Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyer John Lauro, among others, has called for cameras in the federal courtroom to televise the Trump trials. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zA7kLV2VJI I agree wholeheartedly that it would be good for the public to view these trials.

Unfortunately, that is not now permissible in federal court. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."

To televise the trials would require an Act of Congress.

[Martinned]

Or an amendment of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure...

[not guilty]

That amendment is possible, but that process would likely take longer than Congressional action.

[Martinned]

I like your optimism about Congress's ability to get anything done that's Trump-related.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm amazed at the notion that Congress would WANT to enact that amendment, or that Biden would sign it.

[not guilty]

With Team Trump in favor of televising the trials, some Republicans in Congress may go along.

Congressional Democrats may heed Louis Brandeis's famous statement in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” and support broadcasting trials that focus on Trump's perfidy to a national audience. (Some Democrats may be opposed, much like Br'er Rabbit protested being thrown into the brier patch.)

Congress can move quickly when it chooses to -- remember Terri Schiavo in 2005?

[Sarcastr0]

Congress doesn't actually have a lot of equity in the minutia of criminal procedure.

[Krayt]

Congress has shitloads of equity in the minituia of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior by scammery, skimmery, getting in the way until paid to get back out of the way, letting wildcat regulators heave hundreds of billions in economic burden as a warning to business to play ball, this is why they go into power.

Just like something triggers a random person's mutant gene and they turn into an X-man, so, too, does entering Congress trigger their spouses's hidden investment savant gene.

[Sarcastr0]

I know this like your bedrock belief but it’s just zealotry not facts.

Not that there is no corruption in Washington, and insider training is not well controlled, but it is not the reason everyone runs for office, that’s nuts.

And even if it were, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure aren’t going to have a lot to do with getting away with shit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The New York Assembly was able to , they created that law solely so that sick pervert could sue Trump over 60 year old sexual assault memories.

[not guilty]

Uh, no. Donald Trump is not the only sex abuser to be sued under the window that New York provided to file civil suits that would otherwise be time barred.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Clearly, I was referring to the intent of the NY assembly.

When calling me wrong, you point to outcomes, which differs from my claim.

That’s weird.

[David Nieporent]

Clearly, you were referring to voices in your head, because that was clearly not the intent of the NY Assembly.

[Life of Brian]

because that was clearly not the intent of the NY Assembly.

Ah, gratuitous adverbs. What, pray, was clearly the intent of the NY Assembly in creating a 1-year window in which SOL-barred claims could be brought -- and prioritized over other cases -- after which things snap back to business as usual?

[David Nieporent]

The legislation was the product of intense lobbying by the trial lawyers (as well as counter-lobbying by the Church), which is why we got a one-time revival that then expired. It had nothing to do with Trump. (Note that California passed the same law, and Trump isn't accused of anything out there.) They had previously done the same thing for people (allegedly) abused as minors — again, had nothing to do with Trump — and the lawyers said, "Hey, that's not fair. More people should be allowed to sue."

[Life of Brian]

Cool story, bro. You can see the crystal-clear legislative intent dripping off your unsourced but oddly compelling words!

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : "Clearly, I was referring to the intent of the NY assembly"

Voltage!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

they created that law solely so that sick pervert could sue Trump over 60 year old sexual assault memories

I do not know the precise circumstances regarding New York, but in most jurisdictions these laws have been enacted to address wrongdoing by (and over the strenuous, immoral objections of) the Catholic Church.

Do you know the New York situation was different, or are you just blustering ignorantly on behalf of an un-American, tiny-fingered vulgarian?

[Gandydancer]

"To televise the trials would require an Act of Congress."

Since the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure aren't directly promulgated by Congress it is not obvious that an Act of Congress is required in order to change Rule 53.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_Enabling_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Criminal_Procedure

[not guilty]

The language of Rule 53, "Except as otherwise provided by a statute," means that Congress can enact a statute authorizing televising a federal criminal proceeding if it chooses to do so. An amendment to Rule 53 would be applicable to all criminal proceedings, while Congress can tailor a narrower exception, such as limiting authorization to proceedings in which a former president is a defendant.

[Martinned]

What makes you think that a normal amendment to the rules of criminal procedure couldn't be so tailored?

[not guilty]

Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(a) states that "These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts . . ." Rule 2 states in relevant part "These rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding".

The Rules of Criminal Procedure are not to be amended piecemeal.

[Martinned]

No, but you proposed an amendment that would televise proceedings if and only if they involved a former president. There is nothing in the bits that you quoted (which are in any event part of the rules of criminal procedure themselves), that would prevent such a "former presidents only" rule, assuming there was some articulable good reason for it.

[Gandydancer]

“The Rules of Criminal Procedure are not to be amended piecemeal”

Says you, pulling something dripping and brown out of your ass. But in fact .28 U.S. Code § 2072 says merely that “The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals” and, despite the appearance of “general” in that sentence SCOTUS can in fact make a rule, perhaps the one suggested by Martinned, that would allow the televising of the Trump show trials,. Contrary to the assertion that, “To televise the trials would require an Act of Congress”, a new Act of Congress would be required to prevent it.

[not guilty]

How is a rule applicable to only to trials involving a single litigant a general rule of practice and procedure?

Please cite specific authorit(ies).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt any of these dumbasses is a lawyer. I wonder how many are graduates of legitimate (reality-based, third-tier or better) colleges or universities.

[not guilty]

I have heretofore challenged Gandydancer to identify when and where he got his legal training, if any. He ran away like a scalded dog.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since when was a CV a requirement to comment here? Is anyone who argues a legal Matter required to provide other commenters with proof of their legal education?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are entitled to comment, with or without random capitalization. Your opinions on legal matters are roughly as credible or useful as my opinions with respect to quantum physics, string theory, 12th-century Chinese pottery, various brands of pole vaulting equipment, or the precise tensile strength of corrugated cardboard in certain temperature and humidity conditions.

[not guilty]

There is of course no prerequisite to commenting on this blog. When someone bloviates on legal matters, however, it is useful to know whether the commenter knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

[Gandydancer]

It is perfectly clear that someone who alleges that the term “general” is so persuasively inapplicable to Martinned’s proposed rule that SCOTUS could not do otherwise than overrule its own rule is something that is so out to lunch that only an idiot could believe it. That you are an idiot is far more relevant in evaluating everything you say than any credentials that you may or may not possess.

I will here note Katyal’s opinion piece in the WaPo (linked elsewhere on this page) contradicting you on this point. I don’t have a high opinion of him, either, but I do assume you would lose a weight-of-credentials test versus his. I don’t care, but it appears you do, and it means what it means.

[Gandydancer]

Of course Martinned’s proposed rule would not be “a rule applicable to only to trials involving a single litigant”. It would apply to future trials of Joe Biden (etc.) as well. And SCOTUS would be the judge of whether its rule was sufficiently “general”, so good luck with that argument. Further, the rule could be tweaked as much as necessary to include the trials of others, e.g. Ginny Thomas or Hunter Biden.

You are so predictably a dumbass, not guilty, that your pretensions to authority are obviously weightless. Anyway, ignoring your (and Kookland’s) demands that I engage in a battle of waving around supposed credentials is not “running away” from anything. On the internet every dog can be a Nobel Prize winner, which applies to your supposed credentials as well, and my obligation to out myself will begin the first time I rely on my supposed credentials to give weight to my arguments. Which has never happened, including in this exchange. Which you’ve lost decisively. Again.

[not guilty]

Let's see now. I challenged you to cite specific authorit(ies). To no one's surprise, you are not up to the challenge.

As for Joe Biden, under current Department of Justice policy, he is immune from prosecution while still in office as president. Suppose he is not re-elected and leaves office on January 20, 2025. What event(s) occurring subsequent to January 21, 2020 do you surmise he could be prosecuted for? (See 18 U.S.C. § 3282.) Please cite applicable statute(s) and supporting facts, if you can.

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

[Gandydancer]

Demanding specific authorities for the fact that no one can force SCOTUS to interpret “general rule” so as to invalidate any rule it has approved was ludicrous and cretinous. For one thing, it's not even a legal issue, but a factual one.

Your equally idiotic and indeed incredibly stupid demand that I cite authorities for the proposition that Joe Biden could be put on trial is similarly moronic. Not only may he leave office early, but even if he lasts until the end of his term the normal 5 yr statute of limitations will extend past the beginning of his term, and anyway TRUMP is being put on trial for allegedly illegal actions it is claimed he took WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. The comprehensiveness of your self-awareness-free stupidity is truly breathtaking.

[not guilty]

"Your equally idiotic and indeed incredibly stupid demand that I cite authorities for the proposition that Joe Biden could be put on trial is similarly moronic. Not only may he leave office early, but even if he lasts until the end of his term the normal 5 yr statute of limitations will extend past the beginning of his term, and anyway TRUMP is being put on trial for allegedly illegal actions it is claimed he took WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT."

It is not in dispute that a president may be prosecuted after leaving office for criminal conduct occurring while he was president. That having been said, what federal criminal statute(s) do you claim that Joe Biden has violated, whether before or during his term of office, for which a timely prosecution can be brought after he leaves office? Please cite the statute(s) by number, and state particularly what facts support your claim of violation.

Or in the alternative, man up and admit that you can't do so.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Gandydancer. What federal criminal statute(s) do you claim that Joe Biden has violated, whether before or during his term of office, for which a timely prosecution can be brought after he leaves office?

[Dr. Ed 2]

As there has only been ONE former president charged, aren't you getting awfully close to a bill of attainder?

[not guilty]

I don't think so. Televising a criminal trial hardly qualifies as an infliction of punishment.

[David Nieporent]

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

[Gandydancer]

Wikipedia: "A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial."

n/a

[darkknight9]

Didn't they have some kind of video workaround with covid?

[Gandydancer]

Sotomayor famously appeared only by video in some proceedings because Gorsucks (I think it was) declined to wear a mask. But the video feeds to and from her weren't made available for broadcast.

[Jerry B.]

The Washington Post agrees with you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/03/trump-trial-tv-broadcast/

That may make you feel good or bad.

[Gandydancer]

I suppose one may take Katyal's opinion as representing that of the WaPo given the stake the latter has in making the circus as much of a click generator as possible, but when Katyal asserts that televising the Chauvin trial increased confidence in its fairness he lost me entirely. But, relevant here, he makes clear that televising Trump's trial requires no Act of Congress, and I agree with him about that.

[David Nieporent]

It would be absolutely awful to televise this trial. Trump and his supporters already treat the entire campaign and presidency as a reality tv show, even treating audience size as a measure of Trump's legitimacy (and his opponents' lack thereof). All this would do is give them another chance to play to cameras. One of two things would happen:

1) Trump would turn the entire trial into a circus.

2) The judge would effectively manage Trump, preventing him from turning the entire trial into a circus but giving Trump a fig leaf to claim he's being suppressed by the court.

[Krayt]

Left: Televise it!

Trump: I agree!

Left: Whaaaa? Um, no, do not televise!

Summary of last 2 weeks.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think it would be a good idea to televise the trial, either. Do we enjoy, as Americans, washing our dirty laundry for all the world to marvel at?

[Gandydancer]

The trial is just as dirty an enterprise whether it is televised or not.

[Sarcastr0]

To televise the trials would require an Act of Congress.

The Federal Rules of Procedure are put forth by the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts, and signed out by the Chief Justice...couldn't either of them make the change?

[Krayt]

Best get moving. There may be a whole comment period to wait out...

[not guilty]

"The Federal Rules of Procedure are put forth by the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts, and signed out by the Chief Justice…couldn’t either of them make the change?"

No. The Supreme Court has the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts, per 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a). The Chief Justice has no authority to act unilaterally. The Judicial Conference is authorized to prescribe and publish the procedures for the consideration of proposed rules. § 2073(a). In making a recommendation for adoption of a rule, the body making that recommendation shall provide a proposed rule, an explanatory note on the rule, and a written report explaining the body’s action, including any minority or other separate views. § 2073(d).

[Gandydancer]

Katyal’s version, in the WaPo opinion piece linked to above:

“…the Judicial Conference, run by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., [can] vote for an amendment to Rule 53. Indeed, the conference has considered the idea of allowing cameras for more than 30 years, and, in 1994, it considered and rejected a proposal to televise criminal trials. But there is no need for the conference to resuscitate that proposal — it need only authorize broadcast of this unique case.”

[OtisAH]

Audio and transcripts will likely lead to a somewhat better informed public about the issues and mountains of evidence and testimony against Turnip. A televised trial is more likely to result in another “triumph” of optics over substance.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Biden Energy Secretary Secretly Consulted Top Chinese Energy Official Before SPR Release, Sales To Hunter Biden-Linked Chinese Energy Giant

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/biden-energy-secretary-secretly-consulted-top-chinese-energy-official-spr-release-sales

Man, between the $1/day the CCP pays nige and this they sure do get their money's worth. Well maybe not on that nige money, but that Biden money has had a huge ROI.

With all those enemy warships circling up north, I wonder if Hunter sold them Alaska and they're coming to take ownership.

[David Nieporent]

It is certainly instructive that rather than actually reading legitimate media outlets, BCD gets his "news" from kooky semi-literate conspiracy site Zerohedge.

But here's the only actual fact in the article: a U.S. government official talked to a foreign government official, which is what U.S. government officials are supposed to do. Literally every other thing in that is made up nonsense (they have no idea what was discussed) and conspiratorial spin, plus randomly saying Hunter Biden as if the author has Tourette's.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you call the Homeland Security Malinformation tip line and report the post?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but they said that their file on you is already so thick they needed to buy a third filing cabinet just for you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good let's make it thicker. I hate Nazi's.

[OtisAH]

Tone it down a scoche, idiot. At least make it believable.

[Gandydancer]

The linked article claims that Biden sold 5.9 million barrels from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to a. trading arm of the Chinese state-owned oil company Sinopec, and that this appeared to have benefitted Hunter Biden. What, exactly, are you claiming is "unbelievable" about this? (Other than the inexplicably massive vote claimed for the basement-dwelling senescent crook?)

[Nelson]

"I hate Nazi’s."

Wait, you hate yourself? That explains a lot.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : "Did you call the Homeland Security Malinformation tip line and report the post?"

I bet they said: "Isn't that the guy who bragged about being a habitual liar over a full-dozen posts?"

[Gandydancer]

I bet they didn't reference your fever dreams at all.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It is certainly instructive that rather than actually reading legitimate media outlets

Yeah, he should probably rely on the sources from which you get the bullshit narratives you so easily fall for and mindlessly regurgitate ("Hands up, don't shoot!", "The laptop story is just Russian disinformation", etc).

[Gandydancer]

Nopoint, above: "[Imran] Awan was charged with and convicted of lying on a HELOC application. And of course he did get jail time. (What do you think “time served” refers to?)"

To be fair, "legitimate" outlet WaPo DID report,

In sentencing Awan to time served — which was one day in detention and 11 months of GPS monitoring — plus three months’ supervision, Chutkan concluded: “The court finds Mr. Awan and his family have suffered sufficiently.”

So you can't blame Nopoint's misleading ignorance or dishonesty solely on his source, whatever it was. But for a dupe or congenital liar to yap about the credibility of sources is hilarious.

[Tom for equal rights]

Given the track record of the "legitimate media" outlets, who would you believe.

[bernard11]

The legitimate media.

[Gandydancer]

That's certainly [impervious to fact] YOU.

[AmosArch]

So now that we’ve established that trying to challenge or even ask for more time to examine election results through election officials and politicians is illegal, can we arrest those Holyweird celebrities that tried to convince electors not to vote for Trump in 2016 as well as everyone else who has ever tried to question or convince an election official to not do something or do something they otherwise wouldn’t with regards to an election? Or does this rule only apply to conservatives?

Also under this new ‘rubber stamp’ theory where election officials apparently have zero discretion and cannot entertain any reexamination or pause at all, why do we even have them? Maybe we can get rid of all of them and just have this giant computer that will automatically pop up the name of whatever Dem gets the highest amount of votes directly hooked up to ballot boxes since this evidently cannot be questioned under any circumstances unless the DNC says so. Might save us a bit of money.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We have to have the election officials otherwise the people won't vote right. Or atleast the election results won't be the right ones.

[not guilty]

"[C]an we arrest those Holyweird celebrities that tried to convince electors not to vote for Trump in 2016"?

The short answer is no, at least as far as any federal prosecution. Prosecution for conduct occurring in 2016 is barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

[Martinned]

Really? That's what you think the most obvious objection would be?

[not guilty]

Actually, that objection is the most obvious. It is not at all difficult to apply, and it would be dispositive of any prosecution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why not abolish the statute of limitations here as well?

[not guilty]

The Congress is free to abolish or modify the statute of limitations prospectively. However, a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003).

[Gandydancer]

That certainly worked against E. Jean Carroll's baseless claims.

[not guilty]

Unclear on the difference between criminal prosecution (to which the ex post facto clause applies) and civil litigation (to which it doesn't), Gandydancer?

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point about the only remaining distinctions between a criminal prosecution and civil litigation are that the latter allows the defendant to be stripped of a lot of due process, but you likely won't be going to jail.

[Sarcastr0]

The process that is due is different between civil and criminal because of the possibility of jail or death in the latter means the Constitution recognizes additional requirements for fairness etc.

It has been thus since well before America began.

[Roger S]

Better than that, soon the pollsters will tell us who is supposed to win, and it will be racist to expect anyone to actually cast ballots. Holding elections will be undemocratic.

[Sarcastr0]

Each day you have a new theory of what the indictment says. Maybe one day you will read it!

[Martinned]

Yes, it sure sounds like the Trumpists on VC are getting increasingly hysterical.

[grb]

Martinned : “Yes, it sure sounds like the Trumpists on VC are getting increasingly hysterical”

It’s not a complicated phenomena. One of the major appeals of Trump to his cult base was he “got away with it”. That alone gave the MAGA herd rapturous joy. They watched Trump act like a coarse bore – and he got away with it. They watched him wipe his lard ass on every political & civic institution within reach – and he got away with it. They watched him treat normal ethical restrictions with utter contempt – and he got away with it. There was his long career of petty scams, careless bankruptcies and stiffed creditors – and he always got away with it. There was his coarse whoring – and he got away with it every time. For this reason alone they shrieked with ecstasy and slapped their knees with pleasure.

But now Trump won’t get away with it. No wonder his supporters are crazed into an irrational frenzy…

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bore.

Boar.

Boor.

They all fit.

[Kleppe]

"One of the major appeals of Trump to his cult base was he “got away with it”. That alone gave the MAGA herd rapturous joy."

Is there any particular reason why I should believe you can read other people's minds?

[Gandydancer]

Or believe in his predictive powers. It's apparently going to be a great shock to him when this isn't settled before Nov. 2020 election, Trump wins, and this trial disappears into the trash heap of history along with the Mueller hoax, the impeachments, the Emoluments Clause claims, etc., etc.

[AmosArch]

An excerpt from the indictment.

Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign
attorneys would not.
b. 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

Looks pretty related to what I said to me. You might disagree with my characterization but explain how what I said had absolutely nothing to do with the indictment?

[Martinned]

Time to go back to the dictionary:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/excerpt

[AmosArch]

Uhhh what are you talking about?

[Martinned]

That you picked a random bit out of the indictment and pretended that that's what he was indicted for. Don't be silly.

[AmosArch]

Okay fine. Explain what he was indicted for and how it is not related at all to what I've previously stated and listed.

[Martinned]

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/07/monday-open-thread-12/?comments=true#comment-10186676

[AmosArch]

I call it challenge. You and the indictment call it obstruction. Stop trying to gaslight. You're not on r/politics.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prepare to be confused, outraged, and surprised as the Trump litigations develop, Amos Arch.

As usual.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not gaslighting.

[OtisAH]

First explain to everyone here why explaining the indictment to you this time will matter any more than every previous attempt to explain the indictment to you since the indictment was handed down. And I remind you that includes multiple posts on each open thread since the indictment and likely multiple posts under other threads and on other platforms. It is likely this has been explained dozens and dozens of times over the past week-plus.

[AmosArch]

The indictment itself repeatedly refers to Trump's 'lies'. Attempts to convince Pence and other officials and challenges to the electoral process just like I mentioned yet this is apparently not all all what its about I should just trust you experts lol.

[OtisAH]

My point exactly. Explaining the indictment to you is like explaining particle physics to a particle. There’s no point.

[Gandydancer]

Says the brainless particle “Otis” who has never understood any explanation of anything in his life, still less is capable of expounding one.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, the "random bits" of the indictment are not informative of what Trump was indicted for.

Tell me another.

[Martinned]

If you don't understand the difference between the description of the overt acts that support a conspiracy indictment and the conspiracy indictments as such, I really don't know how to help you.

[Gandydancer]

If you actually thought that the overt acts that support a conspiracy indictment are irrelevant to the nature of the claimed illegality of the alleged conspiracy I wouldn't know how to help you. but you're just lying, and not at all convincingly..

[Sarcastr0]

..

[David Nieporent]

Gandydancer sometimes pretends to do legal analysis here, but he's either the worst lawyer this side of Bruce Hayden or he's not one at all. In fact, the overt acts that support a conspiracy indictment are irrelevant to the nature of the claimed illegality of the alleged conspiracy. It is the illegal objective of a conspiracy that makes a conspiracy illegal. Every one of the overt acts can be entirely legal — and individually innocuous.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is the illegal objective of a conspiracy that makes a conspiracy illegal. Every one of the overt acts can be entirely legal — and individually innocuous.

That's a bingo, but most of the commenters here don't even have a card.

[Gandydancer]

"overt act
...
An open act that shows an intention to commit a crime."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/overt_act

Putting aside the presumably irrelevant distinction between willingness to do something and actually doing something (I'm willing to assume that Co-Conspirator 1 actually made the claims), and the dubiousness of the assertion that "Co-Conspirator 1" knew that his claims were false (and that they were in fact false), or that Co-Conspirator 2 didn't believe his theory that Pence's duties were not merely ceremonial, the claim that the conspiracy Trump engaged in was NOT to advance false claims is absurd.

*Again,

Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.
b. 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

[Martinned]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/indictment

[Sarcastr0]

See the indictment is about Trump. Reading it about the unindicted co-conspirators and being mad the case against them doesn’t hold up doesn’t understand what the indictment is doing.

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0 is at it again: According to him the claims about the "unindicted co-conspirators" in the indictment say nothing about what the indictment "is about". They're just in there for color and to pad the length of the indictment and we shouldn't be distracted by them.

[Sarcastr0]

The law of conspiracy does not require a case be made out about every alleged conspirator. And so the indictment doesn’t need to lay out the case about these other conspirators.
That doesn’t mean it couldn’t; doesn’t mean it could. But not doing so avoiding a lot of irrelevant cruft.

[Gandydancer]

You are being incoherent as well as stupid. If Eastland's theory that Pence's role was not merely ceremonial is irrelevant why is the "irrelevant cruft" identifying that as his theory in the indictment? Had Pence been convinced the result would have been a judgment by the relevant body (Congressional delegations voting by State, I suppose) specified in the Constitution, not a "coup". Claiming that this is criminal is a legal atrocity,.

[Sarcastr0]

This is an utterly unresponsive comment.

[Krayt]

It's not illegal to say that house over there is selling drugs for x dollars a unit...unless you are part of their sales force.

It's not illegal to lie about political stuff ("lest the government become the arbiter of truth spoken against it"), presumably unless it's lies to get government officials to misbehave.

[jb]

You managed to pull out two bits that no one has actually been indicted for. Good job on proving that you're wrong with no help from anyone else.

[AmosArch]

In so doing, the Defendant
perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:
a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1512(k);and
c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and t

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again, literally right here the 'conspiracy' is exactly what this is all about. What are you guys blind or something? Orrin made a snarky comment on another post, Gaslighto latched on to it and you all just blindly follow lol

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The Jan. 6 riot itself — which, again, was a total embarrassment for Republicans — got no one killed other than one of the protesters, Ashli Babbitt. It did .00000001% as much property damage as the George Floyd riots. It has not continued with repeated right-wing riots every day since then.

The police officer who killed George Floyd when he was resisting arrest is serving 22 years in prison. The law enforcement officer who killed Babbitt when she was trespassing is accepting hearty congratulations for killing a Trump supporter."

--- Ann Coulter
https://anncoulter.com/2023/08/02/breaking-trump-still-an-idiot/

[Nige]

When the inherent shittiness of your actions on every level are your only defence for your shittiness.

[Magister]

The January 6th insurrection did $2.73 million in property damage. .00000001% of the $2 billion in property damage from BLM riots would be 20 cents, so not even close. That $2 billion is spread over more than 10,000 demonstrations, by the way. A small percentage went bad, compared to 100% of January 6th insurrections. The estimated costs caused by the January 6th insurrection, according to the Government Accounting Office, were $2.7 billion. Rioters in both cases should have been, and have been, prosecuted.

George Floyd was handcuffed at the time he was murdered; at most he was resisting being murdered, if that. Ashli Babbitt was at the front of a mob trying to access the floor of the House where Representatives were still being evacuated -- that mob containing insurrectionists who wanted to murder Nancy Pelosi and others.

[Bob from Ohio]

"estimated costs caused by the January 6th insurrection, according to the Government Accounting Office, were $2.7 billion"

I read 3 quadtrillion. Both are equally likely.

[Magister]

How about posting a link to what you read? If nothing else, I can get a good laugh at what source you consider as authoritative as the Government Accounting Office.

The GAO report:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106625.pdf

[AmosArch]

Pretty easy to be 100% when theres just one of them. Also I'll take actual destroyed occupied buildings and deaths and directly affected land area over politically motivated cost estimates which BLM is way ahead obviously.

[Magister]

Lots of things are way ahead if there are lots more instances of them, and claims that things are obvious often cover for a lack of supporting evidence, so provide your evidence.

But here's a fact check of Ron Johnson's misleading claims:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/19/ron-johnsons-misleading-citation-data-back-his-concern-about-blm-protestors/
Johnson counted every violent protest as BLM or antifa, blamed every death at any protest on BLM or antifa, assumed all violence was initiated by demonstrators, and ignored that "BLM-linked demonstrations faced much higher levels of police intervention and force than other types of demonstrations".

[Tom for equal rights]

Magister - the actual damage for Jan 6 was probably closer to $100k-$200k,

George floyd died from the fluid in his lungs with prevented the alveoli from being able to exchange oxygen between the lungs and blood. The Knee on the back didnt help, but the primary cause was the inability to exchange oxygen.

Alveoli are tiny air sacs in your lungs that take up the oxygen you breathe in and keep your body going. Although they're microscopic, alveoli are the workhorses of your respiratory system.

[Magister]

Your feelings about the amount of damage don't count.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/04/08/capitol-riot-costs-go-up-government-estimates-273-million-in-property-damage/?sh=329451e919c5

Regardless of what else contributed to Floyd's death, he was in no position to resist arrest, and the autopsy concluded that without the knee on his neck he would have lived. Feel free to post an actual link to something that says otherwise.

[Mr. Bumble]

The link you provided eliminates the decimal point. The article states $2.73 million.

[Magister]

As I originally commented, $2.73 million.

URLs omit various punctuation in addition to converting spaces, although they sometimes appear with %2E for the period. The URL itself was not intended to suggest that the amount was 273 million, unless it was intended to be in pennies (since $ was also omitted).

[Tom for equal rights]

the 2.73m is grossly inflated by a factor of 10x.

The autopsy showed the excess fluid in the lungs. see the autopsy report - then consult your HS biology book on the respiratory system
Look up Alveoli

[Magister]

Offered yet again without proof? Pretty feeble.

Two autopsies concluded it was homicide; plenty of experts sure that it was not anything that would have killed him without police murdering him.https://www.vox.com/22373351/george-floyd-autopsy-medical-examiner-report

Here’s another link, since it’s apparently up to me alone to provide them.

The autopsy found that Floyd’s lungs contained fluid, which can be caused by fentanyl, but that kind of buildup is also the result of CPR, which paramedics performed when they arrived and presumably continued into the hospital.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html

[bernard11]

Apparently TfeR doesn't get the idea of marginal effects.

[Joe_dallas]

The crump group did not do an autopsy

Only one actual autopsy

[Joe_dallas]

You cited vox & Washington post

Vox Wp notorious for false statements

The foam was seen in his mouth prior to being placed in squad car. The cpr claim causing the fluid is bS

[David Nieporent]

Look, our resident expert on everything is here!

[Tom for equal rights]

I overlooked the navy departments later autopsy/ review of the hennipen county autopsy.

Though - I foam in the mouth and the cries of " i cant breathe" all preceded the knee on the back and preceded the CPR. Thus the autopsy conclusion that the death was caused by human induced aphyxiation is weak.

[bernard11]

So if you're having a hard time breathing, and someone puts a knee in your back and holds you down, making it even harder, and you die, it's not at all the fault of the guy with the knee?

[AmosArch]

THE MEGAULTRASUPER INSURRECTIONRIOT of Jan 6th. The only riot in the history of America. A BLOODSOAKED SKULLFLOOD MASSACRE of ONE ONE ONE nonprotestor (who may have not even been killed intentionally). Thats why we’ve moved heaven and earth and OCDed about it all time time for years. While letting that all those other trivial leftwing ‘peaceful protests’ that destroyed far more property and killed far more people and in some cases literally seized and occupied territory for long periods of time under the name of a sovereign entity and were also against and targeting the government and government buildings off the hook.

[Nige]

No, see, if you get EVEN MORE sarcastic and whiney, you'll reach the exact right level of sarcasm and whining that'll make it all go away.

[bevis the lumberjack]

That is not at all what Trump did. He hasn’t been charged for anything related to his lawsuits and requests for recounts and so on.

He’s been indicted for allegedly attempting to manipulate the process of counting and certifying vote totals from certain states.

Believe he’s not guilty of you want, but at st. Least try to be accurate as what he’d accused of doing. You’re just coming across as whiny and not convincing anyone of anything. The Hollywood actors point is just plain dumb.

[Gandydancer]

...

[Gandydancer]

Butthead: “Trump did. He hasn’t been charged for anything related to his lawsuits and requests for recounts and so on.”

Quoting AmosArch, above:

An excerpt from the indictment.

Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.

b. 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

The mentioned “strategies” are very much within the ambit of “and so on”. So you’re just lying.

[Nige]

'So now that we’ve established that trying to challenge or even ask for more time to examine election results through election officials and politicians is illegal,'

The retreat to infantilism continues.

[Gandydancer]

There's no need to emphasize the nature of everything you write.

[Nige]

Gandy hammering the point home for me.

[Gandydancer]

Repeating is what one does to aid the comprehension of infants when nothing else works. Even if it doesn't help a hopeless cases like YOU it provides clarity for others about what is going on that you are trying so hard to obscure.

[Nige]

Yes, all you really do is repeat variations of 'No YOU are.'

[David Nieporent]

can we arrest those Holyweird celebrities that tried to convince electors not to vote for Trump in 2016 as

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

[Josh R]

So now that we’ve established that trying to challenge or even ask for more time to examine election results through election officials and politicians is illegal.

No. Trump was indicted for trying to fraudulently change an outcome that he knew he lost.

[Gandydancer]

"...to fraudulently change an outcome that he knew he lost."

Josh was passed out of his various English classes because of age progression, not actual grasp of subject matter.

[AmosArch]

Limitless: The most pro-drug movie I’ve ever seen. Its okay but like most stories of this type the writer’s imagination is clearly limited and there are some gaping plot holes. The premise was ripe for huge expansion but the followup series is a massive disappointment though. Turning your concept into a cop/detective show is one of the calling cards of hack tv writers.

[Krayt]

I rather liked both, and the show had the return of Deb from Dexter, who got super powers then that's it, show canceled.

[Kazinski]

Now that its becoming more and more apparent that Joe Biden won't be the Democratic candidate in '24 I guess there are two questions:

1) Who will the Democratic candidate be?
2) How are they going to ease Joe out?

Unfortunately it doesn't seem like Trumps teflon has worn off yet, but I have hopes it will still happen. It probably won't happen while he is still neck and neck with Biden in the polls.

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point they figure they can beat Trump with a department store manikin. And why wouldn't they? That's essentially what they did in 2020, given how little actual campaigning Biden did. And in 2020 they didn't even have Trump tied up in courtrooms fighting multiple felony charges.

I mean, I thought Trump was a pretty good President, but Hillary was probably the only Democrat he could have actually won against, and he barely pulled that off. He's just not as good at politics as he likes to think, and doesn't seem to have learned anything, while the Democrats have got him dialed in.

So, it's all down to who they want to be playing puppet in the White House. Not Biden, he's not even capable of reliably reading lines off a teleprompter at this point. And Harris might insist on actually BEING President, which they can't rationalize would be survivable.

But, how to get rid of them, indeed? Biden would be easy: Just invoke the 25th amendment, force him to take a cognitive function test, and he's out. Harris would be more difficult, she's not mentally incapacitated, she's just incompetent.

I suppose just stop protecting her from bad PR, and they could have a real primary.

[Martinned]

That’s essentially what they did in 2020, given how little actual campaigning Biden did.

It's like the strategy for much of the Ukraine war: If your enemy is digging a hole for themselves, let them keep digging.

I thought Trump was a pretty good President

Out of curiosity: Because he did what, exactly?

Hillary was probably the only Democrat he could have actually won against

On the contrary, he had a 25% chance against Hillary and I think he would have ended up somewhere at that kind of probability against most Democrats. The advantage of running a populist campaign against the elite is that you don't really need to worry about the details of the actual facts of your opponent. The only Democrat who might have thrown off that calculus is Bernie Sanders.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, for one thing, he actually made a serious effort to secure our border with Mexico. Even handicapped by Congress wanting to deniably keep the border open, he was pretty successful at it, too.

He largely stopped in its tracks the regulatory state's growth.

He did a good job with Operation Warp Speed.

Would have done a lot more if the Republican Congress had been worth a bucket of warm spit, of course.

But mostly I liked the stuff he didn't do. Didn't start any wars. Didn't set out to ban gas appliances, or force people to buy electric cars by setting impossibly high mileage standards. Mostly refrained from pushing gun control.

A guy doesn't have to do a lot FOR you to be your bestie, if the alternative is somebody determined to do things to you.

[Martinned]

he actually made a serious effort to secure our border with Mexico

Words fail to describe how much he really, really didn't. 10 miles of border wall that you can walk around or even through is the very opposite of a serious effort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_wall#Effectiveness

[Brett Bellmore]

"Even handicapped by Congress wanting to deniably keep the border open"

I've linked here to the actual border enforcement statistics, multiple times. He, by the numbers, was doing a great job. Within a couple months of taking office, Biden was doing a worse job than Trump's worst month, and stayed there.

He could have done an even better job if Congress hadn't been fighting so hard to keep him from succeeding.

[Nige]

He turned the border in into a human rights horror show. Biden is better; it's only a human rights nightmare. I realise that consideration is negligible to you, but I reject the idea that this means Trump did a good job.

[hoppy025]

Oh, noes, people were separated from their criminal parents for a few days! The horror!

[Gandydancer]

Criminal ALLEGED parents.

[Martinned]

By that logic, you must really love Biden.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2023/feb/23/joe-biden-immigration-policy-trump

[Gandydancer]

Complaint: "the Biden administration is now proposing a new set of policies that would make all people ineligible to claim asylum at the nation’s southern border unless they follow a strict set of guidelines."

The horror! (If you believe he means it, which no sensible person does.)

[Gandydancer]

You apparently didn't bother to read the Wikipedia article section you linked to, as it is full of testimonials to the effectiveness of barriers:

"...the American Economic Journal found that wall construction caused a 15–35 percent reduction in migration..."

"The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has frequently called for more physical barriers, citing their efficacy. "I started in the San Diego sector in 1992 and it didn't matter how many agents we lined up," said Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott. "We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control."[64]"

"Carla Provost, the chief of U.S. border patrol, stated "We already have many miles, over 600 miles (970 km) of barrier along the border. I have been in locations where there was no barrier, and then I was there when we put it up. It certainly helps. It's not a be all end all. It's a part of a system. We need the technology, we need that infrastructure".[65]"

"In October 2020, the DHS published data indicating that the new border barrier has been effective at reducing the number of illegal border entries. The barrier also reduced ongoing manpower costs in at least one area in which it had been built.[71]"

Of course, Trump was a squish when it came to, e.g., opposing catch and release, but the comparison to be made is with the likes of Hillary and Biden.

[Martinned]

I did read that, and concluded that economists aren't very good at measuring the difference between the effect of building a wall and the effect of talking about building a wall, and that there are lots of people who, for a variety of reasons, would like the Federal government to build more walls.

[Gandydancer]

If talking about building a barrier had good effects (and it did) then doing so is a plus for Trump.

As the fact that Biden's election was a signal for a rush north is a black mark for Biden, since what he said and did was the cause of a bad effect.

[bernard11]

Nice selective quoting, gandydancer.

Research at Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University indicated that the wall, and border walls in general, are unlikely to be effective at reducing illegal immigration or movement of contraband.[56] By contrast, the American Economic Journal found that wall construction caused a 15–35 percent reduction in migration, varying with proximity to the barrier.[57]

By the way, the American Economic Journal didn't find anything. They published a paper by one researcher who found that.

Further,

Critics of Trump's plan note that expanding the wall would not stop the routine misuse of legal ports of entry by people smuggling contraband, overstaying travel visas, using fraudulent documents, or stowing away.

[Gandydancer]

Critics of Trump say all sorts of shit, but Martinned linked to Wikipedia in an effort to show that Trump was “really, really” ineffective, and the section he linked to didn’t support his claim. Accusing me of “selective quotation” because I selected the quotes that show that is truly brain-dead. I wasn’t trying to represent the overall negativity of so-very-Woke Wikipedia towards Trump, merely pointing out that even that biased venue didn’t by its text support his claim.

As to the statement about what the American Economic Journal “found”, you can change it if you want. The local claque will be happy to have a less pro-Trump slant put on the line, I am sure. I just took the quotes the way I found them. And the Arbs gave me a "BLP ban" a few years back (because I noted on a talk page that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was clearly the beneficiary of racial discrimination after washing out of UT Austin) so I am prohibited from making the correction.

[bernard11]

But you ignore the fact that research at Texas A&M and Texas Tech found that walls "are unlikely to be effective."

Again, that's not the whole university, just some individual researchers, just like your American Economic Journal article.

[Martinned]

He largely stopped in its tracks the regulatory state’s growth.

Well yes. Appointing people to run departments and agencies who are wildly incompetent and/or ideologically opposed to the very mission of the organisation they've been appointed to run will do that, but that's hardly what a proper president ought to do.

He did a good job with Operation Warp Speed.

It's all relative. Here in the UK I got my vaccines months before most of the US did.

Didn’t start any wars.

Except that he picked a fight with China and with Iran. But sure, no actual shooting happened (yet).

Didn’t set out to ban gas appliances, or force people to buy electric cars by setting impossibly high mileage standards.

Sure! Screw the livability of our planet!

Mostly refrained from pushing gun control.

Screw the livability of America's inner cities! Screw the poor!

[Nige]

He banned the use of the phrase ‘climate change’ in government-run scientific agencies. The equivalent of drawing on a storm chart with a sharpie.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige bot easily provoked

[Frank Drackman]

You got your vaccines before the US?? you're welcome
oh, and thanks for testing them out for us, oh, and you're welcome for saving you in 2 World Wars (bitte Sehr!)
And since you still believe in Santa Claus won't spoil it for you and tell you where the power for your Electric Cars comes from (it's not Elves in the wall)
Oh, and that "Electric Jet" the RAF used to have, guess what? burned Kerosene, just like the Eurofighter.
And I'll put our Inner City Poor up against yours any day (not really fair ours are all armed and yours aren't)

OK, I'll accept your NHS is pretty good (for "Free" medical treatment)
So what's the effing deal with your Teeth?????

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"and/or ideologically opposed to the very mission of the organisation they’ve been appointed to run"

I'M ideologically opposed to the very mission of a lot of these organizations, so why wouldn't I like that?

Point is, whether somebody is a 'good' President is largely a function of what you WANT a President to do. Of course he looked like a bad President to people who wanted different policies than the people who voted for him did.

So freaking what? I mostly got out of him what I want a President do to: Stay out of my face.

[Nige]

You had no problem with him getting in everybody else's face, though. In fact, that was the one thing he was truly good at, so it's unlikely it wasn't a huge consideration in voting for him.

[Martinned]

why wouldn’t I like that?

Because it runs contrary to the President's constitutional obligation to see that the laws be faithfully executed. If you don't like the Department of Education, secure that it is abolished, don't put Betsy DeVos in charge.

[Gandydancer]

Devos was under no Constitutional obligation to push your tranny-friendly policies on the American people just because she was put in charge of the Department of Education.

[Martinned]

Point is, whether somebody is a ‘good’ President is largely a function of what you WANT a President to do. Of course he looked like a bad President to people who wanted different policies than the people who voted for him did.

Not at all. I'm perfectly capable of judging whether President X was good at delivering his objectives, regardless of whether I agree with those objectives. And Trump was broadly terrible at delivering at his (ostensible) objectives, except in areas where he basically didn't pay any attention and left the conservative establishment to get on with things.

Separately, if the President's objectives include reneging on his constitutional duties, I think all American voters should criticise him for that, regardless of what they otherwise think of his objectives.

[Gandydancer]

It's really tedious when you asserts that Trump's "constitutional duties" were to do what you wanted him to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's particularly funny to appeal to the "take care" clause at the same time complaining about a President trying to secure the border.

[Martinned]

I didn't complain about a President securing the border (whatever that means). I complained about a President using a classic Potemkin village strategy to make people think he was securing the border when in fact he was doing nothing of the sort.

[Nige]

'Securing the border' turned out to be primarily a pretext for fraud, of course.

[SimonP]

You seem to be under the misimpression that there is a statute directing the President to build a border wall or, for that matter, to "secure the border."

You might prefer to cite immigration statistics during Trump's term as proof that he was doing a good job on that front, but this seems to ignore what his actual statutory and constitutional duties were. They weren't - to put it plainly - to achieve your xenophobic aims, which are not actually reflected in the law. We have, for instance, a legal immigration system, treaty and statutory asylum obligations, and overall just more undocumented immigrants than we have the resources to deal with.

All of which Trump abused. His big innovation on asylum was just to summarily deport applicants and deny applications on spurious grounds. He cynically exploited COVID to streamline the deportation process of immigrants caught at the border. He used punitive and likely illegal policies to discourage immigrants from even making the effort (or, at any rate, from trying to immigrate in easier-to-catch ways).

So, yes - it is absolutely consistent to claim that Trump didn't "take care" that U.S. law be properly enforced and that he fucked up immigration policy. Because as it happens he wasn't "taking care" in that area, either. He was just implementing your policy preferences by fiat.

[Gandydancer]

TLDR version of Simon P: "Whine, whine, whine,...."

[Krayt]

He was largely fought to a standstill through political process, and a do nothing president (beyond hot air) at least isn't making things worse.

I don't think that's what either side likes, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, you can be competent independent of what you're trying to do, but if you're trying to do the right thing, incompetence is a regrettable defect. If you're trying to do the WRONG thing, it's more of a saving grace.

I'd rather have a President incompetently trying to do the right thing, than doing a bang up job of doing the wrong thing.

[Martinned]

I’d rather have a President incompetently trying to do the right thing, than doing a bang up job of doing the wrong thing.

That's basically the dilemma with Trump: Would we rather have a president who is evil and competent?

[Gandydancer]

What we (apparently) actually chose was evil and incontinent.

[Martinned]

I can't say I've ever wondered what's going on in Trump's diapers. To each his own, I guess.

[David Nieporent]

It’s all relative. Here in the UK I got my vaccines months before most of the US did.

That seems unlikely, unless you got the less safe/effective AstraZeneca vaccine.

[Magister]

The US only reached 50% of the adult population having at least one shot in mid May; it appears that the UK reached that level in March. (Based on graphs in Wikipedia.) In particular, I was not eligible for my first shot until late March, and that was probably true for most Americans.

More relevant to Trump's performance, his administration completely dropped the ball on distributing the vaccines in December and early January -- Trump was more interested in overturning the election than dealing with the pandemic. (Blocking Biden's transition from access to the President-elect resources cannot have helped the new administration to get up to speed in January, either.)

[hoppy025]

Gun control doesn't make the inner cities more liveable. It seeks to disarm and burden law abiding whites. It's not intended to, nor does it, affect the criminal blacks in the inner cities.

[Ed Grinberg]

Isn’t it odd that the people going on & on about the need for “gun control” screamed bloody murder about — and eventually killed — stop-and-frisk in New York City?

[Nige]

'He did a good job with Operation Warp Speed.'

Trump definitely deserves credit for this, even as he let his son-in-law fuck up the national response. Peculiar how the more rabid anti-vaxxers avoid bringing this up.

[Frank Drackman]

Parkinsonian Joe's son could actually be named Hunter Fuck-Up, dumbass doesn't even know how to use a condom.

[Commenter_XY]

The Abraham Accords were nothing to sneeze at.

Black and Hispanic income gains during his term in office are undeniable.

[Martinned]

Brokering a deal between illiberal Israel and autocratic Gulf States doesn't exactly seem like a net good for humanity.

[Gandydancer]

Speak for yourself.

[Frank Drackman]

"45" didn't start a war (or lose one), the only POTUS who followed through with nominating Pro-Life Surpremes, Covid Vaccine probably saved a few hundred lives. Israel's best POTUS friend since Richard Milhouse, first POTUS to actually help the millions of Veterans of "W"/Barry Hussein Osama's forever wahs.

Frank

[Gandydancer]

"[Trump] had a 25% chance against Hillary..."

Utter nonsense. I remember the 538 guy defending his bad call on this ground, and it was pure idiocy. Elections are not stochastic events. There are way too many voters for chance to play a significant role. If your predictions are bad it's because you are out of touch with the facts.

[Martinned]

There are way too many voters for chance to play a significant role.

There would be if the US had a serious election system for Presidents.

Elections are not stochastic events.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/stochastic

[Gandydancer]

Jeez, you're an idiot.

My undergrad degree was in math with a concentration in probability and statistics, so you don't need to define "stochastic" for me. But probably YOU didn't know what the word means, and couldn't grasp what the definition says, so I'll just quote from your link:

stochastic
adjective specialized
UK /stəˈkæs.tɪk/ US /stəˈkæs.tɪk/
...
A stochastic process or system is connected with random probability.

Now look up the Law of Large Numbers to see why "random probability" played so little part in the 2016 election and why the assertion that ~"Trump had a 25% chance of beating Hillary" is such utter balderdash.

[Krayt]

On the other hand, “everybody knew” Romney was gonna win in 2012. Remember the increasing panic on Fox News that evening?

Rove kept it up to the bitter end, probably to keep people on the West coast going to the polls to avoid downballot contest collapse.

[Martinned]

If I were you I'd call my college and demand my money back...

As for the substance of your comment, I think there are more enjoyable ways to spend my afternoon than explaining to you what stochastic means, how statistical estimates based on sampling work, etc.

[Gandydancer]

If you were me you wouldn't be nearly so pathetically ignorant of math and stochastics as to say something so comprehensively stupid as “[Trump] had a 25% chance against Hillary…” In fact, just before the election, the probability that Trump would win was very nearly (i.e., .999999... ) 100% given the actual, albeit imperfectly understood, preferences of the voters. If you went back in time that perfect-knowledge certainty would decline (mainly, IMO, because Trump might have died) but it was never as low as 25% at any time after he decided to run.

[SRG]

As you did probability and statistics, you should know that you can't disprove a probabilistic prediction. If Nate Silver said that there was a 25% chance of Trump winning and he wins, that doesn't make him wrong any more than if I say that on the throw of a (fair six-sided) die the chance of a 6 is 1/6, and I'm wrong when the die comes up 6.

All you can do is look at the history of someone's probabilistic predictions and determine the likelihood of them generally being right with their assessment of probabilities. If Nate makes 20 predictions of 25% chance for candidate A, and A wins 5 times out of 20, Nate looks good.

[Gandydancer]

You don’t have a clue about the connection between prediction and probability. Throwing a fair die onto a fair surface often enough will produce, asymptotically, each result 1/6th of the time, but that prediction is dependent on ignorance. If you actually know all the physical variables involved in a throw of the die the result is completely (ignoring tiny Uncertainty Principle Physics effects) completely deterministic. As the election approached Trump’s chances of winning it approached (again, we are talking .999999....) 100%, and that it was ever after his declaration of his candidacy as low as 25% is a very, very dubious claim indeed. Nate Silver was at every point simply wrong about reality. I’m not saying his methods are worthless, but they failed him. And what he wrote after the election showed clearly that he didn’t grasp this.

[SRG]

You're the one who evidently hasn't a clue. Clearly you were taught probability without any underlying understanding.

There is ignorance in both cases = and indeed, the third case, the conservative who claims knowledge of probability while showing he lacks it. If Laplace's demon were an election forecaster, then he would know the election outcome as surely as he'd know the outcome of the throw of a die (ignoring QM as you correctly note).

Suppose Silver had predicted Trump at 25% long before the election and then went into purdah until after the election. On what basis would you say he was wrong if all you knew of Silver was that one prediction? You could say that you believe him to be wrong and attach a probability to your belief, or - given that it's you - you'd say, "he was wrong in his assessment of probability" but then you'd be required to say that of everyone who said 1/6 in advance of a die landing on 6.

I assume you're a frequentist rather than a Bayesian - or at least, so it seems from your argument.

[Gandydancer]

I wouldn’t have said anything about Silver because I would have had no opinion about how accurate his estimation of reality was. I actually assume that the signals he examines generally have some utility.

But that clearly wasn’t true for the 2016 general election. The gap between his eve-of-election assessments and the election results cannot to any serious degree be explained by stochastic variables (weather, unexplained individual variations in following though on an intent to vote, etc.) Silver was simply wrong about reality.

Apart from that I have no idea what you think you are saying. Looks like an empty word salad to me, and not worth my time to attempt to interpret. My understanding of probability is just fine, thank you. Were yours better I wouldn't need to repeat myself to get you to address the points I've made, but apparently I do.

[SRG]

Thank you General Westmoreland

[Kazinski]

Really what the 25% was, not his assessment of Trumps chances, but his assessment of the chances that the polls and his weighting of the polls was wrong.

Two different things.

[Gandydancer]

I’m not disagreeing with that, merely pointing out that Silver’s post-election blovations do not reflect such an understanding of his predictions. And you can’t square that understanding with what Martinned is still saying. No, the fact that Silver (or someone) estimated Trump’s chances at some point at “25%” is NOT the same as saying that Trump’s probability of success at that point would actually be 25% in the estimate of a perfectly-calculating LaPlace Demon, had one existed. .I assert that his probability of success was certainly much higher, and that THAT unknown number is what Martinned needs to refer to if he is to use the words “chance of winning” in the way he did.

[jb]

It's not that chance plays a significant role; it's that polls aren't perfectly accurate at the time they are taken, much less when voters actually arrive in the polling booth. So the question mostly isn't "what random thing is going to change the outcome of the election?*" but "based on the not perfect information we have, how likely is it that this particular result is the most likely outcome?"

* Although there's an element of this since we know that, e.g., weather has an influence on turnout so chance can creep into the results.

[Gandydancer]

You are correct that it is an imperfect knowledge problem. Weather is one element in how probable it is that particular voters will get to the polls to express their preferences, but given the actual — though to a considerable degree unknown, preferences of voters before they voted AS REVEALED BY THE ACTUAL VOTE it is clearly true that the actual probability of Trump winning had by the date of the election approached so close to 100% as to make no difference. But Martinned is still conflating a badly-mistaken prediction of 25% at some unspecified date with what the reality of the situation was on that date. And there’s no longer any excuse for this. After a throw of the dice comes up boxcars you know that the physics of the throw were such as to surely produce boxcars with near-prefect certainty as soon as they left the dice-tosser's hand.

[Gandydancer]

…but Martinned is claiming something akin to that the chance of boxcars was still 1/36 when they dice were already in the air. No, no one knew it, but Trump was almost certainly more likely than not to win when he came down the escalator. We just didn’t know it yet. And Nate Silver never figured it out.

I will add that a REAL perfect-knowledge stochastic process is (almost certainmly) the probability of nuclear decay. Or the detected location of a particle. Or which slit an electron will "pass through" in the classic wave-particle experiment. There are no unknown variables, just a probability smear. But elections aren't like that.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside Gandydancer's bizarre misunderstanding of what Nate's statement meant, let's just say that his understanding of how human beings discuss probability is a bit idiosyncratic.

Normal person: "There's a 50% chance of this coin coming up heads if I flip it. See, it's in the air; there's still a 50% chance of this coin coming up heads. Oh, well, it was tails. Well, that's still consistent with it being a 50/50 thing."
Gandydancer: "What are you some kind of idiot? We can all see that it landed on tails. That means that there was a 99-100% chance that it was going to be tails all along. And yet you never figured it out."

[Josh R]

Gandy has a point. Once the dice are thrown, you could (in theory) model the physics and with close to 100% accuracy (but not down below the quantum level) predict what the role will be.

However, his criticism of Silver (which is really a criticism of the polls, Silver is a poll aggregator) is misplaced. No one had the right model, just like no one has the right model of how dice will land once they are in the air. It's a limitation of the polls (and in the case of dice, our ability to model those physics), and we have nothing better. Silver did a great service in how he aggregates the polls, demonstrating with the 29% figure, the polls have lots more error in them than everyone else thought.

Big point: what Silver's predictions are is the uncertainty in the polls.

[David Nieporent]

Gandy has a point. Once the dice are thrown, you could (in theory) model the physics and with close to 100% accuracy (but not down below the quantum level) predict what the role will be.

In theory, yes. But it's a dumb point. "Whatever we know in hindsight happened was always going to happen, and therefore it's a mistake to talk about the probability of an outcome." (Also, why only "once the dice are thrown?" With enough knowledge…)

But his criticism of Nate is misplaced. Nate was not saying that an election is actually a probabilistic process, such that if the election was run 40 times Trump would win on average 10 of those times. Nate was saying that there is a 25% chance, given the polls coming out a certain way, that Trump was ahead. Because polls rely on random sampling, they are effectively probabilistic processes.

[Gandydancer]

You’re wrong, Nopoint. If the election were run 40 times from the time (and universe state) extant when Trump reached the bottom of the escalator then Trump would win, to a near certainty (subject only to tiny QM effects), 40 times. That is a different question than how often you would predict a Candidate-A called Trump would defeat a Candidate-B called Hillary Clinton given only poll results identical to those tracked between the escalator date and the election. Reality has a lot more knowable variables than poll results, and that bit Silver on the ass.

As to my “bizarre misunderstanding of what Nate’s statement meant”, I suggest you find it and link to it, because you certainly seem to have no idea what he said. Whereas I commented, on his site iirc, on its obtuseness at the time..

[David Nieporent]

If the election were run 40 times from the time (and universe state) extant when Trump reached the bottom of the escalator then Trump would win, to a near certainty (subject only to tiny QM effects), 40 times.

This is laughably wrong. You should stick to not understanding what an overt act is. I mean, even Calvin wasn't as into predestination as this.

[Josh R]

Silver's defense was spot-on. He gave Trump a 29% chance of winning. If Silver's model is good he is supposed to get the prediction (Clinton wins) wrong 29% of the time.

[Gandydancer]

His model isn't good, as proven by his eve-of-election prediction, which was way off.

I'm not saying I have a better model, but facts are facts. Randomness played essentially no part in Silver turning out to be wrong. He was wrong at every point in the time line.

[Josh R]

As I said above, your criticism is of the polls (which aren't that bad across time, even though they were in 2016), not Silver. His model of the polls was the best one, the one that best estimated non-random polling errors.

[Don Nico]

"Because he did what, exactly?"
His high point was the "rocketman" speech at the UN

[Frank Drackman]

that was good
"Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself!"
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=rocketman+is+on+a+suicide+mission&mid=9E24F8AB89B3074101F69E24F8AB89B3074101F6
but taking out Qasem Soleimani was better (To bad Mullah Ilhan Omar wasn't there to)

Frank

[Gandydancer]

"It’s like the strategy for much of the Ukraine war: If your enemy is digging a hole for themselves, let them keep digging."

Whose strategy?

You're still in denial about the fact that Kyiv has lost?

[Martinned]

You’re still in denial about the fact that Kyiv has lost?

O, wow. You thought you'd add one more area of stupidity just for good measure? I guess it can't hurt. Everyone who's been following this comments section already thinks you're an idiot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define won/lost in the situation in Ukraine. How long can Ukraine hold out vs. how long can Russia hold out.
Many people in the US are getting tired of the cost of funding yet another war.

[Gandydancer]

You want to tell me about the great Ukrainian Spring Summer offensive that is going to drive Russia out of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea? Well, it didn't happen and it's not going to happen, and if you think that calling me names for noticing that .and understanding why that is true, enhances your credibility, well... knock yourself out. It's very much of a piece with your usual delusions.

[Sarcastr0]

Whoever they are I’m sure you have no idea what they think.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

To be underestimated is the best thing in American politics—Clinton was underestimated and Bush was underestimated and Obama was underestimated and Trump was underestimated…so keep underestimating Biden after he got a record number of votes and Democrats over performed in 2022!

[bernard11]

I thought Trump was a pretty good President

I thought you were a big deficit hawk, Brett.

What do you think think about his huge, useless, tax cut?

[David Nieporent]

Now that its becoming more and more apparent that Joe Biden won’t be the Democratic candidate in ’24 I guess there are two questions:

Apparent to which voices in your head? Barring medical inability to serve, Joe Biden will be the Democratic candidate in 2024.

[Frank Drackman]

David Never Potent strikes again!
would "Death" count as a "Medical Inability to Serve"??
I'm being serious, because obviously "End Stage Parkinson's Disease" wasn't.

[Moderation4ever]

Absolutely correct. President Biden is lining up big name Democrats and running commercials. I don't see anything about him dropping out.

[Gandydancer]

It's perfectly fine with me if President Poop-in-his-Diapers runs.

[OtisAH]

Wait, so it’s apparent Biden will not be the nominee but it’s not apparent who the nominee will be? There are only three candidates for the dem nomination and the other two are Marianne Williamson and RFK Junior. Since it’s so apparent the nominee will not be Biden, obviously the nominee will be Williamson or RFK Junior.

Also, the nominee will be Biden and will not be Marianne Williamson or RFK, Jr., as is actually “apparent.”

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed. President Biden will be the Democratic nominee.

[Gandydancer]

I guess you weren't paying attention in 2020 when Biden was anointed without any noticeable democratic process.

If it's decided by the (D) power brokers that Biden must go Newsome, e.g., can be drafted in without any regard for who is currently running.

[David Nieporent]

I guess you weren't paying attention in 2020, when numerous state GOP affiliates actually canceled primaries just so Trump wouldn't have to face opposition — but in fact Biden had to actually win primaries in order to secure the Democratic nomination.

[OtisAH]

Gibberish from an idiot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is anyone surprised that this new Trump judge that's been hammering Meemaw and PopPop with exceptionally harsh prison terms is magically full of compassion when it's a Democrat in her courtroom?

She literally said that Pakistani spy who had infiltrated the House Democrats had already "suffered enough" and didn't give Awan any jail time.

[David Nieporent]

BCD quintupling down on racism here. There was no "Pakistani spy." Awan was charged with and convicted of lying on a HELOC application. And of course he did get jail time. (What do you think "time served" refers to?)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I bet if this was in the 70s you'd be on this board claiming those blacks in Tuskegee were just being treated for bad blood and they got a whole bunch of free healthcare out of the deal.

lol

[Gandydancer]

Imran Awan got a Hunter Biden-cl;ass wet noodle slap, why?

[Gandydancer]

Nopoint: "And of course he did get jail time. (What do you think “time served” refers to?)"

LOL! Here's what "time served" refers to: One day of "detention".

In sentencing Awan to time served — which was one day in detention and 11 months of GPS monitoring — plus three months’ supervision, Chutkan concluded: “The court finds Mr. Awan and his family have suffered sufficiently.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/ex-congressional-it-staffer-set-to-be-sentenced-after-prosecutors-debunk-conspiracy-theories/2018/08/21/0b1006ee-a4b1-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html

[Gandydancer]

No answer? Well, Reason's execrable software won't inform you when you are replied to, so there's that. But your being mooked by your Lefty sources into thinking that "time served" meant more than an overnighter at Club Fed is the only alternative to YOUR having tried to mislead us.

The maximum a Congressional employee can earn is set at a Congressional salary, it turns out, and Awan got SIX of his relatives hired on as "IT workers" who rapidly reached that maximum, including the nephew whose previous experience was saying "Do you want fries with that?" at McDonalds. I'm sure Lieu addressed this, right? Got a link to his report?

[David Nieporent]

What does any of that have to do with him supposedly being a spy?

[Ed Grinberg]

compare:
When President Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, he specifically mentioned her capacity for "empathy" as the main reason for his choice.
During her tenure as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Ms. Sotomayor was involved in the high-profile case Ricci v. DeStefano that initially upheld the right of the City of New Haven to throw out its test for firefighters and start over with a new test, because the City believed the test had a "disparate impact" on minority firefighters. (No black firefighters qualified for promotion under the test.) The City chose not to certify the test results and a lower court had previously upheld the City's right to do this. Several white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who had passed the test, including the lead plaintiff who has dyslexia and had put much effort into studying, sued the City of New Haven, claiming that their constitutional rights were violated. A Second Circuit panel that included Sotomayor first issued a brief, unsigned summary order affirming the lower court's ruling. Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes (who was not on the panel) objected to this handling and requested that the court hear it en banc. Sotomayor voted with a 7–6 majority not to rehear the case, and a slightly expanded ruling was issued, but a strong dissent by Cabranes led to the case reaching the Supreme Court in 2009. There it was overruled in a 5–4 decision that found that the non-black firefighters had been victims of racial discrimination when they were denied promotion.
This incident demonstrates the highly selective nature of "liberals’" “empathy” and “compassion.”

[SRG]

But as we can tell from the quality of her opinions, she is of sufficient intellectual calibre to warrant her place there.

[Tom for equal rights]

SRG 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"But as we can tell from the quality of her opinions, she is of sufficient intellectual calibre to warrant her place there."

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Shuette

[SRG]

It is possible for someone to have high intellectual calibre and nonetheless be wrong, cf. Antonin Scalia in so many cases

[Tom for equal rights]

Shuette , Ricci,
1m kids on respirators from covid

Seriously you think Sotomayor belongs on the court

[SRG]

1m kids on respirators from covid

Relevance?

Seriously you think Sotomayor belongs on the court

No less than the rest. But I actually read the opinions, rather than just look at the vote tally.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What sort of election year calamity do y’all think the TPAB will cook up for 2024? Since we’ve already had a global financial crisis and a worldwide pandemic, my money is on world war. That's how the international bankers and the MIC make the most money, so I think it's highly likely.

[NvEric]

Won't need one, just declare Marial Law - it's the hysterical Biden Junta's way.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm guessing at the next "January 6th" the "Insurrectionists" won't leave their guns in the motel rooms.

[Nige]

I just met a girl named Marial!

[Magister]

How do you solve a problem like Marial?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In yet another edition of Last Year’s Conspiracy Equal this Year’s Headline:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/developed-nations-requiring-the-most-infant-vaccines-linked-with-higher-childhood-mortality-rates-study-5439374

Developed Nations Requiring the Most Infant Vaccines Linked With Higher Childhood Mortality Rates: Study

The Science said Hep B vaccines were particularly deadly. Who is at risk for Hep B? Drug addicts and active homosexuals. Babies are only at risk if their breastfeeding mother is infected (or if they’re attending government schools, lol).

So why are all infants given Hep B vaccines? First, because Big Pharma needs the $$$$ and the Fauci's of the world need their $$$$, and second because if they only gave it to at-risk mothers chest-feeding bonus-holes, black babies (the ones that survived abortions anyways) would be getting the most shots.

And that would be racist.

This is what Sarcastr0’s “health equity” looks like in practice. Corrupt vaccine schedules killing White children.

[Neugierige]

If you live in Ohio, vote no on issue 1. The proposal is fatally flawed, and there are better ways to adjust the amendment process if you think it's too flimsy. (Feel free to ask.)

[Martinned]

Once I'd read past this super-dramatic headline...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/06/ohio-issue-1-vote-democracy-future-republicans

I realised that I'd already heard about that one. It's about those anti-abortion activists who know they can't get 50% of voters to agree with them, but who reckon they can get 40% to. So raising the bar for a constitutional amendment to 60% would allow them to lock in an abortion ban without having to worry about it being overruled by voters.

Did I miss anything?

[Kazinski]

I don't support gaming the system but there is a serious disconnect in the difficulty of amending the US constitution and state constitutions.

However for general laws, which this is more akin to, 50% of the people overruling the legislators seems plenty sufficient. I'd like to see the people be able to veto a law with 40% of the vote, then we would have a lot fewer laws.

[Martinned]

I agree. The US constitution is ridiculous, but so is the constitution of Alabama.

I like the Dutch amendment process, which essentially requires to votes with a waiting period in between. (And a 2/3 majority in parliament the second time around.)

Alternatively, I like systems like the French that have core constitutions that are (relatively) difficult to amend, but with important other matters settled in organic laws that are easier to amend (but still more difficult than a regular statute).

[Krayt]

50% majority can add an amendment so it takes 60% to amend in the future?

In general sounds good, but such a thing should itself only be approved by (at least) a 60% supermajority.

Doing it by 50% seems weasely, as does trying to do this for the listed reason.

Then again, Robert Byrd stood on the floor of the senate, crying, about the awfulness of a supermajority thwarting the simple majority, when debating a balanced budget amendment.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Here we go with the Biden/Grandholm dynamic duo again. We’re outlawing incandescent bulbs and allowing only the sale of LED bulbs. Just another Biden energy policy by the elite to make the elite happy while fucking over the poor.

A 60 watt incandescent bulb averages around $2.50 in the USA. An equivalent LED bulb costs around $6.10. Grandholm in her statement waxes on about the operational cost savings that people will accrue assuming a light bulb lasts 10 years, which is unproven, while completely ignoring the 2.5x higher upfront costs.

Meanwhile, an energy department spokesperson pointed out that currently around 50% the rich use LED bulbs while only only about 20% of the poor do. He gleefully pronounced that “now the poor will get to experience the benefits of LED lighting as well”, both abusing the word opportunity and completely ignoring the fact that the poor have had that opportunity for years and haven’t experienced it because they can’t afford to. Are they so out of touch that they can’t comprehend this or are they heartless bastards who just don’t care about those lesser beings?

Poor folks’ homes are gonna be darker - permanently - but at least the administration has taken another meaningless step to avert a made up crisis.

[Martinned]

Good thing you're here to stand up for America's poor!

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re right, Martin. Better to just say “screw those people”, right? If they didn’t want to be constantly fucked over by their government they shouldn’t have been poor to start with.

[Nige]

If you were concerned about the poor getting screwed you wouldn't start with preventing regulations promoting more energy-efficent fucking lightbulbs.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why do we need regulations in the first place?

[Nige]

Because businesses will shit where everyone eats.

[Frank Drackman]

They wouldn't be so po' if they didn't have $1,000 phones

[Brett Bellmore]

"A 60 watt incandescent bulb averages around $2.50 in the USA. An equivalent LED bulb costs around $6.10."

Eh, I just bought a pack of '60W' LED bulbs. It was a four pack, for about $7. I'm guessing you mean by "equivalent" an actual 60W LED bulb, not one that puts out as much light as a 60W incandescent? But that's not an apple to apple comparison.

I have my complaints about the LED bulbs; The form factors are changing so fast not one multi-bulb light fixture in the house has matching bulbs. The lifespan on them is not remotely as good as claimed. You sure as hell can't use one for an oven light! (What ARE people going to use for oven lights after they can't get incandescent bulbs? I guess the idea is that they'll have to stop using their old gas stoves, and replace them with new electric stoves that have LED illumination via optic fiber?)

On the plus side, you can take a fixture built to take a half dozen '25W' incandescent bulbs, and load it down with '120W' LED equivalents, (Assuming you can find them, the stores don't like carrying anything larger than '60W'.) and light up the room like it's full of arc lamps. My post-cataract surgery eyes really appreciate that.

Pushing compact fluorescents was a huge mistake. Forcing us prematurely into LED lights, likewise. Banning incandescent when there are niche uses where they're unambiguously superior, another mistake. Assuming they're not just deliberately screwing everybody over, of course.

But you don't have to exaggerate how bad they are.

[bevis the lumberjack]

https://www.huttonpowerandlight.com/blog/led-vs-incandescent-lighting-a-cost-comparison/

“Let’s Break It Down By First Assessing The 10-Year Cost Of An Incandescent Bulb:
An average 60W bulb will cost around $2.70 to purchase.
Let’s say that in one year, you used this bulb for 1,000 hours at a rate of $0.11 per kWh.
In 10 years, operating this bulb would cost you $66.
However, incandescent bulbs have an approximate lifespan of 1,000 hours. If you used an incandescent bulb for 1,000 hours a year, that probably means that you would have to replace the bulb every year.
Taking the cost of the original bulb and its replacements into account, incandescent bulbs would cost you $93 over 10 years.
Now Let’s Break Down The 10-Year Cost Of A Similarly-Bright LED Bulb:
An average 12W bulb will cost around $6.25 to purchase.
Let’s say that in one year, you used this bulb for 1,000 hours at a rate of $0.11 per kWh.
In 10 years, operating this bulb would cost you $13.20.
You’d still be using the original bulb you bought, and it would probably have about 10,000 to 15,000 hours of usage left.
Taking the cost of the original bulb into account, the LED bulb would cost you $19.45 over 10 years.”

Hey, to save $75 over 10 years all you gotta do is assume the bulb is going to last 10 years (which they don’t) and skip a couple of meals to create financial space to buy them at the beginning.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Hey, to save $75 over 10 years all you gotta do is assume the bulb is going to last 10 years (which they don’t) and skip a couple of meals to create financial space to buy them at the beginning."

The quoted difference in price to purchase is $3.55. How many 'meals' do you think people have to skip to make that up?

You're detached from reality, fool.

[David Nieporent]

Not to defend him (because the numbers are made up), but presumably people — even poor people — have more than one light fixture in their homes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Of course that's true, but how often are people having to replace several light bulbs at once?

The only time I've "needed" more than one bulb at a time involved adding a new fixture to the house, or when I've just ignored burned-out bulbs that weren't strictly necessary until I had enough to justify a purchase.

Also, his imaginary numbers don't factor in the thermal cost of incandescent bulbs at all.

[Kazinski]

Have to agree with you there, since poor people are more likely to be overweight skipping a few meals is not a bad idea.

But to me the real issue is Congress isn't my nanny.

[bernard11]

Can we simplify this a bit.

$6.25 12W LED for 1000 hours @ .11/kwh = 1.32 in electricity usage, so total is $7.37.

$2.70 60W Incandescent for 1000 hours @.11/kwh = $6.60 usage for a total of $9.30.

So over a one-year period the LED is cheaper even without taking its longer life into account.

Now, just for fun, let's say you put the incremental $3.55 on your Visa and paid an 18% annual rate every month (1.5%/mo). That'll be a bit over a nickel a month. What the hell, call it 6 cents. Add the $.72 to the LED cost and it's still only $8.09, about 13% cheaper than the incandescent.

So why all the sneering?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Specialty incandescent bulbs like oven lights (specifically mentioned) are exempt from the ban.

You'd know that if you weren't a fucking ignorant idiot whining about your latest victim complex.

[David Nieporent]

You sure as hell can’t use one for an oven light! (What ARE people going to use for oven lights after they can’t get incandescent bulbs? I guess the idea is that they’ll have to stop using their old gas stoves, and replace them with new electric stoves that have LED illumination via optic fiber?)

I'm not sure about your claim one way or the other, but the premise is flawed. Incandescent bulbs remain legal for specialized uses such as appliances.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/business/incandescent-light-bulb-ban/index.html#:~:text=Not%20all%20incandescent%20light%20bulbs,Black%20lights

What is not banned?
Not all incandescent light bulbs are banned as part of the new rule, according to the Department of Energy. Here’s what manufacturers can still build and stores can continue selling:

Appliance lamps, including fridge and oven lights
Black lights
Bug lamps
Colored lamps
Infrared lamps
Left-handed thread lamps
Plant lights
Flood lights
Reflector lamps
Showcase lamps
Traffic signals
Some other specialty lights, including marine lamps and some odd-sized bulbs

[gdanning]

There is an exception for oven lights and a variety of other uses. https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/business/incandescent-light-bulb-ban/index.html

[Nige]

The poor, the poor, the poor. They're not your hostages. Impoverish people, then use them as human shields to protect vested interests that happily screw the poor on a daily basis, burning the planet out from under them. The same people who make this complaint oppose spending on social programs to help poor people with the transition. They prefer tax-payer money to be funneled directly to them.

[Sarcastr0]

Your two arguments, are

Incandescent safe actually cheaper over the long run. Which is trivially untrue given the prices you put up (not counting even Brett says those are wrong) there and how quickly incandescent need to be replaced. (They last about 1/10 as long). Add in the electrical costs and I really don’t see your math.

The poor don’t use them as much. Which is a correlation but in no way proves that is caused by higher costs.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not claiming that they’re cheaper over the long run. I’m an engineer, I’m capable of logic and math just fine. And I just posted a calculation showing how LEDs are cheaper over the long run.

The problem is that to get to the long run you have to start somewhere and in this case it means you have to buy the damn things. Which the poor don’t have the money to do, as demonstrated by the fact that given free choice they don’t.

The question is, why do this at all? Why do representatives of a party that has always styled itself as the party most concerned about the marginalized continually mandate things like this that harm them for no noticeable purpose?

[Sarcastr0]

Which the poor don’t have the money to do, as demonstrated by the fact that given free choice they don’t.
The one does not demonstrate the other. People are not purely economic creatures with perfect info.

As to the general policy question, wouldn't your 'this is good in the long run but not being adopted' cut the other way, in favor of the reg? I tend to prefer certifications over regulations in the energy sector.

Neither you nor I know the specifics of the policy or implementation analysis here - you make a ton of assumptions to lead you where you can be mad about this.

[Brett Bellmore]

It has NOT been my experience that incandescents actually last a 10th as long. Real world lifetimes for them have sucked in my house. Though they’ve been better than the compact fluorescents.

Of course, I’m using them in fixtures designed for incandescents, which is to say, designed for bulbs that operate just fine at temperatures high enough to fry bacon. LEDs are very vulnerable to high temperatures. Try putting one in an exhaust hood, for instance, and expecting it to last.

I need to point out to you, further, that there are all sorts of niche applications where incandescent bulbs are either greatly superior to LEDs, or LEDs are simply incapable of surviving.

In the North, most of the year the waste heat from an incandescent is just “heating”. They’ll work reliably in Alaska in the dead of winter, or Death Valley in the summer. You can use them to keep pipes from freezing, to hatch eggs. They don’t put out RF interference.

Bottom line, there are rational reasons to prefer incandescents in some applications. And the Biden administration Just. Doesn’t. Care.

[Ben_]

Poor people don't need a lightbulb in 5 years. They need one now. The fact that a bulb might still be good in 5 or 10 years is extremely irrelevant to anyone struggling to make it to their next payday.

This is just another slight variation on Democrats dismissive spreadsheet BS: the number at the bottom of the spreadsheet is positive, so that justifies all the harm Democrats do to everyone.

[Nige]

Poor people need access to free health care, a living wage, job security, clean air and water, access to public transport and a planet that isn't slowly roasting. People who aren't poor need all those things too.

[David Nieporent]

LED bulbs are very superior to incandescent bulbs. A lot of the negative reaction to the former — besides just general contrarianism — is because people remember the previous alternative to incandescent bulbs: CFLs. The latter were much more expensive, more hazardous, and of worse quality.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The problem isn’t LED bulbs. The problem is the mandate.

It’s similar to what they’ve done to air conditioning over the years. They did that one again this year. A unit that cost $12k to replace in 2022 costs nearly $20k this year because they’ve mandated even more expensive bleeping coolant again.

And of course gas cooktops vs induction cooktops. This one ignoring a comprehensive NIH study and instead working off of the manipulated data if an advocacy group.

There is no amount of extra expense they won’t have us bear over their contrived panic.

[OtisAH]

General contrarianism is bevis’s reason for being.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "superior". They are more efficient in the number of lumens/watt that they provide and should be longer lasting (depends on quality of production and how and where they are used).
Other than that, not so much. They are more expensive, use more material to make, are generally not dimable and have poor color qualities.

[David Nieporent]

A 60 watt incandescent bulb averages around $2.50 in the USA. An equivalent LED bulb costs around $6.10.

A simple search on Amazon reveals that this claim is completely fictional. One would have to try really really hard to spend $6.10 on a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb.

Here, for instance, is an eight-pack for $12.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I posted my source.

Are you claiming that LEDs are actually cheaper or even cost competitive with incandescents? Been shopping for light bulbs lately?

Point is that there's a reason that only around half of the middle/upper class choose LEDs and only around a fifth of poor people choose LEDs, even though LEDs are clearly superior. What do you suppose the reason for that is?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, actually I bought a package of '60w' LED bulbs just yesterday, for under $7. At the grocery store, because one of the bulbs in the kitchen was out. So I'm calling BS on your source's price.

Just as I'd call BS on Sarcastro's claim that the incandescents only last a tenth as long. Not in real life they don't!

[Krayt]

You've never met my porch light. 1/10th would be awesome.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"What do you suppose the reason for that is?"

Because you make things up?

[Sarcastr0]

Are you claiming that LEDs are actually cheaper or even cost competitive with incandescents? Been shopping for light bulbs lately?
As of last year, it was about the same in Target.

[David Nieporent]

I posted my source.

Whereas I posted an actual firsthand source.

What do you suppose the reason for that is?

Pretty sure I addressed that above: people were soured on incandescent alternatives by the CFL debacle.

[Brett Bellmore]

I LIKE LEDs. Like I said above, the lower waste heat allows me to put a lot more light output into a fixture, and my poor eyes NEED a lot of light to see clearly.

But I'm not going to pretend they're as long lasting as the hype says, or that they're as resistant to extreme environments. What's going on is that the government is trying to force people to use a niche product in every possible application, even the ones where it's not the best fit.

I prefer the government let ME pick which product fits might needs best.

[bevis the lumberjack]

A lot of the packaging I’m seeing these days for LEDs says LASTS 13 YEARS!!!! I just laugh. Besides being oddly specific, there’s no way they can know that. And my experience with LEDs suggests that reality is a small fraction of that.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why you think there's no way they can know that. I mean, it's obviously an average, not an assessment of the individual bulb in the package in front of you, but why do you think they can't calculate a MTTF for LED bulbs? (If you read the fine print, of course, you'll see that "years" are defined as a certain number of hours per year.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

They can calculate a theoretical all they want, but they can’t have observed it in practice. As I said, we’ve had plenty of LEDs cease to function and although I don’t keep track of when we buy lightbulbs I know that it hasn’t been that long since we’ve been buying LED.

That claim is probably bogus, but safe because only the most anal of the anal keep records of light bulb purchases.

[Sarcastr0]

They can calculate a theoretical all they want, but they can’t have observed it in practice.

I'm almost certain they did the standard testing practice of taking random sample and from that were able to extrapolate about the general population.

That's not theory, it's rock solid data. I very much doubt they just made it up.

[bernard11]

I very much doubt they just made it up.

Me too. Though I do think that manufacturers test things like this under ideal conditions, whatever those might be, and some probably lie a little.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think they made it up, but equally, they obviously haven't been testing the bulbs for 13 years, so like hell it's "rock solid data".

It's extrapolation from short term testing, is what it is, and probably short term testing under ideal circumstances.

The problem is, I've had plenty of these bulbs fail under circumstances that weren't remotely challenging, like open ended "tulip" fixtures. Others, admittedly, have been going for years, and maybe they WOULD last 13 years.

Looks like poor quality control to me.

[Sarcastr0]

they obviously haven’t been testing the bulbs for 13 years, so like hell it’s “rock solid data”.

I did not take the 13 years to mean 13 years of day-in day-out use, but rather taking the expected daily use and interpolating based on a continuous use test.

And yes, statistical experiments are rock solid data, not theory as bevis said.

As to your anecdotal self-reporting, that's not very useful.

bernard is right that industry self-reporting is incentivized to cut all the corners the FTC will let them, I recommend checking out what the government testers say about the lifetime of LEDs:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/lighting_fans/light_bulbs/learn_about_led_bulbs

[bevis the lumberjack]

Your CFL theory explains the difference in LED usage between rich people and poor people? The poor are more flummoxed by CFLs? That seems unlikely. Its cost. Everywhere I shop LEDs are substantially more expensive. My wife and I are constantly driven to choose incandescent for that reason, although we can afford all LED with no impact.

I’m not opposed to LED lighting. When we’ve changed out fixtures in our 20 year old house we’ve gone LED. I’m not opposed to the DOE doing an extensive advertising/education campaign so that people can make an educated choice.

My complaint is making it a mandate. Forcing people into a purchase that they can’t afford or can’t use (people in really old houses?) is wrong. Doing it to solve a contrived crisis that probably doesn’t exist is unconscionable. Smug elitism at its worst.

[Magister]

I expect poor people are forced into many choices that cost them more in the long run because they simply can't afford the upfront cost of a better choice. Government has responded with subsidies in some cases, and with regulations making worse choices more expensive or unavailable in other cases.

[bevis the lumberjack]

We gonna start subsidizing lightbulbs now?

But you make my point. Poor people should not be forced into purchases they can’t afford. Especially for no real purpose.

[Magister]

1. We already subsidized energy efficient light bulbs.
2. There is a real purpose beyond saving consumers money, to protect the environment by reducing energy consumption.
3. The process was started during the George W. Bush administration, when the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) began the phase out of inefficient light bulbs.
4. We protect people from all sorts of products that are bad for them in a variety of ways.

[Nige]

If you gave them access to free health care and a living wage, cocerns about things like bulbs - which is something you are indignant abut on their behalf - would be relegated to insignificance. Which is probably why they can't be allowed either.

[Bob from Ohio]

If LEDs were truly cheaper, the government would not need to ban the competition.

Government did not ban steamer cars in 1920. Gas powered cars won the marketplace.

Government did not ban DC current, AC won the market.

Now, toilets, dishwashers, washers and bulbs are only sold in bureaucrat approved inferior forms.

[Ben_]

They purposely make Americans' lives worse. Doing so shows their commitment to their climate religion.

And the fact that it doesn't really hurt rich Democrat elites gives them an opportunity to look down on the poor and sneer at complaints of hardship. They absolutely love doing that.

[bernard11]

Well, let's see.

Amazon will sell you two 60W replacements for $10, so $5 each, not $6.10. They use ten watts.

So every 20 hours you use the LED you save 1KWh, which around here is $.12 for transmission and distribution (lots of other fees I'm not counting). To make up the $2.50 extra cost you need to use the bulb 21 x 20 hours = 420 hours, less than an hour and a quarter a day for a year.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If you can’t afford enough food and heat/cooling and clothes for your family, where are you going to get the up front extra required to start all that glorious savings?

Y’all are missing the point. It’s not the LED I object to. It’s the mandate. How do you justify a mandate that will make life more difficult for a material number of citizens? Does the American left no longer give any shits at all about the poor?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your hypotheticals continue to require that people become more and more impoverished in order to make your stupid argument.

Presumably, you don't see the problem with that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is proposing something interesting -- eliminating the DC government. All it will take is Congress repealing the home rule act and Congress gets to run the city. Again.

[Martinned]

That sounds like the kind of respect for democracy that we've come to expect from Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Personally, I'd like to give it back to Maryland -- it's a failed city.

[John F. Carr]

Everything outside the Mall area.

[Mr. Bumble]

,,,and take away their electoral votes. Apportion their congressional representation to MD.

[Sarcastr0]

Get to…lol. Congress would hate that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Interesting. Yes, those people in DC should have no ability to govern themselves at any level. That’s not interesting, it’s stupid. And contrary to the base value of America.

Why is it that when Trump vomits out yet another stupid idea you slavishly support it?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Alec MacGillis@AlecMacGillis
Many cities around are seeing the pandemic-era surge in violence ebb somewhat. But DC is a total outlier. It's had 13 homicides in the first five days of August and 158 for the year, up 22% over last year and on track for its highest tally in two decades."

DC is really doing well with Home Rule.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Their problem. Not our place to take it away from them.

The USA is an horrific mess right now financially. Are you suggesting that self rule be taken away from us?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Their problem."

Its the seat of the US government so its not just their problem.

[Martinned]

Not the worst idea you've ever had.

[Kazinski]

Best thing to do is devolve all of DC, except the National Mall, Capital Hill, Supreme Court, and Whitehouse, and any contiguous Federal office buildings, back to Maryland or Virginia whence they came. No residents, then no problems.

Probably have to pay the two states off to take them, but well worth it.

[Sarcastr0]

I used to think this.

Then I saw that none of the people involved here - DC. Maryland, or VA, wanted this to happen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People who don't expect most of the District of Columbia (perhaps renamed) to become a state are the people who never saw gay rights, desegregated schools, women's rights, an end to racist voter suppression, and similar elements of American progress coming, either.

The goal should be at least three new states -- Douglass Commonwealth, Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But what’s the alternative? Complain about the over influence of small states while pushing to add another one?

It sits naturally in Maryland, put it in Maryland. I think Maryland would even pick up a representative, wouldn’t they?

[Moderation4ever]

A lot of time is spent on the fentanyl crisis in this country. My local paper, The Wisconsin State Journal, reminded me this morning that a deadly drug is as close as the liquor store or local bar. The headline was that Wisconsin has an alcohol related death rate 25% higher than the rest of the country. This country needs to move away from the idea that there are good drugs and bad drugs to understand that all drugs can be dangerous. Drugs use should be acceptable when done responsibly and people that cannot use responsibly need to be helped.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a1/page_9b157159-7929-5ef1-b4ec-fd0457403858.html

[Frank Drackman]

I'll drink to that!

[Longtobefree]

One of George Carlin's best routines was on 'when the office coffee machine breaks down, you learn that caffeine is the low end of the speed spectrum'.

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to another edition of Groundhog Day VC style.

[Sarcastr0]

Not to nutpick, but the right should maybe do better with their hiring choices.

Nate Hochman, who got caught sticking Nazi imagery into a DeSantis campaign video
Marjorie Taylor Greene contractor and out and proud neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes
Holocaust denier/Fox News staffer Matteo Cina

[Martinned]

Like Brett explained above, whether those constitute hiring mistakes depends on your objectives.

[Nige]

You can CLAIM it's neo-Nazi imagery, that he's a neo-Nazi or that the other guy is a Holocaust denier, or that other other guy turned out to be a white supremacist - the people on the right who grudgingly admit those might be bad things doesn't have to AGREE. If they keep not agreeing it remains an open question.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There's a whole Ukrainian Brigrade that decorates their uniforms with Nazi paraphernalia.

You people aren't concerned about Nazi's.

[bevis the lumberjack]

As opposed to hires on the left like Sam Brinton.

At least the Nazis you mention are only running their mouths. They’re not committing actual crimes.

[Nige]

Ah yes that one guy who stole some luggage and got fired. Just as bad as mutiple Nazis in the mainstream right.

[OtisAH]

Gotta love bevis stepping in to whatabout in defense of Nazis. All in an extremely non-partisan manner, of course. As is his way.

“On the one hand, sure, Nazis keep turning up in rightwing campaigns and media. On the other hand, Biden hired a shoplifter. Pox on both their houses!”

[bernard11]

Actually, some branch of the Young Republicans invited Fuentes to speak.

[Martinned]

Since this entire comments section has already been hijacked by Trump anyway, I assume you won't mind if I point out that he's already blamed Biden for the USWNT's loss at the world cup yesterday.

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1688335784208715776

[Longtobefree]

Dear God. First you cite Wikipedia, now X?

(trigger alert. Twitter no longer exists)

[Nige]

Worse, he's citing Trump.

[Martinned]

If you prefer I can cite Politico quoting Trump, but then you wouldn't be able to see that Truth Social screenshot.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/07/trump-us-womens-soccer-team-00110074

[SRG]

It could be worse. It could be Epoch Times, Zero Hedge or One Reich News Network

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you think the Grand Misogynist would've missed out on his opportunity to abuse more women?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Nice shot, Megan" lol

That loathsome idiot actually claimed her greatest memory from her soccer career was "equal pay".

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump's post are too long now.

“Nice shot, Megan” is perfect and all he needed to say.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob giving Trump how to be an asshole lessons.

[Bob from Ohio]

I aim to serve.

But nothing "asshole"-like in mocking a loathsome person like Rapinoe.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No more of an asshole than the USWT was. They stuck their nose into political crap. That’s their right, but if you’re going to dish it out you need to be prepared to take it.

[Frank Drackman]

That Swedish team was actually likeable, sorry I laughed when Cindy Lauper missed her penalty kick. But seriously, folks, it's women's Soccer, any random 11 male Mexican recreational players at the local park would kick their asses

Frank

[Martinned]

Being called "loathsome" on the internet is an acceptable part of political discourse now? I mean, I know it's common, but that doesn't mean we have to agree that it is something that ought to happen.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

If women’s basketball did equal pay then the women’s March Madness would end up funneling Duke’s and UNC’s winnings to SEC schools and it would hasten the ACC’s collapse.

[OtisAH]

[wrong post]

[OtisAH]

POLL TIME for the Lawyers:

Person comes in and wants to file a wrongful termination suit. The issue is they were fired after being linked to a string of tweets praising white supremacy. You are assured that Elon Musk will cover the legal costs. Do you…

1. Take the case secure in the knowledge you will be compensated?

2. Take the case after explaining the person will need to pay up front and recoup their money from Musk?

3. Take the case after receipt of an upfront deposit From The Desk of Elon Musk?

4. Laugh the person out of your office?

5. Other…

[Martinned]

Under which legal system? Because Musk seems to have made a unilateral offer to the world, and there are a lot of different legal rules out there that govern who you are and aren't allowed to fire.

[David Nieporent]

1. Take the case secure in the knowledge you will be compensated?

2. Take the case after explaining the person will need to pay up front and recoup their money from Musk?

Pro tip: unless representing a high-level executive, employment lawyers work on contingency anyway. So the answer is "5. Other…"

[OtisAH]

“Contingency” makes a lot of sense in that context. Less so if it’s contingent on getting paid by Musk after filing a case pleading your white supremacist client should be allowed their daycare or sales job back.

[Longtobefree]

6. Refuse the case because social media?

[not guilty]

Generally speaking, a promise to pay the debt of another person is unenforceable unless it is included in a writing signed by the party to be charged. Does the hypothetical include such written assurance from an authorized representative of Elon Musk?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anyone who trusts Elon Musk is beyond reach.

[Michael Ejercito]

Define white supremacy.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/07/15/kaboom-anti-white-stereotyping-at-the-smithsonians-national-museum-of-african-american-history-and-culture/

[Kazinski]

I hope he's setting up his free legal assistance as a profit center, not a public service.

If he's got a decent legal team they should be able to determine pretty rapidly:

1. Is the speech protected?
1. Do they have a colorable case in the said jurisdiction.
2. Do they have a good shot at damages and lawyers fees?

Offering free legal services doesn't mean they have to take the case if its a loser, they might not need to do.more than send a letter, then drop it.

A few winners will go a long way in reducing the case load.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

As the old saying, just like biological sex - human society is binary: societies with governments that fear it's citizens, and tyrannies that don't.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's back!

[Martinned]

Is this like when the stock market suspends trading? Some kind of automatic shutdown when the amount of BS reaches a threshold level?

[Bob from Ohio]

You did post several comments.

[John F. Carr]

What's on my mind? I've been submitting invoices the same way for three years and now they refuse to pay. I was told my invoice was approved. Not really. Three weeks past the deadline it has not been paid. Turns out the humanoids in the accounts payable department decided I need to start attaching a PDF file to the electronic submission in addition to putting all the same information in the HTML form. Instead of rejecting the invoice they sat on it without action. The submission form allows me to request prompt payment at a substantial discount. It does not offer a bonus for agreeing to be paid late.

So... Prejudgment interest. That's what's on my mind. One of the reasons Massachusetts insurance companies are nicer than their out of state counterparts is the high rate of prejudgment interest allowed by state law. If they drag out a borderline case and lose they owe 50% more. The other reason they are nicer is the penalty for refusing to promptly settle a sure loser of a case is double or triple damages. "Let them sue" is not sound legal advice in the insurance context. For a small contract dispute it might be.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So… Prejudgment interest. That’s what’s on my mind.

If you are a lawyer, your approach to client relations is . . . odd.

It might be worthwhile to read the relevant professional liability policy before sending nastygrams to clients with respect to late payments, especially if invoices were not compliant with the client's requested format.

[John F. Carr]

An arbitrator has ordered reinstatement of seven Massachusetts State Police officers who were suspended after refusing to get vaccinated against COVID. The department found they qualified for a religious exemption, distinguishing them from people who are merely afraid of Bill Gates’ microchips.

The arbitrator did not have to decide in this case whether the vaccination order was legal or desirable. A vaccination order by the city of Boston was upheld by the courts.

Historically arbitrators in Massachusetts are very friendly to police officers. Government employers have mostly bargained away their right to fire bad cops. The problem was so bad that the legislature created a new agency with the power to decertify problem officers. That agency is not a party to the employment contract and is not bound by the arbitration agreement.

Say officer Callahan tortures a confession out of some punk. The police commissioner might try to suspend him. The arbitrator says no, that guy totally had it coming. So the state certifying agency says Callahan is decertified. And the commissioner says, “Sorry, Harry, you no longer meet the legal standards to work here, nothing I can do about it.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The department found they qualified for a religious exemption, distinguishing them from people who are merely afraid of Bill Gates’ microchips.

"Distinguishing them?" Not really. The distinction between a Bill Gates microchip and a childish fairy tale in this context is inconsequential (except in the eyes of culture war casualties who favor special privilege for certain superstition-based claims, some of whom still wear robes or get elected in backwater precincts).

[hoppy025]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/07/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed/index.html

How the f*** can you "rape someone digitally?" Is there any leftist Jew who is not a political hack?

[Aunt Teefah]

By inserting fingers into their vagina without their consent? Wild that that is somehow controversial for today's conservatives.

[Frank Drackman]

Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the act!!!!!!!!!

[Aunt Teefah]

Wisconsin Supreme Court conservatives have only been in the minority for a few days, but they've already gone completely feral:

https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1687922322647207936/photo/1

Gonna make for some awkward moments around the office water cooler.

[John F. Carr]

Do liberals still read TwitterX?

[Magister]

Still better than when Justice David Prosser tried to strangle Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

[Moderation4ever]

This is really only the Justice Rebecca Bradley and her reaction is not unexpected, as she is pretty partisan. The last liberal Chief Justice, Shirley Abramson was not happy when the conservatives stripped her of the position. Two of the conservatives are pretty partisan, but Justice Hagedorn tend to be more conservative and less party aligned. Future ruling will be interesting if for nothing else to see where Justice Hagedorn comes down on the rulings.

[John F. Carr]

An unintended consequence: Cuts in sulfur emissions from shipping may have contributed to this year's alarming weather. The weather that every right-thinking news source reminds us is alarming and is caused by our carbon emissions.

https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-cleaner-shipping-changing-clouds

This is not shocking news. We have known for many years that pollution partially offsets greenhouse gases.

This is not shocking news, but the media style guide demands climate alarmism whenever possible. So here it is: "pollution regulations are exterminating the human race."

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure what your point is, or what this article (not study) has to do with the media.

Are you complaining we lowered sulfur emissions?

[Don Nico]

He is only says that there were unintended consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe. That causality is disputed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Science denier.

[Don Nico]

The Science article certainly suggests a causal connection though it does not present the chemical kinetics. Do you have any scientific reason whatsoever to dispute a causal connection contrary to the claim of authors of the Science article. The chemistry of the lower atmosphere is quite complicated if not complex.

[Sarcastr0]

First of all, it's an article, not a research paper.

Second of all:
https://jabberwocking.com/update-sulphur-limits-still-arent-responsible-for-the-unprecedented-heat-this-year/

That's just my favorite - if you want research papers or opinion pieces citing papers that are not fans of sulfur hypo they are easy to find.

[Don Nico]

” it’s an article, not a research paper.” So what. Reporters for Science are very saavy and responsible. I’d have more confidence in them than in someone dismissing the content out of being contrary and for some ideological reason.

“sulfur hypo” mere contrarian rhetoric.

As foir your jabberwocky, iand why should I believe Kevin Drum who is only saying that nothing is proved. I agree that nothing is proved in terms of chemical kinetics or in one of 40 global circulation models.. I also doubt no one will actually explain or "postdict" this year’s heat waves, which are not so unprecedented. I lived through as bad in Chicago in the 1960’s.

[Sarcastr0]

Said the causality is disputed. You appeal to authority. That’s not even disputing my thesis.

And when I provide an example disputing the story, you move the goalposts.

[Don Nico]

"You appeal to authority."
No, I said I believe reporters with an excellent track record more than I believe you.
I did not appeal to authority; that is your usual technique of argumentative distortion.
As for moving goalposts, that is another of your techniques although you accuse everyone else of doing it. In fact, you make the claim so often that it has no credibility. Your example to an arbitrary blogger, hardly a counterexample.
In any case I'll consult with a Berkeley colleague who is a highly recognized expert in atmospheric science

[Nige]

Some people are saying this is obviously why sea temperatures are suddenly spiking, others are saying it isn't. Everybody agrees that the main cause is climate change.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He was pretty damn clear as to his point.

And his point about the media is perfectly clear as well - climate change is the overwhelmingly dominant narrative of our time and any fact that casts doubt about the results our virtuous efforts is to be harshly suppressed.

[Nige]

This doesn’t cast any doubt on climate change. The lack of cooling effect may be exacerbating the effects of climate change, or they may not, or something else might be doing it, or some combination of things, or some runaway cause that hasn’t been detected yet. Climate change remains a constant, unfortunatey.

[Nige]

Jury's out on whether the reduction in sulfur emissions is really having that much of an effect. There's also sand from the Sahara and water vapour from the volcano to contend with. It's like some sort of vast system with multiple moving parts where sudden inputs and outputs can have unpredictable effects! In short, climate is a land of contrasts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Lancaster, PA 2020 Election facts:

Mail-in ballots requested: 108,539
Mail-in ballots returned: 89,681
Mail-in ballots counted: 142,584

Weird.

Source: https://i.imgur.com/QllD4yd.jpg

[Moderation4ever]

No. See

https://lancasteronline.com/news/politics/no-lancaster-county-did-not-count-more-mail-in-ballots-than-it-received/article_4f2a853a-1fa1-11eb-aec2-3371757b7a34.html

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Of course, the crooked Democrat election officials deny it.

“That data came straight from the state,” Queen said, referring to the Pennsylvania Department of State. “I guess that whatever (Lancaster County) had reported to the state was incorrect.”

[David Nieporent]

Lancaster County is a Republican county.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Therefore?

[David Nieporent]

Therefore why would they deny this obvious election fraud in their county, if there were obvious election fraud rather than an obvious typo?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Let's list your assumptions:

Election officials act partisanly based upon affiliation.
A county whose majority is one party also has the same party members in elected offices.
A county whose majority is one party also has the same party members in unelected offices.
These party correlations persist at all times and there is no lag or discrepancies.

Now Dave, those things must be true for your claim to be even remotely credible. Given those assumptions, do you think a smart person would've made the same claim?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Pussies have elections stolen from them…even bigger pussies support the pussies who have elections stolen from them.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How much internet time do they allow you in that nursing home?

Too much, if you ask me.

[Krayt]

Pussies have elections stolen from them…even bigger pussies support the pussies who have elections stolen from them.

And those pussies have bigger pussies still, and so ad infinitum.

[SRG]

This was last week but I only came across the dissent yesterday. Missouri executes an insane prisoner without a proper hearing partly because they believe an unqualified "licensed professional counselor" over a qualified psychiatrist and partly because (IMO) like many people, they regard the insane as even more dangerous so should be put down like rabid dogs, Constitution be damned.

In support of his petition, Johnson submitted a 55-page dissenting report from a psychiatrist, Dr. Bhushan Agharkar, who reviewed his medical records and conducted an over two hour in-person evaluation before finding him incompetent to be executed. Dr. Agharkar concluded that “Johnson is aware he is on death row and that he was convicted of murder. However, he does not have a rational understanding of the link between his crime and his punishment. His understanding of the reason for his execution is irrational and delusional, because he believes it is Satan ‘using’ the State of Missouri to execute him in order to bring about the end of the world and that the voice of Satan confirmed this plan to him. He believes he has been marked with the ‘Seventh Sign’ and the world will be destroyed were he to die.”

In response to this compelling evidence, Missouri submitted only a one-and-a-half-page affidavit from Ashley Skaggs, the institutional chief of mental health at Johnson’s prison. Missouri does not dispute that Skaggs, a licensed professional counselor, is not qualified under state law to make a formal determination of competence to be executed. Nor is there any dispute that Skaggs did not evaluate Johnson for the purpose of determining his competency for execution, but instead met with him for a few minutes sporadically during a three-year period to discuss his ongoing treatment.

Unsurprisingly, denial of a stay of execution went Goddards 6 Liberals 3.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/23a90_1qm1.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

"Johnson kidnapped six-year-old Casey Williamson, who would have turned 28 this November, then brutally murdered her at an abandoned factory. Casey defended herself against Johnson as he tried to rape her. She courageously fought for her life while Johnson repeatedly struck her head with a brick until finally crushing her skull with a “basketball-sized boulder.”

[SRG]

Yes. But the severity of the crime is not the issue. His sanity, or lack thereof, is. I guess you're one of the people who "regard the insane as even more dangerous so should be put down like rabid dogs".

Clarence Thomas is in the habit of describing a crime in great depth to avoid addressing the issue of whether the appellant should win an appeal. It's dishonest when he does it as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

"severity of the crime is not the issue"

In fact it is.

He was sane when he killed her and found competent to stand trial. Any post-conviction claimed insanity is irrelevant.

Dude handwrote an apology admitting the murder. His "insanity" was rube bait, looks like he reeled one in.

[SRG]

And you're an expert on insanity? From personal experience, perhaps.

The issue is whether he was insane at the time the execution was due, and as Sotomayor made perfectly clear he did not receive any reasonable hearing of his claim despite there being no qualified evidence against it.

Johnson also submitted medical records detailing his decades-long history of psychotic mental illness, including schizophrenia and delusions. He previously experienced visual and auditory hallucinations that told him to kill himself and hurt others, and reported seeing “demons” and hearing the voice of “Leviathan.” At one point, he heard voices telling him to cut his own arm off and he cut himself repeatedly with a razor; in another incident, he wrote “we’re dead” and “die” on the wall with his own feces and blood.

But according to you he was faking it.

So yes, you're one of those, "if they're crazy, kill 'em" but "let's pretend they're sane, so it's all constitution-like".

[Commenter_XY]

Johnson was sane when he attempted to rape, and subsequently murdered a six year old child, Casey Williamson. He was found guilty in a trial, sentenced to death. Was there a defect in the trial? Nope.

The world is a materially better place without Johnson in it.

[SRG]

He may well have been sane at the time of the murder - though an insanity defence is very risky and difficult, for a variety of reasons - but he was not sane at the time of execution.

There are many people whose leaving the world would leave it materially better, but that isn't how the law is supposed to work, else it would be a utilitarian defence to murder.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG, there is law, and then there is justice. You know that.

Justice was done.

[SRG]

I don't know if executing someone who is now criminally insane is just - they're not the sane person they used to be.

[David Nieporent]

He believes he has been marked with the ‘Seventh Sign’ and the world will be destroyed were he to die.”

Well, was he wrong?

[Krayt]

I would accept Satan destroying the world in lieu of a giant asteroid.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Texas is trying to execute a guy who is so crazy he gouged both his eyes out with a spoon. Not in one sitting but in two separate incidents.

They’re also insisting on executing a guy who was allowed to represent himself at trial despite obvious signs of insanity, including issuing subpoenas for Jesus Christ and JFK. And examining himself as a witness named Sarge in various voices. Sarge is a made up guy who he thinks did the murders.

The death sentence is too serious to be trusted to a flawed government filled with venal flawed people. Bob thinks we should kill ‘em all regardless of circumstances. It’s his belief that the government is hopelessly incompetent in every aspect, except for law enforcement and criminal justice. On those activities government is the epitome of perfection.

Or maybe Bob is just a bloodthirsty lout.

[Bob from Ohio]

A jury decides if the convicted killer deserves death. Why do you hate the jury system?

[Michael Ejercito]

Very great point!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Information provided to a jury is filtered through incompetent or agenda-driven prosecutors and cops and judges.

But I have no issue with the jury system overall. I have no problem with long sentences if they’re deserved. But given that the system is filled with imperfect humans I just don’t want to give it power to create unfixable situations.

You’re quite the simpleton on this. No nuance for you. It’s like you’re the Nige of the right…..

[SRG]

What he deserves and what is constitutional is not always the same. And a jury is not available to hear later appeals.

Why do you hate reason and intelligence?

[Nige]

Interesting to note the occasions when your faith in juries is absolute.

[apedad]

I’m driving through North and South Carolina this week.

Some of you guys live here; I can tell.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Apparently if you defend yourself and your store from a BIPOC criminal robbing and threatening you in CA, the Democrat DAs will investigate you for criminally protecting yourself from a protected class.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog has operated for

TEN (10)!!!!!

days 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. If you are anywhere near Philadelphia, New York, Boston, or Chicago, get tickets.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

The weight of today rests heavily on my chest. I thought I was being brave, standing up for something. But the way they looked at me, the whispers and the stares, they tore at my very soul. The hushed conversations that would stop when I walked past, the giggles that seemed to follow me everywhere. Why is it so hard to just be heard?

I thought posting a proclamation on the Monday Open Thread would make a difference, that people would understand the injustice I was trying to point out. But instead, I feel so alone. I don't understand how people can be so blinded by their beliefs that they can't see the blatant bigotry right in front of them.

I remember when Mom told me about her high school days, about how she stood up for what she believed in. But she never told me it would feel like this. Is this what it feels like to be an outcast? To be ridiculed for speaking the truth? It's like they're all wearing rose-tinted glasses, and I'm the only one who sees the world as it really is.

I know I shouldn't let their words and actions get to me. I should be strong, resilient. But today, Diary, today I feel broken. I feel like that little girl who just wanted to be liked, who just wanted to fit in. But that world, the world of acceptance and understanding, feels so far away right now.

I just wish, for once, someone would actually listen. Really listen. Not just hear the words, but understand the pain behind them. Understand the tears that I've shed, the sleepless nights I've spent, and the countless hours I've dedicated to trying to make a difference.

I know I can't change the world overnight. But I want to believe that my voice matters, that I can make a difference. I just need a sign, Diary. A sign that I'm not alone, that there are others out there who feel the same way.

For now, I'll hold onto hope. Hope that tomorrow will be better. Hope that one day, the world will see things the way I do.

Goodnight, Diary.

Love,
Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland

[BravoCharlieDelta]

ChatGPT's assessment of your comments is that you're really hurting inside.

I wish I wouldn't have done the analysis, now I pity you. Before I didn't really think of you at all. It's kinda sad how bad you're hurting on the inside.

It will be okay, Arthur. Some day. Don't lose hope like grb or that Sam jew guy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I like pointing out the bigotry of bigots.

The bigots who use vile racial slurs habitually.

The bigots who are fans of bigots who use vile racial slurs habitually.

I also like that these conservative bigots are modern America's culture war roadkill, and that they will be replaced by better Americans in the normal course of my country's continuing improvement.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're suffering, Kirkland. The hurt drips from your writing.

I missed it all these years until ChatGPT brought it out. Now I can't unsee it.

I feel so sorry for you, friend.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm winning, dumbass, and enjoying my country's progress, which is being effected against the wishes and efforts of right-wing culture war losers.

I also enjoy kicking bigots around a bit. Most clingers are so dumb and delusional it sometimes seems a bit less than sporting, but smacking around right-wing bigots is always the right thing to do.

You want to feel sorry for someone? Choose movement conservatives who want to be law professors at legitimate, strong law schools. Soon enough, I doubt that any reality-based, mainstream school will be much interested in hiring or retaining movement conservatives for faculty positions. Feel sorry for those losers.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Here are some insights from Dr. Frazier ChatGPT:

* This might suggest that they’ve felt marginalized or oppressed in the past, and now they’re savoring a perceived shift in power dynamics.

* This might indicate a history of personal confrontations or experiences with bigotry, which has made them more aggressive and confrontational.

* This sense of superiority might be a defense mechanism to cope with past feelings of inadequacy or inferiority.

* They may have grown up in an environment where they constantly felt the need to defend their beliefs.

* Their anger likely stems from personal experiences, a history of feeling marginalized, and a fear of regression.

* They may also be compensating for past feelings of inadequacy by adopting a superior attitude.

Oh man, I see a bunch of anger AND secret shame. You’re a closeted homosexual aren’t you? Too old to come out of the closet now that you’re in your golden years and don’t want to make your children embarrassed and ashamed. This is why you’re so angry, because no matter how much-perceived progress with gay acceptance, no normal healthy person would ever choose the gay lifestyle.

No Dad would ever say “Son, I’m proud you are gay.”

I don’t feel sorry for you anymore. You’re just another sick angry homo who thinks they got political power so you’re lashing out at your WASP parents who rejected your lifestyle choices.

Hey, so what if you stayed in the closet all those years? At least you didn’t get AIDS, or Gay Bowel Syndrome and you had a chance to have natural children.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspirators attract a remarkable concentration of antisocial, bigoted, disaffected, ignorance fans. The kind of worthless dumbasses who call people with whom they disagree gay.

Or Jerry Sandusky.

Or pedophiles.

Or who call for liberals and libertarians to be shot in the face, gassed, placed face-down in landfills, raped, sent to Zyklon showers, lined up and shot, or pushed through woodchippers. (None of which elicits a word of disapproval from this blog's management, which instead censors those who criticize or poke fun at conservatives, then bitches about any circumstance in which mainstream institutions are not sufficiently hospitable, in their view, to right-wing bigots and trolls.)

The Republican racists, half-educated Islamophobes, superstitious gay-bashers, transgender-fixated misfits, obsolete misogynists, deplorable white supremacists, right-wing antisemites, conservative immigrant-haters, faux libertarian censors, and other culture war casualties who operate and follow this white, male, right-wing blog seem to dislike being described as bigots.

Tough.

Rather than hide behind euphemisms (conservative values, religious values, traditional values, colorblind, heartland, family values), you guys should ditch the bigotry and backwardness and try to become part of America's future rather than clinging to the substandard parts of its past.

Or, as has recently become apparent, go all-in (with John Eastman, for example, or Jeffery Clark) and add un-American to your basket of deplorables.

Carry on, clingers . . . but only so far and so long as better Americans permit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Zyklon was just a delouser and doesn't harm anyone lol why someone call for that?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you're an 18 year old male woman, do you still have to register for Selective Service? If so, why?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspirators (other than Prof. Somin, the token libertarian) don't seem to be interested in discussing Pres. Trump's legal problems (or John Eastman's, or Jeffrey Clark's), although some interesting speech issues have been raised.

Instead, we can expect a stream of Black crime-transgender-lesbian-drag queen-Muslim-gay-white grievance content.

Cowards.

Partisan, cowardly hacks.

[SimonP]

One would really hope that, if nothing else, a bunch of law professors could get together and agree that the Eastman/Clark/Giuliani/Trump scheme of achieving a quasi-legal coup through fake elector slates and a dubious interpretation of the Electoral Count Act and Constitution is the sort of thing that should be beneath anyone seeking to practice as an attorney under their tutelage. But, strangely, we have seen nothing even remotely like a condemnation from the VCers - not even from Ilya or Orin.

It's actually quite shameful.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy has made its position on John Eastman clear.

Eastman is the Volokh Conspirators' dreamboat.

#Polemical
#Partisan
#Un-American
#Hacks

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

Today, the weight on my chest turned into a fire in my belly. I couldn't hold it in anymore. The whispers, the mocking, the ignorance - it all became too much. Standing in alone in the Monday Open Thread, amidst the noise of clattering important conversations and some mindless chatter, I found my voice and called them all "Partisan, cowardly hacks"!

I know I lashed out. Maybe I shouldn't have. But the pent-up emotions, the days and nights of feeling isolated and ridiculed, had to find an outlet. I wanted them to hear me, to really hear me. To understand that this isn't just about a blog or some random online discussions. It's about the insidious ideologies that are seeping into our society, into the very fabric of our lives.

I'm tired, Diary. Tired of feeling like I'm fighting against the tide. Tired of being the lone voice in a sea of ignorance. But today, for the first time, I felt a little less alone. After my outburst, a few people approached me. Some to mock, yes, but others, others who felt the same way. Who were tired of staying silent. Who wanted to join the fight.

Maybe I was too harsh with my words. Maybe I should have approached it differently. But in that moment, in that heated, passionate moment, it felt right. It felt like the only thing I could do.

I just hope, Diary, that one day, they'll understand. That they'll see beyond the surface, beyond the anger and frustration, and see the hurt, the pain, the desperation. Until then, I'll keep fighting. I'll keep raising my voice. I won't be silenced.

Goodnight, Diary.

Love,
Arthur

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am confident the cowardly, partisan hacks who operate this blog are grateful for your indefatigable support (and that of a few other ready-for-replacement right-wing chuckleheads).

[David Nieporent]

I don't know if I can sit through another year of MAGA legal "analysis." Every ruling in one of the Trump cases (or the Hunter Biden case) — no matter how routine and procedural — is breathlessly treated as the judge "slamming" the prosecution (or defense, in the Biden case).

[Mr. Bumble]

So why not ignore them instead of adding your own?

[SRG]

One of you gentlemen recently recommended "Silverlock" to me. I am a quarter through it and am much enjoying it - so many thanks! Early on I thought it reminded me of some of Rob Holdstock's work (though Rob is more parochial) but as it was written well in advance of Rob's stuff, I guess it goes in the other direction.

I am having fun identifying the different sources. "I bit my arm, I sucked the blood,. And cried, A sail! a sail! "

[M L]

Justin Amash, former Congressman who famously torpedoed his career by voting to impeach Trump, on the Trump indictment:

I may not like Trump, but I love our Constitution, so I feel compelled to speak out.

The latest indictment, which I encourage everyone to read, attempts to criminalize Trump’s routine misstatements of fact and law in connection with the 2020 election.

But this is precisely the sort of wrong that must be addressed politically under our Constitution, not criminally.

Our system can’t survive if political disputes are removed to the criminal realm. There’s no limiting principle to such an approach.

Remind me again which former presidents have been indicted for going to war without congressional approval, spying on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, abusing emergency declarations to bypass checks and balances, or ignoring legal advisers to pursue a clearly unlawful policy.

We don’t criminalize these actions, egregious as they are, because they are matters of political contention. We’re allowed to disagree about the workings of our constitutional system without fear of criminal reprisal.

Politicians are constantly misguided and just plain mistaken about a lot of things—often remarkably so. It endangers all Americans to begin treating politicians’ false beliefs regarding political or constitutional matters, even when they’re obviously wrong, as criminal offenses.

We impeach people for violating the public trust—for political misconduct or serious incompetence. We reject them. We vote them out. We never again elect them.

We don’t imprison them.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1688253793417277440

[Sarcastr0]

The latest indictment, which I encourage everyone to read, attempts to criminalize Trump’s routine misstatements of fact and law in connection with the 2020 election.

How could someone do this? Just lie on the Internet?

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, I don't know, but you do it everyday.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Ahh, Bumble.
Predictably snarky - predictably effeminate.
Predictably nothing to add.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

CISA, the Pentagon, the IC and DHS are on top of it! Don't you worry that won't be going on much longer!

[David Nieporent]

I like Justin Amash a lot, but he's wrong here. First, he's not an attorney and so he misunderstands what the prosecution is for.

Second, policy questions may be "matters of political contention." But coup attempts are not. If a president can overturn an election and stay in power without being voted for, then there isn't any politics left to contend about. We can tolerate politicians being wrong or even corrupt; we cannot tolerate them ignoring the fact that the public voted them out of office. That's a clear "limiting principle."

[M L]

He is an attorney.

Source: Trust me bro. I'm a lawyer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thought Amash was a lawyer (based on a direct discussion with him). He may not be currently practicing, though. Or maybe I remember incorrectly.

[David Nieporent]

No; I remembered incorrectly. He was never really a practicing lawyer (one year after law school, and that's it), but I looked and indeed he is a lawyer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At one point he seemed somewhat proud of it.

[Josh R]

The problem is the Senate didn’t bar Trump from office. Had they done so, we may not have seen this prosecution. But, we need to do something now, and a criminal case seems like the best option. However, I’d be happy to strike a deal with Trump that drops the prosecution in exchange for never running for office.

That being said, I disagree with Amash that trying to steal an election is part of “routine misstatements of fact and law” that amount to just a political dispute.

[M L]

The first part of your comment seems to say: The problem with relying on the political process is that it doesn't always turn out the way I prefer.

[Josh R]

Sadly, that's true. That's why we have the criminal courts as a backup (Mitch McConnell explicitly said so on the floor of the Senate as he voted to acquit Trump while conceding Trump was responsible for Jan 6).

[Magister]

Amash could be reminded that Richard Nixon might have been prosecuted after his resignation; it was likely enough that he was granted a very broad pardon.

And one could equally ask when a president "going to war without congressional approval, spying on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, abusing emergency declarations to bypass checks and balances, or ignoring legal advisers to pursue a clearly unlawful policy" was impeached for any of those. The usual political process to deal with bad presidents is to elect a different one, and defeating that was the underlying objective of the crimes Trump was just indicted for.

[Nige]

The most egregious instance is surely W Bush and Co fabricating evidence to start a war, a war that lined the pockets of cronies, and not facing any investigation, let alone charges.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Elon Musk is claiming the most serious case of illusory and extremely convenient debilitating injury since bone spurs!

[mydisplayname]

Any thoughts about https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2023/08/university-bans-use-of-tiktok-and-wechat-by-university-employees ??

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/news/2023/new-inclusive-screening-process-expands-blood-donor-eligibility.html

How many people are going to die again from getting gay blood?

[Ben_]

San Francisco voter gets what she voted for:

https://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/status/1688617169435652096

Watch her freak out.

Action: “Vote as if you were the most marginalized, oppressed person you know…”

Consequence: “…never really feel fully safe if you live in San Francisco. … and he says move or I’ll rape you… and everyone is just walking by…”

Prediction: She learns nothing and keeps voting the same way. Starts getting her groceries delivered, and considers her problems solved as she’s increasingly confined to her home. Never spends ten seconds thinking about what happens to someone not rich enough to hide.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on working yourself up so much you have no empathy left.

Same partisan sociopathy as those that say serves them right when there’s some shooting or firearm accident in a red state.

You do sure seem to love to get your shit talking from Twitter…

[Ben_]

She wasn’t injured. She just got what she voted for.

She’s welcome to grow up and become an adult any time. Or stop voting and subjecting everyone to the consequences of her childishness.

You could do that too instead of congratulating yourself for your feelings as the ranks of the suffering victims of your favorite policies keep multiplying.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weee Wooo Weee Wooo

Here comes Capt. Madame Sarcastr0 to save the day from some awful illegal Tone!

Great Job Madame!

P.S. Don't forget to report him to the DHS tipline for illegal, and national security harming, malinformation!

[Ben_]

Now she’s pushing the story that it wasn’t one of the special people who spit in her face and threatened to rape her. I guess she can console herself with that when he makes good on his threat next time.

Even after her scary encounter with reality, she still thinks it’s stories that matter.

[Estragon]

John Eastman argues his California Bar disciplinary proceedings should be stayed because he is going to be indicted:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23901160-sbc-23-o-30029-respondents-motion-for-abatement-of-state-bar-disciplinary-proceeding-declaration-of-zachary-mayer

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

It seems strange that John Eastman is just now seeking a stay of the disciplinary proceedings. Eastman’s trial testimony is already underway. He has long known that he is at risk of criminal prosecution. On March 28, 2022, the United States District Court found that it is more likely than not that Donald Trump and Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0_10.pdf

I suspect that Eastman has suddenly become wary of giving testimony in the instant proceeding which may be offered by the government in the D.C. criminal prosecution against Trump pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why has Prof. Volokh had nothing to say about John Eastman recently?

Are we going to learn that Eugene Volokh is working on John Eastman's defense?

Maybe a character witness?

Or perhaps even that he participated in Eastman's un-American effort to subvert an American election?

[Estragon]

One does wonder, at this late date, what Eugene thinks of all this eastman stuff. I’m quite confident I know what Lindgren thinks.

[John F. Carr]

Does California suspend attorneys under felony indictment or only on conviction?

[Estragon]

Who amongst us hasn’t accepted a loan from a rich friend to purchase a luxury R.V.?? This is completely normal, like asking people for venmo donations to your own Christmas party or selling your mom’s house while she’s still living in it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the Court won't clean its own house, Congress should impose adult supervision and call it the "No More Clarence Thomases Act."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Its always so funny to see how racist you people get when a black man runs off the plantation.

" clean its own house" - yeah, Kirkland, just like a negro slave does. Cleans houses like a good house negro.

Sickening.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You need to think through your writing a bit more carefully. Nobody's expecting Clarence Thomas to clean anything. His conduct is the rubbish that is going to be swept away by better Americans.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Sweeping away rubbish like a stupid black janitor.

You make me sick.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Again, dumbass, Clarence Thomas will not be doing the sweeping. He's the entitled, privileged, heedless jackass who creates the mess others must clean.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There we go again, Clarence Thomas the "clean" and articulate uppity negro.

You can't stop being a racist dick, can you?

[grb]

Two Points :

(1) It’s always funny to watch avowed bigots posture concern for equal rights, fair treatment, and respect for minorities. As with his other “Voltage” lying, BCD has to know that no one is fooled by his act. One suspects that he thinks if he – a proud racist – can talk the speech of civil rights, that proves all other civil rights speech is equally meaningless. After all, that’s the kind of shallow dumbass “reasoning” we expect from BravoCharlieDelta.

(2) Back in 1980, Clarence Thomas gave a speech to a right-wing group viciously smearing his own sister as a Welfare Queen shiftless parasite:

“She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check. That’s how dependent she is …. What’s worse is that now her kids feel entitled to the check too. They have no motivation for doing better or getting out of that situation.”

As you can imagine, this was catnip to a winger crowd. They couldn’t get enough. As Clarence well knew, the nastier and more spiteful he got, the more they would cheer.

But then reporters tracked down Thomas’ sister, Emma Mae Martin, to a beat-up frame house in Pin Point, Ga. And they didn’t find a story of welfare dependency.

Instead, they found a story of hard work by three generations of a family struggling to make ends meet like many others. Martin has been deserted by her husband in 1973, just as her father had disappeared 25 years earlier. She worked two minimum-wage jobs while her brother attended law school, but stopped working to take care of an elderly aunt who had suffered a stroke. That led to four or five years on welfare, trying to bet by on $169 a month.

But that was long over. She then worked as a cook at the same hospital where her mother is a nurse’s assistant. One son, Mark, 22, worked as a carpenter. Christine, 20, worked at a bakery. Leola, 15, was a student. Her eldest, Clarence, was serving in the Navy aboard the battleship Wisconsin. Per the article, Emma Mae Martin just shrugged at her brother’s words. Apparently she was used to his posturing hypocrisy.

We’ve now heard stories about multiple members of Clarence Thomas’ family all standing in line for a sugar daddy’s handout. Yet not a single mention of Emma Mae Martin or her children. Apparently she’s the only one who doesn’t like being bought cheap as a rich man’s toy. In the end, she’s the only member of the family who refused to be a parasite…..

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey you senile old boob. No one cares about your first hand anecdotes from the 1880s.

My point, which of course, you could never grok because it was way too intellectual, was to demonstrate how easy it is to mindcontrol you stupid Democrats by using your own power words against you.

See how I forced him to keep changing his language? I made him change his language by merely using Democrat incantations.

I, BravoCharlieDelta, mindcontrolled the dipshit Reverend with a few Democrat totems and spells.

You’re just as easily to mind control too. You are a Democrat, after all.

[SRG]

The unfailing sign of the internet racist is the accusation of racism he levies at anyone who criticises someone who happens to be a minority.

[David Nieporent]

Using racist language. It's really just an excuse for him to say "plantation."

[MoreCurious]

If Roberts had a backbone, he would unilaterally impose ethics rules on all justices and give them 60 days to report all past gifts, sweetheart loans, free trips on yachts and private jets, shifty real estate transactions, etc. And then he would make the information public. What are they going to do, resign? Sue him? And what can he do if they fail to comply? I guess that's open for discussion, but aren't magistrate, district, and appellate judges subject to sanctions for failing to properly report?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In today’s episode of More Shit You Just Can’t Make Up About The Deep State:

Former FBI agent Charles McGonigal is expected to plead guilty to working for a Russian Oligarch.

You may know him as the totally pure and trustworthy Democrat FBI agent who started the “Crossfire Hurrican” Deep State spy operation on Candidate and President Trump. He also had a key role on Meuller’s “Let’s Get Trump” Investigation.

Who is surprised by this? The only really surprising thing is he’s in a courtroom somewhere and not on CNN raking in the $$$$. He must’ve pissed off some Clinton or Biden somewhere by accident. Or maybe he was like that expert swimmer chef who drowned in 3ft of water after he accidentally saw Michael's female penis.

[SRG]

How dare the British government and then the US government spy on him? Just because he met a suspicious oligarch...

Or in other words, it's ok to spy on someone with questionable contacts provide they're not Republicans.

[M L]

Do the “liberals” here support getting rid of cash? And moving to a central bank digital currency?

Please state your position.

[Nige]

Does ANYONE outside drooling tech-bros, perfectly-spherical-horse economists and financial institutions that hate their non-billionaire customers actually want to get rid of cash?

[Sarcastr0]

The shadowy network of secret globalists do.

Don't worry, once your $oros check comes in, you'll get the latest TPs.

[M L]

So your position is NO, Sarcastro? You do not support getting rid of cash?

[Sarcastr0]

Same as Nige, this is a silly question I don't spend any time thinking about.

[M L]

Well you have written two comments on the topic now, which is more than enough time to form an initial opinion. The UN wants to get rid of cash, do you agree with them or not and why?

I'm graciously granting that you fully reserve the right to change your mind upon further thought.

[Nige]

Gonna disagree Sarc, just because the NWO ‘Don’t Say Jewish’ Cabal-believers believe it’s part of the nefarious plot to overthrow the human race, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue. Of course it usually ends up being discussed in that context, which presumably benefits those cheerfully moving to digital-money only with little sensible debate or pushback.

[M L]

So your position is a NO, Nige? You don't support it. Any particular reason why?

Hopefully this is not another one of those "That's Not Happening. And It's Good That It Is" things.

[Nige]

Yes, dear, it's a no. It's a definite trend that needs to be resisted.

[David Nieporent]

A lot of businesses don't want to accept cash themselves, but that's not the same thing as wanting to get rid of cash.

[M L]

To address your question, yes, some people want to get rid of cash.

I believe Sweden is doing so, the UK is close, and a number of other countries.

Also, the United Nations, the IMF, and other organizations who advocate for the UN-created “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) advocate getting rid of cash.

They state that getting rid of cash “reduces costs, has the potential to increase transparency and accountability, diminishes security risks, enhances access to financial services for the poor and can drive inclusive economic growth, with a potential for women economic development.”

https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships/better-cash-alliance-btca

More, e.g.: “Tidhar Wald, Head of Government Relations and Public Policy, Better Than Cash Alliance, United Nations, explains how countries can begin to move away from cash. For the nearly two billion people excluded from the formal financial sector, the digitization of payments can open the door to a range of affordable financial services to help them save safely, seize economic opportunities and reduce their vulnerability.”

https://www.betterthancash.org/explore-resources/igniting-sdg-progress-through-digital-financial-inclusion

So it seems there are powerful arguments, in some peoples’ views, for getting rid of cash. Anywhere you see “Sustainable Development Goals” is generally in agreement with those arguments.

Of course, I don’t see an explicit proposal to get rid of cash gaining popular traction in the U.S. any time soon. Just an issue for discussion. One point of discussion is just what it means to “get rid of cash.” It would not take some extreme form, such as the government suddenly banning the use of cash or ceasing making physical currency altogether. There are policy questions such as whether merchants should be mandated to accept cash as legal tender, the supply and availability of cash, the various detailed antitrust issues applicable to payment processors (which are frequently reviewed/litigated/negotiated), the recent changes to the law where the IRS will be checking up on every transaction over $600 (!) to harass individuals and tiny businesses, etc. A tipping point will be when the use of cash becomes more costly to merchants than the hefty fee of payment processors.

[Nige]

'I believe Sweden is doing so, the UK is close, and a number of other countries.'

The problem with the UK is it's headed back to a barter economy, not a cashless one.

There are obviously huge advantages to digital currencies, but there are dreadful drawbacks, too. Amazon would cheerfully pay workers in Amazon-only digital scrip if they could.

[M L]

"Amazon would cheerfully pay workers in Amazon-only digital scrip if they could."

True ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSvORvIjZiU

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Today marks the beginning of election season.

The CDC just dropped the "Eris" strain of COVID.

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE UNLESS WE VOTE BY MAIL GUYS!!

Here comes President Harris.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Just saw this:

Eris = Election Rigging Is Starting

lol

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

MAGA: My attorneys getting arrested.

MAGA: My aides giving allocutions.

MAGA: My associates going away.

MAGA: My affidavits getting adjudged.

MAGA: My ass got arrested.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Especially that last one!

The Democrat DOJ is relentless, they're going after parents and Meemaws and other White people who care about their families and their country (you know MAGA).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These arrests couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of worthless, delusional, un-American losers.

Lock them up!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I know right? How dare a White parent in a biologically intact natural family (the best kind) not want their children transed by a bunch of Marxist homosexuals in government schools?

LOCK THEM UP! It's a national security issue. Even the Pentagon says so.

[Estragon]

If they can get to the cardinals rally guy, they can get to anyone!

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/cardinals-super-fan-rally-runner-charged-by-feds-with-role-in-jan-6-capitol-riots/article_ded99612-315a-11ee-8908-3b74446e3640.html

[hoppy025]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-demand-1000-excise-tax-assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines

These people will never ever stop. This is why the 2nd Amendment needs to be interpreted to require a death sentence for anyone who as much as proposes or advocates for a law in contravention of it.

[not guilty]

Judge Aileen Loose Cannon is acting up again in Florida. The Special Counsel last week filed a motion requesting a hearing as to potential conflicts of interest on the part of Stanley Woodward, counsel for Defendant Walt Nauta. It appears that Mr. Woodward who has represented at least seven other individuals who have been questioned in connection with the investigation. Those individuals include the director of information technology for Mar-a-Lago (identified in the superseding indictment as Trump Employee 4) and two individuals who worked for Donald Trump during his presidency and afterwards, who may be witnesses at trial. The government's motion recites that after the grand jury returned its initial indictment on June 8, 2023, "[t]he grand jury in this district and a grand jury in the District of Columbia continued to investigate further obstructive activity, and a superseding indictment was returned on July 27, 2023."

In an order filed today, Judge Cannon directed Nauta to file a response to the motion. The order states, "Among other topics as raised in the Motion, the response shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.100.0.pdf

I fail to see any issue as to the D.C. grand jury investigating obstructive activity regarding the Florida prosecution. If corrupt activity affecting the Florida case occurred in D.C., it could be charged in either district pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).

[not guilty]

The government's motion for hearing regarding Mr. Woodward's potential conflict is here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.97.0_1.pdf

[Estragon]

“1 This request for supplemental briefing is not intended to substitute and/or to limit any future motion brought pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b).”

In your experience, is this language common?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If it hurts Trump, he'll say yes.

If it helps Trump, he'll say no.

No need to ask, you can figure out his response on your own.

[Estragon]

This comment is an interesting look into the way you view the world. Predictable, perhaps, but interesting that you’d just lay it out in black and white

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He confessed he was an ideological partisan. You must’ve missed the conversation.

That is how you interpret analyses from partisans. Goal-seeking, not truth-seeking.

[Estragon]

You’re a confessed troll who expounds on the virtues of “voltage” and puts holocaust in quotation marks. How should I interpret you??

Do you have any practical federal courts experience to add here?? Let me guess

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Should someone be skeptical of any analysis of mine and assume bias?

If the answer is yes, take it and shove up not guiltys rear-end.

[not guilty]

Of course I am a partisan. But I am careful to support my analysis with applicable legal authorities. (I can understand why BravoCharlieDelta prefers taking ad hominem potshots to responding to the merits of what I say.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Does any of that mean we can't predict the color of your analysis ahead of time?

[not guilty]

No, BCD, it does not mean that. As Stephen Colbert famously observed, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

That having been said, I respect the readership here enough to cite applicable legal authorities and to link to original source materials when I can. Someone paying attention and having the chops to do so can check me in real time.

Can you say the same? Or does that require too much "voltage"?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

With respect to your cites, what do you think Colbert would say about "pigs" and "lipstick"?

[David Nieporent]

No, it's not common for a judge to order a party to brief an issue and then say, "But don't worry; I'll also let you argue it again later."

[Estragon]

I mean, isn’t it effectively saying “oh and btw mr Woodward I’d love to entertain a 12(b) motion”

[David Nieporent]

Yup.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let Judge Cannon have her fun.

For a little while.

When she starts issuing orders with respect to the New York, D.C., and Georgia prosecutions, better Americans will know how to handle her.

[not guilty]

"In your experience, is this language common?"

No, it is not. It suggests that the judge is coaching the defense to bring a motion to dismiss and/or other pretrial motions.

This is not the first time in this case that Judge Loose Cannon has invited a motion that defense counsel had not raised. In the orrder granting a continuance (ECF 83) the Court stated:

Defendants maintain that this proceeding raises various “novel, complex, and unique legal issues,” citing the interplay between the Presidential Records Act and the various criminal statutes at issue; constitutional and statutory challenges to the authority of the Special Counsel to maintain this action; disputes about the classification status of subject documents; challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment (including questions of attorney-client privilege); requests for defense discovery; and other pre-trial motions, including possible motions to suppress and a motion to sever . . .

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.83.0_1.pdf

In fact, the Defendants’ response to the government’s motion to continue (ECF 66) said nothing at all about any challenge to the grand jury process, any question of attorney-client privilege, any motion to suppress, or any motion to sever.

[not guilty]

The Defendants' response to the government's motion to continue is here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.66.0.pdf

[David Nieporent]

This is not the first time in this case that Judge Loose Cannon has invited a motion that defense counsel had not raised. In the orrder granting a continuance (ECF 83) the Court stated:

It's not the first case in which she's done that for Trump, either. In the search warrant case where she ultimately got benchslapped by the 11th circuit for inventing new criminal procedures specially for Trump without any jurisdiction at all, she kept pretending Trump had filed a 41(g) motion when he hadn't done any such thing.

[not guilty]

Like Tallyrand said of the Bourbon kings of France, Judge Loose Cannon has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

This judge has been reversed twice by the Eleventh Circuit regarding her interference with the investigation of Donald Trump — first for denying a stay of her order regarding documents with classified markings seized from Mar-a-Lago, and later for having exercised jurisdiction in Trump’s civil suit at all. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/22-13005/22-13005-2022-12-01.html

I can envision Judge Cannon making one or more boneheaded, lawless rulings to benefit Trump in the pending criminal prosecution, which may result in yet another reversal by the Court of Appeals.

In prior cases where it has reversed the same trial judge multiple times, the Eleventh Circuit seems to have followed a two or three strikes, you’re out rule regarding reassignment to a different judge on remand. See, United States v. Gupta,572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006) (ordering reassignment after second appeal); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir. 1989) (ordering reassignment after second appeal).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A few observations from a non-lawyer:

Striking a motion without even hearing a competing argument against it seems to be wildly inappropriate.

Suggesting to a defendant what arguments to make that they have not previously mentioned seems to indicate a clear and unfixable bias that a Judge is not supposed to have, let alone act upon.

If non-lawyers can take note of "Aileen because I'm biased" Cannon's impropriety, then certainly the Special Counsel will be taking those same notes and preparing motions for recusal and appeals to the 11th to force Cannon off this case if she doesn't learn her place.

[not guilty]

Adam Unikowsky has some trenchant commentary on Judge Loose Cannon's order. https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/it-begins?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1320082&post_id=135811470&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Judge Cannon seems either (1) overmatched by these events or (2) unable to perform competently for some other reason. It is increasingly apparent she will repeatedly wander off-course until her leash is yanked.

I make it fifty-fifty that she starts issuing orders purporting to influence the New York, Georgia, or D.C. prosecutions of the former president who plucked her from obscurity and put her relatively thin, green resume on the federal bench.

[Estragon]

Would a briefing on the “impropriety” of grand jury usage be considered a 12(b) motion? Or is this motion practice even before the 12(b) stage? Is it even a motion?

[not guilty]

Rule 12(b)(1) provides that a party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial on the merits. Rule 12(b)(3) lists motions that must be raised by pretrial motion if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits.

I am unclear as to how a D.C. grand jury investigating obstructive activity regarding the Florida prosecution (which may well have occurred in D.C., where Nauta's counsel is based) presents any issue at all. (If the D.C. grand jury was investigating potentially criminal conduct that had previously been charged in the June 8 Florida indictment, that would be inappropriate. But I see no indication that that is the case.)

I suspect that Judge Loose Cannon simply is butthurt that her patron, Donald Trump, is being held accountable for troubles outside her bailiwick, that she can't bail him out of.

[Estragon]

Moved

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is kvetching about being tried by a jury in the District of Columbia, and he states that he will seek a change of venue and recusal of the trial judge. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/06/trump-venue-change-jan-6-case-00110006

Team Trump is free to seek transfer to another federal district pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 21(a): “Upon the defendant’s motion, the court must transfer the proceeding against that defendant to another district if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.” Any such endeavor, though, faces an uphill fight.

Some on these comment threads have maintained that Trump cannot receive a fair trial in a city that voted overwhelmingly against his presidential candidacies. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has expressly rejected a claim that the District of Columbia’s voting record in past presidential elections is at all pertinent to venue. United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc). “A fundamental premise of our jurisprudential system is that, save in the most extraordinary circumstances, an impartial jury expectably may be convened anywhere in the Nation. Another is that the capability of doing so is always to be presumed until the contrary appears.” Id., at 135-36.

[David Nieporent]

Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 21 authorizes a defendant to move to transfer the trial; the court must grant the request if it’s impossible to get a fair trial in the current jurisdiction, and may grant the request if it’s just for convenience. But what a defendant doesn’t get to do — despite what Trump and/or his lawyers think — is pick the place to which the trial will be moved. (Trump’s position is that they should move it to the overwhelmingly white — and therefore “more diverse” to him — West Virginia.)

The unable-to-get-a-fair-trial thing is typically about pretrial publicity. But of course the events of 1/6 are about as widely known as it’s possible for events to be; pretrial publicity simply isn’t an issue for distinguishing one venue from another. And the political bias thing, as you point out, is a non-starter; that’s what voir dire is for.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

West Virginians aren't just overwhelmingly white. They're exceptionally poorly educated, addicted, bigoted, superstitious, economically inadequate, and Republican, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you have the same opinion when they were reliably Democrat?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Precisely.

I had more sympathy for them earlier, when (1) they were less bigoted and deplorable or (2) I was less aware of how thoroughly bigoted and deplorable they were.

But the ignorance, superstition, dysfunction, backwardness, and addiction were always there.

[hoppy025]

It’s not that it’s all Democrat that is the problem. It’s that it’s mostly black.

Additionally, D.C. is too geographically small to be its own district. D.C. shouldn't even exist as its own entity. It should have been given back to Maryland when the Virginia portion was so ceded back.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Sometimes Biden's ear lobes are attached to his head, other times the aren't.

That's weird.

[Estragon]

Excellent comment, 10/10

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey, you're welcome!

Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not weird. There are people out there manipulating photos, and using them to spread rumors that Biden is frequently replaced by a body double.

It's becoming a standard technique these days: You flood the zone with easily refuted conspiracy theories about your own guy, so that people eventually tune out and start ignoring things that can't be refuted. Saw an enormous amount of that during the 2020 election and aftermath.

It's becoming a real uphill battle sorting the wheat from the chaff these days.

[David Nieporent]

Brett, seek psychiatric help. Not only is this not "a standard technique," but it never happened.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts' 2016 voter initiative banning sale of pork products made from unhappy pigs will take effect August 24. Implementation of the new pork rules follows the Supreme Court's decision last spring upholding a similar California law. There had been much litigation.

Massachusetts rules also forbid shipping forbidden pork through Massachusetts. This rule is more constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court did not say California was allowed to ban transit of pork products. Massachusetts has agreed not to enforce the transit rule for six months while pork producers and state regulators try to work out a compromise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Coming soon, bootleg bacon.

[John F. Carr]

Meat markets will start popping up in Nashua and Seabrook.

[ThePublius]

Thanks. I will now stock up on bacon and sausages.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Attn: David Nieporant,

We haven't quite hit the full 30 days you asked for, but I thought you'd like to know that "303 Creative" is still not advertising the wedding websites she so desperately wanted to build.

https://303creative.com/websites/

Still seems to me she was just another bigoted cunt looking to hide behind religion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump's supporters and legal team will expect him to be treated to a free ride past the usual strictures which attend life as a criminal defendant. They especially want him positioned to scream tyranny if the judge rules off limits any blather he hopes his lawyers will assert about election fraud. We will see maneuvering to get exculpatory state-of-mind evidence into the record, without necessity to put Trump on the stand to answer questions about his state of mind.

Is that a game Trump can win politically? Can the judge make him pay a high price legally to prevent it? Should she do that?

[John F. Carr]

The best chance for our country is for Trump to piss off Judge Chutkan so much she tosses him in jail to await trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

If Trump survives the various trials, wins the Republican nomination and wins the general election to become president what makes you think that the lawfare won't continue to hamstring anything he attempts?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Pelosi has said the world will cease to exist if Trump becomes president again.

Now imagine you’re an election worker, a postal carrier, or some other nearest neighbor to the ballots and you know you’re not going to get caught.

What would you do to save the world?

He simply won't win. It doesn't matter how in your face they'll need to be. They believe they are saving the world and they also realize they won't be held accountable if they have to break the rules or the law to do so.

[SRG]

Projection.

[Nige]

Seems likely that he would have been emboldened to keep breaking laws and undermining democracy with conspiracies and fraud, so, maybe? He'd probably try to take a wrecking ball to the DOJ until he's sure he's untouchable.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It may be that the Supreme Court, or the Congress, can prevent a Trump trial from being televised live. Is there any reason why President Biden should not accommodate Trump, and order the Justice Department to make its own video record of the trial, and give Trump a copy? Presumably media organizations would also find ways to compel release of their own copies. Would it be wise to do that?

[John F. Carr]

The Justice Department is also forbidden to record video. Here is the policy I found:

A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and in adjacent areas during investitive, naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only:

1) for the presentation of evidence;
2) for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings;
3) for security purposes;
4) for other purposes of judicial administration;
5) for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments; or
6) in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference.

When broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing in the courtroom or adjacent areas is permitted, a judge should ensure that it is done in a manner that will:

1) be consistent with the rights of the parties,
2) not unduly distract participants in the proceeding, and
3) not otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts

[not guilty]

Fed.R.Crim.P. 53 states that the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings. That prohibition should apply to a litigant making its own video record of the trial.

[David Nieporent]

Is there any reason why President Biden should not accommodate Trump, and order the Justice Department to make its own video record of the trial, and give Trump a copy?

Yes. The reason is that it's not permitted, and the lawyers who work for the Justice Department probably would like to remain lawyers.

[The Turtle Dove]

Listening to Biden v. Nebraska.

MQD = P/NP, perhaps. Whether the agency possesses exponential, intractable powers, or if all of its acts can be comfortably phrased in the demotic.

Mr. D.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, here's why the Democrats were so determined to control the composition of the January 6th committee, regardless of the political fallout:

J6 Committee failed to preserve records, has no data on Capitol Hill security failures, GOP charges

They destroyed about half the records and evidence they collected, to avoid it falling into the hands of anybody not hostile to Trump.

[David Nieporent]

1) The Democrats were not so determined to control the composition of the January 6th committee. Pelosi was ready to appoint three of McCarthy's suggestions to the committee; McCarthy and the GOP then pretended to be outraged and refused to participate. That was 100% their choice, and was 100% performative.

2) The "charges" are a lie, if you read beyond the headline. The committee took lots of depositions. Some, it used; some, it didn't. If it used them in its video presentations, it kept the video and the transcript. If it didn't, it kept only the transcript. No evidence was destroyed.