Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Voters in Ohio rejected a measure on the ballot that would have raised the threshold to pass amendments to the state constitution from a simple majority to a 60% vote. There is a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion rights that will be on Ohio’s ballots in November. https://news.yahoo.com/4-takeaways-abortion-rights-advocates-041109071.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=0_00

In The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the appearance of an albatross was viewed as a good omen. The titular character killed the bird, and misfortune followed. The crew hung the carcass of the albatross around the neck of the man that had killed him.

When federal courts were protecting abortion rights as secured by the constitution by means of decisions such as Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), supporters of abortion rights largely did not regard the matter as an important voting issue. Republican culture warriors were able to gin up outrage over the availability of abortion in order to generate turnout on election day.

Last year, however, Justice Samuel Alito and his fellow clowns on SCOTUS slew the albatross when they decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022). The carcass now hangs about Republicans’ necks, in that abortion rights has become a hugely important motivator for Democratic voters.

Since Dobbs, state referenda protecting or restricting abortion rights have been voted on in Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Michigan, California and Vermont. The pro-choice side has won every such contest.

[AmosArch]

Since Dobbs, state referenda protecting or restricting abortion rights have been voted on in Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Michigan, California and Vermont. The pro-choice side has won every such contest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So good news then right? Looks like Dobbs was the right choice after all and it didn’t plunge the world into real life handmaiden’s tale like you guys claimed it would. I think Alito is patiently awaiting his well deserved apology.

[Martinned]

Now do free speech.

[Nelson]

Taking power away from individuals and giving it to the government is questionable, at best. With Dobbs, it's actively bad.

Government coercion, especially based on minority moral beliefs alone, isn't suddenly good just because it's a state doing it.

[Gandydancer]

Tell that to the dead babies.

[AmosArch]

We're going from the one person having total control over the life of another. To a theoretically 'worst' case scenario of one person still having total control over the life of another with a slightly longer drive. Not sure where you picked up the idea that one person having total control over the life of another is the epitome of individual liberty.

[Nelson]

Until viability, there's only one person involved. Unless I missed the part where anti-abortionists stopped expecting everyone to accept their ridiculous and unsupportable assertion that conception is the same as personhood.

If you want to believe that a 0% chance of life is relevant, have at it. If you want to force everyone else to live by your belief, you are stealing liberty from real, living, actual people in favor of potential people.

In a battle of rights with a real person on one side and a maybe-one-day, potential person (and the government) on the other, liberty will always be on the real person's side.

But keep pushing anti-abortion extremism. When it costs Republicans another election, maybe they'll realize the culture war nonsense is losing them elections and go back to being a fiscally conservative, pro-liberty, center-right party again. That party would mop the floor with Democrats. I miss that party.

[myself]

Except the voters don't always get to set the rules.

In gerrymandered states, even if a solid majority of the voters are pro-choice they don't get their choice of government.

And in solid red states, even if the voters solidly prefer abortion rights the primary system means that it's the voters in the GOP primary who actually matter.

[Gandydancer]

Nothing I know of is stopping the pro-fetus-death types from voting in GOP primaries.

That schemes for representative democracy imperfectly reflect supposed majority wishes is scarcely news. People in favor of Roe don't plausibly get to complain about this.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, the often libertarian part of me is perfectly Ok with the Dobbs decision, and the state referenda. 🙂

[Kazinski]

As a libertarian I am pro-choice because I don't want the government making decisions for people, especially since any line drawn is going to be fuzzy. I am personally against abortion, but not my decision, and not the federal governments either, whether by Congress or the courts because it doesn't implicate implicate any powers expressly granted to the federal government, its simply not a federal question.

[Krayt]

I am fine with courts expanding unenumerated rights that would not have been considered such back in the day, as attitudes shift. This is in keeping with the constitutional concept of rights being reserved to the people.

I am not fine with courts expanding government power and control over things, in ways that would not have been considered valid back in the day, sans amendment, because that is not in keeping with the constitutional concept that government should not grow its own power at its own whim.

[Kazinski]

For a right to be reserved to the people it has to exist in the first place. An example of a reserved enumerated right is the right to travel or to make a living.

And then notice carefully the wording of the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...", where did the courts of the United States get the power to grant new rights in the constitution?

[Krayt]

Who said they had to exist, unenumerated, for all eternity? If most think it is a personal right of freedom, then it is.

[Gandydancer]

Roe was precisely the Federal government growing its own power at its own whim.

[not guilty]

There is nothing libertarian about a state government deciding who does or does not bear children. Do those who applaud the reasoning of Dobbs believe that Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (upholding the right of the Commonwealth of Virginia to involuntarily sterilize the "feeble minded"), was decided correctly? Dobbs and Buck are two sides of the same coin.

[VinniUSMC]

State government isn't deciding who does or does not bear children.

Next.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed.

[not guilty]

"State government isn’t deciding who does or does not bear children."

Uh, Dobbs empowers the state to make such determinations. (As did the Virginia statutes upheld in Buck.) Justice Alito opined:

[T]he States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot "substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies." . . . That respect for a legislature's judgment applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance. . . .

A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a "strong presumption of validity." . . . It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. . . .

142 S.Ct. at 2247-48 (citations omitted). Let me illustrate by a hypothetical the breathtaking latitude that SCOTUS by this language vests in state governments.

Suppose a state legislature enacts a statutory scheme requiring that wherever a woman under the age of 21 becomes pregnant, she must abort the embryo/fetus upon pain of imprisonment. (I realize that such an enactment is unlikely to come to pass, but there is a reason it's called a hypothetical.) Dobbs would require a federal court to uphold such a measure.

This scheme is a state law regulating abortion. As such, it is entitled to a "strong presumption of validity." There is ample rational basis for such a measure. The legislature could rationally believe that a child born to a woman under the age of 21 is far more likely to become a public charge. A State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs. It may legitimately attempt to limit its expenditures, whether for public assistance, public education, or any other program. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 633 (1969).

[Armchair Lawyer]

You realize the states could always, to some degree, regulate abortion. It was still illegal to abort an unborn child at 35 weeks in most (but not all) states, even before Roe was overturned.

That doesn't mean they could decide "who could and who couldn't have children".

[not guilty]

Be careful with your quotation marks. I didn't say "could or couldn't"; I said "does or doesn't bear children."

A state that criminalizes abortion decrees that a woman who conceives (and who does not abort spontaneously) carries to term or goes to prison. That is effectively determining that the woman will give birth. (Civil disobedience is always an option, but the state has no business demanding that kind of Hobson's choice.)

[VinniUSMC]

No. Next.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Got it. You believe California determines when women will give birth.

[not guilty]

No, I don't believe that California determines when women will give birth. If you want to know what I believe, just ask me instead of making wild assed guesses.

But SCOTUS has empowered California to imprison pregnant women who choose not to give birth, should its legislature (current or future) elect to do so.

[VinniUSMC]

But SCOTUS has empowered California to imprison pregnant women who choose not to give birth

No. No, it has not.

With limited exception, women always have the power to choose not to give birth, by not getting pregnant. What women don't always have is the power to choose whether to give birth, after choosing (again, with limited exception) to become, or risking becoming, pregnant. It is the woman's choice to 1) have sex, 2) have unprotected sex, 3) have sex without birth control. When/if the woman's choice has been taken away, and that results in pregnancy, that's an exception that should be acknowledged. When the woman's life is in danger, that's an exception that should be acknowledged. "Oops, I got pregnant, but hey, sex is fun, screw the consequences" is not an exception that should be acknowledged.

The state is not impregnating women. The state is not choosing which women can or cannot get pregnant.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the straw man. I don't claim that the state is impregnating women, nor that the state is choosing which women can or cannot get pregnant.

Have you read Dobbs? It very plainly allows a state to criminalize abortion. If the California legislature, or a future California legislature, did so, it would indeed have the power to enforce its prohibition by imprisoning pregnant women who undergo elective abortions.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's what you said.

"A state that criminalizes abortion decrees that a woman who conceives (and who does not abort spontaneously) carries to term or goes to prison. That is effectively determining that the woman will give birth"

California has criminal abortion laws.

Therefor you believe that California determines when a woman will give birth.

[Sarcastr0]

crim·i·nal·ize
verb
turn (an activity) into a criminal offense by making it illegal.

Not the same as 'has criminal laws about.'

[not guilty]

Don't tell me what I believe, Armchair Lawyer. If you want to know that, ask me. There is a reason that a straw man argument is called a fallacy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

ng,

This is just logic, not a strawman. You made a bad blanket argument. Perhaps you were unaware that California has a number of laws that make abortion a criminal offense in some circumstances.

If you want to change your argument, go ahead. But if you really believe, as you stated "A state that criminalizes abortion decrees that a woman who conceives (and who does not abort spontaneously) carries to term or goes to prison. That is effectively determining that the woman will give birth."

With the understanding that California has laws that criminalize abortion in some circumstances, then it follows that California determines when a woman will give birth.

[Gandydancer]

not guilty raises a strawman hypothetical, then complains that accurately parsing his claims is a strawman argument.

At some point a pregnancy results in two individuals. Some people may claim that that hasn’t happened until the umbilical cord is cut, but st is anyway a decision the state must make a decision about. Pretending that it is an uncalled-for imposition on pregnant women for it to do so is absurd.

[not guilty]

Au contraire, Gandydancer. I raised no "strawman hypothetical." I quoted the relevant language from Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs which mandates rational basis analysis of state regulations of abortion, and then I posed a hypothetical set of facts to explore the breathtaking implications of that mandate from SCOTUS.

Let's break down the hypothetical. Do you dispute that I posited a state regulation of abortion? Do you dispute that a legilature could rationally believe that a child born to a female under the age of 21 is more likely to become a public chharge than a child born to an older female? Do you dispute that protection of the public fisc is a legitimate governmental interest?

Rational basis analysis does not care whether a pregnancy does or does not result in two individuals. SCOTUS has effectively decreed an "anything goes" license for a state to regulate abortion rights.

[Martinned]

No, because a 35 week abortion ban does not force a woman to carry a baby to term. She can simply avoid having children by having an abortion before 35 weeks. A 5 week abortion ban (for example), would force every woman who conceives to have a child unless she realised she was pregnant (well) before the 5 week limit.

[David Nieporent]

Dobbs would require a federal court to uphold such a measure.

It would not. Clarence Thomas might, but Dobbs does not. Dobbs does not eliminate the concept of unenumerated rights. It just requires that they be deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. There is no tradition of forced abortion in the U.S. (even Buck v. Bell was about sterilization, not abortion per se).

[not guilty]

Dobbs commands that state abortion regulations be evaluated according to the highly deferential rational basis test. 142 S.Ct. at 2247-48. Nothing limits that analysis to laws prohibiting or restricting abortions.

Do you dispute that my hypothetical regulates abortion? Do you dispute that a legislature could rationally believe that a child born to a female under the age of 21 is more likely to become a public charge than a child born to an older female? Do you dispute that preservation of the public fisc is a legitimate governmental interest?

Given the sweeping language of the execrable decision in Dobbs, nothing therein creates a one way ratchet regarding abortion regulation.

[Josh R]

I agree with David.

Dobbs does not command that every regulation of abortion is subject to rational-basis review. It only held that regulations that impede (including entirely outlaw) getting an abortion is subject to rational-basis review because obtaining an abortion is not a fundamental right. It was silent on the question of whether carrying a fetus to term is a fundamental right.

[David Nieporent]

Dobbs commands that state abortion regulations be evaluated according to the highly deferential rational basis test. 142 S.Ct. at 2247-48. Nothing limits that analysis to laws prohibiting or restricting abortions.

No; you're skipping a step. All laws are evaluated under the rational basis test, unless they involve a suspect class or fundamental right. The holding of Dobbs was that abortion is not a fundamental right — because it is neither enumerated in the constitution nor deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition — and is therefore evaluated only pursuant to the rational basis test.

The holding of Dobbs is not that all laws are evaluated under the rational basis test.

[not guilty]

"The holding of Dobbs is not that all laws are evaluated under the rational basis test."

That is simply untrue as regards state regulations of abortion rights. The holding of Dobbs is that "A law regulating abortion . . . is entitled to a "strong presumption of validity." . . . It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests." 597 U.S. ___, ___, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2284 (2022).

The fact that this may lead to absurd results does not spook the words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor. A nut graph is a nut graph is a nut graph.

What group of words from Dobbs do you claim indicates the contrary?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why you think that's relevant. What we're discussing is not a law regulating abortion.

[not guilty]

With all respect due, that is horseshit. We are discussing my hypothetical, which indubitably involves a regulation involving abortion.

[David Nieporent]

Your hypothetical is a law regulating pregnancy, not abortion.

(It does indeed involve a regulation "involving" abortion, but it is not a law actually regulating abortion.)

[Josh R]

A law regulating abortion . . . is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity"

Just prior to that conclusion, the Court noted (my emphasis):

As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right [...] It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons (Josh R note: i.e., subject to rational-basis review)

Even assuming you are correct that a law requiring an abortion is a law "regulating abortion" (David makes a good argument that it is not), the context I provided prior to your quote section demonstrates the Court's analysis is limited to laws which regulate procuring an abortion.

[Commenter_XY]

David, what is a good example of an unenumerated right that is deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition? Voting?

I appreciated the explanation on the two-step process; everything evaluated under rational basis test first, and then a second test (fundamental right, suspect class).

[David Nieporent]

Marriage. Childrearing. Those two leap immediately to mind.

(EDIT: To be clear, while I personally think that both of these are such rights, I am not giving my personal views here; I am talking about what the courts have recognized.)

[Commenter_XY]

I totally get it....great examples.

[Krayt]

That’s not why the legislature does this. They do it because they imagine a super creature is getting mad that a thing with a soul, a religious concept separate from consciousness, is being destroyed.

I do agree, though, that rational basis, the soul of corrupt politicians engaged in getting in the way, until paid to get out of the way, is a thing, and should not be.

Live by the rational basis sword, die by it.

[Gandydancer]

Nope. The CA law ng imagines is not going to become law and so the anti-abortionists will never "die" by virtue of the rational basis test.

His ridiculous strawman hypothesis is certainly no reason to retain, still less expand, the already excessive reach of Federal courts.

[OtisAH]

Situational libertarians are the only libertarians who exist.

[SimonP]

The part of you that is okay with Dobbs may be conservative, it may even be principled conservative, but it is certainly not libertarian.

I cannot fathom the enthusiasm I find among “libertarians” – “often” or otherwise – for the erosion of federal constitutional protections for our so-called “privacy rights,” which extend beyond just abortion to all manner of decisions relating to one’s own person – which theoretically could and perhaps should include things like masking and vaccines (to invoke an area where your intuitions are likely to flip). In Dobbs, Alito basically declared that such rights don’t exist, and never existed, and Thomas agreed, notwithstanding Alito’s efforts to cabin the reach of the ruling.

The most likely “libertarian” argument justifying the erosion of such rights, notwithstanding that one might agree with substantively or naturally being entitled to such rights, goes to “rule of law” values. But that is hard to square with the fact that we had a “rule of law” on this point – generations of settled expectations and rulings refining the rights in question – and overruling Roe is what has undermined the rule of law. The quasi-originalist or textualist justification for uprooting half a century’s worth of precedent after a dramatic shift rightward on the Court effected by two dubious appointments and bad-faith partisan politics just doesn’t sit right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, an example of "No True Scotsman" in the wild!

I assure you that there has been a sizeable faction of pro-life libertarians for as long as anybody has been using the term. It simply hinges on who you think is a "person", after all.

[OtisAH]

It’s not No True Scotsman. Scots actually exist. Libertarians do not.

[SimonP]

Is it a "no true Scotsman" fallacy if my argument, is, in fact, "Wait - but you're not actually from Scotland?"

Anyway, my point isn't about "pro-life" libertarians, which is a term you've chosen because it equivocates on precisely the point I am making, which isn't about being for or against abortion generally but specifically about federal constitutional protections for abortion rights.

And - suffice it to say also that there's nothing self-evident about a "pro-life libertarian" believing that fetuses are "persons." Maybe some libertarians base their pro-life views on an incoherent argument that is built upon that question-begging belief, but that certainly isn't going too be true of most of them (including an "often libertarian" like CommenterXY). In any event, even for those who do attribute "personhood" falsely to entities with no apparent sense of self and no volition, once you unravel what they're actually doing, you'll see it's just another one of those ends-motivated arguments that has zero to do with liberty and everything to do with conservative and/or religious beliefs.

Which - even if their point were to be conceded - wouldn't be dispositive of the actual issue, which is whether a mother has the right to abort a fetus. Even if you were to say that the fetus is a "person," a further argument and analysis is needed before one can conclude that the fetus's rights as a "person" entitle it to any measure of protection that necessarily imposes obligations on the mother, at the state's sword.

So - as usual, Brett - you nothing worthwhile to say on the topic.

[VinniUSMC]

specifically about federal constitutional protections for abortion rights.

Easy, that's not a thing that exists. Next.

[SimonP]

The point, since you're too cretinous to grasp it yourself, is why a "libertarian" wouldn't view Roe and the body of law it is part of as generally pro-liberty, setting aside whatever one might happen to believe about its textual or genuinely constitutional basis. I would have expected a libertarian to generally support continued protection of privacy rights, as a federal constitutional matter, and wouldn't cast their lot with a benighted approach to constitutional law that serves no purpose and has no value other than to undo a century's worth of constitutional protections.

[Gandydancer]

Roe was an unjustified incursion on the Constitutional protections of unborn individuals and nothing fundamental to libertarianism requires one to believe it was a good idea.

[SimonP]

Roe was an unjustified incursion on the Constitutional protections of unborn individuals

Not a thing. Not even acknowledged in Dobbs.

nothing fundamental to libertarianism requires one to believe it was a good idea.

I'd challenge you to make a libertarian case for the protection of "unborn individuals" that doesn't slip right into an animal rights argument, but I know you're an unprincipled moron who's just trolling, so I'm not going to bother.

[not guilty]

Gandydancer, do you claim that SCOTUS has ever recognized "the Constitutional protections of unborn individuals"? If so, please cite and quote the applicable decision(s).

[Michael Ejercito]

I cannot fathom the enthusiasm I find among “libertarians” – “often” or otherwise – for the erosion of federal constitutional protections for our so-called “privacy rights,” which extend beyond just abortion to all manner of decisions relating to one’s own person – which theoretically could and perhaps should include things like masking and vaccines (to invoke an area where your intuitions are likely to flip). In Dobbs, Alito basically declared that such rights don’t exist, and never existed, and Thomas agreed, notwithstanding Alito’s efforts to cabin the reach of the ruling.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Buck v. Bell

[SimonP]

Invoking those cases, Michael, does not supply an argument - or a point, for that matter.

[Michael Ejercito]

They reject the argument that the Constitution protects some right to bodily autonomy.

[SimonP]

They also predate the cases that establish that the Constitution does protect bodily autonomy, so what's your point?

[Gandydancer]

Not getting the point isn't nearly as good a look as you imagine it to be.

“[E]stablish” is nonsensical claim.

Anything that can be overturned by 5 Justices can't be more than current dogma. Federally-guaranteed abortuion rights were "established", and now they are (largely) not. So what?

[SimonP]

Accusing me of "missing the point" while making taking issue with the meaning of the word "establish" has got to be... well, it's something.

"Established" is the right word to use here. Five justices can overrule the half-century of precedent that Roe was formerly a part of, but this is no less true of any other point of constitutional law, and the Dobbs majority seemed unwilling to go that far. And it only takes one person to reverse an executive order, and a couple hundred to repeal a statute, etc. So nothing is truly "established," in the eternal sense that you seem to think is necessary.

[Nelson]

"the often libertarian part of me is perfectly Ok with the Dobbs decision"

Why is that? Or, said differently, which libertarian principles make you lean towards a pro-Dobbs position and which ones are given a lower priority/value when considering abortion rights?

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, you ask a fair question. Put simply, the people should decide what rules/laws they are willing to live with; as opposed to unelected judges. It is the job of a state legislature to address the abortion question. We have 50 different state legislatures, so there will be some variation between the states on how they do that.

The world has not ended, post Dobbs. My state has not changed their abortion laws (several other states also did nothing legislatively).

[SimonP]

Put simply, the people should decide what rules/laws they are willing to live with; as opposed to unelected judges.

But this begs the question. “The people” decide what rules/laws they are willing to live with, when they accede to a constitution or elect representatives to enact laws. Judges just interpret and apply constitutional and statutory provisions. So for this principle to justify overruling Roe, you have to take as granted that “abortion rights” weren’t within the realm of the rights and freedoms the Constitution and its amendments were intended to protect. You’re thus taking the position that you’re “fine with Dobbs,” as an “often libertarian,” because you believe that Dobbs was correctly decided.

I can appreciate that a commitment to rule of law and self-governance suggests that judges should take constitutional provisions seriously. Certainly, they shouldn’t re-interpret them in ways designed to frustrate their clear intent. But I would think that a libertarian theory of how constitutional provisions should be interpreted would distinguish between (1) authorizing provisions that empower the government to exercise force over the citizens and (2) rights- and freedom-protecting provisions that are themselves intended to limit government power, in favor of individual choice and freedom.

You likely wouldn’t say (or I would hope you wouldn’t), for instance, that just because the Founders might have believed that punishing seditious speech was consistent with the First Amendment, that the Founders might have believed that states could adopt official “state churches” consistent with the First Amendment, or that the Civil Rights Era drafters might have believed that the Fourteenth Amendment authorized the federal government to adopt “reverse racist” policies – that we’re thereby obliged, due to our commitment to the principles of self-governance, to abide by their views. I would think that a libertarian might argue that provisions that constrain government power should be interpreted in a way that does so to the maximal extent permitted by the text – whether that means limiting the scope of a granted authority or providing a zone where the government may not interfere. Leave it to subsequent generations and legislators to expand state power, if they so choose; while at the same time the principle limits the ability of subsequent generations and legislators to restrict personal freedom.

Put plainly, your apparent commitment to the principle of self-governance – which I recognize as a plausibly libertarian commitment – as applied in this instance, seems to subsume any broader interest in preserving liberty. But that seems to me precisely backwards. Self-governance should promote liberty, not give us more ways to restrict it.

My state has not changed their abortion laws (several other states also did nothing legislatively).

This is a dodgy way to put it, since plenty of states had laws banning or restricting abortion that would become enforceable (or be restored as enforceable) upon the overruling of Dobbs.

[Sarcastr0]

There are 3 dimensions to Dobbs - the Constitution, policy, and politics.

The Dobbs decision is remarkably badly reasoned, ignoring precedent in favor of cherry picked originalism. I think that is unwise if you want the opinion to stand a long time and provide maximum guidance to lower courts; there was a way to get substantially the same outcome within the existing precedents to overrule Roe/Casey, but Alito is not really into grappling with doctrine.

As a policy, those claiming it's good because federalism are curating the optimal outcome carefully. The choice is not for the individual; neither is it for the federal government. It's states, that's the perfect level. For some reason. Never mind that it's unimplementable in our increasingly small world, and already creating state-state conflicts. There are plenty of things we don't leave to federalism, and abortion seems to better fit that set to me.

As to the politics, not guilty notes that the GOP politicians seem way out ahead of the voters on abortion. Now there is some confirmation bias here - those states and politicians that slow roll abortion issues are working hard to not make news, and seem to be doing well at it. So we only see the ideologues. But in today's GOP there are lots and lots of those. Populism got them where they are, populism better get them out because it's gonna be a while before we see an incremental pragmatist from their camp. It looks like abortion is an electoral hot stove the GOP is going to be burning their hands on for a while.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, suffice it to say, I don't agree on the bad reasoning part (Constitution dimension). As I recall, Justice Alito cited a rather lengthy historical record, and pointedly argued that the people, not unelected judges, should decide the question. And they are! And that is good that they are deciding this question for themselves.

On the policy dimension, I am perfectly Ok with states getting different legislative results by their own choice. The people have to live with it, so I am fine with them exercising a say in what rules they will live with. NJ does not equal IA. In reading your response, I wonder if we actually have the same outlook on the federalism aspect here and state being a perfect level.

The politics dimension: Sarcastr0, nobody 'wins' here. No matter what, many lives are affected (in fact, one is ended) by an abortion, and the aftermath. Kind of makes the politics dimension irrelevant.

IMO you missed a dimension: moral.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Alito cherry picked a truncated historical record, and lied by omission about the parts he excluded.

[Sarcastr0]

The moral dimension is intensely personal, and not something amenable to analysis.

[SimonP]

On the policy dimension, I am perfectly Ok with states getting different legislative results by their own choice.

Theoretically speaking, I would tend to agree. Part of the problem with devolution, though, is that it's predicated on the assumption that state governments are functioning in a healthy, democratically accountable fashion. But this is less and less true these days.

Indeed, in many states, we see a bizarre pattern emerging, where a minority of voters is empowered to shape the legislative agenda - through the disproportionate representation in state legislatures - while statewide office charged with executing the law are elected by the majority. It would seem that, if we were to design a system from scratch, we'd want it to work the other way, right? That's how Congress and the Congress-President were originally set up - the House represents the people, and initiates budget bills, while the Senate has a counter-majoritarian tilt also reflected in the selection of the President.

And then you have the rather unhelpful thing happening in places like Texas and Florida, where you have executives and legislatures acting in concert, rather than in "jealous" tension with one another. The problem is particularly egregious in Florida, where the legislature seems to have been acting as a rubber-stamp of Meatball's agenda. That's a risk in blue states, also, where you have popular Democratic governors; fortunately, Democratic governors don't have a good track record in terms of inspiring Democratic legislators to support their agendas without question.

The situation in Ohio is exemplary. While the August referendum failed, it shouldn't have happened in the first place - we had a safe Republican majority decreeing an unwanted election for the express purpose of blocking a state constitutional amendment to add the right to abortion to the state constitution. Everything about that situation reflected a legislature acting contrary to what they accurately perceived to be the will of voters. But they went ahead with it anyway. When legislators are gaming the process in this way, what hope do we have that devolution will better serve the people?

[hoppy025]

I don't support a 50% threshold to change a state constitution, but I'm also opposed to raising it to 60% in anticipation of one particular vote.

That said, the fact that women overwhelmingly come out to ensure that they have a right to abort their babies is the surest proof we need that they never should have been allowed to vote in the first place.

[Ed Grinberg]

Google: "To Save America, Repeal the 19th Amendment"
(I tried posting the link to Michael Walsh's column, but the system isn't letting me do so.)

[hoppy025]

You can't repeal the 19th Amendment, just like you can never repeal the 14th. That's the problem with giving people rights that they shouldn't have. once they have them, you need *their* support to remove those rights, and no one will ever support removing their own rights, even if they objectively shouldn't have them.

You can only change things like this by force or civil war.

[SimonP]

Hoppy self-identifying as a member of the Taliban, apparently.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could well happen....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Conspirators — Prof. Volokh in particular — pop into the comments occasionally, but never to say a discouraging word about statements from right-wing assholes such as that crack about what a mistake it was to enable women to vote.

Some people around here dislike it when I mention the low-grade bigotry that permeates this blog. Better readers dislike the conservative bigotry and wonder why the law professors do not seem to mind that bigotry

[Josh R]

I oppose voter initiative and referendum. Don't like what your representative has done? Vote them out.

That being said, I understand this vote was a proxy for abortion rights and I would have been torn had I lived in Ohio.

Finally, I support a federal choice bill that would not allow states to outlaw abortion in the first trimester.

[SimonP]

If you're in favor of a federal law that would protect "abortion on demand" in the first trimester, would you also be in favor of a federal law that would protect "abortion to protect the life and health of the mother," afterwards? Caveat that "health" would be defined to exclude putative "mental health" claims and would be limited to avoiding serious bodily health conditions not "normally" part of a healthy pregnancy itself. What about non-viable fetuses, or fetuses that will survive only with radical medical intervention?

If you're protecting "abortion on demand" in the first trimester, what do you do about situations where states that permit but restrict the availability of abortion - through TRAP laws, currently a product of a bygone age - to such an extent that it can be difficult for many women to actually get the abortions they know they want and need, within the first trimester?

[Josh R]

I should have said at least the first trimester. There are other reasonable restrictions, perhaps including your suggestions, that might be a good idea after that.

[bernard11]

Caveat that “health” would be defined to exclude putative “mental health” claims and would be limited to avoiding serious bodily health conditions not “normally” part of a healthy pregnancy itself.

Why this exclusion? Mental health is part of health, and mental problems can have serious consequences for those who have them.

[SimonP]

I excluded it because I took Josh R as someone who would resist a broad "health" exception, so I focused on where I think there would be broad agreement among Americans. A lot of the anti-abortion rhetoric focuses on the capaciousness of the word "health" in these exceptions, and I would tend to agree that, if used without clear limits as an exception, it could tend to subsume any attempted abortion "ban."

I personally think that abortion, at any stage, for any reason, should be permitted. But I recognize that not everyone trusts women and doctors to make the decisions that best suit their circumstances. (Not that Josh R is such a person; his response suggests he might not be as anti-abortion as I thought he might be.)

[bernard11]

This illustrates a secondary gripe I have with legislators who passed the various strict bans.

They were in such a hurry to show off that they didn't take the time, with help from physicians, to make sensible, clear, exceptions.

Instead they threw in some vague language to cover their asses, but that did little to address serious problems, especially when pregnant women and their doctors might find themselves in the sights of an ambitious DA or AG, of whom there are plenty.

IOW, they couldn't even do a competent job of banning abortions.

[hoppy025]

Sounds like the gun grabbers. Gun control and anti-abortion laws are flip sides of the same coin. The difference is that gun rights are in the Constitution. Abortion rights are not.

[hoppy025]

Don't be obtuse. If "mental health" allows for an abortion, all a woman would have to do is say that the prospect of having a child or the pregnancy itself is making her depressed, and there will be no shortage of "doctors" willing to sign off on the abortion.

It would completely gut the rule. But of course, you know that.

[NOYB2]

Medically justified abortions are related to cases where there is scientific evidence that carrying a child to term leads to serious, extraordinary health risks for the mother. Certain cancers are an example.

There are no mental illnesses that require an abortion. Pregnancy can trigger or worsen some forms of mental illness, but this is unpredictable and a normal risk of pregnancy; it does not justify abortion. Therefore, the law should make clear that this is not legal justification for an abortion.

[AmosArch]

Question for leftists.

Is it wrong or not to judge someone by their skin color, sex, or sexual orientation etc? If it is the former why do you as a movement clearly do so constantly? Ie a white man is expected to feel guilt or is assumed to have automatically benefited from something based primarily or completely on the color of his skin with no significant regard to his individual background or what actually happened in his individual life, or who he is as an individual? This is not just some rogue activists this is a mainstream view among leftists.

If the latter, and it is okay to judge people based on their skin color etc why is this view clearly contradicted and demonized in your rhetoric by innumerable mainstream spokespeople and against the supposed main aim of your movement according to said mainstream spokespeople?

If it is a combination of the two and sometimes it is okay to judge people based on their skin color and sometimes not etc. What exactly do you stand for then? You believe neither in not judging people by their skin color etc nor the opposite. So you’re basically exactly like conservatives and claim to believe in some generic concept of fairness except you cheerlead for different groups?

Theres no grand abstract difference in moral underpinnings at all between you and your opponents. The only difference is the specific set of questionable statistics you claim is more valid?

[Sarcastr0]

As a liberal white dude, white mean are not supposed to feel guilt. Either are we supposed to feel resentment and fear at every diversity initiative or training on how not to be an asshole.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Haha yeah, that's all diversity training really is! How Not To Be An Asshole for White Men training!

Yeah, that's exactly what it is! haha haha yeah!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The backlash is coming and coming soon.

[Sarcastr0]

Actually I’d bet this issue has peaked.

It’s law and order now!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/06/us/politics/woke-republicans-poll.html

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The NYTimes? Wow, that’s very authoritative and they definitely unbaisedly have a pulse on real Republicans and definitely aren’t trying to manufacture any narrative!

Good call. That’s definitely where the smart people go to find insights into the minds of average Republican! The New York Times!

lol wtf

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You’re right.

For dispatches from the liberal and reality-based world, check The New York Times and The Washington Post.

For insights concerning the conservative and Republican world, consult Free Republic, The Volokh Conspiracy, 4chan, National Review, and Stormfront.

[David Nieporent]

At this point one would need to go to a sewage plant to find insights into the minds of average Republicans.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or a Chinese bio lab in CA.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Chinese are studying belligerent ignorance, multifaceted bigotry, faux libertarianism, and gape-jawed gullibility at a laboratory in California?

Which Federalist Society chapter are they studying?

[hippo]

Says the guy who felt insulted when labeled a progressive.

[David Nieporent]

Are you under the impression that everyone in the country is either MAGA or progressive?

[Sarcastr0]

There are ideologies other than Republican and Progressive.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We get hours long "How not to be an asshole" training and forced diversity allegiance statements from these people.

What do rapey immigrants get for training from these people? Cute videos for toddlers about "no no squares".

https://twitter.com/Kevin1118791/status/1689569403858190337

[SRG]

You do realise that "Woke", etc. is the backlash. It's not as though the US was this great equal society and then Woke happened.

[OtisAH]

BREAKING: Impotent Man Rages Impotently

[Dr. Ed 2]

The decides to use HIS purchasing power to effect social change.

[Nelson]

By my count, this is the 627th time Dr. Ed has predicted civil war.

[santamonica811]

. . . this year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Revolution more than civil war.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You’ll have to settle for replacement.

[SimonP]

Ed, who in the world do you think wants to fight for this "revolution"? The loudest MAGA complainers are all overweight, middle-to-late aged white men. Are you taking up arms, in order to subjugate half the country? Are you putting up your life or treasure? Who the hell do you think wants to fight for your impotent, heart-diseased ass, or to restore your good ol' days?

The white nationalists you no doubt count as among your allies are eager for violence, but they are not numerous, nor do they inspire allegiance. Your leaders are all cynical grifters, and you all kind of understand that. It's so remarkably stupid. Our founders fought for the right to self-governance, or against slavery. Your lot wants to fight to destroy everything that the greater generations before us built. You ought to be embarrassed.

[Ed Grinberg]

diversity initiative or training on how not to be an asshole

https://nypost.com/2023/08/05/dei-teacher-mocked-principal-richard-bilkszto-who-later-killed-himself-audio/
I guess, according to you, this guy just really wanted to be an asshole...

[TwelveInchPianist]

You often seem to resent it when I tell you how not to be an asshole, Sarcastro. What gives?

[Nige]

‘Ie a white man is expected to feel guilt or is assumed to have automatically benefited from something based primarily or completely on the color of his skin with no significant regard to his individual background or what actually happened in his individual life, or who he is as an individual?’

Black, gay, trans people have to fear discrimination, opression, vast quantities of deranged hatred. Well-to-do straight white people worry that someone somewhere thinks they ought to feel a twingle of guilt – actually awareness, same thing to them, I guess – for being well-off in a country with a long history of savage and brutal white supremacy. Is this racism, they think? Out loud, endlessly, while also claiming to have been silenced.

'What exactly do you stand for then?'

It's nice that you pretend to take an interest, but that straw is deeply embedded.

[not guilty]

Contrary to what too many straight, white folks think, life is not a zero sum game.

Then-Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1960 explained to his aide Bill Moyers the appeal of Jim Crow to white southerners:

WHILE Lyndon Baines Johnson was a man of time and place, he felt the bitter paradox of both. I was a young man on his staff in 1960 when he gave me a vivid account of that southern schizophrenia he understood and feared. We were in Tennessee. During the motorcade, he spotted some ugly racial epithets scrawled on signs. Late that night in the hotel, when the local dignitaries had finished the last bottles of bourbon and branch water and departed, he started talking about those signs. "I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/

The desperate need of losers for a class of other people to hate on and look down upon is a powerful urge.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think it’s a powerful urge for blacks, homosexuals, and transgenders too? Or just Whites?

P.S. LBJ also said "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years." Guess what? His policies got him halfway there so far. lmao

[David Nieporent]

P.S., the source for that claim is highly dubious.

[Nelson]

"P.S. LBJ also said “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years.” Guess what? His policies got him halfway there so far. lmao"

You think LBJ was President 100 years ago? I would have thought the Internet Research Agency trained you better than that.

[Artifex]

Contrary to what too many straight, white folks think, life is not a zero sum game.

Oh come on. So we are embracing "separate but equal" now are we ? You are making the same argument. Negros live over there. White folk live over here. They have housing, schools and water fountains. We have housing, schools and water fountains. Don't worry about relative funding. It's not a zero sum game.

The reason that this is repulsive is that it is the same paper thin rationalization of bad behavior. The honest point is that many things in life are zero sum. If you have a ten million dollar budget and spend nine million dollars on whites only facilities, you actually only have a million left and extra money doesn't magically appear. If you have 5000 slots at a school and you allocate 1000 of them to a favored race or gender, everyone else is left to compete for 4000 slots. That is the very definition of zero sum, and it is discriminatory at its very heart and soul.

[Nige]

So 'some white people feel guilty' is the same as 'seperate but equal.' I rest my case.

If you have 5000 slots and you reserve five for the poor, underpriveleged or members of groups that have been historically discriminated against then its a program to promote social and economic mobility, stop whining, the rich people won't lose out.

[Gandydancer]

Rule#1: Nige is always a jackass.

The "Asians" excluded from admission to UNC were not "rich", and the ratio of slots affected was not 5 out of 5000, but Nige is congenitally incapable of honestly addressing any issue.

[Nige]

I'm hardly going to argue that these institutions aren't classist and racist. That's why AA existed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sorry, Amos, but you misdescribe leftist anti-racism. It rejects your analysis on the basis of a principle you left out: that history matters. Two corollary conclusions also matter:

1. However you justify your own historical innocence, if you advocate policies which selectively burden black people today, you are not innocent today. One way in which history especially matters is that it created a present in which it remains all too easy to selectively burden black people with color blind policies. Willful refusal to see that is not innocence.

2. Anti-racists are not the real racists.

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't leave out consideration of history, he put it in it's proper context: When judging an individual, it is that individual's history that is relevant, not the history of long dead people who vaguely look like that individual.

[Nige]

Yes, he dismissed it as irrelevant. A sincere effort to understand the views he’s talking about would not do that, since their point is the entire country was built on a system that benefitted people who looked like that individual, because they looked like that individual. To ignore that is a form of survivor bias.

Awareness may cause some to feel guilty, but it’s the awareness that matters. If you reject it because you don’t want to feel guilty, well, facts don't care about your feelings. If you reject it because you don’t like your indifference being challenged, well, tough. What are you going to do, silence people and suppress knowledge by shutting down university courses, altering school history books and removing books from libraries? Oh, wait.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can understand a view, and reject it. That's what he did: Rejected the notion of collective racial guilt.

[Sarcastr0]

Nige explained how there is no collective racial guilt at play, and how that's your choice on how you want to feel.

You refuse to understand this over and over, choosing victimhood instead.

[Don Nico]

Nige did not such thing.
He made a passing dismissal of the idea and then followed with a harangue about collective white guilt is justified.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, he didn't. Not remotely. What fucking snowflakes to be so worried about "collective white guilt" which is primarily a dumb idea created and promoted by the likes of you.

The fact that past, state and federally endorsed/mandated discrimination (as well as rampant private discrimination) affects the socioeconomic status of current individuals is a fact with which thinking people attempt to reckon. People who are primarily selfish and self-interested are consumed with explaining why they, personally, are not at fault for anything and should retain any unearned advantages they have.

Guilt doesn't have anything to do with it, except that it's usually the nakedly selfish who bring up the guilt argument, probably because they realize what assholes they are, but want to find a reason why it's someone else's fault they feel guilty for being an asshole.

If you feel guilty, examine yourself. If you want a more just and equal society, come join the anti-racist club.

[Sarcastr0]

Don: Awareness may cause some to feel guilty, but it’s the awareness that matters.

Think on that a bit.

[Don Nico]

NOVA
You are such a self-righteous dude. Good for you for being so superior.
What the hell are the cries for endless racially based discrimination to be suffered by those from immigrant families who were discriminated against themselves and had no hand in slavery, jim crow or the like. That sounds like collective guilt to me from the likes of folks like you.
What I sense from your " the likes of you" is plenty of guilt on your part.
Enjoy it and wallow in it and contribute all you want to the outstretched hands.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
That is a fair point and said in a non-condescending manner

[Nige]

He claimed to not understand it. Why constantly ask for it to be explained if he does understand it but pretends not to?

[SimonP]

I don't know how many times it has to be said: concepts like "white privilege" and "systemic racism" do not imply that white men are guilty of acts they did not themselves perform. That is entirely your grievance-nursing.

Asking a white man to acknowledge all the ways in which he benefits, in our society, from being "white" and "male" is just asking him to acknowledge empirical reality. (And as such, the acknowledgment is validly sought only insofar as reality does reflect these benefits.) It is not to say he is to blame for benefits he receives by virtue of being white and male, any more than a beautiful or born-wealthy person is to blame for inheriting their beauty or wealth. It is just to say, "here is how our society is currently arranged, which inequitably disfavors people who are not like you; that is something we should work to change."

[VinniUSMC]

Anti-racists are not the real racists.

They're not the real racists, whatever the fuck that means, but they are racists, which you entirely agree with and condone.

As usual, SL is full of shit.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You apparently, like your hero, think you can make things true just by saying them. Or, maybe, you realize, like your hero, that you can get the practical equivalent to making things true which is to convince people they are true just by repeating the same lies over and over.

In any case, your comments are useless and fail to engage in any serious way.

Anti-racists aren’t racists and no one in this thread agrees with or condones the made-up racism you attribute to anti-racists.

[Michael Ejercito]

However you justify your own historical innocence, if you advocate policies which selectively burden black people today, you are not innocent today. One way in which history especially matters is that it created a present in which it remains all too easy to selectively burden black people with color blind policies. Willful refusal to see that is not innocence.

So Everytown for Gun Safety is not innocent today.

Understood.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That was an incredibly lame attempt at a “gotcha!”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Amos Arch comment: straw man, start to finish. Mischaracterize the arguments in support of affirmative action, and then argue against the mischaracterization.

[myself]

Question for leftists.

Progressives maybe? Someone using "leftist" is a red flag as it's primary used by conservatives in a derogatory term.

Is it wrong or not to judge someone by their skin color, sex, or sexual orientation etc?

Yup.

If it is the former why do you as a movement clearly do so constantly?

What did I tell ya, red flag.

Ie a white man is expected to feel guilt or is assumed to have automatically benefited from something based primarily or completely on the color of his skin with no significant regard to his individual background or what actually happened in his individual life, or who he is as an individual? This is not just some rogue activists this is a mainstream view among leftists.

No, that's your straw-man view of progressives.

Being a white guy doesn't mean you aren't disadvantaged in some way (or you should feel guilt for something you had no control over).

It just means that you aren't disadvantaged due to your skin colour or gender in particular.

[John F. Carr]

This week is the 15th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Georgia. The West shrugged. Six years later Russia invaded Crimea and the West frowned.

[AmosArch]

The culture war between the two wasn't boiling quite as rapidly as it is now. Slaughtering thousands of civilians is one thing but once the West found out Russia planned to outlaw child gender transitions the gloves came off.

[Nige]

Good for you, rallying to Putin's war on woke.

[Don Nico]

More of your gaslighting

[Nige]

Do ANY of you know what gaslighting actually is?

[OtisAH]

None of them. They just know they heard The Left use it, likely properly and against some MAGA asshat, so they use it as part of their preferred “rubber v. glue” playground argumentation style.

[SimonP]

Which is why simplistically crediting Trump for not getting us into any new foreign wars maybe misses an important part of the picture.

[Commenter_XY]

Impeachment and POTUS Biden. It is in discussion, and I would like to test the 'Wisdom of the Crowd' right here at VC. Two simple Yes/No questions.

Will POTUS Biden be impeached?
Will POTUS Biden be convicted?

(there is no right or wrong answer...just looking to make the tally and test the wisdom of the crowd)

[John F. Carr]

No. It doesn't take many Republican holdouts to deny impeachment a majority. I expect impeachment will die in committee rather than fail on the floor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No one wants Her-Arse -- but a year of her would put an absolute end to both DEI and Affirmative Retribution.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I think you're giving these people too much credit.

If these people can look at an ugly man in a dress and see a real authentic woman with a "female penis" they can also watch one of Kamala's speeches and believe she's the second coming of JFK.

Their minds are completely malleable. Like clay in the hands of the Soroses of the world.

[John F. Carr]

That's another reason. The opposition was mad enough at Clinton and Trump to risk promoting a VP who would likely win as an incumbent. Republicans aren't that mad at Biden.

[OtisAH]

I’m pretty sure for the most part MAGA isn’t worried about Harris. She’s a woman and black, and they have well-worn playbook for those. It’s Buttigieg who terrifies them. He’s smarter than they are, speaks better than they do, is more manly than any of them, young, male, and white. Short of going full “NO HOMO” — which is likely — I think they’re a bit perplexed on how to handle him. That’s why they started blaming him for everything from bridge collapses to broken traffic lights and tipped orange cones.

[Life of Brian]

It’s Buttigieg who terrifies them.

Too late in the day to spray coffee on my screen, but thanks nonetheless.

To be terrifying, the man would actually have to have some sort of established track record of 1) showing up; 2) accomplishing something actually meaningful as opposed to pitch-perfect platitudes and/or handing out sops to his buddies; and 3) not whining and passing the buck when things don't go swimmingly.

Or are you counting on Biden having severely and permanently lowered the bar in that regard?

[OtisAH]

Shhhhhh.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, I must have missed the KEEP OUT -- NARRATIVE UNDER CONSTRUCTION sign. Maybe Mayor Pete can take those on as his next pet project!

[OtisAH]

Shhhhh.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so you actually ARE going to show your face around here again after your deliciously stunning own goal downthread! Given that, maybe this will be more your speed:

¡Tal vez el alcalde Pete pueda asumirlos como su próximo proyecto favorito!

[Kazinski]

He won't be impeached, unless there is an absolute smoking gun, showing a quid pro quo for cash.

And he can't be mortally wounded by the probe because he's already a dead man walking.

But he's finished as a candidate for 2024.

[Nige]

'But he’s finished as a candidate for 2024.'

He's lost Kazinski's vote, then. Game over, man, game over.

[Kazinski]

"Only half of Democrats, or 47%, think Biden should run again in 2024, according to The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/21/2024-election-biden-democrats-poll/11714259002

That's just abysmal, for an incumbent in their own party. They'll hold their nose and vote for Joe hardly seems like a winning strategy.

[Nige]

They'll rally. Nobody wants Trump, or trump-lite, back in charge.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot stuck in 2016 open-loop

[David Nieporent]

That’s just abysmal, for an incumbent in their own party. They’ll hold their nose and vote for Joe hardly seems like a winning strategy.

It was damn effective in 2020. As long as the GOP insists on drinking the Trump Kool-Aid, the Dems will be fine with Biden.

[Kazinski]

I misspoke, he won’t be convicted if impeached, unless there is an absolute smoking gun quid quo pro, or he will resign which is the same thing.

He will be impeached if its found he got foreign transfers into accounts he directly controls while he was VP.

But he is a dead man walking in terms of the 2024 nomination. Biden has never been popular personally with Democrats, support for him has always been transactional, he gets support because of the things he delivers if he can win and if he has the best chance of winning among their very thin bench then the support follows.

[Sarcastr0]

In Im ent Presidents generally have an improved chance of winning. Plus he’s delivered good stuff for liberal policy preferences. More than Obama.

[Nige]

And for all the whining on the right, most people are actually glad to finally see some sort of accountability. Politicians often protect each other, either side of the aisle. Biden not interfering with the investigations and indictments is to his credit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10681291/Biden-wants-AG-Garland-decisive-action-Jan-6-said-Trump-prosecuted-Report.html

"AG Merrick Garland 'feels pressure from White House to go after Trump for January 6': Biden complained to inner circle that ex-president is a 'threat to democracy' who should be 'prosecuted'"

lol whoopsie, nige.

[myself]

It must be true because you read it in the Daily Mail.

[Nige]

'in terms of the 2024 nomination.'

RFKjr isn't getting the nomination, Kaz.

[Kazinski]

No, he won't, RFKjr is at the most this years Gene McCarthy. But you haven't noticed Newsome's shadow campaign, or Whitmer's?

Assuming the democrats are as much dead enders as Trumps supporters, the end will come, and rapidly when the first third party candidate starts making serious noises (and surely they've given RFKjr plenty of an excuse to go 3rd party, and Manchin too) in a swing state that Biden has to have like PA or VA, and shows that Biden will lose the state to Trump. Then the preference cascade starts and he's gone.

Surely you remember what happened in 2020 when Bernie was thumping Joe in the primaries but the polls showed Bernie losing to Trump in the general and Biden with a slight lead. They pulled the rug out from under Bernie faster than he could say "I've fallen and I can't get up".

[Nige]

I remember a lot of predictions about what the Democrats would do and how badly they'd lose and how Biden could not possibly beat Trump. We'll see.

[OtisAH]

Until a third party builds itself from the local level, nationwide, on up rather than offer some character every four years for the highest office in the nation, there will be no competitive third party. Yes, there will always message-senders and contrarians and the like to vote for the character, and some years the character may even make a bit more noise than usual, but that’s all you’re getting until an actual party forms and builds.

[Don Nico]

"But you haven’t noticed Newsome’s shadow campaign"
That is the man to watch. He is a buddy-fucker from way back.

[santamonica811]

He's absolutely gunning for the '28 nomination. But suggesting anything for 2024 is laughable. He's ambitious. But also a team-player, and he has a decade + of actual experience that demonstrates this.

[Don Nico]

SM,
To be sure for 28. And he is sly enough not to raise his head above the foxhole yet for '24. But should Biden stumble badly, he will be first in line, but is unlike to be the first to plunge in the knife.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Otis, Blacks simply ain't gonna vote for the gay guy.

Ain't gonna happen -- you need to understand that.

[grb]

Kazinski : But he’s finished as a candidate for 2024.

Three Points :

(1) This is a Nostradamus Ed-grade prediction – i.e. a ludicrous wish-fulfillment fantasy joke, There are plenty of scenarios where Biden doesn’t run, but none have anything to do with an impeachment probe.

(2) Republicans and the Right have repeatedly promised evidence of Biden corruption. Every time has been a humiliating fiasco. Most recently, the testimony of Devon Archer blew-up in their face after he said the exact opposite of their promises. They were reduced to rushing black-is-white spin on Fox before the transcript was released. That’s what your “impeachment probe” would look like. A jokey farce everywhere except on Fox.

(3) The mentality behind this is both hilarious and pathetic. After eight years of hearing (truthfully) that W Bush was a light-weight, the Right spent Obama’s entire presidency claiming he was secretly dumb. After hearing (truthfully) Trump is a lifelong crook, the Right is all in on the “Biden crime family” bullshit. Given they only have one seedy son as proof, that hasn’t (and won’t) gone anywhere.

[SimonP]

He won’t be impeached, unless there is an absolute smoking gun, showing a quid pro quo for cash.

That is, an actual demonstration of bribery, and not a series of wire transactions involving unfamiliar names that the rubes feel is vaguely shady, without a concrete sense of why.

[Brett Bellmore]

Impeached? Maybe, depends on the 2024 election result.

Convicted? Not a chance. It only takes a 3rd of the Senate to block a conviction, and it's honestly hard to imagine what more you could catch Biden at, that would be enough to get more than a couple of Democratic votes.

Moreover, I expect that Biden is going to get kicked out of office via Amendment 25 at some point, at which point impeaching a guy who can't even remember what he ate for lunch would seem like just piling on.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree the 2024 election results may decide but not for the same reason. Republicans will not impeach before 2024. They have a poor case, if one at all and an impeachment will strengthen Biden. I suspect the Republicans will lose the House in 2024 as they have not really done anything worth leaving them in control. If by chance the Republican keep control of the House and impeachment means nothing they could do it after 2024.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's a pretty good potential case.... Especially if it is demonstrated that Hunter transferred funds to Joe, in any way.

[Nige]

I see you've accepted that this has not been shown.

[Kazinski]

There are invoices and documents on Hunters laptop showing intermingling of funds, and Hunter paying Joe's bills.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9757117/Hunter-Biden-complained-half-salary-went-paying-Joes-bills.html

And yeah, I know some claim the daily mail isn't a reliable site, but lets just remember when the NyPost and Daily mail were almost the only ones reporting on Hunter's laptop at all, and all the "reliable" sources were saying it was Russian Disinformation.

[Nige]

Do they? Wow how sinister. These hyper-sensitive corruption detectors must have been wrapped in kryptonite during the Kushner years.

Astonishing benchmark you have there. Everybody with half a brain spotted the rat-fuck a mile off.

[Moderation4ever]

"It’s a pretty good potential case"

Potential, the only thing missing is evidence.

[Longtobefree]

Good point about the smoking gun.
I mean, if they had bank records, or sworn testimony, or phone transcripts, or recordings of broadcast TV interviews, or FBI documents, or the J6 committee destroying records, or something, maybe.

[not guilty]

I expect that President will be impeached by the House and acquitted in the Senate. The governing principle was articulated by Gerald Ford, then House Minority Leader: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

In 1998 Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles asked Newt Gingrich: Why were the Republicans intent on impeaching Bill Clinton? Gingrich replied, “Because we can.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/theres-a-bigger-prize-than-impeachment.html

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No mention of the House impeachments of Trump to diminish the meaning of impeachments?

Or were those, to you, super serious and on super real serious violations by Trump?

[not guilty]

Pay attention, BCD. Commenter XY asked two simple Yes/No questions: (1) Will POTUS Biden be impeached? (2) Will POTUS Biden be convicted?

I answered these questions, and I stated my reasons for answering in the manner that I did. Neither of the questions related to any impeachment of Trump.

I realize that you may find tu quoque irresistible, but it annoys many of the rest of us.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Not guilty, you clearly chose examples that would diminish the power of a House impeachment and colored them with quotes to further emphasize the point.

I only asked why were cherrypicking when choosing examples to undermine the meaning of a House impeachment. Especially given the recency of two clear examples that would further your point.

That’s obviously not a tu quoque and it’s clearly related to your comment.

You could’ve had a much easier time undermining the credibility of a House impeachment with contemporary events, yet you chose to dig back 30+ years. Which is an odd thing to do. So I was curious, why you didn’t choose more modern examples to make your point about the absurdities of House impeachments? Maybe you believed the last two House impeachments were super real and super serious?

Which if you did believe those things, would really make you out to be a fool. Which I kind of enjoy doing to you since you always put on such airs around here as some sort of Serious Person.

[not guilty]

Again, Commenter XY asked only about whether President Biden will be impeached and/or convicted, and I answered the specific questions that he asked. I did not "undermine the meaning of a House impeachment" -- I acknowledge the likelihood thereof by the current House of Representatives.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What purpose do these quotes serve in your argument:

"“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”"

"Why were the Republicans intent on impeaching Bill Clinton? Gingrich replied, “Because we can.”

What are you trying to imply by including those two particular quotes?

[not guilty]

I wasn't trying to imply anything. I was explaining my reasons for predicting that the House of Representatives will impeach Biden.

Gerald Ford was exactly right as to what constitutes an impeachable offense. And the Bowles/Gingrich exchange indicates that impeachment as a naked exercise of political power has occurred before. As Shakespeare wrote in The Tempest, Act 2, Scene I, "What's past is prologue."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So you believe the most recent example of impeachment as a naked exercise of political power was 30+years ago?

[not guilty]

No, I believe it was in 1998. Twenty-five years ago.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Here’s what I said three hours ago:

Maybe you believed the last two House impeachments were super real and super serious?

Which if you did believe those things, would really make you out to be a fool. Which I kind of enjoy doing to you since you always put on such airs around here as some sort of Serious Person.

Tada! Confirmed. Thanks for playing.

[not guilty]

BCD, If you want to know what I believe, ask me instead of making assumptions.

You asked if I believe the most recent example of impeachment as a naked exercise of political power was 30+years ago. I replied that it was twenty-five years ago, in 1998. (Your arithmetic skills appear to be on par with your reading comprehension.

The House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi in fact was reluctant to impeach Donald Trump. It did so (twice) only in the face of egregious misconduct by Trump.

[OtisAH]

Extorting a nation in exchange for political advantage at home and attempting to overthrow our government are super real serious violations of his oath and office. And yes, I know Turnip swearing an oath is worthless, but he still did it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yes, it is increasingly likely he'll be impeached.

-The rationale for this is simple. Congress wants Biden's business records, and may need an impeachment in order to legally obtain access to them.

-Will he be convicted?

-Quite possibly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not if it means Her-Arse as POTUS...

[Kazinski]

If the House votes to start impeachment hearings, and gives the committee subpoena power they will have all the authority they need to gather evidence.

[Martinned]

For the record, there's definitely a wrong answer.

[Commenter_XY]

No, there is no right or wrong answer: I am truly just looking to see what is the collective wisdom of the crowd.

[OtisAH]

Yes, impeachment is in discussion. Left out of the discussion is the impeachable offense. But I think House MAGA will get their impeachment. And I think most Americans will recognize it as the spiteful tit-for-criminal-tat it is, the same as they recognized Clinton’s for what it was.

[Moderation4ever]

A weak impeachment will strengths Biden in 2024 and hurt chances for Republican to hold the House.

[Josh R]

Since it only takes a few Republican votes to stop an impeachment, based on the evidence as of today, no impeachment.

[David Nieporent]

Strongly doubt the impeachment — the GOP majority is just too thin, and there just aren't enough crazies. 0% chance of conviction, of course.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok....Here is the tally I have. I wanted to memorialize

Q1: 4 No and 5 Yes
Q2: All No

Let's see if the wisdom of this crowd is correct (meaning, POTUS Biden will be impeached, but not convicted and removed from office). It is just an experiment - that's it.

[apedad]

Dear God,

It seems natural to me to have a conversation with you about my thoughts, concerns, and dreams but apparently - according to some people - I’m supposed to go through one of your intermediates, e.g., Mohammad, Jesus, Warren Jeffs, or . . . who’s the round fellow in Tibet? Or is it Nepal?

And actually I’m really supposed to only address even lower tier management, i.e., priests, imams, Grand Cyclops, etc.

Look, I don’t speak with clerks and lackeys; I only talk to the top so you’ve got to start doing your part too and become more accessible and responsive.

Sincerely,

apedad

PS.

I see you answered someone’s request on the Mega Millions thing. Fine and you’re right - I don’t NEED the money. But can we at least meet halfway and you get me that boat?

It’s not like you’re busy curing childhood cancer.

a

[Longtobefree]

Just for the record, the person assigned to cure childhood cancer was aborted.

[VinniUSMC]

Winner

[SRG]

So was the person assigned to start a nuclear war.

[Frank Drackman]

If Sleepy Joe was aborted it wasn't done right.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but it might explains some things.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's funny, your Church, the Church of the State, hasn't cured cancer either.

Yet somehow, you still manage to worship the people in government.

That's weird.

[Don Nico]

This schtick is getting old. Time for a new act.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, it’s tiresome and terminally stupid. I’m not even sure who the target is if this one? Rich folk? Well they are certainly a monolith who all think exactly like this.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m supposed to go through one of your intermediates"

Jews speak directly to Hashem.

Its a dual edge benefit. All that chatter can get annoying to Him.

[Commenter_XY]

It is why we say an extra Al Chayt = All that chatter can get annoying to Him

In my case, I need many extra Al Chayts Bob from Ohio because I am certain that I annoy The Almighty very greatly with frequent chatter. That is what my wife tells me.

🙂

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Wives will do that.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good news bootlickers, elite worshipers, authoritarian statists, and other assorted Democrats!

Now, if you tweet something naughty, the FBI will raid you and murder you!

They don't bother anymore with declaring you Domestic Terrorists like they did the Catholics. They just skip straight to the end. Show up at your doorstep with 30 military armed Democrats with weapons of assault style war weapons and murder you.

Which is exactly what you people want! Congrats, you're winning the Culture War and the Left-behinds are getting put on the wrong side of the dirt.

[not guilty]

What on earth are you talking about? Are you drunk this early in the morning?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My bad, not guilty, I always forget how little information you people are allowed to have access to. I should’ve included a link.

https://www.krgv.com/news/utah-man-suspected-of-threatening-president-joe-biden-shot-and-killed-as-fbi-served-warrant

I’ll try to remember how small your tightly controlled world is next time. I promise to do better, okay?

Here's the part about the FBI targeting Catholics as Domestic Terrorists.

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1689321215641493518

[not guilty]

Let's see now. Here is the criminal complaint alleging multiple felony offenses against Mr. Robertson, including threats to kill FBI agents. https://www.scribd.com/document/664023372/223mj722-Robertson-Complaint-FINAL-v-1-Redacted-Updated#

Agents attempting to execute warrants encountered armed resistance and shot the accused to death. Where do you get that that constitutes murder, BCD?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Agents attempting to execute warrants encountered armed resistance and shot the accused to death. Where do you get that that constitutes murder, BCD?

not guilty, are you making up any facts about the events that transpired? If so, which ones?

[not guilty]

I am making nothing up. I linked to the criminal complaint, which you can read for yourself. Agents were attempting to execute a warrant, and Mr. Robertson was armed at the time of the shooting. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/utah-man-threatens-biden-fbi-killed-00110554

Now quit tap dancing and tell me where you get murder from that scenario.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where in your link does it say he engaged in armed resistance? Like you claimed?

[not guilty]

"Special agents were trying to serve a warrant on the home of Craig Deleeuw Robertson in Provo, south of Salt Lake City, when the shooting happened at 6:15 a.m., the FBI said in a statement.

"Robertson was armed at the time of the shooting, according to two law enforcement sources who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of an ongoing investigation."

Learn to read, will you. Then explain why you claim that Mr. Robertson was murdered.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Robertson was armed at the time of the shooting, according to two law enforcement sources who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of an ongoing investigation.”
Very authoritative.

[Nige]

I'm with you guys on this one. As BLM advises, fuck copaganda, don't believe a word they say.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Does "armed at the time of the shooting" mean "armed resistance"?

Is it possible that he could've been armed but not resisting when he got shot?

[not guilty]

The Guardian quotes a neighbor of Mr. Robertson as saying “They started talking over their microphone saying, ‘Craig Robertson, please come out with your hands up. They did that a few times,’” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/09/utah-man-killed-biden-visit-assassination-threat
The fact that Robertson was nevertheless armed, in context of his prior threats against FBI agents who were investigating him, indicates this was a case of suicide by cop.

Once more, how do you get murder here, BCD? Everything indicates that the agents shot in self-defense.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you constructing this argument AFTER your claim, or did you know these details before you made your claim of armed resistance?

[not guilty]

I had read both the Politico article and the Guardian article before commenting about armed resistance. The commenting software doesn't like multiple links within the same comment. Thank you for asking.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol you liar. Have you no shame?

The blog doesn’t moderate comments with two links.

How can anyone take you seriously when you’re so dishonest?

P.S. Those two statements also do not indicate armed resistance and self-defense by the cops. “Please” does not suggest aroused confrontation. There are also no witnesses to police calls to “Put your weapons down, Drop the gun.”, etc.

But since you’re a goal-seeking hack having to support an unsupported earlier lie, you have to make up this absurd construction.

[SimonP]

It’s possible, just like it’s possible that every Black person who’s been shot by a cop while “resisting” – armed or not – wasn’t really resisting.

When we comment on the situations, after the fact, we have to draw our own conclusions, based on what we can infer from available evidence. You are apparently inferring that someone under an arrest warrant for threatening to kill FBI agents, who was armed at the time the FBI sought to serve that warrant, nonetheless opted to engage with the police calmly and without resistance. It’s not at all clear to me why you would view that as more likely than alternative scenarios. Particularly given your active imagination when it comes to perusing a series of wire transfers devoid of context.

[not guilty]

Come on, now, BCD. "Please come out with your hands up" does not mean "Come out with your hands up, holding a gun."

And once again, where do you get murder? Under Utah law, an individual is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the extent that the individual reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the individual or another individual against the imminent use of unlawful force. In determining imminence or reasonableness, the trier of fact may consider:

(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other individual's prior violent acts or violent propensities;
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship; and
(f) any other relevant factors.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/title76/chapter2/76-2-s402.html

[Bob from Ohio]

"They did that a few times"

Quite restrained.

No where did the article say he was brandishing a weapon or even came out of the house.

Surround it, cut off utilities and wait.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12391951/Craig-Robertson-Provo-Utah-FBI-killed-threats-Biden.html

[OtisAH]

He’s talking about the unhinged man who has been tweeting death threats about Biden and others, who has been on the FBI’s radar since at least April, and who started a shootout with fbi agents serving a warrant yesterday, which resulted in his death by bullets.

With bcd’s offering we are seeing the tip of the “innocent man assassinated by fbi” spear. Prepare yourself accordingly.

[Frank Drackman]

Trying to remember when Kathy Griffin was arrested for doing the same thing, or Madonna, or Johnny Depp.

[not guilty]

To what police officer(s) did Kathy Griffin or Madonna or Johnny Depp display a firearm during the attempted execution of an arrest warrant?

You comment falls short even of tu quoque.

[Mr. Bumble]

You sound so smart when you use Latin.

[OtisAH]

That’s Spanish, dummy.

[Bob from Ohio]

tu quoque. / Latin (tjuː ˈkwəʊkwɪ) / interjection

[Mr. Bumble]

The AH stands for Ass Hat.

[OtisAH]

Made you look! I knew one of you idiots would look it up. But three? That’s funny. Way to go dumbasses.

[Life of Brian]

That’s Spanish, dummy.

You can't make this stuff up, folks. Just can't.

[OtisAH]

If you’re just gonna cop BCD’s shtick, don’t bother.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I must admit to having serious questions about this, particularly when it is the USSS that is supposed to prosecute those who threaten the President, NOT the FBI. (There's a rulebook somewhere that says that...)

Cops kill a Black guy and half the country is burnt down, cops kill a white guy and they don't even bother telling us the details....

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FBI raided zero people during the first Trump presidency.

And he got oodles and oodles of public threats. I think this is just the FBI flexing and sending signals to the 1776 Americans.

[Sarcastr0]

You're always talking about which side has the guns and the will to be violent, Ed. Do your own stupid math about what's different now - you're an example of it.

the 1776 Americans are all long dead. It's been 250 years. Whatever weird thing you got going on about American Revolution 2 is not going to go anywhere in the modern era, except for shit like this.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

1776 Americans are those of us who are purebloods and organic and still believe in what America was about it’s founding. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness guided by a small government that relies upon a difficult-to-change Constitution for the Rule of Law.

As opposed to you people. You are Non-GMO, neo-Communists who prefer parental authoritarianism, living constitutionalism aka the Rule of Man, and the primacy of the collective.

[apedad]

You’re a coward and won’t do a damned thing except complain online.

Loser Hall of Fame is your only destination.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol you sound maxx vaxxed.

[apedad]

You got nothing except crying into cyberspace (and maybe your pillow).

I haven’t muted you or the other losers because it’s fun to watch you lose.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What do you think I'm losing apedad?

[SimonP]

Your marbles, among other things. "Pureblood"? Are you a wizard, now?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My blood is pure and non-GMO, not an engineered GMO monstrosity patented by Pfizer.

[SimonP]

BCD: So is it fair to say, then, that your idiocy and veer towards outright falsehood could itself be a symptom of long COVID?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The vaxx causes long COVID.

[SimonP]

BCD: plenty of people were complaining about long COVID symptoms before the vaccines were available. I don't recall specifically your posting history from before COVID, but I'll wager that you haven't improved in that time.

[Life of Brian]

plenty of people were complaining about long COVID symptoms before the vaccines were available.

"Long COVID" was a meme before COVID had even been around long enough to generate any sort of data set meaningful enough to generate that sort of a signal. I suspect that quite a bit of the crowd that had previously declared themselves to have fibromyalgia, CFS, and other similar wastebasket diagnoses just switched horses to the ooo-new-shiny label.

[OtisAH]

Dude can’t afford a pillow. And it’s pretty shitty of you to bring it up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, that Bidenomics is a bitch.

[OtisAH]

So does being a loser who can’t afford a pillow.

[Nige]

[Nige]

If you think the cops are shooting down white people without cause, why weren’t YOU 'burning the country down' with the black people?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

White people don't chimp-out Nige.

[Frank Drackman]

Because they smell bad.

[David Nieporent]

I must admit to having serious questions about this, particularly when it is the USSS that is supposed to prosecute those who threaten the President, NOT the FBI. (There’s a rulebook somewhere that says that…)

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I must admit to having serious questions about this

Your betters don't give half a shit about what clingers think or question about this.

If any evidence emerges indicating official wrongdoing, it should be investigated strenuously and impartially. Until then, though, a backwater gun nut who repeatedly threatened others, then responded to police commands by continuing to hold and then pointing a gun, is just this week's grand prize winner on Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes, an antisocial loser who seems to have punched his own ticket.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : Now, if you tweet something naughty, the FBI will raid you and murder you!

The Voltage lying starts early today....

[Frank Drackman]

I'm guessing Kathy Griffin, Madonna, and Johnny Depp will get a "Pass"

[Estragon]

This is a tragic loss for the VC community. RIP Jimmy the Dane.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Had Trump's various actions to assemble, mobilize, and control the Capitol attack all been carried out by secret communications, would anyone doubt that the resulting attempt to overthrow American constitutionalism was proof of treason by Trump? Why should it be exculpatory that so much of the organization and control of what happened on January 6 was done in plain sight, by tweet and public oratory?

If Trump cannot be charged and convicted of treason for what we already know he did, what will be left of the law of treason henceforth? Will this be a case which establishes a new standard, that treason cannot occur except in confederation with an enemy during a war between rival nations?

That has not been the standard heretofore. Does it matter to this nation to preserve the notion of treason accomplished by a purely domestic attempt at government overthrow? If a treason charge for Trump is ruled out, what future course of events would be required to justify such a charge?

[ThePublius]

"Had Trump’s various actions to assemble, mobilize, and control the Capitol attack...."

Except he did none of these things!

[MoreCurious]

Except that he did ALL of these things!

There, I fixed that for you.

[Kazinski]

When will you learn the difference between insurrection (which was too big a lift for Smith to charge him with anyway) and treason?

[VinniUSMC]

When will you learn...

You're talking about Sl here. Learning isn't in his vocabulary.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazkinski, read, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout :: 8 U.S. 75 (1807), then instruct me on where I should part company with the standards it sets forth.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, Lathrop. How are you coming on your population reduction effort? Managed to cull even a handful yet?better get your ass in gear before the climate takes us all out.

And the people you’re culling are all poors, right? Asking for a friend.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Improve yourself, bevis. Stop lying.

[David Nieporent]

Why don't you read it, and realize it cuts entirely against your position?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I'm baffled. Cite the cuts specifically.

[David Nieporent]

The case dramatically narrows the definition of treason, holding that conspiracy to levy war is not treason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Nieporent, it does not say that. It says conspiracy to levy war is not treason in the absence of warlike action. It also defines warlike action, although admonishing that cases must be evaluated on all their particulars.

Suffice to say, the attack on the Capitol was so squarely within the definitions of warlike action set forward in the opinion—actually going far beyond the defining examples—that this cannot be reckoned an ambiguous case. It is a flagrant case. About as bad as treason can get.

It has been unwise for the Justice Department to shrink from making the most obvious and pertinent charge, apparently only because it fears either the political response, or fears jury nullification. The charges it has made are more vulnerable to fatal delay, mischaracterization, and being overturned on appeal for any of a host of allegedly mishandled details.

In short, these are exactly the kinds of charges which a partisan Supreme Court majority would revel in overturning, without much fear of damage either to their own legitimacy, or to their reputation in history. Contrast that with the imposing burden they would take on if they had to overturn a Trump conviction for treason based on indisputable facts and a simple-to-understand explanation of warlike action based on founding era precedent. They might well choose to do that anyway, but only at catastrophic cost to their legitimacy and reputation.

[David Nieporent]

No, Nieporent, it does not say that.

Yeah, it actually does.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It actually does say, repeatedly, what I told you. Not your truncated interpretation. Why are you doing that, and insisting on it? Anyone can read the opinion for themselves and see what it says. For instances:

176
The expedition against Mexico would not be treason, unless it was to be accomplished by means which in themselves would amount to treason. But if the constituted authorities of the United States should be suppressed but for one hour, and the territory of Orleans revolutionized but for a moment, it would be treason.

234
To complete the crime of levying war against the United States, there must be an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design. In the case now before the court, a design to overturn the government of the United States in New-Orleans by force, would have been unquestionably a design which, if carried into execution, would have been treason, and the assemblage of a body of men for the purpose of carrying it into execution would amount to levying of war against the United States; but no conspiracy for this object, no enlisting of men to effect it, would be an actual levying of war.

Also note:

193
If soldiers are levied and officered, with a treasonable intent, and equipments prepared, so that they can readily lay hold of their arms; although no men are actually armed, although only five men in a detachment should march to assemble at a place of rendezvous, and although there should be no warlike array, yet it would be treason. Any thing which amounts to setting on foot a military expedition, with intent to levy war against the United States, is treason.

194
The distinction between those who are present at the overt act of levying war, and those who are confederated, adhering, acting and assisting, giving aid and comfort, is contrary to all analogy. In treason, all are principals.

Is it possible that in your replies to me you have relied on some abstract of the case, written by an unreliable author?

[Michael Ejercito]

Why should it be exculpatory that so much of the organization and control of what happened on January 6 was done in plain sight, by tweet and public oratory?

Because there is no causality between those tweets and the riot!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Three events in the past week Democrats don't know happened:

1.) Bank records were released that show a Khazak oligarch who requested access to VP Biden wire a large sum of money to a Biden shell LLC. The next day Hunter goes and buys an expensive sports car for that exact amount of money.

2.) Michigan sheriff uncovered a 20 state vote fraud organization called GBI Strategies which had been funded by nearly $11M of DNC funds and had came on the radar when a single person was delivering 8,000-10,000 voter registrations at the city clerk's office in Muskegon, MI. They were the same handwriting, non-existent address, and incorrect phone numbers. The report ultimately led to a police inspecting of a nearby GBI office where they found semiautomatic, suppressors, burner phones, bags of prepaid cash cards and incomplete registrations and a fake eyeglass storefront. The local police and sheriff honorably notified the State AG (a Democrat) and the FBI (more Democrats) who then subsequently buried the crimes.

3.) The Overton Window on Joe Biden's corruption has been moved again. Now we're up to: "So what if he met with all these foreign oligarchs arranged by Hunter, and routinely talked to his son about money and his business, and even implemented their preferred policies, there are no bank deposits paid directly to Joe."

[Longtobefree]

The second point sounds familiar, somehow.
The letters LBJ spring to mind.

The runoff vote count, handled by the Democratic State Central Committee, took a week. Johnson was announced the winner by 87 votes out of 988,295, an extremely narrow margin of victory. However, Johnson's victory was based on 200 "patently fraudulent"  ballots reported six days after the election from Box 13 in Jim Wells County, in an area dominated by political boss George Parr. The added names were in alphabetical order and written with the same pen and handwriting, following at the end of the list of voters.

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess you missed the memo. There is no voter fraud in American elections. We know this because the Democrats insist on it and anything to the contrary is a conspiracy theory from extreme right wing Republicans (now better known as MAGA republicans).

[SRG]

AFAICT the GBI story originated with Gateway Pungent - and was not taken up by any of the main right-wing media.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think that means the police reports they used as sources and provided were made up?

[SRG]

The rebuttable presumption is that Gateway Pungent is misrepresenting or concealing any actual information.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, let's wait for the NYT or WaPo to weigh in.
Of course, don't hold your breath.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They have the actual police report, lol.

Now we see how elites get away with such evil deeds. You people refuse to see any facts counter to your narratives.

Video evidence of election fraud being done by election workers. Nope didn't see it.
A hideously ugly man in a dress. Nope, that's a real woman!
A police report describing voter fraud. No way, didn't happen.
A video of the First "Lady" with their penis swinging around. Nope, that's not a dong.

All you people ever see is five fingers.

[SRG]

A police report that as of yet has not been scrutinised by a finder of fact.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any more requirements?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The the finder of fact be CNN or Politico!

[David Nieporent]

A police report that as of yet has not been scrutinised by a finder of fact.

That’s not the problem. The problem is that they are spinning the report as saying something very different than it does, so even if it’s 100% correct, it doesn’t support their narrative.

[Ed Grinberg]

2.) Michigan sheriff uncovered a 20 state vote fraud organization called GBI Strategies which had been funded by nearly $11M of DNC funds and had came on the radar when a single person was delivering 8,000-10,000 voter registrations at the city clerk’s office in Muskegon, MI. They were the same handwriting, non-existent address, and incorrect phone numbers. The report ultimately led to a police inspecting of a nearby GBI office where they found semiautomatic, suppressors, burner phones, bags of prepaid cash cards and incomplete registrations and a fake eyeglass storefront. The local police and sheriff honorably notified the State AG (a Democrat) and the FBI (more Democrats) who then subsequently buried the crimes.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/muskegon-voter-fraud-scandal-gbi-strategies-director-gary/

[David Nieporent]

1.) Bank records were released that show a Khazak oligarch who requested access to VP Biden wire a large sum of money to a Biden shell LLC. The next day Hunter goes and buys an expensive sports car for that exact amount of money.

The "requested access to VP Biden" is completely fabricated. And without that, you have… Hunter Biden made money as part of a business transaction. Which is only a scandal to socialists.

2.) Michigan sheriff uncovered a 20 state vote fraud organization called GBI Strategies which had been funded by nearly $11M of DNC funds and had came on the radar when a single person was delivering 8,000-10,000 voter registrations at the city clerk’s office in Muskegon, MI. They were the same handwriting, non-existent address, and incorrect phone numbers. The report ultimately led to a police inspecting of a nearby GBI office where they found semiautomatic, suppressors, burner phones, bags of prepaid cash cards and incomplete registrations and a fake eyeglass storefront. The local police and sheriff honorably notified the State AG (a Democrat) and the FBI (more Democrats) who then subsequently buried the crimes.

99.9% of this is fictional. Basically, one woman was apparently cheating her employer.

3.) The Overton Window on Joe Biden’s corruption has been moved again. Now we’re up to: “So what if he met with all these foreign oligarchs arranged by Hunter, and routinely talked to his son about money and his business, and even implemented their preferred policies, there are no bank deposits paid directly to Joe.”

Actually, we're up to, "The GOP's supposed star witness testified that Joe Biden was not involved in Hunter's business in any way, did not talk about Hunter's business with anyone, and did not implement any such policies." (For one thing, if you hadn't flunked high school, you'd know that vice presidents can't implement policies.)

[DaveM]

It’s summer. My thoughts are strictly R&R related, nothing serious.

– I miss jingles and slogans. Even the non-PC ones like “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”. Can you really call yourself a country if you don’t have any shared jingles? Jingles are culture, man.

– I love the outdoors. Everything about it. Even the rain and the bugs. The problem with our Internet-crazed culture is everything real gets mediated, squashed into this flat, boring space.

– After watching dozens of YouTube videos on the US Civil War, I finally realized that the Civil War was started in the East and moved West, but it was turned back in the West and the Union victories moved East. Also: never charge at someone who is shooting at you from behind a wall. Yeah, that never works.

– The Lord of the Rings isn’t “Great Literature”, it’s just a cracking good story that’s way too short. Read the poems and the songs. They’re really good.

[ThePublius]

"– I miss jingles and slogans. Even the non-PC ones like “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”. Can you really call yourself a country if you don’t have any shared jingles? Jingles are culture, man."

Now that you mention it, I do, too! Especially the beer advertising songs.

[Mr. Bumble]

You can't go home again.
The rise, first of cable TV and then the internet diluted the audiences and subsequently advertising dollars.
When I was a yout (just watched My Cousin Vinny again to refresh my legal knowledge) cable was for Kirkland's clingers in areas where there was poor or no reception of broadcast TV.

Back then everyone watched the networks shows (how many shows today can boast millions of viewers?) and listened to AM "music" radio. Cable and FM grew exponentially diluting the shared experience of the audience. The growth of the internet diluted it even more.

How likely is it today that the person next to you watched or listened to the same thing you did last night?

[Brett Bellmore]

Do they still have beer posters? My roommate in college had a nice one of Farah Fawcet in a one piece.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or Bud Light's Swedish Bikini Team.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

For years, the universally understood rule in beer promotion was "nobody outbabes Coors Light."

I possess some evidence in that context, somewhere in a garage or storage room.

[David Nieporent]

Old Milwaukee's.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I love the outdoors. Everything about it. Even the rain and the bugs. The problem with our Internet-crazed culture is everything real gets mediated, squashed into this flat, boring space."

Hiking along in the wilderness, my son has his nose in his phone. I say, "Live in the moment!"

He says, "I am. In this moment I'm living in, I'm playing Minecraft!"

[DaveM]

I made the mistake of asking a 10 year old to explain Minecraft to me at a family reunion earlier this year. After a long, long lecture complete with hand-drawn diagrams and illustrations, I realized just how deep I had truly stepped in it.

Minecraft is spun-sugar mind candy, apparently.

[OtisAH]

You miss “familiar” slogans and jingles. Slogans and jingles still exist.

[SRG]

There are two crime shows that spring to mind concerning the great outdoors - "Longmire", and "Joe Pickett". The latter lacks the breadth and richness of the former, and competition for the insanely hot Katee Sackhoff, but is still pretty good with plenty of great outdoors footage.

One great oddity is that the eponymous leads are played by non-Americans, Robert "Matrix" Taylor, Australian, in Longmire, and Michael Dorman, New Zealander, in Joe Pickett. Most odd. Do American actors not want to be upstaged by the scenery?

[DaveM]

I'm a bit of a geology nut. When I was in Santa Fe, I took the opportunity of visiting the Valles Caldera. Only later did I realize that hey, that's the location where they shot Longmire's home!

It's a beautiful caldera, you come though a narrow pass in the blasted rock of the high desert plains, and then, bam, there's this beautiful, green bowl of grassland ringed with firs that appears like an Eden.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Saw a job posting for a job in Canada the other day for a Professorship.
"Black men need not apply. You are excluded from being considered this job".

Is this deliberate racism from a government job? Albeit in Canada.

Well, that's a slight exaggeration. White Men and White women were also excluded. The actual wording is "this position is restricted to individuals who self-identify as a member of a racialized minority and as a woman or gender minority." "And" is underlined there.

Let's consider the relative wisdom here of excluding black men from a department position which has exactly zero black individuals as professors.

https://usask.csod.com/ux/ats/careersite/14/home/requisition/11007?c=usask&_gl=1*q2d8i4*_ga*MTg0NDEyNDM2MC4xNjg2MDE2ODkx*_ga_7P8QY8C9QK*MTY4NjAxNjg5MS4xLjEuMTY4NjAxNjkxNy4zNC4wLjA.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Canadian universities are even more of a mess than US ones...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Canadian universities are even more of a mess than US ones…

Conservatives still have Bob Jones, Liberty, Patrick Henry, Regent, Ave Maria, Hillsdale, Ouachita Baptist, Oral Roberts, Biola, Brigham Young, Franciscan, Grove City, Wheaton, Moody Bible, Abilene Christian, George Mason, and similar hayseed factories to keep alive a flicker of light for the clingerverse.

[Longtobefree]

Given the total number of genders, and that "man" is only one of them, aren't "men" a gender minority?

[John F. Carr]

India has had sex quotas in some jobs for decades. The next mayor of this town will be a woman, that sort of thing. I was told that there are also caste quotas.

[Ed Grinberg]

India has had sex quotas in some jobs for decades. The next mayor of this town will be a woman, that sort of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_quota_law
A pretty fucked-up idea if you ask me. I'm sure Democrats will introduce it here soon.

[Martinned]

Here is art. 5(1) of Directive 2022/2381:

1. Member States shall ensure that listed companies are subject to either of the following objectives, to be reached by 30 June 2026:
(a) members of the underrepresented sex hold at least 40 % of non-executive director positions;
(b) members of the underrepresented sex hold at least 33 % of all director positions, including both executive and nonexecutive directors.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022L2381

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Things that have happened since Senator Paul publicly accused Fauci of corruption:

1.) His KY Senate Office gets firebombed.
2.) His staffer got assaulted by a knife wielding Democrat while walking on the street.

How long before the FBI Martin Luther King Jr.'s Senator Paul?

[grb]

Voltage!

[Ridgeway]

Every time I see that, I think, "Done dirt cheap!"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you're directors at a publicly traded company, don't you have a legal fiduciary responsibility to your stockholders to act and make decisions that serve those monetary interests?

Since we know DEI policies harm the operations of every organization they are implemented at, are the directors and management at publicly traded companies any sort of risk or legal jeopardy from shareholders?

[Moderation4ever]

How do we know that DEI policies hurt companies?

[Armchair Lawyer]

See Anheuser-Busch's financial statements...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol I know, I couldn't believe he even asked. How do these people not know this?

[SRG]

A board or CEO may think that in the long term DEI is beneficial even if there may be short-term hiccups. If they're wrong, they can always be voted out by shareholders, of course.

The SEC is deferential to management decisions, in general - as it should be.

[Nige]

Proud proponents of cancel culture.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Proudly ignorant of the term "cancel culture".

[OtisAH]

Define it then, dummy.

[John F. Carr]

I don't count that as DEI. It was a marketing blunder.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're too generous.

[Nige]

Yes. It was an oupouring of hate. Typically for you lot, it was maximum screaming and roaring at something utterly trivial.

[OtisAH]

It wasn’t even that until MAGA had their tantrum.

[Mr. Bumble]

So no Dems drank Bud Light?

[Nige]

Lips that have touched light beers that have touched Dem lips shall never touch Bumble's!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don’t count that as DEI. It was a marketing blunder.

Especially from the perspective of disgusting right-wing bigots.

Who will be replaced.

By their betters.

In the natural course of America's continuing progress.

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit.

[SimonP]

The exceptional nature of the flash-in-the-pan tantrum thrown over a custom beer can gifted to a single person is not the sort of thing a corporate fiduciary should be expected to anticipate and consider, as part of their DEI efforts more generally.

There are lots of business reasons to want a workforce that is diverse and is thinking about equity and inclusion. There are lots of business reasons to be thinking about climate change, climate resiliency, and how weather patterns impacted by climate change are likely to affect the business. There are lots of business reasons to take the initiative on DEI and climate change efforts, to try to organize industry efforts and innovation, particular as most of these businesses transcend national borders and need to consider what other countries are doing/requiring on these fronts.

There are Republicans who want to bar companies from saying things in their public filings like, "We think climate change will impact our bottom line, due to the way it will make our required raw materials more expensive and less consistently-supplied, etc." Not because it's false, but because they don't want companies talking about it in a way that might suggest to investors that political action to fight climate change might be necessary. It's insanity, and it's incredibly stupid.

[Moderation4ever]

So, one incident makes the case? Let me counter. When commercials first started showing mixed race couple there was an outcry. That died down and today commercial routinely show mix race, even same sex couples. I don't see companies using these commercials suffering.

[David Nieporent]

You're completely wrong… in that there's still an outcry against those commercials with interracial couples on the MAGA right. (Many of the complainers are savvy enough not to say that they oppose interracial marriage per se; they'll just complain that there's "too many" of such commercials. But plenty will openly say that they don't want any.)

Also, remember how the Barbie movie was a "Get woke; go broke" example? For about a week, and then of course it became one of the biggest smash movies, and now most MAGAts pretend that they never said it. Though I think Ben Shapiro keeps doubling down.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MAGAts"

Calling your opponents insects is peak libertarian.

[Nige]

Insects are a vital and beneficial part of the eco-systems they inhabit, so it seems well wide of the mark.

[SimonP]

I’m sorry, Boob, do you not identify as a MAGAt? Would you prefer we use your chosen name and labels?

[Don Nico]

We don't.
But we do know that they raise overheads to pay for Chief DEI, etc officers and their staffs.
But those are allowable costs on government contracts.
Possibly they lower costs of law suits, especially the anti-harassment training

[Brett Bellmore]

I saw a study of it recently. DIE and ESG lower profit margins, but increase access to capital, presumably because you're getting it from outfits that are also practicing DIE and ESG.

If you don't need to borrow, it's a dead loss. If you need to borrow, it gets more complicated.

[Moderation4ever]

I have invested in socially responsible investments for years and I am quite happy with my portfolio's performance. SR investing is no different than any other and the quality of the investment and the management make a bigger difference that the SR quality of the investment.

[Moderation4ever]

Newsmax ended a recent interview with the former President saying,

"Now just a note. Newsmax has accepted the election results as legal and final"

Another in the 2020 election fraud rats scurrying for cover. Trump may believe he won, but he likely one of a few in that belief.

[Life of Brian]

Trump may believe he won, but he likely one of a few in that belief.

That might follow if you feel like you can measure what someone actually believes by what they say under duress.

But after your peer settles for nearly a billion dollars, I suspect the resulting pucker factor would provoke any number of painfully artificial paeans like this, regardless of actual belief.

[Moderation4ever]

Their peers settled because they were in the wrong. Newsroom staff talked privately about how fraud charges were BS and then on air promoted the conspiracies.

[Life of Brian]

I understand the endzone-dancing narrative quite well, but what has that to do with anything I said?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

On the advice of their lawyers, I suspect.

[Moderation4ever]

That is what you hire lawyers for.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Absolutely. I just meant that rather than your rats scurrying characterization, it was just lawyers giving good advice based on recent case outcomes. Although Newsmax is garbage.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Although Newsmax is garbage."
You know this because...?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Rachel Maddow said so.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Poll for the forum.

1. Assume that it is demonstrated that Hunter Biden or any of the companies that Hunter Biden had partial or full ownership of transferred funds to Joe Biden or the companies Joe and/or Jill Biden had ownership of.

Should Joe Biden be impeached and removed from office if that occurred?

[Sarcastr0]

You need a quid in your quid pro quo.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You need to read something other than the New York Times.

That’s where you’ll find your quid.

But I love this new shift in the Overton Window. I just posted above:

“So what if he met with all these foreign oligarchs arranged by Hunter, and routinely talked to his son about money and his business, and even implemented their preferred policies, there are no bank deposits paid directly to Joe.”

I guess I need to revise it to:

“So what if he met with all these foreign oligarchs arranged by Hunter, and routinely talked to his son about money and his business, and even implemented their preferred policies, and there are bank deposits tied directly to Joe. You can’t prove the policies implemented were because of the bank deposits.”

[SimonP]

"Implemented their preferred policies."

Name one.

[ThePublius]

Actually, no you don't! Check the bribery laws.

[not guilty]

Speaking of bribery laws, what "official act(s)" do you claim that Joe Biden performed or agreed to perform?

For your convenience, the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit. 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

[Armchair Lawyer]

Remember, it's any action which may "influence" an official act. Not just cause an act.

To give a simplified example, imagine a cop pulls over a car for doing 10 mph over the speed limit. The cop says to himself ahead of time, "I'm just going to give them a warning." The driver slips a $100 bill under his license when asked for it as a bribe. The cop accepts the money, and just gives the driver a warning.

Later on, the cop is brought up on bribery charges. He argues "the money didn't change my position, I was going to let them off anyway, so I'm not guilty". It doesn't work. Because the money influenced the decision making process, even if just a little.

[not guilty]

Uh, no. If it is not a decision or action, it's not an "official act" as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

So once again, what “official act(s)” do you claim that Joe Biden performed or agreed to perform?

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure I agree with this analysis, n.g. Your statement of the law as narrowed by McDonnell¹ may be fine, but it's the answer to the wrong question. The question isn't "Would you support prosecuting Joe Biden?" The question was under what conditions you would support impeachment. As we discussed here with respect to both of Trump's impeachments, grounds for impeachment do not have to match 1-for-1 with the penal code.

If we learned that, as president, Biden accepted a large sum of money from the Chinese government, I would support impeachment, regardless of whether you could identify a quid pro quo. (To be clear, whether I would support impeachment would depend on the specific facts of the specific scenario: how much money we're talking about, where the money came from, what Joe Biden knew about its origins, and what official or unofficial acts Biden might have undertaken in exchange.)

¹Though note that the traffic cop hypo could involve a state prosecution under state law, which need not interpret its bribery statute as narrowly as SCOTUS does the federal one.

[not guilty]

I agree that bribery for purposes of impeachment is not necessarily coextensive with the federal statute criminalizing bribery. I was responding to other commenters who brought up the statute by parsing the statutory elements and asking what facts they claim evince a statutory violation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh David, I'm enjoying the partisan defense of Joe Biden, such that even if he got a few million dollars as a personal "gift" from a foreign government, via his son, he still shouldn't be impeached and removed.

[SimonP]

(Which also hasn't been demonstrated, but whatever.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

Got it. You believe the cop shouldn't be guilty of bribery in such a situation.

[not guilty]

Don’t tell me what I believe, AL. You are completely unqualified to do so.

I have merely asked other commenters questions about whether an essential element of a statutory crime is satisfied and, if so, what facts support that contention.

That is an important part of what real lawyers do.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I gave an example. You responded "Uh, no".

Maybe you should be clearer in your word choice

[not guilty]

You gave a nonsensical example, AL. I am not required to indulge your incompetence.

The Publius is the one who raised “the bribery laws.” I responded by parsing 18 U.S.C. § 201. You attempted to change the subject by positing a hypothetical regarding a cop pulls over a car for doing 10 mph over the speed limit. I declined to respond to a hypothetical which is not relevant to the federal bribery statute.

Statutes matter. Essential element of statutes matter. As your nom de guerre suggests, you are an armchair lawyer in the sense that an armchair quarterback is an actual football player.

[BadLib]

The original comment asked if Biden should be impeached and convicted for the alleged acts if they happened.

In practice, Congress can impeach and convict any President for any or no reason. It's not necessary that a President break a law to suffer that fate.

Sadly, with the recent impeachment of Trump when it was clear that he would be out of office anyway by the time the Senate voted on conviction, we know that impeachment can be a strictly political move intended to virtue signal and/or make sure that the opponent you most fear facing in a bit less than four years can't be elected.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'll put you down for a no then.

If it was demonstrated that Ukraine or China paid Hunter a few million dollars, then Hunter transferred a percentage of that to Joe, while Joe is VP...then that's still not grounds for impeaching and convicting Joe.

[Sarcastr0]

It'd be a huge conflict of interest, and worthy of an investigation. But as ng pointed out, you need an official act. You don't have one no matter how you twist the timeline on that corrupt prosecutor getting fired.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Got it.
Getting $5 million from Ukranians or $10 million from the Chinese government as VP isn't a reason to impeach a President for you.

[Sarcastr0]

Those are eye-popping numbers. But you continually can't seem to identify the crime here. Even in your own hypothetical!

So either you're left with the degenerate 'the President can be impeached for anything' or you're left with 'A crime is when AL gets big mad online about a hypothetical.'

[Armchair Lawyer]

"High crimes and misdemeanors."

And yes, if the President of the United States accepted $10 Million from the Chinese government in his personal capacity just because "Oh, they're good friends of mine, it's a gift, they're not getting anything in return for that." I would consider that worth impeaching over, immediately.

The fact you can't agree with the fact that a President should be impeached and removed over that is amazing.

[Sarcastr0]

The fact you can’t agree with the fact that a President should be impeached and removed over that is amazing.

Everyone else has no shortage of questions about your janky hypo. As I said, you think it's big and significant, but it's not.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Looks like you're still down for a no.

Well, that's what a partisan does. Defend till the end, no matter what. Nixon has his defenders too.

[Sarcastr0]

Looks like I'm going to have to tell you again your hypo is full of holes.

[Voize]

What if Joe accepts foreign money in a business he owns, one he refuses to put in a blind trust during his presidency?
Should he be impeached then too?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes, because all those people gave Hunter all that money and got nothing from it. They didn’t even expect anything. The guy was just struggling so bad they felt sorry for him and figured $10+ million would perk him up.

If you believe that Hunter’s “customers” expected no quid pro quo then you shouldn’t expect one from AL.

[OtisAH]

My favorite part is, although your skepticism is valid, you still haven’t explained what was given in exchange for the money. You will likely say “access,” which is not unreasonable. But we”re going to need to know what that access got them.

[Martinned]

If buying access was enough for a corruption conviction, literally every politician in the US would be in prison.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not just the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Hiring a failson for prestige as they trade off their parents’ name is not against the law. As has been explained to you multiple times, there is no evidence of anything beyond that.

Maybe more will come out! The GOP is sure working their hardest to find that. But so far, nothing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

That’s a load of bullshit. Prestige. From Hunter Biden, in countries where most people don’t know who he is.

They have found written communication, documents showing what was done with some of the money, recordings of Hunter talking about his dad’s involvement in meetings, and testimony from at least two of Hunter’s partners. You and yours are pulling the same crap on this as you did as to thousands of emails and letters sent by government entities to Facebook and Twitter. Simply dismissing it as nothing.

Within your bubble that works fine. But outside your bubble it does not persuade.

[Martinned]

Let's make a deal: Lock up Hunter Biden, and lock up Trump's children at the same time. Same crime, same time.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If Trump’s kids are demonstrated to have committed crimes, fine with me. You won’t find me defending that imbecilic megalomaniac.

[Martinned]

Sure. But you were the one who seemed to be suggesting that selling access is a crime. I thought I'd just check whether you were willing to take that thought to its logical conclusion.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’ll stop seeming. Influence peddling is a crime. It’s a crime if done by a Trump. It’s a crime if it’s done by a Biden. It’s a crime if it’s done by a Martin or by a Lumberjack.

Each of those thoughts are independent of the other thoughts. People on here frequently have trouble seeing that very simple concept.

[Sarcastr0]

Influence peddling is bribery. We've discussed the elements of bribery. They are not met with the evidence at hand.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Influence peddling is not bribery.

And what element is missing? Biden and his family got more than $20 million. There are emails within the group discussing how Hunter and Joe shared some accounts, so Biden had access to the money.

He was also able, as an old man, to insure that his grandchildren (except for one) were set up. Which is a benefit to him.

What element is missing?

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/10/thursday-open-thread-149/?comments=true#comment-10191730

[not guilty]

Bevis, have you parsed the federal bribery statute? Where is the official act by Joe Biden?

As I posted upthread, the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit. 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

Please show your work.

[David Nieporent]

"Influence peddling" is most certainly not a crime. It's just words. Bribery is a crime. Undisclosed lobbying may be a crime. Defrauding someone by claiming you can deliver something you know you can't may be a crime. But simply name dropping is not a crime. It may be sleazy, but it's not a crime.

[Sarcastr0]

They have found written communication, documents showing what was done with some of the money, recordings of Hunter talking about his dad’s involvement in meetings, and testimony from at least two of Hunter’s partners.
What do these show? Because from what I have heard, they show nothing that does to Joe, and not even any crimes from Hunter.

You and yours are pulling the same crap on this as you did as to thousands of emails and letters sent by government entities to Facebook and Twitter
Indeed - noting that mere large numbers of stuff that doesn't prove your thesis is pettifogging.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Nothing to see here, right?

I’m sure you’ll take that attitude when Georgia indicts Trump, right? All he did was call and ask them to find votes, no threats. Nothing to see there, either. Right?

[OtisAH]

Although you still haven’t identified a single crime or benefit received from any of this communications, you sure do pout and stomp your feet good. Sorry, Sarc, I’m giving the point to Bevis. Style is so much more important than substance.

[Sarcastr0]

I would guess that there will be an actual crime cited in the George indictment, and facts to go along with it.

Which is a lot more than you have provided.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s a phone call where Trump told the governor and Secretary of State of Georgia that he needed them to find thousands of votes. But he didn’t threaten them.

To me that’s a violation of the law, just like the FBI asking Facebook/Twitter to censor. You have established that it’s your opinion that there’s nothing wrong with calling and asking someone to do something without threats.

I’m simply asking if you’re going to be consistent in that opinion regarding Trump’s request. You are declining to say.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a phone call where Trump told the governor and Secretary of State of Georgia that he needed them to find thousands of votes. But he didn’t threaten them. He sure did threaten him. With criminal charges.

To me that’s a violation of the law, just like the FBI asking Facebook/Twitter to censor.
At this point it is clear your understanding of the law is based on feelings, not the actual law.

I’m simply asking if you’re going to be consistent in that opinion regarding Trump’s request. You are declining to say.
Yeah, because we haven't see the George indictment!!

You're wrong as to the law on Hunter, you're wrong as to the law on social media. You *feel* these are both wrong, but come time to actually apply facts to law, you can't be arsed to get down to brass tacks.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

it's the same nonsense they used to excuse the Clinton Foundation, never being to explain it's sudden collapse when Hillary lost in 2016.

[OtisAH]

The Clinton Foundation is doing just fine, idiot.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/11/clinton-foundation-cash-flow-drop/

https://www.axios.com/2021/12/01/clinton-foundation-donations-plummet

Why are you so proud of being so low-information?

[OtisAH]

Clinton Foundation is doing fine, idiot.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : " ... excuse the Clinton Foundation ...."

Excuse them for what? Saving millions of lives in Africa with affordable AIDS medicine?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton/clinton-clinton-foundation-helped-9-million-lower-/

Note : The attached article lists nine million, but is dated. The final number was 12-13 million. That's a lot of people getting medicine for a fatal disease. Against that, the Trump Foundation's Tim Tebow helmets or full-size oil paintings of Donald for golf clubs doesn't match up well, does it?

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “That’s a load of bullshit. Prestige. From Hunter Biden, in countries where most people don’t know who he is.”

The only one peddling bullshit is you. There were many interesting facts in Devon Archer’s testimony, most of which demolished right-wing claims. He testified Hunter delivered no influence to Burisma, that he sold only the “appearance of influence”, and business was never discussed in all those meetings where Hunter let biz associates listen while he & Joe discussed fishing and football.

If anyone was dumb enough to believe the Right’s Shokin malarkey, Archer put an end to that. Burisma made no appeal to contain Shokin, they were never concerned over Shokin, and they were more worried about his possible successor than the prosecutor himself.

But one thing Archer said surprised me. He testified the Biden name was extremely important to Burisma despite the fact (he testified) that Hunter never delivered any influence.

I also point out to you again that an ex-president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski, was also added to the board at the same time as Hunter. In interviews, he cheerfully admits he got the position & paycheck for his name alone.

Just another piece of evidence for you to ignore, Bevis….

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’re ignoring more than $20 million pieces of relevant information.

And you’re seriously comparing the prestige related to the addition of the former president of a neighboring state to a BOD to the prestige related to a drug addicted amoral lout who never accomplished anything? Those two are the same level of prestige? Guess you don’t think much of Poland, huh?

And you expect anyone to take you seriously.

[David Nieporent]

You’re ignoring more than $20 million pieces of relevant information.

First, there is no $20 million. The GOP keeps inflating things by talking about every bit of money that was involved in these transactions, regardless of where it went. So that's the "Biden family" (not Joe Biden), "companies affiliated with the Biden family" (but again, not Joe Biden), and "Biden family associates," (but again, not Joe Biden associates).

Second, you're acting like someone just walked past Hunter on the street and surreptitiously slipped an envelope filled with cash into his briefcase, like in a spy movie. These were business transactions. People involved in business… get paid for their work. Whether as commissions, profits, etc. Read Archer's testimony: there were tons of different deals they were working on over the years. These were the proceeds.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah yes, the "legal services" Hunter supposedly performed for the Chinese government or government-run organization.

China: "Hey Hunter, can we pay you for "legal services"?
Hunter: "Sure, my rate is $1,000,000 an hour."
China: "Sounds good to me!"

[David Nieporent]

That’s a load of bullshit. Prestige. From Hunter Biden, in countries where most people don’t know who he is.

You're being silly; they know who he is: the son of Joe Biden. That's where the 'prestige' comes from: his last name.

They have found written communication, documents showing what was done with some of the money, recordings of Hunter talking about his dad’s involvement in meetings, and testimony from at least two of Hunter’s partners.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. They "have found" these things, but none of them show anything inculpatory. Indeed, Hunter's main partner — Devon Archer — testified entirely against your narrative.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Define inculpatory in this sense.

If the money went into an account that Biden Jr and Sr shared ownership of, did the money go to senior or not? It’s known that Hunter and Joe used the same account to share expenses.

And no, Hunter Biden does not confer prestige. And only one of them was publicly acknowledged, other deals (Chinese) were done in private. Also prestige? The Russian and Kazakh oligarchs that gave him millions didn’t publicly announce it either. The prestige argument is bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

If the money went into an account that Biden Jr and Sr shared ownership of, did the money go to senior or not? It’s known that Hunter and Joe used the same account to share expenses.

That is not actually "known"; it's a vague claim that supposedly comes from the "laptop," but nobody knows what accounts, during what time periods, etc. But what we can be sure of is that none of this money the GOP is discussing went into any account that Joe Biden "shares," because if it had they'd have been touting it with more triumph than at any time since the Blue Dress came back with a DNA match.

And no, Hunter Biden does not confer prestige. And only one of them was publicly acknowledged, other deals (Chinese) were done in private. Also prestige? The Russian and Kazakh oligarchs that gave him millions didn’t publicly announce it either. The prestige argument is bullshit.

You're completely misunderstanding the plot here. We're not talking about advertising. We're talking about name dropping.

You're an oil ministry official in Astana. At your morning meeting your assistant says, "Oh, someone named Yuriy Buslavets contacted us; he's a director of some Ukrainian oil company and he says he's going to be in town next week; he wants to set up a meeting with you and several of his colleagues to discuss a proposal for an oil exploration project." Your response is, "Yuriy who? I don't have time to meet with some random guy. Put him off."

Alternatively, your assistant says "Hunter Biden contacted us. He's the son of the United States vice president Joe Biden, and he's on the board of directors of some Ukrainian oil company; he's going to be in town next week and he wants to set up a meeting with you and several of his colleagues to discuss a proposal for an oil exploration project." Your response is, "You're sure he's the son of Joe Biden? Okay, schedule a meeting for when he's in town."

Because "the son of Joe Biden" has some meaning where "Yuriy Buslavets" does not. That's how it works.

Or, similarly:
"Boss, we received this proposal from some company named 'Rosemont Seneca' about a real estate transaction."
"Do we know anything about this company?"
"No."
"Okay, so throw it in the trash."

"Boss, we received this proposal from some company named 'Rosemont Seneca' about a real estate transaction."
"Do we know anything about this company?"
"Not really, but Hunter Biden is one of the partners in the company."
"Don't know who that is."
"Biden, as in Joe Biden? His dad's the vice president."
"Oh, really? Wow. Okay, well, then, schedule a telephone call."

The name has value even if Hunter Biden never promises them anything on behalf of Joe Biden and Joe Biden never gets involved at all.

[grb]

Also, please recall this was before the Right labored years to make little Hunter Biden the embodiment of Satan. Then he was the Vice President’s son, had a name recognized worldwide, and could put together the appearance of a decent resume (attached).

As I keep reminding you, Archer testified that Burisma placed great value in buying that name, despite getting no real influence in return. It appears they considered it more an asset than the ex-president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski, another name they bought at the same time.

Of course it was probably less an asset than Alan Apter, the respected financer Burisma named as new board chairman at the same time. Or the prestigious accounting firms the company brought in to take over the books at the same time. But value nonetheless.

This seems to be an argument you have difficulty with, Bevis, since your only response is shell game numbers of imaginary cash.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20191211/110331/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD984.pdf

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hunter did that to himself.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “Hunter did that to himself”

Bloody hell, Bevis, but aren’t you scrapping rock bottom here? A simple fact :

There are wastrel sons, blighted by drug abuse and self-destructive behavior. And there are wastrel sons, blighted by drug abuse and self-destructive behavior whose every mistake is celebrated in scores of thousands of hysterical news stories and whose naked ass is ogled in an open session of Congress. (Note : I don’t blame MTG. Middle-aged congresswomen have sexual needs too)

Please note the first example is different than the second.

You do see that, don’t you?

[bevis the lumberjack]

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sure. It’s the kind of thing that’s happens all the time. Drug addicted failures accused of criminal behavior are named to boards all the time.

I was an officer with several different companies over 30 years and dealt with a double digit number of BODs and more than a hundred board members. I don’t need a lecture on BODs. Never saw anyone close to Hunter’s level of bad behavior on any board. Companies don’t want to be associated with that stench. But the companies I worked for never tried to buy influence.

If it’s so common, you ought to be able to come up with several examples where this has happened.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “Never saw anyone close to Hunter’s level of bad behavior on any board”

DUH. The folks at Burisma didn’t see it either. Do you live on another planet? Or maybe you actually believe little Hunter showed up to do his proforma work with a crack pipe sticking out the corner of his mouth.

Here’s a newsflash, Ace: You probably dealt with many addicts of one kind or another in your “more than a hundred board members”. As for Hunter, here’s Aleksander Kwasniewski’s description :

“He was a normal member of this group,” he said. “We didn’t ask him — and he never said anything — about his father.” Only at dinners was Biden sometimes asked how his father was doing and on one occasion Biden spoke about the death of his brother, Beau, Kwasniewski said. He said Hunter Biden carried out research and brought a unique American perspective to the company, including in the areas of corporate governance, capital markets and gas drilling equipment, where Americans are world leaders. “He collected information,” Kwasniewski said. “He was useful for us because he knew something that we didn’t know.”

Huh. Aleksander must have forgotten all those times Hunter was sprawled across the board room table smoking crack. Ya know, there are times, Bevis, when I believe you can’t think your way outta wet paper bag…..

https://apnews.com/article/37424b8a0a994c1a935c5831643a84e3

[bevis the lumberjack]

"Here’s a newsflash, Ace: You probably dealt with many addicts of one kind or another in your “more than a hundred board members”.

Here's a newsflash, Ace: you couldn't address what I said so you just responded with made up shit that has no basis in fact. I mean, that's not as ridiculous as Sarcastro's world class "how can you look at Trump Jr and not think he's on drugs" line trying somehow to equate the guy to Hunter.

I don't know why I bother with a bunch of people who just make up shit with no basis in fact.

[Sarcastr0]

I was noting that Don Jr. is a failson like Hunter, but yet with none of the outrage when he trades on daddy's name.
Not that they are the same.

But you tend to remember what you want to remember.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You absolutely said that about Trump jr.

I responded with listing all of Hunter’s fuckups and compared them with “can you imagine he’s not in drugs?” To point out the stupidity of the comparison.

You said it. Just like you said there was something to Stacy Abrams ridiculous claim that noises are being dubbed onto early pregnancy sonograms.

Today’s fences = force may rank up there as well.

I don’t remember everything you post. I don’t remember everything I post. But those two things were so steeped in political zaniness thst I remember them clearly.

You’re not going to convince me that something I observed didn’t happen.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : ” … but yet with none of the outrage when he trades on daddy’s name….”

Outrage can be a very selective thing. Given Bevis is addicted to outrage, you think he wouldn’t be picky, but boy-o-boy he is. Let’s try another example of potential influence peddling:

1. Jared Kushner leaves the White House and picks-up a two billion dollar check from the Saudi rulers, despite the fact the panel that screens investments for their government fund found Kushner’s proposal “unsatisfactory in all aspects” The full board overruled and the payoff was completed.

2. That’s after the Trump presidency, so let’s look at before: While Jared was leading the Trump transition (deciding on appointees and policies that would guide the upcoming administration), he was also dealing with a problem. A building investment (666 Madison Ave) had proved a massive disaster. Its colossal debt was coming due and threatened to destroy Kushner entire company.

So in his spare time from managing Trump’s transition, Jared went on a begging tour around the globe. He sought white-knight financing from the Qatar government, a former foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, and businesses directly linked to the rulers in Beijing.

And between beginning and end, there wasn’t a spare moment Kushner wasn’t dealing for profit with companies and governments worldwide at the same time he was deeply involved in White House policy. So what if he couldn’t get a security clearance without direct presidential order? He could still play both ends simultaneously and no one can be surprised if he worked them both sides together. Did Qatar pay a price for stiffing Kushner’s plea for cash? They certainly believed so.

In the first few months of the Trump presidency there was a major diplomatic row between the Saudis and Qatar. Despite Qatar hosting a major U.S. air base and the headquarters of United States Central Command, Trump sided solely with Saudi Arabia.

So maybe Kushner earned that two billion and maybe not. It’s always difficult to say. One can be like Bevis and forgo facts or common sense in favor of formless rage, but who wants to go that far? There’s something to be said governing your outrage with rational review and skepticism.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “Just like you said there was something to Stacy Abrams ridiculous claim that noises are being dubbed onto early pregnancy sonograms”

Proud ignorance is so unsettling: Ridiculous, pathetic and infuriating all at once. I’m sure the facts I recite below have been explained to you on multiple occasions, but what’s that when pride’s at stake? So here’s the basic biology behind “heartbeat” bills.

1. At six weeks many states ban abortions because of “heartbeats”. This is strange because there is no heart.

2. What does exist is the first tick of an electrical impulse that will later guide the muscles after the heart develops.

3. But electrical impulses make no sound. Put your ear or a stethoscope to the chest of an actual person and you hear the thump-thump of a functioning heart. Put a stethoscope to the location of a conceptus (the proper medical term at six weeks. “Fetus” is not used before ten weeks) and you hear nothing. Electrical impulses are silent things.

4. As Ob-Gyn Nisha Verma explains, “The flickering that we’re seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you ‘hear’ is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine.”

So it’s a test, Bevis: You can admit your little Stacy Adrams rant is wrong or we’ll run thru these same facts three or six months hence. But wouldn’t it be better to just put this issue to bed? Don’t let your pride stand in the way!

[SimonP]

While I am in some sense happy that the episode with Hunter has convinced conservatives that something ought to be done about all of the money-for-access in our politics, the sad fact is that the ship's already done sailed, son. This is constitutionally protected, per the Roberts Court. We tried to get dirty money out of our politics, but your representatives have fought to keep it in. So a sports car for a dinner with daddy is just... not something any of us has any right to fault Joe Biden for, not any more. Every Republican in Congress campaigning on this has done the same, if not worse. And a lot of the Democrats defending Biden, too.

So - again, per Roberts - you really need a true "quid" for the "pro." Biden was veep at the time. What did he do, in his official capacity, in order to get any putative monetary benefit?

If you don't have that, you have nothing. Sorry.

[Nige]

'and got nothing from it'

What does this mean?

[not guilty]

Armchair Lawyer, assume that it is demonstrated that, as Cassandra posited in Wayne's World, a frog has wings.

Should it bump its ass when it hops?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Got it. Getting $10 million from the Chinese government isn't a reason to impeach a president for you.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to think you’re proving something. All I'm seeing is you yet again misunderstanding something and getting super mad about it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What is he not understanding?

[Sarcastr0]

That his hypothetical doesn't allege an actual crime. He's got the first half of a fact pattern, and when people point that out he crows 'a HA!'

[bevis the lumberjack]

You know, you can be unethical without committing an actual crime. Trump’s first impeachment was based on unethical but not criminal behavior.

You’re fine with the USVP meeting with people who are privately giving millions of dollars to his family? He may or may not have benefited personally, but his family sure as hell did. That’s a massive conflict of interest. Y’all are pissing your pants over the conflict of Clarence Thomas flying on a fucking airplane, but Biden’s conflict (or worse) is fine. Ok.

[David Nieporent]

You’re fine with the USVP meeting with people who are privately giving millions of dollars to his family?

First, would you please stop with the "giving" crap? Again: at least as far as we know, as shown by the various documents and testimony, these are the proceeds of transactions or (as in the case of Burisma) wages.

Second, yes, sure. If all you've got is that a bunch of people went to a restaurant for a meal where no business was discussed, that's just sad. Who cares about a mere meeting? Politicians meet with millions of people. They go to fundraisers, they show up at community events, they schmooze. This is less than nothing. Michael Flynn went to a big gala in Moscow sponsored by the Russian government. (The fact that he took $45,000 to do it is a bit concerning, but the fact that he went and had dinner with some people? Who cares?)

[bevis the lumberjack]

"Transactions" implies paying for goods or services. What did the Chinese and Russians and Kacahks get in exchange for the mondy"

As far as Burisma, Hunter was paid far above what UCR board pay and there's no evidence that he's actually worked a day in his life.

What the fuck do I care about Michael Flynn in 2023?

And I note that you didn't respond to my request to name another person named to a BOD who was so ridiculously unqualified as Biden. Much less put on the BOD and paid an extremely above market rate.

[David Nieporent]

a

And I note that you didn’t respond to my request to name another person named to a BOD who was so ridiculously unqualified as Biden.

Nikki Haley was on the board of Boeing. Al Gore was on the board of Apple. George Schultz, in his 90s, was on the board of Theranos.

That's just three names off the top of my head. Google celebrities on boards of directors or politicians on boards of directors, and you can see long lists of results.

“Transactions” implies paying for goods or services. What did the Chinese and Russians and Kacahks get in exchange for the mondy”

Are you making some sort of marxist argument about how middlemen really don't do anything? Otherwise, you understand that they make investments, right? Some of these businesses that Biden and Archer were involved in were private equity firms, others were real estate investors, cap intro firms, etc.

Obviously I am not an expert on their specific business dealings. Archer testified to a bunch of it, though only at a mile high level, of course, when he testified before Congress a couple of weeks ago.

In any case, I don't know why you have this hard-on for Hunter Biden. Is he a multiple-time screwup? Sure. Did he benefit from having the last name Biden? Without a doubt. But "never worked in his life"? Are you unfamiliar with his bio? Or are you just assuming?

[Sarcastr0]

If his question was is Biden unethical, sure. But if it's about impeachment, I would need more facts than he provides. As most of those replying say as well.
Of course he doesn't have them, because he's basing his hypothetical on the sketchy speculations and lack of evidence but lots of promises the right has at the moment.

[David Nieporent]

If his question was is Biden unethical, sure.

For clarity, you should use first names in discussions like these.

[bevis the lumberjack]

As I pointed out, y’all are ready to string Clarence Thomas up over a couple of fucking plane rides with no apparent benefit for the benefactor, but you’ll defend this sleaze to the death.

No double standard here, no sir.

[Sarcastr0]

I absolutely think Thomas acted very badly. I've said nothing about impeaching him. Much less stringing him up. Yeesh.

You keep finding double standards based on a Sarcastro in your mind that do not exist. I'm not free from such things, but so far you're batting 1000.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I used string up intentionally. Several weeks back not_guilty referred to Thomas as a house negro and none of the Defenders of the Marginalized uttered a peep.

Pretty disappointing really. If someone on EV had called Obama that at least one poster on here would have had a fatal stroke.

[Sarcastr0]

You put someone else’s words in my mouth because I wasn’t loud enough telling him off. And I did tell him off.

That’s now how this works. You make things up for me to say and you to get angry at all the time now. Next time bring fucking quotes of what I said because I’m not going to engage in your delusional strawmanning.

[OtisAH]

And as I point out, and you constantly prove including here with that comment, that your virulent dislike of corruption is on an extremely case-by-case basis. Here you are shitting your pants over Hunter Biden and flinging flop sweat in every direction doing your desperate dance to convince anyone that Joe Biden is implicated in anything except being Hunter’s father, and then just waving your hands at Clarence Thomas’s oh-so stunning Life of Riley, which got even worse early yesterday before your recent yawn about it.

[not guilty]

I didn't comment about what does or does not constitute grounds for impeachment.

I was illustrating the insipd nature of your hypothetical by positing a similar absurdity.

[John F. Carr]

This smells like a trap where you wring a "yes" out of somebody then reveal that Joe and Hunter split the bill at dinner back in 2018, causing a transfer of money from Hunter to Joe.

[SRG]

If Biden committed a crime associated with that transfer, then yes of course.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Poll the forum, part 2.

1. Imagine the city manager tells a Fire Chief to go to a leadership seminar. The fire chief looks at his budget, and realizes that the city budget can't afford sending him to one. Instead, the fire chief decides to go to a leadership seminar on his own dime that is approximately 30 miles away. It's nationally renowned, with speakers who were CEOs of major corporations and other major speakers. However, it is being held at a religious retreat area run by an Hindu Temple, and under the organization of that Hindu temple. The fire chief takes the company car, so he can respond to any emergencies that arise while he's at the seminar.

-The city manager (who is a bigot) then decides to fire the fire chief because "he went to a religious conference".

Is that justified?

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't need to bring the company car.

Looks to me like he fucked around and found out.

[Zarniwoop]

It’s arguably “work” since the fire chief was told to go and it’s job-related. And it’s not uncommon for rural fire/police to have an official vehicle available during non-work hours. I think more facts are needed for this aspect than the hypo provides. We’d have to know what the vehicle use policies look like.

[Bob from Ohio]

"bring"

take

He didn’t need to take the company car.

[Kazinski]

Sounds like the City Manager had it in for the fire chief.

[Zarniwoop]

Based on your hypo as I understand it, no. The city manager appears to improperly conflate the location of the seminar with the content of the seminar. Growing up in small(ish)-town New England, all sorts of 100% secular meetings happened in church basements because they were available communal spaces. No one thought or thinks those are a “religious conference”, and I doubt courts would so hold.

If you’re going to try a gotcha, claiming that it was a “religious seminar” because of the “under the organization of the Hindu temple” clause, you should improve your description of the facts and re-ask the hypo to clarify whether the locations is controlled, or the content is controlled, and what potentially religious content is allegedly leaked into the seminar.

The side issue of “taking the company car” seems less clear, and might turn on the normally-applicable policies for the fire chief to drive his official vehicle in circumstances other than responding to a call. Would it be actionable if the fire chief went to an unambiguously non-religious conference at an unambiguously non-religious location? But it doesn’t seem dispositive or even terribly relevant based on the limited facts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Let's say, again, you were an alien data scientist from the planet Big Data, and your species only looks at data to draw conclusions.

You come down to visit planet Earth and decided to review the outcomes from LBJ's The Great Society and the decades-long War on Poverty.

When you analyze the data and discover the only real demonstrable effect was that now blacks reliably and consistently vote Democrat 95%+ of the time and the figurehead for the War on Poverty has been reported to have claimed he will have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years.

What would you conclude about the real purpose of War on Poverty policies?

[SRG]

You would conclude nothing about the purpose, having no access to the state of mind of LBJ, other than noting that if someone did claim that the sole purpose was to get black voters to vote Democrat, the data would support the claim.

Of course, that response is predicated on the assumption that your statement "you analyze the data and discover the only real demonstrable effect was that now blacks reliably and consistently vote Democrat 95%+ of the time" is correct and no other demonstrable effects were seen.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I actually presented state of mind in my scenario:

...the figurehead for the War on Poverty has been reported to have claimed he will have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years.

LBJ quote: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years.”

Only 120 years to go to fulfill his prophecy!

HTH

[SRG]

No. LBJ may have thought that every poor family would benefit from the War on Poverty and that as one consequence, the Democrats would get the black vote. That doesn't mean that the purpose of the WoP was getting black votes. See the difference?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What was the hypothesis of my scenario?

He said they’d get them voting Democrat. After 60 years they are voting Democrat, and as a culture are still pretty bad off on average.

Black families that immigrate without being exposed to the Democrat War on Poverty are largely successful on average.

Black families that have been generationally exposed to the Democrat War on Poverty are largely unsuccessful on average, but vote Democrat.

[David Nieporent]

Only 120 years to go to fulfill his prophecy!

Aside from your poor math skills, the provenance of that quote is very unlikely, and what's very likely is that you're only repeating it multiple times to give you an excuse to use the 'n' word.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

LBJ was a notorious racist Dixiecrat. It's more likely he did say it, then all of a sudden had a change of heart.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Plausible deniability regarding racial slurs is a core element of the Volokh Conspiracy.

Right, Prof. Volokh?

Carry on, bigoted movement conservatives. So far as better Americans — including law school deans — permit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

How might a political corruption case against Joe Biden get started?

I'm reminded in many ways of Ted Stevens trial. There, a contractor did substantial work on Stevens house, but supposedly under-billed the construction, in essence creating a bribe. (Yes, the Stevens trial was overturned on appeal, but the principle theory of bribing through under-billed/non-billed housing improvements works).

In this case, we have the bribes going to Hunter Biden for "work." Hunter has to transfer that to Joe somehow. One way to do that would be for Hunter to pay for upkeep or construction on Joe's houses or pay his other bills. If Hunter in essence transferred $100,000 (or more) to Joe via these methods...home improvement, paying electric bills, paying hotel bills etc, that may constitute a completion of the circle of bribery...using Hunter as a "cut out" for the services obtained.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Ted Stevens indictment was Meuller and Andrew Weissmann and the rest of the DOJ/FBI interfering in a Federal election.

They’ve been doing this for a long time.

[David Nieporent]

Andrew Weissmann was not working for the government when Ted Stevens was prosecuted. He was in private practice the whole time. So, as usual, BCD is a liar.

(And, of course, George Bush was president when Stevens was prosecuted.)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Andrew Weissmann was FBI director Robert Mueller’s special counsel in 2005, and the FBI's general counsel in 2011.

On July 29, 2008, Stevens was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of failing to properly report gifts,[137] a felony, and found guilty at trial three months later (October 27, 2008).

Ok, now go ask an adult near you if 2008 is before or after 2005. Okay? Report back what they say.

[David Nieporent]

Andrew Weissmann was FBI director Robert Mueller’s special counsel in 2005, and the FBI’s general counsel in 2011.

Andrew Weissmann was indeed both of those things. But unlike you, Andrew Weissmann’s skills leave him in demand, which means that he could choose to move from one employer to another for better opportunities. Between the two dates you list, from 2006 through 2011 — in other words, during the entire time when Stevens was prosecuted — Weissmann was working as a partner at Jenner & Block, a large private law firm.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is BCD a sock puppet account all of the Volokh Conspirators share?

[OtisAH]

Well, if it’s MAGA starting the investigation first you start with an accusation. Then you root around indefinitely until you can find something that either proves the accusation or something you can shout about that makes it sound like it supports the accusation.

If normal people are investigating they start with a crime. Then some evidence or or testimony hopefully gives a list of suspects to wade through. Then there’s warrants, interviews, testimony, charging decisions, that kind of thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Democrats is not spelled MAGA otherwise you've nailed it.

[OtisAH]

A fine and blistering execution of the classic “Nuh-uh, you are”! So clever! But one note, “I know you are but what am I” is wordier but a more formal response. You’re okay here, but keep that in mind the next time you’re at debate club.

[SimonP]

Otis has described exactly what AL was doing in his own comment: "How can we prove that Biden took the bribes we're all convinced he took? I know, let's start by looking for evidence we can spin!"

[SRG]

There is an irony in all this right-wing whingeing - under CJ Roberts, for something to be bribery there has to be an explicit quid pro quo. So even if money flowed to Biden, absent an explicit quid pro quo there's no crime. That's a Republican SC for you. (I doubt that Roberts consciously thought that the reason for his position was the fear that Republican politicians would otherwise be more at risk of conviction than Democratic politicians...)

[SimonP]

You realize that a "circle of bribery" would need to include, at some point, at least an allegation of a "quid" for the "pro," right?

You're all acting like you're playing connect-the-dots on a kids' menu, where you're just connecting three or four sequences at different parts of the picture at a time. Oh, look, a distribution from a Chinese investment! And there, a wire transfer to Hunter followed by a sports car purchase! And there, a dinner with Joe!

You're pointing at a bunch of disconnected squiggles and saying it'll be a dinosaur. Sorry, no - it looks more like a clown.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I like how this is the defense now...

"Sure, Joe took the foreign government money, but you can't prove he DID anything for it".

[Nige]

So you’re admitting they can’t prove anything.

1. Trump University was a massive fraud.
2. Trump lied about Russian connections while being investigated for collusion with Russia.

Why can't we take from these two examples alone that Trump was and is massively corrupt? They sure as hell prove a lot more than anything you've said does.

[SimonP]

I haven't seen any allegation that Joe took "foreign government money," apart from your bare assertions. I've seen a lot of Republican-drafted statements that are intended to lead gullible readers to a particular conclusion - an "oligarch" here, a HK-based energy company there - and descriptions of wire transfers, devoid of context. But I have the critical capacity of understanding why all of that data doesn't say what you keep saying it says, and can evaluate it as such.

Put it this way: I am looking at what the Republicans roll out as a "gotcha" moment, and I'm seeing a series of wire transfers whose purpose isn't explained. I think, "Hm, I wonder if there could be business-related reasons for some or all of these." You think, "It'S BriBeZ!!! Imp PeAcH!"

[Nige]

First of all you need evidence.

[Mr. Bumble]

How long before Hunter violates the terms of his release?
If he does will he be taken into custody?

[OtisAH]

Very soon and absolutely.

There, that should shut you up.

[not guilty]

What, pray tell, are Hunter Biden's terms of release?

He has been charged by criminal information with two income tax misdemeanors. Was he ever taken into custody?

The prosecution and Hunter Biden's lawyers submitted a “diversion agreement” to avoid actually being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm for the court's approval, but the judge had questions and took the matter under advisement.

What terms of release are currently in force?

[Mr. Bumble]

You asked this yesterday on a different thread and I answered.
Check out the docket entries.

[Mr. Bumble]

not guilty 12 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User

What are the conditions of Hunter Biden’s release? He is charged by criminal information with misdemeanor tax offenses, as to which he has not been taken into custody. He has not been charged with a firearms offense, and the court has not yet approved a proposed conditional diversion agreement. What “conditions of his release” presently apply?
Mr. Bumble 11 hours ago

HUNTER IS REQUIRED TO:

1) NOT possess a firearm
2) NOT use or possess any controlled substances (including marijuana) unless prescribed
3) Submit to full federal supervision
4) NO use of alcohol AT ALL
5) Seek active employment
6) Submit to testing for prohibited substances
7) Participate in substance abuse therapy

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING COULD INCLUDE:

1) Immediate issuance of an arrest warrant
2) Revocation of release
3) Forfeiture of bond
4) Prosecution for contempt of court

This was taken from the linked article which also shows the form.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/judge-sets-conditions-release-hunter-biden-orders-him/

[SRG]

I must compliment Mr B and others on their persuasive arguments. If there were ever a risk of changing my mind before, there is none now. I will definitely not be voting for Hunter in 2024.

[Life of Brian]

Squirrel! LOL

[OtisAH]

You fucking morons can’t even use “SQUIRREL” correctly?! Of course you can’t. Hilarious.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice deflection.
Apparently Mr. not guilty can't be bothered.

[Life of Brian]

4) NO use of alcohol AT ALL

Yeah, that should do it right there.

[not guilty]

Thank you. I was not aware that Hunter Biden had been taken into custody.

[Mr. Bumble]

More accurately: "I was not aware..."
Who said he was taken into custody?

[BrotherMovesOn]

The effeminate Mr. Bumble has achieved critical Dunning-Kruger mass and is next taking on Not Guilty.
No one should have this much fun!
It's like the Douglas-Tyson fight.
Bumble is Mike Tyson.
More popcorn please!

[Life of Brian]

I seriously question how much punch one has to pack to take on someone who responds to a post saying "he has not been taken into custody" with "I was not aware that Hunter Biden had been taken into custody."

But hey -- if NG does it for you, who am I to get in the way of a good bout of hero worship?

[Mr. Bumble]

An escaped lab chimp gains access to a computer and post gibberish.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"An escaped lab chimp gains access to a computer and post gibberish.", sure is a nice subtitle to your memoir 'Mr Bumble: A Life.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wonder how his job search is going? Artist? Strip club manager?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why did the J6 Committee destroy all their notes and files? Aren't there federal records laws or anything governing them?

[not guilty]

What is your source of information that the Committee in fact destroy their notes and files? I have found a Fox News article which has a provocative headline, but the text of the article does not indicate destruction of materials. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/j6-committee-failed-to-preserve-records-has-no-data-on-capitol-hill-security-failures-gop-charges

To the contrary, the story say that Rep. Barry Loudermilk complained of having received raw data, including "lots of depositions, we've got lots of subpoenas, we've got video and other documents provided through subpoenas by individuals," albeit in an unorganized form.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The very first paragraph:

"The House select committee that investigated the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021 failed to adequately preserve documents, data and video depositions – including communications it had with the Biden White House that are still missing – according to the Republican lawmaker overseeing the GOP investigation into the committee's work."

It was the very first paragraph. Do you see how being such a blind partisan embarrasses you? You're such a goal-seeking partisan that you missed a direct claim in the first paragraph.

How embarrassing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your problem is that you assume ng is capable of embarrassment.

[Nige]

Your problem is ng can read.

[not guilty]

Sorry, that language does not indicate destruction of documents or materials, and Rep. Loudermilk's actual comments in the article acknowledge receipt of a significant quantity of materials, albeit in an unorganized form.

Reading comprehension -- try it sometime.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do Rep. Loudermilk’s actual comments acknowledge receipt of the missing documents? No, right?

“Please come out with your hands up” can mean “armed resistance and suicide by cop”.

But “missing documents not turned over after a lawful request” can’t suggest “those documents have been destroyed”.

yeah dude, you’re a serious intellectual. Listen, you’re just a dressed-up Nige, or OtisAH.

[David Nieporent]

The J6 committee did not destroy their notes and files, let alone "all their notes and files." This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Life of Brian]

The J6 committee did not destroy their notes and files

There you go again. You've been camped out on premises watching over them personally, I take it? How in the world did you get that amount of time off your day job? And why do people directly in a position to actually be able to comment on what and how much was preserved have a view weirdly different than yours?

Hmmmm.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, LoB with his sudden shifting of the bar one needs to clear to say something. It's his main move. That and pedantry.

[Life of Brian]

sudden shifting of the bar one needs to clear to say something

No shifting involved, ya yutz -- there's no way in hell David can say what he said with any degree of confidence or authority whatsoever.

Had he said "it's not likely they destroyed anything" or any number of more tempered variants, fantastic -- it's just an opinion (perhaps even supported by some thoughtful reasons).

But he didn't do any of that. Instead, as is his wont, he went the blowhard absolutist route with precisely zero ability to back it up.

It's quite curious, actually, why you're jumping to the defense of such overreach instead of reading him the riot act yourself in your self-imposed role as debate police. Almost as though you just need to take a swipe at me regardless of what you end up having to defend as a result. Pretty sad stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you either misread him or, more likely, don’t even realize how silly you are being in questioning how we can really know anything we don’t personally see.

[Life of Brian]

how silly you are being in questioning how we can really know anything we don’t personally see

But that's not what's happening here, bucko.

What's happening here is that people who can personally see the material at issue are saying there's a lot of material missing (and even giving specific examples and reasons if you were to bother to read them).

Against that, the local blowhards -- who have no involvement whatsoever and no basis to say one way or the other -- are just saying "nuh uh."

As with DMN, I'm comfortable you understand the fundamental difference.

[David Nieporent]

When someone makes an accusation, and says, "Here's the evidence," and what they present not only fails to support the accusation, but actually contradicts it, the logical conclusion is that the causation is false.

[Life of Brian]

You didn't say the evidence didn't support the accusation, or anything remotely like that.

You said "The J6 committee did not destroy their notes and files."

I'm comfortable you understand the fundamental difference.

[Nige]

'You’ve been camped out on premises watching over them personally, I take it?'

Is this the standard to which you hold yourself?

[Moderation4ever]

Most people think of Hawaii as an island paradise. Beaches, lush vegetation, volcanic hills. Picture in today paper and stories 36 dead remind us all how fragile paradise can be. It should remind us all that the world we live in can change in a very short time. My thoughts and best wishes for the people of Maui as they recover.

As I read about people running into the ocean for safety I was reminded of the Peshtigo Fire 1871. The only refuge for the citizens was the Peshtigo river and some spent the night in the river.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The USWNT generated $3.75M in revenue yet the embarrassingly bad team will take home $7M in pay.

How long before the USWNT doesn’t exist anymore? And who will the Commie’s blame for it’s failure?

[OtisAH]

Your stupidity is boundless.

[David Nieporent]

The commie's what?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Our totally neutral and not Out To Get Trump court system granted the secret subpoena to Smith to access Twitter’s data on Trump because:

1.) The judge believed Trump would destroy evidence if he knew about the subpoena.

2.) The judge believed Trump was a flight risk.

https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Trump-Twitter-Opinion.pdf

Secret courts are the best courts, right guys?

[Commenter_XY]

Just ask the FISA Court.

[David Nieporent]

It was not a subpoena, but a search warrant, and what's your point? That's what law enforcement does with suspected criminals: it gathers evidence.

[John F. Carr]

The governor of Massachusetts has declared a state of emergency due to an influx of migrants. One of Michael Dukakis' legacies is a law requiring housing of families with children. They can't be left on the street. There are over 5,000 families currently living in state-provided housing.

In the 19th century the responsibility of housing unmarried women with children fell on individual towns.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Texas and Arizona and New Mexico have been putting up with the mess and cost of this stuff for a long, long time. Meanwhile places like Massachusetts have sat back with no stress and said “they should be given sanctuary. We’re a sanctuary state/city. See how virtuous we are?”

Well now the governor of Massachusetts has been compelled to practice what she preached, and she don’t like it too much. Suck it up and deal, lady. This is what you said you wanted.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You have not the slightest idea of what is going on.
Per usual.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Saying shit like that without any explanation as to what I’m missing is not terribly persuasive. It’s the same level of argument I got from my grandson this morning when he didn’t want to go do day 2 of kindergarten.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Did he object to the CRT he was being subjected to? Or maybe drag queen book reading?

[Martinned]

Government support to Ukraine since February 2022 (% of GDP):

???????? Estonia: 1.3%
???????? Latvia: 1.1%
???????? Lithuania: 1.0%
???????? Poland: 0.7%
???????? Slovakia: 0.6%
???????? Denmark: 0.5%
???????? Norway: 0.5%
???????? Netherlands: 0.4%
???????? Finland: 0.4%
???????? Czechia: 0.4%
???????? UK: 0.4%
???????? Bulgaria: 0.3%
???????? Croatia: 0.3%
???????? Sweden: 0.3%
???????? Germany: 0.3%
???????? Canada: 0.3%
???????? USA: 0.3%
???????? Luxembourg: 0.12%
???????? Slovenia: 0.11%
???????? Portugal: 0.1%
???????? Japan: 0.1%
???????? Iceland: 0.1%
???????? Belgium: 0.09%
???????? Greece: 0.09%
???????? Italy: 0.07%
???????? Spain: 0.06%
???????? France: 0.05%
???????? Switzerland: 0.05%
???????? South Korea: 0.04%
???????? Romania: 0.03%
???????? Hungary: 0.03%
???????? Australia: 0.03%
???????? Ireland: 0.02%
???????? New Zealand: 0.01%
???????? Turkey: 0.01%

[Bored Lawyer]

"% of GDP"

Confirming Twain's quip that "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

[grb]

Why isn't that a relevant measure?

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you think the US has the same worldwide security commitments and responsibilities as do Estonia and Latvia? If China invades Taiwan, what do you think those two countries would contribute to Taiwan's defense?

Not to mention that why should overall GDP, a rough measure of wealth, be a valid measure? The US is wealthier than other countries. That does not give them a larger claim on our treasury.

It's a remarkably silly, if not dishonestly misleading, statement.

[Bored Lawyer]

What the list does roughly reflect is the degree that different countries feel threatened by Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. The first four, a lot, the bottom four, hardly at all.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : “It’s a remarkably silly, if not dishonestly misleading, statement”

I still don’t see your case. There’s a massive debate about how much each state is contributing to Ukraine. This is particularly true on the Right, where many claim Europe is shirking. This list shows who is or isn’t contributing by one of the two most relevant metrics.

The one country that jumps out at me is France, though I can’t say I’m surprised. One of the reasons this war was never about Ukraine’s membership in NATO was they never had a chance at a unanimous vote – certainly not prewar and probably not after. Personally, I doubt any government of France – Left or Right – would ever vote for Ukraine.

[Bored Lawyer]

Who is more threatened by Russia, the US or Europe?

[grb]

WWI and WWII would like a word with you....

[Mr. Bumble]

???

[grb]

Duh. Anyone who thinks Europe is irrelevant to U.S. security needs to be reacquainted with recent history. We heard Bored Lawyer-types before both of those conflicts, and their arguments haven't stood the test of time very well.

[SimonP]

Who was more threatened by Germany, during WWII - the US or Europe?

It's unthinkable that Russia would directly attack US territory or military bases, but a good part of the reason why it's unthinkable is that we have this rock-solid alliance with NATO, as well as several multilateral and bilateral alliances with other nations that would be implicated by a military attack by Russia on US assets. Undermine that - by having the US walk away from Ukraine - and you risk that sense of security evaporating.

There are also second- and third-order considerations - for instance, the US is not directly at risk due to the invasion of Ukraine, but there are ways that could play out that result in greater Russian control over international grain and natural gas markets. That weakens Europe and puts much of the global South under Russia's thumb. And then there's what an inability to deflect Russia in Ukraine conveys to China and their ambitions for Taiwan and the South China Sea. We're not prepared to be subject to Chinese control of the semiconductor market, and I don't see an aggressive play in the South China Sea leading to peaceful resolution among the countries around it. Lots of ways that could play out, and I wouldn't rule out Indian involvement.

Viewing geopolitics as zero-sum, bilateral exchanges was one of Trump's most glaring weaknesses, and it will have an enduring impact on American hegemony, if it hasn't essentially ended it altogether. He showed the world that America could no longer be counted on as an ally, and he himself was so easily manipulated by empty promises that would win a news cycle that we lost our footing with many of our global adversaries. We should not replicate his simplistic way of thinking about the Ukrainian conflict. Biden's marshaling of allies to resist it, shaky though it is, is one of his key triumphs from this term.

[Bored Lawyer]

You also ignored my point about the US's security commitments, which are worldwide. Those closer to a problem should contribute more, or at least proportionately more.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : “You also ignored my point about the US’s security commitments, which are worldwide”

Well yeah, because your point was no point. Sure, the United States has worldwide security interests, one of the most critical being Europe itself.

It’s still difficult to see why you’re huffing & puffing. All you really seem to argue is the U.S. contribution should drop from a middling 0.3% down to Turkey-level 0.01%. If true, just stop the silly whining the list is “lies” or “misleading” and make your damn case.

As for your China-Taiwan excuse why we should abandon Ukraine to Putin, I expect you’d quickly find another excuse to abandon Taiwan. I also expect China understands that very well, as they measure how resolute the West is opposing Russia’s invasion.

[Bored Lawyer]

Since you have stooped to addressing what I "really seem to argue" and what you "expect" I would argue, the conversation is at an end. Try dealing with the argument, instead of straw men.

[grb]

Again : What argument?

You say the list is “damn lies”. You say it is “silly, if not dishonestly misleading”. But it isn’t. You just don’t like the fact the U.S. is buried in the middle.

That’s fine, but it’s not the list’s fault. You wanted to see the U.S. at the very top, with all those shirkers and freeloaders far below. That’s your right, but it’s not the list’s fault it isn’t true.

For whatever reason, you want to abandon Ukraine. That’s your right, but just say so. Don’t blame the list, the Europeans, the Chinese and Taiwanese. Just own your preference.

[SimonP]

Easy, GRB - he's saying:

Expressing military support for Ukraine as a percentage of GDP spent doesn't accurately reflect different economies' commitments to the fight, because economies are different sizes and [other reasons not supplied], but the GDP percentages do provide a sense of the relative commitment of different groups of countries to the conflict, despite the fact that economies are different sizes and [other reasons not supplied].

How is that hard to understand?

[Brett Bellmore]

There aren't really any good comparable metrics, when you've got heterogeneous gross AND per capita income. Percentage of GDP fails to take into account that a poor country has to devote a larger fraction of it's GDP to bare survival. OTOH, a country like the US, that has both a high per per capita GDP AND a very large economy, probably has a lot of irons in the fire, that they can't drop to devote everything to Ukraine.

[Don Nico]

"Personally, I doubt any government of France – Left or Right – would ever vote for Ukraine."
Here I have to agree with you.

[Martinned]

This is the latest official statement to come out of the French government on this question: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/06/20/france-resolves-to-support-ukraine-s-nato-membership_6034362_4.html

Defending the prospect of Ukrainian membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as a means of influencing the conflict and bringing Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiating table, is the approach now favored by France in the delicate discussions between Ukraine's allies in the run-up to the annual NATO summit, scheduled for the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius on July 11 and 12.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Obama was the first President not to leave DC (w/o a medical reason) and instead establish a home in a DC neighborhood.

Given how much corrupt influence his partisans had during Trump and how much influence they have over Biden, was Obama the real villain here trying to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power?

And is everything we’re seeing with Trump just more Democrat projection?

[grb]

Voltage or simple brainless bullshit? You decide.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's fucking facts, you idiot.

"Obama would be the first former president to remain in Washington post-presidency since the dying Woodrow Wilson more than nine decades ago. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-may-be-a-rare-ex-president-who-stays-in-washington/2013/11/29/81ba049c-5912-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

His reason, allegedly, was for school continuation for his adopted daughters, but they didn't put the house up for sale until this year. Long after his adopted daughters went to college.

[Estragon]

“ adopted”

You loved the voltage on this one so much you had to drop it in twice!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Two biological males can't produce natural offspring, Estragon.

They don't say that in biology textbooks anymore since it's so homophobic so you may have not gotten the memo.

[Estragon]

Tiresome

[Estragon]

You need new material

[grb]

Estragon : "You need new material"

I can understand BCD seeing this as a "joke" maybe once. Today's typical Rightie has the emotional maturity of a small brat child. That's exactly the kind of thing they'd find "funny".

But to return to it over & over as a relentless tic is something else altogether. Added to BCD's obsession over Chinese penis size, it suggests sexual dysfunction on a deep-rooted level.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I take it you don't want to subscribe to my newsletter?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators. The audience you have carefully cultivated.

And the reason your colleagues in legal academia consider you disaffected wingnuts and polemically partisan bigots.

[David Nieporent]

"Obama was the first President not to leave DC (w/o a medical reason) and instead establish a home in a DC neighborhood."

"“Obama would be the first former president to remain in Washington post-presidency since the dying Woodrow Wilson"

"It’s fucking facts, you idiot." See, we all think BCD is a malicious neo-nazi liar — because he is — but he's also just barely literate. He sees one thing — "first since Wilson" — and somehow what passes for his brain translates that as "first other than Wilson."

[not guilty]

What on earth does it matter where a former president lives after leaving office?

"Given how much corrupt influence his partisans had during Trump and how much influence they have over Biden, was Obama the real villain here trying to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power?"

Uh, no. The suggestion that Obama tried to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power is batshit crazy. Have you been boozing all morning?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Obama and Biden were in on the FBI spying operation on Candidate Trump and then his transition team, and then continued on with the "Resistance".

Why do people who think they're so smart always ending up knowing so little?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-loyalists-trump-resistance-231642

“The president is committed to staying in touch with this group with some regularity in the months and years ahead,” Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe told OFA members on the call. In fact, Plouffe added, after the disastrous election results, “We’ll have to do it a little more frequently.”

Obama is still a powerful force for the generation that grew up working for him.

“He’s our Jesus Christ. We’re crazy,” said Jaff, not without self-awareness. “It’s 10 years later, and we’re still obsessed.”

[not guilty]

As I said, batshit crazy. Thank you for proving my point.

[Michael Ejercito]

So, who was behind Crossfire Hurricane?

[not guilty]

I enjoy a good non sequitur as much as the next fellow, but what does Crossfire Hurricane have to do with frustrating a peaceful transfer of power?

[Michael Ejercito]

That is exactly what it was!

[not guilty]

How so? Please show your work. Ipse dixit doesn't suffice.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What did they do to the incoming President's national security advisor on his transition team?

[not guilty]

What did who do? And when? Please be specific.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : “What did they do to the incoming President’s national security advisor on his transition team?”

Hmmm…. Would that be the incoming President’s national security advisor who was on Putin’s payroll less than a year earlier? The same man who sold his services to a half-dozen petty despots and forgot to register as a foreign agent? The same man who took two meetings with Erdogan’s agents to discuss kidnapping Fethullah Gulen on U.S. soil? Who got far enough along on this scheme to negotiate a 15 million dollar fee? Who lied about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador to other members of the Trump transition team. Who lied about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador to Vice President Pence? Who lied about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador in an FBI interview? Who suggested Trump hold on to power after his election loss by declaring martial law? Who since has become a ranting QAnon wack-job loon?

That incoming President’s national security advisor ?!? I don’t know what “they” did to him. I thought Trump fired him because even a pathological liar doesn’t like to be lied to. But if “they” were manipulating Trump, then “they” deserve our thanks.

Because the country dodged a freakshow bullet with that one.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I cannot believe you never heard of the Flynn Saga.

Unreal.

[OtisAH]

I *can* believe that you can read (okay, a little benefit of the doubt there) grb recount “the Flynn Saga” in pretty good general detail and you don’t recognize it because you know nothing about what Flynn was up to. And because you’re stupid.

[David Nieporent]

There was no spying on candidate Trump, and of course that did not interfere with the transfer of power from Obama to Trump. (Though Trump's utter indifference to governing, combined with personal spite, and thus failure to actually have a transition team, did.)

[OtisAH]

Wow, I haven’t heard any “Obama’s Shadow Presidency” nonsense in a couple years. Neat!

[Mr. Bumble]

Would have been pretty difficult to be a shadow president during Trump's four years in office. Not so much over the past two plus years of Biden's.

[Nige]

Trump's was Hitler's shadow presidency, obviously.

[Mr. Bumble]

I mean, everybody on here says stupid shit occasionally but you make it an art form.

[Nige]

That's what Hitler would say.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot channeling Hitler

[grb]

Architecture News:

https://www.archdaily.com/1005254/studio-gang-to-design-the-clinton-presidential-center-expansion-in-little-rock-arkansas?ad_medium=gallery

Presidential libraries aren’t a very distinguished subgenus of architecture. Kennedy’s by Pei was moderately OK, but most are pretty mediocre. Lately there’s developed a trend where Democrats produce excellent designs (Clinton and Obama), while Republicans remain pretty wretched. I was pleasantly surprised at the short list for W. Bush’s library since only one bad choice was included. Of course that was the firm he picked.

We’ll have to see if Biden continues the trend, though the real fun is imagining the shmaltzy glitz palace of Trump. Like the idea of a Trump memoir, just thinking about it is guarantied to raise a smile. On the third-party-front, Teddy Roosevelt is finally getting around to building his library in North Dakota and the design by Snøhetta (a Norwegian firm) is pretty stunning.

[SRG]

"We have the best presidential library"

[Bob from Ohio]

Presidential libraries are monarchical and a huge waste of money. And dumb.

[Frank Drackman]

Milhouse's is probably the best, paid for with Private $$$ and 1/2 a mile from In N Out Burger.
Not a "Liberry" but the LBJ Ranch is pretty cool. Has his Lockheed JetStar out on the ramp like it's ready to go, and you might be delayed getting in and out by cattle from the surrounding ranches.

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

Kennedy’s by Pei was moderately OK, but most are pretty mediocre.

Can you elaborate on the difference between moderately OK and pretty mediocre?

[grb]

The libraries of (say) Carter & W Bush are complete non-entities, looking like a small town government center as opposed to any grander civic institution. Both have a stripped-down pseudo-classism that is little more than safe and boring. Kennedy's library at least tries to be more, but not with the finesse that would make its design convincing.

(Of course, feel free to quote Lebowski here if you wish)

Clinton's was clever and crisply done - an elevated bridge-like building echoing a nearby decommissioned railroad bridge. Obama's is also nice - a masonry tower commanding a small park.

https://www.ennead.com/work/clinton

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog has operated for

THIRTEEN (13)!!!!!

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.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These guys deserve another couple of suggestions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

DAMMIT . . . spoke too soon.

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog has operated for

ZERO (0)

days without publishing a vile racial slur; it has published racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-FIVE (25)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s 25 different
discussions, not 25 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 good, too.)

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks for the Creedence!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A good one on YouTube: George Thorogood interviewing John Fogerty.

Here's the Delaware Destroyer at his most loquacious (with a bit of legal content).

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks a second time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thorogood and Fogerty are touring. I am scheduled to see both of them during the next couple of months. Get your tickets!

If you're lucky, you can catch Fogerty with Willie Nelson.

[grb]

On the Thomas Front :

“During his three decades on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed steady access to a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine. A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated him to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood …

At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast”

It’s kinda funny. The other day I noted a speech Thomas once made to a group of Rightist in which he viciously trashed his own sister as a Welfare Queen:

“She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check. That is 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.”

In fact, the sister went through a hard period but otherwise has been a hard worker standing on her own two feet her entire life. Who knew Clarence would prove the real leech – always in line for the next handout…

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-other-billionaires-sokol-huizenga-novelly-supreme-court

[Michael Ejercito]

Which of those titans and executives have pending cases before the Supreme Court.

[Nige]

Which of them also contribute to political parties? Which of them have political ideologies? Which of them have ideological or material desires as to the outcome of key cases?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which of those titans and executives have pending cases before the Supreme Court.

That seems destined to emerge in time -- haven't you discerned the pattern yet?

Some of these guys really are that dumb.

[Estragon]

My favorite passage was this:

“ In Wyoming, the Thomases fished, rafted on the Snake River and sat by a campfire overlooking the Teton Range with the other couples. At one point, the Paolettas serenaded the justice with a song they wrote about him.”

I mean… can you imagine the level of cringe?

[grb]

I’ve always wondered this:

After their financial transaction is complete – Harlan Crow having purchased a pet SCOUS Justice and Thomas scoring another prime handout, what on earth did they talk about?

Because no one denies Clarence Thomas is a very smart man and (in his own seething angry way) quite principled. Meanwhile, Crow is the clown who hangs mediocre paintings on his wall because they were done by history’s worse mass-murder. He’s the person with the buffoonish sculpture garden in his backyard. What do he and Thomas converse about? I saw one account that said they discuss dogs.

I guess it’s the same thing as an old geezer who pays to keep a twenty year old mistress. Once the business is done, there isn’t a lot of shared life experience….

[Michael Ejercito]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/08/10/the-mike-brown-lie-back-by-popular-demand/

Yesterday, August 9, was the nine year anniversary of one of the many distorted, exploited and incompetently reported race-related incidents that have hurled the United States decades backwards in race relations. It was on August 9, 2014 that hulking thug Michael Brown was shot and killed by policeman Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri in self-defense after Brown escaped custody, tried to take Wilson’s gun, and charged him with all of his 300 pound bulk. But because the 18-year-old’s pal and partner in crime told the credulous media that Brown had put his hands up and cried “Hands up don’t shoot!” before the fatal shot, Brown’s death was reported as an execution by a racist cop. This, in turn, resulted in horrific riots in Ferguson, full-scale social justice virtue-signalling by the mainstream media (like the 2014 display by CNN’s hacks above, referencing both the Brown shooting narrative and the death of Eric Garner), and a boost to the fortunes of the racist Blacl Lives Matter movement, which had been launched by another falsely reported tragedy, the death of Trayvon Martin.

Even though Barack Obama’s untra-partisan and race-obsessed Attorney General, Eric Holder, would have loved to show that Darren Wilson had murdered Brown, it was once again demonstrated that, as John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things.” His DOJ found that there was no credible evidence to back up the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative. To the contrary, forensic and eye-witness evidence made it clear that Brown, who had just committed a petty theft and intimidated a shop-owner, punched Wilson after the officer arrested him, tried to grab pistol in the patrol car, and after he had bolted from the vehicle charged at Wilson, precipitating the fatal shooting. A grand jury exonerated Wilson, whose career was destroyed and life was ruined, but he was just a white cop, so c’est la vie!

This isn’t a controversy, like whether Oswald had help on the grassy knoll, or whether a flying saucer crashed at Roswell. The facts of Mike Brown’s death have been settled, and they show beyond question that the race activists hyped and publicized a fictional account to advance their agenda and divide the nation. But what happened yesterday? As Legal Insurrection documents in another of its exhaustive examinations of the Mike Brown scam, Woke World, progressives and Democrats pretended that it was 2014 all over again.

Incredibly—or maybe not, since these people have no shame or reluctance to use falsehoods for political gains—the State Department’s Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice Desirée Cormier Smith returned to the lie yesterday at an official function, deceitfully, by not specifically misstating the facts but deliberately implying that the false narrative was true as the Secretary of Defense looked on:

[Ed Grinberg]

Thanks for posting this.
Here's the concluding paragraph:

It’s also good to know, or at least important to recognize, that these people and groups who the news media presents to the public as the “good guys” are really villains, using lies and deceit to increase racial tensions and national division.

[grb]

Today's Right is addicted to mindless Stupid. If a meal, they'd be bloated and swollen from it like a well-gorged tick. Today's example is the the Electronic Registration Information Center or ERIC.

If you're one of Those People who forget to cancel your voting registration when you move to a new state (guilty as charged), the ERIC would come behind and clean up your mess. They did so for a registration fee paid by member states.

Then Trump decided his dupe base needed another course of lies. He recast this inoffensive little organization as part of the Deep State conspiracy. Since then, GOP states have been leaving ERIC in droves. Because nothing gets between today's Right and another meal of Stupid. Particularly not facts.

[SRG]

Another FBI whistleblower emerges, telling how the FBI suppressed investigation into the president and his associates.

As the president in this instance is Trump, and associates include Giuliani, little wonder that the GOP are not receptive - it doesn't exactly fit their narrative.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-whistleblower-senate-judiciary-russia-giuliani-leak-trump-allies-fuks-biden-2023-8

[SimonP]

Right? Like, I'm all in favor of lessening the "weaponization of the DOJ and IRS." By all means, let's pass some laws that help protect those agencies from political influence and score-settling. Let's figure out a regular special counsel process that can be further insulated from AG and Presidential direction.

But what's so odd about these tantrums over Biden putatively suppressing investigations is that the takeaway always seems to be... Well, give us back the White House, so we can do it even more! Like - wait, what?

[Ben_]

Trump was never investigated and will never be charged with anything. That’s what you’d be saying if you had a point.

No one is distracted by your shamelessness though.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/kachelman-punishing-political-enemies-inevitable-retribution/
"Legalized political repression, with targets punished through vaguely worded laws and politically obedient courts."
Spot-on!

[DaveM]

I don’t think we’ll ever see a check from Burisma made out to Joe Biden with a memo line that reads, “for the Biden Family Bribe Fund” on it.

I also don’t think we need to.

Improperly using your position as a government executive to enrich your family members is just as corrupt as taking a bribe personally. Perhaps even more so — because now you’ve roped in your own family members as accomplices in a conspiracy.

But for the moment all we can see is a hella amount of money sloshing around, we can see evidence being suppressed by the very agencies who are supposedly investigating, we see meet-and-greets with oligarchs and other shady characters being set up with the President, we see the clock being run out so sweetheart deals can be attempted, we are seeing prosecutors being fired, and we are hearing from whistleblowers, on the record, by name.

The question is, how are we to know whether President Biden lies at the heart of this huge pile, or not?

I think the answer is to just continue pulling on these many, many threads. On one of them, when we pull it, we will all see President Biden jerk. That may be enough for his fellow Democrats to abandon him. Or maybe this is all just a huge set of remarkable coincidences, and even after pulling on every string, absolutely nothing happens.

[Sarcastr0]

It'd be irresponsible not to speculate!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good thing it's no longer speculation!

[Ben_]

Everyone knows its bribery if the stories are correct and reasonably complete.

We don’t know how corrupt the DOJ and the rest of Washington are. Looks like the answer is almost completely corrupt, but we will see in the next year or so.

How corrupt are voters? That’s the ultimate question. Many aren’t corrupt. But are they a majority?

[not guilty]

A claim that "everyone knows" something is not proof of anything. Why do you think that is called begging the question?

[grb]

Ben_ : “Everyone knows its bribery if the stories are correct and reasonably complete”

This is funny to watch. We were told the big moment would be Devon Archer's testimony. I saw a half-dozen winger articles promoting the big event, some listing the questions that would expose Joe Biden’s crimes.

Then Archer’s testimony blew-up every right-wing meme in sight. For the Biden Crime Family tin-foil-hat crowd, it was a total debacle. Hunter had no influence. Hunter sold the appearance of influence only. Biden never discussed business with his son. Biden never did anything inappropriate or wrong. There was no call to protect Burisma from Shokin. The company didn’t have any worry about Shokin. They were more concerned about him being fired and replaced.

On and on. A winger disaster at every turn. Ukrainian oligarchs? Per Archer, they like to brag about influence they don’t have. Hunter and Burisma? Per Archer, they thought the name alone added major value to the company. The testimony was a wingnut fiasco.

Which reminds me of the time before the first Biden-Trump debate. The wingnuts here kept saying it would never happen. Biden was senile and afflicted by dementia. Up to the very last minute, they kept insisting something would be staged so it could be canceled.

But it did happen and Biden cleaned Trump’s clock. Then an amazing thing occurred. For two or three days the Right’s resident freaks on this site admitted they were wrong. But after that, they went right back to their dementia-senile shtick as if nothing ever happened.

These days the freaks don’t even need a two-day reset. Archer blows up all their pet theories and they just double-down, working out all the minute details of crimes that exist only in their heads. Today’s Right has finally reached a perfect state where it’s completely reality-proof.

[Ben_]

Nah, it’s actually super obvious.

No clue what you’re talking about in regards to Archer. Some strawman army of some sort.

The Burisma payments and Biden’s followup actions are very simple bribery. It doesn’t matter if only the Biden family cashed in. The 20 different shell companies prove the Bidens knew they were in the crime business.

If the DOJ isn’t corrupt, it’s a really simple criminal case.

[David Nieporent]

No clue what you’re talking about in regards to Archer.

Two weeks ago, MAGAworld was awash with breathless stories of how Devon Archer — Hunter Biden's former business partner — was going to blow Burismalaptopgate wide open. He was going to testify about all the Biden Crime Family corruption, the millions funneled to Joe Biden as bribes, Joe Biden's involvement in Hunter's business activities, and Joe Biden was going down.

The House oversight committee took his deposition on July 31, behind closed doors. Jim Comer then started spinning about how bad Archer's testimony was for Biden. MAGAworld kneejerkedly started repeating everything Comer was saying, and making up even more.

Only… a few days later, they were forced to release the transcript of Archer's deposition. And it turned out that he actually knocked down every one of the MAGA conspiracy theories. He said that Joe Biden did not get involved in Hunter's business, that Hunter was not selling access to Joe, and that all the business Hunter was doing was legitimate.

[Ben_]

Strawmen are not interesting.

Bribery is when Biden took bribes and then helped Burisma in exchange, not when some dude's testimony fails to match some inflated strawman standard.

[grb]

Ben_ : “… then helped Burisma in exchange ….”

Help how? If you say Shokin, you’ll be buried under a mountain of facts that prove you a fool. If you look to say something more credible, you’ll soon find it doesn’t exist. Given you never even heard of Archer, you clearly don’t know the simplest details about this topic.

Here you are yakking about what’s “obvious” and the only thing obvious is your ignorance.

[David Nieporent]

1) There is zero evidence that Joe Biden received a penny.
2) Joe Biden never helped Burisma, let alone "in exchange."

[SimonP]

I agree. When you half-remember what you read while squinting real hard at a Republican press release, you maybe kinda sorta can make out a grand bribery scheme that involves no official action by Joe Biden but a whole lot of stuff involving his son and people with funny names from Uzbekikahkistan, like dinners, you know, the details don't exactly matter, and... it's just pretty shady, you know?

[Glaucomatose]

DaveM makes an excellent point. Once it's shown that a politician's family members are doing business deals on their own that they likely couldn't have done without their contacts or last name, there's no need to show anything further: that automatically means the politician is corrupt and should be impeached.

But only if that happened after January 19, 2021, of course. Or before then, but only if that politician isn't, well, one of the right kind of people, I suppose.

[Frank Drackman]

Man, lots of Non-Kind, Non-Gentle Peoples today,
have a Coke & a Smile Mo-Fos!

Frank

[not guilty]

In the D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump, the government has proposed a scheduling order with jury selection to begin on December 11, 2023 and trial to begin on January 2, 2024. The prosecution estimates that its case in chief will take no longer than four to six weeks. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.23.0_5.pdf

That makes sense to me. This is likely an appropriate case for individualized voir dire and for sequestration of the jury when the proof begins. Jury selection during December and beginning proof in early January would accommodate jurors' holiday celebrations before beginning sequestration.

[Frank Drackman]

So you're gonna sequester the Jury during Martin Lucifer King weekend? (January 15, 2024) and for the even bigger Defacto Superbowl Weekend? (February 11, 2024) Where will they have the Kangaroos stay?

Frank

[not guilty]

Yes, although I surmise the jurors would be permitted to watch the telecast of the Super Bowl (under the supervision of the marshals).

[SRG]

It seems as if the generosity of Thomas's friends knows no bounds:

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel

[Frank Drackman]

Wow! he could almost be a DemoKKKrat Senator if you throw in the underage boys.

[SRG]

Hey, Frankie, let’s throw in some facts for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States

Looking at the disproportion between D and R, it does support an old observation not unique to me, that the reason so many right-wing politicians are so publicly in favour of puritanical laws - they know what they themselves are capable of and they don't trust the average US citizen to be any better,

[Frank Drackman]

Funny, can't find the former Dead Kennedy Senator from Massachusetts, who in July 1969 left a young woman to...(you know this part) seems that should qualify as a "Political Sex Scandal"
So if they left that one out, how many others did they leave out? Barney Fag?? AlGore diddling his illegal immigrant maid??

Frank

[SRG]

Frankie, ir wasn’t a sex scandal.

It was certainly a scandal, but to use recent GOP arguments, that he was re-elected meant that the People had forgiven him…

Why don't you edit the Wikipedia page yourself?

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, not like Ted Kennedy was fucking Mary Joe Kopeckney or anything, and funny, no Autopsy on Mary Joe, you know, to see if maybe she'd been raped or was pregnant (Ted Kennedy's Bastard Child lies a-smoldering in the grave)
Oh, and there was the 2004 DemoKKKrat VP Candidate, who's still fucking that nut case Reality Hunter
and why don't you (redacted) yourself??

Frank

[Ben_]

Democrats:

20,000 immigrants in NYC: an existential threat to the survival of the city, nay the entire US economy

20,000 immigrants in Laredo, Texas: deal with it, you icky flyover whiners

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1689710426425036800

Democrats thought only others would bear the consequences of Democrat policies. And they were happy about that. Now they’re feeling consequences themselves and they want sympathy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ok guys, I deserve to get some e-props on this. After a lot of hard work and skilled internet sleuthing, I think I've found photographic proof of the very first Drag Queen Story Hour ever caught on film

https://i.imgur.com/G7RPPQ9.jpg

(h/t pdw)

[grb]

Voltage!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/DramaAlert/status/1689675999372271616

Democrat police in the UK terrorize and raid family of austic girl for the homophobic crime of the autistic girl saying the police lesbian was a lesbian.

America 2025 after the Democrats steal another election and impose climate lockdowns for justice.

[grb]

Voltage!

[mydisplayname]

I'm old... and I have never in my lifetime seen as much agreement among the American people.

When I read in legacy media publications that "American is divided," I chuckle: yes, a 3:1 split is a division, but it is a division in which some opinions are merely dust on a mirror. There are those who believe the world is flat, that the holocaust never took place, that the moon landings were simulated, that open borders are wise, that overspending is necessary, that free speech must be regulated -- and there will always be those who believe lead in paints and fuels is a good idea. I enjoy hearing from such folk, as their speech clarifies the speech of rational individuals.

We should do everything possible to maintain today's zenith of American unity, even if doing so means allowing the fringe to speak!

[Martinned]

John Burn-Murdoch, the "pretty charts guy" of the Financial Times, has a new article showing that without London the UK is as poor as Mississippi. (The article is technically about how dependent different countries are on their richest regions, but the editors figured that this would make for a better headline.)

https://www.ft.com/content/e5c741a7-befa-4d49-a819-f1b0510a9802

[Martinned]

This Twitter thread has some more pretty charts on this topic: https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1689950429403037697