Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[AmosArch]

With VR fizzling for now and with it his attempt to become the leading authority on VR law I’m glad Eugene has found a niche in emerging LLM law so he can feel young hip and relevant again after all those years in stodgy constitutional law. Those plugged in tech immersed zoomer coeds will be fawning over him in no time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well, I’m younger than Euguene, but not young by any standard. And I’ve been able to do some amazing things with LLMs.

Have you seen my Mean Girl Dear Diary parody series of Rev. Kirkland?

Man, that really nails who he is. I don’t take any credit for the genius of the result, only that I had good instincts of where to start with the Rev.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well there is a larger question -- what exactly should be the qualifications of a law school professor which I find interesting because they appear to be different from other professors.

For example, I am fascinated that a terminal degree is not required, or even a LLM. This is not true elsewhere -- Nursing and Accounting professors are hard to find because few practitioners get the Doctorate in either field, yet accreditation requires it.

As a general rule, you have to have a degree higher than the one you are teaching, i.e. adjunct professors with a Master's degree (or higher) teaching undergrads, and professors with PhDs teaching grad students. Yet in law school, apparently, one with only a JD can teach JD courses. Interesting....

I wonder how the universities get around this because while the law school itself is accredited by the ABA, the larger university (e.g. UCLA) is accredited by a regional accreditor, and *that* accreditation is necessary for its students to receive Federal financial aid.

Of course there is then the larger question of what the qualifications for any professor should be, and the percentage of which should be excellence in teaching as that is what the person is being paid to do, as opposed to research and public service. Yes the latter two have an impact on preventing teacher "burnout" but still, if one sucks as a teacher, one will still suck as a teacher.

[Magister]

An awkward segue. The LLM in the original post is apparently Large Language Models. The LLM in Dr. Ed 2's post is a Master of Laws degree. Courts and bar associations probably have a lot of sway over the requirements on law schools, and perhaps don't see the same need for terminal degrees that other academic areas do. Or it may be from a history of lawyers being taught by apprenticeship rather than at schools.

[ReaderY]

It’s the same as medicine. A Medicinae Doctor is a doctoral degree. It lets you both practice and teach. In the United States, it is the minimum and maximum for both. No different from a Juris Doctor.

Both professions are much older than the ones you describe. The third ancient learned profession, theology, required a doctorate to teach in a university but not to be a member of the clergy. That said, the oldest profession doesn’t require any degree at all.

[Martinned]

I don't think very many people would agree that there's no difference between a JD and a PhD in law. (Or between an MD and a PhD in medicine, for that matter.)

[Kazinski]

I’ve gotten some criticism here for posting on the “nothingburger” of Hunter Biden first taking a job for a million a year job from a fugitive Ukrainian oligarch (to be fair he didnt flee until 8 months after Hunter took the job, but Hunter stayed and kept taking his money) when his father was the “point man” on US Ukrainian Policy.

Now here comes a state department Memo from 2016 that runs down the known facts about Hunter’s boss:

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-02/KentBurismaEmailNov222016.pdf

The memo is a PDF supplied by the state department and it details that Burisma paid a 7m bribe to get Ukrainian officials to get MI5 to give back 23 million in corrupt kickbacks they seized from Burisma.

And Kent follows with:
*The real issue to my mind was that someone in Washington needed to engage VP Biden quietly and say that his son Hunter's presence on the Burisma board undercut the anti-corruption message the VP and we were advancing in Ukraine b/c Ukrainians heard one message from us and then saw another set of behavior with the family association with a known corrupt figure whose company was known for not playing by the rules,"

[AmosArch]

Ah who cares. Bribe no bribe. Dead people no dead people. The Dems are teaching us a much needed lesson that when it comes to who is punished or not, nothing matters except who is in power. Trump was stupid enough to talk big but not actually go after his enemies hard like they're going after him now. Lesson learned I guess. We’ll have to just wait until a regime that doesn’t like Hunter as much is back in charge to get any real action. So why worry?

[Martinned]

The Dems are teaching us a much needed lesson that when it comes to who is punished or not, nothing matters except who is in power.

Every accusation is an admission.

[Michael P]

Mostly that assertion is an admission that the speaker is a partisan moron who only took one step past the childhood retort "I know you are but what am I".

[Mr. Bumble]

One of the Queen's favorite retort's, also.

[Michael P]

What a strange coincidence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amos, *I* worry because I am increasingly doubtful that we will actually have an election 14 months from now. I am not an attorney but I can't for the life of me figure out either what exactly it is that Team Trump is accused of having done in Georgia *or* how any statute criminalizing what he did do is Constitutional.

The First Amendment includes "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 14th applies the 1st to the states.

Trump had a "grievance" -- he thought the election in Georgia was rigged. He had/has a Constitutional right to "petition the Government for a redress" of that grievance. And Team Trump had/has a right to "peaceably assemble" for this purpose.

So how can the RICO statute possibly be Constitutional? How can ANY of these statutes be Constitutional?

Georgia authorities had the right to tell him to go f*ck himself, but petitioning is an explicitly enumerated Constitutional right. Let's say I ask the Georgia Commissioner of Public Safety to paint all Georgia police cars purple -- he's not going to do it, but can I be criminally charged for asking him to do so?

Or say I request that they purchase lasers to defend against Martian attack? Where in the First Amendment does it say that the petition has to be rational? (And the Obama administration actually responded to a petition to build a death star -- https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/obama-administration-rejects-petition-to-build-a-death-star/)

[Martinned]

I am increasingly doubtful that we will actually have an election 14 months from now.

Then you’d better move to Russia asap.

[Ben_]

"…move to Russia…"

Where the guys in power have their election opponents arrested?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or blown out of the sky -- although the Soviets were never big on aircraft maintenance (which is an understatement) and I doubt they are much better now, particularly with an Embraer which is made in Brazil and hence all the parts (a) come from Brazil and (b) are subject to the embargo imposed because of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. And any aircraft has a lot of parts which need to be replaced after a certain number of hours because the book says so, but if you can't get the parts....

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Putin did it -- but then I also wouldn't be surprised if the plane blew up on its own. It's 25 years post Soviet but the culture hasn't changed any and if you have a jet engine come apart under load at takeoff and some of the parts go slicing through other things, e.g. hydraulic and/or fuel lines, maybe even wing struts, I can see the aircraft falling out of the sky. After all, that's what a heat seeking missile does -- it takes out the engine (the heat source) and then all those flying metal parts take out the aircraft.

So who knows -- but yea, the Russians throw their political opponents in jail (or send them to Siberia) and that's why I don't think we should, be it Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

[Ben_]

“Or blown out of the sky ”

For anyone inconveniencing Hillary it was a “suicide” or a weight lifting accident. Or some street crime at 3 AM.

[not guilty]

Solicitation of a public official to commit crime is not protected by the First Amendment. Let's plow this ground once more.

"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 engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection." Id., at 297.

As Justice Hugo Black (a noted First Amendment absolutist) observed in Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949), "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." The Court there elaborated:

[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. . . . Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade as well as many other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.

Id., at 503 [citations omitted].

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Georgia has rejected a claim that Georgia's criminal solicitation statute on its face offends First Amendment guaranties. State v. Davis, 246 Ga. 761, 272 S.E.2d 721 (1980). The Court did not foreclose an as applied challenge. Id., at 763.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"We construe Code Ann. § 26-1007 as prohibiting only such language as creates a clear and present danger of a felony being committed..."

It's not a felony to insist that a state official do his job, nor is it a felony to demand that missing votes cast for Trump be found. But the issue I raise is if it has ever been upheld on the FEDERAL level, particularly within the context he has been charged, and the case you cite indicate that it hasn't and wouldn't be on the state level.

The Georgia Supreme Court also relied on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire which I argue has largely been de-facto overruled over the past 81 years -- remember that Chaplinsky had called the police chief "a damned fascist" and that's mild compared to some of the things that police officers have been called since then.

[JasonT20]

It’s not a felony to insist that a state official do his job, nor is it a felony to demand that missing votes cast for Trump be found.

I would think it could be a problem if you are insisting not that the official do his job, but to do something he doesn't have the authority to do. You all act as if there aren't any procedures set for how to deal with claims of fraud by one of the candidates or how to go about investigating and adjudicating those things. They are just supposed to believe whatever they are told by the side claiming the fraud and declare him the winner instead, I take it.

While I would very much expect that such procedures and rules exist, I am not certain of that and don't know what they are if they do exist. But it is even more clear that you don't either. Trump's campaign staff and the RNC should include plenty of election lawyers that know how to get any evidence of discrepancies, including fraud, in front of the right people at the right time before the results are certified. Anything that comes up afterwards is going to need to be extremely convincing in court and able to change the outcome. Bush v. Gore showed that the SCOTUS thought that the constitutional deadlines for having final results were more important than being 100% certain that the results were correct. Trump and his most fanatical supporters aren't going to accept that any result is final other than him being declared the winner.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I call the police and demand that they arrest my neighbor for stealing my car (assuming he did), I'm not responsible for reminding them to get a search warrant before going into his garage, etc -- am I?

[Nelson]

But in your analogy you're assuming the conclusion: that your car has been stolen. But it hasn't, you're just saying it is and you can't provide any actual evidence. Plus the police have repeatedly investigated your "stolen" car and told you, repeatedly, that it wasn't stolen.

At that point you aren't reporting a crime, you're just making a false police report.

[not guilty]

"It’s not a felony to insist that a state official do his job, nor is it a felony to demand that missing votes cast for Trump be found."

That merely begs the question. Whether Donald Trump and Mark Meadows were merely asking Brad Raffensperger to do his job, or instead whether they were importuning him to violate his oath of office, is a question for a properly instructed jury to determine. If it is the latter, their solicitation of a crime is not First Amendment protected.

[David Nieporent]

The Georgia Supreme Court also relied on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

No, it didn't. You need to stop playing lawyer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I read the decision -- did you?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. It did not "rely on" Chaplinsky. It cited Chaplinsky for the uncontroversial position that not all speech is protected by the first amendment.

[gVOR08]

I have a gun. Give me all your money.*

*Constitutionally protected speech.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"You screwed up my checking account, give me back the $500 that disappeared out of it."

That *is* Constitutionally protected speech, and it doesn't matter if they screwed up the account or not.

[Sarcastr0]

If you do that with a gun, it is still illegal.

Of course there is also plenty of evidence Trump knew he lost.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How do you do that on the telephone when you are what -- 800 miles away..

[Sarcastr0]

Oh I didn’t know you meant that indictment. Gotta keep the indictments clear because you are defining a very indicted guy.

That was a threat, via Presidential power. Something you also left out of your analogy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol oh come on lady

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHAT Presidential power? He was going to send in the US Marines?

[shawn_dude]

You do realize the president of the United States has the entire administrative state behind him and can impact which states get access to funds he controls?

He would do worse than send in the Marines; he'd send in the lawyers and accountants.

[Josh R]

he thought the election in Georgia was rigged.

The indictment alleges he thought he lost, in which case he isn't petitioning the government to redress a grievance. But assuming he thought he won, he is delusional and wholly unfit for office anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Being unfit for office is not a crime, and we are now prosecuting thought crime?

And even if he thought he lost, challenging the tabulation is not a crime — candidates do it all the time.

And this is going to get very ugly, very quickly because Jim Jordan is now investigating the Atlanta DA -- his 5 page letter is here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-08-24-jdj-to-da-willis-re-trump-investigation.pdf

She has until September 7th to respond, it will be interesting...

[not guilty]

No one is prosecuting thought crime, Dr. Ed 2. But proving the accused's culpable mental state is an essential element of most criminal offenses.

[BadLib]

Al Gore also thought he lost to Bush. In fact he thought that to the point of making a concession speech -- something Trump never did.

That is until he heard of various theories such as "butterfly ballots" and "hanging chads" that might find him more votes. So he petitioned the government (albeit via a well defined process) to find the votes.

Trump's delusional idiocy also leans to his favor here. Reasonable people may have believed that Trump lost the election, but Trump is not a reasonable person.

Being unfit for office, as Trump is, is not a justification for criminal charges.

(I look forward to a day when, again, either of the major candidates for President is fit for office but it's looking likely I'll have to wait another five years at least.)

[shawn_dude]

Seriously asking someone to “find” 11,780 votes when he knew he lost by that many is still asking a state official to commit a crime. It’s just this sort of thing that makes him unfit for office–his lack of respect for the law as it applies to himself. These things you’re pretended are separate are not.

In Gore’s case, there was evidence the chads really did mess up the vote count. The mechanical punches did not fully punch a hole that the optical reader could read. Those votes went uncounted. He wasn’t making that up. There was plenty of physical evidence to back up his claim. He and his lawyers went through the prescribed process for contesting the vote count, something Trump did not do in this instance. Trump went straight to the Republican politician responsible for election and asked him to personally find additional votes to flip the election results.

[Ben_]

There will be an "election". Expect 175% turnout in heavily Democrat districts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that is why I fear for the future of the republic.

Things will get nasty when (not "if") red state legislatures decide to exercise their Constitutional authority to select their own electors instead of those elected by the 175% turnout in their cities. Wisconsin and Georgia come to immediate mind, but there are other states where this could easily happen.

What the Democrats don't realize is that they have chopped down all the trees in their relentless pursuit of the evil orange man. What they don't realize is that there won't be any trees for them to hide behind when the Republicans turn on them...

[Ben_]

Wisconsin and Georgia and North Carolina should clearly signal that they’ll do just that. They should choose default electors before any ballots are cast and commit to using them unless election procedures can be affirmatively shown to be honest and verifiable.

[Nelson]

They were in 2020. Not a single state found widespread fraud. Most of the confirmed, intentional cases of voter fraud (like the ones in The Villages) were cast for Trump, not against him. Even the Cyber Ninjas, who desperately wanted to, couldn't find anything.

At what point will you accept the fact that 2020 was a free and fair election that Trump lost? Will you just keep moving the standard (like the "illegal voting rules" claims) and never admit he lost?

[Ben_]

The ballot handling intentionally allowed for fraud and systematically obscured any evidence of authenticity or fraud.

They could have run clean elections with procedures to prevent and expose fraud instead of enabling and obscuring it.

There’s no reason for anyone to go along with people obviously intending to lie and cheat. States like Wisconsin and the others should make that crystal clear: no affirmative showing of a fair result, use the electors chosen in advance.

[JasonT20]

The ballot handling intentionally allowed for fraud and systematically obscured any evidence of authenticity or fraud.

The answer to your question, Nelson, is clearly yes.

1) no evidence is presented other than the stuff swallowed uncritically by Trump fans (2000 Mules, "suitcases" of fake ballots, Dominion machines, etc.)

2) "Well, they changed the rules to make it impossible to find the fraud that we just know was there!"

Textbook case of unfalsifiable claims. No logical argument based on facts can disprove what they believe. For people that prefer to rely on evidence based reasoning, there is a principle to adhere to for this kind of thinking: Hitchen's Razor

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Put up evidence that fraud cost Trump the election that holds up under objective scrutiny, or we are perfectly justified in disregarding what you have to say completely.

[Ben_]

Claims can easily be falsified next election by following auditable procedures.

Treat ballots like evidence. Fail to follow procedures, evidence gets dismissed.

No sale on bullshit arguments from Democrats with obvious evil intent. No one needs to care about a single thing you have to say about anything. And they shouldn’t.

[David Nieporent]

The memo is a PDF supplied by the state department and it details that Burisma paid a 7m bribe to get Ukrainian officials to get MI5 to give back 23 million in corrupt kickbacks they seized from Burisma.

Um, that's exactly the point! The Ukrainian government wasn't pursuing Burisma! That's why everyone in the west, including Joe Biden, was saying that Ukraine needed to replace its prosecutor! It wasn't because Joe Biden was trying to protect Burisma because Hunter Biden was working there. (It's worth noting, because most people don't bother to learn the facts, that the Burisma corruption that everyone was concerned about predated Hunter Biden's service on its board.)

[Kazinski]

Well I’m not claiming Ukraine wasn’t corrupt, in fact I always kind of expected the problem with Shokin was he wanted too big a bribe to let Zlochevsky off the hook.

But Shokin wasn’t the Prosecutor General when all that happened: April 2014 -Hunter Joins the Board April 2014 – MI5 seizes 23m of Burisma’s cash December 2014 – Zlochevsky flees Ukraine January 2015 – MI5 returns the cash (the bribe had to have been paid by then, right?) February 2015 – Shokin Named Prosecutor General November 2015 -assassination attempt against Shokin, A sniper fired 3 shots that were stopped by bullet proof glass. (A much cheaper way to get him fired, and hardly the tactic of anti corruption activists) February 2016 – Biden fires Shokin

The point is and the point remains that Biden should not have been meddling in which prosecutor was in charge in any circumstances, and especially when his son’s boss, who was paying him 1m a year for 5 years, was a fugitive from justice.

And really David, as the timeline shows the corruption was continuing while Hunter was on the board, the cash was seized same month Hunter onboarded, so the 7 million bribe was paid after that but I doubt it came up in a board meeting, but maybe, and Zlochevsky fled Ukraine 8 months after Hunter joined the board, and was a fugitive for almost 3 years, all the while Hunter remained on the board.

That excuse certainly won't wash.

[Randal]

Mr. Terrorist, what are you even talking about at this point? That Hunter's presence on the board was unseemly? Well, duh. And also, so?

[Kazinski]

Well one of the points is Trump was right to ask Zelensky if there was any information regarding just why Joe had a prosecutor fired in 2016 when his son was doing business with a corrupt oligarch.

I still want to hear the rest of the story.

And despite your jibes I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Ted Kaczynski, fuzzy headed luddite anarchist that he was.

I can picture Ted in his cabin honing his philosophy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw9LCo0JwCQ

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of Antisocial Incels, Disaffected Clingers, and Autistic Ted Kaczynski Fans

[OtisAH]

He didn’t ask Zelenskyy if there was any information regarding the highly publicized efforts of the Obama Admin and our allies. He prodded Zelenskyy to announce an investigation into Biden in exchange for already-authorized military aid. And there is simply no explanation for your refusal to understand this beyond willful ignorance or lying. So which is it, are you intentionally stupid or just lying?

[Randal]

And despite your jibes I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Ted Kaczynski, fuzzy headed luddite anarchist that he was.

Yeah, well, he maimed a friend of mine, so you will endure jibes, terrorist-boy.

[Kazinski]

Well I’m sorry for that Randal, and I’m certainly glad that poor Ted spent the rest of his life behind bars.

And I’m definitely not a Luddite like Ted, in fact I spent my career in IT.

But my friends dubbed me Kazinski as a nickname when I started building a cabin off the grid in a remote area and it stuck. And I have to admit I have a somewhat antisocial bent where I’m perfectly happy not seeing other humans, other than my wife, for weeks at a time.

But I enthusiastically embrace power tools and other labor saving devices, I’ve no desire to wear a hair shirt like Ted. And I don’t care a whit weather others embrace my opinions, let alone kill people for trying to make advances in human progress.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And despite your jibes I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Ted Kaczynski,

How does an ostensibly legal blog attract an audience of so many antisocial, disaffected, off-the-grid, on-the-spectrum, delusional, bigoted, backwater, misfit fans?

By design, of course.

[Michael P]

It wasn't just unseemly. The only apparent reason for it was as a bribe to Joe Biden, who later extorted Ukraine to do the thing that Zlochevsky wanted.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump folks gotta cultivar that just fell off the turnip truck vibe so they can pretend they can get indignant about standard criminal law and procedure, and pretend long held crappiness about capitalism is unique actually and where the big crime must lie.

[Michael P]

Wave those hands harder, Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

Wouldn't matter what I said to you.

Company boards buying the prestige of a name has been explained to you many times, and you still cultivate an ignorance it's a real thing.

[Kazinski]

Then go on a US board that's regulated and audited, and remove the well warranted suspicion. And its not just me, lets reiterate what the State Department thought:

"his son Hunter’s presence on the Burisma board undercut the anti-corruption message the VP and we were advancing in Ukraine b/c Ukrainians heard one message from us and then saw another set of behavior with the family association with a known corrupt figure" .

But I'll consider what you said because you have a of experience, and skill, cultivating ignorance.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like Hunter's service on Amtrack?

[Sarcastr0]

The State Department wagging a finger is vastly weaker than "The only apparent reason for it was as a bribe to Joe Biden."

Anyone not weirdly obsessed would see this.

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, anyone not rabidly defensive would see all of that mess for what was/is. Blatantly obvious influence peddling.

[Sarcastr0]

Is it also influence peddling when the Trump kids or Chelsea Clinton gets put in similar positions? Nancy Reagan? Shaquille O’Neal? Former Presidents?

The difference between influence peddling and trading off a name has been explained countless times. But y'all just refuse to see how long and broad a history that practice has. Maybe it needs reform, but the idea that this is slam-dunk influence peddling is silly.

[Kazinski]

Which other presidential relative was on a foreign board run by knowingly corrupt oligarchs, who are getting cash seized by British investigators, go on the run for 3 years, are probably responsible for the assassination attempt on Shokin, and remain on the board even after the state department has a source tell them the oligarch paid a 7m bribe to get their cash back?

[Nige]

Trump put his family in his administration. They had authority over national and interntational policy. One of them was in charge of the covid resonse, One of his hotels became a clearing house for influence-peddling. Hunter Biden is a private individual who has never held an official government position, let alone one granted him by his father. Rudy Giuliani was caught trying to source dirt on Hunter Biden via known Russian agents. Every whistleblower that was supposed to link Hunter and Joe Biden has come up bust. Only the rabidly defensive would deny seeing what's really going on here.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever, dude.

You don’t listen to anything but your apparently beloved justthenews. Your timeline is all fucked up, you’re leaving out details, you threw in a speculative assassination attempt for shits and giggles. Why would they try to kill the guy who was fired for slow-rolling investigating them?

You want to believe. To the point you don’t care if you come off as a clown.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : “Is it also influence peddling when the Trump kids or Chelsea Clinton gets put in similar positions? Nancy Reagan? Shaquille O’Neal? Former Presidents?”

If you go back a ways, another example is astronauts. Many of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo celebs instantly resurfaced on corporate boards the minute their flying days were over. The reason obviously wasn’t the business acumen of men who’d spent their entire lives as military test pilots; it was a pure prestige hire.

But why bother going back that far? At the same time Burisma acquired the Biden name for their board, they also got an ex-president of Poland, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, for the very same reason. In interviews, Aleksander cheerfully admits his board position was a PR move. At the same time as he and Hunter got their spots, Burisma also name a respected financier, Alan Apter, as its new board head & brought in a prestigious accounting accounting firm to do the books.

“Bringing aboard a son of the U.S. vice president was part of a broad effort by Burisma to burnish its credentials that had started before the 2014 uprising. The company tapped Alan Apter, an investment banker who has worked in the United States and Europe, as its board chairman, and the former president of Poland as a board member. Burisma had brought in a new executive team and hired established international firms to audit its reserves and financial results.”

But why bother going back that far? The GOP’s own star witness, Devon Archer, testified to the value Burisma saw in the Biden name. This was despite the fact Hunter never delivered any real influence. That’s why Comer rushed to tell up-is-down lies about Archer’s testimony mere days before the transcript was released. That’s why the Right is still trying to sell the Shokin “conspracy”, though it’s contradicted by a Mt Everest of facts. After two and a half years of frantic investigation, the Right has absolutely nothing.

Want a list of how much was discovered about Trump and Russia over an equal timespan?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-gas-tycoon-and-the-vice-presidents-son-the-story-of-hunter-bidens-foray-in-ukraine/2019/09/28/1aadff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html

[bevis the lumberjack]

There's a difference between the other people you listed and Hunter. They mostly have accomplishments. Things that they've done to make people resptect them (I don't like Shaq but I'm just one guy).

None of them have raging cocaine and alcohol addictions or baby mamas all over the place - one of them the wife of his recently dead brother. Those other people aren't covered in sleaze like Hunter is.

Accomplishments = prestige. Sleaze = no prestige.

And on Chelsea and the Trump kids, sure, it's certainly possible that there is influence peddling involved there. They Clintons are wealthy beyond anything they could have earned during their public "service" and the Trump family finances, well, who the fuck knows. But I could sure see it. Are the Trump offspring actually on any boards?

Show me some evidence and I'll bust on them too. Don Jr has one of the most punchable faces in America.

[Sarcastr0]

Accomplishments from outside the business world count about as much as having the same last name as a high-level politician for company board utility purposes, no?

Didja miss Nancy Reagan?

The corporate world can be very silly.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “There’s a difference between the other people you listed and Hunter”

We’ve been through this a good half-dozen times, yet you’re still peddling the same tired shit. By the numbers:

1. There is no difference. The ex-Polish prez, Shaq, astronauts, and Hunter were all hired for prestige alone. Hell, the Republican’s own star witness testified Burisma placed great value in acquiring the Biden name.

2. Hunter put together a very reaspectable CV at the time of the Burisma hire (see link below). But you’ve ignored that fact in the past and will stubbornly continue doing so.

3. But how could they hire someone “covered in sleaze”? It’s a sign of how much your mind is crippled by ideology that you don’t see the obvious rejoinder: This was years & years before it became public knowledge he was covered in sleaze. Maybe Burisma knew rumors; maybe not. For their purposes, what does it matter? Boards across America and the world are full of addicts and people whose private lives are a sleazy mess. Are you really so blind you don’t see that?

4. As I’ve quoted to you in the past, Aleksander Kwaśniewski describes a normal functioning Hunter in their Burisma interactions :

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

Like a zillion other addicts, Hunter put on his tie and went to work in the morning. Did you think he sprawled across the conference room table naked and with a crack pipe in his mouth? Try taking the ideological binders off, Bevis.

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

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not ideological, you dipshit.

You whine and accuse me of being an ideologue when I disagree with you, but during discussions related to things that I agree with you about you don’t complain about my ideology at all. Hmmm. Which of us is being an ideologue and which isn’t?

And comparing the reputation of Hunter to that of the astronauts is pathetic. Were the astronauts receiving ridiculously high amounts for a board member?

And you’re focusing your attention on one “business arrangement”. What about all the others. Did the astronauts make arrangements with the Chinese? Were the astronauts compelled to bring their parents to meetings?

You’re typing all this verbiage to play “hide the noogie”.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ok. You've attached your wagon to prestige and you're gonna ride it until the wheels fall off. Whatever. The tide is starting to turn a little on this stuff so maybe we'll actually find out.

I can tell you this, if a company I owned stock in named Hunter Biden to their board, I'd sell it immediately. They are no longer to be trusted. If I were thinking about buying a company's stock and saw Hunter on the BOD, I'd walk away.

And before you even waste time going there that statement is not ideological. That statement would be the same if we were talking Trump. Or Ken Paxton. Or either of the adult Clintons.

But I wouldn't care so much about Al Gore or Chelsea. Or Obama. Someone wants to put Obama on a Board, fine with me.

Fucking the poor while subsidizing the overeducated must be high on your principles list.

[Sarcastr0]

"The tide is starting to turn a little on this stuff so maybe we’ll actually find out."

This sounds extremely partisan, you realize that?

You aren't actually nonpartisan or nonideological - you are a political crazy-car, veering from Dem to far right and back.
And your ideology is everyone else is ideological and you are the one who isn't.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : "I can tell you this, if a company I owned stock in named Hunter Biden to their board, I’d sell it immediately"

OK, I'll bite: Why? Let's say you owned stock in Burmisa itself. One day you get the company notice of Hunter's hiring that is linked below. This is years before his private failings are common fare in the press. All you know is your company (Burmisa) just added the Vice-President's son to the board. Why would you sell immediately?

Apparently this simple question never occurred to you, Bevis. That's a sign of just how blind you are.

It will be a fascinating spectacle to watch you try & formulate a reply. I'll get the popcorn going in anticipation.

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

[loki13]

Bevis,

No offense, but I doubt you have any idea who is on the BoD of the companies you invest in. I can recall that when Michael Eisner was the CEO of Disney, the Board included his attorney (who was also the chair of the compensation committee), the former principal of Eisner’s kids elementary school, Sidney Poitier, and the architect who designed Eisner’s parents’ apartment.

Sure, some BoDs are quite serious- look at, for example, Apple’s (you’d probably approve of all of them … even Al Gore invented the internet, ahem, and Lozano at least has prior experience in media and, um, a LOT of experience being on other boards).

All that said, if you think that there aren’t a lot of BoD positions filled with nepo hires, cronies, celebrities, and “names,” then you are just spouting off without looking into it.

[grb]

loki13 : " .... and the architect who designed Eisner’s parents’ apartment."

As an architect myself, that's what I call insightful corporate leadership!

[David Nieporent]

I can recall that when Michael Eisner was the CEO of Disney, the Board included his attorney (who was also the chair of the compensation committee), the former principal of Eisner’s kids elementary school, Sidney Poitier, and the architect who designed Eisner’s parents’ apartment.

I misread that at first as Sidney Poitier being the former principal of Eisner's kids' elementary school.

[David Nieporent]

The point is and the point remains that Biden should not have been meddling in which prosecutor was in charge in any circumstances,

The point is that Biden didn’t do any such thing (despite his self-aggrandizing speech). Biden was vice president. Vice presidents did not and do not have the legal ability to pick what flavor of ice cream would be served in the White House cafeteria, let alone to decide whether a foreign country should get aid. He was passing on the administration’s position (which matched those of other western countries and institutions, as well as private anticorruption groups in Ukraine), not deciding who would be Ukraine’s prosecutor.

As for the underlying issue, the U.S. was giving a bunch of foreign aid to Ukraine (as it does to other countries). When it does so, it always imposes a prerequisite that the recipients show they’re not corrupt (or at least are working to be less corrupt), so that there’s at least a chance the aid doesn’t simply disappear into someone’s pocket. This wasn’t something Biden or the Obama administration just pulled out of their rears; it’s a statutory requirement, imposed by Congress. (An administration determines how to implement that requirement, such as whether it has been satisfied, of course.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. The timeline shows that the US was actually happy with the corruption progress, and there was no demand to get rid of Shokin...until Hunter made some meetings.

[Sarcastr0]

How do you get that from the timeline?

[Armchair Lawyer]

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hdfeds-urged-biden-give-ukraine-loan-guarantee-he

[Armchair Lawyer]

https://justthenews.com/government/diplomacy/hold-shokin-firing-installment-3-timeline

[Sarcastr0]

This website lies. At least check if it's leaving anything out, ffs.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-timeline/timeline-key-dates-in-the-u-s-political-controversy-over-ukraine-idUSKBN1W82HK

[Kazinski]

The stories are about state department memos that contradict the time line.

The PDFs linked are the actual state department memos from that time. Not the cya lies told afterwards to build a phony timeline. The actual memos approving the 1 billion loan guarantees without any mention of firing Shokin, but expressing approval of their anti corruption progress.

Just read the memos and ignore the story slant.

[Sarcastr0]

I fail to see how the loans contradict the President and EU later wanting the guy fired for corruption.
I'm no expert, but the State Department being okay with a corrupt prosecutor and then the administration saying actually the guy sucks doesn't seem out of step with standard diplomacy to me.

[grb]

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

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

And this is your proof of Joe Biden corruption ?!? You have the 20 million dollar number, which is a lie. You have all those "shell companies", which is a lie. And you have your "Shokin Thing", which is factually absurd. We're approaching three years of frantic investigations and you're still dealing in phony facts, junk news sites and laughable conspiracy memes. Don't you see that as a problem?

[M L]

Without wading into the weeds . . . all those groups you listed are corrupt too.

It's all just competing groups of corrupt people, fighting over who gets to do the corruption.

[Josh R]

It’s the global Deep State (and who knew Senator Johnson was a card-carrying member)!

[M L]

No, but I think corruption especially "soft" corruption i.e. likely legal stuff is pretty prevalent. This is an inevitable result of increasing centralized government control of the economy, money, society, and spending. As Bastiat put it:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

[grb]

M L : "Without wading into the weeds . . . all those groups you listed are corrupt too"

OK. Let's say they're all corrupt, including Senator Johnson and the anti-corruption groups in Ukraine. But they're not corrupt to save Hunter Biden, who he had nothing to do with Shokin's firing. That's the whole point of the above.

[M L]

Maybe, I haven’t been following this story in the years after it came up with the impeachment.

But there seems to be some valid questions and smoke there, and the answers don’t appear at all as crystal clear as you would like to portray. In skimming the JustTheNews links the other commenter provided above, I don’t see anything that jumps out as a smoking gun, but certainly some facts that undermine your narrative. Senator Johnson signing a letter based on information provided to him doesn’t really strike me as very meaningful, but again I haven’t been following all the details. I guess what I would like to know is if there is anything in the JustTheNews links that is factually incorrect (understanding there is disagreement about the implications or analysis), because all I ever see from the small group of leftwing commenters curiously dedicated to these sorts of topics is things like “lol John Solomon, haha” ad hominem and never engaging with the substance.

[M L]

One of the things I remember wondering from years ago when this came up with the impeachment:

If Biden (and Obama and all the intelligence agencies and their mothers and brothers or whatever) actually wanted Shokin fired because Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma, the company where his own son and some CIA spook of course were on the board, and corrupt companies like it hard enough . . . then why were all of the cases and investigations into Burisma and its President Zlochevsky expeditiously closed a matter of months later by Shokin's successor?

Oh, and apparently the folks who helped Burisma get this done were Hunter's buddy and Blue Star Strategies? And Hunter arranged that engagement, writing in an email to Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi: “Let me have one final call with them and verify once more that they understand the scope so we can all feel the retainer is in line with the work required. I trust [Blue Star co-founder] Sally [Painter] and Karen implicitly so I believe we are all aligned but I want to have one last conversation with them to confirm before we proceed.”

[Sarcastr0]

why were all of the cases and investigations into Burisma and its President Zlochevsky expeditiously closed a matter of months later by Shokin’s successor?

What are you talking about? From wikipedia:
"A Tax audit of [Burisma subsidiary] Esko-Pivnich by the State Fiscal Service found some violations in 2016. As a result, 50 million hryvnias (US$1.9 million) of additional taxes was paid to eliminate criminal charges.[46] In total, Burisma paid additional 180 million hryvnias (US$7.44 million) of taxes to avoid further criminal proceedings.[9][28] A criminal investigation was conducted if natural resources extraction licenses were issued to Burisma subsidiaries legally during the period Zlochevsky held government office. Although violations of the procedure were established by NABU, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office missed procedural deadlines for a lawsuit and the case for nullifying licenses was dismissed by the court.[46] In October 2019, Prosecutor General Ruslan Riaboshapka announced that all 15 investigation cases will be reviewed.[45]"

Not awesome work by Ukraine's prosecutors, but not "all of the cases and investigations into Burisma and its President Zlochevsky expeditiously closed" either.

[grb]

I really don’t understand your view. Firing Shokin was a publicly-stated White House policy. It was a publicly-held State Department policy. It was backed by the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. It was a common objective of governments and economic groups throughout Europe and supported by anti-corruption groups in Ukraine.

Can you please explain the mechanism by which this was all engineered by Joe Biden (as he held an office not worth a bucket of warm spit)?

Was – say – the IMF’s objection to Shokin a parallel phenomena to Biden secret manipulation of the entire U.S. government? Was the EU’s anti-Shokin stance a mere coincidence? Was Obama unaware of the policy of his own White House as Biden secretly pursued his own corrupt agenda? At what point does this stop making sense to you?

Two additional points:

1. Shokin never charged a single oligarch in all his time in office. There was no Burisma investigation underway and Shokin blocked one started in England. The people of Ukraine despised the prosecutor because he was grotesquely and openly corrupt. Police raided his two top lieutenants and discovered multiple passports and bags of diamonds in the homes of each. Shokin saw his guys freed, the diamonds returned, and the investigation halted. Per Devon Archer’s testimony, Burisma wasn’t concerned about the prosecutor, being more worried about who would replaced him. And believing the company paid 10 million bribing Biden to follow publicly-held U.S. policy is so mind-numbingly stupid as to defy all reason. Shokin was bought at a fraction of that price. He was no threat to anyone.

2. But we do have an example of someone pursuing a private agenda using U.S. policy for private gain. Trump acted in secret and his policy wasn’t publicly announced. Instead of State Department officials, he worked thru cut-outs like his private attorney and Giuliani’s low-grade henchmen, Parnas and Furman. Instead of going through the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, he brought in someone easier to manipulate, Gordon Sondland. Everyone was kept in the dark, including Congress, the State Department, and much of his own White House.

Compare and contrast with the Shokin situation and you see how absurd the conspiracy theories are. With Shokin, everything was in the open and thru normal channels.

[David Nieporent]

One of the things I remember wondering from years ago when this came up with the impeachment:

Maybe you could wonder about a different thing now:

If in fact this was so blatantly and obviously corrupt that random commenters on the Internet can instantly spot it, why did Trump's DOJ never bother to do anything about it? Why did Trump not even ask Barr to investigate? (During impeachment #1, it was revealed that while Trump was pressuring Ukraine via his private attorney Rudy to announce an investigation of Joe Biden, Barr knew nothing about this; DOJ was not conducting any investigation into these issues.) Why, when DOJ was investigating Hunter Biden starting in roughly 2018 (not over the Shokin firing, but over tax/FARA/money laundering issues), did DOJ never find anything worth pursuing? Why did Barr foist the Hunter investigation off on the Delaware US Attorney, Weiss — who didn't even have jurisdiction over most of these offenses — rather than assigning it to the Public Corruption unit of DOJ? And why did Weiss look into it for a couple of years and then find only a few minor offenses to pursue?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Read the memos and timeline. Make your own conclusions. Don't use old articles from 2019 that don't have the newly reviewed documents.

Just the News is nice, because it directly references primary documents, which many other sources don't.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You like it because it says what you want it to say.

"The scores of documents that Just the News obtain from FOIA litigation, House and Senate investigators and U.S. government officials chronicle that story."

How many documents are linked in that story I quoted from?

Hundreds? No.
Scores? No.
Several? No.

Three.

[Armchair Lawyer]

How many documents are linked to in the Reuters article?

Zero.

[Sarcastr0]

There are gaps in the timeline you posted. Unless the article from 2019 is including events that later were found not to have happened, your conclusions are based on a propaganda website purposefully giving you false impressions.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The 2019 article is not including memos that were later disclosed.

[jb]

It's weird that in all of these discussions we conveniently ignore the recent testimony of GOP superstar witness and fellow Burisma board member that Shokin was already "handled" and getting rid of him was actually a negative for Burisma.

[Life of Brian]

the recent testimony of GOP superstar witness and fellow Burisma board member that Shokin was already “handled” and getting rid of him was actually a negative for Burisma.

As I've pointed out before, the actual pesky words of Archer's testimony about your above story are crystal-clear: "I have no way to verify that. And that was spun to me from various folks in D.C., not Hunter specifically, but that was what I was led to believe. Whether it's true or not,
I cannot speculate."

Why do you persist in misrepresenting it like this?

[jb]

So he has no way to verify the thing that he said, but that was nonetheless the impression that he had as a Burisma board member.

Why do you think that undermines my point in any way? It's not like he's pushing back against a claim someone else is making, he's qualifying his own statement as to how he understood the dynamics of Shokin's removal relative to Burisma's interests at the time.

[Life of Brian]

he’s qualifying his own statement as to how he understood the dynamics of Shokin’s removal relative to Burisma’s interests at the time

You're still doing it. He had no basis for any "understanding" beyond what he was specifically told by some unnamed, shadowy DC figures. Pure and utter hearsay.

Plenty of people spun innocent-sounding stories about this tangled web over the years. The fact that Archer testified that he heard one of those stories is about the furthest thing you could imagine from the smoking gun your initial comment implied.

[jb]

Whereas your smoking gun in the other direction is...?

Archer is representing his contemporaneous understanding of the situation as a Burisma board member. In the transcript, there's even a follow-up question to try to get him to say that Hunter was hired to resolve the investigation into Burisma and he flat out contradicts it:

Q With that said, though, are you aware that Vadym specifically told Blue Star Strategies that one of the issues that he wanted resolved was resolving Viktor Shokin's investigation into Burisma?

A I don't recall Vadym saying that specifically. I don't -- but, again, I was spun a narrative that was quite the opposite of that.

As opposed to that, you've got what, exactly, showing that anyone at Burisma actually wanted to get rid of Shokin?

[jb]

Argh. Noticed the over-inclusive blockquote after the window to click "edit" had closed. Hopefully it's obvious the last paragraph is me and not Hunter.

[Life of Brian]

Whereas your smoking gun in the other direction is…?

Never claimed to have a smoking gun, and don't need one. Your "it's weird, innit?" post that kicked this off postured that Archer's testimony is being ignored because it's so inconvenient, and by its own very words that's the furthest thing from the truth. Uncomplicated.

Archer is representing his contemporaneous understanding of the situation as a Burisma board member.

Except the little birdie that told him so isn't even involved with Burisma -- they're Washingtonians.

As opposed to that, you’ve got what, exactly, showing that anyone at Burisma actually wanted to get rid of Shokin?

Again, as your OMG-gotcha point melts away, you're now trying to impose a burden on me to prove it DIDN'T happen the way Archer didn't say it did. I'd say that's the truly weird part of this exchange.

[jb]

"Again, as your OMG-gotcha point melts away, you’re now trying to impose a burden on me to prove it DIDN’T happen the way Archer didn’t say it did."

Huh? I'm saying I agree with you that his take isn't really corroborated and he acknowledges such, but also it's literally the only testimony we have one way or the other about whether anyone at Burisma wanted Shokin out, and he says they didn't.

For normal humans, this might make them think "huh, I wonder if this story about Joe Biden changing US policy on behalf of Hunter so that Burisma can get Shokin out" actually makes sense. But I guess if you've already convinced yourself that's true despite the fact that there's zero evidence to substantiate it and quite a few points to undercut it it just makes you laugh about how dumb other people are.

[Life of Brian]

but also it’s literally the only testimony we have one way or the other about whether anyone at Burisma wanted Shokin out, and he says they didn’t.

I’m trying to come up with another way to say this, but not sure what the disconnect is so don’t really know how to rephrase. The fact that he’s saying all this under oath doesn’t somehow bolster the merits of the story he heard, because he’s not saying anything at all on the merits, and directly says he doesn’t know about the merits. He’s just repeating words that other people (again, ones apparently not even directly involved themselves) told him — no more, no less. (And that sort of even-handed take assumes, as I am conservatively doing for the moment, that his repeated use of “spun” and “narrative” when referring to that story are just normal garden-variety word choices for him and not a backhanded way of saying he thinks the story was bullshit.)

So as I said, benign explanations about why Biden leaned on Ukraine to fire Shokin are nothing new. The fact that Archer heard one of those benign explanations — and testified that he heard one — itself has no bearing on whether that benign explanation is 100% true or an opportunistic cover story. So I genuinely don’t see this as something that moves the ball an inch in either direction.

[jb]

But he did more than regurgitate the benign explanation. He also flat-out contradicted that he had heard the nefarious version from folks inside Burisma. He was asked "are you aware that Vadym specifically told Blue Star Strategies that one of the issues that he wanted resolved was resolving Viktor Shokin’s investigation into Burisma?" and says that in fact he had not heard that.

Keeping in mind he was on the board of Burisma and talking to all of these people, the fact that he has no knowledge about the request at the center of this supposed controversy provides a pretty strong negative inference that it was going on, especially absent any concrete evidence whatsoever that it was.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The people Archer heard the story from were representing Burisma in Washington. They were talking to another individual, Archer, who was also representing Burisma. In other words, they were all on the same team, which makes it unlikely that they were lying to Archer about Burisma's objectives. While it's possible they were either misinformed or lying, their statements carry a lot more weight than similar statements made by individuals with no connection to Burisma would.

[David Nieporent]

You’re still doing it. He had no basis for any “understanding” beyond what he was specifically told by some unnamed, shadowy DC figures. Pure and utter hearsay.

Assuming it's hearsay not subject to any exceptions, all that means is that his statement wouldn't be admissible in a potential criminal case. (Or civil, I suppose.) That has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

If Burisma was worried about Shokin, why would they lie to Archer about that? How would that benefit them? He was on their side.

[David Nieporent]

And the fact that the desire to get rid of Shokin was shared by everyone, including GOP senators, including MAGA ones like Ron Johnson.

[Kazinski]

So you keep saying, and will probably keep saying.

But the State Department memos at the time say no such thing, they say that the US was happy with Shokin's anti corruption efforts, and the guarantees were completely on track.

Until that is Biden decided to leverage them for Hunter's benefit.

[David Nieporent]

But the State Department memos at the time say no such thing, they say that the US was happy with Shokin’s anti corruption efforts, and the guarantees were completely on track.

Wrong in ways both small and large:

1) There is no "memo" — let alone memos — despite what Solomon calls it. It's an email, informally summarizing a meeting.
2) It's not "the State Department." It's a committee at the State Department giving its opinion.
3) The email does not say one word about Shokin, let alone say that "the US was happy with Shokin’s anti corruption efforts."

What the email actually says is "The IPC concluded that (1) Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee"

That's not remotely the same thing as saying they're "happy with" anything, let alone with Shokin in particular.

And while the email does say that IPC is recommending going ahead with the loan guarantee, it also says that they still need to agree upon the conditions precedent for the guarantee. It's not a "Rah rah Ukraine is great proceed full steam ahead!"

4) It's not "at the time" at all. It's several months earlier. As was hashed out during impeachment #1, initially the U.S. was hopeful that Shokin would do better than his predecessor. They later decided he wasn't, and needed to go.

[Michael Ejercito]

I think a nice snap impeachment could uncover the truth.

Does anyone disagree?

[not guilty]

What do you think evinces treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors? Please be specific.

Impeachment is not a fishing expedition.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is now.

[not guilty]

What do you think evinces treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors?

[Kazinski]

Whatever Congress says evinces it, does.

That's pretty simple.

Whether it's obfuscating to a grand jury, asking a foreign official to open an investigation into influence peddling by an American politician, or giving a speech the same day some people did something, Congress can impeach and convict the President.

[Kazinski]

No, take their time and do impeachment investigation and hearings before any impeachment vote is taken.

You have to develop a case at least to the level of probable cause, I'd say close to beyond a reasonable doubt, before impeachment.

[Kazinski]

And on the subject of Hunter’s plea agreement CNN legal analyst:

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig blasted the DOJ for their ‘inexplicable’ conduct with Hunter Biden.

“I genuinely am perplexed by what DOJ’s doing here.”

“It’s really inexplicable to me. First, we had basically five years of behind-the-scenes investigation with no transparency, no action, and some questions being asked, what’s taken so long?”

“And then they go all the way to appointing a special counsel, the same guy who’s been presiding over the case for five-plus years already.”

“I think they’ve made a real mess for themselves and now they’re going to have to deal with the consequences of it.”
https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1694042015338742267?s=20

I do want to thank everyone for the encouragement I've been getting to keep posting on this topic.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I think we do need to add on here, that having Weiss as Special Counsel breaks all sorts of DoJ regulations.

We should have a real outsider appointed, as per the regulations (and should have been years ago, given the massive apparent conflict of interests).

[Sarcastr0]

Here’s a thread from Monday when Kaz tried that shit.https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/21/monday-open-thread-14/?comments=true#comment-10207022

[Kazinski]

Ill pull a "Not Guilty" here: I quoted the law and regulation for a pointing a special counsel and the requirements.

If you think that's not right, what is the law Garland used to give Weiss special counsel authority.

I'm waiting... not really.

[Sarcastr0]

From DMN: "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.)"

I'm not a federal criminal practice guy, but that looks like something you need to address for your argument to be viable.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.justice.gov/media/1309991/dl?inline
Here is the order. More Garland bullshit.

[jb]

Genuinely curious: did you have similar concerns about Durham's appointment, or when various people (including many GOP politicians) were proposing that Weiss be made special counsel in the past? Because it seems like very nearly 100% of the objection to Weiss being appointed is hypocritical bullshit regardless of the merits of the argument and I have a hard time taking anyone seriously on the topic who wasn't on the record as being opposed to the appointment prior to it actually happening.

[David Nieporent]

You're lying; the actual statistic is 110%, not "very nearly 100%." The people objecting decided before Weiss began that Hunter Biden was guilty of the worst offense against the U.S. since at least the Rosenbergs, and therefore any investigation that failed to result in his execution — along with Joe Biden for his complicity in his son's crimes — was obviously corrupt. They call it a "sweetheart deal" not because they've done their homework and seen how comparable people to Hunter were treated for comparable offenses, but solely based on the fact that it doesn't get them Joe Biden's scalp.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watching these conservatives focus on Hunter Biden and thinking it's accomplishing something reminds me of Prof. Volokh repeatedly publishing racial slurs and figuring he's getting away with it: just as tone-deaf, just as likely to be effective for anything beyond lathering up the other clingers.

[Kazinski]

By the time Weiss was actually appointed special counsel their were huge concerns.

And there is the other factor that making him special counsel now makes it much more difficult to get him to testify to Congress about whether Garland waa lying to Congress about Weiss's status and authority.

There was also the concern that Weiss had 5 years to do the job, not a real hard job, and couldn't get it done.

But at this point now, I don't really care. Its not about Hunter, never really was, Congress needs to totally follow all the money flows to Hunter and all his partnerships, and see how much of it went to Joe.

[Sarcastr0]

not a real hard job, and couldn’t get it done.

Hmmmm....

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. A special counsel should be impartial and unbiased, and by the time Weiss was made one, he clearly wasn't

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly!

[jb]

If you had these concerns, why weren’t you or anyone else expressing them.

The last substantial thread I could find on the topic before Weiss was made special counsel seems to be in this Open Thread that, conveniently, you participated in:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/31/monday-open-thread-11/?comments=true#comments

In that thread you make the case that Weiss wanted to charge Hunter but was precluded from doing so. Importantly, zero people suggest that Weiss should no longer be the one investigating or he’s compromised somehow. But suddenly he gets the authority to charge people in other districts and suddenly he shouldn’t be the one investigating? Seems more like you’re just looking for things to be mad about than an actual concern about the process.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Many did make these concerns about Weiss. For example

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/07/28/graham-special-counsel-needed-to-replace-weiss-after-failed-hunter-biden-plea-agreement/

[jb]

Thanks for that citation. It's literally the first example I've seen of seeing someone to replace Weiss before he was made special counsel, so I'm not sure it's accurate to say that "many" people were raising these concerns but I'll give Graham credit for some consistency on this one.

[not guilty]

The person identified as Trump Employee 4 in the Trump superseding indictment in Florida is Yuscil Tavares. It appears that Mr. Tavares, while represented by a lawyer paid by Trump's Save America PAC, appeared before a federal grand jury in D. C. and gave false testimony. He later received a target letter from DOJ, was appointed conflict-free counsel, and corrected his earlier testimony and began cooperating with the prosecution. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.129.0.pdf

This is not the first time that a witness gave false testimony while represented by counsel protecting the interests of Donald Trump, then came clean after obtaining conflict-free counsel. Cassidy Hutchinson did so before the House January 6 Investigating Committee.

That leads me to suspect that Save America PAC is operating as an enterprise under RICO statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Bribery, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are racketeering activity under § 1961(1). I don't know whether the evidence is conclusive at this point, but it does bear investigating.

[not guilty]

Cassidy Hutchinson's situation is described fully in a complaint seeking discipline of Stefan Passantino, her Trump World lawyer. https://ldad.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Ethics-Complaint-against-Stefan-Passantino.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

So, let me get this straight: The guy, while his counsel was paid for by Trump, was giving testimony favorable to Trump. Naturally, this is suspicious. (I'm not joking, it is at least a little.)

Now he has counsel paid for by the government, and he's giving counsel favorable to the government. This, naturally, is NOT suspicious. For reasons.

Um, why exactly did he change his tune?

Did the government offer him anything, in return? Like, I don't know, promising to go easy on him?

It's not that I'm absolutely sure he was telling the truth earlier, and is lying now. Quite the contrary, I wouldn't be shocked if it were the reverse.

But I am wondering about the source of your confidence. Really, if you've got proof that he was lying before, and telling the truth now, you should share it with the prosecutors.

[Randal]

I suspect that the prosecutors have evidence that he was lying, and the threat of perjury is what prompted him to get an unconflicted lawyer and amend.

Don't you?

[Mr. Bumble]

In the immortal words of Da Nang Dick; Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus..

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a question for the finder of fact, but turning states witness against your previous employer has been found credible in the past. And from what I can tell both versions of fact are bad news for your guy.

[Brett Bellmore]

On some of this stuff, frankly, it's not so much a matter of Trump being innocent, as it is of his mistakenly assuming that he'd get to break the law just like everybody else.

Which was a remarkably stupid mistake to still be making after 4 years of relentless lawfare. Seriously, I think he might not be as far gone as Biden, but he's losing it.

[Sarcastr0]

Frankly, you continue to be wrong to the point of delusion about how normal Trump's behavior is.

It was not normal, it has no equal, and it was real bad.

[Michael P]

Did he wipe away evidence of his malfeasance, like with a cloth?

Was his son taking money from shady companies ties to second-world governments in transparent influence peddling schemes?

Did he ask Putin's stooge to relay a request to delay action so he could win re-election?

Did he lie under oath about Oval Office infidelity with an intern?

[Sarcastr0]

Furious deflection is not a sign you think your guy is fine.

[Michael P]

Neither is ignoring all the comparable but not exact precedents a good reason to assert "it has no equal".

The whole 2020 conspiracy to defeat Trump was, in many ways, worse than what he's now accused of doing.

[Sarcastr0]

Even assuming your parade of right wing wrongness has something to it, nothing you quoted here has anything to do with what Trump tried to do with the election. His actions remain unique.

A blind attempt to ignore the actual facts and do some kind of mondimensional 'magnitude of badness' analysis is not an actual argument, just 4 deflections stacked on top of one another in a trenchcoat.

[David Nieporent]

Did he wipe away evidence of his malfeasance, like with a cloth?

He tried! That's right there in the superseding indictment in Florida.

Was his son taking money from shady companies ties to second-world governments in transparent influence peddling schemes?

I mean, very likely, yeah. Also his daughter. Also his son-in-law.

Did he ask Putin’s stooge to relay a request to delay action so he could win re-election?

Election, not re-election, and it wasn't delay he was seeking, but action.

Did he lie under oath about Oval Office infidelity with an intern?

Well, not yet.

[Life of Brian]

It was not normal, it has no equal, and it was real bad.

Ah, here comes the "worse than Hitler" meme again -- just wrapped in slightly more obfuscatory prose.

I suppose continuing to amp up that idea in your head makes it easier to stomach doing whatever needs to be done to purify the human race again.

[Sarcastr0]

Straw Goodwin is a new twist. And then you follow it up by accusing me of harboring Hitlerish genocidal ambitious myself!

What a hypocritical show!

[Life of Brian]

Well there's some classic hand-in-the-cookie-jar noise.

What convoluted interpretation of "has no equal" would you propose that somehow does NOT end up being worse than any other bad actor one could conjure up?

[Sarcastr0]

If you cared about context, my comment was in response to Brett's 'his mistakenly assuming that he’d get to break the law just like everybody else'

'Has no equal' does not, in fact, include Hitler.

[Life of Brian]

‘Has no equal’ does not, in fact, include Hitler.

Well then that ends up having to be an exquisitely finely calibrated line: "has no equal" to justify this years-long wagon train of fanciful new legal theories and/or increasingly desperate impeachment/indictment efforts relying on same, while somehow at the same time NOT being nearly as bad as people who somehow were able to be punished quite adequately and straightforwardly under broadly accepted and applied legal doctrines.

Keep dancing!

[Sarcastr0]

The main new thing is that the President was doing it to try and keep power after being voted out.

The laws and charges are not particularly novel. It's all well accepted doctrines except by Trump folks, who generally have some novel constitutional takes of their own.

[Life of Brian]

The laws and charges are not particularly novel.

We sure do burn an awful lot of time around here debating all this "not particularly novel" stuff. And nice effort to try to get out in front of that glaringly obvious fact, but that level of debate is far beyond a few problem children refusing to eat their peas.

Keep dancing!

[Sarcastr0]

We sure do burn an awful lot of time around here debating all this “not particularly novel” stuff

"If it's not all fanciful new legal theories, why do I keep saying it is?"

That's the level of debate you've stooped to.

[Life of Brian]

Whereas you're all-in on "la la la la, I can't HEAR you."

Keep dancing!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Frankly, you continue to be wrong to the point of delusion about how normal Trump’s behavior is.

Disaffected, delusional, autistic right-wing misfits may not be useful sources on norms.

[Nige]

'his mistakenly assuming that he’d get to break the law just like everybody else.'

There may be more than one mistaken assumption there, of course, and not all of them Trump's.

[David Nieporent]

On some of this stuff, frankly, it’s not so much a matter of Trump being innocent, as it is of his mistakenly assuming that he’d get to break the law just like everybody else.

Once again, Brett demands evidence that Tavares was lying before he'll believe it, but then just assumes into existence the evidence that everyone else is as guilty as Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can suspect all you want. As I said, I'm open to the possibility. I suppose we'll find out what evidence they have, come the trial.

But I tend to think that a plea deal is as much a quid pro quo as any other thing of value offered to a witness to change their testimony.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I find it odd that a defendant changes their lawyer to a government lawyer, and suddenly their story flips.

One wonders.

[Sarcastr0]

That's because you have reversed the order of operations to create a conspiracy.

[SRG2]

I find it odd that a defendant changes their lawyer from a lawyer paid by a PAC supporting a co-conspirator, and suddenly their story flips. Wait, no I don't.

[David Nieporent]

Calling a federal public defender (or a state one, for that matter) a "government lawyer" is the height of bad faith.

Though Hanlon's Razor says that I should be charitable; Armchair Lawyer has certainly proven over the years his complete ignorance of every aspect of the non-armchair legal system.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

All armchair, no lawyer.

Roughly as reliable and persuasive a source of legal insight as is the average Volokh Conspiracy fan.

Carry on, hapless clingers.

[OtisAH]

Public defenders as “government lawyers” seems like a natural evolution from “government schools.” I’m slightly embarrassed I didn’t see that one coming. Otoh, these folks are working this stuff 24/7 from every possible angle and I just have other things to do.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Good ol' Ad Hominem David is at it again. I suppose there will be a grammatical error somewhere for him to fix too.

Personally, here's how I see it going:

Prosecutors: We can probably get him to flip, but the lawyer is a problem. Let's see if we can kick the lawyer off the case. Let's get a conflict of interest bit. Let's also call the judge and make sure there's a federal public defender there that we know well, who likes to make deals, and who has the "right" sort of political mindset.

---Call for hearing. Lawyer kicked off case. The federal defender (coincidentally, right there, at the behest of the judge, just happens to be able to immediately give counsel, and the defendant switches over.

I do wonder how that conversation went with the new federal defender. I also wonder if the prosecutors talked over the case with the federal defender before she took on the new client. Perjury can be tough to prove, especially when it's just "I don't recall." But... let's spitball a little.

Federal defender:
"You know, I know you said you didn't recall anything. But if you DID recall something, the prosecutors are offering a pretty good deal, and I think you should take it. Perjury could be a real charge. Plus, you know, I'll do the best job I can for you, but I can't spend all the time and resources that your previous lawyer did. You might have to pay your way up here to all these hearings and trials. You don't owe Trump anything. Take the deal, it's really a good offer. But it might be limited, so you should jump on it fast. But only if you ACTUALLY recall something."

You know, if it was actually an independent lawyer, and the switch took more than 24 hours...it might be less suspicious. As it is, with the 24 hour switch, with the federal defender RIGHT THERE as soon as the defendant's current lawyer was kicked off...Looks odd.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your moronic conspiracy theories continue to impress nobody, except maybe Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

Belabored fan fiction based on an abyss of ignorance about our legal institutions.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Mmm hmm.... So...no real rebuttal. Just more ad hominem.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your unsourced and retarded conspiracy theories do not require anything further.

If you had even an iota of a clue about the judicial process, you wouldn't come here with such remarkably stupid theories.

Yes, I'm giving you a lot of potential credit with that assumption. Credit you have never demonstrated that you deserve, but so be it.

[Sarcastr0]

“Personally, here’s how I see it going” is not an argument, it’s fiction. I do not need to rebut pure speculation.

This website is not your speed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You know, if it was actually an independent lawyer

In what conceivable sense is this not an independent lawyer?

[David Nieporent]

But… let’s spitball a little.

Federal defender:
“You know, I know you said you didn’t recall anything. But if you DID recall something, the prosecutors are offering a pretty good deal, and I think you should take it. Perjury could be a real charge. Plus, you know, I’ll do the best job I can for you, but I can’t spend all the time and resources that your previous lawyer did. You might have to pay your way up here to all these hearings and trials. You don’t owe Trump anything. Take the deal, it’s really a good offer. But it might be limited, so you should jump on it fast. But only if you ACTUALLY recall something.”

You forgot the part where the prosecutor threatened to have the public defender's dog killed if he didn't force his client to change his testimony.

[Voize]

Armchair, the government pays the judge too.

Clearly the fix is in.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's less the "government" part, and more the "Oh here's a new public defender for you coincidentally right here, right when your old lawyer gets kicked off, oh and 24 hours later your story switches".

Maybe if there was more time, or a random public defender was chosen. But like that...looks odd. Almost like the prosecutors planned it.

[not guilty]

The old lawyer was discharged when the prospective defendant received better advice from conflict free counsel.

Of course the prosecutors planned it. The last thing the prosecutors would have wanted was to convict Tavares and to then have that conviction vacated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because defense counsel at trial had a conflict of interest.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Must be nice planning to have the Public Defender you like to just happen to be there to take over.

Again, I wonder if the prosecution talked over the case with the Public Defender before they actually took over the case.

[not guilty]

"Again, I wonder if the prosecution talked over the case with the Public Defender before they actually took over the case."

So what if they did?

[David Nieporent]

You know that the prosecutor doesn't decide which attorney from the PD's office is assigned, right?

[John F. Carr]

The government-funded lawyer does not bother me. I consider federal public defenders to be independent of prosecutors. They are not necessarily good. They are independent.

I expect the government did threaten to put him in prison unless he testified against Trump. Trump's lawyer will be allowed to suggest to the jury that Tavares is lying to save his skin.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope the government is permitted to exhibit the video(s) of the relevant events while the lawyers are attempting to persuade the jury that the activities depicted in the recordings never occurred.

[windycityattorney]

They have videos. They have all the cell phone text messages between them. Specifically, the one where Nauta texts Taveras that the “boss” wants them to delete all the security cam footage around the storage locker containing all the boxes.

The fact that this text from Nauta to Taveras happened soon after Trump’s lawyer informed Trump there was a grand jury subpoena for that exact security footage is merely a coincidence.

The best part is, because they failed to delete the footage, there is direct video evidence not only of Nauta moving all the boxes on the ‘boss’s orders…but different cameras captured Nauta and Taveras walking around and looking at/pointing at the cameras and going into the secret tunnel to the area where the security footage was being stored. Taveras is fucked. Nauta is fucked. I expect both to flip. Which means Trump is also fucked. But we already knew that because like everything else he is incompetent at, committing and covering up crimes is at the top of the list.

[Voize]

I expect the government did threaten to put him in prison unless he testified against Trump.

Tavares remained unindicted in spite of testifying for Trump. The government might have threatened him later when they got clear evidence he was lying, but apparently have allowed him to recant his testimony instead. They are giving him breaks we are assured are normally reserved for Hunter Biden.

[not guilty]

How is deciding to cooperate with the prosecution in the wake of receiving a target letter in any way remarkable? Tavares could have held out and been prosecuted for perjury or false statement, but he was more valuable to the government as a witness than as a defendant.

[Voize]

I guess I should have put <sarc> tags around that last sentence.

[David Nieporent]

The government-funded lawyer does not bother me. I consider federal public defenders to be independent of prosecutors. They are not necessarily good. They are independent.

Federal public defenders are excellent. Of course, like everyone in every field, there are ranges of quality. But even to the extent that stereotypes about public defenders are accurate, those stereotypes don't apply to federal ones.

[loki13]

"Now he has counsel paid for by the government, and he’s giving counsel favorable to the government. This, naturally, is NOT suspicious. For reasons."

Well, if you want a serious answer .... yes, the "government" is paying for a conflict counsel, but attorneys (1) have ethical rules, and (2) the counsel that works on the defense side is certainly not aligned with the prosecution. If you know public defenders (whether state or federal), you undoubtedly realize that they don't take the job because they have a strong interest in government power.

That said, at a certain point if I was an attorney representing Trump's interests I'd get very concerned about the fact that all of these people seem to keep perjuring themselves while I represent them. I once worked the civil side of a case that involved a Ponzi scheme (there was a criminal side as well) where there were similar issues and the attorneys were successfully targeted and flipped.

Of course, I would never be an attorney for Trump. Two reasons- I don't like jail, and I do like getting paid.

[jb]

Wait, your theory is that public defenders are in cahoots with prosectors because they both "work for the government"? Do you also think that the Yankees and Red Sox have the fix in because they're both part of MLB?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett: "The guy, while his counsel was paid for by Trump, was giving testimony favorable to Trump."

The testimony he gave was false. It was a lie. By his own admission.

[shawn_dude]

Or, and I'm just spittballing here, Trump's lawyers paid for by his political action committee are working for Trump's best interests and not Tavares'. So he got a lawyer that would work for his own best interests. And that lawyer advised Tavares that lying to protect Trump would land Tavares in jail--a great deal for Trump.

Meanwhile, look at all the indicted people that thought Trump would pardon them for their crimes in support of his agenda before he left office.

[David Nieporent]

In yesterday's court filing, Fani Willis made the same point I did about Mark Meadows: his argument for removal is not actually a legal argument for removal, but rather is a confession that he violated the Hatch Act.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.27.0.pdf

[Kazinski]

I've been assured there is no controlling legal authority to enforce the Hatch Act.

In fact I'm pretty sure almost everyone at the Whitehouse has flouted the Hatch Act daily across every single administration regardless of party since it was passed.

[not guilty]

Uh, Fani Willis is not seeking to enforce the Hatch Act here. To support removal of the state court prosecution to federal court, Mark Meadows must show that he is a federal officer subjected to criminal prosecution “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). If the charged conduct is prohibited by federal law, Meadows cannot make that showing.

[Kazinski]

Uh, I didn't say she was.

As for his duties, Meadows had a duty to find out just whether any of Trumps delusions and schemes had any basis, and the best way to do that was talk to state officials to find out. You have to admit state officials in GOP states acted responsibly. Ducey in AZ, Kemp and Raffensperger in Georgia, why shouldn't he have talked to them?

As chief of staff he needed to know if he'd still be responsible for running the nations business on Jan 21.

Should he only have been listening to Trump?

[grb]

Kazinski : You have to admit state officials in GOP states acted responsibly.

I do indeed. I wonder if you'll admit to the furious attempt to get revenge against many of those same officials for acting normal. As for "talking to state officials", I wonder if that covers Trump directly calling the lead investigator inside Raffensperger's office? It's a sign how much of a corrupt freak Trump is that people barely notice that fact. Of course we do have a transcript of that call (or the ones to the Georgia governor or AG) so will have to wait for the trial. But who'd be surprised if the approach wasn't as crude and blunt as the Raffensperger call ("And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated") or the Rosen meeting ("Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen").

Even in a criminal conspiracy, Trump is not a subtle man.

[Martinned]

That will be news to all the Congresscritters who spend half their days in a small room across the street from the Capitol building so that they're not on government property using government phones when they ask for bribes.

[Kazinski]

Right, because that would be a campaign issue, but the lobbyists come straight to their offices to talk business, or better yet they meet at a bar in Georgetown.

The Hatch Act only really applies to civil service. Not to politicians or political appointees.

[not guilty]

"The Hatch Act only really applies to civil service. Not to politicians or political appointees."

Kazinski, do you have any authority that the Hatch Act was inapplicable to Mark Meadows? Please provide specific citation(s).

[Kazinski]

Yes.

I just told you it didn’t apply, that’s my authority, and you already knew it anyway. And if you don’t like it go find your own case where a chief of staff has been prosecuted under the hatch act, and prove me wrong.

Chiefs of staffs spend as much time on partisan politics as they do anything else and not one has ever been charged. They eat, sleep, talk, and shit politics constantly, its their job.

[Sarcastr0]

Chiefs of staffs spend as much time on partisan politics as they do anything else and not one has ever been charged.

That is not in their capacity of chief of staff, and any pay for such time is not taken from the Congressional office's budget.

There are lots of rules set up to keep from using public assets for campaigning. Maybe they amount to eyewash, but that's a lot of trouble to go through for a law that does not apply.

[not guilty]

"I just told you it didn’t apply, that’s my authority, and you already knew it anyway. And if you don’t like it go find your own case where a chief of staff has been prosecuted under the hatch act, and prove me wrong."

Providing legal authority ordinarily includes, you know, furnishing citations to applicable statutes or decisions. Ipse dixit pronouncements don't feed the bulldog.

For purposes of the Hatch Act, “employee” means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office, or a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency, but does not include a member of the uniformed services or an individual employed or holding office in the government of the District of Columbia. 5 U.S.C. § 7322(1).

The Act does not include criminal penalties, see, 5 U.S.C. § 7326, so of course no chief of staff has been prosecuted thereunder. The Act, however, is relevant to determining whether the chief of staff is a federal officer subjected to state criminal prosecution “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).

[Kazinski]

And I will say again when has a chief of staff ever been charged under the Hatch Act where's your authority?

See I can play your same tired act. But I'm not at your beck and call, and neither are you at mine.

I said what I think and I haven't changed my opinion. We both know the law.is toothless and they do little wrist slaps like this and everyone winks at everyone else and goes home:
https://osc.gov/News/Pages/22-11-Federal-Employees-Suspensions-Hatch-Act.aspx

But no political employees ever get prosecuted.

[Sarcastr0]

"The Act does not include criminal penalties, see, 5 U.S.C. § 7326, so of course no chief of staff has been prosecuted thereunder."

[not guilty]

Kazinski, no one regards Otto Yourazz as a reliable legal authority.

I have cited the definition of "employee" in the Hatch Act upthread. How does that definition exclude the White House Chief of Staff?

If you can't support your polemic, man up and say so.

[Kazinski]

I keep waiting for a cite that shows a white house chief of staff prosecuted for the Hatch Act.

I guess you don't have anything other than what I got: an opinion.

[not guilty]

Dumbass, I have previously acknowledged that no White House Chief of Staff has been prosecuted for violating the Hatch Act. Hell, no person has been prosecuted for violating the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act is not. a. criminal. statute.

If you had any facts or law supporting your “opinion,” there would be no need for you to set up a straw man.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, you remind me of Ron White's famous maxim.

You can't fix stupid.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you even bother to try and understand when people smarter than you explain why you’re wrong?

Meadows alleges that he can’t be prosecuted because he was acting in his ‘official’ capacity. His conduct however, is illegal under the Hatch Act, which means it cannot be part of his ‘official’ duties, because none of his duties permit him to violate the law.

Whether someone has been prosecuted under the law has no bearing on whether or not the law exists and prohibits the conduct he’s trying to justify.

Your pathetic argument that Meadows isn’t covered by the Hatch Act is directly refuted by the text of the law itself.

You’re just too much of a bitch to admit that you’re wrong.

[loki13]

Just read that. It's a very good read. While I don't think it's a slam dunk, after reading it, and considering the various arguments, I am now of the opinion that the arguments in favor of removal are ... not good.

In short, either the 11th Cir. or the Supreme Court would have to clarify and expand Supremacy Immunity to an extent I think they are unlikely to - in effect, saying that they want to the doctrine to cover all possible edge cases.

We'll see.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My favorite one is the guy who was the fake elector, making the argument that his federal position was his fake electorship.

[loki13]

Well, that one was just stoopid.

I mean, maybe in the 5th?

[David Nieporent]

I think that even a real elector would have an uphill climb arguing he was holding a federal office for the terms of the removal statute, but, yeah, given that he is basically being charged with impersonating a government employee, arguing that he should be allowed to rely on that impersonation for removal is a bit of a hoot.

[David Nieporent]

Just to follow up on that, there's actually caselaw saying that electors are not federal officeholders.

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators....Labor Day Weekend Getaways: Best Places (and why).

Also...figs are coming into season in the People's Republic of NJ. I have my own fig tree. If you have figs, goat cheese, black pepper (fresh ground is a must for this recipe; I do tellicherry course ground), date syrup (or dark honey in extremis) and an oven that can broil, then you are in business. See recipe below. It is uncomplicated, quick, and easy. Cleanup is minimal. It is my 'go to' - I never tire of it. It is truly the best. Enjoy!

https://toriavey.com/stuffed-figs-with-goat-cheese/

[Brett Bellmore]

Mt Mitchell campground. Incredible views, nice sites, great hiking trails.

Downsides: Only a dozen tent sites, which fill up almost as soon as they’re released. And it’s the highest point this side of the Mississippi, on top of a mountain; If a storm wanders by, you’ll be INSIDE it. Bring a sturdy tent, and stake it down well.

We're actually going camping the weekend AFTER labor day, though, at Oconnee Point. Mt. Mitchell was booked, we started looking for a site too late this time.

[Commenter_XY]

NC is beautiful, especially out toward Asheville and the Smokies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we do a lot of hiking and camping in that area.

A real gem we stumbled across by accident, (We'd been on the Blue Ridge parkway, and let GPS lead us home via dirt roads.) is Curtis Creek Sites 12-14 are nestled in a bend in the creek, the sound of the water lulls you to sleep.

If you like being isolated, sites 1-5 are scattered along the road, away from the main camp. Ideal for trout fishing.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "NC is beautiful, especially out toward Asheville and the Smokies"

I hiked the AT back in 2010-2011, being beset by long-term unemployment and divorce. Being an old & slow hiker (8 months vs the usual 5-6), it was late January-early February when I went thru the Smokies.

Beautiful, yes. But brutally painful too!

[Commenter_XY]

WOW! = hike the AT trail

grb, I have always wanted to do that. How long did you train?

[grb]

I didn’t train at all. It was an act of desperation as my life was a bit of a mess at the time. I spent a couple of months slowly collecting gear and reading up on it, then just launched into the endeavor. There were mistakes at first, but all you need to do is push through the first few weeks. I started in Maine because of the time of year (late June) but most begin in Georgia early-March. I had the advantage of about sixty miles of fairly level terrain south of Baxter State Park, but the ground was very gnarly and you sometimes had to negotiate every step. Plus things got very vertical very fast. But in the end, you just keep putting one foot in front of the other.

It is one of the most positive experiences you’ll ever have. Everyone on the AT is in it together and there’s little or no cause not to celebrate that fact. You’ll met dozens of people living along the trail who’ll go well out of their way to treat you with special kindness because that’s just the local custom. You hike with groups for a few days then meet them downtrail a few months later.

[DaveM]

Wow, my hat's off to anyone who is a thru hiker on the AT. A trip of a lifetime. Sadly for me, now impossible.

[Mr. Bumble]

I hear Tom Steyer's $20 million BNB is available but haven't been able to find out what the rent is.

[DaveM]

Hey, that's only $18m. The economy's hard on everybody.

[Mr. Bumble]

Housing prices are up.

[SRG2]

I had lunch at Harvest on Hudson yesterday and had an excellent fig, goat cheese and prosciutto pizza.

[Sarcastr0]

I have been there as well! Small world!

Concur in the recommend. Fancy, but worth it.

[SRG2]

Yup - very overpriced if you pay a la carte, but the $42 prix fixe softens the blow, and the location itself is lovely.

[Mr. Bumble]

If SarcastrO is going to buy a care he's going to have to cut back on $42 pizzas. Do they sell by the slice?

[SRG2]

The $42 includes an appetiser. The main can be pizza, pasta, a sandwich, or an entree - though most entrees had a premium charge. I had artichoke alla giudia as my appetiser, which I will always order if it's on the menu, consistent with my ethnicity 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

I'll have to look into that one = the pizza. Bet I could do it. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

the People’s Republic of NJ

The one with Princeton, excellent medical facilities, excellent schools, an educated citizenry, a good economy and high incomes, strong infrastructure . . . everything the clingers resent and deride for demonstrating the red states' failures and inadequacies?

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you are welcome to:

High taxes
Overcrowding
Pothole ridden roads
Jersey 'tude
High humidity
Mosquito's

I looked up Flavacol. Tell me again how you use that? Because it does sound like an amazing flavoring for meats.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I reach for Flavacol often, instead of regular salt. This product is likely something one would purchase at a restaurant supply store (such as Restaurant Depot), but I purchased mine at Home Depot (still don’t understand why it was on the shelf).

Flavacol was described to me as the “secret ingredient” movie exhibitors use to make their popcorn popular. I find it works in just about any context. Since I learned it existed, I have noticed it in a number of restaurant kitchens.

It can impart an orange hue, though.

(Another restaurateur recommended Diamond Crystal salt so I just purchased a box at Costco. I might have used it before but couldn't remember. Anyway, it is the rare item Costco hasn't found a way to charge more than two dollars for.)

[SRG2]

Judging by the ingredients, you can achieve healthier results by using salt and butter. "Healthy" is relative, of course.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm happy to pop it in olive oil (Stir Crazy Butter Up Popper by Sunbeam) skip the butter and use some very fine salt I got from a nut packing house.

[SRG2]

a nut packing house.

Congress now sells salt?

C

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I use Flavacol and butter (and sometimes parmesan) for popcorn. I do not know whether salt is more healthful than Flavacol in this context. Flavacol without butter may be at least as healthful as salt with butter.

I also have tried cheese powder (packets from the Annie's mac-and-cheese boxes sold by Costco) on popcorn. This is still in the experimental stage, but I doubt it will supplant the G.H. Cretor Chicago mix (cheese and caramel) popcorn, which is such a steal when discounted at Costco that you should probably wear a mask when purchasing it.

[shawn_dude]

I tried Alton Brown's favorite popcorn topping and fell in love with it: (good quality) olive oil and nutritional yeast. Yeah, I know, sounds bizarre. My first taste was more of a "eh?" and then I took a second. And then the bowl was empty. I use a dash of salt and sometimes add furikake. My salt of choice (or my doctor's choice) is the 50/50 sodium chloride/potassium chloride blend. Diamond salt is great for cooking but adjustments need to be made.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Diamond salt is great for cooking but adjustments need to be made.

What adjustments?

Thank you.

[shawn_dude]

Labor Day weekend: Guerneville, CA. A cool weekend in the redwoods by the Russian River. Wine tasting. Jenner beach in the morning with fog and a hot coffee. Hike through the redwoods in the afternoon shade. Excellent food.

[apedad]

Dear God,

Last week I said I thought that humans were a failed prototype and that’s why you tucked us away on Earth but I didn’t give the reasons why I thought we’re a failure of yours; so I think it’s fair to give you some reasons.

One reason is the simple time/percentage of maintenance per unit.

Approximately 30% of our existence is downtime due to maintenance, i.e., sleeping, eating, bathroom – which is hardly an efficient model (and that time/percentage increases outside of our peak performance range! See below).

And the percentage of units coming off the assembly line with defects is alarmingly high; over 4% of children born in the US have some disability.

Additionally, the average peak performance range is disappointingly small with some estimates showing peak performance between 20 – 30 years old, over an average 75 year lifespan; that’s a lot of subpar performance time.

Also, what exactly is the purpose of a human being?

“(I)n the last 3,400 years, there is no war on record for only 268 of those years. Viewed another way, since the dawn of the ancient world, humans have been at war with one another 92% of the time.”

Were we created simply to destroy ourselves?

Again, hardly an efficient model.

So it’s easy to see why you isolated us on our little planet.

I wouldn’t want this type of failed human model spreading throughout the Universe either!

sincerely,

apedad

PS.

Sometimes . . . you can be pretty ironic. (heh heh heh)

a.

[Commenter_XY]

a,

You asked: Also, what exactly is the purpose of a human being?
Answer: That is for you to figure out, and act upon; for good and not evil.

G

PS: This is a good time for soul-searching, and listening for that small, still voice. 🙂

[apedad]

It's the creator who assigns a function to its creation.

A painting or a building doesn't ask "What is my purpose."

[Bwaaah]

You condemn a notion of god by holding up humanity as a failed example. Your insight comes from the very vessel you condemn, mixing intellect with faux self hate and faux faithlessness. And yet that self-righteous confidence, the part you don't doubt...you left that flaw out of your analysis.

You left out a voice that believes in something, anything, other than your imperfect self.

(It's like a person stuck in quicksand who thinks it's time to give swimming lessons.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choose reason. Every time.

Choose reason. Every time. Especially over sacred ignorance and dogmatic intolerance. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for gullibility, ignorance, backwardness, superstition, and bigotry. By adulthood -- this includes ostensible adulthood -- it is no excuse, not even in the most desolate, uneducated, Republican backwater one might find.

Choose reason. Every time. And education, modernity, inclusiveness, science, progress, and freedom. Avoid superstition, ignorance, backwardness, insularity, bigotry, dogma, and pining for "good old days" that never existed. Not 75 years ago. Not 175 years ago. Not 2,000 years ago, except in fairy tales suitable solely for young children and especially gullible adolescents.

Choose reason. Every time. Recognize that competent adults neither accept nor advance superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate, especially with respect to science and public affairs.

Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

Or, at least, please try.

Thank you

[Bwaaah]

Choose reason. Every time.

Amen to the Rev. (It hurts, especially because he includes some of his personal peeves there.)

I try, Rev. Even when *you* speak, I try.

(There remain voids that are unfilled by reason, so a choice isn't always present. For those situations, I try to withhold belief.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What part(s) bugged you, other than the jab at Republicans (which seemed fair game)?

Thank you.

[Krayt]

Welcome to the club, pal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Never heard of "minimum viable product"? He got us up to the first rung of the ladder, climbing it is on us.

[apedad]

Maybe God didn't give us the capability to upgrade - or the evolution function is not working like it's supposed to.

[Brett Bellmore]

Genetic engineering and science are the capability to upgrade. He gave us brains, that should be enough.

[apedad]

Maybe you're right but it sure has taken humans a loooooong time reaching this point.

Again, hardly an efficient model.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your comments would appear to be common to all life on this planet.

[apedad]

Good point.

Maybe Earth is the dumpster of the Universe.

[apedad]

Or maybe our solar system is the dumpster of the Universe.

You can see God experimenting with different planet types; iron core (and with Venus and Mars on either side of Earth, we can see God experimenting with different grades of planet); gaseous, too close to the star so turned barren, i.e., Mercury, let’s try rings, Plato!, etc.

[Krychek_2]

I'm a Darwinist, so when I see some fairly awful example of suffering, it's no one's fault -- that's just the way life evolved. But if I believed the world was created, then I have to believe that God consciously and deliberately created parasitic wasps, the Ebola virus, and sharks that tear apart baby seals in front of their mothers. If I created something like that I'd be hustled off to the nearest psych ward, yet the God who did is praised as all benevolent, all loving, and all merciful.

[Mr. Bumble]

Darwin doesn't explain the origin of life.

[Krychek_2]

Darwin "didn't" explain the origin of life because it was unknown to him, but over 100 years after his death, and with lots of scientific discovery in the interim, it's really no great mystery how life originated. Spend some time on google and you'll find plenty.

[Mr. Bumble]

Point us to just one.

[Krychek_2]

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Life arose on the early Earth by a series of progressive chemical reactions."

So, having given you one, I will now say that you have the same access to google that I do. I just googled "origins of life" and got over a million hits.

[Mr. Bumble]

What you got were theories.

[Krychek_2]

Ah, someone else who doesn't understand that in science, a "theory" is the gold standard for when something has been as conclusively established as is possible in science. You know, like the theory of gravity, or relativity, or quantum physics. "Theory" is the name that is applied to something that is no longer in any real scientific dispute.

That aside, I doubt you looked at all the million hits on google and concluded that every single one of them was a theory.

[Krayt]

How is the theory a god exists and did it holding up?

What's the theory on how god came to be?

[DaveM]

"Life arose by a series of progressive chemical reactions".

Which chemicals, which reactions, in what order, and under what conditions did organic life arise from inorganic chemicals? What experiments have been done to prove or disprove this declaration? Where is the life that has been created from these experiments so we may all examine it?

It is clearly incorrect to just state baldly that "life arose" in this manner, as if it is a known fact. We do not know how life arose, yet.

[Krychek_2]

DaveM, the answers to every single one of those questions may be found in standard reference works and other resources available on line. The fact that you have obviously not bothered to seek them out is irrelevant to their existence and ready availability. Maybe you should do some basic research and get back to us.

[Commenter_XY]

K_2...Replicate it. Go ahead, get animate life from inorganic chemicals. Short answer: You can't.

Textbooks only take you so far. We don't know what created life.

[Davedave]

We have a very good idea about 'Origin of life' science. It is far from complete, but we have a good outline which is consistent with observed facts and scientific principles; there is room to debate exactly how specific facets work, but no room left to pretend it isn't how life came to be without engaging in outright science-denial.

On the flip side of the coin, there are no honest, educated, intelligent creationists. The intelligent, educated ones are proven to be dishonest liars at best, and more commonly outright grifters. And of course there are plenty of outright evil grifters who are neither intelligent, educated, nor honest among them, like Kent Hovind - who, unlike the Clintons etc, is actually _proven_ to have helped paedophiles gain access to kids to abuse, as well as having convictions for wife-beating etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"chemical reactions.”

How did the chemicals get there?

[Krychek_2]

They were always there, just not in their current form.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then they weren't there.

[Krychek_2]

Mr. Bumble, did you even pass high school science?

[Michael Ejercito]

It took a supernatural process.

[Krychek_2]

What, for Mr. Bumble to pass high school science? I agree; that was a miracle.

[Krychek_2]

If you meant the origins of life required a supernatural process, then you are saying that no natural process could have done it, which means you've undertaken to prove a negative. So go ahead; prove there is no natural process that could have originated life. Please be reminded that argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"just not in their current form"

How did they get there in their original forms?

[Krychek_2]

By being acted on by natural processes.

It’s basically not that difficult to take a known event and track it back, using what is known about the laws of physics, to figure out what happened in the past. To use a very simple illustration, if someone drops a rock off the top of a hundred story skyscraper, and you know what time it hits the ground, you can calculate what time it was dropped by measuring the height of the building and dividing the number of feet by 14 (an object falls at an approximate rate of 14 feet per second).

That’s a very simple example, but virtually everything that has happened in the universe since the big bang can be determined on the same general principle by using the known laws of physics. There are far fewer genuine mysteries than there used to be. We can measure cosmic background radiation and use it to determine the age of the universe, for example. We can measure the rate of entropy in the known universe and tell the temperature at the time of the big bang, as well as how quickly and how much it began to cool, and what the then-existing chemical makeup of the universe was.

If you are seriously interested and not just yanking my chain I can recommend some reading material. Or, you can find it yourself on line.

[Sarcastr0]

Ubbo-Sathla, Unbegotten Source

Before the coming of Zhothaqquah or Yok-Zothoth or Kthulhut from the stars, Ubbo-Sathla dwelt in the steaming fens of the newmade Earth: a mass without head or members, spawning the grey, formless efts of the prime and the grisly prototypes of terrene life . . . And all earthly life, it is told, shall go back at last through the great circle of time to Ubbo-Sathla.

[SRG2]

Krychek, your maths is wrong.

1. Objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s, which is closer to 30 feet per second per second which means that they accelerate down, they don’t fall at a constant velocity (at least, not until they reach terminal velocity). By the end of the second second they’re travelling at 19.6m/s

2. Distance travelled is 1/2 at^2

Hence if distance is 30m, you’re solving for t for the equation 30 = 0.5 x 9.8 x t^2

t^2 = 30/4.9

So t = 2.5s approx

Hence if the object landed at 12:15.00.00 it was dropped at 12:14.57.50

[Mr. Bumble]

Krycheck:
So who or what is the unmoved mover that started all this?

[Nelson]

Taking provable data and using it to extrapolate past events is a logical and verifiable belief.

Imagining a mystical being that created the universe just before the earliest provable point of the universe's lifetime isn't logical or verifiable.

If you choose to believe the second scenario as opposed to the first, that's great. Just don't think it's a provable belief. And please don't use it to justify coercing other peoples' actions.

[SRG2]

Nor does Darwin have to explain life's origins. Abiogenesis is the term (and field) of getting from no life to life, Evolution is the explanation for observed diversity of life once life got going.

But every educated person should know this

[Sarcastr0]

The line between life and no-life is fuzzy, and there is a bunch of work going on in that area. It is a stretch to call it Darwinian, but I’ve seen the argument made to extend it to chemical processes – that longer-term and more assured chemical processes are selected for (i.e. around longer), and thus down the road to life you go.

Regardless, life is something sufficiently ineffable many get on the God Train there. For me, it’s human consciousness. For others, it’s more inchoate than any particular miracle being the spark. And of course there are those who have no such intuition of the supernatural. Takes all kinds.

[Krychek_2]

And something else that it's important to note is that even if science had no answers at all, that would still not obligate anyone to accept God as the only hypothesis standing. Just because I don't have an answer to a question does not obligate me to accept yours. You still have to show that yours is true.

[Martinned]

Of course not, if for no other reason than that "God" is like a million different hypotheses. (One for each religion or privately held spiritual belief in history.)

[DaveM]

To the contrary, the inability of Darwin to explain life's origins is pretty much the Achilles Heel of the theory. The entire mechanism of evolution is founded upon an assumed "and the magic happens here" event, which has a completely unexplained mechanism.

[Krayt]

Partly unexplained, for now. Which is fine in science. That isn't a disproof.

[Krychek_2]

Well, Isaac Newton probably didn't have a thorough grasp of aerodynamics, but that doesn't mean aerodynamics isn't a valid theory.

[Mr. Bumble]

What does Issac Newton have to do with aerodynamics?

[Krychek_2]

He discovered both gravity and the laws of motion.

[Mr. Bumble]

He did not "discover" gravity; he explained it as well as how it affected motion. This would later be applied to aerodynamics by others.

[SRG2]

To the contrary, the inability of Darwin to explain life’s origins is pretty much the Achilles Heel of the theory.

Flatly wrong. Evolution explains diversity of life once life had got going – and is biology not biochemistry.

. The entire mechanism of evolution is founded upon an assumed “and the magic happens here” event,

No it isn’t. Evolution is “here is an organism. Here are likely descendants of that organism. How did this come about?” or “Look at all these different but – perhaps, given certain similarities – related organisms. Could they have descended from a common ancestor, and if so, by what mechanism?” It explicitly does not address how the first organism got there.

I have never encountered any Creationist or other kind of anti-evolutionist who advanced your argument in good faith. Either they were ignorant and their bad faith came from their intentional unwillingness to find out the truth, or they were not ignorant but thought that they could use it to make debating points.

You are not an exception.

[Krychek_2]

Creationists are to science what sovereign citizens are to law.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Worthless and deplorable?

[Davedave]

That's unfair on the freemons - a hard thing to be.

[David Nieporent]

You're mistaken. Although people often try to set up "Creationism" vs. "Darwinism" as if they were opposing camps, they're not. Darwin doesn't attempt to explain life's origins, so that's not an Achilles' Heel of Darwin's theory at all. Darwin explains the development of forms of life; abiogenesis is outside his bailiwick.

God created life, it spontaneously arose, it was Q (the Star Trek guy, not the guy who sees child molesters everywhere): whatever the truth, Darwin picks up after that.

[Nelson]

"To the contrary, the inability of Darwin to explain life’s origins is pretty much the Achilles Heel of the theory."

It's been a long time since I've read The Origin of Species, but I'm pretty sure you are saying that he didn't explain something that he never claimed to be explaining.

He explained evolution, a rock-solid scientific theory that shows how various species differentiate over time (as proved by his observations of finches on the Galapagos Islands). He never talked about how organic life originated.

You can't call something that isn't part of a theory "pretty much the Achilles Heel of the theory". It's like claiming a football player that breaks the rules of baseball is a cheater.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's one way of looking at it. Theologians have been debating that questions for a very long time, as have philosophers.

One way to look at it is freedom of choice. You can have a perfect world, where everything is set in its place, and everyone does exactly what the best thing is, all the time. If you do that though, there's no real choice.

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, that argument fails completely for animal suffering since animals don't have free will. (I'm not convinced humans do either but that's another discussion.) When a parasitic wasp stings a spider and then lays its eggs on the spider so its maggots can literally eat the spider alive -- while the spider spends days or weeks in complete agony -- it has nothing to do with freedom of choice. The wasp is simply doing what wasps do, and it has no real choice about being a wasp. So we are still left with God designed the wasp to inflict agony on spiders.

It also doesn't explain basic design defects. Minor modifications to the male anatomy would pretty much eradicate hernias and prostate problems. Minor modifications to the female anatomy would pretty much eradicate female urinary tract infections. Again, for me, that's simply how human bodies evolved, but if you believe in a creator, you have to believe that creator didn't know what he was doing when he designed the urethra to run through the prostate.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or maybe he just lit the fire to see how it would proceed.

[Krychek_2]

You don't think that would be a pretty irresponsible thing to do? Or, being omniscient, that he wouldn't have already had a pretty good idea how things would proceed?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how can a non-existent being (according to you) be irresponsible?

[Krychek_2]

I was adopting your premise to ask a rhetorical question. Apparently logic isn't your strong suit either.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek,

This is a long, old argument that people far brighter than you or I have thought about in depth. If you're feeling philosophical, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses some of your concerns and may be a place to start.

In terms of free will, my cat does what she wants. If you have questions about even humans having free will, then we're probably too far apart to have any consensus.

In terms of fixes, again, you'd need to ask what are the effects of the fix. Are there any good sides to it? Any bad sides? The more classic discussion is "why did God make childbirth hurt so damn much?".

But as I mentioned, this is a very long, very old discussion. If you're interested, start with Aquinas.

[Nige]

I highly recommend James Morrow's Corpus Dei Trilogy for a fun, witty, satirical take on questions around of the existence of God, good and evil, free will and destiny. In the first one, Towing Jehovah, God dies and His body falls into the sea and the angel Gabriel hires a supertanker to take the body to the Arctic where it can be preserved in ice, while a group of atheists decide the body has to be destroyed and hire a bunch of WW2 re-enactors to dive-bomb it. Every bit as entertaining as it is thought-provoking.

[Longtobefree]

Apedad,
I had all this written down in book, you know - - - - - - - -

Regards,
I AM

No shrub of the field had yet grown on the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not made it rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. But water would come out of the ground and water the entire surface of the land. Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there He placed the man He had formed.

[Krayt]

Water would come up from under the land because the Earth was a pocket in the great chaos sea, with water above it (held back by the solid “vault” and the land below.

During Noah’s flood, water doesn’t just rain down from above, but seeps up from below. In fact, the vast majority of water must have done so. God opened up both windows above and breaks up fonts below.

If you trace the story back pre-Bible, the Earth’s pocket, vault and land, is actually the split in half body of the dragon Leviathan, which God slew and split in half. They even forgot to remove mention of that battle, but did remove Earth’s origin from it.

[SRG2]

Leviathan is not mentioned in Genesis at all. Sea serpents/monsters are mentioned in Gen 1.21 – the Hebrew “taninim gedolim” – but no name is given to them. (One old explanation for this curious line is that another local tribe worshipped sea serpents so Gen 1 is saying, “our god created your gods”.) The Septuagint translates “taninim” as κήτη, “kete”, the Greek for whale or other large sea animal, from which the word “cetacean” is derived.

However, the Hebrew word translated as “deep”, tehom, is cognate with Tiamat, the sea monster of Babylonian myth. This is why Fox in the Schocken edition translates tehom as “Ocean” – which is clever because Okeanos, from whence Ocean, was a Titan who circled the earth as a great river. But alas, that’s Greek myth, not Hebrew.

In my own translation of Genesis for a very slowly-written commentary on Genesis 1, I translate tehom as “monstrous depths” – not literal, but conveys something of the spirit of the etymology.

[apedad]

Nope!

That book was created by humans.

As I mentioned in my initial God letter, I don't work with clerks and lackeys.

From now on, I need to hear it straight from the Grand Poobah him-/her-/zie-/verself.

[Internet sloth]

Viktor Frankl said our purpose is the search for meaning.

We may lament that so much suffering is objectively meaningless. However the subjective experience of suffering is surely meaningful, in that it is of no small concern. Alleviation is life. How can there be love without first being care? How can there be humor without first being anxiety? How can there be curiosity without there first being the unknown?

All of these incompletions will find completion with the fullness of time.

[Randal]

https://www.salon.com/2023/08/22/new-polls-prove-obama-and-clinton-were-right-the-base-are-deplorable-bitter-clingers/

When a MAGA-American picks up the phone and hears a pollster from the hated "liberal media" ask them questions about Trump's indictments and general trustworthiness, they aren't answering the question asked. What they're really hearing, over and over: "Are you ready to admit that you were wrong and liberals were right all along about Trump?" And the answer is a big, fat "hell no," because the first rule of MAGA is to never, ever, under any circumstances, admit that liberals might be right about something.

Seems right.

[Michael P]

The top three rules of Salon are to never be sensible, to lie for partial ends, and to lose money, in some order.

https://archive.ph/20160302210633/http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/this_might_be_americas_biggest_idiot_frat_boy_meet_the_uva_student_who_thought_he_could_pull_a_prank_in_north_korea/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/fact-check-desantis-florida-students-professors-political-views/index.html

[VinniUSMC]

Randal reads Salon?

Seems right.

[Sarcastr0]

Not a huge fan myself, but folks here read VDare and Jack Probisec. He’s fine.

[Brett Bellmore]

I read Salon myself from time to time. They've got a perspective, sure, but they're not total hacks.

[Nelson]

You read Salon? I thought it was a hard-left highbrow site, but apparently I was mistaken. Is it worth reading?

[Brett Bellmore]

Occasionally. Like I said, they're not total hacks, and there's quite a bit of value in knowing how the other side thinks.

Admittedly, I usually follow links there to particular stories. I just visited their homepage for the first time in a long while, and, yeah, it IS pretty off-putting. Wow.

[shawn_dude]

Salon's writers tend to be enjoyable to read. They don't shy away from a good turn of phrase or exploring the irony in their subjects. They aren't a "just the facts" sort of publication and explore other aspects of their stories. So yeah, not the best resource to quote in a debate but a good read on a weekend morning over coffee.

[Bwaaah]

Well, you almost got it right. The correct conclusion is:

The first rule of a PARTISAN is to never, ever, under any circumstances, admit that the other party might be right about something.

(You left half the muck out of the problem. Where does that put you?)

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure the symmetry of contrarianism is indeed equal from left to right.

Until recently, negative partisanship was more concentrated on the right than the left. But from 2018 on, the trend is for them to become more equal.

[Bwaaah]

I admit that my term "partisan" is meant to apply those who emotionally affiliate with one of the two major parties, and who tend to feel emotionally opposed to the other party, pretty consistently regardless of any particulars.

The more recent "consolidation of views" on the Left is, I hope, mainly a transitory Trump reaction. But in practice, on the Left, it's now pretty much, "If you're not for us, then you must be OK with them, and if you're OK with them, then [you are immoral and] you must not hate Trump, and if you don't hate Trump, then you are MAGA."

So I'm MAGA because I have some policy differences with the partisan Left. In person, left-leaning partisans won't even really discuss issues with me anymore; they talk right past me to the MAGA people (which is a pejorative slur in itself), as if I weren't there and don't have a point of view. That's a real dumbass heuristic at play. (It's as if they're talk to the n_gg_r in the room; there's no lack of bigotry there.)

[Randal]

I don't think that's true at all. The left stands ready to cheer on any Republican who offers a return to policy, facts, institutions, and the rule of law and away from cultism. Even Nancy Pelosi has said that America needs a healthy conservative party in order to function.

The more recent “consolidation of views” on the Left is, I hope, mainly a transitory Trump reaction.

This is a misdiagnosis. There hasn't been a consolidation of views... quite the opposite. Major segments of the left aren't comfortable with things like trans women in women's sports, wealth taxes, and anti-capitalist rhetoric. Some are even turning on public-sector unions! (Police unions being the entry point.) We're divided by Israel and just as upset as you about Gen-Z's apparent hypersensitivity and subsequent rejection of free speech (and even more upset than you about their corollary rejection of academic freedom).

But you're correct in both the symptoms and the underlying cause. Trump's indifference to policy gave an opening to the far left to get loud without much fear of reprisal. His constant shenanigans distracted the more technocratic elements of the left from their normal role of tempering the far left's craziness. And for some reason, the left finds Trump's culture-war bait irresistible. I can see how for an outside observer, that might look like a consolidation of views. It's not, it's just the kids throwing a party while the adults are off dealing with an emergency.

But you're right that once the MAGA emergency comes to an end, the left will regain better control of its fringe.

[Sarcastr0]

I share your fears as to the left and the way that purity ratchet works.
But the left doesn't control the Dems, regardless of GOP rhetoric. In fact, my friends working at liberal nonprofits say a lot of what the left is doing is purity test wankery and grievance taking within those organizations; they've given up on the right, and turned inward. Not better, in my estimation. But so far they aren't winning many elections.

OTOH, the MAGA does control the GOP. I'm not saying there is no threat from the left, but the right seems much more worrying to me as a threat to our republic and liberty.

[Bwaaah]

From responses by you and Randal above, I glean hope.

[Sarcastr0]

Never take or lose hope from the weirdos on political message boards.

From taking such places as representative I became concerned about Presidential candidates Rick Perry...and Fred Thompson.

None of us are normal here 😛

[Nelson]

"So I’m MAGA because I have some policy differences with the partisan Left."

This is my concern. Traditionally, when one party drifted too far towards their fringe, the other moved towards the center and collected those who were more reasonable and centrist.

The theoretical advantage of a two-party duopoly is that it is stable and relatively moderate. Neither party could get too extreme or they would lose power as the center swung its support to the less-extreme party.

Theoretically, that was a preservation mechanism as well. If the two parties went too far towards their fringes, the likelihood of a third party arising from the center increased.

Since Obama was elected, the right has moved significantly towards its fringe. The left has maintained a more robust moderate faction, but there is a lot of energy on the hard left and the moderates like Tester, Biden, Casey, and Manchin are near the end of their influence.

That should mean there's an opportunity for a centrist party to emerge. But I'm just not seeing it. There are plenty of people who find Jim Jordan and AOC equally unpalatable and feel they don't have a place in either oarty.

So why aren't we seeing the rise of a centrist party to fill the void?

[Randal]

Only MAGA is willing to cast out its own partisans for nothing more than impure thoughts, like poor Liz Cheney, in order to protect its obviously self-destructive leader.

[Michael Ejercito]

Liz Cheney voted for impeachment.

[David Nieporent]

She did. She has no substantive policy differences with the GOP; indeed, she had a more conservative voting record than many of those more favored within the party, like Elise Stefanik. But she rejects one RINO, so she was excommunicated.

[Kazinski]

I wonder what the statute of limitations is on insurrection?

Tommy Smothers advocated insurrection on national TV in 1967. He's still alive and just a little older than Joe Biden, which isn't too old to go to jail.

From DANGEROUSLY FUNNY THE UNCENSORED STORY OF THE SMOTHERS BROTHERS COMEDY HOUR, 2009. A couple of days after a military Junta staged a coup, Tommy first announces he's recognizing the new government, then Dick tells him he can't do that:

"Tom persists, saying he likes the way, in Greece, they “threw up the government.” Dick corrects him, saying he meant threw out or threw over, but Tom stands firm: “They got sick of the government, and just blecch!, threw it up!”
That would have been an innocuous bit of topical humor, but Tom didn’t stop there. “Even right here in this country,” he shouts defiantly to Dick and the studio audience, “if there’s something we don’t like, we have the right, as members of this country, to stand right up and throw the government right out! March right over, and throw them right out!”

“Wait a minute, Tommy,” Dick says sternly. “You love this country.”

“I know I love this country,” Tom replies. “I’m not too sure about the government!”

“That is not how he feels!” Dick says, turning directly to the audience. “Tommy does not advocate throwing over the government.”

Then, turning back to his brother, Dick says, “You don’t, do you?”

“I don’t advocate throwing over the government,” Tom admits sheepishly. Then, with a smile, he adds, “I was just saying that to keep them on their toes.”

I was probably watching when it aired, cheering for Tommy.

[Michael Ejercito]

Under a normnal definttion, this was not insurrection.

Under the Baude/Paulsen "definition", it was.

[David Nieporent]

Neither Baude nor Paulson defined insurrection in any such way. Why do you people lie like this?

Is it because you know that what Trump actually did is indefensible, so the only way you can continue to back him is to pretend that he is accused of something much less, which you can defend?

[Michael Ejercito]

What Trump did was justified payback for the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign.

[Josh R]

The Trump colluded narrative is on par with the Biden crime family narrative (unproven allegations made during the campaign). If Biden loses in 2024, it would be indefensible for him to do what Trump did in 2020 as payback for the crime family narrative (assuming the narrative is found as wanting as the Trump colluded narrative).

[Michael P]

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/city-wont-disclose-120-million-spending/

It's funny how some people insist that Chicago style politics are not a thing.

[Bwaaah]

The only thing "Chicago" about it is how routinely it's practiced, and how complacent the people are about that.

Pol: "I'm going to cheat you."

Voter: "Well of course you will."

Another Pol: "I'm *not* going to cheat you."

Voter: "I'll take the honest one instead."

[Michael Ejercito]

Here was what my longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote.

https://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/08/police-supt-mccarthy-legacy-of-racism-plagues-todays-police-officers.html?cid=6a00d83451b4ba69e2014e8ad3de79970d#comment-6a00d83451b4ba69e2014e8ad3de79970d

As far as I can see, Chicago is the way it is because the people are content to have it so. And that includes having a police department inside of which a home invasion and kidnapping ring could operate for YEARS without anybody seeing ANYTHING.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck yeah, victim blaming.

[not guilty]

Kenneth Chesebro has demanded a speedy trial in Georgia. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23925133-23sc188947-demand-for-speedy-trial-chesebro That trial should be very interesting.

[Randal]

It's a good strategy, if it works and he ends up getting tried separately.

[not guilty]

It looks to me like Chesebro is toast. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/ken-chesebro-memos-trump-coconspirator-00110458

[BravoCharlieDelta]

None of those things on their face are a crime. What are you assuming to be true to assert he is "toast"?

[not guilty]

Have you read the Georgia indictment, BCD? Yes or no? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23909551-23sc188947-criminal-indictment64 Chesebro is charged with seven distinct conspiracy offenses. Conspiracy is an inchoate offense, the essence of which is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.

Chesebro's writings, linked in the Politico article I linked to, indicate that he is advising that persons who were not legitimate Georgia presidential electors to fraudulently claim to be valid electors. The conduct which was the object of the conspiracy violates several Georgia statutes.

[Armchair Lawyer]

He actually said "I’m not necessarily advising this course of action,” he added, describing it as a “bold, controversial strategy"

[not guilty]

Yeah, right. That kind of disclaimer won't fly with a jury.

[Martinned]

Well, to be fair, it might.

[Michael P]

The wonderfully flexible thing about inchoate offenses is that they give the opportunity to ask the jury whether they agree that ORANGE MAN BAD. Finding the requisite facts borders on mind-reading.

[Sarcastr0]

You coming out against the existence of inchoate offenses in criminal law?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it is the case that conspiracy law is all messed up. Establishing the conspiracy is the whole game, it is virtually impossible to NOT do something that can be argued to advance the conspiracy once the prosecution has convinced the jury there was one.

So the government gets somebody in the target's ambit dead to rights on something, anything, and offers to cut them a deal if they'll testify to the existence of a conspiracy, and plead guilty to some minor associated crime. At that point, you're pretty much stripped of any defense.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It must be absolutely thrilling to have so much confidence about so many things you know absolutely nothing about.

[Nige]

'once the prosecution has convinced the jury there was one.'

So, once they've proved their case. You're complaining that the prosecution will find it ieaseir to prove incidental stuff once they've proved their core case. This is the most Brett Bellmore complaint Brett Bellmore ever Brett Bellmored.

[Michael P]

No more than you are coming out in favor of abusive prosecutors who exploit the gullibility of grand juries in political monocultures.

[apedad]

"Conspiracy is an inchoate offense, the essence of which is an agreement to commit an unlawful act."

I don't think just planning and agreeing to a criminal act is enough for "conspiracy."

There has to be in overt act in relation to the agreement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but the 'overt act' can be some perfectly innocent act that you'd have done even if you weren't part of the alleged conspiracy. If the government alleges a conspiracy to rob a bank on Tuesday, and you're supposedly the getaway driver, it could be just the fact that you gassed up your car on Monday.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not innocent if it's part of a conspiracy.

They still need to prove that you were the gettaway driver, as with any other crime.

[Life of Brian]

It’s not innocent if it’s part of a conspiracy.

Shamelessly circular -- and, I'm told, legally incorrect.

You must have missed the litany of smugness last week assuring us that Mark Meadows wiping his ass* would be a perfectly reasonable predicate act if done on a bathroom break during a meeting about the Georgia fiasco.

* A modest exaggeration, I'll grant you, but not by much at all.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Shamelessly circular — and, I’m told, legally incorrect.

Who do told you that?

[Life of Brian]

You may have overlooked the following paragraph where I expanded on that. I don't recall if you were one of the crowd or not. NG certainly was, and I believe DMN.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think just planning and agreeing to a criminal act is enough for “conspiracy.”

There has to be in overt act in relation to the agreement.

It depends. Section 371 does require an overt act, but most other federal conspiracy statutes (including the other two charged in the January 6 case, §§ 241 and 1512) do not.

[Kazinski]

Who knows? This doesn't look so bad:
"“It may seem odd that electors pledged to Trump and Pence might meet and cast their votes on December 14 even if, at that juncture, the Trump-Pence ticket is behind in the vote count,” Chesebro wrote. “However, a fair reading of the federal statutes suggests that this is a reasonable course of action.”

Chesebro noted that if courts ruled in Trump’s favor, Congress may only be able to count electoral votes cast by the legally prescribed deadline of Dec. 14. In other words, it was a contingency plan while lawsuits were pending."

Or this:
“I’m not necessarily advising this course of action,” he added, describing it as a “bold, controversial strategy.”

Nor this
"In a third memo to Troupis, Chesebro outlined the federal and state laws governing the meetings of the electors and how the Trump campaign could attempt to comply with those requirements in order to keep alive the chance that they would be counted by the courts or Congress."

Not this either:
"The goal was to feature testimony from allied legal scholars to “buttress the substantive basis for the President of the Senate later refusing to count votes from those states, absent more needed scrutiny.”

He even suggested that Pence recuse himself.

What's the toast part?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I mean, these are suggestions by an lawyer of a potentially controversial concept, or novel or unorthodox interpretation of the law. It's practically their job to do this.

But that happens regularly. This very case than Fani is prosecuting is a novel way to interpret RICO.

[David Nieporent]

This very case than Fani is prosecuting is a novel way to interpret RICO.

Now he's not just an Armchair Lawyer, folks; he's an Armchair Georgia Lawyer!

[John F. Carr]

Two of the seven slates of "alternate" electors did not lie. They made their votes explicitly contingent on being properly selected. Preparing alternate electors was not inherently illegal. The plan was illegal as implemented, with unconditional fake votes being sent to federal officials.

Who came up with the language on the paperwork sent to Washington? Who directed the fake votes to be mailed instead of silently discarded?

[Michael P]

Who cares about the details? It's like Oprah. You get a conspiracy charge! You get a conspiracy charge! Everybody gets a conspiracy charge!

[Martinned]

You're almost making it sound as if American criminal law is a bit crooked, and generally aimed at locking up as many people as possible. Someone should really do something about that!

[Michael P]

Democrats claim they want to reform our justice system, but apparently what they really mean is putting violent criminals on the street and their political opponents in jail.

[Martinned]

Wow, it sounds like you've really got them figured out!

[Sarcastr0]

Special pleading. You don't get a rats ass about reform.

The way to prevent reform is to allow such exceptions based on partisan whining. Maybe you'll actually want to take a look at the system now. But I doubt it.

[Michael P]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

This free service provided as a benefit to those who have forgotten what English phrases mean.

[Sarcastr0]

"Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard."

You cry about unfairness...to Trump and his people. No one else seems to matter to you, and no hint of actually changing the rules, just making an exception.

Special pleading - you're soaking in it.

[Michael P]

Yes, the general principles are that Democrats have no principles and want to jail their political opponents.

[Nige]

Shouldn't have voted for the criminal.

[Randal]

Wash that special pleading right out of your hair! The real question is whether the people of this blog know the recent history of Palmolive.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who advised the dopey fake electors and document preparers -- the ones whose documents did not include reason- and law-based disclaimers -- to prepare and sign the documents in that form?

Why?

Those people confront substantial legal liability and seem to deserve conviction and substantial punishment. The fake electors deserve conviction, too, and less substantial punishment.

[shawn_dude]

There are many different way to cook toast. Perhaps he's just trying to choose the toaster's setting to avoid getting completely burned?

[Mr. Bumble]

Fani pac doesn't give a shit about Kenneth Cheesbro.

[not guilty]

NBC News reports that Fani Willis has requested a trial date to begin on October 23, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7fpv1fuLvk

[Mr. Bumble]

Chances of that are slim and none.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sorry, I missed the part where you didn't look like a moron.

"A Georgia judge on Thursday signed off on a quick turnaround to the start of the trial for Kenneth Chesebro, one of 18 defendants charged alongside former President Donald Trump in connection with alleged efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

The ruling, scheduling an Oct. 23 start to Chesebro's trial, came just after Trump's newly appointed attorney said he would move to sever the former president's case from Chesebro or any other defendant who sought an expedited timeline. "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-date-fulton-county-georgia-fani-willis-proposal-october-23/

"Slim and none" says the Bumbling Idiot.

[Mr. Bumble]

No chance that all 19 will be on trial in Oct. If she wants to try Chesebro she will be free to go ahead with that one, but I doubt she will. The right to a speedy trial rests with the defendant and I don't think any of the others will be seeking an October trial date.

[not guilty]

Why would the prosecution decline to try Mr. Chesebro beginning in October? If the trial does not commence by the end of the year, the charges against him must be dismissed based on the Georgia statute.

There is strong evidence against this defendant. He was foolish enough to reduce his batshit crazy advice to writing, and there are scores of co-conspirators, both indicted and unindicted. The unindicted co-conspirators likely reached cooperation agreements requiring them to testify at trial, and the out of court statements of all co-conspirators made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy, including a statement made during the concealment phase of a conspiracy, are non-hearsay according to Ga. Code § 24-8-801(d)(2)(E).

Mr. Chesebro will have to choose between testifying or letting his incriminating writings go unexplained. If he testifies, he will be subject to wide open cross-examination. Any testimony he gives will be admissible against him in a future federal prosecution.

Why on earth would the prosecution decline to try him beginning in October?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Why on earth would the prosecution decline to try him beginning in October?"
Because it wouldn't advance her real objective to tar Trump as a felon.
Time will tell.

[not guilty]

That makes no sense, Mr. Bumble. How would trying and convicting the architect of the fake elector scheme fail to advance an effort to later convict Trump of multiple felonies?

[Mr. Bumble]

How would trying and losing effect the case against the 18 others charged. You've pretty much assumed their guilt.

[windycityattorney]

The issue for the prosecution is they wanted to try all defendants together in one trial - which is something of a pipe dream in my opinion. In reality, some defendants will try to remove to federal court. Some will ask to be severed. Some may have pre-trial motions and other matters relevant to them not relevant to other defendants etc... And some, like this defendant, can demand speedy trial.

I personally think this is a smart move for this one defendant. It is very likely that so much other bullshit will be going on with all the other defendants that it could result in him being tried alone (or the State says fuck it. We don't need his conviction to get the evidence against Chesebro in against the other conspirators and drop his charges.) It will also greatly limit the length of the trial and keep the jury focused.

His defense is likely to be that he gave advice on possibilities and ambiguities in statutes/precedent and was just giving the Trump campaign *options* to pursue and that other people took that advice and ran with it and if some of them incorrectly interpreted his advice to do illegal things that is on them but he never advised them to do anything illegal. Most of the memos speak in hypothetical terms and require other actors (GOP senators, Clarence Thomas etc...) to behave or react a certain way. He also hedges a lot. A lot of "if this happens, then we can try this. If this other thing happens, then we can do this." Just a whole lot of speculation - necessarily because -- what they were trying to do was unprecedented and would upset a lot of people. Which he also acknowledge as a weakness of the overall plan.

[not guilty]

"His defense is likely to be that he gave advice on possibilities and ambiguities in statutes/precedent and was just giving the Trump campaign *options* to pursue and that other people took that advice and ran with it and if some of them incorrectly interpreted his advice to do illegal things that is on them but he never advised them to do anything illegal. Most of the memos speak in hypothetical terms and require other actors (GOP senators, Clarence Thomas etc…) to behave or react a certain way. He also hedges a lot. A lot of “if this happens, then we can try this. If this other thing happens, then we can do this.” Just a whole lot of speculation – necessarily because — what they were trying to do was unprecedented and would upset a lot of people. Which he also acknowledge as a weakness of the overall plan."

The obstacle that Chesebro will be unable to surmount is that his plan depended upon pretenders in multiple states falsely claiming to be legitimate electors. That lie is the linchpin of the entire scam, and putting it in writing and sending it to the National Archives violated multiple Georgia statutes, identified particularly in various counts of the indictment. (Whether he may be convicted of multiple criminal conspiracies or a single conspiracy is a legitimate issue.)

To argue that he outlined a detailed scheme for other folks to commit multiple crimes, but did not intend that they actually do so is nonsense.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Justthenews released a State Department memo that stated it was US policy to grant the Ukrainian Government that $1B loan guarantee unconditionally since they had made sufficient progress on reforms.

That's the loan guarantee Biden used to get that prosecutor fired. Why would Biden do something that was counter to official US policy?

[Michael P]

But, but, Sarcastr0 just asked how the timeline shows that the US was happy with Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts. How could he possibly be ignorant of facts someone reminded us of 34 minutes before his comment?

[Armchair Lawyer]

In an action that surprises absolutely no one, Wagner's leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has suddenly died after the aircraft he was on mysteriously crashed, while travelling over Russian Airspace.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ten-killed-private-jet-crash-north-moscow-tass-2023-08-23/

We all know what really happened.

[Martinned]

He should have asked Putin to solve this Middle Ages/Ancient Romans-style, and give his (Putin's) daughter as a hostage. Nothing short of that would have deterred Putin from having him assassinated.

[John F. Carr]

I feel like I did when Girkin/Strelkov was arrested. Putin is acting lawlessly. His targets are not innocent victims. Should I care?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Probably, because of the likely results for the next mutiny....

[Commenter_XY]

All the more reason to find a face-saving 'exit ramp' in Ukraine = Putin is acting lawlessly

[Nige]

The other people on the flight were not 'innocent?'

[Mr. Bumble]

Says Judge Dredd.

[Brett Bellmore]

He wasn't flying commercial, you know. It was his own private plane, carrying other members of the mercenary group leadership, too.

It's possible the flight crew were innocent, though.

[Krayt]

Sure you should care. Who rules is the most capable of killing off their own political enemies. That the enemies are also shits doing likewise doesn't matter. You still live in a dictatorship.

Thank god in this country politicians can't use government against their political enemies.

[shawn_dude]

Love the sarcasm!
Chris Christie and "BridgeGate" comes to mind. As does Trump's attempt to strong-arm Ukraine resulting in his first impeachment. DeSantis vs Disney is up there, too. And if by "enemies" you include entire classes of people, the recent Red state attacks on Black and LGBT Americans apply.

That's the appeal of authoritarianism--might makes right.

[Martinned]

Or, as Politico put it:

Wagner's Yevgeny Prigozhin was "a gangster killed by another gangster gangsta style".

https://www.politico.eu/article/yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-plane-mutiny-wagner-group-kremlin-vladimir-putin-russia/

[shawn_dude]

Putin: "Nyet. I've thrown people out windows so many times. This is boringk. Throw him out of sky."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Prigozhin, has suddenly died "

Leader of next mutiny/coup won't back down. Die either way.

[shawn_dude]

Yup. That's exactly what happened after Tiananmen Square!

[Aunt Teefah]

"We all know what really happened."

Vaxxed?

[shawn_dude]

LOL! I'm waiting for the conspiracy theory that ties the "Biden crime family" into the plane crash. Bonus points if they can weave brain-eating Democratic child molesters into the story.

[David Nieporent]

There already is such a conspiracy theory!

See, idiots who don't understand bookkeeping are fixated on a $6 billion issue with U.S. military aid to Ukraine (which was not actually $6 being lost, but a change in accounting from book value to replacement value). So, actually, the theory goes, the $6 billion was given by Biden to Prigozhin for his mutiny. And then Prigozhin double-crossed him, so Biden had him killed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

With the upcoming plandemic, how many of you are giddy with excitement and eager to comply with the State and are already planning when you're going to get boosted again? Are you going to camp out at Johnson and Johnsons corporate HQ hoping to be the first one with the maxx-vaxxed American? What a tremendous honor that would be for you!

[MoreCurious]

I got all my shots and boosters, I wore masks, and I avoided people, especially those who didn’t wear masks, and I did not get sick. Are you suggesting I should do something different?

[Mr. Bumble]

I did none of those and did not get sick Are you suggesting I should do something different?

[MoreCurious]

Perhaps a wager is in order. When the pandemic returns, I'll continue to do what I did and you continue to do what you did.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is no need for a wager. Que sera sera. You will continue to do what you do and I'll do what I do. I don't fault you for your choices and expect you won't fault mine.
Since we are both still above ground and breathing neither of our actions is proof of anything.

[MoreCurious]

Good answer. But if I had lost the wager you would have won two free tickets for the not-yet-scheduled cage fight between our favorite "doctor" and our favorite "reverend."

[Sarcastr0]

So I’m buying a car. Haven’t needed one but recently moved to a place in the suburbs far enough from the metro it’s gotta happen. I hate driving, it makes me nervous like not much else does. But no one said growing up would be all fun and Ubers.
The initial use planned is local driving to the pool and work. But I expect mission creep.

The wisdom I had drilled into me was that used was the way to go. But the cost differential from a 4 year old used to new at that cheapo level is about 3K.
Which given the risks and dealership and whatnot seems to indicate new is where the value is.

Unexpected.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what's it going to be: ICE, EV or Hybrid?

[Sarcastr0]

Probably ICE. For city driving the hybrid differential looks marginal, and EV is still getting refined plus lines at charging stations too often.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hybrid is actually better in the city. You get more back from the regenerative breaking that you're consistently doing. On the highway, there's (typically) less constant breaking. (Exceptions noted for stop and go on I-495.)

[Sarcastr0]

I'll have to research that; I was assuming city was the lower end of the mpg range they give.

[Mr. Bumble]

You really don't know much about anything, do you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am starting to sense that most of this blog's fans are never going to like you, Sarcastr0. If you do not become a racist, on-the-spectrum, gay-bashing, immigrant-hating, half-educated, antisocial right-wing misfit soon, there may be no hope.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Wow you are just the nastiest, dainty little troll, aren't you. Jumping into a civil back and forth between AL and Sarcastr0 just to make a nasty, effeminate little insult. Pathetic.
"sad lonely old man, defeated by life"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Look at the bright side: The operators and fans of this blog are the best that can be mustered by what is left of conservatism in modern America.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Tried unmuting bumble for a while. Should've known better.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Amen AWD.
The Mickey Rivers troll of the VC.

[jb]

PHEV seems particularly good for a mostly city driver. A lot of your drives might end up being all electric unless work is really far away, and as AL notes city driving is where you get the biggest benefit from the electric motor and regenerative braking.

(But I also think that concerns about EVs are pretty overblown at this point. I don't own one but have rented a few times and had no problem with charging infrastructure and the overall driving experience is a lot more fun than with an ICE in a way that's not true for a PHEV.)

[Krayt]

Rental companies probably made sure of sufficient charging stations before introducing the vehicles there (which the car companies probably helped build to make fleet sales). And then put a giant button in the middle of the screen, "Route me to the nearest charging station."

[jb]

Yes, I probably wouldn't want to rent an EV if going on a road trip to Yellowstone, etc. but most urban/suburban areas, resort-y destinations and interstate highway corridors have enough chargers at this point that it doesn't seem like a very large fraction of drivers wouldn't have problems with charging infrastructure today.

(Tesla at least is smart about their charges and levies an idle fee to discourage people just parking at a charger all day and preventing people like Sarcrast0 from charging up when needed.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently you haven't seen any of the stories by individuals (EV advocates including the chairman of Ford) who have tried this and had numerous difficulties.
You would be a complete fool to take an EV on any sort of "road trip" unless you enjoy worrying about where the next charger will be and will it be working. In fact this was a common source of anxiety among those who ventured out on long trips.

[jb]

Cool story.

[Mr. Bumble]

In case you’re interested:

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2022-ford-f-150-lightning-lariat-yearlong-review-update-7-electric-truck-road-tripping/

[Frank Drackman]

I guess “Global Warming” s a problem until you need a ride.

[Moderation4ever]

Don't know what you housing situation is but you can charge overnight in your garage. Most people's daily commute is well within the EV mileage/charge limit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you have a garage....

[Mr. Bumble]

That's supposing it doesn't catch fire while charging and burn down your home in the process.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's a pretty minor risk. EVs have 3 big other significant issues.

1. The big one is that "home charging" only works if you have a garage. Many places don't. You're not going to be running an extension line out to your driveway or on the street.

2. The range isn't really there. If you're "just" doing commuting, then it's OK. But, if you ever need to take a long trip (and almost everyone with a car does eventually), it just makes it more difficult. You need to find a charging station on the way there. You need to find one on the way back. The range drops in the cold, so now you need 2 charging stations. And it just adds complications.

3. The cost.

[John F. Carr]

I was going to suggest a used BMW i3 to somebody looking to make the 15 mile, 40 minute commute into the city. It's a small car but can hold some groceries. For the commute plugging into a 120V outlet can keep up. For anything beyond... she would be tied to Boston. Range isn't there.

The i3 was an example of how regulatory incentives distort the market. It had a tiny backup engine so you could recharge without a charger or extend your range. It had a tiny, tiny gas tank not for engineering reasons but only so it would be classified as "electric" instead of "hybrid".

[Moderation4ever]

What about an ICE car in your garage? Each gallon of gas in the tank is the equivalent of 14 sticks of dynamite in explosive potential.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really. To have any potential for an explosion, you need fuel and oxidizer closely mixed. That's actually a fair description of an EV battery, but not of a gasoline tank, where the only oxidizer in contact with the fuel is a bit in the headroom of the gas tank.

That's why, forget movie special effects, ICE vehicles don't explode. They just catch fire. Even the fires are typically oil fires, not gasoline fires, because the ignition temperature of gasoline is higher than its boiling point: It evaporates away before catching fire. If you see an engine catch fire, it's almost always the lubricating oil, which does have a higher boiling point than it's ignition temperature, and can catch fire by, for instance, leaking onto an exhaust manifold.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, condo; no garage. And at work the charging stations seem invariably full even as early as I tend to get in.

[David Welker]

You don’t need a garage. You can charge an EV with an extension cord.

Buy a Tesla. I own one. Supercharging it is no big deal.

The biggest reasons for preferring electric are: (1) superior torque and (2) reduced maintenance.

[Davedave]

I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a Tesla. The build quality is hilariously bad. I haven't seen any other new cars in a long time with wonky panel gaps etc. There are so many better electric options on the market from people who know how to build cars properly.

And the two reasons you cite aren't really true. The torque thing is based on a misunderstanding - electric motors produce max torque at zero rpm (or rather, just above zero, since there is no torque at zero), but it drops off rapidly once moving. And the maintenance thing assumes, wrongly, that engine maintenance is a major part of maintaining a car - the reality is that the actual average annual cost of maintaining the engine is minimal compared to all the other costs; it isn't the 1970s anymore, engines don't need regular work.

The best reason to buy an electric car is if it fits your use case better than the alternatives. Things like the near-silent running and somewhat reduced maintenance are a bonus, not a good reason to buy. For example, if, like me, almost all your journeys are very short, you don't want a modern diesel, or a turbocharged petrol engine, and naturally aspirated petrol engines are pretty rare in newer cars these days.

[Voize]

electric motors produce max torque at zero rpm (or rather, just above zero, since there is no torque at zero)

A motor that produces no torque at zero rpm would never start turning. See the description of locked rotor torque.

[Voize]

Maybe you meant there is no power at zero rpm?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not to be contentious, but I don't think any of your statements ring true.
1.You don’t need a garage. You can charge an EV with an extension cord.
That seems to suggest using 120 volts. How long would it take to charge?
2.Buy a Tesla. I own one. Supercharging it is no big deal.
Depends on where you live.
3.The biggest reasons for preferring electric are: (1) superior torque and (2) reduced maintenance.
Are you into stop light challenges? Once you're moving torque is no big deal. As for maintenance; have you had to replace your tires yet (the extra weight of the battery causes them wear fairly quickly) or replace the battery?

[Frank Drackman]

is it really an EV if 80% of the "E" comes from burning oil/natural gas/coal or splitting atoms??

[David Nieporent]

Yes. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Must be nice to be a Federal Elite. Most citizens are struggling to buy bread and eggs. But look at you and your economic woes! Heaven forbid a DC bureaucrat suffer with some $50k cheapo new car! Let's pray to the Secretary of State you've at least chosen to buy an EV to save the planet.

Good thing those citizens are struggling so much, their sacrifices definitely ease your burdens as an elite federal worker!

[Sarcastr0]

Lol yes, having a compact car will make me a fancy richy rich.

[Frank Drackman]

You really want to be green go with a Motorcycle, besides
the lower Carbon Footprint someone will get your Kidneys/Corneas/Heart

Frank

[OtisAH]

Idiot.

[David Nieporent]

Most citizens are struggling to buy bread and eggs.

No, they're not.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm a retired fed, living on a federal pension, the ultimate parasite! I have a nice Toyota 4x4 pickup that I drive on the beach almost every day. Choke on that, slave!

[Commenter_XY]

What are your needs, Sarcastr0? Car? SUV? Truck? Mini-van?

I do not recommend EV or PHEV (yet), strongly recommend used (less depreciation), no more than 4 years old. It is a matter of time (how long can you wait for exactly what you want) and available spend (cash available for purchase).

[Armchair Lawyer]

A Prius or other hybrid is typically fine. That being said, I'm typically a fan of the new car, then run it into the ground strategy. There's less risk in what may have gone wrong with the used car before.

[Michael P]

It's a nice strategy in principle, but the only car I ever ran into the ground was the Dodge Neon I got as my starter car. I had to replace my second car because the backseat wasn't big enough for car seats. My third card was totaled when someone rear-ended it while it was parked on a residential street. It's hard to buy a sensible car that you can really expect to meet your needs for 20+ years -- and with much less amortization, a gently used car looks more appealing. Though as you point out, "gently used" is hard to confirm.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Typically midsize sedans do pretty well. Or small SUVs/crossovers.

20 years is pushing it. But I had an Accord from 2005 to about 2020, that had 150K plus before stuff started falling off. The current Camry is at about 9 years old, with 150K, and will probably get to 200K.

Buy it new at $25K, have it 15 years, you're looking at about $1600 a year in car expenses + repairs and gas. Repairs probably end up being $500 a year, between oil changes, tires, oil filters, brakes, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

I originally came in thinking Prius - my siblings have them and like them - but the price point was a skosh too high to justify. (~6K differential)

[John F. Carr]

According to research quoted in an episode of Freakonomics, Prius used to command a ~$1K price premium in liberal areas for being conspicuously "green". A Prius is distinctive. Your neighbors know you have a hybrid.

[David Nieporent]

That being said, I’m typically a fan of the new car, then run it into the ground strategy.

One thing we agree on. That's how my parents raised me: a car is a way to get you from one place to another, and as long as it still does that, and you're not pouring a ton of money into maintenance, you keep it.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, at least initially short commutes within my suburban sprawl to work and the pool and like the store. So compact car should be fine. I'm going cheap and reliable.

Available money is flexible; with the move and whatnot some spending habits are still up in the air.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so that narrows the consideration set a lot Sarcastr0, which is helpful.

Toyota (first choice): Toyota Camry (not Corolla - too small)
Honda (second choice): Honda Accord (Civic could work)

Domestic manufacturers are not worth discussing, their quality, reliability and durability are nothing like Toyota and Honda.

[Commenter_XY]

The other thing I would say, Sarcastr0: Go for the tech features. That makes a significant difference in driving experience.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I'm going ham on safety stuff. As I said, driving already makes me nervous. Which itself an unsafe state to be in while driving. Oy.

I was looking at a Corolla. Also looking at a Subaru Impreza.

But maybe I splurge and go a couple of grand up away from compact.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, reminds me of when I first had occasion to drive in the big city after learning to drive in the country. I actually had to pull into a parking lot and sit for a while to get over the shakes. It's a completely different and much scarier experience that rural driving.

[Bob from Ohio]

Stay away from Toyota IMHO. Honda is just better. Look at a Civic.

Subaru is also very good.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Completely agree on Subaru. Fantastic cars.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A Corolla is generally a little too small, especially long term.

Civic, Camry, Accord. Those tend to be better long term. (And yes, Civics have gotten larger.)

[Sarcastr0]

Why does size matter more long-term?

[Armchair Lawyer]

You get more stuff and family visiting and kids.

[Mr. Bumble]

Easier to have sex in. Less likely to get a cramp.

[John F. Carr]

The only tech features that matter to me were available over 15 years ago.

1. A connection so my device can play audio, and ideally allowing it to be controlled from the radio controls. I had this in a 2004 model with a c. 2008 add-on iPod interface and it was better than what I have now.

2. Navigation system. Again, what I had 15 years ago was better than what I have now. The screen in my newer car is not tall enough. If I want to drive east or west with north at the top, I guess it's OK.

How do you screw up intermittent windshield wipers? This is basic analog technology that worked fine before cars had computers in them. My car does not allow me to override the rain sensor, and the rain sensor picks the wrong speed. I also miss the mechanical switch that turns the rear view mirror from day to night mode.

[Mr. Bumble]

The growing list of tech and safety features just add to more distracted driving by people who should not be behind the wheel.
The most important safety feature is an informed attentive driver.

[John F. Carr]

Last year the supply of new cars was very low. Between general supply chain disruption and the war in Ukraine many dealers had literally zero new inventory. Everything on a boat was sold before it reached North America.

Ukraine makes wiring harnesses for cars. Malaysia does chip packaging. America makes amoral billionaires.

[Sarcastr0]

America makes amoral billionaires.
This is a good one.

Yeah, the market seems messed up but I hear it'll take years to clear.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Some combo of the pandemic and the long-lived shortage of microchips for cars has resulted in a huge market for used cars.

Here’s an example of how bad it got, in the summer of 2021 is was looking for a car. One of the places I looked was Mercedes Benz of North Houston. A dealer intended to serve half of the population of the 4th largest city in the United States. That day, across all of their model lines, they had an inventory of seven new cars available to be sold. The lot itself looked like the lot at a shopping mall on Christmas morning.

I guess it’s fixed by now. A year later in the summer of ‘22 I was at a dealer in the same area and they were complaining about the chip shortage making it hard to get inventory.

Multiple years of diminished car production resulted in an unprecedented wrinkle in the used car market.

[Sarcastr0]

Conventional wisdom is not inviolate, but it does give one pause to go against it sometimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did just recently stop getting wistful letters from the dealership asking if I were interested in selling my 2016 jeep back to them. So I guess the used car market has been loosening up lately. Or maybe they just had a cutoff at 5 years...

[Mr. Bumble]

Slide rule broken? A 2016 is not 5 years old. 2024s will be out soon.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't buy it in 2016...

[John F. Carr]

Earlier this year I got letters from a dealer asking about selling them my 2004 car. I sold it in a private sale instead to somebody who likes to work on cars. I do not like to work on cars.

[loki13]

Yeah. I was one of the lucky ones. We had been looking for a car for a while, and decided to pull the trigger just when the pandemic hit at the start of 2020.

At the time, car dealers were desperate to unload inventory since no one was coming to the lots, and we got a great deal on the exact car that we wanted. Little did we know that with the chip shortage and the manufacturing issues, that we got completely lucky.

(Well, twice lucky. We also moved at the end of 2019 to a new house. At the time, I thought the price was outrageous, but loved the interest rate. .... well, I was right about the interest rate. But I had no idea what would happen with the housing market.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

"But the cost differential from a 4 year old used to new at that cheapo level is about 3K."

That will soon change when the repos start.

[Kazinski]

My son who's 23, just got his first job out of college, he ended up buying a Hundai Elantra hybrid. I tried to talk him into a ICE, but he got a decent price, and he doesn't have to charge it. And he too was shocked at how little the price differential was between a new and used, so he bought new.

I'm still driving my 1997 Toyota Tacoma that I bought new, but my primary car is a 2017 Golf Sportswagen, plenty of power and I get about 38mpg on the highway, I don't do enough city driving these days to know what my mileage is there.

[OtisAH]

Unless you’d be at regular risk of exceeding mileage limitations you should at least look into leasing.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this due to the lower headaches on maintenance? I only considered it briefly - I am hoping to go for a reliable model and thus have a good lifespan post-financing of no payments and also not too many issues.

Basically: tell me a bit more of the benefits when you get a chance. And costs if you're up for it.

[OtisAH]

The biggest advantages are probably getting a new, maybe even fancy, vehicle for low low payments. And some folks enjoy getting a new one every 2-3 years.

The downsides can be a little nerve-wracking though. There’s a damage waiver I recommend but any serious accident could get expensive. That thought was always in the back of my mind, which is annoying. And if you exceed the mileage limits I understand the price blows up per mile. I drive around 5,000 miles a year at best so that wasn’t a concern. And, of course, unless you go onto purchase the vehicle when the lease is up, you’re paying for a vehicle you will never own. Also you’re on the hook for annual registration fees and the like, which usually get added to one of your monthly payments.

Far wordier on the downsides but I don’t want to seem that I’m down on leasing. I’ve done it, it’s fine. Not great, not bad. Leases are cheap relative to what you’d pay monthly to purchase a new vehicle and it won’t need much in the way of service. And like buying it just comes down to what works for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

In GaslightO's case leasing might be a good option. From how he described how he would be using the car, mileage doesn't seem to be a problem. Not sure how leasing rates compare with loans today (interest rates are way up and effect lease rates) but it will still be cheaper than a car loan. If he has good credit he should be able to find something with no money down. Damage beyond normal wear and tear should not be a problem since the leasing company will insist on insurance. Finally, if he likes it he can always buy it out at then end of the lease.

[Life of Brian]

Leasing could end up being the right call here, but to add to your cautionary notes: As with most things, there’s no free lunch and auto dealers aren’t giving you a huge price break out of the goodness of their hearts. You’re paying for the depreciation over the lease period one way or the other, granted with a more predictable exit strategy. And given how short the lease period is, a down payment that seems modest in absolute dollars bumps the effective per-month rate considerably.

A colleague of mine plays the leasing game hard and is big on leasing lightly used cars — again, you’re paying for depreciation, and the curve is flatter at that point.

[Davedave]

Leasing (sometimes) makes sense if you're the kind of person to blow money on driving a new car and replacing it every three years or so. If you're the sort of sane and sensible person who buys a car and keeps it for 10+ years, it's just flushing money down the drain.

[Frank Drackman]

2008 Z06, with a 6 Speed, like Jay-Hovah intended, bought it from a snooty Realtor during the crash, he wouldn't take my initial offer, went back a week later offered him a thousand less, "It's an older car now" I told him.

[Davedave]

Have a look at older cars - 10ish years old - from a slightly more premium sector, which were relatively new models at the time. The cost of a little extra maintenance (if needed, it probably won't be) and fuel pales in comparison to the saving on depreciation.

A 10yo BMW saloon is just a better machine than anything most manufacturers have ever made, usually. Find a good one and you're laughing. Exceptions are things made by Toyota or Honda - or Subaru/Suzuki, if they exist in your market - but you'll pay a premium for them. Even those can still break down, and cost money to fix. The BMW will be a much nicer place to sit, it'll have better tech, and, crucially, you'll like it enough to feel better about spending money to fix it if it breaks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The wisdom I had drilled into me was that used was the way to go."

An irrational fear of depreciation.

Other than a very few ultra-luxury goods, every consumer good one buys immediately depreciates in value. Buy a pair of pants for $100, you would be lucky to get $5 for them after one wear and wash.

This is not 1970 and only badly made US cars and tiny Civics available. Good new cars let you have years of largely worry free use with only oil changes and other routine maintenance, which you would have with a used car anyways. A used car with any mileage has already used up a good chunk of the best part of its life span.

[Davedave]

Logic and arithmetic aren't your strong points, are they? You've just presented the argument against buying a new car as an argument for it.

Obviously getting 50% of the life of something for 10% of the cost is the better deal than getting 50% for 90% of the cost.

[Bob from Ohio]

Obviously you've not priced used cars lately. 10% of new will mean 10% life left.

[Davedave]

So now you're claiming the depreciation curve is flat? Get a grip.

[DaveM]

When I ran the numbers on new vs used there was a clear sweet spot centered on 3 years / 36,000 miles. Younger than that, and you’re paying for depreciation. Older than that, and you’re potentially buying into major problems.

There’s another sweet spot centered on 20 years / 100,000 miles for premium brands such as BMW. If the car makes it that far, the earlier owners have already paid for all the major repairs it will need, except for replacing all the engine gaskets (which can still run you $2K — not a minimal cost.)

My current car is a 2001 BMW 330i, paid $5,500, put in $3,000 in repairs and body work. I have never driven a better car. Runs on premium, of course, so not for the budget-minded.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why would Democrats brag about giving Maui victims cots, blankets, and a one-time $700/family check and then when no one is looking put up the Democrat workers there to deliver those cots and blankets in $1000/night luxury resort hotels?

It’s like after 250 years there’s been an inversion. The people in government don’t serve us anymore, we serve them.

I expect sometime in the near future the citizens will finally figure out how to translate the Democrat's government handbook and we’ll discover it’s been a cookbook all along.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's Maui; Are there even any cheap hotels with rooms available on short notice when a bunch of people are displaced, in the first place, that they could have rented? And, are those hotels actually charging full price?

I mean, sure, terrible optics, and maybe they should have just stayed at a tent camp put up by the National Guard. But let's not pretend they could have just stayed at Motel 6.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and maybe they should have just stayed at a tent camp put up by the National Guard."

[Brett Bellmore]

And maybe the National Guard were busy doing other stuff that was more important?

I'm just saying that "Government bureaucrats nab all the cheap hotel rooms, leaving refugees only $1000/night rooms to attempt to afford" would not have been better optics.

[Mr. Bumble]

"And maybe the National Guard were busy doing other stuff that was more important?"
You think the NG can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
It's more than bad optics, same as Biden's "no comment" was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that the HI NG can request other NGs to help.

[Bob from Ohio]

“National Guard were busy doing other stuff”

Hawaii is the HQ of the Indo-Pacific Command and the Pacific Fleet. Manpower would not be an issue with decent leadership.

[Life of Brian]

Regardless of where you come out on the necessity for the hotels, under the circumstances $700 strikes me as only mildly northward of a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I saw Biden's initial post bragging about it and wondered if someone had hijacked his account.

[David Nieporent]

$700 is the statutorily allowed emergency payment.

[John F. Carr]

The US and Iran are finalizing a deal to pay over $1 billion per hostage released. Biden's people are much more generous than Reagan's.

[Michael P]

They're only generous to people who share the same fundamental allegiance as them (destroying US leadership in the world).

[apedad]

Pay?

How about ‘release frozen Iranian assets.’

We’re not paying anything.

"The cash represents money South Korea owed Iran — but had not yet paid — for oil purchased before the Trump administration imposed sanctions on such transactions in 2019."

[Bob from Ohio]

"We’re not paying anything."

Pedantic distinction. We control the funds, we are releasing our hold.

[apedad]

Sorry for the confusion; let me make it clearer.

WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR ANYTHING.

Hope that helps.

[Bob from Ohio]

Still pedantic spin. Use BIGGER CAPS.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Garrett Morris.

OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT...

[Sarcastr0]

We don't control the funds; we can't just spend it on stuff.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we can’t just spend it on stuff"

Neither can anyone else without our ok. That's control.

[Sarcastr0]

Pay is still the wrong verb.

And spite is not a great foreign policy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"spite is not a great foreign policy"

Neither is letting hostage takers get money for releasing the hostages.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But if we keep control of the money we can keep Iran from murdering innocent people with it.

[Sarcastr0]

Iran sucks, but they spend money on things other than murder.

I don't know the details, but there are other diplomatic considerations at play, GOP sabotage aside.

[Life of Brian]

they spend money on things other than murder

Whew -- I'm glad money stopped being fungible!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Iran sucks, but they spend money on things other than murder. "
Yeah like jailing those who oppose the government.

[Aunt Teefah]

As opposed to the US and its allies in the Middle East, who famously never murder innocent people . . .

The right wing's lust for war with Iran is so deranged.

[David Welker]

Yeah. I agree.

It is all a murderfest anyway. All anyone does is murder.

Murder is fine.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah the US and Iran are exactly the same. Nice catch.

And as to lust for war, you’re the one advocating for releasing money to Iran so they can kill people, not me.

Hey! Maybe some of the people they kill will be nasty Americans. That would be a twofer for you. Fingers Crossed!!

[Aunt Teefah]

Good grief, always with the hysterics. Try to get a grip on reality. Iran is not a threat to the US, and has never sought to be. It seeks to be a regional power - nothing more.

You brainwashed lunatics are going to get a whole lot of people killed with your stupidity again, just like you did in Iraq.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, Reagan just had the hostages held over for many months until he won the election. A true hero.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jedi mind trick?

[Bob from Ohio]

Conspiracy theory believer

[Sarcastr0]

HOSTAGES RELEASED
Reagan urges American People Not to put Two and Two Together.
https://www.theonion.com/january-21-1981-1819587474

[John F. Carr]

I was referring to the "arms for hostages" half of Iran-Contra.

[Bob from Ohio]

"per hostage released"

From prison only, right? I understood it was to house arrest.

[Zarniwoop]

The move to house arrest is an interim step pending an exchange of people. I assume that it's being done as a good-faith effort to ratchet down tensions and move negotiations forward. From AP:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran has moved five Iranian-Americans from prison to house arrest in exchange for billions of dollars frozen in South Korea, U.S. and Iranian officials said Thursday, as part of a tentative deal that follows months of heightened tensions between the two countries.

Iranian officials at the United Nations told The Associated Press that the prisoner transfer marked “a significant initial step” in the implementation of the agreement, which is still being negotiated and could eventually lead to the full release of the Americans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"could eventually lead"

Seems solid. Worth billions.

They will more likely be put back in prison in a few months.

[Aunt Teefah]

The US is not paying Iran a dime. It is letting Iran access its own money.

Why are you lying about this?

[Ben_]

"The US and Iran are finalizing a deal to pay over $1 billion per hostage released"

10 held by H for the big guy

[Frank Drackman]

My man Vivisection Rama-Swami held his own, but give Christ Christie will power for going 2 hours without a family size bag of Cheetos, Nikki Haley came across as the be-otchy HR Be-otch she is, and clearly the WW3 candidate, Pence, Tim Scott, and D-Sanctimonious were 3 bumps on a log, Speak no Evil, See no Evil, and Evil.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Does any of it really matter?

[Frank Drackman]

Your next POTUS up there

[Moderation4ever]

I agree the Republican candidate will likely be from this group. Nikki Haley being a woman and so will always get the B-word label. She did a good job holding her own and taking Vivek Ramaswamy to task. I agree that Vivek Ramaswamy did well, but he a bit of a nut case. He makes a lot of boasts about what he will do, and he might find it a lot harder if he were President.

[jb]

Ramaswamy certainly sounds good, but feels like this year's Mayor Pete or Andrew Yang--youthful and interesting, but has so little relevant experience it seems like it would be a huge mistake to elect him even if you like his politics.

As for the politics: Haley was absolutely right when she pointed out he is a complete bozo on foreign policy, and it turns out he doesn't have much of an actual policy agenda beyond the applause lines anywhere else either.

[Bwaaah]

I really don't want WW3. But for lack of a better alternative, the world may as well know that I, like Haley, am a WW3 person. I'll be departing this earth soon enough (nothing big imagined; just lights out), one way or another, and anyone who wants to commandeer my end-game had best plan for me to shit their (our) bed. (I don't pick the fights; I just try not capitulate to my enemies...that only emboldens them.)

In that regard, life sucks.

[Moderation4ever]

Did Ron DeSantis skip the debate? I watch most of it and did not really see him do or say much.

[Martinned]

“Mike did his duty. I’ve got no beef with him,”

[OtisAH]

My guess is he was hamstrung over the release of his totally non-coordinated debate prep by his completely not-coordinating PAC. He’d be laughed off the stage if he hit any of the points mentioned, but all of the points were pretty much everything he could talk about anyway.

[loki13]

I think that most people are seeing what any rational person long ago realized.

DeSantis is just this year's Rick Perry. He lacks charisma, and is incapable of performing in any environment that isn't stage-managed to make him look good.

Most politicians have the ability to kiss babies; with DeSantis, you're always concerned that he will eat the baby. The fact that none of the other candidates even really bothered to go after him (absent a stray Haley remark) shows you that despite the year of hype, he remains DOA.

(I thought that Scott projected affability, but that won't get him very far in today's environment. Haley was fine, but needs to overcome the "b****" factor that some of the primary electorate will, um, be predisposed to have. Vivek just made stuff up, so ... natural fit for the Trump voter?)

[OtisAH]

Vivek, which allegedly rhymes with “cake,” does say all the silly and stupid things MAGA wants to hear. But my conservative guess is not even half of the evangelicals would vote for him. And I doubt there are enough Greenwaldian “Progressives” available to make up the difference.

[Martinned]

Oops

[Voize]

I'm not fond of her politics but Haley is impressive. A non-male, non-white, non-exclusively-Christian who somehow managed to beat those three strikes and get elected governor of South Carolina is not someone to take lightly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, I've actually met DeSantis. You're wrong, in person he actually comes across as a normal guy. Well, normal for politician values of normal, anyway; No genuinely normal person runs for President.

Maybe it doesn't "scale", but he's fine one to one.

I think his real problem is that he's a substitute Trump, and Trump is still around, so who needs a substitute? And, of course, Trump recognized him for a substitute Trump, doesn't WANT to be substituted, and so attacked him. While he's mostly ignoring the rest of the rabble.

The others are less "trumpy", so they tend to pick up the components of the party that don't want Trump. DeSantis is going for the component of the party that, while it's biggest, is already taken.

I figure that DeSantis will benefit hugely if Trump strokes out, but, regrettably, has no hope otherwise.

[Martinned]

It's basically this: https://www.newsweek.com/desantis-deemed-uniquely-unlikable-ex-gop-rep-after-sugar-shaming-kid-1816135

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been called "uniquely unlikable" by a former Republican colleague after seemingly shaming a child for enjoying a frozen treat.

David Jolly, who served in the U.S. House alongside DeSantis from 2013 to 2017, said during an interview with MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Friday that the governor's 2024 GOP presidential primary campaign was in "free fall" due in part to his personality.

Wallace highlighted a video showing the governor interacting with a child at a county fair in Iowa on Thursday. DeSantis can be heard asking the young girl what she was eating. She responded "an ICEE," prompting the governor to briskly reply, "that's probably a lot of sugar" before moving on.

"A lot of sugar?" Wallace said incredulously after playing the video clip. "He's like, sugar-shaming, ICEE-shaming a child? Has he never been to a fair? What is wrong with him?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, Wallace and MSNBS covering the really important stuff.

[Martinned]

Oops

[loki13]

"I mean, I’ve actually met DeSantis. You’re wrong, in person he actually comes across as a normal guy. Well, normal for politician values of normal, anyway; No genuinely normal person runs for President."

So ... you "met" him. How long? Really? Without providing more specifics, I am more than aware of his lack of people skills, and his most notable attribute as a politician is how strangely off-putting he is. It is truly remarkable how a person with so little charisma and so little ability to engage in retail politics managed to become governor of a major state (although most people stuff this down the memory hole, he only won in 2018 because of a confluence of factors, including a Trump endorsement, a good-size money advantage, and he barely beat Andrew Gillum ... yeah, that Gillum ... by 30,000 votes).

Like I said- this year's Rick Perry. Someone the money donors want you to believe is the guy, but lacks any ability to run a national race.

...Well, that's not fair to Rick Perry. People liked Rick Perry.

[Brett Bellmore]

In June.

Note, by the way, the byline on that first photo. My son was pretty busy at that event.

[Michael P]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7zgp3/this-city-made-developers-build-affordable-housing-or-pay-up-they-all-paid

Property developers in Montreal decided that they couldn't afford "affordable" housing: that the costs exceeded the city's alternative (shared responsibility?) tax penalty mandate, and so it was better to pay the latter than to create the former.

[jb]

Seems like the tax is probably too low then? (The math from the article: 7100 units have been approved under the law, which has resulted in payments of $24M or $3100 per unit. Of course no one is going to build market-rate vs. affordable housing if that's the difference in cost.)

I'm more of a YIMBY person than "let's build 'affordable' housing as a special class of things", but if you start with the proposition that you want to build some affordable housing, you need a much better incentive than this. (California's permitting streamlining seems to be working much better, for example.)

[Davedave]

Developer levies tend to get the far right and their stooges upset because they think property development is a (((business))) which is vastly profitable, but it isn't actually, so the developers generally can't afford to pay the levies designed to claw back the excess profits they don't actually make.

Of course they can't do logic, so they don't understand that they are getting what they wanted, which is that developers aren't making huge profits - or rather, what they actually want is to gas Jews.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think you're in a position to complain about somebody not being able to do logic.

Developer levies get the right upset because
1) Property rights!
and
2) We actually know that property development ISN'T that profitable, which means the developers have trouble affording the levies.

If we thought property development was wildly profitable, we'd be more likely to treat the levies as a minor inconvenience, no?

Eh, but you're just doing parody, so the inability to do logic about the inability to do logic is kinda meta funny.

[John F. Carr]

For those who seek primary sources, the federal court dockets for the Georgia cases related to election interference can be found on the Courtlistener page for Judge Steve C. Jones:

https://www.courtlistener.com/person/1670/steve-carmichael-jones/

The notices of removal are not considered totally frivolous, else the cases would have been remanded without a hearing. Neither is the case for immunity from prosecution so clear as to justify summary dismissal of charges.

As with many things Trump-related, this case has attracted a crowd of people who can afford lawyers and think the system can not function properly without the benefit of their wisdom being thrust upon the court.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

One of the fake electors, David Shafer, has filed a notice of removal to federal court. He makes the bizarre claim that a fake elector is a federal officer being prosecuted for or relating to any act under color of such office. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.310324/gov.uscourts.gand.310324.2669.0.pdf

The hubris here is breathtaking. Even a real elector is not a federal officer. SCOTUS has expressly opined that "The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen. They act by authority of the state, that, in turn, receives its authority from the federal constitution." Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952).

As the Supreme Court oipned in In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379 (1890):

The sole function of the presidential electors is to cast, certify, and transmit the vote of the state for President and Vice-President of the nation. Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are the members of the state legislatures when acting as electors of federal senators, or the people of the states when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.

Mr. Shafer's notice of removal seems to be a good candidate for summary remand. If the court does schedule an evidentiary hearing, however, it will be quite interesting to see what evidence the proponents of removal offer.

[Moderation4ever]

While yesterday's Republican debate was good, I thought their response to the border issues were poor.

First on fentanyl smuggling they did not really seem to have any idea how it was done. They did not release that much of the smuggling is at the legal border crossing with American citizens being the mules. The idea of unleashing the military on the problem seems about as dumb as possible.

They were all in on the wall without a clue as to how much it would cost and how useless it would be. Mike Pence bragged about the low number of crossings during Trump/Pence without saying the effect the pandemic had in reducing those crossings. While DeSantis's busing of immigrants works for running for President it is not a strategy once you are President.

[Brett Bellmore]

As far as the cost of the wall, we've got 330M people, and about 2,000 miles of border. That's about 3/8" of border per American.

I once calculated that we could build two Israeli style high security walls along the entire border, with a mine field between, fresh every year, for about 1% of the Defense department's budget.

So the claim that we can't afford a wall along the border is laughable. The real problem is that a lot of people in high places don't WANT the border to be secure, and will object to anything that would contribute to securing it.

[apedad]

I thought another problem was it would require a lot of eminent domain land-taking too - which righties highly oppose.

Didn't Prof. Volokh write something about that during Trump's presidency?

[Bob from Ohio]

"righties highly oppose"

Few "righties" oppose it for legitimate government interest, like roads.

[Moderation4ever]

My comment was not about the overall cost of the wall, but rather that the candidates low balled the cost.

You really going to put a mine field between two walls? Great optics seeing the blown-up bodies of woman and children.

[Martinned]

Yes, "optics", that's definitely the number 1 reason why you'd want to avoid blowing up civilians.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ooh, wow politicians low balling estimated costs of projects they’d like to get approved. I think you’re really on to something.

Biden’s inflation reduction plan was originally projected to cost around $400B over ten years. Goldman released a revised estimate last week (one year in) that the plan will cost $1.2T over the same time period. Moderation, how do you suppose that happened?

For those of y’all that are going to demand documentation that you will subsequently ignore, I tried. Found stories at the WSJ and Bloomberg but they’re paywalled. Found one at Fox Business that isn’t, but I knew if I put that one out there you’d immediately try to change the story to Fox so I didn’t bother. This originates with Goldman Sachs.

[jb]

Okay, so I think this is the original Goldman paper:

https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/the-us-is-poised-for-an-energy-revolution.html

If so, the $1.2T estimate isn't really substantiated and is just an aside, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it. More importantly, though, if you're going to rely on Goldman's analysis it's worth doing so in the context that they believe that the IRA is also catalyzing a ton of private investment the end result of which is new renewable energy production twice as big as the shale revolution in the US.

Other analyses I've read do agree that the IRA subsidies are going to cost more than expected, but mostly because they're more popular than expected. I'm not sure this is a very good analogy to the wall since in one case you're getting the same wall and in the other you're getting a lot more of the intended/desired behavior and production.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Perhaps. I won’t argue that because I don’t have enough information.

But it will increase our national debt by almost a trillion dollars. And wouldn’t it be better practice if we came to expect our leaders to make decisions with accurate information and estimates. In the real world where people are actually expected to provide something for their work, missing a cost estimate by a factor of 3x would result in some consequence. If not firing, at least an ass chewing, and probably time in compensation increase prison.

[jb]

It turns out economic predictions at this scale are pretty hard. I found this podcast on the CBO trying to figure out the cost of Medicard Part D to be really interesting:

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/01/1160397633/congressional-budget-office-medicare-medicaid

(In this case, they massively overestimated the cost so the bias isn't just in one direction.)

Similarly, it's not obvious to me that just because the cost is greater than expected that necessarily the effect on the budget increases by the same amount. Presumably the large amount of private investment/spending is going to result in some additional tax revenue as well. Like I said--it's complicated!

As an aside: I think there's a potentially interesting conversation here about how to encourage the transition to renewables (in particular, subsidies on what you want vs. taxes on what you don't) but this is already off-topic enough for the parent thread that I'll hold off and maybe start a new thread lower.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But…but….isn’t that trickle-down economics?

I kid. I understand how complicated a beast the US economy is. And I’m know that prediction of the future is impossible.

My first boss out of college caught me projecting a line forward and I was agonizing over whether it was like 5.3% vs 5.4%. He starts laughing and said “the only thing you know with certainty is that you’re going to be wrong. The issue is by how much and are you consistently in the same direction.”

So my whole career involved projecting things into the future and I get it. And I’d be willing to give the government projectors the benefit of the doubt if damn near all of those errors weren’t in the same direction. But they are, which suggests some intent.

I don’t talk about the transition to the next whatever in here anymore, for personal reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was just doing that to illustrate how overboard you could go, and it would still be affordable.

Me? I'd put a nice road along the border, with sensors, a simple barbed wire fence, and guard posts every so many miles, so that there'd be a REALLY fast response any time somebody tried crossing it.

The main advantage of a wall, and why it was fought so hard, is that it looks really bad when the next administration, which claims to want to stop illegal immigration, starts tearing it down. Whereas you can just tell the border guards to sleep in, and it doesn't result in bad looking photos.

Undoing a wall is photogenic.

[Randal]

Do you really not understand why we don’t want a wall?

It’s not because we want illegal immigration. It’s because we know that the wall is just a symbol. It’s not even close to the best use of money for fighting illegal immigration.

And it’s not the best symbolic use of money either! Might as well make the same point by performatively blowing the Statue of Liberty up, which would be way cheaper.

[Martinned]

Good luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RF1pQS75gw

[Nige]

Mexico isn't paying for it, then.

[David Nieporent]

So the claim that we can’t afford a wall along the border is laughable. The real problem is that a lot of people in high places don’t WANT the border to be secure, and will object to anything that would contribute to securing it.

Shorter Brett: "Because I am the living embodiment of Dunning-Kruger, I assume that everything is simple to do. Therefore if people haven't done it, it's because they're evil."

[apedad]

Trump subtracts attorney who called him a ‘racist,’ adds celebrity lawyer with white collar defense focus just before Georgia surrender

Former President Donald Trump, just before his scheduled surrender later Thursday at the Fulton County jail in Georgia, swapped out a defense attorney who once called him a “racist” for one who says he’s “innocent” of heading a racketeering enterprise to overturn the 2020 election.

Steven Sadow, an Atlanta defense lawyer with a penchant for talking shop on YouTube, is taking over for Drew Findling in the Georgia matter, according to CNN’s Kristen Holmes and others.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-subtracts-attorney-who-called-him-a-racist-adds-celebrity-lawyer-with-white-collar-defense-focus-just-before-georgia-surrender/

I guess nobody told Sadow that EVERYONE who enters Trump's orbit gets seriously burned.

[Krychek_2]

MAGA stands for "My attorneys get attorneys."

[Ed Grinberg]

Prosecuting my political opponents (pretty much for being my political opponents) and their lawyers is hilarious! HAHAHA!!!

[Martinned]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ASOqzI7yoA

[Nige]

Voiting for guys who commit crimes and whose lawyers also commit crimes is actaully kinda sad.

[Krychek_2]

Not nearly as hilarious as watching MAGA goofs who think that's what's happening hyper-ventilate about it.

[M L]

Gloating over the success of political lawfare, persecuting and locking up your opponents . . . quite unseemly.

[Krychek_2]

It's not political lawfare; Trump and his cronies appear to have committed real crimes, although four juries will decide.

[grb]

M L : “Gloating over the success of political lawfare….”

After reading the New Yorker account of the Titan submersible & Stockton Rush, it almost seemed like Rush was committing slow purposeful suicide. All his major decisions were egregiously wrong. He went against every rational design principle, used the wrong materials and then bought them second-rate and cheap, threatened anyone who raised safety concerns, structured his business to evade regulatory standards, had a crude electrical system designed by engineers just out of school, and then barely tested the finished sub – ignoring major problems in the limited trials he ran. It’s as if he wanted to kill himself (and others).

I have the same feeling looking at Trump’s legal issues. There were a dozen ways he could have defused the document issues right up until the end, but Trump ignored every one. And he left a reeking slime trail a mile wide in his attempts to steal the election, obviously certain that he could get away with anything. It’s the blind stupid arrogance of both men that stands out.

[Krychek_2]

grb, that's one of the best analyses I've read. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right. It's my understanding that Ted Bundy committed his crimes in Florida after doing some research and determining that Florida was the state most likely to actually execute him.

[Sarcastr0]

The more apocalyptic the rhetoric gets, the more I realize it's not really sincere from the right; they're not going to leave this country, tyrannical police state hellscape though they claim it to be.

They just feel a lot.

[Randal]

Once you've doubled down on stupid as many times as MAGA has, what's one more time? You're already overdrawn.

[OtisAH]

It’s possible there is a perfectly benign or sensible reason Turnip switched out his Georgia attorney. But judging from Sadow’s one quote my guess is Sadow just says more of the pretty things Turnip likes to hear than Findling did.

https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-replaces-top-lawyer-ahead-of-georgia-arraignment-report

[not guilty]

I am speculating here, but I wonder if Trump became dissatisfied with Findling over the consent bond conditions that Findling agreed to.

[OtisAH]

That’s a good guess. Turnip must be livid over the orders restricting his constitutional right to obstruct Justice and intimidate witnesses.

[apedad]

Legal Question!

Trump has been indicted in other cases but apparently has never been arrested.

Why is there a LEGAL difference in GA?

(And this is a legal question so please spare the left/right He's a crook! or He's being persecuted!)

[Mr. Bumble]

The others are civil cases?

[John F. Carr]

I saw the word "arrest" used in one of the other criminal dockets.

In my state the authorities can choose to arrest somebody or summons him to court to be arraigned. The choice to arrest can be practical or punitive.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 9(a) requires the issuance of an arrest warrant when an indictment is returned, unless the prosecutor agrees to have a summons issued instead. Presumably that is what the special counsel did in the federal cases.

[dwb68]

I didnt watch the debates, but apparently chatGPT was mentioned - gov DeSanits was accused of being the chatGPT candidate. LMAO.

[Martinned]

That was Chris Christie's pre-rehearsed applause line. It didn't get him as much applause as he was hoping for.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did Christie bring his beach chair?

[Frank Drackman]

Christ Christy has more chins than a Chinese phonebook

[Mr. Bumble]

Rimshot!

[David Nieporent]

I didnt watch the debates, but apparently chatGPT was mentioned – gov DeSanits was accused of being the chatGPT candidate. LMAO.

No; Vivek Ramaswamy was.

Which I claim credit for, because I said that on Twitter months ago. Literally everything Ramaswamy was saying and posting sounded like it came from throwing all the GOP politicians in the U.S. into a LLM and quoting the output.

(To be fair, that's not entirely true anymore; his recent foreign policy insanity was all Vivek. And since he has put less thought into the subject than Chris Christie has into dieting, everything he said came out stupid.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Someone told me that Ramaswamy said that our Constitution was the reason we won the Revolutionary War. He couldn't possibly have said that, could he?

[David Nieporent]

He could have, and did, and what makes it particularly ironic is that he's the guy who advocated for a civics test for voting rights.

[Magister]

Following last weeks request about sci-fi tropes:

What are your favorite fantasy tropes?

[John F. Carr]

If people want a list, Diana Wynne Jones' Tough Guide to Fantasyland has a good selection of the state of the fantasy world 20-30 years ago.

[Frank Drackman]

Not Sci-Fi, but that Twillight Zone version of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge " Scared the crap out of me, of course I was 8

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The battle for control of Middle Earth. And punching Peter Jackson in the face.

[Ben_]

US life expectancy was increasing until Obama. Then is flattened out and has been decreasing since Obamacare passed:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-just-lost-26-years-worth-of-progress-on-life-expectancy/

[Bwaaah]

Could there have been any anomalous factor(s) over the past few years that might have affected life expectancy, besides Obamacare? Did the article mention any such factor(s)?

(Your signal-to-noise ratio there is pretty low, being that you left out the signal part.)

[Ben_]

The rest of Obama's policies have also been extremely destructive.

Life expectancy flattened out and stopped increasing long before Covid and anti-American Covid policy started killing Americans.

[OtisAH]

If you could read a chart you’d notice the declines began in 1980.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which chart is that?

[jb]

If we want to be dumb and just look at the graph through a partisan lens seems like maybe Obama flatted the curve out, but that Trump guy really figured out how to make the graph start going down!

[Ben_]

It was going up for a century before Obama. Events like WWII and pandemics caused dips, but only Obama and the destructive culture of Obama’s fans reversed the long term trends.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not seeing anything showing a reversal of long term trends about the time Obama took office.

Look, we actually have biological limits, and every added year of life expectancy comes harder than the previous. So you have to expect that curve to have a tendency to level out, at least until medical science does something fundamental about the aging process.

[Ben_]

Obama didn't implement most of his policies the day he took office. Nor did they take effect that day. And even if they had, it takes some time for destructive policies to show up in a measure like life expectancy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a really staggeringly stupid kind of analysis, for all that it's common:

"Arias and her colleagues calculated life expectancy using a technique called a period life table. This involved the researchers imagining a group of 100,000 hypothetical infants and applying the death rates observed for the real population in 2021 for each year of those infants’ lives. The result is not the life expectancy for a cohort of actual babies born in 2021 but rather a snapshot of how life expectancy rates would apply to various age groups at a specific point in time, Arias says."

So, basically, our life expectancy took a serious drop if you assume the Covid pandemic's worst year continued indefinitely. Just a never ending 2020. The pandemic was so bad that if it had continued at its worst, average life expectancy would have been reduced to... what it was in 1996. Horrific year, 1996. I'm sure you all recall the streets becoming charnel pits.

But the pandemic is already over, and if you got through it OK, it shouldn't do anything AT ALL to your life expectancy. It's like you got shot at and the bullet missed. Not a fusillade of bullets your whole life.

I'm not saying this isn't a fairly standard sort of analysis, but it produces pointlessly stupid results if you apply it to a year with a bad pandemic.

Here, by the way, is a longer term graph of this sort. 1918 shows you what a BAD pandemic looks like. It also shows the way you typically expect life expectancy to pop back up after the pandemic is over.

You should probably expect life expectancy numbers to pop back up when they're released for this year. If they don't, THEN it's time for panic.

[Davedave]

Tell us you don't understand what 'life expectancy' means without saying 'I don't understand what life expectancy means'...

https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.htm

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand perfectly well what it means, I just think the concept isn't terribly applicable to periods with something temporary and unusual going on, because it's not even remotely realistic to pretend that a one off event like a serious pandemic is going to last somebody's entire life. These aren't sustained conditions, they're inherently temporary!

So, sure, you can calculate it, and it tells you something useful in ordinary times, but the relevance to a pandemic is just that it lets you fan panic afterwards by encouraging people to think, "My God, Covid took three years off my life!"

[Davedave]

The dunning kruger is strong in this one. You think you understand what it means, but you're demonstrating beyond doubt that you haven't understood what it means.

[Ben_]

"You should probably expect life expectancy numbers to pop back up when they’re released for this year."

The longer term trend post-Obamacare will be down.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is no downward trend post-Obamacare that I'm aware of.

[Nige]

Plunged sharply since Trump, you mean. What a dogshit president he was.

[Frank Drackman]

In Nige-bot code "Dog Shit" means "GOAT"

[Magister]

The US has done worse bouncing back from COVID decreases in life expectancy.

“What happened in the U.S., as far as we can tell right now, is that they had to deal with two health crises at the same time,” he says. In 2019 “life expectancy was in a fragile balance in the U.S. It was still increasing overall due to declines in mortality [from] cancer and cardiovascular diseases at all the ages. But at the same time, you had a worsening opioid crisis, deaths of despair, deaths due to drug intake.” And these trends only accelerated in 2020 when COVID emerged, he says.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-life-expectancy-keeps-dropping-in-the-u-s-as-other-countries-bounce-back1/

Another source. The "Shorter Lives" report from ten years ago is linked from there.

A big part of the difference between life and death in the U.S. and its peer countries is people dying or being killed before age 50. The "Shorter Lives" report specifically points to factors like teen pregnancy, drug overdoses, HIV, fatal car crashes, injuries, and violence.

"Two years difference in life expectancy probably comes from the fact that firearms are so available in the United States," Crimmins says. "There's the opioid epidemic, which is clearly ours – that was our drug companies and other countries didn't have that because those drugs were more controlled. Some of the difference comes from the fact that we are more likely to drive more miles. We have more cars," and ultimately, more fatal crashes.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/25/1164819944/live-free-and-die-the-sad-state-of-u-s-life-expectancy

ACA probably helped blunt some of the loss from those factors; other comparable countries do better in part because they have universal access to health care. We didn't see a decline before COVID because we made advances in other factors, resulting in a slower increase.

[loki13]

So one thing for people to look forward to in the classified documents case currently brewing in the S.D. Fla. is the pending Geary hearing (regarding the conflict of interest in counsel and the witness who flipped their testimony).

After reviewing the motion practice, especially the government's reply, this looks like something that should be a straightforward issue. But ... Judge Aileen Cannon. And everyone remembers how she conducted herself last time (leading even a stacked panel of the 11th Cir. to unceremoniously bench slap her).

She'll have plenty of chances to put her thumb on the scale ... if that's what she is doing. But if she makes an egregious ruling on this, which looks by all accounts to be completely straight-forward, I expect the straight-laced DOJ will have to at least internally start considering their litigation options.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, I can’t sleep at night because my excitement is so palpable related to the documents case. And the porn star case too, now that you mention it.

The election cases, yes, those will be interesting. The other two not so much.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, a former president stealing highly classified documents, doing who tf knows what with them (I’m sure Kushner’s $2bn from the Saudis is unrelated even if the Saudis do suddenly develop a nuclear program in the next few years), and not only refusing requests to return them but actively seeking to obstruct the government’s recovery attempts is such a snoozer. What a twat you are.

[loki13]

Well, you should pay attention to the documents case. Why?

1. Because the DOJ is prosecuting it in federal court. In legal terms, it's kind of a slam dunk. And they don't lose those cases.

2. Because of the judge. The dynamics of that case, given her ... interesting decisions previously ... will be fascinating from a legal perspective.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I can get past my extreme TFS for the cases involving whatever you want to call what he did in Nov ‘20 to Jan ‘21.

But the documents and the porn lady. Nothing is gonna come out of neither of those.

[David Nieporent]

But the documents and the porn lady. Nothing is gonna come out of neither of those.

The falsification of business records isn't going to be very interesting. Even if the prosecution's theory is upheld, it's such a petty matter. But the documents case is very different. It's a virtual slam dunk, it's easy to understand, and there are no defenses; it's much more straightforward than the two stolen election prosecutions, which involve sprawling conspiracies that can be spun (badly) as trying to criminalize disputing an election, criminalizing free speech, etc. But the documents case is stealing classified documents and lying about it.

[Randal]

Plus the juicy hypocrisy!

https://youtu.be/ThCMjd7irLM?si=ed_PCLscDnh4AGwW

[OtisAH]

Marcie at emptywheel thinks the DOJ is offering Cannon a lifeline…

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/08/22/doj-invites-aileen-cannon-to-avoid-another-reversible-error/

[David Nieporent]

Marcie at emptywheel is not a lawyer and is overthinking it. That's how every good lawyer writes a brief: explaining how doing what the other side wants would be reversible error.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since it's an open thread I'll move on from politics and SarcastrO's car buying and ask if anyone has found a way to deal with the latest Asian import, spotted lantern flies.

[jb]

I saw one the other day and stomped on it. I don't grow any plants, though, so don't have advice beyond that.

[Paladin_44]

I've seen only a few here in central NJ, mostly on golf courses. A friend in Bergen Co (up north) says they are everywhere and that squirts of vinegar may have some effect. Last year's infestation in Hudson Co was really substantial - some highrises were covered with the little buggers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A guy in my municipality was caught breeding them. A police officer reported the jerk was mumbling something about "his property" and "free country" as they arrested him.

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble, the answer is yes. I have found ways to address them. Something I need to say from the get-go: You must kill them without mercy. No hesitation. You must become Amalek to the spotted lanternfly (SPLF).

SPLF absolute LOVE grape vines, really like fig trees and roses (ask me how I know), and go for sap trees that have sharp pointed oval leaves. I will list methods of execution that Commenter_XY regularly employs with great gusto (and success).

Nothing beats squishing the little bastards. Nothing! HOWEVER, you need to approach the little shits from behind, not the front or side. These little shits jump. And they're good at it. The good news is they can only jump 2X-3X and then they get tired. That is when I especially enjoy squishing them.

Next, you can hit the little bastards with a stream of Dawn or Parmolive dishwashing detergent, undiluted. I do not recommend this method. Although it is quite effective, it will kill your plant. A Water + vinegar + NaCl mix will do the same....you cannot use that mix on a plant. So unless you want to kill the plant to save it, don't do these.

My preference is to use organic horticultural soap, and then hunt the little shits down and stomp on 'em when they lamely jump after getting hit with H soap.

I also use neem oil regularly as a soil drench and also as a spray (mixed with castille soap - peppermint). Neem oil fucks up the SPLF two ways. One, it makes them lose the desire to eat, so they die slowly by starvation. Two, it screws up their reproductive system, so no matter how many times they hump, there won't be viable eggs.

Now, if you see their eggs, squish 'em, spray them with alcohol (undiluted). Then take a shot of your preferred alcohol and congratulate yourself.

I detest and despise SPLF. I normally have a reverence and respect for all life; but for SPLF (and mosquitos) I make an exception. Just kill the little shits and let God sort it out later.

[Mr. Bumble]

I,ve tried most of them(not the neem oil yet) but there are just too many. What's needed is some type of lure of bait trap to place in and around vegetation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
wingnut blog
has operated
for no more than

SIX (6)

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. (Why would a bass guitarist use a pick for what should be a "feel" song?)

(This one is good, too.)

[Internet sloth]

Is your criticism not misaddressed, as there is no hate in the publishing? To the contrary, the blog facilitates peace and understanding.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

To the contrary, the blog facilitates peace and understanding.

With a steady stream of bigoted content?

[Internet sloth]

Ignorance cannot be solved with censorship.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not propose or defend censorship. Bigots, disaffected clingers, and similar culture war casualties have rights, too.

To some degree, the self-identification in which some of our vestigial bigots engage (by using vile racial slurs, constantly whining about persecution of whites, waving Confederate flags, supporting Trump, etc.) is handy because it shows better Americans who not to associate with, respect, or support.

The censor around here is Prof. Volokh, not me.

[Internet sloth]

Textual reproduction of a slur is not the same as using a slur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How often would someone engage in "textual reproduction" of a particular racial slur before you would begin to question motivation?

Spoiler: At this blog, you should be quite careful before you respond to that question.

[Internet sloth]

As many times as necessary to get the point across of whatever is being discussed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You stick with that story. Good luck.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's weird because you say those a signals for the Better Americans to know where to avoid. But the data say wherever there is a confederate flag waving, freedom loving 1776 Americwn there are hordes of Better Americans relocating their businesses and families.

I saw a data point that said NYC alone has lost $1T in tax base.

I wonder why in reality the Better Americans are doing the exact opposite of what you keep claiming.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You keep waiting for the can't-keep-up Republican backwaters to get on the same lap as more advanced states, clinger.

You might as well wait for the Rapture.

[Michael P]

I am sure that Democrat DAs and US Attorneys across the country are presenting RICO and conspiracy cases before grand juries AS WE TYPE.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/08/law-school-administrators-supposedly-advised-schools-on-how-to-circumvent-ban-on-affirmative-action/

(Haha, of course they're not doing that. That would imply consistency on their part.)

[jb]

Conspiracy to commit what crime?

[Michael P]

Deprivation of rights under color of law would be one possible fallback crime.

[jb]

It may be different under state RICO statutes, but that crime doesn't seem to be within the scope of the federal RICO statute.

[Mr. Bumble]

The GA statute is supposedly different than the federal one but still wouldn't seem to apply.

[Michael P]

Maybe not RICO, but certainly conspiracy. Unless these people had "figure out ways to subvert civil rights laws" in their job description, there's probably some kind of malfeasance or embezzlement that could apply. Democrat prosecutors love to go all Lavrentiy Beria on people they perceive as enemies -- and like I said, if they had any kind of consistency at all, they would be doing the same here.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who cares? Pick the target first then find the crime, squeeze out a few process crimes along the way.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of squeezing . . . how many of the un-American righrt-wing assholes charged in Georgia have flipped already, or are preparing to cooperate with law enforcement and admit what happened?

[Michael Ejercito]

There does have to be a criminal act involved, such as, say, paying for an intelligence dossier and hiding the source of funding from the FEC, or altering a document such as an e-mail that was provided to a court.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound very disaffected and angry.

Which is great.

[Michael Ejercito]

Angry at what?

[Mr. Bumble]

Consistency or conspiracy?

[loki13]

Requesting an October trial date?

I mean, that's aggressive. Given the number of defendants and amount of evidence, I'd say that it is ... unlikely.

And that's being kind.

[jb]

Honestly, requesting a trial date a couple of weeks before the election is kind of ridiculous and reinforces the look that the whole thing is politically motivated.

I say this as someone who thinks both of the federal indictments are quite strong and this one looks reasonable if aggressive. But also I think there's no way Jack Smith would have requested a late October trial date because he's conscious of the fact that the optics matter in these cases.

(I do presume that many of the defendants will end up being severed by the time this gets to trial, though, so the case will be rather less complicated than it currently is.)

[OtisAH]

I think it’s *this* October, not next.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are correct and as loki13 mentioned above it is not likely.

[jb]

Oh, duh. Nevermind any of what I just wrote.

Does seem quite unrealistic, I agree.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe that Fani Willis is just trying to accommodate Ken Chesebro's request for a speedy trial. It is aggressive but would yield a result well before the election season starts. Voters would know before the first primaries and caucuses.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good luck if she want’s to proceed against Chesebro alone.

[not guilty]

I don't see how trying Chesebro separately from other defendants would be problematic (for either side).

[not guilty]

The judge has discretion to sever Chesebro and any other defendant(s) who demand a speedy trial. Ga. Code § 17-8-4(a). That would make sense to me.

[jb]

More details:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/24/fulton-county-prosecutors-ask-judge-to-set-oct-23-trial-on-trump-racketeering-charges-00112816

Looks like the judge has actually scheduled an October trial for Chesebro but not everyone else. (He's held open that possibility but it seems unlikely especially since it sounds like Trump, at least, will object.)

[Mr. Bumble]

As an aside, seems like one defendant (Harrison Floyd) could not negotiate a bond agreement and is being held in the shithole jail.
(It is under Federal investigation for civil rights violations and the deaths of several prisoner while in custody.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

one possible complicating factor is that Floyd was previously charged with assaulting an FBI agent back in May, according to CNN, when he was served a subpoena by the agent for a federal grand jury in D.C.

This one seems to be a veteran participant in Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes.

Perhaps his opportunity for reflection in a small cell will focus and improve his thinking, inclining him to change course . . . he might even become a decent citizen, cooperate with law enforcement, and tell the truth about what occurred.

[Mr. Bumble]

Didn't feel like re-typing this, for what it's worth:

Mr. Bumble 24 mins ago

No chance that all 19 will be on trial in Oct. If she wants to try Chesebro she will be free to go ahead with that one, but I doubt she will. The right to a speedy trial rests with the defendant and I don’t think any of the others will be seeking an October trial date.

[Moderation4ever]

An early trail for Chesebro could be a harbinger for the other defendants. A conviction and many could go running to the prosecutor for a deal. An acquittal could make all the other cases harder to prosecute.

[not guilty]

I suspect there will be a short window for making a deal. The indictment refers to numerous unindicted co-conspirators, whom I surmise have reached cooperation agreements.

[OtisAH]

Last night, Tucker Carlson aired (on Twitter) his sit down with Turnip, whom Carlson despises. During this interview, Tucker kept trying to get Big Baby to say “They” will probably try to kill him, like how “They” killed Epstein. Not only was Donnie uninterested in playing along, he actually had this sober thing to say about Epstein, which qualifies as the only sensible thing he has said in at least a decade:

Carlson: Do you think it was possible that Epstein was killed?

Trump: Oh sure, it’s possible. I mean I don’t really believe it — I think he probably committed suicide. He had a life with beautiful homes and beautiful everything, and all of a sudden he’s incarcerated and not doing very well…

I don’t expect a moment like that to repeat itself. In fact, I semi-expect he will start working “They’re out to kill me” into his Daily Grievances and rallies. But who knows, maybe Turnip thinks that’s a little too crazy? I also don’t think this offers much of a glimpse into Big Baby’s own fate in prison because he’s too much of a coward to kill himself. Plus, the prison Nazis will treat him like a god, or a Gotti, so he’ll likely be more comfy than Epstein was.

[Michael Ejercito]

Many newspapers and news sites such as the Hill and the Cleveland Plain Dealer took down comment pages (which were often hosted by Facebook or Disqus or Via Fora).

I believe that newspapers have no obligation to provide a comment forum. They never advertised themselves as a space where everyone and their pets can share their thoughts, opinions, and feelings. Comments are to inform editors and authors. If the comments do not assist the editors and authors, they have the ethical discretion to shut down future comments.

However, in taking down comments, some sites, like the Cleveland Plain Dealer, effectively deleted all past comments.

Past comments are a valuable resource, allowing us to look at opinions of people in the past, on issues in the past.

Do these news sites have an ethical obligation to preserve an archive of past comments, even if it is within their ethical discretion to disable comments on all future articles and columns?

[Kazinski]

Interesting article about how India’s moonshot was based on coal:

“India is a country with a long history of energy poverty — a term that encapsulates the struggle of millions to access basic electricity services. In 1995, only about 50% of the people had access to electricity. Vast segments of the population suffered stunted economic development and substandard education, healthcare and overall quality of life. Rural homes were shrouded in darkness after sunset, hindering productivity and limiting opportunities.”
The situation began to change in the early 2000s as the Indian government committed to expand electricity access. One of the key drivers was the use of fossil fuels, especially coal.

Coal is a cheap and abundant source of energy and well-suited for large-scale power generation. Harnessing its abundant coal reserves, India embarked on a journey to alleviate energy poverty, ignite industrial growth and improve the lives of millions.

By 2020, the number of Indians with access to electricity had reached 99%. Yes, fossil fuels improved the lives of billions.“

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/23/from-poverty-to-moon-landing-how-coal-propelled-indian-economy/

Which brings up a question, does India have a moral obligation to go back to a wood and dung economy, until they can convert to renewables in a few generations?

[Nige]

Oh, droughts and floods and heatwaves affecting millions are a small price to pay for massive fossil fuel profits.

[Mr. Bumble]

Share the news with your bud SarcastrO as he shops for a gasoline powered car.

[Nige]

He lives in a country with a shit public transport infrastructure. Fix that, and individuals won't have to waste time and money on gasoline powered cars.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bullshit answer. He can buy an EV if he is serious about the role of fossil fuels in climate change. Better yet, ride a bike,

[Nige]

Can he, though? Society has been designed for the convenience of the ice automobile, not the human, not the EV, not the cyclist. The best thing people can do is advocate to change that. Meanwhile people gotta live. EVs are just another form of automobile, by the way. Wasteful and costly and dumb.

[jb]

Eh, that's some serious excuse-making. If your principles aren't worth some modest amount of inconvenience, they're not worth that much.

[Nige]

No, it's a category error to assume that that small personal lifestyle choices are more significant than advocating for structural change.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The best thing people can do is advocate to change that."
The best thing people who advocate to change that is lead by example rather than making lame excuses. Tell us when you are completely off the fossil fuel wagon for all your needs.

[Nige]

I lead by example by calling for the changes I support. That's the example. I'm hardly going to take the advice of pro-climate change people who would prefer me to shut up, am I?

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches to others.

[Nige]

I practice what I preach: advocating systemic change in response to climate change and ecological destruction.

[Davedave]

Oh god, why do you persist in denying the climate science? You've had this explained to you before. What you advocate is fucking genocidal. This is so obvious that even loons like the rightwingnuts here can understand it: making, e.g., Indian peasants middle class is more important than preventing a tiny percentage of the warming.

[Nige]

That's just stupid. Really, really, really stupid. On so many dumb levels of dumb. You and the rightwingnuts all agree on the stupid stuff, that's for sure.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That doesn't sound like language of being in the middle of a climate crisis on a dying planet in a climate emergency.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree with you that Sarcastro deserves whatever car he can afford and is entitled to drive it without people making ridiculous arguments that he causing droughts and floods or killing people.

Just as Indians deserve to be able live in houses with electricity, lights, and have access to gas so the don't have to cook using wood or cow dung which the UN says is still killing 4m people a year. And maybe even someday Air Conditioning.

We have all those things and privileged nits like you want to pull up the ladder and condemn half the world to grinding poverty so you can feel good.

[Nige]

Good thing fossil fuel pollution doesn't kill millions every year, too, on top of wrecking the climate. Oh no wait.

I see we're soon going to have pro-climate change people arguing passionately that we need to keep burning fossil fuels for the air-conditioning that's the only thing keeping millions of people alive in areas under extensive heat domes caused by burning fossil fuels.

[Michael Ejercito]

Pluto has no droughts, floods, or heatwaves.

It is much colder than Earth.

Carl Sagan and four other scientists proviuded, back in 1983, that we have the technology to make Earth's climate like Pluto's.

Could there be a downside to Earth having the same climate as Pluto?

[Nige]

Is there an upside to acting this egregiously stupid?

[Sarcastr0]

What kind of argument even is this? Short term thinking FTW?

You present a false choice at the end. Also, your example of success is...a choice.

Shades of "Whitey on the Moon."

A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
The man jus' upped my rent las' night.
('cause Whitey's on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
I wonder why he's uppi' me?
('cause Whitey's on the moon?)
I was already payin' 'im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
Junkies makin' me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
An' as if all that shit wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an' arm began to swell.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Was all that money I made las' year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hm! Whitey's on the moon)
Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I'll sen' these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

[Kazinski]

Pat Paulson in 1967:

“Some people say we should spend the money on slums rather than going to the moon. But personally I think we already have enough slums.”

[Internet sloth]

If Indians were driving around in trucks and SUVs eating 250lbs of red meat a year, then maybe.

[jb]

What a dumb article. It does absolutely nothing to casually link coal power or electricity generation with any of the outcomes that it links to India's space program. This is "global warming is decreasing the number of pirates" kind of logic.

I think the question at the end a legitimate one, and one that was at the heart of the discussions over, e.g., the Paris Agreement. Certainly the answer isn't a good excuse for countries like the US not to move away from fossil fuels, though, and as renewable technologies continue to improve in the developed economies that should continue to make the shift more feasible for developing economies like India's in the future.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That doesn't sound like language of a dying planet in a climate crisis

[jb]

I guess it turns out I'm an actual human instead of a caricature of what you think your political enemies believe.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"caricature"? lol

https://search.brave.com/search?q=dying+planet+climate+crisis

oopsie doodles

[jb]

Yes, there's mass extinctions happening. Yes, that's bad. No, that doesn't mean everyone in India should be forced to live in poverty and not a single of the first page of links from your search suggest any such thing.

[Ben_]

Not a quest NPC then. Just a regular one who behaves as programmed.

[jb]

Keep up, dude. The whole point of this little digression is that my programming is apparently broken.

[Ben_]

Do you even want to be self aware?

Continuing to munch along with whatever bullshit you’re fed while watching society steadily decline — that’s not working out good for you any more?

[Kazinski]

Well if you can't see the link between going from 50% of the population having electricity and 99%, in 28 years, and that 3/4 of the electricity is provided with coal, and a society that has the wealth, technical knowhow, and infrastructure to send a probe to the moon, then I can't help you.

[Nige]

Pity it's all short term gains at the expense of a viable climate.

[jb]

North Korea has elite hackers, a pretty good ballistic missile program and nuclear weapons despite the fact that their economy is a complete mess and most people have extremely limited access to knowledge. In the opposite direction, there are many countries that have had widespread electrification for much longer than India that are nowhere near having a space program that can land something on the moon.

It is far from obvious to me that you need to have widespread wealth and technical knowledge to pull off achievements like this. It seems likely to help, but the core argument of the article (that coal-powered electrification is primarily or even mostly responsible for the Indian moon landing) is completely unsubstantiated.

[Brett Bellmore]

As both the USSR and China demonstrated before them, a command economy can accomplish some amazing things in isolated areas, by virtue of its ability to completely toss aside all considerations of rational resource allocation. It "just" results in people starving, or not having toilet paper, or whatever.

So, yeah, your economy and people suffer, but you rack up some isolated wins along the way.

[Ben_]

"Which brings up a question, does India have a moral obligation to go back to a wood and dung economy, until they can convert to renewables in a few generations?"

Only western countries have "moral obligations" because leftists who want to impose "moral obligations" mostly only hate America and the west.

[Nige]

If we could replace fossil fuels with Ben's seething idiotic resentment, we'd have an eternally renewable resource.

Come to think of it, that's the Republican strategy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ben is immortal?

[Nige]

Once he’s been cored down to a husk and lodged in a pod, who knows how long he’ll last? So long as there's homeless people for him to be unleashed on he shall endure!

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot thinks his computer is powered by hamsters in the wall.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better than up his ass.

[Ben_]

It's a concise and complete answer for anti-American and anti-western double standards. If you don't want to be seen using hateful double standards against Americans, then stop doing it.

[Nige]

It's not, it's mindless pablum, I remember when it was anti-American to oppose the invasion of Iraq, and nowadays it's anti-Western Civilisation to be 'woke,' you were dumb little facists then you're dumb little facists now.

[Ben_]

Your so-called memory of random stuff on random topics does not relate to this topic in any way.

[Nige]

Given how tenuous your grasp on the topic actually is, that's not much of a flex.

[DaveM]

Re: the firestorm in Maui, I was talking with someone who knows the area well, and especially the personalities involved. I asked him if there was any organized effort to rebuild, what was the plan, were they going to rebuild it as it was, etc. He was very downbeat about the prospects. The residents believe they can’t rebuild it as it was because of sea level rise. There is a nice volcano slope directly behind the town, so moving it uphill would not present a physical issue. But it would run into other people’s property, and thus is a dead issue. Neighbors are fighting with one another at this point. There is no movement to rebuild (yet).

His answer did intrigue me, so I looked up the sea level trends on Maui as published by NOAA. The trend is only 1mm/year – 1cm/century, which is actually half the rate on the East coast where I live. It does seem odd for them to be so fixated on one danger when there are far more immediate dangers in view. There was a fire in that same area in 2018, too. Interesting.

[Kazinski]

Probably for the best, volcanic islands are not very stable geologically.

Within 100,000 years or almost certainly within a million Lahaina will either be under water or much more likely under 50' of an alluvial plain. After all the central volcanic peak of Maui is almost 2 miles above sea level. Lets call it 3000 meters. If be surprised if the erosion from that peak doesn't exceed the sea level rise of 1mm a year, in fact its probably 1cm a year on average, especially with the rainfall it gets on the top.

I'd say the race between the elements lowering the island, and sea level rise you probably are safe until at least the next ice age.

I can say this pretty confidently as some one who lives just downhill from a peak that is made up of subsea deposits of limestone, dolomite and chert, that were thrust up by subsea volcanos, and then incorporated into the Northern Sierras by the subduction of the Farallon plate, and are now between 6 -8000 feet, and then overlayed by multiple volcanic intrusions, flood basalt, etc. In fact one of the most common rocks around me is gabbro, which is ancient oceanic crust.

[Frank Drackman]

100,000 years? better cancel my reservations!

[DaveM]

“If be surprised if the erosion from that peak doesn’t exceed the sea level rise of 1mm a year, in fact its probably 1cm a year on average, especially with the rainfall it gets on the top.”

That’s a very good point. The net effect of that erosion would be to in fact extend the shoreline away from its current boundary. NOAA's sea level trends do take in both sea level rise and land sinking, so it is supposed to be a net number. But I doubt they include erosional deposits in that number.

But of course we are talking in geologic time scales. In human time scales, many, many generations of people will have come and gone long before any of this is felt.

[Nige]

Unless sea-level rise accelerates and storm surges get stronger.

[Randal]

1mm/year is not 1cm/century.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, it's 10cm/century, about 4 inches.

[DaveM]

Good typo catch. Yes, 10cm/century, not 1cm.

[Martinned]

That's OK. The metric system is complicated.

[Brett Bellmore]

I took a look at a topographic map of the area. Seriously, that town's got nothing to fear from 4" of sea level rise per century.

I suppose they *might* have a problem with lenders and insurers being pressured not to assist reconstruction on a bogus basis like that.

[Ben_]

The Covidian cult is trying to bring back Covid worship:

https://twitter.com/ClownWorld_/status/1694148017912520898

[Nige]

I admire your commitment to appearing like a complete fucking idiot for your political beliefs. And by ‘admire’ I mean ‘think you should be studied at the end of a microscope.’

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Have you started wearing your mask again? Or did you never stop?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason you will spend the rest of your lives at the disrespected, increasingly irrelevant fringe of modern American legal academia.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How many masks are you wearing right now? Two?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Virus-flouting, disaffected, bigoted conservatives are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and the core target audience of a white, male, right-wing blog whose scant academic veneer continues to diminish.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Dear Dr. Chida,
Please find attached a letter from six colleagues and me regarding serious errors in the website
"Masks and Face Coverings for the Public" on the COVID-19 Real-Time Leaming Network
hosted by CDC and IDSA. We believe the information and recommendations as provided may
actually put an individual at increased risk of becoming infected with SARS-Co V-2 and for them
to experience a serious or even life-threatening infection.
We look forward to your review of the information included in our letter and how the IDSA and
CDC will address it at as soon as possible.

Thank you. The authors of the letter are happy to discuss this information with you at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH
Regents Professor
McKnight Endowed Presidential Chair in Public Health
Director, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
Distinguished University Teaching Professor
Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health
Professor, Technological Leadership Institute College of Science and Engineering
Adjunct Professor, Medical School
University of Minnesota

https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2023/08/21/id5477758-Letter-on-deadly-risks-on-CDC-IDSA-website-1.pdf

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Wednesday the new BA.2.86 lineage of coronavirus may be more capable than older variants in causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received vaccines.

https://www.newsmax.com/health/health-news/covid-variant-new/2023/08/23/id/1131778/

lol no refunds you stupid masked vaxxhole

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Epoch Times . . . Newsmax . . . Volokh Conspiracy . . . you seem to focus on wingnut sources.

How you want to spend the time you have remaining before replacement is your choice, of course. But bigoted, dumb, and disaffected seems no way to go through life.

[Kazinski]

Its not political beliefs, Nige.

We are death cultists. Nobody gets out alive.

[Ben_]

San Francisco mayor:

"The homeless coalition has held San Francisco hostage for a decade. It is time for their reign to end."

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/federal-judges-homeless-injuction-san-francisco/3302359/?amp=1

California progressives are fighting anti-civilization extremists at the ACLU and homeless-activist grifters now. It’s almost like a few of them grew up and decided to try to serve the people who elected them. If the Ninth Circuit rules against the city, the city will appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Ben_]

Meanwhile banning homeless camps was an overnight success in San Diego this summer:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/homelessness/story/2023-07-31/whered-they-go-enforcement-begins-on-san-diegos-new-homeless-camping-ban

[Nige]

The new threat to civilisation is: the homeless. Consistently keeping the target firmly on the scapegoats.

[Ben_]

Homeless aren't "a threat" to civilization. They are the embodiment of uncivilization itself. Civilization is running water, clean streets, orderly commerce, peace and safety -- all things missing and undone by homeless camps.

[Martinned]

Then maybe the obvious solution is to provide homeless people with running water, clean streets, orderly commerce, peace and safety? And maybe a home too, while you're at it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe they could go get them themselves, like everybody else, instead of expecting to have them handed to them on a silver platter?

[Martinned]

Yes, you've got it figured out. Homeless people are lazy and don't really want to be "civilised".

[Nige]

Victorian values never very far away.

[Ben_]

They are offered shelter with all of those things. They say no.

If you read the San Francisco story, the homeless are offered shelter and decline it because it's not good enough for them.

"Koh led a series of questions about what constituted an "offer of shelter" and if it would be a genuine offer if the offered shelter bed did not accommodate the homeless individual's needs -- as for example where an individual with a pet is offered a bed in a shelter with a no-pet policy."

When they decline shelter for any reason, they should be arrested or otherwise forced to leave town. They're welcome to camp in wilderness areas with their pets or whatever else.

[Ben_]

Here's a link:

https://californiaglobe.com/articles/over-half-of-san-franciscos-homeless-refused-shelter-space-according-to-new-city-data/

"New data released by the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management on Thursday found that 54% of homeless people in the city decline shelter"

[windycityattorney]

Shelters around me have strings attached. Some strings are easy: curfews requiring them to report in before a certain time. Some are lifestyle orientated: must return sober (no alcohol, not under influence of drugs, etc...) Others are affiliated with churches which can turn some people off. Some are men only. Some are woman only. Some say no kids so no single moms with children in tow.

The homeless population and the mental illness population overlap in many areas. Mentally ill people self medicating with street drugs and booze will not follow the rules or 'strings' and will eventually get banned from all facilities and then 'trespassed' so when they come back the shelters just call the police.

[Ben_]

So what? We don’t need to allow them to live on the streets unless they find a shelter that suits their whimsical needs.

Homeless people are welcome to go live in the forest according to their whims. Civilization has requirements, wilderness doesn’t.

[Nige]

'When they decline shelter for any reason, they should be arrested'

You're a fucking fascist.

[Ben_]

Name calling doesn’t work any more. All it says is the world's worst people don’t like me. It’s a good feeling really.

[Nige]

Being thought of as one of the worst people in the world by a nasty little fascist has similar feelgood connotations for me, we are basically best friends in a terrible comedy now. Yuk.

[Nige]

They're not the embodiment of anything except having nowhere to live.

[Ben_]

They can have "nowhere to live" out in the wilderness, where they’ll also cease to cause problems for innocent working people.

[Nige]

It's so simple! And yet so staggeringly stupid. And fascist.

[Ben_]

You have no arguments and nothing to say. Only barking.

[Nige]

I have one basic applicable argument: don't be a fucking fascist.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In another But Of Course She Was moment in Democrat History:

Fani Willis, Fulton Co DA was posting felonious election fraud conspiracies on Facebook on Nov 4, 2020.

"Georgia could determine who is our next president. A TEAM of lawyers needs to watch them count every single VOTE. They can start in Fulton where we are having water leaks. What ballots are they throwing out? Georgia lets give an honest accounting. No stunts!"

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1694820635749540338

These are the actions of someone participating in a fraudulent felonious RICO conspiracy and she needs to be in prison ASAP for treasonously insurrecting against our Sacred Democracies by feloniously tweet conspiracying.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is President Trump's interview with Tucker the most watched interview in history?

243M views and counting.

[DaveM]

I thought Tucker's questions were rather egocentric. All about Trump. I didn't learn anything new, this was all stuff we'd heard before. Honestly, if it weren't for the Democrats, Trump would have been ignored long ago.

[David Nieporent]

Is BCD the stupidest person in history? There were not 243 million views.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Trump's mugshot has been leaked.

https://i.imgur.com/Qnq3gHK.jpg

The dude is the most famous man on the planet right now. legend

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I just noticed that the Democrats in Fulton County let all the White people indicted go but then they kept the one black guy in jail without bail.

lol how f'n racist. Oh they hate it when black people run away from the plantation. They send their slave catchers out and they are viscous.

[Magister]

Harrison Floyd didn't arrange bond in advance; that was possibly complicated in that Floyd was charged with assaulting an FBI agent in May who was serving him a subpoena in the federal election investigation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Also famous, with mug shots:

Timothy McVeigh

Charles Manson

Jeffrey Dahmer

Ted Kaczynski

David Berkowitz

Rudy Giuliani

(Not so famous, but with a mug shot: John Eastman!)

Do you like Trump's chances for (cell block) president next year?

[Frank Drackman]

Those darn Floyds!

[Frank Drackman]

you left one out, "Coach"
https://fox8.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2013/03/sandusky.jpg?w=1280

[apedad]

Official merchandise with the mugshot of former President Donald Trump was available to purchase only hours after he was booked into the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta, Georgia.

Late Thursday evening, the Trump campaign released eight items in its store featuring the historic booking photo.

Ranging from $12 to $34, the items available include a bumper sticker, a coffee mug, koozies in black and white, and short-sleeve and long-sleeve shirts in black and white.

All eight items feature Trump's mugshot, the "NEVER SURRENDER!" tagline and the Trump 2024 Make America Great Again logo.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/trump-campaign-never-surrender-merchandise-former-presidents-mugshot?dicbo=v2-R465XQr

OK Trump supporters!

Now's time to stock up on your Christmas stocking stuffers!!!

Be sure to look for the Made in China labels.

[Martinned]

Of course he did. The grift always goes on.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Dark Brandon?

[Michael P]

Like Robert L. Peters. Like Robin Ware. Like Brandon. Like the Big Guy. The analogies are nigh endless!

[Nige]

You guys don't know what a grift is. No wonder you're such easy marks.

[Martinned]

If you want to keep paying for Melania's haircuts, have at it. Unlike your vote next year November, willfully falling for a scam hurts only yourself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How dumb must one be to swallow "no surrender" advice from a guy who just surrendered?

Of course, they didn't get to be Trump fans with adequate education, sound judgment, admirable character, and appreciable intellect.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Former Pres. Trump declared “NEVER SURRENDER!” today — shortly after he surrendered at the Fulton County Jail.

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit, and not a step beyond.

[Michael Ejercito]

And who are these better Americans?

[Frank Drackman]

Well unlike you, Reverend Sandusky, "45" knows he's innocent, and how long was he in the jail? 5 minutes? how long you been in now? It takes longer to get through TSA at Atlanta Hartsifeld-Zimbabwe Air Port.

Frank

[mydisplayname]

We must switch to B Time: everybody has been up on A time once.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Trump said that arresting their political opponents is now how Democrats campaign.

Ouch. True, but man that stings.

[OtisAH]

That’s your hemorrhoids acting up, idiot. There’s cream for that.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Trump isn't running against Fani Willis for the position of District Attorney for Fulton County. He isn't running against Alvin Bragg for the position of Manhattan D.A. And Jack Smith isn't running, or planning to run, for any elective office.

Perhaps you are thinking of Trump's chants of “lock her up” during the 2016 campaign, but that was just a campaign promise that Trump didn't keep. You might want to live in a country where political candidates lock up their opponents, but you don't.

[OtisAH]

Mugshots..

I had always ass-u-me’d that “Stand straight against the [height] wall, look straight ahead, now turn to the side” was SOP for booking photos. This perhaps despite the many times I’ve seen photos that don’t match that standard of which I never noticed.

Anyway, down in former Jim Crow jurisdiction Fulton County, GA, they allow or instruct defendants to lean forward and look up at the camera. Besides this resulting in less than optimal pics for identification purposes (half of Turnip’s face is in shadow, for instance), it results in a defendant appearing as sinister-looking as possible.

I suspect that is not an accident.

[Frank Drackman]

"45/47"'s already selling them on his site... T-shirt, Sweat Shirt, Coffee Mug, Bumper Stickers. https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/?utm_medium=ad&utm_source=ci_d_google&utm_content=merch_sa&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoNvj4vv3gAMVczfUAR2HjA8HEAAYASAAEgIPOvD_BwE

Frank

[not guilty]

Grifters gonna grift.

[Nige]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2388929-lockdowns-and-face-masks-really-did-help-to-control-covid-19/#Echobox=1692864519

[Martinned]

LanguageLog did a quick analysis of the debate: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=60351

[ReaderY]

It appears that when somebody else submits a comment, everyone’s pending comments get erased. Or at least mine do. I have twice attempted to comment on a popular thread and gotten my comments erased. This has got to be fixed, or else the format will force Twitter-style comments where one doesn’t time to think up or put down anything but an insult before ones comment gets erased. I have no interest in spending my time on a blog where my comments regularly get erased before I can finish them, and will have to look elsewhere.

[bevis the lumberjack]

That happened to me the other day on the Monday open thread. I had a long post put together about that moron Rittenhouse and his looming career in politics and activism. When I submitted it, it was gone.

I cursed, waited a a little while, then put it back together and resubmitted. Same result. So I gave up.

I wondered if it was that QAnon censorship that Kirkland keeps complaining about. Lol.

[DaveM]

.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The censorship that occurs at this blog is the work of Prof. Volokh, who, so far as I am aware, is too smart to fall for QAnon.

(He courts QAnon fans as the target audience of his blog, but that is a flaw of character, not an indication of stupidity or ignorance.)

[DaveM]

By “pending”, do you mean a comment that is still being written in the input box? If so, read on:

The design of the Internet is entirely “asynchronous”, that is, once a request is sent to a service and you receive a reply, that connection is automatically ended. When you click the link to leave a comment, the input box is entirely under the control of your browser, not the service. It is only after you click the Submit button that the server is involved.

Therefore, if your text is being erased, it means there is something on your browser that is causing that. For example, if you refresh a page before you submit your text, it will appear as if it has been erased. What happened is your browser asked the service for the page, and that’s exactly what you got: the page without your comment that you hadn’t submitted yet.

As a defensive habit, I typically select all the text in any long-form post and copy it to the clipboard every now and then, just in case.

[bevis the lumberjack]

[Brett Bellmore]

Some interesting history, which is pertinent to current debates about Section 3:

History Offers Answers in the New Debate Over Trump v. the Constitution

So, let's look at the record:

Were the Confederates permitted to run for office?

Yes, nobody lifted a finger to stop them.

Were the Confederates allowed onto the ballot?

Not an issue, this took place a couple decades before the Austrian ballot, voters supplied their own ballots. But Victor Berger, the only guy Section 3'd since the Civil war, was allowed on the ballot.

Were votes for Confederates counted?

Yup. And for Victor Berger, too.

If they got the most votes, did they win the election?

Yes. Both the Confederates AND Victor Berger.

So, when did Section 3 finally kick in?

When the new session of Congress was being seated, they refused to seat the Confederate members. Just as Congress refused to seat Victor Berger.

It seems the precedent is about as on point and clear as you could ask: Section 3 doesn't prevent anybody from running for an office, or even winning the election. They just don't get seated, if Congress decides they're not qualified.

If this precedent holds, the earliest you could invoke Section 3 against Trump would be January 6th, 2025.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd add that this history also confirms that the Union was pretty contemptuous of procedural niceties, as they didn't wait until they'd gotten Section 3 to provide a constitutional basis for refusing to seat Confederates. They started doing so immediately, as nothing more than an exercise of raw power.

But at no point claimed the power to stop anybody from running for any office...

[Martinned]

Why would you prefer that approach?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure why preferring that approach enters into it. That's the approach that has all the precedent of every single application of Section 3 behind it. Preventing Trump, or anybody for that matter, from actually running for office, getting on the ballot, or having their votes counted, would be completely unprecedented.

But, to answer: I think that the right to vote is the right to vote for whoever you damned well please, and if you vote for somebody who isn't qualified for the office?

Well, you just wasted your vote, but that's on you.

Curating who people can vote for is a voting rights violation, as I see it. And an awfully dangerous one.

[Martinned]

I’m not sure why preferring that approach enters into it.

All you've demonstrated is that there are multiple ways to enforce section 3. Why would you prefer to use the one that results in an election result being overturned ex post, instead of one that allows both major parties to nominate a candidate for one, single election?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, what I've demonstrated is that only one way has ever been used to enforce Section 3. I listed hypothetical enforcement mechanisms only to point out they have never, ever been used. Only one solitary enforcement mechanism has EVER been used.

Other mechanisms that haven't been used are political assassination, a punitive tax on voters for any allegedly disqualified candidate, and rigging voting machines to deliver an electric shock if you select Trump. Did I just endorse those, too, by mentioning them?

[bevis the lumberjack]

You’ve said you don’t like Trump. Why are you pushing this stuff so hard. He has demonstrated 10 ways from Sunday that he’s not fit to be president. He’s taken this “I wuz robbed” crap way beyond anything rational. That stupid mug shot from yesterday gives the impression of someone who has lost his final marble.

And he has single-handedly destroyed your party. Y’all are yielding the field to the progressives to placate a megalomaniacal imbecile.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They aren't yielding anything. They were defeated. Soundly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because I think it is monumentally, insanely, dangerous to go down this path. And I'm not even slightly impressed with the whole, "Trump is uniquely dangerous, so we get to cut any corners necessary to stop him!"

You're imagining he's horribly dangerous, in order that you can cut any corner you need to in order to stop him. But it's not Trump who's the real danger here, it's that sort of thinking.

Once you decide emergencies let you cut corners, everything becomes an emergency, because people LIKE being able to cut corners.

[Nige]

'“Trump is uniquely dangerous, so we get to cut any corners necessary to stop him!”'

You're literally the only person saying this. Everyone else is pointing out that Trump has done stuff nobody else has, hence the consequences. Not the same thing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Brett, Trump did the emergency corner cut thing every bit as much as Biden has.

And if Trump didn’t want to get prosecuted for retaining classified documents, he could have returned them. If he didn’t want to get indicted for trying to trying to influence the results in Georgia he might have rethought his plan to call senior officials there and tell them precisely how many votes he needed.

Knowing that they wanted to bust him he did it anyway. It’s like he wanted the fight. Now he’s got it.

[Brett Bellmore]

He should have just hid them in his socks and then destroyed them. That's officially a trivial offense, right?

[apedad]

(Legit question)

Has the issue of whether the President is, “. . . an officer of the United States,” been resolved?

If he’s not an officer of the US, then A14 Sec 3 would be N/A, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

I could see it either way, but the precedent, such as it is, is that Congress would resolve the issue while counting electoral votes.

[Martinned]

The only people who thing that's really an issue are Trumpists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule

[apedad]

FYI, I don't think a President is an officer of the US.

[Martinned]

That would require you to believe that the drafters of the 14th amendment were OK with an insurrectionist being President. Any other job they're banned from, but President is fine.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Assumes facts not necessarily in evidence.

[not guilty]

FWIW, Donald Trump has claimed status as an officer of the United States. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.0_2.pdf

[not guilty]

The District Court there opined, "I believe that the President should qualify as a 'federal officer' under the removal statute but, as is evident from the discussion below, the proposition is dictum, unnecessary for the decision that I reach." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.43.0_1.pdf

[apedad]

[M L]

A judge who struck down government rules that children must wear masks at school in a German state in 2021 stands to lose his legal career and pension, and has been handed a two-year suspended prison sentence for “perverting the law”.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/08/25/germany-hands-jail-sentence-to-judge-who-ruled-against-governments-mask-mandates/

????????????

[David Nieporent]

Maybe we should ask someone a little more reliable than Breitbart what the facts are.

[M L]

They link sources. Evidence that Breitbart is unreliable?

[Kazinski]

Once Breitbart uses a link it’s forever after unreliable.

I usually sanitize my links, I don’t read Breitbart, but if the NY Post, Washington Examiner are linking to another source, I’ll use the original source link.

[Kenneth Almquist]

According to the prosecutor, Dettmar decided to use his position as a judge to overturn a school mask requirement. There were a few obstacles to overcome. First, judges can only rule on cases that come before them. Second, because Dettmar was a family court judge, he couldn't order the school to abandon its mask requirement even if a plaintiff requested it. (I believe he could order the school to exempt the plaintiff from the rule, which would leave the rule in place for everyone else.)

To create the appearance of legitimacy, Dettmar sought out and found two child plaintiff's whose cases would be assigned to him. He also selected a couple of experts whose role would nominally be to provide impartial expert opinion to the court, but who Dettmar had determined would testify in a way that would support what Dettmar wanted to do. With both the plaintiffs and the experts chosen, the sham trial could begin. The school district could argue for keeping the mask requirement, but they would be arguing in front of a judge who had already made up his mind. Indeed, the judge was the real plaintiff in this case--the nominal plaintiffs were children chosen by the judge as stand ins--so the judge was ruling on his own case. Unsurprisingly, he ruled in favor of himself. And the fact that he had no legal authority to overturn the mask rule didn't stop him; he did it anyway.

M L, if I'm interpreting his sequence of question marks correctly, doesn't understand how Dettmar could be accused of “perverting the law.” If a sham court proceeding where the outcome is predetermined isn't perverting the law, I don't know what is.