Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

A looming threat to our country is the prospect of a future president attempting to issue a pardon for his past act(s). We associate the risk with Donald Trump, but of course he's not guaranteed to be the first president who will try this. The danger is (IMO) that we simply don't know if he is or is not permitted to do this. It's a type of pardon power that hasn't been tested in court yet. And I think the uncertainty does us no good.

I think America would be infinitely better off if we could get that issue firmly settled in advance. And, of course, that means a Supreme Court ruling.

With that in mind; I propose that Biden—our current president—test the limits of the pardon power. He should discuss with White House counsel, and come up with the most minor misdemeanor they can find. (I would think something like vandalism would do the trick.)

He could give a press conference, and announce, “This morning; I painted a peace sign on the walkway leading to the West Wing entrance. This sign is approximately 6 inches high. I have been told that this is, technically, a misdemeanor. I have now issued a pardon to myself for this action. All of you here today, knew about this in advance, so I don't need to explain myself to you reporters. But many at home are probably shaking their heads in puzzlement. I will explain to them.

"If a future president were to try and use the pardon power on himself, we don't know if he does or does not actually have the authority to do this. Many highly-regarded legal experts think that he does...that the pardon power is unrestrained—that he may pardon anyone, for any federal crimes, including for himself. But just as many equally-highly-regarded experts say that he does not—that being able to pardon himself means that he is above the law, and that's this therefore cannot be legally permitted. My goal today, with this self-pardon attempt, is to get legal clarification from the courts. I have instructed the Dept of Justice to pursue this action against me, I will defend my actions, and we will let the courts decide. This way, all Americans will better understand the power of the presidency, and if there are any limits on his actions in this regard.

"I wish that the Supreme Court could simply issue an advisory opinion—to tell us what the law is without my having to actually paint on the pavement. But our highest court does not do this...for the Sup. Ct to issue rulings, there has to be an actual existing case or controversy. My hope is that this case will move quickly up through the various courts, and I also hope that the Sup. Ct will agree to hear the case when it is eventually presented to that court. This is a bipartisan issue, and I am pleased that both the Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress were informed of this in advance, and both supported this attempt to get a final and definitive determination from the courts."

[Commenter_XY]

This proposal sounds like a solution looking for an actual problem.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump is under indictment in four venues, in two of which it seems like there will be convictions, and he’s already on record (going back to 2018) saying he could pardon himself. This sounds like something sure to happen, if he gets in again.

[hoppy025]

So you're acknowledging that neither a D.C. federal jury or Fulton County state jury is going to judge the cases fairly?

[windycityattorney]

The documents case (federal) should be an easy win for the feds considering the known facts and the charges. The obstruction charge in that indictment may be the easiest to prove because there isn't any debates or quibbles about whether Trump declassified any of the documents in his possession or had standing orders to do so or did the presidential jedi mind trick and just 'thought about it.'

There was a grand jury subpoena and he took many steps to avoid complying and then lied about complying. The fact that attorney client privilege was pierced and he deliberately misled his own attorneys into making false certifications makes this charge somewhat of a slam dunk for an incompetent prosecutor let alone an experienced federal prosecutor.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue there is gonna be navigating the classification issues. It'll take a long time, but Trump sure does look dead to rights.

[not guilty]

The prosecution does not have to prove the classification status of the documents at issue as an element of the offense, only that the documents identified in counts 1 through 32 contained national defense information.

The fact that the documents bore classification markings is relevent to help establish the defendants' culpable mental states.

[jimc5499]

The why hasn't Joe Biden been impeached over the documents that were found in his garage? Here's a funny one. If Trump believed that the documents were not classified because he declassified them then it isn't obstruction. Every thing comes down to the Presidential Records Act.

[not guilty]

Impeachment? What suggests treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors by Joe Biden? Please be specific.

[David Nieporent]

In fact, absolutely nothing comes down to the Presidential Records Act. It is irrelevant to this case.

Whether he declassified them or not (hint:not) is not relevant to the charges against him. The grand jury subpoena demanded documents with classified markings, not classified documents. There's no dispute¹ that some of the documents he retained did contain such markings.

¹I set aside the moon-landings-were-faked nutjobbery of claiming the FBI "planted" the documents.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, jimc5499. What facts suggest treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors by Joe Biden?

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry if I wasn't clear - it's the discovery where classified material laws look like we're going to see some tricky motion practice.

With Cannon in the mix...

[Frank Drackman]

Parkinsonian Joe just looks dead

[Frank Drackman]

About as fair a trial as Emmett Till would have gotten in Mississippi.

[Kazinski]

If he's got a pardon, and he can only use it one time, he's going to save it for when he really needs it, and of course Hunter gets his pardon first.

And the other question is who has standing?

[Brett Bellmore]

"and he can only use it one time,"

Where's that one time coming from? Sure, it's kind of 'traditional' for Presidents to save their outrageous pardons for the last minute before leaving office, but nothing mandates that they do so; They could start pardoning cronies and rich guys waving around cash on day one, and do it again the next day.

There isn't really any question that he could pardon Hunter. There's barely any question about whether he could pardon himself, actually.

The proposal isn't bad, I guess. Not awful, anyway. My complaint would be with this:

"And, of course, that means a Supreme Court ruling."

I think what we really need to clarify a lot of constitutional issues is a convention, not asking the Court for answers.

Because we're asking for answers on questions where the Constitution is genuinely silent, the Court would just be making it up as they go along, and another Court could easily decide to make something else up. But, if you want to make up constitutional rules, and have them stick, isn't that what the amendment process is for?

People will say it's "broken", but the only part that looks broken is Congress originating amendments. No reason to think the states aren't still capable of ratifying popular amendments. So? Bypass Congress!

I think the first time Republicans get a majority in both chambers, they should call that convention. Enough states have already requested one, if you ignore the attempts to qualify the calls, and really, you should.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, be very careful what you wish for, you might actually get it. I would think long and hard before going the Article V route. That process would be like a legislative box of chocolates....(thinking of Forrest Gump).

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I'm aware that a constitutional convention could originate some amendments I really would NOT like. Especially if the delegate selection process were rigged... OTOH, they'd still have to get ratified, and that would stop most of the really bad amendments.

But we're seriously suffering these days from Congress refusing to originate a bunch of amendments that would probably be quite popular, like a balanced budget amendment, fixing the size of the Court to rule out Court packing, and so forth.

It would also kill off the primary excuse for living constitutionalism, which is that there isn't any other way for the Constitution to adapt to changing circumstances.

[David Nieporent]

I think the first time Republicans get a majority in both chambers, they should call that convention.

Um, first you need 2/3rds of the states to ask for that.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, 2/3rds of the states have already called for a convention, they've just done so using different language, giving Congress an excuse not to add the calls together and arrive at 2/3rds.

But calling for a convention is a binary decision, and it's easily defensible to say, "We're adding up every state that has asked for a convention on any terms whatsoever". And who'd have standing to object if Congress did that?

[santamonica811]

Kaz,
As Brett already pointed out; your observation that Biden might have only one bite of the apple makes no sense. If Biden (Trump, et al) can pardon himself, then he can do it a dozen times. The only thing a president can't do, in regards to other people's federal crimes, is to make the pardon forward-looking. There's no way he can issue a pardon that covers any *future* crimes that would be committed after the date of that particular pardon.

Brett,
Is it your sense that Republicans in Congress are anxious for a Const. Convention, and that Democrats are anxious to avoid this? I guess it would depend on who gets to participate in said convention. If based on percentages of votes, D's would be very happy, due to overwhelming numbers in NY and Calif. If based on number of states that are D vs R, then R's would be very happy, due to control of a bunch of small-population states. No "right" answer to this, and I suspect that arguing about this essential question would sabotage efforts to build consensus about holding such a convention at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is my sense that Democrats in Congress are anxious to avoid one, and Republicans in Congress are not terribly enthusiastic, but have far less to fear from one.

" If based on percentages of votes, D’s would be very happy, due to overwhelming numbers in NY and Calif. If based on number of states that are D vs R, then R’s would be very happy, due to control of a bunch of small-population states. No "right" answer to this..."

The Constitution is not explicit on whether the vote in the convention would be by state or by delegate. There IS the past practice from the Constitutional convention that originated the Constitution, though. And if the Convention were called by a Republican Congress, they could probably settle the matter favorably, and have the advantage of just following past practice.

However, Article V is very clear on the ratification end being by state, which means that no amendment Republicans dislike has even a ghost of a chance of ratification. Republicans control outright 23 states, and control the legislatures of 28 states. So, while they don't control enough state legislatures to ratify anything they want, they can easily block anything that offends them.

Democrats control 18 state legislatures, which also gives them a veto, though a more fragile one.

It's not something I'd suggest if things were going great, but we appear to be in a period of constitutional decay, and I see a convention as a last ditch effort to save things.

[hoppy025]

A divorce would make much more sense.

Let Democrat run states subsidize groomers, homosexuals, illegal Mayans, and Somali terrorists.

[Brett Bellmore]

The obvious problem with that proposal, which would otherwise be attractive, is that the dividing line isn't between states. It's more granular, it's more of an urban vs everyone else divide.

You can split a piece of concrete in half any way you want, but the two halves are still going to have a mix of cement and gravel.

There isn't any neat line you can divide the nation along in this case. Every 'red' state has deep 'blue' areas, and visa versa.

[hoppy025]

Right, it would require forced relocation. Make all the undesirables to conservative society move to California and New York.

[not guilty]

Who would enforce such a relocation, and how?

[hoppy025]

Might = right.

[not guilty]

That is a dodge and you know it. So who will make all the undesirables to conservative society move to California and New York, and how?

[not guilty]

"If he’s got a pardon, and he can only use it one time, he’s going to save it for when he really needs it, and of course Hunter gets his pardon first.

"And the other question is who has standing?"

Uh, presidential pardons are not a limited resource.

As to santamonica811's hypothetical, I surmise that the Department of Justice would have standing to challenge the pardon. A cooperative attorney general could set up a test case by alleging in a civil suit that DOJ intends to ask a grand jury to indict after Biden leaves office.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nope -- Lord v. Veizie....

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz's mania for Hunter does not seem to have subsided.

[gVOR08]

Biden should do this. But he should do it in such a way as to also challenge, and get a ruling on, the stupid DoJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting prez can’t be indicted. An opinion predicated on the idea the prez’s time is too important to spend on legal defense, thereby excusing, in Mueller’s eyes, a prez who reportedly spent his time playing golf and watching TV.

Of course if Biden did this, the House GOPs would try to impeach him for painting graffiti.

[Martinned]

It would be nice to get that kind of stuff sorted out, but I'm not sure if Biden instructing the DOJ to indict him would be the way. Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the (...) powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States", which presumably includes the pardon power.

So let Congress make a law that forbids the President from pardoning himself, and a law that states that sitting Presidents can most definitely be indicted. Make sure it's all fully severable and see where it goes from there.

[Kazinski]

No, and yes.
Congress can pass amnesty legislation of course, but they can not constrain the Presidents own pardon power.

But I think they could make it clear the president can be indicted, but can't tell the President he can't tell the DOJ he can't be indicted.

The only clear way for Congress to interfere with the President's constitutional prerogatives is to impeach him.

Its basically all or nothing at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Presidents can't be (federally) indicted" is less of a constitutional rule than it is a DOJ policy.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and who is ultimately in charge of the DOJ?

[Brett Bellmore]

And, that's why it's a DOJ policy.

[Kazinski]

Right, which is why Congress can overrule the policy.

And the reason why a president only has one bite at the apple pardoning himself is because Congress can impeach him before he takes takes the second bite.

[not guilty]

"And the reason why a president only has one bite at the apple pardoning himself is because Congress can impeach him before he takes takes [sic] the second bite."

Uh, no. Any number of pardons can be issued with the stroke of a pen. Impeachment is not an instantaneous process.

[Martinned]

Congress can pass amnesty legislation of course, but they can not constrain the Presidents own pardon power.

Where does it say that? Because if it says that somewhere, it looks like you've already got your answer re: Trump pardoning himself.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a question of where it says that, it's question of where it says anything to the contrary: The Constitution directly grants Presidents the pardon power, it's one of the few actual powers they're given that AREN'T contingent on carrying out legislative directives. Basic separation of powers says that if a branch is given a power, and nothing in the text allows another branch to regulate it, that power is plenary.

Presidents can pardon whoever they please, including themselves. Which, expressly, doesn't stop Congress from then impeaching them.

[Martinned]

True, but something in the text *does* allow Congress to regulate it. The Necessary and Proper clause explicitly applies to all powers vested by the Constitution in "the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

The plain reading of the Constitution suggests that Congress can make a pardons act to regulate the pardon power, but only within the limits usually set on the N&P clause. (E.g. banning pardons altogether, or restricting them severely, would probably be neither necessary nor proper.)

[Kazinski]

You read our constitution your way, our Supreme Court has chosen to read it another way.

And by its own words the clause allows Congress to make laws for "carrying into execution" powers, not curtailing them. So while it might be proper for Congress to say anyone pardoned by the President has to be released within 10 days and given 25$ in pocket money, they can't restrict who he can pardon or for what crimes.

[Martinned]

Fair enough, but then there's no issue. The President can, under Supreme Court precedent, pardon himself.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Presidents can't pardon themselves. The argument that they can is antithetical to the Constitution, to common sense, and to logic. Being able to pardon oneself literally places one person above the law.

Just because a power is plenary doesn't mean the power is anything the holder wants it to be. The power is still what the power is and the pardon power is the power to issue pardons to other people (i.e., to "grant" pardons).

[Mr. Bumble]

Will you be going super nova anytime soon?

[Krychek_2]

I think a far more pressing question is whether Trump is disqualified from the presidency because of his role in the insurrection. And unlike the pardon issue, that one is a genuinely live case or controversy.

I think several secretaries of state should file a declaratory action asking the federal courts to rule on the question of whether Trump is indeed disqualified from the ballot. They have standing because they have to decide whether to place him on the ballot and the whole purpose of a dec action is to resolve the rights and duties of the parties. We should have an answer sooner rather than later -- this is not an issue we want to be litigating in November 2024. So, if we're going to have lawsuits about a possible second Trump term, I think that question is far more pressing than whether he can pardon himself.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that, IF Democrats are going to make a serious effort to disqualify Trump, they'd better do so very early, so that there's time for it to play out in the courts. And the chances of the judiciary signing off on these "self-executing Section 3" fantasies is practically nil, after appeals are done.

I very much fear that, instead, they'll do it as late as possible in order to minimize any chance of the courts stopping them from using it to throw the election.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, when I first heard the theory that Trump might be disqualified because of January 6 my initial reaction was that it was a silly argument that wasn't going anywhere. However, enough legal scholars have now come forward in support of it that I now believe that it's a serious enough argument that it deserves resolution by the courts, whether or not it's ultimately successful. I agree with you that we need an answer quickly.

[Brett Bellmore]

All that demonstrates is that a fair number of legal scholars are hostile to Trump, and to the point where they're letting it color their judgement. They want rid of him, and they don't care how much damage accomplishing it causes, they tell themselves that him simply being President again is infinite damage.

Baude et al's paper, for instance? We have ONE, count 'em, one, case of Section 3 application outside of the immediate context of the Civil war, and their treatment of it was a disgrace.

And that utterly gratuitous language about Section 3 overriding everything else in the Constitution, due process, the prohibition on bills of attainder, you name it? That's not a reasonable approach to constitutional law.

In my opinion, anti-Trump forces are playing with matches while standing in a pool of simmering napalm. Even if you could make an argument for applying Section 3 not requiring a criminal conviction, attempting it is mind bogglingly dangerous in terms of the damage to our political climate. A significant fraction of the population would think it was an outrage, and they'd be right to think that.

I'm not alone in that opinion.

When the law is not a Trump card

"“Then here is the point that I, a non-scholar, want to make (though I should note that Segall makes it as well): Even if Baude and Paulsen were deemed correct on some pure empyrean level of constitutional debate, and Salmon Chase or anyone else deemed completely wrong, their correctness would be unavailing in reality, and their prescription as a political matter would be so disastrous and toxic and self-defeating that no responsible jurist or official should consider it.

“The idea that the best way to deal with a demagogic populist whose entire appeal is already based on disillusionment with the established order is for state officials — in practice, state officials of the opposing political party — to begin unilaterally excluding him from their ballots on the basis of their own private judgment of crimes that he has not been successfully prosecuted for … I’m sorry, the mind reels. It should not happen, it would not work if it did happen, John Roberts and four more justices would not uphold it, and it would license political chaos to no good purpose whatsoever. And if the legal theorist’s response is that this isn’t the “best” way to deal with Trump, it’s just the way that the Constitution requires, then so much the worse for their theory of the Constitution."

[Krychek_2]

Brett, why would Trump-hating legal scholars (most of whom are presumably Democrats) want to eliminate the Republican candidate Biden is most likely to beat?

[Life of Brian]

Typically a person's true beliefs and convictions can best be measured by bypassing their often bravado-laced words and focusing on what they actually do.

I think the notion that a Biden-Trump redux is a laydown win for Biden is just one of those circumstances, and probably helps explain why folks are lunging at this... um, novel theory like a life preserver in the middle of the ocean.

[Krychek_2]

I wouldn't say it's a laydown win for Biden; I would say Trump is the GOP candidate Biden is most likely to beat. And just to be clear, I'm a Democrat who really wishes our 2024 nominee would be someone other than either Biden or Kamala Harris.

At this point it's still more than 14 months until the election and a lot can happen in 14 months. Nobody thought Trump would win in 2016 until he actually did. Given the realities of the electoral college he may win again; I certainly hope not but it could happen.

None of which detracts from my earlier statement that Trump is the GOP candidate Biden is *most likely* to beat.

[Frank Drackman]

“I’m a Democrat who really wishes our 2024 nominee would be someone other than either Biden or Kamala Harris.”
it will

[Drewski]

Oh, well, if an extremely online, schizophrenic person says so with confidence, who am I to argue?

[Bob from Ohio]

"schizophrenic person "

Hey Sarcasto, no condemnation of this internet analysis?

[Sarcastr0]

Nope, Bob – I don’t love mental illnesses being used as insults, but that’s miles different from Brett’s pretenses at actual diagnosis and argument for disqualification.

Thanks for keeping me honest. Or I would, if I thought for a second you were in good faith.

[Life of Brian]

Agree it's very early and there are many plot twists ahead. With what we know today, though, I'm skeptical that, e.g., Haley or even Ramaswamy would ultimately do better than Trump were they to make it through the primary. DeSantis would not surprise me.

[jb]

Ramaswamy is kind of a ridiculous candidate; I agree he probably wouldn't be more competitive than Trump, and DeSantis has proven to be much weaker than expected through some combination of having extremely silly policies and being terrible at running a campaign.

I do think that Haley or Scott would have a fairly easy time beating Biden, and that Christie or even someone like Burgum would probably be better candidates than Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

DeSantis' problem is that he's running as a Trump substitute, and Trump isn't actually gone.

Should Trump end up gone, I expect DeSantis' numbers to jump dramatically.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that Trump's enemies have attacked him in such over the top terms, and, frankly, cut so many ethical corners in going after him, that at this point they can't do anything that would suggest he isn't the almost mythologically bad guy they've been saying.

You can't say somebody is a monster, "But, eh, he's not worth going after." Once you've identified somebody as super-Hitler, you have to TREAT him like super-Hitler.

It's like, once you torture the terrorist suspect, you can never admit he was innocent, because if you do, you're the bad guy.

So, they're stuck, they simply can't NOT pursue him, regardless of consequences.

[Krychek_2]

Trump is not Hitler; Hitler was principled. In a sane, rational world he'd be polling at around 10%.

The problem is that given the realities of the electoral college, it is possible that we could end up with him again despite 70% of the country wishing he would just go away. His nutty base controls the GOP nominating process, and he doesn't have to win flyover country by that much to win the electoral college. So, he *shouldn't* be worth going after, but given our very strange system he can't be ignored.

[Frank Drackman]

What’s “Strange” about the Electrical College? Founders were smart guys, even if the present system isn’t exactly what they had in mind. Getting 270 Electrical Votes requires a candidate to do well all over instead of just piling up a 30 million vote margin in California/New York. Oh, and it kept us from having to suffer under Presidents AlGore/HillaryRodman

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Without the electoral college there would have been no January 6, and none of the aftermath of January 6, including the Trump indictments. Having lost the popular vote, he simply would have faded into oblivion. January 6 is a direct consequence of the electoral college. Nothing bad that President Hillary Clinton could possibly have done while in office counter-balances that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nothing bad that President Hillary Clinton could possibly have done while in office counter-balances that."

So says you. I can imagine all sorts of worse things than a 4 hour riot.

No matter what Trump has done or will do, the service he did in beating her was worth it.

[Life of Brian]

January 6 is a direct consequence of the electoral college.

Oh, come on. Isn't it because Eve ate the apple?

[Krychek_2]

Bob, January 6 was a four hour riot in the same sense that Hiroshima was a five minute bomb drop. The actual event may not have taken long but the damage remains for a long, long time.

[Krychek_2]

LOB, had there been no electoral college, there would have been no January 6. Period, full stop.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Bob, January 6 was a four hour riot in the same sense that Hiroshima was a five minute bomb drop. "

Um, you do realize that the building was still standing afterwards, right? And Congress voted? And that the only person who died was one of the rioters, shot by the police?

Talk about hyperbole!

[Krychek_2]

Brett, I'm talking about the damage to our polity, to our civil discourse, to our politics, to our reputation, to our ability to trust each other, to our ability to cross the aisle and work with each other. Yep, that has all been diminished greatly in the past 20 years, but January 6 did a massive amount of damage to it.

[Michael Ejercito]

Brett, I’m talking about the damage to our polity, to our civil discourse, to our politics, to our reputation, to our ability to trust each other, to our ability to cross the aisle and work with each other. Yep, that has all been diminished greatly in the past 20 years, but January 6 did a massive amount of damage to it.

The riots in Portland, Kenosha, and Minneapolis already did most of that damage.

[bernard11]

Getting 270 Electrical Votes requires a candidate to do well all over instead of just piling up a 30 million vote margin in California/New York.

Horseshit. It focuses the whole election on 6-7 battleground states.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump is not Hitler; Hitler was principled."

There it is folks. Trump is worse than Hitler!

[Life of Brian]

To Brett’s point above, that’s sort of the corner they’ve painted themselves into over the past several years of increasingly rabid frothing.

But agree it’s rare to say that particular quiet part out loud.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, lets take this comment and go off on on how everyone on the left praises Hitler these days, while the right just has a bunch of bad apples who keep stumbling into Nazi shit.

Nutpicking doesn't work in general, but is especially weak when you have so many more of the exact kind of nuts you're (ignoring context to) pick on your side.

[Krychek_2]

I didn't say I approved of his principles; merely that unlike Trump, he actually had some.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nutpicking " "exact kind of nuts"

I don't think it nice to call Krychek a nut.

[Nige]

Have you guys had Ed2 on block all this time?

[David Nieporent]

Brett, why would Trump-hating legal scholars (most of whom are presumably Democrats) want to eliminate the Republican candidate Biden is most likely to beat?

The people who first introduced this idea into the discourse are Republicans, not Democrats.

[SimonP]

I agree that it's a stupid position that would be politically explosive.

You describe the question as being pushed by legal scholars who are hostile towards Trump, but I think this obfuscates that it's specifically conservative legal scholars who've been pushing the line lately (though certainly some "liberal" or "moderate" legal scholars are going along with it, too). I think what we're seeing is a last-ditch Hail Mary by the right-wing elite to clear the field for an anyone-but-Trump candidate that they would find more palatable.

Personally, I think it's hilarious that your standard-bearer is so toxic to the general public, but your fellow travelers are so cynically vindictive and stupid, that you're trapped in this doom-loop where you can't agree on an acceptable candidate to put up for Con-Man-in-Chief.

[Life of Brian]

Personally, I think it’s hilarious that your standard-bearer is so toxic to the general public,

Personally, I think it's hilarious that you think a cluster of ivory-tower law professors are representative of the general public. That's pretty much the same set of blinders that gave Trump his first term.

[Sarcastr0]

you think a cluster of ivory-tower law professors are representative of the general public

It looks to me like he is arguing the opposite of this.

[Life of Brian]

"I think what we’re seeing is a last-ditch Hail Mary by the right-wing elite to clear the field for an anyone-but-Trump candidate that they would find more palatable.

Personally, I think it’s hilarious that your standard-bearer is so toxic to the general public"

Seems clear enough to me that he was tying the two groups, but I guess we'll wait to hear from the horse's mouth.

[SimonP]

I'm not saying that they are. Trump is popular among a subset of Republican voters. The broader public hates him and the chaos he brings. His path to the nomination this time around does not currently seem to rely on splitting the vote (like he did in 2016), but his path to victory in 2024 will almost certainly again rely on the electoral college's countermajoritarian design. He's not going to get a broad public mandate to govern, and probably will not get a majority of the popular vote (for the third time in a row). His path to victory will likely once again rely on eking out small margins in battleground states with outsized electoral college impact.

[Life of Brian]

His path to the nomination this time around does not currently seem to rely on splitting the vote (like he did in 2016), but his path to victory in 2024 will almost certainly again rely on the electoral college’s countermajoritarian design. He’s not going to get a broad public mandate to govern, and probably will not get a majority of the popular vote (for the third time in a row).

Do you see any of the other Republican candidates having a different outcome? Big, deep blue states have effectively broken the coupling between popular vote and electoral college for many cycles now.

[SimonP]

Of the current slate, the only potential GOP candidates I can imagine winning a broader public mandate - and I think there are winnable votes even in blue states, and a potential path to victory where the winner wins the electoral college as well as the popular vote - would be candidates like Christie, Haley, possibly Scott (depending on how he pivots to the general). I don't see Trump or the Meatball playing strong to suburban moms or moderate voters, and Vivek is bizarrely just trying to run the Meatball strategy a bit more competently.

None of those others, of course, have a realistic shot at the GOP nomination. But if they were to somehow be nominated, I think that their youth/vitality edge over Biden would peel off a lot of swing voters.

But politicians like Youngkin and Hogan might be able to do even better. I suspect they're hanging back on this round (like Newsom and Whitmer are doing) so they don't Romney up their chances in 2028.

[Krychek_2]

No. Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, but have actually gotten the White House in three of the last eight presidential elections, and currently have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court as a result. The fact is, GOP policies are unpopular with a majority of voters but because of our system the GOP doesn't have to care. So you're right, the strategy of whomever the GOP nominates will have little to do with putting out positions a majority of the voters actually like.

[Life of Brian]

candidates like Christie, Haley, possibly Scott (depending on how he pivots to the general).

Candidates like that (and I'd throw Ramaswamy into that group as well) certainly would get some slice out of the middle (maybe even middle-left, but not sure in this age of political toxicity) that Trump would not, agreed. I just don't have any confidence that slice outweighs the slice of Trump voters who would stay home.

I currently think DeSantis would have the best chance of netting votes across those groups, but don't have any misconceptions that he would win the popular vote.

[jb]

I think Biden is sufficiently unpopular, including amongst Democrats, that it would be easy to see a non-crazy Republican candidate winning by ten points, yes. He's not running because he knows he can't win the primary, but someone like Larry Hogan could probably win by 20 points.

[Martinned]

@jb: OK, I'll bite. Which potential Democratic Presidential nominee is (substantially) more popular among Democratic voters than Biden?

The reason why I'm asking is because Biden's numbers might be terrible, but so are everybody else's. Approval of all politicians is down. The only people who might poll well are people that respondents know about, but who don't have an actual track record of actually doing things.

[Life of Brian]

He’s not running because he knows he can’t win the primary, but someone like Larry Hogan could probably win by 20 points.

That’s even a bit northward of Regan ’84. As I said, I don’t know that today’s increasingly rabid polarization would allow for that kind of a result on either end of the spectrum. May we someday come up with some sort of primary process that gives us a chance to put that to the test.

[Bob from Ohio]

"One wonders why…"

Race Card, don't comment without it.

[jb]

Martinned: It's a bit hard to say since it seems like there's been no appetite amongst serious candidates to challenge biden. I'd imagine that the strongest candidates would likely be governors, so people like Gretchen Whitmer or Jared Polis. I think by 2028 Josh Shapiro and Wes Moore might be very strong candidates but are pretty inexperienced right now. Newsom obviously wants to run, but has his own baggage. Looking at non-governors, Sanders and Warren are probably too old at this point and I've never been a big Klobuchar fan. Maybe Warnock? AOC would be polarizing, but honestly might have a better chance against Trump than Biden just because of her ability to activate her own base.

Life of Brian: Note that I'm writing about these margins specifically in terms of running against Biden, who is going to have a hard time inspiring people to vote for him unless he's running against someone crazy. I wouldn't necessarily expect similarly large margins or even a Republican victory against at least some of the candidates I listed above.

You're definitely right that it's sad that we have a primary system that is consistently delivering us candidates that we think are some of the worst possible in their respective parties.

[SimonP]

LoB: the reason I'm skeptical of DeSantis and Vivek having much broad-based appeal is that (in the former case) DeSantis has gone far too hard into extremist positions to pivot back towards a "normal" Republican candidacy, and Vivek is a carpetbagger in the J.D. Vance vein. Christie is charismatic. Scott seems to be well-liked. Haley doesn't have a message, but she might find one. Meatball and Vivek pair an off-putting extremism with a lack of authenticity and charisma.

I might have agreed that DeSantis would have had a reasonable shot, back before he became synonymous with tilting at Disney and "Don't say gay," etc. If he were just a charismatic, younger conservative, he might have had a plausible shot at winning over a majority of American voters.

[Life of Brian]

I might have agreed that DeSantis would have had a reasonable shot, back before he became synonymous with tilting at Disney and “Don’t say gay,” etc.

He became synonymous with narrow, inflamed issues like that because that's the brush the media and his opponents (but I repeat myself) went out of their way to tar him with. Your reference to the completely wrongheaded but undeniably catchy "don't say gay" meme is a perfect example.

His broader record of governance in my view is one of pragmatism and common sense, which seems to be amply reinforced by the steady influx of both residents and visitors voting with their feet to a degree that would make Ilya Somin swoon with blissful joy were they crossing a country rather than a state border.

[SimonP]

LoB:

Your reference to the completely wrongheaded but undeniably catchy “don’t say gay” meme is a perfect example.

This response is out of date. It might have made sense when the law was fresh, and before the state board of education issued regulations based on it. But by now the old canard about the law being just about teaching second graders about blow jobs has been superseded by lived experience. It is, in fact, a "don't say gay" law, as implemented, practiced, and we may soon see, enforced.

His broader record of governance in my view is one of pragmatism and common sense, ...

Again, that might have been a defensible take, once upon a time. But housing prices are up, insurance providers are leaving, draconian laws on immigration are causing chaos in parts of the labor market, public safety isn't markedly better in Florida than anywhere else, employers are second-guessing whether they want to locate in Florida vs. Georgia, DeSantis has walked away from his balanced COVID response and leaned into the anti-vaxx nonsense, and so on.

Blame it on "the media," if you like. "The media" is to blame for Trump's dominance, Vivek's continuing relevance, and it'll be all over Youngkin if he changes his mind and joins the race. The question was just whether a majority of American voters would vote for him. That seems less plausible now than it might have been, once upon a time.

[Life of Brian]

But by now the old canard about the law being just about teaching second graders about blow jobs has been superseded by lived experience. It is, in fact, a “don’t say gay” law, as implemented, practiced, and we may soon see, enforced.

I didn't imagine it had been around long enough to have generated that sort of consistent, broad-based signal, but may be behind. I'm happy to read whatever you may have that's more than a Vanity Fair-grade overwrought workup of a cherry-picked teacher or two.

But housing prices are up

That does indeed happen when demand goes up, markets being the peskily predictable creatures they are. Most owners of those houses likely see that appreciation as a positive.

insurance providers are leaving

Coastal insurance markets are tough and have a lot of ebb and flow, and at a quick glance it actually looks like Florida just put some tort reform measures in place that should help smooth things out over the longer haul. But again, I'll read whatever you have on how the current situation is somehow tied to DeSantis's governance rather than the carriers' typical post-hurricane belt tightening.

draconian laws on immigration are causing chaos in parts of the labor market

Once again, I suspect residents who are now able to get jobs they couldn't before would disagree with the ivory tower crowd that this is a bad thing.

public safety isn’t markedly better in Florida than anywhere else

Not sure what sort of work the word "markedly" is doing, but then again I'm also not sure why not being "markedly" better points to some sort of governance failure. Just browsing around looking at various 50-state rankings it seems to be doing well enough, and again the continued migration of people there from truly higher-crime areas speaks for itself.

employers are second-guessing whether they want to locate in Florida vs. Georgia

This smells like another Vanity Fair-grade drive by piece about a company or two and probably just a proxy for abortion laws, but -- same invitation if it's more.

DeSantis has walked away from his balanced COVID response and leaned into the anti-vaxx nonsense

If you mean continued to follow the science now that it's finally acknowledging more and more clearly the inverted cost/benefit for vaccinating younger people, then good -- and once again that will continue to be a draw for a much larger segment of the population than you might think or care to admit.

That said, I seem to recall him focusing more on vaccinating the higher-risk 65+ population from early on, so once again would be curious to see something more concrete about any supposed sea change.

[Life of Brian]

[misthreaded]

[David Nieporent]

And that utterly gratuitous language about Section 3 overriding everything else in the Constitution, due process, the prohibition on bills of attainder, you name it? That’s not a reasonable approach to constitutional law.

Once again: that's not what they said.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even if Baude and Paulsen were deemed correct on some pure empyrean level of constitutional debate, and Salmon Chase or anyone else deemed completely wrong, their correctness would be unavailing in reality, and their prescription as a political matter would be so disastrous and toxic and self-defeating that no responsible jurist or official should consider it.

Brett Bellmore endorsing this position without a hint of irony… I have no words.

[David Nieporent]

Heh. Yeah, the guy who says "Who cares if the constitution is a suicide pact? If it is, it should be amended, but we have to follow it until then" is suddenly flipping those shoes to the opposite feet.

[Brett Bellmore]

My position on this matter is that the 'self-executing' theory of Section 3 was only followed for a very short time right after the Civil war, when the people it was applied to were the beaten down losers of that war. And even then it was swiftly abandoned as unworkable if you wanted civic peace.

You can't take Civil war precedents too seriously, because they all took place in a context where the winning side in a war was just doing whatever they felt like, because they could; The people they were doing it to were largely helpless.

Unless you've just won a civil war, and have soldiers occupying the losing side, don't try acting like that. How complicated is that?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The text of Section 3 is still in the constitution, and still in full force. Nothing in the text limits its application to the Confederacy. Nothing in the text limits its application to "beaten down losers." Your ostensible fidelity to textualism seems to come and go depending on the issue.

[Life of Brian]

How complicated is that?

Those so versed like to bandy about "thinking like a lawyer" as solely a positive trait, but I think it also causes blind spots in situations like this where it's screamingly obvious that something beyond the rule of law was at play at the time and thus it can't be (and until the recent and most fervent of the gotta-get-'im days, wasn't) blindly extrapolated into the order of the day.

Or, they can see it and are just hiding behind feigned ignorance -- either one.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Even if your assertion about their motives is true, it doesn't change the fact that it is in the constitution, and the text is what it is. So it is required to be "extrapolated into the order of the day." Maybe not blindly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it’s in the Constitution, and the text is what it is, and the text doesn’t SAY that it’s self executing. In fact, the last section of the 14th amendment is an enabling legislation clause!

Yes, right after the Civil war they treated it as self-executing. For a couple years. They were doing all sorts of reprehensible crap at the time! Nobody who wants civic peace should take seriously Civil war era precedents; They’re not examples of how to have a peaceful society, they’re examples of how to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and listen to the lamentations of their women!

[VinniUSMC]

I think...

Given the rest of that sentence, evidence suggests otherwise.

[Krychek_2]

Vinni, I have it on good authority that whenever you post here, God has to read it three or four times to figure out what on earth you are talking about.

[Bwaaah]

I think you're missing the meat of his argument.

[Krychek_2]

What argument? He tossed off a gratuitous insult, to which I responded in kind. If you (or he) thinks I'm wrong, fine, make an argument.

[Bwaaah]

I was being facetious. Not even a hint of meat in it.

[not guilty]

I have previously proposed a secretary of state suing for declaratory judgment as to Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on a state's ballot. I do wonder who the appropriate party-defendants would be. Trump, of course. And I surmise that other persons claiming an interest should be liberally permitted to intervene.

While a secretary of state would have standing to raise the question about how he should perform his duties in office, who should be sued in order to advocate Trump's ineligibility and ensure the proper adversity of parties? Other candidates for the Republican nomination for president? the eventual Democratic presidential nominee?

[Krychek_2]

Trump is a defendant, of course, and I would also name the Republican Party since the litigation seeks a declaration of the eligibility of their chosen candidate (or likely-to-be-chosen candidate, depending on the timing). I would say that between them, Trump and the GOP would be able to properly represent the interests adverse to those of the plaintiffs. The other GOP candidates have interests adverse to Trump since if he's off the ballot, it makes it that much more likely that one of them will be the nominee.

I'm sure there would be a hundred amicus filings on both sides.

[Krayt]

I wouldn't rely on a court judging it unconstitutional. That has a weasely git 'im feel. If you don't like it, propose an amendment.

I always thought it would happen like this:

President pardons himself.
People wring their hands.
That's the first and last time this happens as an amendment gets quickly passed.

Or doesn't, depending on how politically lopsided the prosecution is.

In any case, it is not obvious. The Constitution should be obvious and simple. Therefor the president can do so. No weasel behavior please.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I personally see no textual basis for claiming a President can't pardon himself, and that settles the matter.

[Martinned]

The Constitution itself might be neutral on the issue, leaving it open to Congress to regulate this issue one way or another if it so wishes.

[Mr. Bumble]

By impeaching and convicting the president and removing him from office leaving him subject to prosecution for any statutory crimes.

[Martinned]

That doesn't really work after the President has already pardoned himself.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's when you litigate the question, obviously. But we already know that sold pardons are valid, why not self-dealing ones?

[bernard11]

What about a logical basis?

The President fails to pay his income taxes, say, or sells nuclear secrets, then pardons himself on the way out the door.

Are you claiming the President is simply not accountable for any federal crime committed while in office?

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, the Constitution fails to take into account a lot of potential issues. But it is what it is, even where what it is happens to be a bad idea.

[Krayt]

I would think, if people don't like that result, they'd pass an amendment.

I don't see a furious rush to do it. It's almost like his opposition is using him as a character people love to hate.

[Drewski]

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

- Anton Scalia

[Brett Bellmore]

People say "the Constitution is not a suicide pact!" when they mean, "The Constitution IS a suicide pact, which we should break."

While pretending you didn't break it, goes unspoken.

[Drewski]

That's, um, an interesting take.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. It means if your interpretation of the Constitution presents an existential crisis to the Union, your interpretation is certainly wrong.

[Nige]

I thought it just meant 'it's okay to torture people.'

[not guilty]

Give credit where credit is due. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote, "The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for, while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1963) [footnote omitted].

Before that, Justice Robert Jackson wrote in dissent from the reversal of a of disorderly conduct conviction for violation of a city ordinance of Chicago, "There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949).

[David Nieporent]

That was Robert Jackson, not Scalia. (It's possible Scalia said it too — he was a pretty prolific speech giver — but I don't think it ever appeared in one of his opinions.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

1) President willfully bombs NYC because he wants to kill Democrats for fun.
2) President pardons himself.
3) Brett says this is all fine, and no criminal consequences.

That's the kind of stupidity you have to believe is acceptable in order to argue self-pardons are a thing.

American history, constitutional history, and a handful of centuries of jurisprudence where no man is the judge in his own case clearly indicate you're wrong.

[Martinned]

Sounds like a state crime to me. The more interesting hypo might involve a bomb in DC.

[David Nieporent]

It would be removed to federal court and dismissed. (See Meadows, Mark.)

[Martinned]

Because bombing New York is part of the President's official duties?

[Brett Bellmore]

As much as bombing wedding parties, I'd assume. Presumably a President who ordered NY bombed would invent some kind of excuse for it.

In fact, he'd need a damned good one, to get anybody under him to carry out the order, wouldn't he?

[Martinned]

O, sorry, I interpreted Jason's hypo more like the President doing a Timothy McVeigh, rather than a W.

[David Nieporent]

The test is not whether it's "one of his duties." The test is whether it was "for or relating to any act under color of such office." (I am assuming that in this hypo he is ordering the military to conduct this bombing, rather than hiring a bunch of private mercenaries.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you having trouble with the difference between "legal" and "all fine", maybe?

And, yeah, sounds like a state crime.

[Sarcastr0]

After all the crying about how the Trump indictments may be formally correct, but are nevertheless unjust, this is quite a time to whip out 'formally legal is all that matters.'

[Kazinski]

Well who conceded they are formally correct?

You know the arguments of the Bragg indictment.
The argument on the Classified documents is that ignores The Presidential Records act.
And that the Insurrection indictments only allege first amendment protected activity, and listing tweets as overt acts certainly didn't help.

[Sarcastr0]

I have no idea if self pardons are legal or not as a strictly textual matter. There are good parcings in both sides.

That is hardly the only method of analysis open to us which is why Brett is being myopic and ridiculous.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, do you have any authority that conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress, attempt to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding of Congress and/or conspiracy against voting rights implicate First Amendment protected activity? Please be specific.

[Kazinski]

I just told you.

If that isn't sufficient authority for you, go find your own.

[not guilty]

IOW, you've got shit, but lack the integrity to admit it. Speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute is not First Amendment protected. Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). "[I]t has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed." Id., at 502.

Do you have countervailing authority? Yes or no?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Rather than consider the hypothetical for its obvious purpose, you criticize.

Very well, consider that instead of NYC, he destroys the entirety of NY. No living person, creature, or plant is left to act as a State sovereign. Federal enough?

I noticed that you ignored the historical context entirely, as NOVA explained below. (An argument previously explained the last time this idiotic idea came up.)

[Brett Bellmore]

As a formal matter, could he pardon himself? Sure.

As an informal matter, would anybody care that he had? Nope.

[Kazinski]

Bills of Attainder are not allowed, but an Amendment of Attainder certainly would be perfectly legal.

But have you forgotten that Trump owns Billions of real estate in NY?

Your hypothetical is just too farfetched to be taken seriously.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That you refuse to consider a generic 'worst case scenario that's a Federal crime' hypothetical to even engage in says a lot about the strength of your argument.

I notice that neither of you have so much as acknowledged the argument NOVA put forth below, which was also put forth the last time this dumb idea came up.

Seems like you guys refuse to engage in just about everything except "yeah, he can do it because I think so."

[NOVA Lawyer]

There is a textual basis as the power to "grant" implies giving from one person to another.

There is no textual basis for concluding that a President can pardon himself. A pardon was always historically understood to be given by the sovereign to a non-sovereign, presumably the ratifiers intended pardon in its ordinary meaning which, historically and by any logical or rational construction, means the granting to one person by another absolution for crimes committed by the recipient.

No man shall be a judge in his own case. The principle was well-established and known by the Framers.

Your argument is as stupid as claiming words can never be punished. Offered a Senator money to vote for your favorite bill? Those are just words and "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Well, says Brett, laws construed as preventing you from offering a bribe, which is pure speech, no act, are obviously unconstitutional as the Constitution says "no law" which "abridg[es]" freedom of speech. It's the dumbest textual argument one can make and it's the equivalent of the argument you are making with regard to the pardon power.

Words have meanings and sometimes those are more nuanced than just taking the most extreme and absurd interpretation possible particularly where, as with the pardon power, the extreme and absurd interpretation directly undermines the entire point of the American Revolution and, so, the Constitution (which is to do away with unaccountable kings).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good idea.

[OtisAH]

I, for one, would appreciate it if “The president should commit some minor crime so he can test the limits of his pardon power” is the dumbest thing posted here today. I’m not optimistic, but it sure would be nice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't think it was particularly dumb. Not likely to actually get done, mind you, but not particularly dumb.

[OtisAH]

No, Brett, you wouldn’t. You would have come up with it yourself eventually.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: This is exactly what Lord & Veazie tried to do -- they sued each other over the right to drive logs in the Penobscot River (Bangor) and didn't really care who won as much as they wished to deny the First National Bank of Boston the right to do so. SCOTUS said "no" -- it has to be an actual case or controversy, not a colluded case.

2: If Brandon admits to having committed a misdemeanor, he has admitted to grounds for impeachment -- "high crimes and misdemeanors and hence the House can send it directly to the Senate for trial.

3: If SCOTUS is actually required to hear the case, it can just say that the jury (Senate) has spoken.

4: OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT CAN PARDON HIMSELF -- THAT'S WHY THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS HIM FROM DOING SO IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT -- HE CAN IN ALL OTHER SITUATIONS.

IMPEACHMENT EXISTS TO ADDRESS INJUSTICES -- LIKE THE CRAP THAT HAS BEEN THROWN AT DJT.

[Martinned]

My personal favourite is the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (2001) international arbitration case, the purpose of which was to establish that the Hawaiian Kingdom still existed as a matter of international law.

https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/35/

[Drewski]

It's funny how, when people write in all-caps for emphasis, it's always wrong. The President can't pardon impeachments, which implies only that he can't pardon impeachments, not that he can self-pardon. The President is not the only person subject to impeachment.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, what implies that he can self pardon is that he has the power to pardon, and the text doesn't place that limit on it. There's as much textual basis for saying he can't self-pardon as for saying he can't pardon left-handers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Mind numbingly wrong. As explained elsewhere, many times, there is a textual basis for denying self pardons as the term "grant" indicates it is given by the President to another.

Further, historical context helps define the term pardon, which is a thing given by the sovereign to a non-sovereign. Self-pardon was not a thing at the time of the Founding. It likely isn't mentioned because nobody in 1790 was both stupid enough and immoral enough to conceive the concept, particularly as applied to a non-king.

[David Nieporent]

It’s funny how, when people write in all-caps for emphasis, it’s always wrong.

When Dr. Ed writes, it's always wrong.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The opinion that presidents can self pardon is bogus. And this proposal presumes that a president can be prosecuted while in office.

[David Nieporent]

I have instructed the Dept of Justice to pursue this action against me,

Setting everything else aside, there's an OLC opinion that presidents can't be prosecuted while in office.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the President can tell them to think again.

But it's not happening, because the last thing any President wants is to shed even a bit of the immunity they've been improperly given.

[John F. Carr]

Remember the Saturday Night Massacre? Trump can order the DOJ to drop the federal charges against him. I expect a good number of principled resignations if he does. The surviving acting Attorney General will be required to report to Congress that the Special Counsel has been overruled. This may lead to a doomed third impeachment. Nixon probably could have survived firing Cox. It was the smoking gun tape that did him in.

[Armchair Lawyer]

On a very basic level about Democracy...so what is a President pardon's himself?

These issues you point to aren't exactly unknown. People are well aware of the issues, and the fact that Trump may pardon himself. If the people in a democratic election decide to elect him ANYWAY, that's the point of democracy.

Let's use an extreme example to make the point. A Presidential candidate is accused of murder. He is convicted by a federal jury. Regardless of that conviction, the people of the United States decide to elect that person President, and that person immediately pardons themselves.

What's the alternative to that situation? A democratically elected President can essentially be imprisoned by a zealous judge, prosecutor, and jury in a given district?

In essence, democracy is the ultimate "Trump" card. If you can convince the people to vote for you, you can overturn (pardon) federal crimes you're accused of.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is a weird concept that the President doing something (which he can't do) after the election is somehow ratified by votes prior to him taking the act. Your understanding of the arrow of time and cause and effect are fundamentally different from mine.

Your hypothetical would only maybe work if a President committed a murder, pardoned herself (which, again, she can't do, but we'll assume for purposes of this hypo she may) and immediately resigned to avoid impeachment, and then ran for office again, and was elected. In that case, you kinda sorta have a point that the people were dumb enough to kinda sorta endorse the self-pardon, though people vote for all sorts of reasons and don't necessarily endorse everything a President for whom they vote has done.

But you definitely have no point if Trump is elected in 2024 and then attempts to pardon himself because 2024 isn't a referendum on whether Presidents can self-pardon, rather, if people vote for him, they will have had all sorts of reasons and many were likely opposed to the concept of self-pardon.

[David Welker]

The Supreme Court should certainly REFUSE to hear any such case. Why? Because the entire purpose would be for an advisory opinion.

That is especially improper coming from the executive branch, where the original decision against issuing advisory opinions came as a result of a request from the executive branch.

[Randal]

I feel like this misses the point entirely. If we've gotten to where a felonious President both withstands impeachment and gets re-elected, it means that We The People have fundamentally rejected the rule of law. There's no point in trying to keep things together at that point. The experiment is over.

[Randal]

See also: Israel.

[Kazinski]

The NY Times is reporting that the special "prosecutor" wasn't intending to bring any charges against Hunter at all.

That is until he got wind of the fact that the two IRS whistleblowers were coming forward, then as a fig leaf he came up with the guilty plea for the two misdemeanors:

"The deal’s collapse — chronicled in over 200 pages of confidential correspondence between Mr. Weiss’s office and Mr. Biden’s legal team, and interviews with those close to Mr. Biden, lawyers involved in the case and Justice Department officials — came after intense negotiations that started with the prospect that Mr. Biden would not be charged at all and now could end in his possible indictment and trial.

Earlier this year, The Times found, Mr. Weiss appeared willing to forgo any prosecution of Mr. Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges. But the correspondence reveals that his position, relayed through his staff, changed in the spring, around the time a pair of I.R.S. officials on the case accused the Justice Department of hamstringing the investigation. Mr. Weiss suddenly demanded that Mr. Biden plead guilty to committing tax offenses.

Now, the I.R.S. agents and their Republican allies say they believe the evidence they brought forward, at the precise time they did, played a role in influencing the outcome, a claim senior law enforcement officials dispute."
"May 15, a familiar figure reached out to Mr. Clark: Lesley Wolf, a top Weiss deputy with whom Mr. Clark had developed a rapport over the previous two years. In a conference call with the Biden legal team, she acknowledged Mr. Clark’s core demand: that his client never be asked to plead guilty to anything.

She then made a proposition — a deal in which Mr. Biden would not plead guilty, but would agree to what is known as a deferred prosecution agreement."
"It all began to explode into public view on May 15 — the same day Ms. Wolf contacted Mr. Clark — when it was reported that the investigative team that had worked on the case, including Mr. Shapley, had been removed. The next day the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee fired off a letter to the I.R.S. commissioner demanding an explanation."

"On Tuesday, May 23, after four days of silence, Ms. Wolf delivered unwelcome news. Mr. Weiss had revised what he wanted in the deal, now demanding that Mr. Biden plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his taxes. It crossed a red line for Mr. Clark.

Erupting in anger, Mr. Clark accused Ms. Wolf of misleading him. He renounced the possibility of any deal, but after consulting with Mr. Biden, reversed course and told Ms. Wolf that Mr. Biden was willing to go along."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/politics/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html

The two IRS agents performed a public service stopping a sham and a coverup.

And Weiss needs to be replaced with an actual independent special prosecutor, as required by law. Someone that isn't tainted.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And Weiss needs to be replaced with an actual independent special prosecutor, as required by law."

As usual, check your facts.

[Tom for equal rights]

ason Cavanaugh 15 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“And Weiss needs to be replaced with an actual independent special prosecutor, as required by law.”

As usual, check your facts.

Jason - perhaps you should check the facts and the statute before you give an incorrect response.

[Kazinski]

As usual my facts are dead on:

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Chapter VI, § 600.3(c).
The regulations were authorized by Congress under 5 U.S.C. 301, 509, 510, 515-519.

"600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government."

Now admittedly the Durham appointment had the same problem, but I don't remember people complaining, other than that their even was an investigation. Now people are complaining because Weiss has not shown any independence or willingness to do his job, which is why his investigative team complained to Congress.

[David Nieporent]

The Durham, Huber, and Weiss appointments had the same non- problem. Hint: 600.3 is not the only way to appoint a special counsel. None of the three were appointed pursuant to 600.3. (Check the formal announcements of their appointment.)

Also hint: special counsels appointed pursuant to 600.3, like special counsels appointed any other way, are not "actual independent." Ever since the independent counsel statute expired in 1999, special counsels cannot be "independent." (There's a strong argument that the independent counsel statute was unconstitutional; Scalia lost that argument when it came before SCOTUS, but most people have since come around to his thinking.) The non-interference by the AG with a special counsel's work is by sufferance of the AG; it is not a lawful mandate.

[David Welker]

It does seem as though Weiss was going out of his way to go easy on Hunter Biden, perhaps?

I am not sure. The principle I have is Hunter Biden should be treated exactly like anyone else. As I understand it, the tax charges are due to filing his taxes late. Which is illegal, but not necessarily the crime of the century. Lying about being addicted to cocaine when applying for a gun also doesn’t seem like the crime of the century. I am not sure how such crimes are ordinarily handled, but however that is, that is how Hunter Biden’s case should be handled as well.

I do wonder about the charges where the statute of limitations was allowed to expire though.

Maybe Weiss was doing fine, but there is a lot of controversy around that and I am not sure.

[Kazinski]

The argument for keeping Weiss seems to be "who cares if everyone thinks Caesar's wife is a slut."

Once his investigators were so outraged at his conduct he should have been replaced with someone more independent.

If that wasn't enough when the Federal Judge thought his divergence/immunity plea deal was unprecedented and potentially unconstitutional that should have been a slam dunk to replace him.

Then add the speculation that his appointment was a bid to make it difficult for him to testify as to whether his boss lied to Congress.

And if that weren't enough I will note Hunter's attorney Clark quit the case to avoid any ethics problems because he might be a "fact witness" to any proceedings as to the terms of the plea deal. That should have prompted Weiss told the same.

But after 4 years on the case it looks like he needs more time to decide to do nothing.

[Randal]

Go ahead and replace Weiss, terrorist-boy, if what you want is for the rest of the statues of limitations to expire as well.

Hitting the reset button on the Hunter investigation is probably Hunter's secret wet dream.

[David Nieporent]

The argument for keeping Weiss seems to be “who cares if everyone thinks Caesar’s wife is a slut.”

The argument for keeping Weiss is that nobody except rabid partisans think that about Weiss, and their standard is "Unless Hunter Biden is executed in the town square, with Joe Biden to follow right behind, we won't be satisfied that it was fair."

Once his investigators were so outraged at his conduct he should have been replaced with someone more independent.

"His investigators" were not. Some guy from the IRS was.

If that wasn’t enough when the Federal Judge thought his divergence/immunity plea deal was unprecedented and potentially unconstitutional that should have been a slam dunk to replace him.

Didn't happen. The judge was concerned about one legal issue that had nothing to do with Weiss's independence — whether the judge could really be tasked to decide whether Hunter Biden lived up to the terms of the non-prosecution agreement — and otherwise just wanted clarification to make sure everyone was on the same page. (Which, as we know, they were not.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You ignored David's response, so I'll add my own for you to similarly ignore:

DOJ 'regulations' are not 'laws.'

[Commenter_XY]

Conspirators, I had an interesting conversation recently on the utility of cash, and the implications of cash money to our liberty.

How does cash money guarantee our freedom?
Would a digital currency restrict our liberty?

Legally, could a government just say, "No more cash tomorrow"?

[Kazinski]

Congress would have to say it, and I don't think they will.

I use almost all cards, because I hate dealing with change. And I don't have any sources of income that are in cash, its just easier to do without it. But I'm perfectly happy to go on using my banks digital cash, and collecting their rewards than using a government digital currency they wouldn't even have to get a subpoena to access my records.

There is also the problem of the overseas cash, 1 trillion in cash, and 2/3 of all hundred dollar bills are overseas.

If you end cash here you have to pay out a trillion dollars to foreigners, and the dollar would drop precipitously. That's not going to happen either.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you end cash here you tell foreigners to go pound sand. We're not discussing a sensible proposal, why expect execution to be sensibly restrained? A government that had decided to give its own people the finger like that isn't going to hesitate to extend it to the rest of t he world.

[Martinned]

The more likely scenario is that Congress gets rid of the very small and very large denominations. The Netherlands, the country that gave the US its quarters, used to use 5ct coins as it smallest denomination before the Euro was introduced. And now under the Euro 1ct and 2ct coins exist, but the Netherlands doesn't mint them and doesn't require anyone to accept them. On the other end of the spectrum, we used to have fl 1000 bank notes (about $400), and nowadays the largest Euro notes are €500. But you'd struggle to get anyone to accept a denomination larger than €50.

In the US, getting rid of pennies and $100 notes is worth considering, for different reasons. Getting rid of $100 notes would be a spectacular blow to drug dealers and tax frauds all over the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/08/high-denomination-bank-notes-should-be-scrapped

[Kazinski]

Yes, we could take 100's out of circulation, but at the cost of buying half a trillion in foreign currency and buying them all back from overseas.

But I don't think that's what the people want, and Congress isn't going to let the Treasury do it.

[Martinned]

What do you mean by "buying"? Taking a banknote out of circulation doesn't involve buying anything by any sensible definition. It's swapping one kind of money for another. (Depending on the person's preference they can have five $20 notes, or an amount credited to a bank account, etc..)

Not to mention that it would be a fantastically profitable thing to do, because you'd end up discovering exactly how many $100 notes have been burned or lost over the years.

[Martinned]

Interesting Economist article on the money laundering aspects: https://www.economist.com/1843/2021/10/18/billions-of-banknotes-are-missing-why-does-nobody-care

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how you think that would work: You wouldn't have to "buy" anything, you'd have a sort of amnesty during which people could bring large bills in, and exchange them for an equivalent face value in smaller bills.

The idea being that the criminal underworld would just take the hit, rather than expose themselves by showing up to exchange the bills. Not an issue for foreign governments, obviously.

[Krayt]

I haven't paid with cash in a year or more. I carry some walking around money in case a card fails.

What I don't want to see is cards are the only way. It's too much power for government and part of a panopticon that should never be built.

[Brett Bellmore]

Congress could say it, but it's in a long list of really stupid things that would blow up in their faces, that they could say.

But, hey, the current administration literally nominated for Comptroller of the Treasury a Communist who wanted to nationalize everybody's bank accounts, so the Overton window is more of an "Overton house torn off its foundation and you can see unobstructed in all directions." at the moment.

[Martinned]

It's not Trump, but somehow it's not a sane conversation either.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't sane of them to nominate Omarova, but he did it anyway, and that has got to say something about what he wants, unless they don't vet nominees AT ALL.

I read her paper on nationalizing bank accounts, and nobody who'd suggest what she did belongs in ANY position of authority in a free society.

[Kazinski]

The LA Times has a column that says Kamala is dragging Biden down and could cost him winning in 2024_ and the solution is to get Diane Feinstein to resign, then cut a deal where Kamala resigns as VP and is appointed to Feinstein's seat.

"Column: An unlikely solution to the problems with Harris and Feinstein"
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-14/column-an-unlikely-solution-to-the-problems-with-harris-and-feinstein

Of course the real problem is that Biden is foundering, he's in a dead heat with a disgraced ex-president in the polls (and Kamala polls even worse). Investigations are looming, and so is the grave. And if Biden doesn't run there will be hell to pay with much of the Democratic base if she doesn't get the nomination.

I think this is just a trial balloon not just as the column purports about what to do with the Kamala problem, but the "how do we get rid of Joe without giving the nomination to Kamala" problem. Squeezing her out and icing the nomination to a white candidate like Gavin Newsome or Gretchen Whitmer would tear the party apart.

If not Joe, its Kamala's turn.

[Nige]

'Investigations are looming, and so is the grave.'

They give birth astride the grave, the investigations gleam an instant, then it's night once more.

[Mr. Bumble]

"If not Joe, its Kamala’s turn."
Better brush up on your Mandarin.

[Brett Bellmore]

The answer is obvious: Ditch them both, and find somebody else who ticks a bunch of boxes to gift the nomination to. Surely there's a black lesbian who's recently had a bad stroke out there, who identifies as being over 35 years old.

[Mr. Bumble]

Michelle Obama had a stroke?

[Nige]

Ooh, sage advce about candidate choices from Trump voters, classic material, the Republican primaries must be shaping up well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your party DOES kind of have a track record of nominating people with known neurological problems, you must admit.

[Nige]

Basic decency isn't a neurological problem, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does basic decency require you to pretend a candidate for public office isn't brain damaged? Really? I don't think so.

[Nige]

It certainly requires you not to entertain armchair diagnoses from sneering partisan amateurs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fetterman's got an actual doctor's diagnosis. They just lied about it until he was safely elected.

[Sarcastr0]

And nothing is cognitive, so you can shut the fuck up with your made up gatekeeping based on a tragic health crisis.

You don't know what the job of a Senator entails, if you think it requires on-the-spot verbal wit.

[Nige]

The more you guys talk about mental health the worse you get.

[bernard11]

Say those who worship Reagan.

[Sarcastr0]

Same shit as those calling Trump a malignant narcissist.

Random laypeople diagnosing people over the Internet, and then declaring the unfit for office is just yelling. It is without content, other than being part of a long and bad history of same in the US, and a longer and worse history elsewhere.

You don't know what you're talking about any more than those who declared Bush a dry drunk or Trump a malignant narcissist.

[OtisAH]

I mean, there is 60 years of Turnip’s public behaviors and statements to go off. Sure, none of it combined qualifies anyone without adequate training and who hasn’t interviewed him and studied his life to make an actual diagnosis. But ducks quack and walk like ducks. If Big Baby isn’t a duck, what is he?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump is a terminal asshole and wannabe authoritarian; no need for anything neurological.

[David Welker]

Come on now Sarcastr0. Trump is a narcissist. Maybe not a DSM-5 narcissist, but a narcissist nonetheless.

The first thing Trump thinks about is Trump. And I am pretty sure that is the second thing too. I am not sure precisely how many thoughts he has until he turns his attention to some other topic.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean sure, I’ll buy that. Just don’t make it all clinical by adding malignant in front of it.

[Kazinski]

Making it clinical will get you fired from even Yale.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/03/23/former-professor-says-yale-fired-her-over-tweet-on-trump-dershowitz

We can get away with it because we don't know better.

[Sarcastr0]

the real problem is that Biden is foundering

You keep saying this.

Same energy as:
"‘This Will Be The End Of Trump’s Campaign,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year"
https://www.theonion.com/this-will-be-the-end-of-trump-s-campaign-says-increa-1819578486

[Kazinski]

I might say it because the RCP average has Biden +0.4 over a man who's been indicted 4 times in four different jurisdictions.
NYT/Sienna has it as a tie.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

His Approval is 41.2, Disapproval 53.7, Net -12.5.
NYT/Sienna has him at 39, 54, -15.

Yeah, foundering seems to describe it.

[Sarcastr0]

The wisdom of a man looking at political polling over a year from the election.

I also love how Biden wins in the polls, but *not by enough* so he must be in trouble.

[Krayt]

Good luck getting the power hungry to give up their power. Perhaps you are confused they sought it out in the first place for the betterment of The People, and not for some conglomeration of massive ego and a desire to get filthy rich, with a wrapper of the ability to lie convincingly?

[Sarcastr0]

There won't be a convention, and it's a bad idea, but it's not because a convention would threaten the powerful.

Politicians are not pure, but there are easier places to go to get rich. And while there isn't exactly eagerness for self-accountability, that doesn't mean it isn't a thing.
There are plenty of examples of laws and regulations that act as internal controls that bind the government. FOIA, Federal Acquisition Regs, civil service reforms, even the Constitution itself was made by those in power to bind those in power.

[Moderation4ever]

You overlook so many things.

Kamala Harris is an asset in the 2024 election. She can and has addressed women's need for safe abortion access. She can counter those wanting to rewrite how slavery and Jim Crow are addressed in school. She also has better ties to younger voters than the President.

Changing a VP will create more trouble than it is worth. It makes your original decision look bad. Makes enemies of the original VP's supporters. Finally, the opposition is not going to be any less hard on the new choice.

If the California Senate seat opens, Gavin Newsom will make a choice beneficial to himself and not to the President.

[Kazinski]

No, you don't get the problem, Biden has to be replaced and the democrats know it. But they can't replace Biden without figuring out how to keep Kamala from running, and inevitability losing of course.

And please, don't say there is nothing wrong with Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

Man if Biden gets a second term it’ll be kinda embarrassing for how all in Kaz is.

[Kazinski]

I won't be embarrassed, I will still be 100% correct.

I can't help it if everyone else is wrong.

[Moderation4ever]

Biden is fine. The fact is he is having a good first term. He has led the country out of the pandemic, something his predecessor failed to do. He has passed legislation, in some cases with Republican support. He is developing better alliances around the world. With the divided politics the 2024 election will be close, but there is no reason to think he will not be reelected. Most incumbents are reelected, Americans are lazy in this way and we rarely turn out an incumbent President. Actuary tables, his heredity, and his lifestyle all suggest he will live and be active into his nineties.

[Kazinski]

Makes it a little easier to "lead" the country out of a pandemic when your predecessor rolls out a vaccine one month before you get into office.

[Sarcastr0]

Who could forget the Trump vaccination?

That’s quite a take.

[Kazinski]

So what is inaccurate about it?

[David Nieporent]

He has led the country out of the pandemic, something his predecessor failed to do.

I think Trump is a sociopath who should burn in hell, but this is unfair. Trump absolutely could've handled the pandemic infinitely better, but he did not "fail" to lead us out of the pandemic; he did not have the opportunity to do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that he could have handled it better, too. He was listening too much to Fauci, apparently.

His biggest mistake was not opposing the state level shutdowns. That, and too much blue skying into live mikes. But I doubt you'd have been happier if he hadn't made the former mistake.

[Life of Brian]

I think Trump is a sociopath who should burn in hell, but

I wonder if anyone else has engendered, or ever will, quite such a pervasive level of throat-clearing disclaimers before a straightforward and uncontroversial pushback on some of the silliest overstatements of the mob. Maybe we'll name the phenomenon someday.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Politico reported that some leaked Hunter emails show that he was involved in the 2nd Trump impeachment.

That's weird.

[not guilty]

I haven't seen the Politico reporting that you refer to, but so what if Hunter Biden was involved in the second Trump impeachment?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Of course you haven't not guilty.

Of course.

[not guilty]

Again, so what if Hunter Biden was involved in the second Trump impeachment?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm a Republican, and I don't see the issue, legally. Bad optics, but that's all, and we're WAY beyond optics at this point.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you see any reason why Hunter Biden would be meeting with the impeachment lawyers?

At all? Do you think he's sharing with them his corrupt deeds so they can make sure they impeach Trump for looking into all of them and not miss any?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I can't. I also can't see any reason why it legally matters.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What about politically? Or appearance of corruptionly?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Bad optics, but that’s all, and we’re WAY beyond optics at this point."

[David Nieporent]

BCD appears to be pulling this out of his ass. There's a several day old article on Politico saying that there's an email discussing Hunter Biden meeting with impeachment lawyers during the first impeachment, and of course that makes sense since the first impeachment was all about Trump's attempts to weaponize military aid re a phony investigation of Hunter Biden's activities.

[OtisAH]

Why did you go with “so what if he did” rather than “what possible role could he have had in it”? Especially since the idiot didn’t include a link to the alleged Politico reporting?

[not guilty]

I have a sneaking suspicion that there is no Politico article. I don't know -- that's why I asked. But it takes more than a bald assertion by BravoCharlieDelta for me to believe anything.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you ever get tired of being so Low Information?

“In the summer of 2019, according to one of the slides, Biden got sober and started working to make amends with the IRS. But he faced an unusual complication: He was at the center of Trump’s first impeachment. The slide deck cites an email one of Biden’s advisers sent him on Jan. 26, 2020, saying they would need several hours to go through questions and find documents as they tried to settle his tax bill.

“I have a meeting tomorrow with impeachment lawyers for the day,” Biden replied. “It will have to wait until Tuesday I’m afraid.””

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/19/hunter-biden-plea-deal-collapse-00111974

Seriously. Why do you prefer to be so ignorant all the time? Is it a badge of honor among Democrats to know as little as possible?

[not guilty]

BCD, given your history of prevaricating on these threads, there should be a rebuttable presumption that when you make a factual assertion, it is inaccurate. (When you decline to provide a link, the presumption becomes stronger.)

I make no claim of omniscience, and I am not embarrassed to say when I don't know something. As Mark Twain observed, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

[bernard11]

WIll Rogers, I think.

[Magister]

How would an email from January 2020 have anything to do with Trump's 2nd impeachment, which took place in January 2021? An email from January 2020 would be in the midst of the first impeachment. And the quoted paragraph from Politico says "first impeachment" right there.

BravoCharlieDelta was probably misled by the usual right wing conspiracy theorists, some of whom misreported the dates involved; e.g., Gateway Pundit quotes a Twitter post which says that Biden sent this message to his lawyers in the summer of 2019 (and that it's been 5 years since) despite quoting the January 2020 date from the Politico article.
https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1693104537492472025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Hunter Biden was of course involved in the first impeachment because of his work for Burisma. It doesn't seem unreasonable that impeachment lawyers would want information about that work. From the Politico article:

Three years earlier, Trump had withheld military aid from Ukraine while pressuring the Ukrainian president to falsely announce that his country was investigating the younger Biden for his dealings with a Ukrainian gas company. Trump survived the impeachment that stemmed from the episode, and he repeatedly claimed throughout his 2020 reelection campaign that Joe Biden had engaged in corrupt deals with his son.

[jb]

Oh, BCD is lying again? I'm sure everyone is shocked.

[David Nieporent]

Seriously. Why do you prefer to be so ignorant all the time? Is it a badge of honor among Democrats to know as little as possible?

Ah, so I was right: BCD is just stupid. That's about the first impeachment, and it's entirely proper for him to have met with the impeachment lawyers about that, since the first impeachment was related to Trump's attempts to go after Joe Biden re: Hunter's activities in Ukraine.

[Kazinski]

Here is the Politico link that proves Hunter was involved in the first Trump Impeachment, but clearly it was the GOP involving him:

"Sen. Rand Paul could force a vote on the Senate floor that would bring Hunter Biden or other White House-favored impeachment witnesses to an impeachment trial."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/rand-paul-hunter-biden-impeachment-trial-070948

I got BCD muted so I don't know what he actually said.

But of course Hunter was involved, wasn't the whole impeachment because Trump, very plausibility, wanted to tie Biden's firing of Shokin to Hunters 5 million gig from Burisma (as independently asserted in the FD1023)?

[not guilty]

Mark Meadows has moved the U. S. District Court in Atlanta to dismiss the Georgia RICO indictment against his under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1), alleging that as a federal official at the time of the charged conduct, he is immune from state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919695-meadows-supremacy-clause He argues in substance that all of the conduct alleged in the indictment as to him occurred in his capacity as White House Chief of Staff.

A flaw in Meadows argument is that the conduct that Donald Trump engaged in, as to which Meadows assisted, is not within the scope of Trump's duties as president. On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the allegations contained in the indictment must be taken as true. United States v. Mann, 517 F.2d 259, 266 (5th Cir. 1975), citing United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 33 n.2, (1963); Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). The allegations here include the averments at page 14 of the indictment that:

Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.

Presidential authority remains constrained by the Constitution and the laws that Congress enacts. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587–88 (1952). That authority does not include interference with the Electoral Count Act. As Judge Amit P. Mehta has cogently opined in declining to dismiss a civil suit seeking damages against Donald Trump:

President Trump cites no constitutional provision or federal statute that grants or vests in the President (or the Executive Branch) any power or duty with respect to the Certification of the Electoral College vote, at least in the manner in which he conceives it. That is because there is none. The Constitution spells out the respective responsibilities of various actors in the election of the President. The Constitution provides that States are to select Electors who will cast votes for President and Vice President, and the Electors transmit a tally of those votes to the President of the Senate. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3 ; id. amend. XII. The President of the Senate "in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives" shall "open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Id. amend. XII. A sitting President is prescribed no role.

Thompson v. Trump, 590 F. Supp.3d 46, 77 (D.D.C. 2022) [footnote omitted].

The misconduct by Trump alleged in the Georgia indictment in conspiring to unlawfully change the outcome of the 2020 election goes well beyond his duties as president. As Judge Mehta explained:

The Office of the President has no preference for who occupies it. Article II of the Constitution, which defines the powers and duties of the President, is agnostic as to whether a sitting President is elected to a new term. So, too, is federal statutory law. A function of the presidency therefore is not to secure or perpetuate incumbency. Plaintiffs’ allegations against President Trump accuse him of doing just that: devoting his last weeks in office to continuing his term as President of the United States through the Electoral College vote and certification process, even though he did not prevail in the general election.

590 F.Supp.3d at 82. Among the non-official acts listed in the civil plaintiffs' complaints were that Trump had directly contacted local election officials and state legislators in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia to allegedly pressure them to overturn their election results. Id. ¶¶ 37–54. These efforts included urging local Michigan officials to reverse their certification of election results, id. ¶ 38, and saying to Georgia's Secretary of State, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have," id. ¶ 53. 590 F.Supp.3d at 82. These are non-official acts in which Meadows was complicit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will the speculation never end?

[not guilty]

What "speculation" do you refer to?

[Mr. Bumble]

Your speculation as to how the law applies and how all of these lawfare cases against Trump play out.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He starts with Trump being guilty and works backwards.

You see? His nickname "not guilty" is a sarcastic inversion of his approach to legal analysis. Like when they tall a tall guy Shorty, or a fat guy Slim.

[not guilty]

I am not speculating. I cite the authorities that I rely on, and I explain my reasoning. Do you dispute the applicability of any of these authorities, and do you have anything substantive to offer?

[Mr. Bumble]

I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you but your "authorities" have no more weight than those of legal commentators who take an opposite opinion of these various actions against Trump. All of this (no matter the outcome) will be argued for a long time to come.

[not guilty]

So you have nothing of substance to offer. Why am I unsurprised?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because you are a self important pompous ass who thinks only his opinion is right?

[Martinned]

Aren't you? Since when?

[Mr. Bumble]

No and never.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes. I will disagree with you always and forever.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, do you have countervailing authorities? If so, please cite them specifically.

I cite applicable authorities in my commentary out of respect for readers. I may be right, or I may be wrong. But the discussion is worth having.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are your "authorities" correct and absolute in every detail or are they subject to being superseded by subsequent authorities?

I'm not sure anyone here is discussing anything, but staking out opinions as to what the outcome should be in cases that are unique and uncharted territory. Have at it if you like but I will still consider it to be only speculation.

[not guilty]

Again, do you have countervailing authorities? Yes or no? I surmise from your dodging a very straightforward question that you do not.

The Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit decisions that I cite are binding precedent in the Northern District of Georgia. Judge Mehta's ruling is not binding, but it has considerable persuasive force.

[loki13]

You probably should mention the obvious footnote, since some people will get confused as to why the 5th Circuit precedent is binding on the N.D. Ga.-

The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent all decisions issued by the former Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en Banc).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not guilty offers far more intelligent and useful commentary here than literally any post you've ever made.

I appreciate his perspective, and the cited precedents, as a way to better understand the potential outcomes.

You on the other hand, are fucking useless.

[Sarcastr0]

I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you but your “authorities”

So you’re ignorant, but won’t let that stop you. I don't see why you post here, when you really get angry at people disagreeing with you but lack the wherewithal to disagree back with anything but whining. And grade-school insults.

It's such a bad look, it is incredible you keep coming back for more punishment.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...have no more weight than those of legal commentators who take an opposite opinion of these various actions against Trump."

[Sarcastr0]

'Many say you are wrong' is not actually a response.

[OtisAH]

He didn’t read any of it, of course. Cite all you want. He won’t read that either.

[Drewski]

How dare they discuss the law in the comments of a law blog! That's inappropriate. They should stick to self-centered trolling and failed attempts at snark, like you and your alt accounts.

[Mr. Bumble]

If this is aimed at me, I have no alternate accounts and would be curious as to which ones you think belong to me.

[not guilty]

I wonder if Donald Trump will imitate Mark Meadows in seeking to remove the Georgia prosecution to U. S. District Court. He may decide that he is better off with a white Republican state court judge than with a black federal judge appointed by Barack Obama.

[David Nieporent]

As far as I can tell from Meadows' motion, he has confessed to violating the Hatch Act. It is of course not within the scope of the WHCoS's duties to try to alter election results to help the president get re-elected.

That's a federal crime, and thus outside Fani Willis's jurisdiction, but I would advise Jack Smith to take a look at what Meadows admits he was doing.

[not guilty]

I don't think a Hatch Act violation is a federal crime. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7326, available penalties include disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, or reprimand and/or an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.

Mark Meadows is in a delicate balance with Jack Smith. Meadows is not identified in the D.C. indictment as a co-conspirator, and he could be an important witness against Trump in both federal trials. Perhaps Smith and Fani Willis can coordinate to offer Meadows an agreement for concurrent state and federal sentences.

[David Nieporent]

The Hatch Act itself doesn't contain criminal penalties, but that doesn't mean that there aren't penalties for doing the sorts of things that violate it. (Just as the Presidential Records Act doesn't contain criminal penalties, but former presidents who steal presidential records can be prosecuted under other laws for stealing government property.)

I was thinking 18 USC § 610, but I see that only applies to employees of the federal government, not state governments. But I'll bet there's something in Title 18 that fits.

[santamonica811]

Earlier today, Brett raised the possibility of having a future constitutional convention. It’s an interesting (albeit, probably unrealistic) idea. So, if there were indeed such a convention, and if the representatives there were accurate representations of American voters, what sorts of issues would you most want to see raised? (And, for shits and giggles, what do you think those new rules would look like?)

a. Gun rights: I think there would continue to be robust gun rights, and it would be made more clear that self-defense and defense of others (and one’s business) are vital social interests. But I also think that popular issues like gun registration, mandatory reporting and gun safety, would also be codified.
b. Abortion: Again, robust protection for abortion, but nothing close to abortion on demand throughout the 9 months of pregnancy. Probably some protection for the parents of an underage pregnant girl to have some legal input. And almost certainly to give those parents the right to be notified in advance of a planned abortion.
c. Citizenship. Not sure about where the country actually stands about birthright citizenship, but I expect that it would be addressed.
d. Healthcare: I’d expect some version of govt-run, with competing private insurance encouraged (as many other countries currently do). But I’m least confident that any solution would come close to reaching consensus.
e. Eminent domain. Issue most likely of getting an easy and broad consensus. Much better protection for the Average Joe.
f. Civil forfeiture: I’d expect much stronger consumer protections. Again, an issue likely to get wide acceptance across the political and ideological spectrum.
g. Death Penalty and other crim procedure: A significant weakening of defendant rights here. Faster executions, fewer decades-long delays. Possibly adding criminal exposure to police and/or prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence.
h. Severely curtailing qualified immunity, while not getting rid of it entirely. Severely limiting state’s immunity as well for civil wrongs against citizens, residents, visitors, etc..

[Note: the above are NOT necessarily what I’d like to see happen…merely what I suspect would actually happen.]

[Brett Bellmore]

"But I also think that popular issues like gun registration, mandatory reporting and gun safety, would also be codified."

I'm not seeing this; Remember, it only takes 13 states refusing to ratify, to block an amendment. I'd say that there are well over that number of states where the only amendment to the 2nd amendment that would have a chance, would be to add, "And, PS: We really mean it!"

A lot of your other suggestions "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code". They look more like legislation than a constitutional amendment.

I think an amendment ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens might be viable. It would be a push; 13 states can block ratification, remember.

Pretty sure Kelo would be a dead duck.

Civil forfeiture wouldn't survive, it's widely hated.

So is unqualified immunity.

A balanced budget amendment would have a good shot at passing.

And you could probably get racial preferences explicitly double outlawed; They are REALLY unpopular.

[John F. Carr]

The outcome depends on who votes to ratify the amendments. The legislature of California would vote to enshrine racial discrimination in the Consitution. The people of California would not. The legislatures of red states would outlaw abortion and the people would not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, Congress dictates the mode of ratification. It's not up to the states.

[apedad]

They are REALLY unpopular . . . but only with the whiney, white, American males who - as you appropriately corrected me last week - are becoming a plurality.

You're not going to get an amendment with a plurality.

[Martinned]

White American men aren't even a plurality. There are more white women than white men.

[Brett Bellmore]

You haven't looked at the polling, have you? Racial preferences are a loser even in California, where the state legislature tried to roll back the state constitutional prohibition on them, and got beat by the voters.

[Sarcastr0]

Really unpopular is rather overstating it:

Americans who had heard the phrase affirmative action in the Center’s December survey were asked whether they saw it as a good or a bad thing. Among those who had ever heard the term, 36% said affirmative action is a good thing, 29% said it is a bad thing and a third weren’t sure.
...
In the same survey, 49% of Americans said the consideration of race and ethnicity makes the overall admissions process less fair, while only 20% said it makes the process fairer. Another 17% said it does not affect the fairness of the admissions process, while 13% said they weren’t sure.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans-and-affirmative-action-how-the-public-sees-the-consideration-of-race-in-college-admissions-hiring/

If you thing the phrasing if too kind: “By comparison, Gallup has asked U.S. adults whether they “generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities.” In 2021, the last time Gallup asked this question, a 62% majority of Americans favored such programs.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Sarcastr0, if you say "affirmative action", it sells well. If you explain that you mean by it "racial preferences", it tanks badly.

Sadly for advocates of racial preferences, they have no way to prevent opponents from pointing out in any given instance what exactly they're using 'affirmative action' as a euphemism for.

[Sarcastr0]

"49% of Americans said the consideration of race and ethnicity makes the overall admissions process less fair, while only 20% said it makes the process fairer."

No mention of affirmative action. And while the public tends to be against the policy, "They are REALLY unpopular" is wrong.

And your thesis that the American People don't know what affirmative action is? Not strongly supported.

[Brett Bellmore]

Take it up with Kennedy, who promulgated the original affirmative action program, affirmative action to make sure there wasn't any discrimination.

You can do affirmative action without racial discrimination, it isn't even hard.

[Sarcastr0]

No one but you hears affirmative action and thinks this. Plenty may not know the term, but they were ruled out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Says the guy confronted with polls showing a great deal more support for "affirmative action" than for "racial preferences". Which naturally leads you to conclude that everybody thinks they're the same thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Phrasing matters.
Your idea that it is caused by people hearkening back to the Kennedy era is not established as the reason.

And the bottom line is you claimed a level of unpopularity that is not true. Just like the secret unpopularity of gay marriage you believe exists.

Maybe your finger is not in the pulse of the American People.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't have to hearken back to anything to be aware that it's possible to fight racial discrimination without committing it.

[David Nieporent]

If it can't win in California, it can't win anywhere.

Prop 209 won 55-45 at the ballot box, and Prop 16, to repeal it, lost 57-43.

[Sarcastr0]

unqualified immunity?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, it's kind of tough to claim in a lot of these 'qualified' immunity cases that there was any actual "qualification". It's unqualified immunity, much of the time.

I mean, it's on a "It was clearly established that a prison guard can't break an inmate's kneecaps with a hickory baseball bat, but Officer Guido used a maple baseball bat, he had no way of knowing that was covered, too." level, in some of these cases.

[Sarcastr0]

Fun times with semantics, then. Meh.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's the least bit fun. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" for us prole", and "The situations weren't precisely identical" for our lords and masters.

It stinks on ice.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t like QA but confusing nicknames do not make it better.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're telling me you've never heard 'qualified' immunity referred to as unqualified immunity? It's a common jibe!

[Sarcastr0]

Not one I’d heard. But I don’t like those cutesy names like ODumbo or Drumpf or Democrat Party.

I legit thought you were coming after like prosecutorial immunity or something.

But I do think I didn’t need to ding you for what’s a pretty common rhetorical tactic, whether I had heard of the particular example before or no.

[Krayt]

I don't want a constitutional convention. It's usually portrayed as a fantasy to get around the senate, but let's imagine one realistically.

"Hey, the state reps are all gathering for the opening of the conv...wait. That crowd is all the power hungry federal weasels causing the problems in the first place. These self-serving anti-founding-fathers should not be anywhere near the Constitution."

[Martinned]

I like your optimism. A US constitutional convention would be much more of a mess than that.

[OtisAH]

When people like Brett fantasize about constitutional conventions they exclusively mean “to enshrine their own ideology in our constitution.” There is no intention of negotiating anything about anything with anyone else. And if such negotiating accidentally breaks out, there’s no intention of giving an inch.

[apedad]

To be fair, we on the left are the same way.

As long as there's no violence then I'm good with the political fighting and swings.

It's what keeps are nation viable and durable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow. You're pretty mellow today.

[OtisAH]

To whom are you being “fair”? The Left in a CC would most likely focus on clarifying and including currently unstated rights for all Americans, particularly a right to privacy. Inasmuch as there would be folks demanding something like striking 2A, it would be from a minority, would not be taken seriously, and certainly wouldn’t be a red line in negotiations. The intent would likely be to insure that reasonable restrictions as to ownership and use of firearms are constitutional. But demands that 2A be removed would go nowhere except rightwing blogs.

Meanwhile, The Right — you know, the folks who *only* use the term “compromise” as a pejorative — would likely focus on elevating 2A where they think it sits now, perhaps move to enshrine some rights to discriminate, and otherwise take a hacksaw to anything they don’t like. Most or all post-Civil War amendments would be square in the crosshairs but they might settle for the 14th and maybe a couple others (although they’re not famous for liking half loaves; see also: compromise). Rolling back or flat out denying rights would be a major goal of The Right in any CC.

So, on one side we have people intending a more inclusive constitution with some checks on highly demagogued issues such as gun rights. And on the other, people who will likely seek to insure our constitution applies solely to them. You might see these things as equal. I do not.

[Brett Bellmore]

My ideology isn't enshrined in the Constitution, and in no universe I can successfully imagine will it ever be enshrined in the Constitution. But, as an old joke in conservative circles goes, "The Constitution has its problems, sure, but it's better than what we've got now."

[Sarcastr0]

My ideology isn’t enshrined in the Constitution

You routinely say that the Constitution instantiates something you prefer, and everyone knows it does this but is lying about it.

See: guns, commerce clause, necessary and proper, twin sovereigns, Establishment Clause, money as speech…

Maybe your version of the Constitution doesn't include everything you want, but it's gotta be like 90%.

Come on, dude, that's like your thing. Well, it was before defending Trump to the point of ridiculousness became your thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, the Constitution includes some things I like, which isn't remotely the same thing as it 'enshrining my ideology.

It includes a lot of things I really don't like, too.

[Sarcastr0]

No - you think our current government is radically out of step with (your take on) the Constitution, and the direction it needs to move is directly aligned with your ideology.

The rest if bits and bobs. You can make exceptions if you want, but your ideology and your take on the Constitution are aligned.

So are mine, in that I'm an institutionalist who likes the status quo and think the way to see the Constitution is through the institutions it sets up to interpret it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well folks, we’ve got another media narrative outrage that melts when someone looks into it a bit. Remember the bill in Texas that is going to outlaw water breaks for laborers on hot days and OMG THEY’R GOING TO KILL PROPLE!!!! story? Turns out it’s a huge nothing.

Up front, those of you on the left are going to point out that Texas Republicans are not being consistent with their “local control is the best control” principle, and I’m going to say that you’re right .

Turns out that the new law won’t force contradiction of state law as to water breaks because Texas has no law regarding water breaks to contradict. No matter anyway, because there’s no record of cities taking enforcement action on the water break laws because employers are generally more generous on water breaks than the local laws require.

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-law-away-workers-water-053119933.html

This bullshit constantly happens. An advocacy group publishes a story about gas cooktops that manipulates data to contract a recent ginormous NIH study but no matter, the uncritical stories hit the press – and woosh! there go the cooktops. An advocate screams THEY’RE HITTING MIGRANTS WITH WHIPS and the press runs with it and people get punished at the demand of the press and whoops they didn’t actually have whips. Apparently immigrant advocates and our media geniuses have never seen a cutting horse in their enclaves.

And now we have this attempt to stir up outrage over nothing.

Is the bill rational and necessary? Probably not. But it’s also pretty benign as well. Is it worth the media tearing at the tatters of their reputation to make up more lies? No it isn’t. I wish they would find the sense to stop doing this but I just don’t think it’s there to find.

[Nige]

'Up front, those of you on the left'

'Bear with me there's some strawmanning to set up to justify my outrage.'

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever false media coverage you are talking about didn't really show up to anyone who isn't you.

You're mad at nothing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The coverage I’m talking about is discussed in the first two paragraphs of the article I linked to that you obviously didn’t bother with.

Or you could do the simplest of google searches

https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+water+breaks&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#ip=1

Your habit of arguing about things that are happening by simply denying that they are happening is really, really stupid. And do you really think that telling all of us that something we’re observing isn’t happening is persuasive? It’s like you’re not even trying, just slopping something out there as a token argument.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Note that 1000 years from now Sarcastro will still not have returned from a glance at the linked google search and agree that there were actually a lot of articles about cancelling water breaks. Denial is his comfort spot.

[Sarcastr0]

It does not appear to be a national story, bevis.

And, even if it is, the story is that 'people want a law that looks humanitarian but I don't think is needed.'

You get mad at strange stuff.

[OtisAH]

The bill prohibits municipalities from establishing mandatory water breaks. Life can be confusing way up there on that fence, can’t it?

[David Nieporent]

Well folks, we’ve got another media narrative outrage that melts when someone looks into it a bit. Remember the bill in Texas that is going to outlaw water breaks for laborers on hot days and OMG THEY’R GOING TO KILL PROPLE!!!! story? Turns out it’s a huge nothing.

Your legal analysis is wrong and your logic is bad, and the reporting was correct.

1) This absolutely preempts municipal laws on breaks. The bill does not enact conflict preemption; it enacts field preemption. Municipalities cannot legislate in favor of breaks.

1b) This was intentional; the original version of the bill — the one you link to below — did not mention breaks. The statutory language was then amended to make clear that it covered breaks as well.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2127/id/2814366/Texas-2023-HB2127-Enrolled.html

2) Your logic is bizarre: whether many employers are more generous than the municipal ordinances require says nothing about whether the law is needed. The law is needed (if at all) for the ones that aren't more generous. The vast majority of people don't kill other people; that doesn't mean homicide laws are unnecessary.

[Michael P]

What was up with the White House Press Secretary taking about her promises when she ran for president? https://twitchy.com/artistangie/2023/08/15/lol-karine-jean-pierre-tweets-then-deletes-and-the-reason-why-is-hilarious-n2386313

[Sarcastr0]

There is a comms team, probably with access to both the President's and the press secretary's twitter accounts.

SCANDAL!

Anyone else getting the whiff of desperation? In response to these indictments, the right has whistleblowers who never blow the whistle, and jumping at every shadow they can.

Election is in no way in the bag, but this is some weak shit.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hunter's lawyers are pressuring the DOJ to arrest the IRS Whistleblowers for blowing the whistle to Congress.

Is that who you are referring to when you say "whistleblowers who never the blow the whistle"? Do you think they committed a crime by testifying before Congress like Hunter's legal team does?

[not guilty]

"Hunter’s lawyers are pressuring the DOJ to arrest the IRS Whistleblowers for blowing the whistle to Congress."

Supporting facts, BCD?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/JsnFostr/status/1693120581137215875

Reported in the NY Times.

Why do you know so little?

[not guilty]

If it is reported in the New York Times, why do you link only to a twitter post?

Where and when did the Times report what you claim?

[Magister]

Earlier this year, The Times found, Mr. Weiss appeared willing to forgo any prosecution of Mr. Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges. But the correspondence reveals that his position, relayed through his staff, changed in the spring, around the time a pair of I.R.S. officials on the case accused the Justice Department of hamstringing the investigation. Mr. Weiss suddenly demanded that Mr. Biden plead guilty to committing tax offenses.

Now, the I.R.S. agents and their Republican allies say they believe the evidence they brought forward, at the precise time they did, played a role in influencing the outcome, a claim senior law enforcement officials dispute. While Mr. Biden’s legal team agrees that the I.R.S. agents affected the deal, his lawyers have contended to the Justice Department that by disclosing details about the investigation to Congress, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.

“It appears that if it weren’t for the courageous actions of these whistle-blowers, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, Hunter Biden would never have been charged at all,” a team of lawyers for one of the I.R.S. agents said in a statement, adding that the initial agreement reflected preferential treatment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/politics/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html

[BravoCharlieDelta]

NYT is behind a paywall.

It's screencapped in the tweet.

I'm sure you deny that as sufficient.

[not guilty]

Magister provided a link. As I have said upthread, nothing you say, standing alone, is worthy of belief. Accordingly, I am wont to ask for further information regarding your blather.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Tells us again how in your instant analysis of a story you knew nothing about how you just know it was Suicide By Cop.

lol Do you sniff your own farts?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He's a troll, his only concern is getting a rise out of people. Stop feeding him.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter Biden's lawyers are not "pressuring" anyone to do anything. They could not do so even if they wanted to.

[Krayt]

Managed accounts, the managers can make mistakes. So can the covfefe.

[Michael P]

Unsurprisingly, courts have acted illegally in sentencing J6 protesters: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-appeals-court-new-sentence-defendant-doj-32c57b7cfa26be9c477fba4c9cbfa301

[Martinned]

Well, they imposed a sentence that they couldn't lawfully impose. Sentencing the defendants in the first place wasn't "illegal".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/35FC611602354F8D85258A0F00514CA2/$file/22-3018-2013127.pdf

By the way, for this very reason all English prison sentences beyond a minimum length involve automatic probation after 50% of time is served. That way the defendant can re-enter society in a properly supervised way.

[John F. Carr]

I read an article from one of the southern states, somewhere around Tennessee, with a rule like that. The article was complaining about people being released without supervision. The government had made conditions of release so onerous that prisoners were choosing to serve out their sentences behind bars.

If you're a classified "sex offender" in some states it can be impossible to meet conditions of release. You need a house and a job to get out of prison. You are not allowed to live in an area with houses and jobs.

[Martinned]

In England the standard probation doesn't have criteria like that. And the discretionary probation also wouldn't be able to do anything remotely that onerous, I think.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In England they will raid your house for saying a lesbian cop is a lesbian and take your autistic child away.

[not guilty]

Supporting facts?

[John F. Carr]

In the specific case of sex offenders (as legally defined) there are many laws and ordinances prohibiting such persons from living in populated areas. These are codified separately from the standard conditions of parole. The body that wrote the parole rules said parolees need a place to live. And then a city councilor said those scary people can't live anywhere near children and all the other cities followed suit. In my state the courts struck down municipal residency restrictions on the grounds that they interfere with the exclusive role of the state in criminal justice matters.

[Noscitur a sociis]

By the way, for this very reason all English prison sentences beyond a minimum length involve automatic probation after 50% of time is served. That way the defendant can re-enter society in a properly supervised way.

Virtually every federal felony sentence (other than life imprisonment, obviously) includes a term of supervised release.

[David Nieporent]

Virtually every federal felony sentence (other than life imprisonment, obviously) includes a term of supervised release.

Not capital punishment, either.

[John F. Carr]

To put the information in the thread, the illegality was imposing a sentence of both prison and probation for a petty offense (minor misdemeanor) when only one or the other was authorized. Because the defendant has served his time his probation is likely to be terminated.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/35FC611602354F8D85258A0F00514CA2/$file/22-3018-2013127.pdf

[not guilty]

Here is the D.C. Circuit opinion. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/35FC611602354F8D85258A0F00514CA2/$file/22-3018-2013127.pdf At first blush it appears that its impact will be limited to defendants sentenced to a single petty offense.

I haven't looked into it, but I suspect that very few January 6 defendants are charged with a single petty offense. This decision may affect what kinds of plea agreements the prosecution is willing to offer.

[John F. Carr]

Accomplice liability is in the air these days.

Following a fatal crash last winter, Maine authorities have determined that a passenger should be criminally charged with DUI and manslaughter:

Earlier this month, Tavares was indicted on 13 charges in the case, including manslaughter, drunk driving, reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, and criminal speeding[...] Even though Tavares wasn’t the driver, [Hancock County District Attorney Robert] Granger said in a statement that the charges against her are based on “accomplice liability.”

The convictions will probably go on her driving record as if she were the driver. This case reminds me of one from a different state where a drunk passenger grabbed the wheel and earned himself a lifetime driving ban.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/08/19/metro/north-falmouth-woman-was-co-conspirator-crash-that-killed-maine-maritime-students-december-da-says/

[bevis the lumberjack]

Nobody will come on here and say it so I will. Robert Granger, esq, should be flogged in the public square as a warning to prosecutors everywhere that it’s bullshit to prosecute one person for a crime that someone else committed.

It would be nice if this sort of thing happened to Granger, but it won’t because even if the circumstances presented themselves he’s got High Government Official brother-in-law immunity.

[Michael P]

It urns out that ground naturally has anomalies that can be spotted with ground-penetrating radar. I could have told them that -- when I worked on a GPR-based system to detect land mines and IEDs, false alarms were a huge problem. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pine-creek-residential-school-no-evidence-human-remains-1.6941441

[Sarcastr0]

Once the next-gen multispectral radars get properly commercialized, it's going to be an archeological bonanza.

[Martinned]

Since I know everyone here is excited about the electoral prospects of the Dutch Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), I thought I'd just mention that independent (former Christian-Democrat) MP Pieter Omtzigt announced yesterday that he will participate in the November election with his own party. He will pull votes from all over the populist right, including the BBB. The net effect will be more votes for the populist right, but also more fragmentation on the populist right.

Formally nothing turns on which party is the largest, but in practice the leader of the largest party has a disproportionate influence over the coalition building process. And Omtzigt entering the race this way (as opposed to, say, seeking a mandate as an independent) all but guarantees that the race to be the largest non-lunatic party is between the conservatives of now-PM Mark Rutte (who is not seeking re-election) and the combined Green/Labour list of EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans.

My call: the new conservative leader Dilan Yesilgöz is a shoe-in for PM. All she has to do is broker some kind of deal with at least four other parties to get to a majority, which will take her the better part of a year. Whether the BBB will be in that coalition is anybody's guess. (Basically her coalition could go to the right, which she probably prefers, or to the centre. A centrist coalition would be more difficult to negotiate, but less likely to collapse in acrimony within a year or two.)

[John F. Carr]

How does one seek a mandate as an independent? Most parliamentary systems of Europe are designed around parties.

[Martinned]

You can submit a list with just one candidate on it. (I.e. yourself.) In Omtzigt's case that would probably have resulted in him getting way more votes than he needed (which would therefore be spoilt, effectively). But his support is originally quite focused, so he could have submitted a list with only himself on it only in his home region, and easily won a mandate for himself again.

But you're right, it would have been quite unusual. Then again, he's a pretty unusual guy. He's a great parliamentarian, but it's not obvious that running a political party is quite his cup of tea. (He's a control freak who never lets anything go, and who has struggled with his mental health in the past.) If I was him I would have not stood for election at all, and waited for the inevitable collapse of the next government resulting in new elections in 2025.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm glad you cleared that up.

[Martinned]

It's come to my attention that Americans who watch too much Fox News have all sorts of weird ideas about a Dutch farmer's revolt. So I thought I'd clear that up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that too much of American media is opinion rather than news, it's not hard to understand the confusion.

[Martinned]

Is this opinion or news?

https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar/status/1545210414665007104

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure but my opinion is the Eva is pretty hot.

[Martinned]

You can have her. She's basically the closest thing the Netherlands has to James Cordon. (On TV in the US a lot, and we'd be grateful if you guys kept him/her.)

[SRG2]

Martinned: My apologies for being late on this, but yesterday I forgot to jeer at the performance of two Dutch athletes at the World Championships in Budapest, both of whom fell just before the finish line when leading their races - Sifan Hassan in the 10K and Femke Bol in the mixed 4x400. Oh dear...

[Martinned]

Yes, that was pretty embarrassing. And Sarina Wiegman's Lionesses lost the World Cup Final too. And Ajax drew at Excelsior, and Manchester United lost at Spurs. Not a good weekend...

[SRG2]

LOL. Meanwhile, KJT won the heptathlon, Zharnel Hughes got bronze, and AFC Wimbledon stuffed Sutton, our local rivals, 3-0. So a good weekend for me.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You've argued about this with me, so I'm assuming I am one of your Fox viewers. Ignoring, of course, that I've never watched Fox News for the same reason I've never watched MSNBC - both are so contaminated by politics that they are worthess for information and they broadcast so much ridiculous garbage that they come across as parodies.

Look, I realize that stereotyping people you don't know and disagree with is a very important part of your smug elitism pseudointellectual schtick but you might just give it a go without the stereotypes and see how it works. Using the Fox News insult is way too common and too trite. It makes you look like an idiot that has nothing original to say.

Notable that you never mention the other labor groups that align with the farmers.

[Martinned]

I took a punt at where you might have gotten your misinformation from. (Sometimes I see clips on social media, but otherwise of course I don't have access to US cable news.) I apologise if you were offended by my correcting your misunderstandings about my country.

Notable that you never mention the other labor groups that align with the farmers.

Which other "labor groups", pray tell?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Construction workers. Contractors.

I was offended by you being unsophisticated enough to think that anybody who dares to disagree with you on something simply MUST be a Trump lovin' queer hatin' Fox watchin' mouth breather. You're wrong, as you regularly are, but your smug superiority complex won't allow you to see it.

[Martinned]

Construction workers. Contractors.

What are you talking about? There are a lot of people unhappy who aren't farmers, and some of them are undoubtedly construction workers or contractors. But that's not the same as "labor groups" supporting the BBB and/or the FDF in some organised way.

I was offended by you being unsophisticated enough to think that anybody who dares to disagree with you on something simply MUST be a Trump lovin’ queer hatin’ Fox watchin’ mouth breather.

If you tell me that you don't watch Fox I'm happy to believe that. On all the others I think your record on VC speaks for itself.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump lovin’? Seriously? Queer hating’?

I’ve made my distaste for Trump very clear and the only gay issue I can think of that I’ve said much about is Oberkfell, about which I’ve said I think it’s a good decision and my only complaint about it was that was 20 years or so too late. I’ve been more liberal on gay marriage than people like Obama and the Clintons.

So you’ve proven my assertion. Because I disagree about you on something or another you stereotype me as a homophobic MAGA guy. There are over 100 posts back there that prove you to be 180 degrees wrong.

A real complex thinker you are. Your superiority is far far from reality.

[Nige]

‘I was offended by you’

You come pre-offended. Almost every comment begins and ends with anticipated offence, justifying excoriating criticism of whoever hasn’t criticised you yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Strawmen on parade.

[SimonP]

I've found that conservative commenters who claim not to watch FoxNews otherwise reveal - this is evident in the links they use to support their assertions or raise issues on the open threads - that they get their news from even more slanted sources. So the "I don't watch FoxNews!" rejoinder often strikes me as more of a non-denial: "... but I do watch NewsMax..."

[Ed Grinberg]

Is New York Times a "slanted source"? CNN? NPR?

[SimonP]

None of those outlets intentionally lie to their audiences.

[Tom for equal rights]

SimonP 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"None of those outlets intentionally lie to their audiences."

Yes they do lie quite frequently both via misrepresentation , ommission of the facts or distortion. CNN, NPR are notorious for the ommissions, distortions

[David Nieporent]

They are composed of human beings, and will remain so until SkyNet takes over, and therefore will have biases. But they try to report news, unlike the MAGA trio of FNC/Newsmax/OAN.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think there will ever be an investigation into the Democrat failures surrounding the Maui fires? 100s of people still missing, many of them children.

Odds are there were 100s of children burned alive due to Democrat government incompetence and ideology. There are reports of the Democrat mayor going around and evicting people whose homes survived.

Does Hunter want a new beachfront mansion or something? Is that why this happened?

[Brett Bellmore]

The guy who made the call on not releasing the water, because he wanted a conversation about equity first, got transferred out of that position. That's encouraging, anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's not being held accountable, that's hiding the crime.

They did the same stunt with those Democrat VA administrators who murdered all those vets. Transferred one, I think, all the way to the Philipines.

Out of sight, out of mind.

[David Nieporent]

because he wanted a conversation about equity first,

Fake MAGA news.

Fact: the guy in question once gave a talk in which he said something about equity.
Fact: the guy delayed releasing the water.
Not fact: the guy delayed releasing the water because of equity. The first two facts are unrelated things

[SimonP]

Do you think there will ever be an investigation into the Democrat failures surrounding the Maui fires? 100s of people still missing, many of them children.

Like you give a shit?

Conservatives project their sociopathy onto the rest of us. Because, of course, any reasonable person would have to say, after a disaster like the fires in Maui, that a congressional investigation into the response and legislative proposals for improving the federal government's response would be perfectly appropriate. By all means, let's do what we can to stop this from happening in the future. If that points to incompetence at FEMA, so be it; if local government officials somehow hindered the response, so be it. Let's figure out the problem and figure out a solution.

And having such an investigation be led by the party opposed to the President politically would be helpful. By all means, let's get a close look at this and figure out where the points of failure were. I look forward to House Republicans showing leadership on the issue. Any day now.

But, of course, that's not your take. You (and Brett, apparently) just view this as an opportunity to attack Democrat failures and hook the failures somehow to the culture wars. You don't give a shit about stopping these kinds of deaths; indeed, you're all in favor of more death and destruction, as long as it can be spun to show that Democrats can't be trusted to govern. "Well, they get what they vote for," you'll say.

So you can kindly go fuck yourself. Some of us want responsive, effective government. You just want to shit on what everyone else builds.

[Ben_]

^ SimonP says dead children are all about you and how you don't think the right way. They're just playing pieces on SimonP's little socialist game board. That's the elite attitude about everything.

[Sarcastr0]

"“I’ve never seen such dedication in a president, who within six hours dedicated his time to determine that this was an emergency, and to commit full repair, full reconstruction for our people here in Hawaii.”

....Indeed, The federal response effort has been substantial and multifaceted, with FEMA joining agencies including the Defense Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Small Business Administration to deliver aid to locals. By Saturday, more than 1,000 federal personnel were on the ground, and the rush of federal aid included thousands of blankets and cots, more than 50,000 meals and cash payments of $700."

You will use dead children as instruments, while accusing others of same. Because actual empathy is not your thing - you get your jollies getting angry at Dems all day erry day.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Blankets, cots and $700! That's less than what a random illegal is met with when they illegally cross the border.

They get phones, debit cards, plane tickets, bus rides and then luxury hotels and free food in their final destinations.

[Bob from Ohio]

Quoting the Dem governor! Very persuasive.

[Sarcastr0]

Better listen to random Republicans, I guess!

[Nige]

You don't even believe in crisis preperation, let alone response. You refuse to believe in a crisis until it is past, or at its height. You have nothing to offer when it comes to solutions to crises.

[Ben_]

Democrat government doesn't campaign on a pledge to serve the public. When they're "elected", they don't try to serve the public.

Government that fails as bad as Maui's government is illegitimate. Every Maui resident should be thinking about how they're going to get justice for what they lost.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks, Ben, for telling the residents what they should think, and for knowing where wildfires come from - the government.

At least you didn't go with false flag via space laser theory.

[Kazinski]

Nobody needs a space laser to figure out what happened, perfectly predictable high winds knocking down powerlines on poorly maintained government land overgrown with very flammable invasive species in a semi-arid microclimate (rainfall on the leeward side is 15 inches a year, compared to 155 inches in Hana on the windward side)

[Sarcastr0]

Perfectly predictable! In hindsight, maybe.

Good lord this is lame.

[Kazinski]

I'm living right now in a county that has in the last 5 years had more than twice the total acreage of the entire island of Maui burned by fires caused by downed powerlines in high winds in dry conditions. And two entire towns within a 90 minute drive of me were wiped out in the fires.

In fact one of the fires, started by downed utility lines was only 7 miles from me when high winds came up unexpectedly and blew the fire 35 miles and killed 12 people overnight.

The risk is so predictable that the utility cuts power to the powerlines routinely whenever high winds are expected or when unexpected high winds crop up, even if it leaves people without power for 3 or 4 days.

So yeah, I think its predictable enough that everywhere that routinely has dry conditions, high winds, and sufficient vegetation to fuel a wild fire when its dry enough should be on notice.

Do you think Hawaiian Electric is going to be able say "act of god, nobody knew"? It didn't work for PGE in California.

[Ben_]

Your state government spends billions for a train from Bakersfield to Merced instead of using the money to bury power lines.

[Sarcastr0]

"The risk is so predictable" and yet it keeps happening does not sound like it's easily avoidable.

We can argue policy, but neglect is not a reach you can make, given the history here . This isn't like, say, Trump deleting our pandemic awareness plans.

[Kazinski]

So you go from ‘not predictable’ to ‘not avoidable’.

But I hope not ‘not mitigateable’. I actually have a little bit of a background in emergency management and contingency planning for utilities.

First of all cutting power during high winds seems a very prudent step especially after northern California’s experience. Knowing that powerlines are at risk during 60-80 mph winds is something any low level utility worker knows. Second monitoring and maintaining water pressure for fire hydrants, as well as tank and reservoir levels is a top priority for any competently run utility. T Telling someone asking for water in an emergency that THEY have to check with a farmer downstream to get permission just boggles the mind. Agricultural users are always at the bottom of the list when it comes to immediate need that have to be fulfilled.

Competently run Utilities always have real time information at their fingertips for wind, steamflows , precipitation, water pressure, tank flows, substations power outages, etc. I wrote Seattle Public Utilities SCADA data warehouse and we provided users in the office tower, but that was just for the suits. The real time 24 hour fully staffed control room did the real monitoring. But the control room has to be isolated from the web because they control as well as monitor, and control valves and transfer switches can't be exposed to hackers, or ransomware.

[Sarcastr0]

No. The risks are predictable, the event is not. That’s policy 101.

This magnitude of disaster was not predicted. I’m general the risk of a fire was known, but don’t pretend everyone was like ‘Maui children gonna burn and I love it cause I’m a Dem.’

Work as hard as you want, this is not one anyone is buying can include some partisan blame. Or really blame at all except for in retrospect,

[Nige]

'Nobody needs a space laser to figure out what happened'

You just needed an article that used the word 'woke' and suddenly it all fell into place.

[Ben_]

Groups of people form government to do things like provide water to the community and for fire protection. The so-called government in Maui took the resources that the people specifically set aside for firefighting and then failed to use them.

Communities can’t have three or four or five redundant water supplies in case one or two of them are captured by Obamanable ideologues who decide water is sacred and lives aren’t.

[Nige]

A rare right wing paean to the virtues of vital public services.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good news, real authentic women!

The women's powerlifting record has been smashed by a record 440lbs! It is now 1317lbs a near 50% jump!

You real authentic womxn, aka bonus holes, chest feeders, and uterus havers, sure are progressively progressing!

[SRG2]

Absurd. I stick to my previously stated position, that when it comes to sport, rather than in society, having an originally male body gives athletes an unfair performance advantage and so they should have their own category of events, not compete in the female category.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, since having an originally male body inevitably means you currently have a male body, and baring some really radical advances in whole-body in vivo genetic engineering, will live out the rest of your life with a male body, sure.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hater! Transphobe! You must be deplatformed, disbarred, and otherwise cancelled ASAP!

[Sarcastr0]

I concur, at least when it comes to professional/nigh-professional sports.

[Krayt]

I would apply it at all levels, as it would be sad and dispiriting for genetic girls to see their local high school records permanently way out of reach.

I will admit, I do not have a solution to this. But I think this should not be destroyed.

[Sarcastr0]

I think the purpose of HS sports is different, but I'm not sure if it's different enough; probably don't want to insist on a blanket policy there.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I agree as to sports. But chess?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Chess has open events and female only events.

[Sarcastr0]

The Today in SC History threads are providing an interesting object lesson in moderation. captcrisis has taken point, and is quite active in the threads beyond his OPs, mostly thanking folks that provide additional information.

The combination of the nonpartisan content and the engagement seems to have really changed the tone from the rest of the Conspiracy. Sure there are some pugnacious posts, but largely it is a place of more light than heat.

This is not to talk much about the substance, just the tone, and the observation of how low-authority tone-setting has a nontrivial effect.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Weee Woo Weee Woo Ms. Captain Tone Police to the Rescue!

With a timely Concern Troll sprinkled in here & there, our D.C. Based Government Super Hero turns away evil doers and keeps the tone State Approved, and when an opinion gets said that Soros didn't put on the approved thoughlist, our Civil Servant Super Hero is there within seconds to finger wag and shame!

Great Job Ms. Sacrastr0! You're improving our Nation's War Fighting Abilities AND Saving the Planet from Climate Change AND our Preserving Our Sacred Democracies!

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "tone-setting"
Here's Sarcastr0 upthread:
"And nothing is cognitive, so you can shut the fuck up with your made up gatekeeping based on a tragic health crisis."
Fucking hypocrite...

[Sarcastr0]

“the observation of how low-authority tone-setting has a nontrivial effect.”

Did I say everyone should do this? I did not. I actually enjoy reading but don't post super often in those threads.

So your misreading to find hypocricy can fuck right off.

Not even captcrisis is captcrisis outside of those threads.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sarcastr0,

Thank you very much! (no sarc)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

These 14 American Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat, Dairy, And Private Vehicles By 2030

https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/19/these-14-american-cities-have-a-target-of-banning-meat-dairy-and-private-vehicles-by-2030/

Oh man, I hope this is where many of you idiots live. How awesome is that going to be for you?

[SimonP]

Climate change is a big problem facing humanity. We don't have a lot of palatable options for addressing it. We can either fight to slow it, which will admittedly require substantial changes to how our lives and societies are currently arranged. Or we can gear up for how it's going to impact human civilization globally, as it dries up our farmland, makes larger parts of the globe unhabitable, floods coastal areas, exacerbates severe weather patterns, disrupts global air and ocean currents that humanity has built its civilization around, etc., etc., along with all of the political and social upheaval those changes are likely to prompt.

Moving incrementally to eating less meat and relying less on private vehicles seems like a big sacrifice, to Americans. I myself consume lots of animal products and don't really know how I'd adapt to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. But what's the alternative? We can work to limit our carbon emissions now, or we can be forced into a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle later on, when meat/dairy is no longer a sustainable part of feeding the global population.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or we can adapt (as we always have) to changing environmental
conditions where they are occurring.

[SimonP]

Humans can, and I expect, will adapt.

The question is what that adaptation is likely to look like, when coastal communities are no longer able to feed themselves because the fish on which they've historically subsisted are no longer able to survive in the ocean, when there isn't enough water to irrigate the corn and alfalfa we grow for livestock feed as well as to irrigate crops needed for human consumption, when more of Africa and the Middle East is desert and too hot for human life. And what it is that we'll do politically as those adaptations increasingly are imposed upon us by an uncompromising environment.

Do you see the trade-off? BCD is chortling because New Yorkers might have to wean themselves of meat. But I imagine that forgoing meat will be more desirable than having significant portions of our population starve because they can't afford basic staples grown on shrinking plots of land with increasingly scarce water, to say nothing of meat/dairy.

[Krayt]

Barring government rationing or other interference, starvation and other needs and wants will not be a thing.

Disasters can cause short term issues, of course, but over the long run and slowly, humanity's lives continue to improve, and will continue even with GW.

That is the counter-intuitive result when the people are free to satisfy each others' wants and needs. They keep ahead of the problem curve.

Economists measure shortage via price changes. Expect food to continue falling, contemporary disaster of inflation due to government aside.

[Krayt]

I am eating a $10 Big Mac meal for lunch. I feel good knowing Nancy Pelosi's $100 million is only worth $80. She could only buy 8 million such meals now, instead of 12 million.

This assumes no investment savant manifestations recently, of course.

[Nige]

Keeping ahead of the problem would be a great idea, pity we didn't start a decade or two ago when we knew about the problem and still aren't really starting now.

[SimonP]

Barring government rationing or other interference…

I mean – that’s a big if, isn’t it? The grain shortages caused by the Ukraine war prompted several nations to consider export controls, in order to ensure that domestic markets had access to affordable food. The crises caused by recent international migration flows continues to push governments in more nationalist, anti-trade directions – and a lot of what we’re seeing now is likely only minimally impacted by climate change. Then you have stuff like Saudi Arabia buying up water rights in Arizona for alfalfa production – i.e., autocratic and anti-freedom governments, funded by monopolistic pricing power in petroleum, using that economic power to capture dwindling resources for their own use.

Setting that aside, even if we were to concede your point, that theoretically humans will see to their needs through the normal operation of free markets and trade, it’s consistent with that statement that we may end up needing to shift our eating and living habits accordingly? That is, we may always be able to get the calories we need, as long as people are free to produce and sell those calories to those who need them, but it’s not a given that we’ll always be able to eat as much meat as we do now, or even as many calories as we do now. Right? Just like we’ll never run out of oil, because the increasing scarcity of oil will force us to limit our reliance on oil as prices escalate, which in turn may force us to abandon private cars and suburban housing developments.

Simon’s theory isn’t that we’ll always be able to live in a capitalist utopia modeled after our current habits, right? It’s just that we don’t have to worry that human thriving will suffer as resources dwindle. We’ll find new ways to live, new conveniences, new technologies. We might be biking for transportation, after having moved inland from encroaching seas and impossible temperatures, and eating vegan diets. But we won’t be worse off, right?

[Kazinski]

Yet as the IPCC says itself in IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment Table 12.12, there is no current evidence any of those things are getting worse or even tied to higher CO2 levels.

One of the things there is evidence for is the earth is greening and crop yields are increasing due to CO2 fertilization:

"Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

That's directly contrary to what you said, but I'm certainly not accusing you of lying, on the contrary, its you who have been lied to.

[Sarcastr0]

Fertilization is a separate thing from irrigation, so I see no contradiction.

[Kazinski]

Maybe you ought to look into it a little more then:

"Elevated CO2 can decrease the effects of drought by further decreasing stomatal opening and, hence, water loss from leaves."

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50820500/GPRG/2020PublicationsandSummaries/2020_Effect%2520of%2520drought%2520and%2520carbon%2520dioxide.pdf

But in any case as the IPCC says they have no evidence there is any CO2 signal in the frequency or even whether there are more or fewer droughts in the AR6 WGI chapter 12.

So to summarize more CO2 helps plants when there is a drought, and there is no basis to blame droughts on CO2 in the first place.

But that's just the science, not the talking points.

[Sarcastr0]

Ok so well fertilized plants are marginally more resilient.

But that is marginal as temperatures rise. A drought will still cause suffering, which is Simon’s point.
And which you have not really disproven with this digression.

[Nige]

'and there is no basis to blame droughts on CO2 in the first place.'

Hmm.

'Human-induced climate change has contributed to increases in agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions due to evapotranspiration increases (medium confidence). Increases in evapotranspiration have been driven by increases in atmospheric evaporative demand induced by increased temperature, decreased relative humidity and increased net radiation (high confidence). Trends in precipitation are not a main driver in affecting global-scale trends in drought (medium confidence), but have induced increases in meteorological droughts in a few AR6 regions (NES: high confidence; WAF, CAF, ESAF, SAM, SWS, SSA, SAS: medium confidence). Increasing trends in agricultural and ecological droughts have been observed on all continents (WAF, CAF, WSAF, ESAF, WCA, ECA, EAS, SAU, MED, WCE, WNA, NES: medium confidence), but decreases only in one AR6 region (NAU: medium confidence). Increasing trends in hydrological droughts have been observed in a few AR6 regions (MED: high confidence; WAF, EAS, SAU: medium confidence). Regional-scale attribution shows that human-induced climate change has contributed to increased agricultural and ecological droughts (MED, WNA), and increased hydrological drought (MED) in some regions (medium confidence). {11.6, 11.9}'

'https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/'

'its you who have been lied to.'

Yes indeed.

[Nige]

‘One of the things there is evidence for is the earth is greening and crop yields are increasing due to CO2 fertilization:’

That’s all well and good, barring massive droughts, flooding, wildfires, population movements, conflicts, not to mention the ongoing degradation of biodiversity, habitat loss and destruction of ranforests and wetlands.

And, of course, as everyone always omits when they trot this argument out:

‘The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”’

[Nige]

Adaptation is literally the unavoidable minimum that people will have to do with the conditions, unless you count simple survival. Saying 'we can adapt' is like saying 'we can move to the second floor when the first floor is flooded.' No, dude, I was going to stay down there and have a fucking bath.

[Mr. Bumble]

You left out "(as we always have)". Makes a difference.

[Nige]

No, 'as we always have' is redundant, and will be until extinction. People adapt to all sorts of appalling conditions. They would all have preferred the appalling conditions to have been avoided, not to be used as an example for why the appalling conditions were fine, actually.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are you waiting to be forced to eat less meat & dairy and to use mass transit?

Why don't you voluntarily sacrifice in support of your beliefs?

[Mr. Bumble]

"We can work to limit our carbon emissions now, or we can be forced into a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle later on, when meat/dairy is no longer a sustainable part of feeding the global population."
CO2 is not a pollutant. See this:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/climate-change-crusher-humanprogress-org-publishes-video-claiming/

[Nige]

If you're stuck in an enclosed space and the CO2 levels are rising, see how beneficial it is then.

[Ben_]

Elites will just raise prices to restrict the lives of working class people. The cost increase will be devastating.

Elites won't feel the increased costs themselves: when everyday essentials are a couple percent of your income, a 50% increase is negligible. Elites will arrange giveaways to themselves (like the student loan cancellation) to make up for it.

[Nige]

The idea that the elites need or needed student loans rather suggests you don't really mean any of this.

[not guilty]

The Georgia indictment of Donald Trump, Mark Meadows and others alleges at page 50:

On or about the 2nd day 0f January 2021, DONALD JOHN TRUMP and MARK RANDALL MEADOWS committed the felony offense of SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER, in violation of O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 & 16-10-1, in Fulton County, Georgia, by unlawfully soliciting, requesting, and importuning Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of Violation of Oath by Public Ofiicer, O.C.G.A. § 16-10-1, by unlawfully altering, unlawfully adjusting, and otherwise unlawfully influencing the certified returns for presidential electors for the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia, in willful and intentional violation of the terms of the oath of said person as prescribed by law, with intent that said person engage in said conduct. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Count 28 of the indictment (p. 87) alleges this conduct as a separate, substantive offense:

And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP and MARK RANDALL MEADOWS with the offense of SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-7 & 16-10-1, for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of a crime, and together with unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on or about the 2nd day of January 2021, unlawfully solicited, requested, and importuned Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, O.C.G.A. § 16-10-1, by unlawfully altering, unlawfully adjusting, and otherwise unlawfully influencing the certified returns for presidential electors for the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia, in willful and intentional violation of the terms of the oath of said person as prescribed by law, with intent that said person engage in said conduct, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof[.]

Mark Meadows in his Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss (p. 29) claims that “All of the alleged conduct as to Mr. Meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of First Amendment.” https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919695-meadows-supremacy-clause This claim is specious.

An evidentiary hearing on the removal to federal court is scheduled for one week from today. It is perhaps fortunate that we may get a ruling sooner rather than later on a defense claim that the First Amendment protects criminal conspiracy and solicitation in furtherance of Trump’s scheme to overturn the election results.

“Many long established criminal proscriptions—such as laws against conspiracy, incitement, and solicitation—criminalize speech (commercial or not) that is intended to induce or commence illegal activities.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 298 (2008) (offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment).

In Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949), SCOTUS upheld a state court injunction against union members from peaceful picketing carried on as an essential and inseparable part of a course of conduct which is in violation of a state law prohibiting combinations in restraint of trade. The Court opined:

It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. We reject the contention now.

Justice Black (a noted First Amendment absolutist) there elaborated:

[W]e are mindful of the essential importance to our society of a vigilant protection of freedom of speech and press. . . . States cannot consistently with our Constitution abridge those freedoms to obviate slight inconveniences or annoyances. . . . But placards used as an essential and inseparable part of a grave offense against an important public law cannot immunize that unlawful conduct from state control. . . . Nor can we say that the publication here should not have been restrained because of the possibility of separating the picketing conduct into illegal and legal parts. . . . For the placards were to effectuate the purposes of an unlawful combination, and their sole, unlawful immediate objective was to induce Empire to violate the Missouri law by acquiescing in unlawful demands to agree not to sell ice to nonunion peddlers. It is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were as in most instances brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.

Id., at 501-02 [citations omitted]. As Justice Robert Jackson opined:
The defense of freedom of speech or press has often been raised in conspiracy cases, because, whether committed by Communists, by businessmen, or by common criminals, it usually consists of words written or spoken, evidenced by letters, conversations, speeches or documents. Communication is the essence of every conspiracy, for only by it can common purpose and concert of action be brought about or be proved.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 575 (1951) (Jackson, J., concurring in the judgment).

[Krayt]

Was there more than "find me some more votes", a process both parties furiously engaged in in Florida, 2000?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ruby Freeman is on a police body cam confessing that she committed more fraud and that she was pressured by her supervisors to find more votes.

Not that her recorded confession matters.

[grb]

Voltage!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.georgiarecord.com/elections/2022/12/25/ruby-freeman-body-cam-admissions-revealed-in-the-georgia-ballot-scanning-scandal/

(22:10) RF: “But I do want an attorney, but nobody now its me, its all a fraud. So I do, I do wanted one, I know that I need an attorney.

Another Know Nothing Democrat proud to know, well you know, nothing.

[SRG2]

Georgia Record, an astroturf site.

No wonder you like it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are the audio and video recordings fake?

[SRG2]

Do they provide the full video and context?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a neat standard. Full enough for reasonable rationale people who aren't clinging to any sort of cognitive out, now matter how small.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

He didn’t ask.

Where do you see him asking to be provided those things?

Where are you people cautiously asking for full tapes and audio with full context before drawing conclusions about J6 or Trump?

Don't answer. I'm sure it will be stupid, lack self-awareness, and be incredibly hypocritical.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's a question establishing a standard.

That's not a request for full videos and full context to be provided to him.

Is English not your first language?

[David Nieporent]

Are the audio and video recordings fake?

Do they say what you pretend they say?

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't even "find me", it was more "let me find", as I recall.

Lot of people read paraphrases that quote only the word "find", and think they know what Trump actually said.

[grb]

Trump to Raffensperger : “There’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated”

Trump to Rosen : “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen,”

[Sarcastr0]

Trump is always just bad enough to be disowned and tsk-tsked over, but never bad enough to be held accountable for his actions. I mean, he’s no Hunter Biden!

[Magister]

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state. That’s before we go to the next step, which is in the process of right now. You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality.

But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.

Why don’t you want to find this, Ryan? What’s wrong with you?

But why wouldn’t you want to find the right answer, Brad, instead of keep saying that the numbers are right?

Because all we have to do Cleta is find 11,000-plus votes.

Trump: So it stands to reason that if the information is not forthcoming, there’s something to hide. That’s the problem that we have.

Germany: Well, that’s not the case sir. There are things that you guys are entitled to get. And there’s things that under the law, we are not allowed to give out.

Trump: Well, you have to.

It's pretty much, let me find this vexatious priest dead.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Brett, it was “I need”. He was signaling to people that he considered to be lackeys what they should do.

[Krayt]

I flagged the first comment by accident. I will no longer apologize. Please add an unflag button. Are there zero web people at Reason?

Why is it hidden from me? Is it hidden frim everyone?

As a matter of design, if a feature is accidentally used 99% of the time, you have a design problem.

I'd prefer you fix stripping out certain html on edit, first, though. Who am I saying this to? There are no web people at Reason.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whose comment? FWIW I see no comments marked as "flagged".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can't, it's only for the moderators.

I do it all the time too when I scroll on mobile.

[Longtobefree]

It is possible all their web work is assigned to diversity hires; people who had other jobs but 'learned to code'.
Or possibly it is done by an AI running on a Commodore 64 in the back of a closet.

[Michael P]

When you flag a comment, it is only hidden from you.

I also wish that there was an "unflag" mechanism.

[Kazinski]

Reason doesn’t really give a shit if you were (accidentally) offended.

It just hides it from you so you'll think something was done about it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think this is correct. It's similar to the "Close Door" button in most elevators.

[Martinned]

Since I just looked it up for English reasons, here is the ECtHR factsheet on life imprisonment: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_life_sentences_eng

“… [I]n the context of a life sentence, Article 3 [of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment1,] must be interpreted as requiring reducibility of the sentence, in the sense of a review which allows the domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds.
However, the [European] Court [of Human Rights] would emphasise that, having regard to the margin of appreciation which must be accorded to Contracting States in the matters of criminal justice and sentencing …, it is not its task to prescribe the form (executive or judicial) which that review should take. For the same reason, it is not for the Court to determine when that review should take place. This being said, … the comparative and international law materials before [the Court] show clear support for the institution of a dedicated mechanism guaranteeing a review no later than twenty-five years after the imposition of a life sentence, with further periodic reviews thereafter ... It follows from this conclusion that, where domestic law does not provide for the possibility of such a review, a whole life sentence will not measure up to the standards of Article 3 of the Convention.
… Furthermore, … [a] whole life prisoner is entitled to know, at the outset of his sentence, what he must do to be considered for release and under what conditions, including when a review of his sentence will take place or may be sought. Consequently, where domestic law does not provide any mechanism or possibility for review of a whole life sentence, the incompatibility with Article 3 on this ground already arises at the moment of the imposition of the whole life sentence and not at a later stage of incarceration.” (Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment (Grand Chamber) of 9 July 2013, §§ 119-122).

[Mr. Bumble]

So a life sentence means life, except it doesn't.

[Martinned]

Exactly, because that would be, in the US jargon, cruel and unusual punishment. There has to be some real hope of release.

[apedad]

Then the sentence should be, "Eligible for parole in 25 (or 50 or 75) years," and not a life sentence.

[Martinned]

Possibly. The ECtHR leaves that to the individual countries to figure out. A fair few countries, including the Netherlands, argue that the possibility of a pardon is enough to meet the requirements of Vinter v. UK. That's quite a stretch, but then not that many LWOP sentences get handed out in the Netherlands in the first place, so the issue doesn't get litigated a lot. (Dutch wikipedia has a list).

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that the US has not found the death penalty to be "cruel and unusual" how do you think being allowed to live (albeit in custody" is either cruel or unusual?

[Martinned]

It is, just not by US standards. There are lots of things happening in US prisons that are mysteriously not considered cruel and/or unusual, but that do result in the US having trouble getting people extradited.

[Mr. Bumble]

...which of course never happen in European jails.

[SRG2]

Seldom, if not never, but basically correct, because Europeans don't imprison people with the same zeal as the US does, don't have the conflicts that arise by having privatised prison services, don't regard prison rape as a known and acceptable occurrence and a de facto part of the punishment, don't regard inadequate medical care as merely one of the consequences of being imprisoned, etc.

[Martinned]

The British have had problems as well lately, with both Irish and German courts refusing extradition due to prison overcrowding.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/irish-judge-blocks-extradition-because-scottish-prisons-are-inhumane-qm73dlg9z

[not guilty]

In rare instances, SCOTUS has found a sentence of life without parole to be cruel and unusual punishment. In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), a life sentence without possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony was found to be significantly disproportionate to the defendant's crime, and was therefore prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. But see Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021).

[Mr. Bumble]

From the Daily Mail:

Lucy Letby will die in jail as she is sentenced to whole life order: Serial killer who murdered seven babies refuses to face court in last act of wickedness after families told how Devil nurse with an 'enthusiasm' for inflicting pain destroyed their lives

Mr Justice Goss told the killer nurse she had ‘robbed parents of their cherished children’ and ‘deprived siblings of their brothers and sisters’. The most prolific child serial killer in modern British history refused to appear in court today, where she is set to be handed a full life order. Her decision not to attend court today was branded ‘the final act of wickedness from a coward’ – and prompted yet more calls for new laws that would force criminals to come to the dock.

[Martinned]

If ever there was a person who should die in prison, she'd probably be it.

(Although don't get me started about this "make them appear in court" nonsense. People seem to enjoy acting as if court is some kind of play, where all the actors are required to play their part.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Which is one of the problems with cameras in courtrooms. All the players become actors playing to the camera (at least indirectly).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Barbaric. A good reminder of the blessings of civilization, and how fast they can be lost.

[Jerry B.]

And let's not forget Biden's pseudonym.

https://babylonbee.com/news/secret-service-unable-to-identify-person-sending-emails-from-oval-office-using-alias-robert-l-peters

https://nypost.com/2023/08/17/comer-demands-records-of-biden-using-pseudonym-while-vpcomer-demands-unredacted-records-of-biden-using-pseudonym-while-vp/

Nothing suspicious about that at all.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What’s more so was that the Democrat Department of Defense were ones who issued them their secret, illegal email accounts.

5 others had them as well, including Obama.

That doesn’t strike me as normal.

[Randal]

As y’all go about reading the ensuing conversation below, keep in mind the dense comedic nucleus: Chucky thinks he’s the smart one!

[grb]

Jerry B. : “Nothing suspicious about that at all”

The day after this latest publicity stunt by Comer, there was an article about it in Real Clear Politics. Now, RCP is a conservative site I check daily for the latest Rightie take. The author of the Biden story was Philip Wegmann, and we’ll pause for his CV :

1. A staff writer for RCP (conservative)
2. Previously wrote for the Washington Examiner (conservative)
3. Award winner from the Steamboat Institute (conservative)
4. Fellow of the Claremont Institute (conservative)
5. Graduate of Hillsdale College (conservative)

So. yeah, he’s from the Right. That makes this quote interesting :

“The newest wrinkle: a pseudonym that the vice president used to set up an obscure but official government email account, a practice not uncommon among cabinet secretaries at the time.”

Thus a bizarre stratagem by Joe Biden to hide his corruption is actually a Washington commonplace. Big letdown! But what about the email itself? Wegmann describes it thus:

“The May email cited by Comer in his letter was sent by John Flynn, a personal assistant to the vice president, and included a rundown of that day’s schedule. It details how Biden was to call then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at 9 a.m. before traveling to Rhode Island in the afternoon and eventually returning to the “Lake House” in Delaware.”

Thus the secret info passed to Hunter becomes a notice of a meeting with the President of Ukraine – probably public knowledge – and Biden’s travel plans before returning home to Delaware. That last part was insider info to be sure, but perhaps something Hunter was allowed to receive.

To be fair, the histrionics over this latest “bombshell” aren’t as embarrassing as the last example, when all the Right-wing world was duped about Archer’s testimony. And granted, Comer is convinced this new email account stuff will someday lead to future Exciting! New! Developments!

But he’s failed to deliver on that promise many, many times before . Sooner or later, even the most pathetic wingnut will notice the evidence of Biden corruption never arrives….

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/08/18/biden_may_have_used_secret_pseudonyms_as_vice_president.html

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey grb,

Think about the smartest person you know(don't think of me, I don't want to bias your result). Is that how that person would refute a claim?

Now think about the dumbest person(don't look in the mirror, please, it will bias your thinking) you know. Do you think that individual would refute a claim the way you did?

[grb]

But I did refute the claim:

1. The secret email account was common among White House appointees and not some special trick by Joe Biden.

2. The only emails produced by Comer have been innocuous and provide no evidence of corruption.

Game. Set. Match. You haven't made as much of a spectacle of yourself here as with the made-up Archer testimony, but it’s all alike. Your handlers feed you bullshit. You screech & yell in triumph. You’re proved a fool. Repeat ad infinitum….

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So it being common to have high ranking officials in the Obama administration use FOIA avoiding secret email accounts means it was all okay?

lol wtf is wrong with you

[Brett Bellmore]

This sort of thing is what I mean when I say that a lot of Trump's problems stemmed from thinking he'd naturally get to engage in the sort of law violations that are routine in DC. The pseudonym email accounts are an illegal evasion of FOIA, AND they'd been routine.

DC is rife with routine illegality.

[Sarcastr0]

The pseudonym email accounts are an illegal evasion of FOIA, AND they’d been routine.

You know, Brett, I'm not sure you have the expertise to make that statement!

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you suggesting that the Freedom of Information Act actually contemplates public officials conducting business under fake names in order that FOIA searches won't find the emails?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore :"... public officials conducting business ..."

But there's been no "official business" in any of the emails. The best Comer has produced so far is Joe Biden sending his son the schedule saying when he'd be back home. Given that's the most scandalous Comer could find, what do you guess about the rest?

[Mr. Bumble]

What, no yoga routines and wedding plans?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you suggesting that waggling your eyebrows and rhetorically asking whether the law has been violated doesn't actually prove anything about the law having been violated?

[Nige]

Yes, a lot of Trump's problems stem from using some second e-mail account for personal messages. He's really being nailed non-stop on that one.

[David Nieporent]

The pseudonym email accounts are an illegal evasion of FOIA,

Too bad you didn't claim it was unconstitutional, so I can't use my Onion link about you. You're still Dunning-Krugering your way through the law, though.

Free hint: they are not, in fact, an illegal evasion of FOIA. FOIA doesn't say one word one way or the other about pseudonymous email accounts.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, stop it. If government employee John Q. Public sets up a secret email address under a pseudonym and conducts business using that email address, that does indeed stymie a FOIA request for John Q. Public's emails unless and until (as recently occurred here) that pseudonym becomes known and can be included in the request.

Not a complicated point at all unless you're desperate for an excuse to pretend you don't understand it.

[David Nieporent]

It may "stymie" a hypothetical FOIA request that may one day be made, but that does not make it a crime.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, if you want to die on the hill that deliberately obfuscating government records to avoid discovery under the... wait for it... Freedom of Information Act is totally cool because it isn't specifically called out in 18 USC, knock yourself out.

The rest of us can remain serenely confident that 1) it's a cynical fraud on the public, bereft of any innocent explanation; and 2) per the new normal, some wastebasket statute no doubt would be called into service to cover the practice were the wrong person to indulge in it.

[David Nieporent]

I want to "die on the hill" that things that aren't illegal aren't illegal.

[grb]

BravoCharlieDelta : lol wtf is wrong with you

Your argument is a moving target. When this latest scandlette was announced, it was trumpeted as final conclusive proof of Biden’s secret entanglement with Hunter’s corruption. That was your take just a few days ago. Several Right-types in this forum shook their heads in faux-sorrow, saying they couldn’t see any way to explain such a sensational “discovery”. Over at the National Review, they proclaimed it was all over if Comer was telling the truth.

And yet here we are – less than a week later. The second email account for personal messages turns out to be a commonplace DC dodge. Your claim this was a special back-channel to funnel government information to Hunter has (once again) blown-up in your face. The emails released so far have all been completely innocent. And you can safely bet the future ones will be too. Because your Joe Biden, Crime Lord shtick is a total crock of shit.

So the fallback is FOIA now your more hysterical claims collapsed? Fine. Take that as far as you can. Launch impeachment proceedings over Joe Biden doing something dozens of other pols did as well. Personally, I don’t know the precise legality involved. I do know pols are not required to turn over personal emails with their government documents. Remember, Hillary Clinton hired a law firm to separate her private and official email before turning over the latter to the National Archive. That was something she had every right to do.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're creating a strawman to excuse illegal behavior.

[SimonP]

You're moving the goalposts, BCD. Which, I suppose, is pretty typical in these kinds of Republican "investigations," but here we are.

The initial insinuation, about the use of a pseudonym, was that it was used to hide some kind of nefarious dealings. Isn't that suspicious? What was Biden trying to hide? But even the Republican talking point was odd - did they not know the content of the emails? Why are they trying to get people riled up over the use of a pseudonym, if they presumably also have the content of the emails in question?

GRB helpfully explains why: Oh, there wasn't anything untoward in the emails themselves. Biden wasn't using a pseudonym to hide corrupt transactions in his own interest; he was talking about his schedule.

So now, like clockwork, you and Brett are making hay out of FOIA, as a distinct and separate infraction in and of itself. How dare administration officials use pseudonyms in a way that might have violated the law (not that we've checked to confirm what the law requires, in this respect; we're just taking marching orders from the Republican leadership we pretend to hate)! It's just Hillary all over again - an investigation into her actions vis-a-vis Benghazi morphed into high theater over the location of email servers.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

High profile elected officials and political appointees used FOIA avoiding schemes to communicate amongst themselves and with outside parties.

It’s so striking to watch you people talk out of both sides of your mouths. How innocent obviously nefarious behavior is when it’s your political elites, and how nefarious obviously innocent behavior is when it’s political outsiders.

Your ruling elites assert innocence, and you take it unskeptically as gospel. Grace you do not give to anyone else.

[grb]

We get it. You had a conspiratorial wet-dream moment and it didn’t pan out. Now you’re trying to make do with what’s in-hand until the next fake scandal arrives. May I offer some advice?

At least try and find some official government business in these emails. Not personal chit-chat. Not gossip. Not the day’s arrival time back in Delaware. Something to do with the actual functioning of government. Find some examples of that and your fake indignation will look slightly less fake.

And given you’re 100% fake 24-7, BravoCharlieDelta, every little bit will help....

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This was my original comment:

What’s more so was that the Democrat Department of Defense were ones who issued them their secret, illegal email accounts.

5 others had them as well, including Obama.

That doesn’t strike me as normal.

All the rest ascribed to me is shit a bunch of idiots made up.

“@realdonaldtrump Everyone watch the public hearings!”

You: OMG HE’S HARMING OUR SACRED DEMOCRACY, I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I CAN READ HIS MIND!!!!

“5 politicians had illegal FOIA avoiding emails that they used” You: THAT’S NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING!! FIND PROOF! NOT ENOUGH EVIDEENCE!!! IT’S BEEEEN DEBOOOONKED!!!!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Scroll up and see for yourself, dipshit.

[Magister]

Were the email accounts illegal? What law was violated? I won't take the observation that lots of people did it in previous administrations as evidence that it's legal, but I certainly won't accept your assertion that it must be illegal (given the usual unreliability of your comments, it would be safer to expect the opposite).

Were they for FOIA avoidance (which would require that they were used for something FOIA would disclose and that those emails were not or would not be disclosed)? The National Archive apparently disclosed them to Comer, so it's clear that they didn't escape becoming official records, although they might not be disclosed (for good or bad reasons) to ordinary members of the public making FOIA requests.

[SimonP]

High profile elected officials and political appointees used FOIA avoiding schemes to communicate amongst themselves and with outside parties.

We know the content of those messages. They were innocuous. So, the failure to make them easily accessible via FOIA requests - if, in fact, it was illegal, which no one pounding this drum feels the need to clearly establish - is not significant. It's the same game with the wire transfers your Republican message-masters are playing. No quid for any quo is alleged. It's just a bunch of numbers with "woo" sounds added by the Republicans.

I'm open to being fair with Trump. What are the "innocent" activities you're talking about? I seem to recall a putative wire with a Russian bank that proved either to be innocent or fictitious, which some corners of the internet made some hay out of, a while back. So that's granted. But otherwise we're talking about clearly-marked classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, emails and texts where Trump's kids tried to arrange meetings with Russians to go over material assistance they could provide the campaign, "perfect phone calls" where our President threatened to withhold military assistance to Ukraine unless its leader agreed to help out his campaign, and so on. Maybe you have something else in mind.

Meanwhile - the irony! - you're inclined to read nefarious intent into the cherry-picked emails from the "Twitter files" and a conspiracy to defraud the public over COVID. And somehow that all gets attributed to Biden, despite it happening under Trump's watch.

[Kazinski]

Its not game set match, they are investigating. Not every avenue of investigation pans out and nobody expects it to.

But certainly checking to see emails Joe sent to his own account and to hunter from his VP account is worth investigating given the large sums of money Hunter waa making from overseas interests at a time Joe had access to sensitive information.

As Jake Tapper said on CNN last week, that Trump was right in the 2020 debate when he said Hunter was taking millions from China and Ukraine, and Joe denied it: “I mean, Trump was right. I mean, he did make a fortune from China, and Joe Biden was wrong. I don’t know that he was lying about it. He might not have been told by Hunter. But this blind spot is a problem.”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cnn-jake-tapper-says-trump-002954011.html

Now generally the standard is that when you say something in a debate that isn’t true, its a lie, but the standard is different for Joe. But really the only reason he wouldn’t have known is if he didn’t want to know. By that time in 2020 a lot of details about Hunters deals were public knowledge, but Joe still denied it.

But the real game set match will be when they get hunters financial records and see where the money was going, if anything over 15,000 was going to Joe, especially from foreign sources, but its all fungible, it will be game set match.

Because a VP, and President to be, getting funds even indirectly from foreign oligarchs, who just happened to be a fugitive, and state owned Chinese "investment funds" is too bad a look to sweep it under the rug.

[SimonP]

if anything over 15,000 was going to Joe, especially from foreign sources, but its all fungible, it will be game set match.

Are you willing to apply that same standard to Trump?

[Kazinski]

Sure, as long as its not earned income from businesses he's had for decades.

However I'm going to have a different standard for someone that hangs out their shingle as an international lawyer and business consultant with no experience who gets a 1m/yr gig just 2 months after they get kicked out of the navy for smoking crack, and then starts paying all of Pop's bills.

[David Nieporent]

No experience? You seem to be confusing DJT Jr. with Hunter Biden. DJT Jr. basically bummed around for a year after college and then went to work for his daddy.

Hunter Biden had many personal problems, to be sure, and you can attribute many of his opportunities to his last name, but you might want to read up on his career. He had several different jobs in the business world — including service on a board of directors — before he was named a director of Burisma.

[hoppy025]

Rep. Gaetz introduced a resolution to rein in the despicable Tanya Chutkan. Hopefully, the rest of the House acts on it, as that piece of subhuman excrement has no business hearing any cases.

[apedad]

Welp . . . to put a good spin on your comment, at least you haven't been calling for her to be shot.

In a public setting anyway.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/she-sits-on-her-couch-daily-watching-the-news-while-drinking-too-many-beers-trump-supporter-accused-of-racist-threats-against-jan-6-judge-is-locked-up-ahead-of-trial/

[hoppy025]

She shouldn't be shot. But the 14th Amendment should be reinterpreted to allow sensible restrictions, including those that would allow for semi-literate simians to be deported to the jungles of Arica.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

the 14th Amendment should be reinterpreted to allow sensible restrictions, including those that would allow for semi-literate simians to be deported to the jungles of Arica

Prof. Volokh objected to a comment or two over the weekend; anyone expect him to respond to hoppy025's comment? Why or why not?

Carry on, clingers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I see that Hannah Giles is now in charge of Project Veritas.

The daughter of a minister (seriously), Hannah was the person who pretended to be the underaged prostitute when they took down Acorn. I've met her, I think she will be good.

If she doesn't play it fast & loose with the rules, if she doesn't go to the dark side and remembers why she is doing it, the left needs to be worried...

[OtisAH]

Hilarious. Veritas won’t even exist next year at this time.

[Martinned]

It will continue to exist as long as there are Eds to scam.

[loki13]

He wants to believe! 🙂

[Nige]

Or as long as there are loopy billionaires to fund it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

the left needs to be worried

The left's principal concern these days is whether it will be able to keep enough beer cold for the celebrations of victory over conservatives in the modern American culture war.

(Clingers can drown their sorrows in Yuengling while watching their betters celebrate.)

[bevis the lumberjack]

Biden and his EPS are doing it again. Outlawing regular window air conditioning units and mandating environmentally friendly window units.

In the spirit of gas stoves and central air units and dishwashers and light bulbs, they’re driving up costs for people that have no money to spare. I mean, we can agree that those awful billionaires aren’t cooling their mansions with window units, right? This one is aimed directly at those nasty, uncooperative poors. Don’t those people understand that they need to sacrifice to save us elites from sweating?

And the hell of it is while he’s fucking over the lower middle class and the poor with his energy pants wetting, he’s moving heaven and earth to figure out some way to give billions to college graduates and people with masters degrees. Not a real good look for the Big Guy.

[Martinned]

That's why sensible policy makers always emphasise the need to do environmental regulation in the context of a wider package, so that low-income families come out ahead financially as well. It's called the Green New Deal, you might have heard of it.

[Sarcastr0]

The Biden administration is finalizing more stringent efficiency requirements for both window air conditioners and portable air cleaners on Thursday, the first set of efficiency standards that are new and not just a reversal of a Trump-era rollback.

Your war on efficiency standards continues!

[bevis the lumberjack]

My war on efficiency standards is an order of magnitude more honorable than Biden’s war on po’ folk.

You should be ashamed for being so enthusiastic about it. But fuck the poors, right? If they wanted better treatment from progressives they should have checked “elite” on their Status Assignment Election card.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure of the cost-benefits in each case - as I said I like energystar-like ratings and let the market do the rest as the default.

But I note you always come down on the same side, and your arguments are 'think of the poors!' The one time you gave numbers - the lightbulbs - it did not go well for you.

Your position is independent of reality, or policy analysis. It comes from ideology.

And then, of course the strawmen. Disagree with you, and that means you must think: "fuck the poors, right?"

This is such an awful arguing tactic, and yet it is your preferred go-to.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Are you claiming that LED bulbs are cheaper than incandescent? Seriously? No way. The argument was over magnitude of the difference, not whether it existed.

I’m not opposed to efficiency. Just this weekend I bought a set of six LED BR40s for our kitchen to replace incandescents. I’m gonna distribute half of those incandescents to other places in the house. The cost of LEDs was around 50% higher than an equivalent incandescent. But I saw that they were going to last 22 years! so I couldn’t resist.

The difference between me and the poors is that I didn’t have to skip a couple of meals to afford them.

I’m pretty wealthy now because of all that money I made destroying the climate, but I grew up somewhere between poor and very near poor. As did my wife, on a family farm. Our entire social universe growing up was made up of blue collar, paycheck to paycheck types. Their children were our friends. You dismiss them as “straw men”That’s who we are and comfortable around and who we understand and who we empathize with. Same in you for supporting an administration that treats them so callously while heaping benefits on college graduates.

And it’s also maybe why I can see the admittedly small chance of a revolution. Those folks are getting pissed and are figuring out who is screwing them.

[Sarcastr0]

You had people from both sides of the aisle calling your numbers out as wrong. I've not seen such unity on these forums in quite some time.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes or no. Are incandescents cheaper than LEDs at point of sale or not. No hedging, no dodging the effect on people.

Are incandescents cheaper or not. It’s a yes or no question. Answer it.

Fucking engage with the issue or quit changing the subject.

[Sarcastr0]

I would guess it varies. But also that was not my goalpost.

You provided some absolutely incorrect numbers, which was my comment and is what I am sticking to.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I pulled (maybe) a bad source for a number. You are happy to support a guy that makes life more difficult for poor people for no reason while tossing unearned billions at people with college degrees. I’m a better person that you.

That’s my comment and I’m sticking to it.

And I knew you’d dodge the fucking question. It’s your modus operandi.

[David Nieporent]

You are happy to support a guy that makes life more difficult for poor people for no reason

1) They are not more expensive, unless you invent claims that they don't last as long as claimed. At most, they have a higher up front cost, but the difference is trivial and pays for itself pretty quickly.

2) For no reason? Even if you don't agree with the policy, it is Fox News style¹ silliness to pretend that they're making completely arbitrary decisions. Energy efficiency is not "no reason."
​
​
¹ Yes, I know you say you don't watch Fox News. But that's the style of coverage they traffic in, assuming one-sided bad faith for Democrats (and vice versa for Republicans).

[Kazinski]

If you live off the grid you will switch pretty quickly, I replaced all my cfl about 10 years ago despite the sunk investment in CFL and the additional cost of LED because the significant difference of 6w to 13w made my solar/battery installation more effective. In fact I have parallel 12v wiring and 12v RV lights in the bathrooms bedrooms and kitchen so I don't have the power overhead of using an inverter unless I need to run something on AC.

But if I were on the grid and I had a room that was always cold I could definitely see using incandescents, and who can argue with a heat lamp in the bathroom?

[jb]

First, plenty of rich-ish people use window air conditioners in cities. (Not billionaires but people in the top few percent of income.)

This seems like an area where the smart thing to do would be to subsidize the more efficient thing rather than making it harder to get the less efficient thing. Would be nice to help poor people break out of the cycle of poverty where they can't make short term investments that help save them money over time.

[hoppy025]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/21/us/california-pride-flag-shooting/index.html

The fact that the suspect is not described as a white man means you know he's not.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Coulter Rule.

[Ed Grinberg]

compare:
(These are headlines. I tried posting the links, but my comment keeps getting deleted. I suggest using Google.)
"Couple claims assault in hate-motivated attack at Theo Wirth Hidden Beach"
"Nudieland mass shooting survivors say queerphobic interaction preceded deadly violence"

[not guilty]

ABC News reports that attorneys for Donald Trump are expected to meet early next week with the Fulton County district attorney's office in order to negotiate terms of Trump's bond package. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-attorneys-fulton-county-da-expected-meet-week/story?id=102369420

In Georgia the trial court may release a person on bail if the court finds the person:

(A) Poses no significant risk of fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court or failing to appear in court when required;
(B) Poses no significant threat or danger to any person, to the community, or to any property in the community;
(C) Poses no significant risk of committing any felony pending trial; and
(D) Poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice.

OCGA § 17-6-1 (e). The defendant has the initial burden of coming forward initially with evidence to show that he or she poses no significant risk of fleeing, threatening the community, committing another crime, or intimidating a witness. Once the defendant meets the burden of production, the state may present evidence to rebut it. The state has the burden of persuasion in convincing the superior court that a defendant is not entitled to pretrial release. This requirement means the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial court should deny bail either to secure the defendant's appearance in court or to protect the community. Depending on the quality of the defendant's evidence, the state may not need to present any evidence to carry its burden of persuasion. Ayala v. State, 262 Ga. 704, 705-06, 425 S.E.2d 282 (1993).

It should be interesting to see whether the trial judge imposes any specific conditions on Trump regarding intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice.

[not guilty]

In that regard it is noteworthy that Trump has told a witness who was scheduled to testify before the grand jury that he shouldn't appear. https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/08/15/truth-social-could-get-trump-trouble/

Some commentators have suggested that this violates Georgia's witness tampering statute. I disagree, in that Trump did not threaten injury or damage to any person nor offer or deliver any benefit, reward, or consideration. OCGA § 16-10-93(a). Nevertheless, as Shakespeare observed, "What's past is prologue." The Tempest, Act 2, Scene I.

[apedad]

How about the, “I refuse to endorse him,” statement?

An endorsement from your political party leader in an election sounds like something pretty substantial.

But I could see the judge say something like, "That's the line. One millimeter more and you'll go to pre-trail confinement."

[Bored Lawyer]

How is "I refused to endorse him" witness tampering? Even apart from the fact that it's core First Amendment protected.

[apedad]

That's one of the factors of witness tampering from the GA code.

By withholding his endorsement, that could be seen as withholding a ". . . benefit, reward, or consideration," - especially (as I mentioned), since Trump is a former president and current party leader.

[not guilty]

I read Trump's statement as having refused in the past to endorse the lieutenant governor, not as an offer to endorse or fail to endorse depending on whether he testified before the grand jury.

[apedad]

That's true and it does depend on the when the statement was made.

I think it's a good line in the sand for the judge.

[not guilty]

Another area for discussion regarding Trump's release pending trial is whether the court should impose any restriction(s) on his statements to the media. "Few, if any, interests under the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial by 'impartial' jurors, and an outcome affected by extrajudicial statements would violate that fundamental right." Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075 (1991).

"Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper." Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941). "The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print." Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).

The Supreme Court of Georgia has recognized that a gag order on party litigants and counsel constitutes a prior restraint of those to whom it applies, WXIA–TV v. State, 303 Ga. 428, 434 n.7, 811 S.E.2d 378 (Ga. 2018), but the Court there declined to opine as to what standard of review applies to such orders where directed, not to the news media, but to trial participants. (The order there was directed to lawyers, a defendant in a related case, court personnel, and current and retired law enforcement personnel, a distinction deemed significant.) The Court observed "The United States Supreme Court has never passed upon the constitutionality of a gag order that is directed to trial participants and potential trial participants, much less when such a gag order is challenged only by others, and there is significant uncertainty about the standard to be applied in such cases." 303 Ga., at 438.

The Court in WXIA did observe:

In its discussion of possible alternatives to a prior restraint of the media, the [United States] Supreme Court in Nebraska Press [Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976),] made passing reference to a recommendation of the American Bar Association "that trial courts in appropriate cases limit what the contending lawyers, the police, and witnesses may say to anyone." 427 U. S. at 564 (VI) (B), 96 S.Ct. 2791. Likewise, in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (VII), 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966), the Supreme Court in dicta identified several means by which a trial court in a case involving extensive media coverage might safeguard the rights of the accused, including by "proscribing extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulged prejudicial matters." Most important, the Supreme Court in Gentile squarely held that "the speech of lawyers representing clients in pending cases may be regulated under a less demanding standard than that established for regulation of the press in Nebraska Press." 501 U.S. at 1074 (II), 111 S.Ct. 2720 (opinion of Rehnquist, C.J.).

303 Ga., at 437. The Court described a split of authority as to the constitutionality of gag orders on lawyers and parties:

Some courts have treated gag orders against trial participants as typical prior restraints and have applied the sort of exacting scrutiny that was employed in Nebraska Press. See, e.g., United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596, 598 (I) (6th Cir. 1987); CBS Inc. [v. Young,] 522 F.2d at 238–239; Kemner v. Monsanto Co., 112 Ill.2d 223, 97 Ill.Dec. 454, 492 N.E.2d 1327, 1336–1337 (1986); Beaufort County Bd. of Ed. v. Beaufort County Bd. of Commrs., 184 N.C.App. 110, 645 S.E.2d 857, 861 (IV) (B) (2007). Others have reviewed such gag orders under the "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" standard approved in Gentile. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 427 (5th Cir. 2000); Atlanta Journal–Constitution v. State, 266 Ga. App. 168, 168–169 (2), 596 S.E.2d 694 (2004); State of Montana [ex Rel. the Missoulian v. 21st Jud. Dist.,] 281 Mont. 285, 933 P.2d at 841. Still others have reviewed gag orders challenged by persons to whom the orders do not apply under a "reasonable likelihood of prejudice" standard. See, e.g., Dow Jones & Co., 842 F.2d at 610 (III) (A); Radio & Television News Assn. of S. Cal. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of Cal., 781 F.2d 1443, 1447 (III) (9th Cir. 1986); Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. Miller, 610 N.W.2d 76, 86 (S.D. 2000); South Bend Tribune v. Elkhart Circuit Court, 691 N.E.2d 200, 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

303 Ga. at 438-39. (At footnote 10 of its opinion, the Georgia Supreme Court questioned the continued validity of the Court of Appeals opinion in Atlanta Journal–Constitution v. State.)

It appears that, if the trial court in Atlanta wishes to restrict extrajudicial statements by trial participants, it has a tabula rasa to determine what evidentiary standard to use, what procedural safeguards to employ and what content to restrain.

[David Nieporent]

While an order not to have communications with witnesses makes sense, why would any sane prosecutor want a general gag order on Trump? The more he says, the more he incriminates himself. Let him talk as much as he wants, as long as the cameras are rolling.

[not guilty]

Here is the consent bond order for Trump: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23921620-23sc188947-consent-order

[David Nieporent]

It just shows the silliness of the entire cash bail notion. Nobody thinks $200k is a deterrent for Trump to do anything. If he wanted to flee, he would; if he wanted to tamper with witnesses, he would. The possibility of losing $200k would make no difference.

[Krychek_2]

If anyone needs something to do in October, the Flat Earth Society is having its annual convention in Vegas:

https://flatearthfestivals.com/flatoberfest2023/

I wonder how many of them are Trump voters.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I wonder if any coming in from Europe or Asia are going to be pissed that their pilot took the rounded route to use the curvature of the earth to make the flight shorter.

[Jmaie]

70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water. It’s not carbonated so…just sayin’

[hoppy025]

Ahh, yes, coming from a member of the "party of science" that believes that human activity causes global warming and that intelligence is evenly distributed among the races.

[Krychek_2]

hoppy, you wouldn't know science if it bit you in the butt.

[Longtobefree]

I think the only agenda item is to call for a ban on selling globes, as they are a hateful form of open violence against the society.

Too lazy to look it up, how many flatearthers compared to the trans community?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The World Chess Federation has banned transgender women from competing in women’s chess events. I don’t get this one. I’m generally in agreement that trans women shouldn’t be allowed to participate where they’ve got an innate physical advantage because of the circumstances of everyone’s birth.

But this ain’t it. This is all about the brain, and I don’t see how there’s anything about the male brain that would give it advantage over a female brain related to chess. I was surprised chess even had men’s and women’s divisions.

Either way, this just seems mean and gratuitous to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well the top 100 ranked chess players are all men.

https://www.chess.com/players?page=4

[Frank Drackman]

So are the top 100 Tennis/Golf/Baseball/Basketball/Soccer/ Ice Hockey players/Track and Field Ath-uh-letes, Swimmers, almost like there's a physical difference or something.

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Well the top 100 ranked chess players are all men."

That's a little misleading, since almost all the top women's players choose to play in the women's only events, instead of the open ones. So there is precious little direct competition between them and the top male players. The whole chess and gender thing is a bit of a mystery, and the fact that FIDE deals with the issue badly shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Bored Lawyer]

"I was surprised chess even had men’s and women’s divisions."

Right. By your logic, with which I agree, there should not be separate men's and women's divisions for the "sport" of chess.

Same thing, I think, for target shooting, archery and a few other things.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Chess doesn't have separate men's and women's divisions, it has an open division anyone can enter, and a women's only division only open to females.

[Michael P]

Maximum achievable chess ability for a person seems to be sex-linked; either the Y chromosome, or the absence of a second X, seems to increase the variance of that trait. IQs (for whatever they measure) show a similar difference in distribution between biological males and females; men are "over-represented" at both extremes of the scale.

Serious chess competitors are mostly drawn from the extreme upper end of the distribution, so that biases the deck in favor of biological males. It's why the two categories are "women" and "open", rather than having a single competition group in the first place.

[Ed Grinberg]

Allowing women to compete against other women makes perfect sense. Unless, of course, you (flat-earth-like) deny that there are real, biological gender-differences (including brain-function).
(By “you” I don’t mean Michael P.)

[Sarcastr0]

brain-function!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, today is Denial Monday around here. I’m denying everything.

Seriously, I’m an engineer. I worked around engineers and supervised engineers. Boy engineers and girl engineers. And geos too. They’re the same. There is nothing involving brain function that creates difference in ability. Xs and Ys on message boards don’t change observed conclusions.

[Ben_]

"There is nothing involving brain function that creates difference in ability."

Either you are wrong, or chess ability isn't determined by "brain function". Care to do the Democrat thing and make up a story about why women can't break into the top ranks? Or will you just be saying "no" in the face of all evidence?

[Sarcastr0]

No real world ability is determined solely by nature. And in a world where men's chess gets the attention, get where the best teachers and $$ go?

We don't have the info to say women are inherently worse at chess, and yet here you are claiming it is proven.

[Ben_]

"No real world ability is determined solely by nature. And in a world where men’s chess gets the attention, get where the best teachers and $$ go?"

That’s some Democrat storytelling. Bravo. Chess teachers only instruct men in this story.

Don’t let the outcomes determine what you think, always be faithful to the narrative!

[Sarcastr0]

I explained the structure and the incentives. You can stamp your foot and strawman all you want, but right now you seem really committed to a thesis we do not have the clean data to support.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You didn't explain some fact.

That's your theory.

[Sarcastr0]

The key is the correlation being used to show women are inherently worse at chess is full of confounding variables.

A study could control for that, and who knows maybe it’s true. But what we have now establishes nothing.

[Ben_]

"What we have now" suggests, but may not conclusively prove, an answer. Nothing suggests the opposite answer. Yet that’s the one you’re trying to advance with made up stories.

(To be fair, I directly asked for the usual Democrat made up stories here.)

[Sarcastr0]

No, actually, a correlation with clearly present confounding variables doesn't suggest jack shit.

I'm explicitly not suggesting the opposite answer ("who knows maybe it’s true.")
Weird to have a response that isn't all in contrary - sorry to confuse you.

[Ben_]

Even if chess mastery were related to learning from teachers, it would still be "brain function", obviously.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think anyone else is using such a useless definition, but you can go ahead with it.

[M L]

"men’s chess gets the attention"

Except there's no such thing as "men's chess." There's only open or women's.

[Sarcastr0]

Chess. By Men.
Has gotten all the attention.

At least for now.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suppose you mean attention outside of chess circles? A lot of people follow women's chess closely, and the top females play outstanding chess.

[M L]

Well, if your anecdotal workplace experience says there’s no difference between men and women "involving brain function" — I guess that settles it! No need to fuss about with empirical evidence on this age old question.

I can tell you’re an engineer – very smart.

[Sarcastr0]

"Segregation seems to be correlated with different outcomes for no specific cause we can see.
The solution must be to assume different ability levels and continue the segregation forever!"

Seems a familiar argument from ages past...

[Michael P]

Maybe you'd like to notice what I identified as the two categories of competition. Anyone can compete in the "open" category.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a huge sociological puzzle what happens in just about any competitive endeavor when you have a segregated category and an open one.

(Note that despite this being a well known phenomenon, the general structure of funding HBCU research programs is exactly this.)

[Michael P]

It's not a huge puzzle in any domain why S_0 avoids making actual arguments rather than just flailing hands around in an attempt to wave them.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to argue that having an open competition and a separate, easier competition, has no effect on the latter group, I cannot stop committed ignorance.

Though that makes one wonder why you are so committed to having a separate women's competition in the first place. I suppose just to own the libs, eh?

[Life of Brian]

This is all about the brain, and I don’t see how there’s anything about the male brain that would give it advantage over a female brain related to chess. I was surprised chess even had men’s and women’s divisions.

Yeah, agree with all that in a vacuum. The problem is that (for whatever reason -- I'd guess just more of a historic concentration of male players) equivalent FIDE titles for women have lower requirements than for men.

For example, a male Master generally has to have a ranking of at least 2300, while a female Master need only have a ranking of 2100.

That's why the new FIDE rules related to this ruckus are asymmetrical: a male Master now identifying as female can keep the Master title (b/c they're qualified for the female Master title by definition), while a female Master now identifying as male can't necessarily keep the title since they may no longer meet the requirements.

Again, whether the two divisions should have different requirements is a fine question, but that's not the point here. The point is that men with a given title generally will be higher ranked than women with the same title, so men playing in women-only tournaments fosters unfair matchups.

And as your article says, transgender women are still free to play in all open, mixed-gender tournaments (which is most of them). So this is really little more than this week's red meat clickbait.

[Kazinski]

Are you a brain expert, because brain experts do think there are differences in how male and female brains work:

"By analyzing the MRIs of 949 people aged 8 to 22, scientists at the University of Pennsylvania found that male brains have more connections within each hemisphere, while female brains are more interconnected between hemispheres."

That's from the Atlantic,

This is from science daily which does seem like it would impact visualizing a chess board:
"Men consistently outperform women on spatial tasks, including mental rotation, which is the ability to identify how a 3-D object would appear if rotated in space."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm

Not to mention the well known differences in the Bell curve where men and women are of the same average intelligence, but men have higher distributions on both the low end of the curve and the higher end of the curve.

Once again the solution should be an "open" division for everyone, and a woman's division, under 10, over 80, etc. But nothing wrong with deciding men aren't special enough for their own division and just have to compete in the "open" division with all comers.

If they ever have a competition for finding objects in plain sight in a cluttered room, I would be fine with letting men have their own division. It wouldn't be fair to make them compete against women unless they wanted to.

[Bored Lawyer]

"If they ever have a competition for finding objects in plain sight in a cluttered room, I would be fine with letting men have their own division."

Men would need a Special Olympics event for that.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no single metric called intelligence.

Men and women having different neurology doesn’t mean they are different in this way.

There is a ton of conventional wisdom in this area. That’s fun pop psychology and all, but don’t pretend that’s facts. Even if I can’t find anything in a cluttered room either.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Men and women have different brains?

That could explain the intelligence gap.

[Randal]

There are notable differences between male and female brains. I don't know if they impact chess ability on average, but maybe? Seems ok to me for the chess federation to make that determination, although I do wish they could find a more direct metric, like a weight class. "Folds per square inch" or something. 🙂

Anyway, I don't really care except to (again) note the fundamental tension between claims that men and women are basically the same vs. claims that men and women bring different perspectives and therefore contribute to diversity, not to mention claims that a genetic male can in fact be a woman and vice versa. That requires "being a woman" to be a viscerally different experience from "being a man," which pretty totally contradicts the idea that men and women are "the same."

As a leftist, this contradiction bothers me. The left needs to choose, and it needs to choose to acknowledge the truth: men and women are different. In fact, that's the whole point of having two genders.

[Brett Bellmore]

My jaw about hit the floor:

States look to hire illegal immigrants to fatten struggling police departments

You don't have to be terribly paranoid to see where this could go. Some of the jobs Americans won't do shouldn't be done.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome story by the Washington Times regarding a regulation on those protected from deportation, like DACA recipients.

Notably, this is about what could happen but I saw no sign of an actual states looking to do anything.

This is why you should check a source if it seems too aligned with your narratives - you sometimes post shameful bullshit.

[Michael P]

News story lede: These three states have recently amended their laws to allow illegal immigrants to become police officers.

S_0: "I saw no sign of an actual states looking to do anything."

This is why we call you Gaslight0.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And this is why we just call you 'that fucking idiot who never learns to shut up.'

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-california-police/fact-check-california-bill-allows-non-citizens-with-work-permits-to-become-police-officers-idUSL1N33W1PA

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, the bill does allow illegal immigrants to be police. If they've been given work permits.

Now, if you want to claim that illegal immigrants are never given work permits, have at it.

Standard 'fact check' bs. Quibble with something other than the actual claim, and declare that you've proven the entirely true claim to be 'partly false'.

[apedad]

Wow!

Except that Reuters fact checked this back in JANUARY.

VERDICT
Partly False. Bill SB-960 amends the requirement that police officers have to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents and allow non-citizens with valid work authorization to hold the position.

[Life of Brian]

Doesn't "partly false" generally just boil down to "well, yeah, true" (through gritted teeth), followed by a straw-man distraction?

Here the straw-man distraction (here's the link since you forgot to provide it) seems to be, "well, they have to be authorized to WORK, ya know" -- like they don't just pass those out like prizes in the bottom of a Cracker Jack box.

So asylees, refugees, and other euphemistic "non-citizens" can now engage in yard cleanup, roofing, or legally holding actual citizens at gunpoint -- all good!

Just shows the utter brokenness of the term "fact check" these days.

[Sarcastr0]

The picture Brett draws is immigrants hopping the border and putting on police uniforms with zero vetting or control: "You don’t have to be terribly paranoid to see where this could go."

It's nothing like what he writes (based on his sincere and mistaken belief, from uncritically reading a Washington Times article).

You can point out whatever pedantic niceties you want, but this is, like so many right wing sirens, a boring story that they are trying to turn into a huge scandal because it mentions illegals.

[Life of Brian]

So you're with me on my analysis -- thanks for the confirmation.

Now you just need to dial way back on the straw men and mindreading exercises you supposedly deplore.

Not sure that would leave much, but then think of all the other things you could do with your day!

[Sarcastr0]

So when I say pedantic, I mean you are not correct in any way that matters.

I know materiality is not a metric you like to deal with, as you argue on the Internet, but most other folks care about the actual argument, not whatever side nonsense you have fastened onto while discarding any larger perspective.

[Life of Brian]

So when I say pedantic, I mean you are not correct in any way that matters.

I don't know of any other way to interpret that other than the fact you don't think it... matters that people with no particular fealty toward a country are candidates for enforcing laws of that country against its own citizens, simply because our government cut them a temporary break and allowed them to hold down some sort of gainful employment while determining whether to let them stay or send them back home.

Do you have a cogent explanation, or would you prefer just to stick with petty digs at your own caricatures of my position?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, explicitly they're talking about people illegally entering the country, and getting jobs as police. I don't care about any supposed "vetting" that takes place, because just the fact that they entered the country illegally ought to be enough, by itself, to cause them to fail any legitimate "vetting" process.

There's no point in "vetting" if you're just going to ignore what you find anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you went further than your misinterpretation of immigration law, you want to results: "You don’t have to be terribly paranoid to see where this could go."

You DO care, you just don't really want to get into where you think this would go.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I think that under the appropriate, ugly circumstances, a police force composed of non-citizens could be used against Americans. I won't apologize for thinking that's a possibility, because people who blow off dangerous possibilities sometimes get blind sided by them.

"It can't happen here" are words no sensible person should utter.

The point, though, is that if they came here illegally, you already know they're not law abiding. Why the hell would you need any more vetting at that point? What's the POINT of "vetting" if you're going to ignore red flags like that?

Geeze, you might as well be recruiting police from urban gangs! Oh, wait, I suppose that's next...

[Martinned]

a police force composed of non-citizens could be used against Americans

So could a police force composed of citizens. That's kind of what the police is for: Protecting the possessions of middle class white people against the poors.

[Michael Ejercito]

I was told they existed to enforce gun safety laws.

Is that wrong?

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring your 'it would be irresponsible not to speculate' paranoia:

you already know they’re not law abiding

Never mind three felonies a day, eh?

Your back-and-forth on when lawbreaking becomes a slam-dunk sign of criminal character reveals that in the end you are a bigot, and will take whatever ancillary positions you must to keep to your certainty of the fundamental immorality of this group (even when they were kids and had no choice).

[bevis the lumberjack]

To your point, we already know that we are all not law abiding.

There’s a guy out there on Twitter who has taken the three crimes a day thing and run with it. He’s posting a new federal crime every day. Last I saw the account he had been posting for two years plus and estimated that he’d run out of crimes in 2043.

[Nige]

'Yes, I think that under the appropriate, ugly circumstances, a police force composed of non-citizens could be used against Americans.'

And yet BLM are the bad guys.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bad guys are as bad guys do, Nige. You can't orchestrate riots that cause billions in property damage, and repeatedly try to set fire to occupied buildings, and not be bad guys.

Maybe not the only bad guys, sure. But bad guys.

[Nige]

I’m sorry, are you, a 2nd amendment absolutist, trying to rationalise away your opposition to the one large popular movement of recent years that attempted to stand up to the exercice and abuse of state violence? Again? Using some sort of moral valence? While lying about riots being orchestrated?

[Ben_]

Why would you be surprised?

Democrats don't like Americans. They prefer anyone else.

[SRG2]

No. Democrats don't like your 'Murica - the Confederacy only with cable TV.

[Ben_]

Thanks for confirming.

[David Nieporent]

Bad faith reporting. No, states do not "look to hire illegal immigrants." The article doesn't say that, and it's a lie. States are allowing non-citizens who are authorized to work in the U.S. to join law enforcement.

Some hack right winger figured out that a tiny number of people who fit that description — DACA participants — might be illegal, and instead of saying, "Hey, there's a weird little quirk here," demagogued it as "They're trying to hire illegals to be police."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
conservative blog
has operated for

THREE (3)

days without publishing
a vile racial slur; it has
published racial slurs
on at least

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
27 different discussions,
not 27 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 conservative thinking, here is something worthwhile, courtesy of the Strat Pack. (Because Brian May declined to hoist the guitar of the day, his name was goofed in the credits.)

(This one is good, too.)

[Internet sloth]

Maybe it is worse to pin evil on a word, thereby obscuring the everyday suffering caused by evil actions?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The bigotry at this blog is far from limited to a single word.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are Democrats being more generous with illegals and Ukrainians than with the victims in Maui?

[Ben_]

Ukrainians paid bribes. And Democrats want illegals to vote for them.

Hawaii is going to "vote" Democrat no matter how many Hawaiians are killed by Democrats' policies.

[Nige]

Taken at face value, what a devastating condemnation of the solutions offered by Republicans, or lack thereof, that is.

[David Nieporent]

They're not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Five posts from Prof. Volokh today, still ducking the prominent Trump-Eastman-Clark legal issues. Why?

__ He represents Eastman
__ He represents Trump
__ He represents Clark
__ He is informally advising Eastman, Trump, and/or Clark
__ The Kozinski Rule (nothing negative about pals)
__ He hopes to represent someone, someday in this context
__ He figures no one will notice the cowardice and partisanship
__ He may be a witness (or unindicted co-conspirator)
__ Other (please explain)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Diary,

These mean girls won't talk about what I think is important! THEY ARE SO MEAN! HARUMPH!

Too PO'd to write more.

TTFN,
Angry Artie

[Michael Ejercito]

Okay, I will discuss.

None of them has ever altered an e-mail presented to a FISA court for the purpose of obtaining a warrant to spy on a political campaign.

That was Kevin Clinesmith.

[Nige]

None of them has ever stolen the precious. That was the Baggins.

[Magister]

Only Bilbo. Frodo just received stolen property.

[Magister]

But only one felony for Clinesmith? And not politically motivated? That won't get you into the more exclusive MAGA clubs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh could speak for himself.

That would require a level of character not often observed in the relevant jurisdiction.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://groups.google.com/g/Talk.Politics.Guns/c/YyLOdv3eM_E/m/vMNzF35TAAAJ

The routine placement of DEI famatics in positions of authority around
America is a dangerous and destructive fad. Witness M. Kaleo Manuel,
former deputy director of the Hawaii Commission on Water Resource
Management, who said in a livestream debate hosted by the University of
Hawaii last year, in discussing water distribution on the island,

“Let water connect us and not divide us! We can share it, but it
requires true conversations about equity…How do we coexist with the
resources we have?”

Manuel, a former Obama Foundation leader who coached volunteers in
“practical skill building for social change,” Manuel said he considered
water “an important tool for social justice.” So it should not be
surprising that when the real estate developer that supplies water to
areas southeast of Lahaina recognized the threat posed by a dangerous
combination of high winds and drought-parched grasses in Maui and asked
Manuel for permission to fill up one of its private reservoirs in case
firefighters needed it, the Obama social justice warrior’s main concern
was equity, not preventing death and destruction from fire. Manuel told
the company that it had to consult with a local farmer about the impact
of water diversion before he would approve the request. Five hours
passed without water being added to the reservoir, and the brush fire
that had been contained that morning flared up again and swept through
Lahaina, burning everything and everyone in its path.

In the wake of the the deadliest U.S. wildfire in more than a century,
the West Maui Land Company wrote to the state water regulator, “We
watched the devastation around us without the ability to help. We
anxiously awaited the morning knowing that we could have made more water
available to MFD [Maui Fire Department] if our request had been
immediately approved…We need to act faster in an emergency.” Ya think?
But it’s hard to act fast when bias and wokeness has made the government
stupid. Manuel, a champion of environmental groups and Indigenous
residents who want to preserve stream water for traditional uses and
limit water diversions by private companies, thus emulated the infamous
Ford Pinto lawyers who authored the “Let ’em burn” memo. Their top
priority was profits, his was “equity.” Results were similar, though by
the time all the fatalities are in, we will know that a lot more people
burned up in the Maui fire than in exploding Pintos.

Manuel has been “redeployed,” but Hawaii claims the job change “does not
suggest that First Deputy Manuel did anything wrong.” Right. Now we know
that we can’t trust the state government of Hawaii to tell the truth
either. See: 64. Yoo’s Rationalization or “It isn’t what it is.”

- Jack Marshall

[Sarcastr0]

Biden was a nothingburger, so now on to blame DEI. Still going with hindsight, now because a reservoir was not sufficiently filled *before the fire happened*.

Here is some actual reporting on the water supply issue:https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/lahaina-fire-prompts-a-shift-in-mauis-long-running-water-fights/

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Biden was a nothingburger?

lol wtf that's some serious gaslighting even for you

[Kazinski]

We're not done with Joe and Hunter yet, we are barely getting started.

After all the House and the whistleblowers caused the collapse of Hunter's plea deal barely 3 weeks ago.

Now the mainstream media is starting to take an interest in it:
"New York Times: Prosecutors insisted on harsher Hunter Biden plea deal around time IRS whistleblowers came forward"
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/hunter-biden-plea-deal-collapse/index.html

NYT, CNN, who knows maybe reporters are starting to smell a story.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh we all see you will have a lot of trouble letting go.

[Randal]

The story being... what, exactly? "Republican Prosecutors Have a Hard Time Deciding How Best to Eat a Political Nothingburger"

[Magister]

The Texas power outage killed more people, and the problems still haven't been fully addressed. At least the Hawaiian Senators didn't go to Cancun; maybe if Ted Cruz had gone to Hawaii during the power outage he wouldn't have looked so bad..

[Kazinski]

What's Ted supposed to do in a power crises? Have a photo op ?

Any US Senator is as useless as tits on a boar hog, in any real emergency, except maybe a Dr. like Rand Paul.

[Magister]

Ted Cruz is generally useless, but maybe he could have influenced ERCOT to reduce some of the overcharging of consumers he represented. He himself called going to Cancun a mistake, so evidently he thought there was something he should be doing (but, given who he is, it would only be something that helped Ted Cruz).

[David Nieporent]

Jack Marshall is a liar and a hack.

(1) "Have to consult with farmer about impact of water diversion" is not "equity."
(2) He never worked for the Obama Foundation.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Good News Covidians!

Election season is upon so that means it's time for another Plandemic!

The Democrat government is already hiring for COVID tyrants and a college in Atlanta just announced a mask mandate.

12 months of you feeling safe tucked away in your bunkers, while us Normals ignore the Big Pharma fetishists and go about living our lives just like last time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you’re 5’3″ and weigh 300lbs. Should the taxpayer pay for your fudge rounds?

[Frank Drackman]

In the 70’s the “Fat Kid” everyone picked on would be right around the median BMI of todays FatFucks (and don’t even get me started on how “BMI”(weight in Communist Kg divided by Height in Communist Meters (squared) ) doesn’t have anything to do with Percentage Body Fat (Coincidentally, alot of peoples BMI and % Body Fat are close numerically) In 4th or 5th Grade our School Nurse (funny how with bullions and bullions spent on Pubic Ed-jew-ma-cation, not many Pubic screw-els have actual Screw-el Nurses anymore) called my mom in (take your best shot Queenie) because I was “Underweight”, wasn’t unusual in 1972 to see kid’s ribs, because they played outside after screw-el, didn’t eat Fritos for lunch (early 1970’s Pubic Screw-el Lunches would gag a maggot) My mom thought I was “fat” go figure.

Frank “don’t make me get Unkind and Ungentle”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you’re 5’3″ and weigh 300lbs. Should the taxpayer pay for your fudge rounds?

An allegory evoking West Virginia?

Or is it Mississippi?

Wyoming?

Alabama?

Kentucky?

Arkansas?

Or another of the can't-keep-up states?

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will continue to pick up the tab.

[Frank Drackman]

Kinder/Gentler Frank back on the Mic, heard you missed me!

Atlanta Braves are having one of the best seasons in MLB history, and it’s not the W-L record, but the way they’re abusing legitimately good teams (little hiccup yesterday against the Giants) They’d be 3.5 games ahead of the Orioles, and 4 games ahead of the Dodgers in the old pre-playoff days, but with the expanded playoffs, even the 64-59 Cubs would be in (AL’s not as horrible, Toronto at 69-56 could win) in the last 2 weeks they’ve won 3 out of 4 from the Mets, Swept the Yankees, and won 2 out of 3 from the Giants. Robert Acuna Jr’s a modern Willie Mays with a Clemente arm, Ozzie Albies is the reincarnation of Joe Morgan (don’t tell Joe) and was there even a First Baseman before Matt Olson?? OK, pitching could use some improvement…

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Acuna improves over the course of four or five seasons, he'll be close to fit to fetch Roberto Clemente's glove.

[SRG2]

Trump supporters, here's a chance to make guaranteed money - if you think that Trump didn't lie about his weight.

Betonline have the over/under at 278.5lb when he's weighed by Georgia police: https://www.betonline.ag/sportsbook/futures-and-props/us-election/trump-indictment

[Frank Drackman]

I’d call you a fucking Idiot, but that’d be insulting to Fucking Idiots. “45”s height/weight was recorded as 6’3″ 244lbs on physical in 2020 (and I know that’s questionable as the current “White House Physician” couldn’t diagnose Parkinson’s Disease if Parkinsonian Joe slapped him in face with his Parkinsonian shaking hands..) 2 Questions, 1: What’s Hilary Rodman’s BMI? She’s not exactly Karen Carpenter 2: Christ Christie’s Body Fat %?? is there any part of his body that isn’t adipose tissue?? His stretch marks have stretch marks.

and smart guy, they don’t have a scale at the Fulton County Jail. Seen any of those Fat Fucks that work there?? (and law enforcement in general (Unfortunately) ?? they’d break it in 15 minutes.

Man, you really need to work on your game before bringing it to the Playground. I'm gonna take pity on you and refrain from dick slapping you further.

Frank “5’8″ 140 (OK, 145) lbs Internet Confirmed!””

[SRG2]

Oh fuck off, you quack. Trump is believed to have lied about his weight (or got his physician to do so) - and here someone is offering you the chance to make money from people who think that. It has nothing to do with Hillary or Biden or anyone else.

That you go off on some bullshit tangent suggests both your stupidity and your unwillingness to concede anything about Orange (saturated) Fats.

[mydisplayname]

Dot, dot, dot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-sJp1FfG7Q

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog’s fans may need to get through Tuesday without their usual allotment of transgender-lesbian-Muslim-transgender-drag queen-white grievance-gay-Black crime-transgender coverage from Prof. Volokh.

John Eastman is to surrender at the jailhouse and the proprietor may be too overwrought to scour the internet for opportunities to publish a racial slur with plausible deniability.

[Magister]

Alternately, there may be a multitude of posts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yeah, there was a flurry of Black Lives Matter and Muslim (or was it Hindu) content -- maybe launching some diversionary chaff to try to divert attention from the prominent news concerning Trump-Clark-Eastman helps the professor cope.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well what diddly do you know? The US Task Force on Ukraine just weeks prior to Joe Bidens extortion of Federal monies had recommended the US give the loan unconditionally due to the progress they had made.

Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee,” reads an Oct. 1, 2015, memo summarizing the recommendation of the Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) – a task force created to advise the Obama White House on whether Ukraine was cleaning up its endemic corruption and deserved more Western foreign aid.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hdfeds-urged-biden-give-ukraine-loan-guarantee-he

Let's list the refutations:

1. Justhenews? That's not MSNBC or CNN!
2. That memo isn't proof of US policy? Where is the full context and the entire video of all their meetings?
3. Joe Biden didn't get any money wired directly into his account with a memo that said "payment for bribe"

F

[Magister]

You left off #4: BCD is never reliable.

Some from Trump's impeachment defense and GOP House members believed these memos would have been significant in the impeachment. Since Trump controlled the executive branch, but they were only discovered during the Biden administration, it takes a very bizarre conspiracy theory to suggest that they were somehow concealed then and only revealed now.

Devon Archer's statements to Tucker Carlson get leaned on, and not the testimony he gave. The article imagines a world in which Biden as Vice President was able to change not only Obama's policy but that of multiple international organizations and many Ukrainians. It promises coming revelations about Biden changing policy to stop a Burisma investigation at a time when there was no Burisma investigation.

Overall, usual quality of things BravoCharlieDelta posts.

[Nige]

If there's a Democratic victory in 2024, these fantasies will be rock-solid evidence that the vote was rigged.

[Kazinski]

Then why did he write a column on it with that title?

The columnist says the problem is real, but he says is just a dream (not quite fantasy) because Joe could never pull it off:

"“Addresses multiple problems,” wrote Blaine Cavena of Pasadena, a retired technology consultant and self-described political centrist. “But probably just a dream.”

You’re right on all counts, I responded.

A great idea. But it’ll never happen because it would take all of the president’s persuasive and coercive powers to pull off. And he doesn’t seem the type likely to do that. "

Here is Ruth Marcus of the WaPo saying something similar on PBS:

"There are problems with Joe Biden's candidacy. There are many Democrats behind the scenes and a few publicly who talk about his age, who talk about other problems with his candidacy. But let's be serious. I'm old enough to remember — I'm sorry to say, I'm old enough to remember 1980 and what happened in the Democratic Party when it was riven by division.

And if somebody were to emerge and challenge Joe Biden at this stage in the campaign, him having decided to run, his vice president, who, if he didn't — if he somehow chose not to run, if she were not the nominee, that would create some divisions within the demographics of the party.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/19/ruth_marcus_if_biden_decides_to_not_run_and_harris_is_not_the_nominee_that_will_create_demographic_divisions.html

So what's your point? Its fantasy to think the Dems could solve their Kamala problem that easily?

I can agree with that.

[Nige]

‘Then why did he write a column on it with that title?’

‘This is good news for McCain.’

[bevis the lumberjack]

Here's the bill.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB02127I.pdf

For the water argument, the operative clause is Section 10 1.004. To my non-lawyer's eye it says municipalities can't contradict the state.

Not to mention the cities don't have to enforce those codes because the employers are exceeding them anyway.

Look, it's fine for the media to trigger arguments over this bill. It's fine for them to openly and honestly oppose it. I'm inclined to think it's stupid control freak power grab crap. But to scream loudly things that are lies to make it look like the bill's supporters are inhumane killers just isn't right or defendable..

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, I tried to have a reasonable conversation with you, but you’re just not capable. Even included links and all. But you just can't handle reasonable discussion.

I don't see what Nige says, but it was almost certainly imbecilic and the fact that you'll tag up with the cbd of the left says volumes about you. Every time I take you off of ignore, I regret it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Queen, Mr. Bumble is not a Democrat.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Reports are they withheld water, didn’t turn on any sirens and even blocked people from fleeing the area.

You are free to spin that as me whining about how the awesome super mega Democrat government should’ve saved the day all you want. But that’s because you’re an Ignorant.

[Bored Lawyer]

What a remarkably stupid and callous comment, even from you.

[Tom for equal rights]

it was govt that impeded saving the day

1) allowing an invasive grass to grow that had high fire risk
2) poor maintenance on the electric powerlines ( blame that on the power company
3) some idiot govt employee that did not allow use of water for 4-5 hours.
4) reports of the sheriffs department blocking roads/exits from the area

[Brett Bellmore]

Having part of your brain destroyed by stroke could, I suppose, be described as "neurodivergence", though it's a bit more of a problem than my Aspergers, for instance.

Legislators do kind of have to deal with words, a bad case of aphasia certainly SHOULD be disqualifying. As a practical matter, anyway.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You capitalize proper nouns, you ignorant boob.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

“Saving the Planet from Climate Change” “Saving Our Sacred Democracies” “Our Nation’s War Fighting Abilities”

are all proper nouns that describe 3 key Democrat sacred commandments that empower them and their Church of the State to rule over the masses By Any Means Necessary. They must rule and control, it’s too important if they don’t. If the Democrats and their WEF peers around the globe don’t take control, then we will all die, the people will vote for the wrong candidates, and our National Security will be at risk.

They are empowered to do this by the General Welfare Clause which grants the elites limitless power so long as their declared intent is to promote the General Welfare.

What can be more important to promote the General Welfare than “Saving the Planet from Climate Change”, “Saving Our Sacred Democracies”, and strengthening “Our Nation’s War Fighting Abilities”?

Another tenant is “Social Justice and Equity”, which grants the elites unlimited power to control our economy, our healthcare, and our way of life.

Another is "Gay Rights and Dignity" which is a powerful General Welfare topic that grant our elites the power to wrest control of how parents raise their children. It's too important to society if parent's choose how to raise their children on their own. It violates Gay Rights if the wrong values are imprinted on children.

[Krayt]

It can be, as sarcasm. I would use it sparingly, though.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

OR - The Democrat government civil servants took actions that caused harm to people.

They proactively killed people, and no one will be held accountable because they are Democrat elites and bootlickers like you turn any criticism into conspiracy theories.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“As unrelenting heat set in across Texas this summer, opponents of a sweeping new law targeting local regulations took to the airwaves and internet with an alarming message: outdoor workers would be banned from taking water breaks.

Workers would die, experts and advocates said, with high temperatures topping 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) and staying there for much of the past two months.”

Yeah, nothing there at all.

How about the link to the search. See anything there? Or am I exchanging posts with Ray Charles?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The point is that the reporting you read was wrong. Nobody is outlawing or losing water breaks.

[Sarcastr0]

An All Things Considered story that seems quite factual to me. It includes not just your quote but also TX Rep Brandon Creighton speaking in favor of the statewide law as getting rid of job-killing municipal ordinances

In the end, you are angry because you think a law will be useless. That doesn't seem really worth the heat to me.
And, others disagree. Have you considered maybe your predictions are wrong?
The media seems to be reporting both sides, and yet you are not satisfied.

Bothsides but only if they agree with you, I guess.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No. I don’t like the law. I’m on your side as to the law. You seem to be missing that part of it.

And I’m not angry. I’m disgusted that once again the media will have told outrageous outright lies to the public. Doesn’t bother you I guess. Truth is an impediment if it hurts your team.

But hey, how about all those articles I was able to conjure out of my imagination and onto a google search? Impressive, huh?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think it's healthy for someone to so pathologically and reflexively bootlick the ruling elites like you do?

[Sarcastr0]

‘This is a tragedy, it is heartless of you to push back when people blame the government without proof other than partisanship and emotionalism!’

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ask any Democrat around here what they believe are the limiting principles on government power when it comes to the General Welfare Clause.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You don't think there's proof no sirens went off, that water was withheld and that police blocked road access to and from the areas on fire?

[Sarcastr0]

Voltage!

[Krychek_2]

Elections.

You know, I'd take your views far more seriously if they were predicated on having to persuade a majority of your fellow Americans that they're good ideas rather than just relying on anti-democratic institutions to force them down the majority's throat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Random irrelevant word!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Maui’s top emergency management official resigned Thursday, one day after he defended his decision not to sound warning sirens as wildfires swept across the island.

M. Kaleo Manuel, who was deputy director of the Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management, has been under scrutiny since local media reported that he delayed releasing water to firefighters who were battling last week’s wildfires, which killed at least 111 people.

https://www.tiktok.com/discover/police-blocked-maui

https://www.reddit.com/r/maui/comments/15uf5dp/chaotic_maui_evacuation_police_block_exits_as/

Too many links gets the comment moderated, those quotes are easy to source online.

[Martinned]

FRAUD!

[jb]

The water thing is a problem and it seems like it will likely lead to some significant discussion around water management in Maui.

The sirens weren't turned on because since they're usually used for tsunamis they were worried they would send people towards the fire or to higher floors in multi-story buildings rather than getting out. That seems pretty reasonable, and I suspect if there were people that died because the sirens sent them in the wrong direction you'd be blaming the "Maui Democrats" for that instead.

The blocked roads were supposedly due to issues like downed power lines that would make them impassible anyway; would be good to verify and see if they need better procedures in the future.

So yeah, they should investigate and come up with better procedures so they are better prepared next time (and share findings with other places). This is a pretty common practice in the form of an after action report, postmortem or retrospective. It's generally most productive when your goal isn't looking to blame people, though, since that makes them try to hide what went wrong. I know you only care about getting one over on the Dems rather than actually improving the results, though.

[Voize]

Section 10 of the bill amends the Labor Code in this way [emphasis added]:

Sec. 1.005. PREEMPTION. (a) Unless expressly authorized by another statute, a municipality or county may not adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance, order, or rule regulating conduct in a field of regulation that is occupied by a provision of this code. An ordinance, order, or rule that violates this section is void, unenforceable, and inconsistent with this code.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (a), a field occupied by a provision of this code includes employment leave, hiring practices, breaks, employment benefits, scheduling practices, and any other terms of employment that exceed or conflict with federal or state law for employers other than a municipality or county.

It seems a fair reading that municipalities may not adopt local ordinances about water breaks that exceed state law. If state law sets no minimums for water breaks, as seems to be the case, then municipalities can't set minimums either.

Now, if someone is claiming that this bill will prohibit water breaks in Texas they are clearly wrong, but the coverage I have seen warn that it will prohibit mandatory water breaks, which seems a correct statement.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I picked one out of the set to explore with you further.

My bad, I forgot I was at a 'Tard Farm.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You think it’s a neurological problem that I didn’t follow your commands like I was some dog, but instead made my own decision how to explore my argument?

What a fucking stupid thing to say. You couldn’t even comprehend an alternative possibility or path other than “what you flagged”.

Hey, that reminds me of a study I recently heard about. They did a study in prison on people’s mental abilities. And they tested these prisoners on two things. Can they understand a hypothetical. And can they understand a hypothetical with an “if/then” proposition. They found that many prisoners couldn’t even comprehend a hypothetical if it had a proposition. They also found that this ability simply does not exist if your IQ was lower than around 70 or so.

Just a few weeks ago there was that video (or transcript, I can't remember now) circulating around of that judge asking that black kid who pushed the stranger onto the subway tracks "How would you feel if you were the one that was pushed?" And the black kid said "I wasn't pushed though." And the judge incredulously repeated the scenario. And the kid kept retorted with "But I wasn't pushed".

I wonder if that’s your problem. Are you an African American?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I already explained it. In the English language capitalization is used for proper knowns.

Holy hell, what's wrong with you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Pentagon argues that promoting transgenderism and homosexuality and even demigender, which no one can define, and other DIE nonsense is critical to the nation's warfighting ability.

That elevated the Nation's War Fighting Capabilities to proper noun status in the Church of the Woke.

Now promoting trannies, who literally get exempt from physical requirements and deployments to any battlefields is critical to our ability to fight wars.

Of course you've never heard of the Democrat Pentagon elevating Wokeness to such a high place in our National Security. I expect that when the Pentagon war games out scenarios with Russia or China that they're first requirement is how to reduce CO2 and then how can they get homo's and blacks to play a prominent role in the battlefield. Then they move on to actually simulating the battle, once they put their two highest directives in place.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dozens and dozens of commenters routinely also suck dick.

But guess what I’m not going to do Queenie? I’m not going to join your dick sucking club just because all the “cool kids” are doing it.

Have you ever once thought for yourself and done something because you wanted to? Or do you just constantly conform?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's what your Mensa IQ says is the limiting principle to government power as derived from the General Welfare Clause? Elections? You reasoned in a prescriptive and restrictive document, amended with further restrictions that this one clause is some unlimited grant of power? And the only prerequisite is the politicians and officials must declare it's to promote the general welfare?

And I guess I'm confused as to what you're referring to anti-democratic institutions you're referring to? Independent Federal agencies making effective law?

[Krychek_2]

Elections are ultimately the limiting principle for any government policy. If enough voters are in favor of it, they can elect a Congress to pass pretty much anything and a president who will appoint judges who won't intervene. And yes, "promote the general welfare" is fairly open ended; there isn't much of a limit on it in the text itself, unless it violates a fundamental right.

Let me put the shoe on the other foot: Suppose Congress passed a law setting the income tax at 100% of everyone's income; your paycheck just goes directly to the IRS, and there's also a 100% wealth tax, so it gets your house, car and retirement account too. Now, I will agree that would be a very bad law, but is there anything *in the Constitution* that would forbid it?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Congress did not even have the power to tax income until the 16th Amendment was passed.

So I'd argue, given that fact, that everywhere else forbade your income proposal in the Constitution and that income tax powers begin and end within the scope of 16th Amendment.

Regarding your wealth tax, six of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights involve property rights, and the 5th amendment explicitly states that "Nor shall anyone be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

I don't think even the most communist of the Democrats would argue it's constitutional to "tax" 100% of your wealth, which is just a reframed takings, and then turn around and tax 100% of the compensation for taking that wealth from you.

Personally, I find it quite stunning that you even posited that hypothetical.

[Krychek_2]

You're mistaken about the 16th Amendment. There was an income tax during the civil war. The only thing the 16th Amendment did was to permit income taxes "without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

And there is caselaw that taxation isn't a "taking", otherwise the government would have to reimburse every taxpayer for all taxes paid.

So do you have any other arguments that a 100% income/wealth tax would violate the Constitution?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Thank you for the clarification re: 16th amendment.

On principle, I don't think there is any support for your claim that 100% tax on income and/or a 100% tax on wealth wouldn't be considered a taking.

I didn't assert that a tax is considered a taking, even though they obviously are taking from you, but not a "taking" in the sense of government seizure like your hypothetical.

I'm not making that argument. I'm arguing that a 100% tax on income or wealth is a taking, and no one reasonably argues otherwise. 100% income tax and a 100% wealth tax are fundamentally different than the income taxes we see now.

Since this hasn't been directly tested, there are analogs with regulatory takings and SCOTUS has ruled several times regarding 100% confiscation by regulation. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) SCOTUS held that when regulation deprives the owner of all economically beneficial uses of their land that it was taking. 100% tax on income and wealth definitely deprives the owner of all economically beneficial uses of their property.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There was an income tax during the civil war. "

Yeah, they were also closing opposition newspapers, and ordering legislators how to vote at gun point. I'll say it again: Civil war precedents are nothing somebody who wants a free society should appeal to in peace time.

[Krychek_2]

BCD, you're right, it hasn't been tested because no government that wants to stay in power is going to impose a 100% tax. But I don't think the regulatory taking is a good analogy because regulation and taxes are analyzed differently. Taxes go into the general fund; seizures are for specific purposes.

But let's back up. This conversation started when you asked if Democrats believe the Constitution contains a limiting principle to the general welfare clause, to which I responded by asking, by analogy, where in the Constitution you would find such a limiting principle. Obviously fundamental rights would be a limiting principle; you can't ban speech simply because society would benefit from doing so. You can't allow the police to ignore the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments just because it makes it more easy to convict violent criminals. The mere fact that a policy would be socially beneficial does not override clear constitutional commands, provided they really are clear constitutional commands.

But where do you find a limiting principle for general welfare that doesn't violate clearly enumerated rights? Suppose Congress decided to implement cradle to grave socialism; Sweden on steroids. Well, I would oppose that, and so would you, but what language in the Constitution would you point to in order to make the claim that it's unconstitutional? Where would the Constitution forbid a government policy that everyone is entitled to 2500 calories per day and a warm place to sleep at night? Or how about a flat ban on fossil fuels?

Again, I think those would all be bad policies, but I'm not aware of anything in the text of the Constitution that says they are forbidden policies. Can you think of any?

[loki13]

Not everything that is a terrible idea is unconstitutional.

Tomorrow, Congress could declare war on Canada, just because.

At a certain point, we have to remember that the real restraint in our system was always supposed to be political; just because something is a horrible, terrible, no-good idea doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well, looky there, I asked for a limiting principle on the General Welfare Clause and look what you're stumbling into?

Earlier you said it was Elections.

Now you're progressing in your understanding of what the government can and cannot do.

Good for you, friend.

[Krychek_2]

BCD I was talking about the practicalities when I said elections, and the legalities in my most recent post. You really are dense.

And you still haven’t answered my question about what in the Constitution you find a limitation on the welfare clause.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Tell us how Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, Blue-Anon.

Or how that Hunter Biden Laptop really was Russian Misinformation to influence our election like all those serious Intelligence Community leaders said!

Or how tweeting about watching a public hearing is evidence of trying to insurrect against our Sacred Democracy!

Or how you just know in your heart of hearts Brett really did assault that innocent Ms. Ford 50 years ago!

Or how Jussie Smollet was attacked by those Maga-terrorists!

Or how Trump said the Nazi's at Charlotte were "very fine people"!

Or how MeeMaw and PopPop taking selfies with Capitol Police was an INSURRECTION!!!

lol

[Nige]

It seems safe to assume that the issue of improving crises response and management, crucial areas that do need study and improvment, is not the prirority from someone who prefers to deny the existence of crises until after the fact, if even then.

[Mr. Bumble]

"So anyone not paying what they legally owe in taxes we know is not law abiding and shouldn’t be police?"
Right. They also shouldn't work for the IRS or any government agency or have a show on MSNBC (looking at you Al Sharpton)
among other jobs.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you provide a link as to where the rule is about this? Make sure it’s an authoritative source and not just your opinion.

Unless, of course, you’re upset that I didn’t adhere to your previously undisclosed requirements for the use of proper nouns when making fun of someone’s church.

I mean, is that what you're mad about? You have some rule in your mind about this, and I violated this only-known-to-you rule and you're all mad?

That's pretty weird, frankly. And Frank's not even here today!

[Bob from Ohio]

Senate political groups Majority Democratic (23) Minority Republican (2)
House political groups Majority Democratic (45) Minority Republican (6)

Who cares who the governor is with those numbers. No veto can possibly stand.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Since statehood, only one Republican, Linda Lingle, has occupied the governor’s office."

[bevis the lumberjack]

HOVERCRAFT!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"somewhat recently"

Unicorns don't really matter politically.

[Mr. Bumble]

So we are to understand that you have more expertise on this than Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Green Peace?
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-lets-celebrate-co2/

[Mr. Bumble]

Leaves you out.

[Allutz]

The fact that Joe just had them lying around is worse. You know that right? Like, unsecured for a decade is worse than in a secret service protected toilet.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside everything else wrong with what you said, the MAGA talking point about the Secret Service is as false as, well, every other MAGA talking point. The Secret Service are not security guards. They're bodyguards. Unless Trump was shitting in there at the time, they're not protecting the bathroom.

[David Nieporent]

(Also, columnists don't write the headlines of their columns.)

[David Nieporent]

The reporting was correct. The state is in fact doing so. (I mean, it's not outlawing the breaks; employers are of course always free to give breaks to employees. It's outlawing laws requiring breaks. But nobody claimed the former.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Stop feeding the troll.

[Life of Brian]

Reminds me of the timeless saying, "if a troll feeds a troll, both shall barf into the ditch."

Or something like that.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It probably sounds better in Yiddish.