Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Senator Robert Menendez is entitled to a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Whether he is fit to continue serving in the Senate is a different matter. I believe he should resign promptly.

Three term Rep. Andy Kim has announced his intention to run for the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2024. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/andy-kim-senate-menendez-00117799 New Jersey last elected a Republican U. S. Senator in 1972. Here's hoping that Menendez's legal troubles don't lead to that happening again next year.

[Krychek_2]

It speaks volumes that his fellow Democrats -- Governor Murphy, Senator Booker, Majority Leader Schumer -- are demanding that he resign, in contrast to Republicans who don't see the problem with nominating someone under 91 criminal indictments for the presidency.

[not guilty]

The controlling principle seems to be IOKIYAR.

[Don Nico]

Seems that Mr. Menendez is adamant that he will not resign. So you are stuck with him.

[not guilty]

Yes, stuck with him for the time being. His term ends in about fifteen months. I hope he does not survive a primary.

I'm speculating here, but I wonder if Senator and Mrs. Melendez paid income taxes on the cash, gold, car and other goodies. If not, that may provide an opportunity to make a deal to resolve the pending charges and plead to tax related offenses.

[David Nieporent]

Seems that Mr. Menendez is adamant that he will not resign. So you are stuck with him.

That's not actually true; the Senate can expel him.

[Don Nico]

Sure, David. In principle that is true. What is the probability of that?

[Martinned]

See also: Al Franken.

[Mr. Bumble]

Al Franken was not under indictment but was thrown under the bus in service to the "me too" movement.

[David Welker]

He wasn't thrown under the bus at all. He should have resigned and he did resign for his bad behavior.

The accusations against Franken was that he forcible kissed Leeann Tweeden and later groped her breasts while she was sleeping. Other women came forward later and made similar accusations.

Mr. Franken is not the victim of any movement, but instead of his own uncontrolled impulses that harmed others.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rumor had it that Al Franken had done far worse than pretending to grope the sleeping colleague on the airplane.

[myself]

Except her story really doesn't check out:

1) The were celebrities in a war zone, they were kept under 24/7 guard and would never have been alone in the circumstance.
2) The script she claims he wrote explicitly to harass her was from 2003 and had been performed multiple times.
3) The "groping" photo (which was inappropriate since he was asleep) was a direct reference to a groping scene they'd done the night before. Something she left out.
4) The radio station spent weeks preparing the story, never did any fact checking nor did they seek Franken's comment, and then they dumped it story Thursday before thanksgiving. A pretty obvious hit piece tactic.
5) She was a conservative reporter working for the conservative news station that published the story.

So yeah, that story really does not hold up. That's not to say she fabricated, memories are imperfect and she could have conflated some things with the script, and other things could be partially true. Franken was apparently a "social lip kisser". But otherwise when the allegations are true there's usually a lot more people who come forward with similar stories. Despite the initial condemnations of him nothing of that sort came forward.

Realistically, #metoo was claiming a lot of big-name Conservatives so Conservatives saw (and took) the opportunity to take out a major Trump critic and they did.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dems were among those calling for his resignation thus my comment about "throwing him under the bus".

[myself]

Oh, he was definitely thrown under the bus.

Conservatives were getting hammered with #metoo and were consistently circling the wagon around whomever was implicated (Moore, Trump, etc). So if a prominent Liberal politician got implicated on dubious charges Liberals would either need to throw them under the bus or defend them and get called hypocrites.

So Conservatives pulled the trigger against Franken and he got thrown under the bus. They tried it a second time against Biden but the Franken allegations were already falling apart and the evidence against Biden was even weaker so they held their ground.

It's really too bad about Franken, he always claimed to have zero interest in running for President but if he changed his mind he really would have been the perfect candidate for 2020.

[Gandydancer]

1) The allegation wasn't that they were alone, the allegation is that he tried to wet kiss her in a "rehearsal".
2) That she was wrong that he wrote the him-kissing-her script in order to kiss her tells you exactly nothing about whether he tried to wet kiss her when the opportunity arose.
3)Why the scare quotes around "groping"?
4) So?
5) So?
6) "when the allegations are true there’s usually a lot more people who come forward with similar stories." Indeed they did. Read your own link.
7)"Realistically, #metoo was claiming a lot of big-name Conservatives so Conservatives saw (and took) the opportunity to take out a major Trump critic..."
Realistically, why shouldn't they? The photo (https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/2662209_111717-wpvi-al-franken-apologizes-noon-vid.jpg?w=1600) is an actual, not Photoshopped, photo. It happened. Of course the Right should hold lefties to their own standards whenever an opportunity arises to do so. But Franken resigned because Democrats pushed him out because they had a Democrat governor to replace him, unlike the previous occasion mentioned when they refused to do so because the relevant Governor was a Republican. Again, read your own damn link.

[Nige]

‘Of course the Right should hold lefties to their own standards whenever an opportunity arises to do so.’

It’s what you do when you have no standards of your own. Family values, law and order, patriotism, being the grown-ups in the room especially when it comes to the economy, all shredded as standards and principles.

[myself]

1) She described a bit of an incident, an incident that would have been witnessed by multiple soldiers. Witnesses that she never even tried to produce.
2) Him writing the skit specifically for her was a big part of the predatory narrative.
3) "Groping" was in (not scare) quotes because it wasn't actually groping. It was miming groping. The lack of physical contact is actually a pretty big deal.
4/5) Big difference between a journalistic story and a hit piece designed to look as one.
6) Indeed I already mentioned those incidents. He had a reputation as a social kisser, but that's a huge difference from the sustained predatory actions she alleged.
7) The issue with trying to take out a Trump critic is if it was a hit job and not actually based on their bad behavior. No one says the photo was in good taste, but it was an obvious joke referencing a groping scene in the sketch they had just done.

The evidence mostly against an incident she described. I suggest her memory is a big clouded and/or influenced by people framing the incident. A less charitable explanation is she found the photo, and found a way to jump-start her conservative journalistic career (while the radio station saw a similar opportunity).

I don't actually endorse the second explanation, but I bring it up because when the famous conservative man is accused it seems to be pretty standard for defenders to assume the accusers are lying for nefarious purpose.

[Martinned]

Exactly. The Democrats shoved him out while he wasn't even accused of anything criminal.

[Mr. Bumble]

You guys.
The same Dems who had no problem with Billy Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office from an intern.

[Krychek_2]

Please cite the statute that makes it a crime to get a blow job, in the Oval Office or anywhere else. It may have been boorish but it wasn't criminal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Lying under oath about it was.

[Frank Drackman]

Well besides that how was it Ill-legal?

[Krychek_2]

AL and Frank:

I was responding to Bumble's comment that Democrats are OK with "Billy Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office from an intern." He said nothing about lying under oath. So pardon me for responding to the comment Bumble actually made, rather than the comment you think he should have made.

[Gandydancer]

Not only did Bumble say nothing about Clinton lying under oath, he said nothing about illegality. You pulled that attempt to change the subject out of your ass.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump lied under oath according to the E. Jean Carrol jury, he’s now ineligible to be president. Plus he has cancer from visiting East Palestine.

[not guilty]

I don't that the Carroll jury considered whether Donald Trump lied under oath. He didn't testify, and any portions of Trump's deposition testimony offered by the Plaintiff to prove her case would not likely have been attacked by her.

[Gandydancer]

Brains-Fried is too much of an idiot to bother replying to. Even though the Carroll jury clearly implied that they believed that Trump lied (he denied groping Carroll and they chose to believe, absent any evidence that her word, that he did) how could that possible disqualify Trump from being President?

Brains-Fried is the clown who keeps asserting that the 2nd Amendment only applies in DC and the territories. Enough said.

[Nige]

Well, in a world where Republicans will vote for a rapist, obviously it's no disqualification.

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 2 hours ago
Please cite the statute that makes it a crime to get a blow job, in the Oval Office or anywhere else. It may have been boorish but it wasn’t criminal."

Basic problem with any employer / employee relationship. Absolute No - No

[Krychek_2]

Employers should not be having sex with interns, yes, but again, it's not criminal. As I repeatedly say, if you're going to what about, at least make it on point. We are talking about Menendez's criminal indictment. The blow jobs were not a crime, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Yes, the perjury was illegal, and had I been in the Senate I probably would have voted to convict him for that. But again, Bumble's original comment, to which I was responding, was strictly limited to blow jobs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, it's not criminal in and of itself, but anybody in HR would tell you that it's absurdly perilous legally, on account of the risk of it being seen as subtly coerced, or of partiality amounting to harassment of subordinates who aren't putting out.

Of course, it was a married guy cheating on his wife, but we're not supposed to care about that somehow. Or to notice that a guy who never took an oath in his life that he didn't violate was occupying an office that requires an oath to assume.

[loki13]

"Of course, it was a married guy cheating on his wife, but we’re not supposed to care about that somehow."

I mean ... do you even know how to spell irony at this point?

[bernard11]

Of course, it was a married guy cheating on his wife, but we’re not supposed to care about that somehow.

Wow. What a comment a Trump cultist. Do you own a mirror?

You see Clinton's behavior as worthy of impeachment and, presumably, removal, while Trump's is worthy of nomination and reelection.

Just amazing.

[Gandydancer]

The Trumpian equivalent, in your mind, to the denial under oath “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky” is what, exactly?

Again, Bumble wrote, “The same Dems who had no problem with Billy Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office from an intern.” No suggestion on his part that the blow-job was illegal. That’s Krychek’s attempt to deflect. Some who ought to know better fell for it.

Damn, these videos jumping in from the side to cover half the height of the page are aggravating.

[Don Nico]

[Nige]

You're adorable.

[Gandydancer]

You're even more disgusting than a Franken wet kiss.

[Nige]

Keep talking dirty to me baby.

[myself]

The 90's were different, people didn't even register that the President / Intern relationship had a problematic power dynamic.

It's very doubtful that Bill Clinton would have gotten away with the same things today.

[Gandydancer]

No, the 90's were NOT like that. How old are you?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assure you that it absolutely did come up. Quite a bit!

Maybe you've been misled about the 90's by the effort to defend him, by claiming it wasn't any big deal?

[Nige]

It was a colossal failing by the feminists who defended Clinton, but let's not pretend Republicans took some sort of stalwart stand against it.

[David Nieporent]

People in the 1990s were less likely to reflexively make silly generalizations about "power dynamics" from women's studies classes. It was Monica that pursued Bill, not the other way around.

[Nige]

Doesn't actually matter that much. She was younger and a subordinate. The best that can be said for it was that it was consensual, though that is obviously no small deal, since sexual misconduct in the workplace was often not.

[David Welker]

Forcibly kissing someone is, in fact, criminal, Martinned.

[Martinned]

You're right, I misremembered.

[Don Nico]

With #metoo we are not talking about criminal.
Of course, Trump violated badly on that score also.

[Nige]

It was about a lot of criminal stuff, as I remember, but not all.

[JasonT20]

With #metoo we are not talking about criminal.

Actually, #metoo is about criminal acts. It is just that it is often difficult at best to prosecute those crimes years later. (Weinstein is in prison, so it can happen.)

Sexual assault is different from other violent crimes in this way.

- Someone that gets mugged is not going to feel so guilty for being a victim that they avoid telling anyone, except perhaps their closest friends or loved ones, for years.
- Someone who's house was burglarized is rarely going to get police that voice skepticism directly to them that someone really did break in and steal from them.
- A liquor store clerk doesn't get robbed by someone with wealth and influence that would make them reluctant to report the crime.

I have always understood the point of #metoo to be to counter these effects so that these crimes can be investigated with the same seriousness that any other violent crime is investigated.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It is just that it is often difficult at best to prosecute those crimes years later."

Properly so, and no, sexual assault is not relevantly different.

The reason it's difficult to prosecute alleged crimes years later, is because it's difficult to prove alleged crimes years later. Really, anybody can up and say, "So and so raped me about 23 years ago, don't ask me exactly where and when, the event was so traumatic I don't recall the details and couldn't talk about it for years." But once they've done that, how do you prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt?

But that same lack of proof makes alleging long ago crimes the perfect form of smear, because it's equally difficult to prove the alleged crime didn't happen, and there's a strong norm against allowing defamation verdicts against supposed victims claiming somebody committed a crime against them, unless you can affirmatively prove that the crime was fictitious.

So you can smear somebody as a rapist or whatever, safely, all it takes is not having an attack of conscience.

[Idihax]

It's not just that. What makes sexual assault claims so hard to prove is that the act of sex is perfectly legal if both people consent.

Nobody consents to being robbed or burglarized, outside of a staged TikTok video or something stupid like that.

So in the former, you have to prove that the act occurred, AND that it wasn't consensual. In the latter, you only really have to prove the act occurred. It's a lot easier.

[Nige]

'So you can smear somebody as a rapist or whatever, safely, all it takes is not having an attack of conscience.'

'Safely.'

[JasonT20]

I isn’t a norm for not allowing defamation suits against an accuser in sex crimes, it is the normal standard that the accusation is provably false.

And I did point out how these crimes are different, yet you blew past that as you said they aren’t.

[Gandydancer]

From the New Yorker article myself links to above: " Franken could have toughed it out like New Jersey’s Democratic senator Bob Menendez, who hung on despite having been indicted on federal corruption charges, in 2015. (Democrats hadn’t demanded Menendez’s resignation, largely because New Jersey’s governor at the time was a Republican and would have appointed a Republican replacement; in Franken’s case, the Minnesota governor was a Democrat.)"

So don't give me any bullcrap about (D)s being principled in this.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the "cry wolf" phenomenon. Democrats announced before Trump first got the nomination their intention to impeach him, they started the criminal investigations before he even won the election. It was an absurdly over the top exercise in naming the man, then finding the crime, and you did it right out in the open.

Congratulations, a wolf finally showed up after five years of crying "Wolf!". How did that story go, again?

[Nige]

What are you on about? Have you completely overwritten history with your own version of events? All the investigations concerning Trump during his presidency were by Republicans.

In this version, the wolf turns up and gets the job of shepherd, the boy raises the alarm, the people ignore him, then suddenly some wolf hunters turn up and the people demand they leave the wolf alone, he still has some sheep left to eat.

[Gandydancer]

Nige: “All the investigations concerning Trump during his presidency were by Republicans.”

Was it that the impeachments of Trump were by Republicans or that the Democrats just didn’t bother doing any investigation?

[Nige]

Fair point.

[JasonT20]

Democrats announced before Trump first got the nomination their intention to impeach him...

Which Democrats did that? What did they say that the basis for impeachment would be? Was it a couple Democrats, many, those in leadership positions that could actually get articles of impeachment passed? That matters. I've found articles where people were talking about the odds that Trump would do something that was impeachable once he did take office, if he won, but that isn't what you are claiming.

...they started the criminal investigations before he even won the election.

Since the "investigate the investigators" plan came up with very little, I don't see this as saying much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?

Yeah, there was plenty of talk of impeaching him, even before he was elected.

And the push to actually do it started the moment he took office.

Took a few years to find a pretext that would pass the laugh test, of course, or rather, for Democrats to lose their senses of humor enough that the test would come up negative.

You really think Biden could have survived this level of assault unscathed?

[Sarcastr0]

You take these as a sign of universal Democratic sentiment.

Because the Dems in your head are villains from a political thriller.

It is not so.

[Don Nico]

"sign of universal Democratic sentiment."
Typical of you.
Exaggerate and then call your exaggeration false.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett: "Democrats announced before Trump first got the nomination their intention to impeach him."
Brett: "Here are some op-eds to prove my point."

Me: "That isn't sufficient to prove your point."

Don: "Why are you strawmanning Brett?"

Did you not read like 2 posts above?

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say all Democrats. But the people doing it certainly were Democrats, and by February 2017 polls showed nearly 2/3 of Democrats wanting Trump impeached, although they couldn't say what for.

[Sarcastr0]

You mean, presumably, the Democratic Party, generally. The politicians not the voters vote for impeachment after all.

Which your 2 linked op-eds have not established.

February 2017 polls showed nearly 2/3 of Democrats wanting Trump impeached
No new goalposts. 'Democrats announced before Trump first got the nomination their intention to impeach him' did not refer to voters - voters do not announce.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastro, you can't start talking about impeaching a President before he even gets the nomination, prosecuting him before he's ever elected, and not expect to have an absurdly steep threshold for getting his party to take the impeachments and prosecutions seriously. It's about as clear a case of naming the man and finding the crime as one could ask.

Even if you managed to find real crimes, that's going to have an impact.

And, yeah, dream on about your guys getting through the same level of hostile attention unscathed.

[Sarcastr0]

you can’t start talking about impeaching a President before he even gets the nomination, prosecuting him before he’s ever elected,
*no one did this*
Your nutpicking is in no way representative of the Democratic Party generally.

Your persecution complex does not count as evidence.

[Nige]

‘It’s about as clear a case of naming the man and finding the crime as one could ask.’

More like having realistic expectations about Trump, and simply saying the quiet part loud.

'And, yeah, dream on about your guys getting through the same level of hostile attention unscathed.'

Oh no hostile attention from Republicans what'll that be like?

[Sarcastr0]

And, yeah, dream on about your guys getting through the same level of hostile attention unscathed.

Your continued adherence to your axiomatic belief that the stuff Trump's in trouble for is just normal stuff for every other politician is just wacky at this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Notice how many people had to quickly turn over classified documents they weren't entitled to have, some of them dating back decades, when they went after Trump?

Yeah, I think we've got a lot of corrupt politicians in Washington, and the whole town relies on getting exactly the sort of protection that Trump stupidly didn't realize he wouldn't be getting.

[Nige]

Notice how it turned out to be possible to do that without FBI visits? And the only consequence was to launch investigations by special prosecutors? But no threats of civil war?

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's see.

Trump was raided Aug. 8th, 2022.

Biden's people 'found' the first set of documents on November 2nd. The second set some time around Dec. 20th. Third set January 12th, 2023. Fourth, on the 20th.

Pence's classified documents were found in January and February of 2023.

So they both 'found' and reported their documents AFTER they were on notice that the law was now going to be enforced. It's not like they handed them over spontaneously, it was more like they both had independent "Oh, shit!" moments when they realized they were just as guilty.

[Sarcastr0]

Hiding and lying and moving not-your-docs around and getting confederates to lie is not *at all* the same as immediately turning not-your-docs over when you find them.

Like, it's insane you even try and make the comparison. It only underscores how lawless Trump is by comparison.

[bernard11]

Brett,

You're playing your same idiotic game again. Find a few Democrats anywhere, never mind who they are or what their influence, or how much agreement there is, and suddenly "Democrats announced their intention..."

No they didn't. First, some liberal group can't "intend" to impeach Trump, any more that I can "intend" to go to the moon. In neither case do the people involved have the power to do what you claim they "intend."

[Nige]

‘So they both ‘found’ and reported their documents AFTER they were on notice that the law was now going to be enforced.’

That’s not even what happened. Nothing would have been enforced if Trump hadn’t acted the maggot.

'they were just as guilty.'

By giving them back they were the opposite of just as guilty.

[Sarcastr0]

‘found’

These scare quotes are another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

[not guilty]

Brett, what statute(s) do you claim that Joe Biden violated regarding government documents? When did such violation(s) occur?

Same questions as to Mike Pence.

Please cite by number.

[Gandydancer]

@not guilty: Please go fuck yourself.

[Gandydancer]

@gaslightr0: Only a cretin like you imagines that anyone not motivated to can be convinced to truly believe Biden "immediately turn[ed] over not-[his]-docs when he "found" them. They didn't just get teleported into his garage, etc., without his having any idea what they were.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not Guilty, the fact that Biden actually gave the documents back once he realized the law was going to be enforced doesn't mean he wasn't in violation of the law. He wasn't supposed to have taken them in the first place, and stored them so insecurely.

And the idea that he ended up with classified documents scattered all over the place without knowing he was taking them? Geeze, do you really believe that?

[Nige]

'doesn’t mean he wasn’t in violation of the law.'

Of course not. There's an ongoing investigation, he just isn't being a big man-baby about it.

[David Nieporent]

Sarcastro, you can’t start talking about impeaching a President before he even gets the nomination, prosecuting him before he’s ever elected, and not expect to have an absurdly steep threshold for getting his party to take the impeachments and prosecutions seriously.

Nice try, but it was Trump himself who noted he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose support.

It’s about as clear a case of naming the man and finding the crime as one could ask.

Other than the fact that this didn't happen, not even a little bit. You yourself noted that it took years before the Democrats took any action against Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Not Guilty, the fact that Biden actually gave the documents back once he realized the law was going to be enforced doesn’t mean he wasn’t in violation of the law. He wasn’t supposed to have taken them in the first place, and stored them so insecurely.

How do you know? What if Trump had declassified those documents in his mind?

[not guilty]

What federal statute(s), Brett? Do you understand what a statute is? Statutes are very important to federal criminal law.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, there was plenty of talk of impeaching him, even before he was elected.

Note how Brett flips from "Democrats announced their intention" to "There was talk."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump is similar to Menendez in that once he was exonerated from RussiaGate he started the BS with Zelensky…unethical people can’t help themselves.

[David Nieporent]

Democrats announced before Trump first got the nomination their intention to impeach him,

Can't believe you're still lying about this.

Wait — I can believe it.

[Kazinski]

I will be impressed when they start calling for Biden to resign.

[Mr. Bumble]

Menendez's indictment is an attempt to distract from Biden's corruption.

[David Welker]

Menendez’s indictment is due to his corruption, which includes literal bars of golds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash.

It appears that the previous trial involved incompetence on the part of prosecuting attorneys. One question during deliberations apparently was, “what is a Senator.” That this question was asked shows that the prosecution failed to educate the jury properly, instead assuming in their presentation to them that they understood basic facts about civics that they, in fact, did not understand.

I think this new case, which involves gold bars and large amounts of cash, will be more powerful, because it is less abstract and even more blatant.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Menendez’s indictment is due to his corruption,..."
Alleged corruption.

[David Welker]

I don't have to say alleged. If I were on a jury, I would listen to the evidence and only convict if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

But I don't think these are alleged events at all. I think he is guilty this time and I think he was guilty last time. The man is corrupt.

[Mr. Bumble]

Chinese menu law? You get to pick and choose?

[David Welker]

I am not the government. I do not have to give Menendez due process before making up my mind about him.

I would give him due process if I was on a jury, but in my role as a voter and a political observer, I am not under any obligation to do so and will not do so.

This isn't a matter of law, but of personal opinion.

[JasonT20]

Just thinking in terms of defamation law, I think it is a matter of whether it is clear that you are expressing an opinion or making statements of facts.

Journalists use "alleged" to cover their asses. No one, journalist or government official, needs to use that word in reference to things that have sufficiently verified factual basis. A journalist can say "investigators report that gold bars were found under his bed" without any other qualifier, because that is verifiably true.

[Don Nico]

David,
From what you say, I doubt that you could give him due process. Be honest with yourself.

[Drewski]

You're giving attention to a troll whose goal is to make you waste your time. Hell, look back at the thread: He says "Biden's corruption" then immediately pretends he's bothered by you leaving out "alleged" in your reply. He got, what, a few hundred words out of you? And he does this stuff, like, 10+ hours a day, every day.

[David Nieporent]

Menendez’s indictment is an attempt to distract from Biden’s corruption.

No, no. The conspiracy theory is that Menendez’s indictment — just like his previous one! — is because Menendez is a critic of the administration with respect to Iran.

[Krychek_2]

Well, Kazinski, the House has opened an impeachment inquiry into Biden; let's see if they come up with actual evidence.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Senator Dick Turban once said, we need the investigation to find the evidence!

[Nige]

I will be impressed when you produce actual evidence of Biden's corruption.

[Frank Drackman]

No you won't.

[Sarcastr0]

No one disagrees that Menendez deserves to go down. No one is saying until there is a trial you got nothin’. Like normal people, folks are looking at the facts and making judgements. The system must assume he is innocent, that’s it.

Biden is contrast, because there is no evidence. You need to weave more and more complicated stories about the Biden International Crime Synod. You thinking Biden is guilty is just you being crazy.

Point is, regardless of the evidence, GOP circles the wagons. Dems still care about reality more than owning the cons.

[Idihax]

Maybe he can resign in between pooping his diapers.

[Randal]

I will be impressed when they start calling for Biden to resign.

We are calling for him not to run again.

And admit it, not even you want him to resign.

[Don Nico]

No really, it is a chance for the Dem governor to put in place another Dem who is much more likely to win reelection.

[Brett Bellmore]

At least they'd be doing so legally early, instead of well past the deadline, like they did with Torricelli.

[Sarcastr0]

In New Jersey? Not really a need to shore up Dems chances there, Don.

[Don Nico]

Are you just saying the obvious, or should I read something sinister into your comment?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying the governor bit isn't really important given the general electorate of NJ.

[Mr. Bumble]

If the Dem is flawed enough a nominal Republican might win as was the case with Christie and which would likely have been the case on 2002 with Forrester likely beating Torricelli until the NJ Supreme Court ignored the election laws and allowed Lautenberg on the ballot.

[David Nieporent]

I’m saying the governor bit isn’t really important given the general electorate of NJ.

Um, the governor bit is important because someone has to fill the seat between the resignation and the election. If a GOP governor replaces Menendez with a GOP senator, then the GOP senator serves for 15 months.

[Idihax]

Menendez is accused of corruption. Trump is a political prisoner.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

At least the cankle bracelet the FBI spent a billion dollars on designing for Hillary will now get to be used on Trump. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

"in contrast to Republicans who don’t see the problem with nominating someone under 91 criminal indictments for the presidency."

A politicized lynching and everyone knows that -- it could be 991 indictments and it wouldn't matter because everyone knows that they are totally bogus. Furthermore, the persecution of the Jan 6th rioters -- rioters and not insurrectionists -- has served to discredit the criminal justice system in general.

If Richard Nixon's Justice Dept had indicted George McGovern and other outspoken anti-war politicians, would anyone have taken that seriously?

[Randal]

everyone knows that they are totally bogus.

Spoken like a true cult member.

the persecution of the Jan 6th rioters — rioters and not insurrectionists — has served to discredit the criminal justice system in general.

The persecution of the War on Drugs' victims has served to discredit the criminal justice system in general since the 70s. Thanks for figuring it out after 50 years. Better late than never.

[Gandydancer]

It speaks volumes that his fellow Democrats — Governor Murphy, Senator Booker, Majority Leader Schumer — are demanding that he resign, in contrast to Republicans who don’t see the problem with nominating someone under 91 criminal indictments for the presidency.

The contrast is that Menendez is guilty and Trump is not. It speaks volumes that you think the test ought to be indictment, no matter how procured.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if Republicans controlled who would replace him.
Menendez is a sleaze bag but as you said, presumed to be innocent so why should he reign? Were there calls for his resignation last time around when he beat the rap?

Stop paying lip service to the idea of presumed innocence.

[not guilty]

Every criminal defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence. That is never a disputed issue. Politics and law are different fields, subject to different considerations.

I am glad that there is a good Democratic alternative to Menendez.

[Mr. Bumble]

What a fucking hypocrite. How about a good Republican alternative to Menendez? In your mind that would be bad, right?

[not guilty]

No hypocrisy here. I have never claimed to be anything other than a proudly partisan Democrat.

I joke that I was once asked the old saw about whether I would vote for a yellow dog if he ran as a Democrat. In that case I would likely not vote for him in a primary.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bookmarked.

[Martinned]

Why wouldn't someone who votes Democrat, as not guilty does by the sound of things, disapprove of a Democratic senator being replaced by a Republican?

[Gandydancer]

No one supposes that he does. Who do you imagine that you are arguing with?

[David Welker]

Why should there be a Republican alternative to Menendez when New Jersey tends to be a blue state. Of course, someone like Chris Christie has a right to compete for the state. But, in general, the person that serves out the rest of Menendez's term should be more ideologically similar rather than dissimilar to him, out of respect for not the political parties, but the voters.

[Mr. Bumble]

Menendez's term is up next year and he has stated he won't resign, so unless he does there won't be a replacement.
By the way, Christie couldn't be elected dog catcher in NJ. He won the governor's race the first time because NJ voters were sick of Jon MF Corzine. Dems didn't care the second time around because they controlled the legislature and could thwart anything they opposed.

[David Welker]

Of course Chris Cristie couldn't be elected dog catcher in New Jersey. After all, "dog catchers" also known and "animal control officers" are appointed officials rather than elected officials in every county and municipality of New Jersey.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Capt. Obvious. It must be wonderful to be soooo clever.
"Dogcatchers are virtually never elected to their posts; the phrase is hyperbole, using dogcatcher to indicate the most lowly conceivable office.[1]
Wiki

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, ummm....

It was more loose cows than dogs, and I forget what the position was called, but Town Meeting used to elect an animal control officer -- and it used to be considered great fun to elect a newly-married man who hadn't shown up to Town Meeting, knowing that he'd be dragged out of bed at all hours chasing loose cows.

[Don Nico]

The governor is a Dem; he will chose a Dem as the replacement should Menendez resign. What surprising about that?

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing at all. Phailing Phil Murphy despises Sticky-Fingers Bob Menendez; it is politics and personal. Andy Kim is just a DC grifter.

Menendez is corrupt AF; I doubt he ever sees a jail cell, though he should.

[David Nieporent]

Why should there be a Republican alternative to Menendez when New Jersey tends to be a blue state. Of course, someone like Chris Christie has a right to compete for the state. But, in general, the person that serves out the rest of Menendez’s term should be more ideologically similar rather than dissimilar to him, out of respect for not the political parties, but the voters.

Indeed — as many people learned from the Mitch McConnell discussion a few weeks ago — many states require that a replacement senator be from the same party as the one who vacated the office.

[not guilty]

If Mitch McConnel were to leave office, Kentucky law specifies that the governor select his replacement from a list of three names provided by the executive committee of the Republican Party.

I wonder if that imposes a qualification -- affiliation with a particular political party -- over and above those specified in Article I, § 3, cl. 3 of the Constitution, contrary to U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). If the governor were to appoint a Democrat not listed by the Republican executive committee, the Senate would be empowered by Art. I, § 5, cl. 1 to judge the validity of the appointment.

[JasonT20]

It makes sense to think that a vacancy should be replaced by someone of the same party until the next election. The office holder had been chosen by the voters for that office. Now, if a governor has the authority to name a replacement and is of a different party than the person vacating the seat, that is just how it goes. Voters chose the governor as well, knowing he would have that authority. In this case, the NJ governor is a Democrat, and Martinez is a Democrat, so there is simply no reason that replacing him with a Republican should even be brought up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It is evidence of the Republican landslide of 1972 that NJ elected a Republican Senator that year. People tend to forget this in that Nixon was gone less than 2 years later, but it was a national landslide.

I remind people of this in terms of how deep Biden impeachment hearings may go, and the possible consequences thereof.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, Dr. Ed, people forget that the Republicans did very well in the 1972 election. You nailed it as usual.

[David Nieporent]

The First Law of Dr. Ed: Every time he says, "People forget X," X is either fabricated or something that absolutely nobody has forgotten.

[shawn_dude]

As a general concept, it sounds fair, but in gerrymandered states, "same party" and "chosen by the voters" are often dissimilar. Had this concept been in play a few years ago, the USSC would have a different political balance.

[jb]

"Hypocrite." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Nige]

Now you don't even know what 'hypocrite' means.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kim knows how to win. In his first election in 2018:

"The race was considered too close to call on election night, but the next night, an influx of absentee ballots in Burlington County, home to the majority of the district's voters, gave Kim a 2,500-vote lead, prompting him to declare victory."
From Wiki.

[Nige]

Yes, by getting more votes.

[not guilty]

As Yogi Berra famously observed, it ain't over til it's over.

[Mr. Bumble]

As shown by Al Franken's "win" over Norm Coleman.

[Krychek_2]

If I knew for a fact that that seat would go Republican I would still take the position that Menendez should resign. You seem to think everyone is as unprincipled as you are.

[Mr. Bumble]

Liar, liar pants on fire. Easy to say but your principles would take a back seat if replacing Menendez with a Republican changed control of the Senate.

[Davedave]

Whether or not that's true, it isn't even contradictory. Any sane, principled person will be willing to compromise a lesser principle for the sake of a greater one. If tolerating (just under) 2% of the senators in power being corrupt avoids allowing the senate to be controlled by a group that is wholly either corrupt or overtly evil, as a matter of principle one should tolerate the corruption.

And when no such compromise is necessary, as here, one should oppose both the individual who is corrupt, and the party which embraces corruption, dishonesty, and evil.

[Brett Bellmore]

"the senate to be controlled by a group that is wholly either corrupt or overtly evil,"

Of course, when you define "corrupt or overtly evil" in terms of "disagreeing with my policy preferences", this collapses into just, "My side gets away with it because it's my side."

[Davedave]

And if you define it the normal way, then Brett is once again the village idiot, drooling as he stumbles around the square monologuing to the drains.

[Nige]

'Of course, when you define'

When you make up people making up definitions about made-up things those people always turn out to be bad. You either give a shit abut corruption or you don't, or you hide behind this kind of idiotic bluster.

[Krychek_2]

Like I said, you seem to think everyone is as unprincipled as you are.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's change the calculus for you a little.

Let's say, instead of the current 51-49 balance, the Senate was 50-50. And a Republican was still governor of NJ. And Justice Thomas just resigned....

Then what? Do you demand Menendez resign now, at the potential cost of the Democrats losing who they would like to nominate to the SCOTUS?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes.

[Sarcastr0]

I can’t speak to K2, but consequences are an element in my decision, increasing the political consequences to that point might turn me towards being silent. It would depend on the gravamen of evidence, and the nature of the accusation.

Menendez is pretty bad on both fronts. If the American People's decision is already is so very close in such a case, so be it.

Right back at ya, though, AL. We already know you are extremely partisan outcome-oriented. Are there *any* crimes that a GOP Senator could commit that would make you call for them to resign? What about in the scenario you laid out?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sure, if they're convicted. And after appeals.

The DoJ has a bad habit of...ahem...abusing the justice system in regards to GOP politicians. See Stevens, Ted, among others.

[Sarcastr0]

As expected.

You are a tool.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a history of the DoJ having bad prosecutions with GOP politicians and making unethical choices. That doesn't seem to occur on the Democratic side.

Ignoring that is foolhardy.

[Sarcastr0]

I wasn't saying trust the DoJ implicitly, but you get to make your own decisions.

You admit that your decision will invariably come down in favor of keeping the GOP Representative until they are convicted.

That's a larger admission than I think you realize.

There’s a history of the DoJ having bad prosecutions with GOP politicians and making unethical choices.
Here, you are admitting you think prosecutions of GOP leaders are presumptively illegitimated while those of Dems are presumptively legitimate.

I could dig up DoJ prosecutions of Dems no problem. Just that Dems don't say the FBI is working a secret GOP plot when that happens.

You are so deeply partisan you admit your double standards because you assume such lack of integrity is normal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I always enjoy discussing things with you. It's so easy for you to win arguments when you can tell me exactly what I'm thinking.

[Sarcastr0]

I provided quotes that back up what I'm saying, right there in the comment!

If your thinking is otherwise than what I say your comments imply, then feel free to explain further.

[Armchair Lawyer]

My thinking is otherwise. But every time I tell you that, you insist on telling me what my thinking actually is. It's a pattern.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

Your words are most reasonably, and really exclusively, interpreted as meaning exactly what Sarcastro said. Yet, when offered the opportunity to clarify, you demurred. These aren't private DMs, but a public comment board. Generally, people who continue a conversation attempt to clarify misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

As it is, you have proved Sarcastro's frequent point that you and several others operate on the assumption that left-leaning posters here are as nakedly partisan and hypocritical as you are. Most people, let alone the posters here who you identify as being on the left or Democrats, are not as hypocritical as you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Welcome to the conversation NOVA....

Well, I've explicitly said that "My thinking is otherwise." But you appear to have concluded my words are "exclusively, interpreted as meaning exactly what Sarcastro said"

So, on one hand, you have what I've said about my own words. And on the other hand, you have what Sarcatr0 said my words mean. And you've already concluded that my words exclusively should be interpreted to mean what Sarcastr0 says, as opposed to what I say.

Given that, I fail to see how explaining myself further would change your view at all. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise. But since you've concluded anything I say is irrelevant, my words mean what Sarcastr0 says I mean....I fail to see the point in continuing.

[Sarcastr0]

https://imgur.com/gallery/ApCAoUF

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

“otherwise” is hardly an expression of what you believe other than, again, saying Sarcastro misinterpreted without saying how. And, yes, the words you used meant unambiguously indicated that your threshold for the resignation of a Republican politician was conviction and exhaustion of appeals. And you indicated that you had a lower standard for Democratic politicians. That you continue to persist in declining to say clearly what you believe, if that isn't, in fact, what you believe, indicates your lack of interest in a good faith discussion.

If you ever had any interest in a good faith conversation, then say plainly what you meant.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nova,

Let's reiterate. I've told you my words don't indicate that. I believe otherwise. You've told me "And, yes, the words you used meant unambiguously indicated that your threshold for the resignation of a Republican politician was conviction and exhaustion of appeals. "

So, I one hand I've told you it doesn't mean that. And on the other hand you've told me "Yes it does".

So, no matter what I say, you'll continue to believe my words say what you believe they do.

Why continue the conversation?

[Randal]

We're all waiting to hear what you actually meant.

[Nige]

'Why continue the conversation?'

Weird that you refuse to clarify or correct rather than whine about being misunderstood.

[Randal]

My thinking is otherwise. Why continue the conversation?

I think maybe this is like a retraction that he's too embarrassed to come out and state directly...?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Looks like we got the second stringers out.

One more time, but this time I'll use an example for you.

I say "The sky is blue". Sarcastr0 says "Well, you mean the sky is red." I say, "But I didn't say the sky is red". Sarcastr0 goes "No you mean the sky is red." NOVA goes "It's incontrovertible you mean the sky is red".

There's no point in discussing things further. I can keep saying "The sky is blue"...but the discussion goes nowhere if the other party just redefines whatever I say to mean what they'd like it to.

Get it?

[Randal]

Whatever "The sky is blue" is an analogy for, you haven't "kept saying it." You said it once, and there appears to be some confusion about it.

Don't expect to convince many people of your point of view if you're unwilling to engage in dialogue and provide clarifications. English, especially terse written English, isn't a perfect communication medium.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

but you didn’t say the sky is blue. The proper blue sky analogy would be:

Sarcastro: What color do you think the sky is?

Armchair: Red.

Sarcastro: But the sky is blue, you said it’s red.

Armchair: You claim I said the sky is red, I said otherwise.

Sarcastro/Nova/Randal: You did say red, but if you meant something else, then say what color the sky is?

Armchair: You guys just won’t accept that I don’t think the sky is not red.

Shorter version: As Sarcastro said, you're a tool.

[David Nieporent]

Sure, if they’re convicted. And after appeals.

I don't think people here are giving Armchair enough credit. He actually says that he would respect a guilty verdict. Most of his ilk would reject such a verdict, arguing that it's impossible for a Republican to get a fair verdict if any of the judge, prosecution, investigators, or jurors ever voted Democratic for any office ever, or ever expressed criticism of Trump.

[Krychek_2]

The thrust of your question is at what point are the stakes so high that I would abandon my own principles. If all human life on earth would be wiped out by an asteroid unless Trump got another term and Menendez got another ten years in the Senate, would I then agree to Trump becoming president again and Menendez remaining in the Senate. On that fact I probably would.

The hypo you've actually given is not quite that stark. I would work very hard to see if the timing could be such that a Biden appointee could quickly be confirmed before Menendez resigned.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I see...

[Sarcastr0]

You've admitted to having none of this integrity.

I'm sure your take is that you're the honest one and that everyone else here is lying either to you or to themselves.

It is a common delusion of the unprincipled to believe that everyone is as unprincipled as they are.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And Gaslightro once again tells me what I know.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, I'm pointing at stuff *you say in this comment thread* to wit:

You challenged K2 if he'd still call for resignation in a more fraught situation. He said he would.

You say you would NEVER call for resignation in the same situation if it is a GOP candidate, instead waiting for a conviction.

So yeah, you challenged K2 on how principled he was, while explicitly proclaiming you have none of the same principles.

That's right there written down, not mindreading.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I don't remember using the word "never." Or as you say "NEVER".

This has been another episode in "Sarcastr0 tells others what they are thinking"

[Sarcastr0]

Me: "Are there *any* crimes that a GOP Senator could commit that would make you call for them to resign?"

AL: "Sure, if they’re convicted. And after appeals."

Those are direct quotes, AL. Never is not a magic word; your standards are bottom-barrel low as compared to the liberals on here.

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, it's worse than that.

When someone posts something about Republicans behaving atrociously, Armchair Lawyer mostly doesn't bother to refute the actual charges, because most of the time he can't. Most of the time the GOP really is as bad as the liberal commenters here make out. Occasionally not.

Rather, he considers it a major victory if he can argue that Democrats are hypocrites which, even if true, doesn't change the fact of Republicans behaving badly. (Which is why what aboutism is a logical fallacy.) But he cares less about that than he does about making out that Democrats are hypocrites.

So suppose, for sake of argument, that Democrats are hypocites. What does what I would do in a hypothetical scenario with facts completely different from the facts we have -- he changed the calculus for me, remember -- have to do with the fact that at present, we've got one political party holding its errant members to account by demanding Menendez resign, and another party that seems to think getting indicted is a positive thing?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek,

You're generally an honest sort. So let me say this.

It's easy to condemn Menendez. The charges are clear. There really isn't any question...literal gold bars. I mean, I can't make this up. On top of that, politically it's easy. NJ has a Democratic governor. There's an advantage in the Senate. And clearing out Menendez now makes reelection for the Democrats easier.

You put a Republican (Including me, although I'm an independent) in an equivalent case, and sure, the GOP will call for resignation. It's morally AND politically expedient. Let me reinforce that. Morally AND politically expedient. It's easy.

But if it's not politically expedient...if it's politically problematic... that's when the hesitation and nitpicking begins. Well...this is a different situation. You've admitted to such, because you're an honest sort. If it could cost you a SCOTUS nomination...well, maybe better to hesitate.

On top of that all, I've seen the "not politically expedient" situation occur on much lesser evidence (Ted Stevens comes to mind) and what happens there. So, I hesitate to give an unrestricted "no this is bad condemn it all" clarification. If it's easy...like this case is...sure.

But if it's a case where some people seem to be indicted, but others don't, and the cases seem pretty similar, but one is of one party, and the other isn't....well.... I've got questions.

So, perhaps consider that.

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, thank you for the compliment. Your analysis overlooks the minor detail that the best thing that could happen to the Republican Party would be for Trump to no longer be in the picture. He cost them the last two elections and may cost them 2024 as well. If he were to drop dead of a heart attack you'd hear GOP officials popping champagne corks all over the country. So by continuing to prop him up, GOP officials are doing what is bad for their own party. And of course they have no choice because Trump still controls the base.

Their nightmare scenario is that he loses in 2024 and then runs one more time in 2028.

And I don't see this as DOJ being partisan. I've read the indictments (or most of them anyway) and the allegations in them look pretty solid to me. Of course a jury will ultimately decide. Which Democrat are you claiming is an apples to apples comparison to Trump who has not been prosecuted?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Krychek,

In regards to Trump. I believe the GOP has better candidates. I've never been a Trump "supporter" (while simultaneously believing the charges against him are massively overexaggerated.

That being said, if the people believe Trump is the best candidate (and they may have distinct and real reasons for that)...then that's democracy. Trump's greatest weakness is that he isn't a politician. He is difficult to deal with on a personal level, and it's a major flaw.

But that's also paradoxically his greatest strength with the voters. They know he's not a politician...and they like that.

In terms of the DoJ.... there's never going to be a "perfect" apples to apples comparison. Again, narrowing down the circumstances so you only ever have an N=1 is flawed. There will always be "some" detail that is different between cases. That's why the preconditions for what will be indicted should be set ahead of time. And not after the fact.

[David Nieporent]

You put a Republican (Including me, although I’m an independent) in an equivalent case, and sure, the GOP will call for resignation. It’s morally AND politically expedient. Let me reinforce that. Morally AND politically expedient. It’s easy.

Counterpoint: nuh-uh. Evidence: Donald Trump. Trump isn't even in office, and yet only a vanishingly small number of Republicans will call on him to step back from politics.

[Armchair Lawyer]

David....

A sitting senator in a Democratically safe state with a Democratic governor, compared to a presidential candidate who isn't currently in office.

These things aren't equivalent situations. They're about as different at possible from a political perspective.

[bernard11]

I’m sure you would be singing a different tune if Republicans controlled who would replace him.

Hypothetical hypocrisy is the worst kind.

[Commenter_XY]

I believe he should resign promptly.

My personal estimation of you just went up positively, not guilty.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Resign why? What makes a presumptively-innocent person unfit for the Senate?

Of course, it may be of political advantage for his party to replace him - if that's so, then say that. Or show what he did wrong (beyond the mere fact of accusation).

[NOVA Lawyer]

Presumptively innocent for legal purposes is not the same as likely innocent and able to effectively represent his constituents. There are times a politician could beat charges in a criminal context, but should resign anyway (and regardless of whether he resigns, should be ostracized by his party). This is one of those situations.

There are other times, they don't commit a crime at all but said or did something sufficiently egregious that they should resign and, lacking that principled action, should be ostracized by their party.

This isn't a hard concept to understand. Pretending everything is fine so long as a crime has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is simplistic idiocy.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Pretending everything is fine so long as a crime has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is simplistic idiocy.”

Indeed it is. Good thing I didn’t say it.

Not knowing the Menendez case, I ask what he did that was wrong – my caveat is that being indicted doesn’t *automatically* make the indictee wrong. Otherwise, we’d have to say Matthew Lyon should have resigned because the Adams administration had him imprisoned for sedition (going beyond mere indictment to actual imprisonment).

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

I'm tempted to disavow some other straw men in advance, but I think I'll wait to hear what those straw men are.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let’s see…Wikipedia says a couple (or more?) prostitutes accused him of patronizing them when they were underage, but Wikipedia suggests these were false charges inspired by right-wingers.

As for that case where the jury divided, “The case was strongly shaped by McDonnell v. United States, the 2016 Supreme Court decision to vacate the corruption conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, which narrowed the legal definition of public corruption and made it harder for prosecutors to prove that a political official engaged in bribery.”

The charges were dropped after the mistrial, suggesting that the prosecutors (who were answerable to Trump at the time) lacked confidence that the evidence would satisfy the relevant legal standards.

OK, now we’re getting somewhere…a reprimand from the Ethics Committee. There’s something the voters can look at in seeing if he’s unfit. That reprimand was not from the current case. And it was from 2018, and that year the voters decided to re-elect him anyway.

And the current charges look very bad indeed – if true, that is. So, are they true? Voters get to look at this matter without waiting for a jury.

For that matter, if he did other bad stuff, voters can look at that without waiting for criminal charges.

And indeed, the Senate could expel him if they get the 2/3 vote they need. Again, though, I’d say the Senate would need more than “he didn’t resign even though he got indicted.” I suspect the Senate isn’t going to follow such a principle.

Or maybe his party and his donors could lean on him to resign for the good of the party.

But he should resign for being *guiulty* (if he is), not for being *accused* – note that Wikipedia indicates that one prior accusation came from right-wingers, and the other prior accusation was tried under a legal theory later rejected (in a different case) by a unanimous Supreme Court.

So this all illustrates the need for actual evidence.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Just a sample:

As part of the scheme, MENENDEZ provided sensitive, non-public U.S. government information to Egyptian officials and otherwise took steps to secretly aid the Government of Egypt. For example, in or about May 2018, MENENDEZ provided Egyptian officials with non-public information regarding the number and nationality of persons serving at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Although this information was not classified, it was deemed highly sensitive because it could pose significant operational security concerns if disclosed to a foreign government or made public. Without telling his professional staff or the State Department that he was doing so, on or about May 7, 2018, MENENDEZ texted that sensitive, non-public embassy information to his then-girlfriend NADINE MENENDEZ, who forwarded the message to HANA, who forwarded it to an Egyptian government official. Later that same month, MENENDEZ ghost-wrote a letter on behalf of Egypt to other U.S. Senators advocating for them to release a hold on $300 million in aid to Egypt. MENENDEZ sent this ghost-written letter to NADINE MENENDEZ, who forwarded it to HANA, who sent it to Egyptian officials.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In exchange for MENENDEZ’s agreement to take these and other actions, HANA promised NADINE MENENDEZ payments, including from IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. (“IS EG Halal”), a New Jersey company that HANA operated with financial support and backing from DAIBES.

*****

In October 2018, the USAO-DNJ charged DAIBES with federal criminal charges for obtaining loans under false pretenses from a New Jersey-based bank he founded. Between December 2020 and 2022, MENENDEZ agreed to attempt to influence the pending federal prosecution of DAIBES in exchange for cash, furniture, and gold bars that DAIBES provided to MENENDEZ and NADINE MENDENDEZ. In furtherance of this aspect of the scheme, MENENDEZ recommended that the President nominate an individual (“Official-3”) as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey who MENENDEZ believed he could influence with respect to DAIBES’s case. MENENDEZ also had direct and indirect contact with both Official-3 and another high-ranking official at the USAO-DNJ (“Official-4”) in an attempt to influence the outcome of DAIBES’s case.

[NOVA Lawyer]

When a sitting Senator is credibly accused of using his seat for personal gain and there is substantial evidence to support the charges and, in fact, it appears far more likely than not that the allegations are true and the Senator's effectiveness will be severely impaired both by defending the allegations and by his colleagues' reaction to the allegations, a statesman would and should resign. He can declare and prove his innocence, but the office he holds is bigger than he is. There are times even an innocent person should resign.

Given the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence cited in support of the allegations, Senator Menendez should resign. Not to do so is selfishness, at best.

And you keep saying "for the good of the party." No, for the good of his state and the country. Some things are not partisan. Ethics shouldn't be.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“it appears far more likely than not that the allegations are true…He can declare and prove his innocence”

Wait, what do you mean “appears”? Did he do bad stuff or not? If he didn’t and it’s all a frame-up, that’s a reason for his supporters to stand by him.

Now, even if this was “honest graft” – profiting from his office without breaking a law – then I’d still be for him to be out of the Senate - voters should have high standards. (but see my comment on the word "should," below)

I’m simply suggesting that the mere existence of an indictment doesn’t prove anything *in itself.* It simply shows that some ham-sandwich-indicting (or halal-chicken-indicting) grand jury was induced by a prosecutor to say that the Senator did something criminal. Until grand juries recover their sense of self-respect and start actually analyzing what the prosecutors put before them, a grand jury’s word simply means nothing one way or the other.

Did some reputable news outlet conduct its own investigation of these corruption charges? What did they find?

“And you keep saying “for the good of the party.” No, for the good of his state and the country.”

I was thinking about the kind of people who, in the real world, influence whether politicians resign. Such persons absolutely do think in terms of party.

“Some things are not partisan. Ethics shouldn’t be.””

Let’s not “should” all over ourselves, as Al Franken (oops!) once put it. Of course ethics shouldn’t be partisan. Heck, I’m not even sure *politics* should be partisan. But the question is what the party operatives and donors believe in reality, not what they *ought* to believe.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If it's about the good of the country and state, not the good of the party, then I presume if the Democrats nominate him in 2024, then voters should choose a non-Democrat in the general election?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Clearly.

One can hope, though one is likely to be disappointed, that New Jersey voters will show more sense and integrity than Texas voters who re-elected Ken Paxton despite his obviously ethical unfitness for office (being impeached by his own party indicates there is lots of there, there). Of course, the Texas Senators were too cowardly to actually remove him, but that says things about their character, not what should happen in these situations.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm sorry to say I haven't been following the Paxton situation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You keep hiding behind generalities. There are specific allegations in this case which reference specific evidence which indicate serious abuse of power. So, no, the principle isn't any indictment standing alone is enough to warrant resignation. This indictment with the evidence that is already known suggests, at the least, seriously unethical conduct. What is available now suggests he is likely to be convicted of a crime. Not every indictment will involve both those elements.

You may disagree that the indictment and publicly known information is sufficient in this case to warrant resignation, but your apparent standard of no indictment with supporting evidence is sufficient to warrant resignation of a Senator (particularly one who was charged with similar conduct before and not acquitted, indicating there was strong evidence of guilt in that case, just not sufficient to meet the very high standard for a criminal conviction) seems far too permissive. Holding high office is a privilege, not a right. The standard for criminal conviction is justifiably higher than what warrants resignation.

Of course, he won't resign because he has no shame, so it's left to the legal mechanisms and there is probably insufficient will to actually kick him out.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was only suggesting that his unfitness would have to be based on something he actually did, and a grand jury's accusation, in current circumstances, means little one way or the other.

As I said, if he actually did stuff making him unfit, then out he should go. Regardless of whether or not a grand jury said something.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Senator Robert Menendez is entitled to a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty"

And I think the jury was divided the last time he was charged with something.

Is he guilty, or is there some Democratic infighting at the back of this? Or both?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Democrats didn't initiate the investigation. A Republican administration did. What is your evidence for your oft-repeated assertion that maybe Democrats are trying to smear him other than many Democrats are showing integrity (or maybe they do think it's in their party's interest) by calling for the resignation of someone who is credibly accused, with citations to evidence, of serious, repeated abuse of the power of his office for personal gain?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"your oft-repeated assertion that maybe Democrats are trying to smear him"

No, I'm more interested in your view that

"He can declare and prove his innocence, but the office he holds is bigger than he is. There are times even an innocent person should resign."

This would allow his political rivals to charge him and then sententiously say that "never mind his guilt, the public interest requires that he resign."

I'm inclined to believe, on the contrary, the his guilt (legal or non-legal) should be the decisive question on whether he resigns, not whether he *looks* guilty, because that leaves his fate up to party hacks (Dem or Rep) in the prosecutor's office.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This would allow his political rivals to charge him and then sententiously say that “never mind his guilt, the public interest requires that he resign.”

No, it creates that as a possibility, but no one is saying everyone should resign immediately upon being indicted. What many, and I, am saying is after indictment of these crimes, particularly given the publicly known evidence, he cannot be effective as a Senator because it very much appears he abused his office. If he’d been indicted for, say, those underage girl accusations you raised and the only evidence publicly available were the accusations, then no. The misconduct, egregious as it would have been if true, did not go to misuse of his office and there wasn’t a mountain of known evidence that he committed the crime. Rather, there would have been only very easily fabricated evidence (some witness's testimony). This Menendez case is different. The evidence is physical, documentary, and substantial. The crime goes to the heart of his responsibilities and betrayal of his office. It's better 9 innocent Senators should resign in these circumstances than that 1 Senator who betrayed his country and his office remain.

“I’m inclined to believe, on the contrary, the his guilt (legal or non-legal) should be the decisive question on whether he resigns.”

Which is just to say you don’t believe a politician should be pressured to resign unless and until they are convicted of a crime. A person who is going to commit a crime is unlikely to be able to beat the charges, but will say “I resign because I actually did commit the crime.” That’s just silly and won’t happen.

And you are ignoring that there are checks and balances on prosecutors including they expose themselves to various risks if they knowingly pursue false charges, especially for the purpose of forcing a powerful political figure to resign.

Social pressure and public opprobrium serve a purpose. Can they be misused? Yes, but so can every other tool to encourage people to be ethical. This case, and the Santos case, are quintessential examples of when colleagues should shun a fellow politician.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“This case, and the Santos case, are quintessential examples of when colleagues should shun a fellow politician.”

Santos was guilty – morally and probably legally.

What sticks in my craw is the claim that

“There are times even an innocent person should resign.”

Unless you mean legally innocent but morally guilty, in which case they should resign (if the offense was big enough).

“Which is just to say you don’t believe a politician should be pressured to resign unless and until they are convicted of a crime.”

Which is to say I didn’t say that at all. On the contrary, I made quite an effort to defend a completely different position.

As far as trusting prosecutors or other government employees, that’s a classic north-of-Richmond attitude.

[Nelson]

Menendez is so corrupt. Thank God Dems are responding quickly and pushing him to leave. It's like George Santos, but done the right way.

We need to force the parties to act in an ethical and decent way if they don't choose to do it on their own. When someone is so obviously corrupt, there should never be a second where the calculation is "Yes, he's corrupt. But what if we lose power by admitting he's corrupt?".

[ThePublius]

What would be so horrible about a Republican taking that seat? Are you really that partisan? That polarized?

[Estragon]

If Justice Thomas had gotten his way in Skilling would any of this conduct be prosecutable?

[Krychek_2]

Historically, the ideas of civil liberties, democratic institutions, and basic human rights are a massive aberration. Most people at most times and places have had very few civil rights, and political and religious pluralism weren't even on the radar. And, when liberal democracy finally did arrive, an awful lot of people demonstrated they had no real taste for it, as demonstrated here, for example, by Jim Crow, McCarthyism, and attacks on free speech that go back all the way to the Alien and Sedition Act from the Adams administration. Worldwide, countries that were liberal democracies, like Poland, Hungary, the Philippines and Israel, are now flirting with outright fascism. I shudder at the thought that Trump might get re-elected and then spend four more years doing what he can to dismantle democratic institutions here.

So I wonder if maybe the democratic experiment may be winding down and we may be headed back toward a period of uniformly authoritarian government throughout the world. Maybe we are witnessing what Anne Applebaum calls the twilight of democracy. I hope not but the possibility certainly cannot be ruled out.

Trump was unsuccessful at staging what would have amounted to a coup because in 2020, our institutions were still strong enough, and there were enough state and local officials -- mostly Republicans -- still willing to do their jobs that it didn't work. If he gets another crack at tearing down those basic institutions, will they still hold?

[Kazinski]

Are you talking about Former NZ Premier Jacinda Arden’s speech to the UN where she called for international government censorship of disinformation?

“A bullet takes a life. A bomb takes out a whole village. A lie online or from a podium does not,” Ardern told the U.N. General Assembly in September. “But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?”

“In Aotearoa New Zealand, we deeply value our right to protest,” she continued. “But that does not mean the absence of transparency, expectations, or even rules. If we correctly identify what it is we are trying to prevent. And surely we can start with violent extremism and terrorist content online.”

“How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists?” Ardern demanded of her audience. “How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?”

https://reason.com/2022/10/03/new-zealand-p-m-jacinda-ardern-peddles-government-censorship-to-an-international-audience/

Obviously there are governments left and right around the world that seek to censor people or throw them in jail for criticism, or even worse just expressing themselves.

But you are more likely to go to jail in the UK for reading the wrong parts of the bible on a street corner, or misgendering someone than you are for calling the Prime Minister a cunt.

[Krychek_2]

Yes, I'm talking about that too. I'll be the first to admit the left has its share of authoritarians. But the current worldwide trend seems to be that the bigger authoritarian threat is from the right.

[Davedave]

Surely you aren't this gullible? You have fallen for far right propaganda about why we need fascists to protect us from authoritarians. It makes as much logical sense as the usual fascist drivel, in that it's purely an appeal to unthinking emotional responses.

[Krychek_2]

No, we don't need fascists to protect us from authoritarianism; we need to resist authoritarianism whatever its source.

[Davedave]

Yes, that's what I said. I criticised you for failing to understand that your appeal to resist authoritarianism is actually based on far right propaganda designed to persuade people that fascism will protect them from authoritarianism.

[Krychek_2]

And when *I* say that fascism will protect us from authoritarianism feel free to call me out on it. Until then, please do not impute to me arguments I haven't made.

[Davedave]

I didn't. I said you've cited fash propaganda as your argument. Their 'talking points' do not constitute any actual argument for the point you wish to make. They just make you look like you've been watching idiots on facetube.

[Nige]

Actually you're more likely to go to jail in the UK for demonstrating about climate change.

I'm not sure what Arden's seech has to do with censorship, by the way. The right seems to demand it be accepted that if billionaires or government powers spend millions spreading lies that affect government policy and society in general, that's ok, and to even talk about how this is actually incredibly bad is censorship.

[Davedave]

"you’re more likely to go to jail in the UK for demonstrating about climate change."

So says Nige the climate-science denier, referring to some of his fellow science-deniers and their genocidal protests that also happen to be criminal actions. The claim is utterly untrue.

[Nige]

I'm pretty confiedent th science is on my side, and clealry you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the UK. If uou make climate protests criminal actions, then climate protests will always happen to be criminal actions.

[Davedave]

You're every bit as batshit as BCD & co. if you think the science is on your side after I have repeatedly posted links to the actual science which proves you wrong. You at one point argued that the scientific consensus does not matter, only what you want to be true.

Now you're doing the same shit they do about Trump, about the people who protest in illegal ways about crazytalk they have made up.

[Nige]

'I have repeatedly posted links to the actual science which proves you wrong.'

You have certainly posted links, that much is true.

'Now you’re doing the same shit they do about Trump,'

You've completely lost coherence.

[Davedave]

So you admit I've posted links, to the IPCC report that literally constitutes the scientific consensus on climate change, which contradict what you said, and you don't accept that you are wrong and they are right.

QED.

Your opinion of the sentences received by the science-denying pretend-climate-protestors in this country is basically identical in nature and wording to the Trump nuts' babble about the J6 insurrectionists' treatment and sentencing. (Of course the idiots in this country didn't do anything nearly as serious, and received far lower sentences. But your defence of them is the same.)

[Nige]

‘So you admit I’ve posted links, to the IPCC report that literally constitutes the scientific consensus on climate change’

Absolutely.

‘which contradict what you said,’

Absolutely not. You usually link to the report and claim it contradicts something. What part of it contradicts what thing I'm supposed to have said is never made clear.

‘is basically identical in nature’

Keep straining, you’ll do yourself an injury. Just say you support jailing people for climate protests, it’s quicker.

[DaveM]

If attacks on free speech are what worries you, Trump isn't who you should be worried about. The Censorship Industrial Complex was set up in part to defeat him, not to assist him.

[Krychek_2]

What censorship industrial complex are you talking about? Trump is getting his message out just fine. Private platforms aren't obligated to give him a platform.

[Michael P]

https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industrial-complex

Trump was "permanently suspended" by Twitter by the CIC. The CIC blocked reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop, Covid, and a wide variety of other topics. Major Internet providers engaged in egregious antitrust violations to deplatform a competitor as part of the CIC.

How are you so oblivious to recent mass censorship?

[Martinned]

Why do you hate free enterprise?

[Michael P]

What is "free" about private companies being told to jump by bureaucrats, and then complying harder when told they didn't jump high enough?

[Nelson]

Since they frequently didn't comply and the requests were made under Trump as well as Biden, your complaints have no rational basis.

"They censor conservatives more than liberals" isn't a valid reason to claim a private company making their own decisions (whether based on recommendations from the government or not) is a government agency. If you believe a company is biased against you, use another company.

I understand that cultural conservatives feel underrepresented, but that's because cultural conservative positions are unconvincing to a good amount more than 50% of the country.

Bitching that your unconvincing arguments have failed to convince people is asinine.

[Nige]

“They censor conservatives more than liberals”

Is a completely unsupported claim, by the way.

[Kazinski]

Well there is a federal court injunction against the federal government telling they can't order social media companies to censor content anymore.

That is pro free enterprise.

[Nelson]

I don't remember that. What was the name of the case?

[John F. Carr]

One of the cases captioned Missouri v. Biden, I think. The Supreme Court paused the order while the government prepares to seek a writ of certiorari. See case 23A243 on the Supreme Court's docket.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A century ago, we decided that monopolies were bad.

What is the difference between Ma Bell and Twitter?

[Sarcastr0]

Ma Bell's monopoly was due to their holding required infrastructure for their exclusive use.

Twitter's monopoly is due only to people not wanting to switch away from twitter.

I'm all for revisiting the requirements for a monopoly, but as currently laid out, Twitter is not a monopoly.

[Drewski]

Twitter is absolutely a monopoly. The crap they told you in fourth grade that monopolies have eliminated meaningful competition is one of the simplified ideas we tell children. Monopolies are pretty broadly defined in grown-up contexts, and here we would use the legal standard. I don't think Twitter's status as legally a monopoly can even be argued. (Of course, Bell wasn't broken up because it was a monopoly but because it violated the law that limits what monopolies are allowed to do.)

[jb]

Wait, what market does Twitter have a monopoly in? Unless the answer is Tweets or Xes or whatever in which case every company has a monopoly, there's no plausible case that Twitter has a monopoly over anything.

It's much more plausible to argue that Meta has significant market power, but in the exact same market that Twitter operates in, which in and if itself pretty thoroughly debunks the idea that Twitter has any sort of monopoly.

[Martinned]

Fortunately the law doesn't require an (absolute) monopoly, but only "monopolization", i.e. a move from market power to more market power.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2

[jb]

Sure, that's why I used the term with regards to Meta.

So what is the market that anyone thinks Twitter has market power in? And how is it exerting this market power in a context in which Meta has vastly more users, revenue, traffic, etc.?

[Martinned]

Off the top of my head nobody has made a finding of market power with respect to Twitter yet. It hasn't been designated by the German Bundeskartellamt under s. 19a of the GWB, nor by the European Commission under art. 3 of the DMA.

That said, I think you might plausibly identify a market for free one-to-many online communication (free in the sense of 'without monetary price'). In that market, Twitter competes with Threads but otherwise it doesn't have any GAFAM competitors.

[jb]

Why don't Facebook posts compete in that space? For that matter, why doesn't Instagram? (The latter is maybe a bit more of a stretch but I increasingly see people just reposting Tweets there so it seems like a fine distribution method for small bits of text in addition to the fact it can post photos and videos as well.)

[Sarcastr0]

What is the legal standard, Drewski?

I ask because I came to the VC a couple of years ago calling Twitter a monopoly, and had it quite nicely explained to me that network effects are not sufficient make something a monopoly under the law.

[Props on calling out Davedave above, though. I have not seen a more clear troll than that inconsistent wanker.]

[Nelson]

"What is the difference between Ma Bell and Twitter?"

The number of competitors in the marketplace, one of which is owned by a former President, and a successful antitrust prosecution.

So it's completely different.

[shawn_dude]

And far lower barriers to entry for competitors. Which is why there are so many. see:
– Reddit
– Mastodon
– LinkedIn
– TikTok
– Threads
– Spill
– T2
– Gab
– Parlr
– Truth Social
… and Dorsey’s own: BlueSky

[Nige]

Doesn't Trump have an entire social media platform of his own?

[Martinned]

Sure, but it doesn't exactly have Twitter-level market power.

[Nige]

No-one to blame for that but Trump.

[David Nieporent]

What market power does Twitter have? It can't get anybody but gullible Trumpkins to pay anything to use it, and from the other side advertisers have abandoned it in droves.

[Martinned]

Last I checked, it was Biden, Jonathan Kanter, and Lina Khan who were trying to enforce the antitrust laws, and most Republicans (including many on this blog) trying to argue against that. I certainly support some proper antitrust enforcement. Do you?

[David Nieporent]

A century ago, we decided that monopolies were bad.

What is the difference between Ma Bell and Twitter?

Among many many many many many many many other things, Twitter isn't a monopoly.

[Commenter_XY]

The term is: willful blindness

[Nige]

'by Twitter by the CIC.'

Why do you lie so repeatedly about this stuff? If everything you believe in is made of nothing but lies and needs to be constantly lied about to support and promote, what do you believe in?

[Krychek_2]

Trump was suspended for posting crap that would have gotten me suspended. And it's not censorship when a private platform decides not to give you a microphone. There are plenty of other platforms out there.

[DaveM]

Doubtful that you, personally, would have been censored. My sense is you've been pretty free with your online opinions here. Fortunately you, like me, are no threat to the order, so we are very privileged in that respect.

The two things you never want to be in America are rich or famous.

[Krychek_2]

No interest in being famous; wouldn't mind being rich.

[Martinned]

I've had my Instagram account suspended, and for the life of me I don't know why. Still can't get back into it, though.

[Nige]

People who weren't Trump or remotely famous got suspended by Twitter all the time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Calvinball TOS.

[Nige]

Trump is supposed to be above TOS as he is above the law.

[David Nieporent]

Trump was “permanently suspended” by Twitter by the CIC.

Trump was temporarily suspended by Twitter.

The CIC blocked reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop,

Never happened; a blatant lie. No reporting was blocked. Especially not by an imaginary "CIC."

Major Internet providers engaged in egregious antitrust violations to deplatform a competitor as part of the CIC.

Presumably a reference to Parler, but of course a complete lie in every respect. The barely-viable Parler was not "deplatformed" by Twitter, Gab, etc. (its actual competitors).

[SimonP]

If the "censorship industrial complex" is what concerns you, then you should be worried about what Trump might be inclined to press it to do on his behalf, if he were given another opportunity to do so.

Clamping down on COVID misinformation and propaganda planted by non-US governments designed to disrupt our elections is, at the very least, motivated by a desire to protect the country. Imagine what a corrupt narcissist like Trump would do, now that he's on a vengeance tour.

[David Nieporent]

If the “censorship industrial complex” is what concerns you, then you should be worried about what Trump might be inclined to press it to do on his behalf, if he were given another opportunity to do so.

Donald Trump yesterday:

"They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its "Country Threatening Treason." Their endless coverage of the now fully debunked SCAM known as Russia, Russia, Russia, and much else, is one big Campaign Contribution to the Radical Left Democrat Party. I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events. Why should NBC, or any other of the corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE? They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111122815628828712

[VinniUSMC]

Trump might get re-elected and then spend four more years doing what he can to dismantle democratic institutions here.

What democratic institutions did Trump dismantle during his first four years?

[Nige]

He tried to overturn an election he lost. He's currently talking about how a general should be executed and promising retaliation aganst his political enemies and the media.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You mean, he had an election challenge and legal lawsuits, as is appropriate?

How is that different from Al Gore's challenges in 2000?

[Krychek_2]

Did Al Gore send a mob to the Capitol? Did Al Gore call up state election officials and try to get them to change the tally? Did Al Gore float the idea of sending the military to seize ballot boxes? Did Al Gore float the idea of using the military to stay in power (or in his case acquire power)?

Nope, just your usual silly what abouting.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You mean a protest? Is protesting illegal?

Some people consider a protest "Democracy in action".

[Krychek_2]

Armchair Lawyer, give it up. Everyone with a television saw what happened on January 6. Nobody except Trump's partisans thinks it was anything other than to change election results by force.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It was a protest that got out of hand, due to a massive lack of security (for some reason).

There is zero chance it would have changed the election results.

[Krychek_2]

So it's only a crime if it had a good chance of succeeding? A lot of people doing hard time for conspiracy would like a word.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There are enough laws out there, that almost anything can be criminalized. January 6th was a protest that got out of hand. In my mind, it should have been treated exactly the same as the DisruptJ20 protests. Both it could be argued were designed to "stop the transfer of power".

If someone was particularly violent, sure prosecute them. But if someone entered the Capitol peacefully for 15 minutes, then left? Those charges should be dropped, in my opinion. If investigated at all.

The level of intense investigation and prosecution for what are fairly minor crimes (Parading in a federal building, or some nonsense) without any violence on the part of the individual...its extreme, and can be looked at as fascist, in my opinion. It's using the power of the state to suppress non-violent protests and those who disagree.

If Trump had come down hard on the J20 protestors...you'd be screaming fascism. But...he didn't. Charges were all dismissed. Because, when it comes to his actual actions, Trump was not authoritarian.

[Sarcastr0]

January 6th was a protest that got out of hand

The specific evidence that this is not the case:
1) Social media from the insurrectionists and coordinators of same
2) Trump's reaction once the protest 'got out of hand.'

if someone entered the Capitol peacefully for 15 minutes, then left? Those charges should be dropped, in my opinion. If investigated at all.
Have you checked into the charges the J6 folks are going down for? I haven't checked every single one, but by and large I have good news for your desires!

[Armchair Lawyer]

I have. There's a list. In alphabetical order.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

Here's just the first. The majority of cases are like this.

Your affiant submits there is also probable cause to believe that ADAMS violated 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D) and (G), which makes it a crime to willfully and knowingly (D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any ofthe Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrnpt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee ofCongress or either House of Congress; and (G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any ofthe Capitol Buildings. "

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jan 6th actually silenced what was going to be a Congressional protest of questionable electors that -- itself -- might have reversed the election.

In other words, was Jan 6th a DEMOCRAT plot?

[David Nieporent]

It was a protest that got out of hand,

In much the same way that Kristallnacht was.

[Kleppe]

"Nobody except Trump’s partisans thinks it was anything other than to change election results by force"

Oops! You accidentally told the truth. You are correct that the only people who believe it was an attempt to "change election results by force" are the anti-Trumpists. "Trump's partisans," meanwhile, viewed it as a protest.

[Krychek_2]

Kleppe, wisdom and reason occasionally drop by your house in the same manner in which a crow follows its nose when it smells carrion.

[Krayt]

Both sides were massivy engaged in "finding a few more votes".

This is only a problem if you think it implies fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

he had an election challenge and legal lawsuits, as is appropriate?

He asked the DoJ to lie. He asked the military to impound ballots. He asked governors to fabricate votes. He asked false electors be drawn up. He asked the VP to break the law. And more.

This isn't legal lawsuits. You support this shit. You don't care for democracy, if it allows Democrats to win.

[Nige]

It's different because he is alleged to have engaged in fraud and conspiracy and a Trump-friendly mob invaded the capitol to instal him as president.

[Kleppe]

"Trump-friendly mob invaded the capitol to instal him as president."

It's curious the thousands of rabid Trump supporters went to Washington to do an insurrection and every one, to a man, forgot his rifle. I'm sure this has kept you up at night.

[Nige]

It really isn't (and some of them didn't.) They did what they did. Stuff they didn't do is irrelevant.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're losing your touch.

You've already used this deflection many times in the past, and it's never worked out well for you before. Perhaps you should just never comment here again, since nothing you ever post is offered in good faith or honest discussion.

[David Nieporent]

You mean, he had an election challenge and legal lawsuits, as is appropriate?

No. He means that Trump tried to overturn an election he lost.

How is that different from Al Gore’s challenges in 2000?

You are not stupid enough not to know the answer to that question.

[Nelson]

“How is that different from Al Gore’s challenges in 2000?”

When Al Gore lost once at SCOTIS, he said, “OK, game over.”. Trump has lost dozens of times at every level and still insists he won.

[Nige]

'are a massive aberration.'

Not sure that's true. That they are truly universal might be a relatively recent idea, but even that goes back to the 18th century. Before that rights and priveleges and protections and the duties of those further up the social ladder to those below were fairly well understood, and sometimes even enforced by those even further up the social ladder, if you were lucky, but they definitely existed. That these early systems were wholly unfair and unsatisfactory led to various social movements aimed at securing rights and protections for all and enshrining them in law.

Of course that also coincided with the industrial revolution and the breakdown of what was left of the old feudal systems,so it's entirely possible, if fanciful, to imagine that whatever is breaking down now might lead to a whole new system of rights, although the interregnum was lengthy and horrible for the poor, so the example isn't encouraging. The massive concentration of wealth currently occurring and the seemingly relentless drive to lower wages, drive people out of work, dismantle social benefits and completely ignore global environmental breakdown isn't encouraging either.

[Commenter_XY]

So I wonder if maybe the democratic experiment may be winding down and we may be headed back toward a period of uniformly authoritarian government throughout the world.

Could be true. I wonder though if the Presidency is about to become the province of the uber-wealthy. How many can afford 100MM in legal bills? Not too many. I see this as a great potential danger.

The other thing that happens is extreme disconnection from those who govern, and the governed is even more exacerbated. A veritable toxic brew that eats away at our Republic.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I mean, you have a bizzare idea of what fascism is with some of these examples.

What "basic institutions" of Democracy did Trump "dismantle"?

I mean, I suppose you could argue the state-media-tech complex that strongly limited free speech was like that. But Trump didn't stand for that...he was affected by it.

[Sarcastr0]

If Trump wins the Presidency, started pulling broadcast licenses, calling for unseating Dems in Congress, impeaching judges, could you honestly say you'd be against that?

[DaveM]

That's not a serious question, I hope.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not. See Trump was president, and that didn't really happen.

(OK, Trump called for Democrats to be defeated in Congressional elections, but that's pretty standard for any President)

[Sarcastr0]

No, I'm serious. You've evinced support for some very authoritarian policies. Trump seems to be threatening some vastly more expansive authoritarian in his second term.

I can't see you saying he'd gone too far, just about no matter what he does.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What I have is Trump's history of what he's actually done.

And he's been far less authoritarian than Biden or the Democrats. Far, far less so.

[Sarcastr0]

See you're already carrying water for Trump 2024.

Don't listen to the authoritarian shit Trump promises?! He's telling us what he is. And so are you.

""Why should NBC, or any other of the corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE? They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!"

Don't cover for this authoritarianism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So you want to repeal Federal law that goes back to the 1930s and let anyone broadcast on any frequency they desire? (Or at least above the low frequencies that the military was using at the time.)

For nearly a century, those licensed to use the limited resource of the electromagnetic spectrum have been required to do so "in the public interest" and this is where the "fairness doctrine" came from -- something that the left would like to see return.

All Trump is doing is restating longstanding Federal policy, albeit in a rather incendiary manner. Broadcast licenses *have* been revoked, see WHDH-TV Channel 5 in Boston in the 1970s. And if NBC is "corrupt" -- i.e. has finances other than the regulated/reported ones or intentionally dishonest, the FCC has power to act. In fact, the station has to reapply for license renewal every seven (?) years.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, there is no middle ground between not wanting Trump to shut down dissenting media and wanting the spectrum to be unregulated.

All Trump is doing
Yeah, everyone can read what Trump is doing. Except you, I guess.

[David Nieporent]

And if NBC is “corrupt” — i.e. has finances other than the regulated/reported ones or intentionally dishonest, the FCC has power to act.

This is, of course, wrong as a matter of law; the FCC licenses stations, not networks.

[not guilty]

I think that networks still own some individual stations.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What I look at is what Trump has done, versus what Biden has done.

Biden has been far more authoritarian than Trump.

Biden has used the power of the state to persecute his political enemies. Trump did not do that.

[Nige]

Except he hasn’t. Being Biden's political enemy doesn't immunise you against legal proceedings for alleged criminality.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't look at what Trump did, I guess. He asked for a lot of folks to do a lot of awful stuff. He was shut down for the most part, but has said he won't make the mistake of appointing people who are not slavishly loyal this time.

Apocalyptic? No. But not worth ignoring like you are either.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Biden has used the power of the state to persecute his political enemies."

Another bald-faced lie from AL.

[Nige]

Which includes a record of trying to set federal institutions on his enemies, foiled by the illegaliity of such acts, prompting him to promise to instal more illegality-friendly officials or destroy insitutions that defy him in that regard. Threats of civil war are also on the record.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But, let's look at this Fascism bit from a different angle.

When Trump was first elected, there was an organization that sought to interfere with the transfer of power. This was the "DisruptJ20" movement.

Now, I want you to imagine, that rather than simply dropping all changes, Trump instead ordered the DoJ to investigate and arrest anyone and everyone involved with this, and charge them with the most minor crime possible, at the maximum possible sentence. This was the FBI's top priority, no expense spared. And anyone seen doing anything violent would be held for months to a year before trial, without possibility of bail. Sometimes in solitary.

Would that be "Fascist" in your opinion, if Trump ordered and did that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisruptJ20

[Sarcastr0]

DisruptJ20 (also Disrupt J20) was an organization that protested and attempted to disrupt events of the presidential inauguration

You sometimes amaze me with how dumb you are.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Mmm. Insults, the mark of an eloquent individual.

[SimonP]

"Your refusal to engage with my bad-faith apologia like it's a serious attempt at argument, and your decision to respond merely with time-saving contempt, only helps me to shore up the walls of the echo chamber I've constructed around myself."

[Nige]

'that sought to interfere with the transfer of power.'

Nope.

[Kenneth Almquist]

If Trump ordered and did that, it would be politicizing the administration of justice, which is wrong.

In the DisruptJ20 case that went to trial was a conspiracy case, and based on reporting it appears that the DoJ took the position that being present at the protest was sufficient to establish membership in the conspiracy. The jury was not convinced, and acquitted on all counts. The DoJ apparently learned its lesson, eventually dropping the remaining DisruptJ20 cases, and later, in the January 20 cases, only charging people who actually entered the Capitol, plus a few people that they could show were involved in planning criminal activity based on text messages and other communications.

So the Justice Department overstepped in the DisruptJ20 case, but there is no evidence that Trump was involved. If he had involved himself in the prosecution, that would have been wrong, and (since you ask) a step towards fascism.

[Krayt]

Go check out Drudgereport rn. Trump is saying all kinds of wild shit he's gonna do if he wins.

Drudgereport, for the 1 of 100 who don't know, was a right wing new site, portal style from eons ago, that somehow pissed off Trump and so is now a darling along with other notable left wingers like John Bolton, Pence, and Barr.

[Kazinski]

Interesting connection between the Biden influence peddling scandal and the Robert Menendez. In 2010 Menendez was hosting the US-Spain Council which is described as "CEOs of the major banks” in Spain as well as the country’s foreign minister".

Menendez wanted to have Joe Biden host the meeting at the Naval Observatory, but when Menendez's staff reached out to the VP's staff they got turned down.

What's interesting is the next person Menendez Chief of Staff contacted to try to get Biden to host the meeting: Eric Schwerin, Hunter's partner at Rosemont Seneca.

Why would Hunter's business partner be the go to to ask Joe to give a favor to his former colleague in the Senate?
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/11/14/48894675-10070093-In_2010_Danny_O_Brien_an_aide_to_U_S_Spain_Council_chair_Senator-a-2_1633958307584.jpg

Its also worth noting at about that time Hunter and Schwerin were trying to negotiate an 800k success fee from CAF the Spanish rail manufacturer for a 300 million deal with Amtrak, this was just a year after Hunter left Amtrak's board. and asking for Menendez's help.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/22/hunter-biden-suggest-lobby-bob-menendez-emails-bribery/

[Nige]

'the Biden influence peddling scandal'

Still trying to make fetch happen.

'they got turned down.'

Oh wow, the usual sort of connection.

[Sarcastr0]

He called them the Biden crime family before. He's backpedaling, but still in crazytown.

[Tom for equal rights]

Hunter got paid a few $million from bursima
Hunter got paid a few $million from a couple chinese groups

Gotta wonder why Hunter would have continued to get paid if he wasnt getting results.

Gotta wonder what Hunter provided of commensorate value that would have justified that level of compensation.

[Sarcastr0]

Now do every other member of a corporate board. Why are they all paid so much?

[Tom for equal rights]

Duh - because they provided something of value

The question is what value did Hunter provide. Should not be so hard to solve. Use an open mind, Be objective.

[Sarcastr0]

Hunter had a business background well within the usual corporate board norm.
He also had a name that brought prestige. Like tons of other celebrities or failsons on corporate boards.

You don't get to res ipsa corruption. You need to provide evidence not handwaiving.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 20 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Hunter had a business background well within the usual corporate board norm"

Sarcastro - Have you actually looked at his employment history. Almost all lobbying and influence peddling. The business value he was contributing wasnt business, but influence.

Google huner biden employment history.

[loki13]

We've been over this before. If you think this is unusual, you are just beclowning yourself because you don't actually have any familiarity with who usually serves on the BOD of companies.

For fun, I posted the BOD for Disney during Eisner's tenure. It included such luminaries as his attorney (who was also the chair of the compensation committee that determined his salary), the guy who designed the house ...oh, and the principal of his kid's elementary school.

That Biden's son served on corporate boards is the least surprising news ever, and it says a lot about corporate boards, and very little about Biden.

[Tom for equal rights]

It says a lot about why he was hired to serve on the board including what value he added

[Nige]

Damn those Harvard grads.

[ducksalad]

What's Harvard got to do with Hunter Biden?

[Nige]

D'oh! Yale.

[ducksalad]

But your examples help make his point.

Eisner put his own attorney on the board because he would be a reliable yes-man literally paid to look out for Eisner's personal interests.

Eisner put his kid's principal on the board to ensure (one guesses) that his kid got favorable attention.

Eisner put his architect on the board because he's a personal friend and to reward him for doing a good job on the house.

Burisma put Hunter Biden on the board because ____________.

Please fill in the blank. I'm not asking for some pure and noble motive from a business school textbook; I'm not asking for business expertise. I'm merely asking for any plausible reason, even something totally sordid, other than buying influence with the US through Joe Biden.

[grb]

ducksalad : "Burisma put Hunter Biden on the board because ____________"

The same reason they put Aleksander Kwasniewski on the board at the same time as Hunter. Kwasniewski was the ex-president of Poland and cheerfully admits he knew nothing about Burisma’s business. But I’ll let him explain:

“I understand that if someone asks me to be part of some project it’s not only because I’m so good, it’s also because I am Kwasniewski and I am a former president of Poland,” he said. “And this is all inter-connected. No-names are a nobody. Being Biden is not bad. It’s a good name.”

He also went on to say Hunter Biden carried out research and brought a unique American perspective to the company, including in the areas of corporate governance, capital markets and gas drilling equipment, where Americans are world leaders.

“He collected information,” Kwasniewski said. “He was useful for us because he knew something that we didn’t know.”

Of course Kwasniewski and Biden were part of a wider set of changes from Burmisa. Alan Apter, a financier respected in the U.S. and Europe, was named as new chairmen of the board. Burisma brought in a premium accounting firm to do their books. It was a charm offensive to buy respectability and Hunter was probably pennies on the dollar compared to the other measures.

https://apnews.com/article/37424b8a0a994c1a935c5831643a84e3

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Neal Bush has been on China’s payroll for over 20 years!?! Remember the Rodham brothers?? And everyone knows Kushner/Trump helped MBS put sanctions on Qatar in order to get billions in the future.

[grb]

It’s funny to watch all the Right-types here do their best Inspector Renault imitation on this stuff. You want pay-for-play? Just after Trump’s inaugeration, Mar-A-Lago doubled their membership fees, corporate leaders lined-up to pay out, and everyone got a chance to pitch directly to the president during his scores of times at the resort.

No one claimed this illegal (as opposed to sordid) and it got one or two news articles, not the hundreds on Hunter. This despite the fact it directly involved the president, not a son or dependent.

Of course you can argue Trump was corrupt in so many ways it was hard to give each its due, but that doesn’t change the double standard here. As to dependents, yes, Kushner got a two billion dollar pay-off from the Saudi’s soon after the Trump Administration ended. It was from a government investment fund, and the Saudi agency who managed it advised against the decision – finding it a risky business decision – but was overruled by Crown Prince Muhammad bin salman. The investment had a 25 million dollar management fee that went right into Kushner’s pocket.

[ducksalad]

grb: To the extent the facts are as you state them, I'm fine with labelling Trump and Kushner corrupt, and saying no one should ever vote for them, even if that was the only thing on their list. I wasn't going to vote for Trump anyway.

You state that the Saudis waited until the Trump Administration was over. Of course we can guess that it was effectively payment for past "services" rendered. However, at least Kushner and the Saudis realized that making the payment earlier would be direct purchase of influence with a currently sitting officeholder.

[ducksalad]

QA: No. I admit that Hunter serving on a normal corporate board is fine. At this point I don’t think he does anything honest, but that’s a separate issue.

What makes it all questionable is the combination of:

(a) The company itself had been accused of corruption, and had a serious interest in who served as prosecutor.

(b) His father decided to involve himself specifically in who serves as prosecutor the Ukraine. And no, that is not something he had a responsibility or requirement to do.

(c) The son has a known habit of bringing up the “big guy” in his business conversations.

[Nige]

'His father decided to involve himself specifically in who serves as prosecutor the Ukraine'

Oops. No. He was directed to be point man on a poilcy backed by international consensus.

[Sarcastr0]

His father decided to involve himself specifically in who serves as prosecutor the Ukraine.
That is not in evidence. We don't know who sent Biden on that trip. But we do know his role was messenger not policymaker.

The son has a known habit of bringing up the “big guy” in his business conversations.
Not really relevant to his dad's behavior.

You keep yelling there is smoke so there may be fire. But there isn't even smoke.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN took care of this last week:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/18/monday-open-thread-18/?comments=true#comment-10240158

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

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

[Tom for equal rights]

He got job as senior VP at MNBA immediately after graduating from Yale law. looks like he skipped a few levels on the corporate ladder upon graduation. Any thoughts on why?

[Sarcastr0]

GOP tools you only now discovering the existence of old boys clubs continues to amuse.

[grb]

Probably means Charles Cawley liked him.

[grb]

It's instructive to see the Burisma press release on Hunter's hiring. His CV reads pretty good, doesn't it?

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

[ducksalad]

We totally understand that board members are often picked for off-resume reasons like being someone’s friend, exchanging favors, gaining reliable votes, sending a message about diversity or outlook, etc. They are usually qualified in that they’ve got some business background and a law or business degree, but there is some other reason they were picked out of the tens of thousands of people who have a law degree or MBA from a top school.

If some random Yale grad with business experience ends up on the board of XYZ Corporation, and it’s because she was friends with the CEO’s wife back in school, that is absolutely fine. Or at least, it’s not corruption of a government official.

So what’s the claimed reason for Hunter Biden? I know he's got a decent resume. But what got him picked out of the thousands of other people who have equally good resumes you could find on LinkedIn.

[Sarcastr0]

No one here is saying having the name 'Biden' didn't help.

But that is not a crime. It is, in fact, extremely normal.

[Brett Bellmore]

As the saying goes, the real crime is what's legal. Our society has been accrediting layer after layer of corruption, for decades now, and it's getting really hard for somebody to get out ahead of the curve far enough that their corruption is conspicuously worse than the norm.

[Sarcastr0]

As the saying goes, the real crime is what’s legal

Holy shit, Brett. You’ve been saying *the exact opposite of this* about Trump! That all the heinous stuff he did doesn't count because he's not been charged.

What a shameful display.

[ducksalad]

You know what? You’re right. Hunter Biden being on that board, by itself, is not a crime. Furthermore, by itself, it’s not even sleazy. People like Amy Carter or Michelle Obama sit on all kinds of organization boards and I don’t have the slightest concern about them. I withdraw my question about how Hunter got on that board.

Now we need to address the business of Joe Biden going and pressuring them to fire a prosecutor – and openly bragging that he essentially fired him himself – for not cracking down enough on corporate corruption, at a time when his son was on the board of a corporation accused of corruption.

Sure, you can spin it that this was against his son’s interests. Maybe, we’d need to know what that prosecutor really had in mind. But the fact remains, it was a conflict of interest.

Biden should have recused himself from that trip. It’s not like we didn’t have a Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, etc who could have gone to put on the pressure.

Failure to recuse without any evidence of actual bad motive is a minor violation, not impeachable or even worth pursuing in my opinion. But if a money trail develops....

[Sarcastr0]

The Administration had already made the decision to insist on the firing independent of Biden, so there is no CoI.

[grb]

ducksalad : “Now we need to address the business of Joe Biden going and pressuring them to fire a prosecutor”

Sigh. Do you really want to embarrass yourself with this nonsense?

1. Demanding Shokin be fired was the official policy of the President, White House, State Department, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, a bi-partisan group of Senators, the German government, the French government, the EU, the IMF, the World Bank, and every anti-corruption group in Ukraine itself. Is it possible you don’t know this ?!?

2. Here’s an account of a public speech by U.S. Ambassador Pyatt given in Odessa before Biden’s trip. (Please note he criticized Shokin for shielding Burisma) :

“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.

3. One of the major reasons Biden was sent to Kiev by the President and State Department was to demand Shokin’s ouster. That’s precisely what he was told to do. Don’t you know this?

4. Linking the loan to Shokin’s firing was White House policy. So explain what “minor violation” you see in Joe Biden following the instructions he was given and the publicly-held policy of the entire U.S. government?

[myself]

Now we need to address the business of Joe Biden going and pressuring them to fire a prosecutor – and openly bragging that he essentially fired him himself – for not cracking down enough on corporate corruption

Carrying out an objective that the Administration wanted, the GOP wanted, the EU wanted, everybody wanted except the prosecutor, Bursima, and other folks worried about being investigated for corruption.

at a time when his son was on the board of a corporation accused of corruption.

Sure, you can spin it that this was against his son’s interests.

So a company can hire the VP's kid and now the VP should recuse themselves from business with that country? (even when the company isn't directly involved?)

Maybe, we’d need to know what that prosecutor really had in mind.

Yeah, his well documented history of blocking cases against influential figures and companies gives us no idea if he was planning to fight corruption.

But the fact remains, it was a conflict of interest.

I can't wait until I hear what you think of Kushner's dealings with the Middle East and the subsequent piles of money his family got from the Saudi Royal Family.

[ducksalad]

Esteemed colleagues:

You are pointing out, correctly, that none of these things taken alone are illegal or even suspicious. Let me offer an analogy:

1. Nothing wrong with wearing a Covid mask.
2. Nothing wrong with owning a fast car.
3. Nothing wrong with carrying a handgun.
4. Nothing wrong with walking into a bank.
5. Nothing wrong with asking for money, even if it’s not yours.

The combination, however.

[grb]

ducksalad (Esteemed Colleague),

(1) Shokin was grotesquely corrupt
(2) It was the open policy of the entire U.S. government he be fired.
(3) Biden was sent to Kiev by the White House to demand that.
(4) It was White House policy to link the loan to his firing.

Now maybe you think you can still make something from that, despite those documented facts. I don’t have a strong sense how delusional you are. But back here on Planet Earth, the Right’s Shokin conspiracy is only good for scamming the dimmest and most gullible of the base. It can survive only in the Right’s whore media, where the all facts against it never appear. It can’t survive in any congressional setting where the Biden side can call witnesses. It can’t survive a moment’s scrutiny.

Any questions?

[Nige]

'The combination, however.'

As with people claiming Biden did something wrong, you are completely omitting any actual crime, except by implication.

[jb]

Just to draw a recent analogy from the news, what kind of background in airline operations makes it so Delta airlines wants to pay Tom Brady a bunch of money as an advisor?

[not guilty]

In the Fulton County prosecution, the Defendant Kenneth Chesebro has filed a motion to suppress email communications that he alleges were obtained via search warrants in violation of O.C.G.A. § 17-5-32(c). https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23988865/23sc188947-motion-to-suppress-chesebro-email.pdf The motion nowhere apprizes the Court that, per § 17-5-32(b), the statute applies only to documentary evidence in the possession of an attorney who is not a criminal suspect. Subsection (b) expressly states that "This Code section shall not impair the ability to serve search warrants in cases in which the search is directed against an attorney if there is probable cause to suspect such attorney has committed a crime."

The motion nowhere discusses whether the affidavit in support of the search warrant (attached to the motion as part of Exhibit B) fails to show probable cause to suspect that Chesebro had committed a crime. It is fine for a criminal defense lawyer to push the envelope in service of his client, but misleading the Court is not effective advocacy.

[Kazinski]

Did they have probable cause?

[Zarniwoop]

By the date of the warrant - July 20, 2023, I am pretty darn sure they had probable cause to think Chesebro was involved in the conspiracy.

The warrant wasn’t an early fishing expedition through an attorney’s email; it was collecting evidence against the specific target, and the specific target happens to be an attorney. Which is solidly in the realm of OCGA 17-5-32(b).

[not guilty]

A Fulton County Superior Court found probable cause to believe that a search of Chesebro's Microsoft account, [e-mail], would yield evidence of numerous crimes, listed specifically at page 1 of the warrant. The affidavit in support of the warrant details Chesebro's participation in the fake elector scheme, referring to memoranda written by him and his email correspondence with other attorneys and the Georgia fake electors. Probable cause is there in abundance.

A search or seizure conducted pursuant to a search warrant is presumed to be reasonable. Chesebro's motion makes no claim that there was no probable cause for issuance of the warrant; he instead relies upon a statute that by its own terms is inapplicable to search warrants in cases in which the search is directed against an attorney if there is probable cause to suspect such attorney has committed a crime.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wouldn't it be the duty of the prosecutor to point out § 17-5-32(b) if it says what you allege?

Isn't that why the other side is asked to respond to motions?

[not guilty]

Georgia's Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.

But apart from the ethical lapse, the omission here -- which renders the motion nugatory -- is piss poor advocacy.

[Ridgeway]

Fn 3 talks about the "suspect" issue. You may not find it convincing (I don't think I do either), but it is not like they ignored it completely.

[Zarniwoop]

“Not convincing” is an understatement. Fn.3 tries to argue he didn’t get a target letter sometime in 2022, so Chesebro couldn’t possibly be ”suspect”.

They conveniently ignore the Affidavit supporting the warrant application:

24. The evidence stated above shows that Kenenth Chesebro used the [e-mail] e-mail account to conspire with others in the Trump campaign and in Georgia to violate Georgia law. Specifically, Chesebro provided the documents and guidance that co-conspirators on the ground in Georgia would then use to falsely represent on forged documents on December 14, 2020 that they were the “duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia” despite Georgia Governor Brian Kemp certifying multiple times that Joseph Biden had received more votes in Georgia than had Donald Trump. Chesebro also provided the documents and guidance that allowed these forged documents to be submitted and entered into the public record maintained by the National Archives of the United States of America.

… and it keeps going with details about how Chesebro is pretty clearly a “suspect” supported by PC at the time the warrant was issued. Ignoring significant, plainly relevant evidence is also pretty weak-sauce advocacy.

[Zarniwoop]

Also from the affidavit in support of the warrant application:

25. The above-listed Georgia crimes of Impersonating a Public Officer, Forgery in the First Degree, False Statements and Writings, and Filing False Documents are acts of racketeering activity under Georgia law, and Chesebro's acting as the intermediary and liaison between officials in the Trump campaign and David Shafer, who committed the overt acts of signing and sending the documents, is evidence and proof of Chesebro's conspiracy to commit these acts of racketeering activity.

[not guilty]

Footnote 3 of the Chesebro motion does not discuss § 17-5-32(b); it instead cites to § 17-5-32(c). Subsection (b) declares the entire statute to be inapplicable to warrants in which the search is directed against an attorney if there is probable cause to suspect such attorney has committed a crime -- rendering any discussion of subsection (c) superflous.

[Ed Grinberg]

(comment for Monday open-thread)

In the last open-thread, I linked to a Washington Post article breathlessly reporting a "successful" police raid on a "Nazi" printing press in Argentina, and commented on it using the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Nige responded:

‘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.’

He's being somewhat obscure, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about Antifa -- they "actively oppose" the Nazi / fascist ideology. Well, Nige, I got news for you: The only legitimate way to "oppose" an ideology is to publish your own books, refuting its postulates, not smash its printing presses or beat up its adherents. I'll stick with Voltaire.

Nige & Co.'s modus operandi:
step 1: declare their opponents' ideology "genocidal and oppressive"
step 2: proceed to "actively oppose" them (by oppressing the crap out of them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, etc.)
Works every time!

[Brett Bellmore]

Antifa pursue a strategy of immunizing themselves against people noticing that they ARE fascists, (OK, technically communists, but in the real world the difference between communists and fascists is mostly stylistic.) by claiming to be hunting fascists. It only works with people who want it to work, of course, everybody else still notices that they're just a bunch of violent thugs, the Democratic party's latest goon squad.

[David Welker]

Brett:

I do not believe that, generally speaking, members of the Democratic Party approves of political violence by Antifa or anyone else.

Believing that the most extreme views represent the "other side" is a mistake. There is plenty wrong with the mainstream of both the Republican and Democratic parties that we don't need to be exaggerating or distorting their actual beliefs in order to criticize them.

That said, both parties do have their blindspots and a tendency towards leniency, just so long as it is their own perceived supporters accused of wrong-doing. But this tendency is not absolute.

[Michael P]

Maybe most Democrats don't explicitly approve of that violence. But they're okay with someone else commiting it, and they actively oppose enforcement of the criminal code against Antifa and its members. This makes it hard to tell the difference.

[Martinned]

This is why I read the VC comments section: Such deep, penetrating insight into the mind of American liberals.

[Michael P]

If you lived here you might understand the facts. Something like 95% of charges against Antifa rioters get dismissed.

https://policetribune.com/antifa-charges-dropped-court-says-judge-has-no-authority-to-force-prosecution/

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/heres-how-many-people-had-protest-charges-dropped-in-september/

[Martinned]

Ah yes, those famously lefty prosecutors, who are always looking for an excuse to let a criminal defendant off the hook.

[Michael P]

That is, in fact, a common campaign stance for them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/24/us/larry-krasner-philadelphia-committee-report.html

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/loudoun-county-prosecutors-will-no-longer-handle-some-misdemeanors/3254759/

[Sarcastr0]

'protesters who fought with police'
'interfering with a peace officer'

These are common bullshit charges to arrest protesters. It is not at all surprising they are largely dropped.

They are used for humbling, not jailing.

Not that you know a dang thing about the reality of protesting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Things like a newspaper photo of an airborne bottle of urine about to impact with a police officer's face tend to speak for themselves. And that was a real photo (Boston Herald) of a "peaceful protest."

[Nige]

But was it ever used as evidence of a crime?

[Nige]

Dpesn't that mean they're actually innocent and haven't done anything wrong and you're still trying to inflate them into a terrifying bogeyman (Trump really tried, too, didn't he?) as an excuse for societal crackdowns on people whose politics you don't like?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because bottles of urine levitate and fly through the air on their own? (Imagine how much Global Whatever could be prevented if we could tap that energy source and use it for transportation....)

Parked police cars do not suddenly roll over and explode into flames all on their own, nor do plate glass windows shatter, nor all the valuable things in stores walk down the street all on their own.

Maybe it's an issue of getting the *right* people, but there are people causing this stuff to happen.

[Nige]

'Maybe it’s an issue of getting the *right* people'

Fucking DUH.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know who threw that bottle but you think the police must.

The narrative that no one went to jail in the summer of 2020 for vandalism has been debunked many times on here. But the persecution complex lives on.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's quite possible that the rank and file Democrat doesn't approve of Antifa. In fact, I'd say there's a lot of evidence to that effect, Antifa and Democratic city governments tolerating their rioting seem in part to be responsible for their eroding support among minorities. (Who, after all, suffer their depredations.)

Antifa, like the Klan before them, are an instrument of the Democratic party's leadership, not the membership. It wasn't average Democrats paying into bail funds for Antifa rioters, after all. It was people like our current VP.

You can see this in where they riot. In theory, you'd think they'd have more to complain about in areas where Republicans are in control. But they only riot where Democrats run the local government. It's not that they're not present elsewhere, it's just that they're on their best behavior where they know the local government doesn't have their back.

Why? Because they need the support of local government to avoid ending up in prison.

[Nige]

You're spinning a lot of bullshit out of Democrats recognising that the police rounded loads of people up and arrested them just for protesting.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Unfortunately the 2A protects those entities as part of the unorganized militia…so take it up with the Framers.

[Martinned]

Is that unorganized militia the same militia as the "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" that the constitution actually refers to?

[Randal]

It's also possible that Antifa is a figment of your imagination.

[David Nieporent]

It wasn’t average Democrats paying into bail funds for Antifa rioters, after all. It was people like our current VP.

100% fiction.

[JasonT20]

There is plenty wrong with the mainstream of both the Republican and Democratic parties that we don’t need to be exaggerating or distorting their actual beliefs in order to criticize them.

But it is just so much fun to do that. Don't you believe in fun?

[Nige]

I don't think you really know a single thing about who antifa are, but you need a rationale for siding with the Nazis.

[Sarcastr0]

Antifa is not an actual group, though. There is no sign of coordination.
Antifa was yahoos on twitter who adopted a brand. There is no Antifa Leader.

There is no Antifa HQ, other than your brain.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, just repeating, "They're not a group, there's no coordination!" doesn't make it true.

They're coordinated enough to show up in the same place at the same time wearing the same clothing, that's more coordinated than half the groups in the country.

You're mistaking a terrorist group adopting an opaque organizational structure for security reasons, for not having an organizational structure. Sure, they're not chartered as a 501-C3 in Delaware, with a public org chart. That doesn't mean they're not organized.

[Michael P]

Nah, Rose City Antifa, Philly Antifa, Milwaukee Antifa (whose Facebook page is named "WisCommunist" for reasons that are only clear to anyone who knows even a bit of Antifa history) and other organizations like them are totally just your imagination. Or maybe they're false flag right-wing insurrection conspiracies.

- Gaslight0

[Sarcastr0]

First, Brett is talking about a national network.

But I talked about Antifa being an organization. A website does not an organization make.
What have these groups done? They have a website; they raise funds.
What coordinated thing have they done?

[Sarcastr0]

They’re coordinated enough to show up in the same place at the same time wearing the same clothing, that’s more coordinated than half the groups in the country

You have in the past accused Antifa of being a *nationwide paramilitary organization under the auspices of the Democratic Party.’

You have set a bar quite low to support that accusation. And so low it doesn't contradict my twitter randos counter.

You’re mistaking a terrorist group adopting an opaque organizational structure for security reasons
YOU NEED EVIDENCE OF THAT MORE THAN THEY WEAR THE SAME OUTFITS

[Nige]

'a terrorist group'

Has any member of antifa ever been arrested on charges of terrorism?

Literally anyobdy can name themselves antifa and send out a few emails to put together a counterprotest when the Nazis march or the Proud Boys assemble bravely at a library or bookshop.

[Randal]

That's called a flash mob, not an antifa.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte.

This is like saying the ACLU doesn't exist because it is a whole bunch of local organizations that (theoretically) share common values & goals.

Antifa is a well-organized NATIONAL confederation of like-minded radicals, as was BAMN before it, and whatever they called themselves before that. Back before the internet, they used to physically travel to meet fellow travelers and return with paper literature, now it's all electronic.

They've been around for 30 years that I know of and probably date all the way back to the 1970s. And they are centered on college campi and live off the academic largess, another reason why the right hates higher education.

[Brett Bellmore]

Antifa goes back to before WWII, when they actually were fighting fascists, in Europe. Of course, they were fighting them on behalf of the communists, it was an argument between two competing totalitarian movements which would get to do the heel grinding.

[Sarcastr0]

Antifa goes back to before WWII

The name does. You are conflating a brand with an organization.

[grb]

The first use of the term in the U.S, dates all the way back to ..... 2007

[Nige]

‘well-organized NATIONAL confederation’

Nonsense. It’s more like a meme than an organisation. Turn up at a Nazi rally with a ‘fuck Nazis’ sign and you’re antifa. That doesn’t take much organisation that just takes modern tech and lots of people who, properly, hate Nazis. There are presumably mailing lists and chat groups and message boards, but nobody can provide a charter or point at a national committee or any form of central organisation.

[David Nieporent]

This is like saying the ACLU doesn’t exist because it is a whole bunch of local organizations that (theoretically) share common values & goals.

It is like that, except that the ACLU is an actual organization, with members, dues, a board of directors, officials, bank accounts and other assets, that holds meetings, files lawsuits, and takes other formal actions.

Antifa is… none of those things.

[Kazinski]

I wonder what Nige thinks about this:

TORONTO (AP) — The speaker of Canada’s House of Commons apologized Sunday for recognizing a man who fought for a Nazi military unit during World War II.

Just after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered an address in the House of Commons on Friday, Canadian lawmakers gave 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka a standing ovation when Speaker Anthony Rota drew attention to him. Rota introduced Hunka as a war hero who fought for the First Ukrainian Division.

Canadian lawmakers cheered and Zelenskyy raised his fist in acknowledgement as Hunka saluted from the gallery during two separate standing ovations. Rota called him a “Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service.”

The First Ukrainian Division was also known as the Waffen-SS Galicia Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division, a voluntary unit that was under the command of the Nazis."

Even worse, in Nige's view, he was fighting communists.

[Martinned]

I don't know about Nige, but I think that Canadian lawmakers, like lawmakers in other countries, are probably a significant percentage idiots.

[Mr. Bumble]

Led by the biggest idiot, J.T.

[Martinned]

You're welcome to vote him out of office if you don't like him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don’t think US citizens can vote in Canada. It will be up to Canadian's to do that.
By the way, I was only agreeing with your comment about idiot lawmakers.

[Martinned]

You mean that the Prime Minister of Canada is not accountable to the average blowhard in the VC comments section? Wow, who'd have thought?

[Michael P]

Are you trying to compete with Trudeau for the title of biggest idiot, or trying to establish creds as the biggest hypocrite?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, I mean the Canadian PM is one of the idiots you alluded to.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Kaz, I’m sure this was covert support for Nazis not some dumbass PA screwup.

Even worse, in Nige’s view, he was fighting communists. You are saying is soooo Communist it’s time for some light Godwinning.

[Nige]

I think it's an absolute disgrace and everyone invloved should be called to the carpet and made to explain themselves and how the hell is an ex-SS monster walking around free?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I recall correctly, the US was allied with Stalin in that war.

Was that because we liked Stalin, or hated Hitler more?
And couldn't the same thing be true here?

[Frank Drackman]

The Japs, Jap/Slapped us December 7th, formally declared Wah.
Their allies the Krauts and the Dagos followed suit.
Roosh-a hadn't attacked us or declared Wah on us.
Like Some Jew said,
"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend"
OK, not like I'd want to have a Beer with Josef Stalin, but he was better (barely) for my Tribe than Herr Hitler,

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

For the life of me, I don't know why you guys humor the Double Dumbass Twins Nige and SarcastrO by attempting to engage with them.

[Sarcastr0]

Luv to have a nemesis.

Wish it wasn't someone as petty as Bumble, but so it goes.

[Randal]

My favorite thing about Mr. Bumble is that he's a furry.

[Nige]

‘but I’m pretty sure he’s talking about Antifa’

Uh, no.

‘The only legitimate way to “oppose” an ideology is to publish your own books, refuting its postulates, not smash its printing presses or beat up its adherents. I’ll stick with Voltaire.’

Wow, you think Nazism still needs opposing via *argument?* That somehow it’s ideology and adherents haven’t been wholly discredited and rendered utterly anathema?

This, actually, proves the point I *was* making.

‘step 1: declare their opponents’ ideology “genocidal and oppressive”’

I did not realise that this was either controversial or some sort of unsupported assertion about Nazism.

‘step 2: proceed to “actively oppose” them (by oppressing the crap out of them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, etc.)’

So, let me get this straight, you’re defending the people who oppressed other people, rounded them up and put them into camps, and for whom this is a central ideology, using completely made-up fears based on the occasional daft anarchist getting into fights with Nazi scum?

Not to be redundant, but QED.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Wow, you think Nazism still needs opposing via *argument?*"

Of course they do. You want people to come along and argue that the death camps weren't baked into fascism, that it was just that the wrong people were implementing it? Like you see argued so often with communism? Of course you want people to understand why the death camps were not an aberration due to German fascism being implemented by bad people, but instead being due to it BEING fascism!

It's vitally important that people understand that totalitarian movements turning ugly isn't a matter of the wrong people heading them up, that the Nazis would have been a horror even if Hitler had stuck to painting.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you ever read the Antisemite and the Jew? It's not long.

Some things, you should not both engaging with.

[Nige]

'Of course they do'

See? They still have enough credibility with Brett to be at the debating stage.

Just conceding that there's a debate to be had is a level of acceptance Nazis whould never ever be afforded. The only thing debating with Nazis got us was World War II.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, didn't Franklin Roosevelt round up people and put them into camps?

[Nige]

Were they Nazis?

[Nelson]

No. They were Japanese. It's one of the most egregious examples of government authoritarianism in American history.

[Nige]

It was bad, but not as bad as slavery or Jim Crow. Was it as bad as the Tuskegee experiments? Who can say? None of them were aimed at Nazis, the initial claim being that this was the sort of thing people want to do to Nazis. Historically, Nazis in America have had relatively little to worry about. All the people Nazis hate? A lot to worry about.

[Sarcastr0]

Were they death camps, Ed?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, in the sense that people died in them, Yes.
Peoples were shot /killed for trying to escape, some 1,800 died during their "Interment"
OK, not quite 6 million, but again, this wasn't (Supposed to be) Nazi Germany
Wow, you're defending the "Interment" of Japanese-Amurican Amurican Citizens entirely on the basis of their race.

Frank

[DaveM]

I Just Cancelled My YouTube Premium Subscription.

I'm not a fan of Russell Brand, but I do know about him and have seen some of his videos. Politically, he's on the Left -- the original Left, not the identity-politics Left. In terms of speech, he's very anti-establishment, very anti-corporate. In terms of philosophy, he's a reformed libertine: he's been through the Hell of an unrestrained life, somehow managed to survive it, and now he's paying the price in regrets.

I have absolutely no doubt that not only are there skeletons in his closet, but that his closets have closets of skeletons.

But none of that makes it right for Google and all the rest of the corporate techno gang to just up and decide to take him out of business -- not for anything specific, or actionable, or even related to his content, but just because they want to.

When the service you offer is based on user-generated content, there is an expectation that editorializing will kept to a minimum. We don't come to the service for it's own take on things, but for other's.

When this first happened, I sent YouTube a feedback to the effect that I refuse to support arbitrary enforcement of their Terms of Service. I've waited for them to either reverse this decision or explain the reasons why, but they are not forthcoming.

So: I am dropping my premium YouTube subscription, and will stop using YouTube at all.

This is really unfortunate, because I support a huge number of very excellent YouTube content creators. My goal here isn't to make YouTube change. My goal is to buy the services which I like -- and when they stop giving me what I like, I buy something else.

Capitalism to the rescue.

[Martinned]

What do you mean "not for anything specific"?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-emotional-abuse

[DaveM]

Nothingspecifically related to YouTube Terms of Service is what I am referring to. If Google is going to just be arbitrary about how they enforce their terms, then they are an unreliable vendor.

[Nige]

Why make it about a skeevy celebrity? What other examples of arbitrary enforcement are there?

[Martinned]

First of all: you didn't say that.

Secondly: Have you actually read Youtube's terms of service?

YouTube reserves the right to suspend or terminate your Google account or your access to all or part of the Service if: (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or (c) we reasonably believe that there has been conduct that creates liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what did you do to piss off Instagram?

[Davedave]

"Politically, he’s on the Left"

Oh god, do we have to do the whole 'Nazis are on the left because it's called National _Socialism_' drivel? It's one of the most boring of you nuts' 'talking points'.

Because you surely aren't denying that Russell 'the Jews, the Jews' Brand is anything other than overtly neo-Nazi.

[Martinned]

Antisemitism is hardly confined to the right, particularly in the UK. And to the extent that Brand has any kind of coherent world-view, I'd say describing it as "left" isn't unreasonable.

https://jacobin.com/2023/02/russell-brand-populism-establishment-media-neoliberalism

[Davedave]

You, of all people, have the gall to comment on antisemitism?! Anyway, it's by the by.

Brand is firmly on the far right, there is not the least doubt of it. Like many far right nutjobs, while he was being relatively subtle in his propagandising and conspiracy-marketing, he managed to gain support some of those people who lie to themselves about being on the left because they can't confront what they really are, but he has never been anything other than far right.

[VinniUSMC]

Brand is firmly on the far right

Hey dumbdumb, you're a bigger nutjob than Brand if you think that's true.

[Martinned]

You, of all people, have the gall to comment on antisemitism?!

Wait, back up, what is going on here?

[Davedave]

What do you mean 'what is going on here'? You have made your antisemitism plain on multiple occasions. Usually when talking about Israel, but also when defending the faux-left.

That you just linked to a faux-left site known for its antisemitic conspiracy theories (and occasional dabbling in Holocaust denial) rather reinforces the notion that you can't (or rather, won't) recognise Jew-hatred unless it is wearing jackboots and herding Jewish people into cattle trucks.

[Martinned]

I don't even know where to start with that comment. I guess the obvious point to make is that criticising Israel is not antisemitism. Nor is linking to the Jacobin as evidence of whether the British left thinks Russell Brand is part of the British left. That's several miles short of an endorsement of anything or everything on that website.

[Davedave]

Criticising Israel is _not necessarily_ antisemitic. That is rather different to the contention you are attempting to put forward, in which any criticism of Israel is by definition not antisemitic. You repeatedly posted nakedly antisemitic screeds about Israel, which _is_ antisemitic.

And linking to an antisemitic faux-left site in the mistaken belief it is part of the 'British left' reinforces the point about you not knowing the difference between people on the left and antisemitic conspiracy theorists - including when it comes to yourself.

[David Nieporent]

Davedave is very very stupid and does not know what left and right mean. (Witness his claim that substack is "far right.") His "logic" here, and I use the term in the same sense that I would describe Brett's logic, which is to say nonexistent — is that the left is good and the right is bad, and therefore if there's something anti-semitic it must be "faux left" because the left can't be bad.

[Kazinski]

I've never seen Martinned say anything remotely antisemitic.

What are you on about?

[Davedave]

He has repeatedly subscribed to antisemitic conspiracy theories, mostly related to the nonsense he chooses to believe about Israel, but not exclusively so.

Martin is one of those types so sure of their own antiracist credentials that they don't feel the need to engage in the self-examination necessary to actually avoid being racist.

[Nige]

You're thinking of someone else.

[Randal]

Wow, you figured out that there are types of antisemites other than Nazis, good for you! Here’s a lolli.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do realize that the Communists were going after the Jews, too, right? It's one of the many things the Nazis and Communists agreed about, like censorship, having secret police, shipping enemies of the state off to death camps...

Aside from some stylistic differences, the chief difference between totalitarian fascism and totalitarian communism is that the communists preferred to have the government openly take ownership of the means of production, while the fascists preferred 'just' regulating the nominal private owners of it to the point where the became de facto government employees.

[Davedave]

Someone says 'let's at least avoid the worst of the drivel' and Brett shows up to cry 'no!'

That was depressingly predictable.

[Nige]

No, the facsists sold off every single piece of public infrastructure they could get their hands on, that, among other reasons, is why they’re of the right.

[Davedave]

"the facsists sold off every single piece of public infrastructure they could get their hands on"

Ah yes, those famous privatised autobahns. Do tell us more about the privatised Nuremberg Rally Grounds. The privatised cattle trucks. The privatised gas chambers.

If you insist on believing what you want to believe, in the face of contrary facts, it puts you closer to BCD on the political spectrum than you're willing to admit to yourself.

[Nige]

The fuck are you on about? YES, they used what we would term private contractors for all those.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27771569

[Davedave]

That's not what selling off public infrastructure means, you absolute dildo. At least try and defend the point you made, instead of attempting to distract with irrelevant quibbling.

[Nige]

Selling off public infrastructure isn’t privatisation? Privatisation isn't a right wing policy?

[DaveM]

Well, I've only seen some of his videos, and that was my impression. He seems to be an "original" liberal, you know, free love and anti-establishment, and that sort of thing. He's certainly no conservative!

[Nige]

He was, though. And plenty of people on the far left found a disturbing common ground with the right about the pandemic, vaccines, 'wokeism' and Ukraine. They're called the dirtbag left for a reason. Now maybe Brand genuinely shifted to the right, especially if he picked up a big following, who can tell?

[Davedave]

He was never on the left. He pretended to be on the left because admitting to being on the far right puts off too many potential marks.

[Nige]

Oh, well, if we're mind-reading he was an alien from the planet Xorp.

[Davedave]

We aren't mind-reading, we're just admitting the obvious truth based on his subsequent statements and actions. It can be hard to tell the difference between faux-left antisemitic conspiracy theorists and actual left antisemitic conspiracy theorists, at times, and then become completely obvious later, when they drop the charade. This is one of those cases.

[Nige]

Nah, still mindreading.

[David Nieporent]

And plenty of people on the far left found a disturbing common ground with the right about the pandemic, vaccines, ‘wokeism’ and Ukraine.

It's called "horseshoe theory," based on the fact that the ends of a horseshoe are closer to each other than to the middle.

[Commenter_XY]

Rumble can be your friend.

[DaveM]

Actually, I did find an alternative almost immediately: Nebula. Turns out that a fairly large number of the people I used to follow on YouTube also have a presence there. My tastes run to documentaries, primarily.

[Sarcastr0]

Rumble is right wing youtube.

It's a great niche given the increasingly 'only trust our own sources and experts' stance of the right.

But the top 10 channels....yeesh:

TateSpeech by Andrew Tate
Right Side Bradcasting Network
Steven Crowder
The Dan Bongino Show
Donald J. Trump
X22 report
Bannons War Room
TheSalty Cracker
JULIE GREEN MINISTRIES
vivafre

[Nige]

'Andrew Tate'

Brand’s going to fit right in.

[jb]

Wait, so your theory of capitalism is that companies should not only be forced to carry content from everyone*, but they should be forced to sell advertisements and pay the proceeds to people they find gross and don't want to associate with?

* As it seems like Brand's content is still up, YouTube is just not putting ads up next to them to help him make money. Keep in mind YouTube also does not make money in this situation so it's not like this move is without consequences for them.

[Michael P]

https://www.city-journal.org/article/gender-ideology-in-k-12-schools

Identitarians are pitching the social acceptability of "noungenders" like rockgender, moongender and foxgender. Apparently these people don't think "man" and "woman" are nouns.

This was not meant as an instruction manual:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, [....]

[Don Nico]

Thanks for the link.
"And who’s willing to say that they’re wrong? "
Thank goodness that we don't institutionalize the mentally ill any more.

[Sarcastr0]

‘Auditors from Open the Books examined a 2022 Gender Spectrum video training titled “Intro to Neoidentities and Neopronouns.” Naomi Cruz, then Gender Spectrum’s manager of family and educational programming, explained that it’s wrong to assume that gender identity should be confined to variants of male and female. Neopronouns and neo-identities help to break down the gender binary and move “away from a societal gender to a personal gender.” It is “impossible,” she explains, to know all potential gender identities or pronouns. But it’s “really important” to have an “intersectional understanding” of gender because race, religion, location, and even hobbies can affect people’s understanding of gender.’

Seems stupid. Also nutpicking.

Are you actually thinking this'll become the next thing in school?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why shouldn’t it?

[Sarcastr0]

Because a single 2022 video that no one has heard of isn’t a bellwether.

A ton of this gender stuff gets ahead of me - I'm now old enough not to be a good barometer of social mores.
So I can't say why not, only that this is not great evidence of why.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact that it's nuttier than a fruitcake certainly doesn't guarantee that it won't be the next big thing, or else we wouldn't have the trans craze right now.

Doesn't guarantee that it WILL be the next big thing, either.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I'm a lot better at handling stuff that doesn't bloody my nose than this libertarian.

I don't know what lives in others minds, so I'll work to meet people where they say they are, even if I can't relate.

Brett has trouble understanding that anyone could be disagreeing with him in good faith at all.

[Nige]

'or else we wouldn’t have the trans craze right now.'

You can't blame a 2022 video for the explosion of hate and bigotry against trans people amongst the right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good thing I didn't, then. All I said is that the current situation in this country is crazy enough that nobody can be sure what new insanity is going to pop up next, you basically can't rule out ANYTHING at this point.

[Nige]

Yes, that's what happens when there's an explosion of hate and bigotry.

[Frank Drackman]

Like in Nashville? When a Man ("Aiden Hale) murdered 3 children and 3 Adults. Whatever happened to His "Manifesto"??? Almost like He might have said some things that were not "Woke"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

It seems a bit strange that a higher level of government would have to sue a lower level of government to get at something like this. I mean, regardless of what you think might be in the manifesto, or the motives for wanting it concealed/revealed, it's strange.

As usual, though, I think the presumption has to be that the people imposing a lack of transparency are hiding something. Because, you know, they're literally hiding something.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…we wouldn’t have the trans craze right now.”

In the last two years there have been about six hundred bills proposed across the U.S. targeting the tiny number of trans people. You can blame that on some fantasy “trans craze” from the Left, but no one is fooled. For every one mention about trans folk from the Left, there are hundreds of people shrieking invective on the other side.

Here’s the real origin of the “trans craze” : Despite the nostalgic longing of the Right, the old days are gone. Used to be, you could loath blacks, despise gays, hate Jews and sneer at women. You could do this openly and receive only nods back in return. Now, the only group left to publicly hate is transsexuals. No wonder the Right is all-in celebrating this last return to the good old days.

[not guilty]

Haters gonna hate. When gays and lesbians came out in greater numbers and became more visible in the mainstream of American life, more of the hatemongers realized that they were hurting someone near to them. They then refocused their vitriol on a smaller target, whose members had greater incentives to "pass" in order to avoid or lessen mistreatment by those who hate them.

[shawn_dude]

And then they started walking back up the chain to lesbians and gays by tying "grooming" (just a rehash of the old pedophile slur) to all non-heterosexuals. Once they realized state governments would support institutional harassment of LGBT citizens again, they picked up their tiki torches and marched on schools, libraries, and restaurants serving Sunday brunch.

[Randal]

Why shouldn’t it?

There are actual trans people. It's also pretty easy to understand why there are trans people.

There are no moon people.

Try engaging your brain please, occasionally.

[Michael P]

In what I hope is non-political news, it turns out an tree believed to be extinct merely moved into the (Brazilian) city: https://www.newsweek.com/tree-extinct-discovered-2-centuries-incredible-find-1828749

[Mr. Bumble]

Foot voting?

[Davedave]

Root voting, surely?

[Mr. Bumble]

Touche.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, the Rugby World Cup is heating up. On Saturday Ireland beat the reigning World Champions South Africa in a scrappy, low-scoring affair. On Sunday, Australia lost decisively against Wales, putting them in real danger of going out at the group stages. (They already lost against Fiji earlier in the tournament.) Normally the group stage of the RWC is a pretty predictable affair, but this year not so much.

[Martinned]

And for the more artistically minded, here is the crowd singing The Dubliners' Fields of Athenry around minute 70 of the Ireland game: https://twitter.com/MattHardyJourno/status/1705680338780115019

[Davedave]

I am surprised at you applauding nakedly sectarian chanting at sporting events, Martin. It's a very small step from there to 'up the ra'.

It's really shameful that the Irish Rugby board permits their so-called fans to behave like this; the football crowds are much better behaved, in a stunning reversal of the norm.

[Martinned]

Irish Rugby is organised on an all-Ireland basis, so singing a song that supports the unification of Ireland isn't that odd.

[Davedave]

The song doesn't support unification of Ireland, it supports the an Ireland united by the genocide of the opposition - exactly what the Troubles were about. That's what 'United Ireland' means. There is zero doubt that it is sectarian rather than inclusive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are we talking about a different "Fields of Athenry"? To tell the truth, I couldn't make out a single word in that recording.

[Nige]

The Fields Of Athenry is about a fella getting transported for stealing food for his starving family. I hate it with a fiery passion, but it's exactly as nationalistic as every single other piece of art about how the Brits were bastards to the Irish, a somewhat unavoidable aspect of Irish history and culture. It is NOT casually considered a rebel song, and is sectarian only in the sense that like white students reading Ta-Nehesi Coates, it *might* make some protestants uncomfortable about the actions of other long-dead protestants.

[Davedave]

Songs about the British being bastards to 'the Irish' - or rather, the Catholics' - are inherently sectarian.

It was adopted and sung by Celtic fans, which is all the proof you need that the message, for those who aren't refusing to hear it, is 'up the ra'.

[Martinned]

You understand that "the ra" there is the IRA right? And, more specifically, the Provisional IRA not the IRA as it existed, say, during the Irish War of Independence? And that the Provisional IRA is/was a terrorist organisation? And that there are other means of achieving a United Ireland, e.g. under the peaceful route set out in art. 1(i) of the Good Friday Agreement?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034123/The_Belfast_Agreement_An_Agreement_Reached_at_the_Multi-Party_Talks_on_Northern_Ireland.pdf

[Davedave]

Yes, that's what 'up the ra' means. It's a sectarian thing. You're not doing a good job arguing your point about the song not being sectarian when you admit it is sung by supporters of terrorism and murder.

If people sing a song and end with cries of 'up the ra' it means they think the song is a call to murder Protestants, which characterises the type of United Ireland they are talking about - the kind which only contains Catholics.

[Nige]

‘when you admit it is sung by supporters of terrorism and murder.’

I’m not mad about rugby either but c’mon.

‘the kind which only contains Catholics.’

Just like in the Republic.

(Adding ‘up the ra’ would definitely be acting the bollocks, though. If it happened.)

[Nige]

There are degrees. I'm sure there are Ulster Unionists who think it's sectarian, but they think a full Irish breakfast is sectarian.

[Martinned]

an Ireland united by the genocide of the opposition – exactly what the Troubles were about. That’s what ‘United Ireland’ means.

At some point you should probably also show your workings on that one.

[Davedave]

Are you seriously commenting here without knowing the first thing about the Troubles? Why?

[Nige]

'United Ireland' does not mean 'Protestant genocide.'

[Nige]

ZOMBIE ZOMBIE

[Don Nico]

How can one see the games? Are they streamed any place?

[Davedave]

All over the place. They are live on UK terrestrial tv, for the most part, and easily found on the usual streaming sites.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For abourt 2 months now I have repeatedly cited the 1807 decision (related to the Burr treason charge) of Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout. I have done that because to my eye the definitional discussion of treason laid down in that case shows that Trump accomplished legally definable treason under the Constitution. I base that on evidence already publicly disclosed, but evidence of course subject to refutation at trial if any such charge were made.

My purpose has been to elicit replies from legal experts here, to test my layman's judgment of the meaning of that case against legal expertise better informed and more reliable than mine can be. To my surprise, no substantive discussion from any of the lawyers who comment here has been offered in reply—including none from the subset of lawyers who have asserted that treason is not a legally appropriate charge, and none from lawyers who say themselves that Trump should not have been charged with anything.

That makes me wonder if the lawyers who are not commenting do so out of a conservative legal temperament which simply guides them to avoid mention of anything so dire? Or whether they have not read the case? Or whether there is some notable body of legal precedent to the contrary of Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, which would induce a lawyer familiar with that case to disregard it as inapplicable, while dismissing any claims to the contrary as too ridiculous to bother with?

Anyone here with legal expertise care to fill me in? I will not be helped, of course, by empty contradiction, by ipse dixits, or by reminders that I am not a lawyer. I want to hear what a lawyer defending Trump on a treason charge would say to get past the definitional discussions of treason in that case. Or to find out if this is just an instance of a general legal disinclination to shrink from what everyone takes to be a political crisis too imposing to discuss?

[Davedave]

You have repeatedly had your nonsense thoroughly debunked, as you pretend you are requesting. It's particularly obvious sealioning at this point.

[apedad]

Sealioning is a critical term for a form of trolling that involves relentlessly pestering someone with questions and requests (such as for evidence or sources), typically with the goal of upsetting them and making their position or viewpoint seem weak or unreasonable.

Learned something new.

[Michael P]

That suggests a useful definition for "to lathrop": to relentlessly pester someone with questions and requests in a way that makes one's own position look weak or unreasonable.

[David Nieporent]

No. "Lathroping" also includes the requirement that one run and hide whenever someone answers one's questions, and then a week or month later asking the exact same questions again, denying that they were answered.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, threads get old and other stuff comes up and replaces whatever everyone was talking about 3 days ago. Somebody always goes last. I never hide. I am as forthright as any commenter on this blog.

If my questions get answered with empty ipse dixits, subject changes, ideological nostrums, whataboutisms, invective, or any of an assortment of other commonplace irrelevancies, I may re-ask my questions, sometimes promptly, sometimes later.

When I get substantive responses—which happens far less often than I would like—I sometimes change my mind, always try to respond politely, and may simply disagree and say why. If you respond substantively and get no feedback from me, it is because my attention was elsewhere (I have a life to live) and never saw your response before the thread got too old to follow. It happens. I think you know that, which makes, “run and hide,” tiresome at best.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Davedave, nobody, including you, has said one word about quotes from that decision which I excerpted here repeatedly. Nor has anyone offered any specific commentary of their own which showed even passing familiarity with the definitions of treason enunciated in that decision. If you are a lawyer—which I doubt—and would care to stop lying and respond substantively, you could be the first to do it.

By the way, it looks like, "sealioning," has joined other previously useful rhetorical tropes—for instances, gas-lighting, red herring, begging the question, whataboutism, etc—as one which right-wingers have been rightly charged with so often, that they eventually conclude all they can do is try to disarm that kind of criticism. That they attempt to accomplish by insight-free projection of the same terms misused against their critics. It's stupid and tiresome to do that. Try to do better.

[Davedave]

You are using very long words for such a complete idiot, apparently under the misapprehension that prolixity may substitute for intellectual rigour.

The reality is that you have repeatedly had it explained to you, by people who think Trump should be in jail, or even executed, that you have come up with some absurd line of... well, not thought, but whatever you use as a substitute for thinking, so stupid that even the Kraken-releasers haven't gone down that route.

I genuinely can't tell if you are truly on the side of those of us who wish to prosecute Trump for treason, and inexplicably thrashing around seeking some inarticulable but obviously unnecessary goal, or are yet another of the local trolls acting in bad faith by engaging in pinhead-dancing-angels sophistry.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Davedave, which words seem very long to you? I don't think I used even one word longer than, "misapprehension," which showed up in the first line of your attack on me.

Also? What do you think is sophistical about saying, "Here is this case, is there some reason why its decision does not apply to present circumstances?"

By the way, have you yet read, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout?

[Davedave]

Irony isn't your strong point, is it?

[Don Nico]

SL,
begging the question is not a right wing invention.
It is a long known logical fallacy and rhetorical trick. I would have talk an old newspaper man would have known that

[Michael P]

What's your exact hypothesis, besides your usual argument that posting word salad proves whatever hare-brained idea has settled in your skull?

The literal holding of Ex parte Hillman was this:

To constitute a levying of war, there must be an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. Enlistments of men to serve against government is not sufficient.

How do you think Donald Trump did even the thing that the Supreme Court said "is not sufficient" to qualify as "levying of war" against the United States? Remember: treason "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." One also cannot be guilty of a crime that is only committed by others.

[Davedave]

You have this quite the wrong way up. Obviously there was 'an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose'. They actively tried to overthrow the US government by force. They were just pathetically inadequately equipped and supported to achieve that goal.

[DaveM]

You aren’t letting the facts drive your conclusion, you’re selecting facts which support your conclusion. You’ve already decided that everyone and everything was a lame attempt at an insurrection and dismiss all other details.

That may be why your points aren’t sticking. You can’t paint everything over with a broad brush and say that addresses the details.

[Michael P]

Alternatively, many of us mute Davedave because he's tiresomely insubstantial.

[Randal]

Are you saying there wasn't an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable puropse? That seems to be a pretty factual question, and a true one, which doesn't require any preconceived conclusion in order to evaluate.

Also why is "purpose" in there twice? Awkward!

[Brett Bellmore]

"That seems to be a pretty factual question, and a true one,"

See, that's what DaveM is complaining about. It IS a factual question, and you're just assuming that it's true, dismissing any evidence to the contrary as just demonstrating that it was a really lame attempt at treason. Rather than a less lame attempt to do something different.

[Randal]

There’s lots of evidence for, and little evidence to the contrary. At some point you have to make a call, knowing what you know. This whole “You can never really know anything” trope is tiresome, and a little dangerous.

It IS a factual question, and you’re just assuming that the sky is blue, dismissing any evidence to the contrary as just demonstrating that you can’t see it in the dark.

It's very much a flat-earth style argument. Do you happen to be a flat-earther Brett? It would explain a lot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, that quote you offer does not in any way conflict with anything enunciated in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout. It is merely another instance of the latter case’s announced principle that conspiracy without warlike action may be criminal, but cannot be treason.

But elsewhere in the decison, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout makes it unambiguously clear that warlike action amounting to treasonable conduct took place on J6. That leaves for the prosecution the burden to show that on J6 Trump concerted with others to use that warlike action to overthrow a lawful activity of government.

Consider Trump’s prior planning of the fake electors scheme, his prior discussions with others to say that he would deny the election results if he lost, his lying call for supporters to assemble in Washington on J6 to “fight like hell,” to redress an actual election loss which he lied to them was a victory, his indifference to accurate information that some of the supporters he directed to the Capitol were armed, his tweet during the violence calculated to enrage the mob against Vice President Pence, his hours-long inaction to do anything against the violence as it unfolded, his awareness that at least some among his violent supporters acted in belief that they were following his orders, his efforts to pressure various state officials—including a baseless threat in one instance to charge a federal crime against a state official—to join in a scheme to invoke a fake electoral outcome from swing-state legislators, his attempt to install as Acting Attorney General of the United States a person who lied with Trump’s knowledge and complicity to state election officials, claiming that a United States government investigation into election malfeasance was in process, when no evidence to support such an investigation existed, and when it was not in process.

On the basis of that evidence and other evidence I insist that prosecutors have a treason case to take to a jury. Of course, any of that apparent evidence could be refuted at trial, and if it were, perhaps Trump would be justly acquitted. My question for this blog was not about any of that, however. It was a request for legal information whether the long-ago case on which I relied for definition of warlike activity remained good law today. So far, no takers.

[Michael P]

What I quoted WAS from that case. It was core to the decision, and variants of it were repeated several times. Clearly, you either haven't read the opinion or you totally misunderstood it.

I'll quote another relevant paragraph from that decision:

By using the word 'only' the constitution meant to take away all pretence of constructive treason. Every man is to answer for his own acts only. If 100 men conspire, and only 50 actually levy war, the latter only are guilty as principals.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, stop cherry-picking irrelevancies you find agreeable. Instead, deal with these excerpts from Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout which define the crime of treason:

The expedition against Mexico would not be treason, unless it was to be accomplished by means which in themselves would amount to treason. But if the constituted authorities of the United States should be suppressed but for one hour, and the territory of Orleans revolutionized but for a moment, it would be treason.

In treason all are principals. There are no accessories. It has been argued, (and the respectable authority of Judge Tucker is cited,) that none are principals but those present at the treasonable act. The argument may have some weight, but it is a point at least doubtful, and therefore ought to be left to be decided on the trial.

It is admitted that the constitution has prevented many questions as to the doctrine of treason. The intention of having a constitutional definition of the crime, was to put it out of the power of congress to invent treasons. But it was impossible to define what should in every case be deemed a levying of war. It is a question of fact to be decided by the jury from all the circumstances.

If men have been levied, and arms provided, with a treasonable intent, this is a sufficient levying of war, without warlike array.

If soldiers are levied and officered, with a treasonable intent, and equipments prepared, so that they can readily lay hold of their arms; although no men are actually armed, although only five men in a detachment should march to assemble at a place of rendezvous, and although there should be no warlike array, yet it would be treason. Any thing which amounts to setting on foot a military expedition, with intent to levy war against the United States, is treason.

The distinction between those who are present at the overt act of levying war, and those who are confederated, adhering, acting and assisting, giving aid and comfort, is contrary to all analogy. In treason, all are principals.

It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.

To complete the crime of levying war against the United States, there must be an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design. In the case now before the court, a design to overturn the government of the United States in New-Orleans by force, would have been unquestionably a design which, if carried into execution, would have been treason, and the assemblage of a body of men for the purpose of carrying it into execution would amount to levying of war against the United States; but no conspiracy for this object, no enlisting of men to effect it, would be an actual levying of war.

Judge Chase, in the trial of Fries, was mere explicit. He stated the opinion of the court to be, “that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed, neither lessens nor increases the crime: whether by one hundred, or one thousand persons, is wholly immaterial.” “The court are of opinion,” continued Judge Chase, on that occasion, “that a combination or conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not treason, unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into execution; some actual force or violence must be used in pursuance of such design to levy war; but it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war.”

Rereading the excerpts in order, it seems almost as if they constitute a continuous narrative quoted whole. Readers are cautioned that material between several of the excerpted paragraphs above has been omitted. Everyone should read the whole opinion.

[Michael P]

So, by your argument, the terrorist protestors in Portland were guilty of treason, along with a number of other leftists, and those who give aid and comfort to those enemies of the United States.

Perhaps you should think your argument through before you respond further.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That was not my argument. It was Chief Justice Marshall's argument.

To the extent it applies alike to folks other than Trump, then let them all be charged alike. Not that I suppose you have either the inclination or the capacity to distinguish the like cases from the others.

[Michael P]

Portland didn't exist in Chief Justice Marshall's time. You really need to stop doubling down on stupid.

Much of what you quoted would today be called dicta, and thus not precedential. But I would also point out that there is a very specific meaning to to levying men in those quotes, and that providing arms and commissioning officers play important but inconsistent roles in qualifying for treason in that opinion.

[Michael P]

Also, since you seem to think that a lawyer would need to prove Trump innocent of these charges, remember that a fundamental tenet of our legal system is that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It's not his lawyer's job to prove a case, but the government's. Your inversion of that burden implies that you expect a constitutionally intolerable prejudice against Donald Trump.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, you are apparently a member of an especially-ill informed class of non-lawyer. The presumption of innocence does not extend to a presumption that generally accepted legal definitions—considered in the absence of evidence—are inapplicable. It does require the prosecution to show that case evidence establishes a match to whatever it is the law prohibits.

There is no inversion of that principle if I have asserted correctly that Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout is good law. My question has been whether I am correct in that assertion. You do not seem capable to answer it.

[Michael P]

Don't double down on your stupidity, dude.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, look for the response from David Nieporent. He will answer your question. You're doing better on your wall of text problem. 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, is there a response from Nieporent? Nothing shows up for me when I search this thread for it. Maybe when you say, "He will answer your question," you are saying you expect a future comment? If he would do it, I would expect what he had to say to be better than most of what we get here. I hope he does reply.

[VinniUSMC]

For abourt 2 months now

And you still can't take the hint. Nobody cares what you think SL.

[hobie]

Because you're asking us to read two whole cases. And that's a bridge too far. At least Michael P always gives us concise screeds from rightwing cesspool sites that are easily digestible

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's one case with two names in the title.

[hobie]

Even worse!

[not guilty]

As someone otherwise highly critical of Donald Trump, I have previously discussed how Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), does not support charging Trump with treason. Indeed, I don’t recall Stephen Lathrop discussing that decision until I brought it to his attention.

AFAIK, the decision remains good law. Trump's conduct simply doesn't fit the facts as regards an actual levying of war against the United States. That having been said, there is plenty of bad conduct to prosecute Trump for. Here, as in 1807, "Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society are not to escape punishment because they have not ripened into treason." 8 U.S. at 126-27.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, can you point me to your previous analysis, or repaste it here? Alas, I missed it, just as I missed your previous reference to Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout. I assure you that you did not bring that case to may attention. I discovered it by an internet cross reference while I was looking for the text of the Burr treason trial decision.

I am not impressed with the insight others have offered about how to interpret Marshall. I assume you will do better.

[not guilty]

I don't know how to search prior threads to find my specific comments, but it was months ago. I recall citing the language, "To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, the distinct offenses." 8 U.S. at 126.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, thank you for your reply. Please understand that I respect your opinions, and that I am not in the least intending to waste your time, or to do anything except encourage the strongest counter-argument to my advocacy which I can discover. I suspect if any of the commenters here can provide that, it will be you.

I have argued that Trump can be proved to have levied war, which is to say that there is evidence already publicly known that Trump did more than merely conspire, but also concerted with others in a violent attack on the Capitol which actually happened.

Do you think I misunderstand the standard for levying war set forth in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout? Can you explain why the quotations from the opinion which I excerpted above do not support my conclusion?

Have I left something important out? Is there more recent precedent to the contrary? Do you disagree with me that those excerpts mean that levying war is not intended to invoke the notion of a well-organized army in grand array, but instead only to distinguish cases on the basis of the difference between mere conspiracy without violent action, and actual warlike violence? Is there something else I should consider?

[Randal]

Trump’s conduct simply doesn’t fit the facts as regards an actual levying of war against the United States.

Why do you say that? Is it because Jan 6 didn't closely enough resemble an army of soldiers or even a "well-regulated militia?" Maybe, but I wonder if that remains necessary in the modern world where war can be effectively "levied" by providing vague guidance to decentralized cells of like-minded combatants.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Randal, good point. Plus which, if your note about resembling an army of soldiers or a well-regulated militia is indeed the basis of objection, it also did not fit the understanding of 1807. Note again this from the decision:

If soldiers are levied and officered, with a treasonable intent, and equipments prepared, so that they can readily lay hold of their arms; although no men are actually armed, although only five men in a detachment should march to assemble at a place of rendezvous, and although there should be no warlike array, yet it would be treason.

And this:

. . . and the quantum of the force employed, neither lessens nor increases the crime: whether by one hundred, or one thousand persons, is wholly immaterial.” “The court are of opinion,” continued Judge Chase, on that occasion, “that a combination or conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not treason, unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into execution; some actual force or violence must be used in pursuance of such design to levy war; but it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war.”

The decision could not be clearer that the crime of levying war is reference to the use of violence—including even mere incipient use of violence—and only that. "Levying war," is in the decision to distinguish violent attempts to thwart government from mere conspiracies to do so; it is not there to insist on soldiers in uniform, chains of command, national armies, or any other of the usual accoutrements of, "warlike array."

I suspect misunderstanding of that point is what misleads so many to insist a treason charge for Trump is over the top. That, plus vain hope to somehow avoid too much provoking the MAGA crowd politically—as if they are not permanently stuck at maximum provocation already.

[Ed Grinberg]

"[Al] Sharpton suggested gun control can be pursued under the banner of 'civil rights.'" (source)
See: "civil rights" can be simultaneously used as a shield for one's favored groups, and as a sword against one's disfavored groups. For the favored groups, "civil rights" means they can get away with murder. For the disfavored groups, it means they have no rights.

[Sarcastr0]

Who follows Al Sharpton these days?

[Ed Grinberg]

MSNBC viewers, apparently. What RAK calls "the liberal-libertarian mainstream."

[Sarcastr0]

Quicky Google:

August 20, 2023:
Demo Audience
All 574,000
P18-49 52,200
P25-54 62,000

Not much of a stream at all, really.

[Nige]

'For the favored groups, “civil rights” means they can get away with murder.'

Well that's ahistorical.

'Guns' aren't a group, favoured or disfavoured.

[Frank Drackman]

So when's the Menendez Mug Shot?? "Perp Walk"?? Indictments in multiple jurisdictions?? and forget the money, who stole his effing Neck?? He looks like the "Expert Criminologist" from the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5d014dbd250000ae13ddfbe5.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

Frank

[Jerry B.]

Is it possible that Q, the entity behind Qanon, is a government false flag operation, aimed at giving conservatives a bad name? With the manpower and technology the government has, you'd think they could have found Q by now.

Then again, could it be a couple of nerds in their mom's basement, seeing how much ridiculous stuff they can make people believe?

[grb]

Jerry B. : “Is it possible that Q, the entity behind Qanon, is a government false flag operation, aimed at giving conservatives a bad name?”

Great. Now we have a meta-conspiracy where the conspiracy is to make people believe in conspiracies. But why bother with all that? Today’s Right is addicted to lies to a degree no different than some hollow-eyed skeletal meth-head. Large cartoonish lies work best for a fix, the more extravagant the better. Politico just published a poll showing half of all Republicans think covid vaccines are unsafe.

No conspiracy was necessary to get there. The Right’s leaders thought anti-vaxx lies would play well with their base. They spread their anti-vaxx message with months of relentless propaganda. The base ate it up. That’s the cycle now.

https://jabberwocking.com/half-of-all-republicans-think-covid-vaccine-is-unsafe/

[Nige]

‘With the manpower and technology the government has, you’d think they could have found Q by now.’

Q has been identified, though not by the government, who could not give a shit.

‘is a government false flag operation, aimed at giving conservatives a bad name?’

No. But conspiracy-minded people too cool for Q seem to like to think so.

[Randal]

Why do you think the government cares who Q is? That's hilarious. Do you think they're also trying to find Waldo?

[John F. Carr]

My favorite wild but possible theory of the summer: The Anheuser Busch customer revolt was instigated by short sellers. If I bet on a company's stock price dropping, planning to launch a campaign to depress its stock price, is that insider trading?

[Michael P]

It's not considered insider trading because the perpetrators are not insiders, but it can be illegal under both market-manipulation and fraud theories: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearraid.asp

[bernard11]

Well, it's kind of like "pump-and-dump," except it's dump first (by shorting) and talk down, not up. "Dump and dump on?"

[hobie]

Oh? Is the Bud thing with the gay guy now a false flag? Possibly wrapped in an enigma? Looking over every shoulder and under every rock must be exhausting.

[BrianL.]

In a speech last week, Trump said Biden was cognitively impaired and, if re-elected, would get us into World War II. Then he said he was leading everyone in the polls, including Obama. Talking about the 2016 election, he said he beat Obama in an election everyone said he couldn’t win.

Maybe Biden isn’t the only Presidential candidate that’s cognitively impaired.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'd agree. They're both losing it. The difference is that the media cover for Biden, and put a white hot spotlight on Trump's every brain fart.

I'd say Trump is about where Biden was back in 2020, which is to say, too far gone to belong in the White house.

[BrianL.]

Most people agree. 70% don't want Biden to run and 65% don't want Trump to run. The fact that the most likely outcome this November is Biden vs Trump shows that something is very wrong with both parties.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And if we face a Biden/Trump rematch, we’ll be solemnly informed that Biden and Trump are the only real choices, and anyone who supports an alternative is doing the bidding of evildoers on one or the other side of the Demopublican/Republicrat divide.

[Nige]

When we face a Biden/Trump rematch we'll be told by everyone in the media and on the right that they're basically the same, all evidence to the contrary aside, just so the media can have a proper horse race and Trump can have a chance.

[Idihax]

At this point, Americans are tired of young Silent Generation and old Baby Boomers. It's time for a Gen Xer to be President.

[Davedave]

I don't think a candidate from the Selfish Generation - Gen X isn't a label that's going to stick for much longer - is going to be more attractive to people pissed off at elderly parasites.

[jb]

LOL, how is anyone going to call GenX "the selfish generation" after the Baby Boomers are literally in the midst of pulling the ladder up after themselves. GenX is just stuck in the mess with everyone else, but perhaps sufficiently less screwed by the Boomers than Millenials and Gen Z that they're less politically passionate and persuasive.

Put another way: it wouldn't entirely surprise me if there's never a Gen X President.

[Idihax]

The Boomers are the epitome of selfish. Except for the few that served in Vietnam, they have never had any struggles, and had everything handed to them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They had to overcome the bigots they displaced as the leading voices of American society. And they did.

That's why so many clingers despise the boomers. The boomers put the right-wing bigots in their (deplorable, inconsequential) place.

[Frank Drackman]

But Jerry, you were born Gerald Arthur Sandusky (born January 26, 1944)
Not really a "Boomer"

Frank

[SimonP]

From where I sit, Brett, deeply ensconced in the mainstream media as I am (and not the fringes of the right-wing, where you dwell), all I ever seem to see about Biden is "he's too old, are voters worried he's too old, who else could possibly run, the polls are awful," etc., while about Trump, they're back to, "here's the most recent scary thing Trump has said, which we cover breathlessly like he's paying us for ad time."

I wonder if your impression of the mainstream coverage is filtered solely through what the right-wing outlets are saying about the mainstream coverage.

[Randal]

Seriously. Trump would be nothing without the press. The press don't "cover for" Biden, they simply "don't cover" Biden... because he's boring and doesn’t get the clicks and views. If only it weren't so! Biden... any politician, really... wants nothing more than the rapt attention of the press that Trump has enjoyed pretty much continuously since 2015.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, not covering Biden's flubs IS "covering for" Biden. I think his awfulness exceeds their capacity to obscure, but they do largely obscure the magnitude of it.

Whereas you can count on the media reporting Trump's every mistake, where they don't actually invent extra ones.

I will agree, though, that the media in a sense made Trump; They had such a poor feel for what actually appealed to the voters in 2016, that their efforts to publicize policy promises they thought would be turnoffs actually helped him.

They did eventually learn from that, and now largely omit any coverage of his actual policy proposals.

[Randal]

You think he still has policy proposals?

[Nige]

Firing everyone who gets in his way of setting the federal government on his enemies, dismantling any agencies that don’t co-operate on the grounds that it might not be legal or constitutional. Maybe a few executions of generals who were personally disloyal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course he has policy proposals.

Agenda 47

I don't think all of his positions are anything I'd agree with, or even necessarily constitutional, but he HAS positions on issues.

[Nige]

Maybe he should mention them more often, or at all, rather than threatenening generals the media and his political enemies. Do you think he even knows what they are? I think you hate Biden so much and keep denigrating his mental acuity all the time because he has an actual legislative agenda, whereas all the Republicns have is... a mess. A very loud mess.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you should figure out that I was just SAYING that they "now largely omit any coverage of his actual policy proposals."

Which is WHY you think he doesn't talk about them!

[Randal]

I'm pretty sure he actually doesn't talk about them. They covered his policy proposals last time around, when he did talk about them some.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump had a speech yesterday of some sort. I'm sure it had some howlers. They were not covered.
They are dog bites man. Just like Biden stumbling over his words.

There is media bias, but not in coverage choices like this. You have no baseline on how much Trump isn't covered, so you confirmation bias through it. You have a made up sense that Biden flubs are news, and so you go with that.

[grb]

Another work of architecture (linked below) : The Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg by the Swiss firm, Herzog & de Meuron.

This one is noted for audacity. The architects raised a concert hall 50 meters off the ground, building over an industrial brick warehouse on the harbor waterfront. And not just the 2000-seat hall, but also two chamber music venues, restaurants & bars, a 244-room five-star hotel and 45 luxury apartments. There’s also a 4000-square meter plaza eight-stories up, free to the public and offering a 360-degree view of the city and harbor.

It’s a stunning building. You can be ambivalent about some of its style features – the scalloped waves of its roofline, the effort to create a shimmering rhythm across the façade with fritted glass and windows molded concave & convex, the undulating glass walls and flowing curves of the interior – yet still celebrate its commanding power. Opened in 2017, it’s already the landmark structure of Hamburg. In only a few months, its plaza logged a million visitors.

Now the bad part: The project was grotesquely over-budget, as much as 10X the original estimate (which was a joke). But it doesn’t matter. The Elbphilharmonie is already becoming the face of Hamburg, like the Eiffel Tower, Paris or the Duomo, Florence. It’s similar to the iconic Sydney Opera House which was 15X over budget. Who remembers that now?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/elbphilharmonie.html?sortBy=relevant

https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/elbphilharmonie-hamburg-6

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's not totally hideous, anyway.

"It’s similar to the iconic Sydney Opera House which was 15X over budget. Who remembers that now?"

The people who had to pay for it?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : The people who had to pay for it?

Thus proving my point. The Sydney Opera House is now a treasured national institution. Its very messy construction (starting in ’59 – a notable year, eh?) has long since forgotten. You might as well kvetch about cost overruns building the pyramids. If you build something giving rich returns thru generations, a lot of sins will be forgiven.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your point is, what? That the people promoting public works projects are firm believers that "It's better to ask forgiveness than seek permission.", and routinely lie about how much they're going to cost?

And get away with those lies, because the people in a position to punish them aren't the ones paying the bills?

[grb]

What can I say? I’m very forgiving with works of architecture that become treasured national institutions. And there’s often a lot of intoxicated magical thinking in early project budgeting. Like Republicans trotting out their supply-side gibberish for one more round of budget-busting tax cuts (only not so dishonest & pathetic).

And like nature, you often find a way. I’ve got a project under construction that was obviously over-budget the entire design process, 20% over on receipt of bids, but was eventually hacked & cut until able to proceed. Now most of the VE is restored and fully funded.

(not, alas, a treasured national institution though)

[Stephen Lathrop]

grb, which class do you think is more challenging to keep within budgets, high-end architects or defense contractors? Which class better justifies, "Who remembers that now?"

Note: I take no position. Just think they could prove to be mutually illuminating questions.

[grb]

I haven't done a deep dive into the budget woes of the Elbphilharmonie, but it probably shares features with other examples. The original estimate was so low it was close to a bait & switch. Everyone was eager to build this and didn't want to face the harsh truth upfront.

Then the program was continually in flux, with more & more capacity / features being the typical delta. And there were massive technical problems hoisting a concert hall 150ft up in the air and isolating it across outside noise and vibrations. Plus (I hesitate to add) the architects probably bore an itsy-bitsy part of the blame.

Access to the main level is by a 80 meter escalator laid out on a gentle curve through a tube finished with in creamy white plaster. Herzog and de Meuron insisted the plaster have no control joints (which I wouldn't believe physically possible) and eventually got their way at God knows what expense.

So it's probably the same as other costly fiascos - such as the Berlin airport. Everyone all in on the project, constantly changing requirements and no-check on perfectionist tendencies. You could describe the last new fighter jet the same way.

[santamonica811]

What was the fiasco re the Berlin airport? (For that matter, which Berlin airport?) I used to visit Berlin a lot, but not since 2009. Is this something more recent?

[grb]

I’ve been to Berlin 6-7 times because the Ex came from a small village north of the city. The first time we couldn’t even get a flight into Germany’s capital, flying into Frankfurt and driving to Berlin.

All the other times were into Tegel, which had the feel of a small airport servicing a mid-sized city. Not that it was that bad. I didn’t dislike it with anywhere near my intense loathing of Heathrow.

So Germany built a new airport south of the city. It took about eleven years to build and was nearly 4 billion euros over-budget. It's generally considered a monstrous construction calamity…

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

[santamonica811]

Okay, same deal. I used to always fly into Tegel, since it was incredibly convenient for my girlfriend (Spandau). Went to Brandenburg a few times--always for flights on to India or southeast Asia. Much less convenient, in terms of distance. But it was right on the rail line, so that aspect was great.

Didn't know about the financial overruns...it seems to be the default position for new airport construction, regardless of the country. Was the same in China; in Burma, and--one presumes--everywhere else. Graft, kickbacks, etc etc.

[grb]

To be fair, airport construction entails an entire universe of complexity. It’s easy to see how it escapes the bounds of budgeting – though maybe not four billion euros worth.

Our last trip to Germany, we flew into Schiphol, spent a few days in Amsterdam, and then took the train to Berlin. Thus I experienced Berlin’s new bahnhof, even if I fell a few years shy of seeing the new airport.

I also missed out on the Humboldt Forum, Berlin’s attempt to rebuild its old Central Palace. In the first years I was there, the East German Palace of the Republic still sat in its place, visibly rotting away while the Germans debated whether to save it. Every few years the NY Times used to dust off an article on the debate. By the end, I heard the lower levels were flooded and you could take guided tours by kayak – which sounded highly cool.

Ostalgie (East German nostalgia) was still a thing. Berlin had two of everything – zoos, opera houses, museums – so two different styles of traffic lights too. The West’s version was drab & mundane, but it still carried the day. The East’s green light had a man wearing a fedora, walking vigorously ahead with a jaunty step. There was an entire store near Alexanderplatz dedicated to that little guy. I once had his coffee cup, but long ago lost it.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Reading: THE CHEMISTS’ WAR 1914-1918 By Michael Freemantle

Win the war: gather conkers!

Did you know that Chaim Weizmann, before he was President of Israel, was an upper-level chemist (near Nobel-Prize level)? He solved the British shortage of acetone, which was needed as a solvent for manufacturing the explosive cordite and other chemicals essential for the weapons industry during WW1. Acetone was previously made by distilling wood, heated to high temperature in the absence of air. This was a very inefficient process, yielding less than a ton of acetone from 100 tons of wood. Weizmann had a strain of bacteria (the so-called “Weizmann organism”) which could ferment more than 15 tons of acetone from 100 tons of starch. He used potatoes and corn as starting material at first, but switched to horse-chestnuts (known to children, who used them as pieces in a popular game, as "conkers") in order to avoid competing with hungry people who needed the corn and the potatoes for themselves. There was a nation-wide campaign urging children to gather up horse-chestnuts on the streets and in the woods, for the war-effort.

[grb]

I ran across that fact in one of the Alan Furst espionage novels. Which one I can't recall, but it was a point made to emphasize the Jewish community expected better from Britain when Jews were desperate to emigrate from Europe to Palestine before & durring WWII.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The Balfour Declaration was (partly) a reward to Weizmann.

[grb]

True. But immigration to Palestine was controlled by Britain and the numbers tightly restricted. The British Foreign Office didn't want to upset Arab sensibilities with Egypt and the Middle East threatened by the Axis

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This disaffected, white,
male, right-wing blog
has operated for

FOUR (4)

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.

Amid this blog’s stale and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you counting the recent incident where a commenter quoted you using the word?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I try to count all of the racial slurs this right-wing blog so gleefully publishes . . . but I am confident I miss a few.

Do you wish to try to defend Prof. Volokh's habitual use of racial slurs? Or his longstanding cultivation of bigots (of various stripes) as a target audience of his white, male, movement conservative blog?

[Frank Drackman]

Are you including Former US Senator (D, WVA) Robert KKK Bird's comments on "White Niggers"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/03/05/sen-byrd-apologizes-for-racial-remarks/6dd86f94-c452-4548-815b-acf320b01c24/
Or Barry Hussein Osama's You Tube Video??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgYIBG0fYq4

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You said the very same vile racial slur you deplore in others. In the context of deploring someone else using it, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I can't say that Robert KKK Bird and Barry Hussein Osama used the "N-word" without saying the N-word. Maybe Robert KKK Bird and Barry Hussein Osama shouldn't have used the "N-word"

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dumbasses like Margrave, Bumble, and Drackman the defenders the Volokh Conspiracy (Official Legal Blog of America's Vestigial Right-Wing Bigots) deserve.

How long before every Volokh Conspirator is forced to take refuge in a wingnut-controlled safe space because legitimate, strong, mainstream campuses don't want to associate with anyone at this white, male, bigot-hugging blog?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know about drackman, since I blocked him some time back.

I haven’t blocked Kirkland, for some reason.

He’s mad that I mentioned his use of the bad word he doesn’t want others to use. But *his* motives are pure.

[John F. Carr]

I have started receiving soliciations for the "John Eastman Legal Defense Fund". He expects to spend over $1 million on legal fees and he hasn't even been indicted by Jack Smith yet.

The Georgia case could generate some eye-popping bills. The prosecutor is trying to charge a big conspiracy against many defendants. Every defendant needs an attorney listening to months of testimony about other defendants' actions. I will be curious to see what the prosecution spends on outside counsel. That should be a public record.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You must have landed on some particularly shitty, un-American mailing lists.

Any idea how that happened?

[Frank Drackman]

I took a Scholarship to play Foo-Bawl at Penn State

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Penn State (Todd Hodne, Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky, and plenty of others) accompanies Baylor (Ken Starr's Rape U.), the Catholic Church (cast of thousands of despicable, selfish hypocrites), and the Republican Party (political home to our vestigial bigots) on the "disgusting institutions" list.

[Frank Drackman]

So "Coach" Jerry, did Joe Pa smell more like old Sweat Socks or Cabbage Farts, I mean you should know.

[John F. Carr]

My guess is, I gave a small amount of money to a moderate candidate 25 years ago and that candidate's campaign sold my name to diverse fundraising organizations. For a while liberals also begged from me. One day I'd get mail from Newt Gingrich and the next day I'd get mail urging me to stop Newt Gingrich. Now conservatives send me lots of email and liberals send me a much smaller volume of text messages.

All this is more interesting than ordinary spam because it tells me what political activists think donors think is important. But I know if I click on that link asking if I support Joe Biden I will be promoted from the "leads" list to the "suckers" list.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Reminds me of the time I called Senator John Kerry’s office, for what purpose I forget. Somehow, inadvertently, I said something to make a screener conclude I was a donor. So my call got routed to the serious staff instead of to the constituent services drones.

An awkward conversation ensued, while a mildly confused policy expert tried to vet my donor bona fides while not letting me know he was in doubt. Finally, he just blurted out the governing question, “Are you a donor?” I said no, and the call ended.

Shortly thereafter I got two letters from Kerry’s office. Both outlined in almost zero detail the point I had called about, but confidently assured me that Kerry agreed with me. Problem was, with regard to whatever now-forgotten point I had mentioned, one letter said Kerry joined me in agreement, and the other letter just as proudly announced Kerry’s support for my opposition.

[Estragon]

How much will you give?? Be generous

[John F. Carr]

How much will Trump give? Trump's pockets are much deeper than mine.

[Ben_]

Bill Gates changes his mind on climate doom:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/why-did-bill-gates-make-sudden-u-turn-climate-doom-narrative

He is quoted as saying:

"No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable."

The clouds of insane religious fervor about the climate are slowly starting to dissipate. Sanity is slowly starting to return.

[JasonT20]

From your link, I see Bill Gates saying a few years ago that there will be migration from equatorial regions as they continue to warm. Now, he’s quoted as saying that temperate regions won’t become uninhabitable.

Just so you know, that isn’t “changing his mind”. Temperate climate exists well outside of equatorial regions. That article that you swallowed hook, line, and sinker was using your ignorance and/or motivated reasoning to get you to spread that bs.

[Ben_]

He’s clearly losing patience with the zealots and advancing a non-doomsday narrative now. It’s a different message.

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly!

You point at the position B and say it's very different from position A, but don't provide a lot of info about position A.

You don't even have goalposts!

[jb]

This supposed "u turn" is two statements that are completely logically consistent but since they both use the word "countries" I can see how it might be confusing to dumbasses.

[Ben_]

You're saying that two communications will always have exactly the same message unless they directly contradict each other.

[David Nieporent]

No, he's saying the converse: two communications that don't have the exact same message do not necessarily contradict each other.

[Nige]

That's not a different message.

[JasonT20]

Ben,

Let me spell it out since you still don't seem to understand.

Equatorial regions, oddly enough, refer to places near the equator. I don't think there is a fixed definition for what counts as an "equatorial region", but it definitely wouldn't extend past the tropics (+/- 23 deg latitude). Temperate climates zones on most of the maps I see include most of Europe north of the Mediterranean coast and the continental U.S. from around the southern end of the Appalachians and then north into southern Canada.

Thus, to say that temperate climate zones won't become uninhabitable is a really low bar to set. Not only is Gates saying that not inconsistent with his previous remark, it actually fits with it. After all, the people that would be likely to migrate away from the Equator over the next several decades will hope to move to places with temperate climate that will still be mostly livable. (But as others have rightly pointed out, there are a lot of negative changes to temperate climates that would be far short of being uninhabitable.

[Ben_]

That’s a lot of weird storytelling that doesn’t include any quotes from Gates or reference any of his statements directly.

[Nige]

Lol. 'Weird storytelling.' You're such a liar.

[grb]

Ben_ : “No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”

Are you trying to be a buffoon? Newsflash : There is a long and broad spectrum of negative consequences to climate change before you reach "uninhabitable".

As gotchas goes, you're operating on a Saturday-morning cartoon level. But these days that's true of most of the Right's drivel. They're so used to accepting child-grade bullshit, they expect other people to take it seriously too.

[Ben_]

Goalposts moved.

Someone, somewhere might have an imperfect day 50 years from now. It’s a climate crisis!

[grb]

I accuse you of clownish simplification and how do you respond? With clownish simplification! Once more, here's what’s obvious:

There are many potential repercussions from climate change. They exist on a spectrum that runs from having “an imperfect day 50 years from now” to areas becoming “uninhabitable”.

That’s a lot of ground, Ben_. It covers a whole range of terrible possibilities. History shows people will inhabit lands with brutal climates, where life is lived thru privation and hardship. So there are plenty of ways for climate change to negatively affect countries and peoples short of vast areas becoming uninhabitable. That you suggest otherwise isn’t serious. It shows you a trollish clown.

[Ben_]

If it's not an existential problem, then we can let the much richer, much more capable people of the future solve it when it starts to become their problem. Rich future people should pay their fair share, not require poor contemporary people to sacrifice for them.

And anything we don't sacrifice for them now provides a foundation for everyone to build on, so future people will be even better off when the future arrives.

Or we could sacrifice. Then future people will also have to sacrifice -- because what exempts them from this responsibility? Then every generation will always have to sacrifice, always live artificially poor lives, always against a fearful future, forever.

[grb]

Ben_ : “If it’s not an existential problem, then we can let …. (etc)”

That’s your view. I don’t agree, but fair enough. But that’s not Bill Gates' view. What started this exchange was your claim Gates had abandoned Climate Change as a serious issue. That claim was obviously false. That’s what I note above.

[Ben_]

It's just a hint of sanity from him. He’s not cured yet.

[Nige]

You’re basically lying in claiming it’s some sort of u-turn. Why does your sane sensible position need so many lies?

[Nige]

'then we can let the much richer, much more capable people of the future solve it when it starts to become their problem'

Are you a baby? An actual goo-goo ga-ga ickle baby in a crib playing with a blankie?

'always live artificially poor lives,'

Lot of bait-and-switch going on there between 'rich' and 'poor' and 'everyone.'

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

"An imperfect day"

Like, say, your home slides into the sea.

[Ben_]

Rich beach house owners are victims! Won't someone think of the beach house owners!!!!

[Nige]

Rich people have 90% of the wealth. They can afford the insurance.

[Randal]

Nobody, not Al Gore, not Greta Thunberg, and least of all Bill Gates, has ever said that temperate countries would become "uninhabitable." Are you insane?

[Ben_]

Then why did Gates have to specifically make that statement?

You can argue that specific people never said some specific words. I didn’t quote them as saying those words. So I’m not interested in such an argument.

[Sarcastr0]

You argue a thesis no one has. Repeatedly.

Why did Gates have to specifically make that statement? Because of dumbass strawman makers like you!

[Ben_]

That’s made up nonsense. You have no idea why he said anything. You didn’t even try to find out.

[Randal]

Oh my god Ben, did you even try to find out? The title of the Times article is "Bill Gates Says 'Brute Force' Climate Policies Won't Work." That means we need well-calibrated climate policies. That means we need a good sense of the facts and predictions, so we can do those calibrations. On of those facts and predictions is that temperate countries won't become uninhabitable (but equatorial ones will).

See how that works? Understanding facts is how we focus on the right solutions.

You really are 15 aren't you.

[Ben_]

So nothing like what Sarcastr0 said then.

[Randal]

I think the "brute force" climate policies that Bill is arguing against are the very same strawmen that Sarcastr0 is talking about.

[Nige]

'Then why did Gates have to specifically make that statement?'

Not to sgnal some sort of u-turn on climate change, anyway.

[Nige]

“No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable”

It’s the equatorial regions that are going to become uninhabitable if trends continue, you twerp.

[Ben_]

Famous violent BLM protestor Gaige Grosskreutz gets very seriously injured by a hit-and-run crash:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2023/09/24/rittenhouses-surviving-blm-attacker-run-over-by-black-driver-n1729522

The driver was an individual whose live matters.

I wonder if Grosskreutz has learned anything?

[John F. Carr]

A source that will be taken more seriously: https://www.fox6now.com/news/brady-street-hit-and-run-thomas-charged

[Sarcastr0]

“famously violent” as in he got shot Rhouse trying to disarm him after Rhouse had already killed Rosenbaum?

Jesus Christ, your bloodlust is fucked up. At this point I’m convinced you’d defend any shooting of a liberal.

Also, what should he learn? Do you think the police shooting unarmed suspects helps deal with hit and runs?

Over the past 2 weeks or so of links provided to the VC, it looks like PJmedia is just posting everything bad that happens to anyone ever associated with BLM and pretending it’s karma.

It’s pretty awful of them. And you lap it up and ask for more because you are awful.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean career criminal Grosskreutz?

[Ben_]

"Also, what should he learn?"

He should learn to value his own life instead of throwing it away on a one race matters movement.

"...PJmedia is just posting everything bad that happens to anyone ever associated with BLM and pretending it’s karma."

If BLM people weren't so obviously evil and destructive and childish, then every misfortune that happens to them wouldn't look like karma.

All the ill will from you and the left (especially since 2006 or so) will be returned with interest. Don't be surprised.

[myself]

If BLM people weren’t so obviously evil and destructive and childish, then every misfortune that happens to them wouldn’t look like karma.

For future reference, it's probably better if you don't write that immediately after gloating over someone being seriously injured.

[Ben_]

I destroyed nothing and harmed no one. Leftists destroy things and hurt people.

[Sarcastr0]

You revel in bad things happening to people you don't know, but don't like for political reasons.

Don't pretend it's just words so who cares. You choose to post them.

It's you, being a piece of shit.

[Ben_]

It's a lot better than Democrats behave.

Do you think the guy who hit Grosskreutz thinks that lives of people like Grosskreutz matter?

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's not better. I somehow manage to be a political partisan with a pretty pointed idea of what's good policy, but without publicly taking joy in the suffering of those I disagree with.

I even have friends that are Republicans. Because I don't spend all of my time convincing myself Republicans exist to be evil.

Hating the other side does not make the world a better place. If you really wanted to improve the world, you'd quit with the self indulgent raging and do somethign nice for people.

[Ben_]

I wouldn’t be your friend. Not because you’re a Democrat, but because you’re dishonest. I’d always have to look out for the (metaphorical) knife in my back because of how compromised you are.

And I’d always have to worry that my race would be used against me, since you’ve made it clear you play favorites based on race.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a you problem. You mix up disagreeing with you and dishonesty. Part of your whole thing that Dems are evil and just lying about it.

It's a miserable way to be, but you enthusiastically choose it over and over.

I'm not sure how you think race comes up when you're hanging out with friends...go outside once in a while ffs.

[Ben_]

Dishonesty isn't opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, but we aren't talking about actual dishonesty. Just your spite at people who challenge you.

If you had actual evidence I was dishonest, you'd provide it.

[Ben_]

And BLM rioters are owed every bit of scorn and ill will directed toward them 100 times over. They should all be in prison for another few years at least.

[Nige]

You support the police who kill people all the time, and rob them, and injure them, and imprison them, and are protected from consequences and cost taxpayers millions in compensation. You oppose BLM, who oppose that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Karma can be such a bitch.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not at UCLA.

[Frank Drackman]

Jay Hey works in strange and mysterious (and sometimes Drunken) ways

[Sarcastr0]

misthread

[M L]

Joe Biden’s hordes of illegal immigrants – or “migrants” or “asylum seekers” as newspapers will now call them, LOL – are piling up in U.S. cities. I was in Chicago recently and saw it all over the place, certain blocks with people crammed in and camped out on the sidewalks. For example a nice “former” boutique hotel “is now a shelter for migrant families seeking asylum.”

Chicago residents slam ‘hypocrite’ lawmakers over plans to house 300 new migrants in hotels while city’s majority-black homeless population is left to suffer on streets

Since August 2022, more than 11,000 migrants have been bussed to Chicago from the U.S.-Mexico border Chicago, like New York City, is struggling to house the new arrivals, many of whom now sleep in the lobbies of police stationshttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12468299/chicago-migrants-hotel-anger-protests.html

Now, after having intentionally created record amounts of illegal border crossing – or “asylum seeking” as some newspapers like to call it now – and this migrant crisis, apparently they are pushing to get them all “work permits” on an expedited basis. Seems like just a way of entrenching them for permanent status. Neat trick – don’t like the law, which allows crazy high amount of legal immigration around 1.3 million annually? No problem, just ignore it and wave in millions of illegals like a 3rd base coach waving runners into home plate.

[M L]

Now Biden admin moves to give federal IDs to illegal immigrants

Neat.

[Randal]

There's nothing Biden can do. He's had his border-control policies axed by the courts just like Trump.

This is a Congress problem. It's something the Republican House could be working on except rofl! What am I even saying, has there ever before been such a dysfunctional mess of yahoos ever assembled?

[myself]

Clarence Thomas had unreported private jet travel to act as a fundraiser for the Koch brothers who have had multiple cases before the court.

And no one really cares anymore because we've all just sort of grown accustomed to how corrupt Thomas is.

[Frank Drackman]

No, because it's fucking bullshit, if Clarence "Frogman" Thomas did anything Merrick Garland could charge him for, he'd have done it, Indict him (It's not that hard) Impeach him (it's not that hard) or Shut the Fuck Up,
No Offense,

Frank

[Estragon]

“Shut the Fuck Up”

You first

[Frank Drackman]

You First! No reversies!

[Ben_]

No one cares because no one believes these phony narratives any more.

[Randal]

Why do you think the narratives are phony? These Thomas stories have all been confirmed by the people involved.

You just don't care how corrupt the people in power are, as long as they're on your "team."

[Ben_]

You didn’t say specifically. You referred to [whatever]. Same for the post I responded to.

Tell the story if you want someone to believe it. That would be a start.

Thomas is appointed for his lifetime, regardless. Dumb opinions based on half referenced storytelling doesn’t change that.

[Sarcastr0]

"Clarence Thomas had unreported private jet travel to act as a fundraiser for the Koch brothers who have had multiple cases before the court"

myself did tell the story. He did say specifically specifically. He did not refer to whatever.

[Ben_]

What’s wrong with private jet travel? What’s wrong with fund raising? What cases? Why should anyone “report” anything?

Why does anyone believe any part of this is true? Because anonymous internet jerks say it is?

There are no “Koch brothers”. David Koch has been dead for a long time now.

[Sarcastr0]

First, you made 3 demands in you're previous comment that had already well been answered. That's a pretty bad show.

As to your new goalposts,
1) This is
A) unreported paid for travel
B) fundraising for an explicitly partisan group
C) who has matters before the Court
D) on a subject Thomas has recently flipped his position on

This isn't the 1920s, where Justices were explicitly partisan and hung out with Presidents and Senators to talk about how society should be laid out.
But for one Justice in particular, why not go back to those days.

ProPublica was right about Thomas in all it's previous reporting, and Thomas has not denied this, so you can call it a pack of lies, but you'll look like a denialist tool.

There are no “Koch brothers”. David Koch has been dead for a long time now.
Pathetic pedantry. A great sign you have nothing.

[Randal]

Wow Ben, just a total capitulation into subjectivity? How very "left-thinking" of you.

Anyway, Thomas can be impeached.

[Estragon]

All this talk about Bob Menendez… does anyone remember what happened to his alleged co-defendant from his first trial? Didn’t he get into trouble for Medicare fraud too? Whatever happened to that guy?

https://www.justice.gov/media/1117521/dl?inline

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump pardoned him.

[hobie]

Can Trump buy a gun while indicted? Can Hunter buy a gun while using? Is there a difference? Are either, at their respective points, felons?

TRUMP IN SOUTH CAROLINA INDICATES HE WANTS TO BUY A GUN

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/us/politics/trump-glock-gun-south-carolina.html?unlocked_article_code=hi_xKBGTG8t-pKURg6fQ-WE312OgF-_K85zDUv6dIVanZQ3YeQC9q7pKsor5qPf9AO_5ygbsbrJjZ5yeCIYLk1OFFQsTqdjJWUppV-5nsihVWVUK631AtGm7vmLSrbeJE8ax7uz-Bk3mV7O6IMoftpwzTXReukuP0RIIP5KndvQKIIEMBVDUGdLz1Z2e_AXwwoxeFmXDPR3pCEr-MYqX0G21cIkHRNQTDMeLeOhpvQa_k9eLUc8S2yik5sLuQ7x8a6He53nM9f1j6cW9vey-B9uu2uZK7xr9VxlsptAMXw9Bf-xtypYY30kdxYiTw_adEI1ZW-JEOwEHPkBSom-cLg7kjmYucj9RVB20xw&smid=url-share

[John F. Carr]

The article has a picture of what appears to be Trump holding a pistol.

18 USC 922 prohibits anybody who has been convicted of a felony from possessing a gun. The same law prohibits anybody under indictment for a felony from receiving a gun but says nothing about simple possession. If he possessed the gun but did not receive it... OK?

[Estragon]

“President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!”

-Steven Cheung

That was the original tweet. Do you believe that, or the walk back after they realized how badly they fucked up?

[myself]

For everyone whining about the media being so unfair to Trump.

1) Trump says he wants to buy a gun
2) Trump's spokesperson posts video of interaction claimed that Trump bought the gun.
3) People point out such a purchase would be in violation of Federal law.
4) Video gets deleted and they now deny he bought the gun.
5) "Liberal media" accordingly reports he didn't buy it (despite zero evidence the transaction didn't happen).

Btw, it's also apparently illegal for him to have possessed the gun at all.

[Kleppe]

"“Liberal media” accordingly reports he didn’t buy it (despite zero evidence the transaction didn’t happen)."

What evidence do you want to prove that something didn't happen? Are you new at this?

[myself]

Trump's campaign spokesperson literally said that Trump bought it and only deleted that claim when told it was a violation of the law.

Now, the spokesperson probably lied, but at this point I think it's ambiguous either way. Taking the position that the spokesperson lied is an interpretation that is fairly favourable to Trump.

[shawn_dude]

The spokesman absolutely lied... the question is whether it was about his witnessing the former president buying the gun or about the former president not buying the gun.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The spokesman absolutely lied… the question is whether it was about his witnessing the former president buying the gun or about the former president not buying the gun.

Did anyone believe John Barron, Carolin Gallego, and John Miller were the only Trump mouthpieces who are lying pieces of shit?

[John F. Carr]

Trump did not walk into a gun shop in another state and walk out a few minutes later with a newly purchased handgun. To buy a gun he would have to state in writing that he is not under felony indictment, the dealer would have to check his eligibility, and he would have to have the gun shipped to Florida.

[myself]

I wouldn't be shocked if a gun shop, in the middle of a photo op with a pro-gun Presidential candidate, would decide to ignore the paperwork to rush the sales through. Just how much business would a "Trump bought a gun here" local media cycle drum up??

So the transaction probably didn't happen, but given the campaign's initial assertion it did happen I think there's legit ambiguity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, you wouldn't be shocked if a gun shop decided to go out of business, and have key people end up in prison, just to help Trump with a photo op.

Gun shops are antsy enough about paperwork requirements in the best of times, with customers nobody knows from chopped liver. With the BATF on a rampage, and a customer who guarantees every detail of the transaction will be examined under a microscope, you think they're going to skip legal requirements?

[hobie]

And if he buys it?

[Frank Drackman]

He'll be Indicted in South Carolina!!!!!!!!!!

[Estragon]

President Trump bought a Glock today?? What’s wrong with this picture?

[Estragon]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

[ducksalad]

My God, he could be indicted! That would be a complete game changer!

IANAL but comparing that particular part 922(n) with the penalties section 929, it looks like section (n) requires "willfully", rather than just "knowingly". If he heard after the fact that it was illegal and gave it back, he's off the hook?

[Frank Drackman]

Senator Menendez! I want a "Perp Walk" "National Networks televising his "Booking", "Mug Shot!!!" (OK, don't think the Senator's Mug will raise as much money as "45"'s)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Illya Kuryakin has died.

[Nige]

🙁

[Kleppe]

I see Democrats are patting themselves on the back for being Very Good People for calling for Senator Menendez to step down. I'm sure the fact that New Jersey has a Democrat governor and a Democrat is guaranteed to replace him won't stop them preening their probity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mostly, Democrats are good people because they are not poorly educated racists, superstition-addled gay-haters, right-wing immigrant-haters, backwater Islamophobes, un-American insurrectionists, old-timey misogynists, chanting antisemites, antisocial gun nuts, or disaffected, awkward proprietors or misfit fans of bigot-hugging, white, male blogs.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Meanwhile, in Texas, with a Republican governor and where a Republican would be guaranteed to replace Ken Paxton as AG, the Republicans still refused to do the right thing. Under your logic, even when it’s easy, the Republicans of Texas still failed.

[Nige]

Strong support for Menendez from Santos, though.

[Ben_]

Leftists SWAT Twitter personality catturd:

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-anon-account-holder-catturd-swatted-after-being-doxxed-by-leftist-outlets

Remember when Democrats used to talk about helping poor people? This is what they turned into since Obama.

Catturd escaped harm and there was no damage.

[Sarcastr0]

Must be leftists.

You never actually post about helping anyone, only hate.

[Nige]

'Remember when Democrats used to talk about helping poor people?'

Is catturd poor? Were Democrats involved? After years of libsoftiktok doxxings swattings and bomb threats, why did you wait for this alleged story to get mad? Do you support cuts to social security?

[David Nieporent]

Ben_ can't help himself; he has to lie. There is no evidence of any sort that "leftists" did anything here.

[M L]

Some teens beat a 13 year old boy to death at school. They received no prison time, just ordered to go to anger management. The teens had a history of bullying the boy, and had just beaten him up four days prior, after which the school said they would be suspended, but they didn’t suspend them. That’s because the school was focused on “restorative justice” and “equity” which the superintendent championed (and which Biden admin is now coercing schools into) however, the superintendent was recently fired after the school paid a 27M settlement.

https://thepostmillennial.com/california-superintendent-ousted-after-school-pays-27m-to-parents-of-13-year-old-who-was-beaten-to-death-by-bullies-after-restorative-justice-intervention-failed

[Randal]

Wow, let's just take a look at what a raw asshole you are.

They received no prison time, just ordered to go to anger management.

a) We don't put 13 year olds in prison, dude. They went to juvie, a fact you conveniently omitted.

That’s because the school was focused on “restorative justice” and “equity” which the superintendent championed

b) This is like saying it's because the school was too busy hanging Ten Commandments posters everywhere to enforce their disciplinary policies. You're citing to a completely unrelated fact intended solely to paint the school into a culture-war narrative. Quite the asshole maneuver.

c) Using the death of a child as the vehicle for advancing this sort of dishonest rhetoric is really disgusting and inhuman. Par for a modern conservative cultist I guess.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“They went to juvie”

“In 2020, the boys entered the equivalent of guilty pleas in juvenile court to charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury.

“In 2021, the Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the teenage boys would not stay behind bars, but instead were ordered to undergo anger management therapy as a condition of probation.

“After 47 days in juvenile custody, the teens were released into the custody of their parents.”

47 days! That will show them.

And there’s the $27 million settlement from the school.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12544855/California-school-superintendent-fired-days-district-ordered-pay-27M-family-boy-13-beaten-death-bullies-teachers-refused-suspend.html

I’m citing the Daily Mail because they often have better coverage of American news.

[Randal]

Wait are you fucking serious? Your thing is longer sentences for 13 year olds? You're even more hemorrhoidal than ML here! He was just misrepresenting the story to make it seem anti-liberal, but you actually want to abuse kids. Why not just kill them while you're at it? Death penalties for everybody! You get a death penalty, and you get a death penalty, and you get a death penalty..

Also, what about the settlement? I shudder to think what crazy thing you're going to say about that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You sound deranged.

[M L]

He's a troll.

[Nige]

Why did you focus on blaming the school for what was the responsibility of the justice system?

[M L]

Why not both? The story is about the superintendent being fired and the school paying out 27M. And related, the Biden admin policies threatening schools with lawsuits for violating civil rights if they suspend students too much.

[M L]

You can see why this particular fact pattern was bad for the school, and they ended up taking a big hit.

[Nige]

The school let violent bullying continue, there's no justifying that, not even hiding behind vague allusions to Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

They. Beat. Somebody. To. Death.

Do try to remember that, while your heart bleeds for them. They murdered somebody. 13 is not too young to understand that you're not supposed to do that.

[M L]

The attackers were not 13 by the way, the victim was 13. Troll just made that up.

[Randal]

14, sorry. Basically the same age as the victim, of course.

Sorry if you don't like "fuck", but it hardly makes me a troll. Whereas the attackers' age was the third time on this short thread where you omitted a major mitigating fact that you obviously knew in order to sensationalize your partisan narrative over a dead kid. Any you've started thread after thread in the same vein. You're worse than a troll, you're a provocateur.

And Brett, this goes for you too. Yes, they ought to have known better, and they were punished. But we're not a society that gives long prison sentences to kids! It's barbaric. The minimum according to the guidelines is 6.5 years. What would be the point of that other than to ruin those kids too? Do you think it works as a deterrent for other kids? You guys are sick.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're not talking about long prison sentences, though. We're talking about a few weeks and they're loose again. Surely there's some midpoint between a few weeks and back on the street, and over six years in a supermax prison? Like, maybe the proverbial military school?

Remediation is a nice dream, and maybe sometimes even possible, but incapacitation is kind of important when you're talking about stone cold killers, of any age.

I mean, "anger management"? They're bullies, I've been on the receiving end of that myself. Bullies don't have "anger" problems, they don't attack people because they lose their tempers, they attack people because they think hurting people is FUN. "Anger management" isn't going to help that any.

And, 14? My son's 14. 14 isn't a child, it's a young adult in all but the eyes of the law!

[Randal]

ML is specifically suggesting prison time. Do you think it would make sense to send your 14 year old to prison?

Military school is a great idea, but I don't think the criminal justice system can mandate that. The parents should certainly do something along those lines.

The question is what can the criminal justice system do in a case like this. Workhouses?

[Nige]

‘Remediation is a nice dream’

No, it isn’t, it’s just something the US prison system gave up on because prisons are more profitable and ‘tough-on-crime’ was dumb but simple slogan.

'Bullies don’t have “anger” problems,'

Don't they? Nobody does this to another human being without having serious emotional issues. Thinking hurting people is fun is a VERY serious emotional issue, and requires serious psychiatric intervention, I hope the mental health services haven't been cut too much.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's something the US prison system gave up on because incapacitation unambiguously WORKS. Every damn time a prisoner is in prison, he's not preying upon people outside prison.

"Don’t they? Nobody does this to another human being without having serious emotional issues. "

Oh, yeah, thinking hurting people is fun is absolutely a serious mental issue. It's just not an "anger management" issue, like the poor dears lost their tempers, couldn't help it, really, and if you just taught them to take a deep breath at the right time they'd never do it again.

"Anger management" is a way of the people in charge refusing to come to grips with the fact that they deliberately set out to hurt another human being for fun. They're averting their gaze from evil, and when you won't recognize evil, you enable evil.

[Nige]

'because incapacitation unambiguously WORKS.'

Not according to recidivism rates.

'They’re averting their gaze from evil, and when you won’t recognize evil, you enable evil.'

Seems like there might be an excluded middle between teaching them to breathe and sending them to gladiator school. If only that wasn't the actual choice, there might be better outcomes.

Always funny to see a Trump voter being piously tough-on-crime.

[Sarcastr0]

‘We need more teens in prison’ is not what I’d take from this tragedy.

In fact, I would't take much from this tragedy. Awful facts are not a great way to make good law.

[M L]

I didn't even say anything about their sentence. I was just pointing out, as the sources in the link say:

"In 2021, the Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the teenage boys would not stay behind bars, but instead were ordered to undergo anger management therapy as a condition of probation."

I'm not one to make confident pronouncements about what anyone's sentences should be, when I'm not immersed in the facts and details of the case. I will say I'm not opposed in principle to 14 year olds receiving criminal punishment including prison or a juvenile version of that, and the sentence in this case strikes me as lenient based purely on limited information.

As it happens, they have another, concurrent story linked on the same page:

BREAKING: Brothers who beat Ethan Liming to death outside LeBron James’ ‘I Promise’ school found guilty of lesser assault charges

The jury failed to reach a verdict on a count of first-degree felony involuntary manslaughter levelled against the elder brother.

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-brothers-who-beat-ethan-liming-to-death-outside-lebron-james-i-promise-school-found-guilty-of-lesser-assault-charges

While we're shooting from the hip, that one might be a bit lenient too, seems possible the jury got it wrong, purely based on the limited and incomplete information presented.

[Randal]

I didn’t even say anything about their sentence.

Why tell such an easily verifiable lie? All we have to do is scroll up.

They received no prison time, just ordered to go to anger management.

That’s both a lie and a suggestion that they should have received prison time… otherwise why mention prison at all?

[M L]

Meaning I did not comment on the appropriateness of the sentence or lack thereof, but mentioned it because the article says "In 2021, the Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the teenage boys would not stay behind bars, but instead were ordered to undergo anger management therapy as a condition of probation" so it appears that time behind bars was under consideration. The story wasn't about that however, it was about the school's decision not to suspend these teens four days prior when they beat up the same 13 year old boy and had a history of bullying him - a decision presumably influenced by the superintendent's preference for "restorative justice" and the Biden administration's policy of threatening civil rights lawsuits over suspensions.

Do you think the bullies should have been suspended?

[Randal]

The first article you linked was clearer.

His attackers were charged and pleaded guilty to manslaughter, served 47 days in juvenile custody, and were ordered to undergo anger management.

Why do you keep ignoring that? The fact that the other article you linked is from a right-wing propaganda site engaging in the same kind of partisan deception that you're engaging in doesn't really help you.

Of course the bullies should have been suspended. Apparently everyone agrees with that... which is why the school had to pay and why the superintendent got fired.

But you know what didn't happen? Anything whatsoever about this "restorative justice" initiative you keep harping on about. It wasn't rescinded, because it's totally irrelevant! It has nothing to say about student discipline.

a decision presumably influenced by the superintendent’s preference for “restorative justice” and the Biden administration’s policy of threatening civil rights lawsuits over suspensions.

Presumed by who? You and your idiot right-wing cult friends? It's totally unrelated, just like Ten Commandments posters would've been. Check this out:

The story wasn’t about that however, it was about the school’s decision not to suspend these teens four days prior when they beat up the same 13 year old boy and had a history of bullying him – a decision presumably influenced by the Christian superintendent’s preference for “biblical justice” handled within religious communities and families, along with the Republican governor’s policy of threatening parental rights lawsuits over suspensions.

That would be an equally asinine partisan spin attempt to make this somehow a culture war thing. So pathetic and gross.

[Brett Bellmore]

"‘We need more teens in prison’ is not what I’d take from this tragedy."

Well, certainly not random teens, anyway. It's not like meeting a quota will make the problem go away.

More murderously violent teens in prison? Yeah, maybe that's something a sensible person would take away from this tragedyatrocity.

[Sarcastr0]

Above with your discussion of 'incapacitation works' it sounds like you want more teens in prison...for life, I guess?

Harsher sentences in this country already with an extraordinary imprisonment rate. More power to the government. More responsibility to the government.

You really are really bad at being a libertarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

More GUILTY teens, sure. Though I'd be transcendently happy if you couldn't put any teens in prison because none of them were murdering anybody.

Look, cut out phrasing it in an effort to create the impression that I don't care about guilt, I just want a bunch of people in prison, the younger the better. It only seems clever to you.

You really don't even begin to understand libertarianism, if you think it's liberty to go around beating people to death. Sure, I think we need fewer BS laws against victimless crimes, but I'm really hardline on crimes that actually have victims.

You know, like MURDER?

[M L]

Democratic lawyers are making war against even basic election integrity measures

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4213759-democratic-lawyers-are-making-war-against-even-basic-election-integrity-measures/

The 2024 presidential election is over a year away, but the left’s legal assault on common-sense election integrity measures has already begun.

Last month, a district court in San Antonio ruled that Texas cannot enforce the provision of Senate Bill 1 which established a voter identification requirement for mail in voting in Texas. The next day, a district court in Atlanta ruled against Georgia Senate Bill 202‘s requirement that mail-voters provide their date of birth.

[Randal]

Once again, we're not going to let you use fake voter fraud conspiacy theories as cover to deny people the right to vote. Sorry not sorry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The clinger who wrote that for The Hill worked for Rudy Giuliani's law firm and a right-wing think tank before becoming a paid mouthpiece for Republican Party voter suppression projects.

[JasonT20]

They are "common-sense election integrity measures" because the legislatures that implement them aren't basing them on any evidence that they are necessary. That is what the term "common-sense" really means. That one has used a cognitive shortcut to avoid having to actually think it through carefully using logic and evidence. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is not.

When it comes to voting rights, the questions about election security should not be decided with common sense, but with careful thought and facts. Are these measures going to reduce fraud that no one has ever proved is a problem or just add more steps to casting a vote? Steps where a voter could make a mistake that causes their vote to be tossed out for no good reason?

[Brett Bellmore]

As legislatures are actually entitled to make election laws, the courts better have damn good reasons for overturning them, not just policy judgements. It's the legislatures' call whether things are necessary, not the courts'; The courts' job is determining if they're permissible.

[Sarcastr0]

Bland paeons to populism are a poor substitute for actually dealing with the legal analysis.
Sometimes rights are involved. Via state of federal constitution. Sometimes a Federal law is involved.

Knee jerk this law was good is more of a policy choice than this court is making, since you aren’t even bothering with the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Separation of power and constitutionally assigned responsibilities is a "bland paeon to populism"?

[Randal]

It is when you haven't done the work to see if they're even implicated.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah - there's a case here. With facts. And laws.

You can't just yell 'Constitution!!' and drop the mic.

Well you can, but it looks quite silly around here.

[M L]

I disagree, if these measures would logically prevent fraud OR non-fraud practices we don’t like such as ballot harvesting OR just reduce unintentional errors/inaccuracies, then you don’t need to do first wait until those things happen, and then are detected, and then proved beyond a reasonable doubt in some empirically verifiable quantity that we can all agree “is a problem” (a subjective inquiry to be sure, it only takes 1 of any such instance to cancel out 1 valid vote — is each vote important, or not?). I could turn this around and ask you to prove that showing an ID, or providing your date of birth, "is a problem" in some empirically verifiable quantity.

Of course this is all just philosophizing about how we think things should be, which is quite separate from and ignores the actual legal issues.

[Randal]

I could turn this around and ask you to prove that showing an ID, or providing your date of birth, “is a problem” in some empirically verifiable quantity.

You could, and should, and behold, it has been done! Requiring an ID has been proven to reduce the amount of legal voting. It actually, really disenfranchises people. (Which is of course the true purpose of the laws.)

[Nige]

Guess they're even more radical about voting rights than you weirdos are about your gun hobbies.

[M L]

A little-known part of the Biden administration's CBP One parole program permits inadmissible aliens to make an appointment to fly directly to airports in the interior of the United States, bypassing the border altogether. Partial data on the program, just obtained by the Center for immigration Studies pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, reveals that more than 200,000 people from four countries have used this direct-flight and parole program over the past year.

https://cis.org/Bensman/New-Records-Biden-DHS-Has-Approved-Hundreds-Thousands-Migrants-Secretive-Foreign-Flights

[M L]

Biden admin has finally found some illegal immigrants they want to deport - some asylum seekers who they want to deny.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tennessee-family-deportation-15-years-fleeing-germany-homeschool-kids-well-founded-fear

Tennessee family faces deportation 15 years after fleeing Germany to homeschool kids: A 'well-founded' fear

Apparently in Germany they will round up kids and force them to go to these schoolprisons.

[Sarcastr0]

Tuesday morning is anecdotes to build conservative resentment on parade from ML!

schoolprisons
Yep. Normal stuff right here! Fleeing cartels, no. Fleeing schools, well that's the real oppression!

[Randal]

I actually saw this cringeworthy article before ML did... oh Fox News, how low can you race-baiting go?

And of course ML is into it. Illegal white immigrants? Oxymoron, amiright Fox & Friends?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A *white* government persecuting its people? That would never happen; only nonwhite regimes engage in persecution.

[Randal]

That does sound like something you might say, but no, I’m quite familiar with the ways white governments can persecute their people. Germany even comes particularly to mind.

However, sending your kids to school is not the sort of “fear for your life” situation that asylum requires. I mean seriously? You guys are all pissed about the number of asylum-seekers getting in but at the same time you want to lower the bar to include this kind of thing? The only explanation is their (borderline creepy) whiteness.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’re an avowed antiracist who thinks whiteness can be “borderline creepy.” Let me ask if blackness could be borderline creepy? Of course not, only a racist would suggest that.

Can you think of a current-day refugee whom you believe faces persecution by a white government? Or as an antiracist zealot, do you think persecution is a nonwhite thing?

‘“fear for your life” situation’

The term is well-founded fear of persecution and it doesn’t require fearing for your life.

The refugee laws are tilted toward protecting the victims of persecution by politics, religion, or membership in a social group. In fact, it’s a common complaint that economic migrants are left out of the definition. Though you don’t really seem into nuance. Still, it’s a piece of legal nuance which might get mentioned on a legal blog.

How many economic migrants are good? Well, a generous welcome to many migrants is a good thing but there’s such a thing as letting in too many, and if you disagree, take it up with the mayor of New York City and the governor of New York State.

[Randal]

What makes you think I'm an avowed antiracist? I don't even know what that means. And yes, I'm sure there could be a creepy black family if they staged what appeared to be an incestuous group of multi-generational doppelgangers in matching pastel period costumes juxtaposed with modern Tean Beat hairstyles as a family photo for use in national media.

The rest of your argument is pretty incoherent... are you suggesting these guys are economic refugees? Did you even read the article? Do you think Germany is an economically unviable nation? And while I recognize that "fear for your life" extends a bit, like, fearing for limb also counts, it doesn't extend to fearing for your ability to legally keep your children out of school. Even if you're white.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"fear of being persecuted" is the test, not life or limb.

This family filed a claim as political refugees. They got different results depending on which bureaucrats or judges were dealing with their case.

You can't cite an example of a white government persecuting anyone today, as defined in the relevant treaty. I guess whites are cooler than nonwhites, except of course when they disqualify themselves from refugee status by dressing in a way which doesn't please you.

[Randal]

I don't even really know what you mean by white government, so I've been ignoring that question. Do you mean European government? I personally think France persecutes Muslims constantly, just as one example. Russia too. There's lots of persecution going on in Europe actually.

Recognizing persecution is extremely fact-dependent and fact-specific. Although asylum adjudicators will determine what constitutes persecution on a case-by-case basis, they have consistently recognized certain types of behavior as persecution. The following five broad categories describe abuse that adjudicators may find rise to the level of persecution:

1. serious physical harm;
2. coercive medical or psychological treatment;
3. invidious prosecution or disproportionate punishment for a criminal offense;
4. severe discrimination and economic persecution, and
5. severe criminal extortion or robbery.

Which of those do you think "requiring kids to get an education" counts as? You're ridiculous.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Which of those do you think “requiring kids to get an education” counts as?”

I tend to provide links when I’m quoting some official document – you haven’t even identified the document much less provided links.

The actual treaties (1951 convention and 1967 protocol) are here:

https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees

And here’s an example from nolo.com of persecuting behavior:

“infliction of mental, emotional, or psychological harm: this can include intimidation, surveillance, interference with privacy, long-term threats, or being forced to engage in conduct that is not physically painful or harmful but is abhorrent to the person’s deepest beliefs”

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-counts-persecution-when-applying-asylum-refugee-status.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And it seems that the German government is in a more generous mood than it used to be, since it will allow homeschooling – if the appropriate government officials approve the curriculum, that is. That seems to be the sunny message of this guide to parents in Germany:

“First, parents must notify the local school district that they will homeschool their child. The notification must include the child’s name, date of birth, and address. Parents must also provide the school district with an educational plan for their child. The plan should include the subjects that the child will be studying, as well as the methods and materials that will be used.

“The school district may approve or reject the plan but must respond within two weeks. If the school district approves the project, they will issue a “notice of exemption,” which allows the child to be homeschooled.

“If the school district rejects the plan, parents can appeal the decision to the Ministry of Education. The Ministry will then make a final decision on whether or not the child can be homeschooled.”

https://remoteofficeschool.com/homeschooling-in-germany/

Or you could consult the right-wing zealots at MSN who discuss how this worked out in practice for the family:

“The family of seven left Germany due to the country’s laws only allowing homeschooling in limited circumstances and being fined $9,000.”

How high does a fine have to be? (And I doubt the harassment would have stopped with a single fine)

[Randal]

Ok wait your new position is that anyone fined a few thousand dollars is a refugee? You're just being silly now.

intimidation, surveillance, interference with privacy, long-term threats, or being forced to engage in conduct that is not physically painful or harmful but is abhorrent to the person’s deepest beliefs

So again, which of those does educating your children count as?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you're reduced to straw-manning, that's a sign your position isn't very viable.

So long, Scarecrow, I hope you get some brains.

[Nige]

'if the appropriate government officials approve the curriculum, that is'

Is there some problem with this?

[Randal]

Lol, nice surrender. I don't even know what you're calling a strawman. Both my questions were direct responses to you.

“The family of seven left Germany due to the country’s laws only allowing homeschooling in limited circumstances and being fined $9,000.”

How high does a fine have to be? (And I doubt the harassment would have stopped with a single fine)

That's clearly a suggestion that a fine is sufficient. Are you backtracking on that now that you realize how retarded it is?

Let's remember that this whole thread is just a dance around the fact that you, ML, and Fox News have sympathy for this family purely because they're white and no other reason.

[Nige]

'A *white* government persecuting its people?'

If legal requirements around homeschooling are 'persecution' either they're weirdly draconian or the family in question want to teach their kids, and not teach their kids, some notable things.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“legal requirements around homeschooling”

Because ve must teach ze kinder der toleranz, und if ze parents von’t allow it, ve must punish zem!

[Nige]

Saying it in a fake German accent doesn't make it any less dumb.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The German Way is to ask permission and to obey orders.

Plenty of U. S. politicians – in both of the major parties – want to turn the German Way into the American Way.

Soon these educational orders will be in impeccably American accents.

[Nige]

Being racist about Germans is still racism.

What specific aspect of German educational requirements are you whinging about?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Nice try, but I’m part-German, so your raceturbation didn’t work.

This is the same tactic used by supporters of the Beijing regime to shut down criticism - "by criticizing 'China,' you're being racist against Chinese people!"

[Nige]

Nice try to equate 'criticising' Germany with a racist German accent. It's not really important, it was just incredibly dumb.

Nice try to dodge the the question.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’re really doubling down on the bullshit, aren’t you? I have plenty of German ancestors. I’m the Chris Rock of German jokes: I can say stuff outsiders can’t.

I also have relatives who were on the wrong side of the Germans during the Late Unpleasantness in the early 1940s, and thank to them I learned this ditty which might inspire some fellow-feeling in you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9bY6gC50Co

If you were against racism, you’d oppose discrimination against Asians.

Stop Asian Hate!

[Nige]

So, what, you deserve a slap? You’re an embarrasment to your German forebears and a caricature to modern Germans. The accent was dumb, you’re still avoiding the question.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Glass houses, dude. You support racial preferences which discriminate against Asians, and for that matter, you want to discriminate against German-Americans because they're white. That's bad in any accent.

[Nige]

No, I just don’t blame people who benefit from things like affirmative action for any, supposed, discrimination against Asians in those schemes, the answer is to make them less discriminatory against Asians, but you don’t actually care about that, and you still haven’t answered the question.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, I’ve already answered your question in another subthread, and, more important, I still haven’t finished slapping your racist ass around.

You refer to “supposed[] discrimination” against Asians and you want to be “less discriminatory” against them.

“It isn’t happening, and I want to get rid of it!”

And of course you would discriminate against whites, including German-Americans, but you simultaneously think you have the moral standing to stick up for the Germans.

So far my mute list incudes mostly right-wingers, including racists, but I think I’ll add you to the list just for balance – I may miss out on your professed glorification of the "noble Teutons" while simultaneously wanting to be racist against them, but missing these disquisitions of yours is a sacrifice I’ll be willing to make.

[Nige]

‘I’ve already answered your question in another subthread,’

No you haven’t.

‘I still haven’t finished slapping your racist ass around.’

You’ll never finish if you don’t start. When are you planning to start?

‘And of course you would discriminate against whites,’

Pretty sure you’re proving Randal’s point, anyway.

'I may miss out on your professed glorification of the “noble Teutons”'

You need to learn to distinguish between the actual conversation and the conversation occurring entirely in your head.

[Nige]

'schoolprisons'

Oh this is pathetic on so many levels.

Homeschooling is legal in Germany, by the way, but there are requirements to ensure the kids do actually get an education.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Where is the outrage? This was published on the front page of today's NYT, without any apparent notice from Eugene Volokh (everything which follows was cut and pasted from the NYT website):

Google Trial

Before opening statements began on Sept. 12, Google filed 35 motions and responses in the case — nearly two-thirds of them sealed, according to a tally by The New York Times.

Now as the case, U.S. et al. v. Google, enters its third week in court, it is shaping up to be perhaps the most secretive antitrust trial of the last few decades. Not only has Google argued for the landmark trial to be largely closed off to the public, but so have other companies that are involved, such as Apple and Microsoft. Apple even fought to quash subpoenas, describing them as “unduly burdensome,” to get its executives out of giving testimony.

The upshot is that last week, more than half of the testimony in the trial was given behind closed doors, according to one analysis. When one witness, the chief executive of the search engine DuckDuckGo, testified on Thursday, he spoke on the stand for nearly five hours — of which just one hour was open to the public. At the judge’s request, the Justice Department, which is one of the plaintiffs, has also removed its presentations and evidence from the open web.

The lack of transparency is set to continue this week as a top Apple executive, Eddy Cue, began testifying on Tuesday about a crucial search agreement that Apple struck with Google. The federal government has accused Google of illegally using agreements with companies like Apple to maintain its monopoly in online search and to crush rivals.

Late Monday, Apple petitioned the court to have Mr. Cue’s testimony on the details of its Google agreement take place behind closed doors because it was concerned the Justice Department’s lawyer could “blurt out” confidential information. Questioning Mr. Cue in open court posed “a substantial risk” of revealing Apple’s business relationships and negotiations, the company’s lawyers wrote.

When the trial resumed on Tuesday, it began with 45 minutes of closed discussions over confidentiality — including how to handle documents and business details during Mr. Cue’s testimony.

[Frank Drackman]

On further review (watch too much College Foo-Bawl) not so sure Senator Menendez’s Goose is cooked, $100, 000 in Gold? $400,000 in Cash, not that much really, probably most “Conspirators” have more in their Portfolio, just in “Safer” instruments like Stocks/Bonds. He’s been a Senator at $170,000/year since 2009, he’s beaten the rap before with more evidence against him than this.

Frank

[M L]

Gavin Newsom signs law forcing females to use bathrooms, showers, and changing rooms alongside males in CA schoolrapeprisons.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/25/us/california-gender-neutral-bathrooms-law/index.html

[Frank Drackman]

That's our Calvin Loathsome! The DemoKKKrats Great White Dope!

[Randal]

Oh my god you just can't stop lying can you! How'd you fit so many lies into one sentence.

1. Nothing in the law about showers
2. Nothing in the law about changing rooms (or locker rooms or anything other than restrooms)
3. Nothing in the law that forces anyone to use a specific restroom
4. Nothing in the law that takes away females' ability to use a female-designated restroom
5. Nothing in the law that allows males into a female-designated restroom

All the law does is mandate that schools designate at least one restroom as gender-neutral. They'll still have gender-specific ones that work the same way as they always have. But students will have the option of using the gender-neutral one.

The law also improves the safety and security of school restrooms gasp!

[Bored Lawyer]

Hunter Biden has sued Rudy Giuliani, and associated companies, and one other person, Robert J. Costello, for hacking into his data on the famous (or infamous) laptop in Delaware. Complaint here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.899829/gov.uscourts.cacd.899829.1.0.pdf

This is remarkable on several fronts. He admits that there is "data" that Giuliani and others supposedly hacked into and its his data. Although the actual computer hacking was done by the store owner in Delaware (who is not a named defendant) and then transferred to a hard drive. I don't think this is a CFAA claim, which protects hacking into computers, not data.

Pretty remarkable that he now admits that its his data. He is a bit cagey about whose laptop it is, but how did his data get onto a laptop in Delaware? Not clear to me that even matters -- the damning part was the data, not the hardware.

Not clear what the basis is to sue in California or assert California law. All of the Defendants are based in Delaware or New York, and the hacking seems to have taken place there. Hunter claims he is a resident of Los Angeles, don't know if that is true.

And while he claims the data was manipulated or altered by the Defendants, he gives no specific example, other than Costello supposedly organized the more sensitive bits into folders ("with titles like ‘Salacious Pics’ and ‘The Big Guy.’” -- That's in par. 27 of the Complaint. You can't make this stuff up.)

So we have yet another tent in the the Biden Family Circus. Guess the bearded lady and the three-legged boy are too passe.

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, he has two lawyers from Winston and Strawn representing him. That's expensive. Hunter must have a lot of cash lying around for that kind of representation.

[Nige]

'but how did his data get onto a laptop in Delaware?'

Is it because it got hacked? Just a wild guess.

[Bored Lawyer]

His case rests on his allegation that it's HIS data. If its not his data, he has no claim at all.

So your theory is, someone hacked into another computer of Hunter Biden's, and then copied it onto the laptop that the Delaware store owner had, and then the store owner further went and copied it onto a hard drive, which he sent to Giuliani and Costello?

[Nige]

It's just the obviously plausible way, that's all. Not that difficult to work out.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not at all plausible. The simplest explanation is what has been claimed all along: Biden left the laptop at the shop, with his own data on his own laptop.

[Nige]

Data gets hacked all the time. Putting some hacked data into another laptop is trivial. That claim about the laptop has never been simple.

[Bored Lawyer]

What your explanation does not elucidate is how someone got Hunter Biden's data? Which he specifically alleges is his.

And it's all a side show, anyway. The data is what is damning. If it's his, it's his.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : “The data is what is damning”

Which is the funny part. The laptop was the biggest bust, scandal-wise – in recent political history. It went off like a squib soaked in a bucket of water overnight. Aside from some embarrassing pictures of the prodigal son, there was no there there.

We learned Hunter may have gotten a biz associate a handshake with daddy. We heard he talked about cutting pops in on a deal when Biden was already out of public office – and the deal went nowhere anyway. And that’s pretty much it. Why do you think a desperate Rudy started promising wild stuff that never existed (notably child pornography)? Because what was on the laptop didn’t amount to jack shit.

[Bored Lawyer]

Wow. We have gone from "It's Russian Disinformation, Which Must be Suppressed" to "It's A Big Nothing."

Doesn't say much for those 50 or so intelligence officers who swore it was Russian. So the Russians went to a lot of trouble to make up something that means very little anyway.

[Nige]

Wasn't supressed, nobody tried to suppress it, they didn;t say it was Russian. If the laptop was the scandal you keep trying to claim it was you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on this bullshit.

[Nige]

‘We have gone from “It’s Russian Disinformation, Which Must be Suppressed” to “It’s A Big Nothing.”’

Anyone who’s been paying attention would be aware that in terms of the truth, Russian disinformation - and cheap Giuliani knock-offs - and big nothings are indistinguishable, it works through people like you keeping it alive.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : “Wow”

Wow indeed. You’re the one reduced to empty rhetoric, By the numbers:

1. It wasn’t “suppressed”. There were hundreds of news stories of every aspect of the laptop in the weeks following its magical appearance. None of its little scandalettes weren’t relentlessly covered.

2. It may have come thru Russian sources. After all, the CIA warned Trump his boy Rudy was talking with SVR spies. And Russian Intelligence had done the exact same thing the previous presidential election with the Podesta emails. Or maybe it came from sleazy Ukrainian sources. Remember: Giuliani left a slime trail crisscrossing the length & breath of Ukraine looking to buy Hunter dirt. He dealt with every disreputable source in the country – aided by his two goons, Parnas and Furman. He spent two-plus years on this. Who knows where he bought it?

3. The reason I say it’s a “Big Nothing” is because no one every found anything more than a “Tiny Little Next-to-Nothing”. That includes you. You’d rather whine about my description rather than produce any “damning” data found on the laptop.

Because it doesn’t exist. Wanna kvetch & wheeze & wail some more?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/cia-other-spy-agencies-told-white-house-about-rudy-giuliani-n1243718

[Nige]

Hacking can work many different ways, I'm not sure the specifics are important, what's important is that data on a specific laptop can have gotten there lots of ways, especially a laptop of unproven provenance. If there's anything damning in that data, we've yet to hear about it.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : “The simplest explanation is what has been claimed all along: Biden left the laptop at the shop, with his own data on his own laptop”

Actually, no. That’s way off the charts, plausibility-wise. Step back and look at the big picture: Rudy Giuliani spent over two years rooting thru every sleazy corner of Ukraine trying to buy Biden dirt. He sought out disgraced politicians, local hucksters on the make and oligarchs under indictment in the U.S. ( like Ihor Kolomoisky and Dmytro Firtash). At one point the CIA warned the Trump White House that Rudy was negotiating with Russian spies. The effort was nonstop by Giuliani and his two low-grade hood henchmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Furman.

And so the election’s October arrives and – Surprise! – Rudy Giuliani magically produces a Hunter laptop. And the “explanation”, (if you’re ready for a good laugh) is the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairmen!

I guess it depends on how gullible are, Bored Lawyer. There are folk eager to help a Nigerian prince in trouble. Some people are intrigued about the opportunity to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. And that Ponzi guy may have just gotten a bad rap. You may embrace the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman tale with the same creduluous lack of guile.

The rest of us? We wonder where Rudy got it and how much he paid.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nice try. You are completely ignoring the allegations of the Complaint, filed by Hunter Biden's lawyers. It's his data. He is not claiming that it's all a sham by Giuiliani and his cohorts.

[grb]

DUH. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Are you so bored you can’t work that out ?!?

(1) The laptop contents are Hunter’s.
(2) Rudy did buy it from some sleazy source in Ukraine.

Hell, within days of its appearance we knew that most of the contents were legit. First since many messages were confirmed from the other end. Second because the Bidens didn’t outright repudiate it. But mainly because the damn thing produced a teaspoon full of “scandal”.

On the other hand, we knew its origin story was a clownish joke. And since we’ll probably never know where it was purchased, a small dollop of skepticism is still warranted.

[Nige]

His hacked data.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another BTW. One thing which we always advise our clients. If you are going to keep sensitive data (like trade secrets) on your laptop or phone, you need a plan what to do in case it gets lost or stolen. There are programs that allow you to wipe them out remotely. Worth investing in if that's your MO.

[Tom for equal rights]

Bored Lawyer – the Only correction to your post

At the time the store owner went through the data, the store owner owned Hunter’s laptop. Pursuant to the service agreement signed by hunter, the failure to pay for the services to the laptop and the abandoment of the laptop effectively transferred legal title to the store owner. Thus there was no “hack : of the computer data

[Randal]

I suspect this isn’t true. It’s possible that the title to the hardware transferred to the shop, but not the data.

Imagine someone left their laptop with a copy of their unpublished manuscript. The shop owner wouldn’t aquire rights to the manuscript.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's a copyright issue. This is a data privacy issue.

The federal law, CFAA, only protects against hacking computers, not data. The parallel California law does protect against data.

[Randal]

What?

[Randal]

There are a couple of problems with that.

1. The courts are quite likely to find the hard drive itself to qualify as a "protected computer" within the meaning of the CFAA.

2. The courts are quite likely to find that the ownership of the laptop isn't relevant to the question of whether Guliani's access "exceeds authorized access" since the access in question is access to the data, and that access wasn't authorized. For example, it appears likely that the CFAA applies to hacking someone's own PlayStation.

[Bored Lawyer]

The hard drive might well be a protected computer. But authorized access means authorized by the owner. All of the CFAA cases I have ever seen all deal with an owner authorizing or not authorizing access to his own computer. The Defendants here owned the hard drive.
What authority do you have that hacking your own piece of hardware, like a Playstation, violates teh CFAA. That would be quite a novel application of a criminal statute.

[Randal]

In Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Hotz Sony sued this dude under the CFAA (among other claims) for hacking his PlayStation. Unfortunately it settled.

[Bored Lawyer]

There were other claims there, including under the DMCA. And as you say, it settled. So it proves little.
Courts since then have been cutting back on CFAA claims. It would be a very novel application of a criminal statute to hold that hacking your own hardware violates the CFAA.
(The CFAA is a criminal statute with civil remedies. I have litigated it a couple of times. That aspect I find annoying, because courts are strict in interpreting it, because it's a criminal statute.
IMO, a better course is to have a separate statute. That's what we have in trademark law -- the Lanham Act is a civil statute, and there is a criminal counterfeiting statute which is much narrower. Same for copyright law. Federal trade secret law, OTOH, follows the other model, a criminal law with civil remedies.)

[Bored Lawyer]

I assume your question ("What?") relates to my comment about copyright law v. data privacy.

A copyright is owned independent of any tangible item. If I buy a book I own the book, and can resell it under the first sale doctrine. But I don't own the copyright, which is retained by the author or his assignee. I can't make 100 copies and sell them without infringing the copyright.

The CFAA and its state law parallels are anti-hacking laws, they protect the integrity of computers, and in the case of California law, data. If I own a computer, then I can do what I want with it, including accessing its data. As I point out below, nothing in either law prevents the owner of a computer or data from accessing it; that's the whole point of these laws.

As I further pointed out, California protects data, not just computers, so arguably data could be owned by one person, and the data resides on hardware that is owned by another. And the second person could violate the California law by improperly accessing the data.

So IMO, the Hunter Biden complaint probably fails to state a claim under federal law, but does under California law. Assuming that even applies, since as I have said, the alleged hacking seems to have taken place in Delaware and New York.

[Bored Lawyer]

I wasn't getting into defenses, just what's in the complaint. As I said, it's very cagey about whose computer it was. But it admits it was Hunter Biden's data -- that's the whole point of the Complaint.

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : ” …the time the store owner ….”

People who believe the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman story are so gullible it’s damn near cute…

[David Nieporent]

At the time the store owner went through the data, the store owner owned Hunter’s laptop. Pursuant to the service agreement signed by hunter, the failure to pay for the services to the laptop and the abandoment of the laptop effectively transferred legal title to the store owner. Thus there was no “hack : of the computer data.

Yeah, that's as wrong as everything else you write. That's not what the service agreement says, and it's contrary to Delaware law anyway.

[Martinned]

The investigation of Russell Brand has resulted in a rather confusing intervention by the Attorney-General. She advised the public (and the press) to obey the law on contempt of court. That's fair enough, but the strict liability rule against publishing about ongoing trials only applies, well, during the period that a court case is actually ongoing. Not during the investigation. Hence the confusion. It seems like she probably had the common law rule in mind, but that one is not a rule of strict liability, and is essentially never enforced because it's very difficult to prove.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/more-contempt

[Mr. Bumble]

Like you would know better.

[NOVA Lawyer]

or "totally" or "bogus"

[Gandydancer]

That would be you.

[shawn_dude]

Or "everyone."

[Estragon]

He’s made being an asshole fun again. None of the others match up, not even close. Just look at the footage of the rallies… it’s like parrot heads from hell. But they are enjoying themselves and the costumes. There are polls about this.

[myself]

I think there's also a bit of two-facedness with the others where they suggest they endorse all the various conspiracy theories but then don't actually do anything about it.

Like if you actually thought illegal immigration was going to destroy the country why wouldn't you send the army and build a wall?

Otherwise the showmanship is big and I think it's tougher than we realize to pull off a Trump. Cruz and DeSantis tried going big into the red meat, but without the charisma you just end up coming off and extremely unlikable.

And even Trump isn't immune to that. People in Trump's immediate sphere seem to tire of his act really quickly. His fame and money let him ride it out in business and politics. But a Trump without the money and fame is just the loudmouth a-hole at the bar, he doesn't have a lot of upward mobility.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers know their days are numbered in America, so they're flashing a final middle finger at the mainstream while they still can.

Conservatives seem to expect that the culture war's winners will continue to be gracious toward the casualties. I hope the leniency is scant. "No free swings" is an appropriate standard, in my judgment. So is "peace, love, justice, and no mercy whatsoever for the deplorable."

[Nige]

'He’s made being an asshole fun again.'

None of these people are having fun. I expect that's part of the problem. It was supposed to be fun. Libs spoiled their fun.

[Paladin_44]

"... But a Trump without the money and fame is just the loudmouth a-hole at the bar,.."
And he doesn't pay his tab or tip the bartender.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Trump hadn't inherited millions, he'd be a high-end condo or timeshare salesman driving a Corvette in his 70s with the same marriage and infidelity scorecard, the same fucked-up children, the same spray tan, the same bankruptcy and deadbeat history, the same paunch, (slightly) fewer criminal charges, a few more IRS liens, and an even worse thing sitting atop his head.

[John F. Carr]

You got me imagining Caddyshack with Donald Trump replacing Rodney Dangerfield.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, pretty Philosophical for a former Foo-Bawl Coach.
Are you really Jerry Sandusky?

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

“Hey everybody, we’re all gonna get laid!”
“Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it.”
“Oh, this is the worst-looking hat I ever saw.”
“I’m alright, nobody worry about me.”
“I tell ya, this steak still has marks where the jockey was hittin’ it.”

[Gandydancer]

The sounds made by your farts don't talk ABOUT anything.

[David Nieporent]

And threatened him if he didn't find those votes!

[Ben_]

Can you expand on that? Why do Americans have a duty to sacrifice for the benefit of distant future people in other countries?

Why do you prefer theoretical people who might someday live on the coasts of other countries to Americans who live in the US right now?

Let’s hear it.

[Nige]

What sacrifice? Is cleaner air, cleaner water and cleaner energy a sacrifice? Is an environment not being rapidly degraded and destroyed a sacrifice?