Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Corleone family, according to Willie Cicci, had a lot of buffers. Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, according to Molly Michael, did not. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/19/us/politics/trump-aide-classified-documents.html

How will Trump explain away his comment, “You don’t know anything about the boxes”?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I will not pay to read the New York Slimes, but I can explain all of this quite easily once one understands the psychology of Donald Trump. Remember the inauguration, which had to be the “biggest” and “best” one ever held, to the point where he had to lie?

He was lying here. SAYING that the documents were classified does not inherently mean they were. Even having folders used for classified documents doesn’t mean anything if there aren’t classified documents IN THEM — and remember the reports of the empty folders? And even stuff that he has declassified doesn’t preclude his telling others that it still is.

Trump needs to show off — it’s his greatest weakness — and this will not be the first time he bragged about something he doesn’t have. Or which he declassified without telling anyone. Remember, he needs to feel important — anyone disagree with that?

[Martinned]

That doesn't sound like the kind of person that any reasonable person would vote for in an election.

[John F. Carr]

As I observed a couple open threads ago, presidential elections no longer have candidates who are generally regarded as good people.

[Martinned]

Then vote for someone else and/or vote in the primary. It seems like one of those moral imperatives of citizenship not to let yourself be cornered into voting for someone who you don't believe would make a good president.

[Mr. Bumble]

Among the current field in both parties whom do you think would make a "good president"?

[Martinned]

I don't mind a centrist Democrat like Biden. There are no centrists in the GOP presidential field at the moment. Nikki Haley is probably the closest thing. In practice their policies would probably be pretty similar, except that as president they'd be chained to a different party.

(But that hasn't stopped Biden from building Trump's border wall, for example.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Well then, why even have an election; primary or otherwise. By your logic the current office holder is just swell.
Oh and please stop blowing smoke up our arse with comments like "building Trump's border wall".

[Martinned]

I'm not sure I follow. Just because I don't mind Biden as president, and may well have voted to re-elect if I was a US citizen, doesn't mean that John F. Carr or Dr. Ed necessarily agree. And still less does it somehow mean that there is no need to have elections.

As for harsh immigration policies, there is a long history in the US of Republicans talking about it and Democrats doing it. I'm sorry if that upsets your political prejudices.

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-postwar-immigration-policy

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, in the same sense that there’s a long history of crucifying enemies of the state; The Roman empire DID last a long time, even if it’s gone.

Yes, at one time both parties were in tune with public opinion on the topic, but the GOP was more beholden to business interests wanting to drive down the cost of labor, while the Democratic party was more aligned with unions wanting it higher. So, at one time, the Democrats were perhaps more reliable on border security than the Republicans.

That alignment started breaking down by the 80’s, and is long dead.

Again, I point out the actual numbers: Illegal immigration across our Southern border skyrocketed as soon as Biden took office, and never went down again.

Contrast that with Trump's time in office: The worst month during Trump's time was better than the best month after Biden was in control. Again, not an accident or coincidence, they had different goals, and both achieved them.

That wasn't by accident, it was deliberate policy, even if it was deliberate policy it would be impolitic for the administration to openly admit to.

[Martinned]

@Brett: So you're telling me that that Southern border wall is a completely ineffectual boondoggle?

[Brett Bellmore]

No.

The purpose of a border wall isn't to STOP illegal immigrants. It's to slow them down enough that you can catch them before they have a chance to disappear into the general population. Obviously the wall can't effectively do that if the people charged with catching them are under orders to just let them go, or worse, help them with disappearing. Or if the administration makes a point of not fixing sections that get breached. But it can be useful for an administration that's actually trying to secure the border.

What a border wall does do, even during an administration like Biden's, is create graphic proof that the administration actively wants illegal immigration, when that administration starts destroying already installed wall to facilitate the border crossings.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border: ‘Opening the floodgates’

[Nige]

'is create graphic proof that the administration actively wants illegal immigration'

I think you mean the country. Only racist rubes actually believe racist right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric sincerely - mostly it's to maintain a precarious underclass that can be easily exploited and disposed of. Democratic politicians haven't done anything about it, either, of course, just usually turn the level of humanitarian crisis down to a dull roar.

As with drugs, it's US demand that's driving a problem that the US refuses to properly address, except by making it worse, expensively.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the country actually wanted illegal immigration, then Biden wouldn't have to pretend that he's fighting it. He could just hold a press conference and say, "Yeah, open door policy, anybody can come in, we don't care."

"Elites" want illegal immigration. The public hates it.

A majority of Americans see an 'invasion' at the southern border, NPR poll finds

[Nige]

Not much of a majority though.

‘Misleading and false claims about immigration are taking hold, particularly among Republicans’

Rather proves my point.

‘Elites’ are the rich people who rely on cheap labour so they can keep wages and overheads down. Decent people want immigrants treated decently, and people paid properly.

[Nige]

'If the country actually wanted illegal immigration, then Biden wouldn’t have to pretend that he’s fighting it'

The country doesn't 'want' illegal immigration, and Biden doesn't want to flood the country with illegal immigrants, neither party has a way of 'solving' the problem, it's just that Democrats are somewhat less monstrous about it than Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Not much of a majority though.”

That was a poll on how many people thought the situation at the border qualified as an “invasion”, and you don’t have to think it’s that bad to want the border secured.

Here’s another poll: LA Times Poll – December 9-14, 2022 Concern about illegal immigration is a bit higher than the numbers who’d call it an “invasion”.

One thing is clear, though: A strong majority don’t like Biden’s approach to the border.

"The country doesn’t ‘want’ illegal immigration, and Biden doesn’t want to flood the country with illegal immigrants,"

Again I point out that, when Biden took office, illegal immigration immediately and drastically climbed, and has remained worse than the worst month of the Trump administration ever since. That sort of thing does not happen by accident. It is an expression of policy.

No matter what Biden may publicly say about the matter, his actions prove that he actually wanted dramatically more illegal immigration.

[Nige]

Concern about illegal immigration does not translate to agreement with your xenophobic policies.

Trump only succeeded by treating human beings with appalling cruelty. I get that the end justifies the means for you, and in some sense they're not really people, but that's just your racism speaking.

[David Nieporent]

Again I point out that, when Biden took office, illegal immigration immediately and drastically climbed, and has remained worse than the worst month of the Trump administration ever since. That sort of thing does not happen by accident. It is an expression of policy.

No matter what Biden may publicly say about the matter, his actions prove that he actually wanted dramatically more illegal immigration.

What actions? This is gibberish. More people coming across the border is not a "policy" or "action" of Biden.

[John F. Carr]

Biden may or may not still be a centrist at heart. His policy is driven by the left wing of his party.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know the left if you think that's true.

[Bob from Ohio]

"centrist Democrat like Biden"

You should seek help for your drug addiction.

[Harvey Mosley]

It's telling that you regard someone who wants to ban guns, restrict the First Amendment, continue allowing untold numbers of illegal aliens into the country, and supports institutional racism as a "centrist".

[Nige]

Those are all hardline radical right-wing perceptions of Biden.

[Harvey Mosley]

Biden doesn't support affirmative action? Or "hate speech" restrictions? Or banning so-called "assault weapons"? Or allowing illegal aliens to stay and be safe from deportation?

It seems to me that those are all reasonable and honest perceptions of Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

You...have no idea what the left is, do you?

[Nige]

Affirmative action - I think so? Not radical in any way.
Or “hate speech” restrictions? -Not sure, actually, but, again, not especially radical.
Or banning so-called “assault weapons”?' - not radical unless you're an extremist.
Or allowing illegal aliens to stay and be safe from deportation? - he's deporting an awful lot of them for someone who thinks that.

[Harvey Mosley]

Affirmative action is institutional racism.
"Assault weapons" are guns.
Hate speech restrictions are First Amendment restrictions.

Illegal aliens? I guess we will just have to disagree on that one. But nothing I've seen from Biden shows that he wants to seriously limit illegal immigration.

[Sarcastr0]

Your definition of left is just stuff you really don't like.

That's not the the left, that's you using left as an epithet.

Not substantively very useful; do some research on what the left wants.
Universal basic income; universal healthcare, nationalization of natural resources...stuff like that. Not this shitty status quo stuff that has you butthurt.

[Nige]

'Affirmative action is institutional racism.'

Only people who hate the sort of people affirmative action helps thinks that.

'“Assault weapons” are guns.'

Duh. That's why they use them to massacre children.

'Hate speech restrictions are First Amendment restrictions.'

So are libel laws.

'But nothing I’ve seen from Biden shows that he wants to seriously limit illegal immigration.'

Except for all the deportations.

[Harvey Mosley]

"‘Affirmative action is institutional racism.’

Only people who hate the sort of people affirmative action helps thinks that."

Tell me again what you call treating people differently based upon their race?

And Biden supports Affirmative Action.

"‘“Assault weapons” are guns.’

Duh. That’s why they use them to massacre children."

And Biden wants to ban them.

"‘Hate speech restrictions are First Amendment restrictions.’

So are libel laws."

And Biden is in favor of them.

As I said above Biden wants to ban guns, restrict the First Amendment and supports institutional racism.
To paraphrase Meatloaf, three out of four ain't bad.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Harvey Mosley: “As I said above Biden wants to ban guns, restrict the First Amendment and supports institutional racism. To paraphrase Meatloaf, three out of four ain’t bad.”

No, Biden doesn’t want to “ban guns” as that sentence is literally interpreted means ban all guns. Which is why you say it that way when you mean some very limited subset of guns. So, if you actually care about being accurate and truthful, say Biden wants to ban assault rifles. A sentiment shared by 55% of people in the most recent (I found quickly) Gallup poll (Jun 2022). Yes, if you ask the question differently, you get something more like a 47-51 split (Gallup 2019) or 46-49 split (Monmouth 2023), but in either case, Biden’s is hardly an extreme position.

Fully automatic guns are illegal and I haven’t heard a push to make them legal, so presumably, the vast majority of the country wants to “ban guns”, but only a limited subset. You’re the radical outlier if you are against banning guns (if, by that phrase, you mean, as you claim to mean, you are against banning any guns).

The same sort of analysis applies to your First Amendment concern. You intentionally phrase things in a misleadingly ambiguous way to try to make it seem extreme when, in fact, the specifics are much less extreme and, in fact, may be shared by a majority of voters. More to the point, what specific policy are you claiming Biden supports? Because he hasn’t proposed or supported a federal hate speech ban. Again, using the ordinary meaning of those words. You presumably are referring to some subset of hate speech in particular cases. I mean, he has advocated for the federal government to help local law enforcement respond to hate-based violence (but that’s not a restriction on hate speech), and advocates for greater transparency with respect to social media companies and their efforts or lack thereof to limit/contain hate speech. But that also isn’t “restrict[ing] the First Amendment”.

More to the point, it’s telling that you resort to misleadingly ambiguous points to caricature Biden as a radical, rather than clearly stating the policies he supports that you don’t and that you think are radical. At the level of generalization you use, a majority, and likely super majority, of the country wants “to ban guns” and “restrict the First Amendment”. The only person you are fooling, is yourself.

[David Nieporent]

For the record, fully automatic guns are not illegal.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thank you, David. That is true. There are very stringent requirements to be met.

But ownership of machine guns made after 1986 are banned. Categorically.

Thank you for the correction. My apologies for the error.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I see two ways out, if you’re that squeamish:

-Vote for someone who isn’t in one of the 2 major parties. But that option depends a lot on your state’s laws, and whether they actually let a non-crooked candidate on the ballot. And if the candidate isn't crooked, (s)he may still be a fanatic with bad ideas.

or

-Don’t vote at all. Avoid the contamination of voting for a crook with dangerous ideas.

[Martinned]

That's basically what I was thinking too. Voters definitely have an ethical obligation to vote for the lesser evil, but only up to a point. At some level of crookedness and/or unsuitability for office of both major candidates, the ethical thing to do is to vote for a 3rd party candidate or abstain.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and be left with the candidate that the unethical voters choose.

[Martinned]

Beyond some point, on their heads be it. If you are faced with two unethical options, the only ethical thing to do is to refuse to play. With apologies for the Godwin: In an election between Hitler and Stalin, the correct approach isn't to try and work out which of them is the lesser evil, but to abstain.

Whether the current state of US politics has sunk to this level is, of course, a decision that every voter has to make for themselves.

[David Nieporent]

In an election between Hitler and Stalin, the correct approach isn’t to try and work out which of them is the lesser evil, but to abstain.

Um, we kind of faced that choice in the early 1940s, and didn't abstain.

[Sarcastr0]

Well played.

[Martinned]

[applause gif]

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Um, we kind of faced that choice in the early 1940s, and didn’t abstain."

Clever, but not true. We didn't support Stalin taking over the world rather than Hitler taking over the world. We allied with Stalin to stop Hitler taking over the Western world (and Japan taking over the Eastern world). And then immediately set about opposing Stalin.

Geopolitics is not at all like an election. That situation, if it is analogous at all, is like working across the aisle to achieve a policy outcome you like. Sure, you work with people already in office to achieve common goals (e.g. defeat Hitler) even if you don't like them, but there is a level of evil that it is unethical to support getting that power in the first place.

If you will support even Hitler to oppose Democrats, then you will end up supporting Hitler. (And, if you will support Stalin to oppose Republicans, then you will end up supporting Stalin.) You will get the lowest character, most corrupt politician you are willing to accept as your nominee. Have higher standards, you'll get better candidates.

[Krayt]

You have no such ethical obligation to vote for the less crooked candidate.

You should not be doing evil at all.

[Martinned]

In many circumstances voting for the less crooked candidate is how you, as a voter, avoid doing evil.

[DonP]

Or follow the Chicago model, stay home and just let your Democrat Precinct Captain vote for you ... and your dead Grandmother, your Cats, neighbor's dog, Son who moved to Cleveland, et. al.

To quote the President; "Huh? what? Not a joke"

[Commenter_XY]

That is true, John Carr. I think it is time to ‘retire’ the Baby Boomers. The BB POTUS’ have a decidedly mixed record.

Clinton: did Ok, but impeached Bush: 9/11 changed everything; Iraq Obama: Handled the GFC ‘meh’; Libya, Crimea Trump: Oy Vey (this can mean many things); impeached twice(!) Biden: Can I use the same term – oy vey – twice? It surely fits here.

I am not so satisfied with the Boomer POTUS’; can we get a candidate not over age 60, pretty please?! Maybe the parties could nominate Gen X candidates? We could hardly do worse.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and "the voters" of PA chose Fetterman. Stop being an ageist.
I agree that to many in office serve way past their use by date but don't paint them all with the same brush.
By the way the oldest "boomers" are 78. Past "boomers" who were POTUS were Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush and Donald Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, Biden is too old to qualify as a "baby boomer", he was born before WWII ended. Trump is on the very edge of the baby boom. I'm more towards the other end of it, myself, in my mid 60's.

Honestly, yeah, I think we need an upper age limit for office, to go with the lower age limit.

[Sarcastr0]

Broad statements about the gerontocracy or retiring the Boomers is fun and all, but the issue is that there are actual people running for office, not demographics. As such, age is one element among many people are taking into account.

Even beyond that issue, arguing against a candidate is not a very effective strategy. Since Obama, everyone is super into negative party affiliation these days, not positive evaluation of their own candidates. I think that cycle will break but until it does demographic arguments like this are doubly irrelevant.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As such, age is one element among many people are taking into account. "

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that there ought to be no qualifications for office besides getting elected?

"Since Obama, everyone is super into negative party affiliation these days, not positive evaluation of their own candidates."

It's a consequence of the barriers the major parties erected against third parties after the third party resurgence in the late 70's. While 3rd parties were a viable threat, the major parties had to appeal to the voters as actually positively desirable, because the voters had a real option of going with a third choice if they really disliked the two major parties. (Sure, 1st past the post systems like ours tend to have to major parties, but, see the Whigs: They're not guaranteed to stay the SAME two!)

But once they'd taken enough measures to render third parties unviable, that threat was lifted, and they only had to be seen as less awful than the alternative. And tearing down the other guy was a lot easier than being appealing yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not talking about the Constitution and eligibility, but about the overgeneralized arguments about the gerontocracy being bad.

It's an overadacemic chinstroke until you get to specific candidates. And when you do, age becomes present, but not dominant as an element.

Third parties are not viable for reasons based on our current electoral system of single district first-past-the-post. Since Bull Moose, anything else is overdetermined.
It's game theory. Check out local elections - you'll get a third party, but almost always only if either R or D is effectively not present, or they do a fusion candidate.

[Krayt]

Third parties are not viable because what would be multiple parties in a parliamentary system must band together into giant ones to win the presidency, a necessary power if you wanna be the lawgivers (and therefore “donation” takers).

In short, the coalition governments form before the election instead of after, to grab the presidency.

[Brett Bellmore]

I advocate an upper age limit for office, because the power of incumbency has grown to the point where politicians effectively hold office for life, and sometimes even pass it on to their children. This isn't just bad enough now, with people holding office way past the point where they're no longer competent, (McConnell, Feinstein, and, yeah, Biden, and Trump if he's reelected.) but eventually at least dying. There are a lot of advances in gerontology coming down the pipeline that could make "office for life" into "office forever".

And, again, I remind you, first past the post didn't save the Whigs. It IS possible for a third party to displace a major party, under 1st past the post, if the major party pisses off enough voters.

Or at least it was possible, until they 'reformed' things...

[Sarcastr0]

I advocate an upper age limit for office, because the power of incumbency has grown to the point where politicians effectively hold office for life, and sometimes even pass it on to their children

Seems you're treating a symptom, not the problem.

The issue with the Whigs was internal disfunction due to a split over slavery. Such a situation could happen again (though I don't see it on the horizon).
I would note that even then we didn't see a three-way election.

[Brett Bellmore]

If problems didn't have symptoms, you wouldn't care about them. If you can make the symptoms go away, you can go back to not caring about them. So, yeah, I damned well am treating the symptoms.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on, man. There's a systemic problem and you're saying a bandaid solves it.

By the same logic, affirmative action solves the problem of race-base achievement gaps.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Come on, man. There’s a systemic problem and you’re saying a bandaid solves it. "

A bandaid is the start of solving it, anyway. You think that it's possible to do anything about the power of incumbency without whittling away at it first?

[Sarcastr0]

This won't solve it, and it of course has other costs.

[Davy C]

I would note that even then we didn’t see a three-way election.

The 1860 election had *four* candidates that got electoral votes. I suppose technically four is not three...

[Sarcastr0]

Cool historical factoid.
It was still a two party game.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Prior to national mass communication, it had to be a 2 party system because the county and state organizing levels were essential.

[OtisAH]

Third parties are not viable because they are not serious third parties. They build top-down, without going very far down, rather than starting at the beginning and building from localities on up. There will be no third party effective at anything but ratfucking one candidate or another through their insistence on running presidential candidates without an actual national party.

[Martinned]

There's a sensible question in there somewhere: How come there are no viable 3rd parties fighting state-level elections in states dominated by one party? How come California Democrats aren't challenged by a new party from the left when it comes to elections for San Francisco city council, or even the Sacramento state house? Or Texas republicans?

[bernard11]

I agree with this.

It may be because many of the third party efforts we've seen are more in the nature of ego trips than actual political movements.

Rounding up some people to run for the city council is not as much fun as being interviewed on CNN

[David Nieporent]

It’s a consequence of the barriers the major parties erected against third parties after the third party resurgence in the late 70’s. While 3rd parties were a viable threat, the major parties had to appeal to the voters as actually positively desirable, because the voters had a real option of going with a third choice if they really disliked the two major parties. (Sure, 1st past the post systems like ours tend to have to major parties, but, see the Whigs: They’re not guaranteed to stay the SAME two!)

As always, this is a fictional narrative, and Brett will appeal to nothing more than "Oh, I was active in the libertarian party back then." Third parties did not arise as a viable threat in the 1970s.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was a newspaper editor in the 1970s. "Third party" stories were an interesting curiosity but third parties were illusory.

[Idihax]

Boomers have destroyed America. A generation of sociopaths who never had any hardship, except for the few who served in Vietnam.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Boomers took a bigoted, unfair, superstition-addled nation and built a better society on inclusiveness, reason, education, science, increasing fairness, diminished unearned privilege, and about a dozen other points on which they made their predecessors look like character-deprived amateurs.

People who disagree will perform their next act of public service when they depart the electorate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

bullshyte

[Drewski]

Boomers' first big election turnout was to elect Reagan (they split evenly on Nixon and mostly no-showed for Carter). The Beat generation gave us Eisenhower and Kennedy. You think boomers have the high ground here? You've been watching too many movies written by boomers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Boomers -- the liberal-libertarian mainstream, especially -- swept away plenty of racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, overcoming right-wing bigots nearly every step of the way.

They dismantled the influence of superstitious gay-bashers in America, starting nearly from scratch.

They arranged remarkable strides for women over objections of conservative misogynists.

They reduced unearned privilege, increased fairness, championed reason while substantially diminishing the role of old-timey superstition.

They increased liberty (blue laws, prudes, abusive police, drug warriors, etc,), accountability, and transparency.

The most recent half-century or so was not the only period of laudable, important progress in the United States, but it was a great period for improvement of America.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
The problem is that one can ALWAYS do worse.

[Stephen Lathrop]

John F. Carr, sometimes, that is because a candidate is not a good person. Trump, for instance.

Sometimes that is because an opposition party almost wholly committed to disparaging the opponent simply prohibits a conclusion of, "generally regarded," good person. Today's Republicans, for instance.

Nevertheless, in Delaware, Biden is generally regarded as a good person. Among sane Republicans—Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, for instance—Biden is generally regarded as a good person.

By the way, if the groundswell of D-side opinion that Biden is simply too old continues, how many folks do you suppose might join me, a life-long progressive, in a conclusion that an independent run by Liz Cheney would serve the doubly-virtuous purpose of denying the presidency to Trump, and putting an obviously good person in the White House? I would like to hear from commenters here who agree or disagree.

[Mr. Bumble]

Abused wives often think their husbands are "good persons".
Action speak louder than words or feelings.

[John F. Carr]

Where I live my vote in November does not matter. I tend to vote Libertarian given the choice, knowing my vote does not matter. Sometimes the Libertarians nominate a nut who doesn’t get my vote. For calibration, Biden is bad but not a nut. Even Trump doesn’t land in total whackjob territory. One losing contender for the 2020 Libertarian nomination promised on day one in office he would terminate the federal government. He was a nut. He lost to Jorgensen, who was not.

So I could imagine voting for Cheney if she pops up on the ballot somehow.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Jorgensen, who was not."

All libertarians are nuts. Some are just nuttier.

[David Nieporent]

Where I live my vote in November does not matter. I tend to vote Libertarian given the choice, knowing my vote does not matter. Sometimes the Libertarians nominate a nut who doesn’t get my vote.

Same. Problem is that the Libertarian Party has recently been taken over by MAGA adjacent people. Not merely nuts, but anti-libertarian alt-right types.

For calibration, Biden is bad but not a nut. Even Trump doesn’t land in total whackjob territory.

Trump's problem is not that he's crazy; it's that he's evil. He's a sociopath who cares for nothing and nobody but himself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sane people don't run for President.

[Sarcastr0]

By no definition of mental illness are all who run for President mentally ill.

[Drewski]

Have to disagree. High-level politicians have spent decades trying to multitask in high-pressure environments, and each of those things is strongly linked to development of attention disorders. There's basically no chance anyone our national leaders have the attention span of a mentally healthy person. People in positions of power also appear to develop signs of narcissism, although the research isn't well-developed.

[Sarcastr0]

A number of issues here. I'm absolutely not a professional, but I know unscientific pop-psychology when I see it and you'll need more evidence.

Trying to multitask in high-pressure environments is stressful, but 'strongly linked to development of attention disorders' seems to be overstating things (unless you have a study to link?)
At best, I'd guess research shows you can exacerbate an existing condition.

"Basically no chance" is qualification followed by a strong statement. Rhetoric over science.

"attention span of a mentally healthy person" is not a clinical standard. Here I do know something, because I've seen some current research in the area. There is no baseline attention span - it's a contextual measure not a generalizable one.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually fairly well known that most successful politicians show signs of being psychopathy, too. In fact, the medical definition of "sociopath" is to some extent tweaked to avoid identifying politicians and business managers as such; If you're able to successfully fake having a conscience well enough to get by without ending up in prison, that you none the less lack one isn't enough to get you labeled a "sociopath". It just gets you to "psychopath"; A sociopath who can fake it!

[ducksalad]

Liz Cheney? Her constituency is tiny; nobody likes a turncoat, even those who don’t like Trump. I imagine she’d draw something like 1% of the vote, so unless it’s that close she would not make a difference.

What *could* do the job is an independent run by a Six Weeker culture warrior, attacking Trump for being a Fifteen Weeker who is soft on trans. Many of the Six Weekers are willing to lose an election over a matter of principle.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think those terms are American slang, isn't "Six Weeker" a German thing?

But, yes, Trump recently dealt himself a serious blow by attacking DeSantis as too pro-life.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

What makes her a turncoat, in your opinion? Because she didn't support Trump?

[ducksalad]

Not supporting Trump is fine.

Consorting with Adam Schiff, who is himself a deeply dishonest and unprincipled man, is definitely turncoat behavior.

It's like the difference between merely opposing the Iraq War and G.W.Bush, versus flying to Iraq and joining Saddam's cabinet.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Consorting with Adam Schiff, who is himself a deeply dishonest and unprincipled man, is definitely turncoat behavior.

What does that make people who consort with Trump?

[Sarcastr0]

It's only turncoat behavior if Trump is the GOP. Which, no matter what you think of Schiff, is not true.

[ducksalad]

Noscitur, Sarcastr0

Republicans who consort with Trump are doing something wrong, just not the subset of wrong that is called turncoat, which involves going over to the other side.

To put it another way, Republicans are mixed on Trump, but they are not mixed on Adam Schiff. And Liz Cheney is a member of the Adam Schiff Party.

BTW: I'm neither a Republican nor an independent, and I'd greatly like to see some catastrophic schism break up the Republican Enemy. But realistically, Liz Cheney is not the person to do that. She has negligible support, and as Nieporent points out, what little there is comes from people like Stephen Lathrop who were never going to vote for Trump anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, once Pelosi decided to violate over 200 years of precedent and pick the minority party members for that committee, the GOP as a party decided to boycott the committee to deny it legitimacy.

The members who were willing to break that boycott and accept appointments by Pelosi to be the nominal minority members? Yeah, turncoats.

[Sarcastr0]

Turncoat is loyalty to country. Trump is not a country. Nor is he a party. I continue to think use of that term is a sign of a messed up culture.

If it were Biden and some Dem said Biden was bad to GOP oversight, but otherwise voted and caucused with the Dems, I'd be pissed, but not call them a turncoat and no longer a Dem.

[bernard11]

once Pelosi decided to violate over 200 years of precedent and pick the minority party members for that committee, the GOP as a party decided to boycott the committee to deny it legitimacy.

Oh stop repeating that bullshit. It's tiresome and dishonest.

[Drewski]

"Oh stop repeating that bullshit. It’s tiresome and dishonest."

But that's Brett's entire brand. If he were going to stop, he would have done so back when people were willing to talk to him in real life, instead of writing 8,000 words a day in the comments of a blog.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what's bullshit about it? Are you going to claim that telling the minority they couldn't pick their own committee members was a routine thing?

Or are you just going with your usual, "This is different, because reasons!"?

The latter, I think. It's not that Pelosi didn't break two centuries of precedent, it's just that you think she had a good reason, so it doesn't count.

Don't care. Seriously, I don't. The minority is entitled to pick their own members, period, end of story. And if you were picked by the majority instead, as Cheney was?

Yeah, you've self identified your party when you accept.

[David Nieporent]

So, what’s bullshit about it? Are you going to claim that telling the minority they couldn’t pick their own committee members was a routine thing?

Well, first it's bullshit because you literally have no idea whether it's true that it's unprecedented. You didn't go do some research and conclude, "I've looked at all the committees and this never happened before."

Second, it's bullshit because Pelosi did not, as you claim, "pick the minority committee members." She vetoed two choices; she didn't decide who their replacements would be. (Ultimately she did pick Kinzinger, but that was only after McCarthy said that he would refuse to appoint anyone at all if she wouldn't let him sabotage the committee. If McCarthy had just named two people, she wouldn't have added Kinzinger.)

Third, it's bullshit because applying an unprecedented procedure to an unprecedented situation would not be the pearl-clutching exercise you pretend it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup, you're going with "it's different because we had good reasons."

According to Don Wolfensberger, former staff director of the House Rules Committee, that was indeed the very first time in the entire history of the country that a Speaker had refused to let the minority have the committee members they had picked.

Pelsosi herself admitted that the action was unprecedented.

And then she proceeded to pick the 'minority members' herself after Republicans boycotted the committee. And Cheney decided to be party to that. If you don't like "turncoat", maybe "Vichy Republican" would be better?

[David Nieporent]

According to Don Wolfensberger, former staff director of the House Rules Committee, that was indeed the very first time in the entire history of the country that a Speaker had refused to let the minority have the committee members they had picked.

Don Wolfensberger doesn't seem all that reliable as a source, because his previous sentence is wrong:

Pelosi subsequently named Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinsinger (R-Ill.) to fill two of the GOP slots, neither of whom had the support of McCarthy.

That's wrong. Cheney was named to fill a Democratic slot on the committee, and not "subsequently," but from the outset.

[Nige]

Oh you mean once the Republicans refused to nominate anyone who wasn't subject to the inquriy of the committee itself.

'Yeah, turncoats.'

Canceled.

[John F. Carr]

Babylon Bee headline: Trump brags he could abort a baby on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, if the groundswell of D-side opinion that Biden is simply too old continues, how many folks do you suppose might join me, a life-long progressive, in a conclusion that an independent run by Liz Cheney would serve the doubly-virtuous purpose of denying the presidency to Trump, and putting an obviously good person in the White House? I would like to hear from commenters here who agree or disagree.

An independent run by Liz Cheney would most likely have zero impact on the outcome of the race. If it did have an impact, it would be to hurt Biden, not Trump. (Anybody who's willing to vote for Trump is not going to vote for Cheney instead. However, some center-right folks who would otherwise vote for Biden might vote for Cheney instead.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, what you may have overlooked is that there are more than a few percent of Rs who will never vote for Biden, but who would vote for Cheney instead of Trump. Up-scale big city suburbs are loaded with voters like that.

Given that, Cheney would have to be overwhelmingly successful among Ds to win, but would have an excellent chance of defeating Trump even if she lost. Given a strong-looking bid by Trump, and poor early poll showings by Biden, I can even imagine Ds in large numbers switching to Cheney to stop Trump. With those facts as predicate, I think she might win as an independent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Going from "Impeach Cheney" to voting for his daughter in just 16 years -- I don't think so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically any Republican who'd vote for Cheney at this point probably would have voted for Biden, and just lied about it. She really has negligible support within the GOP at this point.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett.

The idea that if you don't like Trump you must be a secret Dem is a cult of personality 'L'GOP, c'est Trump' mindset.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, what you may have overlooked is that there are more than a few percent of Rs who will never vote for Biden, but who would vote for Cheney instead of Trump. Up-scale big city suburbs are loaded with voters like that.

I did not "overlook" that; I reject that. At this point, anyone who's willing to vote for Trump is not a potential Biden or Cheney voter.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, you are still overlooking it. I did not say someone who would vote for Trump would switch to Biden or Cheney. I said there are Rs aplenty would not vote for Biden, but would vote for Cheney instead of for Trump. You apparently ignore the possibility that there is a substantial conservative vote in the suburbs which will sit out the election rather than vote this time for either Trump or Biden. The question is whether circumstances encouraged by an independent Cheney candidacy might create a groundswell encompassing an alliance of those not-for-Trump conservatives with a large enough bloc of anti-Trump Ds to give Cheney the election.

You may find that far-fetched, but if you do, you would be wiser to think so after considering likely non-voters among Ds and Rs, and what they might do working together.

Cheney, by the way, has sworn repeatedly that she will not stint in her efforts to prevent another term by Trump. The first time I heard that, I thought it might signal an independent run, and I have not changed that estimate.

[David Nieporent]

You apparently ignore the possibility that there is a substantial conservative vote in the suburbs which will sit out the election rather than vote this time for either Trump or Biden.

I don't ignore that possibility. I reject it. But let's say I'm incorrect, and that possibility is realized: who cares? Those people are irrelevant to the election results, and thus fit into the first category I describe: "An independent run by Liz Cheney would most likely have zero impact on the outcome of the race." In terms of the effect on the results on the presidential election, voting for an independent is the mathematical equivalent of sitting out the election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, do the math for me, to show the trivial effect of non-voters. What percentage of the potential electorate votes?

[Kenneth Almquist]

If a bunch of voters for Cheney instead of sitting out the election, that doesn't change the number of votes for Trump or Biden. If some people who would have otherwise voted for Biden vote for Cheney, that could have the effect of tipping the election to Trump.

Most Democrats won't vote for Cheney, due to both party loyalty and ideology. Cheney is a conservative, and most Democrats aren't. Cheney has no path to victory because she can't be competitive with Trump among Republicans or with Biden among Democrats.

[Don Nico]

I'd vote for Liz Cheney, but she has no chance of being on the ballot. Neither does Nikki Haley or Amy Klobuchar.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thankfully.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
You certainly make a good point. Ed's flailing about does not even show the slightest understanding of what declassification means or that document folders can themselves be classified if they contain classified codewords. This trials is not about what is properly classified. It is about Trump's failure to comply with a lawful request to return documents, about his lies about the documents and about his obstruction of justice.
The guy belongs in jail

[Joe_dallas]

Don - I would not go so far as stating he belongs in jail, though certainly no longer having the ability to function as president. My issue is the extreme level of double standard. For example, hillary's security breaches with the unsecured server were vastly more detrimental than trumps security breaches yet the are completely dismissed based on left wing talking points.
Trumps activities associated with jan6 were certainly bad and borderline level of insurrection, yet Hillary involvement in the Russian hoax which in effect was essentially an attempted coup to stifle a valid election fits up there nearly as high as a full fledged insurrection, yet it is also dismissed based on left wing talking points.

Again the issue is the extreme level of double standards.

[Nige]

'hillary’s security breaches'

There were no security breaches.

Even if there were the only classifed documents on it were a handful of emails that were classified after they were sent.

'Hillary involvement in the Russian hoax'

She had absolutely no involvement with the investigations into Russian interference and Trump's level complicity which lead to reports that affirmed Russian interference and Trump's knowledge of it and mutliple Russian connections with hm and his campaign.

Interesting paralell with Kazinski's efforts to fabricate a case against Biden that will survive the same way these fabricated claims about Clinton and the Russian investigations did.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 2 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User ‘hillary’s security breaches’

“There were no security breaches.”

Nige – 30k stolen emails – no security breaches – you are not even attempting to be honest. That also explains why you are so often fooled by leftist talking points

[Nige]

When did that happen?

[David Nieporent]

Tom for equal rights isn't even smart enough to repeat partisan talking points correctly. He's confusing "30,000 deleted emails" with "30,000 stolen" ones.

[Don Nico]

The may not have been stolen but were deleted contrary to law.

[David Nieporent]

deleted contrary to law.

No law required or requires Hillary Clinton to preserve personal emails.

[Don Nico]

You say they are personal. That is assuming the conclusion.

[Drewski]

You're saying you want Clinton prosecuted for deleting emails that may or may not be personal, but Trump must be let off the hook for retaining indisputably classified documents and lying about it. Because you don't want a double standard. Is that right?

[Brett Bellmore]

"You’re saying you want Clinton prosecuted for deleting emails that may or may not be personal, but Trump must be let off the hook for retaining indisputably classified documents and lying about it. Because you don’t want a double standard. Is that right?"

If you wanted a real parallel, you'd need Trump to have responded to the demand for them by promising that everything they were entitled to had already been handed over, and then lobbing a Molotov cocktail into the room in the basement to incinerate all the evidence so that they couldn't prove otherwise.

Trump didn't do anything they couldn't have dealt with by prolonged litigation, because he wasn't responding to the demands by destroying stuff; They'd get it all if they prevailed in the end.

He just didn't immediately roll over and play dead, that's all.

[Magister]

Trump lied about having returned everything; that he didn't destroy evidence of his crimes doesn't exonerate him. He's been further indicted for attempting to destroy evidence and inducing someone else to destroy evidence. A slower approach might have ended with him succeeding in destroying the documents he retained, and they wouldn't have gotten it all.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, the server was destroyed as per regulations.

The opposite of presidential records retention requirements.

You have been explained this many times. And yet you reach for an analogy that is utterly wrong nevertheless.

You ignore Trump lying and hiding and obfuscating. As though there is no exigency with badly stored Presidential records some of which are classified.
You have no standards at all where Trump is concerned.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, the server was destroyed as per regulations.

The opposite of presidential records retention requirements."

At this point you're not just drinking the Koolaid, you're mixing it up for others. It was wiped three whole weeks after the contents were subpoena'd. By a person who had already been notified of the subpoena.

Destroying evidence under subpoena is spoliation, not "complying with regulations".

And I expect you understand quite well that the only thing she got out of having a private email server under her own physical custody was the ability to have done that. In all other ways it's an expensive, inconvenient, and inferior way to have email, but the one thing you DO get out of it is the ability to thwart subpoenas.

[Sarcastr0]

Your link (which I really liked BTW) tells a story absent of any Clinton involvement or any real nefariousness.

One of those Molotov cocktails that’s only noticeable by those with the right brand of tin foil on their heads.

[David Nieporent]

Destroying evidence under subpoena is spoliation, not “complying with regulations”.

1) No, that's not what spoliation means.

2) No evidence under subpoena was destroyed. For the 10,000th time, I beg you to read the fucking subpoena that you keep talking about, because you don't have the first clue what it said.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 17 hours ago
Destroying evidence under subpoena is spoliation, not “complying with regulations”.

2) No evidence under subpoena was destroyed. For the 10,000th time, I beg you to read the fucking subpoena that you keep talking about, because you don’t have the first clue what it said.

David - enlighten us on how you know that no evidence under subpoena was destroyed ?
Did someone examine the destroyed evidence which no longer existed to determine that it wasnt under subpoena?

[David Nieporent]

yet Hillary involvement in the Russian hoax which in effect was essentially an attempted coup to stifle a valid election

Let's pretend for the minute that there was a "Russian hoax" (there wasn't). Let's pretend that Hillary was "involved" in it, whatever that means.

Hell, let's pretend that one day, Hillary Clinton woke up and said to her campaign staff, "I think we should lie about Donald Trump and accuse him of being in bed with Putin for no reason and with no evidence. Here's a million dollars, go find some guy to write up a fictional dossier to make it seem like he's guilty."

That would still not be anything remotely like "an attempted coup to stifle a valid election." Candidates maligning each other — even (gasp!) falsely — is not an "attempted coup."

And if you mean things done after the election — which did not involve Hillary, but let's pretend otherwise — that would still not be anything remotely like "an attempted coup to stifle a valid election." If it somehow got Trump removed from office, that would make Mike Pence, not Hillary Clinton, the new president.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don, you are talking about laws which have never been judicially enforced against a past President and which include technicalities of what he must have done as President to declassify a document.

Absent precedent, SCOTUS could do damn near anything.

[Martinned]

What do you mean, "absent precedent"?

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, declassification, even if it had occurred (it didn't), is not a defense to the offenses Donald Trump is charged with. The statutes defining the offenses are 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 793(e), 1001(a)(1), 1001(a)(2), 1512(b)(2)(A), 1512(b)(2)(B), 1512(c)(1), 1512(k) and 1519. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.85.0_3.pdf None of these statutes requires the Government to prove that any document is or was classified.

[Don Nico]

ng,
thank you for pointing out the relevant sections of the US Code to Mr. Ed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Like it will do any good...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not if the laws aren't constitutional.

Again, we do not have an official secrets act, and the POTUS did not waive rights to gain access, unlike everyone else.

So cite the precedent....

[not guilty]

Do you have any authority indicating that any of the charged statutes is unconstitutional? Even Team Trump has not made that claim.

Otto Yourazz doesn't count as authority.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 4 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"That doesn’t sound like the kind of person that any reasonable person would vote for in an election."

Sounds like the guy who just agreed to give Iran $6b in exchange for nothing or more precisely $6B to enhance their nuclear program.

[Martinned]

If only we had a robust nuclear treaty with Iran? I seem to recall that we used to have one. What happened with that?

[Mr. Bumble]

We? Sneek into the country with the rest of the illegals from around the world who for some strange reason want to enter this racist oppressive country?
By the way, Biden's under the table wheeling and dealing with the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and terrorists is closer to $50 billion.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/bidens-iran-deal.php

[Martinned]

Yes, we.

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

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک, romanized: barnāmeye jāme'e eqdāme moshtarak (برجام, BARJAM)), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany) together with the European Union.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the US treaties need the approval of the Senate. Never happened.

[Martinned]

That sounds like a you problem. Whether a treaty is a treaty does not depend on domestic US law.

Article 26: “Pacta sunt servanda”
Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

Article 27: Internal law and observance of treaties
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

Article 46: Provisions of internal law regarding competence
to conclude treaties
1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.
2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.

[Joe_dallas]

Martineed - dont embarass yourself - the JCPOA is a treaty that was never ratified by the Senate.

The primary effect of the JCPOA is quite the opposite of the Obama's stated benefit. It for all intents and purposes was designed to facilitate the development of nuclear program instead of hindering the development. The reason it was never presented to the Senate for ratification was more than sufficient senators were opposed to facilitating Iran's nuclear program.

[Brett Bellmore]

Please, do NOT cite the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, in regard to the US. We didn’t ratify that, either.

In the US, if a treaty hasn’t been ratified, it’s just a piece of paper, with precisely zero legal force. Period, end of story.

[Martinned]

@Brett: And that, too, is your problem. (Particularly since most provisions of the Vienna Convention, including most definitely the rule of pacta sunt servanda, have been held to codify customary international law.)

[David Nieporent]

1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

So even by the terms of the Vienna convention on treaties, it's not a valid treaty, as everyone knows that U.S. presidents have no legal authority of any sort to bind the country to a treaty.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Precisely. The State has not expressed its "consent" until the draft treaty has been ratified by its internal law. Therefore, the failure to ratify is not a "violation" of any provision of its internal law; it just isn't a treaty under its internal law.

I've got no problem with international law, believe you me, but it is simply nonsense to contend that the Vienna Convention can somehow supplant a State's own constitutional rules for the ratification of treaties.

[grb]

Whether the Iran Pact was ratified or not, it worked right up to the end. JCPOA shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program and was repeatedly certified as working – included by the Trump Administration, who told Congress Iran was no longer developing nuclear weapons.

So when Joe_dallas talks about it “facilitating Iran’s nuclear program”, that’s just him being dumb as shit (like always). The major right-wingers who campaigned against JCPOA had no criticisms over nuclear issues, instead focusing on what the treaty didn’t cover : Ballistic missile development and conventional weapons. People who talked about Iran “cheating” never provide a single example, either talking out of their ass or pulling a con. The prime example of the latter was Netanyahu, who put on a big production about captured Iranian records (ignoring the fact they all dated about fifteen years before the treaty the treaty was signed).

So JCPOA was working, the Iranian nuclear program stopped, but Trump didn’t care. He wanted to throw some red meat to ignorant clowns like Joe_dallas (who’s completely clueless).

So he pulls out and says he’ll negotiate a new pact including missiles and conventional arms. The Iranians ignore him and restart full-speed uranium enrichment – and are now near having an atomic bomb. All the negotiating effort uniting China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States and Germany is wasted. It’s all all-around policy fiasco to everyone except the terminally stupid (like Joe_dallas) who thought it was very entertaining (in a WWE-kind of way) to see Trump make loud bellicose noises – even if they have the exact opposite result of their intentions.

[Tom for equal rights]

GRB - You are part of the jonathan gruber target audience . You have to be really naive or intentionally stupid to believe that the JCPOA was actually working to deter Iran's nuclear program.

GRB's statement - "So JCPOA was working, the Iranian nuclear program stopped, "

Yea right

[Brett Bellmore]

"If only we had a robust nuclear treaty with Iran? I seem to recall that we used to have one. What happened with that?"

You're imagining things. We had a nuclear deal, (Not a "treaty"), sure, but it was hardly "robust", as your own link to the Wikipedia article confirms.

They routinely violated their end of it without consequences, and were allowed to veto site inspections.

The fundamental problem was that Iran was permitted to sell oil for 'humanitarian' purposes. They used lucrative deals offered to various figures in the EU as a way to buy off the other parties to the deal, and it eventually became unenforceable as a result. There just wasn't he political will to do anything about Iran's violations and intransigence.

[Martinned]

The fact that American presidents have domestic reasons why they need to engage in weird semantics about treaties, deals, and executive agreements does not change the fact that there was an agreement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Would you equally call the difference between enacting and not enacting a law, "weird semantics"?

A "treaty" is a legally binding agreement, under US constitutional law it stands above statutory law, and just below the Constitution. Accordingly, to actually enter into one requires the approval of the legislature. Just like enacting a law would require it.

[Martinned]

Yes, and under international law - which is the space where international agreements operate - an agreement needs to be ratified, but the details after that are left to the agreement itself and to the each country's domestic law.

In this case, the agreement itself provided that

The E3/EU+3 and Iran commit to implement this JCPOA in good faith and in a constructive atmosphere, based on mutual respect, and to refrain from any action inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent of this JCPOA that would undermine its successful implementation.

But at the same time it made (tolerably) clear that there wasn't anything to be ratified by anyone other than Iran. Eg.

If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.

That doesn't make the JCPOA a worthless piece of paper, that makes it an MOU. Any lawyer who thinks MOUs are worthless pieces of paper needs to be spanked and sent back to law school. (Particularly when that MOU sets out a carefully structured set of actions that are designed to incentivise all parties to comply with the agreement.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It makes it a pinky promise by a President who knew it wouldn't be given any legal force.

[Sarcastr0]

We been using those pinky promises since WWI to pretty great effect.
This was not some extraordinary exercise of power. Special part was that some in Congress wanted to make some nationalist hay.

[Martinned]

O, and I should add, the reason why the Iran deal was not robust is because the US side, for domestic reasons, couldn't do better than an executive agreement, meaning that any subsequent idiot who got elected president could blow up the whole thing on a whim, which is what Trump duly did.

[Nige]

As I recall this was the form of the argument for invading Iran once we’d sorted Iraq out. WMDs and all that. Iran were practically ready to launch on Washington, supposedly.

[John F. Carr]

I don't recall a robust treaty. I recall a gullible president trying to negotiate a treaty.

[Tom for equal rights]

John - one correction - it was not a gullible president - it was a fully knowledgible president trying to fool a gullible electorate with a willing press assisting in fooling a gullible electorate .

[Sarcastr0]

Because Obama hates America and loves Iran, eh?

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - thanks for confirming you are part of the gullible masses

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one reading Obama's mind and finding some kind of goal at odds with the voters, but not specifying that it is.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - Obama is a rather smart individual - so he most assurdedly knew the ins and outs of the JCPOA along with knowing the effects the JCPOA would have on Iran's nuclear program.

Though it takes a pretty stupid person and / or very gullible person to believe that the JCPOA was designed to impede, hinder deter Iran's nuclear program.

[Sarcastr0]

It had exactly that effect until Trump killed it, your ipse dixit aside.

But more importantly, what the is Obama's motive? You keep intimating he was working to let Iran to become nuclear. Why? What is the plan of this Obama-of-your-mind?

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 45 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"It had exactly that effect until Trump killed it, "

Sacastro - not only are you as I described - you are also dealing in an alternative universe. Your statement isnt even remotely factually accurate. Do you get all your knowledge from the daily DNC talking point memos

[Sarcastr0]

What's Obama's long play with getting Iran nuclear, Tom?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

We've reached the la-la-la phase...

[Don Nico]

It wasn't really a robust treaty. Whether it was better than nothing is the locus of the debate, because in the end in either way Iran will have nuclear devices if it wants them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What is your estimate about Israel's response to a nuclear-armed Iran?

[Don Nico]

Israel will try to prevent that by force. And that was Obama's reason for the JCPOA, lowering the probability of an Israeli attack.
But once Iran has a few weapons, the calculus changes. We're back to MAD in the middle East

[Tom for equal rights]

Don - good to see an objective and rational assessment - far too many comments are disinformed partisan statements with zero basis in reality

[Tom for equal rights]

Don - sorry I need to clarify - statement should be

Far too many comments from other commentators are disinformed partisan statements with zero basis in reality.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Sounds like the guy who just agreed to give Iran $6b in exchange for nothing or more precisely $6B to enhance their nuclear program."

The neocons are at it again, folks.

Nobody is "giving" Iran anything. The US is letting Iran use its own money, that's it. And they can't even use the money for their nuclear program anyway.

Why do you guys continue to lie about this?

[Bored Lawyer]

As I have noted many times, many of the people voting for Trump are not doing so for policy reasons or because of his character. They are doing so as a protest -- I once dubbed him the "Middle Finger Candidate," because many who vote for him do so as the equivalent of giving the middle finger to the Establishment.

(I don't know if the Middle Finger has the same meaning in Europe as it does in the U.S. Here its a signal for a very crude dismissive statement.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As I have noted many times, many of the people voting for Trump are not doing so for policy reasons or because of his character. They are doing so as a protest

Bingo. Disaffected. Unaccomplished. Left behind (or can't keep up). Old-timey religious. Tired of preferences for Blacks; fewer whites; women who don't know their place; openly gays. Cranky about all of this damned progress.

These obsolete assholes know they and their tired, shitty thinking have no real future in modern America; their response is to live to flash middle fingers at modern, diverse, accomplished, educated Americans residing in strong, successful communities.

[Bored Lawyer]

Still working on your inferiority complex, I see. Try psychotropic drugs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I see my side as the undisputed heavyweight champions of modern America. At this point, we are kicking around the clingers at will and for sport.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well-adjusted, mentally-healthy individuals don't run for President. I don't think they even run for Governor -- you have to be mentally ill to put up with the garbage that is involved in running.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

By that measure, Donald Trump is exceptionally well-qualified, then...

[Kazinski]

If i put the presidents since Eisenhower in two buckets, functional personality or dysfunctional I'd have:

Dysfunctional: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Trump, Biden

Functional: Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Obama.

[Sarcastr0]

JFK, Clinton and Biden as dysfunctional.

What the heck is your definition? It would seem to encompass a bunch of ordinary people with pretty functional lives as well.

[Kazinski]

JFK and Clinton were serial womanizers, both of them married with children having sexual trysts in the Whitehouse. JFK dozens.

Clinton was also accused of rape, exposing himself to a low level state employee while propositioning her at a state event.

Biden's daughter said in her diary that Joe used to come shower with her at an inappropriate age, and Hunter would refer to Joe as Pedo Pete.
And there is this too:
Former senator told Biden he’d ‘kick the sh-t out of’ the then-VP for getting handsy with his wife
https://nypost.com/2023/08/12/former-sen-scott-brown-told-biden-hed-kick-the-sh-it-out-of-the-then-vp-for-getting-handsy-with-his-wife/

Sounds dysfunctional to me.

[Nige]

If you believe the worst right-wing bullshit about Joe Biden, he's a raving slobbering monster.

[Kazinski]

Ashley Biden left her diary in halfway house in Florida, 2 people were charged with selling her diary to Project Veritas, not with fraud for claiming it was her diary, but with selling it:

"Shocking sexual allegations are emerging from the reported diary of Ashley Biden, President Joe Biden’s daughter.

According to the DailyMail.com, Ashley Biden, a drug addict, left her personal diary under a mattress in a Palm Beach, Florida halfway house where she stayed during a rehab stint. The diary reportedly details her drug abuse, sex addiction and her being “hypersexualized.”

Ashley Biden also recounts times she showered with her father when she was young, something she allegedly wrote was “probably not appropriate,” says Dailymail.com

‘I remember having sex with friends @ a young age; showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate)’

The diary reportedly came to light after a Florida woman who stayed in the room Ashley Biden vacated at the halfway house discovered it in 2020 and sold it for $40,000 to a media organization, Project Veritas, says DailyMail.com. This woman, Aimee Harris, is being investigated by the FBI regarding her involvement with the diary, which the outlet says the Bidens allegedly reported stolen in a burglary.

https://www.wtrf.com/top-stories/alleged-showers-with-my-dad-president-joe-bidens-daughter-reportedly-writes-of-abuse-in-diary/

Now I haven't brought this up before because it has nothing to do with being president, but it certainly is enough for me to say he has a dysfunctional personality.

[Sarcastr0]

Serial womanizers were, until recently, not dysfunctional. Sucks but true. In some places nowadays this is still true.

Clinton was also accused It was retracted, so credibility is at a low ebb. It also seems like you've confused accusation with fact.

And your Biden stuff is some gutter shit.

[Kazinski]

Juanita Broderick was pressured into disavowing the allegation, she has since disclaimed the affidavit and to this day still claims he raped her.

You want to watch her say it on tape, here it is:

https://youtu.be/0wsnRVdtgB8?si=kr85FdBn3XSMEHOC

[Sarcastr0]

You're picking and choosing what to believe. Ken Star didn't see fit to follow up.

I'd be all for an investigation.

But you've moved directly to declaring Clinton is a rapist basedon this equivocal. Which is kinda fucked up.

[Kazinski]

I’m basing it on believing Juanita Broderick.

As for Ken Starr, it was a state crime and well past the statute of limitations.

[not guilty]

Juanita Broaddrick's affidavit was executed on January 2, 1998. Should Ken Starr have prosecuted her for perjury -- a federal offense that occurred well within the applicable limitation period?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/affidavit122398.htm

Or is perjury no big deal?

[David Nieporent]

I’m basing it on believing Juanita Broderick.

No, you're basing it on disbelieving Juanita Broaddrick (not "Broderick," btw.) You have to assume she lied under oath (twice) but told the truth in unsworn statements.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 5 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"And your Biden stuff is some gutter shit."

Sacastro - the biden stuff is gutter shit - unfortunately its true. You are reaching very deep in the denial pit

[Sarcastr0]

You believe all sorts of stuff not many around you do, eh?

[David Nieporent]

Biden’s daughter said in her diary that Joe used to come shower with her at an inappropriate age,

Even assuming the document is genuine, that's not what it says.

[Kazinski]

Direct quote above.

[Sarcastr0]

An unverified diary, that doesn’t appear to be accusing him of anything.

Fucking research whether DailyMail.com might be in for some bullshit.

Especially if you’re going to accuse someone of pedophilia!

Check into that shit before you put it out. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Tom for equal rights]

sacastro - another response for the daily DNC talking point memo.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't do well with being contradicted, do you?

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago (edited)
An unverified diary, that doesn’t appear to be accusing him of anything.

Sacastro - "An unverified diary, that doesn’t appear to be accusing him of anything."
Is basically the from the DNC and or the biden whitehouse daily talking point memo. Your inability or refusal to objectively view actual facts would be an embarassment to most people.

[Sarcastr0]

One great sign of people who are biased all to hell is they claim the mantle of objectivity, or rationality, or whatever.

[Kazinski]

Everything is unverified, but nothing is ever disputed.

[David Nieporent]

Direct quote above.

Right. You'll notice the punctuation, which separates out the part about a "young age" from the part about Biden.

[Kazinski]

Wait, that's your defense!!!!

She probably wasn't that young when Joe started showering with her?

What every teen girl wants is showers with Jer father.

[not guilty]

George W. Bush was a drunk, then a dry drunk. Is that functional?

[Kazinski]

He cleaned up, that’s quite functional.

I give anyone who has successfully overcome substance abuse problems a lot of credit.

I suppose there are some who want to keep dumping on them for the rest of their lives, but I suspect they have problems of their own.

[myself]

So Trump was lying when he told people the documents were classified.

But Trump wasn't lying, months later, when facing criminal charges he claimed to have declassified the documents, despite zero evidence of this declassification existing and no one other than a few co-conspirators claiming to have hear it.

You really know how to push the "reasonable" in reasonable doubt.

[Frank Drackman]

Same way Parkinsonian Joe gets away with molesting young girls (hey, at least he leaves little boys alone)

[Kazinski]

Ok, I’m going to try this one more time. After the pushback on Glenn Kessler’s fact check where he quoted a Biden aide saying Joe “called an aufidible”, and changed US policy on the fly on his own initiative.

I have one more source (the source is a known fabulist, but that can’t be helped) that asserts Joe Biden decided on his own to link the 1b loan guarantee to the firing of Prosecutor General Shokin, and did it at the last minute while in transit to Ukraine, or possibly when he was already there:

“And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired.”https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden

That matches almost exactly with what the aide said in Kessler’s fact check, different words but there is absolutely no tension between the two recollections: “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”

[Commenter_XY]

I thought that FD-1023 FBI form wrt the east European foreign national outlining his interactions with Ukraine, and alleging bribery nailed it. Would love to know just who that foreign national was.

This inquiry ends with the impeachment of POTUS Biden as the outcome (unless he croaks, first - 7% chance at age 80). By Hanukah, they'll be lining up impeachment votes. POTUS Biden will not be removed from office, but will have that stain on his record forever.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure impeachment is the end game.

In fact I will hazard that the more solid the evidence they uncover the less likely it is that they will impeach.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see Biden being impeached in the remaining time, short of maybe finding a literal smoking gun. It's too obvious you wouldn't have the votes to convict even if you could prove the current charges, like with Clinton, not enough Democrats would CARE if it was true.

If he leaves office prematurely, it's more likely to be the 25th amendment.

[Martinned]

I learned from Trump this week that Congress can invoke the 25th amendment. Live & learn...

https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1703811849685266610

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, Congress could invoke it if they'd previously enacted the required legislation.

"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. "

But I don't believe they've actually statutorily designated an alternate body, so it's still on the Cabinet. And I'm pretty sure a bill at this point to create such a body would just get vetoed.

[Martinned]

Ooh! That’s an interesting question! Could Congress by law provide that Congress can invoke the 25th amendment? It seems to me that the natural reading of the language you quote is to authorise Congress to give the heads of other bodies than government departments a vote as well. E.g. to provide that the surgeon-general also gets a vote, or the chairman of the joint chiefs, or the head of the OLS, or whoever else they please. But I’m certainly open to being convinced that other interpretations are possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

It says “or” such body, not “and” such body. The Cabinet is the default, but they can remove that power from the Cabinet (But not the VP!) and give it to some other group. But such an action would be subject to the presentiment clause, and I doubt Biden would be eager to sign such a bill.

There was actually talk abut their doing just that, during the last two years of the Trump administration, when Democrats controlled Congress. I think the practical impossibility of overcoming a veto was why they didn’t attempt it.

[Martinned]

That's a fair point, although I still struggle to accept that the drafters of the Amendment could have left open the possibility of Congress giving this power to itself (or to one of its constituent houses) without explicitly saying so. That doesn't seem like the kind of thing you'd just skip over.

[Brett Bellmore]

They didn't skip over it. They explicitly authorized Congress to designate another body besides the Cabinet if they wanted. It's right there in black and white.

They've never exercised that authority, though, so it's still defaulting to the Cabinet.

But the VP has to get the ball rolling, you need Harris to initiate things.

[Kazinski]

Congress already has that power, its called.impeachment.

[Martinned]

@Kazinski: True, but in Brett's scenario Congress could by law provide for the possibility of getting rid of the president with a simple majority, or based on the majority vote of just the Senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

"True, but in Brett’s scenario Congress could by law provide for the possibility of getting rid of the president with a simple majority, or based on the majority vote of just the Senate."

Maybe you should just read the 25th amendment?

The VP together with whichever body Congress designates by law, (Or the Cabinet by default.) can declare the President incompetent to perform his duties. This takes effect immediately on notifying Congress, without any further action, and the VP takes over his duties.

The President can then dispute that declaration, and unless the above reiterate that he's incompetent, he resumes office.

If they maintain the position that he's incompetent, Congress must act on a fairly short time frame to vote on the matter, and the President resumes office unless a two thirds vote of both chambers agrees with the VP.

Note that this makes declaring the President incompetent harder than impeaching him, which only requires a House majority and 2/3 of the Senate. It's not a way to bypass impeachment.

As Wikipedia notes, there were several proposals during the Trump administration to attempt to use the 25th amendment to remove him from power. They basically all foundered because there clearly weren't the votes in Congress, and didn't have Pence onboard anyway.

[Krayt]

Is that legally an exclusive “or”? In common language, “or” is not exclusive.

For something like swearing in day, that wouldn’t make sense. For this…? What if the other body said he’s fine, but the principle officers didn’t?

Or the worse case, the principle officers say he’s fine, but the partisan hack body didn't? The whole point was the president had to be so bad his supporters say there’s a problem. It’s not supposed to devolve into another partisan battleground, but to cover strokes or bizarre behavior.

[bernard11]

If he leaves office prematurely, it’s more likely to be the 25th amendment.

I remember when you guys were saying he'd be gone via the 25th by summer 2021.

[grb]

Hell, I remember when our Right-wing chorus insisted Biden would never debate Trump. There would be some last-minute “event” – they insisted – that would force cancelation. His team would never let Biden be exposed in public.

Of course he had debated Sanders for two-plus hours just a few months earlier, so what about that? Irrelevant, our wingers replied with absolute assurance. Biden had gotten “much worse” since then. Now, about this, an observant person notes two things:

First, our wingnuts speak with ever greater assurance the more they drift off into fantasyland. There’s an exact mathematical relation there. Witness the confidence above where they lay out their jokey impeachment.

Second, Joe Biden always gets “much worse” from any single point in time. He’ll be “much worse” a month from now, two months, three. It’s like a seductive mirage leading our Righties deeper and deeper into folly.

Because Biden did debate Trump and cleaned his clock. And if they both run again, Biden will kick butt again. Joe may be a step slower, but that still trumps bloviating imbecility. And then what comes of their relentless fixation on Biden’s mental state?

[Nige]

'I’m not sure impeachment is the end game.'

With evidence like that the end game will be to keep a straight face.

[Sarcastr0]

So you now trust Biden, of the International Biden crime syndicate?

[Armchair Lawyer]

If someone says they did something, and changed policy....

And the facts match that...

Well, it is evidence that they did indeed do what they said.

[Sarcastr0]

The facts don't match this story. They never have.

That's why the usual crowd of idiots are switching on the credibility of Biden. Which, for stories like this, not even Biden supporters take gospel.

This is grasping for straws.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Except here are those facts...

"That matches almost exactly with what the aide said in Kessler’s fact check, different words but there is absolutely no tension between the two recollections: “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”

[Sarcastr0]

Kessler’s fact check doesn't say what you think it does.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This should be good.... So what does it say, if not what I quoted?

[Michael P]

Reality is not what you think you see, says Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

This is almost certainly true. I get things wrong all the time. But Ipse dixit and name calling won't get you there.

More:https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/18/monday-open-thread-18/?comments=true#comment-10239769

[Life of Brian]

Ah, thanks for linking to the thread where one word on the pre-audible US policy re the firing -- "urge" -- took down grb's entire post-hoc rationalization spew. Saves me the trouble of reposting it here.

[Nige]

In your entire imagination it did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah, good ol gaslighting. But this time, it's lazy and via a link.

[Sarcastr0]

Bare denial and abuse of the word gaslight is all you got AL?

Did you even click through to Monday?

Are you lazy or got nothing?

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's practically the definition of gaslighting...

"What it says isn't what was quoted. It is this completely different thing..."

[Sarcastr0]

What it says isn’t what was quoted
You didn't bother to read the links then. They have a TON of quotes from the article saying the opposite of what Kaz claims the article says based on one quote.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And shift to changing goalposts.

I never said anything about what Kaz said....

[Sarcastr0]

“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”

More:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/18/monday-open-thread-18/?comments=true#comment-10239816

[Life of Brian]

Even if this carefully-worded post-hoc rationalization is true (unconformable since, as Kessler also says, the White House ain't talking and won't unseal its relevant records), so what?

[Sarcastr0]

Kessler’s fact check doesn’t say what AL thinks it does.

[Nige]

'carefully-worded post-hoc rationalization'

You need the careful wording because both claims about the Kessler article and Biden's words here rely on interpreting at best ambiguous and definitely decontextualised statements.

[David Nieporent]

so what?

So it directly contradicts the MAGA narrative.

That narrative is "Joe Biden got Shokin fired because he/Hunter got paid lots of money from Burisma to protect them from Shokin."

The rebuttal is "Actually, Joe Biden got Shokin fired because that was official U.S. policy as well as the policy of lots of other countries and organizations, and all he was doing was delivering that message to Ukraine. Hunter Biden played no role."

This Kessler story that Kazinski is seizing on bolsters the rebuttal, not the narrative. It reflects that Biden was just delivering a message, not making the decision. If you believe Kazinski's misreading, then Biden made a unilateral call about how to accomplish the goal, not whether to do so. But if you read the full text, including the "carefully worded" part, it makes clear that Biden didn't even make a unilateral call about that. He may have said, "Hey, I think we should use the loan guarantees as incentive," but in fact that wasn't his decision either; it had to get approved by the administration.

[Life of Brian]

The rebuttal is “Actually, Joe Biden got Shokin fired because that was official U.S. policy as well as the policy of lots of other countries and organizations, and all he was doing was delivering that message to Ukraine. Hunter Biden played no role.”

If you pretend the arrow of time has collapsed into a singularity, sure.

But the fact of the matter remains, it WASN'T the approach Biden was sent over to implement, and he WAS the one that (for reasons you diehard apologists will believe to the end of time were completely benign and only for the good of the country until there's a document unearthed somewhere that says in 36 point font exact words to the contrary) unilaterally decided at the last minute he wanted to up the ante.

That he was able to spring a last-minute change on others in the administration and persuade them to go along with it changes the equation not one whit. Not a single thing had changed in the state of play since they put him on the plane with his instructed course of action. You're still left exactly where you started: Occam sez he had some additional reason for wanting to do that, and he was successfully able to launder that motivation through the administration.

I'm sure you're not taking the position that process somehow makes it OK, or somehow erases any corrupt motive he might have had for doing so.

[David Nieporent]

But the fact of the matter remains, it WASN’T the approach Biden was sent over to implement, and he WAS the one that (for reasons you diehard apologists will believe to the end of time were completely benign and only for the good of the country until there’s a document unearthed somewhere that says in 36 point font exact words to the contrary) unilaterally decided at the last minute he wanted to up the ante.

He wasn’t sent over to implement an "approach." He was sent over to deliver a message that Shokin had to go. That's what he did. Whether he talked it over with his advisors and said, "You know, I don't think saying 'Pretty please' is going to work; we need to be more forceful to get this done. Let's talk to the White House and see what they think" is utterly irrelevant to the issue. You know this; you aren't this stupid.

[Life of Brian]

He was sent over to deliver a message that Shokin had to go. That’s what he did.

Enough with the cutesy word games, David. He was sent to “urge” for Shokin’s firing, but also to be clear that urging was not tied to the aid. That is most emphatically NOT what he did.

Whether he talked it over with his advisors and said, “You know, I don’t think saying ‘Pretty please’ is going to work; we need to be more forceful to get this done. Let’s talk to the White House and see what they think” is utterly irrelevant to the issue.

Holy smokes, dude. Exactly four days ago you patiently explained to us that: “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.” As you may recall (feel free to reread the thread if you don’t), I agreed with you. How is your current position not a full and complete 180?

[David Nieporent]

How is your current position not a full and complete 180?

Um, because the article that started this mini-discussion clearly says that the White House, not Biden, made the decision. At most, it was Biden's proposal to use the loan guarantees. A vice president, like the White House janitor, can make proposals. He can't make decisions.

[Life of Brian]

Um, because the article that started this mini-discussion clearly says that the White House, not Biden, made the decision. At most, it was Biden’s proposal to use the loan guarantees.

Oh, interesting. Because I already covered in my prior comment why that sort of fig leaf story doesn't matter to any independent corrupt motive he may have had for pushing it, and your response was: "Whether he talked it over with his advisors and said, “You know, I don’t think saying ‘Pretty please’ is going to work; we need to be more forceful to get this done. Let’s talk to the White House and see what they think” is utterly irrelevant to the issue."

Are you pivoting again now that you're realizing this is a dead-end path as well? This is getting tiresome.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, interesting. Because I already covered in my prior comment why that sort of fig leaf story doesn’t matter to any independent corrupt motive he may have had for pushing it, and your response was: “Whether he talked it over with his advisors and said, “You know, I don’t think saying ‘Pretty please’ is going to work; we need to be more forceful to get this done. Let’s talk to the White House and see what they think” is utterly irrelevant to the issue.”

You don't understand the phrase "fig leaf." This is not a "fig leaf." This is something that utterly refutes the notion that there was an "independent corrupt motive."

[Life of Brian]

This is something that utterly refutes the notion that there was an “independent corrupt motive.”

Why at all, much less "utterly"? Can't wait!

[Kazinski]

As I pointed out Monday, that quote CONFIRMS the aides account in the revised check that "Biden called an audible", and dovetails with Biden's recollection "And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees" and "by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan”

Thanks for the support Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

And as was noted this is a laughable idea of how VP is able to maneuver.
My deputy pulls that even once, I'd fire them.

There's plenty of paper trail confirming Biden's position was what the administration was into before the flight. You're just writing fiction based on *an article that contradicts you*

[Nige]

Neither for the first quote nor the second confirm anything. Taken in isolation they can be made to suggest something if you push very, very hard and are wildly dishonest.

'“And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees”'

What?

'“by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan”'

I'm sorry, where in that quote does it say it's Biden's plan that he just suddenly decided on in the middle of the flight?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed, it does confirm the narrative.

See, the policy going in was to pressure Shokin to be fired, but not make the loan contingent on that.

Biden changed policy to making the loan contingent on Shokin being fired, and convinced the rest of the people on the plane (then the Obama white house) that this was a good policy change.

[Kazinski]

Pretty unbelievable you don't know how articles work, I will try to explain this to you.

First you have a paragraph that says:

"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...."

Then later in the article it says:

‘“by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan”’.

So when the first part paragraph says "plane" and "Biden called an audible, he changed the plan".

Then you read a sentence below that which references "Biden landed" and "the plan", then you use that as context to understand the meaning of the sentence.

At least that's how I do it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Even if you assume it had not been the plan all along (which you have done), "by the time Biden landed in Kyiv", by definition it was the Obama White House's "own" plan, which Biden then implemented.

That must have been an interesting conversation onboard that flight, what with Joe explaining to Barrack exactly why he needed to change US foreign policy to help his sleazy kid make some more money in Ukraine. I'm sure Obama would have thought that was a fine reason to expose the Ukrainians to further Russian aggression, so he enthusiastically green-lighted the change.

(Joe is, by the way, well known for taking credit for things he didn't originate. Neil Kinnock speeches, for example...)

[Life of Brian]

(Joe is, by the way, well known for taking credit for things he didn’t originate. Neil Kinnock speeches, for example…)

Behold, ladies and gents -- the next fallback lily pad, now that the current one seems like it might be feeling a bit wobbly.

[Nige]

Nowhere in that quote does he say *he* changed policy.

[Kazinski]

"And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to..."

[Nige]

It simply doesn't say what you want it to say. Nowhere does it say that it was *his* sudden and unilateral initiative, which is what you are trying to claim.

[Nelson]

"convincing our team"

Obviously a unilateral decision.

[David Nieporent]

So you now trust Biden, of the International Biden crime syndicate?

By the way, we know that Biden's story isn't exactly true. It's false in a dramatic but self-aggrandizing way. As he told it in that speech, he gave an ultimatum to Ukraine: fire him immediately or no guarantees, and they did. But in fact Ukraine did not fire him immediately; Shokin was forced out several months later.

[Life of Brian]

As he told it in that speech, he gave an ultimatum to Ukraine: fire him immediately or no guarantees, and they did. But in fact Ukraine did not fire him immediately; Shokin was forced out several months later.

LOL. This is the degree of parsing we're down to now, folks. It's as though they see the handwriting on the wall and are setting up the next, desperate perimeter of defensive distractions.

[David Nieporent]

I'm sorry that you think we shouldn't examine the facts, but that says a lot more about you than about Biden.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, I'm all for examining the facts -- all of them, not just the self-serving favorable ones. Lay it bare so we can all decide. Are you with me?

[Brett Bellmore]

"(the source is a known fabulist, but that can’t be helped)"

Kinda lost me there... If the source isn't reliable, then what can't be helped is that they're unreliable, no?

Which isn't to say that they're lying in the immediate instance, but their saying something isn't much evidence that it's true...

[OtisAH]

Brett, I think you got spun around here buddy. This is the part where you insist it’s the Biden admin smearing the person as a fabulist. Don’t sweat it, it’s early. You’ll get right I’m sure.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a general principle: Once you admit somebody is a fabulist, you can't use what they say as evidence of anything but what they want you to believe.

I mean, Trump? I don't trust anything he says, really, I just remain aware that an awful lot of lies get told about him, not just by him.

[Nige]

That's odd, a lot of your defences of Trump involve either taking him at his word or attributing honest motives to him, or stupid motives that still skirt honesty. Which is what a lot of the 'lies told about him' also require in order to qualify as lies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's take the call to Raffensperger, for instance: I don't have to take Trump's word for what he said during the call, we have a recording and a transcript. After that, we're just in the domain of the presumption of innocence; I don't have to attribute innocent motives to him, YOU have to prove guilty motives.

Most of what you're complaining about here is just my pointing out that you haven't actually proven anything.

[Nige]

You call him dishonest, untrustworthy, a narcissist and crooked. You’ve already cast doubt on his motives for anything he does. The court is in the realm of presumption of innocence. Outside of the court, if you can accept blatant lies about Biden, you can surely accept the idea that crooked untrustworthy Trump was being crooked and untrustworthy in pursuit of a blatantly crooked goal.

[grb]

Trump wanted DOJ to send letters to targeted states saying Justice had a ongoing investigation into voting fraud and had uncovered “serious concerns” that justified a delay in election certification.

It was a total lie and Trump was told so multiple times to his face. There was no ongoing investigation and zero serious concerns. Nonetheless, Trump was so into this scheme he was willing to fire Jeffery Rosen as acting DOJ head and replace him with Jeffery Clark (who had promised to issue the letters in exchange for the top job). After this sordid negotiation, the White House call logs started listing Clark as “Acting Attorney General”.

Trump also pushed Rosen on the letters in a large meeting with plenty of witnesses. Again, he was told the letter was factually a fraud. Again, it didn’t matter. Trump : “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.”

It’s a challenge Brett: Can even YOU find “sincere honesty” in any of that? It concerns matters of fact : Whether there was or wasn’t an investigation. Whether there was or wasn’t “serious concerns” found.

But Trump wanted lies. He was never concerned about voting fraud. He didn’t care in the slightest if his claims were true or false. He only wanted enough noise to push election certification into legislatures where “his” Republicans would change the result. That’s why his huckster pitch on the “stolen election” was never consistent from one crowd to the next.

Your "innocent motives" never existed. Despite your rhetoric, I'm betting you know that too.

[Brett Bellmore]

For all I know Trump had repeatedly ordered the DOJ to open up such an investigation, in fact it would be in character. If Trump tells somebody the DOJ is investigating something, and the only reason it's not true is the DOJ violating the President's order to do it, I'm not going to call that a "lie", I'm going to call it the DOJ being disobedient.

Mainly, try to remember that the burden of proof is on you proving Trump guilty, not Trump proving himself innocent.

[Sarcastr0]

Agencies principals have taken separate oaths to the Constitution. The are bound not to follow an illegal order.

But in the end this is chaff to distract. Maybe even yourself.

Are you taking issue with the facts of what Trump told the DoJ to do, or whether that constitutes an attempt to overturn the election?

Those are your two choices.

[Sarcastr0]

principals or principles?

Oy.

[Nige]

‘in fact it would be in character.’

You are going to vote for him again.

'I’m going to call it the DOJ being disobedient.'

Is it legal to open investigations on people for no reason other than just because the president doesn't like them?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “the burden of proof is on you proving Trump guilty”

Long ago I reached this conclusion : If Trump did shoot a stranger on Fifth Avenue and Brett was the only witness, this is how the statement would go at the precinct station:

Brett : “Well, yes, I did see Trump pull a handgun. And, yes, I did see him aim at the victim and yell “Die, Loser”. And, yes, I saw him pull the trigger and heard the gunshot. And, yes, I saw the victim collapse to the ground wounded. But I didn’t actually see the bullet go from the gun to victim – so I can’t say Trump shot him”

When it comes to his cult idol, Brett has very demanding standards on evidence!

[Brett Bellmore]

I have the same standard of evidence for Trump I'd have for anybody. You just don't want to admit you've got a lower standard of evidence for him.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I’m not going to call that a “lie”,"

The proposed letter also said this mythical DOJ investigation had uncovered "serious concerns" that justified delaying vote certification.

That was a lie, Brett. No "serious concerns" had been uncovered by the nonexistent investigation. It was completely false and Trump was told so directly and without ambiguity. So the burden of proof is back on you. Do you have any integrity or not? Because spin - even frenzied spin - will not cut it here.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t have to attribute innocent motives to him, YOU have to prove guilty motives.

Setting aside everything else, that's just completely wrong as a matter of law. The question is what the words meant, and that can be inferred by the fact finder from the words themselves. No extrinsic proof of motive is required.

If there's video of you pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, it's vaguely possible that you could have had some innocent reason for doing it, but the prosecution doesn't have to prove that your intent was to kill the person. It can show the video to the jury and let them draw their own conclusions.

[not guilty]

The gunshot video analogy doesn't quite hold. The prosecution does have to prove intent to kill, which may be inferred from the circumstances of the shooting. If (and only if) evidence of accident or justification is adduced, the prosecution must rebut that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Nige]

Yes, but it's Kazinski, he's even lying about what the 'fabulist' is supposedly saying, so not only should you not take his word about what the quote means, you can dismiss him calling anyone else a fabulist.

[Frank Drackman]

"Fabulist"?
is that somebody who claims to have marched with John Lewis/Nelson Mandela/Drove Tractor Trailer/Recruited to Play Football at Naval Academy/Graduated with Highest Temperature in his Law School Class/Father died before he was born? Like with Jimmuh Cartuh, I'll be worried when he doesn't say something incredibly stupid.

[Kazinski]

Well if I'm going to quote Biden, I am going to be honest and describe him accurately.

Should I blow my credibility out of the water and say he can't tell a lie?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sounds like Joe decided to change the policy recommendations in regards to Ukraine.

He was supposed to do something, but did something different.....

[Nige]

No, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. Introduce this as evidence and any halfway competent opposing advocate would rip it to shreds laughing the whole time.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Whose idea was it to make the loan guarantee contingent on firing Shokin?

[Sarcastr0]

We don't know. Certainly nothing has established it was Biden.

Also, making up a story where Biden changed the specific method how to fire this guy who was protecting Burisma, everyone else liked it...this is your impeachable offense?

How sad.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But...we do know. It was Biden. Multiple sources confirm that.

[Sarcastr0]

No, not multiple sources. the audible thing is a quite speculative theory based on an out of context quote.

Could end up being right, but right now the evidence is extremely thin.

And, even if it's right, it's really a weak reed to hang bribery and impeachment on. But this is where you folks have ended up.

Doesn't really matter - most of the GOP is into impeachment for pure revenge and the pretext doesn't matter.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, I wish we could hold you to, “one more time.” But you are a sea lion, so that’s obviously futile.

[OtisAH]

Dang, I really legitimately totally believed Monday’s thread would finally put an end to this nonsense. I was wrong. Well, maybe today’s round? Fingers crossed!

But even if today isn’t it I am absolutely positive Monday’s will be.

[jb]

I guess I'll just post exactly what I wrote on Monday about the Kessler fact check since apparently we believe both him and Biden:

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.

[grb]

Kazinski : “Ok, I’m going to try this one more time”

It’s useful to take a step back and see how far Kazinski has come:

1. He now admits Shokin was grotesquely corrupt.
2. He now admits the entire U.S. government demanded his firing.
3. He now admits Biden’s trip to Kiev was for that purpose.
4. He now admits the link of loan to firing was OK’d by the White House.

So what’s left? Between Monday & today, Kazinski has pretty much given away the store. Bruised by reality and battered by fact, he’s reduced to claiming Biden pushed the harsher of several options considered by the President, the White House & State Department – and they agreed.

Even in the Incredibly Shrinking World of impeachment justifications, that amounts to squat. We’ll end with a Kessler’s account of U.S. Ambassador Pyatt’s public speech on Shokin (given in Ukraine before Biden’s trip):

“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.

[SimonP]

What is the point of re-posting this assertion, if you're not adding anything new to the debate? Aren't you just signaling to everyone that you're not interested in engaging with anyone who disagrees, given that you just ignore the logical and factual flaws that people have pointed out in the argument you're making?

[Kazinski]

Engage what?

The only thing anyone has brought is compiled talking points that don't quote any official documents.

Kessler of the Washington Post fact check column changed his fact check because John Solomon got documents fro the State Department and Kessler followed that up with more reporting that gave additional confirmation.

All I get from anyone is hand waving back to out of date fact checks that are not backed up by any official memos.

[Nige]

‘The only thing anyone has brought is compiled talking points that don’t quote any official documents.’

Well, no, the only thing we’ve brought is the entire rest of the article and the incredibly weak basis for the claim.

‘that gave additional confirmation.’

It’s like you entirely blocked out everything but the first line of the article you’re relying on, and even that isn't the slam dunk you want to claim. It’s extraordinary.

[Nige]

'After the pushback on Glenn Kessler’s fact check where he quoted a Biden aide saying Joe “called an aufidible”, and changed US policy on the fly on his own initiative.'

No matter how many times you say it, still not what happened, still hugely dishonest about the articel you're referring to.

'The president said—I said, call him.'

Which contradicts your, at this point, lie, that he decided this himself on the fly.

[Kazinski]

Nope, doesn't contradict it at all, as Sarcastro helpfully pointed out, this quote confirms that after Biden called the audible on the plane, they communicated with the Whitehouse and got acquiescence:

"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”

All the accounts line up closely.

[Nige]

Nowhere, but nowhere, does it say that Biden unilaterally initiated the plan. Not even the anonymous quote you’re relying on says that, and that's before you get to the hilariously jury-rigged motivation.

[grb]

Doesn’t leave you very much, does it? You used to claim Shokin was some heroic prosecutor threatening Burmisa. That fantasy has been bulldozed under by facts.

And you once claimed Biden hijacked U.S. policy on Shokin. Not any more. That nonsense is long forgotten. Now you concede everyone in the entire U.S. government demanded he must be fired: The President, White House, State Department, a bipartisan group of Senators, the Ambassador to Ukraine. Every single one demanded Shokin go as official U.S. policy.

Remember your theory Biden snuck off to Kiev on a secret mission for Hunter? Pretty hilarious to recall. Now you admit Shokin’s firing was the major reason for the trip. That’s why the President and State Department sent Joe there.

And just recently you insisted (with painful earnestness) that Biden was disobeying orders in pushing hard the primary objective of the White House and State Department. After all, it was the last piece of your vast conspiracy left standing! Now you admit Biden was following White House orders in linking the loan to the firing.

“But – (says Kazinski in a whinny voice) – the White House acquiesced to that! They didn’t have any choice! Joe was outta control!”

Thus Kazinski’s fourteenth fallback position. Easily the funniest one of all…

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He'll be back.

[Kazinski]

I’m not going anywhere, I’ll keep rubbing your noses in the truth, I don’t care if you ever acknowledge it.

I just enjoy rubbing it in. It’s obviously hit a nerve.

[grb]

Kazinski : “I’ll keep rubbing your noses in the truth”

Ever hear of Zeno’s Paradox? The philosopher imagined Achilles spotting a tortoise 100 paces in a race. Of course the Greek being the “shift-footed Achilles”, he’ll quickly catch-up, right?

Not per Zeno. To do that, he first must run half the intervening distance. But to do so, he first must cover half of that, and half of that, and half of that again. This forms an infinite series so Achilles will never make up the ground.

Of course the briefest consideration gives the answer. Yes, it’s an infinite series, but with each segment a half-size smaller they quickly become infinitely small.

That’s you on Shokin, Kazinski. I don’t doubt you’ll produce a infinite amount of conspiratorial drivel, but each successive version is half-size from the previous. You’re already shriveled down to dwarf-size and shrinking all the time. Soon we’ll need a microscope to see your latest hot take.

[myself]

I have one more source (the source is a known fabulist, but that can’t be helped) that asserts Joe Biden decided on his own to link the 1b loan guarantee to the firing of Prosecutor General Shokin, and did it at the last minute while in transit to Ukraine, or possibly when he was already there:

Oh noes! Joe Biden did... exactly what everyone except Bursima, the employers of his son, wanted him to?

You keep presenting this revelation like it's some evidence of corruption. It's just an interesting detail on how much autonomy Obama gave Biden when pursing the administration's goals.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A nice little Maine scandal that no one will ever hear about because it involves a Democrat.

Troy Jackson (D-Alagash) lives about as far up in Northwest Maine, so far up that some of the computer mapguides suggest going into Canada and taking the Trans Canadian Highway for part of the route. It's a 6+ hour drive -- one way -- and that's when it isn't snowing.

Seems he used a FHA loan to buy a house in the state capitol (Augusta) claiming that to be his primary residence while still claiming Alagash as his primary residence because he represents that district. This is Federal fraud.

So he claims he didn't read the paperwork -- this the man 2nd in line to become Governor of Maine (President of the State Senate is next in line to be Governor, there is no Lt. Governor in ME).

Now it's come out that he's received $160k in travel & lodging expenses...

https://www.themainewire.com/2023/09/payments-to-troy-jackson-for-travel-lodging-nearly-doubled-after-he-bought-home-in-augusta-totaled-160k-from-2019-2023/

But being a Democrat makes everything OK.

[apedad]

A nice little Maine scandal that no one will ever hear about because it involves someone from Maine.

FTFY

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, because it involves a Democrat from Maine.

As opposed to a Republican Congresswoman from North Georgia.

[OtisAH]

Is that the republican congresswoman from North Georgia who’s never missed an opportunity to be on camera screeching whatever batch of horrible ridiculousness occurs to her in the moment and who’s made herself a national spectacle, or a different one?

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : No, because it involves a Democrat from Maine.

Now we get snowflake victimhood whining about a local pol in Maine! That said, it's a beautiful state to hike thru. Being a SoBo, it was my first on the AT. I started late-June and had regular opportunities for midday swims to cool off. Fortunately, the first few days south of Baxter State Park are fairly flat, albeit with gnarly trail. By the time you reach central & south Maine, things get pretty vertical.

[Idihax]

All true, but it raises the question why anyone's house purchases should be subsidized by the FHA in the first place.

[myself]

No one hears about it because it's a scandal involving a state legislator doing things that are dodgy, and possibly criminal, with their expense account.

Hey, here's a GOP state legislator sentenced to prison for voter fraud. I didn't hear about that one either because scandals like that are fairly common and not very newsworthy.

[not guilty]

Nine members of the California legislature have written to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, encouraging him to seek a judicial opinion as to whether Donald Trump should be removed from the California Republican presidential primary ballot. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/california-lawmakers-ask-ag-to-exclude-trump-from-republican-primary-ballot?taid=65087e9846ec520001de90b5&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter

This request makes sense. The Attorney General is properly situated to seek declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 as to Trump's eligibility to serve as president if elected. Naming Trump as a defendant in that action would afford him a full measure of procedural due process. An adverse decision could be immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with the appellant being able to petition SCOTUS to grant certiorari before judgment. That would appear to be the fastest track for a definitive ruling on Trump's eligibility or ineligibility.

The U. S. District Court for the Central District of California includes no Trump-appointed judges, so there is no risk of the matter being initially heard by a west coast Loose Cannon jurist.

[Martinned]

The U. S. District Court for the Central District of California includes no Trump-appointed judges

That seemed unlikely, so I checked. I only checked as far as Wikipedia, but that showed four Trump-appointed judges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California#Current_judges

[not guilty]

I stand corrected. I think I had it confused with the Northern District of California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California

[Martinned]

That makes more sense. A District Court with 28 judges, like the Central District, would presumably produce at least one vacancy every four years pretty reliably. But if there are only 14 judges, like in the Northern District, I can see how you could go four years without anyone dying or taking senior status.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure why it matters. What happens in the Central District of California doesn't necessarily stay in the Central District.

Plus, I don't think Trump has any scenarios where California's Electoral votes make the margin of victory in '24.

[not guilty]

It matters considerably. The evidentiary record would be developed before the District Court where the lawsuit is filed. Whether Donald Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States is a question of fact, to be determined by the district judge based on evidence adduced before the court or the absence of evidence.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6) provides that, in a matter tried without a jury, the trial court's findings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility. A finding is "clearly erroneous" when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

[Kazinski]

He can find some facts, but the conclusion of whether those facts amount to insurrection is a matter of law.

Moreover the conclusion as to whether a conviction for Insurrection is required by section 5 to trigger section 3 is a matter of law.

So is the question as to whether the Presidency is an "office under the United States".

Not much will be settled in the Central District.

[not guilty]

“I don’t think Trump has any scenarios where California’s Electoral votes make the margin of victory in ’24.”

If Donald Trump is excluded from California’s ballot pursuant to the final judgment of a court before which Trump was a party, that judgment can have preclusive effect elsewhere.

[Life of Brian]

If Donald Trump is excluded from California’s ballot pursuant to the final judgment of a court before which Trump was a party, that judgment can have preclusive effect elsewhere.

I mean, if you're going to engage in fanciful dreaming, you may as well make the dream as ridiculous as possible. But ultimately it doesn't matter: I feel exceptionally comfortable sticking my neck out and predicting that no state in which Trump would have any reasonable chance of winning the election is ultimately going to allow their hands to be bound via res judicata from a judgment from loony-lefty-town. And the rest of the states that might gleefully pile on make no more of a real-world difference than Cali does.

[Brett Bellmore]

You shouldn't feel that comfortable. Trump had to carry several states in 2016 where election administration is currently controlled by Democrats, in order to win the election. If they're game for keeping him off the ballot, they're not going to let a court ruling that doesn't technically bind them get in the way.

[Life of Brian]

Hard to see how those election administrators could just act unilaterally without filing me-too lawsuits, and even if NG is having a good day for once and they actually can do so and actually prevail, since they're filing in federal court then the mess would hit the Supremes soon enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

They'd act unilaterally by... acting unilaterally, I assume. And then challenging anyone to stop them.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd guess executing them for "Treason" would stop them

[not guilty]

Of course preclusive effect requires the filing of a lawsuit involving the same claim or issue. I am not suggesting that state election administrators could act unilaterally without someone filing suit. Once such a suit is filed, the plaintiff could use a final judgment arising out of California as offensive collateral estoppel against Trump.

And as I have said, one benefit of filing initially in federal court is that that is the speediest was to get the matter before SCOTUS, in that certiorari before judgment is potentially available once a notice of appeal has been filed. A state action, whether administrative or judicial, would need to proceed to judgment by the highest state court in which a decision could be had before the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to consider the matter.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In Maine, the time limits for judicial action are quite limited. If the Secretary of State's ruling is challenged in court, the court has to issue a ruling no more than 20 days after the Secretary of State's ruling. If the Court's ruling is appealed, the Maine Supreme Court is required to issue a ruling no more than 14 days after the lower court ruling was issued.

So in Maine, the issue can make it to the U.S. Supreme Court pretty quickly once the process starts. The problem is that the process doesn't start until Trump files papers asking to appear on the primary ballot (the deadline for this is December 1) and somebody files a challenge. If Trump waits until the last minute file, the Maine Supreme Court would probably issue an opinion in mid-January.

[Life of Brian]

If Trump waits until the last minute file, the Maine Supreme Court would probably issue an opinion in mid-January.

Interesting. At a quick glance, it looks like that would leave about 6 weeks before the March 5 primary -- somewhat tight for an emergency Supreme Court petition and corrective action afterward, but not impossible.

But that aside, if I'm reading correctly, again at a quick glance, even if the SoS went down this path there would be no barrier to people voting for him as a write-in, correct?

[Armchair Lawyer]

It matters for the primary....

[ducksalad]

The Republican party isn’t going to let the CA state government manipulate the national nomination, and Trump’s primary opponents know how bad it would look to win on that basis. Among various options:

1. The RNC could change the delegate allocation rules to penalize states that omit a major contender. 2. The other candidates could boycott the CA primary; they’d certainly be under major pressure to do so. Or they could mutually agree, again under pressure, to release all their CA delegates. 3. When it gets to to court, they could argue that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply at all since the primary is selecting delegates who are not even government officials.

[not guilty]

If Rob Bonta sued in U. S. District Court, it would not be the California state government manipulating the national nomination. A final judgment in a lawsuit where Donald Trump was sued as a party defendant could have preclusive effect in the event he is sued in other states.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're letting the CA state government dictate whether they can run somebody in the general election for House and Senate seats. Not much of a step from that to the state attempting to usurp their right to select a Presidential candidate.

"1. The RNC could change the delegate allocation rules to penalize states that omit a major contender."

Absolutely could.

" 2. The other candidates could boycott the CA primary; they’d certainly be under major pressure to do so. Or they could mutually agree, again under pressure, to release all their CA delegates.

Could do that, too.

"3. When it gets to to court, they could argue that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply at all since the primary is selecting delegates who are not even government officials."

You'd think that would be a slam dunk argument. You'd think that. Don't count on it, the courts are allowing states to exercise a lot of control over who parties pick as their nominees.

[ducksalad]

They’re letting the CA state government dictate whether they can run somebody in the general election for House and Senate seats.

I don't like their top-two system. However, in principle it's no different from a non-partisan general election with a runoff, or the way many states do special elections. CA just does a (pointless) runoff even if someone got a majority in the first round.

[Brett Bellmore]

The big difference is that there's only one election day, in terms of federal positions, and that's the only election election, the only election that counts.

In terms of state positions, sure, they could do that.

[ducksalad]

Doesn't Georgia do runoffs on federal elections, after the regular election day?

[Drewski]

I agree that it would be proper, and a good thing to put this whole thing to rest as quickly as possible. I consider it a distraction, albeit a distraction from the many other distractions. Still, although I think the practical, immediate result is foregone, it's an important question to settle. It will come up again.

[not guilty]

A declaratory judgment action in U. S. District Court is the speediest way to resolution of the legal issues involved by SCOTUS. A District Court would have discretion to expedite the proceedings leading to an evidentiary hearing, and I suspect that such a court would act accordingly. A final judgment in the District Court would be immediately appealable to the U. S. Court of Appeals, and the appellant could petition SCOTUS for certiorari before judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e) and Supreme Court Rule 11.

Rule 11 provides that "A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court." I would posit that that criterion would be met in the situation I describe.

[Michael P]

Generalissimo Bonta does not have the authority to block, sua sponte, a candidate from the ballot for alleged violation of the 14A Section 3. Neither does a court have the authority to order that remedy in a civil action.

In the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress established a civil mechanism for US Attorneys to trigger Section 3, but this provision was repeated in 1948. The only remaining mechanism to trigger Section 3 is 18 U.S. Code § 2383, originally part of the Confiscation Act of 1862, which was given constitutional significance by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[not guilty]

“Generalissimo Bonta does not have the authority to block, sua sponte, a candidate from the ballot for alleged violation of the 14A Section 3. Neither does a court have the authority to order that remedy in a civil action.”

No one is suggesting that a state attorney general has sua sponte authority to do anything other than file a lawsuit. Have you read 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Michael P? Yes or no?

Section 2201(a) provides:

In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, [subject to exceptions hot here relevant,] any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

The State of California is an interested party in the event of a controversy as to whether a presidential candidate should or should not appear on its primary election ballot. “It is clear that preservation of the integrity of the electoral process is a legitimate and valid state goal.” Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 761 (1973). A state’s interest in the stability of its political system has been recognized as compelling. Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736 (1974). “Moreover, a State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies.” Id.,/i> at 733, quoting Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972).

In Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 947 (10th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals ruled against a naturalized citizen who wished to run for president, who sued after the Colorado Secretary of State informed him that his ineligibility for office precluded his placement on the ballot. Then-Judge Gorsuch opined, “[A] state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

[Michael P]

What a lot of meaningless spew. You're arguing the wrong point. Neither Bonta nor this court can declare that Donald Trump is ineligible to hold office.

[Sarcastr0]

Why not?
They took an oath to uphold the Constitution that includes that eligibility criteria.

[Michael P]

For the reason I identified earlier: They’re not authorized to decide the fact question of whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

It's the same reason that a state's AG could not just declare Obama disqualified because the AG thought Obama was born in Kenya.

[Martinned]

They’re not authorized to decide the fact question of whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Where does it say that?

[Michael P]

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5.

[Sarcastr0]

Enforcement clauses have never been exhaustive.

See: Equal Protection. Natural Born Citizen.
Or the 13th Amendment Section 2.

[Martinned]

@Michael: Section 5 empowers Congress to do certain things. It doesn't disempower anyone to do anything.

[David Nieporent]

@Michael: Section 5 empowers Congress to do certain things. It doesn’t disempower anyone to do anything.

Right; the 13th amendment has a similar clause, but that by no means that states can't criminalize and punish slavery.

[Michael P]

States don’t enforce the equal protection clauses of the federal constitution, except where the federal government specifically empowers that. They implement their own state schemes. And as we know, states cannot impose their own requirements for federal office.

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts, Michael.

States are already authorized to pass legislation regarding equal protection.
But EPC is self executing; Bivens applies to EPC.
Congress did not need to create a cause of action for people to sue under it.

[Michael P]

You're the ones moving goalposts here, not me. You were the one who insisted that states can enforce random pieces of the federal constitution, and your pals were the ones who implied that states can pile on their own rules for candidates, contrary to Powell v. McCormack (1969), Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) and especially U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

[David Nieporent]

You’re the ones moving goalposts here, not me. You were the one who insisted that states can enforce random pieces of the federal constitution, and your pals were the ones who implied that states can pile on their own rules for candidates, contrary to Powell v. McCormack (1969), Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) and especially U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

1) Of course states can enforce random pieces of the federal constitution. Unless you think that if a 25-year old submits the requisite number of signatures, that a state must put him on its presidential ballot.
2) Powell v. McCormack is about what Congress can do, not what states can do. And the holding of Anderson v. Celebrezze would not be summarized by any competent lawyer as "states can't impose rules for candidates." U.S. Term Limits at least does match your description of states not being able to pile their own rules on candidates.

But the problem is that this is irrelevant to this discussion, in that it's the 14th amendment, not the states, that imposes the rule about insurrectionists being ineligible.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Authorized by who or what? The constitution sets out the eligibility criteria, and doesn't specify who is authorized to "decide the fact question." You're just making shit up. Whoever is designated by state law to decide, decides. If in California it's the AG, then the AG decides the fact question.

[Michael P]

The Constitution says that. Go back and read what I wrote in the first place, before guilty tried to spam his way past the point.

[Sarcastr0]

The Constitution does not say that. One way I can tell is you keep not quoting it, just citing it.

[Kazinski]

"Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Its settled law that "Congress shall have power" makes Congress' power preeminent and exclusive such as:

"The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

[Martinned]

@Kazinski: That will be news to the people who drafted, say, the New York Human Rights Law. No law for them, because the exclusive power to implement the equal protection clause belongs to the Federal Congress.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/mopd/laws/state-laws.page

[not guilty]

"Its [sic] settled law that 'Congress shall have power' makes Congress’ power preeminent and exclusive . . ."

Uh, no. The Fourteenth Amendment, § 5 enables Congress to act; it does not preempt the federal judiciary from acting to ensure that the various provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are implemented. Nor does it preclude state officials, who are bound by federal constitutional guaranties, from acting.

Take for example the provision that forbids a State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. There is a huge body of law concerning what process is due before a State can effect such a deprivation. Do you claim that the federal judiciary and state officials are bereft of authority in this area in the absence of an act of Congress?

And what body do you think enacted 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.? Hint: it begins with a C and ends with a double s.

[Michael P]

So, by the logic you guys are using, Texas can implement federal immigration controls. And if someone interferes with that, Texas could get court injunctions and pursue state prosecutions, the federal DOJ can prosecute the interferers, and Congress could impeach them. Is that how it works?

[Kazinski]

First of all NY has a state constitution and it can pass the laws it deems necessary as long as they don't conflict with the Federal Constitution.

Second the 14th amendment has specific commands for the states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There is no command in section 3 that says "No state shall place on the ballot anyone even remotely suspected of insurrection."

[David Nieporent]

So, by the logic you guys are using, Texas can implement federal immigration controls.

If Congress hasn't preempted same, sure.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Can a court rule that someone is 30, and not yet eligible to be President?

Think carefully, but not too hard.

[Michael P]

What process is due for that kind of determination?

Think before you pop off your mouth this time.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You moved those goalposts immediately, I see.

Now it isn't that the court doesn't have jurisdiction, it's something about what, a conviction? What's the new magic argument you want to make, and then will immediately retreat to a different argument when this new one doesn't work?

The adjudication of being disqualified under the 14th Amendment is no different than being disqualified for not being 35.

[Michael P]

It's not my fault that you hallucinated the word jurisdiction.

The adjudication is different because everyone agrees what it means to be under 35, but Congress has only defined insurrection or rebellion using a criminal statute.

[David Nieporent]

The adjudication is different because everyone agrees what it means to be under 35, but Congress has only defined insurrection or rebellion using a criminal statute.

That is, of course, false; the federal statute does not define insurrection.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Michael, would you like to pretend that claiming they have no authority is somehow different than claiming they have no jurisdiction over the matter?

While I don't have any trouble believing that you're that fucking stupid, I would prefer if you confirm it for everyone else.

Maybe you wouldn't look so retarded if you bothered to form a coherent argument from start to finish, instead of constantly retreating from your own stupidity.

As to your continued falsehoods, David has already corrected you on that. I'm sure each of us will get the chance to continue to correct your ignorance in the future many times over.

[Michael P]

Cavanaugh, I was very specific earlier: "Neither does a court have the authority to order that remedy in a civil action."

Stop blaming me because you misread that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Is that what you said in the comment I responded to? Nope.

I didn’t misread anything.

And yes, they most certainly do have such authority. Your ignorant and evidence-free assertion otherwise doesn’t change that fact.

[not guilty]

You conspicuously evaded my question, Michael P. Have you read 28 U.S.C. § 2201 or not?

Whether Donald Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States is a threshold factual determination. If not, Trump wins and the suit should be dismissed. If so, the federal judiciary is able to determine the legal consequences of Trump's conduct.

[Michael P]

You conspicuously and offensively ask irrelevant questions. I'm not going to encourage your harassment.

[not guilty]

I'll take that as a no. Why am I unsurprised?

[Michael P]

The rest of us are unsurprised that you're so eager to die on Irrelevancy Hill.

[Don Nico]

Even the crazies in Sacramento have a good idea once in a while.
But Bonta is a political hack, so he will not act promptly as it is to the dems' advantage to maintain persistent doubts about the Orange Clown's ability to be on the ballot

[DaveM]

I am amazed by how little people in the legal profession stop to think about the practical, extra-legal implications of what they're doing. "All things are possible", but not all things are wise to pursue. Sometimes, winning a battle can cost you the war.

Suing your opponent to keep him off the ballot is Kryptonite. It would literally be better to lose than to do this. There are only two possible extra-legal outcomes:

1. You will "win" but be declared a cheater, destroying all your down-ballot candidates in the process.

2. You will "win" but your opponents will do exactly the same to you at the next possible opportunity.

This is, strategically, the absolutely stupidest possible thing you could be doing. It's a guaranteed short-term win for a guaranteed long-term -- and maybe even permanent! -- loss.

As a technical person, of course I get that legal minds would like to play out the hypotheticals and see where they lead. It is interesting as an academic exercise.

But as actual policy in the real world, it's stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Lawyers job is not about extra-legal stuff. That's for policymakers and voters.
2. There have been elections where people have been left off the ballot. Neither of your enumerated horrible came to pass.
3. If the GOP devolves into pure revenge, that's on them; one thing that has to be true in the operation of the law is that facts matter, not just perceptions.
I would hope the voters punish them in such a case. But if they don't we don't deserve our democracy.

As to the policy question specifically as it applies to Trump, that's not the lawyer's job. But we all get opinions!
In mine, it's not politically viable but I do hope there's some uncomfortable court cases.

[DaveM]

1. It absolutely is the lawyer’s job to produce the best outcomes for his client. Obviously.

2. We’re not talking about people merely “left off” the ballot. We’re talking about people sued off the ballot. And a Presidential candidate, to boot!

3. Revenge is always on those damned Hatfields, is that what you’re arguing?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Actually, we aren't talking about being "sued off the ballot." We are talking about Trump being kept off the ballot by the person or persons designated by state law to decide questions of eligibility.

[Sarcastr0]

People have been sued off the ballot before. Nothing you claim would happen has happened.

Lawyers are not charged with producing the best outcome for the client. A lawyer is a representative of clients in the legal system, following client’s wishes to the extent of candor required as an officer of the legal system.

You're the dude that brought up blind revenge by the GOP as an upshot.

[Don Nico]

"People have been sued off the ballot before."
When was the last time a Presidential candidate of a major party was kept of the ballot.
Come on, your "people have.." is truly a dishonest reply.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you created a new goalpost.

DaveM’s comment explicitly keeps it general and does not talk about the Presidency.

Don't pull that dishonest trigger quite so fast.

[Don Nico]

"No, you created a new goalpost. "
No, you can't admit your mistakes

[Sarcastr0]

Stamping your foot and saying no isn't much of an argument.
]
Show me where I am wrong about DaveM's comment.

[Don Nico]

The entire discussion was about keeping Trump off the ballot. Check the mirror to see who is stamping his foot.

[Kazinski]

Interesting legal development in the Long Island Gilgo Beach Serial killer case:

"The estranged wife of alleged Long Island serial killer Rex Heuermann has launched a legal battle to reclaim his cache of hundreds of firearms, which her lawyers say are worth “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Asa Ellerup, 59, is arguing she has the legal right to retain her spouse’s expansive gun collection, which includes nearly 300 firearms that her attorney says were legally purchased.

Ellerup is also attempting to retain jewelry, clothing, and cash that were taken during the raid on the family’s Long Island residence following her husband’s arrest in the Gilgo Beach serial murders case. Ellerup claims she’s entitled to the marital assets as her and husband’s divorce case proceeds through the courts."

None of the guns are suspected of being used in the killings.

But I wonder if any of the victims families are also going to try to recover assets from the alleged killer.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/estranged-wife-alleged-gilgo-beach-174150272.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

You raise an interesting issue -- if assets are held jointly, is there an
"innocent spouse" defense to civil liability? Is there any distinction between the property rights of the innocent spouse and that which is exposed to civil liability?

In other words, why not the Long Island residence as well? Why would she be jointly liable in totality? She gets sued too...

[Dr. Ed 2]

On the other hand, could contributory negligence be raised as a defense? The victims were engaging in an illegal act (prostitution) and knew it was illegal. Blame the victim -- yes lawyers ALWAYS blame the victim...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Good grief. We knew you believe some women deserve to be raped, but I didn’t realize you thought they deserved to be murdered too (uf they’re not illegal immigrants).

[Dr. Ed 2]

How did we go from asking if some slimy lawyer might raise this or assumption of risk to I consider it a legitimate defense?

[David Nieporent]

Because you said it explicitly the last time this topic came up.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well for one thing, it wouldn’t even cross the mind of a mentally and morally healthy person.

But please, feel free: do you agree that it’s unequivocally bad that these women were murdered and that, without qualification, they didn’t deserve to be murdered?

[John F. Carr]

The specific rule ordinarily known as "contributory negligence" applied to tort cases and has been abolished in New York and most other states. I have high confidence that New York courts will not allow any defense along the lines of "she had it coming". For example, if two drunk drivers collide and a passenger dies both drivers can be convicted of DUI homicide.

(Strictly speaking I have only heard of charges filed against both drunk drivers in a fatal accident, not convictions. I did not follow the case to its conclusion, confident that the charges were consistent with Massachusetts law.)

[Idihax]

There's an argument that the proceeds of the guns should go to the victims, but one thing is for sure. If they're not evidence, the government has no business seizing them with no consideration, any more so than if they were other assets.

[hobie]

Sounds fair. Let her have all that stuff back.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Asa Ellerup, 59, is arguing she has the legal right to retain her spouse’s expansive gun collection, which includes nearly 300 firearms that her attorney says were legally purchased.

Has she said anything about her husband's victims, or has she focused exclusively on criticizing police, begging for handouts, and hoping police never quite figure out why her hair was found on the bodies of victims?

[David Nieporent]

Presumably you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and therefore you meant "her husband's alleged victims."

As for the hair, assuming it's really hers — lots of hair matching is junk science, unless they have DNA — that would not be difficult to explain: transfer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has she expressed any concern for the victims, or has she solely whined about what a victim she is and begged for money?

Innocent transfer is one explanation. It is not the only -- perhaps not the most likely -- explanation.

I hope the truth is ascertained, justice is served, and she shuts the fuck up and tries to become a decent person.

[Sarcastr0]

New York v. New Jersey
Topic: Interstate compact law; original jurisdiction
Background: Seventy years ago, New York and New Jersey formed an interstate compact which sharply reduced the influence of organized crime on both sides of the Hudson River. New Jersey now wants to pull out of the compact because it thinks the commission is stifling economic growth through over-regulation. The compact says nothing about a right to withdraw
Losing side: NY argued intent. At the time of the compact, circumstances are such that unilateral withdrawal.
Winning side: NJ's state sovereignty, and the fact that the compact requires unanimous consent
Upshot: New Jersey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings granted
Court's reasoning: State compacts are interpreted via 'background principles of contract law' says contracts are presumed to allow dissolution when one party wants. An aspect of state sovereignty cannot be given up forever, and no actual evidence of intent the compact be perpetual.

So how did this get to the Court but end up not being a close question: What was NY thinking? They came into this with a hand-waiving argument about intent. Maybe politics dictated they had to try? Luckily the Court did not waste a lot of time or paper on this nonsense.

[Commenter_XY]

The 'Losing side' blurb seems incomplete.

There is a back story to this case. It is all about the NY/NJ Port Authority, and who can appoint people there to cushy, high paying jobs as political patronage. The NY/NJ PA is a cesspool of political (and fiscal) corruption. The People's Republic of NJ wanted a bigger pie of the PA pie, and NY refused. So yes....it was totally political; a blue state bitch-slap, hissy fit.

Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to fund the cesspool.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are you aware of any port authority, anywhere, which is any less corrupt?

[Dr. Ed 2]

MassPort sorta got cleaned up -- a bit -- after the Jane Swift & Phil Blute Mutual Assured Destruction of a few years back.

Remember "Gidget"?

[Idihax]

No, but usually the port authorities are in blue areas.

[jb]

It is true, yes, that most of the economic activity in the county is in the "blue areas" of our current political alignment.

[Idihax]

Because most economic activity is in cities. This isn't remarkable. That said, a lot of profits are imputed to urban headquarters, even if the money is made elsewhere. So it's a little dishonest to imply that Democrats are more economically productive, which is what you're doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I frequently make that point: Does anybody think ADM reports their profits in corn fields and grain silos? But that's where the activity takes place that enables the profits.

[Martinned]

That is very much open to debate, but maybe not for this forum.

[Idihax]

Yes. That aside, there's also the fact that much of our GDP is actually in rent-seeking activity that isn't economically productive. Can we really have a society that produces nothing but finance and Instagram influencers?

[jb]

Sure, if we wanted to go back to having an agrarian economy most of the value would be coming from farms. But our modern economy has most of the money elsewhere because the value that's generated from the stuff that is happening in cities is what separates our economy from those of places like Ethopia or Cambodia.

I do agree with Idihax's point that a lot of our current GDP isn't actually that useful, but if tech companies went back to trying to meaningfully improve our lives rather than keeping our attention, it wouldn't change the fact that would be happening in cities and not in the countryside.

[bernard11]

And where does the activity that generates Apple's profits, and Google's, etc. take place.

[Idihax]

All over America. Wherever iPhones or Google is used.

[DaveM]

I've never understood why people think this red vs. blue "economic activity" distinction means anything. The dependency runs in both directions, obviously, and neither would survive in anything like their present form without the other.

However, if it all turns to Zombieland, I know I'm headin' for the hills.

[jb]

My point was originally just that it's silly to imply that Port Authorities are corrupt because they're in blue areas. They're corrupt because they're hubs of commerce and government investment of the sort that is also concentrated in the blue areas. In periods not long ago where our political map was less focused on urban vs. rural divide, they were just as likely to be corrupt under Republican leadership.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DaveM, I disagree. I think New England plus the mid-Atlantic states would be more prosperous collectively, and a better place to live across the board, if that region were an independent nation. Whatever benefit the Northeast already gets from the rest of the nation depends mostly on commerce and finance, mostly not on other kinds of contributions those other areas make within a strictly national framework. Commerce and finance reach efficiently across national boundaries.

I think the Southeast, the deep South, and the Midwest would suffer as a consequence of any such breakup. They get too much of their national benefit from sources that would not reach across an international border.

[Idihax]

Do you think the other areas will provide food and energy to the Northeast at current prices if they were independent?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not at current prices. At lower prices.

The other areas will not get better than world-market prices no matter what policies they choose. That means every bit of energy, and every morsel of food the other areas do not consume themselves will be exported from those areas, just as they are exported now. That production will thus continue in world-market commerce, just as before, where it can serve the Northeast from world commerce, just as before.

The world market can feed and energize the Northeast easily, given its existing favorable seacoast locations, excellent ports, and shipping infrastructure. There would be zero Northeastern dependence on food and energy production arriving directly from former-US states—although all of those would undoubtedly find it to their advantage to compete for the Northeastern market on whatever terms, and by whatever marketing means, the Northeasterner's would offer them.

For instances, an independent Northeast would have no incentive to pay subsidies for corn-derived ethanol, or to subsidize beet sugar production by putting duties on cane sugar from abroad. It would cease exporting insurance premiums from northeastern coastal regions to subsidize much higher risks of loss around the South. It would not be paying taxes to subsidize emergency room freebie medical care across the South.

Those are economic benefits the other states get because they can use minoritarian political advantages to hold hostage Northeast markets. An independent-nation Northeast would just buy that stuff at lower prices on world markets, or from its own internal markets. And it would enjoy majoritarian political advantages to serve its citizens with the kinds of policies they prefer on issues like religious separation from the state, gun control, reproductive freedom, public education management, and healthcare provision.

[Idihax]

I guess they could trade abortions for Scandinavia's energy. Makes sense.

[bernard11]

Do you think the other areas will provide food and energy to the Northeast at current prices if they were independent?

Yes. Absolutely. Do you think agricultural businesses are giving the NE a discount because, "Hey, they're Americans, we should cut them a break."

Hint: No, they are not. Prices of agricultural and energy commodities are set on world markets. If some of these are relatively low (I don't know that they are) in the NE that is probably due to lower transportation costs, and nothing else.

[Idihax]

Yes, I absolutely do think that. They're trading it for the Northeast's printed dollars. That won't be the case after.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Idihax: "It works by FM"

Me: "Huh? What's FM?"

Idihax: "Fucking Magic."

[apedad]

I remember reading that interstate compacts are unconstiutional without congressional approval under the Compact Clause (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3); “No State shall, without the Consent
of Congress, ... enter into Any Agreement or Compact with another State . . . . "

“One of the most common questions to arise under the Compact Clause is whether congressional consent is required for a particular state commitment. A literal reading of the Compact Clause would require congressional approval for any interstate compact, but the Supreme Court has not endorsed that approach in interstate compacts cases. Instead, the Court adopted a functional interpretation in which only interstate compacts that increase the political power of the states while undermining federal sovereignty require congressional consent.”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10807#:~:text=When%20Congress%20approves%20an%20agreement,by%20Congress%2C%20as%20federal%20law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For what it is worth, before all the license nationalization of 30 years ago, states had compacts with other states (and Canadian provinces) to yank each other's licenses of offenders, and to authorize service on the state AG for civil suits in accidents.

[apedad]

Looks like there are currently 192 approved compacts.

https://apps.csg.org/ncic/SearchResults.aspx?

[Kazinski]

But I think clearly the interstate electoral vote compact Would come under that.

But I would also think anything that affects interstate commerce too.

[Commenter_XY]

To my fellow Tribe Members. This Sunday evening, The Kol Nidre service starts off Yom Kippur.

גְּמַר חֲתִימָה טוֹבָה (Gemar chatimah tovah)
A good, final sealing

Pro tip: Reduce coffee consumption NOW. No need to afflict yourself that badly with caffeine headaches. They're the worst. Don't ask me how I know...don't want to re-live the experience.

Am giving thought to extending the fast an additional 36 hours (of course, have water after YK!) to help immune system. As I recall my college immunology course(s), you get an immune system reboot (meaning, a whole lot of autophagy of senescent cells) after 60 hours of fasting.

Rid your souls of sins and your bodies of senescent cells. 🙂

Have an easy (and meaningful) fast.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Rid your souls of sins and your bodies of senescent cells. ????"

Pass this along to Joe. He has plenty of both.

[Idihax]

Better to just not fast at all. Why anyone would abstain from eating or drinking based on a book of superstitious nonsense written 3,000 years ago is beyond me.

[Nelson]

To be fair, their calendar is in year 5784, so it's more than 3000 years. And the fact that people take solace and strength from their faith is a good thing, as long as they don't try to force it on anyone else.

The problem with religious conservatives isn't the fact that they have their faith, it's the fact that they want to force everyone else to have their faith.

There was a thread about a year ago where Soldiermedic talked about his Lutheran faith. It was incredibly moving. It is clearly a central aspect of his life and worldview. Reading his post, I can understand why he feels so strongly that others should live by his faith.

So when he advocates for religiously-based cultural coercion by the government, I try to keep that post in mind and soften my language when I push back and advocate for secular government.

As long as their faith isn't infringing on the liberty of others, why do you care if they take solace in their faith?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Among other things, they try to inflict it on children, including with respect to nonsense-teaching schools.

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason people think driving an Electric Car is better for the environment.

[Frank Drackman]

that's why you weren't chosen

[Idihax]

I was, but I chose my father's Presbyterian side.

[bernard11]

Bad decision.

[Idihax]

Why? Much superior to Judaism.

[bernard11]

You're an idiot.

It's not that someone dug up a 3000 year old manuscript and lots of people decided to fast because of something they read there.

It's because thousands of years of practice suggest that there is real spiritual and moral value in taking a day to abstain from food and drink, and to reflect on and acknowledge one's sins. We improve ourselves morally by this.

[Idihax]

That "suggestion" is only in your own mind. You don't improve yourself in any way by starving yourself.

[SimonP]

Having had some experience with caffeine headaches, I've found that a dose of Excedrin, taken right as they start in, can help tremendously. (Partly because, of course, it contains caffeine.) Is that permitted during the fast?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's WHY it contains caffeine: Most headaches are caffeine withdrawal headaches, and can be cured by a bit of caffeine.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure if it's still available, but in the 80's our hospital had IV caffeine. Intended to be used for Asthma and Migraines, but also used for a quick "Pick me up" on call (Trauma Surgery Call went from 8am Friday until 8am Monday, and you spent the rest of monday cleaning up all the messes from the weekend) then you took call again 8am Tues-8am Wed, part of why Surgeons trained back then tend to be a little lacking in the empathy department.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you keep it next to the IV booze, which I guess is also a real thing? (Methanol poisoning...)

[Frank Drackman]

It was, back in the 80’s, one GP used it to detox his patients (before the time of pricey 28-day Rehab facilities) “D5 Alcohol with a Banana Bag (IV solution with thiamine, B-12, Multivitamin, and Magnesium) “titrate to effect” (i.e. increase infusion rate when the Pink Elephants show up)
don't believe me?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15537562/

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess that makes sense, though I'd only heard of it being used for treating methanol poisoning.

[apedad]

Rudy Giuliani says it’s a ‘real shame’ his lawyers want the $1.3 million he allegedly owes them for defending him in Trump-related cases and civil claims

Longtime Giuliani attorney Robert Costello and the law firm of Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP (DHC), which has represented Giuliani since 2019, filed the lawsuit in New York state court on Monday. The breach of contract complaint, filed in Manhattan, says that Giuliani owes nearly $1.4 million in fees to the firm.
“Defendant has paid only $214,000 of the total bill,” the complaint says. The most recent payment was for $10,000 on Sept. 14.

The lawsuit says that by signing a retainer agreement with the firm, Giuliani agreed to pay for the legal services as performed, and notes that Giuliani “never raised any objection regarding the correctness of the invoices, the amount billed or that they were issued by DHC” over the years.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/rudy-giuliani-says-its-a-real-shame-his-lawyers-want-the-1-3-million-he-allegedly-owes-them-for-defending-him-in-trump-related-cases-and-civil-claims/

The guy will be 80 next year and should be getting blow jobs at some Miami beachhouse.

But instead he mentally exploded and jumped on the Trump derailment.

[Idihax]

About 10 years after leaving office, between his consulting firm and his partnership at Bracewell, he was worth $80 million from many estimates. Where did all of the money go?

[Longtobefree]

Joe Biden?

[Nige]

It was a bribe from Giuliani to fire Shokin.

[Kazinski]

Just because he doesn't want to pay doesn't mean he doesn't have it.

[bernard11]

Now there's a point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Giuliani deserves to die in prison unless he exhibits some remorse and demonstrates value to society by testifying comprehensively against his fellow criminals.

Otherwise . . . let's see how he does in prison.

[Frank Drackman]

well you would know, "Coach"!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

May your support for Rudy Giuliani (like your support for other un-American election subverters and insurrectionists) provide comfort to Mr. Giuliani as he spends his remaining years in a prison cell, disgraced, broken, and disgusting.

[Martinned]

To follow up on last week's conversation about prison escapes, and to conclusively demonstrate how stupid the concept of a "plea" is, Daniel Khalife has just pleaded not guilty to prison escape.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66876658

[John F. Carr]

Initial appearances in the United States may be before a lower status judge who does not have jurisdiction to accept a plea of guilty to a major crime.

[Noscitur a sociis]

and to conclusively demonstrate how stupid the concept of a “plea” is,

Okay, I’ll bite.

What should have happened?

[Martinned]

If he wants a trial let him have a trial. But asking him whether he did the thing he's accused of serves no purpose.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I guess I'm not sure I see the distinction you're drawing. If anything, the English system seems closer to what you're asking for than the way it works in most countries?

[Mr. Bumble]

Can the "Know Nothing" label be attached to AG Garland?
He did a fine impression of Sgt. Schultz during yesterday's hearing.

[Ed Grinberg]

"someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness, and excellence"
source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/16/remarks-president-announcing-judge-merrick-garland-his-nominee-supreme

[Mr. Bumble]

Lying liars gotta lie.

[Frank Drackman]

John Banner, Who was also a Horror-cost survivor! as was Colonel Klink and General Burkhalter. Hilda, alas wasn’t Verstanden???????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank “Mein Fuhrer!!!! I can walk!!!!!!!!”

[David Nieporent]

GOP: "Garland had better his keep his distance from this investigation/prosecution and not interfere with it!"
Also GOP: "Why hasn't Garland been micromanaging this investigation/prosecution?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Voter fraud (fraudulent voting?), it's a thing.
In a story you won't see, because Dems are involved:
https://apnews.com/article/bridgeport-absentee-ballot-investigation-ganin-c69023a813ab10ab08dd9231e3299ad4

[Martinned]

I'm not sure who you think you're disagreeing with. Of course voter fraud is a thing. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in making laws to stop it.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=All

[ducksalad]

Yeah, you need those laws on the books, even if you don't plan to enforce them. Just in case the other side does it.

[Martinned]

The Heritage dataset doesn't let you filter by party affiliation, but feel free to do a tally. At first glance the biggest single group of cases are ineligible voter cases from Florida, where they've made it very difficult and confusing for convicted felons - who are presumed to vote Democrat - to get the right to vote back.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it would be more accurate to say that it was all along difficult and confusing for convicted felons to find out exactly how much they owed to who, (Unless they took extensive notes at sentencing!) but that this didn't really matter until the ballot initiative that re-enfranchised them if they'd paid everything off.

That initiative has made the confusing system matter, but it was confusing all along.

[ducksalad]

Two things that bias that list.

One, a felon voting is very easy to detect systematically, and very easy to prove. Absentee ballot theft is not even going to get noticed a majority of the time, and if it is noticed it's hard to identify the thief if he/she takes minimal precautions.

Also, are you interested in the number of offenders, or the number of wrongful votes? The felon is just one vote, a productive absentee ballot thief can be dozens.

By the way, none of this type of stuff directly and seriously impacts a presidential election. A giant national conspiracy cannot be kept secret. Absentee ballot theft is almost always targeting local elections, where a team of half a dozen of outright thieves and semi-legitimate harvesters can easily swing a county commissioner or mayor election. How they mark the top of the ticket is just incidental.

[jb]

Your last point is, of course, the point that Mr. Bumble and friends apparently (a) are incapable of understanding and (b) for some reason thinks sounds the same as "there is no voter fraud" because for some reason they spend all of their time arguing with that straw man.

[Frank Drackman]

"Presumed to vote Democrat"?? Since most convicted Felons are Afro Amurican that'd be a pretty safe assumption

[Mr. Bumble]

Not according to many of those who comment here.

[Nige]

What a liar you are.

[Nelson]

"Not according to many of those who comment here."

I have never seen anyone here defend the position that there is zero voter fraud. There are posts about intentional vs. unintentional fraud (for example, the Trump voters in The Villages vs. disenfranchised felons erroneously voting). There are posts about the miniscule number of fraudulent votes and their inability to change the results of a race for national office. There are posts about the idiocy of claiming that every single fraudulent vote went for one candidate. There are posts about the complete lack of credible evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The only ones who post that there are people who think there was zero voter fraud are "Trump won" fools building strawmen to argue against.

[jb]

Can you give a single example of anyone seriously making that point here?

[Nelson]

Apparently the answer is "no".

[not guilty]

The U.S. District Court in Atlanta yesterday held an evidentiary hearing on attempts by three of the Georgia bogus electors -- David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathleen Latham -- to remove the Fulton County criminal prosecution to federal court. While I sometimes admire a display of chutzpah, these pretenders' efforts are doomed to failure.

Even legitimate presidential electors are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state. Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224 (1952). As SCOTUS opined in In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379 (1890):

The sole function of the presidential electors is to cast, certify, and transmit the vote of the state for President and Vice-President of the nation. Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are the members of the state legislatures when acting as electors of federal senators, or the people of the states when acting as electors of representatives in Congress

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The day all three of those un-American losers are in prison will be a great day for America.

Do prisons permit inmates to use hair dye? Gray hair and an orange jumpsuit is the right look for the would-be election subverters.

[Frank Drackman]

you tell us, "Coach" Sandusky

[Armchair Lawyer]

I had an interesting discussion the other day, and it's worth seeing the wider audience's opinion. Imagine the following situation.

Part 1:
1. A foreign company (call them Burisma) directly pays a large amount of money (>$100,000) as a "gift" to government official with significant direct influence and decision making power (Joe Biden) to make decisions regarding the Ukraine that would benefit Burisma.
2. Joe Biden then continues to exert his influence and decision making authority in regards to Ukraine in a method that has a direct positive benefit on Burisma.

-Is this illegal?. Interestingly, some commentators said essentially said "no, it's not, it may be unethical, but not illegal". I found that surprising. Do the rest of you agree?

Now, same question as above, but instead of a direct payment from Burisma to Joe, instead, Burisma hires a "consulting company" to influence Joe. The "consulting company" gives Joe a direct $100,000 gift.

-Is this illegal? Interestingly some commentors said it wasn't even necessarily unethical.

Part 3:
Same question as above, but instead of a consulting company, Burisma hires Joe's son, and Joe's son gives his father a $100,000 "gift". Any practical difference from part 1 or part 2?

[Martinned]

I neither know nor particularly care whether any of those are illegal under US law, but they should be. The threshold for proving the link between the payment and the exercise of public duties should generally be low.

For reference, art. 15 of the UN Convention against Corruption defines bribery as:

The promise, offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties;

And in art 18 trading in influence:

The promise, offering or giving to a public official or any other person, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage in order that the public official or the person abuse his or her real or supposed influence with a view to obtaining from an administration or public authority of the State Party an undue advantage for the original instigator of the act or for any other person;

https://www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/UN_Convention_Against_Corruption.pdf

(Even the US has ratified this treaty.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

I would agree. Given Hunter's reported sources of income and financial difficulties, if it was discovered that he transferred $100,000 or more to Joe as a "gift", I would view this as essentially a bribe, via a third party (the third party being Hunter). Illegal, and justification for impeachment, as Bribery is directly referenced as a reason for impeachment.

Others said "naah, family members transfer money between themselves all the time, there's nothing wrong with this".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fine with me. Prove it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

One way would be to subpoena Hunter's bank records, and look for outgoing funds and where they went. There are plans to do exactly that....

[Sarcastr0]

Really into the portentous ellipses this morning!

[jb]

One way of proving that you don't beat your wife would be to subpoena all of your e-mails and her medical records. Why don't you just share that stuff and then we can move on to make up some other story about something that you may have done that's illegal that we have no foundational evidence for.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow. Seriously you do better than make a "why are you beating your wide" bit. If that's all you have then...

[jb]

Turns out the joke's on you because your argument against Biden boils down to a "when did you stop beating your wife?" just with some bribery nonsense taking the place of domestic violence.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not really. There's lots of this evidence to support the idea Biden was taking a bribe.

1. You've got a son who was making millions of dollars lobbying for a Ukrainian company (among others)
2. You've got Joe, directly influencing US policy on Ukraine and that Ukrainian company.
3. You've got the son, in text messages, complaining that he's paying large sums of his income to his father.
4. You've got Hunter's ex business partner who says how much income was to be reserved for Joe...

Lots of evidence around it. Now you just need to confirm it.

[David Nieporent]

That's not "lots of evidence." Especially since it's not even true.

1) Hunter Biden was not making millions of dollars lobbying for anyone.
2) No, you've got Joe potentially influencing U.S. policy on Ukraine, but no evidence he did so.
3) Nope. You've got a single text message which doesn't say what you claim.
4) You've got an email that doesn't say what you claim and relates to a potential deal, that never happened, and wasn't about Burisma, when Joe Biden was out of office.

Here's what you don't have: any evidence that Joe Biden actually received money from Burisma via Hunter, or any evidence that Joe Biden changed U.S. policy towards Burisma in any way.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm.....speechless. Just the denial of basic reality.

Joe Biden was the Obama administration's point man for Ukraine. To question whether he had any influence...period...with regards to policy there is amazing.

In the words of Foreign Policy "No one in the U.S. government has wielded more influence over Ukraine than Vice President Joe Biden."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/30/what-will-ukraine-do-without-joe-biden-putin-war-kiev-clinton-trump/

But now you're questioning whether Biden had *any* influence?

What next? Going to question really if Biden was employed by the US Government?

You're just in a completely different world of denial of basic facts.

[Kazinski]

Does Hunter have any legitimate income?

[hobie]

I don't know if it is illegal. It sound like an FCPA violation. There's just that nagging little problem of proof to go along with the conjecture, Armchair...like all the other shit conservatives throw at walls these days

[SimonP]

The quid part of the argument is where this asinine debate always falls apart, AL, and I think you understand that. As with the oft-repeated dodge, "Biden crime family," you can bring yourself to describe the "quid" only as:

Joe Biden then continues to exert his influence [i.e., making a single judgment call about how best to press Ukraine on Shokin's removal] and decision making authority [i.e., yammer yammer, see above] in regards to Ukraine in a method that has a direct positive benefit on Burisma [i.e., an assertion seemingly rebutted by the actual relationship between Shokin's office and Burisma].

That's a lot of weasel language! It's almost like you're trying to abstract away all of the contrary facts that make it harder to maintain the strawman argument you're constructing!

So let's drop with the weaseling about and be clear:

Burisma was legally entitled to hire Hunter to lobby the U.S. government on its behalf. Hunter was not a government official and had no role in government policy. He may have needed to disclose that relationship, and he may have violated the law if he did not disclose it.

Hunter was legally entitled to give $100k to his father, as long as it was not being given with the expectation that Joe would take any official action in return for receiving that gift. Similarly, Joe was legally entitled to receive that gift, as long as it was not sought with the expectation that he would take official action in exchange.

A series of wire transfers and dollar amounts, along with a contemporaneous chronology of actions taken by Joe in his official capacity, is not sufficient to infer the intent of the parties behind the transfers. And unfortunately for you, what evidence we currently have about the intent of the parties cuts against the "bribery" characterization you're trying to put together.

It's worth noting that, if what you've laid out ought to cause us concern, by a similar standard, we ought to impeach half of the Supreme Court and prosecute several Trump officials, including Mnuchin, Kushner, and Trump himself. (And that's not a "whatabout" - I'm not trying to deflect into a different debate about the Trump crime family's corruption - so much as it is, let's be clear about the stringency of the standard being applied here.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow. I'm always amazed at this sort of argument.

"I just like giving government officials $100,000 as gifts. I'm just a nice guy like that. The fact that government official is making policy on a company that I'm lobbying for.....completely coincidental. Really. There's nothing wrong with giving people large cash sums as gifts, right?".

How's that work with cops? "I just like giving cops gifts. They pull me over, and I hand them a hundred or two. I don't expect anything, no sir. It's not a bribe. It's just a gift. It's just easier to do in person when they pull me over. "

[Sarcastr0]

I’m always amazed at this sort of argument.

Because you're ignorant about the law and refuse to learn.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Tell you what Sarcastro. When you get a car, go for a quick bit of speeding to get pulled over by the cops.

Then slip a few hundred dollars under your license. Just as a "gift" for the cops. Not a bribe. Just a gift. Honest.

Let me know how that argument goes before the judge. Since you know the law so well.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, an utterly different story has an utterly different implication.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Yes, an utterly different story has an utterly different implication."

But what I said was....

"How’s that work with cops? “I just like giving cops gifts. They pull me over, and I hand them a hundred or two. I don’t expect anything, no sir. It’s not a bribe. It’s just a gift. It’s just easier to do in person when they pull me over. “

Which...is the same story.

[SimonP]

Well, let’s adjust your hypothetical so that it accounts for the relationship between Hunter and Joe.

Suppose you’re the passenger in a car being driven by your friend. Your friend gets pulled over. While a cop approaches on the driver’s side of the car, his partner walks up on the passenger’s side of the car, to talk to you. Turns out the cop’s partner is your cousin. The cop’s partner starts talking to you, but the conversation is more friendly. You say, “Oh, by the way, here’s that $100 I owe you,” handing it over to your cousin.

Is that an attempted bribe? If your cousin-cop accepts it, have they accepted a bribe?

If you’re reasonable, you should say: “It depends on whether that $100 is actually owed, and how your cousin is likely to interpret that gift in context.” Exactly so. Which are the similar details that are lacking here, in the allegations you’re making about Hunter/Joe.

[DaveM]

These kinds of questions are precisely why impeachment is a political, not a legal, process. The Framers were smart enough to know that in matters of taste there can be no law.

[Martinned]

Are you somehow under the impression that a (sitting) president can't be prosecuted for corruption? (OLC opinion notwithstanding.)

[DaveM]

No, I’m of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States has provided impeachment precisely to hold sitting Presidents to account for their corruption.

They could have left this for the courts to decide, but they didn’t. Because they were smart.

It is only after they are removed from office, and are once again a private citizen, that the courts get involved. Again: very smart.

[Martinned]

O, impeachment definitely exists to hold sitting Presidents to account for their corruption. But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President is immune from criminal prosecution, or that corruption in office can't be criminalised. And it has been.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of people don't quite get that Presidents being immune from federal, (And ONLY federal!) prosecution while in office, is just a matter of DOJ policy, not law, let alone the Constitution.

It's just their policy not to prosecute their own boss.

As I like to point out, the Constitution explicitly gives members of Congress very limited legal immunity. The idea that it gives Presidents much greater immunity by mere implication is absurd. If they'd meant for Presidents to have any legal immunity, they knew how to say so.

[Nelson]

"A foreign company (call them Burisma) directly pays a large amount of money (>$100,000) as a “gift” to government official with significant direct influence and decision making power (Joe Biden) to make decisions regarding the Ukraine that would benefit Burisma."

"-Is this illegal?. Interestingly, some commentators said essentially said “no, it’s not, it may be unethical, but not illegal”. I found that surprising. Do the rest of you agree?"

No one here ever claimed that the scenario above isn't illegal, assuming Biden could be proved to have changed any actions after getting the money (which didn't happen). It's pretty clearly bribery, although IANAL.

You keep begging the question. When your conclusion is your premise, it's clear that you are being dishonest.

"Now, same question as above, but instead of a direct payment from Burisma to Joe, instead, Burisma hires a “consulting company” to influence Joe. The “consulting company” gives Joe a direct $100,000 gift."

"-Is this illegal? Interestingly some commentors said it wasn’t even necessarily unethical."

What you are calling a "consulting company" is called a lobbying firm or a lobbyist in America. If Joe Biden took money (which there is zero evidence of) and could be proved to have changed his position (which, again, didn't happen) then I believe the lobbyist has bribed Biden (IANAL), but Burisma has not unless they directed the lobbyist to use bribery instead of legal lobbying tactics.

"Same question as above, but instead of a consulting company, Burisma hires Joe’s son, and Joe’s son gives his father a $100,000 “gift”. Any practical difference from part 1 or part 2?"

See how you try to slowly move form a clear case of bribery to a clear case of a lobbyist bribing an official (intentionally being vague about whether the bribe was ordered by Burisma or not) to an unsubstantiated insinuation that Burisma gave Hunter money (again, not saying whether it was extra money given to Hunter and ordered to be used to bribe Joe, which would be Burisma bribing Joe, or Hunter giving some of his salary to Joe, which would be Hunter bribing Joe)? So do we.

Do I think a lot of lobbyists ride the bleeding edge of bribery? Absolutely. But there is so much rhetoric and language-shifting in your post that it is a garbled mess.

Your problem is that unless you can actually connect Burisma to a payment that resulted in Joe Biden changing his position (which, still, is a thing that didn't happen), all you have is QAnon-level conspiracy theories.

You are desperate for people to believe that Burisma wanting something that Joe Biden (and the US government) also wanted is a crime because they followed a widespread and common practice of giving board positions to relatives of powerful people. And you seem baffled that only partisans find it convincing.

This is a comprehension problem on your part, not willful ignorance on anyone else's.

[Kazinski]

I'm no sure all that matters with Joe.

If it is shown, and of course it hasn't been yet, that 10% of the 20m that has been traced to the Biden shell companies then politically Joe is toast, and not even a democratic senate will try to protect him.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ironically, many here defend that.

Hunter is just giving his dad a gift. Nothing wrong with that at all. He loves his dad. You can't PROVE Joe wasn't going to do what he did anyway.

[Nelson]

"You can’t PROVE Joe wasn’t going to do what he did anyway."

Actually, the argument is that it can be proved, 100%, that the official policy of the US government was exactly the same as Joe Biden's and that there wasn't any shift away from that policy by either party after Hunter Biden joined the board.

The "Joe Biden was bribed to do what he and the entire US government wanted to do" is pure stupidity, even by the standards of the "Biden is corrupt" contingent.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sure, the official policy...that Joe influenced.... I mean, he was the point man, right?

[Kazinski]

Robert Menendez could be a good test case, he had a constituent in a bind with the Justice Department deliver gold bars to his wife.

“Federal prosecutors are looking into whether an admitted felon helped arrange to give gold bars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez or his wife in exchange for help, sources familiar with the matter tell News 4.”

If they were given to his wife that’s perfectly legit isn’t it?

400k in gold bars is peanuts compared to what Hunter was getting, also for no articulable reason. Maybe it was for the Menendez Brand, that’s legal isn’t it?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-bob-menendez-wife-improperly-take-gold-bars-corrupt-bank-exec-rcna108129?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=650bbc3e2c633f0001b87ea9&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[Sarcastr0]

If they were given to his wife that’s perfectly legit isn’t it?
No one is arguing this.

You see the "in exchange for help," you posted? AL doesn't seem to get that part.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sorry, they don’t SAY it’s in exchange for help. It’s just a gift.

That’s what they’ll say. Says right there "At the time of the gift handoff, "

[Sarcastr0]

The article Kazinski quotes SAYS 'in exchange for help.'

[grb]

"According to the new indictment, Hana, working with his associates Uribe and Daibes, allegedly provided Menendez and his wife with cash, gold bars and mortgage payments in exchange for help in securing a lucrative contract in Egypt to monopolize the market for certifying imported halal meat. In addition, Menendez is alleged to have helped secure military aid for the government of Egypt."

[Nelson]

"what Hunter was getting, also for no articulable reason"

It's a very easily articulable reason, which has been articulated to you hundreds of times: companies put relatives of powerful people on their boards on a regular basis. It's as common as a common business practice gets.

[David Nieporent]

I had an interesting discussion the other day, and it’s worth seeing the wider audience’s opinion. Imagine the following situation.

What Armchair means by this is that he kept saying, with slightly different wording each time, "What if Burisma bribed Joe Biden? Would that be a bribe?"

[Nelson]

Maybe he's just trying to teach everyone what a bad faith argument looks like. Or what begging the question looks like. Or what a conspiracy theory looks like.

It's possible that ... OK, not likely ... OK, very, very, very unlikely. But he might just be trying to educate us all on dishonest debate tactics using practical examples.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news that disappeared.
Top of the line, 80 million dollar F-35 disappears 80 miles from the airbase it took off from and takes over a day to locate.
Maybe they should install Lo Jack.

[Sarcastr0]

Stealth works!

[The F35 is a boondogle and always has been. A10 and F22 do most of it’s job better than it does. I can’t speak to the VTOL requirements of the Marines.

A digression:
Reminds me a bit of the Russians and US in the ISS. The US has triple redundancy, but if something pierces that, they’ve got no real response. The Russians come in and are used to stuff going wrong all the time, and muddling through. Or dying; we still don’t know how many cosmonauts met their end. But our acquisition of aerospace stuff remains complicated and kinda brittle in extremis in a way I don’t much care for.

By contrast, B-52. No idea what was up there at the time; overengineered all the hell. On 50+ years of operation over it’s planned operational timeline.]

[Armchair Lawyer]

Firm assumptions by someone who has no actual experience.

The F-35 is a fine fighter which fits its designed goals admirably. The proper comparison is the F-15, F-16 and F-18, which the F-35 is designed to replace the roles of. In war games between the two groups, the F-35 invariably wins. There's a reason that when US allies are given a choice of aircraft to replace their existing fleet...overwhelmingly the F-35 is chosen from among the various options.

The F-22 is a superior, if more expensive, fighter. Issue is, these are very limited in number because Obama shut down the production line, and it is nearly impossible to restart that production line. There are not enough F-22s to meet US needs.

The A-10 is an attack jet that has no stealth and miserable air-air combat ability. It's not a proper comparison.

[Mr. Bumble]

Part of the problem is that the brass ass hats who make the decisions don't have to man the choices they made. Always blinded by shiny bright objects.

[Sarcastr0]

Aerospace acquisition is something I follow from a class I took back when I was transitioning out of law.

The F-35’s woes in both development and operation are not like some secret.

It’s stealth requirements are in tensions with all it’s other requirements, from VTOL to close air support job. It’s ability to takeoff from aircraft carriers doesn’t work on the Ford class…when the hook worked.

The F-35 is a fine fighter which fits its designed goals admirably? Maybe when it’s working…the mission capable numbers are not there. The reliability, and maintainability is way below expectations. Because it is overcomplicated and attempts to be jack-of-all-trades.

It’s bad, AL. Hopefully the Next Generation will take some lessons. Not optimistic; space acquisition is having even more woes than the F-35 if anything.

Obama shut down the production line The F-22 is an archetype of one of the fundamental problems with our large-scale acquisition structure. One taught in schools. It was Congress in Bush era not providing funding stability to make fleet requirements. And then when the AF rejiggerd it's fleet plans, the Bush-era DoD noted there was no longer a need.

Gates acquiesced to what was already in the cards.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh.

Oh, the outdated book learning. There's so much that is just incorrect about what you wrote. Let's start with one easy fact though.

The F-35 is generally in the area of about 70% mission capable. There is some year to year variation. That's comparable with F-16s, F-15, and most other jet aircraft, which are also generally in that 70% rate. The exception is the F-22 which is generally around 50% mission capable.

So...using old, outdated book learning? That's why you're wrong. Among other reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

"Sept. 21, 2023, 12:45 PM EDT

F-35 fighter jets are only 'mission capable' 55% of the time, new report says
Days after a $100 million F-35B jet crashed in rural South Carolina, a new government watchdog report highlights ongoing maintenance delays."

That's from 7 hours ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/f-35-fighter-jets-only-mission-capable-55-percent-time-rcna111308

[Armchair Lawyer]

And what about the year before that? And 2021? And 2020?

Again, you need to look at the year to year variation, not just look at a single year, or a single month of a single year.

Outdated book learning.

[Sarcastr0]

And what about the year before that? And 2021? And 2020?

If you want to argue current mission capability is an outlier, you'll have to bring evidence. I have.

Take the L.

[Sarcastr0]

Something I follow means I didn't stop when I graduated, you pompous ass.

Here’s the cited GAO report:

GAO-23-105341 F-35 Aircraft: DOD and the Military Services Need to Reassess the Future Sustainment Strategy

Publicly Released: Sep 21, 2023https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105341

“Maintenance challenges negatively affect F-35 aircraft readiness. The F-35 fleet mission capable rate—the percentage of time the aircraft can perform one of its tasked missions—was about 55 percent in March 2023, far below program goals. This performance was due in part to challenges with depot and organizational maintenance (see fig.). The program was behind schedule in establishing depot maintenance activities to conduct repairs. As a result, component repair times remained slow with over 10,000 waiting to be repaired—above desired levels. At the same time, organizational-level maintenance has been affected by a number of issues, including a lack of technical data and training.”

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh..

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/usaf-fighter-mission-capable-rates-fiscal-2020/

[Armchair Lawyer]

Once the current delays in maintenance are resolved, I'd expect it to go right back to that level.

That's not a failure in the jet necessarily. That just means they keep waiting on parts that should be fixed quickly, but aren't being fixed quickly.

[Sarcastr0]

AL: "The F-35 is generally in the area of about 70% mission capable."

Also AL: "Once the current delays in maintenance are resolved..."

Do you suffer from some kind of selective amnesia? You're bucking a GAO report now.

[David Nieporent]

I'm most certainly not any sort of expert in this area — the "armchair" epithet fits me here — but my understanding is that the problem isn't so much that the F35 isn't better than other planes at its mission, but that the F35 is so much more expensive than the planes it's replacing.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not really.

If you look at the unit costs (After R+D), the F-35's average in the $80 million range. About the same as a new F-15EX

https://www.turdef.com/article/usaf-the-f-15ex-has-a-higher-advantage-and-costs-less-than-the-f-35

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-billion-f-35-deal-will-see-prices-rise-deliveries-dip/#:~:text=The%20unit%20cost%20of%20the,fighters%20in%20Lots%2015%2D17.

[Sarcastr0]

Isn't the F-15 only used for foreign military sales?

[Frank Drackman]

Duh, no. We still have a bunch of them.

[hobie]

I saw a video of a fleet of drones being used to identify plums on trees in an orchard and to pick them and drop them into the tractor bin. A display of a single drone's targeting system shows it scanning its field of vision and targeting hundreds of plums simultaneously...terminator-style. The one thing AI is almost flawless at is identifying all things in an image.

My point is, you mount an AI powered targeting system like this on an orbital medi gun and then mount all that onto a vehicle that can fly real fast and maneuver, and I foresee the quick dissolution of the need for manned aircraft

[Krayt]

Currently, the ability to penetrate armor vastly outstrips armor.

This is why science fiction must propose force fields i.e. unobtanium armor, to give aliens a chance.

The cutting edge research is better missiles to shoot down other missiles.

In the ’60s, people hypothesized fighter pilots would tend to become female because smaller organisms can handle higher g forces*. But why bother with meatbags at all with computers? And wings (except as flying robot missile barges) for that matter.

* Heinlein did this. When Aliens ripped off Starship Troopers, they even imported the female pilots.

[SRG2]

I think that the B-52 instance is something of a red herring. It's not as though the engines and avionics are the same as those used in the original aeroplanes. I suspect that a 50s Bentley retrofitted with modern engines, suspension, brakes, etc. would be a very effective vehicle. (And I'd want one...)

[Sarcastr0]

Fair point, but a badass fuselage you just need to update is better than many planes get.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was designed when the threat was the .50 bullet by people who had seen shot-up B-24s 15 years earlier.

[Frank Drackman]

B52's a great jet, I should know, my Dad had over 3,000 hrs in them, but the only ones left are the "H" models, that weren't used in Vietnam, were built in 1962, have been re-winged/re engined and average 20,000 flight hours, which is what your typical 15 year old 737/Airbus has. The Air Frame is "overbuilt" like a 62 Cadillac.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

The KC-135 Stratotanker has a similar record here, in terms of longevity. Took a ride in one once while in AFROTC in the 70's. Complete with the bucket under an oil leak, "Be sure to let us know if that bucket looks like it's going to overflow."

Hit some clear air turbulence while we were walking around; One moment you were floating in air, the next drawing 2 gs. But they ordered us back to our seats, spoiled the fun.

[Longtobefree]

Stealth technology works!

[Frank Drackman]

I was thinking the same thing. It's hard enough to find non-stealthy crashed aircraft.

[Nige]

In other news, we're expecting record delivery times by Santa this Christmas.

[DaveM]

The best meme I saw:

The missing F35 has been found! It was listed on Craigslist.

[John F. Carr]

I saw one with Zelensky snapping a selfie in front of the lost jet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This isn't unreasonable -- if it didn't have an active transponder, and possibly other problems (pilot ejected for a reason and the concern was enough for the other plane not to follow it) -- ALL you know is how much fuel is in it and that it hasn't killed anyone -- yet.

It took them something like 34 *years* to find the SNARK missile that went off course and headed to Africa. Again, assuming it had things wrong with it (why pilot ejected) that means it's not going to stay on it's course & heading -- it is literally out of control.

I've been involved in marine SAR -- without an electronic beacon of some sort to follow (or preferably triangulate if you can) or a rational victim either telling you were he is or vectoring you in, it is damn hard to find someone. And that's ignoring altitude (and hence glide slope from it).

There is one other thing though -- post-911, every airplane is supposed to have something in the tail that reports "I have crashed" to the USAF in (I believe Omaha). They then call the registered owner in real time and verify -- they got the call in quicker than the eyewitnesses could. This should have reported the crash -- why didn't it?

[hobie]

Volokh, your platform's ad displays are now crippling my ability to read the comments. Tell them to knock this shit off

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fb8wbUlu8EGdu8iVbhtSsv9mQGuN_UJI/view?usp=drive_link

[Life of Brian]

In all seriousness, I just tried to turn off the several layers of blocking I use so I could see the new wave of junk folks have been complaining about recently, but apparently must have missed something because I still can't get them to come up. Are you running any sort of a blocker at all? Doesn't seem like it takes much. (I do see an occasional request to subscribe to Reason pop up every few days, which I clear and life goes on -- not ideal, but not the end of the world either.)

[hobie]

I don't like using ad blockers because they cause access issues to a lot of other sites

[Life of Brian]

I definitely get that piece, but I also think that used to be a lot more true than it is these days (my front-line protection right now is uBlock Origin, and it's fairly nuanced in that it will actually block only some requests to a given domain associated with ads/tracking and let other benign requests through -- seems to get it right the vast majority of the time but also one-click tweakable if it doesn't). And you can also set them to not activate altogether for certain sites if there's something that just doesn't work at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think, from my experience, that it's mostly an issue with the mobile version of the site.

[Life of Brian]

You have to want it a bit more, but mobile adblockers/antitrackers are readily achievable these days as well. RethinkDNS, Nebulo, NextDNS, etc. block on the DNS level (somewhat crudely, but can be a good first-pass filter and cut way down on unnecessary mobile bandwidth), while some browsers like the Kiwi fork of Chrome offer built-in adblocking and also support Chrome desktop extensions like uBlock Origin. I see no ads on this site on my phone either.

[santamonica811]

I use (and have used, for years) the default blocker that's part of Firefox. This new pop-up ad fiasco is happening on my home and my work desktops...both running Firefox. I have no basis to assume that Chrome (et al) are or are not suffering the same problems.

[Life of Brian]

I layer the uBlock Origin plugin on top of FireFox. No ads here or most places.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A non-partisan issue I can agree with.

When scrolling the site on mobile, when the ads reload, the page resets back to the top of the comments.

Whomever designed that 'feature' needs to promptly go fuck themselves.

[Life of Brian]

The downside of "la la la I can't hear you" I suppose. Maybe someone else can cut and paste my observations on mobile adblocking in the event Jason might actually want a solution rather than just an opportunity to complain.

[John F. Carr]

Headlines say Google is being sued for wrongful death after a driver was directed to go over a collapsed bridge. In reality (1) the "bridge" is a culvert on a narrow road, (2) Google is only one of many defendants, including some private management companies who might have been responsible for the road.

It does raise an interesting legal question. If somebody reports "this bridge is out", does Google have to act on the notice? Most of the time such reports mean "road closed" rather than "deadly void". Can Google say "our service is free and worth every penny"?

https://apnews.com/article/google-maps-lawsuit-north-carolina-death-f4707247ee3295bf51bbcb37bd0eb6c8

Here is the view now, after a dead body persuaded somebody to block off the road

https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=35.781173%7E-81.283444&lvl=17.2&pi=-3.2&style=x&mo=om.1&dir=53

I used Bing because Google still says the road is open.

[Krayt]

If they would still have turned and driven into the void without Google telling them, it’s hardly Google’s problem.

Paper maps would “tell” you that, too. As would your own memory of the area.

I would think the local whoever would block the road somehow, on a timely basis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Paper maps used to identify logging roads as such -- good ones included the phone number for the owner.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"State troopers who found Paxton’s body in his overturned and partially submerged truck had said there were no barriers or warning signs along the washed-out roadway. He had driven off an unguarded edge and crashed about 20 feet below, according to the lawsuit."

This strikes me as the bigger issue -- UNLESS this was a private road which Google listed as a public one. Then I think there should be some liability for Google.

[SRG2]

Ohio Supreme Court in the tank for Ohio's anti-abortion Ballot Board.

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2023/09/ohio-supreme-court-upholds-most-of.html

A Reproductive Freedom ballot initiative gets buggered about with by the Ballot Board who don't want it to pass. The Supreme Court approves of this buggering about and is evidently dishonest in doing so.

[Martinned]

O wow. That's pretty outrageous. It's almost as if referendums aren't such a good idea.

[hobie]

Good grief that is breathtaking:

"We reject relators’ argument. Importantly, relators do not argue that the term “unborn child” is factually inaccurate."

How is that the concern of the relators? It's their ballot initiative. They should be able to word it as they wish and shouldn't have to prove or disprove anything. Fucking hell this is political

[ReaderY]

The language isn’t that of the relators, it is a summary of the amendment created by the board approving the ballot. But the Ohio Supreme court was required to begin with the language as approved, with the relators responsible for proving it is fradulent or deceptive.

In this case, while the term “unborn child” has different connotations from “fetus,” it doesn’t denote anything different. Anyone hearing either term would know what it means physically and would consider both terms to refer to the same physical thing. So it’s not factually inaccurate, let alone fraudulently misleading.

[SRG2]

If "unborn child" and "fetus" had the same connotation, there'd be no reason for the Ballot Board to make the change in the first place, right?

[Krayt]

Pro abortion rights prefer dehumanizing terms like fetus, precisely because “unborn child”, or “baby”, rhetorically hurt their case.

It’s quite facetious to claim it is more accurate that way, a circular rhetorical argument.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? "Baby" came first by tens of thousands of years.

[Martinned]

The egg came first. By millions of years.

[Bob from Ohio]

God made the chicken, chicken laid the egg.

[Martinned]

How do you know that God didn't make the egg that the chicken then came out of?

[Bob from Ohio]

Genesis 1:25 "So God made the wild animals, the tame animals, and all the small crawling animals to produce more of their own kind. God saw that this was good."

[Krychek_2]

Now quote all the flat earth passages:

https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Appendix_A.html

[OtisAH]

Contest over. Bob quoting genesis is Idiot Post of the Day. Better luck Monday fells!

[Martinned]

If a fetus is a human being, surely an egg is an animal?

[Bob from Ohio]

"an egg is an animal"

A fertilized chicken egg is an unhatched chicken, yes.

[Martinned]

Then how can you tell from Genesis 1:25 that God created chickens fully grown, instead of in egg format? Presumably the latter saves a lot of creation power?

[Nige]

Thay don't count.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Genesis 1:25 “So God made the wild animals, the tame animals, and all the small crawling animals to produce more of their own kind. God saw that this was good.”

Competent adults neither advance nor accept childish superstition in reasoned debate. The gullible losers who try to rely on such nonsense in reasoned debate can't be replaced fast enough -- but will surely be replaced, by their betters.

Carry on, clingers.

[SRG2]

But as Gen 1 cannot literally be true why take it to be?

[hobie]

Actually, Bob, the most likely first organisms where self-replicating RNA. Neither chickens nor eggs. And their fossil records predate Genesis by about 3 billion years

[Martinned]

Sure, but that's not the question asked.

[Bob from Ohio]

"predate Genesis by about 3 billion years"

The writing of Genesis, sure.

[Krychek_2]

Bob has inadvertently articulated the area of disagreement: His *religion* says it's a person, and he thinks his religion should be the law of the land.

Well, people are a lot less religious than they used to be and we're not going to be dictated to by bronze age theology.

[Bob from Ohio]

"His *religion* says it’s a person,"

Where have I used the word "person"?

Science says a human fetus is a human. You deny this basic fact.

[Krychek_2]

"a human" is a meaningless phrase. A human what? A human cell? A human tumor? A human organ? In this context, human is an adjective.

The relevant characteristic is whether it's a human person. Answer: No

[Bob from Ohio]

"“a human” is a meaningless phrase"

A human being, you dolt.

Start here:

"Humans, or modern humans (Homo sapiens), are the most common and widespread species of primate." wikipedia

There is a whole article. You can start there. I might be able to find some toddler board books that say what a human is.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, given the regularity with which you routinely get your butt kicked by people who actually know something about science whenever the subject comes up, I might be a little more judicious in whom you call a dolt.

Yes, I know what a human being (or human person) is. However, you have not shown that a fetus qualifies. Not sure if it's just sloppy or intentionally dishonest (and as to you I would believe either) but you persist in saying that the fetus is human -- which is not in dispute -- when the question is whether it is a human person. And just because you can't (or won't) draw the distinction doesn't mean everyone else is as confused.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you have not shown that a fetus qualifies"

When does a human fetus become a human being then? Please be specific.

[Krychek_2]

Well, Bob, when I put dough in the oven, can you give me the precise moment at which it becomes a cake?

It becomes a human being at the time at which it acquires the traits and characteristics that human beings have. These include self-awareness and consciousness. Most embryologists agree that happens at around the time of viability. For legal purposes, I would put it at or around viability, although as with the cake, it's not something that could be precisely determined down to the minute.

And for purposes of regulating abortion I would therefore say abortion completely on demand up until viability; abortion for legitimate medical reasons after that. A position that extremists on neither side would agree to.

[Brett Bellmore]

" abortion for legitimate medical reasons after that."

Um, pretty much by definition, after viability you can just deliver a live infant, so there's essentially NEVER a legitimate medical reason for a post-viability abortion.

As opposed to, you know, early delivery.

[Noscitur a sociis]

while the term “unborn child” has different connotations from “fetus,”

If “unborn child” and “fetus” had the same connotation

[Sarcastr0]

Denotation: the literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests.

Connotation: "an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning."

I'd argue that these two words have the same denotation, but quite different connotations.

[ducksalad]

The meaning is the same, but the connotations are different, and that's why the Ballot Board did it.

But as Reader Y explained, the Ballot Board is entitled to write the summary, and long as it isn't fraudulent or deceptive. You can't seriously argue that any significant number of voters would be misled.

What you're worried about is that some wafflers might change their vote based on mere feelings. That's not the same as being deceived.

[Krychek_2]

The problem is that "unborn child" carries emotional baggage that "fetus" does not, which is why the anti-abortion side wants it. It's not a situation in which one person says "car" and another person says "automobile" and neither word gets an emotional reaction. No, this is intentionally putting a thumb on the scale in an attempt to appeal to the emotions of voters in the middle. And I don't think the board should be putting its thumb on the scale.

[Krayt]

See my post above.

[Krychek_2]

I did, and the problem with your argument is that not everyone agrees that it's a child. That issue is in fact hotly contested. And your side should not be permitted to win arguments by assuming your definition is uncontested.

[DaveM]

The concept of a "non-person" is still alive and well. We've just moved it back in time. But the sentiment is the same:

There are some people who do not deserve to live.

Am I being too harsh? I don't think so.

[Krychek_2]

And if everyone agreed with you that a fetus is a person then there we'd be.

A former pastor of mine once defined "anti-Semite" as "someone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." Of course that's a nonsense definition, but he used it anyway as a rhetorical device to try to win arguments. You're doing the same thing. You've defined "child" so that it includes fetuses.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to re-write definitions.

[DaveM]

Well, then, here's your chance to set everyone right with the correct definition.

If a "fetus" isn't human, then what is it?

[Martinned]

Part of a human.

[Bob from Ohio]

They never really answer this question.

[Krychek_2]

No, Bob, I've answered this multiple times; you just don't like my answer.

A fetus is "human" in the same sense that the cells you killed last time you scratched your nose are human. They contain human DNA and are alive, so therefore they are human life. But you're not a murderer because you killed a lot of them last time you scratched your nose.

The issue isn't whether it's human; the issue is whether it's a person. And the answer to that question, at least for the first part of a pregnancy, is no.

[SRG2]

If a “fetus” isn’t human, then what is it?

An entity in the process of becoming human.

In any event, the proposed amendment had “fetus” as the wording, so the ballot board had no legitimate grounds for changing the wording.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A fetus is “human” in the same sense that the cells you killed last time you scratched your nose are human."

Scientific ignorance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"entity in the process of becoming human"

"entity"? Like a racoon? A ghost? An alien?

[Krychek_2]

Funny, Bob, that the scientists mostly agree with me.

[Sarcastr0]

Semantic games are not science, and are a nullity in the land of moral philosophy.

It's frankly disingenuous to claim this is a scientific question. Personhood is not going to be determined in a lab.

[hobie]

Dave, if you had studied embryology like I have, you would know that up until about 15 weeks there is almost no difference between a human fetus and that of a chicken, lizard or hippo. They all have tails, gills, and eustachian tubes just like the sharks they all evolved from. If you tried to birth a fetus of any kind at that stage you'd be birthing a monster. Is that the 'person' you are referring to?

[Bob from Ohio]

"scientists mostly agree with me"

Prove it.

[Krychek_2]

You go first. Your claim that my statement was scientific ignorance was made before my claim that the scientists agree with me. So let’s start with you proving that my claim was scientific ignorance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You go first. "

"Fetus. An unborn baby from the 8th week after fertilization until birth." Anatomy: Fetus in Utero John Hopkins

[apedad]

From Bob: “A fetus is “human” in the same sense that the cells you killed last time you scratched your nose are human.”

So (according to Bob) that means every time someone scratches on their nose, they’re committing murder.

Sure……

[Krychek_2]

And what is the context in which John Hopkins made that statement? You have a law degree, you know that a term can mean something different in one context than it does in another.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
"A fetus is “human” in the same sense that the cells you killed last time you scratched your nose are human. "
That is patent nonsense. Take a biology class.
Whether this has anything to do with when is a fetus or neonate a legal person is all a very different story.

[Nelson]

DaveM, I'm going to roll all of your questions into a single post to make things concise.

"If a “fetus” isn’t human, then what is it?"

It is a potential human being. A human being is an independent organism. (Cue intentional misuse of the definition of 'independent' by anti-abortionist).

A human fetus is a phase of human development where the organism is presently incapable of sustaining its own life. As is a human embryo and a human zygote. Only the human being is a person.

"Yes, of course the intentional killing of an innocent human being is murder. Obviously."

If, and only if, your belief is true. Using a conclusion as a premise is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". It's the go-to for anti-abortion arguments.

"The ethics of this aren’t even a close call."

You're right. The vast majority of people, all of whom are capable of considering moral and ethical problems, conclude that abortion before viability is both moral and ethical.

Agreeing with a minority conclusion isn't synonymous with being right. For example, you agree with a minority conclusion about abortion and you are wrong.

The issue that is impossible to avoid, unless you work really, really, really hard at ignoring it, is that time is a factor in science. A fertilized egg has a 27% chance of developing into a human being after a minimum of 21 weeks. That could change by a day or two, since that's the earliest a baby has ever been delivered and survived, but it will never change by 21 weeks. That is a fact that you cannot dispute.

What you want to do is pretend that "27%" is the same as "100%" and that "after a minimum of 21 weeks of development" is the same as "right now". And that's a lie. An intentional lie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"From Bob: “A fetus is “human” in the same sense that the cells you killed last time you scratched your nose are human.”

Krychek_2 made that comment, not me.

[apedad]

My bad. I’m normally not reading VC from my cell.

[Mr. Bumble]

apedad:
What are you in for?

[Sarcastr0]

Lets game this out. Are women who get abortion murderers? Are doctors who do so hitmen?
Are miscarriages a tragedy worth many many more resources to prevent (whether the woman wants it or not?)

The abortion is murder fetuses are full people thing is rhetoric. Not many want to abide by it's full implications.

[DaveM]

Yes, of course the intentional killing of an innocent human being is murder. Obviously.

In fact, I'll take this one step further. It's not just murder we're talking about, it's mass murder. Industrialized murder. Murder on a scale just in this country alone -- 50 million and more! -- that is equally as murderously evil as anything done in death camps.

The ethics of this aren't even a close call. But oh nos, that's not a popular opinion right now! So what? Anti-slavery wasn't a popular opinion at one time, either. You don't stop arguing and persuading based on popularity.

[Sarcastr0]

So how far do these cocksure ethics go? Do you want a Civil War 2 for abortion?
You into some bombing and arson of abortion clinics?

[Nige]

They're going to try to put women and doctors in prison for just those things. Every miscarriage will be a murder investigation. Every rapist will be a witness for the prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

It's an interesting definition of they, since it's a small minority. But they're 3 decades tied to the very extreme policy view, or at least their base of voters are.

I don't agree with the Dem wisdom that Dobbs will continue to pay dividends forever as the GOP is tied to it. The tie will continue, but normalization is a helluva drug. Especially in red states.

[Martinned]

Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s. 58:

Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable F2 ... to be kept in penal servitude for life

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks for explaining! so sort of like when not everyone agreed that Blacks were "Human"

[Krychek_2]

Frank, that analogy is really stupid even for you.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the "That's Stupid!" retort, the last resort of peoples with no logical response. It's exactly appropriate, Blacks weren't real "People" like Whites or even Mexicans or Chinamen, so they could be bought and sold, whipped, killed, etc,
Some peoples think the same of unborn little People, some don't.
I'm sorry if I made your position look ridiculous, that's a you problem
Frank

[Krychek_2]

Frank, I was raised by white supremacists. In my youth I heard serious discussions about whether blacks have souls. So I’m well familiar with the sheer awfulness of racism.

But the critical distinction between the blacks who were enslaved, beaten and lynched is that unlike fetuses, they had actually been born. So not only is your analogy not apples to apples, it’s not even apples to other fruit.

[Bob from Ohio]

" No, this is intentionally putting a thumb on the scale in an attempt to appeal to the emotions of voters in the middle. "

The use of "fetus" outside the doctor's office is a way to make it seem like its just a "clump of cells". No pregnant woman uses fetus unless she is going to kill it.

[OtisAH]

The key here is it’s not going to work. It might’ve stood a chance if the numpties didn’t first try to change the state constitution to kill it. The entire state knows what the issue is and the intent. Nobody will suddenly forget because of intentionally misleading language.

[Krychek_2]

That's exactly right, and if I were running the pro-choice advertising effort, I would run ads pointing out how the forced-birth side can't even tell the truth about what the debate is about.

[Super Scary]

"forced-birth side"

Hahah, man you guys are seriously deranged.

[Martinned]

News of the day: Rupert Murdoch is retiring.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rupert-murdoch-announces-transition-new-role-chairman-emeritus-fox-news-corp

[Krayt]

He should give me a million dollars, so I can retire, play video games, travel, and most importantly, beak off here full time.

[bernard11]

I'm for that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Murdoch? Is that the guy who was partial to Mick Jagger's hand-me-downs and ran some criminal (and unreliable, and antisocial) enterprises?

[ReaderY]

Google was recently sued over an accident in which it directed a driver in South Carolina to drive over a bridge which had collapsed in 2013 qnd been closed.

1. To what extent should Google be liable for not updating its database? 2. Is it reasonable to expect a driver to rely on Google? 3. Does it depend on what warnings signs there were and how visible they were? If it does, how does this affect Google’s responsibility vis-a-vis the goverment’s?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/09/20/family-sues-google-after-father-drowned-by-following-google-maps-off-collapsed-bridge/?sh=1954b053b0fb

[SRG2]

As there is no contract between Google and the driver I am not sure that there is any relationship between them for which Google can be sued, but IANAL.

[Life of Brian]

1. To what extent should Google be liable for not updating its database?

One of many challenges with a gargantuan data set of this sort is on what basis to update it. As I understand it, among other sources Google takes crowdsourced input on road/business/etc. closures and reopenings. It creates a good deal of lag sometimes before the map updates to reflect reality -- you can imagine you don't want to flip back and forth on one or a small number of reports -- but I'm not sure there's really a better option.

[John F. Carr]

Google has to deal with malicious reports too. People submit false reports to try to redirect traffic past somebody else's house.

[Longtobefree]

Have you read the "maps" TOS?

[John F. Carr]

I do not recall the TOS. Because they are written by Silicon Valley lawyers, they probably say "we have the right to kill you and bill you for the cost of having your lawyers killed if you complain." In this case non-parties to any contract are suing. Can a decedent in North Carolina waive his heirs' right to sue for negligence?

[John F. Carr]

To be legally correct I should not write "heirs". People with a right to sue for wrongful death, whether or not they are named in the will.

[Life of Brian]

Because they are written by Silicon Valley lawyers, they probably say “we have the right to kill you and bill you for the cost of having your lawyers killed if you complain.”

Though squarely in the realm of the vulgar as usual, it's hard to imagine a more brilliant lampooning of the typical Sil Valley TOS than Matt Stone and Trey Parker pulled off at the expense of Steve Jobs (RIP) in South Park Episode 210.

[John F. Carr]

A developer built the subdivision, the road, and the bridge (culvert) and then went out of business. I gather the road was never taken over by the government. The plaintiffs' lawyers found multiple legal entities who might be responsible.

Off the top of my head, here are two scenarios:

1. The road is on an easement and the land underneath is owned by abutters.

2. The road is owned outright by some HOA-like entity.

At least one city in my area requires a sign saying "NOT A PUBLIC WAY" / "DANGEROUS" at the entrance to any private road.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Guess who says separation of powers isn't necessary for the rule of law?

https://thenewdigest.substack.com/p/the-rule-of-law-without-separation

[Martinned]

Most democracies in the world?

[Krayt]

Of which many have had dictatorship in living memory. Many of the rest have the calming hand of the US on their shoulder.

Run around, safe, children, with the belief it's due to the furies coursing through your minds.

[Martinned]

I don't think the current state of US democracy is a particular advertisement for separation of powers. Basically nothing gets done, so the president governs the country by executive order except for the occasional budget crisis. There's a reason why a presidential system has failed everywhere it's been tried.

The most stable democracies in the world, like my native land, England, and Switzerland, all of which have been democracies since before the first white person set foot in North America, have never had rigid separation of powers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Separation of powers is designed on the principle that it's actually better to not get things done, than to get things done where there isn't widespread agreement they SHOULD be done.

It was designed for a government with much more limited scope than modern governments, which are more based on the principle that 50%+1 are entitled to do absolutely anything they want.

[Nige]

'where there isn’t widespread agreement they SHOULD be done.'

Only applicable when Democrats are in power, of course. Republicans get things done that entrench minority rule and give handouts to the rich - widespread disagreement with those things don't count.

[Sarcastr0]

Separation of powers has worked great up until about 2008. For reasons left up to the reader.

The implications of your take on the scalability of separation of powers...are you saying that you no longer think adherence to the constitution is worthwhile?

50%+1 are entitled to do absolutely anything they want.
This was never the case. The old set of voters were not 50%+1. The Senate, Electoral College, Presidential appointments, and more are all countermajoritarian.
See also the Bill of Rights, Marbury and the filibuster.

[jb]

For various reasons, certainly not exclusively related to federal separation of powers because this applies to at least somewhat to local and state government as well, it does seem like it's become increasingly hard to govern. I think this is dual trends of an increasing body of veto points that have grown over the years--often well-intentioned (think environmental impact reviews) and then increasing political polarization which gets in the way of bipartisan compromise. Separation of powers is just a set of the veto points so only a relatively small part of the overall problem IMHO.

[Sarcastr0]

I basically agree, except I think separation of powers is a set of veto points, but also more.
It compartmentalizes decision making as well; it's not like every decision requires an interface between two branches of government.

[Brett Bellmore]

The veto points are only seen as a problem because of the increasing conviction that 50%+1 votes entitles you to do anything you want, and anything that stops a one vote majority from exercising absolute power is a defect in the system.

There used to be an understanding that modest majorities were only entitled to have modest programs, but that's long gone.

[Sarcastr0]

But see your populism above about illegal immigration.

This is why institutionalism is good - it's already got some elitism and some populism mixed in as required. You don't have the danger of this kind of embarrassing inconsistency.

[Brett Bellmore]

Concern about illegal immigration is at way above 50%+1 levels, and you know that quite well.

[Sarcastr0]

You come complaining there’s a trend of not liking countermajoritarian procedures. Then when it’s pointed out you’re pretty into complaining about countermajoritarianism when it suits you, you argue that it’s different because this time it’s a big majority.

That’s not how it works. 50%+1 or 50%+10, the argument is the same. There is no threshold where suddenly everything must give way and the majority wins.
You’re being outcome oriented in a pretty obvious way.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're just confirming what I'm saying: That you think that even the barest, most temporary majority entitles you to do anything you want.

And then you're shocked that political tensions keep rising, after you've made every election be for all the marbles.

[Sarcastr0]

What kind of line are you drawing here? Where does it become a mandate?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's actually a good question. It's hell when pre-existing norms evaporate, and have to be turned into formal rules, instead. Judgement calls people just naturally made before have to be transformed into bright lines.

I don't know exactly where to draw those lines, and getting those rules adopted is going to be a real uphill push, probably would require a constitutional convention to pull off.

1. Constitutionally abolish the enrolled bill doctrine. That's necessary for anything subsequent to get enforced.
2. Require all votes to be roll call. Perfectly feasible given that they're voting electronically now.
3. Establish that all existing super majority and majority vote requirements are calculated from the full membership of the body, not just those present, so that you can't game things by holding votes when fewer members are available. There's no reason 26 Senators should be entitled to enact something just because they arranged to hold the vote when only 51 of them were available.
4. Require all bills to be publicly available in searchable form a minimum of a week before vote on final passage.

[Martinned]

Separation of powers is designed on the principle that it’s actually better to not get things done, than to get things done where there isn’t widespread agreement they SHOULD be done.

Show me where it says that in Montesquieu or the Federalist Papers.

Instead, I'd say that separation of powers is designed on the assumption that the different branches of government are able to work together constructively. Which in the US they haven't been since somewhere around the time when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were making each other's lives miserable.

As a result, the US President today has endlessly more power than ever contemplated by the founding fathers. You end up inventing new doctrines like the major question doctrine to put some of that power with the courts, instead of putting it where it belongs: with Congress. Let them make laws, with the President's signature, to deal with the problems of the day. If they did that, none of the debate about the major question doctrine would be necessary. But instead they sit on their asses calling rich people for money, and the President runs the country as he sees fit.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Instead, I’d say that separation of powers is designed on the assumption that the different branches of government are able to work together constructively."

Wow. You've literally stood things on their head there. The actual assumption was closer to them being at each other's throats, and unwilling to cooperate unless something was obviously necessary.

Federalist papers, 51-60

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. "

[Martinned]

If you're reading that as supporting your point, you're putting your wishes in front of reality. The fact that the branches are supposed to be a "check" on each other is of course undisputed. But you seem to think that being a "check" means stopping the other branch from doing things, and it doesn't say that anywhere, because that was not the idea. The founding fathers, at least for a little while, tried to build a government of adults, albeit adults who were not angels.

[Brett Bellmore]

What the heck does a "check" mean, if not stopping something?

[David Nieporent]

The most stable democracies in the world, like my native land, England, and Switzerland, all of which have been democracies since before the first white person set foot in North America,

This is obviously not true. First, one would have to ignore the Vikings of the 11th century. Second, one would have to define something that manifestly was not a democracy in the 15th century to be a democracy.

[Martinned]

FFS, you want to have that discussion again? Or do you just want to explain why Iceland actually does have rigid separation of powers?

[David Nieporent]

Not sure what Iceland has to do with the price of tea in China. You made a claim that the UK and Switzerland (among others) have been democracies since before the first white person set foot in North America.

The first white person set foot in North America in the 11th century. The Uk and Switzerland were not democracies before the 11th century.

[Magister]

"before the first white man set foot in North America" is a pretty bad way of specifying a date. Probably Martinned meant 1492 or thereabouts.

I am curious what definition made England a democracy before 1500. Switzerland seems to have changed its form of government several times since then, so what is the definition of stable?

[Martinned]

I was thinking of the Mayflower and the start of colonisation around 1600. Which, admittedly, was still taking some poetic liberties.

Historically the franchise has always been narrower than we would find acceptable today, but I think a sensible criterion is whether there is a parliament that is accountable to a reasonably broad swathe of the people and which has a monopoly on taxation. No taxation without representation etc. That's basically where the US was from 1776 onwards.

England has had an elected parliament continuously since the 14th century, and that parliament has had a monopoly on taxation since the 15th century. (Subsequent attempts by the Crown to evade that notwithstanding.)

Switzerland was a complete mess before 1848, that is true, but what it effectively amounts to is taxation being controlled through representation at state and pan-Swiss levels since at least 1500.

Similarly, the Netherlands had a mix of regional and national democracy. The whole point of the rebellion against the King of Spain from 1568 was that he was trying to usurp the states' privileges with respect to taxation.

[Magister]

When did the absolute monarchy in England give way to a constitutional monarchy? An absolute monarchy is incompatible with a democracy, even if there are limits on the monarch. I don't think taxation through representation is really the defining characteristic of democracy. If voting in leaders is the crucial element, then the Catholic Church has been electing popes for a long time, mostly with stability if not a very large electorate.

If Switzerland has been stable since 1848, maybe that's longer than the United States, but far short of since 1500 or 1600.

[Martinned]

Iceland has the Alþingi, which has been there, more or less, if you squint a bit, since 930. I thought you were making a pedantic point about what is and isn't the world's oldest democracy. Instead you were making a pedantic point about the history of the colonisation of North America. My bad.

[OtisAH]

For the few commenters here capable of understanding here’s a nice history of MAGA’s now decades-old tactic of tax cuts and massive spending under MAGA presidents and screaming about the debt and government shutdowns under Dem admins. Traces back to an editorial in the WSJ way back in 1974 by a man named Jude Wanniski. The tactic even has a name “The Two Santa Clauses.” A quick taste and a link:

“It’s no accident or coincidence that the threat of a failure to pay the nation’s bills or fund an upcoming year never once happened during the presidencies of Reagan, Bush, Bush, or Trump. Or that it did happen every single time during the presidencies of Clinton, Obama…and, now, Biden.“

https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-shutdown-is-the-two-santa-clauses-a95?utm_source=substack&publication_id=302288&post_id=137200065&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=elvx

[DaveM]

You won’t get any complaints about the Uniparty from me. I have been entirely unrepresented most of my adult life, because I have the quaint belief that no organization should spend money it doesn’t have or borrow money it intends someone else to repay.

[Sarcastr0]

No one has the exact government they want. That's not being unrepresented. That's just you not understanding how a republic works.

[Bob from Ohio]

"never once happened during the presidencies of ... Trump"

"Longest shutdown in history ends after Trump relents on wall" Politico. By Andrew Restuccia, Burgess Everett and Heather Caygle
01/25/2019 12:27 PM EST
Updated: 01/25/2019 07:06 PM EST

[OtisAH]

Hilarious. Partly because obviously my post was not addressed to you. And partly because that was Turnip’s shutdown and was unrelated to the debt. Oh, and entirely because you’re an idiot.

[Bob from Ohio]

"threat of a failure to pay the nation’s bills or fund an upcoming year"

threat to not "fund an upcoming year" is exactly what the Trump shutdown was.

You made a stupid gotcha. Take the loss.

[OtisAH]

Play whatever games you want, dumbass. You do not have the mental capacity to understand any of this and are out of your depth, which is so shallow no one could even drown in it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just insults from you. Mark of an immature mind.

[OtisAH]

You are not worth any effort beyond insults. That you haven’t picked up on that means I need to do a better job conveying the fact.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thank you very much for that link.

[Kazinski]

At least put the blame where its due. The Clinton government shutdown for instance was caused when Clinton vetoed the appropriations bill that was passed by Congress.

I think Trump vetoed an appropriations bill too.

[Sarcastr0]

The Clinton government shutdown for instance was caused when Clinton vetoed the appropriations bill that was passed by Congress
That's a myopic view of cause. Not saying Clinton wasn't part of it, but so was Congress.

In noted contrast to Trump's lack of engagement with Congress resulting in his tantrum being vetoed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Government shutdowns don't happen without intransigence on both ends of the Mall. You're like a guy seeing a crash after a game of chicken, and assigning the blame to just one of the drivers.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, you know, the President last minute making demands that he hadn't really brought up before.

This is how veto points work - they *don't* require both sides.

Actually, chicken is a great example - if one side decides they're playing at the last minute, and the other has no idea, the first side are indeed entirely to blame for the consequences.

[OtisAH]

That’s actually the bog standard MAGA response to MAGA-induced government shutdowns. Every time. Basically it’s “Nuh-uh, the hostage is dead because *Dems* didn’t pay the ransom.” Fortunately, and somewhat amazingly, it has yet to work.

[Super Scary]

"MAGA’s now decades-old"

MAGA started in 2015, maybe 2014 if you want to be generous. Your entire post is imbecilic.

[OtisAH]

I guess you missed the part where the GOP became MAGA and is now the proper way to reference the party. I don’t use anachronisms like “GOP” or “Republican.”

[MatthewSlyfield]

"What's on your mind?"
The top of my skull.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/09/15/argentina-nazi-printing-press-books/
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (source)

[Nige]

'I will make a show of fiercely protecting your inalienable rights to proclaim an ideology that is genocidal and oppressive but I will affect indifference and incomprehension when it comes to actively opposing your ideology, which I mildly disapprove of.'

[The Margrave of Azilia]

An anonymous author in Ius & Iustitium - the classical legal tradition Web site - on Amendment 14, Sec. 3:

https://iusetiustitium.com/section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-and-the-imprudence-of-originalism/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Though I would disagree with the idea that excluding someone under Article 3 always requires prior Congressional legislation. That would allow a majority of Congress to put seditionists into office simply by repealing any enforcement legislation, whereas Sec. 3 requires a 2/3 vote to remove someone’s Sec. 3 disqualifications. But I could be wrong and Chief Justice Chase could be right.

And I’d certainly say there’s a presumption of innocence under Sec. 3, to be overcome only by a judicial decision – criminal or civil.

And...if Congress designates an enforcement method, it could also make that the *only* method.

[Martinned]

I don't know. At least some of that comes dangerously close to enabling Congress to write s. 3 out of the Constitution by simple action or inaction, and that can't be the right answer.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was suggesting Congress *can't* simply block enforcement through inaction.

I've suggested a special court, but if that's not adopted (and I don't think it will be), I admit I'm vague about what the proper enforcement mechanism would look like.

[Michael P]

Congress did act. Multiple times. The Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized a particular law that was passed in 1862, and notably has not been applied at all in the context of the J6 rioting. Congress later added a second mechanism, and even later repealed that.

Congress could also act on its own initiative on January 6th, although that would suggest that Donald Trump's arguments had merit, so Democrats will not admit that Congress can do that.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Mark Graber weighs in on "office of the United States" and "office under the United States." Spoiler alert: He refers to Tillman & Blackman's work on the subject as "a comedic performance."

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2023/09/section-three-of-and-under-nonsense.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“My survey of every congressional use during the first session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress”

“The crucial passage occurs in a Congressional Report issued barely a month after Congress sent the 14th Amendment to the states.”

“Powerful evidence exists that the persons responsible for Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment believed” [etc.]

I agree about Sec. 3 applying to Presidents and ex-Presidents, but I don’t believe in getting there via originalism.

This isn’t a matter of matching Congressional quotes against each other. It’s a matter of the text’s language, and even if we find some vagueness, that vagueness can be resolved by looking to basic principles of republican (small r) government, the security of the country, and basic equal treatment – behavior which would be forbidden in a postmaster or ex-postmaster can't be permitted in a President.

As for this *particular* ex-President, I don’t have a ready-made, go-to opinion, but that’s OK because plenty of other people have their strong and irrefutable opinions.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I completely agree with you. However in this post Graber is responding to two academics who are trying to make an originalist argument for section 3 not applying to the presidency. And as Graber shows, even the originalist argument fails on its own terms.

[bernard11]

Graber is actually pretty convincing.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

What we're reading: Le Roi s'Amuse, a play by Victor Hugo, featuring a different hunchback (ie not Quasimodo): the nasty-minded Court Jester called Tribolet.

This is the play on which the libretto of the opera Rigoletto was based. I'm reading it because I have just been cast to sing in a production of Rigoletto at one of our local petit-grand-opera companies.

The title of Victor Hugo's play is perhaps best translated as "The King Fools Around".

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Good luck with your singing, but I have a hunch you'll do fine.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Ouch! And I see I misspelled Triboulet's name. There's a yew in it, yew know.

[bernard11]

Your part?

Sparafucile, perhaps?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I wish. Sparafucile has a great line, which translates to “What are you talking about? I can’t murder my client. I’m not a con-man; I’m a hit-man!” But that part is likely beyond my power – too big for me, too long, too bewildering, and too athletic. I hope one day to sing Monterone, but it looks like there’s several people in this company better than me going for that part. I’ll be happy if they give me Count Ceprano. Ceprano is a great character – just as hostile and nasty as Monterone but in a sneaky way, not an overt way. (I love playing hostile, nasty characters! I’ve sung him once before, before COVID, in a concert-only, piano-only student-level gig.)

In the play “Le Roi s’Amuse” (Victor Hugo, the basis of the libretto) the stage directions specify that the Ceprano character (who is called “M. De Cossé”) is very old and fat, and the Rigoletto character (“Triboulet”) keeps joking that he’s afraid his hump will migrate downward and round to the front of his body and then he (Triboulet) will look just like De Cossé which would be worse than he looks already with his hump and his stoop.

There’s also Monterone’s prison guard (the score calls him an “usher”), a one-line part (“Schiudete: ire al carcere Monteron dee!” which is just about right for my level.. But I’ll probably end up just singing in the chorus, which is the main thing for me anyway. Rigoletto has such great choruses, including the off-stage humming/wind-effects in the storm-scene near the end.

[Ben_]

Democrat Governor of New York Kathy Hochul Says Trump was right about the border all along:

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1704866388345503988

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The *New York* border.

[Ben_]

This shows a new long term way for red states to solve their problems. Instead of spending money on programs, spend money to send the people who cause the problems to blue states .

Dem leaders will be forced by circumstance to stop making up false, self righteous narratives. Dealing with reality is a way for Dems to grow up and finally become adults with adult understanding of the world. Long term policy thereby becomes less about putting on a fanciful show and more about solving and eventually preventing problems in reality.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yup.

Homeless people. Felons upon release. Democrats.

[Ben_]

It could be expanded well beyond that. Anyone on welfare or disability could be offered a few months worth of bonus to go and continue to live in a blue state.

Long term, after Democrats finally learn what everyone else already knew a long time ago, we might end up with meaningful national work requirements and fewer people living on welfare for multiple years.

[Nige]

The utter savagery towards poor people while railing about elites is characteristic.

[Nige]

'spend money to send the people who cause the problems to blue states .'

What, are Republicans going to vote themselves traxpayer funds to take city breaks?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Wouldn't the blue states -- remember, they are the states with educated, reasoning citizens rather than ignorant, superstitious clingers -- respond by refusing to subsidize the gape-jaws any longer?

[Frank Drackman]

I know you've been in "Stir" for a while "Coach", but you obviously haven't been to any "Blue" states lately. Last time I was in D.C. it could have been a Tarzan movie from the 30's.

Frank

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

It can go the other way too. Florida likes loose gun laws? Florida thinks your constitutional right to own a gun shouldn't depend on a clean criminal record? OK. When criminals finish serving their prison time for crimes involving guns, NY will deport them to Florida and release them there. So they can commit their future gun-crimes there.

[Ben_]

They might not last too long if they decide to commit crimes again. Lots of armed Floridians and motivated law enforcement.

[Ben_]

Here’s another example of a huge juvenile leftist finally growing up to become like an adult at the age of 58:

https://x.com/Benioff/status/1704702426534875288

[David Nieporent]

The word is "Democratic," you functional illiterate.

[not guilty]

Folks who kvetch about the "Democrat Party" apparently cannot resist the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy.

[Life of Brian]

In yesterday's news that should have been but somehow wasn't, the man with the nuclear launch codes told exactly the same story with the same key points twice just a few minutes apart at a campaign event. From the official White House transcript:

But then along came, in August of 2017, Charlottesville, Virginia. You remember those folks walking out of the fields literally carrying torches, with Nazi swastikas, holding them forward, singing the same vicious, anti-Semitic bile — the same exact bile — bile that was sung in — in Germany in the early ‘30s. And a young woman was killed. A young woman was killed.

And this was — and I re- — you may remember it. There was a consequential piece of business going on. And the former guy was asked, “What do you think would happen?” He was the sitting president. And he said, “I thought there were some very fine people on both sides.”

And I mean this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, that’s when I decided I — I was going to run again.

* * *

You know, you may remember that, you know, those folks from Charlottesville, as they came out of the fields and carrying those swastikas, and remember the ones with the torches and the Ku — accompanied by the Ku Klux Klan. And in addition to that, they had — there were white supremacists. Anyway, they were making the big case about how terrible this was. And a young woman was killed in the process.

And my predecessor, as I said, was asked what he thought. He said, “There are some very fine people on both sides.” Well, that kept ringing in my head.

And so, I couldn’t, quite frankly, remain silent any longer. So, I decided I would run.

There was a second event on the same day where he ran through basically the same prepared remarks but told the story only once as you might expect. He just plain got lost.

[Frank Drackman]

He's Parkinsonian Joe, he wasn't lucid before the Parkinson's, you're expecting improvement??

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

What does repeating a story have to do with Parkinson's???? (I'm an expert on Parkinson's....)

[Frank Drackman]

Then you should know about Parkinsonian Dementia (ICD 10 G31.83)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34642023/#:~:text=Cognitive%20decline%20and%20the%20gradual,motor%20component%20of%20the%20disease.

Frank

[ThePublius]

Eugene Volokh, Who Graduated From UCLA At Age 15, Is Retiring From UCLA At Age 56 To Join The Hoover Institution

Congrats!

[ThePublius]

Transcend 1TB SATA III 6Gb/s SSD230S 2.5” Solid State Drive TS1TSSD230S

$59.64 on Amazon today.

Holy Cow!

[santamonica811]

A competing product, but for PCs, is on sale for $39 today!!! (I need external drives only, unfortunately, at the moment.)

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B07Y5VDNT9/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Yogis_dad]

My U S Representative send a franked mailer with five huge lies about "Conservative Wins" in the current Congress. It would be a massive understatement to describe him as utterly shameless. The odds are good that your representative is just as malicious in his speech and actions. When the House, controlled by so-called Republicans, permits the federal government to spend 40% ($2 trillion) more than its revenue for the current fiscal year, and takes no real action to stop the collapse of our currency and our economy, the House is the enemy of our republic.

[apedad]

My bank has a service that you can check your FICO score.

Just checked and I have a 822 (max is 850).

Not bad!

Everyone should at least annually check your credit health: https://www.annualcreditreport.com/index.action

[Brett Bellmore]

Are the spammers now impersonating regular users?

[apedad]

Ha! Yeah that does read like a spam comment.

[Kazinski]

My credit is in the dumps now, it was fine last year when I bought a new house but I furnished it mostly on interest free credit, so I could defer paying most of it a year in a new tax year.

I have two houses, one free and clear, one with a 5.5% mortgage and maybe about 15-20% equity.

Credit is to be used, but not abused, and when my credit is high enough then I take full advantage of interest free "introductory offers" if they are long enough. And I don't worry if my credit score drops while I'm taking advantage.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wonder what Uncle Sam's score is?
We've no passed the $33trillion debt mark and still climbing.

[Martinned]

Fortunately we all understand that the government is not analogous to a household, when it comes to spending and borrowing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks lul.

[Frank Drackman]

you can have a higher score than 850.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
right-wing blog has
operated for

ZERO (0)

days without publishing
a vile racial slur; it has
published racial slurs
on at least

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
28 different discussions,
not 28 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.

(It appears UCLA finally had its fill.)

Against the background of this blog’s stale and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A commenter quoted you using the word.

Explain the principle under which you thought saying it was appropriate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was pointing out that a bigot who habitually uses vile racial slurs censored the use of terms such as "sl_ck-j_wed" and "p_ssy" and "c-p succ_r" (although only when used to described conservatives).

I should have avoided quoting the full term, but cowardly, hypocritical, right-wing bigots bother me so much it sometimes diminishes my judgment slightly.

How do you explain your bigotry . . . or the path you have chosen as you await replacement by your betters?

What do you think of UCLA's campus beautification project?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“cowardly, hypocritical, right-wing bigots bother me so much it sometimes diminishes my judgment slightly”

Slightly diminished judgment, as in “We find the defendant not guilty by reason of slightly diminished judgment.”

[Frank Drackman]

Like I will about your funeral. I won't attend but I'll approve.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did any of you hayseeds notice the question I began to ask here about six weeks ago?

What was it?

How much longer do you antisocial losers expect UCLA to continue to put up with a slur-happy employee and his bigot-ridden blog?

The wages of right-wing bigotry in modern America . . .

[Bored Lawyer]

Waaaah! No one is paying attention to RAK and his rantings!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

UCLA seems to have been attentive.

Which non-clinger law school will be next?

Georgetown?

[Frank Drackman]

OK "Coach" I realize your college "Experience" consisted of teaching lineman to "Squat", but Georgetown's a Jesuit University. Thats as fucking Klinging as you can get. Also about as Sandusky as you can get.

Frank "Our Father who can beat anyone in this house at Dominoes...."

[Life of Brian]

Presumably Artie wants us to think he had some sort of influence in Eugene moving on, without actually having the cajones to claim it directly. Very cute.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No influence. No influence sought. No influence desired. No influence possessed.

Merely a prediction.

Not a bad prediction.

[Sarcastr0]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6j7PnKX0AE9Hnb?format=jpg&name=360x360

[Krayt]

Expect autoplay video overlay ads to get worse, as byte plans are largely unlimited now.

For that matter, expect ISPs to accept payment for the honor of making sure video overlay ads play quickly and without stutter.

This has been this way for awhile on the desktop, and hence home wifi for phones but wireless phone unlimited high speed data plans out in the wild are somewhat new.

Reason, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it feels like sketchy scammery.

[Bored Lawyer]

So the Judicial Council of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided to suspend one judge, Pauline Newman, who is 96, from new cases, apparently for mental incompetency, or refusing to submit to mental tests. You can read the details here: https://patentlyo.com/media/2023/09/September-20-2023-Judicial-Council-Order.pdf

Why is this Constitutional? She is an Article III judge, nominated by the President (Reagan) and confirmed by the Senate. The Constitution provides for impeachment and trial to remove an Article III judge. So by what authority does the Judicial Council suspend her?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You could try reading the first two pages of the pdf you linked, perhaps?

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously? The table of contents of a 375 page document?
This whole affair sounds like something out of Soviet Russia.
Submit to the test because if you don't it proves our point.

[Magister]

So by what authority does the Judicial Council suspend her?

You could try reading the first two pages of the pdf you linked, perhaps?

Seriously? The table of contents of a 375 page document?

The pages numbered 1 and 2, which are the 4th and 5th pages of the PDF, referenced in the table of contents as "Summary":

Unfortunately, earlier this year mounting evidence raised increasing doubts about whether Judge Newman is still fit to perform the duties of her office. When such evidence is brought to the attention of the Chief Judge and the Judicial Council, there is an obligation to investigate the matter under the procedures established by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (Act)—the self-policing mechanism Congress created to address (among other things) judges who may no longer be fit for judicial office.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thank you, Magister.

Yes, those pages 1 and 2.

[Martinned]

I can think of a reason, but it's a fair enough question that I don't think the order answers. Which is particularly troubling given that the annexes show that the issue was raised by Judge Newman's counsel at least at some stage of the proceedings.

[apedad]

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 states:

(3) Limitations on judicial council regarding removals.—
(A) Article III judges.—Under no circumstances may the judicial council order removal from office of any judge appointed to hold office during good behavior

The council's decision is merely, "Judge Newman shall not be permitted to hear any cases, at the panel or en banc level, for a period of one year . . . . "

So well within their authority.

[Bored Lawyer]

It is the Constitutionality of that which I am questioning. What they did is the functional equivalent of removal. True, the judge will still get her salary, and a fancy chambers she can go into to twiddle her thumbs for a year. But as far as I am concerned, those are trivial differences from removal, which the Constitution assigns to Congress.
If I were her lawyer, I would seek SCOTUS review of this.

[David Nieporent]

But as far as I am concerned, those are trivial differences from removal, which the Constitution assigns to Congress.

The Constitution does not assign to Congress the removal of officeholders for disability.

[Bored Lawyer]

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

The Constitution says they have a right to their office. Nothing about a council of judges removing them for any reason at all. There is removal by impeachment. Perhaps you can argue over whether disability fits into "good behavior." If yes, it's up to Congress. If not, then NO ONE has authority to remove them, other than their own conscience and principles.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"If yes, it's up to Congress."

You mean this: The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980

?

Looks like Congress handled it.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Constitution does not say they can delegate their impeachment and removal powers to a council of judges. It says there needs to be impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. That presumes a trial-like process by the politically accountable of government.
But you know that, and engaged in deliberate and irrelevant snark.

Would you be OK with a law that says Congress sets up a "presidential disability committee" that can demand the president take mental tests, and if he refuses, then the committee can order him removed from office (or power, he would still get his salary)? That's the equivalent of what happened here.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“It says there needs to be impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.”

No, it does not say that is the only way to remove an Article III Judge. It says that those officers “shall be removed” for having been impeached and convicted of various acts.

In cases of impeachment, upon conviction, that specific punishment is mandated.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I can't edit, so:

Yes, I recognize there has been, is, and will continue to be disagreement on how "shall be removed" is to be interpreted.

In any event, she has not been 'removed' from office. Like I said below, instead of griping about it, why don't you spend some time and read some of the evidence.

You're dying on a hill over a Judge who is unfit to serve, and refuses to cooperate with the investigation at all.

[David Nieporent]

The Constitution does not say they can delegate their impeachment and removal powers to a council of judges. It says there needs to be impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. That presumes a trial-like process by the politically accountable of government.

You can't be half a pedant. If you're going to say, "That isn't expressly in the constitution," then you can't go around pretending that she was "impeached and removed" from office. She wasn't. She's just not having cases assigned to her. Which is well within the powers of the judiciary to decide, constitutionally and statutorily.

[Mr. Bumble]

The equivalent of NYC school's rubber rooms for teachers that can't be fired.

[Life of Brian]

If you’re going to say, “That isn’t expressly in the constitution,” then you can’t go around pretending that she was “impeached and removed” from office. She wasn’t. She’s just not having cases assigned to her.

I'm sure the authors of the Constitution clearly had in mind at the time they wrote those words that a judge would someday hear only cases directly assigned by some upstream entity, and clearly saw the shutting off of such a spigot of assigned cases -- so that the judge can't function as a judge -- as completely different than removal from office altogether.

Bumble has it right: it's a contrived rubber room workaround. My guess is that they're banking on her either dying or just giving up and stepping down sometime in this 1-year period -- at which point they'll declare their hands to be clean.

[David Nieporent]

Um, all judges hear only cases assigned by "some upstream entity." Do you think the constitution specifies that cases must be randomly assigned to judges?

[Life of Brian]

Today? Of course, but so what? Back at the time those words were penned? You've got some 'splainin to do, Lucy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like someone is pushing to create an opening in that Circuit.

[Bored Lawyer]

Some claim this is motivated by judges who dislike her opinions. Others claim she really is past it, and has been acting erratically. I am not in a position to tell who is correct. But it lends itself to significant abuse if a group of judges on a court can remove one of them.

What if the conservative wing of SCOTUS did that to one of the sitting justices from the liberal wing? The howling you would hear from that would be heard from Washington to Anchorage.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why don't you try reading some of the document and form an informed opinion on the matter?

Quite a bit of evidence that she is not conforming with any notion of "Good Behavior."

[Mr. Bumble]

Then that would be grounds for impeachment as provided in the Constitution.

[David Nieporent]

1) The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 doesn't apply to the Supreme Court.

2) The Supreme Court effectively did do what you gasp at in the case of William O Douglas; they all agreed that he was no longer mentally fit to be on the bench, and that they would not let him be the deciding vote in any case. If he would be the 5 in a 5-4 case, they agreed they would hold the case over until he was gone.

[grb]

Let’s do another work of architecture : St. Ignatius Chapel by Steven Holl, located on the Seattle University campus. (link below)

This is a little jewel of a building, starting with its rigorous builder’s logic: The walls are utilitarian tilt-up concrete (a type of construction most typical with warehouses) but these interlock like puzzle-pieces to form glazed openings and are finished with a rich ochre stucco.

The roof framing is by steel tubes, forming a series of irregular vaults over the mostly-open rectilinear plan, each twisted in a different direction to catch an angle of sunlight. And inside the vaults are finished with a luscious plaster, raked so the light flows across the arched ceilings almost like a hand’s caress.

Everywhere there are fine craftsman’s details, from the hand-blown glass lighting fixtures, to organic bronze caps over the tilt-up lift points. Many skylights are in translucent colors that glows inwardly during the day and light the chapel like a lantern at night. It’s a truly sweet building I made sure to see while visiting Seattle. The only objection I ever heard was someone claiming it was too beautiful and rich a space for God, though God alone help that man if he ever worshiped in a late-Baroque church of Bavarian Germany or Austria. My guess is God gets along just fine with beauty.

https://www.stevenholl.com/project/st-ignatius-chapel/

[Noscitur a sociis]

As with your last example, not only do I think this building looks terrible, I’m at a loss to see how anyone doesn’t think it looks terrible.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's pretty hideous.

[grb]

Here’s the funny thing: I’m not trying to stack the deck. It would be both mischievous and easy to pick something stunningly original and beautiful knowing it would get incomprehension and jeers in return. But I’m trying to give you guys a fighting chance.

Casa Malaparte should have worked, since it’s universally acknowledged a wonder. Hell, you don’t have Brigette Bardot, Kate Moss and Emma Stone vie to languidly saunter thru your structure without underlying cause. But all I got was one earnest but quirky response and two MAGA “I ain’t fallin for that high fallutin stuff” reactions.

Got to try harder I guess…

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you considered the possibility that these things are getting acknowledged as wonders because the people doing the acknowledging are jaded, and no longer like buildings people would actually want to inhabit and/or look at every day?

Kind of like there's a growing disconnect between the movies the critics like, and the movies people will actually pay to watch?

Architects like Frank Lloyd Wright designed buildings that were striking AND that people enjoyed living in.

Falling Water
Auldbrass Plantation

Granted, he wasn't a great engineer, his roofs leaked and his concrete cracked, but he understood that buildings were machines for living in, not just pieces of abstract art.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Have you considered the possibility that these things are getting acknowledged as wonders because the people doing the acknowledging are jaded, and no longer like buildings people would actually want to inhabit and/or look at every day?”

Not a chance, Brett. Most people would give their right (insert body part here) to live in the Capri villa. I don’t have the slightest clue why you can’t see what’s there to be seen.

That said, the FLW buildings you list are both wonderful and gloriously redeem your judgement. I’ve been to Fallingwater and have a massive book on Auldbrass near the top of my reading pile. Three points:

(1) Yep, Frank’s buildings leaked. I know this is is because I renovated one down in Florida. One of the high points of my (endless) career.

(2) Try losing the empty clichés, willya? The architect responsible for the “machines for living” shtick was one of the most artsy-fartsy poetical extravagant guys in the early canon.

(3) The client for Fallingwater was Pittsburg retail tycoon Edgar J Kaufmann. A decade after the Pennsylvania building by Wright, he commissioned a second residence in the California desert by Richard Neutra (a decision FLW never forgave – the man held a grudge). Hopefully you can see the second house is brilliant like the first. Remember : The field of Architecture contains multitudes!

https://www.rostarchitects.com/articles/2018/12/29/five-things-you-should-know-about-the-kaufmann-desert-house

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Granted, he wasn’t a great engineer”

FLW was actually a pretty good engineer, at least structurally. Granted, most of the work involved people in his project teams doing the engineering, but not all. One of his first jobs as a young man was a windmill for his aunts, and it was a gem of innovative wood framing. Per the smug autobiographical account, FLW’s kinfolk used to go out after every storm to peer up, convinced the damn thing would be blown over.

And that triumph was repeated several times during his life. The Imperial Hotel in Tokyo was celebrated for surviving the great earthquake in ’23. When building officials in Racine rejected his sleekly elegant mushroom column for the Johnson Wax Headquarters, Wright built a braced mock-up and piled five times the required load and it still stood standing.

Even Fallingwater. Kaufmann hired structural engineers to review the design of the terrace reinforcing. They recommended Wright build piers under the slab to relieve the load & EJ insisted he do so. Wright built them, but later led Kaufmann under the slab to show he had left a gap between T.O. Pier and B.O. Slab.

That said, 75yrs later the terrace slab needed massive renovation work using post-tensioned steel to prevent structural problems. So there’s that!

[Martinned]

Why does Seattle University have a Jesuit chapel?

[David Nieporent]

Because Seattle University is a Jesuit college? Which you could have figured out for yourself by a simple google.

[Martinned]

That is fair. I stand corrected.

[Mr. Bumble]

You've been off your game lately.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, but why does Notre Dame have a mural of Jesus? why not a Hunchback??

[Mr. Bumble]

Better yet, Esmeralda.

[not guilty]

Rolling Stone reports that Donald Trump has been asking his lawyers and other people close to him questions about what a prison sentence would look like for him, including whether authorities would make him wear “one of those jumpsuits” in prison. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-prison-conviction-trial-1234828231/

Interesting stuff. Bring on the schadenfreude.

[grb]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/doonesbury/strip/archive/2019/09/15

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If things occur in threes, which clinger will complete the set, joining Rupert Murdoch and Eugene Volokh?

[Brett Bellmore]

For Constitution day, prominent lefty member of Congress discusses which parts of the Constitution can be disposed of.

Constitution Day conversation with Jamie Raskin: Preserving democracy today and tomorrow

Isn't hard to guess which amendments he has in the crosshairs: The 1st and 2nd.

[apedad]

(AUDIBLE GASP!!!)

A politician gave an interview and stated their position on topics and issues that align with their personal, party's, and majority constituents' opinions and beliefs.

Thanks for the shocking news Brett!

[Michael P]

It's always worth pointing out when totalitarians pretending to be sensible take off their masks. Leftists may have subverted our public education system and other institutions, but it's not too late to change course.

[apedad]

You've been losing for 200+ years.

Why do you think the course will change now?

[Brett Bellmore]

We haven't actually been losing on everything. You guys are actually quite irate about the fact that we've been winning on guns for decades now.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which will make the eventual imposition of adult supervision on gun nuttery so much sweeter. I hope hunting on public lands is criminalized as part of the rebuke, although I still want the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home survives the predictable, sweet backlash arranged by better Americans.

[Frank Drackman]

You sure about that Jerry? I mean “Coach”? I mean “Reverend” Sandusky?? Pretty sure you won’t be getting approval for one anytime soon at your current digs at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx but given the recent inability of PA “Correctional” Facilities to keep prisoners in the Facility, maybe you will need one. A tip, don’t buy one from a Dealer. Lying on the Form 4473? A Felony. Like you’d give a (redacted)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

It's telling your argument is 'he's talking about change. Change is bad.'
YOU, Brett, talk about changing the Constitution on here all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.

Raskin was a Constitutional scholar before this. I think First Amendment. Blind obedience to the Constitution is not how it should be. As you well know.

Lets get into the substance, as you didn't bother with because your ideology made you think an appeal to tradition would be sufficient.

This insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment is an absolute fraud easily debunked by constitutional text, structure and history.

Far from making violent insurrection an individual or collective right, the entire architecture of our structural Constitution is designed to oppose and defeat violent insurrection.

I also believe that we must get rid of unaccountable dark money in our politics and reverse the blow that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority dealt to our democracy in Citizens United v. FEC.

Brettlaw is not something everyone inherently agrees with. I agree with you on CU, but your 'if you don't agree with me you want to tear up the First Amendment' is not conducive to conversation. You come in that hot, all you're good for is ranting.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying change is bad, I'm saying the changes he wants are bad.

On the 2nd amendment, for instance, while I think he's wrong about the insurrectionary theory of the 2nd amendment, (It was written by actual insurrectionists, remember!) he hardly stops there. There isn't a gun control proposal out there that Raskin is opposed to. He takes the position that the only type of gun protected by the 2nd amendment are the ones that were available at the time of its ratification. He's referred to "so called 2nd amendment rights". The guy is about as radical as it gets on gun control short of demanding that the NRA's headquarters be nuked.

On the 1st amendment he co-sponsored a proposed amendment to gut the 1st amendment. It would strip 1st amendment protection from every corporation, and every single newspaper in the country is a corporation.

The guy is no moderate, he's one of the most extreme members of Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. This: "For Constitution day, prominent lefty member of Congress discusses which parts of the Constitution can be disposed of" is saying change is bad.

You once again fail to actually engage Raskin's arguments, preferring to just say 'he does a lot of anti gun stuff.'

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 says that Congress has the power to “call forth” the Militias from the states to “repel invasions and suppress insurrections.” The Republican Guaranty Clause in Article IV says that Congress must not only guarantee to the people of the states a republican form of government but must assist them in putting down “domestic violence.” The Treason Clause, the only place in the Constitution where a crime is defined, says that treason consists only of “levying War against” the Union or “adhering to” the enemies thereof. Under Article I, Congress has the power to discipline and regulate the “well-regulated” Militias organized in the states, and no rump group like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers can simply declare itself a Militia.

Perhaps most strikingly, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution but has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to the perpetrators shall never be allowed to hold federal or state office again.

Is it possible that the Second Amendment in invisible ink establishes a right to overthrow the government while the rest of the Constitution creates an overwhelming duty to suppress insurrection and oppose domestic violence? It is not.
Speak to that, not just complaining about guns.

As for your 1A issue, saying you can regulate spending in elections is not 'gutting the 1A.' You can think it's infringing on important speech, but the 1A would still be very much in force in most of the ways it currently is.
Gutting the 1A melodrama is ridiculous and wrong no matter what you think of CU's correctness.

[Mr. Bumble]

Back to your old, long form BS. Kudos.

[Brett Bellmore]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

"section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

“ section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

“ section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”."

Bottom line? Only natural persons would retain any 1st amendment right to spend any money influencing elections. Is the NRA a natural person? The ACLU? The New York Times?

No. All organized political speech would lose it's protection with this amendment. That, in fact, was the government's position in litigating CU, which this amendment sought to reverse: That political speech had no protection if you spent money on it being heard. The government literally argued that it could ban books if they mentioned candidates for public office!

[Sarcastr0]

All organized political speech would lose it’s protection with this amendment.
Maybe you're right. I will admit the language allows such an interpretation, even if the intent seems to be otherwise. I wouldn't vote for this amendment.
But even assuming widespread interpretation and appropriate legislation like that, it's wrong to call this 'gutting the First Amendment.' 1A contains liberties well beyond the narrow ambit of organized political speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

If that hadn't been the intent, they could have drafted it to preclude that interpretation. But every time they write one of these, it's always written to permit doing that.

"But even assuming widespread interpretation and appropriate legislation like that, it’s wrong to call this ‘gutting the First Amendment.’ 1A contains liberties well beyond the narrow ambit of organized political speech."

You do know that if you gut a fish, most of it's still there, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems to me they tried a number of ways to try and preclude that interpretation, in all 3 sections.
But it's hard to disaggregate. Your reading of bad faith is expected but flies in the face of 'reasonable limits' and 'corporations or other artificial entities created by law' and all of section 3.

You do know that if you gut a fish, most of it’s still there, right?
Yeah but the fish is dead. The 1A would not be dead, take off the drama pants.

[Frank Drackman]

Fortunately, Raskin has gotten the Celestial Recall, just a matter of name. Unfortunately, he'll be "Replaced" by someone even worse.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

A least he lost the durag.

[Brett Bellmore]

Latest Rasmussen poll: Is America Becoming a Police State?

72% think yes. Including 67% of Democrats.

Which party is responsible? 48% say the Democrats, 41% say the Republicans. (I'd say both, if that answer were permitted.)

And, is the FBI a danger to American freedom? 50% yes, 45% no.

[Sarcastr0]

It's Rasmussen.

[Mr. Bumble]

Rasmussen, oh noes!

[Brett Bellmore]

If he didn't have epistemic closure, he'd have no epistemology at all...

[Sarcastr0]

I was a bit facile, but Rasmussen is where you go if you want to confirm your conservative bias, not if you want an actually accurate poll.

From ze wiki:

According to Nate Silver's assessment of 2010 pollster accuracy, the 105 polls released in senatorial and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points. Nate Silver described Rasmussen as "biased and inaccurate", saying Rasmussen "badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates."

In 2018, Rasmussen Reports predicted that Republicans would win the generic ballot by 1 percentage point while the actual election results had Democrats winning by nearly 9 percentage points. This error of nearly 10 percentage points was the largest polling error out of major firms who polled the national generic ballot. Rasmussen pushed back against critics after their miss, claiming that "the midterm result was relatively poor for Democrats compared to other midterms" despite the Democrats having scored a historic margin in the popular vote.

Four months after the 2022 election for Arizona governor – which Kari Lake lost and unsuccessfully attempted to overturn in court – Rasmussen claimed there had been a 92% voter turnout rate and an 8-point victory for Lake. They based this conclusion on polling 1,001 people in Arizona. Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen Reports’ lead pollster, said on Steve Bannon's show that the poll suggested election "irregularities and cheating".

[Brett Bellmore]

And yet he continued to use them, anyway, because while they exhibited bias, if he'd eliminated every poll that was true of he wouldn't have any left, and it was a predictable enough bias to correct for.

They're not a garbage pollster, they're "just" biased. Like the pollster's you'd rely on, only in a different direction.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't agree with Nate's rationale there, he's gone on about it and it makes no sense.

They’re not a garbage pollster, they’re “just” biased
There are indeed worse pollsters, but that's damming with faint praise.

You said didn't like Rasmussen because it told me stuff I didn't want to hear. No, I don't like them because they are inaccurate.

YOU are the one who is turning off your critical thinking to put forth something you want to hear, ignoring the credibility of the source.

Inaccurate but not totally worthless and yet you are offering this poll, by itself, as truth. That is writing a check Rasmussen can't cash these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you think his explanation makes no sense, you simply don't understand the topic.

Suppose I've got a compass that is always pointing precisely 15 degrees to the left of due North. Always!

Should I chuck it? No, because all I need to do to get a reliable heading off it is to add 15 degrees!

Bias is like that. You can correct for it. A garbage pollster, OTOH, would just be all over the map, you couldn't tell anything from their results.

Rasmussen is biased. Not as much as you'd like to think, but biased. That's not the same thing as being worthless.

Now, do you have a competing poll on the police state topic from a pollster you like? Or are we just not supposed to know what public opinion is, if the people you like don't want to know?

[David Nieporent]

When Nate was running 538, his methodology was to (a) correct for systemic bias in the way Brett describes; (b) give low weighting in the polling aggregations to haphazardly inaccurate pollsters; and (c) exclude entirely the pollsters he thought were actually lying — e.g. fabricating data rather than polling people. He only did that last with a couple of pollsters over the many years he was running 538.

[Sarcastr0]

Right - I think 538 didn't do very well with partisan polling orgs by keeping them in the mix as though they somehow cancelled out or added data if properly weighted.
It is a hard subject, and I fully believe I may have the wrong end of the stick on it, but smart stats people both agree and disagree with 538's aggregation practices through the years.

[Sarcastr0]

Rasmussen does not have a constant systematic bias as in your analogy. It has a bias which by the nature of the biz will be unclear poll by poll, and is thus inaccurate.
I'm not saying it has no value, taken with that understanding, but you are offering it for unvarnished truth and you can't do that with Rasmussen these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, produce another poll on the topic, then. I'm not going to agree to be ignorant of public opinion on a question just because you don't like anybody who actually cares to ask about that topic.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not how this works. You don't get to come in with a crap source and say the presumption is now that it's right.

[apedad]

‘Failed to appoint a special master’: Attorney behind legal memo to overturn 2020 election asks RICO judge to bar email evidence

Ken Chesebro, a lawyer who drafted a legal memo asserting that the 2020 election could be overturned by then-Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, on Thursday attacked the Georgia racketeering (RICO) case he faces by calling the warrant “defective” and seeking to exclude email evidence he maintains was illegally seized.

Why? Because a special master was never appointed to sift through the materials for potentially privileged communications.

Chesebro claimed the search warrant the Fulton County District Attorney’s office served on Microsoft for his emails was in violation of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) § 17-5-32(c), a statute that outlines rules for issuing a search warrant “for any documentary evidence in the possession or custody of an attorney who is not a criminal suspect.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/failed-to-appoint-a-special-master-attorney-behind-legal-memo-to-overturn-2020-election-asks-rico-judge-to-bar-email-evidence/

Seems like whether a search warrant is defective should be an easy issue to decide; either the DA's office was compliant or not.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is the document privileged? I am guessing not. In which case, could this problem not be cured by having the trial judge review it for that purpose.

Put differently, a trial court only has to worry about the documents the prosecution is planning to use, not those it isn't. If they took other documents that are privileged, and they are not using it, I don't see the harm in it. (When I worked in the US attorney's office on summer in law school, we had something like that. Defendant complained about a search of his car. But the search found no helpful evidence, so we just said, since we are planning on using nothing, the issue is moot.)

Does Georgia have a harmless error doctrine for violations like this?

[Brett Bellmore]

How do we know any error would have been harmless? There IS such a thing as parallel construction, after all.

[David Nieporent]

There is a term that Brett heard and now waves about as a conspiracy theory all the time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Parallel construction

It can very much matter that law enforcement get information they're not legally entitled to. The fact that they can't use it directly in court doesn't mean for a second that they can't use it indirectly, concealing its use from the court.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I still figure Chesebro to be a leading candidate to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for leniency (minor, ideally, unless his assistance is a show-stopper) at sentencing.

[David Nieporent]

Put differently, a trial court only has to worry about the documents the prosecution is planning to use, not those it isn’t. If they took other documents that are privileged, and they are not using it, I don’t see the harm in it.

That's not quite right. Or, at least, it depends on what the meaning of "is" "use" is. It's not just introducing privileged documents into evidence that's problematic; it's relying on information gleaned from those documents as well.

But since Chesbro is a criminal suspect, I don't even understand his argument as summarized above.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm confused (as usual) but didn't S-S-S-S-S-Senator S-S-S-S-Stuttering John Fetterman's physician give him a "Clean Bill of Health" last year ??
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2022/10/19/fettermans-doctor-says-hes-fit-to-serve-in-senate-after-stroke/?sh=602db7691413
Not even a year later and he can't "Process Language", Dress like an Adult, and has spent more time on the Walter Reed Psychiatric (How un-Woke of me, "Behavorial Health") Ward, than on the Senate Floor,
Dude can grow a great Porn-Stache though, I'm jealous.
But what's with the Babe Ruth little girl legs?? I'd be happy if he'd just wear long pants.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Nudging the Justices to retire after 18 years

The one thing you can rely upon about nudges: They always turn out to be shoves, instead, because the people proposing them don't mean to let them not work. In this case? An 83% reduction in pension if you don't retired from the Court when they demand.

Man, they really are determined not to let the conservative Court last a natural duration, aren't they?

[Magister]

What is the natural duration for conservative control of the Supreme Court? If it's Justices leaving the court due to death or retirement, then it should have ended in 2016 with Garland replacing Scalia. Retirement is less likely to cause any change, since partisan justices choose partisan timings unless their health forces it otherwise.

Now I would say the natural duration will be until Democrats gain enough control of the Senate to expand the Supreme Court. Random panels of a larger Supreme Court, with occasional en banc hearings to rein in more extreme results on either side, would end a lot of the game playing that goes on now.