Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

I really hate to bring this up again because I've been "fact" checked so many times. But Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post has updated his fact check on Biden's firing of Shokin, to show he was freelancing when he threatened to withhold the 1b in loan guarantees from Ukraine to force Shokin's firing:

On the plane, according to a person who participated in the conversation, Biden “called an audible” — he changed the plan. It was time for a bigger punch: The loan guarantee was the main point of leverage with Ukraine, the vice president declared, so he instead should tell Poroshenko the loan would not be forthcoming until Shokin was gone — a suspicious ouster to House Republicans now pushing for President Biden’s impeachment..

The moment when the Obama administration decided to link Shokin’s firing to the loan guarantee has never been firmly established. But questions about the timing have re-emerged since Just the News, a conservative news site, published proposed State Department talking points for Biden’s trip, drafted Nov. 22, two weeks before Biden’s plane departed for Kyiv. The talking points reflected the big-hugs-and-little-punches approach, proposing that Biden tell Poroshenko that Shokin needed to be removed but that the signing of the loan guarantee would happen during his visit.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) this week directed House committees to begin an impeachment inquiry into Biden, with one area of focus whether Biden pushed to fire Shokin to benefit his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings. Republicans have claimed that Biden sought Shokin’s removal to benefit the Ukrainian energy giant Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a board director. But the body of evidence shows that Shokin failed to act against Burisma, to the distress of many senior U.S. officials who at the time closely tracked whether he was meeting certain benchmarks. Shokin had not, for example, reinstated a case involving Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, that had been bungled by the prosecutor general’s office, allowing for a $23 million freeze on Zlochevsky’s assets to lapse in Britain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/15/inside-vp-bidens-linking-loan-ukraine-prosecutors-ouster/

Now the last paragraph is pretty astounding, Kessler acknowledging that Burisma was as corrupt as hell, as was Hunter's boss Zlochevsky, and I don't doubt Shokin was also corrupt. In fact I think the reason that
Zlochevsky was putting so much pressure on the Biden's was because Shokin's asking price for letting Zlochevsky skate was too high. We do know from State Department's George Kent's memo that Zlochevsky eventually paid a 7million bribe to get his 23m in funds released. Which underscores Joe Biden had no business (or actually a lot of business) making decisions that directly affected a company where his son was on the board. That would be a firing offense for any cabinet official that did that whether it was a foreign or domestic company.

But bottom line is what some here have been spouting that Biden was only following instructions when he threatened to withhold the 1b in loan guarantees is wrong, Biden was freelancing and acting on his own when he did it, and likely for his own motives.

[Nige]

‘Biden was freelancing and acting on his own when he did it, and likely for his own motives.’

You made this up out of some very vague and hand-wavey wording and some strategic knowledge gaps. Did *Biden* change the plan or did the administration?

‘Other officials involved in the policy process, including two who were also on Biden’s plane, don’t quite remember Biden’s making such a forceful intervention. They recall a more disciplined policy process preceding the trip that led to consensus on linking the firing to the loan — though memories have blurred over eight years, they admitted. The White House records remain classified. In any case, by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, four people with direct knowledge told The Fact Checker, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan.’

That’s a thin reed to use to conclude with complete certainty that Biden was ‘freelancing.’

‘In fact I think the reason that Zlochevsky was putting so much pressure on the Biden’s was because Shokin’s asking price for letting Zlochevsky skate was too high’

More making things up in order to square a circle.

If we held Trump to same standard you’re trying to hold Biden to he’d have been put in prison a decade ago. But of course, none of this is ever going to have to be proved in a court of law.

In short – the claim is that Biden was ‘freelancing.’ However all indications are that he was acting in full accord with administration policy and with full international support. The only motivation for him to ‘freelance’ is entirely conjectural: unproven speculation about an entirely imaginary bribe between other parties, as opposed to him coming across tough in negotiations in order to remove a corrupt prosecutor, as per his official remit, in line with administration policy.

[Nige]

The number of made-up assumptions this rests on multiplies every time I look at it.

'Zlochevsky was putting so much pressure on the Biden’s'

I'm sorry, what? Where and when did this happen?

[Kazinski]

Devon Archers testimony to the House Ways and means:

"In December 2015, Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, and Vadym Pozharski, an executive of Burisma, placed constant pressure on Hunter Biden to get help from D.C. regarding the Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Shokin was investigating Burisma for corruption. Hunter Biden, along with Zlochevsky and Pozharski, “called D.C.” to discuss the matter. Biden, Zlochevsky, and Pozharski stepped away to make the call. This raises concerns that Hunter Biden was in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act."
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-statement-on-devon-archers-testimony%EF%BF%BC/

And Archers interview with Tucker Carlson:
“He was a threat. He ended up seizing assets of [Burisma owner] Nikolai [Zlochevsky] — a house, some cars, a couple properties. And Nikolai actually never went back to Ukraine after Shokin seized all of his assets,”
https://nypost.com/2023/08/04/viktor-shokin-was-threat-to-burisma-says-hunter-biden-partner-devon-archer/

[Nige]

You said 'the Bidens' not 'a Biden.' One phone call does not a lot of pressure make, especially since there's no indication that any pressure was brought to bear at all in the alleged phone call, and it doesn't explain why a prosecutor who wasn't investigating them and who had allowed the seizure of assets to lapse was such a threat, casting doubts on the testimony itself.

[grb]

Let’s run thru the tally again: It was White House policy Shokin be fired. It was State Department policy Shokin be fired. The U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine gave a speech in Odessa demanding it. A bi-partisan group of Senators wrote a letter demanding it. Many of our European allies demanded Shokin be fired. The World Bank and IMF demanded Shokin be fired. Every anti-corruption group in Ukraine itself demanded Shokin be fired.

No matter how much you weasel, Kazinski, you’ll never get around those facts – just like you’ll never get around Devon Archer’s testimony that Burmisa saw no threat in Shokin, being more worried about any possible replacement than the prosecutor himself.

If McCarthy ever had as serious inquiry into Joe Biden, he’d have to allow opposing witnesses. Then there’d be a line of people a mile long ready to testify Biden’s actions represented official U.S. policy. McCarthy would look like a fool.

[Frank Drackman]

They’ll have to wait until the miles long line of surviving family of those killed in the Afghanistan Cluster Fuck testify. Not a good strategy to criticize "Gold Star" Families (unless they're crooked Immigration Shysters like Kazir Khan)Maybe Barry Hussein could be called to explain why he “surged” back into Afghanistan in 2009

Frank

[Kazinski]

Take it up with Glen Kessler of the Washington Post, he is the one who changed the Post’s fact check to indicate it was not Whitehouse policy, that is until Biden changed it on the plane, on his own initiative, on the way to Ukraine.

Solomon actually came up with government documents to support his claim and published the PDFs. Kessler found them convincing enough to update his fact check.

Can you supply a single link to a contemporaneous government document that says it was Whitehouse or State Department policy to link the loan guarantees to Shokin’s firing?

Without that they aren’t facts they’re just assertions by people covering for Joe.

But rest assured the House Impeachment inquiry will do its own "fact check".

[Joe_dallas]

Covering for Joe - they get the same daily memo from the whitehouse and the DNC so they can keep their stories straight.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Take it up with Glen Kessler of the Washington Post, he is the one who changed the Post’s fact check to indicate it was not Whitehouse policy, that is until Biden changed it on the plane, on his own initiative, on the way to Ukraine"

You're such a liar! Kessler's column is full of references to the fact it was White House policy Shokin must be fired. You can start with Kessler's second sentence:

"A key goal for the trip was to urge the government to crack down on corruption, starting with the removal of the powerful prosecutor general, viewed by U.S. and European officials as an impediment to reform."

I quote many more below, but that alone proves how dishonest you are. It was White House policy Shokin must be fired. It was State Department policy Shokin must be fired. U.S. Ambassador Pyatt made a speech demanding it before Biden's trip.

There was also a letter from members of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, signed by Republican Sens. Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson. It too demanded "urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary"

In a 2019 interview, Republican Johnson explained the letter thus:

“The whole world, by the way, including the Ukranian caucus, which I signed the letter, the whole world felt that this that Sholkin wasn’t doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you’ve … got to rid yourself of corruption.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html

[Kazinski]

GRB, I clearly said it was not Whitehouse policy to link Shokin’s firing to the 1b in loan guarantees.

“But bottom line is what some here have been spouting that Biden was only following instructions when he threatened to withhold the 1b in loan guarantees is wrong, Biden was freelancing and acting on his own when he did it, and likely for his own motives.”

That’s the claim Solomon made, that is the point Kessler conceded, and that is what I said above that Biden was freelancing when he leveraged the 1b in aid to get Shokin fired.

If you have to distort what I’m saying to refute it, then you are conceding I’m right.

One other thing to show how ridiculous the "Joe Biden, Corruption Fighter" narrative is, Kessler says:

"But the body of evidence shows that Shokin failed to act against Burisma, to the distress of many senior U.S. officials who at the time closely tracked whether he was meeting certain benchmarks. Shokin had not, for example, reinstated a case involving Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, that had been bungled by the prosecutor general’s office, allowing for a $23 million freeze on Zlochevsky’s assets to lapse in Britain."

Joe Biden was so concerned that Shokin wasn't cracking down on Burisma and Zlochevsky, that Joe would get on the phone at Burisma Board meetings with Zlochevsky "talk about the weather".

[Nige]

‘GRB, I clearly said it was not Whitehouse policy to link Shokin’s firing to the 1b in loan guarantees.’

No you didn’t, but you did imply it, depsite everything else in the article suggesting otherwise.

‘that is the point Kessler conceded’

He categorically did no such thing.

‘that Joe would get on the phone at Burisma Board meetings with Zlochevsky’

That Joe would answer phone calls from his son, you mean.

You’ve made two broad assertions here, one is extremely weak and vastly outweighed by everything else, the other keeps tripping over its own contradictions.

[Nige]

'to indicate it was not Whitehouse policy,'

This did not happen. One unnamed source said Biden announced the change. Nowhere is it indicated that he came up with it himself on the spot.

'Kessler found them convincing enough to update his fact check.'

Kessler spends several paragraphs on exactly how low-level and irrelevant to policy formulation those documents were.

'But rest assured the House Impeachment inquiry will do its own “fact check”.'

In other words, Benghazi.

[grb]

Nige : "Kessler spends several paragraphs on exactly how low-level and irrelevant to policy formulation those documents were"

This. One of the major White House / State Department objectives of the Biden trip was to get Shokin fired. Kessler makes that clear again and again. Biden was put on that plane to Kiev with the purpose of pressuring the prosecutors ouster.

The only issue is whether to push for Shokin's firing with a big carrot & small stick or the opposite : a big stick and small carrot. There was a State Department draft suggesting the former course but (as Kessler exhaustively details) that says nothing about the final choice the White House made.

And that final decision? Kessler says the White House decided to go big stick. Quote :

"In any case, by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, four people with direct knowledge told The Fact Checker, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan"

So Biden's actions were per specific White House policy when he pressured Ukraine over Shokin. That's from the account Kazinski quotes. Selectively quotes, of course, since it says the exact opposite of all his claims.

[mulched]

nO SMokiNG GUn!!!

[Kazinski]

If it didn't matter why did he change his fact check.

And those "low level and irrelevant to policy formation" documents are the ONLY documents produced about what the policy was.

Show me some documents that refute it, show me the PDF's. Here is the link to the documents I'm referring to:
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hdfeds-urged-biden-give-ukraine-loan-guarantee-he

Where is your link to documents to refute that?

[Nige]

What did he change?

'Where is your link to documents to refute that?'

Refute what? Where is the proof that these were part of high-level policy discussions? If the relevant documents are all still classified, then these weren't relevant enough to bother classifying!

[grb]

Sorry Kazinski: Since you posted Kessler's column, you don't get to dishonestly weasel about his contents. Kessler Quote :

“In any case, by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, four people with direct knowledge told The Fact Checker, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan”

On the ground in Kiev, Biden was following approved White House orders in linking the loan to Shokin's ouster. Your "position" on this right-wing Shokin farce has already been whittled from an (imaginary) mighty oak to the tiniest little toothpick. Yet even that's obviously bogus. If you had any other charge to level against Biden, you wouldn't bother with such jokey nonsense. But you don't so you do.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sealioning. You know you see it when it never stops.

[Kazinski]

GRB, you just confirmed my whole assertion, thank you for that:

“ Quote :

“In any case, by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, four people with direct knowledge told The Fact Checker, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan”

Joe changed the plan on his own on the plane, the Obama Whitehouse, knowing Joe was too far gone geographically and mentally, said sure go ahead.

As Obama said “Never underestimate Joes ability to fuck things up.”

Of course Joes real fuckup was bragging about it in 2018 on camera.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“…the Obama Whitehouse, knowing Joe was too far gone geographically and mentally, said sure go ahead.”

Because if they’d said “No, don’t do that” or “Ok, that sounds like a good use of leverage” your entire worldview falls to pieces, so clearly those have to be ruled out with a giant unfalsifiable piece of partisan stupidity.

You’re a fucking idiot Kazinski.

[Nige]

'Joe changed the plan on his own on the plane, the Obama Whitehouse, knowing Joe was too far gone geographically and mentally, said sure go ahead.'

This is fiction.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's comedy gold, actually.

[myself]

Take it up with Glen Kessler of the Washington Post, he is the one who changed the Post’s fact check to indicate it was not Whitehouse policy, that is until Biden changed it on the plane, on his own initiative, on the way to Ukraine.

One person on the plane remembers it that way, others on the plane remember it differently.

Can you supply a single link to a contemporaneous government document that says it was Whitehouse or State Department policy to link the loan guarantees to Shokin’s firing?

The fact check you posted literally states it was the case, the "smoking gun" you found is that Biden should tell Poroshenko the firing was no longer a strong request, but a condition of the loan.

And again, you're stuck ignoring the fact that the issue with Shokin is he was protecting Bursima from prosecution (if Bursima wanted to be prosecuted there were presumably easier ways then trying to influence Joe Biden!!).

But rest assured the House Impeachment inquiry will do its own “fact check”.

And I have no doubt they will uncover their own "facts".

[Brett Bellmore]

"One person on the plane remembers it that way, others on the plane remember it differently."

That seems pretty strong compared to some of the 'anonymous source contradicted by everyone present' stories the media ran with during the Trump administration.

[Nige]

It sounds exactly like that, because that's exactly what it is, and hey, it's as solid as evidence gets in the entire investigation!

[myself]

Weird, I seem to recall a lot of those stories panning out.

Either way, even if he threw an audible so what? Is there any reason to think he was exceeding the authority Obama had given him to deal with the situation? And you're still stuck making the argument that Joe Biden was somehow helping Bursima by getting Ukrainians to fire the corrupt prosecutor who was refusing to go after them.

The only reason why the GOP keeps trying to this into a scandal is its the only case where they have Joe Biden doing something official where Hunter is tangentially connected. The only problem is that Joe Biden did the exact opposite thing that Hunter's employers would have wanted!

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK -- an analogy.

Say there is a notoriously corrupt Federal judge that everyone wants to see impeached -- the USA, the ACLU, the ABA, the NRA, and the Jehovah's Witnesses -- everyone wants see impeached.

But I go and bribe my Congressman to introduce the Impeachment -- give her a suitcase full of pictures of dead Presidents and she introduces the impeachment resolution. Am I not guilty of bribery, is she not guilty of receiving a bribe?

NB: I'm not talking a legal campaign donation or anything even plausibly legal here, instead I'm talking a suitcase full of cash for what we both agree to be payment for her official act. (Even if she might have eventually done it anyway.)

And even if half of the DoJ walks in and testifies how glad they are that the schmuck was finally impeached, does that change anything? (OK, they may not prosecute me, but legally....)

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “OK — an analogy”

Really ?!? Has it come to this?

Yes, Joe Biden was sent to Kiev to demand Shokin’s firing by his boss (the President) and per the official publicly-stated policy of the entire U.S. government but – (pause for dramatic effect) – his heart wasn’t pure, therefore he was corrupt as he followed his orders……

Good Lord above! You people are pathetic !!

[OtisAH]

I feel sad for OG pathetic people whose lives are hard enough without being additionally smeared by association with the jackasses here.

[myself]

OK — an analogy.

A absolutely terrible one.

But I go and bribe my Congressman to introduce the Impeachment — give her a suitcase full of pictures of dead Presidents and she introduces the impeachment resolution. Am I not guilty of bribery, is she not guilty of receiving a bribe?

Yes and yes.

And comparing that to Joe Biden, acting on behalf of the Obama administration and many other western nations, demanding a corrupt official be removed before aid was granted, is idiotic.

[David Nieporent]

OK — an analogy.

Say there is a notoriously corrupt Federal judge that everyone wants to see impeached — the USA, the ACLU, the ABA, the NRA, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses — everyone wants see impeached.

But I go and bribe my Congressman to introduce the Impeachment — give her a suitcase full of pictures of dead Presidents and she introduces the impeachment resolution. Am I not guilty of bribery, is she not guilty of receiving a bribe?

Yes, it is bribery to take money to do something even if you were going to do it anyway. The problem with this as an analogy is that it assumes its conclusion.

[Reallynotbob]

You have not proposed an analogy; it is a tautology. You ask, "am I not guilty of bribery" where your assumption is, "I go and bribe my Congressman."

One of the elements of taking a bribe under 18 USC 201 (the bribery statute) is that the official must, "in return for" the bribe, "be influenced" or "be[] induced" to do something or refrain from doing it. So the question is, what evidence do you believe demonstrates that any payment of money influenced or induced Joe Biden to take action on Shokin?

[jb]

Just because Comer is a liar doesn't mean you need to credulously repeat his lies. Here's the relevant excerpt from the transcript:

Majority Counsel: When you say pressure from the government, at this time were you aware that Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma?

Mr. Archer: To the best, I vaguely ‑‑ whether it was Shokin, I vague ‑‑ there was a lot of pressure initially. There was ‑‑ there was several pressure issues. It was kind of a theme of Burisma.

There was capital tied up in London, 23 million pounds. There was, you know, a U.S. visa denied and then a Mexico visa denied. And then there was ‑‑ so Shokin wasn’t specifically on my radar as being an individual that was ‑‑ that was targeting him. But yes, there was constant pressure. And it was like ‑‑ it was like whack‑a‑mole in regards to the pressures that had to resolve.

(emphasis added)

So what Archer actually testified is that yes, Burisma was under pressure from "the government", but specifically not Shokin despite the Republican attorney's attempt to put it into frame. In fact, Archer goes on to testify that (a) Pozharski never discussed Shokin with him and (b) repeatedly makes clear that his understanding (from Burisma's "DC Team") was that Shokin was already "handled" and that his removal was a negative for Burisma. There is absolutely nothing in Archer's testimony that supports the idea that Burisma was concerned about Shokin or asking anyone to do anything about it, and numerous instances of him saying it was bad for Burisma when Shokin was removed.

[Kazinski]

I didn’t make that up out of vague hand wavey language.

Kessler quoted a person who was there who said Biden “called an audible”.

If you like you can read my sentence to say: ‘Biden [“called an audible”] and was acting on his own when he did it, and likely for his own motives.’

It doesn’t change the meaning a whit. And it directly quotes the recollection of the person who was on the plane with Biden ‘when he changed the plan’ (those are Kessler’s words).

But really if Joe wants to clear it up he can declassify the Whitehouse documents, which Kessler points out have not been released. So we are left with only the declassified State Department documents Solomon unearthed, and aides recollections, which are admittedly contradictory.

I think Kessler is still being too kind to Joe, but at least he admits the story is not the way Joe and his supporters tried to paint it. And those other aides are not saying that Joe was just following policy they just “don’t quite remember Biden’s making such a forceful intervention. They recall a more disciplined policy process preceding the trip that led to consensus on linking the firing to the loan”. Which is a far cry from the claim Joe was just following orders.

If you don’t like his revised fact check write a letter to the editor.

[Nige]

Calling an ‘audible’ isn’t freelance rogue behaviour unless you have a very narrow view of the Vice Presidency. Did he change the plan, or announce the changing of the plan? Was it even a change? The loan guarantee being used as leverage had already been floated at least a month before.

I suppose he could declassify the material, if the allegation was serious. It really isn’t. Maybe he will anyway, but it’ll be just another ‘Obama releasing his birth cert.’

‘but at least he admits the story is not the way Joe and his supporters tried to paint it’

Not really. There’s nothing to indicate the policy hadn’t been formulated before the visit.

'revised fact check'

Which fact? That Biden called an 'audible?' Everything else is vague and contradictory.

[grb]

All of Kazinski’s bobbing & weaving is meant to avoid the second sentence of Kessler’s factcheck column:

“A key goal for the trip was to urge the government to crack down on corruption, starting with the removal of the powerful prosecutor general, viewed by U.S. and European officials as an impediment to reform.”

Kazinski also fails to quote Kessler’s next sentence :

“Under a tactical policy known inside the Obama administration as “big hugs and little punches,” U.S. officials originally planned to have Biden urge Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, but at the same time sign a renewal of a $1 billion loan guarantee”

Kazinski also missed this from Kessler :

“In any case, by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, four people with direct knowledge told The Fact Checker, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan”

So whether there was an “audible” or not (a) it was White House policy Shokin must be fired and (b) The White House approved Biden’s actions in linking the loan to Shokin’s ouster. Kazinski missed that. He also doesn’t quote this from Kessler’s column :

“Charles Kupchan, who was senior director for European affairs on the staff of the National Security Council and also traveled on Biden’s flight, remembers the later phone call more distinctly than Biden calling an audible on the plane. “The consensus was that Shokin had to go,” he said. “That was not just our view but the view of the Germans and the French.”

Somehow this got by Kazinski :

“But in July, key prosecutors under Shokin, including his former driver, were caught with stashes of diamonds and incriminating documents in their homes, causing an uproar in Ukraine. Nuland said Shokin was perceived to be protecting them. He sacked deputies who sought to investigate the subordinates who were known as the “diamond prosecutors.”

He also missed Kessler quoting the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine :

The U.S. government then amped up the pressure, with Pyatt making a speech in September in which he blasted the prosecutor’s office for “openly and aggressively undermining reform” and having “undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.” The speech, delivered in Odessa, specifically mentioned that letters written by the prosecutor’s office had allowed Zlochevsky to retrieve the $23 million that had been frozen in Britain. “The misconduct by the PGO [Prosecutor General’s Office] officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should — at a minimum — be summarily terminated,” Pyatt said.

Kazinski sure missed a lot…..

[Life of Brian]

A key goal for the trip was to urge the government to crack down on corruption

I'm not sure why you're so in love with this sentence, when "urge" is completely consistent with the part of Kessler's facty-checky that Kaz mentioned, prior to the "bigger punch" audible Biden called on the plane: "The talking points reflected the big-hugs-and-little-punches approach, proposing that Biden tell Poroshenko that Shokin needed to be removed but that the signing of the loan guarantee would happen during his visit."

[grb]

I note you refuse to quote the remainder of the sentence which says it was official White House policy to pressure Ukraine for Shokin’s firing. That’s pretty pathetic since it’s right above in black&white, but here :

“starting with the removal of the powerful prosecutor general, viewed by U.S. and European officials as an impediment to reform.”

You also ignore the Kessler quote where he confirmed White House policy for the trip was to use the loan to demand Shokin’s ouster :

“In any case, by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, four people with direct knowledge told The Fact Checker, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan”

So Biden was sent to Kiev to demand Shokin go. That was longstanding U.S. policy uniting the White House, State Department, and even a bipartisan group of Senators concerned with Ukrainian policy. (It was also the policy of our allies and anti-corruption groups in Ukraine but we’ll set that aside)

The only issue was how much pressure to apply to achieve the policy objective of the White House, State Department, Congress, and our allies. Per Kessler, the State Department prepared a position paper suggesting light pressure for Shokin firing, but the White House decided to go hard. Despite your weaseling that’s what the column says.

And even ignoring Kessler’s plain conclusion, you’re still got nothing. The old pretense this was some secret scheme by Biden is gone. You’re now admitting the entire U.S. government was demanding Shokin must be fired. Hell, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine gave a fiery speech with that demand long before Biden’s trip. Try and peddle your “Biden corruption” shtick with Shokin and you look like imbeciles.

Of course without your Shokin bullshit you have nothing. You’re left claiming “corruption” because Hunter let people listen when he called his father to discuss fishing and sports scores.

[Life of Brian]

I note you refuse to quote the remainder of the sentence

Refuse? I quoted the part that contained the word "urge" that torpedoes your entire argument. It simply doesn't matter how much other distractive confetti you try to throw up.

Kessler clearly says that the plan was to ask nicely, but not hold hostage via withholding signing the agreement, and that Biden unilaterally changed that at the last minute. All the rest of the nonsense you're chattering about is just you just trying to invent a post-hoc justification for that.

[Nige]

‘Kessler clearly says that the plan was to ask nicely, but not hold hostage via withholding signing the agreement and that Biden unilaterally changed that at the last minute.’

He says no such thing. He reports one person saying something that could be interpreted that way, at a stretch, and spends the rest of the article essentially refuting it, and it’s very much using an anvil to swat a fly.

[Kazinski]

What I said was that it was not Whitehouse or State Department policy to link the 1B in loan guarantees to Shokin's firing until Biden changed that on his own initiative on the plane.

The quotes you give above support what I said.

As for the State Department complaining that the Prosecutors office let Zlochevsky retrieve his 23m, that was Jan of 2015, before Shokin became Prosecutor General in February 2015.

Once again your narrative is laughable: Joe was so concerned that Shokin was corrupt and not cracking down on Burisma and Zlochevsky, that Joe got Shokin fired, and then Joe would get on the phone and talk to Burisma's board and Zlochevsky while Zlochevsky was a fugitive from Ukraine.

[Nige]

‘until Biden changed that on his own initiative on the plane.’

The statement could be read as Biden announcing the change, not initiating it, and everything else in the article makes it by far the most likely interpretation.

‘and then Joe would get on the phone and talk to Burisma’s board and Zlochevsky while Zlochevsky was a fugitive from Ukraine.’

Joe would accept phone calls from his son. The source for these alleged calls has said repeatedly that Joe knew nothing about and was not involved with Hunter’s business.

Using this as an 'argument' or 'evidence' after it's been established that Giuliani went all over Ukraine with two Russian agents hunting dirt on Biden on Trump's behalf is contemptible, though, if associating with bad bad people is the issue.

[OtisAH]

This. This is the explanation that will finally sink through the four inch thick barrier of lard that makes up Kazinski’s cranium and is sure to be absorbed by the walnut that resides within. I’m confident today is the last day of Kazinskis’s ignorance and confusion.

Whew, been a long time coming, but through tireless effort over the years we’ve finally arrived. Good job guys!

[David Nieporent]

The talking points reflected the big-hugs-and-little-punches approach, proposing that Biden tell Poroshenko that Shokin needed to be removed

Not clear why you didn't highlight this. Or, rather, it's 100% clear why you did: because it utterly undermines the 'case' against Biden, as it shows that it wasn't Biden's idea to get Shokin removed.

Now the last paragraph is pretty astounding, Kessler acknowledging that Burisma was as corrupt as hell, as was Hunter’s boss Zlochevsky, and I don’t doubt Shokin was also corrupt. In fact I think the reason that Zlochevsky was putting so much pressure on the Biden’s was because Shokin’s asking price for letting Zlochevsky skate was too high.

Zlochevsky wasn't putting any pressure on the Bidens. (That's not even the right wing talking point; the right wing talking point is that he was bribing them, not pressuring them.) And of course Shokin would've been cheaper than the Bidens supposedly were.

Which underscores Joe Biden had no business (or actually a lot of business) making decisions that directly affected a company where his son was on the board.

Once again: Joe Biden wasn't making decisions. Joe Biden was vice president, and thus could not in fact make decisions.

[Michael P]

Right, the Vice President of the United States has zero agency. Thanks for explaining that.

[OtisAH]

Y’all know I dislike shutting down these contests early but when someone drops a post like Michael P’s above there’s little likelihood any subsequent moronic post can top it. There’ll be plenty that match it but, first come first serve is the tiebreaker rule. So congratulations Michael P on winning today’s Dumbest Fucking Post Possible Award.

[David Nieporent]

The Vice President of the United States has zero agencies, is more like it. You might want to read the Constitution. The Vice President of the United States, other than breaking ties in the Senate, has no power to make decisions. He cannot clip his toenails without permission, let alone decide whether Ukraine will get loan guarantees.

[Life of Brian]

The Vice President of the United States, other than breaking ties in the Senate, has no power to make decisions. He cannot clip his toenails without permission, let alone decide whether Ukraine will get loan guarantees.

Well, taking that as the academically correct statement that it is, that makes the entire "called an audible" part of the story even more damning, dunnit? You might redirect some of your energy into casting doubt on whether that actually happened, but Glenn Kessler ain't exactly known for being anti-Biden.

[Nige]

Calling an 'audible' isnt exactly a cabinet-level decision.

[Drewski]

Not a great argument unless it's the 19th Century. We have an Office of the Vice President now, and the veep sits on the NSC among other roles. Cheney, famously, made top-level policy without consulting Bush, and those policies stuck.

Heck, Biden once complained that VPs have too much power today.

[Joe_dallas]

The logic used is not convincing.
Shokin was doing his part to investigate the corruption at Bursima, therefore the need to fire Shokin. Yet the corruption involved Biden, specifically hunter biden. So shokin was fired because he was investigating the biden corruption

[OtisAH]

Except for the exceedingly well-documented fact from unanimous contemporary accounts, and for the infinitieth time, Shokin was not investigating Burisma.

[Kazinski]

Why was Zlochevsky a fugitive from Ukraine from December 2015 into 2018? Then came home for a year and now is on the run again?

The idea he had they weren't putting any pressure on Burisma while Zlochevsky was a fugitive is ridiculous.

I don't doubt that most of the pressure was requests for payoffs that Zlochevsky didn't want to shell out, but pressure nonetheless.

[Nige]

The very source you're relying on says he was under pressure from lots of different directions, but that Shokin wasn't one of them!

So anyway, for those playing along: THIS is gaslighting, as well as sealioning.

[Tom for equal rights]

Then why fire the guy that wasnt investigating Hunter bidens involvement in the Bursima corruption? With Shokin not investigating the corruption, then Hunter skates free.

[Sarcastr0]

Because he was told to, and because it was quite unlikely that even if Burisma want down that Hunter would be legally exposed.

[David Nieporent]

Then why fire the guy that wasnt investigating Hunter bidens involvement in the Bursima corruption? With Shokin not investigating the corruption, then Hunter skates free.

Because the issue of firing Shokin had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. Duh.

Indeed, even if Shokin had been investigating Burisma, which he wasn't, it had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. The investigation was over acts that had taken place years before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board. Hunter "skates free" no matter what!

[Tom for equal rights]

Keep believing the unbelievable

[David Nieporent]

Your ignorance of the facts does not make something unbelievable.

[Sarcastr0]

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

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 6 hours ago
Because he was told to, and because it was quite unlikely that even if Burisma want down that Hunter would be legally exposed."

Yea right - keep believing the implausible
keep spreading the leftist talking points

[Sarcastr0]

Yea right – keep believing the implausible

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

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive ‘gut’ reaction, especially where time is scarce.

[David Nieporent]

Again, there was zero chance of Hunter being "legally exposed" because everything that Burisma was supposed to be being investigated for happened long before Hunter had any role at Burisma.

You're not even smart enough to understand what we're talking about. The claim about the "bribe" is that Hunter would've lost his director role (and the concomitant paycheck), not that he would've been prosecuted for something.

[Reallynotbob]

Ah, the transitive principle of correlation at work. D-minus in your logic class. Even assuming your facts, [Shokin investigated Burisma] + [Hunter did corruption at Burisma] does not = ["so Shokin was fired because he was investigating"].

Also C-minus in your rhetoric class. "Therefore the need to fire Shokin" disguises the actor who "needs" to do the firing. You use the passive voice to avoid disproof because, for any identified actor who might do the firing, there are competing stronger motivations for firing Shokin.

[SimonP]

(That’s not even the right wing talking point; the right wing talking point is that he was bribing them, not pressuring them.)

No, you don't understand - Kazinski is pivoting the talking point. The previous talking point was, "Biden pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin at the behest of Hunter, to benefit Burisma." That talking point has been by now thoroughly debunked, so Kazinski is trying to ninja that debunking into an asset: "When Biden pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin, which in fact would hurt Burisma, if anything, he was doing so on his own initiative, for [reasons left unspecified]."

Kazinski now apparently believes that Biden took too aggressive action on Shokin, but is allowing the stink of the prior accusation (that Biden was bribed to push Shokin out) to linger, despite the two assertions being diametrically opposed to one another.

[Nige]

It's dumber than that. Biden, here, is suposed to have gone rogue by deciding suddenly and unilaterally and entirely by himself on the flight over to use the money as leverage for the firing.

[Kazinski]

I’m not pivoting any talking point.

The accusation is: “The FD-1023 form released Thursday details secondhand allegations that Burisma’s CEO and founder Mykola Zlochevsky thought having Hunter Biden on the board could help insulate the company from its problems with the prosecutor, that Zlochevsky sent millions of dollars to President Biden as well as Hunter Biden and that two recordings about the matter exist that involve President Biden.”https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4108735-republicans-release-fbi-form-alleging-unverified-biden-burisma-allegations/

That’s the allegation and I think its true.

And I think the facts: Hunter joining the Burisma Board the same month Zlochevsky had his 23m frozen and 2 months after Joe became point man on Ukraine, and 8 months before Zlochevsky fled Ukraine support that.

[SimonP]

You think this is true... on what basis? Trump's DOJ, the House committee, and Giuliani all tried to dig up dirt on this tip. Nothing came of it.

[Kazinski]

The 5 million paid to Hunter (Joes money hasn't been traced yet).

Joe changing US policy on his own initiative to link the 1b to Shokin's firing.

Joe getting on speakerphone in Burisma's board meetings to 'shoot the breeze and talk about the weather'

The absolute panic by the democrats to protect Joe when Trump asked Zelensky to announce an investigation in Joe's involvement in the Smoking firing.

[David Nieporent]

The 5 million paid to Hunter (Joes money hasn’t been traced yet).

No such money to anyone has been "traced" yet. There is no evidence of any money paid to Hunter, except the money openly paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden's services.

Joe changing US policy on his own initiative to link the 1b to Shokin’s firing.

Something which your own link proves did not happen.

Joe getting on speakerphone in Burisma’s board meetings to ‘shoot the breeze and talk about the weather’

Also did not happen. You made up the "Burisma's board meetings" part.

The absolute panic by the democrats to protect Joe when Trump asked Zelensky to announce an investigation in Joe’s involvement in the Smoking firing.

Also, of course, did not happen.

[SimonP]

You either have a remarkable ability to fully believe contradictory ideas at the same time, or you’re a total moron.

[grb]

Kazinski : “The absolute panic by the democrats to protect Joe when Trump asked Zelensky to announce an investigation in Joe’s involvement in the Smoking firing”

Kazinski’s got a real talent for the whole black-is-white lying thing. Because guess who really panicked after the Zelensky call? White House aides, that’s who.

Realizing they’d just witnessed a crude attempt to use U.S, government favor for private gain, they buried the call records in the deepest, darkest hole available: “A highly classified “super secret” server reserved for information regarding covert operations and other sensitive intelligence actions”

“According to reporting by the New York Times, not all National Security Council (NSC) officials have access the special computer software required to penetrate the secret server, and “in extreme cases, agency aides must physically enter the offices of the intelligence directorate to read documents stored in the system.” Records of presidential phone calls with foreign leaders rarely belong in there.”

Of course not. But records of calls with clumsy Godfather-style attempts at extortion for personal gain do. The White House aides saw what Trump had done. They ran scared.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/465883-was-it-illegal-to-store-trumps-ukraine-call-on-a-secret-government-server/

[Kazinski]

As for Shokin being cheaper than the Biden's were, George Kent's memo says Zlochevsky had to pay a 7m bribe just to retrieve his 23m in frozen cash.

That's not very cheap, its in the neighborhood of the 10m that the Biden's are alleged to have negotiated with Zlochevsky, and maybe he thought he was getting more for his money.

[Nige]

Even your made-up shit is dumb. 7m is less than 10m.

[Kazinski]

Depends on what Zlochevsky was getting for his money.

Made up shit?

Here is the George Kent email PDF:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-02/KentBurismaEmailNov222016.pdf

What do you got to back up your "story"? Not a single contemporaneous document.

[Nige]

Where's the 10m to Joe Biden in all that?

[jb]

That article makes quite clear that it was the well-established policy of the US government to remove Shokin. There is nothing in it that contradicts that point in any way.

The question that is raised is whether the linkage of the loans to Shokin's ouster was also well-established policy or whether Biden made that call himself. It's far from conclusive that this was Biden's doing, but even if we accept, arguendo, that Biden made the call himself, who cares? The US wanted Shokin out, Biden went to Ukraine at least partly to accomplish this, and you're mad that he chose to do it forcefully rather than asking nicely? That's your evidence of a corrupt act? The fact that you're trying to make a big deal of this shows how threadbare this whole line of argument is.

[Sarcastr0]

Had a busy day so didn’t see this thread develop.

But wow it’s Kaz against half a dozen people telling him he is wrong and his only weak support is Ed and Joe Dallas.

Harrowing to read all at once.

[Kazinski]

Like I need anyone to help me with these buffoons.

Harrowing? Heh, that's pretty funny.

[Sarcastr0]

Man, there's a tone of buffoons out there, eh? Seems like everyone but you...

[Magister]

Margrave has the same problem.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I noticed that too.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker"

[AmosArch]

Pixar’s Soul: Man finds ironclad proof of the afterlife and doesn’t give a shit only wanting to make it to his job on time.

Oh and Pixar can we try something else for a plot besides the protagonist(s) get lost someplace and have to find their way back? I don’t understand why nobody else in the world seems to have noticed while gushing over your movies but I have and its pretty worn out after the first 10 times you've done it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Worked for Homer.

[Drewski]

Pixar has been trying to make movies without a traditional villain or evil antagonist. Which is fine, of course, but it's not something you can do every time without it becoming stale. It doesn't help that Disney and DreamWorks have been doing a lot of the same thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Homer introduced real villains and antagonists....

[Reallynotbob]

He was the first. Ever.

[hobie]

Amos 'whatabout' Arch. Now you're bashing WALL-E at 6:00am?

[Sarcastr0]

Dear Volokh Conspiracy, there are too many states these days. Please eliminate three. I am NOT a crackpot.

-Amos

[Frank Drackman]

Same with people. Set an example.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not liking movie plots is not the same thing as your very strained comparison.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, NY’s new law mandating federal background checks to purchase ammo, not just guns, and mandating that all federal background checks in NY be routed through the state in order that the state can retain a record of them, kicks in today.

<a href="https://nypost.com/2023/09/16/ny-ammo-sales-soar-shops-close-on-eve-of-change-in-state-gun-law/&quot; bunch of gun shops sold out their ammo over the weekend, and shut their doors, rather than being mandated to facilitate NY’s new gun registration scheme.

I suppose the state government considers gun stores closing to be a positive result, though they really wanted that help in identifying the state’s gun owners, for future harassment purposes.

Massive resistance continues, at least in a handful of states.

Oh, and Reason is mangling links now, in their effort to block spam. Well, at least the mangled link works...

[Martinned]

You may have a right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say anything about bullets.

[apedad]

While I'm all for additional gun control measures, e.g., mandatory training, insurance, etc., the ammo argument won't fly.

It's the 'knife without a blade' or ' arrow with a head' argument in that a weapon without full functionality is not a weapon.

[Martinned]

A gun without bullets is a fully functional gun. (And you can use it too.) So the analogy with a knife without a blade doesn't work.

For the record, I don't think the argument flies either. The interesting question is "why not?". And that depends on your theory of constitutional interpretation. People like me who don't think the literal text of the constitution is the be-all end-all don't find this a very difficult question. But a more literalist person might.

[apedad]

A weapon may be functional, i.e., in good working order, but if its usage is somehow restricted, e.g., mandatory trigger lock, placed in a safe, etc., then (under Heller), that is unconstitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you have the right to a printing press, but the 1st amendment doesn't say anything about paper or ink!

No way that argument is going anywhere with a Court that isn't deliberately trying to spike the amendment.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/control-the-printing-presses-and-other-quotdictatorial-ambitionsquot-of-cristina-k

I suppose Martinned would deny that the government was infringing freedom of the press -- after all, they didn't prohibit them from publishing, they just cut off their newsprint supply!

[David Welker]

You are right. No one really believes that the Constitution should be interpreted in a completely literalist manner.

But there are different levels of "liberality" that one may believe is proper when making inferences based on text. I think most would agree that the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to claim you can build a paintball arena business in an area where it isn't zoned to be and operated in a manner such that it was a legal nuisance (I don't know, maybe it releases tear gas into the community) all on the theory that the paintball arena provides training that would facilitate 2nd Amendment rights.

On the other hand, access to bullets are clearly necessary for the 2nd Amendment to be meaningful.

Constitutional interpretation does require some level of sincerity by judges and others interpreting it.

[hoppy025]

Mandatory training can be justified to maintain the militia (much like conscription), but it'll be used to harass, not to train. In any case, if you are to have mandatory training, you can't charge a penny for it.

Mandatory insurance is bad faith, and you know it, especially if you've ever practiced insurance law.

[Kazinski]

You don't know much about American law do you?

California lost the case on a similar law in Rhode v Bonta, California appealed and it was sent down to the district court again after Bruen to give California a chance to argue its position using the text, history, and tradition framework.

But be assured US courts have almost uniformly ruled that ammunition are arms, and protected by the 2nd amendment.

There isn't some massive loophole you geniuses have found.

[Martinned]

As per the above, what interests me is how you explain *why* they lost under any of a number of different theories of constitutional interpretation.

Otherwise, I am Jack's utter lack of surprise that the gun nuts won a court case.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually pretty simple: If a law burdens the exercise of a constitutional right, you have a default assumption that it is unconstitutional, which must be overcome. You have to establish your law falls into an exception.

Now, if it's a general law, without arbitrary exceptions, that just incidentally burdens that exercise, you're probably good. But if the law is not a general law, or has arbitrary exceptions, you have to overcome a presumption of unconstitutionality. How you overcome that presumption varies at the moment from right to right.

Obviously a law directed specifically at ammunition or firearms isn't a general law that just incidentally burdens gun ownership. So that presumption of unconstitutionality kicks in.

So, Bruen. To overcome that default assumption, you must demonstrate that the law in question is consistent with historical tradition at the time the 2nd amendment was ratified. A record of similar laws at the time, in place in a widespread manner, not just one off in a particular jurisdiction, establishes that sort of law wasn't regarded as impinging on the right.

You will NOT be able to identify any founding era background check laws, or restrictions on ownership of ammunition. You just won't. The closest you'll come to anything like that were safety regulations imposed on powder magazines, which suggests that, yeah, if you store enough ammo in one place to be a threat to your neighbors in the event of a fire, you might be subject to regulation.

But a law saying that you have to get the government's permission to buy a few cartridges? Ain't gonna happen. Nothing remotely like that existed in the relevant period.

[hoppy025]

Yes, agree. While a state can exempt guns and ammo from general sales tax the way it often exempts groceries and medical supplies, it isn't constitutionally required to.

However, a state cannot levy a higher sales tax on guns and ammo than it does on everything else.

[John F. Carr]

And with good reason. As we all know, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

[Frank Drackman]

No more Bull-wets??? How will I hunt Elmers????

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

*ahem*

[Frank Drackman]

OK, pulling this from the depths of my Medulla Oblongata ( I know the Medulla Oblongata isn't involved with memory, I just like the way it looks)
But didn't "CHUD" stand for
Cannabillistic
Humanoid
Underground
Dweller?
Think I saw the original in the theater during it's initial run

Frank

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Don’t forget CHUD 2: Bud the CHUD. Featuring Robert Vaughn.

[Brightly]

A cartridge is armament, genius.

[hoppy025]

You're a fucking idiot.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You may have a right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn’t say anything about bullets.

I was wondering who would be mind-numbingly stupid enough to trot that braindead argument out first.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is, arguably, almost a step above the "right to arm bears" line of reasoning.

[Martinned]

In a country where a supreme court justice can explain quite reasonably that there is no constitutional right to not be executed for a crime you didn't commit, it's worth examining the constitutional underpinnings of a lot of things that you'd think are obvious.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn’t say what the law you claim to be massive resistance does…so I looked it up. All I could find was this:

“Beginning on September 13, 2023, background checks will also be required for purchasers of ammunition and antique firearms.”

I’m not sure you get to assume this is unconstitutional on its face.

[Michael P]

I’m not sure you get to assume this is unconstitutional on its face.

I am, because I actually understand the law.
See also https://freebeacon.com/courts/federal-judge-rules-california-ammo-law-unconstitutional/ . (The current status is that the Ninth Circuit kicked it back down to Judge Bonitez for further proceedings in light of Bruen -- as if anything there would help the state.)

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty dumb comment.

1) I'm not talking about the ammo bit - I agree ammo falls under 2A just the same as guns.
2) Even if I were, 'sent down by the 9A' is not evidence of on-its-fact unconstitutional rather the opposite, really.

But the actual restriction Brett didn't bother to get into seems much more anodyne than he says.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure it looks anodyne to somebody who doesn't value the right to keep and bear arms, and wouldn't weep if it were infringed. Being anodyne is built into gun control laws if you approach them from that perspective.

The issue from a gun owner's perspective is that the only purpose of this measure is to make sure the names and personal information of everybody who buys ammunition in NY can be captured by the state.

A state which has an established track record of hostility to gun ownership.

As I pointed out in my comment, the federal background check law prohibits the retention of approved background checks, specifically to prevent it from becoming a back door gun owner registration list. NY is requiring the background checks to go through them specifically to circumvent that protection.

They just want to know who owns guns in the state, so they have everything they need to harass them, and given a change at the Court, come to confiscate those guns.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t get your own Constitution. You claim massive resistance you need a Brown v. Board directly on point.

You don’t have this.

Pound the table all you want. Maybe you will end up being right and the Court will rule so. But for now your confidence about the law is bad doesn’t matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do have this, it's Bruen. You seem to be in a bit of denial about the extent of that ruling.

[Sarcastr0]

Bruen, because it is so vague when it comes to concrete implementation, is all things to all people. You can read into it all you want, but you cannot foreclose a ton of other plausible readings.

I'm all for clarity in this area, and don't really mind if it comes out with some restrictions on registration and background checks. But it's not there under Bruen.

[Brett Bellmore]

A ruling telling you something you don't want to hear isn't what "vague" means. Bruen isn't particularly vague.

Now, I think it's quite possible that the Court will shrink from following it's own reasoning in some of the cases headed it's way. In fact, I think that rather likely; Some of the majority in Bruen are kind of squishy, especially Roberts.

That doesn't make their reasoning vague.

[Commenter_XY]

What is so vague on the implementation front, post-Bruen?

[Stephen Lathrop]

What is so vague? All the arbitrary conclusions reached about the nation's history and tradition with regard to guns. Not only are those massively contrary to historical fact, they are also bolstered in the decision by what amounts to a demand that all challenges be predicated on similarly arbitrary reasoning, and exclude anything better founded. That isn't even reasoning. It's just an attempt to window dress an ipse dixit decision backed by cherry picked evidence, supported by a rule against noticing the cherry picking.

[Sarcastr0]

The specific ruling was about 'may issue' concealed carry permitting regimes were unconstitutional. Not really relevant here.

The larger ruling says the test for firearms regulations is "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command"

If you think that provides any kind of slam-dunk guidance as to registration policies, you're wrong.

[hoppy025]

A burdensome, harassing, expensive background check process was not part of the historical tradition. But preventing you and your butt buddies from shooting off into each other's rears was part of the historical tradition of regulation.

[Kazinski]

Well NY can't repeal the commerce clause.

NY gun owners can cross the border and by ammo by the case in NH, PA, CT. And there is nothing they can do about it.

[Reallynotbob]

"Hostility to gun ownership."

I submit this is not true. NY is pretty resistant to open and concealed carry. But possession, i.e. ownership, has been entirely legal both at home at at one's business. There are larger hurdles to obtaining the necessary licenses in NY than in some states, that's true. But that could be said of many states regarding various issues like cars, vendor licenses, hunting permits, professional licenses, etc etc. We don't say a state is "hostile" to nurses or teachers because it imposes higher requirements for their credentialing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"possession, i.e. ownership, has been entirely legal both at home at at one’s business"

Sullivan Act said otherwise. Illegal to possess unless the state gave you special permission.

[Reallynotbob]

Illegal to carry unless licensed. I believe ownership was allowed with registration. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

[Michael P]

1) You quoted the bit about requiring background checks for ammo (and antique firearms) and followed with "I’m not sure you get to assume this is unconstitutional on its face." What else we were supposed to think you were talking about?

2) On a firearm case, "sent back down by the Ninth" is in fact pretty good evidence that the law is unconstitutional.

Brett did accurately outline the problematic aspects of the law: "mandating federal background checks to purchase ammo, not just guns, and mandating that all federal background checks in NY be routed through the state in order that the state can retain a record of them".

This is why we call you Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

Someone who could read would not the lack of my it’s okay if it’s ammo argument.

You don’t understand precedent. Making a political argument is not the same as making a legal argument.

Neither Brett nor you have pointed to a precedent where this restriction is clearly unconstitutional.

[Michael P]

Yes, I noted your characteristic refusal to say anything concrete. It's a shitty habit of yours, playing the "I just said I wasn't sure you get to assume it's unconstitutional, I didn't say it was actually constitutional" semantics shell game.

For the same reason, "it's not binding precedent" is a really dishonest distinction to draw when your original claim was an unfounded assertion against unconstitutionality.

[Sarcastr0]

You want me to say what my political wish for the policy would be so you can argue with me.

I get that would be frustrating for you that I spend more time pointing out bad arguments than waxing forth on my own politics.

I'll start talking about my political thinking when you start making better arguments.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words to say "tu quoque is good when I do it".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

To be fair, if it weren't for his shitty habits he wouldn’t have any habits at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the constitutional issue, NY is a bit better situated than California, as in California they were using their own very buggy database for their own background checks, with a crazy high false rejection rate. NY is just acting as a pass-through to the federal system, which is rather more reliable.

But we're still talking about burdening exercise of a basic constitutional right, strict scrutiny applies.

[Sarcastr0]

Your rating of states fidelity to your idiosyncratic takes on the constitution do not matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's my and the Supreme court's idiosyncratic take, in this case. Do try to remember that.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's note the Supreme Court's take. It's a plausible take, but the precedents as they stand are nowhere near as well directed as Brown.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

How do you tolerate this piece of shit? or several of the others? Their smug overestimation of themselves is only outdone by their obnoxious
bullshit beliefs. Which they vomit up from the pablum fed to them by the masters of their hive.

[Sarcastr0]

What would you have folks do to me? Sounds more serious then muting…

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Was he talking to you, or about you? Actually, who cares?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I will stipulate that this law is quite stupid, and that any public safety benefit is so negligible that it’s hard to see it as anything other than an attempt to inconvenience otherwise law abiding gun owners.

But why is it any more unconstitutional than requiring background checks at all?

[John F. Carr]

If Republicans own Washington in 2025, which is possible if unlikely, Congress could intervene.

Is there a "straw purchaser" law for ammuniation like there is for guns?

[hoppy025]

Yes. 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(1)

[Reallynotbob]

It just occurred to me that the entire gun industry is on Captain America's side of Civil War. Death before registration!

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

It astounds me how many people here are so enthusiastic ar the idea of losing every last bit of their freedom and liberty. I suspect many falsely believe they will have a seat at the table, not begging for scraps.

[Sarcastr0]

You invoke liberty, but you seem consumed by resentment.

[Reallynotbob]

JFC.
"Every last bit of their freedom" -- that's what's at stake for gun background checks and must-issue licenses? Do you hear yourself?

How is gun ownership working out for all the people who want a seat at the table, as you put it? Are they all there? Are the billionaires and Senators on speed dial for Quincy Quickdraw? Or did I miss the revolution where the armed mob shut down the government -- oh wait, they managed about 12 hours of that. Thank god you're defending those last threads of liberty.

[Kazinski]

Jonathan Turley has a blog post 5 facts that Compel a Impeachment Inquiry.

But I want to focus on just one sliver of that just to show the complex transfers that were happening. Turley links to a NYPost article that has a picture of a ledger showing a 3.5m payment from Yelena Baturina:

"The records supplement Archer’s deposition to the committee July 31, in which he revealed the flow of $3.5 million transferred on Feb. 14, 2014, from Russian billionaire and former Moscow first lady Yelena Baturina to the Archer and Hunter Biden-controlled entity Rosemont Seneca Thornton.

Rosemont Seneca Thornton in turn transferred $750,000 of Baturina’s funds to Archer on March 11, 2014, and another $2,752,711 on the same day to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, an account that was opened one day prior to Baturina’s $3.5 million transfer."
https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/hunter-biden-linked-foreign-haul-at-20m-with-russia-ukraine-kazak-transfers-comer/

Now CNN did a fact check on it and Hunter denies it all:

"Hunter Biden denies the allegation. His lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that Hunter Biden was not an owner of the firm Senate Republicans allege received the $3.5 million payment in 2014.

“Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires said."

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e879bcfe-4b2a-4b4a-a823-8c6d512c4e5e

Of course they didn't know at the time the immediate transfer to Rosemont Seneca Bohai of which Hunter is a partner, so Hunter and his lawyer were straight out lying.

That illustrates the deep forensic accounting investigation that the House Impeachment is going to have to undertake.

And I might add that "Russian billionaire and former Moscow first lady Yelena Baturina" has not been sanctioned.

[not guilty]

Hunter Biden is a scoundrel. Go ahead and impeach Hunter!!

[Kazinski]

Hunter has suffered enough, I'll settle for a full accounting of where all the money went and who benefited.

[Nige]

Ah, this sudden and highly selective zeal for a crusade against alleged white collar crime as committed only by the current president's son. Meanwhile, let's vote AGAIN for the guy behind Trump University who employed his family in his administration, during which time they made millions, and who used one of his hotels as a clearing house/laundering operation for people to purchase access and influence!

[grb]

Hell, let’s vote AGAIN for the guy whose son-in-law pocketed a two billion dollar payoff from the Saudi government weeks after the Trump administration ended.

This payoff was from a government fund and the Saudi agency managing it recommended against the investment, saying it was unwise and risky. The agency was over overruled by its government board, headed by Crown Prince Muḥammad bin Salmān. The investment included a 25 million dollar management fee pocketed by Kushner himself.

I wonder if Kazinski can spare himself a minute from twisting in pretzel knots trying to claim Joe Biden corruption to look into it.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

That’s bullshit. There was no ‘$2 billion payoff’. $2 billion was capital investment on a deal Kushner’s firm handled. Which is what they do for a living. Tell me why anyone needed crackhead Hunter Biden, who has no expertise in any field, for anything other than proxy for his father’s bribery schemes?

[David Nieporent]

who has no expertise in any field,

Again, Hunter Biden was an executive of MBNA, a board member of Amtrak, and a corporate lawyer. The fact that he had many personal problems in his life does not mean that he was sitting around all day doing nothing like Donald Trump Jr.

[Bob from Ohio]

"After graduating from law school in 1996, Biden accepted a consultant position at the bank holding company MBNA ... By 1998, Hunter Biden had risen to the rank of executive vice president at MBNA." wikipedia

2 years from consultant to EVP. A financial wonder-kind!

And a patronage government sinecure too!

[Nige]

A Trump supporter just said this.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump and Biden are two sides of the same coin.

[Nige]

Again, a Trump supporter has spoken.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Someone significantly smarter than you said that. A low bar, to be certain.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Uh huh. And why do you think a credit card company would hire a Biden? Basically for a ‘no show’ job? And how does any of that equate to a need to hire and American with zero technical expertise, managerial knowledge, or petroleum industry experience of any kind?

Face it. He’s the bagman, Jim Biden handled the money, and Joe was the ‘Big Guy’, selling his office.

[Nige]

Face it, if you could have proved that you;d have done so by now. Instead we get Biden calling an 'audible.'

[David Nieporent]

Uh huh. And why do you think a credit card company would hire a Biden?

The same reason they'd hire a Morris, an O'Reilly, a Williams, or a Smith? You know, to work for the company?

Again: Hunter Biden was a graduate of Yale Law School. Do you people think that Yale Law grads often have difficulty finding employment after graduation?

And how does any of that equate to a need to hire and American with zero technical expertise, managerial knowledge, or petroleum industry experience of any kind?

What I love is people who haven't so much as run a lemonade stand pontificating as if they understood anything about the business world. Biden was not being hired to dig oil wells. He was on the board of directors. While some members of a company's board of directors need industry knowledge, many do not. They are there for aspects of corporate governance and/or business development, not running day to day operations.

[M L]

"Again, Hunter Biden was an executive of MBNA, a board member of Amtrak, and a corporate lawyer."

Yes. He's also a highly accomplished artist, whose mixed-media paintings fetch high prices. Brilliant guy. Valued for his varied expertise and hardworking nature.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mbna-paid-bidens-son-as-biden-backed-bill/

[Nige]

Hunter Biden got paid money to be on a board and you lot are going wild. Kushner was in the administration and got paid lots of money by people with whom he had foreign policy dealings and you're not even shrugging.

[Kazinski]

2 billion is too big to be a payoff to a president that's leaving office.

Its not like there isn't a long history of foreigners overpaying for NY real estate where billion dollar deals are common.

Here's an article from 2013:
NYC’s new benchmark is the billion-dollar listing

https://therealdeal.com/magazine/new-york-july-2013/billion-dollar-listing/

With Kushner's deal:
Its a business that Kushner has been in a long time.
Its his money and real estate not Trumps, he took over the family business in 2005, he didn't marry Ivanka until 2009.
We know what is being bought and sold.

[Nige]

'Its not like there isn’t a long history of foreigners overpaying for NY real estate where billion dollar deals are common.'

It's called money laundering.

[bernard11]

Except that Kushner has not exactly been a roaring success in the real estate business, which was part of the reason MBS' advisers advised against the investment. They had other reasons as well.

Besides, since when is "That's too much money to be a bribe," a defense to a charge of bribery.

[grb]

bernard11 : “Except that Kushner has not exactly been a roaring success in the real estate business”

Indeed, having looked at Kushner’s Saudi payoff after the Trump Administration ended, let’s look at his behavior before it began:

During the Trump transition, Jared was focused on two things: First, he was virtually running the show after Christie fell out of favor. Heading a presidential transition is a position of immense power because you mold & shape appointments and policies. In that, Kushner was the go-to guy who always had Trump’s ear.

Second, Kushner was traveling around the world begging for money because he was at the point of financial collapse. After his old man had gone into prison, Jared purchased 666 Madison Ave for $50 million in equity and $1.75 billion in debt. By 2016 the debt was coming due, the building was only partially occupied, and business pages around the country said 666 alone could bankrupt Kushner’s business.

So he begged money from the foreign minister of Qatar. He begged money from companies tied directly to the rulers in Beijing. He begged money from a Saudi Arabian billionaire and the South Korean state-owned sovereign wealth fund. For a while it looked like the Anbang Insurance Group of China would Jared’s white knight. The company (with its tight connections to the CCP) offered such sweet terms Democrats were calling for preemptive hearings. In the end, a U.S. firm – Brookfield Properties – saved Kushner’s bacon. But only after months of running Trump’s incoming presidency and begging for foreign money on alternate days.

Shortly after Trump became president there was a major clash between Qatar and the Saudis. Despite the former hosting the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base, the United States Central Command, and United State Air Force Central Command, Trump sided completely with the Saudi. Many Qatar officials were convinced they were paying for letting Kushner walk away empty handed. Certainly the Saudis wouldn’t make the same mistake when their turn to pay off Jared came around.

(we now return you to our regularly scheduled program of Kazinski on how corrupt Biden is because Hunter let his buds listen to the speakerphone)

[David Nieporent]

During the Trump transition, Jared was focused on two things: First, he was virtually running the show after Christie fell out of favor.

That makes it too passive. Christie was never in favor. Christie was named head of the transition team earlier in the campaign, when everyone including Trump was sure Trump was going to lose. It was a way for Trump to throw Christie a face-saving bone that was almost worthless. Immediately after Trump won, running the transition team became one of the most valuable positions under Trump, because it controlled patronage. So Jared, who hated Christie because Christie had sent Charles Kushner, Jared's dad, to prison, forced him out and took it over himself.

Second, Kushner was traveling around the world begging for money because he was at the point of financial collapse. After his old man had gone into prison, Jared purchased 666 Madison Ave for $50 million in equity and $1.75 billion in debt. By 2016 the debt was coming due, the building was only partially occupied, and business pages around the country said 666 alone could bankrupt Kushner’s business.

Jared's dad had built the family's real estate business empire on suburban real estate. With his dad in prison, Jared wanted to establish his own legacy, and he decided that downtown office buildings were a good idea. But he didn't know what he was doing, and almost bankrupted the family.

[Reallynotbob]

I'll trade you for Trump's tax returns. Deal?

[Kazinski]

The House already got Trumps tax returns and leaked them a few years ago.

Try to keep up.

[Reallynotbob]

He's running this year also.
Keep up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, thanks; we already know who the chumps are who've been financing Trump's lifestyle/lawyers' up-front fees: You.

[Sarcastr0]

NY Post: whistleblowers claim Hunter Biden has a tattoo that says I <3 bribes on a sensitive area of his body. Hunter denies this but won’t let us gain access to his hog.”

Kaz: Surely this convinces all rational people that we must impeach Joe Biden.

I’ve not encountered anyone as overdetermined as you. And that includes Brett Bellmore!

[Michael P]

Bank records of financial transactions are not like hearsay about a tattoo, you projecting partisan hack.

[Nige]

And amazingly enough these records don't even really prove that Hunter Biden received that money.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Sure they don’t. We believe you.

[Nige]

You don't have to. Read the story. It's VERY murky.

[Kazinski]

Thank you for that Sarcastro, I mean that sincerely.

But overdetermined overstates it, I'm just going to keep rubbing the truth in, to make sure its not washed out with lies.

[Sarcastr0]

You have no more sense of what the truth is than any of us. And yet, you're cocksure as hell, and going on a little personal crusade to educate the rest of us, even as we point out your rampant speculation and cherry picking *within articles you link*

Overdetermined.

[Nige]

'that has a picture of a ledger'

...deja vu. Was the ledger left at a Ledger Repair shop?

'That illustrates the deep forensic accounting investigation that the House Impeachment is going to have to undertake.'

Uh, sure, if you say so. Nothing to do with Joe Biden, though.

Were all you people ASLEEP before and during the Trump administration?

[Kazinski]

Well then show us the picture of the Trump ledger then.

You can also show us on the doll where Trump touched you.

[Nige]

Oooh, look, the guy who obsessively trots out the weakest, dumbest, self-contradicting items as smoking guns to get Hunter Biden demands proof, and also a cheap molestation joke to deflect from an obsession with Hunter Biden that probably isn't even real or interesting, just necessary to smear Joe Biden. What a joyless slog that must be.

You know exactly how dodgy Trump was and is, you just don't care.

[bernard11]

Wait. You take James Comer's claims seriously? Really?

[David Nieporent]

Just because Comer bald-facedly lied about Devon Archer's testimony, claiming it said exactly the opposite of what it said, just to get a one-week head start on the news cycle before the transcript was released proving him a liar, doesn't mean he's utterly unreliable.

[bernard11]

Well, he might tell the truth sometimes, by accident, or because he likes the facts, but it would be foolish to presume that anything he says is truthful.

[David Nieporent]

Of course they didn’t know at the time the immediate transfer to Rosemont Seneca Bohai of which Hunter is a partner, so Hunter and his lawyer were straight out lying.

What does a transfer to Rosemont Seneca Bohai — of which you say Hunter is a partner — have to do with the claim that "Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton"? You understand that those are two different entities, right? And a statement about one of them is not a statement about the other one, right?

[Ridgeway]

I am assuming the argument is that although Hunter didn't get a $3.5 mm payment, he did get $2.75 mm of it (via Bohai).

Reminds me of Birch Barlow referring to mayor Quimby as an "illiterate, tax-cheating, wife-swapping, pot-smoking spend-o-crat."

Much like Mayor Quimby, Hunter's response would likely be that he is, indeed, no longer illiterate.

[Kazinski]

Look there are three Rosemont Seneca's:

Rosemont Seneca Partners:
"Rosemont Seneca is a Washington, D.C.-based investment and advisory firm, founded by Devon Archer, Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's stepson), and Hunter Biden, who is the son of U.S. President Joe Biden."

Rosemont Seneca Thornton:
"Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a business consortium that the New York Post reports was formed between Hunter’s investment company Rosemont Seneca and Boston-based consulting firm The Thornton Group." So Hunter was not a direct owner, but his Rosemont Seneca Partners were. The Thornton Group was co-founded by James Butler (not to be confused with James "Whitey" Bulger, his uncle).

Rosemont Seneca Bohai:
"BHR was founded in 2013, by two Chinese-registered asset managers, Bohai Industrial Investment Fund and Harvest Fund Management, and two U.S. organisations, Thornton Group LLC and Rosemont Seneca Partners (thus the name BHR for the first initials of three of the four asset management founding firms)."

So Hunter has a document ownership interest in all three Rosemont Senecas.

Also note from above Devon Archer got a direct payment of 750k from the initial 3.5m transfer, I'm assuming that Hunter got the same through less direct means.

[Nige]

'I’m assuming'

Yes, you are.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, okay. It could have been bribes (for what, exactly?)

[Sarcastr0]

If you assume there are bribes then yes the facts show bribes.

Do you heard your posts and how much of an effort of selective reading and wild assumptions they are!

Stuff that’s intuitive to you may not be intuitive to everyone, especially when you are so dead set on an outcome. Makes for some embarrassing arguments.

[SimonP]

The Republicans have demonstrated that Hunter did business with non-US citizens, including some in Russia, Ukraine, and China.

So?

[Kazinski]

So?

Lets keep following the money to find out.

[SimonP]

Is every transaction with a funny-named person automatically suspect?

Republicans clearly know the ostensible purpose of these payments. They’re not saying what they are because they’d prefer to invite morons like you to use your imagination.

Like – do you understand that Trump was likely profiting, directly and indirectly, from business transactions with higher-up “oligarchs” and officials from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China, throughout his time in office? From before his term and through the present, too. While that was generally viewed by the left as unseemly, no one tried to impeach him over it. There were some lawsuits over the Trump Hotel in DC, but that’s about it.

The sole reason that you want to “follow the money” is that the Republicans in the House have lowered the bar so low that they’ll settle for merely establishing that monetary link, via Hunter, to the president. It doesn’t matter if the underlying deal was illegal, or if Joe promised anything for it. All that they feel they need is a wire transfer clearly going to an account in the president’s name.

And they only feel they need that because morons like you will view it as proof positive of corruption. But why? Why is that all that it takes, in your rotten little mind?

[not guilty]

Will Republican gun aficionados embrace Hunter Biden if he challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), or will their heads explode from the cognitive dissonance? Such a challenge has a fair chance of success in light of the Third Circuit's decision in Range v. Att’y General United States of America, 69 F.4th 96, 101–03 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc), where the court held that a man convicted of a false statement was part of “the people” and had Second Amendment rights, even though he was not “law-abiding,” ruling that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to Range.

A panel of the Fifth Circuit has recently reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment of a defendant convicted under § 922(g)(3) who admitted he is an “unlawful user” of marijuana several times a month, but the prosecution presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used. United States v. Patrick Darnell Daniels, Jr., No. 22-60596 (August 9, 2023) https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf

[hobie]

Yep. Yesterday, David French pointed out that, because of Bruen, there is now a sufficient body of rulings in the circuits that non-violent, no-record defendants - felons or not - should get to have their guns, then old Hunter is very likely to be ruled not-guilty. I'm sure all the hillbillies here are rooting for Hunter in this regard

[not guilty]

The gun possession charge in Count Three of the indictment may be subject to dismissal on motion prior to trial. I'm not sure about the false statement charges in Counts One and Two. In the event of conviction of both, Counts One and Two may be subject to merger.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can we make a distinction between “use” and “impairment” and then show Hunter’s conduct as “impairment”?

Or do unimpaired people throw loaded guns into the trash?

[hobie]

Well, if the courts are letting felons keep their guns then non-felons (Hunter) should as well. Lies and impairment are far, far less notable than a felony.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hunter didn't throw the gun into the trash, though. Hallie, his brother's widow he was bonking at the time, did that. She'd apparently been concerned that he'd shoot her with it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- I missed that part.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Bidens' home life is a soap opera, you probably just missed that episode.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

I wonder when there will be more attention on the storyline where Hunter was molesting Beau’s 13 year old daughter Natalie. They should get a daytime Emmy for that one.

[Brett Bellmore]

They used to call that the "dense pack" defense, by analogy to nuclear silo spacing: If you can't have no scandals, have so many that people can't keep them straight, and eventually tune out from scandal fatigue.

[Nige]

Exactly. The people making up these lies need to slow down and pace themselves.

[David Nieporent]

As always, Brett makes stuff up. She said that she was afraid he'd shoot himself with it.

[David Nieporent]

18 USC § 1001 contains a materiality element, and it's hard to see how lying about something that applies only to an unconstitutional restriction could be material. So does 18 USC § 922(a)(6). But unfortunately for Hunter, he was also indicted pursuant to 18 USC § 924(a)(1), which does not expressly contain such a materiality element.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’m sure all the hillbillies here are rooting for Hunter in this regard

Careful, hobie. Prof. Volokh doesn't like it when commenters call his conservative fans hillbillies. He has censored and banned commenters for similar conduct.

Plus, he hasn't used a vile racial slur (at this blog) for a month . . . he might be getting itchy at the trigger finger.

If you want a list of the precise terms that are forbidden (when used to describe conservatives, that is) by the Volokh Conspiracy's Board of Censors, let me know.

[hobie]

It's the kindest pejorative I can think of!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have adapted.

[Brightly]

I would agree with David French. However, the reason Hunter was protected has nothing to do with a Constitutional issue and everything to do with nepotism.

[hobie]

Well, they better come up with proof of that as well. I hope I'm not a person that trades in speculation

[Brightly]

But you do trade in obtuseness.

[SimonP]

"Hunter was protected" - seems to me that a special counsel, originally appointed by Trump, has now charged him with multiple crimes, and may bring more. And that came after his plea deal fell apart, when it became clear that the prosecutors didn't think they were offering him the kind of protection Hunter's defense attorneys thought they had secured. At what point was he "protected," exactly?

It is incredibly frustrating to have people stick to their conspiracies even after the facts make clear that those conspiracies didn't have merit. The "whistleblowers" who asserted that Weiss wasn't acting independently were wrong. Weiss testified in Congress to that effect. Republicans called on Weiss to be given special counsel status; Weiss asked for it; and now he's got it. To simply pretend none of that happened and maintain this line that "Hunter was protected" is ludicrous.

At least revise your conspiracy so that it matches the facts. Like, "Weiss was always on the take," or something.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hunter was "protected" because he was one of the lucky few in a comparable position (first-time offenders who weren't committing other felonies at the same time) to even be prosecuted for this offense: They were obviously protecting his martyr status.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The irony: Clinton impeached for perjury related to his own VAWA and Biden the Dems Brady act.

[grb]

Clinton was not impeached for perjury "related to his own VAWA". Hunter Biden is under no threat of impeachment at all.

Usually you take a lot more words to be this embarrassingly wrong, Ed. I guess if you're gonna make stuff up and take twaddle, concision is a virtue...

[Brett Bellmore]

"Clinton was not impeached for perjury “related to his own VAWA”."

Don't be an idiot, of course he was. The VAWA was the reason the testimony where he perjured himself was legally admissible in the first place. He'd signed it himself, and made a big deal of it.

[grb]

There are two opposing narratives/reasons why Clinton was impeached:

1. The correct reason is Starr spent years “investigation” an empty set of allegations which amounted to exactly zero. He knew that by two years in, and tried to bail from the post for a position at Pepperdine. He was almost crucified by his political tribe for this sacrilege, so dutifully resumed years more of “investigating”. Final, he latched upon Lewinsky as his last chance of escape.

2. The other reason is Clinton lied about an embarrassing consensual affair. Starr knew it was consensual from the beginning – long before he set his perjury trap.

[Krayt]

To sum up both sides: we love digging endlessly into a political opponent until we find something. Also, we love process crimes.

Or not, depending on the decade.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so your argument is entirely, "He was impeached because they were out to get him, so that none of the details of the charges say anything about why he was impeached."

But in a formalist manner, he was, precisely, "impeached for perjury related to his own VAWA". Regardless of what you think the motive for it was, that was the charge, or one of them.

[Sarcastr0]

In a formalist manner, you and Ed are urging us to believe somethign not even you think is true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Memory is that he was also disbarred for it.

And evil Republicans notwithstanding, had there not been a VAWA, Jones couldn't have brought the particular legal action she did.

Maybe something else.....

[Brett Bellmore]

As I recall, he resigned from the bar before the disbarment could be accomplished.

[not guilty]

Memory is that he was also disbarred for it.

And evil Republicans notwithstanding, had there not been a VAWA, Jones couldn’t have brought the particular legal action she did.

Wrong on both counts. Bill Clinton made a deal with the Independent Counsel whereby he would not be charged with any criminal offense after leaving office as president, and he agreed as part of the deal to a five year suspension (not disbarment) of his Arkansas law license -- an asset he no longer needed. He voluntarily resigned from the bar of the U. S. Supreme Court.

Paula Jones sued for damages pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), and Arkansas common law.

[ducksalad]

A more honest narrative:

1. The perjury was committed in a case about decidely non-consensual behavior, alleged against Clinton by Paula Jones.

2. The testimony about Monica Lewinsky was extremely relevant, because Jones’s attorneys were demonstrating that Clinton had a long-standing behavior pattern of expecting sexual services from female subordinates.

3. Clinton was not only avoiding embarrassment by lying under oath. He was also attempting to conceal his behavior pattern, which could be described as engaging in sexual conduct in the workplace with less-than-diligent regard to whether the conduct was desired by the other party. We can’t know which motivation which was uppermost in his mind at the moment he lied, but it is not even slightly plausible that he was not fully aware of both factors.

4. Conclusion: Clinton’s perjury was intended to deny justice to a non-consensual victim of his own sexual predation. That victim was Jones, not Lewinsky.

[hoppy025]

I'm not a fan of Klinton, but I don't agree that a consensual albeit inappropriate workplace relationship is relevant as to whether such person engaged in non-consensual behavior.

[ducksalad]

I see your point, if the question was whether or not the encounter with Paula Jones was consensual.

But suppose the person's defense was a complete denial that they engaged in any sexual behavior in the workplace. Wouldn't bringing up the other cases help show that this was untrue?

[hoppy025]

Yes, if he claimed that he never engaged in ANY sexual behavior in the workplace, then the question about Lewinsky was certainly relevant to impeach his credibility.

[Kazinski]

Well water under the bridge, but sure lets do a quick recap:

David Hale (an SBA adminstrator) and Jim McDougal both testified that both Clinton's were part of a scheme that falsified financial data to get a 300k SBA loan.

"David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter.[5] Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to Whitewater."

Because Susan McDougal decided to spend 18 months in jail rather than testify the Clintons were never charged, because Jim McDougals testimony on its own wasn't deemed sufficient.

Paula Jones came into it because David Brock, later of Media Matters, published an article about state troopers procuring women including low level state workers for Clinton when he was governor. Jones was outraged when she was described as Clinton's girlfriend. She said what really happened was while working at a state event, a state trooper said the governor wanted to talk to her escorted her to Clinton's room at the hotel where the event was being hosted and Clinton exposed himself and propositioned her. Jones eventually got an 800,000 settlement.

[not guilty]

Paula Jones's monetary settlement came only after the U. S. District Court ruled on the merits in Bill Clinton's favor on all claims and dismissed the case. Jones v. Clinton, 990 F. Supp. 657 (E.D. Ark. 1998). Ms. Jones sold her right to appeal that decision for cash on the barrel head.

[David Nieporent]

The VAWA was the reason the testimony where he perjured himself was legally admissible in the first place.

That's incorrect, as always reflecting Dunning-Krugerish limited knowledge.

The limited knowledge: VAWA did amend the FRE to make it easier to get prior bad acts admitted in a sexual assault context. And Clinton did sign that law.

The rest: whether the testimony about Lewinsky was "admissible" under FRE 415 has nothing to do with anything. Admissibility and relevance are different things, and lying under oath is not okay merely because the statements are inadmissible. Moreover, Clinton was impeached for lying to the grand jury investigating his civil perjury, and that had even less to do with the admissibility of the Lewinsky evidence under 415.

Moreover, Clinton was not even impeached for lying under oath about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case; he was impeached for obstruction of justice by trying to get other witnesses to lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in the Paula Jones suit, a suit she brought under the auspices of the VAWA which he had signed. That's a fact, you can look it up.

Hunter Biden is being charged under the Brady Act which the Dems advocated. Again, a fact that you can look up.

[Brett Bellmore]

The connection in Hunter's case is not quite so direct: Clinton himself had personally and quite publicly signed the law that ended up applying to himself. He was one of a few hundred people world-wide who had precisely zero right to gripe about it biting them.

Hunter is being subject to a law his dad promoted. He bears no personal responsibility for the law, himself.

[Krayt]

In both cases it makes for beautiful rhetoric, do as I do, not as I (or my dad) says. But legally who pushed or signed the law is irrelevant due to the principle all are equal before the law.

[Nige]

In both cases the rhetoric is so tortured and forced and the stakes so low that nobody cares.

[not guilty]

"Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in the Paula Jones suit, a suit she brought under the auspices of the VAWA which he had signed. That’s a fact, you can look it up."

That is untrue. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury, not in the Paula Jones deposition. https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hres611/BILLS-105hres611enr.pdf The House Judiciary recommended impeachment for the deposition testimony, but the full House rejected that.

[not guilty]

Also, Paula Jones did not file suit under the Violence Against Women Act. Her federal claims were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Her state law claims were asserted pursuant to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1232. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/complaint.htm

[Dr. Ed 2]

Color of law?!?!?
IANAA -- and assuming for the sake of argument that Clinton did do what she alleged -- he wasn't using any "color of law" to do it -- he just used the fact he was bigger & stronger than her.

He wasn't using the color of any law to rape her. Now if he'd had the police arrest her and then did it in her jail cell, that'd be a different matter...

[David Nieporent]

IANAA

Sigh. Why is Dr. Ed so lacking in self-control that he cannot stop himself from talking after realizing this?

[not guilty]

Paula Jones’s theory was that Bill Clinton used the office of governor to retaliate against her after making an unsuccessful, crude pass at her. She never claimed that he raped her.

I posted a link to the full text of her complaint. Did you bother to read it, Dr. Ed 2?

[not guilty]

What does IANAA stand for? If it's I am not an asshole, Ed is lying once more.

[David Nieporent]

It's IANAL, but he's trying to be fancy.

[Kazinski]

Paula Jones never alleged rape.

It was Juanita Broderick that alleged Clinton raped her when Bill was AR Attorney General.

[not guilty]

The same Juanita Broddrick who, under the pseudonym Jane Doe No. 5, denied on January 2, 1998 in a sworn affidavit that Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward her. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/affidavit122398.htm

[Kazinski]

Of course a woman would never feel intimated by the President of the United States, and all his political sycophants attacking her, like they attacked Paula Jones with the trolling a hundred dollar bill thru a trailer park meme.

Women never try to cover up crimes committed against them because of shame and the consequences of accusations against powerful men.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, if you had an important decision to make concerning a member of your family, and the only information you had came from Juanita Broaddrick, would you seek out additional information before deciding?

To her, truth is a very malleable thing.

[David Nieporent]

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in the Paula Jones suit,

False.

a suit she brought under the auspices of the VAWA which he had signed.

Also false.

That’s a fact, you can look it up.

You cannot, because it's not a fact.

[Kazinski]

Stupid technicalities.

She got an 800k settlement against Bill.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[not guilty]

Paula Jones lost her lawsuit on the merits in U. S. District Court in Arkansas. Jones v. Clinton, 990 F. Supp. 657 (E.D. Ark. 1998). She sold her right to appeal from the District Court's dismissal of her suit for cash on the barrel head (most of which was paid by Bill Clinton's insurer).

Ho! Ho! Ho!

[Frank Drackman]

Haha, You said "Head was paid by Bill Clinton's Insurer"
Man, I wish I could get some insurance like that!

Frank

[Kazinski]

I already said I thought the gun charge was unconstitutional last week.

In fact I'm looking forward to seeing the 3rd circuit in a flop sweat choosing between making a pro gun rulling or sentencing Hunter to jail.

As a bonus if they rule the law is constitutional it creates a circuit split (actually the 5th already created the split), and it could get to the supreme court so they can throw out the law.

Although lying on the form may not be as easy to beat, but perhaps they'll rule with the law struck its not material.

[not guilty]

"In fact I’m looking forward to seeing the 3rd circuit in a flop sweat choosing between making a pro gun rulling or sentencing Hunter to jail."

Are you overlooking Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96, (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc)? That is definitely a pro gun ruling.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Crackheads don't or shouldn't have a right to own a gun. No libertarian or conservative should have to disagree with that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gun nuts want people to be entitled to carry firearms onto playgrounds and Little League Fields, at political debates and public meetings, in airports and government buildings, and while drinking in bars . . . drunk or sober.

That's why they are known as gun nuts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland -- drunken POLICE OFFICERS with guns is a real problem.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Arty isn’t someone capable of significant cognition, or any real honesty.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Eventually, gun nuts will be lucky if my position -- that the Constitution vindicates the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home -- withstands the mainstream backlash against gun nuttery.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This comes back to use versus impairment.

Don't forget that the FDA once tried to ban caffeine.

[Magister]

The FDA did ban bulk quantities of dietary supplements with high concentrations of caffeine in certain circumstances, but it was more a question of use versus danger.

The agency issued a new guidance to clarify that dietary supplements containing pure or highly concentrated caffeine in powder or liquid forms are considered unlawful when sold in bulk quantities directly to consumers.

A half cup of a highly concentrated liquid caffeine can contain approximately 2,000 mg of caffeine and just a single teaspoon of a powdered pure caffeine product can contain approximately 3,200 mg of caffeine. This is equivalent to about 20 to 28 cups of coffee, a potentially toxic dose of caffeine. In fact, less than two tablespoons of some formulations of powdered, pure caffeine can be deadly to most adults, while even smaller amounts can be life threatening to children. Risk of overuse and misuse is high when highly concentrated caffeine is sold in bulk quantities, and consumers are expected to measure a very small, precise recommended serving. Regardless of whether the product contains a warning label, such products present a significant and unreasonable risk of illness or injury to the consumer.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-step-protect-consumers-against-dietary-supplements-containing-dangerously-high-levels

[Kazinski]

Why?

As both an alcohol user (very, very recently), and a former cocaine and marijuana user, I honestly have to say I think alcohol affects the judgement more and encourages more reckless behavior.

But honestly in this day and age there should be a study that you can link to that would support your conclusion.

I have to admit that I have a friend that described cocaine as making him feel like Superman. I can't disagree, but of course "With great power comes great responsibility".

[Harvey Mosley]

"Will Republican gun aficionados embrace Hunter Biden if he challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) ... "

I won't embrace Hunter but I will embrace his challenge and hope for it to succeed. I also embrace his indictment on that charge. If the law is used against anybody it should definitely be used against the powerful and connected. Especially if they are connected to the most powerful person in the world and that person has spent a large portion of his life attacking gun owners.

Hopefully, this law and several others will be struck down and hoplophobic politicians will just stop attacking gun owners.

Hey, I can dream, right?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, at least Hunter will have something he can look back at one day and actually be proud of: the Supreme Court's landmark "Biden decision", in which the Court restored full constitutional rights to otherwise innocent drug users and drug abusers across the land...

[Sarcastr0]

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochran
Topic: Due process/jurisdiction
Background: The SEC fined Michelle Cochran 20K for failure to follow accounting standards. In 2018, the Court held that the Administrative Law Judge regime the SEC used to make such findings was unconstitutional.
Traditionally, when an agency institutes an administrative proceeding, the defendant waits until the end of the proceeding and then challenges the result in a federal appeals court.
The SEC tried for a rehearing with an ALJ under a new protocol, but Cochran went to the federal district court in Texas to argue this new rehearing violated separation of powers. The district court said that they didn't have jurisdiction - federal law provides for the review of final orders by the SEC in the court of appeals. This would only be years later after all SEC proceedings were complete. 5C thought that was an overbroad reading of the law.
Losing side: APA text seems to contemplate this reading, plus widespread longstanding practice.
Winning side: Due process/fairness and general principles of district jurisdiction.
Upshot: Affirmed and remanded, 9-0
Court's reasoning: The Court relies on a 1994 precedent that sets forth a three-factor test for deciding when a review scheme for agency action displaces the general jurisdiction and found all 3 factors indicated jurisdiction was legit.

So how did this get to the Court but end up not being a close question: Although the decision means a considerable shift litigation against agency enforcement, it builds upon similar decisions the court has issued starting in 1994. No one was much surprised how this came down once the Court granted cert. In fact, I'm not confident you needed this additional precedent since the 5C seemed to pick up what the Court had been laying down. Still, this allows for an easy one-step answer rather than a 3-step test.

[Commenter_XY]

What was the '94 case and the 3 factors in the precedent?

[Sarcastr0]

Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich

The 3 factors are:
whether it would “foreclose … meaningful judicial review” to forgo district court adjudication
whether the claim is “wholly collateral” to the routine review procedure
whether the claim is “outside the agency’s expertise.”

YMMV as to factor tests (I like them) but these seem quite good for when you gotta have your case in court versus within the agency appeals process.

[Commenter_XY]

I am attracted to factors as well; but, SCOTUS has a decidedly mixed record on 'factor solutions' (my term). Professor Blackman has written several times about Lemon.

[Nelson]

To be fair, Professor Blackman is a deeply biased partisan whose regard for his own brilliance exceeds everyone else's. It might be wise to use someone else's writings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Enough is enough: it should be considered treason to argue that Trump doesn't have the right to run for President.

If we are going to twist the meaning of the 14th Amendment, let's twist the meaning of the rest of the document.

[Michael P]

Which part of the Constitution's definition of treason do you think is violated by that argument, and why do you think your theory is consistent with the First Amendment?

[John F. Carr]

If January 6 was "insurrection" why shouldn't subverting democracy be "treason"?

[Michael P]

The Constitution very specifically defines treason (because the UK had an overly broad definition at the time), and two bad arguments don’t make a good argument.

If you want to argue that we should cancel the people who say Donald Trump should be disqualified because of the 14A, that would be more comparable to the pro-cancellation arguments that the left often makes, but you should still consider whether widespread cancellation is really a good direction to push our political culture.

[Nige]

'to the pro-cancellation arguments that the left often makes,'

The famously anti-cancellation right, who cancelled french fries.

[shawn_dude]

And Drag Queens. The Right is very serious about cancelling them as well. Priorities!

[Kazinski]

Yeah, sleeping with the Queen was considered treason.

That's pretty broad.

However interesting thought, if Ed was right and it was treason then anyone claiming Trump was subject to Section 3, would be themselves subject to Section 3.

Which has comedic possibilities:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks

[Krayt]

Reminds me of The King's Speech, where some royal house functionaries are aghast that the king "has not had exclusive access to Mrs. Simpson."

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The Constitution very specifically defines treason"

I know -- that's my point, along with the fact that the people who actually wrote the 14th Amendment had a pretty good idea what an "insurrection" was, having just lived through one.

They wouldn't have considered Jan 6th an "insurrection" -- they used to attack each other with their walking canes -- Sen. Charles Sumner (R-MA) was damn near killed in such an incident. And anyone remember the inauguration of Andrew Jackson???

They knew what they meant by "insurrection" and it involved cannons and large number of bodies being blown to bits...

But if we're gonna go with "words mean what I say they mean", then, well...

[Magister]

They could have specifically defined "insurrection or rebellion" if they thought it might be applied too broadly. That they didn't suggests it is not analogous to the definition of treason.

[Sarcastr0]

Enough is enough: Ed's dumbass comments should be considered mental assault.

If he's going to expose us to his sclerotic and spitefull worldview, lets expose him to his own idiotic logic.

[loki13]

I would put him on ignore, except he's usually (unintentionally) hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh yeah, he's great entertainment these days.

[Don Nico]

I don't have the same self-restraint as you do. He is on my "mute" list

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

You and your fellow travelers here are basically retarded primates flinging poo at each other, while poking and eeking.

But please, do go on. Your dull witted, self important delusions of superiority are andlessly amusing.

[Nige]

Oooh Dr Ed has a fan.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you keep saying other people are acting smug and superior.

You seem pretty confident if your own deal, yourself. Lording your right wing confidence over us all s,uh and spittle-flecked.

[not guilty]

In Donald Trump's D.C. prosecution the Special Counsel has moved for an order limiting Trump's extrajudicial statements. Specifically, the requested order would prohibit: (a) statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.57.0_7.pdf

That seems reasonable to me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly what part of “shall make no law” are you missing?

And tactically, you are better off with what Trump may say as opposed to 500-600 Million supporters freelancing. THAT could get nasty, witnesses burned in effigy, *judges* burned in effigy, etc…

[Moderation4ever]

No one is making a law. This would be a court ruling and courts are able to restrict, not eliminate, any number of Constitutional rights. Preventing sides in a criminal or civil case from speaking about the case is not uncommon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Courts are entitled to restrict constitutional rights as a consequence of conviction of a crime. Their right to do it for just their own convenience is their own invention.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you are wrong on this point. Court can and do impose gag orders pretrial. Courts can also restrict free association prior to a trial. In some cases courts can detain persons before a trail.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say they can't do it. Obviously they do it, and get away with doing it. I'm saying that the Constitution doesn't have an "Except for the courts, obviously!" addendum to the Bill of Rights.

Judges get away with it because they're in a position to decide who gets away with it, nothing more than that.

[Sarcastr0]

So Congress shall make no law means the courts as well…

[Sarcastr0]

Bizarre post. Burning people in effigy is dramatic but hardly your usual breathless assurances that Trump supporters are all violent and unamerican each a psycho just a hair away from mass violence.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the reality is that only a small number of Trump supporters are willing to resort to violence. Even on January 6th most supporters never got farther than the mall. The number who went to the capital was small.

[Sarcastr0]

Absolutely! Trump supporters are wrong on a lot, but not some revolutionary mob slavering for the blood of liberal judges as Ed would have us believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, duh: Remember, the most shocking thing about January 6th was discovering that Republicans, too, were capable of rioting. Everybody already knew that Democrats riot at the drop of a hat.

[Moderation4ever]

Really, you consider a video showing a man being slowly asphyxiated by a police officer to be just the drop of a hat?

[Dr. Ed 2]

A police officer following procedure and doing what he was trained to do. Seriously, there is a MPD training powerpoint *instructing* officers to do what Chovin did.

So why did none of the brass go to jail? If this really was about social justice and all that fun stuff, THAT'S the question they'd be asking.

I think the entire chain of command belong in prison, except they're all Black and that defeats the "racism" narrative. But he wouldn't have done it if they hadn't told him to do so, hadn't trained him to do so....

[David Nieporent]

A police officer following procedure and doing what he was trained to do. Seriously, there is a MPD training powerpoint *instructing* officers to do what Chovin did.

There is not. It depicted an officer putting a knee on someone's back, not his neck. Also: "just following orders" isn't a good defense anyway.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Floyd probably didn't die from Chauvin's pressure on his neck and shoulder; he was evidently able to speak and move his head during most of the video.

He probably died from the other two kneeling on his back, compressing his lungs and preventing him from breathing properly. Chauvin was in charge, so Floyd's death was his fault, but its true that the MPD training manual explicitly authorized the kind of restraint used on Floyd.

[Zarniwoop]

Seriously, there is a MPD training powerpoint *instructing* officers to do what Chovin did.

First, let me get something out of the way: you’re an imbecilic liar.

Second, citation to the powerpoint slide required.

Thids, and if and only if you provide an image of the alleged powerpoint slide, please annotate where it says “kneel on suspect’s neck long after compliance is attained, and they are dead from asphyxiation”.

[Zarniwoop]

A police officer following procedure and doing what he was trained to do. Seriously, there is a MPD training powerpoint *instructing* officers to do what Chovin did.

Let’s put it another way. I’m sure there are training videos out there that show how a police office can appropriately hit a suspect in order to take them down relieve them of a weapon, etc.

Just because an officer is allowed under some circumstances to strike a suspect does not provide a blanket license for officers to beat people to death.

Only an idiot would think those are the same thing. Do you think they’re the same thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, unless it's happening in front of you.

Do YOU normally react to the news that something bad happened hundreds of miles away by burning down your neighbor's 7-11 after emptying the liquor shelf? Seriously, do you? Does the thought of doing it even cross your mind? Do you think doing that is defensible?

Yeah, Democrats riot at the drop of a hat, they riot so casually and often that we've gotten numb to the enormity of it. And they do so for stupid reasons. If the local precinct did something like that, you might find SOME sense in people rioting at THAT precinct, maybe even trying to set it afire.

But attacking an unrelated police department hundreds of miles away? Looting the local stores? Forget sensible proportionality, that's not even a SANE response. That's just, "Yay, another excuse to go on a rampage!"

Democrats have been rioting my whole life. The Detroit riots happened close enough to my childhood home that you could hear the shouting from our front porch! And what did they get from it, besides a ruined city?

But, Republicans rioting? That took everybody by surprise. Nobody expected Republicans to riot. We were supposed to be the adults in the room full of rage filled 3 year olds, or something stupid like that.

I guess that's over now. Rioting isn't a Democratic monopoly anymore. Doesn't make it any more sensible.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

It’s the democrat way. Unlike republicans, where rioting is an incredibly rare anomaly.

[Nige]

‘And they do so for stupid reasons.’

The libertarian thinks protesting against state violence is stupid. Figures.

‘We were supposed to be the adults’

Oh no. No no no. You lot lost any claims on adulthood the moment you started prancing around as the Tea Party.

Republicans aren’t seen as rioters because Republicans are seen as the establishment. The establishment doesn’t riot against itself. Somehow you persuaded yourselves that you the establishment had turned on you the Republicans – probably because a black man got elected president, but probably other reasons too, though the Great Replacement seems to be at the back of most of them. So you elected Trump to show everyone just how much damage you’re willing to inflict if you don’t get your way.

Jan 6th was a spasm of panic because your anti-establishmentism is a project of reinforcing the establishment as Republican, and you can’t do that if you keep losing elections, hence taking over the Supreme Court and extreme gerrymandering, all anti-democratic effiorts intended to shore up minority rule.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The libertarian thinks protesting against state violence is stupid."

We're not discussing protesting, we're discussing rioting. If you're setting shit on fire, smashing windows, looting stores, it's not a "protest" anymore, it's just a riot, no matter what excuse you're using to do it.

"Republicans aren’t seen as rioters because Republicans are seen as the establishment."

No, Republicans aren't seen as rioters because Republicans aren't rioting. There's an underlying reality here, that's driving the perceptions: Democrats riot a LOT more often than Republicans. Enormously more often. They rioted at Trump's inauguration back in 2017. They rioted repeatedly, on a massive scale, all though his time in office. Dozens dead, billions in property damage, city centers hollowed out from destruction of businesses. Repeatedly breaking into legislative chambers. Clawing at the doors of the Supreme court while Kavanaugh was being sworn in. "Autonomous zones" run by Mad Max larpers. It just went on and on.

That wasn't a bipartisan outrage. It was Democrats, start to finish.

Then, along comes Jan. 6th, and, OMG, Republicans rioted. It was the end of the world, a threat to democracy.

Because it wasn't just Democrats anymore.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, "Republicans are seen as the establishment."

What kind of bullshit is that? Democrats control virtually every major city in the country, control the White House and Congress half the time, many state governments, and the permanent bureaucracy is staffed almost exclusively with Democrats.

Democrats ARE the establishment they pretend to rebel against. They have been for decades.

[Sarcastr0]

Protests and riots are different.

I was talking about Ed talking about full-on killings by Trump supporters.
And you come in like a *reflex* invoking BLM.

You're wrong about protests not being riots, you're wrong about what BLM is, you're wrong about what BLM did, you're wrong about the relationship between BLM and the Dems.

And all in service of deflecting from the fact that Ed is a violent freak.
I know that's not the hill you want to die on, but every time you hear about the anyone on the right talking violence you can't stop yourself from pointing at them violent blacks and their Dem backers.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Windows were smashed on Jan 6th.

By your definition, that means a riot, yet you claim Republicans *don't* riot.

Hrm.

[Nige]

‘We’re not discussing protesting’

We are, you conflate them all the time, have done since it started. Plus it is a fact that you find protests against state violence stupid, riot or no.

‘No, Republicans aren’t seen as rioters because Republicans aren’t rioting.’

Yes, I just explained why, though I notice that assorted disturbances, street-fights and attacks by right-wing militia types, many of whom turned up on Jan 6th, are carefully forgotten. Right wing violence is usually expressed via terrorism.

‘Then, along comes Jan. 6th, and, OMG, Republicans rioted. It was the end of the world, a threat to democracy.’

Yes, it was a literal threat to democracy. It was an attempt to overturn an election.

[David Nieporent]

What kind of bullshit is that? Democrats control virtually every major city in the country, control the White House and Congress half the time, many state governments, and the permanent bureaucracy is staffed almost exclusively with Democrats.

You've got to remember that Brett thinks that every GOP presidential nominee between Reagan and Trump was a crypto-Democrat.

[Brett Bellmore]

"By your definition, that means a riot, yet you claim Republicans *don’t* riot."

Try to keep up: I said it was a riot! And that's what shocked people, because Republicans don't riot. Only now they do, on rare occasions.

Better hope we never reach riot parity.

[Nige]

Unlikely. You don't have any real grievances to drive popular unrest.

[bernard11]

What makes you think all those who engaged in vandalism and arson during the BLM demonstrations were Democrats?

Your average non-partisan looter might well see the - yes - mostly peaceful demonstration as an opportunity to get in some practice.

And why do you consistently ignore right-wing violence, which includes many murders?

[Kazinski]

“Do YOU normally react to the news that something bad happened hundreds of miles away by burning down your neighbor’s 7-11 after emptying the liquor shelf?”

You are hitting a sensitive spot here Brett.

Why can’t you just say its wrong, which we can all acknowledge, without trying to make us personally certify that we’ve never looted a liquor store, allegedly?

Of course I personally wouldn't find much to drink at a 7-11, Jim beam possibly, old crow, well a wheat forward whiskey has its merits, but of course any Canadian whisky would have to be all or predominantly rye.

But any blended whiskey is going to feed the fire, sorry that's how I roll.

[Kazinski]

Eh, why not?

As someone who has actually been choked to unconsciousness by the police, I can tell you that, according to the police, its no big deal.

Of course the procedure on me was a chokehold not a knee.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how they don't show the part where the police officer injected Floyd George with Fentanyl.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Burning people in effigy may be a public safety issue if the wind is blowing, but it's not violence. Nor is hanging them in effigy from a rickety gallows. It's called "symbolic speech" and it's actually protected, you can look it up...

[Sarcastr0]

Somehow that pales before the bloody Civil War 2 you keep talking about.

You gotta keep your scope the same, or you'll have some missed expectations!

[Magister]

Where are the 500-600 million supporters coming from? Trump has never reached 50% of voters in the United States. There aren't that many people in Russia, where one could plausibly expect he gets 100% support.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm assuming he just screwed up and put in too many zeros. He does have 50-60 million supporters, though most of them are not all THAT enthusiastic.

[shawn_dude]

He'll just call up a few red-state governors and ask them to "find" more supporters. Duh. I hear Wyoming is really the most populated state in the Union and the current listed 578,803 in population is a left-wing, Soros-connect conspiracy to deny Wyoming its full Congressional representation!

[David Nieporent]

as opposed to 500-600 Million supporters freelancing.

Are you counting the population of Russia?

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, is there a 1-A issue here? Arguably, POTUS Trump's comments on the cases while on the campaign trail are political speech, isn't that right at the core of what 1A protects?

Unrelatedly: Is this becoming an instance of bad facts making for a bad case (and bad legal precedents)?

[not guilty]

There is a First Amendment issue, which many federal courts have discussed. (I haven't found any decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a pretrial gag order on a defendant except for United States v. Manafort, 897 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir. 2018), where the defendant did not object to the gag order.) There is not necessarily a First Amendment problem where an order is based on evidence and is narrowly tailored so as not to restrict more speech than necessary.

SCOTUS considered an attack on a Nevada Supreme Court rule prohibiting any attorney from making extrajudicial comments to the media that the attorney knew or should have known would "have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding." Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1033 (1991). The Court concluded that this standard, applied by Nevada and most other States, satisfies the First Amendment, id., at 1063, at least as regards the speech of attorneys participating in criminal proceedings.

In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court reversed a murder conviction because massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity attending the defendant's prosecution prevented him from receiving a fair trial. The Court stated that "the trial court might well have proscribed extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulged prejudicial matters, such as the refusal of Sheppard to submit to interrogation or take any lie detector tests; any statement made by Sheppard to officials; the identity of prospective witnesses or their probable testimony; any belief in guilt or innocence; or like statements concerning the merits of the case." Id., at 361.

The Supreme Court has not addressed a standard to apply when evaluating gag orders directed at non-attorney trial participants. There is a split of authority among Courts of Appeals, which is summarized in United States v. Brown,218 F.3d 415, 427 (5th Cir. 2000), with some courts holding that a trial court may restrict extrajudicial comments by trial participants, including lawyers, parties, and witnesses, based on a determination that those comments present a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudicing a fair trial, while other courts requiring either a showing of "clear and present danger" or "serious and imminent threat" of prejudicing a fair trial.

The Fifth Circuit in Brown ruled that a district court may in any event impose an appropriate gag order on parties and/or their lawyers if it determines that extrajudicial commentary by those individuals would present a "substantial likelihood" of prejudicing the court's ability to conduct a fair trial. Id., at 427. The Court elaborated:

If the district court determines that there is a "substantial likelihood" (or perhaps even merely a "reasonable likelihood," a matter we do not reach) that extrajudicial commentary by trial participants will undermine a fair trial, then it may impose a gag order on the participants, as long as the order is also narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means available. This standard applies to both lawyers and parties, at least where the court's overriding interest is in preserving a fair trial and the potential prejudice caused by extrajudicial commentary does not significantly depend on the status of the speaker as a lawyer or party.

Id., at 428.

[Commenter_XY]

Thank you so much for a complete response, not guilty. This legal quagmire is a mess! Totally uncharted waters.

But strict scrutiny is the appropriate lens to use when deciding whether and how much should POTUS Trump's speech be restricted., correct? That seems a really high bar to clear for the Special Counsel.

[not guilty]

I am not aware of any court framing analysis of a pretrial gag order on trial participants as strict scrutiny. Such an order does, however, represent a presumptively invalid prior restraint, and the burden of justification is on the proponent of the order.

[Commenter_XY]

Here was my thinking, not guilty (right or wrong). Our 1A right to free speech, and especially political speech, is an enumerated right. If you are going to restrict enumerated rights of defendants, better have the highest bar: strict scrutiny. That is just a personal take, informed by my own personal experiences (esp during the covid-19 pandemic) and my reading here.

I find the legal questions fascinating.

[shawn_dude]

As do I and I appreciate the discussion here.

One question Commenter_XY: Do you consider voting to be an "enumerated" right?

[Kazinski]

Well of course a defendant should have a trial that's not contaminated by bias or prejudicial disclosures.

But I've never heard the proposition that the prosecution should be protected by the same, until now.

If the prosecution can't carry their case even under a barrage of hostile pretrial publicity, then maybe they can't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don't expect me to cry crocodile tears for any prosecutor, whether Trump, or a drive by shooter.

If they have the goods, prove it.

[Nige]

Or Hunter Biden.

[dwb68]

Amazon rant: activate

Amazon is 85% of the eBook market. I know that there are these places called google play and apple books and Barnes and Noble Nook--no one uses it. Or, very few anyway.

How TF does Amazon get away with requiring authors to be exclusive in Kindle Select (Kindle Unlimited)? In some genres (like romance), you *must* be in KU as an author, because thats where all the readers are. Some categories like certain sci-fi ones are 70% KU readers.

The way authors get paid in Kindle Unlimited (KU) is per page read (about 0.004 per page). But the payment is low (and dependent on the whim of Amazon and seems to fluctuate with overall Zon sales; google kindle unlimited per page read $ monthly.) KU values a 350 page book at 1.99 If all pages are read (**math below). So the author must to hope to make up the royalties in volume (2.5x readers), to make the same as a $4.99 book. Plus you lose wide distribution sales through other platforms.

Also, KU books are favored in searches and rankings.

My irritation is with the feckless FTC. KU terms are as clear case of monopolistic practices as I’ve ever seen, with Amazon screwing authors. The exclusivity arrangement to go into kindle unlimited should be unenforceable. If there was competition, BN and other retailers would develop their own version.

Instead, Kahn is busy making shit up and losing lawsuits because of agency overreach. smh.

** math: The royalties of a $1.99 ebook are ~ 70% * 1.99=1.39. Technically there is a 6 cent file delivery but lets ignore it. The royalties of a 350 page book in KU, if all pages are read, is 350*.004 = 1.40. The royalties of a $4.99 ebook would be 3.49.

[Moderation4ever]

Amazon was early in the market and has maintained a good reader. I think that is the answer to your question. They have the market share and that allows them dictate terms to their suppliers (authors). This is not uncommon in the retail industry, books or other products. In the end it is capitalism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Standard Oil was first in the market and reduced prices to make kerosene affordable to the masses -- it even found a use for gasoline, which once was a useless byproduct that was literally dumped on the ground. (How they managed not to have explosions is beyond me, as gasoline vapor is heavier than air.)

The Sherman Act was written to break up Standard Oil -- into 34 different companies, with both Exxon and Mobil being a fragment of the original Standard Oil -- New Jersey and New York respectively.

[dwb68]

Amazon can mostly run KU however they want, IMO, except for exclusivity. The exclusivity locks up authors to Zon and prevents, say Barnes Noble from starting their own version because they would not be able to attract content. Its price fixing 101, how they get away with it...oh wait FTC is feckless, i answered that.

You should read the author social media sites, its crazy: According the KU TOS, technically, I cant even give an ePub file to people to review, because Zon has exclusive electronic distribution rights.

The punishment for violating KU TOS is not just getting kicked out of KU, its getting banned from KDP altogether, which is essentially a death sentence for authors.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Standard Oil was not the "first in the market," nor did they "find a use for gasoline," by which I assume you mean kerosene. That process was invented by someone else and bought by Standard.

[dwb68]

It doesn’t answer the question. “I am a monopoly, thats capitalism, c’st la vie” has never been the right answer. Not even Milton Friedman thought monopolies were a good. Corporate monopolies are barely better than government monopolies.

Also, no: they do not attract a good reader. People are allowed to “borrow” books in KU, and even if they never read them it boosts rankings. This encourages authors to promote "stuff your kindle day” where the goal is to get readers to put your book in kindle to boost rankings. Maybe some of them will eventually read it. Most don’t, and it sits there until you’ve exhausted your KU spots.

But the reality of reader behavior is that readers read books they buy before the ones they’ve borrowed on a stuff-your-kindle day.

KU is more like a gym membership: People subscribe thinking they’ll use it, but half the time they don’t.

[Moderation4ever]

By "reader" I was talking about the product they sell to read the e-books. I have had mine for years and it still works well. Why would I buy another reading device.

[dwb68]

ffs, you can e-read a kindle book on a tablet, on a phone, or in the kindle app on a laptop or desktop. In fact, when you build an ePub, Zon *requires* that it look good on all platforms, including a mobile phone (iOS and droid) and tablet.

Its not about the delivery technology, kindle has been platform independent for years. In fact, people do not use the kindle e-reader as much as they use tablets and phones and laptops now.

I dont even own a kindle. I read either on my phone or laptop. My wife reads on her tablet.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I do my kindle reading on a tablet, or sometimes my phone.

OTOH, we did send some actual kindles to the nieces and nephews over in the Philippines, and years later they're apparently still working.

[John F. Carr]

I tried two and they both died quickly. Never again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably should have gotten the children's kindle, they were built to take abuse.

[Sarcastr0]

Under antitrust as I learned it in law school, authors are SOL because they are not the consumer and only the consumer's benefit matters.

However, in 2022 the DoJ found authors rights did matter when they blocked a merger between Penguin and Simon & Schuster.

Not my area, but I would be interested in testing how far this paradigm can go; Amazon is absolutely anticompetitive in its behavior towards lower level authors.

[dwb68]

Competition between B&N and Zon for content benefits consumers. Think about the KU business model: payment per page read and rankings (borrowings) count toward ranking regardless of whether its read.

Three books in a trilogy that are read 1/3 of the way through each get paid the same as a single book that's read 100% of the way through. So... authors are financially incentivized to produce short dreck.

[shawn_dude]

If you write stories for the joy of it, "short dreck" is not incentivized. If you write stories with an eye towards printed books, it's the same. But if you write for the cash, then yes, dreck is the result--short or not. Amazon owns the dreck-for-cash market, for sure.

[bernard11]

Could you clarify this a bit, dwb68?

If I write a romance novel and want to sell through Amazon I have to go through KU? They won't handle it as a regular Kindle book? And I have to agree not to sell through B&N or anyone

What if I have a publisher and everything? Will (might) they sell it as a regular hard-copy book?

[dwb68]

There is Kindle Publishing (KDP) and Kindle Unlimited/Kindle Select (KU).

Yes, KDP will publish your book without being in KU.

*However* as a romance author, you wont get a lot of readers unless you are in KU, because those readers tend to subscribe to KU and wont pay extra for your book (If you are in KU, the book is “free” to KU subscribers, which i think is $14.99 a month now). KU pays per page read, but at the equivalent of $1.99 for a 350 page book, as i noted.

To be in KU, you need to be *exclusive* to Amazon. They favor you in rankings, searches, and pay you per page read.

Being in KDP but not KU means you are “wide” – free to also sell you book through Google Play, Apple Books, Smashbooks, Barnes and Noble, etc. …But there are not many readers outside Zon, because Zon has all the content locked up as exclusive to KU. Zon is 85% of the book market.

And to be clear: we are talking about the ebook version, not the print. You can distribute your print version wherever you want. But print is expensive and most people want ebook now.

[shawn_dude]

While I share your sense of outrage, one notable difference between KDP and KU is that KDP requires a reader to purchase the entire book before the author is paid whereas KU will pay an author per page read. To gain access to a market where books can be (to use your word) "dreck" and still provide income, the author has to sign an exclusivity deal. This isn't a terrible deal for authors since it means if you're good enough, you can create a following. That following would likely follow you to KDP where, one assumes, revenue is higher per book. As a reader, KU is a good deal because you can sample authors without spending more than $15/mo and find the authors you like the most and follow them. There is a lower cost to both authors (revenue isn't binary) and readers (lower investment per author.)

The reason Amazon has 85% of the market here isn't because they force exclusivity contracts on authors but because they've constructed a market with a lower cost to entry for both suppliers and consumers.

[Magister]

As a reader, KU is a good deal because you can sample authors without spending more than $15/mo and find the authors you like the most and follow them.

I find my local library a better deal for me as a reader.

[Nelson]

I agree. I have a reader called Libby on my phone that works great. It's used by public libraries and you can have multiple cards. Since the books are automatically returned at the end of the lending period, you never have fees, so your friends are usually willing to let you use their cards. I have cards from Chicago, Philly, San Francisco, Austin, Delaware, and Orange County, Florida.

Granted, recent releases and popular books can have a waiting list, but with enough libraries it isn't that bad. And it doesn't give Amazon anything, so it's got that going for it.

[John F. Carr]

Some commentary on Politico about schools' determination to use racial discrimination in admissions:

There’s only one race-neutral method that would work to increase racial diversity on selective college campuses, and it happens to align with the supposed social-justice goals of highly selective schools: giving a clearly defined, substantial boost to low-income applicants. Neither the University of Michigan nor the University of California embraced that method, and so far, it seems likely that no other university will try it either.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/15/supreme-court-admissions-elite-schools-00116087

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that there are more low income White applicants then there *are* Black applicants -- and that's just bodies, ignoring qualification and inclination.

This is a point that the NAACP made back in the '90s when people were putting a Black face on welfare reform -- no, there were/are more WHITE people on welfare than there *are* Black people.

A higher percentage of a much smaller population will still give you a smaller headcount.

[John F. Carr]

Those poor white people bring diversity but not melanin.

[Ed Grinberg]

If the people running our universities are out-and-out (proud!) racists, what sort of "education" do you expect your son or daughter to get there?

[Sarcastr0]

Don't quote a random editorial as authority.

It's also wrong: there's at least one other race-neutral methods already in play that could increase racial diversity: first in family to go to college.

Veterans or child of veterans could do as well.

[Don Nico]

I'd prefer the veterans or child of veteran method.
One coulld at least claim that the preference was earned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well I *do* believe -- and have no problem saying -- that the Vet College Benefits *were* earned -- that's it is deferred compensation and not financial aid. Sadly, I am not in the majority....

[Don Nico]

Ed,
You are on my "mute" list. So I neither know nor care what you had to say in response.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Funny you responded, though...

[Sarcastr0]

It's not either or.

But in general, we should wean ourselves from tweaking direct admissions towards a demographic. It's a band-aid.

These days it's become more clear you need a support structure after you get in; family, peers, an understanding of the expectations, and just generally feeling like you belong. So we need more broad ecosystem development building capacity from earlier in students' career and across associated institutions.

Another model beyond admissions The GI Bill offered $$, and ended up doing pretty well for the vets cohort and America in general, before it was cut way back.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, are you under the impressions that blacks got equal access to the GI Bill?

And do you really suppose that the black intelligentsia which affirmative action educated and enabled is just a band-aid?

[shawn_dude]

It's been a while since I looked at the stats but I doubt they've changed much: the enlisted ranks of the US military are packed with young persons from the bottom of the economic ladder which generally means a lot more black and latinx persons. Certainly, that was my personal experience when I was enlisted. Given that, and given the way the GI bill works post-VEAP (I was VEAP), military members have an equal opportunity there. Since we're taking about diversity in education today, the current policy is what impacts today's students.

[Stephen Lathrop]

sean_dude, you think systematically excluding from educational support black soldiers who served in WW II has not had economic consequences experienced by their descendants today?

[ducksalad]

A rule that anyone in the top 5% of their high school is admitted brings in substantial diversity. Since that's still way too many students for a small elite school, use a lottery or extracurricular activities to distinguish within that 5%.

Note: The reason this method works so well is that people self-segregate geographically and therefore there are plenty of minority-majority high schools. It's the same reason it's even possible for courts to order states to draw up minority-majority districts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The "problem" you will encounter will be all the rural high schools where the top 5% (and remaining 95%) are White -- and they're not ready for college, either.

Appalachia is real, it's a lot bigger than you think it is, and just because you don't see it while driving 75 MPH on the rural Interstate or flying over it at 500 MPH doesn't mean it isn't there.

I had a conversation once with a classmate who had taught in an urban majority/minority high school and he wound up agreeing that the only difference between it and the all-white rural high school where I'd taught was that we had more trees to catch the stray rounds and hence didn't have innocent bystanders being shot.

Everything else was pretty much the same -- he had more crack, we had more opiates -- but essentially it was the same issues. The same waste of lives, the same multi-generational problems, etc.

This really isn't an issue of race.

[ducksalad]

I don’t deny there are plenty of high schools that are bad, rural, and white. But because they’re rural, they just don’t have that many students in them. Top 5% of the actually-graduating class at some rural high schools, rounded up, is one person.

And I think meeting one or two such persons would be an enriching and enlightening experience for the Connecticut prep-school kids.

[Sarcastr0]

ducksalad - I think that's worked well for Texas.

[ducksalad]

That’s why I mentioned it.

Advantages: (a) accomplishes a good amount of racial, economic, and political diversity without any consideration of the race, income, or politics of individual applicants, (b) popular with both conservative and liberal parents, (c) doesn’t penalize kids who through no fault of their own ended up at a weak high school, but did the best they could with what was offered.

Disadvantages: (a) parents who went out of their way to get their kids into the most rigorous high schools feel cheated by the program, (b) displeases people who feel the only consideration should be intellectual merit measured on a single, objective national scale.

[Life of Brian]

giving a clearly defined, substantial boost to low-income applicants

It's a rare day that I find myself in alignment with Politico to this degree, but I would be 100% behind that sort of initiative -- if indeed it was blindly administered without regard to anything beyond socioeconomic status and not just used as an fig leaf for racial preferences.

[shawn_dude]

There’s a major problem with this article and a lot of other articles on the same topic: they like to talk about the high-ranking schools and ignore others. California has two state systems, UC and CSU. The article ignores the CSU, likely because it’s diversity metrics didn’t change after the state eliminated consideration for race. UC, which has higher admission standards and tuition, saw a bigger hit. All of the UCs rank in the top 100 of schools nationwide and much higher when only considering public schools. UCLA and Berkeley always rank high in any list. But the CSU’s have a tuition less than half of UC (under $7K per year full time) and rank as the least expensive, accredited, public university system in the country. CSU’s diversity metrics are high largely because the system pulls a significant number of students who are first in family to attend college. Around 80% of the students are from lower economic backgrounds and qualify for Pell grants.

If your grades are high enough to get into a UC, you’ll get into one regardless of your race. If your grades aren’t competitive enough, the CSU is well-accredited, includes three Cal Polytechnics, and has some of the same accreditations as Berkeley, UCLA, and even Stanford. California’s dual university systems already serve the need described in the Politico article and does so without regard for race.

[Nelson]

California has always had an amazing public university system. I didn't realize they were two separate systems that served such different constituencies.

It seems to be an excellent solution, but I don't think it would work well for smaller states like Delaware.

Texas and New York would be candidates. So would Florida, due to its population, but we all know they don't like colleges in Florida.

[John F. Carr]

Iran is being taught again that taking hostages is good for business. Qatar is apparently acting as escrow, having just received $6 billion that will be sent to Iran when the hostages are freed.

[Martinned]

If only we had some kind of peace agreement with them that involved everyone knocking it off with the nuclear weapons and the hostage taking!

[John F. Carr]

We tried to make peace with the mythical "Iranian moderates" in the 1980s. It didn't work.

[Magister]

By selling them arms in return for freeing hostages? Yes, inexplicably this did not discourage hostage taking. But the proceeds were very convenient in destabilizing Central America.

[John F. Carr]

It turned out the proceeds were not very convenient. The Boland Amendment kept professionals off the job.

[Magister]

Professionals had a poor track record in Latin America long before the Boland amendment. If the Boland amendment did not stop the funding, how could it have stopped the involvement of professionals?

[John F. Carr]

The Boland Amendment kept the CIA out of the picture. As various laws were interpreted by the administration, military aid to the Contras had to be provided by DoD officials using money not appropriated by Congress. Aiding rebels was not, to pick a contemporary phrase, the DoD's core competency.

A T shirt of the late 1980s read "Ollie North for president". While I was impressed with his public performance, I doubt he had the management skills for the job.

[Magister]

The Department of Defense was just as prohibited from using appropriated funds for such a purpose. If the Reagan administration was in the slightest justified in using the workaround of selling arms to hostage takers to fund it, they could have had the CIA in the picture. Or are you going to claim that the CIA was way too law abiding to have any part of it?

[Bob from Ohio]

"destabilizing Central America"

AKA stopping Communists

[Dr. Ed 2]

Never forget that we are talking about people who started a war over a referee call in a soccer game. I am not making this up....

[Magister]

Does anyone doubt that Dr. Ed 2 is making that up?

[David Nieporent]

He may be referring to the so-called Soccer War¹ between El Salvador and Honduras in the 1960s. It was not, of course, "over a referee call."

¹I suppose they called it the Football War.

[Magister]

I was aware. Yes, regardless of the timing, the war was not started by a bad call in a soccer match.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48673853

[Magister]

So it's OK to ignore any law if stopping communism (or at least trying to)?

[Bob from Ohio]

"ignore any law"

The Boland Amendment only banned use of appropriated funds by intelligence agencies so it did not ban the work around.

[Magister]

Perfectly legal? So there was no need to pardon all those administration officials for it, then.

[Nige]

'Our atrocities were JUSTIFIED!'

[Bob from Ohio]

Grow up. Both sides in wars do bad things.

"Peasants Tell of Rights Abuses by Sandinistas
By James Lemoyne, Special To the New York Times" June 28, 1987, Section 1, Page 1

US soldiers in WW2 committed the Chenogne Massacre in revenge for the Malmeady massacre. Are you confused about which side was overall the WW2 "good guys".

[Nige]

Fuck off, the whole thing was stupid and unnecessary and caused immense suffering and horror purely so some little boys could play spy and justify their budgets, but it turned out the USSR was better at espionage, so they went for wrecking completely innocent countries instead. No-one who commits an atrocity in a war is a 'good guy.' That's infantile.

[OtisAH]

“Execute nuns for freedom!,” says Bob. Because Bob is a piece of shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nuns? By the "Contras" in Nicaragua?

I think you are in error, as usual.

[Magister]

Maureen Courtney and Teresa Rosales, killed by the contras.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, they were killed by in El Salvador in Dec 2, 1980. Raped too. It was done by Salvadorian military personnel of the right-wing US backed government. The Reagan administration in an effort to shore up support for expanding aid to that government tried to deny military involvement or that the nuns were anything but nuns. They also pushed out the US ambassador, who actually saw the bodies, and had accused the Salvadorian government and the US of whitewashing the investigation. The denials and smearing of the nuns got significant pushback. After lying about them the first time, Jeanette Kirkpatrick lied about saying what she said. She was on tape. After making up wild claims about running roadblocks to Congress , Alexander Haig had to retract his statements the next day. And of course, in coming up with wild justifications why they might have been killed they glossed over the rape part. Of course the widespread sexual violence used by US supported anti-communist regimes is rarely if ever acknowledged on the American right.

So this is a factual error. But whether Bob believes the lies the Reagan admin told about the incident or simply believes that the murders and rapes were a small price to pay or even morally justified to stop the “left” in El Salvador is a mystery in the same way it’s a mystery which direction the Sun will rise each morning.

[Magister]

No, the nuns I named were killed in Nicaragua in 1990 by contras.

You're thinking of "Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clarke and Ita Ford, Ursuline Dorothy Kazel, and lay missionary Jean Donovan", killed in El Salvador December 2nd, 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_murders_of_U.S._missionaries_in_El_Salvador

The two sets of murders are sad bookends to that decade. The Reagan administration's lies and denials to protect the El Salvadoran government foreshadowed their more active involvement with the contras.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ah. Thanks for the correction.

[Sarcastr0]

We did a lot of extrajudicial killing and trained or enabled a lot more.
Don’t pretend we had the moral high ground because commies.

And almost all turned communist anyway, often with a bonus boatload of resentment at us for our meddling.

[Nelson]

"AKA stopping Communists"

That led to some of the worst decisions we've made in our history. The Domino Theory was garbage. Vietnam was a rousing success, of course ... oh, wait.

Its second act, the Iraq war, was just as much of a clusterfuck.

It's almost like starting wars for ideological reasons is a terrible idea. Who knew?

[ducksalad]

The trade was an unwise idea. The bad part, IMO, is the release of the prisoners we were holding. It makes it look like they were political hostages suitable for trade, rather than actual criminals who were justly imprisoned.

But I’m not buying the spin some commentators are putting on this that we’re “paying” or “giving” them $6B.

What we’re doing is merely refraining from punishing other countries, some of whom are democratic allies, and who have no fight of their own with Iran, for failure to keep impounding $6B that was Iran’s all along.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whomever controls something, owns something.

Our sanctions gave us control of the money, so we were the de facto owners.

[ducksalad]

If you can't spend the money, you don't really control it.

If there was any way we could have spent it, we can be sure that our government would have done so decades ago.

[Michael P]

I did not have "pirates in San Francisco Bay" on my California governmental dysfunction bingo card: https://abc7news.com/oakland-estuary-marinas-pirates-us-coast-guard-boats-pirate-attacks-shipwrecks/13779792/

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's some serious Federal laws involved here -- 10 years in Federal prison...

18 USC 1659 is most relevant, but 1658 is an abandoned vessel, same thing -- 10 years....

18 USC 1659: "Whoever, upon the high seas or other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, by surprise or open force, maliciously attacks or sets upon any vessel belonging to another, with an intent unlawfully to plunder the same, or to despoil any owner thereof of any moneys, goods, or merchandise laden on board thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

[John F. Carr]

I think a boatyard in the Bay is not "within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States". See 18 USC 7.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Respectfully, I've never seen the USCG make any distinction between state waters and federal waters -- they act like the FBI, i.e. have jurisdiction *everywhere*...

In fairness, they also take charge of search & rescue in state waters as well -- or at least did in the one I was involved in. I was on dry land trying to remember my Boy Scout "signals to helicopters" so it definitely was within state waters...

And I believe they can seize drugs within 3 miles as well, although if you get enough people counter-sworn, who officially made the arrest when it goes to court can become quite different.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John -- from the USCG website:

"The Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and environmental stewardship in U.S. ports and inland waterways, along more than 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline, throughout the 4.5 million square miles of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and on the high seas."
https://www.uscg.mil/About/

They're not making any distinctions about state waters, and this is them telling people who they are and what they do.

[Krayt]

One of the first things the US did as a new country was fight pirates. Keeping the trade routes is important.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Memory is that Oakland is a major Navy port -- there is probably something somewhere about interfering with the transit of military vessels.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Probably!

[shawn_dude]

Was. Not is. There's a museum there. It is, however, a major commercial port.

The Navy yards in Alameda ("nuclear wessles!") are largely abandoned but St George Distillery operates in one of them and does tasting tours. Recommended. Also, there's a very old Tiki bar in Alameda worth a visit--Forbidden Island.

[Michael P]

January 6th has apparently inspired secret convictions and sentencing. How far off can a Star Chamber be? https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-secret-sentencing-3c4ffcc5ebeaff6fd6aa279d0ce888ad

[apedad]

One out of a thousand.

And (according to your link), the defense has agreed to whatever decisions have been made.

But yeah....conspiracy!!!!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Only one cop in a thousand is crooked -- that doesn't mean we should tolerate it.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it's secret, how do you know it's one out of a thousand? Or is it just that you find out about one out of a thousand?

In any event, sure, the defense agreed. Compare his conduct to his sentence, and contrast that to the treatment a lot of other Jan' 6th defendants guilty of much less got.

It's quite possible the guy was a government informant or agent provocateur, and got a relative slap on the wrist for that reason, and the sealing is to conceal it from other defendants who might have found that information useful in their own defenses.

[Life of Brian]

The good news is that the order denying the unsealing motion denied it without prejudice -- it can be refiled again later if circumstances change -- and ordered the prosecution and defense to brief in more detail their positions on it by September 29. Feels like the judge wants to unseal at least some of it and is asking them to go back and sharpen their pencils.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Question: The defendant's name is known -- can either he or the file be subpoenaed by other defendants?

[David Nieporent]

Subpoenaed for what purpose?

[John F. Carr]

The public has a right to a public trial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fire up the Eugene signal, this seems right up his alley, given his interest in getting sealed cases unsealed.

[apedad]

The public has a right to a public trial - with well documented exceptions which are usually at least publicly know, e.g., AB was a minor victim so his identity must be protected.

And I agree, this case seems to even lack that element.

That doesn't mean we're heading towards the Star Chamber!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I suppose that, as a theoretical matter, it's possible to have the occasional unjustified secret trial, and not end up at the Star chamber. You know, just like it's possible to do cartwheels on the edge of a cliff, and not fall... But is it a risk worth taking?

But what it looks like here is the exact opposite abuse from a Star chamber: A defendant getting a sweetheart deal and the government wanting to conceal why he got it.

This guy did a LOT more than many January 6th defendants who got much harsher sentences. Sealing the case was probably intended to conceal why that was.

[Drewski]

Do you even read this blog? Party agreements are insufficient to overcome the presumption of open access to court records. I agree with the prosecutions for the January 6th coup attempt and I also want the courts to be transparent generally. This is not a contradiction.

[Frank Drackman]

Whats with Pennsylvania and their Jail escapes??? Might have to tone down my Coach Sandusky ballbusting, last thing I want is Jerry at my backdoor (get it?) some dark night.

[OtisAH]

It’s cute you think your Sandusky fetish is “ball busting” when everyone else sees it as eye-rolling and stupid.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dear Ass Hat,
Congratulations on your promotion to being the arbiter of what "everyone" sees.

[OtisAH]

I was obviously referring to normal people. You cannot possibly think I meant you. I mean, you’re dense but not *that* dense. Right?

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy to hear that arbiter of "normal" people has been added to your portfolio.

[Bob from Ohio]

"everyone else"

Kirkland doesn't.

Its funny, Kirkland is just on your side do you hate it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Drackman continuously claiming I am Jerry Sandusky -- often in vulgar ways -- is funny.

Bob from Ohio being a bigoted, superstition-addled, backwater lawyer who proofreads downscale deeds for a living and never was able to get out of can't-keep-up Ohio is not funny. His obsolescence and bigotry are pathetic.

But no problem that will not be solved by replacement. By his betters. In the normal course and the American way.

[Nige]

Well, yes, people obsessed with fake grooming finding the gross infantile cheapening of an actual sexual abuse scandal, directed at a perceived enemy, funny is just about what we'd expect. They're not normal, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
faux libertarian blog has
operated for no more than

THIRTY-ONE (31)

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
published daily at this conservative
blog, which is presented by
disaffected culture war casualties
from the Federalist Society for
Law and Public Policy Studies.

(Thirty-one days! A month, believe it or not. Have this blog’s right-wing law professors recognized the disgusting 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 something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These tunes are short, and quite plentiful, so here is another pair.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, my Flavacol experiment (using on roasted brussel sprouts) was not 100% successful. The 'buttery substance' doesn't handle 400 degrees for 18 minutes especially well when combined with EVOO. It made the outer brussel sprout leaves blotchy. I don't think Flavacol is really made for roasting....but it has potential! I am not giving up. Sukkot is right around the corner, and I can try again.

I will need to a) experiment a little with temperature (a little lower, like 375?), or b) sprinkle it at the end (but I am wondering how it will affect the cooked sprouts).

Proportions: 1 level tablespoon Flavacol :: one 16 oz package of organic brussel sprouts (from Wegman's).

[hobie]

When roasting brussel sprouts you want to blacken them somewhat. You also want to put bacon jam on top of them: crispy bacon bits, brown sugar, vinegar, shallots/garlic

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure the bacon jam isn't an option for Sukkot. And boiling the bacon in it's sow's milk first would probably be right out.

[Commenter_XY]

That bacon jam does sound tasty, tho. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

We'll generally split the sprouts in half, and toss them with the olive oil and seasoned salt well in advance. Lets the seasoning soak into them. Then I try to arrange all the halves cut side down.

It's also worth stripping off any of the loose leaves before roasting; They're just too thin to handle the amount of heat necessary to cook the sprouts properly.

[Martinned]

It seems like Fiona Scott Morton is using her time at Brueghel, a think tank in Brussels, to take some polite but firm shots back at the French government. (Which prevented her being appointed as chief economist for DG Competition, i.e. the EU's antitrust enforcers.)

This is what the Daily Telegraph made of her, undoubtedly diplomatic, answers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/27/rearranged-life-job-brussels-french-attacked-american/

[MoreCurious]

Most of us learn when we’re young — from our parents, teachers, and religious leaders — the difference between right and wrong. Which is my somewhat lame lead-in to a serious question, namely, why Trump? To the extent the man has a political philosophy, and assuming you accept every tenet of that philosophy, aren’t there other candidates who share your beliefs but who also live up to the moral and ethical standards that we grew up believing were important?

[OtisAH]

All the other candidates except Christie and Hutchinson are running on Turnip’s platform. So the answer to “Why Turnip” is “because people prefer Oreos to Hydrox.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Mmmm. Hydrox. Much better than Oreos but almost impossible to find.
However, Mallomars are back!

[gVOR08]

Good analogy, but Hydrox was the original, Oreo the copycat.

[OtisAH]

And people prefer the copycat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are a defendant -- criminal or civil, it doesn't matter -- and you have to select an attorney to represent you.

Would you pick the part-time minister who is polite and reflects all of your moral and ethical standards -- or the most obnoxious SOB imaginable, but who you know will win...

Answer honestly on that, just to yourself. Yep....

That's why the Christian groups supported/support Trump, who most definitely did not live a "Christian" life (cheating on your *third* wife with strippers?!?) -- it's why the feminists supported Bill Clinton, who they all knew treated women quite badly.

We had 40 years of talk about reversing Roe -- Trump did it. Likewise moving the US Embassy in Israel. He didn't get a wall built but he did reduce illegal immigration.

When Lincoln was told that General US Grant was an alcoholic, he reportedly responded "find out what brand of whiskey he likes and I'll send him a case of it."

Enough said?

[MoreCurious]

"Enough said?" Hardly. You present false choices. In the real world no one would have to rely on a polite, part-time minister as a legal advocate. It may shock you to know that some of the best lawyers I've practiced with and against are deeply moral and ethical and I wouldn't hesitate to trust them with any aspect of my life or the lives of my family. It's kind of pathetic that you seem to think that immoral, unethical liars are the only ones in the Republican party who can accomplish the things you think are important.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That’s why the Christian groups supported/support Trump, who most definitely did not live a “Christian” life"

Some people don't get this, but people on the right do not generally expect politicians to be moral people. Normatively, yes, of course. But the moral politician is a rare thing, if you're only going to support those, and rely on them, most of the time you'll have nobody taking your side in government.

The Christian right didn't support Trump because they thought he was admirable. They did it because out of a bunch of disreputable scum, he looked like the most likely to advance their aims, or at the very least not outright attack them.

[Sarcastr0]

The Christain right supports Trump because they have been corrupted by politics, and now render unto Caesar the things that are God's.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That the religious right consists of profoundly gullible, prudish, poorly educated, disaffected hayseeds who resent finding their bigotry, belligerent ignorance, and delusion increasingly disfavored by modern, mainstream America may be most of it.

They have lost the culture war and they know it. Their preferences are doomed in modern America. But they will flash as many middle fingers at better Americans as they can until replacement (or, of course, the Rapture they claim to expect!).

[M L]

A regular theologian here. How insightful.

[Sarcastr0]

Think your opinion is better?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “The Christian right didn’t support Trump because they thought he was admirable”

The Christian Right supports Trump because he makes a big theatrical show of hating people they hate. It’s no more inexplicable than the long tradition of grossly corrupt politicians in the old South getting elected & reelected because of their big show hating blacks and yankees. A couple of decades back, voters reelected Marion Barry as mayor of DC, despite having seen him on video smoking crack.

Some of the people who sneered loudest then about that election are Trump cultists today, eager to vote for a criminal huckster buffoon just because he playacts being “one of them”.

[Brett Bellmore]

At some point you ought to stop confusing your self-congradulatory fantasies about how people you don't like think with the motivations of real people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are any of the DC Mayors they've had since Marion Berry any better?

The city's non-functional, it's worse every time I go down there -- and I can see voting for a crackhead who can deliver a semi-competent city government over others who can't.

It's Marion Berry versus WHO? Who else would *you* have voted for???

[David Nieporent]

Like I said, Dr. Ed gets things wrong both big and small. Marionberry is a type of blueberry. Marion Barry is the former mayor of DC.

[Drewski]

Which is another way of saying the Christian right has given up on Christianity.

[M L]

Are you a Christian and what is Christianity in your mind?

[apedad]

You saying there's only ONE Christianity?

[M L]

No, I'm asking what Drewski was saying.

Is there only one Christianity? I don't know -- maybe the term is undefinable, such that nobody can ever give up on it as Drewski suggested. Nor could anyone follow and embrace it, nor can we discuss it conceptually or make detached observations, since it's not definable. What would Jesus say? What does apedad say?

[Sarcastr0]

From the keyboard of ML, seeking to defend right wing evangelicals supporting Trump, we get Postmodern Christianity, just as Jesus wanted.

[M L]

I was wondering in what way the Christian right has "given up on Christianity" which is why I asked the question. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to explain.

[Sarcastr0]

Firstly, churches becoming an extension of MAGA is a slam-dunk giving up on Christianity red flag.

Second, there is Trump.
What Trump wants from America is deeply Unchristian
How Trump leads is deeply Unchristian
Trump's motives are deeply Unchristian
Trump as a man is deeply Unchristian

Not that long ago these were the positions of American conservative evangelicals. Now they have all swiftly gone away.

The church now, as widely reported, is all negative partisanship - railing against godless libs. To the point that church goers are beginig to reject the teachings of Jesus himself.
https://www.newsweek.com/evangelicals-rejecting-jesus-teachings-liberal-talking-points-pastor-1818706

The Founders were afraid not only of faith corruption the secular state, but as much the other direction. This is an evident example of the latter. Churches taking positions driven not by Jesus, but by what Trump says.

[M L]

“churches becoming an extension of MAGA”

I agree it seems like that would be problematic from a Christian perspective. I doubt many if any churches have become “an extension” of a political campaign. Certainly some may have gone in that direction by putting faith in government rather than God, and making an idol of politics by giving it more attention than God. I see no reason to think that politically conservative congregations are any more guilty of this than politically liberal congregations, though, perhaps less so.

The rest of your points are about Trump, not politically conservative Christians. I don’t think it is accurate to say that Christians are being unChristian by hiring a non-Christian (or someone that seems unChristian) to do a job, such as being President. I’m not aware of any biblical precept or Christian teaching that says don’t do business with non-Christians. God did warn the Jews about wanting a king in the first place, and then later warned the Jews about putting their hope for security in deals with foreign nations rather than depending on God himself. That is getting more to your first issue addressed in my paragraph above. As far as hiring someone or electing a politician, that's different in principle and goes back to my point about changing cultural norms as well. There was maybe a time when most Americans, being culturally Christian, maybe wouldn't vote for somebody who had a 3rd wife, just as maybe they wouldn't have hired somebody who didn't go to church as their dentist, accountant, or employee, but that has shifted and seems like more of a cultural thing.

[Sarcastr0]

They are not hiring him, they are exalting him
They are not forgiving him his sins but excusing them.
They are not praying he have wisdom, but that he succeed in all he wills.

They have turned away from humility and God, and towards owning the libs and Trump.

This is in open services; there is plenty of reporting about this. Heck, they say it to the media.

[Nige]

‘but people on the right do not generally expect politicians to be moral people’

This is entirely new, or rather, the ending of the pretence is new.

‘The Christian right didn’t support Trump because they thought he was admirable.’

The quasi-fascist messianic imagery of Trump they employ and the cult of personality of which Qanon was only the most obviously grotesque suggests otherwise.

‘he looked like the most likely to advance their aims,’

Apparently the idea that they were acting as disreputable scum by doing so never crossed their holy minds, and still puzzles them mightily.

[Nige]

You'd think Christians would be more in tune with their own myths and culture, which features the idea of The Tempter a lot and cautionary tales about deals with the Devil.

[M L]

From the 1950s and before in this country, there was a universal cultural presumption of Christianity and Christian morals. So things like people cheating on their spouses or leaving them for new ones, or practicing polyamory or wearing thong bikinis or being on OnlyFans, were not openly approved or excused in mainstream society. It's not that all these things didn't still happen of course, nor that everyone believed in Christianity, it was just a default cultural norm that wasn't really questioned. Over the decades since then, this has changed of course, with no small amount of consternation along the way. Bill Clinton was a big moment vis a vis the public expectation toward Presidents/politicians. In JFK's time people still just kept quiet to maintain appearances I guess. But this cultural norm wasn't about politics or politicians at all, it was about society in general -- your dentist, your nextdoor neighbor, the shows on TV. Like anything, the way it intersects with politics is just when opportunistic politicians manage to get a hold of something to use as a crowbar or cudgel for their own purposes.

So all of this is to say I agree with you that it is relatively new, though not "entirely" so, it's been a process.

[Nige]

No: Republicans have always been the (Christian) Family Values Party. Also the Law And Order Party, and the Patriotic Party. A lot of LGTBQ people suffered horribly because of that. Single mothers stigmatized. Poor people treated like criminals. Harsh sentencing laws. Escalating the War on Drugs. Liberals, activists and journalists painted and even investigated as disloyal traitors for questioning or criticising America. Politicians and public officials ruined by personal scandals. These are real-world consequences of this mostly fake and massively hypocritical ethos – and yes it bled over into the Democratic Party, too, the gaslit saps.

Trump represents an abrupt and sudden departure from and rejection of all that, which would be fair enough if it got rid of those tiresome useless things, but instead they’ve embraced personal immorality and criminality and reckless disregard for national security in their leaders. They’ve jumped to the other extreme, and mostly so they can keep doing those exact same things.

[Sarcastr0]

Your 1950s does not exist. Just because lots more people didn’t have a voice doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

Also, you appear to be a fucking puritan. Thing Bikinis? You are awful at being a Millennial.

[M L]

I didn't take a position, I just described things as they were and are.

So your position is that thong/string bikinis were cool and culturally acceptable norm in the 1950s? Riiight. . . I mean, they are still a bit controversial today or at least will get a side-eye and sniggers in many places especially if egregious, they are even outlawed today in Myrtle Beach and a number of other places and some bans are recent.

[Sarcastr0]

You're flat wrong about how things were in the 1950s. Alcoholism, sexism, racism, skyrocketing homelessness. People went to church, but 'universal cultural presumption of Christianity and Christian morals' is Leave it to Beaver, not reality.

My position is saying thong bikinis are a sign of unchristain morality says a lot about your puritan version of Christinaity.

[M L]

It’s not my version of Christianity, it’s their version as they saw it in the 1950s, or the 1800s, 1700s, etc — just as a factual, sociological description.

You may contend that their version of Christianity was wrong, contradictory, inconsistent with the Bible, or whatever, and that is certainly a discussion you can have. You can say my statement was inaccurate insofar as it implied otherwise, as opposed to a descriptive sociological term. But you can’t deny that it was a prevailing culture and set of norms. You can’t deny the fact that there were virtually zero professing atheists, as established by much evidence. Virtually zero openly questioning basic assumptions of the faith in mainstream everyday society. Virtually zero wearing thongs that partially expose the sphincter on public beaches. Whether that was a bad thing or a good thing on balance is up to you.

So, yes Leave it to Beaver isn’t reality, that’s not the point. The point is there was a cultural homogeneity that existed. And that was this universal, presumptive, cultural Christianity (regardless of whether that notion of Christianity was faulty, wrong, right, evil, mean, oppressive, hypocritical, or anything in between, as judged based on the standards of Christianity and/or the Bible itself or any other logical or moral standard whatsoever).

[Sarcastr0]

You call it ‘Christianity and Christian morals.’ If it’s not your morality, you sure are slopping in your language.

But you can’t deny that it was a prevailing culture and set of norms. I sure as fuck can deny that.
1. Just because anyone who said boo was shunned, especially if they weren’t white, doesn’t mean there was a consensus.
2. A consensus of a sclerotic and contradictory view is not actually a consensus. There is nothing to consent to – it’s all pretext. It’s everyone shutting up and smiling along.

Virtually zero openly questioning basic assumptions of the faith in mainstream everyday society What the fuck is this openly? What kind of anti-speech authoritarian are you, anyway? This is you:https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b4/3d/2d/b43d2dc0cca3e009b9a14627cb6f7980.jpg

The point is there was a cultural homogeneity that existed No there was not. Your ‘openly’ gives away the game. You know it wasn’t homogenous, you just like that it *wasn’t open to challenged.*

Just awful.

[M L]

I'm sorry this topic has made you so angry and confused.

Try looking at the graphs below and maybe this will help you understand the facts.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/128276/increasing-number-no-religious-identity.aspx (13 years old)
"growing from near zero in the 1950s"
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/

As anyone can see and everyone knows, there have been shifts and changes in the culture over time. That was my original point. Once again, I'm not saying any of this is good or bad, or that anything in particular about the 1700s, 1800s, early 1900s, etc was either better or worse than today.

Imagine we are having the same discussion about Hinduism in India. Would you still have such an emotional response?

Perhaps you would like to discuss something else. Setting aside the history and recent shifts regarding cultural Christianity in the U.S., what is your view of Christianity in the abstract? Or how should people understand and practice it today (if at all)?

[Sarcastr0]

I’m sorry this topic has made you so angry and confused.
What made you think this dig was a good addition?

You just utterly changed your goalposts. There's a ton of cultural differences mere reported Christianity papers over.

Imagine we are having the same discussion about Hinduism in India. Would you still have such an emotional response?
Less of one. Because I am a Christian, and don't like my faith being abused.

what is your view of Christianity in the abstract?
Ah, you think I'm a liberal and thus not a man of faith. Unsurprising. As a Unitarian, Jesus has moral authority but not divine authority. It is not an evangelical faith - there is an moral truth, but the path to elucidating it is personal, and other's need not be the same as mine.

But that same objective moral truth allows me to call out conservative Evangelicals for not following the teachings of Jesus.

[M L]

So you believe in following the teachings of Jesus, but you don't believe he has divine authority?

[Sarcastr0]

There is no one Unitarian Universalist way, but many hold that Jesus is one among many wise moral teachers throughout history.

Part of the charge of being a UU is to keep seeking metaphysical and moral truth by studying the paths that previous luminaries have taught and seeing what works for you.

My congregation includes quite a few secular Jews in it. And some atheists.

[M L]

Seems like head scratcher.

"All authority in heaven and on Earth has been given to me." -Jesus

Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?

[Magister]

Is there any hagiography you don't believe is completely true?

[bernard11]

but people on the right do not generally expect politicians to be moral people.

They sure do raise hell when a Democrat does something they think is immoral.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone who thinks Trump is the most likely candidate to win the policy argument missed his 2016 term and the 2020 election.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well, Trump certainly wins the day among gape-jawed, hypocritical, gullible, poorly educated, roundly bigoted, old, rural, southern, left-behind white people!

[Frank Drackman]

Some 80 million of them last time I counted.

[SRG2]

Enough said?

No. You may have forgotten the right-wing condemnation of Clinton for character defects - and indeed, you may even have joined in - and how that made him unfit to be president, so when we see those same critics vociferously supporting Trump, it's reasonable to call them hypocrites, indeed, doubly hypocritical, because unlike so many Evangelical causes like anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, Jesus actually specifically condemned hypocrisy.

It's simple. MAGA means "Make America White Again" and everyone knows it. White grievance drives support for Trump. And much of the right-wing evangelical movement is simply a cover for white grievance. It certainly has little to do with anything Jesus himself said or taught.

[Joe_dallas]

SRG2 – you are fixated on race & racism which has become a halmark of the the democrats. In the eyes of democrats , calls to end racism is racism

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You, Joe-dallas, are precisely the target audience of this bigot-hugging, faux libertarian, fringe right-wing blog.

[SRG2]

Fixated? No. Aware of the actual racism at the heart of Trumpist support? Yes.

I carry no brief for Democrats - but I guess there will always be follower types like yourself who cannot conceive that someone can arrive at an opinion independently, and who assume that if someone arrive at an opinion that is shared by others, he must be a follower as well.

I will say this, one of the signs that the US has become a less overtly racist country is that racists are putting more effort into concealing or denying their racism.

[apedad]

Really?!?

I would have thought the exact opposite.

Parades, hanging banners on bridges, Volokh Conspiracy, etc.

They seem to be pretty open in their activities.

And sure, there's some underground element too, plotting to secede or throw 2A out the window and attack, or something.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This is the silliest assertion I’ve seen this month. If you honestly believe that the USA is racist today as it was in, say, the ‘50s then your understanding of history is similar to that of a 13 year-old.

“Better effort in concealing their racism”. lol. Same is true about the cannibals too. Those guys have always been good about covering their habits though.

Your position here is beyond absurd.

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : “This is the silliest assertion I’ve seen this month”

Where in any of the above comments does anyone say the U.S. is racist as it was in the 50s? You really need to work harder at the whole Strawman Thing, Bevis. A little subtlety is needed for an argument that bogus.

Here’s a question for you: What’s more likely to find: Someone who actually believes this country is as racist today as then? Or something who thinks racism no longer exists? (Or the first cousin to that belief, that whites are now the real victims of racism?)

You would hope both views are rare, but I know the second view is a thousand times more prevalent…

[Tom for equal rights]

GRB - what is being stated is that the demand for racism and allegations of racism coming from the progressives/democrats vastly exceeds the actual level of racism coming from the right side of the political spectrum. Except for a very small fringe, racism is almost exclusively coming from those accusing others of racism.

[grb]

Thank you for proving my point.

[Tom for equal rights]

You missed the point - As I stated, the vast majority of racism stems from the very people accusing others of racism which is promiment among leftists.

[Nige]

Yes, the height of modern racism is giving white kids Ta Nehesi Coates books to read.

[Nige]

Tell us about the Great Replacement, Joe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What you fail to understand is that we want to make EVERYONE White. Seriously.

WE consider everyone to be White -- it's you who don't.

And it's not "White" but "American" -- with a bunch of 300 year old values, America is an idea not a race...

[Nige]

'WE consider everyone to be White'

The fundamental racism of the right boiled down succinctly. From the mouths of ponies.

[SRG2]

What you fail to understand is that we want to make EVERYONE White. Seriously.

Riiiight. And then cops will pull over drivers for Driving While Being the Wrong Colour of White"

[Nige]

‘Sir, you appear to be failing to sufficently exhibit the correct levels of Whiteness as required by statute and we may have reason to believe you to be capable of Non-Whiteness with intent, please exit the vehicle.’

[Nelson]

"with a bunch of 300 year old values, America is an idea not a race…"

America had 300-year-old values 300 years ago. The idea of America is change and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The fact that your values are out of step with American values as they exist today isn't relevant to anyone but you.

If we had tried to resist change for 300 years, we would have stagnated and died as a country long ago.

[David Nieporent]

Would you pick the part-time minister who is polite and reflects all of your moral and ethical standards — or the most obnoxious SOB imaginable, but who you know will win…

This is actually not a terrible analogy, but not for the reasons Dr. Ed thinks. Lots of clients think they want the most obnoxious, aggressive, loud, screamy attorney out there. Those are generally not the most effective attorneys.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I worked with maybe 30 different lawyers across my career as a client.

Whenever a Jim Adler the Texas Hammer commercial comes on i immediately think there’s no way he’d last half a day as my lawyer, even though he’s probably very capable.

[Tom for equal rights]

fyi - Adler farms most of cases out to other lawyers, (friend of mine works for one of the law firms that takes adlers cases)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

GIven the realities of our political system, telling a voter "how dare you vote for an evil candidate" is equivalent to saying "how dare you *vote*?"

The good news from your point of view is that many Americans simply choose not to vote at all. Are you willing to praise their civic virtue?

For those who *do* vote, how do you think the phrase "lesser evil" came about?

[MoreCurious]

Go back and read my original question. I did not say no one should vote for an evil candidate. I asked why someone would choose to do so when there are less-evil and non-evil candidates to vote for. By the way, Trump is not the "lesser evil" of any current, plausible candidate. And if you think it helps to validate your apparent support for the former president, feel free to explain why I’m wrong in thinking that he is the most immoral, unethical, and deceitful of anyone presently running -- or hoping to run -- for president.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, that's my point, show me the *actual options* the voters had among these supposed better candidates. Also, make sure it's "other candidates who share [voters'] beliefs," as you said.

(Ideally omitting third-party candidates because we know that the two major parties are the only game in town. /sarc)

[Nelson]

There's an entire field of Republicans who both share the values of conservatives and are more ethical and moral than Trump.

There are actually entire cell blocks full of people more ethical and moral than Trump, but that's neither here nor there.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“your apparent support for the former president”

I am actually considering third parties, though I hesitate to mention this because it triggers people.

“explain why I’m wrong in thinking that he is the most immoral, unethical, and deceitful of anyone presently running — or hoping to run — for president”

This is a variation of the presumption of innocence I had not previously been familiar with.

Nonetheless, no need for me to rush in and comment, when there are so many actual Trump supporters willing to mention Biden’s corruption, Newsome’s hypocritical lockdown, etc., and there are so many Democrats willing to call DeSantis a misogynist, book-banning fascist, etc., etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

" I asked why someone would choose to do so when there are less-evil and non-evil candidates to vote for."

Because they don't agree with you about which candidates are less/non-evil? Or perhaps they evaluate the chances of the less/non-evil candidates as being so low as to make voting for them into voluntary self-disenfranchisement?

[Nige]

One way to psych yourself up to vote for evil is to get hyperbolic and hysterical about the non-evil candidate whose worst evil is that they have policies you disagree with.

Trump is evil, but not as evil as George W Bush. A second term to give him a chance to further acts like his efforts to steal the election would change that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought George W. Bush supported unjust wars and torture?

[Nige]

Yes, those are some of the reasons why he's more evil.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I apologize, I thought you were making the opposite point. A thousand pardons.

I foolishly mistook you for one of those “strange new respect” types who belatedly discover that a retired politician of the other party wasn’t so bad after all.

Incidentally, though, I'm interested in your reference to "the non-evil candidate." Have you found such an entity in the wild?

[Nige]

On the Republican side? Not lately.

Realisitically I expect any politician I support to be a muddle of stuff I like, and stuff I hate. I’m not going to vote for the guy who is just plain banal evil, or have much respect for people who do.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I haven't seen the non-evil candidates either. Not, at least, among the 2 major parties. Not even among the otherwise-saintly Democrats.

[Nige]

Genuinely unsure what's supposed to be so evil about Biden. He's ignoring covid, probably so as not to cause a massive kerfuffle with the cranks, and that's very bad, he's not doing enough about climate change, but he's doing something, his handling of Ukraine has been notably non-evil so far.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, but presumably you can understand someone who considers abortion, and war with a nuclear power, to be evil.

[Nige]

Abortion as evil has always been a view mostly held by people and institutions who are themselves evil in a particularly repressive and usually misogynistic way, so not really.

Checking a repressive nuclear power's efforts at aggressive expansion without directly intervening or escalating seems like the least-evil way of handling it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We were trying to get into the heads of people who voted for Trump to see if they had any reason for doing so other than genuine evilness.

Maybe they just don’t want to vote for the people who think they’re evil misogynistic Nazis.

And you aren't really meeting MoreCurious's question on its own terms, which was why do Trump voters vote for him rather than "other candidates who share [their] beliefs"?

As for abortion, since Trump has called DeSantis' prolife policies too extreme, I suppose that makes DeSantis more evil than Trump?

[Nige]

‘Maybe they just don’t want to vote for the people who think they’re evil misogynistic Nazis.’

That’s just a self-justifying excuse. They’re not even claiming to be making rational choices, just acting reflxively out of resentment. Is that an improvement somehow?

‘As for abortion, since Trump has called DeSantis’ prolife policies too extreme, I suppose that makes DeSantis more evil than Trump?’

Hard to believe, but Trump’s the cannier politician. He knows extreme anti-abortion policies will kill Republicans stone dead. He’s also been less than vocal about attacking trans people, believe it or not, because he knows it’s a loser. But he’s also the guy that made the calculation that promising a ban on Muslims and a big dumb Wall and locking up Clinton would be winners, so none of it’s to his moral credit.

DeSantis is more evil than Trump inasmuch as he actually cares about persecuting trans people, banning books, repressing knowledge and using the power of the state to attack anyone who criticises him. Except for the latter, Trump will happily and carelessly enable underlings to do all that, but he doesn’t care enough to make them his platforms. Yet.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"That’s just a self-justifying excuse. They’re not even claiming to be making rational choices, just acting reflxively out of resentment."

What have the Trump voters you've spoken with - in person - actually told you about their motives?

[Nige]

Well, one couple, who I am extremely fond of, told me they voted for him because they thought it was funny. They apologised.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That is...interesting. *Probably* not typical, but interesting.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd cite Rand Paul as "non-evil" for ordinary measures of evil. But, of course, he dropped out of the Republican primaries in 2016 before I got a chance to vote for him.

On the Democratic side, Tulsi Gabbard? I don't find her particularly scary.

Sadly, non-evil candidates seem to do very badly as you move up in politics. I think it's because they have too much in the way of scruples to do what's needed to advance.

[Nige]

Tulsi Gabbard is pro-Putin and a pal of Assad and likes assorted conspiracy theories also loved by the right and spent most of her time attacking her own party. So, sure, you like her.

[Nelson]

"Or perhaps they evaluate the chances of the less/non-evil candidates as being so low as to make voting for them into voluntary self-disenfranchisement?"

So it's OK to support evil as long as it gets you the result you want? That seems to fly in the face of everything I learned in CCD, but I've been a recovering Catholic for decades so you probably know better than I.

[Nige]

'GIven the realities of our political system, telling a voter “how dare you vote for an evil candidate” is equivalent to saying “how dare you *vote*?”'

Given the realities of the political system, tough choices elicit sympathy for fellow voters confronted with the same hopeless-seeming choices, as well as frustration and anger, except where the voters decide to wholeheartedly embrace the evil.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is it possible that the Trump voters you hear about are, shall we say, not really 100% representative of those voters?

Many of the other voters think they're choosing a lesser evil.

[Nige]

The ones we hear about are sufficent. They're the best demonstration of what Trumpism is, even more so than the man himself, who has an innate caginess and is obviously playing those people. The ones we don't hear about are happy to go along with the others.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s a bad precedent to judge all of a candidate’s supporters by the really out-there ones. I’ll leave you to think about (for example) Biden voters you wouldn’t want to be associated with, or maybe some other commenters can remind you.

(If you’re not a Biden voter then I sincerely apologize for insulting you by suggesting that you are one.)

[Nige]

Why? The really out-there supporters are the ones effectively calling the shots right now, every Republican candidate has to appease them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let's assume for a minute that the Republican candidates cater to the fanatical fringe of Trump supporters. Which if true would in fact confirm my point about the evilness of the candidates on offer.

But this conversation started by questioning the morality of *all* Trump voters, even the hold-their-nose-and-vote types.

[Nige]

Strike as appropriate: we have a name for people who held their noses and joined the Nazi/Communist Party. We called them Nazis/Communists.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Godwinizing so early?

[Nige]

Better than leaving it too late. But it's the principle, not the particulars, of the example.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'll just repeat a point from above - maybe these Trump voters simply don't want to vote for the side calling them Nazis.

[Nige]

While wearing t-shirts that read 'fuck your feelings.'

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on making literally a daily Koz cartoon.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s difficult to actually figure out what you’re trying to say, but since you’re somehow tying me to a cartoon about National Socialists I’m going to guess you’re wrong.

Perhaps the reason you're invoking National Socialists is that you want to alert people to your use of Big Lie techniques?

[Nige]

'It’s difficult to actually figure out'

No it isn't, Captain Obtuse.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why not put your claims into one or more propositions which can be proven or disproven, instead of babbling about National Socialists?

[Nige]

It’s not a claim, it’s a process, depicted satirically.

Herr Obtussenfuhrer.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So...you think I blame you for people becoming National Socialists?

I'm trying to follow your reasoning here.

[Nige]

You blame 'me' for people voting for Trump. Or rather, you, and they, deny responsibility for their own actions and claim the attitudes of people who criticised certain actions somehow compelled them to carry out those actions.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/818/hitlerbook.JPG

[OtisAH]

The “hold your nose” types are no less immoral than the True Believers. Because the “hold your nose” types could help stop this nonsense but don’t.

[Sarcastr0]

I've noticed that at least around here the hold your nose types, when pushed, end up switching to full-on true believers anything to own the libs types.

Though the sample here may be skewed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I know, right, I mean, would you vote for HITLER?!?!?!?

[M L]

When I hire a dentist or an accountant or a painter, I don't really investigate or take into account their personal moral failings, unless it seems to interfere with their ability to do the job.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Fortunately, there are considerably more options when you're choosing a dentist, etc.

[M L]

True. And even so, I still don't investigate their personal moral failings, that's how little it matters for purposes of having them do a job.

[MoreCurious]

So you're saying that a president's "personal moral failings" don't matter and don't interfere with his or her ability to do the job?

[M L]

No, I said they don't matter for purposes of hiring someone to do a job, to the extent that they don't interfere with their ability to do the job.

[Sarcastr0]

If I understand that a plumber beats their wife, actually I won’t hire them even if they do good work.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And I'd be at least mildly interested to know if my accountant has had a felony conviction for embezzlement. Or if my daughter lands her dream job in the office of the pussy-grabber-in-chief...

[Brightly]

Biden v Nebraska, what are the thoughts on the Major Questions Doctrine and its appropriateness in the majority decision?

[OtisAH]

I don’t think the “major questions doctrine” is appropriate at all. Or even justifiable.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's just a sort of halfway house for non-delegation. The Court isn't ready to restore strict non-delegation, but they can't bring themselves to endorse complete delegation, either.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm all for a robust nondelegation doctrine.

But this, even as you describe it, sounds like bad law.

You should not support half a loaf if it isn't a loaf at all but just a vague and subjective blank check.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not supporting it, I'm describing it. I'm with you: Robust non-delegation. I think the Court is trying to split the baby here.

[OtisAH]

It’s a helluva doctrine for alleged textualists and alleged originalists to implement.

[Krayt]

Misuse of "Emergency!" coming home to roost. As predicted. As warned about.

We should never have gotten this far to even need to wonder this.

[apedad]

‘The truth prevailed’: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton acquitted of corruption charges in impeachment trial

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-truth-prevailed-suspended-texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-acquitted-of-corruption-charges-in-impeachment-trial/

Not much to add to the story.

Apparently it's an internal Republican fight - so let's blame Biden!

"The sham impeachment coordinated by the Biden Administration with liberal House Speaker Dade Phelan and his kangaroo court has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, disrupted the work of the Office of Attorney General and left a dark and permanent stain on the Texas House," Paxton's letter read.

"Finally, I can promise the Biden Administration the following: buckle up because your lawless policies will not go unchallenged," the statement read. "We will not allow you to shred the constitution and infringe on the rights of Texans. You will be held accountable."

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think he's saying that he's gonna file a few more suits against Biden, which I don't believe he was allowed to do while suspended.

And yes, the political divide is between MAGA and everyone else, with the RINOs being actually worse than the Democrats.

[ducksalad]

60 out of 85 Republicans in the House voted for impeachment. If your theory that it's RINO vs MAGA is correct, then MAGA is having trouble winning elections in Texas.

[Life of Brian]

If your theory that it’s RINO vs MAGA is correct, then MAGA is having trouble winning elections in Texas.

1. Since you appear to be using the impeachment vote as a proxy, as recent as the movement is I'm not sure 30% representation/sympathy/whatever is all that shabby.

2. On the Senate side, they couldn't get more than 2 Republicans to vote for any of the articles of impeachment so they only got to 47% out of the needed 67% on those (and there were a number of the articles that a large number of the Ds couldn't even hold their nose to vote for). So again, following your proxy measure apparently MAGA is concentrated in the Senate.

In any event, Dade Phelan is likely now ruefully reminiscing on the rule that if you come at the king, you best not miss.

[John F. Carr]

The intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts issued its first ever en banc decision recently. A homeowner may not terminate a lease and evict a tenant if the tenant pays the water bill and the house does not have a state-mandated type of flow restrictor on all faucets. It does matter, the court ruled, if the landlord later reimburses the tenant for the water bill.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/09/05/v22P0300.pdf

The landlord wanted to move back into her house during COVID. Three years of litigation ensued.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t understand this:

“…the landlord notified the tenant that she needed to move back into her home but due to the Massachusetts moratorium on evictions, she could not serve the tenants with a notice to quit at that time. See St. 2020, c. 65, § 3.7 On December 14, 2020, the landlord filed a no-fault summary process action based on a thirty-day notice to quit, seeking to evict the tenant. “

What I don’t understand is between Baker’s extension of the MA eviction moratorium and Biden’s moratorium, how the landlord could turn around in December and file a summary process on a notice to quit that she wasn’t allowed to issue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me rephrase this: While Baker's initial moratorium expired in October of 2022, there was much angst and furor over the second one he issued, along with the one that Biden issued -- that one going to SCOTUS.

So if you couldn't evict a tenant who wasn't paying rent, how could you evict a tenant who *was*?

And my reading of the 8A is that the court essentially considered the water bill to be withheld rent under the "repair & deduct" statute or something.

Moral of the story: If you move in with your boyfriend, make sure that the relationship will last before renting out your house. (Or wait until you marry him...)

[John F. Carr]

I meant to write "It does not matter".

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyers have filed a reply brief in support of their motion for Judge Tanya Chutkan's recusal. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.58.0.pdf Weak sauce, topside to bottom.

[David Nieporent]

Agreed. The main weakness is that they're simply fabricating what Chutkan said. She never said that Trump should be charged. (She may have thought so, but I'll wager so did hundreds of other federal judges. Insisting on finding a judge who has no opinion about Donald Trump is, well, let's just say it's a way for Trump to avoid being tried at all.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump has a practically unlimited ability to spend on legal fees fighting every possible non-frivolous motion imaginable, thanks entirely to hardworking, gullible people who are finding it hard to make ends meet.

Win-win!

[apedad]

Indiana AG sues hospital that ‘chose to protect’ doctor who provided abortion care for 10-year-old Ohio girl raped by her mother’s boyfriend

Following his failed attempt to discipline the doctor who shared the story of the 10-year-old Ohio rape victim who traveled to Indiana for an abortion, (Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita) the state’s anti-abortion attorney general has now sued the hospital system that employed the doctor.

https://lawandcrime.com/abortion/indiana-ag-sues-hospital-that-chose-to-protect-doctor-who-provided-abortion-care-for-10-year-old-ohio-girl-raped-by-her-mothers-boyfriend/

Meanwhile, several hours later, we get this:

Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission files misconduct charges against Attorney General Rokita

Intrastate political fighting!

Good stuff.

[apedad]

Second link

https://www.wave3.com/2023/09/18/indiana-supreme-court-disciplinary-commission-files-misconduct-charges-against-attorney-general-rokita/

[grb]

Rokita's most vindictive attempts to target Dr. Caitlin Bernard failed, but he did manage to get her censored. The charge was not maintaining patient confidentiality, even though Dr. Bernard used only general terms discussing the case and avoided every specific.

So a bullshit charge, but Rokita was enraged his abortion policy was exposed as monstrous, loathsome & inhuman, so demanded his pound of flesh.

[David Nieporent]

So a bullshit charge, but Rokita was enraged his abortion policy was exposed as monstrous, loathsome & inhuman, so demanded his pound of flesh.

Whatever you think of Rokita, it was Ohio's policy, not Indiana's, at issue.

[grb]

Are you suggesting Rokita's policy is different than Ohio's ?!?

[grb]

We don’t talk enough about architecture here. Therefore – via the below link – Casa Malaparte, one of the world’s all-time great houses.

The link highlights Adalberto Libera as architect, but the overall design was actually by its owner, Curzio Malaparte, an Italian writer, filmmaker, war correspondent and diplomat. He wandered across the political spectrum and was a committed fascist at first, but ran afoul of Mussolini and was imprisoned off and on throughout the war. In 1938–41 he built his house – fused to a small peninsula of vertiginous rock jutting out into the Mediterranean near Capri.

The house is refined to perfect simplicity : The steps leading to the terrace are almost part of the landscape; the terrace commands an entire horizon; the rich red contrasts the sea blue; the terrace wind-screen a slash of white. The main interior space is otherworldly – almost surreal – and the views incredible.

It’s attracted its share of photo shoots inover the years, Emma Stone and Kate Moss being examples, but is most famous for being featured in Jean-Luc Godard’s 1963 film, Contempt (Le Mépris). As for that movie? It’s a mixed bag, featuring a slightly louche hero who has an (inexplicable) ambivalence about his lover, Brigitte Bardot. There’s also a loud obnoxious American played by Jack Palance and imperious German director (Fritz Lang). (It’s one of those movie within a movie movies). Good scenery tho!

https://archeyes.com/casa-malaparte-in-capri-adalberto-libera/

[SRG2]

Meets the biophilia (external) test. Fails the biophilia (internal) test. Fails the Mandelbrot (scale symmetry) test. The house fails overall, therefore 🙂

[grb]

1. I guess it could have been worse. You coulda gone w/ feng shui.

2. OTOH, the Mandelbrot Wiki page was very trippy, so thanks for that!

[SRG2]

I am a member of a FB group that is intended to feature beautiful modern architecture. Almost invariably, the houses they post are:
1. computer images rather than real houses (because of #2)
2. overly if not impossibly cantilevered
3. have fantastic settings - lots of water, trees, rocks, etc. - so with highly biophilic views
4. Have little fractal depth when viewed from the outside - very plain lines, so lacking genuine aesthetic appeal - unless you regard Bauhaus as highly aesthetically pleasing and regard Nomos watches as cool
5. Interiors vary from plain white and no visual appeal (non-biophilic) to lots of timber and natural stone (highly biophilic), but almost all have large windows and so great views of the outsider (highly biophilic per #3,

[grb]

No, SRG2 :

1. The reason “rendered architecture” is so ubiquitous is the same reason “paper architecture” was in the days of my youth: It’s a lot easier to finance a keyboard stroke or pastel on paper than the real thing. It has nothing to do with cantilevers.

2. Though cantilevers themselves aren’t bad. Witness the just-opened black-box theater on the 9-11 site in New York. A perfect cube with one edge cantilevered over a grand entry, with a marble veneer grafted to curtainwall framing so thin it’s translucent, the light flowing inside during the day and the building glowing like a lantern at night. There are three basic theaters inside, but thru raw ingenuity they can be configured in over sixty ways.

https://www.dezeen.com/2023/09/14/perelman-performing-arts-center-world-trade-center-rex/

3. Very plain lines can have tremendous aesthetic power if done well and to a purpose. There are no hard & fast rules. (And I checked: Nomos watches do look cool, though I’m a Timex guy myself).

4. Again, plain white interiors can be stunning and beautiful. It’s all a question of how their done.

[SRG2]

The problem with the rendered architecture I see on that FB group is the practical impossibility of most of the designs. It may be freeing not to have to obey the law of gravity but it is also cheating.

I have no issue with cantilevering per se but it's used to excess in these renders both in occurrence and extension. Architects there seem particularly fond of long-armed cantilevered swimming pools.

Plain lines can indeed look good, but they pall, likewise plain white interiors. (Choose between Rothko and Pollock 😉 ) FWIW I own a Chinese knock-off of a Nomos watch -with a sterile dial and in small doses it's appealing. But I never wear it for an extended period of time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"great houses"

Ugly. Modern trash.

Great view. Of course any house with windows would have the same views.

[grb]

Thanks, Bob! I might have second-guessed my judgement if you agreed w/ me...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Even our boasted navy never achieved a great victory until we shot an admiral. Suppose an architect were hanged!"

[grb]

Yikes !!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Bleah. I agree. Waste of a good view.

And what’s with that roof/patio?

[grb]

The engineer's perspective! (I've had a whole lifetime dealing with that).

[SRG2]

My father z"l, a civil engineer, was fond of the story a colleague used to tell, who'd been involved in the construction of a very tornado-resistant skyscraper in, IIRC, Dallas. Shortly before completion, a toirnado struck. He phoned the site foreman to find out what if any damage there was. The foreman responded, "the building's okay, but some of the architecture was blown off".

[grb]

A tragic story to be sure, but it does capture the engineer mindset.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm serious. Roof patios? Cool, I like them. Roofs are otherwise a huge expanse of wasted space.

But that stupid white curved wall? Looks like somebody just tacked it on without any thought, it does NOT fit with the rest of the house. It clashes, horribly. Provides no shelter, obstructs the view, and clashes with the esthetic.

Personally, with the budget, I'd have put a Japanese garden up there, with pergolas you could sit in enjoying the shade while looking at the view.

[grb]

1.I’m pretty sure the white roof structure is functionally a wind break.

2. Is it arbitrary in a formal sense? Sure. But the remainder of the structure is rigidly formal. Personally, I like the flamboyant contrast. It seems a lessor building when I picture it removed.

3. Obstructs the view? You have about three-hundred-degrees of crystal-blue Mediterranean sweeping as far as the eye can see and you feel cheated?

4. Yes, you could put a garden up there, pergola, deck chairs, wet bar, grill, and cornhole game – but sooner or later you’d lose out on the elemental power of a truly unique creation (though it’s been copied more than a few times). Granted, if you ya don’t see it, ya won’t miss it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know it's a wind break. It's a butt ugly wind break.

[not guilty]

Jeffrey Clark reportedly failed to show up for his evidentiary hearing on the removal of the Fulton County prosecution to United States District Court. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnoAStlByOc In that the burden of persuasion is on him, that does not portend well for avoiding remand to state court.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Some commenting lawyers seemed surprised when Meadows showed up and testified at his removal hearing. Is it more common for the person petitioning for removal to not be present?

[not guilty]

The burden of supporting removal to federal court is on the proponent of removal. It is incumbent on the accused to provide evidence of some kind, whether it is his own testimony or otherwise.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Right, but some commenters seemed to think it was rarely a good idea for the accused to provide evidence in the form of personal testimony in that context. Perhaps because of the danger of hurting their defense to the state charges.

[John F. Carr]

Ed Meese, who is still alive, filed an affidavit in Jeffrey Clark's case in which he discusses organization and history of relevant parts of the DOJ. He concludes

If the premise of this prosecution were to be accepted, then state law enforcement officials could arrest local U.S. Attorneys and their Assistants while they were deliberating over whether and/or how to approach a possible prosecution of state or local officials. Similarly, under Fulton County's interpretation of federal supremacy, state or local officials could enter the Oval Office and arrest the President and his Attorney General during their deliberations over whether and to what extent to assert federal law enforcement powers against state or local officials. Not even George Wallace or Orval Faubus, during the heights of the heated civil rights-era disputes, were willing to go that far against President Kennedy and his Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

In short, in my opinion, any consideration of the above matters squarely involves Mr. Clark's actions as a federal officer concerning the exercise of his federal authority under the Constitution and federal law and were within the scope of his authorities as an AAG under federal law.

[grb]

Huh. The Jeffrey Clark in the news drafted a letter to be sent to a handful of states like Georgia. It said DOJ had evidence that raised “significant concerns” about the election results in multiple states. It claimed there was an ongoing investigation concerning election fraud and the recipient should postpone vote certification.

It was a fraud. There wasn’t any active investigation, no “significant concerns” about election results, and no evidence of fraud. The entire letter was a complete lie, decided to give political cover to any state that wanted to block final election results.

But in addition to being voting fraud itself, it was also a scam to another end. Clark offered to send these letters out if Trump dismissed Jefferey Rosen as acting head of Justice and appointed Clark in his place. In short, this lie to steal an election was also a lie to steal the head DOJ job.

And it almost worked. Clark’s designation in the White House call logs suddenly changed to “Acting Attorney General.” There was a meeting where Trump demand Rosen fall in line, telling him: “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen”

The only thing that killed this fraudulent scheme & Clark’s dream of leapfrogging into the head spot was a threat of mass-resignations at Justice. That’s how close a thing it was.

Is that what Meese refers to talking about “Mr. Clark’s actions as a federal officer”?

[John F. Carr]

In my opinion Clark's actions in this case should be absolutely immune from state criminal prosecution, no matter how evil he is alleged to have been. States have no right to interfere in the internal workings of the Justice Department.

Clark, aka "Co-Conspirator 4", should not be immune from Jack Smith.

[David Nieporent]

States have no right to interfere in the internal workings of the Justice Department.

The Justice Department — which Clark was not actually authorized to act on behalf of — has no right to interfere in the internal workings of state elections. Clark was trying to get the state legislature to appoint new electors — even going so far as to advise the legislature to ignore Georgia law based on the frivolous ISL theory — based on fabricated claims about what the DOJ had found out about the Georgia elections.

[not guilty]

The judge rejected the Meese declaration. He also rejected a declaration of Mr. Clark, as well he should have. An evidentiary hearing contemplates cross-examination.

The State presented live testimony from Jody Hunt, Clark's predecessor as head of the DOJ Civil Division. He reportedly testified that activities regarding state elections would not have been within the purview of that division.

[David Nieporent]

Clark's strategy was a bit puzzling. He saw Meadows offer in person testimony, subject to cross-examination, and yet he decided that live testimony wasn't needed, and that an affidavit would be sufficient. Of course, Meadows' position was still rejected by the court, but at least he tried. Hmm, I wonder if Clark decided, after the decision on Meadows' case, that it was hopeless and therefore he wasn't going to subject himself to cross-examination. Clark arguably had a better case than Meadows, though, if he had played it out.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Poll for the forum.

Assume for the sake of argument that is found that Hunter Biden has, through various means, transferred over $100,000 from his or his business's bank accounts, to those of Joe Biden, or Joe Biden's businesses.

Would you support removal of Biden from the presidency if this was found to be true? Yes or No.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you consider that a yes or no question, this has been another episode of "All Armchair, No Lawyer."

Carry on, clinger.

[Magister]

Would the evidence be ambiguous records provided by a blind accountant on paper manufactured in Russia, found in suitcases containing millions of illegal votes?

[David Nieporent]

Without endorsing Kirkland's obnoxious tone, the substance of his response is correct. There are way more facts I would need to know before I could answer that question. For example: How long ago did this hypothetical transaction happen? Did it happen when Joe Biden was in public office or during the time he was retired? What did Joe Biden know about the original source of those funds? What was the original source of those funds? Etc.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'll take that as a no.

Money's fungible.

Let's assume the following situation.
Hunter: "Dad, I need you to arrange to get Shokin fired. Burisma's paying me a lot of money to do it"
Joe: "OK, but I expect to be compensated for this, you're going to give me some of the money Burisma's paying you. But....don't use the Burisma money, use other funds. And pay me once I leave office"
Hunter : "OK, deal"

Then according to your logic, the transaction didn't happen when Joe Biden was in office, didn't use Burisma funds, and Joe didn't know where the money came from. So, it's all presumably OK

It's still a bribe, via a third party of course. But...the fiscal details get muddied enough that you're OK with it. Right?

[Nige]

So the hypothetical is: if Joe Biden took a bribe would you say that Joe Biden took a bribe? More a tautology.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The hypothetical is, if Joe Biden took significant amounts of money from his son.

If he did, it looks like a bribe via a 3rd party, because his son was being paid large amounts of money to "influence" Joe's actions.

The timing doesn't really matter. Being paid the bribe after one leaves office for actions one did while in office, is still a bribe. It was just "held in escrow" by a third party until Biden left office.

[Nige]

Wait, is it a bribe or isn't it? Taking money from your son isn't a bribe.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not the first time you attempted some overdetermined hypo that left a bunch of important facts out regarding Joe Biden's hypothetical perfidy.

You are hoping your hypo will align with revealed facts later and you can present this and say 'a HA! All of you now must call Joe Biden guilty because you agreed with my hypo!'
But as you try and make the revealed facts something with potential to actually be revealed in the real world, your hypos get more and more tendentious.
Especially since you continue to resist looking up any actual laws of bribery or fraud.

[David Nieporent]

The hypothetical is, if Joe Biden took significant amounts of money from his son.

Right, and the answer is that there's not enough information there to answer. Family members provide loans and gifts to each other all the time; there's nothing inherently nefarious about that. (You won't believe how much money Fred Trump gave to Donald!)

If he did, it looks like a bribe via a 3rd party, because his son was being paid large amounts of money to “influence” Joe’s actions.

And… you're back to "If it actually was a bribe, would it be a bribe?"

[Magister]

(You won’t believe how much money Fred Trump gave to Donald!)

The clickbait link is missing or broken.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Just so we're clear, this appears to be your position.

1. Hunter Biden can be paid millions of dollars by Burisma for the purpose of influencing US government policy about Ukraine and Burisma. And that's perfectly OK.

2. Joe Biden can then directly advise and influence US government policy on Ukraine, as a US government official. And that's perfectly OK.

3. Hunter Biden can then pay Joe Biden hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. And that's perfectly OK. Because "family members provide loans or gifts to each other all the time"

Because, if Hunter was so unwise to say "This $100,000 monetary payment was for the actions Joe Biden took with regards to Burisma"....that would be rather illegal. But if Hunter says "This $100,000 payment is just a gift because I love my dad so much"...

No harm, no foul, nothing wrong to see here.

Does that adequately describe your position here?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

IRL, are you in the habit of providing idiotic, unsolicited summaries of others' "positions"? Do you find people respond well to that?

[Nelson]

"1. Hunter Biden can be paid millions of dollars by Burisma for the purpose of influencing US government policy about Ukraine and Burisma. And that’s perfectly OK."

Yes, that is perfectly legal. What you are describing is what happens on most boards of for-profit companies and virtually every non-profit board. It is as common as common practice gets.

"2. Joe Biden can then directly advise and influence US government policy on Ukraine, as a US government official. And that’s perfectly OK."

Yes, that is what the Vice President often does. You are assuming a connection between #1 and #2 that not only hasn't been demonstrated, the position of Joe Biden and the US government remained the same after Hunter joined the board.

"3. Hunter Biden can then pay Joe Biden hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. And that’s perfectly OK."

Yes. Because unless there is some actual evidence of wrongdoing on Joe's part, there's nothing that indicates it's for a nefarious purpose. Especially when there are exculpatory facts like, for example, that the US position didn't change after Hunter's grift.

"Does that adequately describe your position here?"

No. My position (and I'm not the only one) is that if you want to claim bribery, starting with some actual evidence instead of sly insinuations would be a good first step.

Reasonable people don't make extreme decisions based on unconnected events. QAnon and Alex Jones do.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Interesting. Let's change the hypothetical slightly, and see if your answer changes.

Hypothetical 1. Burisma directly "gifts" Joe Biden $100,000, while talking to him. Joe Biden continues to advise and influence US government policy regarding Burisma.
---Any problem with this?

Hypothetical 2. Burisma hires a consulting company to affect US policy. That consulting company talks to Biden. Joe Biden is advising and influencing US Government policy. The consulting company then "gifts" Joe Biden $100,000.
---Any problem with this?

Just curious.

[Sarcastr0]

1. is a conflict of interest. Unethical, but not a bribe.
2. would not be sufficient evidence to prove bribery in court. Look up some examples of bribery cases that come with a conviction, rather than consulting your gut.

You're straining to establish constructive intent from the minimum evidence possible. And also strawmanning all who point out your hypos aren't getting you there.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you keep asking the same stupid hypothetical, "If Biden got bribed, would that be a problem?" when the entire issue is whether Biden got bribed?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow.....

That's really your view of the law Sarcastro....?

If given the facts at hand, it was discovered Burisma directly paid Joe Biden $100,000, it would merely be a "conflict of interest" and not considered bribery?

I'm speechless....

[Sarcastr0]

It's not my view of the law, it is the law.

Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift.

Your hypo does not establish that, and all your moral outrage is just you adding asshole to ignoramus.

Do some fucking homework on bribery next time.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Read 18 USC 201.

It does not require altering behavior. It just needs to influence behavior.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

I've done my homework. Have you?

[Sarcastr0]

We've talking about it here enough of course I know it. If you want to point to a particular law, maybe include that in your initial hypo.

(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

Do you think "Burisma directly “gifts” Joe Biden $100,000, while talking to him" establishes any of these 3 elements?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I assume people know the actually bribery laws applicable to federal government officials...

I have no idea what law YOU are pointing to that says "Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift."

Perhaps you can provide a link to this supposed law and the text of the law that demands that?

[Sarcastr0]

You're trying for impeachment anyhow, so why not common law bribery?

Here is where I got my definition from. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

Bottom line is your hypo fails to prove what you want it to, and you act morally outraged at everyone pointing it out. Silly.

[Nelson]

"The hypothetical is, if Joe Biden took significant amounts of money from his son."

For what? My father and I exchanged "significant amounts of money" when he was alive. Some of it was literally me paying him back for my high school tuition because I felt guilty that he had to spend so much money because I kept getting kicked out of schools. If I hadn't, he wouldn't have had to spend anything.

The problem is, as was already pointed out, you are starting with the assumption that "large money transfers between a son and his father" and "a bribe" are interchangeable things. They aren't.

"If he did, it looks like a bribe via a 3rd party,"

Only if you start from the assumption that it was a bribe. Otherwise, it just looks like money sent between family members for unknown reasons. The fact that your preferred conclusion blinds you to any other explanation is a you problem, not an everybody else problem.

"because his son was being paid large amounts of money to “influence” Joe’s actions."

Example #6327 of "begging the question" by AL.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, when the son was obtaining the overwhelming source of his income from a company that was seeking to influence US government policy....

And the father was in a position and actively influencing government policy on that company...

I mean, if Joe Biden had absolutely zero to do with Ukraine and Burisma...the transfers not a problem. But...that's not true.

[Sarcastr0]

Nail down your goalposts.

You've called your overdetermined hypos a problem for Joe Biden, and full-on bribery.

Switching between them is a Motte and Baily. And you're not really bothering to hide it.

You really are bad at this.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro....

Given your views above, on a foreign company directly giving a government official a "gift" of $100,000, and that official directly working on actions that help out that company....and it somehow not being bribery...

I don't know what you would consider bribery. Does it have to be marked "Bribe" on the check?

[Sarcastr0]

Google 'elements of bribery' you asshole.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I have. It just needs to influence behavior.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

Let's put it a different way. If a cop pulls you over and thinks to himself "I'm just going to let them off with a warning" and you then slip a $100 bill under your license to get off a speeding ticket.

It's still bribery. It's designed to influence the cop's behavior.

But I enjoy you arguing in court that is wasn't bribery, because you thought the cop would let you off anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

First, these are new goalposts You want to point to a law, your hypo should point to the law.

Of course your moral dudgeon has zero to do with the law as written.

Second, what part of any of your hypos do you believe establishes Biden's behavior being influenced?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I assume people know the law. If you don't know the law in regards to Bribery of US Federal Officials, then...that's on you.

[Sarcastr0]

Your ask is broader than the the federal bribery statute. Or any law in fact. You've wandered through problematic. You started with worthy of removal from the Presidency.

These are all different standards.

This is what happens when you are an armchair lawyer in a legal blog, and when your goal is not the truth, but to own the libs.

You've been switching standards. Pretending it's actually us who have the problem is just you trying to asshole your way out.

[OtisAH]

I love this.

“Yes or no, the universe is inherently a positive good.”

“That’s not a yes or no question. There are way too many-“

“I’ll put you down as a no.”

[Nige]

Once upon a time the right raved non-stop about the evils of trigger warnings, safe spaces and snowflakes. Now white kids are reporting teachers for assigning reading about what it's like to be black in America, apparently because what other white people do and did to black people is so awful they feel implicated. This strikes me as similar to one of the rationales for Holocaust denial - that it was faked up to make gentiles feel sorry for the Jews becaue of what other gentiles did to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/09/18/south-carolina-teacher-ta-nehisi-coates-racism-lesson

Six months earlier, two of Wood’s Advanced Placement English Language and Composition students had reported her to the school board for teaching about race. Wood had assigned her all-White class readings from Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me,” a book that dissects what it means to be Black in America.

The students wrote in emails that the book — and accompanying videos that Wood, 47, played about systemic racism — made them ashamed to be White, violating a South Carolina proviso that forbids teachers from making students “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” on account of their race.

Reading Coates’s book felt like “reading hate propaganda towards white people,” one student wrote.

At least two parents complained, too. Within days, school administrators ordered Wood to stop teaching the lesson. They placed a formal letter of reprimand in her file. It instructed her to keep teaching “without discussing this issue with your students.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I correctly guessed that the article got the law wrong.

The language about "feeling discomfort" is different from what is represented in the article.

Instead, here's a fuller quote:

"For the 2022-23 school year, S.C. lawmakers added a proviso to the state budget that prohibited state money from being spent to teach various ideas related to race, including...“an individual *should* feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex.” [emphasis added]

https://www.thestate.com/news/local/article276257911.html#storylink=cpy

In short, no racist bullying or harassment. The *intent* of the instruction is they key.

For example the proviso doesn't stop teachers from teaching about the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March, but it *does* stop the teacher from turning to the Japanese-American students and saying "that's what you people are like, you should be ashamed!"

Whether the book, as taught in that class, violates the proviso, I don't know. You might argue this is all a wrongful accusation of racial harassment. Such wrongful accusations, alas, have been known to happen. Do we repeal the laws against racial harassment?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

To pursue the Japanese-American example, we could envision a scenario in which the teacher, giving an account of the Second World War era, describes the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March, and some Japanese-American kids complain that *merely teaching the facts* was illegal because it made them ashamed. And the school district dealt with it by removing references to these atrocities from the history curriculum. This would be a case of a false allegation of racial harassment, followed by a mistaken curricular decision.

Yet in the scenario I envision, the takeaway ought to be that there *wasn’t any* racial harassment. I doubt very much that the reaction would be to legalize racial harassment by teachers.

But imagine that the local American Legion post wanted the laws against racial harassment in school to be *repealed,* because it “just stopps Americans from learning about their history.” In fact, suppose that they *misquoted* the law as protecting snowflake students from feeling bad. Wouldn’t we hold the Legionnaires to blame for being wrong about the law?

I see from the article I linked to that the teacher says the class just taught the book as one perspective, on which students were supposed to form and express opinions. That doesn't sound like racial harassment in and of itself, assuming the teacher is telling it like it is.

[grb]

What on earth are you on about? As you note yourself, there’s no indication the kids were racially harassed by given a reading from Ta-Nehisi Coates. Do you think that mattered in the slightest? It was effortless for the kids to claim harassment with parents and school administrators waiting eagerly to bless their whim.

The law does protect snowflake students from feeling bad. The fine distinctions you offer are meaningless, minus one large distinction : Your Japanese-American kids would probably be told to suck it up and face the facts. As would most complainants outside of the demographic these laws are expressly designed to service : White kids of conservative parents who don’t want to hear about race.

With such a touchy-feely postmodern kind of law, intent is all. It can function perfectly for the protected class it’s purposed to shelter. They only have to sniff and say they feel an (unfair) obligation to feel bad and everything grinds to a halt. Remember, these laws were created to combat Critical Race Theory in the public schools – something that never existed except in the minds of right-wingers. They're featherweight laws prompted by race-baiting fantasies.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“As you note yourself, there’s no indication the kids were racially harassed by given a reading from Ta-Nehisi Coates.”

Just to be clear, I’m only assuming for purposes of this discussion that the charge of racial harassment was false – though of course if the Post got the law wrong, there’s always the possibility they got the facts wrong, too.

“Your Japanese-American kids would probably be told to suck it up and face the facts.”

That would depend on one key factor not mentioned in my hypothetical – how many votes do their parents have?

The vote-counting by the school authorities seems more relevant than the precise statutory language.

The only place to obsess over the legal language would be some place like, say, a legal blog.

If the Post’s error was simply a one-time mistake, that would be one thing. But there are plenty of media accounts of similar laws saying that these laws prohibit hurt feelings. No, they prohibit deliberately teaching that students *should* feel bad because of their race. If that sort of thing was “severe and pervasive” enough in a school district, I think it would be illegal racial harassment under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So even if the South Carolina proviso was eliminated, school districts would still have to assure, at minimum, that the racial harassment of their students wasn’t severe and pervasive.

So aggrieved parents could, if they wished, simply reframe their accusations in terms of the 1964 law, and that (plus the parents’ voting strength) would still be enough to make a school district nervous.

That isn’t an argument for repealing the 1964 Act, it’s an argument for correctly stating and applying statutory language, an issue suited to a legal blog.

In theory the 1964 act *might* give a school district more leeway because it could say, "this was just one incident, your honor, it won't happen again." Whereas the state proviso doesn't allow the "just one incident" defense.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Again, I’m asuming the media is right that this was indeed a false accusation – that it was *not* deliberate racial harassment of the sort forbidden by law.

[Nige]

It doesn't seem to matter in the slightest. The intent of the law is to give power to people who want certain subjects suppressed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Going by JasonT20’s comments below (if those comments are accurate), these laws codified *pre-existing* standards for teacher behavior, by which the teacher could be disciplined for racial harassment.

Yet this is supposed to be an argument *against* putting those professional standards into a statute. These professional standards are transmogrified from good things, which of course school districts stand vigilantly ready to enforce, into bad things supported by icky people. They are the very same standards in each case.

And talk of political reality – if they repeal the laws codifying these professional standard, do you think these standards will remain in force as unwritten professional standards? Doesn’t sound realistic to me.

And bear in mind, if I hadn’t corrected the Washington Post’s misstatement about the law, if I hadn't quoted what the law actually said, their error would have stood uncontradicted on this legal blog.

[Nige]

'*pre-existing* standards'

It's never been a standard that teaching white people about black peoples' experiences was a form of racism. That's a new standard, in line with current right-wing ideology.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Like I said, if I hadn’t corrected the Post’s error you would keep trying to perpetuate it. Indeed, you’re trying to perpetuate it even *after* being shown the error.

[Nige]

You're more hung up about the error of the wording than the way the teacher was treated, and why, as a result of, presumably, the correct wording. I guess it's easier that way.

[Brett Bellmore]

The intent of the law is contrary to its actual language? How did that happen, did they delegate the drafting to some minion they didn't notify about their intent?

Let's be clear: This 'mistake' about the law in question happens consistently enough that it's probably more of a lie than a mistake. The law is actually quite reasonable, and does nothing most people would find objectionable, so its opponents lie about what the law does.

[Nige]

'The intent of the law is contrary to its actual language?'

No. You just define racial harassment as teaching white kids about black people. You define sexism as teaching boys about misogyny. You define teaching straight kids about homophobia as heterophobia. And so on. You ALREADY believe that something like affirmitive action is racism. The rest logically follows.

[David Nieporent]

The law is actually quite reasonable, and does nothing most people would find objectionable, so its opponents lie about what the law does.

Um, we're discussing a situation where that actually happened, so how can it be a "lie" to say that's what the law does?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “The intent of the law is contrary to its actual language?”

Sure. That’s what we’ve seen so far. Take the “Don’t Say Gay” laws. You rush to winge that title is unfair, but what are we seeing? There was a recent case in Georgia where someone was giving a lecture to school kids on the history of Batman as character creation, its brand history, and all the legal battles around the commercial product. It was a popular way to tie together a bunch of themes on how something like that is delivered to the marketplace. One of the co-creators hadn’t gotten rights or credit but (the lecturer said) his only son was gay so didn’t produce any issue with standing to sue.

And that was it. There was no “promotion” of homosexuality or “grooming” or whatever sicko fantasy right-wingers dream of when promoting these laws. The lecturer said “gay” (speaking of a historic fact) and his popular program was shut down. Just like the example Nige provided above.

All your posturing aside, Brett, the abuse of these laws isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. They’re designed to be abused. Teach anything more than a spare history of race relations safely consigned to the past and someone complains. Even if the complaint is obviously nebulous it will be upheld. The teacher will be disciplined and everyone will understand to keep lessons saccharine going forward. That’s how these laws are designed to work. You whine about lies? Let’s see if you’re honest about that.

[Sarcastr0]

Below, Brett says this implementation is good, actually. Banning TNC is the law functioning as Brett envisions.

So this whole thing about how we're all lying about the law? It's bullshit.
Brett, who is generally sincere, seems here to be inconsistent in a way that sure seems deceitful.

[myself]

If the Post’s error was simply a one-time mistake, that would be one thing. But there are plenty of media accounts of similar laws saying that these laws prohibit hurt feelings. No, they prohibit deliberately teaching that students *should* feel bad because of their race. If that sort of thing was “severe and pervasive” enough in a school district, I think it would be illegal racial harassment under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

No, there are plenty of students (most likely parents) who believe that any acknowledgement of current or former racism is telling their white kids that they "should feel bad because of their race" and therefore illegal under these poorly conceived laws.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So, ought it to be legal to do what this proviso forbids – teaching that “an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex”?

That is, should teachers and administrators be allowed to engage in conduct with students which, if committed by a student against another student, would be called bullying?

[myself]

Interesting.

The obvious counter to my post would be to claim that they're somehow doing something much worse than that.

Instead... you seem to be taking the stance that acknowledging current or former racism is in fact telling their white kids that they “should feel bad because of their race”?

If a white kid can't handle the fact that racism against other races exists, well toughen up kiddo.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“you seem to be taking the stance” [imaginary position omitted]

I guess it’s my fault for trying to make a nuanced point on the Internet, but I’ll be masochistic and try again.

I’ve stipulated repeatedly (that is, assumed without deciding) that the Post was right about the teacher being subjected to a false allegation of racial harassment.

But the cure to that (stipulated) false accusation is not to abolish the law* she was accused of violating.

If the law forbids something she *didn’t do,* the problem is the wrongful accusation, not the law itself.

And I see no reason to permit public schools to teach the doctrine that “an individual *should* [emphasis added] feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex.”

Maybe I’ll continue my masochism later and keep trying to explain these points. But no promises.

*OK, not a full-on law, but a proviso in a budget bill for this year.

[myself]

I guess it’s my fault for trying to make a nuanced point on the Internet, but I’ll be masochistic and try again.

We'll see about that.

I’ve stipulated repeatedly (that is, assumed without deciding) that the Post was right about the teacher being subjected to a false allegation of racial harassment.

I'll agree on that.

But the cure to that (stipulated) false accusation is not to abolish the law* she was accused of violating.

I'll disagree on that.

From the article:
"At least two parents complained, too. Within days, school administrators ordered Wood to stop teaching the lesson. They placed a formal letter of reprimand in her file. It instructed her to keep teaching “without discussing this issue with your students.”"

Ie, the teacher experienced adverse professional consequences as a result of her lesson. If your position actually is that she did nothing wrong then the law is a problem.

If the law forbids something she *didn’t do,* the problem is the wrongful accusation, not the law itself.

Just like the "don't say gay" law in Florida. The point of the law is not to stop stuff that wasn't actually happening. It was to give license to activist parents to react to any acknowledgement of racism by invoking the law. The "false accusation" is the law's objective as it creates a chilling effect where teachers are unwilling to discuss racism for fear of triggering a parent to file a lawsuit.

And I see no reason to permit public schools to teach the doctrine that “an individual *should* [emphasis added] feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex.”

"Should" is highly subjective. As a white person in the US (I'm making an assumption) you may feel kinship with other white people who have actively discriminated against black people. You may have literally benefited from that discrimination. Should you feel guilty or uncomfortable because of that? If you think the answer is yes then you believe the law bans teaching of those facts.

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : “And I see no reason to permit public schools to teach the doctrine that “an individual *should* [emphasis added] feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex.”

Uh huh. I see no reason to believe any do. But then I’ve always had a cynical ear for the more ludicrous & screeching kind of right-wing propaganda, so we may part company there.

But here’s an interesting true story. My Ex was German, originally from a small village north of Berlin. She was also dutifully mindful about some of the massive issues of recent German history. One time when we lived in Pennsylvania, she dragged me (dutiful husband) thirty-some miles into Philly to sit on hard plastic seats and listen to droning lectures on the difference between “historical responsibility” and “historical guilt”. They were given by some Jewish-German Society.

Tell ya the truth, my mind wandered. Still, I recall the former existed but the latter didn’t. Think that’s true? If so, could we talk about it school, or would it make some snot-nosed kid feel bad?

[JasonT20]

You had written earlier:

"The vote-counting by the school authorities seems more relevant than the precise statutory language."

This is the problem with these laws. It is that it actually encourages aggrieved parents to make false accusations by rewarding that behavior. It isn't just about the number of votes, but it is also about how vocal and persistent the people are that are claiming that they are purposefully being made to feel bad. Like all such activist organizations, groups like Moms for Liberty can greatly amplify their impact beyond their raw numbers.

I've been a science teacher for 20 years, and I know that there are still battles being fought over teaching evolution a century after the Scopes trial. And there are still biology teachers that tiptoe through the unit on evolution in order to not make students (or their parents) upset if they have strong views about the book of Genesis being true.

And I see no reason to permit public schools to teach the doctrine that “an individual *should* [emphasis added] feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex.

There might be the individual teacher here or there that pushes their religious beliefs in science classrooms (either against evolution or against biblical creationism) beyond teaching the scientific facts and working to ensure that students also understand the principles of the theory. It is the job of school and district administration to handle those cases of unprofessional behavior. But there is no need to specifically make a law against doing that, because it is not the intent of science education to contradict anyone's religious beliefs. If a student learning and understanding the theory of evolution makes them question what they've been taught in Sunday school, that's not the school's problem. The battles in school board meetings and at the state level over science standards regarding evolution are about trying to give the vocal creationists the leverage to weaken the teaching of evolution because they don't like the facts and conclusions of scientific reasoning drawn from those facts.

There are strong parallels to all of this argument over making white kids feel bad when they learn the facts and history about racism in the U.S. and the world. An individual teacher telling white kids that they should feel bad because of slavery and discrimination against black people could be dealt with as being unprofessional just like any other such issue. But these laws start with the premise that they need to protect kids from a "doctrine" being forced on them by the whole system. The effect, though, is to give aggrieved parents the leverage to weaken efforts to simply teach the facts because it gives them new tools to threaten lawsuits against schools. Lawsuits that can be funded by activist groups with an agenda rather than out of the parents' own pockets.

Intent does matter here, but not in the way you are arguing. The intent is to chill and discourage the teaching of facts about racism out of fear that schools will be charged with intentionally making white kids feel bad even when they are not.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm at a disadvantage because I don't hang out around enough public schools to monitor their curricula.

To legalize certain previously-forbidden teaching, such as the idea that "an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex,” will, in the logical course of events, lead to such things being taught. The logical reason for people to want these laws repealed is that they want to teach this doctrine and other racist ideas.

These state laws don't introduce any new principle - they tighten up the 1964 Act's ban on racial harassment - but instead of waiting for the harassment to be severe and pervasive (like the federal law arguably does), the state laws don't allow *any* instance of racist harassment or bullying.

Again, it's about the intent of the teaching, not the fee-fees of the "snot-nosed" students. Florida has a similar anti-racist-teaching law, and it *also* requires students to learn about slavery, Jim Crow, and the history of Blacks in America.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"you may feel kinship with other white people who have actively discriminated against black people"

What do you mean by this?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“An individual teacher telling white kids that they should feel bad because of slavery and discrimination against black people could be dealt with as being unprofessional just like any other such issue.”

OK, but what would the practical consequence be if the specific laws forbidding this very teaching are repealed? Wouldn’t it embolden teachers to teach the very thing you deplore?

(Until they get hit with the 1964 Act)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"creationism"

The courts struck down virtually all of the creationism laws. You can't blame the state legislature for local harassment from the fundies.

[Nige]

‘If the law forbids something she *didn’t do,* the problem is the wrongful accusation, not the law itself.’

If the law works in such a way that it doesn’t matter what she did or didn’t do, then that is how the law works.

'To legalize certain previously-forbidden teaching, such as the idea that “an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex,” will, in the logical course of events, lead to such things being taught'

Have any cases other than white kids being bothered by lessons about black experiences arisen? So, to legalise white kids being taught about black experiences will in the logical course of events lead to white kids being taught about black experiences. The horror.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"white kids being taught about black experiences"

There's not a syllable in the laws against that.

And in Florida, Ground Zero of this whole thing (if we're to believe the media), the law very specifically requires that "black experiences" be taught, enumerating the various oppressions, starting with slavey, which are to be covered, not to mention the contributions of black citizens to the progress of this nation.

Why is it necessary for the media to repeatedly misstate the law? If the media's case is so strong, why does it have to be sustained by such distortions?

[Nige]

There doesn't have to be if that's the way it ends up working. Right wing assumptions are at play here to act as foundations for right wing laws. If teaching about black people is racist against white people, and that sentiment has been expressed here plenty of times, then that's how a right wing law will operate.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"An individual teacher telling white kids that they should feel bad because of slavery and discrimination against black people could be dealt with as being unprofessional just like any other such issue."

Again, you denounce the law while saying it's declaratory of (good) public policy which already exists.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So, when is the Florida legislature going to repeal the curricular standards they've codified about "teaching about black people"?

[Nige]

'So, when is the Florida legislature going to repeal the curricular standards they’ve codified about “teaching about black people”?'

Why would they need to? They've got this law to nullify it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Florida statute, and the media representation of it, represents a study in contrasts, as with the South Carolina proviso.

The opponents consistently deem it necessary to distort the content of these laws, yet they expect us to believe them when they tell us that these laws launched a reign of terror where you can’t mention slavery, etc., even when those subjects are explicitly required to be discussed.

If they can make an error so basic as not properly citing a clear law, why should they be relied on to inform us accurately about the content of the curriculum?

[Nige]

Yes, you're leaning quite heavily on that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If the law means what you say it does, why didn't the Post quote it accurately, so as to show its sinister purposes to the readers?

Or at least they could have quoted it accurately and followed up with a quote from a Professor of Political Linguistics (or whomever) to explain that the innocuous-seeming text of the law *actually* means not teaching about slavery or what have you.

Wherever they got the mis-citation - whether from their own imagination or from blindly following some link which could have been rebutted with minimal fact-checking - wherever they got it, they did their cause a disservice, because now it looks like the plain truth just wouldn't be enough to convince their readers.

[myself]

“you may feel kinship with other white people who have actively discriminated against black people”

What do you mean by this?

I'm not calling you racist if that's what you're wondering.

I'm saying that people identify with other people they share characteristics. So a white kid who learns about racism perpetrated by other white people may identify with those white people and feel shame for their actions.

And in that way teaching about historic racism can make white kids feel shame and trigger the law.

Exactly what seems to have actually happened with the Coates reading.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"make white kids feel shame and trigger the law"

Not what it says.

[Nige]

'If the law means what you say it does,'

The law means what I say it does, because that's what it does.

[myself]

“make white kids feel shame and trigger the law”

Not what it says.

And yet the teacher has a formal reprimand.

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : "So, ought it to be legal to do what this proviso forbids – teaching that “an individual should feel discomfort, guilt (etc)...."

Could you please take a sec and describe what this means? Please feel free to create a scenario where these snowflake laws actually function as you envision they should.

Just to make it harder, I'd like to hear a real life scenario, not some right-wing masturbatory phantasmagorical dream. Can ya do that for me?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let us assume that no teacher or administrator ever breaks this law by telling students that anyone “should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his race or sex.”

So…let’s repeal the law which forbids it – if it didn’t happen while the law against it was on the books, we can cross our fingers and fervently hope that these things won’t happen once they’re legalized.

[JasonT20]

So…let’s repeal the law which forbids it – if it didn’t happen while the law against it was on the books, we can cross our fingers and fervently hope that these things won’t happen once they’re legalized.

More than one of those of us replying to your comments have explained this clearly. The point of wanting these laws repealed is to stop the chilling effect it has on people that aren't violating the law but are falsely accused of doing so. We are seeing real examples of that happening. We have not seen any examples where people have done what these laws forbid. Nor are these laws necessary to actually prevent that from happening anyway, as the behavior would be clearly unprofessional on the part of a teacher. As employees of a school district with elected school board members, there is already accountability. And if that isn't enough, I'm not convinced that there aren't other bases for legal action.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave, I was trying to figure out some way you could convince me to take your legalistic hair splitting seriously. I couldn't come up with anything.

My problem is what I take to be your character and capacity. Are you less than 24-years old? I doubt it.

Probably, like most Americans alive today, you never encountered Jim Crow full strength, but only heard about it second-hand. Is it possible that you can read about America's racist history and not feel bad about what you read? Not if you are an anti-racist. Are you pro-racist, or just don't give a damn about the issue? I doubt that too.

Are you unaware of the giant legacy of disadvantage black people suffer to this day, because of discriminatory laws, policies, and customs which are not merely historical, but still in widespread practice, especially in politics? Maybe. But I think you are smarter than that. You probably know that most of the folks who insist that by now everything is just fine are only pretending.

Do you seriously suppose that full-strength teaching of the history of American racial exploitation of black people can be done without making everyone except sociopaths feel bad? I doubt you are a sociopath.

Do you seriously insist states and communities which passed laws about feeling bad after lessons on racism were okay with that kind of feeling bad? Or do you think instead that teaching practices which resulted in that kind of feeling bad is what those places intended to suppress? I think you must know it is the latter.

And I think you must be aware that in states and communities which pass laws like that, it remains a widespread community standard among white people that everyone would be better off if that kind of subject never came up. Are you foolish enough to think that in such places that would not become the commonplace predicate for enforcing those laws? I don't think you are that foolish.

Your commentary baffles me.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"And if that isn’t enough, I’m not convinced that there aren’t other bases for legal action."

I've mentioned the Civil Rights Act of 1964

"Nor are these laws necessary to actually prevent that from happening anyway, as the behavior would be clearly unprofessional on the part of a teacher. As employees of a school district with elected school board members, there is already accountability."

Seriously, you think that these if laws *specifically* forbidding racist harassment were repealed, that their substance would still continue to be enforced, anyway? No, repealing these laws would be a signal that the behavior they used to forbid will be treated as legal, until the backstop of the 1964 act comes into operation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Lathrop, are you sure you've been condescending and smarmy enough?

[Nige]

'Seriously, you think that these if laws *specifically* forbidding racist harassment were repealed'

Racist harassment in this context seems to be purely 'teaching white kids about black people.'

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Am I the only one on this legal blog to quote the actual law, not some hot take you could have gotten off a random Internet clickbait site?

And I've already mentioned the requirements in Florida (under DeSatan himself) that the experiences of black Americans be incorporated into the curriculum - not in some generic way but specifically teaching about the oppressions from slavery onward, and how black people managed to contribute to the US despite the oppression.

I've been assured that the ban on racist harassment is already *implicitly* part of school policy, it's just that you can't put it into a statute or budget bill. Well, will it stay implicit if the *explicit* ban on racist harassment is repealed?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"And I think you must be aware that in states and communities which pass laws like that, it remains a widespread community standard among white people that everyone would be better off if that kind of subject never came up."

One of these "states and communities" is Florida, which has detailed standards for what must be covered regarding the experiences of black citizens, specifically including the history of oppression. You are so wedded to your narrative that you can't even trouble yourself to examine the relevant laws - and once more, this is a legal blog where such laws should be included in this discussion.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Am I the only one on this legal blog to quote the actual law, not some hot take you could have gotten off a random Internet clickbait site?"

Nah, I routinely cite and link to laws like this. I find that they don't CARE what the law actually says. The statutory text is irrelevant to them: The evil intent they attribute to the authors over-rides the statutory language in their minds.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, the attribution of evil intent begins after enforcement confirms the good-weasel language you so admire was just for show.

More generally, one really big problem with textualism is that it tells you very little about the expected context of enforcement. In historical instances, that is a huge problem for textualism, because the context of creation for the text never arrives in the present along with the surviving text itself. Present-day smarmy pro-racist laws written to sound innocuous make that problem easier to see, so they do have that virtue. They stand as examples to simplify critique of textualism as a method.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave, condescending? In that one comment I gave you at least 6 compliments. I suspect you think I was not being forthright when I did it. But I was. Except I did not mention outright that I suspect you have not been forthright, and awareness of your admirable qualities tends to make that harder to hide. Maybe you are actually trying for ill-fitting acceptance among the, "anti-racists are the real racists," crowd. Most of them seem to me to be less gifted than you are.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“I gave you at least 6 compliments.”

Oh, spare me. You’re not being in the least forthright. You’re pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

[Nige]

‘Well, will it stay implicit if the *explicit* ban on racist harassment is repealed?’

It isn’t a ban on racial harassment. It’s a means for white people to stop schools teaching about black people. Or rather it's treating that as a form of racial harassment.

‘I find that they don’t CARE what the law actually says.’

Imagine caring more about how a law actually works.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The media consistently make easily-recognizable misstatements about the *content* of the anti-racial-harassment laws, so I’m not sure how they can suddenly turn reliable when it comes to the *application* of these laws.

[Nige]

It's pretty clear you care about one more than the other.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Caring, or seeming to care, seems more important to you than substance, other than that your point seems elusive.

[Nige]

Caring about stuff that actually happens versus hiding behind some platonic ideal of wording that nonetheless ends up causing the stuff that happens, yeah.

[David Nieporent]

If the Post’s error was simply a one-time mistake, that would be one thing. But there are plenty of media accounts of similar laws saying that these laws prohibit hurt feelings. No, they prohibit deliberately teaching that students *should* feel bad because of their race.

You're being disingenuous. The laws don't prohibit the use of the word "should" by teachers. It's not "Say whatever you want, as long as you don't say the exact phrase, 'You should be ashamed.'" They prohibit teaching the concept. And — as this very situation illustrates — the line is blurry, and the only way to be perfectly safe, and to avoid having students infer (or claim in bad faith that they inferred) that they should feel ashamed — is to eschew discussion of the topic altogether.

[David Nieporent]

Since you yourself mention harassment under the CRA, you must understand the real world situation. Corporate HR departments do not instruct their managers, "Go ahead and talk about sex at work, as long as you don't intend to make anyone feel uncomfortable." They say "Don't discuss this at all, because the risk of misinterpretation is too great."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The federal law also bans *racial* harassment in school, so the federal law can be weaponized against innocent teacher behavior just as surely as any state law.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In any case, let me ask you this: should racial harassment in school be legalized in order to spare teachers the risks of false and censor-y accusations?

If not, how *would* you deal with racial harassment in school without risking the things you accuse me of?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It is true that, as a supporter of antidiscrimination laws, I have to deal with the tension between these laws, on the one hand, and free speech and “academic freedom” on the other, and educational institutions have been known to do some eyebrow-raising things to “steer clear of the forbidden zone,” like disciplining a janitor who was reading an *anti-Klan* book on his break.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25680655

As someone who thinks racial discrimination, including racial harassment, should be illegal, I have to face the “tension” (a nice euphemism) between these laws and free-expression values, and the fact that institutions could do bad things to cover their asses against harassment charges.

Of course, *opponents* of civil rights laws need confront no such tensions, so long as they come out and say they would legalize all discrimination which takes verbal or written form.

[Nige]

'In any case, let me ask you this: should racial harassment in school be legalized in order to spare teachers the risks of false and censor-y accusations?'

So, in order to teach white kids about black people, you now have to first legalise racial harassment. Yeah, I could see it going that way. It's transparently evil, but it's a plan, of a sort.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This seems to be the slow class. Let me re-post exactly what I said:

“It is true that, as a supporter of antidiscrimination laws, I have to deal with the tension between these laws, on the one hand, and free speech and “academic freedom” on the other, and educational institutions have been known to do some eyebrow-raising things to “steer clear of the forbidden zone,” like disciplining a janitor who was reading an *anti-Klan* book on his break.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25680655

“As someone who thinks racial discrimination, including racial harassment, should be illegal, I have to face the “tension” (a nice euphemism) between these laws and free-expression values, and the fact that institutions could do bad things to cover their asses against harassment charges.

“Of course, *opponents* of civil rights laws need confront no such tensions, so long as they come out and say they would legalize all discrimination which takes verbal or written form.”

The stuff you wrote is from the voices in your head.

Your model of "talking about black people" is from the Balkan playbook, not the American. It would have the same results as in that peninsula. Many Serbs have what I might call a 1389 Project.

If you don't want your school to get complaints, consider teaching straight history without passages like these:

"As for now it must be said that the process of washing the disparate tribes white, the elevation of the belief in being white, was not achieved through wine tastings and ice cream socials, but rather through the pillaging of life, liberty, labor and land; through the flaying of backs; the chaining of limbs; the strangling of dissidents; the destruction of families," etc.

Of course, the teacher said (s)he was just teaching this as one point of view on which students should reflect without drawing specific conclusions. But to understand the reaction such passages provoke, imagine a similar passage about blackness - I dare not even attempt to write such a racist passage even for illustrative purposes.

(Coates graciously admits, though, that whites aren't the only people to do all these horrible things, but in the extracts I was able to access I couldn't find much about the atrocities of other peoples.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

(p. 8 of the Google Books version of Between the World and Me)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ah, but Coates wasn’t technically addressing the book to whites, but to a black relative (nephew?). So of course there was no intent to make whites feel bad, if they feel bad, it was “solely because the [white] race chooses to put that construction upon it.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But since I haven't had the pleasure of reading that particular book all the way through, I won't say whether the whole thing is like that one quote. I don't want to take stuff out of context, you know?

[Nige]

'Your model of “talking about black people” is from the Balkan playbook, not the American. It would have the same results as in that peninsula. Many Serbs have what I might call a 1389 Project.'

What on earth does this mean, I wonder. Are you implying that if white kids are taught about black lives there will be some sort of genocidal war? Is this some facet of the Great Replacement?

“As for now it must be said that the process of washing the disparate tribes white, the elevation of the belief in being white, was not achieved through wine tastings and ice cream socials, but rather through the pillaging of life, liberty, labor and land; through the flaying of backs; the chaining of limbs; the strangling of dissidents; the destruction of families,”

Right, so now we have a measure – THIS is racial harassment, as forbidden by the law. This is a forbidden text.

What WOULD a ‘similar passage about blackness’ actually look like, I wonder.

[Nige]

'I dare not even attempt to write such a racist passage even for illustrative purposes.'

If you replaced white with black in that passage it wouldn't be racist, it would be nonsensical.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Are you implying” [boring nonsense deleted]

Are you even familiar with the fact that there’s a whole term to describe the process I’m describing – “Balkanize”?

“​Balkanize something to divide a region into smaller regions which are aggressive or unfriendly towards each other

“(figurative) These competing political agendas are ready to balkanize public education.”

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/balkanize#balkanize_topg_1

[David Nieporent]

Of course, federal law requires that actions be "severe and pervasive" to constitute harassment; saying, "my kid was sad" is not enough.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I seem to recall someone mentioning the "severe and pervasive" standard before:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/18/monday-open-thread-18/?comments=true#comment-10241019

Anyway, you said above:

"Corporate HR departments do not instruct their managers, “Go ahead and talk about sex at work, as long as you don’t intend to make anyone feel uncomfortable.” They say “Don’t discuss this at all, because the risk of misinterpretation is too great.”"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“The fine distinctions you offer”

…involve the presence or absence of *racist intent* - I thought intent was kind of a big deal where legal issues were concerned.

[Nige]

'but it *does* stop the teacher from turning to the Japanese-American students and saying “that’s what you people are like, you should be ashamed!'

Which seems to be entirely subjective. The distinction appears to be utterly meaningless.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So you are unable to tell the difference between teaching the history of Japanese atrocities in WWII, and telling the Japanese-American students they should be ashamed of behavior they had nothing to do with.

No, it's just a bunch of Japanese-American snowflakes feeling bad about history.

[Nige]

You seem to be incapable of dealing with the law as it actually works, preferring instead your entirely imaginary scenario.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You seem to prefer Internet clickbait hot takes to the actual provisions of these laws.

What if I hadn't corrected the Washington Post's errors in citing this South Carolina law? Would you have left the error uncorrected?

[Nige]

I prefer how the law is being used over abstract scenarios.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You seem to be incapable of dealing with the law as it actually works, preferring instead your entirely imaginary scenario."

You're just assuming the law "actually works" in a manner contrary to the statutory language, without feeling any need to demonstrate that it does.

Now, the Margrave has, charitably, and for the purposes of argument, assumed that the allegation of racial harassment was false. But, was it? We don't know, do we? Basically all the news accounts only give her side of the story, and we haven't seen the teaching materials.

[Nige]

But it WAS racial harassment. Teaching white kids about black peoples' lives is now racial harassment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was taught about black people’s lives in school, I didn’t experience it as racial harassment, and I’m so white I glow in the dark. (I don’t even tan, I just get bigger freckles!)

Why wouldn’t they teach about it? The underground railroad ran right through our town, it was locally relevant, even if living in Michigan, we’d had no local history of slavery or Jim Crow.

Of course, nobody was trying to tell me *I* was guilty of any of the crimes they were describing; Why would they? I was just a kid, I hadn’t had time to do anything wrong, even if I’d been so inclined.

Now, of course, it’s become fashionable on the left to believe in collective racial guilt, and racism so deeply buried it can only be inferred from skin color, not actions. So teaching aimed at making innocents feel guilty is a thing these days, and believing yourself to be innocent is often viewed as just proof of how guilty you are.

[Nige]

'Why wouldn’t they teach about it?'

WHAT a GOOD question.

'Now, of course, it’s become fashionable on the left to believe in collective racial guilt, and racism so deeply buried it can only be inferred from skin color, not actions.'

And answered.

[SRG2]

Such laws do not self-contextualise. The context is provided by parents and grandparents (and politicians). If children are told that a perfectly neutral lesson will in fact be an attempt by the teacher to make them feel guilty, then the children will be primed to be offended or think they're being made to feel guilt - and they or their parents will complain.

And there is no way that the politicians don't know this.

[Sarcastr0]

VC commenters: 'This law is bad.'
Brett: 'I herein quote the law and note that it is good.'
VC: 'no, it's text allows a lot of awful implementations.'
Brett: 'You're being silly, no one would do that.'

::people indeed do that::

Brett and Margrave: 'The text is still good, this is just bad implementation!'

No, this is proof of overbreadth. And of your weak adherence to liberty when black history is involved.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Some VC commenters: The stuff the law bans is *already* contrary to school policy.

Other VC commenters (or the same ones): This law is a dire threat to the blah, blah, blah!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'd say that I don't even know that it was bad implementation, because the news accounts are just giving the teacher's side of the story.

The fact that the teacher assigned a work by Ta-Nehisi Coates really does suggest that the teacher WAS encouraging the white students to feel guilty. Coates' whole gig seems to be that whites are unavoidably racist, even if they haven't personally done anything.

Now, it's certainly possible to assign Coates' work along with other points of view, as part of a nuanced discussion. In fact, I don't think you could really understand why race relations in America are at best stagnant, and perhaps even deteriorating, without some exposure to him.

But IS that how it was handled? We don't know, because, again, all the news accounts are from the teacher's perspective.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"your weak adherence to liberty when black history is involved"

Pure incoherent race-baiting.

[Sarcastr0]

So you think the facts must be other than they appear. OK; I’m down with reserving judgement. But you said a lot more than that above.

Coates’ whole gig seems to be that whites are unavoidably racist, even if they haven’t personally done anything. Not sure what definition of racism you are using here, but that’s not his thesis.

I don’t go quite as far as he does on reparations, but his arguments are more structural than about evil intent. I’ve followed him for a while - he is an incredible writer even if his thesis isn't always one I'd share; I used to devour what he wrote for The Atlantic. Turned me around on Jane Austin. Great Civil War stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

Also, this is some anti-viewpoint bullshit:The fact that the teacher assigned a work by Ta-Nehisi Coates really does suggest that the teacher WAS encouraging the white students to feel guilty.

You don’t like this author, so you are OK with him being banned. Whatta libertarian. Same logic on Toni Morrison. Or Falkner (he makes The White South look bad!) or a whole swath of writing. And that's just this law - other laws dealing with making men feel bad, Christains, etc. etc. would be fine under your authoritarian mindset.

And all that about it won’t be implemented like this – you seem to be pretty into it being implemented with some viewpoint discrimination and indulging fragile white feelings. So for all your quoting the law an calling it totally fine, once reality comes in that’s revealed as pretext and you support censorship.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yeah, Brett, instead of banning him, why not assign Coates’ work along with other points of view, as part of a nuanced discussion?

Wait, that sounds familiar…wait, Brett himself said it.

So, essay question – do you think the following is an accurate summary of Brett’s expressed views: “You don’t like this author, so you are OK with hi[]m being banned”?

[David Nieporent]

No, I’d say that I don’t even know that it was bad implementation, because the news accounts are just giving the teacher’s side of the story.

The fact that the teacher assigned a work by Ta-Nehisi Coates really does suggest that the teacher WAS encouraging the white students to feel guilty. Coates’ whole gig seems to be that whites are unavoidably racist, even if they haven’t personally done anything.

VC commenters: this situation is bad.
Margrave: No, it's just a bad implementation of the law. The law doesn't forbid this. If people think it does, they're being unreasonable.
Brett: Actually, it isn't a bad implementation; I actually do interpret the law that way.

[David Nieporent]

Coates’ whole gig seems to be that whites are unavoidably racist, even if they haven’t personally done anything.

Show of virtual hands: does anyone here believe that Brett has ever read anything Coates has written, let alone the specific work at issue here?

Is there anyone who doesn't think that Brett just mentally lumps Coates in with Kendi and all the other CRT bugaboos and assumes that Coates must be saying this?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Margrave: No, it’s just a bad implementation of the law.”

I don't know if it's a bad implementation of the law or not, I just have to go by the media accounts.

Best-case scenario for you: If the Washington Post was more accurate about the facts than it was about the law (a big if) then we’re dealing with a false accusation of illegal racial harassment – such false accusations have been brought before, but someone who was sincerely opposed to racism would not think was a good reason to repeal the laws against racial harassment.

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : “I don’t know if it’s a bad implementation of the law or not..,.”

I asked you this before but you ducked & weaved:

What would be a “good” implementation of the law? There are already many bad examples, perhaps you can find a good? Or maybe just invent a scenario – but realistic, mind you, not some lurid right-wing fever dream.

What would a good implementation look like in a normal day-to-day setting? That shouldn’t be a high hurdle for you to respond to. We already know Brett’s view: Any teaching on race he doesn’t want to hear is “harassment”.

What’s your view?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’ll leave Brett to defend himself, though I suspect you haven’t been exactly fair to him.

I suppose a racist tirade by a white teacher against a black student would be covered, as would showing the student stories of crimes committed by black people and telling him he should be ashamed of his race, etc. Or a comparable situation for white students. (“eww, slavery, you white people are the worst, why don’t you feel guilty like you should?”)

So let’s pin you down so you don’t duck and weave –

1) Do you acknowledge some “tension” (good euphemism) between anti-racial harassment laws and full, 100% free expression? I acknowledge it – I have to because I support anti-harassment laws and know they’ll sometimes be implemented in the real world by cautious employers preventing janitors from reading anti-Klan books, etc. Do you admit the tension?

More interestingly,

2) Do you defend the Washington Post’s summary of this law? I’ve discussed this a lot, but you bob and weave and will neither defend or criticize the Post. You’re faced with a bit of a dilemma. If you endorse the Post’s summary you’ll show bad legal analysis, but if you admit the Post was wrong, then you may have to tone down the outrage at people like me who point out the wrongness. A dilemma indeed!

[Nige]

‘This law is a dire threat to the blah, blah, blah!’

Never mind the outcomes, squire, look at the wording!

‘The fact that the teacher assigned a work by Ta-Nehisi Coates really does suggest that the teacher WAS encouraging the white students to feel guilty.’

You do get that this is pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying, right? Redefine racism in such a way that black writing and black discourse are completely restricted because they ARE racism.

‘along with other points of view,’

Curious what those points of view would be. Brett Bellmore’s Authoritative And Definitive Discourse On What It’s Really Like To Be Black In America? The Klansman? The Turner Diaries?

‘Do you acknowledge some “tension” (good euphemism) between anti-racial harassment laws and full, 100% free expression?’

Racial harassment itself is a way of, among other things, restricting freedo of expression.

‘If you endorse the Post’s summary you’ll show bad legal analysis,’

If you get bogged down in the legal analysis you can pretend the law isn’t working the way it is.

[Nige]

'The Klansman? The Turner Diaries?'

On the other hand, white kids might feel guilty and implicated because other white people wrote such racist trash, and worse, one of them was adapted as Birth Of A Nation, one of the foundational cinematic representations of the US, and that might make the feel REALLY wretched.

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : “So let’s pin you down so you don’t duck and weave”

Really, MOA?

1. Of COURSE there is tension between anti-racial harassment laws and full, 100% free expression. That’s obvious common sense and the interplay between the two has been ongoing since the first law was passed. What on earth is your point?

2. I’m not interested in the Post’s description of the law and it puzzles me why you drone on&on&on&on about it. Everyone else here is taking about how these laws are defined vs how they’re applied and how they work. You don’t seem to give a shit about either question. All you care about your microscopic little “gottcha”.

3. As a good half-dozen people have repeatedly noted, the “mistake” by the WaPo (that you hug so close to your breast) is exactly how the law is being applied day to day. We can find a dozen examples of the law working precisely as the Post defined. We don’t have to break a sweat. You can’t produce even one instance where the law worked per your tortured definition. What does that tell you? What use is your endless whinging about the WaPo’s error when they’re more right than you are ?!?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The WaPo presented its editorializing about the law as straight news, without providing any context – they could at least have said “this is what the law says, but what it *really* means, say experts, is [etc.]”

This is why I won’t agree that the article is accurate, though I assumed it was, just for the sake of argument. If the teacher is right, it would hardly be the first false charge of racial/sexual harassment, and getting rid of an anti-harassment law to prevent false charges is burning the barn to roast the pig.

Again, why did the Post pass off its editorializing as straight news if the article was on the level?

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : "I suppose a racist tirade by a white teacher against a black student would be covered, as would showing the student stories of crimes committed by black people and telling him he should be ashamed of his race, etc. Or a comparable situation for white students. (“eww, slavery, you white people are the worst, why don’t you feel guilty like you should?”)"

Just wow! These touch-feely postmodern laws have sprouted like weeds across the country and THAT'S the issue you think they're designed to address ?!?!?

So now you've left me with a problem, Margrave of Azilia. Am I to think you so simpleminded as to believe this bullshit? Do you actually think your examples occur at something better than lottery-wining odds? Are so you gullible as to believe that's the reason these laws were proposed and passed?

Or are you in on the con? (Gotta admit that seems more likely)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So the question is whether you actually believe that this is merely about “talking about black people,” in which case you’re not really bright, or whether you’re trying to Balkanize America with a nonstop flow of racial grievance, with the goal of keeping the working class divided on racial lines so the oligarchs you love so much can block social legislation designed to provide opportunities and a hand up to the people who are lower down on the economic ladder.

See, I can do this as well as you can.

I learned some nasty racial history in school – slavery and the stuff that came after. I didn’t feel so good about it, but that’s not because the teacher was trying to be racist against whites, but because she was teaching history.

I learned more stuff on my own – probably more than you – about lynching, Jim Crow, rigged trials, etc., as well as about “color blind” injustices like unjust wars, awful industrial conditions, and so forth up to present-day instances of police violence against the poor and working classes (of different races).

I saw both of our major parties using Balkanization, not constructive reform, to mobilize their respective bases in the working-class -while keeping their donors happy.

People of any race who make false claims of discrimination or racial harassment are (wittingly or not) part of the Balkanization. I repeat, I didn’t call the Post story false – I distrusted the source, but they could have been right in spite of that.

I’m not sure how many times I need to say that the narrative of false discrimination claims could be true *despite* being in the Post. But false claims of discrimination are not the fault of antidiscrimination laws, and people trying to get rid of these laws are no more entitled to the benefit of the doubt than hog farmers who want to block inspection of their effluence. This is particularly true of attempts to repeal laws against racist propaganda by the government.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And of course the Right is selective about what kinds of racist propaganda they're against - they're against it when it's being taught by their opponents. It is highly rare that laws have pure origins, even if the laws are good ideas.

Many on the Right (and indeed elements of the Left when the cameras are elsewhere) enable, in effect, pro-brutality lobbying by police unions, which ought not to be recognized as unions in the first place. That form of government-sponsored propaganda - whether you call it racist or classist - shouldn't be allowed.

I'm really sorry (/sarc) that I focused so much on a major error printed in a major newspaper, even while allowing for the possibility that the *rest* of its report was true.

[Nige]

'or whether you’re trying to Balkanize America with a nonstop flow of racial grievance'

This is one of the rationales for shutting black people up and repressing their books. Funny how the possibility that shutting people up and telling them that talking about their history is racist and banning them from classrooms might be closer to Blakanisation never occurs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nige: "You do get that this is pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying, right? Redefine racism in such a way that black writing and black discourse are completely restricted because they ARE racism."

Just as a threshold matter, are you prepared to admit that it's POSSIBLE for black writing to be racist?

I say Coates is a racist, because he's an advocate of racial "reparations". A concept that might have made some moral sense immediately after the Civil war, when the victims and the victimizers were still around, but which can only be based on racist reasoning at this point.

Is it possible that the complaint about her teaching is baseless? Sure, it's possible. The inclusion of Coates' work provides at least some basis for doubting that, but isn't conclusive.

What I'm saying is that whether she's being wrongly targeted, or the law is being enforced just as it should be, is a fact bound matter, and given that virtually all of the media accounts are only giving the teacher's side of the story, (The media now considering 'bothsiderism' to be a journalistic sin.) we really don't know. We haven't heard the other side!

[Sarcastr0]

Brett you are doing an incredible job showing how arbitrary these laws can be in the hands of an authoritarian.

You don’t know shit about Coates, but you deem him racist and thus banned.

You’re going full-on book burning here. Maybe a bit of Mao right thought sprinkled on top.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Nige, you ignorant slut, I said I was perfectly open to the possibility that the Post may have been right (in a stopped-clock kind of way) about there being a false accusation of racism. Isn’t such a false accusation Balkanizing, if it happened, without any need for your hysterical yammering and exaggeration? Yet legalizing racist propaganda by government schools – you would have us believe that’s not Balkanizing.

If only you could work up the same passion for sane health-care policies, family policies, curbing corporations, an open electoral system, etc., but that doesn’t seem to stimulate you as much as your raceturbation.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett you are doing an incredible job showing how arbitrary these laws can be in the hands of an authoritarian."

I have no doubt at all that these, laws, or indeed ANY laws, can be arbitrarily enforced in the hands of an authoritarian. I'm disputing whether it has actually been established that happened here! I repeat, for the umpteenth time: All the media accounts being bandied about are only giving the teacher's side of the dispute, we have not heard the other side of it, so we don't know what really happened. We only know what the teacher wants us to THINK happened.

"You don’t know shit about Coates, but you deem him racist and thus banned."

He's not my favorite author, to be sure, but I've read interviews with and essays by him occasionally. He's a more eloquent version of Al Sharpton, a racial grievance huckster with more of an academic aura, but a racial grievance huckster none the less.

I know you want to use a definition of 'racist' that immunizes people like Coates. I refuse to play along with that. The guy is a racist by any sensible definition, he believes in racial collective guilt and debts, he's happy to racially discriminate if it benefits racial groups he likes.

As long as we humor people like him, race relations in this country are never going to get much better.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“What use is your endless whinging about the WaPo’s error when they’re more right than you are ?!?”

Of course *I’m* more right than *them,* but assume the contrary to be the case. Is this your defense of the Post – “not technically accurate, but never mind, there’s a random guy on the Internet who’s more wrong!”

The Post printed *your* truth, the emotional truth, even if it wasn't the actual truth.

[Krayt]

Curling up in a ball, quivering, and screetching some official shut that other person up.

Golly, who could have predicted it?

[BrotherMovesOn]

The Margrave of Azilia?

[Bill Poser]

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in ASTM International v. Public.Resource.Org. that the publication of standards incorporated by reference into laws is fair use is certainly correct as a matter of policy. The law must be freely available to everyone. It is, however, also true that standards organizations expend great effort and often considerable funds in developing standards and that free publication by others undermines their ability to defray their expenses. I wonder if, therefore, the adoption of a standard as law constitutes a taking, and whether standards organizations should be compensated. Perhaps Prof. Somin has a comment on this issue.

[OtisAH]

Interesting question, but what is the fair market value of a standard?

[David Nieporent]

It's not a taking, because it… doesn't take anything. Does it make it difficult for standards bodies to monetize their standards? Perhaps. But a business model is not property. Their complaint is with the concept of fair use — which is not a taking — rather than with the adoption of the standards.

[shawn_dude]

Standards are monetized in several other ways so it's hard to get upset over this issue. At the very least, the "guaranteed*" interoperability of hardware and software leads to direct monetization by individual members of the standards body--which tend to be major manufacturers or software firm themselves.

What I find more interesting here is the crossover between standards and APIs and the fight to copyright APIs in order to prevent others from using them to make their products easier to integrate. (Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.)

*sneer quotes.

[John F. Carr]

The third Nagorno-Karabakh war seems to have started. Collateral damage from the war in Ukraine. Russian peacekeepers are not doing their job, due to military commitments elsewhere and maybe also because Putin does not want to antagonize Erdogan.

[Martinned]

Huge, if true: https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1704471798622921153

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You may well be the dumbest SOB on the planet.

[Sarcastr0]

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/big-if-true

Another Wuz angryfail!

[Magister]

Hacked account, or drug-induced break with reality? Was North Korea alarmed at the prospect of being smoked, or is "North Korea" just slang for some kind of illegal drugs?