natural gas company suspected of having used his ministerial post to enrich himself.”

And keep in mind the timeline, Shokin was not appointed Prosecutor General until after Zlochevsky fled in late 2014, and was fired by Joe before Zlochevsky came back. During this whole period before he fled, while he was a fugitive, when he came back, after he fled again in 2018, that Hunter was on Zlochevsky's payroll.

https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/12535-ukraine-s-anti-graft-officers-offered-record-6m-bribe-to-drop-case

So that’s two articles that confirm that Zlochevsky was a fugitive, one that he fled Ukraine in 2014 and was still a fugitive in 2016 when Shokin was fired, and another which shows Zlochevsky is a fugitive again (at least as of June 2020, and he’s still rumored to be in Monaco). And all the while Hunter was on the board of Burisma and Joe was making conference calls.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not saying Zlochevsky hadn't left the country. I'm saying that this had nothing to do with Shokin's refusal to pursue him/Burisma. (Burisma, of course, was not a fugitive; it was doing business in Ukraine.)

[Kenneth Almquist]

Kazinski brings up Devon Archer's testimony that was made public on Monday, but then ignores what Archer said. Archer testified that people representing Burisma in Washington, D.C. said “that the firing of Shokin was bad for Burisma because he was under control.” He testified that he understood “under control” to mean that “they were going to maybe give [Zlochevsky] a slap on the wrist as opposed to seize all his assets.”

Rather than acknowledging this, Kazinski claims that “Zlochevsky put ‘intense pressure’ on Hunter to get Shokin fired.” I did a web search and found a July 31 story in the NY Post where we read: “According to Archer, Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky 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.” If the NY Post report is accurate, Republicans flat-out lied about Archer's testimony. Kazinski is repeating this lie even though the release of Archer's testimony, a release which Kazinski admits knowing about, shows it to be false.

[Kazinski]

Actually I hadn’t seen the release of the full transcript and was going with the summary in the Post.

Wait now I see that the actual transcript wasn't released until this morning, after I posted my comment around midnight Pacific time.

So I guess I could call you a lying sack of shit, using your standards, but I will just say thanks for alerting me that the transcript was released 3 hours after I made my comment.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-devon-archers-transcribed-interview-transcript%EF%BF%BC/

[Nige]

Yeah, who could have seen this coming, that the actual testimony would completely contradict the Republican narrative, it's only happened in, what, every single Republican 'whistleblower' case so far? Or just most of them?

[David Nieporent]

If the NY Post report is accurate, Republicans flat-out lied about Archer’s testimony.

This is my shocked face.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, common sense also tells you that they lied, because Barr didn't think there was anything here to pursue when he was AG. He foisted it off on Weiss, who also didn't think there was anything there to pursue. This has been a nothingburger story from Day One.

Hunter Biden is a failson who relied on the fact that he had a famous last name to keep himself involved in the business world. That's it. That's all there is. That is not illegal for Hunter, let alone Joe. If you want to think it's sleazy and unmeritocratic, well, whatever. Yes, if his name were Hunter Smith, he'd probably be living in a van down by the river. If Donald Trump Jr.'s name were Donald Smith, he'd be selling fraudulent timeshares in Boca. So what?

[OtisAH]

Tbf, Junior probably *is* selling fraudulent timeshares in Boca.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "If Donald Trump Jr.’s name were Donald Smith, he’d be selling fraudulent timeshares in Boca"

More to the point, if Donald John Trump's name was just Donald John, he'd be doing a three-card monte on some street corner. Daddy's money was the only thing that made him more than a petty grifter.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean part of that is growing up with Trump for a dad. There’s a fine chance that if he weren’t a Trump Don Jr would be fine, actually.

[David Nieporent]

You misread him; he was talking about Sr., not Jr.

Also, I’m not sure how much Jr. grew up with Sr. as a dad. Sr. contributed the genetic material, but from everything I’ve read, he didn’t really believe that he should have to do any actual parenting. Which is perhaps why everything he and Eric say and do seems to be a desperate cry for their daddy to notice them and give them approval.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "Of course, common sense also tells you that they lied, because Barr didn’t think there was anything here to pursue when he was AG"

Of course that's just the beginning:

1. Common sense says Burisma wouldn't pay Biden 5-10 million just to follow the policy of the entire American government.

2. Common sense says Burisma wouldn't pay Biden 5-10 million to repress an "investigation" that never existed.

3. Common sense says Burisma wouldn't pay Biden 5-10 million to get Shokin fired when they were more worried about who would succeed him.

4. Common sense says Burisma wouldn't pay Biden 5-10 million when Shokin could be bought for a fraction of that cost.

All in all, Kazinski has a long row to hoe, common sense-wise.

[darkknight9]

Thank Crom its Thursday.

[Magister]

Probably more appropriate to thank Thor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What happens if the next President refuses to go to DC? Simply refuses to set foot in DC because he doesn't want to be subjected to a DC jury.

100 years ago today, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his father, a Vermont Justice of the Peace, by the light of the kerosene lamp in rural Vermont -- 20 miles from where the telegraph wires ended and the telegram had to be carried by messenger.

Nowhere does it say that the President has to reside in the White House, Truman didn't (after the piano went through the floor) and Madison didn't after the British burnt it. Nor did Washington.

So President DeSantis says he's gonna operate out of Homestead AFB -- anything he needs to sign can be flown down there. And the POTUS has secure communications whereever he is

[BravoCharlieDelta]

DeSantis isn't an American First politician. He won't have problems in DC because he'll still be carrying on the primary business of DC: Foreign wars, looting the treasury, and destroying America.

[Martinned]

Yes. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. None of this seems to raise any interesting legal questions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why should Republicans subject themselves to a DC jury?

[hoppy025]

They shouldn't have to. The constitution requires a jury be impartial. A D.C. jury will be at least 9 blacks, statistically, and blacks are incapable of being impartial with respect to white defendants, especially conservatives.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ed, the overwhelming majority of Republicans brave enough to work in DC are never subject to a DC jury. You can easily avoid it by not doing criminal stuff.

[OtisAH]

Gotta love Ed arguing that MAGA should only work in jurisdictions that he assumes will ignore their felonies, which he assumes they’ll commit. It’s a nice companion with “[MAGA] presidents are exempt from civil and criminal law.”

[hoppy025]

It's not a matter of ignoring felonies. But the blacks will convict any white conservative of anything, no matter what they did or didn't do.

[Frank Drackman]

Blacks in Minneapolis sure did

[hoppy025]

Yep. White defendants should be legally entitled to an all white jury.

[Frank Drackman]

no, just their peers.

[not guilty]

"Why should Republicans subject themselves to a DC jury?"

Uh, because a D.C. grand jury has indicted Donald Trump and will likely indict other Republicans in due time?

[not guilty]

Actually, Republicans need not subject themselves to a DC jury. Pleading guilty is always an option.

[apedad]

He would be impeached, and we would all move on with our lives.

[Martinned]

Impeached for what???

[VinniUSMC]

apedad, saying the quiet part out loud. The crime of being "not a lefty shit".

[John F. Carr]

President Ocasio-Cortez can have ex-President DeSantis tried in D.C. for anything that affected D.C. A telephone call to D.C., an email to D.C., an attempt to influence Congress.

Some of the charges Trump is facing in Florida could have been brought in D.C. instead.

[David Nieporent]

What happens if the next President refuses to go to DC?

What happens f the next President refuses to commit crimes? Simply refuses to attempt to overthrow the government because he's so unpopular that he loses an election by 7 million votes?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm just going to say this -- I don't care if a President was sacrificing virgins on the front porch of the White House (where in DC he could find any is another story) -- I don't care what the President did or might have done -- we shouldn't prosecute former Presidents.

It's like the exclusionary rule -- far better that a guilty man (or woman) go free than we look like a 3rd World Banana Republic.

[Martinned]

That's one opinion, I guess. Feel free to launch a campaign to write it into the Constitution.

[VinniUSMC]

I’m just going to say this — I don’t care if a President was sacrificing virgins on the front porch of the White House (where in DC he could find any is another story) — I don’t care what the President did or might have done — we shouldn’t prosecute former Presidents.

Nah, that's just batshit crazy.

[Sarcastr0]

What a surprising take.

[OtisAH]

Yes, what makes a First a world country is allowing former leaders to commit any crime they choose without answering to the law. *Especially* if they only *tried* to maintain power through illegal means. Only Third World countries force their leaders to face justice for their criminality. And everybody knows it too.

This is a very smart take, Dr. Ed, and you are very smart.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But we don’t look like a banana republic. And nobody should be above the law. Just like with the documents, Trump behaved ridiculously and probably criminally over the election.

And you and the other fanboys that just can’t let Trump go are going to give us an extra four years of Biden and his speech suppression and energy destruction. This is what you’re doing by slavishly supporting a ridiculous buffoon.

[Nige]

'And you and the other fanboys that just can’t let Trump go are going to give us an extra four years of Biden'

This is a fresh new take, I must say.

[Frank Drackman]

Only "4 Extra Years" Senescent/Parkinsonian Joe will do is embalmed like they did with Stalin and Mao (Joe's starting to look very Mao-esque in his old age) Mao died at 82...

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

The idea that Trump is one of the few candidates who might actually lose to Biden is not, in fact, a particularly fresh or new take.

[Nige]

No, it’s the idea that by being such Trump cultists they’re effectively driving voters to Biden (who is as bad as Trump.) Ok, maybe it’s not that fresh a take, I just haven’t seen it phrased that way before by a Concerned Centrist, normally they finger-wag liberals for being mean to Trump voters thereby driving them to vote for Trump.

[David Nieporent]

It’s like the exclusionary rule — far better that a guilty man (or woman) go free than we look like a 3rd World Banana Republic.

Dr. Ed is a fucking moron who does not know that first world democracies routinely prosecute former leaders for crimes.

[Martinned]

As do US states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich#Impeachment,_removal_from_office,_trial

[Kazinski]

So the UAH satellite temperature set is out for July, and it does show that this July is the hottest month since the record started in 1979.

In Jan 2023 the temperature anomaly was at -0.04c under the 1991-2020 average, now its jumped to +0.64c in 6 months.

So the question is why now, what’s happened to kick the the temperature in to overdrive just in the last few month.

The answer may be the Tonga Volcano from Jan. 2022:

“The huge amount of water vapor hurled into the atmosphere, as detected by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder, could end up temporarily warming Earth’s surface.

When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. He led a new study examining the amount of water vapor that the Tonga volcano injected into the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between about 8 and 33 miles (12 and 53 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere."
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere

[Mr. Bumble]

If you haven't seen this you might find this article interesting.

https://the-pipeline.org/hot-and-bothered-about-heat-waves/

[Davedave]

No surprise you don't understand basic arithmetic and logic. If you have an increased baseline, then peaks due to unusual events will be higher.

[Kazinski]

Speaking of baselines do you see the contradiction in the IPCC's global warming feedback theory and what the scientists are saying about the Tonga water plume?

According to the IPCC only one third the warming is due to CO2, the other 2/3 is feedback from increased absolute humidity and more water vapor and will lead to runaway warming.

Now we have an event that increased the water vapor in the stratosphere by up to 10%, and will cause a temporary spike in warming.

So why isn't this the new baseline the way the IPCC claims CO2 related water vapor increases are?

[Davedave]

Whut? Did your meds make you drool on your phone and that's what predictive text came up with?

[Kazinski]

Nevermind, I should have known there's nobody home.

[VinniUSMC]

That's davedave the dumbdumb. He's as bright as a broken light bulb in a blackout.

[Nige]

'So why isn’t this the new baseline'

I'm not at all sure what you're getting at with this question, but I expect the answer is because the effects haven't been analysed and quantified yet. If the water vapour adds significantly to planetary heating, it'll be on top of the man-made global warming effect. Which is great because if there is an effect, we don't know how long it'll stick around for!

[Nige]

‘The answer may be the Tonga Volcano from Jan. 2022:’

Thanks for conceding the greenhouse gas effect and the existence of the current heat events, at least. Putting all that water vapour into an atmosphere already out of whack with CO2 could be bad news, no doubt about it. It might be one of those things scientists have been warning about – unexpected events or mechanisms that exacerbate and potentially accelerate climate change, leading to potential tipping points. Then again, what do actual sientists say about the effects?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot will not contribute to Global Warming until his Di-Lithium Crystals expire.

[Kazinski]

Conceding the Greenhouse Effect?

Of course I "concede" the Greenhouse Effect, without it we would be 30c cooler and an iceball and there wouldn't be any life as we know it.

Its the Greenhouse effect that makes the planet habitable.

[Reallynotbob]

It's radiation that grows your plants too, but I don't suggest microwaving them. Is it just possible that the greenhouse effect needs to be greater than zero, but less than it's at now?

[Kazinski]

Well now we are getting somewhere, the current world temp averages 13.9c, the temp without the Greenhouse effect is -18c, so that means the current Greenhouse effect is 31.9c.

So lets say 1c of the current temp is Human caused and another full degree is coming.

That means 31c of greenhouse effect is absolutely perfect, and 33c is planet busting catastrophe? Even though for most of earths geologic history the Greenhouse effect is well above 34c?

[Nige]

We haven't been around for most of Earth's geologic history.

[Nige]

And the extreme heat events?

[santamonica811]

As of today, when someone says something exceptionally dumb; I'm gonna try to make into a trending meme, "Wow, you're as slow as a female Somali sprinter."

[Google it. Warning: It's pretty painful to watch.]

[Commenter_XY]

I saw that, lol. It is painful.

[Michael P]

My kids are currently fans of the Mark Twain line "wisdom has been chasing you, but you have always been a little bit faster". I guess that wouldn't work here.

[Frank Drackman]

he also said "Somewhere, a Village is missing it's Idiot"
wait I think that was Marx, Groucho Marx

Frank "Those are my principles and if you don't like them, I have others"

[VinniUSMC]

It was certainly... something. Maybe it was Somali Make-A-Wish?

[ducksalad]

Seriously though, that's what a reasonably fit and active, above average adult looks like compared to elite athletes.

For most of us posting here it wouldn't be a question of time to run 100m. It would be whether we could run 100m before stopping to catch our breath.

[SRG]

If the average fit and active adult tried sprinting 100m, they'd probably pull something - hamstring, most likely - before finishing. But jogging 100m shouldn't be a problem.

A few years ago, at the New Jersey Senior Olympics at Woodbridge HS, in the 100m heat before mine, some chap ate the track after 20m - pulled quad. Afterwards I talked to him and he said, "I don't understand it - I go jogging every day!"

[Frank Drackman]

that "Pop" deep in the calf when Martha the Chemo nurse attempts to spike a volleyball for the first time this Millenium is (was) her Plantaris Tendon rupturing, be like Frank and warm up first! (Plantari still intact at 61, Rotator Cuff? Repaired)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantaris_muscle

Frank

[SRG]

Good heavens - a leg injury I've not had. Can't have been trying hard enough!

[SRG]

Unbelievable. It looked as though she had no idea how to sprint. Hell, 22s for a 100 is slower than my 100s when I run repeat 300s at 70% to 75% of 400m race pace.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is something I shared on Reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/work/comments/15grrgd/company_has_nonexistent_information_security/
Recently, I received an reply from MSM Holdings, a company based in New York, about a fully remote job which I applied to, among many. The job is a remote purchasing agent; i would purchase items from local vendors and then ship them out to MSM's clients.

I would be subject to a two-week trial period, in which I would perform these duties, and then I would receive a company laptop, and the company credit card.

I did ask how I am supposed to pay for the purchases on behalf of MSM without the company's credit card. Here was the reply I got.

" You do not need to withdraw a cash. You receive our account # and use it
to clear a bill on your credit card. There will be 24 hours clearing
process and you get the money reflected on your card as available
credit. You can spent it after.
Here is the process one more time:

1. I give you the company's bank account number by email

2. you should go to your credit card on-line banking and use the account
3. to pull the money from that account to your credit card as a Bill Payment

4. we wait 12-24 hours till the credit card company confirm the
available credit on your card

5. you start buying the goods from posted company's amount

6. you ship the products out

7. receive the next transaction
We are talking about a situation when you will get our money to your
card first and only after you will be buying the goods
To get this process started you do NOT give us your card details. You
should simply have your card in your hands and understand the process.
We both will be waiting till your CC company confirms that the money is
clear and you can use them. Only after you are buying the merchandise.
We are in a situation when we trust you our money first and wait a job
from you." - MSM Holdings

There is an obvious problem with the company's account security procedures. I sent a reply e-mail.

"below, you write that you would send the company's bank account number to my personal e-mail. I spent twelve years in the mortgage industry (as seen on my resume). This is completely insecure. No company I ever worked for would send their financial account information to an employee's personal e-mail address or mailing address, not even if the employee in question was a vice president, not even if the employee in question actually had access to the bank account. Bank statements would likewise be maintained in a secure location, and any old enough bank statements would be shredded.
You need to have someone review your sensitive information security procedures."- Me

In addition, the manner that probationary purchase agents would work during their 2-week trial period involves commingling of the company's funds with their credit card or debit card bank account.

I reached out to three other people about this; two of them agreed this was strange.

MSM Holdings has been in business since 1986. I wonder why they would have such non-existent procedures in keeping their financial accounts secure.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That almost sounds like one of those Craigslist check scams.

[Michael Ejercito]

How so?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well the way the check scam works is the "buyer" sends you a check in advance of the meetup for the purchase because they are out of town. It's "accidentally" larger than the purchase amount. A few days later, the check clears, you feel safe. You turn over the goods and the excess cash to their friend who came to pick up the goods now that the check has cleared.

Later the check is fake. These were the parts that made me think the MSM thing was similar:

4. we wait 12-24 hours till the credit card company confirm the
available credit on your card

5. you start buying the goods from posted company’s amount

6. you ship the products out

[Michael Ejercito]

So this would mean the bank account information I would receive by e-mail would not belong to the person with whom I was communicating?

There is an MSM Holdings company, and New York government web sites actually confirm it was founded in 1986.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It could mean it could be clawed back.

Are they asking you to make a purchase, then ship the goods? Why would you need to use your own credit card?

If they would give you bank account numbers, why not just give you their credit card numbers instead and just spend their money directly?

It seems like nonsense to bunnyhop the money through your credit card.

[Michael Ejercito]

Indeed. Something is seriously wrong at MSM Holdings to actually have this procedure.

[Mr. Bumble]

A Biden LLC?

[Dr. Ed 2]

is this actually MSM?

[SRG]

That was my thinking.

[darkknight9]

Did you look at a google search of msm and fraud and/or case #'s? Are any of the results the same msm that you are dealing with?

The paranoid part of me wants nothing to do with that job. That's just a gut feeling though.

[John F. Carr]

This reminds me of an old scam. The scammer pays you up front with a bad check. You spend the money. The check is revealed as fake after you thought it had cleared. The money is not irrevocably yours for a long time after it is available to spend. The scam worked better in the days before Check 21 required US banks to accept electronic submission of checks from other US banks.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

With FedNow, checks don’t float anymore. If your bank is on their service.

I just saw it last week and it was quite unexpected. A personal check deposited on a Friday, had cleared by Saturday morning.

Someone needs to warn the poor people that they can't float checks anymore.

[darkknight9]

You haven't seen a check scanner/reader at points of sale? They've been around for years.

Where do you live that you're just seeing something like this now? 🙂

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They cleared the banks in a day with those?

I just don't write checks often anymore

[darkknight9]

I haven't written one in more than 20 years. Was okay when I was single but when I was married it was just easier to go electronic.

Some places will let you deposit your check via a smartphone pic and have it available by the next mornin. 🙂

[darkknight9]

Actually, better than the next mornin, its available right away.

If it bounces after that, they take it back with fees of course...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When does it get withdrawn from the check writers account?

That's the float I'm talking about. Not the hold on the deposit.

How long the before the funds are withdrawn from the check writers account.

I have never seen next day withdrawal.

[darkknight9]

Usually 24 hours or less. Might be uber quick if your financial institution processes batch electronic transactions multiple times a day or if they don't on Sundays, etc.

[darkknight9]

"...day or longer if..."

[David Nieporent]

You don't understand. The fact that the funds are "available" in your account the next day does not mean that the check has truly "cleared." As several people above indicated, they can claw back the money later. It's a well-established scam.

[Davedave]

"Where do you live that you’re just seeing something like this now?"

A residential institution, obviously. Surely you didn't think BCD is actually allowed to run around free?

[darkknight9]

Okay, that was pretty funny. 🙂

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://www.cleveland.com/business/2017/04/a_new_scam_watch_out_for_deliv.html#incart_2box_business

[Life of Brian]

The domain msmholdingsc.com was first registered on July 10, 2023. I'd be exceptionally suspicious on that basis alone.

Classic scam-grammar (e.g., "You do not need to withdraw a cash") intensifies the red flags.

As others have said, this feels very much like the latest e-paper-hanger variant.

[bernard11]

This is an obvious scam.

First, nobody in their right mind will give you access to the company account to pay your credit card bills.

Second, when you use a bank account to pay a credit card bill it goes through immediately. It does not take 12-24 hours.

Third, no honest company does business this way.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In today's news that will surprise no one whose eyes have been open the past 3 years, that study been flouted around here by the low-information types asserting Republicans died more from Covid than Democrats turns out to be complete and utter Yale/Pfizer/CDC horseshit.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/faulty-covid-study-claims-republicans-had-43-higher-death-rate-due-vaccine-hesitancy

Key points:
3) The study also admits that research before the COVID-19 pandemic has found evidence of higher death rates in Republican-leaning counties than Democratic-leaning counties. Meaning, death rates are supposedly higher within Republican counties regardless of covid.

4) The study did not find a significant difference in death rates between Republican and Democrat counties in Florida. It only found such differences in counties in Ohio. Already, this suggests a failed premise given it was only applicable in one state.

7) Out of the four age groups included in the study, Republicans only had higher excess deaths in two of them (and only in Ohio). The study briefly glosses over the fact that Democratic voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with Republican voters for the age group 65 to 74 years. That is to say, the baseline theory that Republicans have more covid deaths is debunked by the study's own data.

Are any of us Normals surprised of this nonsense parading as tHe ScIEncE?

Are any of us Normals surprised the Democrats gobbled this up unskeptically?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I think the amount of Elite fawning and Authority worship on this place is only bested by the smooth-brains over at reddit. This is on their frontpage this morning:

https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/15gn5wg/conservatives_just_love_dying_to_own_the_libs/

phloyd77 says:

Doc in a very conservative county. Can confirm.

A doctor in a very conservative county confirms these fake results from Yale, guys! It must be true!

XenoRyet says:

It’ll be interesting to see the shitstorm that develops when this data hits the actuarial tables and the health insurance companies want to charge higher premiums to GOP voters.

Hear that guys! This study is so authoritative that the insurance companies are going to start charging Republicans more health insurance premiums! Even though Democrats banned risk-rated insurance 13 years ago!

ReviewOk929 says:

Must be a lot of empty small towns....

This one takes some thinking. A phenomenon as incredible as whole towns being emptied from COVID deaths kept secret from everyone. But ReviewOK sees this study and just knows that's been happening. Meanwhile, back on Reality Earth, this is happening: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/28/san-francisco-vacant-buildings-housing-doom-loop

Man I wish I could find all those dumbass quotes from the doofuses on here from last week. I think it was grb sniffing his own farts on this one. He’s pretty dumb. I think it’s age-related decline.

[Michael Ejercito]

This COVIDian cult is as dogmatic as Islam or Roman Catholicism- or Communism or National Socialism!

[Ed Grinberg]

COVID sure was a great boon for those who're into "Elite fawning and Authority worship."
- "We must listen to the experts!"
- seeing someone arrested for going to the beach
- being able to righteously yell at someone: "Put your mask on!!!"
They loved it!

[Martinned]

Or, to put that another way, a dramatic gap has opened up between Republicans and Democrats in the US in terms of their confidence in science. Fewer Republicans now have confidence in science than believe in angels.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1686813844469858319

[Bob from Ohio]

"confidence in science"

Its lack of confidence in people who work in science.

[Nige]

Lack of confidence that they'll tell you what you'd prefer to hear.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : (Two posts of verbiage & voltage)

Here’s four problems you have, BCD:

1. For political reasons both sleazy & loathsome, today’s Right went antivaxx.
2. Subsequently, its followers had a much lower vaccination rate than normal people.
3. A lower vaccination rate meant more serious illness and death.
4. The Yale study will be followed by many more.

What do you think they’ll find?

[OtisAH]

He thinks they’ll find the virus was engineered to kill idiots like him. And when they results find that idiots die more than normal people in pandemics because they’re idiots, he’ll say the results prove it was engineered to kill idiots regardless.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The data say in the most vulnerable group that significantly more Democrats died than Republicans.

What do you think they’ll find?

You still hoping the next study will say something different. That's what they'll find.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Point 3, as far as I can tell, is simply false. The study authors write:

Before the pandemic, excess death rates for Republican and Democratic voters were centered around 0. In the winter of 2021, both groups experienced sharp increases of similar magnitude in excess death rates. However, in the summer of 2021, after vaccines were available to all adults, the excess death rate among Republican voters began to increase relative to the excess death rate among Democratic voters; in the fall of 2021, the gap widened further.

The question is why the death rates diverged after vaccines became widely available. The authors propose that the cause is greater vaccine hesitancy among Republicans.

Points 4 and 7 concern subsets of the data. The authors are not saying that no Republicans got vaccinated, or that all Democrats did. So even if their hypothesis is correct, it is entirely possible that in some subsets of their data, Republicans had higher vaccination rates that Democrats. Therefore, finding such subsets doesn't “debunk” their hypothesis.

Studies like this one are of the “water is wet” variety. Grb has already explained why more Republicans than Democrats are dying of COVID. But because common wisdom is occasionally wrong, social scientists sometimes test the obvious, which is why there have been multiple studies testing whether Republicans are really more likely than Democrats to die of COVID. But no matter how many studies confirm that, yes, water is wet, there will be people like Tyler Durden and BravoCharlieDelta who are unwilling to admit the obvious.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after Covid-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination

"Conclusion: mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men."

Mind you, the numbers studied were large enough to establish statistical significance, but not big enough to pick up low incidence severe effects.

My own opinion: This isn't necessarily due to the mRNA vaccine, it may be due to the change in injection protocol that was rolled out before the Covid vaccine became available. It results in the vaccine accidentally injected into the blood stream occasionally. Think "distributed goose egg".

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, what they did was blood tests on a bunch of people who got the booster, to detect chemicals in the blood that would be caused by myocardial injury, even if it wasn't symptomatic enough to send somebody to an emergency room to get tested. (Which is the only way it's ordinarily detected.)

Several percent of the people who received the booster had high enough levels of inflammatory compounds in their blood to indicate at least some degree of heart inflammation shortly after the injection, (Mostly the women, interestingly.) which gradually went away afterwards. No long term consequences were found, but they noted that everybody who showed these elevated levels was directed to take cardiac precautions such as avoiding strenuous exercise, which would have helped with recovery.

This is a hugely higher rate of cardiac inflammation than you'd find in the general population, and it was in people who had no prior record of cardiac problems. Assuming a reasonable random distribution of severity, the study population wasn't big enough to expect really severe damage, even if it was common enough to be a serious vaccine side effect.

Again, I don't think this is specific to mRNA vaccines. I think it's injection protocol, and would happen with any vaccine that tended towards severe inflammation reactions, such as the shingles vaccine.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In more today's news that Normal People will not be shocked by:

Fiscal Efficiency Experts in Federal Government spend $51,000 for a single trashcan. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/20/the-pentagons-52000-trash-can/

Nature Experts in State Government spend $9,000,000 to save salmon population with virtually no impact.
https://www.kgw.com/article/tech/science/environment/billions-spent-wild-salmon-recovery-few-results-study-finds/283-852208d6-f520-4d26-a9bc-3bbd8b908675

How the people in government get so much blind worship by Democrat civilians still strikes me as stunning, even after seeing it for so long.

[Longtobefree]

The trashcan only costs $29.99. The rest goes to black programs.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In part 3 of today's news that will surprise anyone who isn't a Democrat:

Study Huge Numbers Of Kids Permanently Damaged By Lockdowns

Half of all parents in the UK are reporting seriously deterioration of children’s social and emotional skills

https://summit.news/2023/08/02/study-huge-numbers-of-kids-permanently-damaged-by-lockdowns/

Thank you Public Health Experts!

[Michael Ejercito]

Public health has discredit itself, like phrenology, Lysenkoism, and Nazi racial science.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/06/08/oh-no-its-monday-ethics-review-6-8-2020-a-yoos-rationalization-orgy/

[Nige]

Public health has discredited itself in the eyes of people who think Trump won, vaccines are poison and masks don't help reduce the spread of airborne infections. It's a problem, sure, but the problem isn't public health per se.

[Michael Ejercito]

You really did not read that letter Jack Marshall had quoted.

That single letter obliterated 100 years' of public health's earned credibility

[Nige]

A letter did that, did it? Aren't you easily disillusioned about stuff you're politically invested in being disillusioned about.

[David Nieporent]

Wow. I wonder how long the researchers followed the study subjects to determine that they were permanently damaged.

[Michael Ejercito]

I want to discuss the issue of how far the right to petition for the redress of grievances would go.

Let us take an example of a convicted murderer applying for a concealed carry pistol permit. If the murderer fills out the form truthfully to the best of his knowledge, the application will of course be rejected.

If the murderer lies on the form (assuming it clearly states under penalty of perjury), then of course it is perjury, which is not protected by the First Amendment (applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)

If the murderer attaches a sticky note offering a coupon for a dollar off a soft drink at McDonald's in exchange for a permit, that is bribery, again not protected by the First Amendment.

Now here is the question.

Can the state criminalize applying in the first place?

Or would that be protected as a petition for the redress of grievances?

[Michael P]

I don't know the other laws well enough to hazard a guess on the question of whether the state could outlaw a convicted murderer just for applying for a concealed carry permit, but I would think petitioning for redress of grievances is the ability to file suit against the government, submit comments on public actions, and correspond with officials on official business, rather than applying for permits in the first place.

[Martinned]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noerr%E2%80%93Pennington_doctrine#Expansion_of_the_doctrine_beyond_the_antitrust_arena

[Bored Lawyer]

"Can the state criminalize applying in the first place?"

No, it can't. Which is why no state has tried it.

[Krayt]

What if he applied, didn't lie, and the government approved his application anyway?

[Michael P]

He'd be fine until he picks up a firearm, at which point he's a felon in possession.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can the state criminalize applying in the first place?

Or would that be protected as a petition for the redress of grievances?

Whatever limitations there might be on a state's ability to do that, I don't see how they'd be found in the redress of grievances clause.

[Michael Ejercito]

The grievance in my example is the murderer's lack of a concealed carry permit.

Applying for the permit is basically a petition.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, it's not.

That was easy!

[Martinned]

I'd be interested to read any study of how the "election fraud is protected speech" meme spread yesterday, because I saw it here on VC hours before it was confirmed as the official Trump defence. I wonder whether those commenters saw it on TruthSocial, OANN, etc. How does such misinformation spread?

[Michael Ejercito]

Lying about election fraud is protected speech.

https://abc7chicago.com/jimmy-carter-trump-hillary-clinton-republican-wiki/5369814/

And I think the interference, though not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.

[Martinned]

It may or may not be, but *election fraud* as such isn't.

Here, have a link to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression:

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis#:~:text=Fraud%20and%20Perjury,also%20are%20constitutional.

[Michael Ejercito]

True.

of course, to actually commit election fraud, you would have to do something on the order of stuffing ballot boxes, or hacking into voting machines.

[Martinned]

That sounds like progress. At least we've now established that fraud is not protected speech. Congratulations!

[Michael Ejercito]

So, which fraud is currently punishable under federal law?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us2r15_d1o2.pdf

[Michael P]

It's important to define "honest services" so narrowly that the general public cannot expect FBI agents to refrain from lying to the public or to courts, or public health officials from lying to everyone outside their inner circles, or government funded researchers from lying in published "research", or political officials from lying about whether they ever spoke with their children's business partners. And of course, that's even more true about the number of grandchildren an official has, or the provenance of an incriminating laptop, or whether some official is senile.

At this point, the general public should probably just assume those lies are happening.

[Martinned]

This is getting ridiculous. I'm just going to start copy/pasting that excellent Popehat post.

But National Review is lying to you about the Supreme Court and about what’s charged here. The Special Counsel charged Trump with defrauding the United States under Section 371. The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly and specifically ruled that Section 371 doesn’t require a scheme to take money or property. National Review is referring to the latest in a line of cases interpreting a completely different statute, the wire fraud statute, that includes a “money or property” requirement in its text.
(...)
Justice Thomas, in the 2023 case to which National Review alludes, expressly relies on that language to find that the wire fraud statute requires a scheme to take money or (as traditionally defined) property. He does not even mention Section 371, which does not include the “money or property” language and which has a long history of Supreme Court and lower court cases holding that the object of the fraud need not be money or property, but can be interfering with government function.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does he believe that by calling himself "Popehat" he is infallible?
You could argue that a popehat makes you look like a dickhead.

[Martinned]

He does not, in fact, believe that he is infallible.

Sometimes these will be misstatements out of carelessness (I’m occasionally guilty on that) or ignorance.

[Michael P]

Implicit admission: some comparable, or perhaps much larger, fraction of his false statements are attributable to partisan hackery and general dickishness.

[Bwaaah]

You do not, in fact, know what he believes. You pretend that what a person says is what a person believes. It may or may not be.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bwaah,

Because operating under the other assumption, that people say things that have no relationship with their beliefs, is asinine.

[Bwaaah]

Jason:

Generally speaking, no, it's not "asinine" (your word, not mine) to assume there's a relationship between what somebody says and what they believe. But it is still an assumption, as you say, and not a fact.

BUT, in particular, to assume that what Donald Trump says is what he believes is, I believe, asinine. But you imply some kind of confident disagreement with that. Despite your attempt at an argument, I don't believe you disagree with me.

[Nige]

Honing right on on the core issues there, Bumble.

[Bored Lawyer]

McCarthy's position is that the McNally/Bridgegate line of cases overruled the older line of cases. I posted on this in the other thread. It's an open question, but neither side is obviously correct.

[Noscitur a sociis]

McCarthy’s position is that the McNally/Bridgegate line of cases overruled the older line of cases.

What is your basis for this claim?

It’s an open question, but neither side is obviously correct.

No, it's not an open question: White is very obviously correct, and McCarthy is very obviously wrong. This is not a close call.

[Bored Lawyer]

The basis is that McCarthy said so.
The statutory phrase "to defraud" is the same in all of the statutes, and without precedent, you would construe them the same.
So, no, McCarthy is not very obviously wrong. There is a colorable argument that the more recent cases -- of which there are plenty -- say that "to defraud" means pecuniary loss only. And that prior cases saying otherwise are no longer good law.
The District court and the DC Circuit are likely to reject this argument, but it ain't frivolous, and might even win at SCOTUS.

[Bored Lawyer]

I also suggest reading McNally v. U.S. 483 U.S. 350 (1987), where the Court limited the mail fraud statute to pecuniary frauds and not frauds that corrupt state government.
Both the majority and the dissent cited to Hammerscmidt, which is one of the line of cases that held that interfering with the Government function is a form of fraud.
The majority, curiously, cited Hammerschmidt for the proposition that fraud generally reaches only pecuniary gain. In a long footnote (No. 8) it distinguished the older line of cases as follows:

In Curley v. United States, 130 F. 1 (CA1 1904), cited with approval in Haas v. Henkel, supra, the court stated:
"Quite likely, the word 'defraud,' as ordinarily used in the common law and as used in English statutes and in the statutes of our states, enacted with the object of protecting property and property rights of communities and individuals, as well as of municipal governments, which exist largely for the purpose of administering local financial affairs, has reference to frauds relating to money and property."
130 F. at 6-7. The court concluded, however, that
"[a] statute which . . . has for its object the protection of the individual property rights of the members of the civic body is one thing; a statute which has for its object the protection and welfare of the government alone, which exists for the purpose of administering itself in the interests of the public, [is] quite another."
Id. at 7. Section 371 is a statute aimed at protecting the Federal Government alone; however, the mail fraud statute, as we have indicated, had its origin in the desire to protect individual property rights, and any benefit which the Government derives from the statute must be limited to the Government's interests as property holder.

So, formally, it seems that the McNally court really was ready to have two different constructions of "to defraud" in two different statutes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The statutory phrase “to defraud” is the same in all of the statutes

No, it’s not. Section 371 criminalizes, in relevant part, when “two or more persons conspire … to defraud the United States”.

The mail fraud and wire fraud statutes, by contrast, applies to a person “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises”.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy crap you had this correct at last and now you are backsliding!

[Bored Lawyer]

NaS — What in the two texts makes you think that “to defraud” has different meanings? True, the targets of the fraud and the means are different (US and any means; vs. any target but only by wire or mail). But the essential verb is still the same: to defraud.

It’s true that the wire fraud statute also has the phrase “or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” The word OR, however, would ordinarily indicate that the first clause is independent of the second.

The Court dealt with the addition of the OR clause in McNally:

Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306 (1896), the first case in which this Court construed the meaning of the phrase "any scheme or artifice to defraud," held that the phrase is to be interpreted broadly insofar as property rights are concerned, but did not indicate that the statute had a more extensive reach. The Court rejected the argument that "the statute reaches only such cases as, at common law, would come within the definition of 'false pretences,' in order to make out which there must be a misrepresentation as to some existing fact, and not a mere promise as to the future." Id. at 161 U. S. 312. Instead, it construed the statute to "includ[e] everything designed to defraud by representations as to the past or present, or suggestions and promises as to the future." Id. at 161 U. S. 313. Accordingly, the defendant's use of the mails to sell bonds which he did not intend to honor was within the statute. The Court explained that "[i]t was with the purpose of protecting the public against all such intentional efforts to despoil, and to prevent the post office from being used to carry them into effect, that this statute was passed. . . ." Id. at 161 U. S. 314.
Congress codified the holding of Durland in 1909, and in doing so gave further indication that the statute's purpose is protecting property rights. [Footnote 6] The amendment added the words "or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises" after the original phrase "any scheme or artifice to defraud." Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 215, 35 Stat. 1130. [Footnote 7] The new
Page 483 U. S. 358
language is based on the statement in Durland that the statute reaches "everything designed to defraud by representations as to the past or present, or suggestions and promises as to the future." 161 U.S. at 161 U. S. 313. However, instead of the phrase "everything designed to defraud," Congress used the words "[any scheme or artifice] for obtaining money or property."
After 1909, therefore, the mail fraud statute criminalized schemes or artifices "to defraud" or "for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, or promises. . . ." Because the two phrases identifying the proscribed schemes appear in the disjunctive, it is arguable that they are to be construed independently, and that the money-or-property requirement of the latter phrase does not limit schemes to defraud to those aimed at causing deprivation of money or property. This is the approach that has been taken by each of the Courts of Appeals that has addressed the issue: schemes to defraud include those designed to deprive individuals, the people, or the government of intangible rights, such as the right to have public officials perform their duties honestly. See, e.g., United States v. Clapps, 732 F.2d 1148, 1152 (CA3 1984); United States v. States, 488 F.2d 761, 764 (CA8 1973).
As the Court long ago stated, however, the words "to defraud" commonly refer "to wronging one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes," and "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, deceit, chicane or overreaching." Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U. S. 182, 265 U. S. 188 (1924). [Footnote 8] The codification of the holding in Durland in 1909 does not indicate that Congress was departing from this common understanding. As we see it, adding the second phrase simply made it unmistakable that the statute reached false promises and misrepresentations as to the future, as well as other frauds involving money or property.

So "to defraud," acc. to McNally, always was limited to pecuniary frauds, and the OR phrase was just added to clarify that it applies to false representations about the future.

Now, as I stated above, McNally also acknowledged in a footnote that "to defraud the United States" had been given a broader meaning (to include interfering with the Govt. functions). Not because of the OR clause, but because the target is the US, and for some reason, fraud against the Govt. has a broader meaning than fraud against anyone.
Frankly, I find that analysis forced.

To summarize. Under current SCOTUS precedent, the Trump indictment Count I is legally correct. That is the position that the Govt. is taking, and what the district court and court of appeals are likely to adhere to. But the McNally distinction is forced, and in light of the massive precedent on the wire/mail fraud side, there is a decent argument to overturn it. Whether this ever reaches SCOTUS, I doubt, since the other counts may also stick. (Truth is, they are all alternative theories of the same thing -- Trump tried to steal the election.)

[Frank Drackman]

It's like burning a Flag, speech is either protected or not.

[Bored Lawyer]

You have to define "election fraud." Fraud in its common law roots means lying with the expectation that someone will rely on it, and then part with something valuable as a result. Within that definition, election fraud is no more protected by the First Amendment than common law fraud.

As you get farther away from that definition, you get closer to First Amendment protection.

[Martinned]

To follow-up on my above: There's been a fascinating study in the last week or so about the spread of misinformation about ULEZ in London, which helped the Tory Party hang on to Boris Johnson's Uxbridge seat on 20 July.

https://twitter.com/valent_projects/status/1684591764160536578

[Michael Ejercito]

Misinformation in politics has been a thing since before people learned how to make bronze.

[Martinned]

It has been. But that doesn't make it any less interesting to study how it spreads.

[Kazinski]

Did they actually say anything materially not true? Or they just said things people weren't supposed to know:

"@valent_projects
A recent Valent investigation found large sums of money have been spent on an online effort to undermine support for #ULEZ before the #Uxbridge by-election, which observers say @UKLabour" lost due to the clear air policy championed by ...."

I don't see an allegation of falsehoods in the thread only that they were clever about getting Twitter to give it a wider reach.

Do you have any examples of actual alleged misinformation?

[Martinned]

You're right, the thread doesn't say.

The most "mainstream" ULEZ misinformation was to say/imply that most/all people would have to pay it. (As opposed to about 10% of the people who drive the dodgiest old cars.) But there is worse misinformation out there: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/01/fake-tweets-about-ulez-plans-cause-alarm-at-london-mayor-office-sadiq-khan

[jb]

If you burn a flag and use it to light a building on fire, it's still arson.

The issue isn't contesting the results of the election, it's the coordinating the slates of fake electors and trying to get government officials to change the results of the election outside regular process, based on claims he knew to be false at the time.

If the first amendment were unlimited, there'd be no such thing as fraud in any context since it's all speech.

[Davedave]

There have always been two strands of opposition to the ULEZ expansion.

One is the far right nutjobbery of lying about the science and claiming it's unnecessary and part of [conspiracy wibble fifteen minute cities the jooz the jooz].

The other are people who basically accept the science, but say 'fuck you, I'm not willing to give a single penny of my own money even if it's going to directly stop people dying'.

The Uxbridge voters seem to be cunts who fall into the latter category, on the whole, rather than loons who believe the insane lies told by the far right.

[Nige]

They lost a chunk of their vote and Labour made significant gains, though. It's always the same. A right wing victory is absolute. A left wing victory is contingent.

[Martinned]

The Uxbridge voters seem to be cunts who fall into the latter category, on the whole, rather than loons who believe the insane lies told by the far right.

Except that most of them will not be affected when ULEZ is expanded to Uxbridge. (Which will still happen, because this is not a decision for their newly elected MP, but for the Mayor of London.)

[Davedave]

Well, they will be affected. They'll have cleaner air. I don't know what your point was, though - you seem to be agreeing with what I said but you started with 'except that'.

[Martinned]

Voters who won't have to pay the ULEZ still voted against it. That's not voting based on self-interest.

[Davedave]

It's voting against the idea that people who can afford it should pay to help others not die.

[Kazinski]

Maybe they are tired of people lying to them and telling them if they don’t vote a certain way people will die.

Global warming saves thousands of lives a year according to the Lancet, although they tried to hide it:
https://i0.wp.com/electroverse.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/lancet-10x-heat-europe-city-graph-mortality-ppt-1-e1690189629333.gif?fit=1200%2C804&ssl=1

[Nige]

I think he was referring to deaths from air pollution. Nobody's trying to hide heat vs cold deaths but it sure has become a climate change denier talking point, as if they want to wait till the two reach parity or something.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the peoples just didn't like the "Labor" party candidate.

[Commenter_XY]

I mean, with antisemites like Jeremy Corbin, is that a surprise? 🙂

[Michael Ejercito]

Suppose someone is being tried for some crime. And there is a third person, who not only believes the suspect is guilty/innocent, but has actual firsthand knowledge of the suspect’s guilt/innocence.

This actual knowledge does not and can not legally justify or excuse this person engaging in bribery or witness tampering or jury tampering. “I know he’s guilty/innocent and can prove it” is no defense, not under our longstanding legal precedents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jury nullification?

[Frank Drackman]

More like "When in the Course of Human Events....." it's why we don't have Shire-reeves any more or pay taxes to an English King.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay?

[Commenter_XY]

BCD, the social and emotional damage to children from lockdowns is a topic that needs to be discussed (and addressed) here at home (USA) as well. Don't know about the lawyers here, but I manage a number of Moms in my workplace with small children. Admittedly, I am a data point (and not a trend - I can already see Sarcastr0 responding, heh). Here are the consistent themes I hear in my interactions with them. This is three years, post-pandemic exposure.

-Recognition (emotional, social) impairment...difficulty discerning, understanding mood from faces, or 'reading the room'
-Isolation...hesitancy toward group activities like group sports, outings
-Anxiety...acting out, over-reacting to illnesses (afraid person will die)

I don't know if other supervisory/executive staff are seeing these themes wrt children and the impact of lockdowns. Are you? There is something to this, and all politics aside, the pandemic did affect America's children psychologically. I believe we need to be cognizant that a) there was an impact, and b) we can and must help.

It starts with acknowledging that there is a problem = ...deterioration of children’s social and emotional skills...

[Commenter_XY]

I don't know why the above is down here. It was meant to respond to BravoDeltaCharlie above (UK kids social skills deterioration)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The church I attend was formed by "covid refugees" and has grown fairly large.
Every, and I mean literally, every family homeschools. None ever masked. Everyone has avoided the Covid vaccines. Therefore, none of the children show signs of harm from public health policies.

The children I see most often are all perfectly normal. The activities my kids do outside of church, like team and individual sports, don't seem to have any affected children. But that's probably selection bias.

The children harmed by Public Health policy probably aren't the ones going to BJJ tournaments, to begin with.

I don't think there will ever be a real accounting of the harm those policies caused. As evident as it is. How can there be? How can these people sleep at night if they knew their decisions, often corrupt, harmed millions of children? When have you ever seen a politician or bureaucrat acknowledge the harm they caused? They quietly retire with their six-figure taxpayer pensions and US Marshall security and live in their mansions, blissfully never accepting the suffering they caused.

[Frank Drackman]

Home Schooled?? they'll turn out to be anti-social failures like Tim Tebow, (or me, admittedly only home-screweled for 1 year when Richard Milhouse impounded funds for DOD schools)

[Nige]

This would be less of an issue if mental health services for young people were free at point of access and widely available. In fact if they were we'd have even more data about it. So: are these things more important as a random red flag about covid, or as a sign of a need for those services?

[Commenter_XY]

Nige, I think it is a glaring sign we need the services.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, its glaringly obvious nige needs mental health services.

[Nige]

Lots of people need mental health services, Bob.

[Frank Drackman]

Free medical care is worth what it costs

[Martinned]

Are we all enjoying the great Mike Pence campaign of truth and rectitude in politics? How long do we think that will last?

https://twitter.com/larryhuynh/status/1686834718992670720

[Commenter_XY]

Martinned - Personally, I am watching and listening closely to what VPOTUS Pence actually says; his words matter (to me, anyway). I don't think I am alone in that.

[Martinned]

For a while Mitt Romney was saying stuff like that as well, back in 2016. But that didn't last five seconds past the election.

[Frank Drackman]

you mean 5 seconds after he failed his Job interview with "45"

[John F. Carr]

I remember McCain was a hero to many online liberals. Until he was a candidate then he was the most evil politician since Hitler, because he was a Republican after all.

[Martinned]

I linked to this clip only a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4

I would have happily voted for McCain over Obama if I was a US Citizen, right up until he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it did.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...the great Mike Pence"????
He's a nice guy but hardly great and no one seems to be buying what he's selling except Democrats. Of course that would change in a second if he were the nominee.

[Martinned]

Sarcasm detector switched off today?

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess so. With you it is sometimes hard to tell.

[bevis the lumberjack]

On Jan 6 Pence did the right thing under unimaginable pressure from Trump and his lackeys. And a mob. Actions speak louder than words - the guy proved himself to be a person of integrity.

How long before partisans such as yourself actually give him credit for what he did under very difficult circumstances?

To bad he can’t be a man of honor like Joe Biden.

[Martinned]

Biden also certified a vote that favoured the other party.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You didn't answer my question. Just can't bring yourself to acknowledge an honorable act by someone you disagree with, can you? Just too damn much to ask.

[Martinned]

I would if Trump had pulled a gun on him. But as it is, I don't think Trump asking Pence to do something that Pence knew full well he had no duty or power to do constituted "unimaginable pressure".

[bevis the lumberjack]

It was way beyond asking. You know that. Trump called him out to the mob.

But complementing someone you oppose politically is beyond your capability, so I’ll quit trying to get you to do so.

So I guess you’d agree that the count in the indictment that deals with his pressure on Pence should result in acquittal. Or do you want it both ways?

[grb]

Hell, I will : Pence behaved honorably on 06Jan. I’ll go one step further : Trump’s attempt to steal the election may have been ham-fisted and crude, but the primary reason it failed was because election officials put aside their party identity and did the right thing. This also included judges and Justices appointed by the GOP. You almost sense Trump’s befuddlement on seeing that occur. He assumed all he had to do was make some meaningless noise and everyone would fall in line, ethical obligations be damned.

That said, two observations:

1. Many of those officials who behaved honorable have been targeted for reprisals by the GOP since. Many of the faux “election reform bills” advanced by the Right post-election had provisions to move possible election sabotage measures away from people with a conscience and into safely political grounds. People always focus on the voter harassment measures in these fake-reform bills, because that’s what Republicans do: They hate voters and act to make their lives difficult and miserable. But the structural provisions were much more dangerous.

2. And there’s the general hollow nihilistic state of today’s Right. I find Pence odd and somewhat creepy, but concede he’s a honest serious man. There are plenty of other GOP candidates and people in the wings (like Youngkin) who may dip their toe in winger-craziness, but are still rational politicians and actual human beings.

But who is the Right fixated on? Trump and (a distant second) DeSantis. Two phony huckster scam artists selling nothing but cartoon theatics, empty gimmicks, and con-job scams. Their common denominator seems to be entertainment. Today’s Right sees public policy as pro-wrestling-grade spectacle, with reality more a hinderance than plus.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You want me to take the position that the GOP isn’t a fucked up mess right now? No thanks. They won’t be right until they rid themselves of the orange cancer.

[Kazinski]

I agree with some of that, most GOP officials around the country did their jobs honestly and ethically, Georgia and Arizona being prime examples.

It certainly didn’t help when local officials fought efforts by the legislature to provide oversight, it certainly made it look like they had something to hide.

And Trumps scorched earth attacks on the GOP officials wounded the party and cost several Senate seats, former AZ governor Ducey would have handily beat Mark Kelly in 2022, and Kari Lake might have been the only GOP candidate that could have lost the governors race. But 2022 wasn’t a total disaster, the GOP flipped the Congressional delegation from 5-4 D to 6-3 R, because Trump didn’t get involved in the down ticket races.

[Commenter_XY]

bevis, that is pretty much where I am at = On Jan 6 Pence did the right thing under unimaginable pressure from Trump and his lackeys. And a mob. Actions speak louder than words – the guy proved himself to be a person of integrity.

VPOTUS Pence met the moment, and acted rightly. Precisely because of that, and because of his background, I place great weight on what he says (particularly wrt his old boss). I am listening closely. Others are too, I am sure.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've no doubt that Pence has high integrity, the fact that this episode basically ended any chance of his becoming President himself is a great tragedy.

[Bob from Ohio]

He never had a real chance to be president.

[Bob from Ohio]

"unimaginable pressure from Trump and his lackeys"

I ask people to do things every day. Didn't realize i was exposing them to unimaginable pressure.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, we will put you down as being ok with what the FBI did with Twitter and Facebook then. I assume you’re a supporter of Biden’s desire for a ministry of truth as well.

And how many of those times every day that you ask people to do things do you ask them to violate the constitution and the law? Should I call the cops?

[David Nieporent]

Do you also send mobs to hang them?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bob would be unlikely to scrounge up even 1 or 2 supporters.

[OtisAH]

For the few, here’s Ken “Popehat” White on opinions and lies. In it you’ll find a handful of the lies over Indictment 3 you will be arguing against here almost daily for the next several months. It centers on the National Review’s tip-of-the-spear editorial from a day or two ago.

https://popehat.substack.com/p/people-are-lying-to-you-about-the

For the many, I got nothing. Just keep lying and making up stupid shit on the spot, I guess. What else do you have anyway? Right, nothing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Nobody’s ever been charged with this set of facts because nobody’s ever attempted to overthrow the government by fraud like this before.

Popehat is no different than not guilty. Just another goal seeking partisan. I'll pass.

[Ed Grinberg]

I bet Not Guilty thinks of himself as a fearless nonpartisan pursuer of justice. He could be Merrick Garland for all we know!

[not guilty]

I have never claimed to be nonpartisan. I am a proudly partisan Democrat, and I have been for all of my adult life.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you believe that partisanship colors your legal analysis and interpretation of facts?

[not guilty]

I am subject to confirmation bias, for sure. I try my best to be objective in legal analysis and factual interpretation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think you can try harder, no one thinks your best is remotely close to impartial.

TIA

[not guilty]

I am not impartial -- I am a partisan. But I try my best to be objective, which is a different characteristic, regarding legal analysis. That is why I am careful to support my position with applicable authorities.

[OtisAH]

Obviously I didn’t post for you, idiot. What would be the point of that? You just keep doing the stupid shit you do everyday.

[Ridgeway]

I don't think Popehat's argument is as cut-and-dried as he makes out.

Thomas' opinion in Ciminelli refers often to the "Federal fraud statutes" without definition. He may have meant just Secs 1341 and 1343 (mail fraud and wire fraud), but he doesn't say that.

Moreover, one of the cases he cites negatively, US v Girdner, involved both 371 and 1341.

NR may be wrong to read Ciminelli broadly to cover all Federal fraud claims, but I don't see it as a bad faith or dishonest reading.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Thomas’ opinion in Ciminelli refers often to the “Federal fraud statutes” without definition. He may have meant just Secs 1341 and 1343 (mail fraud and wire fraud), but he doesn’t say that.

In context, Justice Thomas's reference to "federal fraud statutes" clearly refers to the fraud crimes in chapter 63 of Title 18 (mainly mail and wire fraud), and I have trouble seeing how anyone familiar with federal criminal law could conclude differently.

Thomas’ opinion in Ciminelli refers often to the “Federal fraud statutes” without definition. He may have meant just Secs 1341 and 1343 (mail fraud and wire fraud), but he doesn’t say that.

Moreover, one of the cases he cites negatively, US v Girdner, involved both 371 and 1341.

The § 371 offense in Girdner chared a conspiracy to commit mail fraud, not a conspiracy to defraud the United States (as here).

[Michael P]

It is currently popular among some groups to broadly construe "fraud". Can someone be convicted of fraud as part of a bribery scheme where they solicit (or help solicit) a bribe with no intention of delivering a quid for the quo?

As Althouse points out, actually delivering for a bribe is not an element of that crime.

[Davedave]

Yes, you can defraud someone by obtaining goods or services through deception, even though the deception is a promise to do something illegal.

[Krychek_2]

Earlier this week I had a discussion on another thread here with another regular commenter who told me that a lot of Trump supporters hold their noses as they vote for him but they view him as necessary to stop Democratic policies that they consider worse.

If that's the case -- that the issue is that Democratic policies must be stopped at all costs -- then why back Trump? There are other Republicans running who, while I disagree with their policies, would be competent administrators and seem decent human beings. Why not hitch your wagon to one of them rather than a professional grifter who in saner times wouldn't have been allowed within a mile of the White House? Is a multi-times indicted candidate who sent a mob to the Capitol to try to overturn an election and who openly acknowledges that if he gets a second term his top priority will be retribution againt his enemies really the best that the GOP can do?

It strikes me that the GOP has chosen crazy, despite having other and better options. Why?

[Mr. Bumble]

Name your preferences in order.

[Krychek_2]

Nope. I am not going to give advice to Republicans as to whom they should nominate, not that they'd take it from me anyway. I will say that in terms of being a competent administrator and a decent human being, almost every Republican running bests Trump on those qualities.

[Mr. Bumble]

But none of them beat Biden, right.

[Krychek_2]

I don't think Trump beats Biden either. The 30% of the country that is his nutty base will vote for him no matter what; the other 70% mostly just wants him to go away.

[Krayt]

Rare is the party that, usually stupidly, lets the loser another crack at the vase.

He entertains, punching the evil opposition though.

[Nelson]

I think the opposite. The only Republican that has a chance of losing to Biden is Trump. Biden's approval ratings are so low that the only thing that could counter them is a former President whose ratings were even lower.

[jb]

Tim Scott would probably beat Biden by 10 points nationally. From a policy perspective, I'm curious why so-called conservatives would prefer Trump to him.

Honestly, almost anyone other than Trump or DeSantis would probably have a pretty big head start over Biden given Biden's unfavorables, but for whatever reason the Republican primary electorate really seems to love the least likely candidates to win a general election.

[Frank Drackman]

I like TS, but he'd get the Herschell Walker/Clarence Thomas Treatment (it was the other candidate in Jaw-Jaw, the Black Supremercist who was actually arrested fof Domestic Violence, all "34" did was pay for his Girlfriend's abortion)
OTOH, if Repubiclowns can get 10% of the Afro-Amurican Vote (Like Tricky Penis Milhouse in 1960) there won't be another DemoKKKrat POTUS "This Century"

Frank

[Ben_]

This just ignores history. Republicans tried running "moderates". McCain and Romney both did very badly.

News media liars say any opponent to the chosen Democrat is a crazy extremist and NPCs like you go along with it just like you're programmed to do.

[jb]

First, Scott isn't a moderate. Like I asked above, from a policy perspective, what's a reason to prefer Trump over him?

Second, Obama was a much stronger candidate than Biden. Trump would have never had any chance against Biden. The elections he's been in have only been close because he's run against very flawed Dem candidates.

[Ben_]

Scott is able to be cowed by pressuring him or feeding him news media narratives. Ergo he’s a de facto moderate.

Biden doesn’t need to be a good candidate. There are enough phony ballots in swing states to assure Biden wins any close election.

[jb]

Yes yes, we get that you've convinced yourself, evidence-free, that Democrats only win elections by cheating.

The point of this conversation is that there's Republican candidates with roughly the same policy preferences as Trump that are much more likely to win, but for some reason you're doubling down supporting someone who is actually likely to lose to Biden. I guess that can help you continue to feel persecuted but it's ineffective as hell when it comes to achieving your policy goals.

[Ben_]

DeSantis is good and would probably win.

Then there's Trump and some other candidates who have an extraordinary amount of work to do. Vivek Ramaswamy is doing that work and seems very good, but he has a long ways to go. The others don't seem to want to win, Scott included.

[David Nieporent]

Given how bad DeSantis has shown himself at campaigning so far, I don't know that it's at all clear that he could beat Biden. DeSantis's claim to fame is one election, in 2022. (Remember that he eked out a win against Andrew Gillum in 2018.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"From a policy perspective, I’m curious why so-called conservatives would prefer Trump to him."

Its not policy, its Scott's constant rolling over and showing his belly to libs. He's weak.

[David Nieporent]

From a policy perspective, I’m curious why so-called conservatives would prefer Trump to him.

Trump supporters don't care about policy. They just want to pwn the libs.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There are other Republicans running who, while I disagree with their policies, would be competent administrators and seem decent human beings.

Because they never follow through. Ever. It’s a ruse.

Consider decades of John McCain doing political ads about building a border wall every election year. What did he do when the Republicans controlled the government?

What did do “Standard” Republicans say about Obamacare repeal, what did they do?

What do “Standard” Republicans say about government abuses, what do they do?

What do “Standard” Republicans say about spending and debt and deficits, what do they do?

That’s why Trump has support and most national Republicans don’t.

Trump says he's going to burn Washington to the ground. That's what I want, I believe he'll do it this time.

I'm voting for him in person 2x, and by mail as probably as much 10 or 20 times (for mail I'll mark on the envelope I'm voting for Kamala so USPS will actually deliver it), then I'm going to drive to some other state, do same-day reg and vote another 20 or 30 times. I"m going to go around and collect ballots, then toss all the Democrat ones. Just like the Democrats have been doing.

[Krychek_2]

So, after you spend the day engaging in voter fraud, you'll then show up here to complain about Democratic voter fraud and how the Democrats disregard the law whenever it suits them.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and how the Democrats disregard the law whenever it suits them."
Most honest thing you've said today.

[Krychek_2]

OK, now try reading what I wrote again, slowly and carefully this time. I didn't say the Democrats disregard the law whenever it suits them. I said BCD would claim that the Democrats disregard the law whenever it suits them.

[Nige]

You illustrate his point rather well.

[OtisAH]

This is all part and parcel of the overall “Turnip committed no crimes and the crimes he committed are justified by [insert imaginary or inapplicable thing some dem did once]” line of “argumentation.”

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is it really voter fraud if everyone is doing it and no one is doing anything about it?

[Krychek_2]

Yes. You've got kids; what would you tell one of them if he said, "But dad, everyone's doing it and nobody's doing anything about it"?

[David Nieporent]

Why indulge his stupid premise? There is no voter fraud.

[hoppy025]

I had high hopes for DeSantis not being another Bush/McCain/McConnell, but his campaign is floundering. Trump isn't helping.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : "What do “Standard” Republicans say about spending and debt and deficits, what do they do? That’s why Trump has support and most national Republicans don’t"

Absolute freaking hilarious. Trump's position on debt and deficits was to cut taxes, increase spending, and eliminate all the gains Obama had made reducing the deficit year-by-year thru his presidency. The day Obama took office the projected deficit was 1.5 trillion dollars. That was the result of the Great Recession.

On the other hand, Trump ran plus-trillion dollars deficits in the middle of an economic expansion - and clearly didn't give the slightest damn about it.

BCD's jokey list just shows what a clown he is, with rhetoric so divorced from the real world that it might as well been spawned on Pluto. The reason the Right loves Trump is he entertains them, full stop. That's all they care about now: Getting the same knee-slapping yuks from politicians as they receive from Fox News or talk radio. It's all a WWE show at this point. Spectacle is all.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

grb,

You present that $1.5T deficit for 2009 as if that was the pattern and not some "great crisis" one-off. If Obama "did nothing" the deficit would've dropped since it was artificially inflated to counter one specific event. You're so ignorant and it's so easy to deconstruct your idiot tropes.

Deficits by year:
FY 2006 $410B
FY 2007 $160B
FY 2008 $450B
FY 2009 $1.42T
FY 2010 $1.29T
FY 2011 $1.30T
FY 2012 $1.09T

So look at what Obama and the Democrats did. They took one-off crisis spending and turned it into a systemic deficit. And stupid fucking idiots act like going from a one-off crisis $1.42T deficit down to a systemic $1.09T four years later is some kind of fiscal genius.

You do this because your masters told you to completely erase the time before 2008 so you pretend that the deficits were always >$1T.

It's not even true that the $1.42T FY 2009 deficit was all Bush. But the very very very stupidest of us believe it to be so. Nancy Pelosi and crew kept passing small CR's until Obama took office, and then right after he took office Obama signed the FY 2009 Omnibus bill. Obama signed 3 supplemental FY 2009 spending bills, and he signed continuing resolution, and he signed that big fat Omnibus bill.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable?id=2009

So 2009's 1.4T was Bush admins AND Obama admins, but look at what the dumbest fuckers around here say? "The day Obama took office the projected deficit was 1.5 trillion dollars. That was the result of the Great Recession."

It was projected because he was signing those bills. And guess what? Those next 4 years with those trillion-dollar deficits? Bush admin's TARP spending, which he gets assigned was paid back under Obama.

So Obama spent that $425B of 2008's deficit when it got paid back 2010-2013 and kept us at >$1T deficits for years, 3x the norm.

And because the Democrats know their voters are some of the stupid people on the planet, they did the exact same shit with COVID. They jacked up the deficits to extreme crisis numbers, turned that into systemic spending, then tell a bunch of idiots how fiscally conservative they are. Now the Federal Government will spend $6T a year and grow forever with a bunch of smooth brained NPC's clapping and crowing about how fiscally conservative the Democrats are.

But the really really really stupid people will say that's less spending and showing fiscal restraint because of the one off COVID year.

Even dumber is thinking Presidents decide spending when it's plain in day in the Constitution that appropriations originate in the House (unless you are Democrats, then you can sometimes originate them in the Senate).

[grb]

God, you’re such a liar! Even discounting your colossal ignorance, there doesn’t seem to be an honest bone in your body. Look at your clumsy attempt to manipulate the numbers. The complete list:

2009 : 1.42
2010 : 1.30
2011 : 1.30
2012 : 1.10
2013 : 0.70
2014 : 0.49
2015 : 0.45
2016 : 0.59
2017 : 0.67
2018 : 0.78
2019 : 1.00
2020 : 3.13

Now we’re seeing the complete figures, let’s deal with your brainless vacuity. There was no “one-off”, whatever your dim-witted imagination believes that farrago is. Instead, there was the effect of the Great Recession, which greeted Obama at the beginning of his presidency and lingered for years.

Though it feels like I’m explaining calculus to a cocker spaniel, please try and understand : In economic downturns tax revenues decrease and government costs rise. The exact opposite occurs in economic upturns.

So whatever your cavernously empty skull believes a “one-off” is, please forget it. First and foremost, yearly deficits are tied to the state of the economy – whether it is expanding or contracting. In fact, most of the steady decrease in the yearly deficit under Obama was caused by precisely that : The recovery from the Great Recession. It wouldn’t be honest to deny that.

But it did occur, despite your pathetic attempt to cut off the numbers so it couldn’t be seen. And something else occurred: With tax cuts and bloated spending, Trump ran the deficit back up to one trillion dollars in the middle of an economic EXPANSION. That should have been impossible. Without gross irresponsibility it would have been impossible. But Trump did it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Point out what you think I am lying about.

Three questions:

1.) Why did you cut off the years preceding 2009?

2.) Why do you ignore my proof that Obama signed much of FY2009’s spending?

3.) How the fuck have you never heard of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 with one-shot spending of $800B going to TARP and then Obama’s $800B Stimulus?

What the serious fuck.

Also, zero years between 2009 and 2017 did Federal revenues decrease. Zero years.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays

See how ignorant you are? Why do you let yourself be that way?

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : Your three questions:

1. Why did you cut off the years preceding 2009?

Duh. That was the deficit greeting Obama’s inauguration, one of the subjects of our exchange. The real question is why you skewed the numbers back before his first term’s beginning, cut them off in mid-presidency (right before Obama’s yearly deficits began to shrink), and then ignored the growth of deficits under Trump – which was the main subject of our exchange.

2. Why do you ignore my proof that Obama signed much of FY2009’s spending?

God alone knows what you think I’m ignoring. But here’s a fact: After all the parades and balls on Inauguration Day, when Obama walked to the door of the White House and patted his pocket for the key, the CBO then projected a deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars. Which is exactly what occurred. Try ignoring that.

3. How the fuck have you never heard of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 with one-shot spending of $800B going to TARP and then Obama’s $800B Stimulus?

You totally miss the point. Per BCD, there was a one time cost to the Great Recession, then everything should have returned hunky-dory to pre-2009 numbers. Wasn’t that the point of your whole vomit of ignorance above ?!? Wasn’t that the point of frontloading the numbers pre-2009 ?!? But that’s not the way economies work. Recessions equal expanded deficits and the Great Recession (which tore-up my life, btw) lingered on for years.

And since I’m teaching kindergarten class here, a reminder: The monies in the big bills you referenced weren’t appropriated in 2009 alone. You probably should know already that but don’t. Finally, let’s turn to this gem of ignorance :

“Also, zero years between 2009 and 2017 did Federal revenues decrease. Zero years.”

No freaking joke. Here’s what you’re too economically clueless to grasp: The natural state of the U.S. economy is continual growth: The population increases and the economy expands. Therefore, it's almost inevitable that each year brings increased revenue and increased costs. The only time that doesn’t occur is after an economic shock, and then revenue just resets lower and immediately begins to climb again. Once while debating another right-wing dolt about the effect of tax cuts, I tallied revenue growth as occurring in 46 out of 50 years.

The size of yearly deficits is caused by relative rates of the (almost certain) growth of revenue against the (almost certain) growth of cost. In an expansion the former rises at a higher rate than the latter. In a recession the opposite is true. Saying federal revenue grew is only slightly more meaningful than saying water is wet. It’s the rate of growth that is affected by recessions and tax cuts. It’s the rate of growth that affects higher or lower deficits

But it’s not your fault, BCD. I haven’t met a right-winger yet with a penny’s worth of economic literacy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can't even remember what you wrote an hour ago, lol wow

In economic downturns tax revenues decrease and government costs rise. The exact opposite occurs in economic upturns

Spending gapped up $600B in 2009 and never stopped growing. Crisis spending set the floor for spending.

Spending gapped up again in 2020 $2T and guess whats become new permanent floor for spending.

Revenue only dropped one year, 2008 to 2009.

dEficIts R cAuSeD bY loW REveNuEs not SpEndInG IncREAseS

Dumbass

[jb]

Let's, arguendo, say you're right on this and that it's an issue that should help us decide who to vote for.

Why on Earth would you want to vote for Trump in this case? Where is the evidence he's interested in meaningfully cutting spending since he was in office for four years and never made any serious attempts to do so?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That circles all the way back to the beginning topic about standard Republicans.

“What do “Standard” Republicans say about spending and debt and deficits, what do they do?”

Trump naively thought Establishment Republicans weren’t garbage Decepticons.

Spending bills originate in the House. Mr. Policy Wonk Fiscal Conservative Paul Ryan was Speaker and thats where spending bills originate.

Mr. Policy Wonk also, curiously, dropped the House lawsuit against Obamacares spending once Trump won. Him and Turtle also blocked wall spending, and couldn’t repeal Obamacare. McCarthy is no better. They are all garbage.

A Republican House and a Republican Senate are no better than a Democrat House and Senate when it comes to spending.

I think Trump naively went along with his RNC advisors and Establishment House ans Senate Leaders.

I don’t think that will happen again. Trump did get some pro-America shit done that he campaigned on. Unlike any other recent Republican President.

He also says he’s going to go to war with the Deep State. The Deep State is an evil, unaccountable monster who regularly oppresses us and never gets held to account. Even now, Republicans aren’t doing shit about anything. Except make angry tweets and write letters.

Trump 2.0 is the best chance we have for putting Americans first and ending the Federal Menace and to stop Forever War and propping up tinpot dictators like Zelensky who just suspended elections.

[jb]

Here's another take: Trump was actually terrible at being President.

He wasn't able to (or preferred not to) hire competent people and consistently alienated those who managed to attract. He ignored federal administrative law because he thought it was annoying or was too incompetent to understand why it was important to follow it. He didn't a legislative agenda because he had no real policy shop and didn't care to develop relationships with legislators. You know, doing all the stuff you need to do on order to actually be a successful President.

As a result, the only real legacy of his administration were his Supreme Court picks. For some people, that will be enough, but any other Republican would have selected roughly the same folks for the Court and most of them would actually have been decent at the rest of the job.

I'm sure you think this is all just evidence of the Deep State working against Trump; the reality is the guy just isn't very competent so it's completely unsurprising he's not capable of getting anything done.

[NOVA Lawyer]

BCD,

Trump 2.0 is the best chance we have for putting Americans first and ending the Federal Menace and to stop Forever War and propping up tinpot dictators like Zelensky who just suspended elections.

Wow. That's incredibly delusional. Zelensky isn't a dictator, he was elected in a democratic process, one of the most free and fair elections Ukraine has ever had and he won by a landslide of epic proportions.

Your other assertions are silly. Trump has wet dreams about creating his own Deep State, hence his efforts to put complete toadies in every important position, to turn federal government employment into nothing but a reward for supporters, and otherwise undermine the professionalism and objectivity of high level bureaucrats. He wants their first instinct to mirror his own: what's good for Trump? Rather than the question most ask now, what's good for the country?

The fact that you buy his bullshit after seeing all his broken promises (e.g., promising to eliminate the national debt in 8 years, but actually increasing it by more in 4 years than anyone else had including a pre-pandemic $1 trillion deficit during "the best economy ever") and open calls to subvert the rule of law to satisfy his own ends (from "Lock her up!" which is banana republic stuff to "Stop the Steal!" and trying to pressure Pence to subvert the Constitution, among other things). He cares about nothing but himself. You're deluding yourself if you think he cares at all about the country or you.

If you think Trump adding $8.2 trillion to the national debt in four years is the work of a winner, or not similar to what he will do if he gets another chance, you're also delusional.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : Dumbass

Admiring yourself in the mirror again? Let‘s try and break it down to a child’s level:

1. You have a budget. Every year your salary increases by ten dollars and your costs increase by ten dollars. There’s some debt on the credit card, but you can manage.

2. Times are good. The boss says, “The economy is going great, BCD. I’m going to raise your salary fifteen dollars.” Your cost increase stays the same.

3. Times are not so good. Maybe your boss says the economy is struggling. Maybe he decides to use part of your salary increase on a party with hookers and cocaine. But he only gives you a fifty cent raise. Meanwhile you actually have extra costs because of the rough times.

See? I just described the baseline (Number 1), the economy in an economic expansion (Number 2), and the effect of recession or tax cuts (Number 3). Sure, your salary went up in every example, but it was the rate of increase that mattered. Is it possible you’re too dumbass to understand this ?!?

[NOVA Lawyer]

This, the pandemic did it, is a staple on the uninformed right. But, as you say, Trump was driving us to fiscal oblivion well before the pandemic.

You can do a similar exercise with any Democratic-Republican presidency since, at least, Lyndon Johnson. Deficits tend to go down, or at least grow slowly, under Democratic presidents (particularly with a Republican House and/or Senate) and explode with Republican presidents (with or without a Republican House or Senate). It's all hat, no cattle with both standard and MAGA Republicans when it comes to deficits and the national debt. They only get religion when they can pin the blame for the pain of austerity on a Democratic president. Otherwise, they are quite happy to cut taxes and increase spending, whether in good times or bad.

It's one of the biggest con jobs ever pulled on the U.S. citizenry, that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

NOVA, as far as you understand the Constitution, where in our tricameral government does spending originate?

The President's Office?
The Judicial System?

Or somewhere in Congress?

[NOVA Lawyer]

In Congress, of course. But you understand that presidents submit budgets, right? And they have to sign spending bills for them to become law. You know, checks and balances.

And have you noticed that Republican Congress members voted against spending in Clinton/Obama/Biden years, but for it in GW Bush and Trump years?

If the deficit / national debt is your number one issue, the only rational choice is to vote for a Democratic president.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

>In Congress, of course. But you understand that presidents submit budgets, right?

So what? It’s performative if the other party controls the House.

>And have you noticed that Republican Congress members voted against spending in Clinton/Obama/Biden years, but for it in GW Bush and Trump years?

What do Democrat Congress members do when Republicans are in the WH? They act just the same don't they?

>If the deficit / national debt is your number one issue, the only rational choice is to vote for a Democratic president.

Your reasoning doesn’t follow.

A better claim would be: if deficit /national debt was your number one issue, the only rational choice would be to split your vote so there isn’t a single party in control of Congress and the Executive.

[jb]

"So what? It’s performative if the other party controls the House."

We forgot from just a couple of posts ago that Paul Ryan was a Republican? Trump had unified government for the first two years of his administration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only kinda sorta, because the GOP has serious internal divisions.

[NOVA Lawyer]

CBD:

Your reasoning doesn’t follow.

A better claim would be: if deficit /national debt was your number one issue, the only rational choice would be to split your vote so there isn’t a single party in control of Congress and the Executive.

Your reasoning doesn’t follow. At all.

To the extent there is an additional caveat to be made, it should be: Definitely vote for a Democratic President, but split your vote such that you also vote for Republican control of the House.

As can be demonstrated with Reagan and Trump, most clearly, it does no good for the budget to have a Republican president and Democratic Congress. If anything, that’s the worst combination. So splitting your vote without a preference for a Democratic president is pointless vis a vis smaller deficits.

The smallest deficits, and only surpluses in living memory, have happened with Democratic presidents and Republicans in control of the House.

Which just reiterates, if deficits and the national debt are your number one issue, it is imperative that you vote for a Democratic president. You may also vote for a Republican House member, but that packs less value, so is less important.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “NOVA, as far as you understand the Constitution, where in our tricameral government does spending originate?”

Uh huh. When Reagan exploded the deficit it was because the country was following his policies. When W Bush destroyed all the deficit gains under Clinton, it was because of W’s tax cut and spending policies. When Trump ran trillion dollar deficits in an economic expansion, it was because of Trump’s policies of tax cuts and unrestrained spending.

There’s a reason why deficits have swung wildly with changes in the Oval Office. You can (of course) double-down and say Congress was craven for following Reagan, W, and Trump. You can say they still have ultimate responsibility. But as a practical matter, the reason the deficit has regularly exploded under Republican presidents lies in the policies of those presidents. That’s too simple and true to ignore.

[Michael P]

I expect the LP to nominate another stinker this time, so (unlike 2016) I'll probably vote for whomever the Republicans nominate. Democrats want Republicans to nominate Trump, so I think Democrats deserve Trump.

[Nige]

The people who love Trump still realise he is something to be BLAMED, and he can't be blamed on the people who nominated or voted for him, somehow.

[Magister]

I want the Republicans to tear themselves apart over Trump, to nominate someone else, and to suffer Trump running a third party spoiler campaign. And to taint all other Republican candidates with the fight over Trump.

[Ben_]

"I want the Republicans to tear themselves apart over Trump,"

Not happening. Won’t happen. Most that will happen is various individuals talking past each other.

[Magister]

I didn't say I expected to get it; I was just denying Michael P's claim that Democrats want the Republicans to nominate Trump.

It is likely that Republicans will all fall in line behind Trump - the base because they like what he is or don't want to face what he is, the more important members of the party because they don't want to lose the base. Just like they did in 2016.

[David Nieporent]

There are indeed some Democrats who want Trump nominated because they think he's easiest to beat. (Same was true in 2016!) Those people are fools. He may indeed be easiest to beat, but the risk isn't worth it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think there's anybody the Democrats really want Republicans to nominate, in great numbers. The ideal scenario from the Democratic side is Republicans conceding the race, ANYBODY the Republicans run is going to be a monster just on the basis that Republicans nominated them.

[David Nieporent]

ANYBODY the Republicans run is going to be a monster just on the basis that Republicans nominated them.

Sure, kind of like the way the Dems nominated the most milquetoast centrist Democratic imaginable, and will do so again barring a personal tragedy, and the GOP has pretended and is continuing to pretend that he's the second coming of Henry Wallace. It's natural to demonize one's opponent.

In this case, of course, we're talking about an opponent who is being picked by a base that likes Donald Trump; it's hard to imagine that any such person acceptable to them wouldn't be a monster, though any such person is infinitely more likely to pivot to normalcy after being elected than DJT would be. (Look at the crazies here: they're demonizing someone with impeccable conservative credentials like Tim Scott. That's because they don't want conservative policy; they want an asshole.)

[Magister]

I think that’s partially the partisan divide and partially projection; negativity has a long history in presidential politics, but Republicans have the greater history of making stuff up. But some candidates are monstrous. (“Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” was not that unfair; LBJ and Nixon were both pretty monstrous with respect to the Vietnam war. Baseless accusations that the Clintons had people murdered were not fair. Pretending John Kerry did not deserve the medals he received was not fair.)

Edited: David Nieporent probably said it better in a reply I only saw after posting.

[Nige]

Thats the most sad-sack woe-is-me they're-so-mean whine I've seen round here, and there have been some doozies.

[Michael Ejercito]

Is a multi-times indicted candidate who sent a mob to the Capitol to try to overturn an election and who openly acknowledges that if he gets a second term his top priority will be retribution againt his enemies really the best that the GOP can do?

The retribution is part of the appeal.

Glenn Greenwald actually discussed this with Michael Tracey.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1686862144711610368

[Krychek_2]

Michael, you remind me of the man who found a bottle with a genie in it. The genie told him that he could have whatever he wanted so long as his neighbor got double. The man hated his neighbor, so he said to the genie, "Can you make me blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and lame in one foot?"

Because, faced with a choice between getting something nice for himself (that he would have had to share) or getting something nasty for his neighbor, his hatred of his neighbor was so strong that he chose nasty for his neighbor, even at the cost of losing an eye, an ear and a foot himself.

If that's the reason people are voting for Trump, they will deserve what comes next if he's elected.

[OtisAH]

And like the guy in your story he won’t care as long as the rest of us get it worse.

[Magister]

As I heard the joke, he asked for an incredibly hot woman who would do anything for him (his neighbor got two) but also to lose one testicle.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Michael, you remind me of the man who found a bottle with a genie in it. The genie told him that he could have whatever he wanted so long as his neighbor got double."

I want to be strapped to a bed and ridden by three 35-year old, 130-lb women.

[Nige]

'The retribution is part of the appeal.'

The idea or possibility that someone or something could come along as retribution FOR Trump would cause such howlings and grievances.

[Ed Grinberg]

So, Trump is less of a "decent human being" than . . . who? Biden? Obama? The Clintons? You've got to be fucking kidding!

[Martinned]

Trump is less of a “decent human being” than . . . who? Biden? Obama? The Clintons?

This is so obviously true that it takes a special kind of self-delusion to deny it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "decent human beings".

[Michael P]

People who claim their critics are trailer park trash attracted by hundred-dollar bills. People who commit adultery with interns half their age, and lie to the public about it. People who conspire to release sealed court records about their political opponents. People who advocate bringing a gun to shoot political opponents. People who lie about core aspects of their health care laws. People who play dumb about mishandling classified information and destroying evidence. People who call their political opponents a "basket of if deplorables".

You know, decent human beings.

[Nige]

All of that, supposedly, and yet there was never any question whatsoever of you somehow acheiving the moral high ground.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You are not very bright.

Let's start at the end:

People who call their political opponents a “basket of if deplorables”.

The quote with some, but not all, context:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

And she went on to talk about how the other half of Trump supporters are decent, hardworking people who worried about their jobs and family and she empathized with them and wanted to understand them and their problems.

You can quibble with whether half of Trump supporters fall in those categories, but you can't seriously dispute there are unrepentant racists, homophobes, and other bigots in the Republican Party. And they cannot be reached by any Democratic candidate. And they are, in fact, deplorable.

She didn't call her "political opponents" a "basket of deplorables." She described a subset of Trump supporters (i.e., a subset of supporters of her political opponent) deplorable. And the views of racists are deplorable. The bigots who target Muslims for being Muslim, homosexuals for being homosexual, foreigners for being born in another country, they are all deplorable and, yes, a lot of Trump supporters fall in those categories. And they cannot be converted to the Democratic party, which was her point. Their gripes are offensive to decent people, so there is no meeting on common ground with them.

Was it a smart thing, given how easy it is to take it out of context and misrepresent it as you have? No. Was it a horrible thing to say? No. Racists are deplorable. It should be said and repeated.

Your list is otherwise misleading or lame and, unsurprisingly, each bullet point is mirrored by something Trump said or did. Which kind of proves the point: Trump has all the bad qualities and acts of the last five Democratic candidates combined. And then some.

[David Nieporent]

You can quibble with whether half of Trump supporters fall in those categories, but you can’t seriously dispute there are unrepentant racists, homophobes, and other bigots in the Republican Party. And they cannot be reached by any Democratic candidate. And they are, in fact, deplorable.

It's far more than half, at this point.

[NOVA Lawyer]

My estimate would be the same as yours (greater than half of Trump supporters), as far as deplorables. And I would put in the deplorable category people who otherwise would not vote for Trump because they think another Republican would be better, but intend to vote for Trump because of is legal troubles and their overarching desire to “stick it” to Democrats.

Basically, a bunch of them are willing to sacrifice the good of the country for Trump-promised retribution. That is deplorable.

[OtisAH]

You wouldn’t understand. You have no frame of reference.

[Davedave]

I don't think it helps to ignore the real reason Trump was able to get elected in the first place is that Hillary is basically just as bad - also a complete sociopath with a lust for power over others. It's as nuts as the Corbynites who insist on using conspiracy theories to explain Boris winning an election against Corbyn because they can't accept that Corbyn was an even worse candidate. (In this case Hillary wasn't actually a worse candidate, but she was close enough to being as bad that it opened the door for Trump to win.)

Obviously Obama and Biden are nothing like that, but the Hillary-denial isn't helping fix the mess.

[Krychek_2]

I would agree with that. As a Democrat, I hated that Hillary Clinton was my party's nominee, and I would prefer that my party's 2024 nominee be someone other than Joe Biden.

That said, for all her faults, Hillary Clinton would have been a competent administrator and would have saved us all the Trump drama and shenanigans. There would have been no January 6. So while I agree that she was bad, I don't think she was just as bad. I continue to think that when it comes to being bad, Trump is in a class all by himself.

[Davedave]

Fair enough, but 'not quite as bad as Trump' shouldn't distract from the bit where the Democrats managed to pick the worst candidate they've had in living memory, and possibly ever. Without that we wouldn't have had Trump.

The biggest problem with Hillary is that she knew she was almost certainly going to lose to Trump and didn't step aside while there was still time. She was happy to take that risk as long as she didn't have to give up her outside chance of power. It says a lot about how much she actually cared.

[Martinned]

Democrats managed to pick the worst candidate

Who would have been better?

[Davedave]

"Who would have been better?"

Biden, obviously. Anyone else boring and uncontentious. Hell, they could have picked a random person from the street a few weeks before the election and won.

[Martinned]

The guy that every Republican in the country is insisting is a bumbling senile imbecil? And who spent decades voting for all sorts of dodgy legislation? In what universe is he better than Clinton?

[Davedave]

The guy who beat Trump in an election and is now President. How much kool-aid have you drunk? You sound exactly like the Trump cultists when you deny reality like this.

[David Nieporent]

In what universe is he better than Clinton?

The universe in which Obama could say, sarcastically, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

[Martinned]

Biden beat Trump after people had seen what a Trump administration actually looks like. That doesn't mean he would have beaten Trump in 2016, or that he makes a better president than Clinton would have.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn’t mean he would have beaten Trump in 2016, or that he makes a better president than Clinton would have.

But he would have, at least as to the first. There was strong antipathy towards Hillary, who has always underperformed as a candidate. There was none towards Biden. As to the second, YMMV.

[Krychek_2]

My personal choice was Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland. Jim Webb would have been pretty good too.

[Martinned]

O'Malley is way too far to the left to win a national race. As for Webb, you don't think this history would have been exploited by the Republicans in 2016?

[Krychek_2]

The Republicans would have raised it. Webb simply would have responded that he's reconsidered since then and that's no longer his position. Which is not unusual in politics.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It was an incredibly weak Democratic primary field. But, obviously, Hillary wasn't a great choice. She managed to lose. So, yes, a younger Biden would have been better. And Sanders would have beaten Trump, though I'm not a fan and I think he would have been a worse president than Hillary. Hard to say about the others, as far as whether they had enough star power to beat Trump, as weak a candidate as he was (is).

Hillary was a bad choice, not because she's a particularly bad person or, even less, because she would have been a bad president. She was a bad choice because she is a terrible candidate whom Republicans had spent roughly two decades demonizing and she had done enough questionable things that the narrative stuck.

[Brett Bellmore]

" She was a bad choice because she is a terrible candidate whom Republicans had spent roughly two decades demonizing and she had done enough questionable things that the narrative stuck."

Yeah, they were demonizing her like you'd demonize Lucifer. The narrative is basically all due to the questionable things. The idea that Republicans had picked the Clintons out as likely Presidential material decades in advance, and systematically smeared them as a precaution, is a line SHE put out, to delegitimize anybody bringing up her shady past. It was starkly amazing how many Democrats bought it.

Sure, some stupid conspiracy theorizing grew up around them as they got more prominent, (Like that doesn't happen to everybody who gets prominent.) but nobody had to demonize her, she did a grand job of that just by being herself.

[Nige]

'(Like that doesn’t happen to everybody who gets prominent.)'

They literally accused her and Bill Clinton of being the centre of a web of murders. Then of ordering children to torture and abuse from the basement of a pizzeria. I know your current line is that any Republican nominee will get 'demonised' - as if it's unfair to criticise a political opponent - but I can't remember anything remotely like that being said about Romney or McCain. They made her out to be a literal demon, or at least a woshipper of one.

[NOVA Lawyer]

What Nige said.

[Martinned]

she knew she was almost certainly going to lose to Trump

That's quite a coup, given that even Trump thought that Clinton was going to win.

[Davedave]

"That’s quite a coup, given that even Trump thought that Clinton was going to win."

Er... That is ahistorical. It was obvious from polling and electoral betting odds some time before the election that Trump was in the lead.

[Martinned]

All the models had the probability of Trump winning around 20%-30%.

[Davedave]

You are misremembering. Or talking about much earlier in the race.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I was following 538's coverage, and that's about where they were: They went into the election expecting Hillary to win, but warning that it wasn't a sure thing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And 538’s 70% estimate leaned to a closer race than almost any of the other prognosticators. I think NY Times had Hillary’s chances north of 90%.

CNN is the only outlet whose final projection was equivocal about who would win. They projected Clinton to get 268 electoral votes, Trump to get 204, and the other 66 (in five states) to be tossups.

Davedave, you’re the one being ahistorical.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It was obvious from polling"

No it was not.

"The state poll averages in key states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania prior to the election pointed to a Clinton win in each state." Gallup's Polling Matters
November 23, 2016 National Polling Accurately Nails Popular Vote by Frank Newport

She was so confident she famously never campaigned in Wisconsin.

[Don Nico]

If she had only listened to Bill, she would have won rather easily. In the end, she effectively conceded states that she had no business losing.

[Nige]

Trump won safely, but he still had to lie about it and also claim he'd had votes stolen from him, and that was after months of relentless anti-Clinton coverage and help from Russia. 'Worst candidate ever' is pure hindsight. Nobody anticipated what white grievance would do to a portion of the Republican electorate and how he would feed it and the creepy evangelical cult that would grow up around him.

[Davedave]

It's not hindsight. Some of us were able to see it near the start of the race, and lots of people were aware of it nearer the finish.

Pretending there wasn't just as much of a cult of personality surrounding Hillary is denying the problem. An awful lot of people were very busy pretending she was what they wanted her to be, rather than what she actually was.

This sort of denial is really silly, at this point. The fact is that she lost an election to an incompetent buffoon. That wasn't because she was an attractive candidate.

[Nige]

Some people on the left had an irrational hatred for her, they just thought everyone felt the same way, which created the weird overlap between bits of the far left and the right that are still there and still weird.

'Pretending there wasn’t just as much of a cult of personality surrounding Hillary is denying the problem'

Nothing out of the ordinary for partisan politics. Trump generated Pizzagate and Qanon.

[NOVA Lawyer]

She was a bad candidate. She had horrible charisma on camera or with crowds. I sense she is much better in person. But she was widely expected to win right up until she didn't.

And, Nige, that she lacked charisma was not news. That she is not a very talented campaigner is not hindsight, I think most people saw that at the time. It was just thought that her intelligence, knowledge, and competence (as well as power within the party) could overcome the charisma deficit, particularly when Republicans nominated Trump as her opponent.

Just one of many articles, try this one from Politico in May 2016:

Hillary Clinton knows her biggest weakness as a candidate is that she’s not much of one. She works hard at it, but she’s not in her element doing the things that presidential contenders need to do: performing in arenas, charming the media, electrifying the masses. “I’m not a natural politician,” Clinton confessed at a recent debate. “In case you haven’t noticed."

[Nige]

Her major selling point was she’s a policy wonk. Charismatic bullshitters are a turnoff for me. The ‘vote for the guy you’d have a beer with’ coverage gave us W Bush. All the criticism of Clinton, some warranted, some not, can't be treated in isolation from the sui generis nature of Trump and the 2016 campaign as a whole.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree with that entirely Nige. In addition, the "vote for the guy you'd have a beer with" also got us Trump.

And, like you, I find charismatic bullshitters a huge turnoff. I find policy wonks attractive as presidential candidates. Unlike a large swathe of voters, I want someone who has spent their life thinking seriously about government and foreign policy rather rather than a GW Bush or Trump who just decided it would be cool to be President.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with that entirely Nige. In addition, the “vote for the guy you’d have a beer with” also got us Trump.

Trump doesn't drink! And would never have a beer with a 'regular' person if he did.

I think that specific phrase was formulated during the 2000 election, Bush v. Gore. (Bush also didn't drink, but he still had the vibe.) But the concept goes back to Clinton v. GHWB; Clinton was the cool guy who'd play sax and hang around with you and answer the boxers vs. briefs question, while GHWB was the stuffy patrician guy.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Trump doesn’t drink! And would never have a beer with a ‘regular’ person if he did."

He doesn't, but as you point out with GW, that really doesn't change what voters think. While Trump would never have a beer with a regular guy, and in fact disdains regular people who want to have a beer and maybe bowl a round, that sort of person, generally, would love to have a beer with him. And much more than they would want to hang out drinking beers with Hillary.

[Nige]

Yeah, insult to injury, neither of the useless fuckers even drink beer. Mind you, the Trump thing turned into the bizarre messianic fascist-iconography white-saviour cult, leaving the 'have a beer with' thing in the dust.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Mind you, the Trump thing turned into the bizarre messianic fascist-iconography white-saviour cult, leaving the ‘have a beer with’ thing in the dust."

It did. Much to the detriment of the country and democracy generally. The dumb person's idea of a smart person and the weak person's idea of a strong person all rolled into one narcissistic dictator wannabe.

[Sarcastr0]

Every Dem nominee is the worst person they could have chosen, as evaluated after the fact by nice objective conservatives.

Not a useful data point.

[Don Nico]

Certainly Obama was not the worst. He was noticeable better than Clinton although of lower native intelligence. I also thought he was practiced superior ethical standards. However, note that U Chicago nearly doubled his wife's pay after he was elected Senator.

Gore was definitely as good a candidate for the D's against W.
Bill Clinton was a super candidate, naturally charismatics and incredibly smart.

[Don Nico]

"Trump is in a class all by himself."
Thank God!!

[VinniUSMC]

There would have been no January 6

Yeah, WWIII would've been started by then. Killary was chompin' at the bit.

[Martinned]

a complete sociopath with a lust for power over others

I would love to see some actual evidence for that claim. Because it seems like one of the most successful examples of character assassination in recent US history to me.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html

[Davedave]

It's funny how quickly Hillary cultists start to sound like Trump cultists. That is obviously an opinion, and the evidence supporting it is Hillary.

FFS, she's an American politician. She willingly signs up to views that are absolutely beyond the pale by European standards. Either she is so nutty hard-right that she believes in that stuff, or she is willing to tag along with the vile norm to achieve power. Are either of those compatible with what you insist on believing she was?

[Martinned]

I disagree with her on lots of issues, but unlike Trump she's honestly trying to do what's best for the country.

[Davedave]

This is the sort of cultism I'm talking about. It is demonstrably untrue, since she didn't do what was best for the country and stand down when it was clear she wasn't beating Trump into a cocked hat.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Martinned's take on Hillary isn't cultism. I have a very low opinion of Hillary's character and ethics. I frequently compared her to Nixon. Smart, competent, questionable ethics, very power hungry, but honestly wanted to use the power (mostly) for what she thought was good for the country. In a perfect world, hell, even a really good world, neither she nor Nixon every have been president or a major party candidate. But both are worlds better than Trump precisely because they do have good characteristics he doesn't (competence, intelligence, do consider the good of the country) and lack Trump's extreme malignant narcissism (nor are either anywhere near as corrupt).

Screaming cult about the fantastically uncharismatic Hillary is pretty ridiculous. She has essentially none of the characteristics which make a good cult leader/founder. There were people who got excited about the first woman to be a major party candidate and because they thought she would be the first female president, but that was about her gender, not her as some sort of amazing person.

This is in marked contrast to Trump who couldn't give two shits about the good of anyone not named Trump, much less the country. And he has all the traits of a cult leader and his followers are extremely cult like.

More succinctly, Hillary could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and a jury would give her a death sentence. Even though New York doesn't have one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"she’s honestly trying to do what’s best for the country."

Get help.

[VinniUSMC]

what’s best for the country.

Sure, which country? Certainly not the US.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He’s less decent than Obama, I think. The Clintons and Biden don’t have much decent in them either, no matter how bad Trump is.

[Krychek_2]

I think the Clintons and Biden got into politics out of mixed motive; they wanted to help themselves but they also sincerely wanted to make the world a better place.

Trump on the other hand? He just wants to help himself and doesn't give a crap about what the world looks like after he's finished with it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I think that’s a correct take, but still it remains that once the Clintons and Biden were in the profession they didn’t hesitate to take every advantage they could take, legal or otherwise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny how two bastard sons wound up as 1%ers, but Bill did donate his underwear and take the tax deduction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Help himself how? What did he do in that regard?

[Krychek_2]

For starters:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/07/19/trumps-business-hauled-in-24-billion-during-four-years-he-served-as-president/?sh=c0e39db10c02

[Mr. Bumble]

Name a recent President who left office worth less than when he entered. What specifically did he do as President to enrich himself?

[Martinned]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carter-sell-peanut-farm/

[VinniUSMC]

I think the Clintons and Biden got into politics out of mixed motive; they wanted to help themselves but they also sincerely wanted to make the world a better place.

House of Cards is inadvertently secretly a Clinton documentary.

[David Nieporent]

I think the Clintons and Biden got into politics out of mixed motive; they wanted to help themselves but they also sincerely wanted to make the world a better place.

I will go further than that: I think every single president in history pre-Trump was sincerely interested in the country's (and, yes, world's) welfare. Some were crooked, some were stupid, some had terrible ideas, but they all cared about the country.

Trump is a true sociopath and does not; he's happy to see the world burn, as long as he's left standing at the end. He cares about nothing and nobody but himself. Not even his family, except how those people reflect on him.

[Moderation4ever]

This is the interesting thing about Trump. As a confidence man he can get people to believe almost anything. During his administration he really did little but talk and he is unlikely to do more in a future administration. He is unlikely to undo many policies, most of which are beyond the control of the Presidency. Either directly or politically. Unfortunately, people value talk over actions and that is why he is the parties leading candidate for the nomination.

[Krychek_2]

There's a wonderful joke someone told me yesterday:

Q: Why can't Trump die?

A: Because hell has a restraining order against him.

[Frank Drackman]

I've got a better one
"President Joe Biden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
seriously, don't they usually embalm peoples after they die??

but people should ease up on poor Hunter, alot of Iraq/Afghanistan Vets have Drug problems

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Mine was at least funny.

[Mr. Bumble]

Honestly, neither of them were "funny".

[Noscitur a sociis]

[citation needed]

[not guilty]

A lot of Iraq/Afghanistan Vets have drug problems, but what does that have to do with Hunter Biden?

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't he serve there with "Danang Dick" Blumenthal and his brother Bo?? Senescent Joe even said Bo died over there.

[Ben_]

Democrats love to show everyone how hateful they are by saying stuff like that.

[Michael Ejercito]

One of my longtime Usenet allies, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote this about General Mark Milley.

https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&p=4515565#post4515565

If Milley won't be punished for TREASON, why should he be punished for telling the truth?

The UCMJ has simply ceased to exist by way of its blatantly arbitrary, discriminatory and partisan application.

The "leadership" of the U.S. military has forfeited all respect, and the destruction of respect for military law was merely collateral damage.

As long as Milly's not stretching a rope, the UCMJ is an utter nullity.

[Martinned]

That sounds like the kind of nutcase you'd be "ally" with...

[Michael Ejercito]

He was my ally for twenty-five years.

Here is a link to Chris's first reply to me.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.usa.constitution/c/09up2L-hkHs/m/ET0-5nrcIfUJ

[Frank Drackman]

Milley? that obese piece of Feces? good luck hanging him, and there isn't enough Pentothal in the Country to work (Barbituates redistribute to fat tissue after IV injection, he might yawn a few times, but that's it) Chair might work, but again, fat tissue diffuses the current.
Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Is this election misinformation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX2Ejqjz6TA&t=748s

[Martinned]

I would argue that election misinformation is normally defined as misinformation that seeks to influence an election, which means that by definition it has to be published before the election not after. But you're welcome to your own definition. Nothing really turns on it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe, but misinformation about previous elections is used is subsequent elections.

[Don Nico]

I would also consider including post election information that seeks to undermine the credibility or legitimacy of the election

[Moderation4ever]

I have over my lifetime seen the entertainment systems of cars go from AM radio to AM/FM, 8-tracks, cassettes, CD. My father was "tight with the brass" and would buys cars with no radio. My current car has AM/FM/Sirius and a USB port for my phone. Now Congress wants to require cars to maintain AM radio. The rationalization is that it carries the EBS signal, which is true. It is also true that almost no one listen to AM radio. Is this truly for our safety or just a gimme to the remaining AM radio stations?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1669#:~:text=Introduced%20in%20Senate%20(05%2F17%2F2023)&text=This%20bill%20requires%20the%20Department,stations%20installed%20as%20standard%20equipment.

[Ed Grinberg]

almost no one listen to AM radio.

What an ignorant thing to say!

[jb]

If you're right, automakers should want to keep AM radios without being required to, no?

[Frank Drackman]

No: Businesses often do things against their economic interests. Dodge's cancelling of the Gasoline Powered Charger/Challengers they sell every one of at a huge mark up

[Mr. Bumble]

Trying to kill the brand like Budweiser is doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

The lower and middle management is filling up with people who went through modern university indoctrination. They've got higher priorities than their employer being profitable, if it goes under they'll just move to another company.

[jb]

LOL. Last time you brought this up I showed you that the most profitable companies in America are dominated by liberals, but we’re back to this.

Don’t let some facts get in the way of the stories you tell yourself I guess.

[Frank Drackman]

Like their shitty beer wasn't reason enough

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there any other system with a broad a range as AM radio in the event of an actual emergency?
I am old enough to remember listening to "music radio WABC"
as far north as Maine, as far south as Florida and as far west as Chicago. Also used to listen to CKLW Motown Sound out of Windsor Ontario here on the east coast.

[Frank Drackman]

I remember hearing WAPE AM (W-APE?? I'm sure that's Disanto's fault) out of Jacksonville FL in my bedroom at Ellsworth AFB South Dakota 1972

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Nothing like that nighttime ionosphere to bounce those distant AM waves back to the ol' wireless set. It's been a while since I've ever-so-slowly turned a tuning dial (remember dials?) with my thumb to pull those noisy but audible broadcasts from where? It's a very cool phenomenon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Worked especially well on cold still winter nights.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, I was curious why anybody would ever think to drop AM radio from cars, when it's actually extensively used. Came across this:

Dems, GOP want to ban automakers from dropping AM radio from cars

"The auto industry has made the case that AM radio is redundant with the advent of digital options and carmakers have said the decision was the product of electric vehicles’ engines creating electromagnetic interference that disrupts AM radio signals."

So, Sirus is bribing them to build cars that won't have music available if you don't subscribe to digital, and the manufactures want to skimp on RF shielding. Something like that.

[jb]

And why shouldn't they be able to save some money on RF shielding if few of their customers cares about the feature? Seems like something that could be sold as an option so that people who don't care about the feature don't have to pay for it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"So, I was curious why anybody would ever think to drop AM radio from cars, when it’s actually extensively used."

Well Brett said it, so it must be true.

[Brett Bellmore]

AM radio stations are all over the place, is it your expectation that they're all running at a loss due to not having any listeners? And are somehow getting advertisers to pay them anyway using diabolical mind control rays piggybacked on the broadcast signals?

I'm not terribly sympathetic to the manufactures saying "But we could stop shielding against RF interference if we dropped AM!". They'd be producing cars where, even if you bought an after market AM radio, it wouldn't work anymore. RF shielding is a standard thing in all electronics design, and for good reasons. Why should the automotive industry get an exception?

[Nelson]

Car manufacturers don't care how many people listen to AM, nor whether those (completely unrelated) businesses are operating at a profit. They only care about whether or not AM radio effects the purchasing decision of the customer.

Some have obviously made the decision that it isn't a competitive disadvantage to get rid of AM. Others may make a different assessment and see having AM as an advantage. Thay's how the free market works.

Government shouldn't be involved. Emergency channels could be FM. It's not like it's only possible to broadcast emergency messages on AM.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Emergency channels could be FM."

Emergency channels are AM for basic reasons of physics. AM does a better job of getting past obstacles, which means you get better range AND fewer dead zones than FM, which is more line of sight. It doesn't much matter if your FM music drops out going through the mountains. It does kind of matter if your emergency traffic alert has dead zones.

This radio interference electric cars are putting out isn't just a problem for the car owner, it's getting extensive enough that it's impacting the usability of AM bands for other people, too. That RF shielding isn't just for the benefit of the driver!

[Nelson]

"AM does a better job of getting past obstacles, which means you get better range AND fewer dead zones than FM"

Saying it isn't as efficient as AM isn't a good enough reason for the government to get involved. If the government got involved every time the market made a decision that resulted in a less-efficient outcome for a tertiary function of a commercial product, there would be no limits whatsoever for government dictates about products.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Saying it isn’t as efficient as AM isn’t a good enough reason for the government to get involved."

Isn't that exactly the sort of judgement call legislatures make all the time?

[Nelson]

Perhaps, but as a libertarian on a libertarian site it seems weird to defend government intervention. Especially when your standard is so broad that it can be used in literally every product on the market.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying that their mandating it isn't any stranger than mandating a lot of things about vehicles. The government is literally broadcasting traffic safety info on AM in many locations, do they not have a conventional governmental interest in car radios being able to receive the signals?

And the RF interference issue they're using as an excuse? That's crazy, regulating RF interference is the sort of third party impacting thing that even libertarians will usually concede, it's absurd that EV manufactures are getting a pass on RF interference.

Now, maybe in a few years, when mobile phone access to Starlink is very widespread, the government can contract to transmit that local information through starlink, instead of maintaining it's own transmitters. But for now?

The auto manufacturers really are trying to degrade fairly important functionality.

[Nelson]

"do they not have a conventional governmental interest in car radios being able to receive the signals"

If that were the only means of sharing the info, maybe. But it isn't. They could simulcast on FM, and satellite and effectively get the same coverage. So the fact that they don't want to use other existing technologies to achieve their goal isn't a compelling argument.

"And the RF interference issue they’re using as an excuse?"

That seems like a pointless issue to argue about. There isn't a compelling government interest in mandating AM, so weak arguments (and I'm certain RF interference isn't the only, nor the most specious, one) doesn't move the needle either way.

The compelling government interest being claimed is in having vehicles able to receive emergency information. There are numerous technologies which can be utilized to distribute that information. "We don't want to do it another way" isn't enough.

"Now, maybe in a few years, when mobile phone access to Starlink is very widespread"

Sirius is available in most cars already. It's just as easy to work with them to make an "always on" channel for emergency information. Combined with FM you could get virtually identical coverage using technologies that the market has chosen, as opposed to AM.

[Nige]

More likely they can't mine your data from it and switch it off if you stop paying a subscription.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So, Sirus is bribing them to build cars that won’t have music available if you don’t subscribe to digital,"

[Nige]

Always nice when we find common ground!

[David Nieporent]

A much higher percentage of the population has smartphones than listens to AM radio, and smartphones already offer emergency alerts.

[Commenter_XY]

M4e...I do not believe it is a 'gimme' to AM radio stations, and I actually do believe it is a public safety measure (Emergency Broadcast System). I can foresee situations where communicating with a large number of people very rapidly is necessary (natural disaster, for example).

I do not agree with = It is also true that almost no one listen to AM radio.

[Don Nico]

At least for Sundays and evenings, many people listen to AM when they want to hear the live broadcast of games of their local sports teams

[Frank Drackman]

“Live” being the operative word, there’s at least a several second delay on the TV Broadcast as anyone who’s ever tried to listen to the radio audio and watch on TV, (And yes, I understand relativity, and this ain’t it) man, if I could just find a way to get that delay to pay off at Vegas.

Frank

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe in the boondocks.

Around here, all of the major sports teams broadcast their games on both AM and FM (and more).

[Moderation4ever]

I finished reading Sapiens, A Brief History of Mankind by Yuval Harris Harari. This is a very good book and one that commenters on this site might well enjoy. The book is packed with information but the author does an excellent job of make the topic interesting and so it reads well. The book covers some well-worn topics like were Homo Sapiens better off as hunter gatherers but goes well beyond the topic. What I found most interesting was the idea of how we have gone from small groups as hunter gatherers to large masses. Evolution has set a fixed number of people we can relate too, often seen as about 150. Yet cognitive Home Sapiens have developed ideas, or myths as the author call them, that allow large numbers of people to unite behind common ideas. So, our DNA limits those we can interact with while our common ideas like laws allow huge numbers to live together in cities, or practice a common religion, or to engage in worldwide commerce. Plenty of other good ideas in the book and should be considered for ones reading list.

[VinniUSMC]

Evolution has set a fixed number of people we can relate too, often seen as about 150.

Sorry, what? "We can relate to" cognitively? "We can be related to" by DNA? Please expand.

[Michael P]

It's an observed, and uncertain, threshold:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

[VinniUSMC]

Cool, thanks. I have heard vaguely of this concept, but didn't know it had a name. For me, I'm exhausted socially at about 3 people, lol...

I was confused by M4e's wording, and the "so, our DNA limits" construction of the next sentence.

[Frank Drackman]

Seen the new "Ancestry DNA" Commercial with AOC??? She traced her Puerto Rican Heritage back 6 Generations!!!
All the way to 1986!

Frank "I kid the Puerto Ricans"

[Moderation4ever]

Sorry if my wording is confusing. Homo Sapiens are similar to all other animals in that evolution encoded our DNA over millions of years. We are encoded to deal with other of our kind in smaller groups. Because we have reached a cognitive level, we can by-pass our DNA encoded limits. To do this we use common values. These values are fluid and develop much more rapidly than evolution operates. Other animal species cannot do what we have done. Their relationship to others of their kind is defined in their DNA.

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty accurate except on the timeline

[BrotherMovesOn]

VinniUSMC:
"Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths. Any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in people’s collective imagination."
The 150 number is the counter balance to this concept. The difference in affinity between a small group of people and the cohesion necessary to construct a larger, shared "reality". Great book.

[Frank Drackman]

"Homo" Sapiens??? Expect a Jack Smith Indictment for "Conspiring to Insult Homos"
oh wait, you're not a Repubiclown Ex-Potus never mind,
still, that "Homo" word is living on borrowed time,

Frank "Homo Erectus? He nearly killed us!"

[BrotherMovesOn]

Tremendous book! His follow-up Homo Deus is equally great reading, M4E.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Tremendous book! His follow up Homo Deus is equally great reading, M4E.

[hobie]

From yesterday's Bulwark:

"Before we go to the indictment, I want to remind you of an extraordinary moment during the House January 6th Committee hearings when former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann recounted an exchange he had with John Eastman on January 7, 2021:

“[Eastman] started to ask me about something dealing with Georgia and preserving something potentially for appeal, and I said to him ‘are you out of your f–king mind?’” Herschmann told the panel.

“I said ‘I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: ‘orderly transition.’ I said ‘I don’t want to hear any other fucking words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than ‘orderly transition,’” he continued.

“Eventually he said ‘orderly transition.’ I said ‘Good John. Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life: get a great fucking criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.’ And then I hung up on him.”"

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for sharing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Four moments in John Eastman history:

1.

Looks like Chapman Law School dean John Eastman is running for the Republican nomination for California attorney general. It’s hard to believe that California voters would elect someone so competent and qualified, but good luck, John!

2.

I just contributed to Prof. John Eastman’s campaign for California Attorney General, and I urge others to do the same. John is extremely smart and accomplished — he has a Ph.D. in government, he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, he has written or cowritten over 20 law review articles, and he’s a law professor and law school dean. And he’s a solid and thoughtful conservative, who I think would make an excellent Attorney General. There are things I disagree with him on, of course, but that’s inevitable with any candidate; on balance, I’m sure he would do a first-rate job.

3.
former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann recounted an exchange he had with John Eastman on January 7, 2021:

“[Eastman] started to ask me about something dealing with Georgia and preserving something potentially for appeal, and I said to him ‘are you out of your f–king mind?’” Herschmann told the panel.

“I said ‘I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: ‘orderly transition.’ I said ‘I don’t want to hear any other fucking words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than ‘orderly transition,’” he continued.

“Eventually he said ‘orderly transition.’ I said ‘Good John. Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life: get a great fucking criminal defense lawyer, you’re going to need it.’ And then I hung up on him.””

4. A true bill filed August 1, 2023:

Co-Conspirator 2, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.

Co-Conspirator 2 called the Arizona House Speaker to urge him to use a majority of the legislature to decertify the state's legitimate electors. . . . When the Arizona House Speaker explained that state investigations had uncovered no evidence of substantial fraud in the state, Co-Conspirator 2 conceded that he "[didn't] know enough about the facts on the ground" in Arizona, but nonetheless told the Arizona House Speaker to decertify and "let the courts sort it out." The Arizona House Speaker refused, stating that he would not "play with the oath" he had taken to uphold the United States Constitution and Arizona law.

Co-Conspirator 2 -- who was advising the Defendant on the lawsuit -- acknowledged in an email that he and the Defendant had, since signing a previous verification, "been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate" and that signing a new affirmation "with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate." The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 caused the Defendant's signed verification to be filed nonetheless.

. . . Co-Conspirator 2 proposed steps that he acknowledged violated the ECZ, advocating that, in the end, "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." Just two months earlier, on October 11, Co-Conspirator 2 had taken the opposite position, writing that neither the Constitution nor the ECS provided the Vice President discretion in the counting of electoral votes, or permitted him to "make the determination on his own."

. . .when Co-Conspirator 2 acknowledged to the Defendant's Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2, "[Y]ou're going to cause riots in the streets." Co-Conspirator 2 responded that there had previous been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was "not going to work."

[Michael P]

Suppose 11 million people out of a population of 340 million are in category X (3.2%). Suppose you draw a random sample of 19 people from that population. What are the odds that 7 (37%) of them are from category X?

This is not a homework question -- at least not for a statistics class. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-child-sex-trafficking-operation-finds-40-percent-arrestees-us-illegally

[Davedave]

Obviously it isn't a random sample, as the statistics demonstrate. Floridian law enforcement is racist, who knew?

[jb]

Wow, that's one of the dumbest attempted use of statistics I've ever seen.

A crime syndicate where the people involved have some things in common? You don't say! Next thing you're going to tell me is that it turns out that fully half of the people at my family reunion are close blood relatives. What are the odds?

[Michael P]

Speaking of dumb attempts, who said anything about a crime syndicate? Is the Biden administration part of this syndicate with its open-borders lawlessness?

[Michael P]

Nineteen Eighty Four was not supposed to be an instruction manual: https://twitchy.com/amy/2023/08/02/stephen-l-miller-discovers-media-backdating-stories-about-the-number-of-bidens-grandchildren-n2385939

[Ben_]

Environmentalists in the Biden Administration want Americans' lives to be worse:

https://freebeacon.com/energy/meet-the-biden-climate-official-who-wants-to-force-you-to-live-a-simpler-life/

"In a similar 2009 blog post titled, "Save Us From Ourselves," Carlson called on Americans to "use less electricity, take more public transportation, consume less, live more simply and so on" to fight climate change. Carlson argued that most people "could benefit from a simpler life" but will not "engage in dramatic behavioral change unless forced,"

[Nige]

Clean air, more efficent, cheaper and cleaner energy, cheaper more accessible transport systems, consumer items that aren't designed to become obsolete. Terrible stuff.

[Mr. Bumble]

So nuclear, right?

[Nige]

Good luck!

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot loves his Nuke-ular powered heart

[Davedave]

"consumer items that aren’t designed to become obsolete"

Why throw in this absurd conspiracy theory? Are you trying to get BCD on your side?

I have yet to hear anyone come up with a single actual example of this, rather than consumer goods that are designed with an appropriate lifespan for what they are, or are designed appropriately for ultra-cheap crap which shortsighted or poor people buy.

[Ben_]

"cheaper and cleaner energy, cheaper more accessible transport systems" are also canards.

"Cheaper" energy is more expensive.

"Cheaper" transport systems are like California's $130 billion train that won't be "accessible" for another 15 years at best.

They're just fairy tale stories, like Santa Claus and UBI and slavery reparations.

[Nige]

No, they’re objectives. That the US has become almost unable to innovate in these areas is an obstacle, but not impossble to overcome.

[Ben_]

It can be partially overcome, once in a while, with great effort, in red states.

Blue states are completely hopeless because of Democrat/union grifting, fake elections, and a government that’s filled top to bottom with people who don’t intend to serve the public.

[Nige]

‘Overcome’ does not mean ‘funnel tax-payer money to Republican donors.’

(Not Democrat donors either, obvs.)

[Ben_]

No, in fact it doesn’t.

[Nige]

Great, we agree on something.

[Nige]

Built-in obsolescence is a business practice not a conspiracy theory.

[Davedave]

No, Nige, it's a conspiracy theory - a simple rehashing of Nazi-era antisemitic propaganda. I note that apparently you also can't suggest any actual examples.

[Nige]

I have never, ever, not once heard it used in association with Nazi-era anti-semitic propaganda.

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

[Davedave]

Wow, there's a wikipedia page about a conspiracy theory. That must mean it's real!

If you refuse to recognise that it's an obvious piece of Nazi propaganda, I can't help you. Which of the similarities to how Nazis claim 'the Jews' do business are you going to deny first?

I note that you still haven't come up with an example. There aren't any in the WP page you posted. Just examples of things that are _not_.

[Nige]

I've never seen a less obvious piece of Nazi propaganda, I must say. You'll need a bit more than running an arbitrary find/replace.

Hey, if you don't understand the concept, I can't help you.

[VinniUSMC]

El oh el, dumbdumb thinks planned obsolescence is an anti-semetic conspiracy theory? That might just be the stupidest thing posted here all year.

[David Nieporent]

I have to agree with Vinni here. First, it's a real thing, openly discussed, though it is sometimes used in a sense different than the original. The original was basically about fashion (not in the sense of clothes, but in the sense of style). It later became used to also describe things being built shoddily so they'd need to be replaced; that's a more conspiratorial view of the concept, but it may still happen.

But I have never once heard it attributed to Jews in any form, and there's nothing about it that relates to an antisemitic trope. Unless one's position is that any accusation of greed is antisemitic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog has operated for

SIX (6)

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 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,

Ugh, seriously, I can't even with The Volokh Conspiracy anymore. Six whole days! That's how long they've gone without dropping some nasty racial slur on their all-white, all-male, all-conservative blog. Like, who do they think they are, some kind of champions of decency or something?

And Diary, you won't believe this, but they've managed to do it twenty-four times this year! Not just slurs, but full-on nasty discussions. I mean, come on, who does that? It's just too much!

But wait, there's more! It's not just about race with them. Nope, they're all about the hate. Gay people, women, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, they've got something mean to say about everyone! And the best part? They're all like, "We're the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, so we must be right."

But you know what, Diary? Somewhere in that big, gross pile of hatred and stale ideas, there's got to be something good. I mean, there just has to be, right? Ugh, why does everything have to be so hard?

Ugh, whatevs,

XOXOXO

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm starting to think the wingnuts who operate and constitute the target audience of this blog do not like me.

How many vile racial slurs would it take to make Prof. Volokh and his fans love me?

[Frank Drackman]

I think most people don't like Coach Jerry Sandusky

[hoppy025]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/arraignment-trump-election-interference-indictment/index.html

The headline is where 1,000 defendants "faced justice." They didn't face justice. They faced Merrick Garfinkel's kangaroo court.

[Bob from Ohio]

FBI just arrested a guy from Missouri who spent 6 seconds in the Capitol. 2 1/2 years later for misdemeanors.

No justice involved.

[hoppy025]

Exactly. It's purely guilt by association. "They were inside with other people who were doing bad things," but this logic never applies to the black "protesters" from the summer of 2020.

[Nelson]

Sure, how could he have known there he was part of a violent mob? The overturned security barriers? The smashed doors and windows? The empty tear gas canisters he had to step over?

He is a criminal who was part of a violent mob that invaded Congress and attacked law enforcement officers. He made a choice, now he gets to accept the consequences.

By your logic there's a time limit on criminality. Like a five-second rule, but for violence instead of food.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't know any law says "after 10 seconds of breaking the law there is a crime, but not before that".

[hoppy025]

You leftists seem to think that every low IQ third worlder who entered the U.S. is entitled to stay because he's been here a long time.

[Nelson]

He made his decision long before he entered the building. But how could he have known he was part of a violent mob? The overturned security barriers? The smashed doors and windows? The empty tear gas canisters he stepped over?

He is a criminal who was part of a violent mob that invaded the Capitol and attacked law enforcement officers. He made his choice, now he faces the consequences.

By your logic there's a time limit on criminality. Like a five-second rule, but for violence instead of food.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't know any law says "after 10 seconds of breaking the law there is a crime, but not before that".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why does Smith drop the hammer on Trump the day after something big drops on Biden?

[OtisAH]

What day was that, dummy?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/AndrewHClark/status/1686848265302704129?s=19

You're probably the most ignorant person here, and you got alot of competition with people like Nige around.

[OtisAH]

No no no, dummy, I meant what day did “something big” drop on Biden?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not like he's got any days available recently when something big WASN'T dropping on Biden.

[Nige]

The walls are closing in.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No one believes anything is ever going to happen to a Biden. Or any Federal Elite.

[Longtobefree]

To give the media an excuse for ignoring Biden corruption.

(Is there a prize?)

[David Nieporent]

Nothing big dropped on Biden.

[apedad]

Dear God,

Why did you make Earth the Walmart of religions?

I mean, everywhere you turn, there's cheap crap being manufactured then bought by weak-minded people.

And on certain "special" days, the cheap crap gets all dolled-up and then the weak-minded people flock (sometimes stampede!), to indulge in it.

Can you come down and give weak-minded people - and the sellers of the cheap chap - a good ass-kicking to show YOU are the only thing they should be concentrating on - and not the cheap crap?

Mucho beaucoup!

apedad

ps. That Mega Millions thing I mentioned last week is still there so . . . .

a.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I have been experimenting in the kitchen again. You a fan of jalapeno poppers? The bacon-wrapped jobbies?

You know what I discovered? If you add ~1 TBSP date syrup (got from Whole Foods) to the cream cheese, cheddar, spice mix (for stuffing the pepper), the sweet pairs quite nicely with the heat (that I jack up with cayenne pepper) and the bacon. That was a nice taste treat.

You have a favorite 'add' to poppers?

[apedad]

Fan of the jalapeno poppers? Oh yes....

But it seems like a lot of work for an appetizer (generally speaking - not your specific recipe).

[Commenter_XY]

You know what messes me up? Wrapping each popper with the bacon, and wrapping it so it stays (without toothpicks).

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
I have never tried this, but you got me thinking. Have you ever stuffed dates with jalapeño peppers. You definite want the dates to be very fresh,

[Commenter_XY]

I will need to give that a whirl....trying to figure out where to get fresh dates, though, on the east coast.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Is this supposed to be witty or something?

It isn’t. Just shows you to be an arrogant asshole who thinks you’re better than everyone else. Which you almost certainly are not.

Be careful what you wish for. Perhaps if God decided to come down for some personal smiting you might well end up among the smitees. I’m sure being super religious that you remember what happens to people who is exalts themselves…..

[apedad]

"Which you almost certainly are not."

I actually will take that as a compliment!

[SRG]

It’s been widely observed that Trump can still run for president – indeed, still be elected president, if he’s convicted of a felony – because the Constitution states the qualifications and exclusions to be or not to be president, and being a felon or in prison are not mentioned, possibly because the FFs were not foresighted enough to think it could happen.

However, I think that there is nothing stopping the GOP – if they had balls – from modifying their rules to deny a candidacy to a felon Let Trump run as an independent…

[OtisAH]

Well, nothing stopping them except for the millions of slobbering rage-monsters they cultivated the past several decades.

[Don Nico]

exactly

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure the GOP appreciates your concern.

[SRG]

Do you think that having a felony conviction or being imprisoned should DQ someone not specifically Trump from being president?

[Bob from Ohio]

Not if the people elect him/her.

We've elected dead people before, famously recently when Carnahan beat Ashcroft.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you seen our current POTUS? and not surprising, given that the average life expectancy for Parkinson's Disease is 81.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you are being disingenuous with your framing of the question. The qualifications for President are what the Constitution says they are. I agree that it is unlikely that a party's voters would choose a felon as a candidate for President but it has occurred in lesser offices (see Marion Berry in DC).
As for Trump, he has not been convicted of anything to date.

[SRG]

I am not being disingenuous, nor am I asking you to engage in constitutional interpretation

I am asking you whether you think that being a felon or in prison should be disqualifying.

IT is a reasonable deduction from your deflecting response that you do think that in all other instances but Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG, the Constitution lays out the requirements, and restrictions, to becoming a POTUS. Felony conviction and imprisonment are not listed.

Me personally? I don't want a felon or prisoner elected as POTUS. But I would also want to evaluate the facts and circumstances.

[Davedave]

How about a traitor?

[SRG]

I am of course aware of what the Constitution says or doesn't say - having actually said so in the first post on this sub-thread. The simple question is whether being a felon should be DQing. I wouldn't object if the DQ applied to only some types of felony. But if a candidate would be in prison on the date he'd otherwise be sworn in, then nope. No presidency for you.

[Frank Drackman]

You are correct sir! Ted Kennedy did not get the Presidential Nomination in 1980, but was elected to lower Orifices regularly until his Celestial Recall in 2009

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the GOP dumps Trump, the Volokh Conspiracy and Prof. Volokh will be ready to promote John Eastman as a replacement!

A John Eastman-Jeffrey Clark ticket would make this blog swoon.

Unless, of course, Prof. Volokh has reconsidered John Eastman's dreamboat status . . . but until a change in position is indicated, we should recognize this blog is still all-in for John Eastman!

[Moderation4ever]

There is a long way between being the leading candidate and being the nominee. Indictments and conviction will take a toll and people willing to tell pollsters they support Trump may not be as willing to vote for Trump in the primary. Trump has a stronger base than Biden, but I think that Democrats, Independents, and never Trump Republicans are more likely to fall in behind Biden. Saying you will vote for Trump is also saying you are willing to lose in the general.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bingo, that’s why Lindsey Graham is endorsing Trump—he’s fine with Biden as president and he doesn’t want to risk his Senate seat.

[Ben_]

Bud Light parent ABInBev revenue down 10.5% in the US. Core profit down 28%. Sales down about 15%.

Will multi-national companies learn to stop hiring negative people who reflexively look down on Americans?

[Mr. Bumble]

When they are sued by shareholders and lose?

[Ben_]

Shareholder lawsuits are a joke. They happen all the time and 99% of the time there's zero merit to them. It's just lawyers running the usual racketeering/extortion scam: pay us a settlement or you'll pay more in costs defending yourself.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Unsurprisingly, Miss Bumble has never heard of the Business Judgement Rule.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots celebrating their bigotty, bigoted, conservative victories . . . until they are replaced, by the betters, in the normal course of American progress, which is stomping their stale, ugly, right-wing thinking into cultural irrelevance.

At a white, male, transgender-drag queen-lesbian-Muslim-gay-fixated, bigot-hugging blog, of course.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is scheduled to go before a United States Magistrate today for arraignment on the D.C. indictment. This appearance should include what conditions of pretrial release are appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3142.

Rule 57.7(c) of the Local Rules of Court provides:

In a widely publicized or sensational criminal case, the Court, on motion of either party or on its own motion, may issue a special order governing such matters as extrajudicial statements by parties, witnesses and attorneys likely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury, the seating and conduct in the courtroom of spectators and news media representatives, the management and sequestration of jurors and witnesses, and any other matters which the Court may deem appropriate for inclusion in such an order.

Conditions of release may include a gag order on the accused to refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that are substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect on a fair trial. See, United States v. Manafort, 897 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Such a gag order on a criminal defendant would be a presumptively invalid prior restraint on speech. The Supreme Court has nevertheless opined that:

[O]n several occasions this Court has approved restriction on the communications of trial participants where necessary to ensure a fair trial for a criminal defendant. See Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 563 (1976); id., at 601, and n.27 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308, 310-311 (1977); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966). "In the conduct of a case, a court often finds it necessary to restrict the free expression of participants, including counsel, witnesses, and jurors." Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 104, n.21 (1981).

I haven't found D.C. Circuit authority on what procedural safeguards must accompany a gag order on a criminal defendant. Other Courts of Appeals have disagreed in that regard.

In United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596 (6th Cir. 1987), the district court sua sponte issued an order prohibiting the defendant Congressman from "making" any "extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication," including any "opinion of or discussion of the evidence and facts in the investigation or case," any statement about a prosecuting attorney, any statement about "any alleged motive the government may have had in filing the indictment" or any statement "which relates to any opinion as to . . . the merits of the case." Id., at 597.

The Sixth Circuit there opined that the gag order "is clearly overbroad and fails to meet the clear and present danger standard in the context of a restraint on a defendant in a criminal trial. Such a threat must be specific, not general. It must be much more than a possibility or a "reasonable likelihood" in the future. It must be a "serious and imminent threat" of a specific nature, the remedy for which can be narrowly tailored in an injunctive order." Id., at 600. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have applied similarly stringent tests, requiring either a showing of "clear and present danger" or "serious and imminent threat" of prejudicing a fair trial. Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 249 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Cunningham v. Chicago Council of Lawyers, 96 S.Ct. 3201 (1976) ("serious and imminent threat"); Levine v. United States Dist. Court, 764 F.2d 590, 596 (9th Cir. 1985) ("clear and present danger").

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000), rejected the clear and present danger test, opining that "If the district court determines that there is a "substantial likelihood" . . . that extrajudicial commentary by trial participants will undermine a fair trial, then it may impose a gag order on the participants, as long as the order is also narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means available." Id. at 428.

In Trump's case a gag order would be premature. An order imposing conditions of release may at any time be amended to impose additional or different conditions. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3). It would be appropriate for the magistrate judge to caution Trump about extrajudicial statements, with an admonition that statements that are substantially likely to interfere with a fair trial may result in future restrictions.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, does the fact that POTUS Trump is running to get his old job back complicate things for a judge inclined to issue a gag order.

Hypothetically, what happens if: A judge issues a gag order. POTUS Trump says, 'Ok sure'. And POTUS Trump doesn't say anything about it. He complies with the gag order. But he is then interviewed by the press who asks questions whose answers would violate the gag order. And POTUS Trump answers the questions honestly. Then what?

Where does a candidates 1A right 'step on' the gag order. For us regular folks, I get it. But a POTUS candidate? Seems like a gag order might trample all over political speech. Isn't that a huge 'no no'?

[Davedave]

Suffering the consequences of your actions is fine, per the constitution.

[not guilty]

"Hypothetically, what happens if: A judge issues a gag order. POTUS Trump says, ‘Ok sure’. And POTUS Trump doesn’t say anything about it. He complies with the gag order. But he is then interviewed by the press who asks questions whose answers would violate the gag order. And POTUS Trump answers the questions honestly. Then what?"

If the gag order was made a condition of pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, he could be jailed awaiting trial. See, United States v. Manafort, 897 F.3d 340, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2018). He could also be punished for criminal contempt pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 42(a). That would require a hearing separate from the underlying criminal prosecution, and the government would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 402 that he had willfully disobeyed the gag order.

In United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596 (6th Cir. 1987), the Sixth Circuit took into account in vacating the gag order that the defendant was a Congressman who would soon run for re-election. Id., at 600-01.

[Commenter_XY]

Hey, thanks for the complete response! Which of the two cases is more on point to POTUS Trump in your estimation....US v Manafort? Pragmatically speaking, how does a judge tell a candidate running for POTUS, that, as a pretrial condition, they can't answer or talk about a case where they're the ones who are indicted and will certainly be asked about it by voters (rightfully so)? I am not sure how that works, in practice.

Now, in the US v Ford case, was it vacated because the gag order would prevent political speech? Then I could see that case being directly on point, meaning, any gag order would have to be narrow as a needle's eye.

I know I'll have more questions.

[not guilty]

I agree with the reasoning of the Ford case, but many courts have since rejected the “clear and present danger” standard. The Fifth Circuit opinion in United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000), has some useful analysis.

Harold Ford, Sr. of Memphis was the first black congressman elected from the southeast in the twentieth century. He was indicted and charged with bribery by a grand jury in Knoxville, a city 400 miles from his home, mostly white and (then) mostly Republican. He was harshly critical of the Reagan administration and the prosecutors in the Department of Justice. The defense successfully sought a change of venue to the Western District of Tennessee.

After the gag order was reversed, Ford was initially tried in Memphis, where the jury deadlocked along racial lines, four whites for conviction and eight blacks for acquittal. The district court thereafter ruled that the retrial would take place with jurors selected from the Eastern Division of the Western District and bused to Memphis. This ruling was upheld by the Sixth Circuit. 958 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1992).

Upon retrial, a jury of eleven whites and one black acquitted the Congressman.

[not guilty]

I need to correct one thing I said. Harold Ford, Sr. was first elected to Congress in 1974. Andrew Young of Atlanta was elected in 1972.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Pragmatically speaking, how does a judge tell a candidate running for POTUS, that, as a pretrial condition, they can’t answer or talk about a case where they’re the ones who are indicted and will certainly be asked about it by voters (rightfully so)? I am not sure how that works, in practice."

Simply put: People are expected to abide by the law and court rulings. In such a situation, Trump would be required to keep his mouth shut.

It's nobody's problem but his if he can't do that.

[SRG]

Here's a scam I only recently came across though apparently it's been around for a while. It's a much more sophisticated version of the Nigerian Prince scam.

My mother - who still lives in England - received an email from a company called Steinberg Capital Partners saying that they had a buyer of some old UK company's stock who was prepared to pay much higher than the market price in order to acquire the company. The email also said that as this was a confidential matter, they were not permitted to discuss this with anyone else.

My mother called me up and told me of the email but said that she wasn't permitted to mention details. I said that this was complete crap, and she then forwarded me the email. I was sure it was a scam from the beginning, of course, but my thinking was that they would tell her that the stock was trading at, say. £5 and they would be willing to pay £7 when in fact it was trading at £20 and they were relying on some suckers not knowing - and those suckers wouldn't discuss it as they'd believe the confidentiality order.

I went a-Googling to find that the scam consisted of getting the suckers to pay a deposit, and sundry other fees, in order to transfer the stock to this mystery buyer - who then of course would vanish. I duly reported the scam to the appropriate British authorities.

Now "Steinberg Capital Partners" claimed to have offices in 7 Penn Plaza NY, and as I was coming into the City yesterday, I decided to drop in to see whether they in fact had offices there so I could then report them to the appropriate US authorities. They did not. But "Steinberg Capital Partners, 7 Penn Plaza" does sound like a kosher US firm and I wonder how many people get taken by this.

[Michael P]

Infamous science popularizer claims biology is "insufficient" to explain transgenderism, accidentally agrees with Robert Malone on mass formation psychosis and other conservatives on "grooming" charges: https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/relationships/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-fire-after-declaring-gender-is-a-spectrum/ar-AA1eEBII

[Nige]

If he's agreeing with right-wing hatemongering lies about trans people, why is the vast majority of that article right-wing hatemongers attacking him? Stupidly? So very stupidly.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot stuck in Stupidity Open Loop

[Mr. Bumble]

As EOD used to say "all duds are dangerous".

[SRG]

Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity

Is brain structure socially constructed?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No, but since the brain is plastic, it follows that if two people act in similar ways for years, they might share similarly arranged pathways in the brain.

It's the basic premise of neuroplasticity.

The Brain Sex of transgender women was estimated as 0.75 ± 0.39, thus hovering between cisgender men and cisgender women, albeit closer to cisgender men (see also Figure 1).

Which makes sense, since they were acting like men longer than they were acting like women.

Your study is descriptive, not prescriptive. Meaning, if they did the exact same experiment, but on six-month-olds, what do you think they would find?

They wouldn't find an infant with a "transgender brain between men and women, but closer to men" in the males nor a "transgender brain between men and women, but closer to the women" in the females.

Further, you have to accept the notion that there is a "female brain" and a "male brain". Which of course will get you in trouble, even if you're a Democrat Elite like Larry Summers.

Even further still, if there is a women's brain and man's brain innately and not through plasticiity, and women and men are gender's which are social constructs you have to some how believe that our brains are physically pre-wired with the notion of a social construct. And somehow human brain gender wiring transforms over time to meet the current social trends about gender.

Even just superficial consideration of the "born that way transgender brain" claim should've revealed how incredulous the concept is.

[NOVA Lawyer]

They wouldn’t find an infant with a “transgender brain between men and women, but closer to men” in the males nor a “transgender brain between men and women, but closer to the women” in the females.

In fact, they likely would, at least for some number of “true” transgender people. There are hardwired aspects of the brain and there are culturally influenced (plastic) aspects of brain wiring. There have been transgender people throughout history, even when culture was strongly against it. And some people show very early preferences for opposite gender activities, clothes, etc., prior to cultural influence (and beyond more common “tomboy” or its opposite type behavior).

And, shockingly, my own intuition above is precisely what the authors noted:

Social explanations pointing to psychosocial and environmental influences are complemented by biological explanations that include genetic predispositions and hormonal exposures. Some (or perhaps all) of the aforementioned variables may have contributed to neuroanatomical variations in transgender brains, as repeatedly observed in both post mortem and in vivo studies published over the past three decades.

Also, suggesting some portion of gender identity is pre-wired at birth, there are examples of cross-gender identifying* apes which does not appear to be due to cultural influence because the preference emerged early in life (the example I recall was of a young ape that, from an early age, identified* more closely with the males in the troupe and became accepted in the usually male only groups/activities).

*(I am using “identifying” here as a description of outward behavior, not internal self-conception to which, of course, the observers had no access.)

[VinniUSMC]

And some people show very early preferences for opposite gender activities, clothes, etc., prior to cultural influence (and beyond more common “tomboy” or its opposite type behavior).

That's impossible. The only indicator of what "gender" some activity or clothing is, is the cultural influence assigned to it by the adults around it.

This is basically the "boys play with cars, girls play with barbies, so a boy who plays with barbies is a girl" line of logic.

As the study shows, the men who think they are women have male brains. The lower quartile of the trans brain is still entirely above the upper quartile of the female brain, while the mean trans brain is roughly in the lower quartile of male brain.

This is wholly unsurprising though, when you step back and look at the significant overlap between the male and female brain. 5 or 6 of the male sample at the lower end are roughly aligned with the upper quartile of the female brain. Why are they not trans women? Why are the women at the higher end not trans men? And, given the mean sample ages, this does nothing to distinguish cultural influences.

How were their samples even selected? What was the cultural background of all of these people? Sexual orientation? Testosterone/estrogen levels? Is "brain sex" the way it's used in this study even a repeatable scientific process?

Looks more like the researchers just found what they wanted to find.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Vinni:

That’s impossible. The only indicator of what “gender” some activity or clothing is, is the cultural influence assigned to it by the adults around it.

I see you’ve adopted the most crazy leftwing academic position out there, but it’s demonstrably not true. Yes, there are lots of things that are only “gendered” via cultural influence, but it remains the case that (typically) boys like things that make loud noises (trucks, guns, etc.) and fighting and girls are more likely to want to play make believe social situations which dolls facilitate. I don’t have a quick link to any study, but the point is really too obvious to need a citation in a comment thread like this.

But it’s noted that you are all in on everything is nurture and nothing is nature. In which case, I can’t imagine why you would have any objection to transgender people, because there are no objective gender features other than gentialia anyway, according to you. Everything else, you say, is culture.

In that case, what you’re doing is penalizing thought crimes when you punish transgender people.

I don’t think you’ve really thought through what arguments really advance your homophobia and transgender bigotry.

[Michael Ejercito]

He was my ally for twenty-five years.

Here is a link to Chris's first reply to me.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.usa.constitution/c/09up2L-hkHs/m/ET0-5nrcIfUJ

[SRG]

Ginni & Clarence Thomas

[Moderation4ever]

Cute.

[Ben_]

David Brooks shows sentience in NY Times:

https://archive.li/TnXkq

He still maintains his class loyalty though. Self-dealing elites who intentionally (or recklessly and disdainfully) make Americans' lives worse are "are earnest, kind and public spirited" according to him. (So no reprogramming needed for Brooks, OK? He'll still pretend to be an NPC when it counts.)

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

All of the economic problems are from 2001-2008…the dumbest period in American history.

[loki13]

Thought for the day-

I wish people could try and live up to this challenge...

I double-dog dare you to describe how totally awesome your favorite (politician, judicial philosophy, political ideology) is, WITHOUT comparing it to any others.

[Bored Lawyer]

Capitalism is the worst form of economics. Except for all the other forms. -- Winston Churchill.

[Nelson]

I believe that was democracy/government

[Moderation4ever]

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31

Of the many philosophies that we might incorporate into ourselves this should be at the core.

[not guilty]

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 Judge Chutkan will be obliged to set a date for the jury trial of Donald Trump in the District of Columbia to begin not later than 70 days from today. If I were Jack Smith, I would be preparing to try the case pursuant to the original scheduling order. If Team Trump wants a continuance, let them bear the burden of persuasion.

This is a fairly simple and straightforward conspiracy/attempt prosecution. Unlike the matter in Florida, it does not present issues as to the Classified Information Procedures Act. The issues here are predominantly factual rather than legal. There should be no impediment to seating twelve men and women, good and true, in a jury box for a speedy trial.

[Bored Lawyer]

The obvious argument is that the same special counsel brought the Florida case first, and he is busy preparing for that. Requiring him to prepare for two trials at once (not to mention the NY state case) smacks of unfairness. At least that is what I would argue.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He evidently was able to juggle multiple crimes; why delay any trials to arrange singular focus on a particular trial?

Lawyers prepare for multiple trials all the time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, lots of lawyers try multiple cases against a former President and candidate at the same time.
Happens every day.

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah yes, the trashing of the Constitution in the name of getting Trump. Lex aurantiaco capillus

There is something called the presumption of innocence, you moron.

[Commenter_XY]

Lex aurantiaco capillus....Ok, now that was pretty funny.

The Law of Orange Hair, lol.

[Nelson]

I second that.

[not guilty]

“The obvious argument is that the same special counsel brought the Florida case first, and he is busy preparing for that. Requiring him to prepare for two trials at once (not to mention the NY state case) smacks of unfairness. At least that is what I would argue.”

Suppose Judge Chutka, in accord with the 70 day window in the Speedy Trial Act, sets the D.C. trial to begin in early October. If the trial concludes by Thanksgiving, that leaves Trump almost six months thereafter to prepare for the Florida trial. As of this writing, Trump has no attorney of record common to both trials. (Lauro in D.C., Blanche and Kise in Florida.)

[Mr. Bumble]

You just can't wait, can you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I expect to enjoy every element of the Trump trials.

The evidence.

The counterproductive comments from Trump.

The whimpering of his fans.

The bizarre legal tangents explored by Josh Blackman.

The refusal of Georgia authorities to provide special treatment to a criminal defendant who claims being a former president entitles him to snowflake status.

The increasingly desperate and delusional claims of Trump supporters.

The increasingly bizarre efforts of Prof. Volokh to divert attention toward his transgender-drag queen-Muslim-lesbian-Black crime-gay-racial slur beat.

The calls for insurrection, Second Amendment solutions, and another civil war, and the general "don't push me or . . . or . . . or . . . or else!" bluster from clingers.

The charges filed against co-conspirators who decline the opportunity to be stand-up citizens and cooperate with prosecutors.

The outrage among Republican pundits at Fox News, Breitbart, Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, One America, Stormfront, Sinclair, the Heritage Foundation, the Volokh Conspiracy, and the Federalist Society.

The exasperated wails from Trump fans when they recognize that several Trump associates have provided truthful, damning evidence to prosecutors.

The inexplicable "walls are closing in" taunts from Trump fans after verdicts convict Trump.

[John F. Carr]

The Trump cases have already gone on far too long. They are going to wreck the election. The country needs a final decision this year: exonerated or incarcerated. We won't get one. So the election will be a referendum on keeping Trump out of jail. I would rather have it be about issues.

I read an article this morning suggesting that Trump's lawyers wanted three years to prepare for trial.

[David Nieporent]

I would rather have it be about issues.

And I'd like the winning MegaMillions numbers for tonight. Mine is more likely, even in the absence of any criminal prosecutions of Donald Trump.

[Bored Lawyer]

And when is the government going to turn over discovery?
No complex trial like this would ever take place within a 70-day window, even without another trial scheduled in Florida.
But who knows, this judge might just do it.
(This is where a biased judge can screw the defendant.)

[jb]

LOL. Weren't you the person arguing that it would be good for Trump to go to trial as quickly as possible in the Florida case? Oh yes, right here: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/26/monday-open-thread-6/?comments=true#comments

Now of course since there's discussion of doing a quick trial, so of course you've switched to arguing that would be screwing Trump. Almost as if it doesn't matter what the government does, you're going to read it as somehow biased against Trump.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another moron. Those are different cases with different issues. Not to mention, when the Florida case was pending, it was the only federal case against him. And the Govt. wanted delay because of security issues.
Really, you should go the Dr. to get your knee checked for jerking.

[not guilty]

The government turned over a huge amount of discovery in the Florida prosecution at the outset; I surmise they will act expeditiously in the D.C. case as well.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161, Judge Chutkan should enter a scheduling order for the trial to commence within 70 days from today. Trump's counsel reportedly offered to waive the Speedy Trial Act at arraignment today. The Supreme Court, however, has opined that a defendant may not prospectively waive the application of the Act. Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 503 (2006). "[The] public interest cannot be served, the Act recognizes, if defendants may opt out of the Act entirely." Id., at 501.

Upthread I wrote that Trump had no attorney of record common to both trials. (Lauro in D.C., Blanche and Kise in Florida.) While that was correct according to the docket sheet when I wrote it, I see that Lauro has now moved for admission pro hac vice in Florida.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thought Lauro had practiced law in Florida for many years.

[Bored Lawyer]

So let's see, the govt. gets two years to gather evidence, but he should be forced to digest it all and prepare for trial in 70 days.

And even if he has separate legal teams, you don't think that the actual DEFENDANT has to assist his legal team to understand and explain the evidence? Not to mention carrying on the other functions of life?

Really, you guys remind me of the old saw from the Vietnam War that we have to burn down the village to save it. IMO, Trump is guilty, and I would not shed a tear if he was sentenced to prison. But it must be done in the most scrupulously fair manner, with the strictest adherence to every procedural protection, or else we are defeating the whole point of the prosecution.

[hoppy025]

Since Trump can't get an impartial jury in the District of D.C., and since the Constitution doesn't allow for moving it to another district, the whole prosecution is unconstitutional.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Since Trump can’t get an impartial jury in the District of D.C., and since the Constitution doesn’t allow for moving it to another district, the whole prosecution is unconstitutional.

That is the level of legal insight for which a white, male, conservative blog with a scant academic-legal veneer has become known!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Good. The Constitution protected slavery.

[not guilty]

Why do you claim that Trump can’t get an impartial jury in the District of D.C.?

The constitutional standard of fairness requires that a defendant have a panel of impartial, indifferent' jurors. Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.
"To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court." Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 (1975), quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961).

Jurors anywhere are likely to have opinions about Donald Trump; he is a polarizing figure. Merely having an opinion about the defendant, however, is different from having an opinion about his guilt of innocence of the crimes he is charged with. The Court must distinguish between mere familiarity with the accused or his past and an actual predisposition against him. "To ignore these real differences in the potential for prejudice would not advance the cause of fundamental fairness, but only make impossible the timely prosecution of persons who are well known in the community, whether they be notorious or merely prominent." Murphy, 421 U.S. at 800 n.4.

[Commenter_XY]

I think hoppy025 is questioning the impartiality and indifference of DC jurors; I would.

That said, I totally agree with you that no matter where the trial is held, pretty much every juror is going to have an opinion about POTUS Trump. 100% certainty. It has been wall-to-wall coverage of POTUS Trump for years now. The Murphy cites were helpful to understand how the Court evaluates this.

In these kinds of situations, where a decision has to be made where to try a case, maybe it would be easier to say 'Not DC' or 'Not Alabama'...how do those decisions get made? Which judge decides? Is there an appeal?

[not guilty]

The Sixth Amendment guaranteed the defendant the right to trial in the federal district where the crime is alleged to have occurred. An offense begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed. 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).

The defendant (but not the government) can move for transfer to a different district pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 21. If that motion is denied and the defendant is convicted, he can raise that denial as an issue on appeal.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Emmet Till would have gotten an impartial Jury in Mississippi

[David Nieporent]

I'm sorry, but that's crazy. The Florida documents case is a very straightforward one. Yes, it involves a lot of documents, and some of them are classified. But it's very simple: Trump took these documents, he had no authority to do so, he refused to give them back when asked, and conspired with a handful of other people to hide them and in other ways obstruct justice. There are no complex or unsettled legal issues — nothing novel to resolve, since Trump's only argument is a frivolous one about the PRA — and Trump basically confessed on national television.

The election case is not at all "fairly simple." It's a sprawling nationwide conspiracy involving hundreds of people. There are many more legal issues in dispute for that prosecution; I don't know how on earth you conclude that it's "predominantly factual rather than legal." It's a virtually unprecedented set of facts and legal analysis. (Unprecedented because Trump's acts are unprecedented, not because, as Trumpkins claim, Smith is stretching the laws.)

[not guilty]

The indictment describes a set of facts evincing a conspiracy that violated three statutes and an attempt that violated another. The essential issues are: (1) whether Donald Trump intentionally agreed with one or more other persons to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified, (2) whether any conspirator committed at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement (except as to the § 241 conspiracy, which does not require an overt act), and (3) whether Trump (by himself or through others pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2) attempted to obstruct, influence or impede Congressional certification of the electoral count.

These are factual issues, no matter how much Team Trump tries to obfuscate. Trump has no valid legal defenses. He yammers about criminalizing political speech, but offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 297 (2008); Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949). Speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute is simply unprotected. Giboney, at 498.

[Commenter_XY]

Robert Bowers, the anti-Semitic murderer of Pittsburgh Tree of Life congregants some years ago was sentenced to death yesterday by a jury in a federal trial. How soon does he get the needle?

I did not want this to go unmentioned.

How does that death penalty square with a federal moratorium instituted by POTUS Biden already in place?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bowers — a coward, bigot, gun nut, antisocial misfit, right-wing radio fan, and worthless loser — deserves to die.

I hope he perishes in prison, sad and alone. It appears he is headed to a super-maximum security cell and what I hope is a miserable existence.

[Bored Lawyer]

IOW, the answer CXY's question is, never.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ideally, yes

[Frank Drackman]

Ah, c'mon "Coach" he was just "Replacing" some "Bitter Klingers" (You haven't seen Bitter Klinging until you've been to Sin O' Gogue)
He was probably one of your "Conquests"

[not guilty]

"How does that death penalty square with a federal moratorium instituted by POTUS Biden already in place?"

When Bowers's appeal and any other post-trial litigation is concluded, President Biden may not be in office.

[John F. Carr]

If the government is eager to execute him it could happen in a decade. If he wants to die, maybe five years. The best bet is he is not executed. Capital punishment doesn't really exist in America any more. Death sentences are very rare and rarely result in execution.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A source close to Kerik’s legal team said at the time that they believed the records, which include sworn affidavits from people raising concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential contest, show there was a genuine effort to investigate claims of voter fraud in the last election.

In an Aug. 2 email to Parlatore, reviewed by CBS News, a special counsel’s office prosecutor requested “responsive documents as to which the Trump campaign is no longer asserting a privilege,” referring to the Kerik records Parlatore said he previously provided.

Parlatore said he was “stunned” when, after the indictment came down, the prosecutor contacted him asking for the records he said he had already provided. Parlatore said the “records are absolutely exculpatory.”

“They bear directly on the essential element of whether Rudy Giuliani, and therefore Donald Trump, knew that their claims of election fraud were false,” Parlatore said. “Good- faith reliance upon claims of fraud, even if they later turn out to be false, is very different from pushing fraud claims that you know to be false at the time.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/

Another "whoopsie-doodle" by Mr. Smith.

[jb]

LOL, have you read the indictment? Assuming the statements in there are correct there's evidence that Trump himself admitted that he knew he had lost at the same time as he was pursuing his bogus claims. (And unless these mysterious Kerik files somehow provide some good faith reliance for the broad range of false claims that Trump was making--not just one or two of them--they're very unlikely to be some sort of silver bullet for Trump.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What will historians’ consensus in 2035 identify as the most important element of evidence with respect to the conviction of Donald Trump in the federal election conspiracy prosecution?

__ Mark Meadows’ testimony

__ Mark Meadows’ text messages

__ Mike Pence’s testimony

__ Rudy Giuliani’s testimony

__ Rudy Giuliani’s text messages

__ Kenneth Chesebro’s testimony

__ Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony

__ John Eastman’s text messages

__ Donald Trump’s testimony

Tiebreaker: Same question in context of Georgia election conspiracy conviction.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach! slow down!! you're using up all your Prison Internets time, it's only August 3rd!