Thursday Open Thread

Comments

[Kazinski]

Its no big surprise the House opened up an impeachment inquiry on Biden this week. What is somewhat of a surprise is that Kevin McCarthy opened the inquiry on his own authority, rather than a vote of the House.

But I guess it shouldn't be too much of a surprise, because Nancy Pelosi did the same thing with Trump's first impeachment about 3 years ago.

I guess Trump rules aren't just for Trump.

[santamonica811]

I can't tell. Are you whining about this, or not whining about this?

[Kazinski]

I will tell you what I’m whining about, I’m whining about having to close up my cabin for the summer in a couple of weeks and head back to suburbia.

As for the impeachment inquiry, its just getting started, so nothing to complain about yet. You know its going to get panned in the press, but if they deliver the goods then there will be more drama to come, if they don't then Biden is in the clear to start enjoying his retirement in 16 months.

[Nige]

'but if they deliver the goods'

'We have to open an impeachment inquiry to get the evidence we don't have to justify opening an impeachment inquiry.'

[Kazinski]

I think we are at the Reasonable Suspicion stage, not the Probable Cause stage, if you want to use terms of art.

[Nige]

Yeah, let’s pretend this has been charachterised by sober asessment and reasonable suspicion, not wild claims and unfounded accusations.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, you're very good a pretending so have at it.

[Nige]

Sorry. No good. Can't live a lie the way you guys do.

[not guilty]

Reasonable suspicion? I don't think that reasonable means what you seem to think it means.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not reasonable? A guy who chooses an off-the-grid hermit shack, is part of the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience, and has a thing for Ted Kaczynski?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kaczynski didn't have internet access...

[SimonP]

"Reasonable suspicion?" Describing what's been produced on Biden so far as "reasonable suspicion" is a bit like saying a Black person stopped and searched on the street "fits the description."

Which seems about right. Why open an impeachment inquiry? Biden "fits the description." Namely, by being a Democrat in the White House.

[Life of Brian]

“Reasonable suspicion?” Describing what’s been produced on Biden so far as “reasonable suspicion” is a bit like saying a Black person stopped and searched on the street “fits the description.”

The inestimable CNN fact-checkers are backed up so far on the edge of the cliff, all they can muster is stuff like "well, ok, but you can't prove that any of the tens of millions of foreign dollars laundered through a blizzard of shell companies to the hands of the Biden family and associates ACTUALLY ENDED UP in Joe's hands! [Oh, and none of the family's personal bank records have been subpoenaed yet. .... ]"

[SimonP]

I am less impressed than you are by records of wire transfers, devoid of any context explaining why they were made. You’re just a gullible dupe.

Every month, I wire thousands of dollars to the account of a UK national held at the U.S. branch of a Swiss bank, relating to a real estate transaction in New York. The amount has increased over time and has been agreed orally.

Sound shady? It must, to you. But it’s my rent.

[Life of Brian]

T-t-t-t-HOUSANDS? Going FROM your personal account to a recipient overseas? If I gave that sort of laughably false parallel the least bit of heed, I actually WOULD be a gullible dupe.

My point, which you didn't touch because you can't, is that the fact-checkers had all sorts of opportunities to throw up distractive confetti like that, but instead were forced through gritted teeth to say:

What the records have shown is that during and after Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president, Hunter Biden made millions of dollars through complex financial arrangements from private equity deals, legal fees, and corporate consulting in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere.

The fact they had to frankly acknowledge that and fall all the way back to "NO PROOF THAT ANY OF THE MONEY ACKTCHOOLLY MADE IT TO JOE" speaks volumes.

[David Nieporent]

I know the fact that there's no proof of any of your allegations does not actually bother you.

[Life of Brian]

What allegations are those, sir? Please dazzle us anew with your ever-impressive reading comprehension skills.

[Nige]

Oh so you're not making any allegations about Joe Biden? Glad that's put to bed.

[myself]

Hunter Biden has made a business off of selling his dad's name, that's not in dispute. And to be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if some others did the same, I mean if you had the chance to double your net worth by showing up at a couple business meetings and name-dropping your VP relative how many people would turn it down?

So what's your big point then? That Joe Biden should be impeached because of his son?

Btw, I assume you were far more outraged when Donald Trump's kids were doing business while he was in office. Including his son in law running policy for the Middle East while his family company was getting bailed out by the Saudi royal family?

And that's not even one of the things Trump was impeached for.

[Life of Brian]

Hunter Biden has made a business off of selling his dad’s name, that’s not in dispute.

Fascinating -- it indeed was in vigorous, spittle-laced dispute, until very very recently.

I guess between that and the gun charges, it's officially time for poor Hunter to go under the bus. Hopefully he doesn't flip on the big guy!

[SimonP]

Yes, the records show that Hunter was engaged in international business. Nothing about it is particularly extraordinary. You're being led by the nose by your handlers.

I've seen the "evidence." It's all describing wire transactions in intentionally charged ways. Describing someone you've never heard of with a funny name as an "oligarch." Referring to some individual as "someone known to the Bidens." Describing routine holding vehicles as "shell companies." And none of it saying anything about the ostensible business purpose of the transactions, fraudulent or otherwise. They're just expecting unsophisticated morons like yourself to "connect the dots" over imagined purposes and shady dealings and start frothing at the mouth.

The way I've described my rent payments mimics what they've done.

[Life of Brian]

I’ve seen the “evidence.”

You keep missing the point (purposely, I take it at this juncture). The sycophantic “fact-checkers” have no doubt seen everything you have, and likely more — and not even they could keep a straight enough face to hide Mr. Peters behind the sort of flim-flam shadow-puppet cover you’re spewing. Pretty scary stuff when people like that have more integrity than you.

[myself]

Hunter Biden has made a business off of selling his dad’s name, that’s not in dispute.

Fascinating — it indeed was in vigorous, spittle-laced dispute, until very very recently.

I honestly baffled where you're getting your info from. The only person I've ever heard claim that Hunter Biden's business success had nothing to do with his Dad's name is well, Hunter Biden.

[Life of Brian]

Hunter Biden has made a business off of selling his dad’s name —-> The only person I’ve ever heard claim that Hunter Biden’s business success had nothing to do with his Dad’s name

Now that’s a rather impressive pivot in just one post.

That aside, Joe Biden is a career politician, not a businessman. Hunter swaggering in to a boardroom and saying “my dad’s Joe Biden, ya know” has only one realistic connotation to it, and were we discussing this over a beer in a parallel universe where the presidency were not at stake I think we’d all readily agree what that is.

[Sarcastr0]

Hunter swaggering in to a boardroom and saying “my dad’s Joe Biden, ya know”

As has been explained a thousand times before, drafting off of a name has been a thing in board rooms well beyond access. It's a thing with sports stars, kids of actors, and kids of politicians.

The GOP is going quite far with hand-wavy appeals to incredulity based on an unbelievable ignorance of the business world (I knew this from like the news when I was 12). But an impeachment will require something more concrete than this wattery nonsense.

[Life of Brian]

As has been explained a thousand times before

You left out the word "patiently" or similar. I know you're capable of better head-patting condescension than this.

drafting off of a name has been a thing in board rooms well beyond access. It’s a thing with sports stars, kids of actors, and kids of politicians.

"Happens ALL THE TIME, yo. Millions upon millions of dollars -- much of it via shell entity hopscotch -- for pure bragging rights to have the son of a US politician involved in their business operations having absolutely jack squat to do with the US."

Name three. Should be exceptionally straightforward since there are SO many and you've had to explain this SO many times.

[Sarcastr0]

Pure appeal to incredulity.

You think all these people are business geniuses?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ciara-oprah-shaq-serena-the-tricky-art-of-bringing-stars-into-the-boardroom-11612452831

[Life of Brian]

Oh FFS. When I asked for examples, the goalposts suddenly shifted into the entire next county -- from no-name children of politicians to actual huge-name celebrities themselves.

You're shameless.

[Sarcastr0]

These examples prove the rationale of having a name in the board room is a legitimate one.

That's all that's needed to explode your weak-ass appeal to incredulity.

I've seen you be very incisive, but when politics come up you are very bad at picking the scope of your argument. You concentrate on irrelevant details, or you can't understand how general you yourself are being.

[myself]

Hunter Biden has made a business off of selling his dad’s name —-> The only person I’ve ever heard claim that Hunter Biden’s business success had nothing to do with his Dad’s name

Now that’s a rather impressive pivot in just one post.

Nope, not really. It is simultaneously true that much of Hunter Biden's career is trying to sell the illusion of access to his dad (or at least association with the name), and that Hunter Biden publicly denies this.

It's even possible that Hunter Biden has convinced himself that he succeeded on his own merits (at least in some instances).

[Brett Bellmore]

" It is simultaneously true that much of Hunter Biden’s career is trying to sell the illusion of access to his dad "

With accumulating evidence that it hasn't entirely been an illusion.

Evidence of Joe Biden’s Involvement in His Family’s Influence Peddling Schemes

[David Nieporent]

Hunter Biden has made a business off of selling his dad’s name, that’s not in dispute.

Sorry, but as phrased that actually is in dispute. Hunter Biden obviously has made money in his life based on the fact that his name is Hunter Biden rather than Hunter Smith. But there's no evidence that Hunter Biden ever actually influence-peddled as alleged, no evidence he ever promised anything based on his dad's name. (I would not remotely be shocked if he had, to be sure.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It's virtually never the case that anything consequential "is not in dispute". You'll get pro-forma denials at the very least.

That's all that you'll see at this point about Hunter's influence peddling. "You can't make me admit it happened!" denials.

[David Nieporent]

With accumulating evidence that it hasn’t entirely been an illusion.

Nothing in there shows any such thing. It's just desperate conspiracy theorists trying to spin testimony that refutes their arguments. We discussed these things already, and the full testimony shows that Joe Biden was never involved in any business dealings.

[myself]

Sorry, but as phrased that actually is in dispute. Hunter Biden obviously has made money in his life based on the fact that his name is Hunter Biden rather than Hunter Smith. But there’s no evidence that Hunter Biden ever actually influence-peddled as alleged, no evidence he ever promised anything based on his dad’s name. (I would not remotely be shocked if he had, to be sure.)

There's some evidence he implied he could provide access or influence his dad, though I'd agree that's in dispute.

But I don't think "selling his dad's name" requires either of those conditions. It just means he deliberately pursued business opportunities where his last name would be a big benefit. Like with the children of famous actors. Some like Charlie Sheen use the same last name to help their career, others like Emilio Estevez want to make it on their own.

For instance, Bursima obviously thought they were buying some influence by hiring Hunter Biden, maybe they even thought they could save their prosecutor! Whether or not Hunter Biden implied anything he obviously understood why they were hiring him and didn't go out of his way to tell them "you know me being the VP's son won't affect US policy". I'd say that qualifies as "selling the last name" whether or not Hunter implied anything about Joe Biden.

[Life of Brian]

These examples prove the rationale of having a name in the board room is a legitimate one.

That’s all that’s needed to explode your weak-ass appeal to incredulity.

In your head, I'm sure. But the astute reader will note that this chess-playing pigeon routine is just a weak-ass distraction from the fact that at the end of the day you can't cash the checks your mouth wrote in your lead-in bluster, and you're trying to manufacture a minimally workable exit from what for most people would be a gravely embarrassing hole-digging exercise.

I mean, this is the same guy you described elsewhere in this very thread (when reflexively defending against a different point) as a failson. Here, he's the second coming of Oprah or Shaq that the business world is fawning after to bolster their PR. You really need to find some core principles somewhere.

[Nige]

Your case is so thin that you need Hunter Biden getting ahead because of his name to be a unique act in the entire history of corporate mediocrity.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

The money doesn’t have to touch Joe’s hands. That it enriched his family trading off Joe’s position is sufficient.

[Sarcastr0]

Suffficeint for what?

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

To impeach him.

[David Nieporent]

What impeachable offense is it for an officeholder's son to make money off the fact that his dad is famous?

[Kazinski]

I for one am perfectly willing to throw you in jail for that Simon.

Actually I kid, 3 or 4 years ago I lent my sister in law 20k for a down payment on an overseas condo. I kind of wondered when she paid me back whether the IRS would come after me for taxes on that, but so far so good.

But I can clearly explain the source of the funds where they went and where they returned from.

Can Hunter explain why Hunter got wired 142k from a Kazakhstan businessman days after he set up a dinner meeting with Joe.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12369121/amp/Hunter-got-PORSCHE-bringing-Joe-dinner-Kazakh-oligarch-Devon-Archers-testimony-Biden-brand-used-INTIMIDATION-Burisma-VPs-20-meetings-sons-business-partners-released.html

[Nelson]

He's probably not willing to, since Hunter is a scumbag, but he's not stupid enough to admit anything.

The missing part here is any connection to Joe Biden. Is Hunter shady? Absolutely. No one has ever denied that.

Anyone who knows anything about Hunter over the past several decades knows that he is a grifter. His brother was the one who made honest money and had integrity. Apparently those traits split 100%-0% in the Biden boys.

Are you saying that anyone who has a grifter for a son is guilty of being a criminal? If so, we're going to need a LOT more prison cells with geriatric care, because most of the born-on-third-base trust fund babies out there are grifters.

[Kazinski]

I guess you missed the part where Joe was the deliverable.

Joe showed up at the dinner, then just days later Hunter got the cash.

I guess that detail is easy to miss when you don't want to see it.

Hard to miss Hunter driving across the desert in his Kazak Porsche at 172 snorting cocaine though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12185871/Hunter-Biden-photographed-smoking-crack-DRIVING-speeding-172mph.html

[Nelson]

"I guess you missed the part where Joe was the deliverable."

That's not how criminal behavior by Joe Biden works. Just showing up to a dinner with his son and his son's business associates isn't illegal.

"Joe showed up at the dinner, then just days later Hunter got the cash."

IANAL, so I don't know if that is a criminal act by Hunter (although I seriously doubt it), but it definitely isn't a criminal act by Joe.

"Hard to miss Hunter driving across the desert in his Kazak Porsche at 172 snorting cocaine though."

Like I said, those if us who live in Delaware are quite aware of what a shady dirtbag Hunter is. I have no doubt that things Hunter's done have been illegal. He is as big a grifter as Trump, the only difference is Trump doesn't use intoxicants of any kind and Hunter is a walking pharmacy.

You failed to point out anything that Joe Biden did that was even the slightest bit illegal.

I would finish with the fact that if the general public was aware that Hunter was a scumbag, Joe was very aware.

Every piece of evidence about what Joe has done and said indicate that he has never even hinted at doing any favors for Hunter's various marks. In fact every reported conversation never leaves the small talk category. Do you really think that's an accident?

[Sarcastr0]

Joe showed up at the dinner, then just days later Hunter got the cash.

You put this in a criminal complaint, you’d get your case dismissed for not alleging a crime.

[David Nieporent]

I guess you missed the part where Joe was the deliverable.

Joe showed up at the dinner, then just days later Hunter got the cash.

That doesn't make sense even as a narrative. Look, if I am trying to leverage my friendship with Joe Biden to do a deal, me getting Joe Biden to show up at a dinner is a big deal; it proves that I really know him and aren't just dropping a random name. But Hunter Biden doesn't need to prove to anyone that he knows Joe Biden; what value does Joe showing up at dinner have?

[SimonP]

The series of wire transfers resulting in Hunter's being gifted a Porsche is the only one of these chains where the surrounding context has been provided. I suspect that Republicans have divulged those details because they are the least defensible, as a business transaction.

I agree that it looks like a businessman gifted Hunter a Porsche, apparently as part of a lobbying arrangement. If Hunter was engaged in lobbying activity on behalf of a non-U.S. company, he (or the company) may have been required to disclose that activity and relationship. But it's not, to my knowledge, otherwise illegal activity.

As the Supreme Court has instructed, paying for access to politicians is constitutionally-protected activity. I don't like it. You may have decided not to like it in this particular case. But that's the worst that's been publicly alleged.

[Reallynotbob]

Well there was an entire official investigation already, which never proceeded to the probable cause stage because the evidence did not exist. We know that because there was no indictment, even of Hunter, for /bribery/misprison of felony/gratuity etc.

Put another way, it wasn't even a ham sandwich.

[SimonP]

Depending on what day of the week is, the investigation of Hunter was either controlled by Garland on Biden's behalf, independent of DOJ but spiked to reach a "sweetheart deal" anyway, or deliberately structured to appear "independent" but secretly in the tank, etc. It really just depends on what facts are at the top of the news cycle.

[Reallynotbob]

"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."

Eyeroll.

[David Welker]

To the extent that an impeachment inquiry can lead to greater subpoena powers and a more thorough and public investigation of what connection exists between Hunter Biden and the President with regard to influence selling, the better.

I don't think President Biden should be impeached at this point. But I do believe there is enough evidence to justify a full and public investigation. Especially in light of there being whistleblowers suggesting that the executive branch may not be doing a good job of fully and fairly investigating its own head, a congressional inquiry does seem necessary.

If President Biden really has no connection to this influence selling by his son, he has really been disservices by people in the Justice Department and elsewhere who appear to have obstructed a full investigation.

To be clear, I haven't spent TONS of time becoming an expert on the various investigations of Biden. But there do seem to be some issues here.

[Kazinski]

Exactly, I haven't seen enough to warrant impeachment, but there is enough to warrant an investigation, which we cannot depend on DOJ to do.

There is more information justifying an inquiry into Biden's family business than there was to open a special prosecution in to the Russiagate Hoax.

But sunlight is the best disinfectant. In any case I think Congress should look into trying to craft legislation to prevent presidential and VP family members from trying to cash in "selling the brand" in the future

[David Nieporent]

Exactly, I haven’t seen enough to warrant impeachment, but there is enough to warrant an investigation, which we cannot depend on DOJ to do.

Congress has been investigating it for 9 months now, and has come up with roughly the same evidence as that for the existence of UFOs from outer space. That's rather more of a reason to close down the issue than to start an impeachment inquiry.

In any case I think Congress should look into trying to craft legislation to prevent presidential and VP family members from trying to cash in “selling the brand” in the future

Congress can stop a con man from putting a bunch of his family members on the White House payroll. But Congress cannot prevent a private, adult individual from getting a job somewhere based on the hiring person's belief that this private, adult individual has influence with the president or vice president.

Congress could presumably outlaw a presidential/vp relative's making a promise to exert influence on behalf of another; that would be fraud if false and some sort of bribery if true. But Congress cannot outlaw an employer drawing an inference that having a presidential/vp relative on his payroll would be helpful.

[David Welker]

Mr. Nieporent:

To the extent this belief was encouraged by Hunter Biden or known to exist but he did not disclaim it, then Hunter is committing a sort of fraud on the buyer. Furthermore, you fail to recognize a serious problem with this, which is that a person who is hired on the basis of "perceived" influence selling is going to eventually feel pressure to deliver. One can imagine Hunter using his access to his father to persuade him of something without his father knowing his motives.

This is all very problematic and it is worth further investigating, especially in light of the whistle blowers.

And if this is all inconvenient, well, maybe don't go around selling the "perception of influence" if you don't want to be investigated for selling influence.

What Hunter Biden did, even if it was selling the perception of influence rather than actual influence, was highly inappropriate. At the very least.

[Nige]

‘One can imagine Hunter’

Pretty much the Republican motto at the moment.

'highly inappropriate'

Trump had woefully unqualified family members in his administration, and they made millions out if it. Just to guage the varying levels of what's 'appropriate.'

[David Welker]

Nige:

If you are going to let standards set by Trump influence standards in the future, does that make you pro-Trump or anti-Trump?

I for one do not think that “but Trump” is a defense. And it is especially not a defense if you are against rather than pro Trump.

Overall, it seems like your concerns are political (accountability in this case is bad for my team) rather than procedural (lack accountability is bad for the country). You are implicitly prioritizing partisan concerns over patriotic concerns. In other words, it seems like you think what is good for your team is more important than what is good for the country. (I highly question that this is true though... is allow corruption by politicians really good for the country?)

Influence selling is bad. Whether by the GOP, or the Democrats, or the Trump family, or the Biden family. If you start to see it as OK because Trump allegedly did it, when does that logic end???

By the way, Biden controls the executive branch and Democrats control the Senate. I am FINE with Democrats investigating Kushner or anyone else engaged in influence selling. In fact, if there are credible allegations, I think it would be good to investigate rather than sweeping them under the rug.

Ultimately though, if the GOP can point at the Dems to explain why they can’t be held accountable and the Dems can point at the GOP to explain why they can’t be held accountable, isn’t the logical result that no one can be held accountable.

I can imagine a world where no one in the governing class, regardless of party, is held accountable for corruption. I don’t think that would be good for the country, though. Is that really what we want???

[Mr. Bumble]

"I can imagine a world where no one in the governing class, regardless of party, is held accountable ..."
You could have stopped here and for the most part been correct about the current state of affairs.

[Nige]

'I for one do not think that “but Trump” is a defense.'

It's not so much a defense as a stark contrast between someone employing his unqualified children in his administration which they use to make millions and a private individual working for a prvate company in a different country.

'You are implicitly prioritizing partisan concerns over patriotic concerns.'

I hope you were able to type this with a straight face.

'is allow corruption by politicians really good for the country?'

So I guess you're all in for the Trump indictments because nobody has presented any actual proof of corruption in relation to Biden.

'Influence selling is bad'

It's suddenly the worst crime since Lizzie Borden, but only if you're Hunter Biden.

'I can imagine a world where no one in the governing class, regardless of party, is held accountable for corruption'

So, yay Trump indictments!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Welker seems clueless about what, "accountability," means.

Welker, you are not advocating for, "accountability." You are advocating for vengeful persecution, and unequal application of justice.

If you are not doing it pro-Trump, what you are doing will be to the delight of the MAGA fools who, regardless of lack of evidence, will never let go of, "the Biden crime family." They think of that as the only shield they have against the barrage of evidence inculpating their guy. The will never let go of that shield, and they will never run out of new lies and new liars to use to dupe folks like you into supporting them..

[David Welker]

Sorry Stephen, but that you may have a few overzealous enemies isn’t actually a defense.

Same goes for Trump. I am fine with prosecuting him based on his illegal handling of classified documents. No one is above the law.

I think that some people are “out to get” Trump because they just viscerally dislike him. I also don’t think that means he gets a free pass when he breaks the law.

I disagree with other prosecutions of Trump because I believe the government is likely going to fail to show he had the requisite intent. But if I was on the jury, I would listen to the evidence and be open to convicting Trump if the government carried its burden with respect to intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 7 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
‘Trump had woefully unqualified family members in his administration, and they made millions out if it.

Baghdad "nige" Bob - care to tell us who made millions
Care to provide a link

[Nige]

Are you even a real person?

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige - Can you provide evidence of your statement as to which trump family member made millions. Or is the usual make Sh.. up !

[Nige]

Not until you pass a turing test.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Hey Nige, answer the goddamned question. If you can……

[Nige]

This isn't a fucking kindergarten, both of you should quit acting like it is. Sometimes the childish disingenuousness triggers nothing but contempt.

[David Nieporent]

What Hunter Biden did, even if it was selling the perception of influence rather than actual influence, was highly inappropriate. At the very least.

You've convinced me; I will not vote for Hunter Biden in 2024.

[Sarcastr0]

This is such nonsense. Joe Biden should be impeached because he should have forbidden his son from taking a standard failson job?

[Michael P]

Joe Biden risks impeachment because he gave credence to his son's influence-peddling schemes, repeatedly lied about his knowledge of and involvement in those schemes, and may have benefit from the money raised from them.

The crime of bribery is complete even before the quo in a quid-pro-quo scheme.

[Nige]

Pity about the lack of a single shred of evidence for any of it.

[Sarcastr0]

No evidence of knowledge or involvement, much less benefit.

Unclear what 'gave credence' means unless you mean being Joe Biden.

The crime of bribery is complete even before the quo in a quid-pro-quo scheme.
You can't just say shit. You do indeed need both a thing of value and an official act for the crime of bribery.

[Michael P]

Devon Archer testified to Congress that Joe Biden had dinner with Hunter Biden and Vadim Pozharskyi (a Burisma exec) and spoke over the phone during other meetings with Hunter's marks.

Notably, the Biden campaign lied in late 2020 by denying that Joe Biden attended that dinner meeting, just as Joe Biden lied about whether Hunter made any money from Chinese sources.

[Sarcastr0]

The guy who testified he's not aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden?

When was this dinner? I see 2020 and 2015. I see no inclusion of Hunter in either meeting.

I'm quite willing to believe the Biden campaign said he didn't attending any such dinner, but you've not established that from Archer's testimony.

And most importantly, even taking *your entire post as true* you're miles away from a crime.

[Nige]

Seriously, the people who tolerated the Trump Hotel Influence Clearing House and the purchase of membership/access at Mar A Lago trying to dig into something like this is beyond ridiculous.

[Michael P]

You should probably stop reading whatever sources you read and start reading Just The News. Your sources are calibrated to make you angry and wrong, dude.

For example, threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan to a foreign government unless they fire a particular prosecutor is an official act. Separately, Hunter was at the April 2015 dinner (with Joe, Archer, and Pozharskyi) -- according both to the email that the Biden campaign denied in 2020 and Archer's testimony.

[Sarcastr0]

See I read the Biden fired a guy to protect Hunter and bragged about it on the right first, and then when I checked I found it was a non story and everyone wanted him fired for among other things not going after Burisma because he was corrupt. It wasn’t even Biden’s idea.

You need to check into your stories to see if they are nonsense. I do that when some left wing breathless scandal comes up. Saved me some embarrassment. Though I am capable of shame so ymmv.

[David Nieporent]

Devon Archer testified to Congress that Joe Biden had dinner with Hunter Biden and Vadim Pozharskyi (a Burisma exec) and spoke over the phone during other meetings with Hunter’s marks.

Devon Archer testified that Joe and Hunter Biden spoke to each other, as fathers and sons that don't hate each other (*cough*DonJr*cough*Eric*cough*Donald Trump*cough*) do, and that if Joe called while Hunter was in a meeting Hunter would answer the call, and sometimes put the call on speaker. He testified that they talked about the weather and such, and never about business.

Your comments about the "dinner meeting" are similarly a distortion; it was dinner, not a meeting. Archer testified that Hunter was having dinner at a public restaurant in DC with a group of people, and then sometime after the dinner started, Joe Biden came in, said hi, shook everyone's hand, made small talk for a while, and then left. There was no discussion of business by or with Joe Biden.

Notably, Archer was supposed to be the smoking gun witness who was going to establish Joe Biden's involvement with Hunter's business dealings, and he in fact testified to the opposite.

[Michael P]

S_0 claims he is capable of shame in the same comment where he lies about what he read. (I challenge him to link to where he read that "Biden fired a guy to protect Hunter".)

And DMN furiously tries to explain away a long and broad pattern of Joe being actively involved in Hunter’s influence peddling because, gosh, who might think there is any appearance of impropriety in a politician glad-handing a bunch of foreign businessmen that the politician’s kid is trying to get money from? It sure isn’t outreach to constituents.

[not guilty]

"For example, threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan to a foreign government unless they fire a particular prosecutor is an official act."

Do you think so, Michael P? Let's parse the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201.

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

Under § 201(a)(1), the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror.

What (Ukranian) "public official" do you claim that Vice-President Biden dealt with?

[Michael P]

You're not even wrong, not guilty, you're just asking silly questions in an effort to introduce red herrings. Where do you think the federal bribery statue requires a Ukrainian public official to be involved?

But if you want the answer to that question, ask the person who boasted about getting the prosecutor fired. He should know which official(s) he dealt with -- although he probably doesn't remember that. He probably doesn't remember what he had for breakfast, either....

[not guilty]

No, I'm not wrong. You claim that Joe Biden engaged in an official act. Your claim, your burden of persuasion. I quoted the relevant definitions from the statute, which you pointedly refuse to discuss.

What "public official" -- that is, what Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror -- do you claim that Joe Biden interacted with?

[Michael P]

Again, not guilty, you are not even wrong.

Joe Biden was the public official in question. Hunter Biden collected bribe money that was offered with the intention of influencing his father's official acts. Joe Biden indirectly received that money. Or do you think that Joe Biden was -- and is -- not "an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government"?

[grb]

Michael P Devon Archer : “Devon Archer testified to Congress that Joe Biden had dinner with Hunter Biden and Vadim Pozharskyi (a Burisma exec) and spoke over the phone during other meetings with Hunter’s marks.”

Pretty damn pathetic. If you impeach all politicians who ever sat down in a restaurant with a monied interest, you’d empty Washington, every State House in the entire country, and half the local governments as well. That’s how far someone like Michael P has to go to justify his bullshit.

The hypocrisy here is overwhelming. When Trump became president, Mar-a-Lago doubled its membership fees. Everybody who ponied up got access to the president to make a business pitch; it was pure pay-to-play. The NY Times had one article on this – one! – listing all the corporation leaders who quickly signed on, but that article was largely ignored. Compare and contrast with the hundreds of accounts about Joe pausing to sit at the same table with his son’s associates. You could have impeached Trump with fresh cause any week of his presidency with this featherweight crap.

Right now, two thirds of the accounts defending impeachment rely on Shokin, which is a sure sign of desperation. The pressure to fire him was by order of the White House, per White House policy, per State Department policy, per the policy of the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, per the documented urging of a bipartisan group of Senators, per the official policy of our European allies, per IMF & World Bank policy, and a common objective with all the anti-corruption groups of Ukraine.

It’s a good talking point for the Right’s dupes, gulls, and fools, but if ever highlighted in a forum allowing opposing witnesses it would be washed away by a tsunami of facts. But when you have nothing, you go with what you’ve got.

Trump started this 2-1/2 years before the election, sending Rudy and his criminal henchmen (Parnas & Furman) rooting thru Ukraine, trying to buy dirt from disgraced politicians, corrupt oligarchs and Ukrainians already under U.S. indictment.

And five-plus years of frenzied searching has produce what?

Nothing.

[Nige]

'(I challenge him to link to where he read that “Biden fired a guy to protect Hunter”.)'

He probably read it here, ad nauseum.

'You claim that Joe Biden engaged in an official act. Your claim, your burden of persuasion.'

This is a matter of record. It was Trump and Co that suddenly and ridiculously decided to spin it into something nefarious by the Biden Crime Family. And so far they've produced a lot of noise, but no evidence.

'Hunter Biden collected bribe money that was offered with the intention of influencing his father’s official acts. Joe Biden indirectly received that money.'

None of this happened. Not according to any evidence that has thus far been made public.

[Life of Brian]

No evidence of knowledge or involvement, much less benefit.

Quite a timely piece by the Bee, right up your alley: https://babylonbee.com/news/white-house-says-there-is-no-direct-evidence-that-hunter-biden-exists

[Nige]

Wow. If only thuddingly dumb sarcasm was evidence!

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 56 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
This is such nonsense. Joe Biden should be impeached because he should have forbidden his son from taking a standard failson job?

Sacastro - that description is not what happened - you know that -

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, where were those "standard failson jobs" -- where millions were routinely sloshed around like whiskey in a jug -- when I was entering the job market?

Or are you saying those are only available to the truly incompetent, and the rest of us actually have to work for it?

[Tom for equal rights]

Life - Sacastro in his typical partisan fashion is misrepresenting the actual facts .

No one is paid that kinda of money with out have something of value to offer. hunter has virtually no knowledge of the oil and gas industry, He has virtually no knowledge of business. So what does he provide of value.

Somehow the got an investigator fired. Someone bragged about getting that investigator fired.

lots of people defending Biden cant connect the dots

[Nige]

Are you guys only just finding out about the obscene rates of pay for idiots at CEO level in corporations? Jesus you are such babes in the woods.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, sorry, Tom -- I replied to add to your rejoinder, but wrote as though I was directly replying to Sarc. Not enough caffeine today.

[David Nieporent]

hunter has virtually no knowledge of the oil and gas industry, He has virtually no knowledge of business. So what does he provide of value.

I mean, the first claim is irrelevant and the second claim is wrong.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, the first claim is irrelevant and the second claim is wrong.

No kidding. He's exceptionally knowledgeable that the business world is a great source for large, mysteriously non-meritorious sluices of cash necessary to keep his coke stash topped off, keep him behind the wheels of high-test sports cars, etc etc.

[David Nieporent]

No kidding. He’s exceptionally knowledgeable that the business world is a great source for large, mysteriously non-meritorious sluices of cash necessary to keep his coke stash topped off, keep him behind the wheels of high-test sports cars, etc etc.

Could you at least do the minimal amount of research — reading Wikipedia — before spouting off your nonsense? Hunter Biden has lots of personal issues, but he has also had an actual business career. An executive at MBNA, on the board of Amtrak, a corporate lawyer at some big law firms. He's not Don Jr., who bummed around for a year after college as a bartender and then was put on his daddy's payroll/game show thereafter.

[Life of Brian]

Could you at least do the minimal amount of research — reading Wikipedia — before spouting off your nonsense?

Read Wikipedia, interestingly enough. Here’s a small example of what it told me:

After graduating from law school in 1996, Biden accepted a consultant position at the bank holding company MBNA, whose employees donated more than $200,000 into Joe Biden’s senate campaigns.[18][27] MBNA’s hiring of Biden was controversial because his father had pushed for credit card legislation which was beneficial to the credit card industry and was supported by MBNA during Biden’s time at the bank.[18][28] The legislation made it more difficult to get bankruptcy protection.[28]

So the grift started the day he left law school [ETA: or probably even earlier, given that 2L Georgetown-Yale transfer!], and is evidence of precisely nothing regarding his actual skills and abilities.

I’m sure you thought you had a point there, but it’s hard to imagine a crisper example of why you never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.

[David Nieporent]

I’m sure you thought you had a point there, but it’s hard to imagine a crisper example of why you never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.

The only question I asked was "Could you at least do the minimal amount of research — reading Wikipedia — before spouting off your nonsense?" And I knew the answer: because you're a hack.

The point, of course, was that he does have business experience, so this "Why would he get paid to serve on the board?" questioning is stupid.

[Life of Brian]

business experience

I know you're desperate to pretend you don't have egg streaming down your face, but come on. I quoted directly from your hallowed Wikipedia article showing he got his first pay-for-play "consulting" gig for the bank that was lobbying his daddy for favorable legislation, straight out of business... oh, sorry -- LAW school, following a B.A. in business... oh, sorry -- HISTORY.

You? Just ignore that little inconvenience and pound the table harder.

[Sarcastr0]

So I guess your scenario is that Hunter's taking business jobs, but he can't get any experience because he's been spending all his time getting his dad to get dinners with the people he's working for and has had no time to actually do any business stuff.

You really are a hack.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, I see you officially abandoned that hopelessly steaming pile you left behind in the other thread and jumped down here to try to reset.

I'm dying to hear how someone you branded a "failson" this morning is now suddenly jam-packed with business acumen that made him a nothing-to-see-here legitimate success. Let's start with that, and then you can get back to desperately trying to put full-on paragraphs in my mouth.

[David Nieporent]

I know you’re desperate to pretend you don’t have egg streaming down your face, but come on. I quoted directly from your hallowed Wikipedia article showing he got his first pay-for-play “consulting” gig for the bank that was lobbying his daddy for favorable legislation, straight out of business… oh, sorry — LAW school, following a B.A. in business… oh, sorry — HISTORY.

What does how he got the job have to do with whether he has experience?

I mean, Donald Trump Jr. is employed by the Trump organization; somehow I doubt he got the job because he was the best candidate. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have experience running real estate scams in real estate.

[Life of Brian]

What does how he got the job have to do with whether he has experience?

Playing along with the painfully obtuse questions for a bit longer, the circumstances under which he got the job -- and his underlying qualifications or lack thereof for it -- go directly to the walks-like-a-duck-quacks-like-a-duck question of whether it was an actual job or simply a title attached to a play-pretty position (with an amorphous title like "consultant" -- all the better!) that gullible water-carriers like you then parade around to claim he has experience.

[David Nieporent]

and his underlying qualifications or lack thereof for it

He's a graduate of Yale Law School. You think they often have difficulties securing employment after graduation?

[Kazinski]

Only if he materially benefited from it.

We know Hunter got millions, several million from he Chinese, at least 4 million from Ukraine, more from Kazakhstan and Russia. That's the taxes the IRS went after him for.

We also know Hunter himself said he was giving half of it to Joe.

If Hunter is telling the truth there has to be consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

We don’t know that. You think you know that but you uncritically believe a lot of nonsense.

[Kazinski]

Now which part do.we not know?

Hunter in open court before his plea deal fell apart admitted he did not pay taxes on millions:
"The two misdemeanor tax charges relate to his willful failure to pay taxes for 2017 and 2018. A filing indicates Hunter Biden had more than $1.5 million in income each year. He has since fully repaid back taxes and fines, including $2 million reportedly paid to the federal government last year, with the help of a loan from his personal attorney."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-guilty-plea-agreement-tax-investigation/

That doesn't include the 2014 and 2015 taxes that had the statute of limitations lapse on both because Weiss dallied, and he wasn't allowed to file the cases in California. Between 2014 and 2019, the IRS found Hunter owed $2.2 million in unpaid taxes. That's the taxes on the income they found.

Then there is a text message from Hunter to his daughter that he gives Joe half of his income:
In 2019, Hunter Biden texted his daughter, claiming that, “unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary.”
https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/

Plus there is the evidence from texts between Hunter and his assistant that Joe had access to Hunters account, backed by a credit line arranged by Eric Schwerin.

The tax charges are conclusive evidence of the income.

The texts are more than adequate reasonable suspicion that warrants an investigation to nail it down.

That said, while I definitely approve of the investigation I don't think there is any benefit to impeaching Joe, let him finish out his term as a lame duck and leave Kamala on the bench.

[jb]

Let's concede that Hunter got paid a bunch of money by foreign entities. I don't think there's any doubt of that.

As to whether Joe was getting money from Hunter, I think there's a lot of doubt since we have fairly ambiguous, low-context exchanges.

For the first text, the most straightfoward reading of the message is that "pop" has been making Naomi pay half of *her* salary to him. (Also I'll note that this "half" figure diverges significantly from previous claims about how much of Hunter's business was being sent to the "Big Guy" so it's not like any of these supposed smoking guns are even internally consistent.)

For the discussion between Hunter and his assistant, since the discussion is about paying AT&T, it is much more likely that the thing that Hunter is paying for is lines of cell phone service than covering multiple lines of credit for Joe.

Also note that all of these exchanges happened while Joe Biden was not in public office, so none are evidence of corruption in any case.

[Michael P]

Also I’ll note that this “half” figure diverges significantly from previous claims about how much of Hunter’s business was being sent to the “Big Guy”

You mean the email saying that H gets 10%, and H holds 10% for the "Big Guy"? You might want to check what 10/(10+10) is.

Why do you people premise your arguments on such stupid misreadings of simple English?

[Nige]

That's STILL the best and possibly only bit of 'real' evidence you have and it doesn't even use his name.

[David Nieporent]

Not only do we not know most of the things you said, but even the parts that aren't false are distortions, in that it conflates businesses from a country with the country itself. Hunter Biden was paid compensation to serve on Burisma's board, as all corporate board members are. Burisma is a Ukrainian company, but Burisma is not "Ukraine."

Notably, there's been not one shred of evidence that Joe Biden got even one cent from any of these dealings. You'll hear Hollywoodly ominous jargon like "suspicious activity reports" and "shell companies," but every single one of those claims uses the phrase "Biden family" (or, from the even more mendacious right wingers, "Biden crime family,") but never "Joe Biden."

[Michael P]

Hunter himself complained that Joe collected half of Hunter's earnings. That would include income from Ukrainian companies, Kazakh companies and Chinese companies.

But, oh, right, you are a laptop denialist.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter himself complained that Joe collected half of Hunter’s earnings.

No, Hunter did no such thing.

You are referring to a single sentence from a text message from Hunter to his daughter for which there is zero context about time, place, or even seriousness, and which grammatically doesn't even say what you pretend it says. (It actually says that Joe collected half of Hunter's daughter's earnings.)

[Michael P]

Wow. That marks a new level of willful obtuseness even for you.

If we want to be literal and think about context, there are three sentences in that text message, not one:

I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family Fro [sic] 30 years. It's really hard. But don't worry unlike Pop I won't make you give me half your salary

It strongly implies that Joe Biden saw a lot of benefit from Hunter's influence-peddling work.

[Sarcastr0]

Now we're down to strongly implies.

[Michael P]

So now we are down to S_0 expecting offhand text messages from a father to his daughter to provide smoking-gun evidence of public corruption by a third party.

[Nige]

I'm glad you realise that's not evidence about anything.

[Frank Drackman]

I thought you were supposed to be a Lawyer.
An "Impeachable Offense" is whatever 50% +1 members of Congress say it is.
You know, like the bullshit they charged "45" with.

Frank

[David Welker]

An impeachment inquiry and a decision to impeach are too different things.

What we are saying is the Joe Biden should be investigated because his son tried to sell either the illusion of influence or actual influence and we need to know which one. If you have a beef with this outcome, talk to Hunter Biden. And yeah, if Joe Biden realized his son was trying to sell the illusion of influence, he should have told him to knock it off and get a real job.

[Nige]

So far every whistleblower has basically said Joe Biden had no connection to Hunter Biden’s business, contradicting lies told by Republicans about their testimonies. So basically, you’ve got nothing, but you want a Benghazi.

[Frank Drackman]

Why not? he's the smartest man Parkinsonian Joe knows! and Joe ain't running.

[Kazinski]

I was quite young when JFK made RFK his Attorney general.

In 1967 Congress passed the anti-nepotism act which forbid appointments of relatives to executive agencies but not the White House staff.

President Clinton appointed his wife as chair of the National Health Care Task force, as well as giving her authority to manage the White House Travel office.

Before the anti-nepotism law.was.passed there were at least 10 instances of presidents outing relatives on the White House staff.

Ballotopedia has a good writeup on it all:
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Have_presidents_before_Donald_Trump_appointed_family_members_to_White_House_positions

[Nige]

Is that supposed to be a get-out-of-jail-free card when going after a private individual who got a job with a private company in a different country?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget John Marshall -- concurrently Secretary of State and Chief Justice.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hard to get evidence when Federal Agencies ignore your requests for documents.

The impeachment inquiry gives Congress more authority to get those documents.

[Nige]

The claims so far have been that they already have loads of evidence, all the evidence they need.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There is significant evidence however. Having subpoena power will help confirm this.

https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/

[Nige]

What will it confirm? That Hunter Biden shares a surname with his dad and sometimes phones him up? If there was anything solid we'd have heard about it, instead we get you guys skipping over the bits where the 'whistleblowers' admit to having no first hand knowledge and state that Joe Biden had no connection to Hunter Biden's business.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"What will it confirm"

There is evidence that implies that Hunter was transferring significant amounts of his income to his father. The way to confirm this, would be to look at the bank records for Hunter's companies and Joe's companies, and see if significant dollar values were transferred into Joe's company, and where they came from.

Congress asked for Joe's business records, and Joe denied access. Now Congress has subpoena authority to directly access those records and confirm if there were transfers.

[Nige]

There realy isn't, but good luck, I guess. I expect this will pan out the way all the previous assertions that it had been proven beyond all doubt did.

[Reallynotbob]

You must think so little of David Weiss.... Jeez, if ONLY he had thought to look at Hunter's back accounts sometime in the last four years!

[Life of Brian]

Jeez, if ONLY he had thought to look at Hunter’s back accounts sometime in the last four years!

I'm genuinely curious why you think the group would go to the trouble of setting up a network of shell entities to launder then funds though, and then just give up at the end and flip Robert L. Peters' piece through Hunter's personal bank accounts. Sniff tests and all.

[Nige]

So we're back to 'the evidence that justifies the inquiry is the evidence that we haven't found yet.'

[shawn_dude]

Just another dead "Kraken." The accusations here will be enough, a lesson learned with HRC in 2016.

[David Nieporent]

The whole "network of shell companies" is made up — again, people using jargon to make something sound Hollywoodishly significant. Did Hunter Biden have membership in a bunch of LLCs? Yes, he did. So the fuck what? That’s a normal way to do business, there's nothing sinister about it, and nothing about it even pretends to be evidence of wrongdoing. (Check out Trump's financial disclosures sometime; there are hundreds of LLCs that fall under the Trump Organization umbrella. I say this not as a 'whatabout,' but just as evidence that it's perfectly routine.)

[Tom for equal rights]

Significantly more real factual evidence than the russian hoax evidence

[Nige]

Certainly the same quality of evidence that the Russian thing was a ‘hoax’ and that the election was stolen and that the FBI planted evidence during the search of Mar A Lago and that the Clinton campaign ordered child sex slaves from the basement of a pizzeria, yes.

[jb]

"Russian hoax" is doing a lot of work here since it covers a bunch of stuff, some of which there was quite strong evidence for, and some of which turned out to be completely unsupported.

But I don't remember an impeachment inquiry about any of those things, so doesn't really seem that relevant.

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : “Significantly more real factual evidence than the russian hoax evidence”

Pretty hilarious statement. As I note above, the fruitless search for Biden dirt started over five years ago and has yet to produce anything. Let’s compare with the “Russian hoax”, shall we?

After a couple of years we had already learned Trump’s campaign manager had secret meetings with a Russian spy. Trump’s fixer Cohen held secret negotiations with Kremlin officials on a massive business deal even while the ’16 presidential campaign was underway. Trump’s son responded with glee (in writing) when told the Russian government wanted to secretly help daddy’s campaign. An official in the Trump campaign got drunk and bragged about advance knowledge of Russian efforts against Clinton. A top Trump supporter (Stone) had secret communications with the Russian intelligence group that stole Clinton-related email. Trump’s National Security Advisor pick had lied about his Russian contacts to other Trump officials, the Vice President and the FBI.

Of course there’s much, much more, but you get the picture. Meanwhile, we’re now five-plus years in and the GOP is trying to make something of Hunter letting his biz associates listening while he talked football scores with his father. It seems like Tom’s a little assbackwards, eh?

[Tom for equal rights]

GRB comment - "A top Trump supporter (Stone) had secret communications with the Russian intelligence group that stole Clinton-related email. "

The US also stole the japanese communications with magic, purple and jn codes. The british and the US stole german communications from the enigma codes. Though - at least you now admit that Hillary's use of the unsecured server was a crime.

[Nige]

Oh my goodness he broke you.

[Tom for equal rights]

Serious competition for the coveted Baghdad Bob award. Top contenders entering the quarter finals David N, Simon P, Sarcastro Nige.

Welker should commended for demonstration of objectivity.

[Tom for equal rights]

Left off GRB as another up and coming contender

[grb]

Thanks!

Good company.....

[Nige]

Yeah, maybe they'll take that argument into court. 'If you dismiss this rubbish posing as 'evidence' then you're all Baghdad Bobs!' If only they'd tried that in the election suits.

[apedad]

In any case I think Congress should look into trying to craft legislation to prevent the President and VP, Senator and Representatives, and Supreme Court Justices and family members, from trying to cash in “selling the brand” in the future.

FTFY.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Maybe not filling the r aka of the DoJ with movement beltway democrats who prioritize protecting democrats and persecuting their political enemies would be a good start.

[Voize]

an impeachment inquiry can lead to greater subpoena powers

In all the time they have been investigating Hunter Biden they have yet to subpoena him. The claim that they need greater subpoena powers rings hollow when they haven't used the powers they already possess.

In addition it isn't clear where these additional powers will come from. Just a few days ago Jim Jordan explained to Mark Levin at Fox news that a House vote would help the investigation because it would add legitimacy to the effort and influence courts to favor the committees when dealing with recalcitrant witnesses. Are they now expecting that deference to flow from the personal cachet of Kevin McCarthy?

[SimonP]

To be clear, I haven’t spent TONS of time becoming an expert on the various investigations of Biden.

Actually, that was obvious from the fact that you think “there is enough evidence to justify a full and public investigation.” Your recollection of what the so-called “whistleblowers” actually said, and apparent ignorance how they’ve since been discredited or rebutted, indicates that your information is a few months out of date.

[myself]

Do you also believe there should have been a 3rd impeachment of Trump on the grounds that his family was also selling influence?

I mean Kushner, who routinely backed Saudi Arabia in the middle east, started an "investment fund" got $2 billion from the Saudi government.

Now that specific one was after Trump left office (so not impeachable). I just found it noteworthy because I hadn't heard of it, which is kinda crazy. A $2B payoff to Kushner and it barely even made the news.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it's a bit of a surprise, given that McCarthy had said he wouldn't do it. Ha! I laugh. The weakest Speaker in American history was extorted into it by Matt Gaetz.

[David Welker]

Matt Gaetz does not work alone.

Maybe you shouldn't fall for thinking that whomever is loudest or most controversial has the most influence.

[Krychek_2]

If not for the fact that it would make an already toxic situation even worse, I would be tempted to say that they should let Matt Gaetz be speaker. At six months of his leadership -- if leadership is the right word -- the Republican Party would be in a total shambles and not have a House majority again for twenty years.

[Kazinski]

Which of course is why he isn't Speaker and just an annoying backbencher.

I do think the Freedom caucus does an important function making sure leadership keeps faith with the base, but they are not the adults who should be in charge.

[Krychek_2]

The problem for the adults in charge of the GOP is that their base is completely nuts. They like Trump specifically because he gives them permission to be their worst selves. So how to placate the base just enough to not get primaried while at the same time not drive the party and the country off the nearest cliff? It's not an easy balance.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hypothetically speaking, could you imagine a different reason that Trump's supporters like him? If you were to try to empathize with their position?

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, it is possible to empathize with why some Germans supported Hitler -- they were hungry, they were cold, they had been humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles, and Hitler promised to make Germany great again. (And no, that's not a Godwin because it's about the mechanics of how Hitler got elected rather than the merits of Hitler's ideology.) And all of those were perfectly legitimate motives; had you and I lived there at the time we might well have felt the same way. I'd like to think that had I been living there at the time I still would have seen him for what he was, but if I were hungry enough and cold enough, maybe not. But none of that wipes away what happened next, or the responsibility his supporters have for electing him.

Trump's supporters have a long list of grievances, some real, most imagined. They support him because he says things that make them feel important and because he hates all the same people they do. And yes, it is possible to come up with a list of empathetic reasons for why they feel that way, but at the end of the day most of his support comes from bringing out the worst instincts in people. As I've repeatedly said, if you don't like Democrats and their policies, there are plenty of other Republican candidates that you can support. The people supporting Trump are doing so because he brings out the worst in them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'll clarify the question.

"Could you imagine a different reason that Trump’s supporters like him? If you were to try to empathize with their position? What would those reasons be".

You gave reasons why Hitler was supported...but not Trump.

[SimonP]

Trump's primary base of supporters are people who feel left behind by the elitist social and economic policies of the establishment left and center right. Their communities are being hollowed out by economic trends that are not meaningfully abating. Their wages are not keeping up with inflation. Life is becoming harder and everything is becoming more expensive. They're seeing their kids and grandkids grow up and leaving their community, often adopting views on social issues that they find alienating and foreign. Trump tells them, "I see you, you matter to me, I'm taking the hits for you." He's also entertaining to them in a way that polished politicians like Vivek and duds like DeSantis are not.

Trump's secondary base likes him because they appreciate how easily he can manipulate that primary base. These are the people funding his PACs and getting their cronies into position to take over the government in any Trump administration. They are the ones who find democratic governance anathema and a hindrance to their accumulation of wealth. We might call them an aspiring kleptocratic class. They're the common link between Trump and the autocratic regimes he would like to emulate. They are the ones who tried to substitute DeSantis, earlier in the campaign, and are now grooming Vivek. But they are fine with Trump; they're just concerned that he won't win.

So, Armchair Lawyer, one might ask - which of those two camps do you think you're in?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm in the group which sympathizes with the first group, and understands their reasons.

[SimonP]

I’m in the group which sympathizes with the first group, and understands their reasons.

So you're in the first group.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Your opinion isn’t based in reality. The country is being destroyed currently. Culturally, economically, and so much more. The rule of law is nearly over, and we are falling under a soft Marxist dictatorship.

How can you be this obtuse?

[bernard11]

More seepage from the main Reason site.

[Martinned]

People like being flattered by demagogues. 't was ever thus.

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

[Armchair Lawyer]

How exactly is Trump "flattering" his supporters?

[Martinned]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

[David Nieporent]

Hypothetically speaking, could you imagine a different reason that Trump’s supporters like him? If you were to try to empathize with their position?

At least half of them are deplorable. The other 100% are stupid.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'll take that as a "No, I can't empathize with their position".

[Krychek_2]

Well, Armchair Lawyer, since you're not happy with our responses, can you come up with your own list of empathetic reasons for why Trump's supporters like him?

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, have you by any chance read any recent comments by Drackman or hoppy or Bumble or AlphaBravoCharlie? Or Dr. Ed? That's Trump's base. Based on their comments, why do you think they support him, if not because Trump hates the same people they hate?

[Nige]

Demanding people empathise with people who hate them. Who does that?

[Drewski]

"Demanding people empathise with people who hate them. Who does that?"

Jesus, Mark Twain, and Fred Rogers?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek,

Imagine, if you will, a group of people. Their real incomes are steadily dropping. Their jobs are being lost, often to foreign competition, at the behest of a corporation. Their children are falling into drug use, due to a lack of real opportunities. The "elites" ignore or worse, ridicule their position. These people want things like when they used to be," when a family could support itself well.

On one hand, they have the Democrats, who support NAFTA, who support more illegal immigration, and who have basically turned their back on the working class. On the other hand, they have the "classic" Republican who are big business.

Then they see someone who understands them. Who promises to "Make America Great Again". Bring back manufacturing and good solid jobs. Who doesn't make fun of they for being "red state losers." Who actually puts tariffs on all those foreign Chinese goods...something neither the Democrats or Republicans really would.

Here's a good chart that illustrates the point. This is male real wages. That have dropped...near continuously...since 1978 and Carter. They stayed steady, at least, under Reagan. Then dropped again under Bush and Clinton, before recovering to Reagan levels...and just staying there through all of Bush and Obama....until Trump. And finally, finally, under Trump they finally got back where they were to in 1978.

These are the people in "flyover country". Black, White, Hispanic....the "working class". And Trump represents them while the Democrats have gone all in on the rich.

So, who else are they going to support?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881900Q

[Nige]

'Jesus, Mark Twain, and Fred Rogers?'

Have the MAGAs ever tried listening to any of those guys?

[Nige]

'And Trump represents them while the Democrats have gone all in on the rich.'

So they went all in on a dodgy billionaire with the morality of a crocodile in a petting zoo. Somehow none of that adds up.

[SimonP]

So, who else are they going to support?

It is not hard to understand why Trump's message appeals to these people. What is hard to understand is why these people view Trump as actually having their back.

Trump didn't undo NAFTA. He re-branded it. He didn't do anything about trade deficits with China. He let them off with an unenforceable and unfulfilled deal. He didn't do anything about real wages or healthcare costs. He ran up the deficit during a period of economic growth, in order to extend tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, and included as a sweetener a tax cut for the middle class that will expire soon.

So you plumb the MAGA mentality - you start with a generation of white men who feel left behind by our evolving economy - and you look at this guy, this con man, who you seem to believe credibly claims to understand and want to help those people. Are his supporters just dupes? Do they not see how Trump hasn't helped them, economically? How he hasn't brought the jobs he promised?

And the answer is - no, they're not that stupid. Trump's supporters know he lies to them and isn't that interested in actually helping him. So they lean into fatalism. If they can't have a nice life, at least Trump will see to it that those other people won't, either.

With that detail, the mystery of Trump's appeal is complete. He promises things to white men that he doesn't know how to deliver, and doesn't care to. His supporters understand that he's a buffoon and a liar, but figure that he's hurting the right people.

[Frank Drackman]

at least we're "potent"

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

So basically, you’re a democrat drone?

It’s ok to admit the truth.

[jb]

Sure, here are some reasons:

1) There are people that hold their nose and vote for him because he's managed to take over the party and they care about things that Republicans will generally vote for that Democrats won't (e.g., Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade).
2) There's people like Brett who for some reason thinks that the billionaire from NYC who used to hang with the Clintons and who admittedly was more aligned with Democrats until he decided to run for President is the only true conservative and is actually going to "drain the swamp" if he just has one more chance at it.
3) There's people who really hate Joe Biden.

Kind of a weird coalition and I do have a hard time empathizing with any of these positions. Separately, I do think that there's a bunch of people who fell left behind by the economy and society, which I empathize with quite a bit, but they also seem to be the people most interested in Trump for the reasons Krycheck_2 expressed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I never thought Trump was a "true conservative". I though he was a narcissistic pragmatist who would make a point of acting like a conservative because he wanted conservatives to like him, and lacked any ideological reason to piss off the people who'd elected him. Unlike RINOs like the Bushes, who were quite willing to piss off their own votes once in power.

I was actually quite concerned that he'd attempt to govern from the center after being elected, but fortunately by then Democrats had aggressively burned all their bridges to him.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, while not agreeing with everything you just said, I agree that he is a narcissistic pragmatist. And, I think he became a conservative Republican because he saw it would be easier to do a hostile takeover of the GOP than it would have been to take over the Democratic Party.

Had he made the calculation that it was easier to take over the Democratic Party, and been successful in doing so, he then would have shifted left to the point of making AOC and the Squad look like moderates. Because he has no real principles other than saying and doing whatever is advantageous to him at the moment.

[David Nieporent]

Unlike RINOs like the Bushes, who were quite willing to piss off their own votes once in power.

RINO? The Bushes were/have been Republicans longer than you've been alive, Brett. That phrase means the opposite of what you think it means.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Because he has no real principles other than saying and doing whatever is advantageous to him at the moment."

Yes, exactly. And because he wanted a reputation as a great President, and could never have the adulation of the left, he calculated that he should play to the right. And had no principles stopping him from doing that consistently.

Whereas somebody like a Bush or a Romney WOULD have principles that would sometimes drive them to do things the right didn't want done.

If you can't have a principled guy whose principles are the same as your own, second best might be an unprincipled guy who desperately wants your approval.

[Brett Bellmore]

"RINO? The Bushes were/have been Republicans longer than you’ve been alive, Brett. That phrase means the opposite of what you think it means."

And the term "RINO" has been around for most of that time to describe them.

Maybe you've forgotten that the elder Bush only got the VP slot as an exercise in ticket balancing, to avoid panicked Republican moderates from deserting? Or how the younger Bush thought so highly of conservatism that he had to qualify his own supposed conservatism as "kinder and gentler"?

[Krychek_2]

Brett, it says something wholly unflattering about the right that Trump realized the right would be more fertile ground for him than the left would.

[Nige]

Also weird that Brett doesn't see voting for the incompetent unprincipled narcissist as abandoning his own principles, or as an admission that he never had any.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

The Bushes come from the big government Nixonian wing of the party. Reagan added him to the ticket in 1980 for party unity. Not because he was a conservative.

And he certainly didn’t govern as one.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore: “Or how the younger Bush thought so highly of conservatism that he had to qualify his own supposed conservatism as “kinder and gentler”?”

If you’re convinced today’s Right is a rotted-out nilhilistic husk, concerned more with cartoon spectacle than principle, Brett is your Exhibit One. After all, those of us lived thru the W. Bush era remember the “kind gentle” shtick as meaningless PR. We saw right-wing policies, right-wing appointees, right-wing judges and (sadly) right-wing results.

But the words “kind and gentle” are the hitch with Brett, meaningless as they are. Obviously W could never be the fierce pro-wrestling-style warrior Trump is in Brett’s starry eyes carrying such disgraceful baggage. Who really cares about all that boring policy stuff (where W Bush & Trump were mostly indistinguishable)?

The real question is whether you’re owning the libs, and you damn well can’t do that dragging around “kind & gentle” like an anchor chained to your leg! Those types are consigned to RINO hell with all the other GOP pols who don’t properly entertain. As I’m sure Brett will admit, policies aint got nothing to do with it..

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you’ve forgotten that the elder Bush only got the VP slot as an exercise in ticket balancing, to avoid panicked Republican moderates from deserting?

Setting aside that this is a vast oversimplification, it's also a self-refuting argument. If Bush represented a significant enough chunk of Republicans that it was important to keep them from bolting, then by definition he's a Republican, not a RINO. To the extent the phrase has any meaning rather than just being a dumb epithet, it refers to people who don't represent Republican voters.

Or how the younger Bush thought so highly of conservatism that he had to qualify his own supposed conservatism as “kinder and gentler”?

No, that was the elder Bush.

[grb]

jb : ( Reasons 1, 2, and 3 )

I think you’re missing a fourth – perhaps the largest of all: Most Trump supporters probably know he’s a huckster fraud. They aren’t gullible enough to believe he gives the slightest shit about them. They realize he’s corrupt and a pathological liar. All these things are known (if unspoken), yet they support him anyway.

Why? Because he makes a big cartoon spectacle of contempt against all the people they hate. You see, when someone like Brett talks about “draining the swamp”, he isn’t referring to ethical accountability, shutting down insider deals, open government, or strict rules of conduct in the public sector. That would be absurd with someone sleazy as Trump.

He’s talking about man-child Trump wiping his lard ass on every political or civic institution within reach, and laughing uproariously every time. That’s “draining the swamp” to the MAGA crowd: Contempt for all those uppity types they despise. It’s his entertainment value that makes Trump a cult idol while George W. Bush is consigned to RINO status.

[Nige]

Why, can't you manage it yourself?

[Sarcastr0]

What the heck is this 'I, who regularly post nonsense about liberal evil, would like liberals to have empathy.'

I interact with Trump supporters regularly. Some are friends, even! They're wrong, and often not happy with politics. but most of them are not a tenth as angry as you are all the time.

Armchair, heal thyself.

[OtisAH]

Gaetz as speaker is a pretty funny thought. There’s a reason he keeps *threatening* to call the vote but never does. And I saw one item this morning that claims McCarthy has reached his limit and called their bluff in a closed meeting. Now, I suspect that was a self-serving item submitted by McCarthy’s people, but if somehow true, it suggests he realizes he’s as good as they’re going to get so he’s confident enough to finally zip up his Big Boy pants.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe you shouldn’t fall for thinking that whomever is loudest or most controversial has the most influence.

That's another way of saying, "I never watched the voting that delivered Kevin McCarthy's speakership."

[SimonP]

Matt Gaetz does not work alone.

That seems clear! Yes, Trump has been working with his allies in the House to try to gin up a scandal involving Biden to dominate the news cycle during the campaign. Sound familiar?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The reporting I have seen indicates former Trump has been working mostly through Marjorie Taylor Greene on this issue.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, a convicted gay rapist should know all about "Back Door" dealings.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This comment should be posted next to Prof. Blackman's stylings on civility today.

[Frank Drackman]

You joke about MTG, the gloves come off, "Coach"!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No joking on that front.

To quote Ronnie Wood and Rod Stewart: "With a face like that you got nothin' to laugh about."

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Arty, you know nothing of civility. You are a rude little punk that would be well educated by spending a week shitting out your own teeth.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is someone for everyone . . . and maybe you're the one person on this planet who finds Marjorie Taylor Greene attractive, Fudd.

Belligerent ignorance, bigotry, horse face, QAnon-class delusion, a shitshow for a life, linebacker build, conspiracy theories, tax cheating . . . enjoy the whole package, Mr. Jewish Space Laser!

[Kazinski]

There was definitely some pressure put upon him, and pressure from the other side of the caucus from members in toss up districts that did not want to vote on opening an impeachment inquiry.

Pretty convenient that Pelosi set a precedent of opening up an inquiry without a vote giving McCarthy an easy out.

[David Nieporent]

What on earth does this have to do with Pelosi? The point is that McCarthy said he wouldn't do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's just take it as a given that McCarthy is scum, OK? Republicans would generally agree with that proposition.

He's still scum following precedent Pelosi set.

[Sarcastr0]

Not all impeachments are the same, so don't pretend they all are.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure they are. They are the attempt of one party to remove the President when he is from the opposite party. 0 for 4 so far.

[Sarcastr0]

Same generalization energy as: What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets!

By this logic, you are just like RAK.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Not all impeachments are the same, so don’t pretend they all are."

I realize that "It's different when we do it" is all you've got at this point, but don't expect anybody to think that's a relevant difference.

[Nige]

“It’s different when we do it”

It's the fundamental principle behind all political and democratic arguments - we will do it better than the other guy, we will be better, when we do things we do them right. If cynically pretending it isn't the case is necessary for your own political expression, that's on you and your politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Facts exist, and area great way to distinguish things other than which party is doing it. You should look into them.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…but don’t expect anybody to think that’s a relevant difference….”

Let’s pause here for a general point about today’s GOP and Right: They have a tendency to internalize their criticism of the other side until it emerges in their own conduct like a malignant tumor. You don’t need to look at this impeachment fiasco where the rage against Trump’s charge led to their creating an inquiry out of whole cloth.

Instead, look at the more general big picture. The Right of my younger years preached fervently against victimhood thinking. Since then they’ve become the most obsessively whiny snowflake butthurt class of professional victims this country has ever seen.

Or take fiscal matters: Remember when the GOP insisted a dollar was a dollar and you had to live within your means? Today’s Right leads the way in blowing up the deficit – nothing says a massive increase in yearly debt like GOP control of the White House and Congress. Massive tax cuts and increased spending is practically guarenteed.

Or remember their “blame America first” criticism of times past. These days you’re much more likely to find passionate loathing of all things U.S. on the Right side of the political spectrum than the Left.

Here’s why this tendency is troubling: What has the Right spend the last three years doing? Answer: Indulging their rancid fantasies with bogus charges of voting fraud. If historical trends hold true, that means they’ll aggressively cheat in upcoming elections. They’ll feel entitled, just like they felt entitled to indulge their inner victim or abandon any fiscal restraint. Just like they feel entitled to their own impeachment without any grounds.

[Kazinski]

Procedures are procedures. Precedent is precedent.

It used to be that the Senate could filibuster cabinet appointments and judicial nominees, Harry Reid changed that, now we have a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court.

It used to be that it took a House vote to initiate an impeachment investigation, Nancy Pelosi changed that so the Speaker could do it on their own authority. Now McCarthy is taking advantage of that.

[Nige]

And you have to keep leaning on that to hide, unsuccesfully, how insecure, cynical and threadbare this inquiry really is. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats aren't remotely worried about it. They're not even outraged, particularly. They're not saying 'How dare he exploit the precedent!' So you're arguing with yourself about that.

[David Nieporent]

None of that is true, or relevant.

Also, the House did authorize the inquiry about two weeks after Pelosi initiated it. Wanna take bets on whether that will happen here?

[Krychek_2]

I'm actually a little surprised the Democrats haven't demanded the House vote on it.

[Voize]

Harry Reid changed that

He did, for lower court judges. McConnell extended it to the Supreme Court. The "new precedent" he followed wasn't changing a rule, it was changing a rule without 67 votes.

The Senate has mechanisms that can be abused, so to function it depends on the observation of norms. Perhaps it's unsurprising that given a norm someone will eventually be motivated enough to violate it, and from that point on it's the ratchet of entropy and there is no going back.

[Social Justice is neither]

LOL. You think that after you violate a rule that others are obliged to follow related rules just because you haven't violated them first? Fuck off. You have proven you have no respect for those rules so there is no reason for others to do so either or wait for your permission to toss the next obstacle.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

They aren’t. This inquiry is backed up with enough facts to justify its existence. Unlike the two witch hunts against Trump that were based on nothing but democrats wishing really, really hard.

Fuck, I don’t come down to ‘Volokh’ very often. It is it mostly just a circle jerk of democrat idiots that think they’re above everyone (and really are not), or os this article special?

[David Nieporent]

Fuck, I don’t come down to ‘Volokh’ very often.

Too frequently.

[Voize]

following precedent Pelosi set

No, Pelosi didn't renege on a promised House vote.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

So?

[David Nieporent]

Again, what does Pelosi have to do with anything?

Pelosi does X.
McCarthy, four years later: "I won't do X."
McCarthy, one month after that, does X.
Brett: He's just doing what Pelosi did.

How does that change the fact that McCarthy went back on his word? He didn't suddenly learn about Pelosi's actions in the last month and say, "Oh, now that I know there's a precedent, my previous promise no longer stands."

[Bob from Ohio]

"went back on his word"

A politician did that? Where are my smelling salts, i feel faint from shock!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Point is, precedence was set by Pelosi.

It's standard practice at this point.

1. Democrats plan to break long standing norms.
2. Republicans warn them not to do it, and that it will come back around when the parties shift
3. Democrats do it anyway
4. Parties shift
5. Republicans follow suit, and follow the example Democrats set.
6. Democrats complain about hypocrisy.

You can't have a political system where one party follows one set of rules, and the other doesn't have to.

[Nige]

'Point is, precedence was set by Pelosi.'

What moral cowardice. If there was any merit to the inquiry you wouldn't have to keep saying this over and over.

'You can’t have a political system where one party follows one set of rules, and the other doesn’t have to.'

Hence the Trump indictments.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, so now twitching your index finger is a crime???

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Ok y if you’re a Republican, or a heretical democrat like RFK Jr.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I can't help but notice how the truth-challenged dipshits around here keep ignoring that McCarthy said he wouldn't do what Pelosi did, and then promptly did it anyway.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

So what? Democrats keep changing the rules, then crying like the little bitches they are when republicans use the new rules to THEIR advantage.

So tough shit. That what happens man, that’s what happens.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The point, my newly-muted friend, is that McCarthy lied and none of you are willing to actually admit that, or condemn him for it, because your partisan stupidity overrides what should be basic morality.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

He ‘evolved on the issue. And yes, I know you me. This is for everyone else.

And you were right to mute me. You’re afraid, and you should be. Weak little snowflake that you are.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm sorry Elmer, what?

You're a trash human being who can't tell or acknowledge the difference between right and wrong?

I knew that already.

[Drewski]

I wonder if you know what "precedence" means.

[Frank Drackman]

Sike Ah-nold said in "Commando"
"I (McCarthy) Lied"
Or like "Otter" said in "Animal House"
"You fucked up! you trusted us!"

Frank

[Kazinski]

Actually McCarthy didn't really say that.

He only said it to Breitbart, and we all know that Breitbart isn't a reliable source and can't be cited for anything.

Do you have a source other than Breitbart where McCarthy said there would be a floor vote?

[Krychek_2]

So, are you saying that Breitbart is lying about McCarthy having said it, or are you saying that McCarthy did say it but it doesn't count because he said it to Breitbart?

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't Breitbart die of a Coronary 15 years ago?

[Mr. Bumble]

Cue "Only the Good Die Young".

[Kazinski]

What I am saying is according to the standards in the comments of this blog when the only source is Breitbart then its a tree falling in the forest which no one can hear.

I don't cite Breitbart, I don't read it, but when others have cited Breitbart they have been told it isn't reliable enough to cite.

So lets clear this up, is Breitbart reliable enough to cite, or is it not?

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

If Breitbart isn’t reliable neigh, then neither is WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc..

Case closed.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, impeachment is a political, not legal process. I know you know that. To me, the shoe is being placed on the other foot. Sucks for the country.

[Krayt]

This was being pushed for years ago during the first impeachment, that as soon as Republicans had the chance, they should impeach Biden. The theory was only by making the situation worse, could you make it better.

[Commenter_XY]

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

- Congressman Gerald Ford, later President Gerald Ford (circa 1970)

[Sarcastr0]

Weirdly disconnected language. Do you support this move?

Remember: The GOP has agency, they are not forced to do everything by the Democrats.

[Krayt]

I do not. I'm not into impeachments that are going nowhere because there's no national concensus. If you can't get the other side to join you, you've failed to convince. Note with Nixon, they had reached that level.

Same argument for 14th Amendment, it's still one side trying to get their political opposition.

[Sarcastr0]

Props for consistency. I don't agree; I think there is plenty of room for symbolic impeachment.

But not purely partisan impeachment. Ya need a legit factual predicate. Yelling tit for tat ain't it.

[Kazinski]

I think Biden should be thoroughly investigated by the House, but not necessarily impeached, he's 80 years old and in rapid decline, but we deserve the facts.

[Nige]

Gotta have a new Benghazi.

[shawn_dude]

The Benghazi shenanigans were successful at their goal--they kept a Democrat (and woman) out of the Whitehouse. If a second "Benghazi" circus is all it takes to push Trump back into the Whitehouse and advance authoritarian, minority rule goals, it's a cheap price to pay.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Your delusions are amusing. Do they have a breaking point? I suspect the forthcoming avalanche of evidence will test them.

[Nige]

I expect it to go the same way as the election stuff. All the dumb crap posing as 'evidence' will dissolve under actual legal scrutiny, but will fuel your hysteria adequately for a while.

[Nige]

The fact that it’s political means if you screw it up you pay a political price. Doing it to appease a rabid base doesn’t translate to electoral success outside that base, especially as the base gets increasingly insular and weird and divorced from real issues.

[Frank Drackman]

that "Rabid Base's" candidate came within 45,000 votes of winning in 2020, even with all the Erection Fraud, double counting, etc,
but hey, Parkinsonian Joe can run on his great Economy, and keeping us out of War (actually more likely getting us into one, but you know how the pubic rallies around War Time POTUS's (in the beginning at least)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

...but, but Biden got 81 million votes.

[Nige]

Yes, remember when he trounced twice-impeached Trump? Good times.

[Kazinski]

Its not exactly just a rabid base, according to CNNs poll last week 61% of Americans think Joe Biden had at least some level of transgression:
"A majority, 61%, say they think that Biden had at least some involvement in Hunter Biden’s business dealings, with 42% saying they think he acted illegally, and 18% saying that his actions were unethical but not illegal. Another 38% say they don’t believe Joe Biden had any involvement in his son’s business dealings during his vice presidency."

So I don't think there is going to be a big snapback at investigating what 61% already believe to some degree. As long as they don't go off the rails the way Schiff did and lie about evidence he didn't have.

[Nige]

The oh-so-liberal media in full-on Dems In Disarray (And Biden's Too Old) mode. Republicans have been stung by that before.

'As long as they don’t...lie about evidence he didn’t have.'

Ooops. So much for that.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

This needs to happen. Biden has been selling whatever office he’s occupied for decades. It isn’t a secret.

Time for him to burn for it. And preferably taking a long list of prominent democrats down with him.

[Nige]

Is The Storm coming?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pull the right loose thread and this will unravel all the way to Obama....

And now that there is precedent for impeaching Presidents no longer in office...

[Nige]

Oh please. Please let Republicans impeach Obama. Literally a death knell for a party that has lost its mind.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Unlike democrats, right?

[Nige]

Try again. Use your words.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it’s an LLM beta test.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

I did use words. Are you having a problem with reading comprehension? Or are you just cognitively impaired?

Likely both.

[Nige]

Well, you tried.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Pull the right loose thread and this will unravel all the way to Obama…."

No evidence against Joe after years of frenzied search, yet Ed dreams of taking down Obama too.

The lure of masturbatory fantasy runs strong with this one!

[Kazinski]

I don't think Obama was guilty of anything other than not reining Joe in. He should have made Joe choose between having Hunter on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian oil company run by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch who built the company looting state assets, and being the point man on Ukraine.

That was a failure of Obama, he shouldn't have allowed that.

[Nige]

Joe didn't 'have' Hunter on any board.

Holy shit you people making arguments like this after the Mueller Report on Trump's dealings with Moscow is just amazing.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Trump had no ‘dealings’ with Moscow outside of his normal diplomatic functions as president. Except for democrat fan fiction.

Are you democrats completely divorced from reality?

[bernard11]

Another bit of slime leaking in from the Reason site.

That leak really needs to be fixed.

[Nige]

Wow. The whole Trump Tower Moscow deal is going to come as such a shock to you, you poor thing.

[Zarniwoop]

I’m sure Obama is terrified about the possibility of being disqualified from running for President again based on Ed’s irrefutable legal analysis!

[David Nieporent]

And now that there is precedent for impeaching Presidents no longer in office…

Dr. Ed's typical fealty to facts, folks! (There is, of course, no such precedent. In case Dr. Ed is too stupid to know, Trump was impeached — both times — while he was still in office.)

[bernard11]

Pull the right loose thread and this will unravel all the way to Obama….

This deserves no response other than, "Fuck you, you blithering moronic nut job."

[hoppy025]

Maxwell Frost is a piece of shit. He can go fuck himself.

[hoppy025]

Maxwell Frost is a piece of shit. He can go fuck himself.

[santamonica811]

Okay, can we all vote, and decide, once and for all, about how to pronounce the last name of Ken Chesebro?

First syllable/half:
a. Cheese
b. Chez (rhymes with 'fez')
c. Chess

Second half:
Is it one or two syllables? Visually, it seems obvious that it's “bro.” (rhymes with 'dough'). But I also have heard it as two syllables, in sort of a British homage (sounds like “burrow”).

So, there are 6 possible pronunciations. Any consensus from you hoons? . . . I've heard all 6 on TV over these past few months. (I'm looking forward to his televised trial in Georgia. If for no other reason than getting a definitive answer to this burning question.)

[Michael P]

Why vote rather than ask him?

An uncle and nephew once both worked at the same place I do. They pronounced their shared, two-syllable last name differently -- the uncle and his brother (the nephew's father) did not get along, and one of them changed how he pronounced his name to reflect the disconnect. Even asking a family member how they pronounce their name could give a "wrong" answer.

[David Nieporent]

Why vote rather than ask him?

Because none of us have his phone number?

[Michael P]

One can get the information indirectly. It's not necessary to call him personally.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/mark-meadows-takes-the-stand

And I meet an associate who tells me he is with the firm that represents Kenneth Chesebro, the alleged architect of the “fake electors” scheme. (This is useful, because he is able to confirm that it’s pronounced “Chez-bro,” not “Cheesebro,” though Chesebro’s nickname has been, and maybe still is, “The Cheese.”)

[shawn_dude]

Wait, voting on what we want to call other people without their input or concern for their preferences *isn't* an acceptable thing now?

[not guilty]

IIRC, the defendant's lawyer at arraignment pronounced it Chez-bro.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Akhil Amar knows him. On his podcast, Prof. Amar said it was pronounced as your option b. I think they both worked on the Gore side of Bush v Gore.

[santamonica811]

Much thanks to all. There seems to be universal agreement that it's Chez-bro.

You're welcome, America.

[Zarniwoop]

This is this quality public service that I come to the VC for.

But Imma still gonna pronounce it "cheese bro" because that's objectively funnier. Especially here in Wisconsinland.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Cheesybro

[darkknight9]

Not that its relevant to any of the usual topics here at the Conspiracy, but my fantasy sumo team is getting absolutely destroyed in the Aki basho.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Since this is a legal blog, you should discuss how you want to Sumo wrestlers.

[darkknight9]

Since this is a legal blog...

Quite right. I shall research how to sue more wrestlers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since this is a legal blog…

A fact not in evidence.

[not guilty]

Characterizing it as a legal blog is perhaps aspirational. To too many commenters, that doesn't seem to matter.

[Martinned]

And in the Open Threads I see no reason why comments should be restricted to legal issues.

[Mr. Bumble]

From the VC'c namesake:

Editorial Independence

We're a group blog, cofounded by Eugene Volokh and Alexander ("Sasha") Volokh in 2002. Almost all of us are law professors, teaching at various law schools throughout the country. We write mostly about law and public policy, though we feel free to blog about whatever else strikes our fancy.

We're generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these, though we don't toe any party line, and sometimes disagree even with each other.

We are not Reason employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog. We are very pleased to be working with the Reason people, but please don't ascribe our views to them, or vice versa. Naturally, you shouldn't ascribe our views to our employers, either, or even to the other cobloggers. Each blogger speaks only for himself or herself.

You'll also note that the tone of our posts is at times different from that of most traditional newspaper or magazine writing; this too stems from our long history as independent bloggers. Some posts are quite technical, and aimed at our lawyer readers. Many posts are more traditional news analysis, or pass along interesting new legal developments.

And some are humorous, or focus on our hobbies or cultural items that we like. You can expect the blog, as a whole, to be substantive, but individual posts sometimes won't be.

[Kazinski]

Sumo fantasies, with teams?

I really don't want to know any more about it.

But I suppose it can't be any worse than the Democratic legislative candidate funding her campaign with the chaturbate channel with her husband.

[Krayt]

Fat guys are nobody's fantasy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fatphobic?

[Frank Drackman]

Nah, love somebody to make fun of, my favorite is to walk down the concourse of a busy airport, LAX, ATL, DFW, and do my "Fat Albert" impression, you know
"HEY HEY HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
if you take a deep breath you can almost do it like a Ventriloquist, but hey, even if they see its you, they're fat, what are they gonna do, chase you??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r87cIxZXEME

Frank

[SRG2]

Need moah Mongolians!

FWIW if I had to write a list of my top 10 favourite sportsmen, Chiyonofuji would be one of them.

[Don Nico]

dk,
Who is on your fantasy team

[apedad]

Had bi-annual CPR/AED/First Aid course yesterday.

One new thing I learned about (although it's been in the market for over a decade), is a gadget to use instead of the Heimlich Maneuver.

It's called the LifeVac Choking Rescue Device and it's basically just a plunger like you'd use on a clogged sink.

Kinda pricey but could save a life: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B017J293OU/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Martinned]

How likely are you to have it around when you need it?

[apedad]

The instructor suggested if you have children or seniors, it might be a good investment.

He also said Maryland is working to pass a law that all food establishments must have one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did they bring up OTC Narcam?
Now we need cheaper and possibly OTC epi pens.

[apedad]

Actually yes, the instructor did discuss Narcan and epi pens.

In Maryland (where he's from), anyone can get Narcan free anywhere it's available; https://health.maryland.gov/pha/NALOXONE/Pages/Approved-Entities.aspx

He said most states have a similar program.

He talked about epi pens too but I kinda zoned out (4 hour class).

[Dr. Ed 2]

OTC epi pens WILL BE abused.

Think "Tide Pod generation meets legal Cocaine..."

Sad, but true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Some people will always abuse a product. That should not be a reason to ban them. See the stories about decongestants (that are claimed to be no better than placebos in tests) that replace Pseudoephedrine.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does it help with proper placement of the thrust, or something like that? I learned the maneuver a long while back, and was warned that doing it in the wrong location ran the risk of a perforated liver. (From driving the xyphoid process into the liver.)

I do see that it would make doing the maneuver on yourself a lot easier.

[apedad]

No, it's literally a plunger you (securely) place over the person's mouth then pull back on the handle.

The vacuum created simply sucks the obstruction out.

(Vacuum is a strange word.)

[Nige]

Nature abhors it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I see, so not the Heimlich maneuver at all, just a different way of clearing the obstruction.

That does sound safer than the approach I was taught, which is the one you see in cheesy movies like Groundhog Day.

[John F. Carr]

Is it an expensive FDA-approved plunger?

[Krayt]

Why don't you ask the lawyers around here why it's so expensive. Lawyers are why many localities don't have jaws of life, because if they can't afford one for every unit, and they send one without to a scene that needs it, they sue the city and funnel money into their pocket. So cities carry 0 instead of m, such that 0 < m < n where n is the number of units, and no one gets saved instead of just some.

[jb]

Can you point to a case where a city was successfully sued for not sending the jaws of life to a scene?

[BadLib]

Or you could just use a shop vac — although cleaning the lungs out of it may make some a bit squeamish.

(Before I get sued - Don't Try This At Home...)

[Frank Drackman]

Why? you're just short-circuiting Evil-Lution, which I thought all of you
pointy-haids believed in,
maybe people just shouldn't be effing pigs and take smaller bites? anyway, give national selection a chance and a billion years from now besides having 3 eyes, supercomputer brains, Night Vision eye and huge Great Gazoo heads, we'll be a race of super intelligent beings who eat reasonable sized portions.

whole CPR/Defib is a bunch of (redacted), except for the rare isolated young adult, V Fib is due to severe coronary artery disease, and De-fibbing is just delaying the inevitable.
but it makes peoples feel good, so there's that.

Frank

[Martinned]

With only a bit more than two months to go until the election, the Netherlands still seems on track to codify the Quadragesimo Anno into law.

https://eaworldview.com/2023/09/dutch-politics-lurch-to-right/

(But seriously, my bet is on a centre-right coalition with a prime minister from the same conservative party that currently have the PM's job. The incumbent isn't returning, but I think Dilan Yeşilgöz will do a great job, even though I'm not voting for her.)

And, for those keeping track, the Farmer's party decided to nominate someone as candidate for PM who isn't their party leader, but who is a populist politician from the Christian Democrats. Unsurprisingly, it took them about two days to have a falling out. They're down by about 30% in the polls, compared to where they were in June-July.

[John F. Carr]

Yeşilgöz means "green eye".

[Martinned]

I didn't know that. She doesn't have green eyes though.

[John F. Carr]

"I think Dilan Yeşilgöz will do a great job, even though I’m not voting for her."

For a while after WW2 American voters felt they had two decent choices for president. Now they are choosing between the devil incarnate and the only hope to save us from the devil incarnate.

[Martinned]

We have a whole clown car of lunatics, incompetents, and egotists to choose from. The choice among the sane and competent is sadly pretty narrow. Lots of good people are leaving politics after this election.

I used to be a member of Yeşilgöz's (conservative-liberal) party, but got fed up with the anti-immigrant rhetoric and their overall tendency to describe their entire incoherent set of policies as "liberal" (in the European sense), which in fact all they had in common is that the party adopted them because they thought there was electoral advantage in it. The whole point of having a PR system with lots of parties is that each party can advocate for a vaguely coherent set of policies based on a single ideological vision for the country.

So I'm voting for the other liberal party, who are more to the left. I'm not blown away by the quality of their candidates, but on policy they're the best fit.

[Frank Drackman]

We had a decent choice in 2020, "45" or Kanye West

[Martinned]

Also, even though Team USA didn't qualify, I couldn't recommend the Rugby World Cup more. Particularly Wales v. Fiji was a real humdinger last Sunday. If you prefer to watch the big names only - and you don't realise that in rugby union Wales is a big name - France v. New Zealand last Friday ended in a 27-13 win for France. That was New Zealand's first ever loss in the group stages of any world cup ever.

[shawn_dude]

The All Blacks have been a tad disappointing of late.

[Martinned]

Only by their high standards. My bookie wouldn't offer me a bet for the All Blacks to beat Namibia today. (But I could get 670:1 on Namibia winning.)

[apedad]

Neighbor recorded racist ‘I’m killing me a n—’ voice message threatening Black mom and son, feds say

According to the indictment, (Charles Allen Barnes of Lewiston, Maine) used the messaging service to send D.F. the recording that forms the basis of the threat to injure charge.

“I’ve been parked outside [K.T.’s] apartment since early this f—ing morning, sis. Waiting for someone to step outside, and the first who who does is gonna die. Just like that. I don’t care if it’s her kid, or her, or her boyfriend. I don’t care, I don’t care. I’m killing me a n—.”

The indictment further alleged that Barnes “intentionally selected K.T. as the object of the offense […] because of the actual and perceived race and color of K.T. and her son.”

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/neighbor-recorded-racist-im-killing-me-a-n-voice-message-threatening-black-mom-and-son-feds-say/

You guys got to be smarter.

Just post your threats on the Volokh Conspiracy since it appears no one gets in trouble for that here – the comments aren’t even deleted!

Note: An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Note: An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law."

Unless your name is Donald Trump.

[Nige]

They could change ther names to Donald Trump and then all the Trump supporters could trheaten civil war to get them off the hook.

[SRG2]

There's a large overlap between people who argue that Trump is innocent until proven guilty and those who argue that Hillary is guilty.

[David Nieporent]

Why reach back to Hillary, when they're currently, right now, talking about Joe Biden's "crimes"?

[Don Nico]

Hilary is ancient, irrelevant history.

[SRG2]

So we can expect no GOP politicians or their supporters here to bring her up again, right?

[Don Nico]

I did not say THAT.
In fact you can expect more such nonsense in posts

[Michael P]

You guys got to be smarter.

It sounds like he’s upholding long-standing Democrat traditions.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder why it took over a year for the indictment; this one seems incredibly straightforward.

[Dr. Ed 2]

HAD you read the linked article, with references to the perp's brake lines being cut and the involvement of the STATE AG, you might start to see -- although if you merely read the byline (Lewiston, ME) you'd understand outright.

Circa 2000, someone came up with the bright idea of making Lewiston a settlement community for Somali Immigrants -- in part because of the city's generous welfare payments.

But he didn't directly threaten his neighbor -- he made the threats to a third party. What isn't even known is who cut his brake lines although I would not be surprised he places blame on said neighbor's son or boyfriend. And the police ignore as much as they can (on both sides) and the city really is a war zone.

I don't see how this case is straightforward.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t see how this case is straightforward.

Yes, but you're stupid. Which is why I didn't say, "Dr. Ed, why do you think this took so long?"

Also, "Lewiston, ME" isn't a byline; it's a dateline. And this story doesn't have a dateline. And the story doesn't say that his brake lines were cut; it says that he can tell the police that but they wouldn't believe him. And none of your vaguely racist rambling has anything to do with anything.

[Davedave]

A bit unkind. Ed is in the top 30% of horses by standard measures of intelligence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just post your threats on the Volokh Conspiracy since it appears no one gets in trouble for that here – the comments aren’t even deleted!

True . . . to some degree. This blog seems to enjoy threats against liberals, mainstreamers, libertarians, Democrats, liberal judges, etc.

The Volokh Conspiracy might, however, delete a comment that threatened a conservative.

Prof. Volokh has already deleted comments (and at least one commenter) for making fun of conservatives and/or criticizing conservatives. A natural conclusion is that he might delete a threat . . . but only if aimed at his fellow conservatives.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

All those charges? and he didn't even kill an N-word, like former POTUS William Juffuhson Clinton did. ( a supposedly "Retarded" one at that)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

To my fellow Tribe members. Erev Rosh Hashanah is approaching. Tomorrow at 6:50pm, we light candles as another year (5783) comes to a close, and a new year (5784) begins.

Ketivah v’chatima tovah (כתיבה וחתימה טובה)
[A good inscription and sealing {in the book of life)]

May there be peace, health and prosperity for you and yours in the coming year.

[SRG2]

And a shana tova um'tukah שנה טובה ומתוקה - a good and sweet year - to you and other fellow tribespeople!

[Frank Drackman]

“L'Chaim!, and Haim! (Glad to see they’re observant, next concerts not until after the High Hole-y Days)https://www.stubhub.com/ohana-music-festival-dana-point-tickets-9-29-2023/event/151690815/
and with apologies to Lindsay Buckingham-Nicks, this version of
"Oh well" kicks butt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P6fyeXkuB4&list=RD5P6fyeXkuB4&start_radio=1

Frank

[bernard11]

And let us extend those good wishes to gentiles as well.

A good and sweet year to all, even Brett.

[apedad]

Kim Davis to pay $100,000 for denying same-sex couples marriage licenses

A federal jury decided Wednesday that former county clerk Kim Davis owes $100,000 in damages to a same-sex couple to whom she refused to provide a marriage license on three separate occasions.

Davis had been the clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, when she was jailed for six days after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the grounds that following the law offended her religious beliefs. Davis’ refusal conflicted directly with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in which the Court recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/kim-davis-to-pay-100000-for-denying-same-sex-couples-marriage-licenses/

I had hoped the jury would take it easy on Ms. Davis.

Afterall, she was just trying to uphold the sanctity of marria . . . . wait ….. what…..

Davis has been married four times to three husbands. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. Davis has two daughters from her first marriage and twins, a son and another daughter, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband. The twins were adopted by Davis's current husband, Joe Davis, who was also her second husband; the couple initially divorced in 2006 but later remarried.

Never mind.

[Krayt]

Well, if you care about the state saying you are married, instead of God, then if the state says you're divorced, to hell with what God thinks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Republican Party is the "family values" party of Kim Davis, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Roy Moore . . .

. . . which sounds like (1) next year's CPAC headliners roster and (2) the list of people you are most likely to meet while in line to file divorce papers.

[Reallynotbob]

Coming soon: "Black Rifle Coffee names Kim Davis new spokesperson."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She might need large volumes of coffee (and nicotine) to deal with the amount of downscale drama in her life.

[apedad]

I love this sentence, "Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband."

It's like a 'fact' from a logic puzzle in a brain teaser variety magazine.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's like Bill Wyman's family marriage puzzle, without the charm or the hypocrisy.

[theobromophile]

I'm fairly strident in the belief that all of us are fallible and imperfect, and none of our lives would look all that amazing if subjected to a lot of scrutiny. Furthermore, perfection is not a requirement of holding to a set of principles; fallible humans are going to screw up and that doesn't mean we are required to abandon our beliefs.

People screw up, and we are at our best when we say "that was a mistake; I'm not doing that again." We aren't morally obligated to repeat our mistakes or to stay silent instead of letting others learn from them.

But if your life represents a Jerry Springer episode, maybe sit out a very public demonstration of your fidelity to marriage in a very controversial situation. For the love of all that is holy, sit this one out Mrs. Davis. See, also, Duggar family staying on-air years after learning of Josh's sexual assaults and child pornography habit.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe she didn't realize Barry Hussein Osama/Surpremes changed his/their mind about Same-Sex-Marriage, it is Alabama after all, takes awhile for the newspapers to get their by Pony Express.

Frank

[apedad]

Kentucky actually.

Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.
Boon: I thought you were pre-med.
Otter: What's the difference?

[Frank Drackman]

I never got that one, there's a "Yuge!" (HT "45") difference between Pre-med/Pre-law, I took a year of Calculus/Differential Equations, Physics, 2 years General/Organic Chemistry, Botany/Zoo-ology/Genetics/Embryology, with my Poultry Science classes in case I didn't get in Med School, and some BS Psychology/Engrish classes (maybe thats my grammar problem) PE,
I never saw any "Pre-Law" students except in the BS Psychology/Engrish/PE (oh yes, I actually took a class where we wove baskets)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"some BS Psychology/Engrish classes (maybe thats my grammar problem)"

I'd always assumed you had the same English teacher as Rush Limbaugh.

[Frank Drackman]

Because we're (were in El Rush-bo's case) both examples of what the Pubic Screw-el system can do?? (if you have parents who also homeschool you) I knew some English majors, they're washing cars at Enterprise (all of their "Associates" are College Graduates!")
And Engrish is my second language, so screw you! How many do you speak? (Legal-eze isn't a real language)

Frank

[Jonathan Affleck]

I was unable to comment on Free Speech, Social Media Firms, and the Fifth Circuit.

Ilya Somin wrote:

Elsewhere, I have criticized arguments (adopted by the Fifth Circuit majority and others) to the effect that social media firms can be forced to platform views because they are "common carriers" (businesses required to serve all comers under the common law). These firms are not and never have been common carriers, and the standard rationales for common carrier status do not apply to them. They apply even less in an era where new alternatives to the currently most popular social media sites pop up on a regular basis, such as Mastodon or Threads.

Ilya Somin mischaracterizes the origin and legal logic behind common carrier law.

Ilya Somin is incorrect about the origin of common carriage law. The monopoly issue is a red herring. Common carriers have historically depended on public roads, public waterways, and other public facilities. A common carrier was only rarely a monopoly. I can remember the days when a private company offered an omnibus (bus) service of common carriage of passengers. Telecommunications common carriage initially dealt with telegraph discrimination, (a) which took place even when there was a lot of competition in the telegraph industry and (b) which was similar to current social medium platform discrimination. Another factor in the development of telecommunications common carriage law was the dependence of a telegraph company on public largess, which was relatively speaking much less than the public largess on which a social medium platform depends. Blackstone says the following.

There is also in law always an implied contract with a common innkeeper, to secure his guest’s goods in his inn; with a common carrier or bargemaster, to be answerable for the goods he carries; with a common farrier, that he shoes a horse well, without laming him; with a common taylor, or other workman, that he performs his business in a workmanlike manner; in which if they fail, an action on the case lies to recover damages for such breach of their general undertaking. But if I employ a person to transact any of these concerns, whose common profession and business it is not, the law implies no such general undertaking; but, in order to charge him with damages, a special agreement is required. Also, if an innkeeper, or other victualler, hangs out a sign and offers his house for travellers, it is an implied engagement to entertain all persons who travel that way; and upon this universall assumpsit an action on the case will lie against him for damages, if he without good reason refuses to admit a traveller.

A 1996 dialup ICS like AOL, Prodigy, or Compuserve offered a service of common carriage according to Title 47 statutes. For this reason, Congress specifically disallowed a defense of common carriage in 47 U.S. Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications.

There is no way to twist the definition of ICS in § 230 to apply to a 2023 Social Medium Platform because such a platform does not "includ[e] specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet."

In 1996 as soon as I stopped using AOL, I no longer had access to the Internet. In 2023 I have access to the Internet even if I am not using a Social Medium Platform.

§ 230 does not apply to a Social Medium Platform. Because a Social Medium Platform provides a service of common carriage of a message (a service often recognized in state law code), the applicable statute is 47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences.

Even if § 230 does apply, § 230 contains no explicit override of § 202, which continues to apply.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Of course, private interstate bus lines still exist that are common carriers of passengers and are not monopolies as do air and waterway common carries, which are not monopolies. Many trucking firms, which are not monopolies provide a service of common carriage.

[David Nieporent]

A 1996 dialup ICS like AOL, Prodigy, or Compuserve offered a service of common carriage according to Title 47 statutes. For this reason, Congress specifically disallowed a defense of common carriage in 47 U.S. Code § 223 – Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications.

That's a lie, of course. Nothing in the statute "disallows" any "defense."

There is no way to twist the definition of ICS in § 230 to apply to a 2023 Social Medium Platform because such a platform does not “includ[e] specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.”

Query to the other commenters here: what is the politest way to call someone a fucking moron who can't read?

"The term 'interactive computer service' means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server," which of course describes a 2023 social media platform and virtually every interactive website on the planet at any point since Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW.

[Ridgeway]

"Query to the other commenters here: what is the politest way to call someone a fucking moron who can’t read?"

I go with: I'm not sure I agree 100% with your policework there Lou.

[Jonathan Affleck]

§ 223 states the following.

(6)The Commission may describe measures which are reasonable, effective, and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited communications under subsection (d). Nothing in this section authorizes the Commission to enforce, or is intended to provide the Commission with the authority to approve, sanction, or permit, the use of such measures. The Commission shall have no enforcement authority over the failure to utilize such measures. The Commission shall not endorse specific products relating to such measures. The use of such measures shall be admitted as evidence of good faith efforts for purposes of paragraph (5) in any action arising under subsection (d). Nothing in this section shall be construed to treat interactive computer services as common carriers or telecommunications carriers.

This statute, which pertains to “Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications,” does not treat an ICS as a common carrier or a telecommunications carrier. (Obviously, there is a distinction.) The statute fails to state than an ICS is not a common carrier even though the statute could have explicitly asserted that an ICS is not a common carrier or a telecommunications carrier.

Nieporent never fails to omit the critical phrase from the definition of an ICS in § 230: “including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.”

If I created an Internet service “InternetHelloService.com” that ran on a Internet server and returned “Hello, World!” whenever a user entered https://InternetHelloService.com in the URL entry field of his browser, would InternetHelloService.com meet the actual definition of ICS in § 230? InternetHelloService.com meets Nieporent’s fake and false definition of an ICS. Hows does InternetHelloService.com "[include] specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet?"

[David Nieporent]

This statute, which pertains to “Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications,” does not treat an ICS as a common carrier or a telecommunications carrier. (Obviously, there is a distinction.) The statute fails to state than an ICS is not a common carrier even though the statute could have explicitly asserted that an ICS is not a common carrier or a telecommunications carrier.

It doesn't say anything at all one way or the other about whether an ICS is a common carrier. Rather, it makes explicit that 223 doesn't speak to the issue.

Nieporent never fails to omit the critical phrase from the definition of an ICS in § 230: “including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.”

Because it's not a "critical phrase," because, as I've explained to you patiently five or six times and increasingly impatiently and more vulgarly since, in statutory construction including is not a word of limitation.

(Indeed, your "interpretation" (though I hate to dignify it with that term) reads the "that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server" out of the statute entirely.)

[Jonathan Affleck]

Nieporent continues his dishonest statutory construction. The operative phrase is "including specifically" not "including." If Congress had meant only "including", it would have left out "specifically."

If a legislature had written a statute, which governed amusement park safety, the statute might state something like: A Ferris wheel must provide passenger safety devices including specifically seat belts.

A Ferris wheel, which did not include seat belts, would violate the statute.

“InternetHelloService.com” does, in fact, provide or enable computer access by multiple users to a computer server, which is the InternetHelloServer.

[David Nieporent]

“InternetHelloService.com” does, in fact, provide or enable computer access by multiple users to a computer server, which is the InternetHelloServer.

And it is indeed an ICS. (Though it's hard to see how the rest of § 230 would be helpful to it, since there's no user provided content and nothing to moderate.)

As to your example, that's a requirement, not a definition. "A safe ride is any ride with a mechanical object or device that lessens the risk of injury to a passenger, including specifically a strap that wraps around a person's waist and buckles" does not by any means declare that only rides with seat belts are safe rides. It clarifies that seat belts are sufficient. Not necessary.

[Jonathan Affleck]

If the phrase “including specifically” is not restrictive, the telephone system is an interactive computer service because it is a system to which I could attach a modem that attaches to my PC. I could connect via the telephone system to a peer modem that connected to a computer server. In 1996 many people did as I did.

Thus the telephone system provided or enabled computer access by multiple users to a computer server. By Nieporent’s statutory construction the telephone system seems to be an ICS. Does such understanding make any sense for a statute that is directed to the Internet?

Nieporent’s example is not exactly on point because computer access is an abstract non-quantifiable noun phrase while Nieporent refers to “a mechanical object or device” which is a noun phrase that can be pluralized.

I was sloppy with my Ferris wheel example. Here is a version that is more like the definition of ICS in § 230.

A safe Ferris wheel is a Ferris wheel that has a design for passenger safety including specifically a passenger seat belt for every passenger.

[David Nieporent]

§ 230 does not apply to a Social Medium Platform. Because a Social Medium Platform provides a service of common carriage of a message (a service often recognized in state law code),

A social media platform does not even provide a service of carriage, let alone common carriage.

the applicable statute is 47 U.S. Code § 202 – Discriminations and preferences.

False. And of course § 230 overrules § 202 by definition if they conflict, without needing an "explicit override." But they don't because by definition a social media company cannot be a common carrier.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Increasingly, Mr. Nieporent is the only reason the Volokh Conspiracy can even half-heartedly claim to be a legal blog.

(Orin Kerr could assist Mr. Nieporent, but he doesn't.)

[David Nieporent]

I think "Not guilty" probably does more legal citing than I do.

[Mr. Bumble]

In either case VC was not intended to be a "legal blog".

Editorial Independence

We're a group blog, cofounded by Eugene Volokh and Alexander ("Sasha") Volokh in 2002. Almost all of us are law professors, teaching at various law schools throughout the country. We write mostly about law and public policy, though we feel free to blog about whatever else strikes our fancy.

We're generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these, though we don't toe any party line, and sometimes disagree even with each other.

We are not Reason employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog. We are very pleased to be working with the Reason people, but please don't ascribe our views to them, or vice versa. Naturally, you shouldn't ascribe our views to our employers, either, or even to the other cobloggers. Each blogger speaks only for himself or herself.

You'll also note that the tone of our posts is at times different from that of most traditional newspaper or magazine writing; this too stems from our long history as independent bloggers. Some posts are quite technical, and aimed at our lawyer readers. Many posts are more traditional news analysis, or pass along interesting new legal developments.

And some are humorous, or focus on our hobbies or cultural items that we like. You can expect the blog, as a whole, to be substantive, but individual posts sometimes won't be.

[Sarcastr0]

You gotta learn the VC lore.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fuck off, asshole! Even have to gaslight EV ‘s statement as to the nature of this blog.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That statement -- like this blog's prominent "Often Libertarian" claim (at the flag/banner) that doesn't even mention conservatism -- is misleading, at best, in the important contexts.

[Nige]

You still don't know what gaslighting is. Oh, and thanks for showing us etc.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Just like an EMail service, which has been legally considered a common carriage service since E-COM, a social medium platform carries a message from one user's computing device to another user's computing device.

The service of a social medium platform differs from EMail only because the service of a social medium platform has a niftier user interface than an Email service has.

If Nieporent believes that a social medium platform does not provide a service of carriage, he can only believe that a social medium platform provides its service by magic.

A social medium platform comes under the standard definition of a telegraph system: a system that transmits a message electrically by wire or by wireless means. See Joyce, Joseph (Joseph Asbury); Joyce, Howard C. (Howard Clifford), A treatise on electric law, comprising the law governing all electric corporations, uses and appliances, also all relative public and private rights, New York, The Banks law publishing co., 1907, pp. 2-8. This definition has been in use at least far back as 1851.

[David Nieporent]

Just like an EMail service, which has been legally considered a common carriage service since E-COM, a social medium platform carries a message from one user’s computing device to another user’s computing device.

The first half of that is false, as is the second. So you're 2-for-2, congrats!

The service of a social medium platform differs from EMail only because the service of a social medium platform has a niftier user interface than an Email service has.

False. They serve entirely different functions. You might as well argue that a megaphone is the same thing as the USPS because they both transmit messages and the only difference is the interface.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Does Nieporent truly believe that a social medium platform does not transfer a message from one user's computing device to another user's computing device? What does he believe a social medium platform does?

[David Nieporent]

What does he believe a social medium platform does?

Publishes messages.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The FCC, which is the administrative agency with substantive ruling authority in this area, ruled in 1979 that Email was a common carriage service in Federal Communications Commission [CC Docket No. 79-6; FCC 79-465] Electronic Computer Originated Mail (ECOM); Proceeding Terminated, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 181, Monday, September 17, 1979, Notices, pp 53788-53800. The FCC has never revisited this ruling, and the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit would almost certainly defer to the FCC.

The services of Gmail and a 2023 social medium platform hardly differ from USPS ECOM and must be considered common carriage services.

[David Nieporent]

The FCC ruled that the Post Office's proposed E-COM service would be a common carrier, not that all email was a common carrier. And later the FCC noted that email would be classified as an enhanced (information) service, not a common carrier.

Just to be clear, no level of government has the authority to abrogate a private company's first amendment rights by labeling it as a common carrier.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The USPS and a megaphone user employ complete different technologies. Most megaphone users don't hold out message transmission to anyone. Nieporent might have more of argument with respect to a common or town crier, but the common crier was a government official. He did not hold common carriage of a message: (a) to the public (b) for a fee (c) under standard terms. A telegram carriage service and a letter carriage service have long been considered to be analogous.

An Internet Email service and a social medium platform service do exactly the same thing with the same technology but differ in the user interface. Any functionality besides carriage of a message from one user's computing device to another user's computing device is irrelevant to determination of the status of a common carrier.

[David Nieporent]

The USPS and a megaphone user employ complete different technologies.

No doubt. Why do you think that is remotely relevant to whether something is a common carrier? It is function, not technology, that matters.

common crier was a government official. He did not hold common carriage of a message: (a) to the public (b) for a fee (c) under standard terms.

Guess who also doesn't do that! Social media companies!

[Jonathan Affleck]

****

[Sarcastr0]

U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc.
Topic: statutory interpretation
Background: In the 2 consolidated cases, whistleblowers are suing qui tam on behalf of the government, alleged that SuperValu and Safeway violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the government for prescription drugs they were selling at a discount. The district court had determined that defendants’ discounted prices should have been reported, and by not reporting those prices, the pharmacies had submitted claims that were false. Both the District Court and the 7th Circuit found that the reporting was consistent with an objectively reasonable interpretation of the relevant law, even if neither store actually believed that interpretation.
Losing side: The defendant focused on the impact on the business community. Not a good sign. The 7C relied on a precedent about the Fair Credit Reporting Act and what counted as reckless. Seems obviously off point for a fraud statute.
Winning side: I mean…they knew they were wrong.
Upshot: Vacated and remanded.
Court’s reasoning: If the defendants correctly believed their claims were false, then they knew their claims were false

So how did this get to the Court but end up not being a close question: 7C out to lunch with this pro-business interpretation. Reasonable or not, the corporations knew they were lying (how often do you have evidence establishing that, I wonder). There was no circuit split, but the 7C got it wrong, so in comes SCOTUS to clean up this mess.

[Commenter_XY]

What year was this? I like the format. Maybe try out for Short Circuit? 🙂

You’re writing about a 9-0 case, right?

[Commenter_XY]

What I meant was: Are you trying out to be a Short Circuit writer, Sarcastr0?

(Short Circuit is my absolute favorite VC feature. Those guys and gals rock)

[Nelson]

+1 on Short Circuit

[Sarcastr0]

Alll these posts have been 2023 9-0 cases.

I’ve got 1 more in the hopper.

It was a decent way to spend a couple of afternoons, with posting these as my motivator. Not planning to quit my day job.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Not planning to quit my day job."

Good idea. Maybe add some porno reviews.

[Sarcastr0]

You put in such an effort to shit on other posters.

Why are you so committed to being a dick?

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought you muted me. If truth be told I post only a small fraction of the number of "dick" comments that you and your Double Dumbfuck Twin Nige do.

[Nige]

Is this about being mean to the racist anti-semitic serial liar BVD? Voltage! Thanks for showing us who you really are! Why are you indulging in ad hom? Etc etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

“small fraction of the number ”

Most of the personal insults here are from the left. Some never reply unless they call somebody an “idiot” or worse.

Sarcasto never tone policies his comrades.

[Sarcastr0]

I have absolutely called out people for the language they use regarding Clarence Thomas.

But the right is the one with the real shitheels and I think you know that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"right is the one with the real shitheels"

My side good, other side bad.

Both sides have shitheels. Kirkland comments here daily, among others.

[grb]

Both sides insult. Both sides use personal invective. I'm not sure there's high ground for Left or Right using those standards,

But 90% of the edgelords are Right-wingers. There the ones who frequently make these comments a toxic mess. There the ones who fill this forum with spittle-spraying rage.

[Super Scary]

Sticks and stones.

[apedad]

"Most of the personal insults here are from the left."

Not sure if that's true but 100% of physical threats come from your side.

[Frank Drackman]

yeah, right, how many times has Queenie-pie joked about my mom (Horror-Cost Survivor, Nurse in Army Burn Unit) getting raped by the Atlanta Falcons/Hawks??? which I believe is code for "N-words"
but I'm still kind/gentle and just chalk it up to her (see, I know Queenie's a Dude, but I can play along with his mental illness) Aids-Related-Dementia

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Its why Algore invented the Internets, so peoples can be dicks to people without the danger of a broken nose. Like your effing name ya know, now lets go to effing Waffle House you smooth smoothie!

[Commenter_XY]

Keep writing about those 9-0 cases. My understanding is that roughly 35% of cases get 9-0 votes; there are a lot to choose from.

(out of curiosity, I wonder how much the payout was to the whistleblowers - pharma cases are usually big money)

[David Welker]

I am not convinced by your explanation for cert. It feels incomplete.

In most cases, the Supreme Court isn't an error correction court. It just leaves messes sitting around until a circuit split does arise.

What about this mess is different? I am betting there is something and I don't think "crazy pro-business" is it.

[OtisAH]

Your skepticism might be better received if you didn’t base it at least partly on a quote you made up. And I note the quote you embellished was not given as the reason for cert. The original is simply a characterization of the 7ths interpretation of the law, which is objectively “pro-business.”

[David Welker]

I think the word crazy was probably in the original comment. It has been edited. *shrug*

[David Nieporent]

So how did this get to the Court but end up not being a close question: 7C out to lunch with this pro-business interpretation. Reasonable or not, the corporations knew they were lying (how often do you have evidence establishing that, I wonder). There was no circuit split, but the 7C got it wrong, so in comes SCOTUS to clean up this mess.

The cert petition claimed that there was a 4-4 circuit split. (The respondent disagreed, of course. )

[Sarcastr0]

SCOTUSblog didn't even mention the possibility of a split.

[Reallynotbob]

I think you're underselling the 7th Circuit's opinion a little. Under established FCA precedent, a defendant is not liable if he or she was acting on an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law at the time of the alleged fraud. In SuperValu, the 7C found, post hac, that there was a objectively reasonable interpretation of the law that would have covered the defendants' conduct--BUT that the defendants did not know about that interpretation at the time.

Analogy: I shoot a criminal in defense of a third person without knowing that the self-defense law applies to me; I think I'm going to prison (but felt compelled to break the law). The 7C would say I'm fine because the law protects me regardless of my state of mind.

SCOTUS essentially ruled that for FCA purposes, clever ex post lawyering cannot cure the subjectively fraudulent intent in the same way a self-defense exception can protect me in my example. It makes good sense for a host of jurisprudential reasons, but I don't think it was obviously a 9-0.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a great other perspective, though SCOTUSblog seemed to think it was not an FCA precedent but a FCRA precedent?

[David Nieporent]

The one that the 7th circuit relied on was a FCRA precedent, yes. The issue was purely one about mens rea: what does it mean to "knowingly" submit a false claim in this context. (The statute required that the companies charge the government their "usual and customary" prices, and the question was what that phrase meant, and whether they could rely on a hypothetically reasonable interpretation if they actually did know what the phrase meant.)

[Reallynotbob]

The "objective reasonableness" standard came from a case called Safeco, which was indeed an FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) case, not a False Claims Act case like SuperValu. But the court in Safeco purported to interpret the common law principles of "knowledge" and "reckless" to mean a defendant who held an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law did not have "knowledge" or act "recklessly" for scienter purposes under the FCRA.

The FCA uses the same common law principles, so other appellate courts cited Safeco in FCA cases to recognize the same defense, and it was commonly asserted by Defendants with success. I haven't gone back to marshal the cases, but here's a law firm article talking about this.
https://www.insidethefalseclaimsact.com/supreme-court-safeco-fca-scienter/

I'm happy to be corrected, but I believe 7th's application of Safeco in the Schutte FCA case wasn't out of line with the trend of precedents at the COA level.

[Martinned]

The European Court of Justice just handed down another double jeopardy case, on a prejudicial question from the Italian Council of State:

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-09/cp230139en.pdf

(The judgment is not available in English yet.)

From the summary:

the principle ne bis in idem precludes national legislation which allows a criminal fine imposed on a legal person for unfair commercial practices to be maintained where that person has been the subject of a criminal conviction in respect of the same facts in another Member State, even if that conviction is subsequent to the date of the decision imposing that fine but became final before the judgment in the judicial proceedings brought against that decision acquired the force of res judicata. Where a final decision exists, the principle ne bis in idem precludes criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts from being initiated or maintained; that principle applies once a criminal decision has become final, irrespective of the manner in which that decision has become final. However, it may apply only where the facts to which the two sets of proceedings or the two penalties at issue relate are identical; it is therefore not sufficient that those facts be merely similar.

Lastly, the Court clarifies the conditions under which limitations of the application of the principle ne bis in idem may be justified. The Court considers that the limitation of the application of the principle ne bis in idem is allowed, so as to permit a duplication of proceedings or penalties in respect of the same facts, where three conditions are satisfied: such duplication must not represent an excessive burden for the person concerned; clear and precise rules must make it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication; and, lastly, the sets of proceedings in question must have been conducted in a manner that is sufficiently coordinated and within a proximate timeframe.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sidney Powell moves to have charges against her in Fani Willis' Flying Circus case dismissed.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/sidney-powell-attacks-georgia-da-racketeering-dismissed

[John F. Carr]

It is unclear from the reporting whether she is asserting

1. She is factually innocent.

2. The prosecution misled the grand jury.

In general, not necessarily in Georgia, the judge has discretion to consider claim (2) but may not consider claim (1).

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't she asserting both and that 1. led to 2. which is why she is seeking dismissal?

[Ridgeway]

She finds herself in the unique position of being a defendant who says she didn't do it.

[not guilty]

I haven't found the motion itself online -- there is no substitute for original source materials -- but the Washington Examiner article linked by Mr. Bumble quotes the motion as alleging "Ms. Powell’s counsel also believes there are text messages and other documents, including grand jury testimony by Paul Maggio of SullivanStricklerLLC, that not only show authority was given but also demonstrate that Ms. Powell did not agree with anyone to access the Coffee County machines[.]"

I doubt that a mere averment of defense counsel's "belie[f]" is enough to trigger a hearing as to grand jury misconduct.

This appears to be merely an assertion that the prosecution will be unable to prove its case at trial. That is not a proper subject of a motion to dismiss a facially sufficient indictment. It is instead why we empanel a petit jury.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could she be alleging that even if she did what she is accused of, it wouldn't be a crime?

[not guilty]

If Powell is alleging that the facts averred in the indictment, taken as true, do not state a criminal offense, that is a proper subject of a motion to dismiss. From the reporting about this motion, however, that does not appear to be what she is doing. (I still haven't found a pdf of the motion itself online.)

The Washington Examiner article linked upthread suggests that Powell is claiming that her conduct was authorized by local authorities. Such "authorization" is not averred within the four corners of the indictment, such that the motion calls for consideration of extrinsic proof. That is not the function of a motion to dismiss prior to the government resting its proof before the jury.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The filing appears here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23976502-sidney-powell-general-demurrer-91323-23sc188947-general-demurrers

[John F. Carr]

The essence of the argument is that deposition testimony in the case Curling v. Raffnesperger contradicts the prosecution's position. Counsel for Powell believes some of this testimony was presented to the grand jury. Neither the prosecutor nor the grand jury was required to believe the testimony, much less the spin put on it by Powell's attorney. I note in particular that election supervisor Misty Hampton's testimony was evasive and she took the Fifth right before the exchange that allegedly proves Powell's innocence.

Another fragment of allegedly exculpatory deposition testimomy:

Q: And as a former member of the board did you have any questions in your own mind about whether it was appropriate or legal for them to be there making copies of the election equipment? Election software, sorry.

A: Well, my assumption would be that they were there with approval of the board members. I mean, there was a board member there. There were employees there.

This is evidence of innocence. It does not prove innocence, even if the judge and jury were required to believe the testimony.

[SRG2]

Squidney's baaaack!

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, the Census data for 2022 came out and...it's not good for America.

Median real family income fell for the third straight year, by 2.3%.
Supplemental poverty measure skyrocketed from 5.2% to 12.4%

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-household-income-fell-2022-census-data-shows

People aren't doing OK.

[Nige]

Better attack trans people harder and escalate the War on Woke, so,

[Armchair Lawyer]

Trans people are people too, have income too, and are seeing their incomes fall under Biden.

[Martinned]

Actually, people (as opposed to households) have seen their real median incomes rise: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "real".

[Martinned]

Corrected for inflation

[Frank Drackman]

I'll give Parkinsonian Joe that one, he's certainly shown that "Inflation is Over" bullshit to be the bullshit it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, that's positively surreal. You posted a link to a graph showing that median incomes have been flat as a billiard table since 2020, to back up a claim that real median incomes have been rising.

Yeah, a whole $30 per year, under one tenth of a percent.

If anything you'd look at that graph, and think something hinky was going on, how the hell did median incomes suddenly become so freakishly steady? Doesn't that graph raise red flags with you?

[Martinned]

You're right, it's only up by a tiny bit. But it's up.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's not statistically significant.

[Martinned]

Statistical significance has nothing to do with this. There's no sampling here.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Incorrect. Take a look at what that number is based on.

It's the Census Bureau, and a household survey sent out.

http://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income.html

[Brett Bellmore]

And then it's adjusted for inflation, and if you think the inflation numbers the government puts out are significant to two or three places after the decimal point, you're high on something.

[Martinned]

Government statistics might be prone to corrections (or uncorrected errors), but not sampling errors. The samples are sufficiently large that the confidence interval is effectively zero.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and if all they were doing was reporting numbers, and not making any judgement calls about how to, oh, I don't know, maybe change the mix of products in their 'market basket', you'd have a point.

But you don't have a point, because there are so many places where they can make arbitrary decisions that change the final number that it really IS open to manipulation, or just random variation over a large range.

And for two years straight median incomes have varied, according to the official numbers, within a range of about a tenth of a percent, something that's never happened before in the history of collecting that data.

I smell a rat. Seriously, I do.

[Sarcastr0]

there are so many places where they can make arbitrary decisions that change the final number that it really IS open to manipulation, or just random variation over a large range.

No, there isn't. The statistical agencies have a ton of internal and external controls. Plus the kinds of people who work there are not going to let that shit fly.

You need to stop making up conspiracies based on what you think could happen if people were all in a concerted conspiracy against conservatives. The US Statistical agencies are legit, quit impugning their integrity based on your weird and bleak view of human nature.

[Tom for equal rights]

Martinned 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Government statistics might be prone to corrections (or uncorrected errors), but not sampling errors. The samples are sufficiently large that the confidence interval is effectively zero."

Martinned - you probably should be better aquinted with the current status of the household survey and the bls employment survey. The current response rate for the household survey is in the low 30% range with renders the survery close to worthless. You cant get any confidence interval with that quality of data.

[bernard11]

Yeah, and if all they were doing was reporting numbers, and not making any judgement calls about how to, oh, I don’t know, maybe change the mix of products in their ‘market basket’, you’d have a point.

For the umpteenth time, Brett, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You keep repeating this business about the market basket as if it were some sort of scheme to fudge the numbers, rather than a necessary part of constructing a meaningful index. Should the price of 8-track tapes be included in the CPI?

[Drewski]

"I smell a rat. Seriously, I do."

You always smell a rat. Why do you suppose that is?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Martinned,

Incorrect. This data was based on the household survey. They report sampling error within their source documents. That reported error is an order of magnitude above the change noted between 2021 and 2022 for income.

For more, see.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/tech-documentation/source-accuracy-statements/2022/SIPP-2022-SA-27-JUN23.pdfv

[Brett Bellmore]

" You keep repeating this business about the market basket as if it were some sort of scheme to fudge the numbers, rather than a necessary part of constructing a meaningful index."

It doesn't matter if it's necessary. There are enough arbitrary decisions involved in it that you can't pretend it's meaningfully accurate to two places past the decimal place. Even if they're approaching it in all honesty.

The idea that government statistics are highly precise and accurate just because there's mandatory reporting going into them is nuts.

Martinned just wants to pretend that changes to the numbers way below the noise floor are meaningful, so that he can stand by his claim that incomes rose, in the face of a graph that's dead flat.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You always smell a rat. Why do you suppose that is?"

Because our government makes Mos Eisley look clean and upright.

It was over a century ago that Twain said that Congress was our only distinctly native American criminal class. Things have not gotten better since.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, it’s not done via subjective calls. There is a protocol to updating the basket of good based on…statistical surveys of expenditures by families and individuals.

So no, it’s not easy to put in bias; there is a hard protocol.

Also, *there is no sign of bias* declaring an entire fucking agency is going to cheat to help the Dems is just tin foil nonsense.

The idea that government statistics are highly precise and accurate just because there’s mandatory reporting going into them is nuts. They are highly precise and accurate because they’re staffed by professionals who are good at this stuff, love it, and who have a ton of published protocols to keep them honest.

You could look this up – the efforts of how to keep national statistics objective and evidence-based. But you seem committed to ignorance and speculation.

Your 'I don't believe these numbers because my default assumption is that the government is lying' is unfalsifiable, and you should do better.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you tell that to your girlfriend?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, so that's what your wife said about your dick, but what about median incomes?

[Tom for equal rights]

Martinned 8 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Actually, people (as opposed to households) have seen their real median incomes rise:

From the 1970's yes
From 2020 to 2023 - a tinsey bit 40420 to 40480

[Martinned]

That's a rise.

[Armchair Lawyer]

not statistically significant.

[Nelson]

"From 2020 to 2023 – a tinsey bit 40420 to 40480"

And that isn't a decrease, never mind the 2.3% Armchair Lawyer cited.

The strong economy is holding steady despite repeated Fed rate hikes designed to lower inflation (which has the negative side effect of increasing unemployment).

I think the Fed will have to hike at least once more, given that inflation has stopped dropping and unemployment has remained low.

The narrative that the economy under Biden is bad is a perception problem based on inflation, not a statistically supported reality. Inflation makes things more expensive, which is perceived as a negative. Workers get wage increases, but they don't perceive it as a positive because it's only keeping up with inflation.

That's been the case for the American worker for decades now. Wages gains almost never exceed increases in the cost of living and they always lag. That's exactly what's happening now, but the amplitude is so much bigger that people see it as something extraordinary instead of just a more dramatic case of the same old same old.

[Nige]

'Trans people are people too'

Then maybe Republicans should stop persecuting them.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe doctors should stop cutting off perfectly healthy dicks, balls, and tits.

[SimonP]

And the Republican plan to address it is...?

"We should unleash the economy by cutting red tape and taxes!" Sure, okay. I wonder how many of the people who are suffering feel that red tape and taxes are what's keeping them down?

[Frank Drackman]

Most of them

[apedad]

And yet, for 2023 (so far), the average household income is $87,862.

But be sure NOT to include that because it would damage your narrative.

https://www.demandsage.com/average-us-income/

[Michael P]

Maybe you should find a source that knows better than to write "the average median", because it looks like you've confused the arithmetic mean (what most people call the mathematical "average") with the median.

For example, the arithmetic mean income in a city can be arbitrarily high if one person has all the income, but the median income is a better way to represent the typical income.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, see when we do this sort of data analysis, we look at "real" median income. Not just average median income.

Because "real" median income adjusts for inflation.

See, if you get a 5% pay hike, but inflation is running at 10%, that's actually an effective 5% pay cut. You can't afford as much, because everything is more expensive.

To look at it and say "everything is good, I'm getting paid 5% more than last year" without accounting for inflation is not a realistic look at things.

[Martinned]

That's what the "real" means...

[Armchair Lawyer]

You know this. I know this. Apedad...did not.

[bernard11]

What the hell is "average median income?" The average of some median incomes?

Anyway, "real average income" adjusts for inflation just like "real median income."

That's what "real" means.

[Michael P]

What the hell is “average median income?” The average of some median incomes?

It is not clear, but the rest of that article suggests that they did something like take the mean of states' median incomes. Even if that was weighted by population, which I suspect it was not, it's not a normal statistic. In the immortal words of Spaceballs, that sequence of operations makes it "absolutely nothing".

That page doesn't mention "real" or "inflation" and doesn't link to its sources, so it's plausible that it used nominal dollars rather than real.

[Frank Drackman]

Like that's supposed to be alot of money??

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't that what Hunter was pulling in per month from Burisma?

[Commenter_XY]

AL, no it is not good. High inflation hammers the elderly on fixed incomes quite badly. The net result is a permanent diminution of living standards with no time to recover.

The bond market(s) had a truly historic decline. That does not augur well for retirement planning.

[Ridgeway]

This was a true statement back in the '60s and '70s, but how many retirees are on a true fixed income anymore? SS has annual COLA adjustments, as do most pensions (AFAIK), for the small proportion of retirees that actually have pensions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Clearly you've never so much as looked at a COLA for SS recipients.

Hint: It is less than the inflation EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

[Sarcastr0]

1) This is almost certainly from Covid and the expiration of Covid-based support measures.

2) These are cherry picked metrics. I could point to inflation, or employment, or productivity. 'Not good for America' is you and yours trying to shamefully talk down the economy generally based on some specific metrics.

3) But that doesn't mean we should do more regarding those metrics. Maybe another stimulus package, only this time make more of it permanent?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Another stimulus package? Borrowed, of course? Which will drive up inflation again?

[Sarcastr0]

Inflation was not driven by debt servicing, dude. It was worldwide, consistent with supply issues, though government simulative spending may have contributed.

National debt is inflationary, but the effect in our current regime is quite clearly small. If it was the driver, we wouldn't see the sudden rise we observed.

You post about economic issues, and then you cry about addressing them. Because you don't want solutions, you just want to talk the economy down until the GOP is in power again. Whatta tool.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, first:

Inflation isn't driven by "debt service", where did you get that idea? It's driven by government deficit spending. Which, sure, leads to debt service, but it's the deficit spending in the first place that's inflationary.

Second, maybe you want to identify countries that DIDN'T either respond to Covid with massive deficit spending, or have their own currencies pegged to the dollar, before declaring that world-wide inflation can't be due to monetary policy. If every country makes the same mistake, every country gets the same problems as a result.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm responding to AL's 'borrowed leads to inflation' comment right above me, Brett.

Yes, spending can be inflationary ('can' because as I said inflation is complicated and we can't yet predict when it'll happen).
But that is a cost and sometimes the benefits can outweigh the risk.

WSJ's numbers are of course cherry-picked (2020 had artificially high wages and this is a return to the mean).
Kevin Drum looks at a bunch of measures of income and finds that the one WSJ went with (and y'all are carrying around like a flag) is an outlier:
https://jabberwocking.com/average-earnings-today-are-about-the-same-as-just-before-the-pandemic/

But even taking that stat as something worth addressing, you lot don't wat it addressed.

Also: "monetary policy?" No one here is taking about monetary policy. You mean fiscal policy. But you are mixed up with currency pegging. Also - how are you just discarding supply chain issues in your decision on what the cause of inflation is?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes, spending can be inflationary"

Yes, when it's deficit spending.

"Also – how are you just discarding supply chain issues in your decision on what the cause of inflation is?"

Because if supply chain issues had been the cause of inflation, then the inflation would have went away as they were resolved. Not just stuck around. Yet, we did NOT see a bout of inflation as supply chains fell apart, followed by deflation back to the previous price levels as they were fixed.

Look, this is not as complicated as you want to make it out to be. Government is the source of inflation, and tries to over-complicate things because they don't want the average person understanding that, understanding that we got renewed inflation because the government did things it KNEW were inflationary.

Like I said, when Biden bragged that Milton Friedman wasn't in charge anymore, everybody who understood economics knew we were going to see high inflation. Because it meant that Biden intended to pursue policies known to cause inflation.

It's as though a hospital administrator said, "Semmelweis isn't in charge anymore!"; Would you be shocked if his hospital suddenly developed a bad problem with patients getting infected?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, *all* spending is inflationary. There is not some magic balance that when it comes from taxes it's not inflationary.

if supply chain issues had been the cause of inflation, then the inflation would have went away as they were resolved. Not just stuck around.
The supply chain issues are still not resolved. You know how long it's gonna be for me to get a car?
And inflation did go away as the issues eased. Sorry the timeline lagged too much for your intuition, but you can't claim otherwise.

Also note that unlike you are, I am explicitly not claiming it was the sole cause - expectations and stimulus spending were also in the mix.

when Biden bragged that Milton Friedman wasn’t in charge anymore, everybody who understood economics knew we were going to see high inflation
No, Brett. YOU don't understand economics. One good way to tell is your economics align with your politics 100%.
You see how I noted that spending is inflationary? That's economics over politics. Because I know what I'm talking about, and am not driven by my political worldview.

[Martinned]

*all* spending is inflationary. There is not some magic balance that when it comes from taxes it’s not inflationary.

Brett is right. (Stopped clocks and all that.)

If you increase spending but simultaneously increase taxes, the impact on inflation is undetermined but small. (It depends on what it is that you're taxing and what it is that you're spending that money on.)

But in the classic Keynesian model what pushes economic growth and, by extension, inflation, is deficit spending (aka a fiscal impulse). The alternative to the Fed increasing interest rates is for the Treasury to increase taxes without increasing spending. Those are just a monetary and a fiscal tool for reducing inflation, respectively.

[Sarcastr0]

If you increase spending but simultaneously increase taxes, the impact on inflation is undetermined but small. (It depends on what it is that you’re taxing and what it is that you’re spending that money on.)

Disagree:
1) Taxes are indeed deflationary. Though the magnitude is has hard to figure as spending, so the same amount of spending as taxing may not have commensurate inflationary and deflationary effects.

2) Inflationary effects of spending has a year+ lag, so the effects are not in sync, meaning undermining will not be the observed effect.

3) Concur as to the sector and demographic effects further muddying the waters.

[Martinned]

@Sarcastr0: At this point all I can do is refer you to the relevant literature. (Though it seems suspiciously like you're just stuck on semantics.)

The effect of fiscal policy on inflation is covered in this IMF paper, starting on page 12: https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/fiscal-monitor/2023/April/English/ch2.ashx

[Martinned]

Here's a staff working paper from the Fed Bank in New York, also short and also from this year: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr1050.pdf

[Martinned]

Of course, the White House is entirely right to observe that spending on things that expand the productive capacity of the economy is deflationary. Anything that gets you further away from potential output is deflationary. That's completely orthodox.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/11/10/an-update-on-fiscal-drag/

[Martinned]

If you want something a bit technical, here is a nice empirical study by some BIS people comparing fiscal-led systems to monetary-led systems: https://www.bis.org/publ/work1028.pdf

(I.e. that's about whether you should put the central bank in charge of fighting inflation, as has been customary since the 1980s, or whether you should put the Treasury in charge of sorting that out, as the MMT people are suggesting.)

[Martinned]

Speaking of MMT - which is about as left-wing as it gets in mainstream economics - the whole point of MMT is that you use fiscal austerity to reduce inflation: https://www.econlib.org/mmters-would-fight-inflation-with-fiscal-austerity/

(I have Kelton's book on the shelf here behind me. Come by and I'll lend it to you.)

[Sarcastr0]

The IMF paper appears to be about how inflation effects taxes, not vise versa.

The Fed report doesn't mention taxation at all.

The WH link next one isn't about taxation either...

OK, I'm done with this. None of these are relevant to what you originally wrote about regarding the *tripartite* relationship between taxing, spending, and inflation.
I don't disagree with the spending-inflation connection, just that it's magnitude is very hard to predict. But that's not what we were discussing.

[Martinned]

@Sarcastro: The IMF paper answers your question as long as you start reading on page 12, as I suggested.

As for the others, "fiscal stimulus" is economist-speak for deficit spending. I apologise for not clarifying.

[Brett Bellmore]

What Would Milton Friedman Say about the Recent Surge in Money Growth?

"Of course, the White House is entirely right to observe that spending on things that expand the productive capacity of the economy is deflationary."

To be sure, though one might question whether the White house has any particular insight into what that spending would be, or whether it's actually trying to expand the productive economy, or to just buy votes while claiming to expand it.

[Sarcastr0]

Martinned…I did a text search for ‘tax’ in the IMF brief, looking particularly at the section starting on p. 12. The only fiscal policy discussed in that section is spending; taxes are discussed elsewhere in that they should be adjustable to inflation, to assure fairness.

I do know what fiscal policy means; I have some experience with economics research and (and researchers).
Fwiw, I also know about MMT. I'm dovish on the debt but don't quite buy it myself. I do understand how it sees a loose money supply allowing governments to make a tradeoff between employment and inflation, with the tax rate used largely to dilute the relationship between one and the other.

I think you have it wrong what I think about the effects of deficit spending *alone.* I haven’t really spoken much about that at all.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro....

You have multiple people, on both sides of the spectrum, disagreeing with you on a very basic point.

When the government engages in deficit spending, it is inflationary.

Just maybe, everyone else is correct on this point, and you are wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm going to suggest that you maybe study Milton Friedman, he wrote some very accessible books on the topic, even had an award winning TV series at one time.

Everybody who was paying attention knew that, when Biden said, "Milton Friedman isn't running the show anymore!" we were in for a bad bout of inflation if he got elected.

[Sarcastr0]

I am aware of Friedman’s work, though thanks for telling me I don’t. His predictions have not been borne out – the utility of simulative spending is like the one thing economists do know at this point. Is it more complex than a simple if-then? Yeah, but not quite wat he claimed.

OTOH, you don’t seem to have studied many other economists. You shouldn’t just hew to one guy who agrees with your priors. I recommend looking up the Nobel prizes in economics for the past decade to see where the field is. Though I expect you will prefer your own home-grown expertise to the surely liberal institution of economics.

[Martinned]

"Tell me you haven't read anything about macro-economics since the 1970s without telling me you haven't read anything about macro-economics since the 1970s."

I wonder what Friedman would have said about this?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro comes from the paul krugman school of pundit economics stimulus is good if done by democrats

[Martinned]

Correlation is not causation, but yes.

[Nige]

Yes, Democrats are better at the economy.

[jb]

It's almost as if getting rid of effective anti-poverty measures like the Covid-era child tax credit was a bad idea... (That one's particularly sad because it seems like the kind of things that both parties could get behind ideologically but I guess Joe Manchin didn't like it.)

[bernard11]

Supplemental poverty measure skyrocketed from 5.2% to 12.4%

Much of this increase is due to the end of the enhanced child tax credit. Republicans, while trying to extend corporate tax breaks, have refused to extend the enhanced credit.

So chalk it up to the GOP, not Biden.

Usual trollish BS from AL.

[Reallynotbob]

Ironically, the web iteration of the linked article that I got had a mid-article plug for another one about how the Boomers are responsible for housing shortages, i.e. rising home prices, because they are forming too many households... Which is to say, they're getting divorced and moving into additional homes/rentals thereby further sucking up supply.

TL;DR: Boomers are hurting the housing market with their failing marriages. At least according to Fox Business.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Hunter Biden – as the son of a sitting vice president – was able to score the sort of VIP meeting inside the mansion (The Vice President's Mansion) that most lobbyists could only dream of.

There in 2015, the future first son delivered face time between then-Vice President Joe Biden, his fellow business partner and Burisma board member Devon Archer and an international banker they were courting for business in Kazakhstan.

The meeting – recently divulged by Archer in congressional testimony – is one of several that Hunter Biden arranged that delivered direct access for business partners to his powerful father. Some occurred on phone calls; others at the swanky Cafe Milano restaurant in Washington D.C. But this one – in the personal residence of the vice president – is taking on more significance for House investigators for the specificity of the conversation and the secretive nature of the gathering.

Hunter Biden and Archer hoped Holtzman – then the top official at Kazakhstan’s largest bank – could help deliver an energy deal for their Burisma client in Ukraine with Kazakhstan. Joe Biden was in a position to influence both.

“It was, like, a U.N.-related conversation,” Archer told congressional investigators about the Naval Observatory breakfast.

“Who was present?,” he was asked.

“A gentleman named Marc Holtzman, myself, Hunter, and the Vice President,” he answered."

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/thuhunter-biden-delivered-meeting-father-business-associates-inside

[Sarcastr0]

Casting a 10 year net for every meeting Biden had with Ukraine energy people and breathlessly reporting Hunter as the puppet master seems fun. The author seems like they enjoyed writing in his dramatic style.

It’s a better living than most. Not exactly crime reporting though.

[Michael P]

This is about a meeting with Kazakh businessmen, not Ukrainian ones, Mr. Angry-and-Wrong. Hunter was busy selling influence with his father to all kinds of Chinese and former Soviets.

[Nige]

'Busy' lol.

[Sarcastr0]

I almost said Eastern Europe, but I knew what you were trying to lay down.

[Nige]

'The official entry logs released by the Obama administration do not show businessman/banker Marc Holtzman, Archer or Hunter Biden attending together at the Naval Observatory in 2015.'

[Armchair Lawyer]

Curious that, despite Archer saying they were all there.

Someone's not telling the truth. One of these would be perjury charges....

[David Nieporent]

It would not be perjury, but maybe you could impeach Obama for it anyway.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh....

It would be perjury if ARCHER lied in his Congressional Testimony.

Sometimes you're a moron.

[David Nieporent]

And sometimes you can't read. I know that if Archer falsely testified to that, it would be perjury. But I didn't deny that; I said something different, which you only read/understood half of. As should be obvious from context, I said that it wouldn't be perjury [for Obama to have released false logs], but maybe you could impeach him for it anyway.

[Armchair Lawyer]

OHHH.... If we're going by implied statements, when I said "One of these would be perjury charges…." what was implied was that

One of these (Archer's statement) would be perjury charges (if he lied)…."

So, when you replied "It would not be perjury," you would be replying to the statement "Archer's statement would be perjury charges if he lied…."

So, yes, your statement was moronic.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I think the natural reading is DMN wants to impeach Archer.

[bernard11]

Was this the testimony that Comer and Jordan lied about prolifically?

I assume that's the source for this "scoop."

[David Nieporent]

Yes. What they're doing is desperately finding single statements that, without any of the surrounding words, could insinuate (though not prove) something, and then pretending the surrounding words don't actively disprove that thing.

[David Nieporent]

As always, flailing Armchair Lawyer fails to disclose the actual facts. Here's what Archer actually said about this breakfast:

Q. Who was present?
A. A gentleman named Mark Holtzman, myself, Hunter, and the Vice President -- Vice President.

Q. And what was the discussion about?
A. It was about who was going to be the next U.N. Secretary-General

Once again, a smoking gun without any smoke! Apparently Joe Biden engaged in the criminal conduct of discussing António Guterres while eating waffles.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's what I said.

"“It was, like, a U.N.-related conversation,” Archer told congressional investigators about the Naval Observatory breakfast."

And there's the link. So...not exactly hiding anything.

But...why the secrecy around it?

[David Nieporent]

What secrecy? The fact that Solomon claims it isn’t in the logs? But the House Oversight Committee already knew about the meeting, so how secret could it have been? (They asked him about it; he didn't spontaneously blurt it out in a Perry Mason moment.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

They only know because Archer testified about it...

[David Nieporent]

No. They first asked him about the breakfast, which is why he testified about it. To be sure, they had garbled the details, but they knew the meeting had taken place. According to Archer the only people present were Archer, Hunter, Joe, and Holtzman, so how could the committee have known there was a breakfast if it was secret?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Perhaps Archer told them about it ahead of time....

[Guardian253]

Why is Professor Volokh so aggressive in court "openness," aggressively going after certain individuals so that records are not sealed, but he is and has been completely silent on the Epstein client list? I guess the elite covers for other elites, and craps on commoners.

[David Nieporent]

What Epstein client list?

[apedad]

Is there a constitutional right to have the list be published?

Prof. Volokh quite successfully addresses courts and judges who do not follow constitutional requirements for court records.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh quite successfully addresses courts and judges who do not follow constitutional requirements for court records

. . . successfully, from a partisan perspective.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So Prof. Volokh is the "elite," in your scenario?

[apedad]

[Armchair Lawyer]

Draw the district challenge! Alabama!

So, I ran across the following site, that allows you to draw your own congressional districts, then looks at the racial balance (and sometimes partisan balance) in the district.

https://districtr.org/

So, here's my challenge for you all. Alabama's most recent Congressional maps got rejected because there were not two African American majority districts. Drawing the map to get 1 black majority (or Democratic leaning) district is easy. Drawing it to get two black majority (or Democratic leaning) districts is...really hard.

Without looking at a racial map of Alabama ....I challenge you to draw a map that has "2" black majority (or Democrat leaning) districts. Only restrictions are the districts must be of equal(ish) population and contiguous.

[David Nieporent]

Without looking at a racial map of Alabama

Why would you try to do something without looking at the facts?

Well, that's a silly question: because you're Armchair Lawyer. Let's rephrase: why would one try to do something without looking at the facts?

[Armchair Lawyer]

The word "racial gerrymander" comes to mind....

But I'll give you a handicap.

Here's a map of the % African American population by county in AL.

Same challenge. Go ahead.

https://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/demographics/Percent%20Black%202010.pdf

[David Nieporent]

The word “racial gerrymander” comes to mind….

That's two words. Here's three, that trump those two: "Voting Rights Act." Here's two more, that also trump them: "court order." (Or perhaps I should've made it eight: "court order expressly upheld by the Supreme Court.")

[Armchair Lawyer]

I so forgot, you're the expert at typos. Poor at actually interpreting sources, but great at typos.

You're right. It was technically two words.

But as for racial gerrymanders...

"'The first time the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a racial gerrymandering claim was in 1993 in Shaw v. Reno. After North Carolina’s congressional map was challenged for being a racial gerrymander, the Supreme Court held that race cannot be the predominant factor in placing voters in certain districts and that courts must closely review whether the use of race — if determined to be the leading factor — is narrowly tailored and serves a compelling reason (in legal lingo, this means that strict scrutiny applies). "

[Brett Bellmore]

"Let’s rephrase: why would one try to do something without looking at the facts?"

Because we consider some facts to be legally irrelevant to the decisions being made? It's actually considered admirable to make sure you don't know information you're affirmatively not supposed to be taking into account. Thus the practice of blind ambitions for orchestras.

As Armchair said, the courts are demanding a racial gerrymander in Alabama, and the Alabama government isn't willing to gerrymander hard enough to suit the courts.

[David Nieporent]

Because we consider some facts to be legally irrelevant to the decisions being made?

Nobody cares what you think, Brett. You're not a lawyer, don't know the law, and more importantly aren't the court.

It’s actually considered admirable to make sure you don’t know information you’re affirmatively not supposed to be taking into account.

But they affirmatively are supposed to be taking it into account. This is a remedial order under § 2 of the VRA. They were expressly ordered to draw two majority-minority districts. They appealed that to SCOTUS. SCOTUS rejected their appeal. And then they defied the order.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But they affirmatively are supposed to be taking it into account."

That's exactly the argument, you know. The VRA doesn't actually SAY that you have to racially gerrymander to maximize the number of blacks who could be elected, assuming racially polarized voting.

"SEC. 2. (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).
(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population."

That's the entire statutory basis for mandating racial gerrymandering. The racial gerrymandering isn't written into the act, it's a product of 'interpretation'. Alabama is hoping that the Supreme court is finally ready to stop mandating racial gerrymandering.

[bernard11]

I suggest you read part (b) again, bearing in mind that Alabama politics are highly racially polarized. In 2020 Biden got 89% of the Black vote, while Trump got 77% of the white vote.

Alabama is 27% Black, but only one out its seven Representatives is Black. How do these facts not imply that [Blacks] "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice."

How does it not imply that the current districts are in fact racial gerrymanders, which you claim to abhor (sometimes). In fact, you only abhor them when they favor minorities, and not when they exclude them from the process.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Alabama is 27% Black, but only one out its seven Representatives is Black."

Bernard,

Imagine for the sake of argument that Alabama was 27% black, but that population was perfectly distributed evenly across the state. In such a case, it would be impossible to make a majority black district. You need "some" grouping.

Let's take the opposite case. Alabama is 27% Black, but they are entirely segregated into one area of the state. In such a situation, it would be easy to draw two majority minority districts.

The truth, of course, is somewhere in between. There are counties that have more black people. But in many of the counties, it's like 20% to 40% black. And unless you go district by district, carefully counting the number of African Americans in each, it's hard to draw two majority-minority districts.

[bernard11]

Imagine for the sake of argument that Alabama was 27% black, but that population was perfectly distributed evenly across the state. In such a case, it would be impossible to make a majority black district. You need “some” grouping.

So what? The assumption is plainly false.

And unless you go district by district, carefully counting the number of African Americans in each, it’s hard to draw two majority-minority districts.

Nonsense. The political parties have very sophisticated software that let's them draw districts as they like. And even if they didn't it would be an easy task to draw those districts. I could do it with a calculator and a map, as could lots of others.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard,

"The political parties have very sophisticated software that let’s them draw districts as they like."

-That's called...gerrymandering. And if you do it just on race, that's racial gerrymandering and illegal.

"it would be an easy task to draw those districts. I could do it with a calculator and a map, as could lots of others."
Go ahead and try then. There's the program in the link.

[Sarcastr0]

-That’s called…gerrymandering. And if you do it just on race, that’s racial gerrymandering and illegal.

Have you read the thread above? Turns out it's sometimes court mandated!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a dessert topping AND a floor wax, Sarcastro. It's both, at once.

[Sarcastr0]

So is killing someone.

[Nelson]

"Without looking at a racial map of Alabama ….I challenge you to draw a map that has “2” black majority"

So without the most relevant piece of information, get the right answer. It's like asking someone to solve for X when X + 27 = Y.

[David Nieporent]

The answer is 42.

[Nelson]

Well played!

The answer is always 42.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's actually not that hard, if it's a natural community. With Mississippi, it's hard NOT to draw a majority African American district

Plus, when you select an area, it automatically pops up the racial Demographics and adds it to your selected district.

It's only if you need to selectively gerrymander, and draw long odd lines that it gets difficult to draw a majority minority district.

[Nelson]

If you have to draw two majority-minority districts, you have to know what the racial makeup of each area is.

That was my point. You were trying to pretend that it was hard, but it's only hard if you require people to remain ignorant of the specific factor that is required for success.

I read somewhere that running a program to draw maps, it was harder to draw maps that only had one majority-minority district (fewer results) than maps with two. That would indicate that the Alabama legislature is intentionally trying to defy the Supreme Court order.

Not surprising, but deeply disappointing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That would indicate that the Alabama legislature is intentionally trying to defy the Supreme Court order."

If true, it would. I'd like to see what the proposed map with two such districts looks like; They didn't say it was impossible to draw such a district, they said that they couldn't do it without violating traditional district drawing criteria.

[Nelson]

I agree. I can't remember it was run with all legal requirements, although that would seem to be logical if you were trying to find out if (and how many) maps could include the required districts.

I thought I read it at fivethirtyeight, but I can't find it there.

I will say that, considering the Alabama legislature nailed several maps that only had one majority-minority district and didn't find even one that satisfied SCOTUS' requirements, it seems that they were particularly skilled at finding maps they liked and completely incompetent at finding maps they didn't like. Weird.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Take the challenge Nelson.

Use the program. Draw your own districts. See what you can come up with

[ReaderY]

It is today quite politically incorrect, but I have for years seen what strikes me as a logical contradiction between the court’s “sex discrimination/sexism” jurisprudence and its “sexual preference/sexual orientation” hurisprudence.

From a highly abstract, Martian’s-level point of view, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of objective difference between preferring to work with certain people and preferring to sleep with them. People do both. Some people make their romantic lives and partnerships the most important part of their lives and build their identity around it. But plenty of people make their work lives and partnerships the most important part of their lives and build their identity around it. Who’s right? It’s not clear to me the Constitution ecen has an opinion, let alone a strong one.

A person who rejects a date request because he prefers people of the other gender may make the requester mad, but isn’t regarded as having taken anything belonging to the other person. Any anger on the requester’s part is attributed to bigotry on the requester’s part. Objectively, a person who rehecter a job application for the same reasons hasn’t the requester any any differently. And yet, the rejecter is considered a bigot and to have taken something the requester is entitled to possess, and the anger the requester feels is deemed righteous. Why? From an objection, Martian-level point of view, there’s no physical difference.

[jb]

Here's a difference: the Constitution says that one of the roles of the federal government is to regulate commerce, but it doesn't say anything about regulating romantic attachments.

[Ed Grinberg]

We would urge thoughtful Americans, wherever they may live, whatever their views may be on questions of race relations, to ponder the twisted construction here placed upon the Commerce Clause. When the Congress first began to regulate "commerce among the several States," the object was to regulate the carriers in which the goods were hauled. In time, a second area of regulation developed, as the nature of the goods themselves came into the congressional power. Then a third area developed, as Congress sought to regulate the conditions under which the goods themselves were manufactured.
In this bill, a fourth area is opened up. It is as wide as the world. Here the Congress proposes to impose a requirement to serve. Heretofore, such a requirement has been imposed solely in the area of public service corporations - the telephone companies, electric power companies, gas and water companies - the companies that operate as regulated public utilities. Now the restricted class of public service corporations is to be swept aside. Here Clancy's Grill and Mrs. Murphy's Hat Shoppe are equated with AT&T. The neighborhood drug store is treated as the gas company: It must serve. Within the realm of Section 202, the owner has no option, no right of choice. Yes, he may reject drunks, rowdies, deadbeats. But his right to discriminate by reason of race or religion - or any other related personal reason - is denied him under the pain of Federal injunction and the threat of prison sentence for contempt of court.
At this point in our argument the Virginia Commission would beg the closest attention: We do not propose to defend racial discrimination. We do defend, with all the power at our command, the citizen's right to discriminate. However shocking the proposition may sound at first impression, we submit that under one name or another, this is what the Constitution, in part at least, is all about. This right is vital to the American system. If this be destroyed, the whole basis of individual liberty is destroyed. The American system does not rest upon some "right to be right," as some legislative majority may define what is "right." It rests solidly upon the individual's right to be wrong - upon his right in his personal life to be capricious, arbitrary, prejudiced, biased, opinionated, unreasonable - upon his right to act as a free man in a free society.

source: https://www.apstudent.com/ushistory/docs1951/crlegal.htm

[jb]

I get that not everyone agrees with how expansively the Commerce Clause exists, but the fact is that it actually exists and the Relationship Clause does not so it's a pretty basic way in which the two things are different in our legal system.

[Brett Bellmore]

"the Constitution says that one of the roles of the federal government is to regulate commerce, "

Well, a certain quite limited sub-set of commerce, anyway.

[bernard11]

Commerce that comprises the vast bulk of commerce in the country, I'd say.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not if defined as it was before Wickard, no.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is not an operable definition of commerce.

If you have two possible constitutional interpretations and one results in a union that would not function, maybe consider the other one is the right one.

[Ed Grinberg]

Your argument is somewhat garbled, but I think I got the gist of it.
I see a couple of different issues: 1. Is it “bigotry”? 2. Is it illegal “discrimination”? 3. Should it be illegal “discrimination”?
re: #1
It’s a matter of opinion. Purely subjective. Personally, I couldn’t care less if you call me a “bigot.”
re: #2
As you stated, it’s illegal “discrimination” to “reject a job application” “because [you] prefer people of the other gender.” It is not (yet) illegal “discrimination” to “reject a date request because [you] prefer people of the other gender.”
re: #3
AFAIC, neither type of “discrimination” should subject the “bigoted” dater / employer to either civil or criminal penalties. IOW, people should be free to associate with whoever they like, both in their personal and work lives. Let freedom reign!

[Nelson]

Jim Crow gives this answer two thumbs up.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is that the guy who's been bribing Justice Thomas?

[Frank Drackman]

Two thumbs up your ass

[Voize]

there doesn’t seem to be a lot of objective difference between preferring to work with certain people and preferring to sleep with them

No difference at all if you're a sex worker.

[ReaderY]

It is today quite politically incorrect, but I have for years seen what strikes me as a logical contradiction between the court’s “sex discrimination/sexism” jurisprudence and its “sexual preference/sexual orientation” jurisprudence .

From a highly abstract, Martian’s-level point of view, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of objective difference between preferring to work with certain people and preferring to sleep with them. People do both. Some people make their romantic lives and partnerships the most important part of their lives and build their identity around it. But plenty of people make their work lives and partnerships the most important part of their lives and build their identity around it. Who’s right? It’s not clear to me the Constitution even has an opinion, let alone a strong one.

A person who rejects a date request because he prefers people of the other gender may make the requester mad, but isn’t regarded as having taken anything belonging to the other person. Any anger on the requester’s part is attributed to bigotry on the requester’s part. Objectively, a person who rehecter a job application for the same reasons hasn’t the requester any any differently. And yet, the rejecter is considered a bigot and to have taken something the requester is entitled to possess, and the anger the requester feels is deemed righteous. Why? From an objection, Martian-level point of view, there’s no physical difference.

Having people of both genders involved in children’s education at school is considered to contribute “diversity,” which is considered a good thing, a state interest that is considered important and sometimes even compelling. Yet the idea that having people of both genders around at home might be better is considered irrational, bigotry. What’s the difference? From the Martian point of view, there isn’t much. The idea that children suddenly change their biological and psychological natures and needs so what’s compelling in school is irrational at home and vice versa seems, from the Martian point of view, implausible.

There are of course potential bases for identifying a difference. One is an anlog of network effects. Behavior that doesn’t cause others much problems when only a few people do it can be highly problematic when nearly everybody does it. When only a few people do it, those affected can walk away, hang out with others, and needn’t even notice. When everybody does it, there’s nowhere to walk to. That can make a big difference between, say, being rejected for a date and being rejected for a job.

But the boundary between few and many is a political question, not a constitutional one. And it doesn’t affect the fundamental, objective nature of what’s involved. Any wrong, any need for society to curb or police the behavior involved, is only conditional, malum per quod, not malum per se. What causes harm under one set of conditions may not be harmful under another, and what condition’s our society currently has is subject to differences of opinion where rational people could disagree. This means the state’s interest in both ahould be rational, not compelling.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might want to look at Neil Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza";

It's an SF novel about a future society that, essentially, treats sexual liberty in the manner we treat money; They're largely free in most respects, but people are legally entitled to have sex partners, and you can get conscripted to serve as one for people who can't find one on their own. An analogy to the way we conscript people's earnings to support folks who can't/won't earn enough on their own.

At one time the Supreme court treated economic liberty as an important, constitutionally protected liberty. That was the Lochner era. That notion got repudiated, and is now considered anathema by legal scholars. Why? I suppose because economic liberty got in the government's way at a time when command economies were seen as the way of the future.

[apedad]

"An analogy to the way we . . . . "

Who exactly is this 'we?'

[Nige]

‘An analogy to the way we conscript people’s earnings to support folks who can’t/won’t earn enough on their own.’

‘Paying taxes is like sexual slavery.’ No wonder libertarians only get talken 'seriously' by ‘small government’ conservatives who keep fucking up the economy, adding trillions to the national debt, growing the government and funneling endless streams of revenue to people and organisations that are already rich.

[Magister]

Wimpy will gladly have sex with you Tuesday if you have sex with him today.

Maybe an analogy to conscription for military service, but not taxation. It would be sad if that book is taken as validating crazier incel beliefs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Analogies between taxation and conscription go back a long ways.

[Magister]

There's also a long history of bad analogies. Although any number of people would like conscientious objector status with respect to taxation.

[bernard11]

But the Martian needs to get down to Earth, so to speak, and look at reality.

There is a vast difference between a romantic/sexual relationship and a work relationship. The latter does not involve personal intimacy, for one obvious thing, nor does it imply exclusivity. No one bats an eye if I hire three, four, or ten programmers.

Neither sexual compatibility nor physical appearance (within limits) affect whether a prospective employee will be a good hire. Nor do religious beliefs, personal backgrounds, or other attributes.

I'm sure I could go on about the differences.

Maybe a Venusian could explain it to your Martian.

[M L]

Sex is sacred. Not just a transaction?

[bernard11]

I make no religious claims.

[santamonica811]

Q: What is the difference between sex and computer programming?

A: With computers, you insert your software into your hardware; as opposed to sex, where you put your hardware . . . . [rimshot]

[shawn_dude]

Are you saying sex/gender discrimination prohibitions in the workplace support sex/gender discrimination requirements in private sexual relationships and in family makeup? Or that hiring a variety of different types of people in a school aligns with desires to limit the variety of people that can make up a family?

The science surrounding the quality of same-sex parentage is fairly conclusive that the children of same-sex parents suffer no limitations as a result. Maybe the prohibition on employment discrimination has another, stronger basis than just diversity for the sake of the students. Especially given the fact that these laws impact far more employers whose businesses have nothing to do with children than it does those that do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, disaffected
conservative blog has
operated for no more than

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)

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
disaffected culture war losers from
the Federalist Society for
Law and Public Policy Studies.

(Twenty-seven days! If Prof. Volokh can avoid using a vile racial slur for just a few more days, this blog can claim a month of slur-free operation! Have this blog's law professors recognized the shitty nature of their conduct and begun to try to improve their performance? If so . . . no need to thank me.)

Against the background of this blog's stale and ugly thinking, here is some beauty.

This is a good one, too.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I'll be trying out Flavacol in 1-2 side dishes for the holiday. I'll report back. Thinking of using it to flavor Brussel sprouts before roasting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You might not need more than the smallest package you can find. The two or three quart cartons I bought (they came packaged together) appear to constitute more than a lifetime supply.

[Commenter_XY]

They all seem quart size...that is a tremendous amount (you're right).

I'm going to have to get creative, LOL...and find new Flavacol uses. Maybe I can make up a stupid Tik-Tok challenge and monetize it. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

So, salt and "artificial flavor"; I wonder what the latter is? MSG?

[Frank Drackman]

with Coach Sandusky? probably Kumofsumyunguy

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your target fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your references to civility (like your claims to be supporters of freedom of expression) are pure, hypocritical bullshit.

[Frank Drackman]

Awwww, Coach Jer-ry’s widdle feelings get hurt by one of his “Bettors”??? Gonna cwy no? gonna cwy? go ahead baby Cwy, Go replace yourself Man, that wasn’t kind or gentle, “Coach” I’m just bustin balls here, and you disrespect, so go get your (Redacted) Shine Box!!!!!!!!! love that scene, would love to see a “Prequel” with more Billy Batts

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Isn’t that what got you in trouble in the first place, “Coach” “Small Packages”??

[santamonica811]

XY,
I'd never heard of this before today. If you had to describe the flavor profile, what would it be? (A Google search just says that it's used to make kick-ass popcorn, which makes is sound like it tastes something like butter. I'm hoping it's quite different from that--I know lots of people who actively avoid butter-tasting dishes.)

Roasted brussel sprouts are amazing. If this product makes that dish even better...it sounds worth buying a bit and experimenting.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Flavacol is basically the popcorn butter-salt that movie theaters use.

If you pop your corn in coconut oil, and then season with Flavacol, you pretty much have exactly the same stuff you'd buy at the theater.

I would not advise using it for other dishes, as it is pretty salty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, considering that it's mostly salt, you'd expect that.

In most dishes that are on the savory rather than sweet side, I tend to use Morton's Seasoned Salt, rather than regular salt. Adjusting for the different density, of course; It's a lot denser than, say, their Kosher salt. This could be an alternative to that, except that maybe it would be suitable for use in things like pie crusts, that benefit from a little salt.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811....I will report back to you personally on the roasted brussel sprouts. I am making them today for the holiday. It really is one of my favorite 'go to' dishes because it is a) easy, and b) easy clean up and c) really good for you. A veritable trifecta.

Stay tuned.

[Nelson]

And delicious. Don't forget delicious.

I also love roasted romanesco, even more than brussels sprouts. The taste is amazing when roasted with just salt, pepper, and oil, like all cruciferous vegetables.

It is also the single coolest looking vegetable ever. It naturally grows in a fractal pattern.

It's a spring/fall crop (although the fall is better) and isn't common, so you have to look for it. I'm lucky enough to have an Amish farm market near me where they grow it. I highly, highly recommend it.

https://www.eatingwell.com/article/7832964/what-is-romanesco/

[apedad]

On 13 September 1862, Union soldiers found some papers wrapped up with cigars at an encampment that the Confederates had recently departed.

They were excited about finding the cigars but when they looked at the documents, the soldiers saw they were a Special Order 191 written by Gen. Robert E. Lee, which detailed movements of the Army of Northern Virginia during the early days of its invasion of Maryland.

Lee delineated the routes and roads to be taken and the timing for the investment of Harpers Ferry.

As early as Sept. 15, northern newspapers were reporting the story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_191

[Commenter_XY]

The tragedy about that. General George McClellan had the plans, and proceeded to totally blow it by his timidity (meaning, his failing to ambush and engage the Confederate army to defeat it and end the rebellion). Lincoln is reported to have wept at hearing that news.

[not guilty]

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered briefing of the following question:

In certain circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) permits “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity,” to remove a civil action or criminal prosecution from state court to federal court. Does that statute permit former federal officers to remove state actions to federal court or does it permit only current federal officers to remove? Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), with 28 U.S.C. § 1442(b) (permitting removal of “[a] personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State . . .”).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175.7.1.pdf

Both sides briefed the issue yesterday, and oral argument by Zoom on this issue is scheduled for tomorrow. Neither party cited any decision that had considered this specific question, so it appears to be an issue of first impression.

Since the removal statute is the only basis for federal jurisdiction here, it is appropriate to determine this threshold issue. If the Court of Appeals rules against Mark Meadows, then the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider removal at all. I wonder if the appellate court will address this by a free standing order, or whether it will determine jurisdiction and go on to address the merits of the appeal, in case SCOTUS disagrees.

[not guilty]

Court of Appeals has ordered merits briefing on a fast track. Meadows's initial brief is due by Monday, September 18. The State's response brief is due by Monday, September 25. Meadows's reply brief is due by Thursday, September 28. If the Court determines that oral argument is warranted, it will be scheduled at a later date. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175.17.0_2.pdf

It's good that the Court is wasting no time.

[jb]

Related question: Meadows had requested an emergency stay pending appeal of the district court's remand of his case back to state court. This was quickly denied, but I don't actually understand what the point of the motion was. Since the state court proceedings had (correctly) never been paused, what would the effect of the stay have been? It seems like the state court can and will continue its case while the 11th Circuit and/or SCOTUS consider the issue regardless, so this particular piece of lawyering seems particularly unproductive. But maybe I'm missing something?

[Voize]

An outstanding removal allows the state court to proceed to trial, but by 28 U.S.C. §1455(b)(3)it has to hold off on a judgment of conviction until the case is remanded.

[jb]

Sure, but was he really worried that he was going to be convicted in state court before the Circuit Court got around to considering his appeal? (Or maybe that's just another way of saying it seems pretty silly that he/his lawyers thought they were ever going to be able to make the case that this was actually an emergency.)

[Voize]

was he really worried that he was going to be convicted in state court before the Circuit Court got around to considering his appeal

He seems to think so according to the motion to stay:

At a minimum, the Court should stay the remand order to protect Meadows from a conviction pending appeal. Absent a stay, the State will continue seeking to try Meadows 42 days from now on October 23, 2023. If the State gets its way,
Meadows could be forced to go to trial—and could be convicted and incarcerated— before the standard timeline for a federal appeal would play out.

[jb]

Seems like the less frivolous approach would just be to sue to enforce 28 U.S.C. §1455(b)(3) if it looked like there was any actual possibility that a conviction was about to happen.

Edited to add: and since his case just got severed from the folks demanding a speedy trial that seems even less likely now.

[Voize]

The case has been remanded, so 1455(b)(3) is out of the picture. Presumably it becomes active again if the remand is stayed.

[not guilty]

Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell have been severed from the remaining defendants, with their trial to begin on October 23. Any defendant who files a speedy trial demand before then will also be tried on that date. The remaining defendants do not have a trial date set. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23977592/mcafee-severance-order-sept-14.pdf

[Estragon]

Hunter Biden sues Garret Ziegler, former trump aide, for hacking and manipulating his personal data.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.898532/gov.uscourts.cacd.898532.1.0.pdf

Any of you huckleberries who have been breathlessly credulous about everything on “hunters laptop” having second thoughts yet?

[Michael Ejercito]

So we are to believe that the FBI, which possessed the original laptop, never figured out someone tampered with it.

[jb]

Might help to read the complaint. The argument is that he manipulated a copy of the data, not the original data on the laptop.

[Bob from Ohio]

"huckleberries who have been breathlessly credulous"

Said by someone taking lawsuit allegations as gospel.

[Estragon]

So no doubts then? We’ll see what shakes loose in the fullness of time.

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't have an opinion and fundamentally do not care.

Hunter is getting a December 2024 pardon so its all a waste of time.

[Estragon]

Presupposes a conviction. I have my doubts on that front. We might actually see a successful selective prosecution challenge! Extremely rare

[Bob from Ohio]

Conviction or not.

You assume his past sins are not ongoing. I suppose you think people pay hundreds of thousands just for his paintings too.

[Estragon]

It’s probably the same people who gave Jared $2B on the basis of a 3 page deck and no track record.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, different people.

Classic whataboutism.

Seems like Biden's family is a a dollar store version of Trump's though.

[Estragon]

“Classic whataboutism.”

You were the one who brought up the paintings. On a thread about a civil complaint that I posted a link to. On a subject that you “dont’t have an opinion [on] and fundamentally do not care [about].”

Spare me

[Bob from Ohio]

I brought up something about Hunter on a thread about Hunter? OMG

I was explaining why I thought the pardon was coming conviction on current charges or not. You brought up Kushner who was not the subject.

[Estragon]

“I was explaining why I thought the pardon was coming conviction on current charges or not.“

Why would that hinge on what people are paying for the paintings?

[Estragon]

“ I was explaining why I thought the pardon was coming conviction on current charges or not.”

Wait so you DO have an opinion?

[not guilty]

I am unaware of anyone not named Yick Wo who has obtained relief from a criminal charge or conviction because of selective prosecution as a defense.

That having been said, I wonder how many defendants not named Biden David Weiss has prosecuted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

To assert selective prosecution as a defense, Hunter would have to allege and prove that there are other persons similarly situated, who had committed the same offense in Weiss's jurisdiction, of whom Weiss was aware but whom he declined to prosecute on an impermissible basis. That is unlikely in the extreme.

[Estragon]

I disagree. You have not been reading Dr. Wheeler, tsk tsk.

From NYT:

“Mr. Weiss told an associate that he preferred not to bring any charges, even misdemeanors, against Mr. Biden because the average American would not be prosecuted for similar offenses. (A senior law enforcement official forcefully denied the account.)”

Boy I hope this person comes forward.

Even those IRS “whistleblowers” said that their supervisor had improper influence and 6th amendment concerns about prosecuting ex ante. This person will be subpoenaed by Abbe.

[not guilty]

I doubt that a news report of an anecdotal, hearsay account of what the prosecutor may have said is sufficient to establish the existence of a prosecutorial policy that had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996).

[Estragon]

I appreciate your good faith skepticism and I do not think it’s misplaced. However, those IRS agents didn’t do themselves or Weiss any favors.

Abbe is no fool. Interested to see what’s next.

[Estragon]

“And we actually got into [Plaintiff’s] iPhone backup, we were the first group to do it in June of 2022, we cracked the encrypted code that was stored on his laptop.”

-Garret

[Ben_]

Why would they? They just make up, believe and repeat stories. They care about whether the stories are emotionally satisfying. Reality and verity are entirely irrelevant to the process.

[DaveM]

The complaint appears to contain a bit of a paradox concerning the source material, so I'm unclear how the court would even be able to adjudicate it.

"16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ... Defendant Ziegler has [been] using data contained on a copy of a hard drive that Defendants claim to be of Plaintiff’s “laptop” computer..."

"17. Although the precise manner by which Defendant Ziegler obtained Plaintiff’s data remains unclear, there is no dispute that Defendants have, to at least some extent, accessed, tampered with, manipulated, altered, copied and damaged Plaintiff’s data..."

So which is it? Data that the Defendant merely claims is the Plantiff's, or data that actually is the Plantiff's?

If it's just what the Defendant claims is his, then why complain about it being altered and copied?

If it's in fact the Defendant's data, then why not say so?

[Estragon]

You are confused. It’s Hunter (plaintiff’s) data. The allegation is that defendant hacked, altered and then presented the altered data as a “copy” of the “laptop”

[DaveM]

If that's the case, then won't the plaintiff have to show what data from the "laptop" was altered? And to do that, won't he have to show that the "laptop" is, in fact, his own data?

Thank you for taking a stab at this , but I don't think it really clarifies it for me. It still seems like the plaintiff has to claim ownership of the "laptop", in which case why all the prevarications in the complaint? If you need to come right out and say it anyway, well, what do you gain by *not* doing so?

[Estragon]

Defendant packaged up hacked and altered data and claimed it was from the “laptop”.

Plaintiff is not disputing ownership of the original data— in fact, unauthorized access to plaintiff’s data is one of the alleged torts.

There is no physical laptop at issue.

[jb]

Hunter is not (AFAICT) claiming that the original copy of the data from the laptop was fake*, just that things that Ziegler is purporting to have come from the laptop did not. This will presumably be verifiable by comparing the contents of, e.g., the data that the FBI has with the data that Ziegler is presenting.

* Indeed, some of the contents have been reasonably well validated for some time, although notably not the pieces that people generally rely on as being evidence of, e.g., Joe Biden's involvement: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

[Michael Ejercito]

Here I write an answer on Quora regarding time dilation.

https://www.quora.com/I-heard-a-rumor-that-things-happen-faster-at-higher-altitudes-due-to-gravity-time-dilation-Does-this-mean-light-is-faster-at-higher-altitudes/answer/Michael-Ejercito

[Frank Drackman]

OK Smart Guy, so answer me this one, in English please.

Suppose I have a rope 3,000,000,000 miles long, with a noose at the end, around the neck of a really despicable Criminal, like umm, lets make it Putin, extending all the way to Pluto tied to the bumper of an F-150 (Pluto Version)*. At 12 noon (Pluto time) the F-150 driver accelerates to 100mph. How long does it take for Puty Pute’s neck to snap?? I like to make physics problems “real world”

Frank “E=MC2 on the Mike!”

*and yes, Smart Asses, I know ICE won’t work on Pluto, so it’s that awful Electric Version one Parkinsonian Joe test drove.

[Zarniwoop]

You're not even smart enough to phrase a problem correctly. The Earth's rotation plus the Earth's movement around the sun, and the resulting changes in position relative to Pluto (regardless of chosen reference frame), make the F-150 laughably irrelevant.

Freshman physics (8.012 and 8.022, IYKYK) was a long time ago, but I can still tell you're an idiot.

[Ben_]

Leftists' latest scheme to make your life worse:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/13/the-case-against-pets-is-it-time-to-give-up-our-cats-and-dogs

Give up your pets, peasants!

You're also supposed to give up meat, air conditioning, having a family, driving a car, vacationing, a warm house in the winter, reliable electricity, free speech, fair elections, and a hundred other things. But today leftists are saying that peasants like you shouldn't have pets.

[Sarcastr0]

You really spend a lot of your day seeking things to get mad about.

[Ben_]

You should stop trying to clear the way for evil people to do evil things.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Guardian is not some crackpot web site.

[Martinned]

Sometimes it definitely is:

The report, which was published by the University of the West Indies after a symposium held by the American Society of International Law, concludes that the UK alone is required to pay a sum of $24tn (£18.8tn) as reparations for transatlantic slavery in 14 countries. Of that sum, about $9.6tn is due to Jamaica. The report uses calculations made by the Brattle Group, which factors in the wealth and GDP amassed by countries that enslaved African people.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/22/uk-cannot-ignore-calls-for-slavery-reparations-says-leading-un-judge-patrick-robinson

I read their website every day, but the percentage nonsense on there is too high for me to give them any of my money.

[grb]

I like reading their movie reviews, particularly those with comments. Some of the latter can be wonderfully obtuse.

[Ben_]

The “crackpot” distinction is anachronistic. You should have learned that during Covid.

“Experts” were telling you you should stand on magic dots on the ground and mask your 3-year-old. “Crackpots” were the ones who were arguing against that sort of ritualistic nonsense.

“Experts” said Hunters’ laptop was fake. Etc. Crackpots are not distinct from experts any more. Same it’s all about ME attitude from most expert/crackpots too.

[grb]

Ben_ : “Experts” said Hunters’ laptop was fake.”

Experts said it couldn’t be trusted because there was a significant chance it came via the Russians.

Of course they were right about the last part. Remember : Giuliani, Parnas, and Furman spent thirty months rooting thru the gutters of Ukraine looking for Biden dirt. They dangled money before disgraced politicians, corrupt oligarchs and Ukrainians already under U.S. indictment (like Dmitry Firtash and Ihor Kolomoisky). At one point the CIA warned Trump that Rudy was negotiating with Russian spies to acquire Biden dirt.

And then – surprise! – pre-election October arrives and Rudy magically produces a Hunter laptop. I say “magically” because the proffered origin story – the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman – was too laughable to take seriously then or now. Perhaps our Ben_ is that large a dupe, but few others are.

That said, the laptop quickly proved its partial validity within several days of its appearance. The Bidens didn’t outright reject it and several messages were confirmed from other sources. But the greatest proof was it’s total worthlessness as scandal. Aside from some racy photos of the prodigal son, it went off like a squib soaked in a bucket of water overnight. There was no there there. The Right-wingers promoting it were soon forced to make new promises that proved to be desperate lies, child pornography being the ugliest example.

So it was authentic, whatever its origins. Still, given we don’t know the sleazy source in Ukraine where Rudy bought it, the laptop always must be approached with lingering skepticism, even to this day

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/cia-other-spy-agencies-told-white-house-about-rudy-giuliani-n1243718

[Brett Bellmore]

"Aside from some racy photos of the prodigal son, it went off like a squib soaked in a bucket of water overnight."

With social media censorship playing the role of that bucket of water, of course.

[Nige]

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “With social media censorship playing the role of that bucket of water, of course”

Isn’t it strange how I knew every micro-scandalette the laptop ever produced in the days and weeks after its divine birth? Despite all that censorship!

I knew from hundreds of TV, radio, newspaper and the internet stories about every tiny aspect of its emerging nothingness. Despite all that censorship!

How do you get your news? Howdya miss out on the tsunami of laptop irrelevance the rest of us experienced? Did Twitter’s 24hr ban really cripple your delicate constitution that much ?!?

(All that censorship!)

[Ben_]

Democrats can't learn from events because you just keep making up new stories. Then you decide to believe them, even though you know you just made them up, because they are emotionally satisfying.

[Nige]

This is a story you are telling yourself. You tell yourself a lot of stories about how other people are telling themselves stories.

[Michael P]

Of course they were right about the last part.

I bet you think there's also a significant chance that the "mummies" presented in Mexico are aliens, too.

Democrats got suckered by Russian disinformation in the Steele Dossier, and they projected that gullibility onto (a digital image of) Hunter's real laptop.

[Nige]

Ben! I've found somone telling themself a brand new story that they believe because it's emotionally satisfying!

[Brett Bellmore]

Take a baseball bat to them and see if candy falls out.

[David Nieporent]

Ben_ : “Experts” said Hunters’ laptop was fake.”

Experts said it couldn’t be trusted because there was a significant chance it came via the Russians.

Actually, you've conceded too much. Experts didn't say a damn thing about the laptop, because neither they nor anyone else ever saw this laptop. Experts said that a report about data copied from a laptop's hard drive that Rudy Giuliani gave to the New York Post and claimed was from Hunter Biden's laptop couldn't be trusted.

[Nige]

Just because you're too stupid to understand "experts" and they couldn't dumb it down enough for you doesn't mean they're not actual "experts" and that you're not a "crackpot" for calling things 'ritualistic.'

[bernard11]

Did you read beyond the headline?

The story quoted three people about pets. At least two of them actually have pets. There was no suggestion that pets should be banned, or that there is some sort of mass "leftist" movement with that objective.

[Ben_]

That’s what Sarcastr0 said about banning gas stoves.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/13/house-passes-bill-block-gas-stove-ban-00100492

[OtisAH]

Is that the same House in which Dems are the minority and MAGA is in the majority, or was it a different House who passed that?

[bernard11]

So what?

The House passed a bill to prevent something that wasn't going to happen anyway. That's far from the stupidest thing the House has done, but it is stupid.

[Ben_]

It will definitely happen. It’s a chance for Democrats to make Americans' lives worse, so they’ll definitely do it.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm still not worried about stoves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course you're not worried about stoves, or being forced into using an electric car, or having your electricity rationed, or anything like that. You're OK with the program, you'll just deny it's intended until it has actually happened, and then slam us for complaining about it.

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, I’m not a selfish asshole.

I’m not worried about stoves, regarding people other than me.

You claiming to speak for the poor is some amazing crocodile tears considering your usual posture.

You deny the costs to health in studies being cited, and then you lie about what's going to happen - a ban is not even in the cards; your stove will be fine.

[Nige]

You are a pet, Ben. This would set you free. You have nothing to lose but your collar, your chewy toy and your litter box.

[ReaderY]

In State v. Meadows, the Federal District Court opinion analyzed the scope of the White House Chief or Staff’s authority with respect to the Article I Elections Clause. But that Clause has no relevance to the case. Meadows and his co-conspirators were not charged with anything related to Georgia’s Congressional elections. Rather, he was charged solely with conduct related to Georgia’s Presidential Elector appointments. And those appointments were governed by a completely different constitutional Clause, the elector apppointments clause in Article II.

It seems to me that the result is the same. The Appointments Clause gives the federal government considerably less authority over Presidential elector appointments than it does over federal elections.

But nonetheless, the District Court made an obvious error of law. And this gives Meadows an obvious non-frivolous basis for appeal. Meadows can argue, I think correctly, that the caselaw construing the scope of federal authority in federal elections is completely irrelevant to Presidential Elector Appointments. And since this is a case of first impression, he is free to argue that the Appointments Clause somehow favors him.

I don’t think it makes a difference. But the District Court made an obvious error, and he is free to exploit it if he can.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Liberals in 2015:
"You need to respect the Supreme Court and its decisions. The Court serves as an important check on power and challenging decisions is unamerican."
"Hey look this lady dares to say that she has a religious objection to same sex marriage. Let's throw her in jail! Then sue her! Then drag her through the court system for 8 years demanding she personally pay up tons of money! Yeah Liberty! Yeah Courts!"
Liberals in 2023:
"The conservative MAGA super majority on the Supreme Court has no legitimacy and should be removed." (journalistic hint - there is no such thing as a "super majority" in the federal judiciary...)
"Hey look this lady in New Mexico just banned all guns. Yeah! That is giving it to 'em! Ban those guns harder! Of course it is an emergency look one kid died! What?!? You think that is unconstitutional?!? Yeah right man. Whatever. You hate kids and don't understand that Trump judges are bad."

Next time a liberal starts whining about something just remind yourself they made their own bed...

[jb]

Where do you see all of these liberals supporting Lujan Grisham? I haven't seen it in the comment threads here, and here's a lefty take on the situation:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/democrat-lujan-grisham-new-mexico-gun-ban.html

You do seem to have a lot of fun with your straw men, though.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Go on X or any other internet forum and the virtue signalers are applauding still probably the vast majority...

Yes this is so blantantly unconstitutional and fascist that a few D's are covering their butts, but don't expect for any moment that any real accountability comes to the NM gov.

[jb]

I'm literally on an Internet forum right now and I see no such thing.

[Estragon]

Hypocritical mind liberals are the worst kind of liberals.

This has been another episode of “voices in jimmy’s head”

[Longtobefree]

Personally, I suspect they hired an illegal immigrant to make the bed - - - - - -

[Jimmy the Dane]

Probably in one of those sanctuary cities that are now complaining about the burden of illegal immigration....

[bernard11]

Right-wing darling Lauren Boebert apparently has no idea how to behave at the theatre.

Surveillance video from a performing arts theater in Denver shows Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert being escorted out of the musical “Beetlejuice” on Sunday after “multiple complaints” from patrons.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Neither does AOC who is her across the aisle equivalent. Difference is she gets a "pass" on her bad behavior because she is a demonkrat.

[Nige]

Or to put it accurately, she gets a "pass" by not behaving like that, which is obviously unfair and some sort of bias.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when she posts videos on Chaturbate.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Difference is that is apparently "body shaming" or some other blah blah blah. The "you go girl" mentality of the press to defend those actions (because of demonkrat status) is outright amazing.

[Nige]

Keep it to yourself, son.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I masturbate to both of them…that’s being bipartisan. 😉

[grb]

Both of them together at once ?!?

[Estragon]

Vaping at the performance! Keep it classy, Rifle Colorado

[Estragon]

It was just the heavy fog machines! LOL

https://nypost.com/2023/09/15/new-video-appears-to-show-lauren-boebert-vaping-at-show/

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Boebert and AOC are the reality predicted by Idiocracy—Boebert is 36 and a grandmother while AOC is childless at 33.

[Ben_]

Did you drop your monocle when you read about that behavior?

She’ll never get invited to another gala luncheon!

[jb]

According to talking points about Jack Smith and Fani Willis in recent weeks, and taking into consideration the Republican obsession with Hunter Biden, are we now to believe that David Weiss is conducting election interference on behalf of the man that appointed him to be USDA for Delaware?

[Jimmy the Dane]

The guy basically ran a criminal enterprise for close to ten years, cheated on his taxes, and bought an illegal firearm with at least the Secret Service well aware of that criminal activity. Various demonkrat departments subservient to the Biden crime syndicate did their best to delay and decline investigation and prosecution. But, even back channel cover ups have their limits.

Keep in mind this is only because patriots wouldn't let the story die and kept it going for about five years. You think random black guy who illegal purchases a gun is going to get that kind of treatment from the liberal elite demonkrat DOJ?

[Estragon]

“Basically” doing a lot of work here.

[santamonica811]

Any time a shit-for-brains uses "demonkrat" (or DemocRAT, or ReTHUGlican, et al) in a post; you can safely ignore the post and move on. If someone posts online with the intelligence of a 7-year-old, I feel safe in assuming that nothing he/she writes will have any value.

[jb]

So no, it's not election interference as long as you believe the other team's guy is guilty?

[Henry Krinkle]

Can anyone identify where this is from? Looks like a Florida court to me, but redacted for some reason.

https://imgur.com/a/5xlePzt

[not guilty]

In Fulton County Kenneth Chesebro, the architect of Donald Trump's fraudulent elector scheme, has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment or grant him immunity from prosecution under the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 16-3-20(5) and (6), claiming that his conduct was "justified" under that statute. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23972733/23sc188947-motion-13-chesebro-mtd.pdf

Putting aside the question of whether conspiring to engage in racketeering activity and to violate several state statutes relative to fraud, forgery and false personation can ever be justified, that is not the function of an unsworn motion to dismiss an indictment. Whether otherwise criminal conduct was justified under O.C.G.A. § 16-3-20 is a jury question, to be determined based on evidence adduced at trial.

Justification under Georgia law is an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant argues that, even if the allegations of the indictment or accusation are true, there are circumstances that support a determination that he cannot or should not be held criminally liable. In raising an affirmative defense, the defendant asks the finder of fact to find him not guilty of the offense charged regardless of whether he committed the underlying act. McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856, 857, 834 S.E.2d 96 (Ga. 2019).

"If the defense is made out by the witnesses on the part of the prosecution, then the defendant need not call any; but if not, then the defendant must call witnesses, and make out his defense by proof." Id., at 858, quoting Chandle v. State, 230 Ga. 574, 576, 198 S.E.2d 289 (1973), and Crawford v. State, 12 Ga. 142, 149 (1852).

[Frank Drackman]

So, when do we get the Hunter Biden Mugshot???

[Jimmy the Dane]

Right after Trump gets indicted again by the demonkrat DOJ...

[Estragon]

“demonkrat”

I really missed Jimmy

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe one or two of the Volokh Conspirators invited him to return, figuring there wasn't enough far-right shittyness at this blog lately.

[Commenter_XY]

With all the Hunter Biden mentions today, I'll add one more.

Hunter Biden, just indicted on three (yes 3) federal gun charges.

Cue pardon talk now.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ll be satisfied with the “Booking Photo” and I like Hunter, if I was in his position I’d be even worse, (I think a first son should get USAF pilot training) and the “Gun Charges” are questionable (My Kinder/Gentler way of saying “Bullshit”), the Question on the form 4473 is “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Get it? “Are” not “Were” and Wasn’t Chief Justice Rehnquist hooked on Quaaludes ??(Methaqualone for the generic version) (Forget it Jake, it was the 70’s) I’ll bet he had a gun or 2 or 3 or 4….. So what if you’ve “Recovered”?? we always hear about how Cancer patients have “Beaten” their Cancer (usually a month or two before they die of their “Beaten” Cancer) and if you ARE an “Unlawful user….” doesn’t that bring up a 5th Amendment Ish-yew (Yes, I really do read some legal opinions)

I like Hunter, Hunter was a friend of mine, (OK he wasn’t but he could have been) and You sir, are no Hunter Biden!!!!! (I’d contest paternity suits too, what, she couldn’t get an abortion??)

Frank

[Nige]

Oh no, not indictments! Nobody'll ever vote for someone with indictments to be president!

[Frank Drackman]

They will actually, to Nige-bots Chagrin (Do Nige-bots experience Chagrin?)

[grb]

As psychological study, Frank is a quandary:

1. Someone couldn’t regularly produce his incoherent meaningless ungrammatical babble without being confident he’s the smartest guy around. That’s what it would take to be so purposefully stupid.

2. On the other hand, someone couldn’t regularly produce his incoherent meaningless ungrammatical babble without being an pure imbecile. That’s what it would take to be so purposefully stupid.

The best diagnosis is an immense amount of self-delusion.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about he's someone who doesn't take you and the other self-important ass holes like you seriously?

[grb]

In short, stupid.....

(thanks for conceding my point!)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and confirming mine.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

you and the other self-important ass holes like you

If the Volokh Conspiracy has accomplished anything, it has demonstrated that liberals are insufferable, condescending, self-important elitists and that conservatives are delusional, bigoted, superstition-addled roadkill (with on-the-spectrum tendencies) in the culture war.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm an enigma, like a Chink.

[Kazinski]

Hunter shouldn’t need a pardon for the gun rap. It’s an unconstitutional restriction on his right to keep and bear arms.

There is no record inour nations tradition and history of restricting gun rights for being a user of intoxicants, unless one is actually intoxicated to a point of incompetence at the time.

Lying on the form might be harder to beat, but if the law is tossed then it’s no longer material.

[grb]

Kazinski : “Hunter shouldn’t need a pardon for the gun rap”

Well, yeah. But the real reason is different than your gun nut fantasies. Since he’ll get a minor slap on the wrist like anyone not-named-Hunter would, he won’t need a pardon. Maybe Joe will clear his record on 19 January 2025, but it’s hardly a priority.

Of course anyone not-named-Hunter would face pretty small odds of getting indicted for similar actions. The Feds only charge this about three hundred times a year, and you can bet most of those involve piling on with bundles of more serious charges. Same with the tax stuff. People who claim he’s gotten favorable treatments are such clowns….

[Jimmy the Dane]

Biden might be in a position where he has to pardon himself here. It really looks like he was the head of a huge crime syndicate that bilked both taxpayer and foreign money. He is basically a Manchurian candidate.

[Estragon]

“a huge crime syndicate“

Like cartel big? Cosa Nostra big? Yakuza big? Tell us more

[grb]

Estragon : Tell us more

I could see our Jimmy totally losing it – bringing in space aliens, sasquatch, Jewish space lasers and the Comet Pizza basement. Wild-eyed and spittle-spraying, he’d rant for hours trying to encompass the whole universe of Biden Evil.

It’d be fascinating to see, in a rubber-necking gory-car-wreck kinda way.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You forgot 9/11, JFK, and Y2K. Someone is getting to be a lazy bot....

[grb]

(In true awe) I certainty wouldn't get into a wack-job conspiracy-mongering contest with you! My defeat in that event would be certain.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Like maybe a "Big Guy"....

[Sarcastr0]

You promised us a huge crime syndicate. A big guy is not that.

I expect you to deliver!

[Jimmy the Dane]

I'm sure it will all come out during the impeachment hearings. The "Big Guy" is just the tip of the Biden crime family syndicate. RICO charges will be appropriate although don't expect the demonkrat DOJ to deliver any. Persecutions are reserved for patriots and those who "deserve" it like peaceful non-BLM protesters. We will have to wait for a Trump DOJ to get some real justice.

[not guilty]

RICO charges? Really?

What is the enterprise? Who are the participants therein? What are the predicate felonies? When and by whom was each committed?

Please be specific.

[grb]

not guilty : “Please be specific”

Just a few comments above, Jimmy explains how Biden was behind Kennedy’s assassination.

Gosh; I’d have never suspected that without his insightful input!

[not guilty]

Well, the RICO Act was enacted in 1970.

Not that ex post facto concerns would bother Jimmy.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Why not RICO. I'm sure the Biden Crime Syndicate can get slammed with this and many other federal laws. If you can indict someone for something like talking on the phone or staking a liberally unpopular opinion about an election, or just peacefully protesting why not an actual criminal enterprise?

We are at the point where it is just "make stuff up" so just hit him with a bunch of charges and I'm sure something will stick. That is SOP at the demonkrat DOJ....

[Estragon]

“RICO charges will be appropriate although don’t expect the demonkrat DOJ to deliver any.”

Jimmy lost a step over his hiatus. What were you up to exactly, Jim?? This is just mailing it in.

[Sarcastr0]

Old Jimmy would not have been caught making such a concrete prediction.
Just a bit rusty, I think.

[shawn_dude]

Lots of talk about a pardon, sure, but very little from the President himself, who has already said it's not going to happen. But that won't stop the MAGAverse from claiming otherwise as a way to shout back at prior outrage over Trump's corrupt use of his pardon authority.

All three charges are for basically lying about being a drug user when he bought the gun and for having the gun. Aversion to hypocrisy forces me to to accept that what he did was illegal and deserving of charges and to also note that conservative gun nuts who fight any attempt to restrict guns to the mentally ill, addicted, or habitually violent are fully in support of the charges too but only because it's Hunter Biden.

[Michael P]

Resident Biden previously asserted that Hunter never made any money from China, so he's not exactly a reliable source on the topic.

[Sarcastr0]

Resident Biden

Dusting off an old birther meme to become an even dumber clown.

[Michael P]

It's not a birther meme, it's a comment on his competency. He's not mentally present enough to be president, so he's just the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

You guys are batting .000 today for understanding English.

[David Nieporent]

What's funny is a bunch of Internet losers who have never accomplished anything in their lives think they're smarter than the guy who keeps outsmarting them.

I mean, Biden is mentally competent enough not to brag about the fact that he passed a mental competence test designed to detect brain injury, so he's already ahead of his foremost competitor.

[Brett Bellmore]

That’s an interesting take on “refused to take a mental competency test”.

I'm turning 65 in a couple months, so I'm quite a bit younger than either of them. I certainly wouldn't brag about passing a mental competency test, since I know you could be remarkably stupid and still manage it.

At the same time, though, I certainly wouldn't get up on my high horse and refuse to take one, if my employer said they'd like me to at my age. It wouldn't be an outrageous request even at 65. At 80 freaking years old, in a very important job?

The guy ought to be taking one a couple times a year, not getting pissy when somebody suggests it.

Now, I understand you're trying to imply that he HAS taken one, kept quiet about it, to lay a trap. Not entirely impossible, I suppose, but I don't see any reason to think it's actually true.

And, again, can you give any GOOD reason an 80 year old President should refuse to take such a test?

[Sarcastr0]

These are some magic anti senility drugs that helped Biden get through the debates with Trump, and negotiations with the GOP over the debt ceiling, and the recent G20 summit, etc. etc.

I was too young to recall when Regan got senile, but I believe it became common knowledge pretty quick.

[Nige]

'The guy ought to be taking one a couple times a year, not getting pissy when somebody suggests it.'

Why? It's just birther bullshit updated and adapted, another part of the overall strategy to delegitimise him in what is basically a continuation of Jan 6th and the Big Lie. Nobody whose strategy is to lie about him being senile in order to undermine his authority is going to let actual tests inhibit their lying.

[hoppy025]

No we don't fight any attempts to restrict guns to those people. We restrict attempts to restrict guns to those people when those "attempts" also ensnare 10,000 innocent people for every 1 so restricted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course he's going to deny any intent to pardon his son, at least until the election is past. I mean, was Clinton telling people he meant to pardon Marc Rich a year before he actually did it, let alone before the 1996 election?

[hoppy025]

Biden's lawyer is full of shit.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4205712-hunter-biden-attorney-never-a-charge-like-this-brought-in-the-united-states/

Abramski v. United States is a much more unfair fact pattern, and SCOTUS upheld it.

[grb]

hoppy025 : “Biden’s lawyer is full of shit”

No he isn’t. You don’t address the fact that no one has ever been charged in any situation remotely close to Hunter Biden’s. You don’t even try. You just say, “here’s an entirely different kind of case which I don’t like so … (something)”

But former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said this:

“It is very unlikely that Hunter Biden would be charged with any of these crimes if his last name wasn’t Biden. Charges for possessing a firearm while under the influence of narcotics are rarely brought. False statement charges in this context are also rare.”

Former DOJ inspector general Michael R. Bromwich asked how many people have been federally indicted for purchasing a gun while dealing with substance abuse issues.

“It doesn’t happen,” he said. “DOJ will need to produce data in discovery, which will show that this is the most selective of prosecutions.”

So Hunter’s attorney seems spot on. Right-wingers have been peddling the story that Biden has been treated differently than everyone else and for once they’re not lying: He’s getting much harsher treatment than others.

Want to disprove that? Find a real match with Biden’s case. You won’t be able to, of course, because the story you’ve been pushing for months is a complete fraud. But you ought to try at least.

[hoppy025]

It’s not “entirely different” at all. In both cases, it was a technical violation of the law due to a “misstatement” on a 4473 that didn’t create any danger to anyone.

You’re an idiot.

In any case, here's an analogous situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Westside_Middle_School_shooting#Johnson's_later_legal_troubles

[Don Nico]

Look, Hunter has been indicted on a weak charge so that the DOJ can say that he was not given favorable treatment and yet Hunter will not be punished except for the public embarrassment. That is the price of being a public figure.
Yup, the guy is a sleaze, but so are many other walking around freely every day.

[hoppy025]

It's not a weak charge. Do I think periodically using drugs should make one a prohibited person? No. But that's the law, because Democrats insisted on it. I'm in favor of repealing the 1968 GCA in its entirety and leaving the matter to the states.

So Hunter has no grounds to complain when he's indicted under a law championed by his pedophile Democrat Party father.

[Michael P]

"Nobody gets prosecuted for this, which is why the Fifth Circuit found this law was unconstitutional as applied to one guy who was prosecuted for this!" said somebody who thought he was being clever.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/drug-user-cannot-be-barred-owning-guns-us-court-rules-2023-08-10/

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2021/06/12/do-you-use-drugs-if-you-own-a-gun-the-feds-could-put-you-in-prison-which-worries-cannabis-advocates/

See also Isca Johnson, of Covington, Tennessee in 2020.

A report from Syracuse University in 2017 says section 922(g)(3) (gun possession by a drug addict) was the lead charge for over a hundred cases per year, and 922(a)(6) (false statement to acquire a gun) was the lead charge in a similar number of cases.

These charges very much happen, although they are dwarfed by felon-in-possession charges.

[Don Nico]

lLshana tova tikateyvu, C_XY

[Michael P]

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/14/loudoun-sexual-asssault-investigation-unsealed/:

“It does not appear that LCPS considered whether it should commence a Title IX investigation for almost three months when, on Aug. 17, 2021, the Perpetrator’s mother called LCPS to ask where the the Perpetrator would be enrolled for the upcoming school year,” the report concludes.

(Emphasis added.) How many high-priced Fairfax County lawyers does it take to notice wavy underscores in Microsoft Word and not release a final report with embarrassingly repeated words?

[John F. Carr]

Continuing the theme of South Americans taking seriously what North Americans blow hot air over, a Brazilian who stormed government offices rather than accept his president's electoral defeat has been sentenced a mere 8 months after the criminal acts.

Quoting the Associated Press:

The majority of the 11 justices of the court ruled that Pereira committed five crimes: criminal association; staging a coup; violent attack on the rule of law; qualified damage; and destruction of public assets. They sentenced him to 17 years in prison.

I did not follow this case closely and I do not have an opinion as to what this particular defendant deserved. I do think having litigation over the period November 3, 2020 to January 6, 2021 linger on until 2024 or 2025 is undesirable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Haven't most of the un-American assholes who disgraced our nation on January 6 been sentenced? Some of those worthless wingnuts were treated too leniently, but a number of them are already starting what should be an ample period in cells.

[hoppy025]

No, the people who disgrace our nation vote for Democrats. What a disgrace to our nation is that we give "marriage" licenses to people like you who like to blast off inside another dude.

[Estragon]

“blast off inside another dude.”

I feel like the commentary isn’t as trenchant as it was at the old VC. Anyone else?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspirators dislike it when I point out that their fans are a bunch of right-wing bigots and that this blog's everyday display of diffuse right-wing bigotry is a predictable, desired consequence of choosing to operate a bigot-hugging blog.

But they don't deny any of it. Not a one of them. Not a word.

Carry on, clingers.

[hoppy025]

Do you deny that you leftists are sexual deviants?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yes.

Still waiting for a single law professor associated with this flaming shitstorm of a blog to try to defend the incessant bigotry of this white, male, disaffected right-wing blog -- or even to say a word about it.

Cowards. Every one of you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's interesting. But I have no doubt that "systematic racism" will shamble on like the zombie it actually is. It's too useful to discard.

Academic Whose Work Was Cited As Proof Of ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Fired For Falsifying Research

"The discovery of Stewart’s falsified research and his subsequent firing is significant to understanding the left’s ongoing war on American police officers. As noted by Wilfred Reilly, an associate professor at Kentucky State University, Stewart is “[p]robably THE academic [figure] responsible” for the debunked narrative that so-called “systemic racism” plagues U.S. police departments throughout the country."

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you know what systemic racism is, if you think it's confined to criminology.

But more importantly fucking Google a bit before you take the Federalist as truth. It's a bad publication.

I spent a moment Googling and found a more detailed, less facile lying prone source:
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07/20/florida-university-fires-criminology-professor-blemished-by-retractions/

The termination letter stops short of actually saying he falsified research: "The misconduct claims were not rejected, but in all inquiries into the matter, there was found to be insufficient evidence to support a full investigation into research misconduct which is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. "

"Of the three members of that panel, only one supported his termination. Another recommended less severe punishment, while the third found disciplinary action unwarranted.

In the termination letter, Clark said Stewart had “distorted some important facts” in the information he had shared with the panel, which could have swayed some members in his favor."

Not sure what's going on, but surprise surprise the take you slammed into the comments without checking is tendentious.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your link brings up an "Invalid Request" message.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your own link says, "The misconduct allegations date back to 2019, when one of Stewart’s coauthors, Justin Pickett, suggested in emails to the university that Stewart had “falsified data and findings.” "

The termination letter.

Essentially they couldn’t prove fabrication because the dude didn’t retain enough records to make an investigation into misconduct possible. All they could do was prove that his conclusions were insupportable and wrong.

You can’t prove the accountant embezzled if they don’t at least generate account books.

[Sarcastr0]

So "Academic Whose Work Was Cited As Proof Of ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Fired For Falsifying Research" is a lie.

Don't post lies.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is the lie?
He was fired. He falsified research.Both are undisputed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, its classic Gaslighto. The letter does not say "You are being fired for falsifying research" so he wasn't fired for that reason.

[Sarcastr0]

The Federalist got it wrong and none of you care about the truth.

He may have falsified research, at least the Provost and one of his coauthors think so. But but that is hardly undisputed.

You shouldn't make declarative statements like that based on the retraction watch's muddy facts. Accused would be fine. But if you're the Federalist and have an agenda to push, why bother being careful? You have an audience of credulous fools who will lap it up if it's even colorably true.

My point is to check your sources when they are trash rags like the Federalist.

[Michael P]

At this point, who except Eric Stewart disputes that Eric Stewart falsified data for those studies? The anomalies documented by Justin Pickett were in the same direction, were not consistent with plausible mistakes of method, and in some cases had outrageously unlikely or inconsistent claims about the size and provenance of data sets.

[Sarcastr0]

From the article I linked:

“To investigate, FSU conducted three preliminary probes over as many years. While Stewart’s work contained several problems and statistical mistakes, the probes found no clear signs of research misconduct. The inquiry committees all recommended against doing a full investigation, a decision that has drawn criticism from Pickett and others.”

“In March, after Stewart received a letter describing the university’s intent to terminate him and he was put on administrative leave, he requested that his case be reviewed by a university peer panel.

Of the three members of that panel, only one supported his termination. Another recommended less severe punishment, while the third found disciplinary action unwarranted.”

Weird how the Federalist didn’t mention any of this.
It also looks like you didn’t bother to read one, or both sources being discussed here.

Just pick the side you know you’re on, and fake it from there!

My point is Brett was not careful or critical in his sources. And a lot of you seem really into that. Which is unsurprising, but sad.

A larger point should be that Brett's source also does not prove that systemic racism isn't a thing, since systemic racism is not just about criminal law, and this guy is hardly the only researcher just in criminal law.
He's too ignorant of what he's trying to disprove to properly address it.

[Michael P]

Strangely, and contrary to FSU's claimed policies, two of those peer panel reviewers were his co-workers and co-authors -- violating conflict-of-interest rules that are recommended by academic groups. And the termination letter found that he gave misleading information to that panel. Funny that you didn't mention that! Or maybe you're just projecting your ignorance onto us.

[Sarcastr0]

Um, OK, so you think FSU was protecting the guy now?

This is the issue with trying to pretend the reductive and tendentious Federalist story is legit - you're now already tangled up in trying to fit 10 pounds of academic conflict into a 1 pound bag of 'undisputed.'

Props for finally reading the linked story!

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Your citation from Retraction Watch tries to put a rather scathing rebuke form the University in a more gentle light. That is hardly warranted, and I'd say it is close to misinformation as any researcher with that many retracted papers is at best negligent and at worst fabricating his/her findings.

Retraction Watch is highly regarded by those in the academic publishing business and I's take its report very seriously. But then you find it hard to agree with Bellmore on any topic, preferring to argue for the sake of arguing,

[Sarcastr0]

What the Retraction Watch story does is highlight how this is a story with two sides.

As I said, I don't know what's going on, but the Federalist story is way overdetermined.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But I have no doubt that “systematic racism” will shamble on like the zombie it actually is.

This blog is a reliable source of the old, white, disaffected, bigoted, socially awkward, rural, antisocial, superstition-addled, conspiracy theory perspective.

[Mr. Bumble]

Redundancy is boring.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are worse than a one hit wonder. All you do is complain about the exact same thing every single comment section while dishing out a good amount of hate in the process. Completely unoriginal, bot like content. Makes me wonder if you actually exist or if you are just some spam bot....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

From the mainstream perspective, the Volokh Conspiracy is mostly a two- or three-note droning.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are not mainstream. You are a clown.

[Nige]

‘It’s too useful to discard.’

Wow, there goes every single other thing ever written about systemic racism because of this one guy. Isn't it funny how you guys keep misrepresenting things and yet still keep your own zombie beliefs shambling along? They're too *useful*.

[apedad]

‘Decline to sign’: Trump is now trying to derail NY attorney general’s fraud case by suing judge who wrote his arguments were ‘completely without merit’

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/decline-to-sign-trump-is-now-trying-to-derail-ny-attorney-generals-fraud-case-by-suing-judge-who-wrote-his-arguments-were-completely-without-merit/

IANAL so can't comment on the legal strategy - but from a layman's POV it's hilarious!

[Enrique]

"The Limited Sweep and Ineffectual Force of False Analogies: A Brief Reply to Baude and Paulsen":
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4564998