Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In the Florida prosecution of Donald Trump and others, Judge Loose Cannon has scheduled hearings regarding potential conflicts of interest of attorneys furnished by Trump's SaveAmericaPAC to the Defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/ Docket entry 161. No provision for independent counsel to confer with the Defendants.

Courts and commentators have recognized the inherent dangers that arise when a criminal defendant is represented by a lawyer hired and paid by a third party, particularly when the third party is the operator of the alleged criminal enterprise. One risk is that the lawyer will prevent his client from obtaining leniency by preventing the client from offering testimony against his employer or from taking other actions contrary to the employer's interest. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 268-69 (1981). "A conflict of interest inheres in every such situation. . . . It is inherently wrong to represent both the employer and the employee if the employee's interest may, and the public interest will, be advanced by the employee's disclosure of his employer's criminal conduct. For the same reasons, it is also inherently wrong for an attorney who represents only the employee to accept a promise to pay from one whose criminal liability may turn on the employee's testimony." Id., at 269 n.15, quoting In re Abrams, 56 N.J. 271, 276, 266 A.2d 275, 278 (1970).

If Nauta and/or Oliveira are convicted, a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel is virtually a certainty.

[santamonica811]

I presume that, in this situation (which is uncommon...but happens often enough that it's a known thing), prosecutors raise this concern themselves and get defendants to state on the record that they are aware of this potential conflict, that they are aware of the prosecutors' concerns, and that these defendants--nonetheless--still want Lawyers X and Y to represent them.

(Or maybe not. I don't do crim law. But it's hard to imagine prosecutors ignoring this potential appellate argument, and yet not doing anything to foreclose--or, at least, weaken it.) A defendant should get a new trial if she had a drunk lawyer during the trial. Except, maybe not, when--before the trial started--the prosecutor went to the judge, along with the defendant and Drunk Lawyer, and said, "Your Honor; this lawyer has a reputation for being drunk. He's drunk right now. He just threw up on my shoes. He reeks of alcohol. Oh, he just threw up on the defendant's shoes. We think the defendant should be given a new lawyer."

If the defendant then says, on the record, "Thanks. I like and trust Drunk Lawyer. I appreciate the offer of a sober lawyer. But I'm making a conscious decision to keep going with Drunkie Drunkerstun over here." . . . well, not sure how receptive an appellate court would be, down-the-road, to that IAC argument.

[not guilty]

Yes, prosecutors are obliged to alert the trial court (as the Office of Special Counsel did here) where there is a serious potential for conflict on the part of defense counsel. Some conflicts are waivable, and some are not. The district court is allowed substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 163 (1988).

An element of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). An erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice is structural error, requiring reversal of the conviction, and is not subject to harmless-error analysis. Id., at 141, 152.

[David Welker]

This is especially interesting in the context of RICO though. Ken White discussed in a podcast with David French (behind paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ken-white.html) the idea that RICO suits can be particularly difficult to defend (I believe he used the word impossible, if I remember correctly) just because you might have trials that last for many months and the attorneys absolutely cannot work on any other client matters during that time. Such a problem would likely be even more severe when you have defense attorneys representing different clients with strong personalities who are unable to effectively coordinate in a manner such that the trial runs efficiently.

A client facing RICO charges thus may face such enormous financial pressure that they will seek to plead out. It is an interesting thought experiment... if people spend years accumulating certain assets that they then have to liquidate due to an accusation, then pleading guilty might very well be tempting if one is involved in a RICO matter, regardless of the underlying merits. This might especially be true for those defendants whose involvement is minor/collateral and where the plea deal is very favorable.

Now, one question that arises involves flipping. To what extent would such pressure lead a potential defendant to be tempted to give false testimony in order to get a better deal? Obviously, this is a a potential concern whenever people are given better treatment in exchange for their testimony... The only difference here is the financial aspect, and arguably those facing years in prison might have as strong or even stronger to say "whatever you want me to say" in order to get a better deal. On the other hand, the prospect of financial ruin involved in defending a RICO matter (presumably an issue that will arise even if you are innocent) might put additional pressure due to concerns of family members losing access to financial resources.

Overall, you would expect then that being provided a lawyer paid for by someone else (the Trump super PAC, in this case) would tend to make a defendant much less likely to settle even independent of any conflict of interest. After all, fighting a RICO criminal lawsuit might imply financial ruin that negatively impacts dependents otherwise.

So, it seems to me that these concerns point in opposite direction. 1) We might be concerned that an attorney financed by a Super PAC might consider the interests of Trump or the group, taken as a whole, to be more important than their individual client on one hand. Here, the concern is that the client will not plead out when doing so would be greatly beneficial to them. But 2) we might be concerned that financial pressures associated with a RICO lawsuit will cause undue pressure to plead guilty on the other, including pressure on the defendants to say "whatever the prosecution wants me to say" on the other.

Overall, these problems go much deeper than this conflict of interest scenario and RICO case here.

Our system has turned into one where the vast majority of cases are disposed of by plea deals. And that Congress and state legislatures have jacked up sentences to such high levels that it might feel irrational to do anything other than plead guilty, even if someone thinks they are innocent or thinks they have a good defense. Ultimately, our system as it stands now is at the mercy of the good faith of prosecutors... that they won't use the massive leverage arising out of plea deals to produce false testimony and certainly will not use that leverage to put innocent people in jail. But furthermore, it makes us as the mercy of prosecutors proceeding in not making unintentional mistakes... one reason we have trials is because of the thought that only by testing the evidence, can we be sure that the prosecutor isn't making a good faith mistake.

That it could be ineffective assistance of counsel to require the prosecution to prove its case is true. Because plea deals can be just "too delicious" or might be effectively "an offer you can't refuse." But that we are in this place isn't ideal. In my view, if by taking a plea deal the punishment is reduced by more than half, a question that arises at sentencing is this: Is the defendant being punished more for the crime they actually committed or more for daring to require the government to prove its case?

This is by no means an easy issue. There are MANY, MANY, MANY criminal cases and a limited budget (and a limited number of trained prosecutors and defense attorneys). It seems that plea deals are necessary to keep the system working efficiently while still holding people accountable, as a practical matter.

However, in my view, I believe that the reduction in punishment for pleading out should probably never be less than half the probable sentence that a defendant would receive if they "rolled the dice" and required the state to actually prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Otherwise, we end up with a system with more errors, some intentional but the vast majority hopefully unintentional, because it becomes increasingly perilous for defendants to actually contest the charges against them. Furthermore, we also end up with a society where prosecutors just have too much power. I think most prosecutors use their power with integrity, but I also believe in the concept of never blindly trusting people.

Overall, I think we could drive error rates in our system down by creating limits on the attractiveness of plea deals. This would mean that defendants would require the state to prove their cases more often, but even so, as long as a plea deal is somewhat attractive, people who are obviously guilty can still end up with an incentive to plea guilty. The problem is, the incentive just can't be overwhelmingly attractive, like it too often is now.

[Brett Bellmore]

My personal opinion is that the state should be required to make whole any defendant they fail to convict.

The costs of defending against charges, lost wages, and so forth, can be considered part of the sentence if you're convicted, but if acquitted? They're incidental costs of having a functioning legal system, which shouldn't fall on a particular person, but instead be part of the general budget for the legal system.

Same general principle as the requirement that property be purchased, rather than the government just saying, "We need that land, sucks to be you."

I think a lot more people would contest charges if they knew that all their expenses would be picked up if they won.

[David Welker]

It is a fair point and I don't disagree.

But that wouldn't fully address the issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, nothing in this world is perfect.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's true, what's really needed is, as you suggest, some limitation on how much they can reduce the sentence in plea bargaining. Coupled with the jury knowing the likely sentence in the event that they convict, so that excessive sentences start to result in a reluctance to convict.

We also, seriously, have to prohibit "real offense" sentencing. Sentencing should be exclusively based on conduct one is convicted of. As it is, it's perfectly legal, if you get convicted of any charge at all, for the judge to sentence you based on charges the jury acquitted you of.

A lot of our current 'justice' system aims at reducing the power of juries to as little as possible. I think they'd abolish them entirely if they could get away with it.

[Nelson]

"They’re incidental costs of having a functioning legal system, which shouldn’t fall on a particular person, but instead be part of the general budget for the legal system."

I think this would be hugely problematic in regards to going to trial against rich people. Those cases are they always more difficult to win due to the skill of high-dollar defense lawyers (OJ Simpson is a prime example). It would be ridiculously expensive if the case ends with anything other than conviction, which would lead to a reticence to charge rich criminals with crimes. I could see that as part of a penalty for wrongful prosecution, but there are too many negatives to a "loser pays" system.

"some limitation on how much they can reduce the sentence in plea bargaining"

Agreed. There should be set percentage of the crime as a floor for plea bargains, with a higher floor after conviction. People like that Brock kid from Stanford getting nothing for raping someone because the judge was more worried about the boy's future than the girl who got raped shouldn't be valid.

Also, a requirement for consecutive sentences if there are different crimes (so, for example, kidnapping and rape would have to be consecutive sentences if convicted of or pleading to both).

"Sentencing should be exclusively based on conduct one is convicted of."

Agreed. 100%.

"A lot of our current ‘justice’ system aims at reducing the power of juries to as little as possible."

This, I disagree with. The system is tilted, heavily, towards the prosecution. The jury is often the unwitting ally of the prosecution, both for common erroneous assumptions like "if they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be on trial" to "law enforcement officers and prosecuters are honest and defense lawyers aren't", as well as the lack of personal consequences for deliberate and intentional misconduct by law enforcement and prosecutors (immunities).

I think that juries have a great deal of power but the fact that they are made up of random citizens means that, despite voir dire, people with intransigent views will often be part of the jury.

That's not a problem if, for example, a sovereign citizen makes it on to the jury in a mugging trial, but it is a problem when someone who believes that police don't lie make it onto a case with shoddy policework (a three-day hell I experienced on my last jury). I don't know how to fix the problem, but I'd love to hear ideas.

[David Nieporent]

which would lead to a reticence to charge rich criminals with crimes.

Why? The money isn't coming out of the prosecutor's paycheck.

[Nelson]

It's coming out of someone's budget, and there would be pressure to prevent losses by not charging rich criminals unless it was a slam dunk, since paying the legal fees of, for example, Goldman Sachs or Elon Musk or [insert person or company with massive numbers of lawyers defending them] would cripple most budgets.

[David Nieporent]

If "it's coming out of someone's budget" were actually a motivation of government employees, there'd be a lot less police brutality out there.

[Nelson]

I don't thonk that's an apt comparison.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I admire the sense of fairness and have a lot of sympathy for the concept. But I would oppose any such measure unless everyone was able to get and pay for the same quality attorney.

I'm not for reimbursing Bill Gates for extremely expensive attorneys with which he beat a criminal charge while Jon Doe had to go with an overworked PD or a cheap lawyer he could afford and then maybe got convicted precisely because he couldn't hire an expensive attorney. If we are going to subsidize successful legal defenses, every defendant should get the same quality defense. Otherwise it just tilts the scales of justice even further in favor of the wealthy and against the poor.

[David Nieporent]

I’m not for reimbursing Bill Gates for extremely expensive attorneys with which he beat a criminal charge while Jon Doe had to go with an overworked PD or a cheap lawyer he could afford and then maybe got convicted precisely because he couldn’t hire an expensive attorney. If we are going to subsidize successful legal defenses, every defendant should get the same quality defense. Otherwise it just tilts the scales of justice even further in favor of the wealthy and against the poor.

That objection doesn't make any sense in this context. Bill Gates is going to get the same level of defense whether Brett's proposal is in place or not.

[myself]

It depends on whether you read Brett's proposal as paying for Bill Gates's lawyer or not.

If you do... it's causes some issues.

1) Rich defendants, in addition to all the current advantages, get free premiere legal service.
2) And in general, you get a lot more defendants pushing for acquittals or a deal that's the same so they get the lawyers covered.
3) This also means a bunch of people getting legal representation they can't afford hoping they win the case and it gets covered.
4) Lets assume the obvious and we're not paying Bill Gates's full "lost wages".
5) Who actually pays the expenses? Because when dealing with a wealthy defendant a prosecutor might feel a ton of pressure to cut a very quick and very generous deal as to not bankrupt the local court system.

I think the solution isn't reimbursement for acquittal. It's a proper public defender system. It should be like health care in countries with a public health care system. Sure, there's something fancy for pay to keep the wealthy happy. But 95% of people are perfectly happy with the default.

[not guilty]

"This also means a bunch of people getting legal representation they can’t afford hoping they win the case and it gets covered."

It is unethical for an attorney to represent a criminal defendant on a contingent fee basis.

[Brett Bellmore]

How so?

[not guilty]

Rule 1.5(d)(2) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (upon which most state disciplinary rules are based) provides that a lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case.

[ducksalad]

I understand that it’s unethical to violate the accepted rules of one’s profession, and that Rule 1.5(d)(2) is one of those rules.

But I think Brett is asking *why* it should be a rule. What is inherently unethical about the practice

I've been told it's allowed in civil cases to give poor plaintiffs a chance at challenging large, powerful corporations. Why not allow poor defendants a chance a challenging well resourced, powerful prosecutors?

[bernard11]

All contingent fee arrangements, including civil cases, set up a conflict of interest between lawyer and client.

In a criminal case I can see the client with a strong case accepting an attractive plea deal to dodge the fee. I can also see the lawyer pushing to go to trial, despite an attractive plea deal, to collect.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But I think Brett is asking *why* it should be a rule."

Exactly. I really don't see why it should be considered unethical, though I can see why the lawyer's cartel would want to discourage it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"All contingent fee arrangements, including civil cases, set up a conflict of interest between lawyer and client."

I'm not seeing a conflict of interest here, I see a confluence of interests: The lawyer wants to get paid, the defendant wants to be acquitted. They're both more likely to get what they want if the lawyer does a good job.

"In a criminal case I can see the client with a strong case accepting an attractive plea deal to dodge the fee. I can also see the lawyer pushing to go to trial, despite an attractive plea deal, to collect."

Easily dealt with by simply wording the contingent fee agreement properly. Lose the case, lawyer gets squat. Win the case, 100% pay. Client opts for a plea agreement, some pre-determined lesser fee, which is fine, because lesser work, too.

[David Nieporent]

But I think Brett is asking *why* it should be a rule. What is inherently unethical about the practice

It doesn't work because "success" in a criminal case is not easily measurable the way it is in a civil case (money). Let's suppose you get accused of second degree murder, and the prosecutor offers a deal for involuntary manslaughter. That may be a great result for the defendant — but it's still a criminal conviction, so the lawyer wouldn't get paid. So the lawyer has no incentive to work out such a deal; he'd rather roll the dice on trial. And similarly, let's suppose that a CDL takes a case on contingency, and then as it proceeds it becomes clear that the client is going to be convicted. The attorney's self-interest is to do no more work on the case because he knows he won't get paid.

[Martinned]

I agree with Brett. If (part of) the fee is contingent on an acquittal verdict, that aligns the incentives of the lawyer and their client. (Also because presumably the client is more able to pay if they are acquitted.)

[Martinned]

@David: Those are fair points, but they seem resolvable in the deal between lawyer and client. There are definitely examples of contracts between lawyers and clients that no sensible client could be expected to understand unless they're a lawyer themselves, but these examples seem reasonably straightforward:

"Lawyer gets $10,000 success fee if client serves no prison time."
"Lawyer gets $10,000 success fee if client is acquitted on all charges."
"Lawyer gets no fee at all if client is convicted for murder, but does get paid if client is convicted only on another charge."
etc

[bernard11]

Easily dealt with by simply wording the contingent fee agreement properly. Lose the case, lawyer gets squat. Win the case, 100% pay. Client opts for a plea agreement, some pre-determined lesser fee, which is fine, because lesser work, too.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Your approach encourages the lawyer to push for quick acceptance of a plea deal so he can move on to the next case. Unless you view the case in isolation the objectives are not the same for lawyer and client.

But lawyers don't work in isolation. The objective is not to collect the biggest fee possible here, it is to maximize revenue over time spent. The actual outcome of the case is of no great consequence to the lawyer, except for the fee earned.

A similar thing applies in a civil case with a contingency fee. Accept a settlement offer, or push on. The lawyer does (most of) the work of pushing on, yet gets only 1/3 (or whatever) of the gain.

Principal-agent conflict can get pretty complex, and designing a compatible contract is often not easy.

There has been research on real estate agents, comparing the prices they get when they sold a house for a client to the prices they get for selling houses they themselves own. Guess what happens. Because the agents get the full benefit of the extra time and effort, they work harder, and get higher prices, on the houses they own.

Same thing here.

[mse326]

Not guilty provided the model rule, and most if not all states have adopted it.

The reason for it, if that is what you were wondering, is that frequently a plea deal is the best option for a defendant but the attorney's interest in getting paid is against that, so it creates a conflict of interest.

[ducksalad]

OK, but that problem's only serious because our plea-bargain system severely penalizes exercising the right to a trial.

[Kazinski]

They ought to reform the plea bargaining system so that any plea deals offering by the prosecution are disclosed to the jury.

Or even better, they can only change the charges in the deal.

[Davy C]

@Kazinski I think the prosecutors, having offered a deal, shouldn't be able to argue for a sentence of more than triple their offer. If you offer a guy 2 years then you shouldn't be able to tell the judge that justice demands more than 6.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The fee need not be on a contingent basis for this dynamic to work out.

Lawyers are not required to get their fee up front. I'm not aware of an ethics rule that requires an attorney to do a credit check prior to offering a payment plan to a client. I could see, if this system was put in place, a new rule might need to be enacted as an attorney could game the system by charging a price that will bankrupt an incarcerated defendant but which provides a handsome, government-footed payout if the attorney wins.

But if such a rule were adopted, that's one more way it would disadvantage the poor and middle class, because now they would be forbidden to be on payment plans and would instead have to pay upfront as attorneys wouldn't want the risk of a later default resulting in not only non-payment but also a threat to their license due to an ethics violation.

I'm not sure you could solve the de facto contingent fee problem without drastically reducing currently allowed options to pay legal fees.

(Side note: my advice is always get paid up front, but attorneys don't always require that).

[David Nieporent]

(Side note: my advice is always get paid up front, but attorneys don’t always require that).

I mean, yes: Rudy Giuliani is being sued by his lawyers now for stiffing them on their fees. But at lower levels of the CDL world, attorneys pretty much always require that. They know literally their only chance of getting paid is to do zilch until the check clears. (It's amazing how much more enthusiastic and creative a defendant can be about raising funds when he needs you than when he doesn't.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

This dynamic would more affect the middle levels, rather than the very rich or the poor. Say a $100,000 or $500,000 fee with half up front and a tacit agreement (yes, a violation of ethics rules, but a hard one to prove/catch) that the other half won't be (or be able to be) collected in the event the client goes to jail.

[myself]

“This also means a bunch of people getting legal representation they can’t afford hoping they win the case and it gets covered.”

It is unethical for an attorney to represent a criminal defendant on a contingent fee basis.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or presenting a follow up discussion.

If you're disagreeing with me I don't mean they literally can't pay the bills. I mean clients spending far more than they ever would on their defense on the assumption they'll be reimbursed when they beat the charge.

As for the contingent fee... the proposed model does bring up an interesting concept of the fancy firm defending the poor client. They think the client is innocent and they can collect from the court if they win, otherwise they waive their fees.

The problem I see is it can create a significant disconnect between the interests of the client and their lawyers. The prosecution might offer a very good deal that requires nothing but an admission of guilt on a minor charge. That might be a fantastic deal for the defendant, but a disaster for the lawyers representing him since they walk away without a dime.

Not an issue in a civil case because the client and the lawyer have the same main objective in the reward.

[santamonica811]

Johnny Cochran was famous (infamous, depending on your perspective) for, often, in police brutality cases, arguing to the jury, "My client is here for justice, not here for a huge payday. If you want to award him a token sum, then that's fine. He wants and deserves a finding by you, the jury, that the police violated his civil rights when they [fill in the police abuse] to my client."

And, often, that's exactly what the jury did. It found for the plaintiff, and awarded a dollar. Or a thousand dollars. Cochran too, his 40-cent contingency. . . PLUS, of course, his attorney and legal fees, for the Section 1983 violation (or the state equivalent). He ended up pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars with this (I'll call it a) scheme.

Eventually, the Bar stepped in. Either it politely asked and got Cochran to stop, or it asked less politely and forced him to stop. But, after several years of huge cases/fee awards, he stopped using this technique/argument in Los Angeles courtrooms.

[NOVA Lawyer]

David,

myself pointed out most of the ways you failed to comprehend all the advantages paying for Bill Gates attorneys would work to Bill Gates' advantage. The most obvious being #5. There would be a lot more pressure on the government to agree to a favorable plea deal with Bill Gates to avoid paying large six or seven figure fees (depending on the charges) in the case of an acquittal at trial than to give the same deal to the guy whose attorney costs a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars. I mean, he already had the scales titled his way by virtue of being able to hire the best attorneys, now he can also put financial pressure on the government, particularly if, say, it's a local government? Whatever you say, this is a valid fairness objection to across the board reimbursement.

But it also is unfair to poor people in that we the people would pay for Bill Gates' defense, if he wins with a large team of high-powered attorneys, whereas most of we the people would have to take their much lower chances with PDs or bargain basement representation. In other words, it is highly regressive with the vast majority of the benefit of this system going to wealthy people.

[Don Nico]

" unless everyone was able to get and pay for the same quality attorney. "
wow. that is big of you. You'd agree if pigs could fly.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why should the government pay for premium attorneys for some people and leave others with a PD? If the government is paying for legal defense, everyone should get the same amount to cover their legal defense. If someone wants premium, they have to pay for premium, not the tax payers. Anything else again screws the middle class and poor.

[David Nieporent]

There's nothing wrong in principle with your proposal, but it doesn't really solve the problem being discussed, of being coerced by circumstances into taking a plea. Defendants still would have to fund their defenses before they're acquitted, and most can't.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Same general principle as the requirement that property be purchased, rather than the government just saying, “We need that land, sucks to be you.”

You know that the government does have to pay when it seizes property by eminent domain, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

I not only knew that, I was proposing to generalize it to other costs government imposes on particular people.

[Martinned]

In France and in my native land that is called the doctrine of égalité devant les charges publiques, also known (in the Netherlands) as liability for lawful government actions.

My favourite example from the case law is about a shipyard that was based just upstream from a bridge that opened. That was no problem until the provincial government decided to lock that bridge into place, so that they could run a tram line over it. (If the bridge opens, you end up with the tracks not properly aligning all the time.) Result in court: the province has to pay damages to the shipyard, so that it can relocate.

Of course, as with normal eminent domain, the problem is always the quantum of the payment.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Skipped. Referring to a judge by a detrimental "nick name" indicates the rest cannot be trusted.

[not guilty]

Heaven forbid anyone respond to substance. Judge Aileen Cannon’s history shows she is deeply in the tank for Donald Trump.

I don’t expect that she will eventually preside at trial. During the investigative phase of this prosecution, Judge Cannon made rogue rulings that twice got her reversed by the Court of Appeals. It is eminently foreseeable that she will make an off the wall pretrial ruling in Trump’s favor on an issue that is appealable prior to trial, whether pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 or pursuant to a writ of mandamus, and the Eleventh Circuit will reverse and direct that on remand the matter be assigned to a different trial judge.

The Eleventh Circuit has a history of doing that in cases where it has reversed a trial court on multiple occasions in the same criminal case. See, e.g., United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

[Michael P]

Act less like a spammy partisan hack getting paid by the character if you want people to respond to substance.

[Nige]

[not guilty]

Being called a partisan hack by Michael P is akin to being called ugly by a frog.

[Nige]

How dare you. Frogs aren't ugly and neither do they body-shame.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Any 11th circuit ruling would, of course, be appealable to SCOTUS, particularly if there is diversity in the circuits -- i.e. other circuits not demanding another judge in DC.

[not guilty]

What do you mean by "other circuits not demanding another judge in DC"? That makes no sense.

A government appeal to the Eleventh Circuit prior to trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 would likely involve an order dismissing an indictment in whole or in part or an order suppressing or excluding evidence which is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding. SCOTUS would be unlikely to grant discretionary review of a fact bound Court of Appeals ruling.

A writ of mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy “reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 369 (2004), quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–260 (1947). Again, discretionary review by SCOTUS of a Court of Appeals decision granting the writ would be unlikely.

[hobie]

not guilty, you're citing normal law. Alito and Thomas now run the court and they operate under their own set of case law. You'll have to look at any of the many opinions where Thomas was in dissent to see how the corrupt court might rule in this day

[David Nieporent]

It is eminently foreseeable that she will make an off the wall pretrial ruling in Trump’s favor on an issue that is appealable prior to trial, whether pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 or pursuant to a writ of mandamus, and the Eleventh Circuit will reverse and direct that on remand the matter be assigned to a different trial judge.

If you think she’s in the tank for Trump and is intending to deliberately throw the case, why would she make such a ruling rather than waiting for trial to do so?

[not guilty]

"If you think she’s in the tank for Trump and is intending to deliberately throw the case, why would she make such a ruling rather than waiting for trial to do so?"

If she is still around at the time of the trial, it would not surprise me if she did just that -- such as granting a judgment of acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a) at the close of the government's proof. Unreviewable on appeal.

But frankly, I don't think that Judge Cannon is shrewd enough to resist making boneheaded pretrial rulings in Trump's favor. She is not the brightest bulb in the scoreboard.

For example, the scheduling order entered on July 21 recited, "Defendants maintain that this proceeding raises various “novel, complex, and unique legal issues,” citing the interplay between the Presidential Records Act and the various criminal statutes at issue; constitutional and statutory challenges to the authority of the Special Counsel to maintain this action; disputes about the classification status of subject documents; challenges to the grand jury process that led to the indictment (including questions of attorney-client privilege); requests for defense discovery; and other pre-trial motions, including possible motions to suppress and a
motion to sever [ECF No. 66; see ECF No. 82]." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.83.0_1.pdf That is just plain false.

In fact, the defense filings prior to that scheduling order said not one word about any challenge to the grand jury process that led to the indictment, not one word about questions of attorney-client privilege, not one word about any motion to suppress, nor any motion to sever. I suspect that the judge is champing at the bit to exclude or severely limit Evan Corcoran's testimony if he is called as a prosecution witness, notwithstanding Judge Beryl Howell's ruling that the crime-fraud exception vitiates the attorney-client privilege.

The prosecution can call the court's bluff there by seeking a pretrial in limine ruling regarding the scope of Corcoran's testimony, which would be appealable prior to trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 if material parts of the proffered testimony are excluded.

[Don Nico]

"Judge Aileen Cannon’s history "
Much better and far more to the point

[Sarcastr0]

Lol AL is a very serious poster and has no time for these nicknames!

Yiu lawyering may not be great but your Sam the Eagle k press ion is coming along well!

[Michael P]

Now THAT is funny, albeit unintentionally.

[Life of Brian]

And Sarc apparently has no time to 1) type and/or 2) read what he typed before pressing submit. But who's keeping score?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I thought it was a misogynist slut-insult by one of the commenters I thought I'd muted, but then I realized "loose" was meant in a different way by someone who doesn't stoop that low.

[Don Nico]

Good observation.
Maybe we need more loose judges at the bar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you defame all Federal Judges, or only those whom you dislike?

That asked, do you honestly believe that ANY conviction under this charade won't be subject to a LOT of appeals?

That is the flip side of Gerald Ford saying "our long national nightmare is over" -- Nixon had already gone to SCOTUS once and any prosecution of him would likely involve going there at least a half dozen times more.0987

[SRG2]

Should we not try Trump because there might be a plethora of appeals?

[David Nieporent]

Courts and commentators have recognized the inherent dangers that arise when a criminal defendant is represented by a lawyer hired and paid by a third party, particularly when the third party is the operator of the alleged criminal enterprise.

Nothing you wrote is wrong, but you are focusing on a different aspect of conflict than the Special Counsel is. The Special Counsel is less concerned about the fact that Trump is paying these guys' counsel — which probably can be waived — and more concerned with the fact that their counsel represents multiple people, including cooperating witnesses against them. How can defense counsel vigorously and effectively cross-examine some of his own clients, calling them liars, in order to defend Nauta and/or Oliveira?

[not guilty]

That is what has occasioned the hearings in this case, but the root of the conflict is the maxim that the man who pays the fiddler calls the tune. It would be appropriate to arrange for non-conflicted counsel to advise the defendants, as Judge Jeb Boasberg did in D.C. with Yuscil Tavares.

The PAC has a history of steering clients to Trump-approved lawyers, who advise clients to tailor their testimony to protect Trump's interest. Tavares being represented by Stan Woodward and Cassidy Hutchinson being initially represented by Stephan Passantino are examples.

[Don Nico]

ng,
You have interesting comments to make.
So why not cut the "Loose Cannon" bullshit that marks you as a partisan hack.

[santamonica811]

Did anyone else manage to get through the debate last night?

Was anyone other than me thinking, "Hmm...has anyone thought about turning off people's microphones when they're not being called on? Leaving just one mic on. Or maybe two, if there's actual back-and-forth going on."

You're welcome, America.

(p.s. Today's f*cking infuriating pop-up ads today seem to be for skin lotions, Windows 11, and a computer security software that I've never heard of. Every 10 seconds or so.) Maddening.

[David Welker]

The moderator actually threatened to cut someone's microphone off. I thought that was nice.

I did listen to probably more than half of the debate, but I did tune out at some point. I usually have the patience to get through an entire debate, but wasn't feeling it for some reason.

[Frank Drackman]

There was a debate? I thought Parkinsonian Joe said he wouldn't debate RFK Jr (one of the few smart decisions Joe's made). Did he "Exceed Expectations"?? (i.e. not fall down/asleep)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

It’s gonna be Trump and he said he won’t pick any of them for Veep so…

[Don Nico]

"It’s gonna be Trump "
Sad, but true.

[ThePublius]

I tried but didn't last more than a couple of minutes. Clown show. I did watch Trump addressing the UAW. Regardless of what you think about Trump, it was a rather brilliant rally-like speech. He really connects with the audience, and I happen to agree with what he says he will do if elected.

I agree about the pop-up ads, ugh!

[SimonP]

Trump didn't address the UAW. His audience was seeded with plants. And he didn't promise to do anything but try to unwind the clock on EVs, which will do fuck-all for people trying to make a living building cars in the US.

But otherwise, good speech, yeah!

[Frank Drackman]

How does our Plant In Chief Parkinsonian Joe get from place to place??? (I mean besides his Parkinsonian Shuffle)
not by EV, but by Dead Dinosaur powered jets and SUV's,
in the 1960's the RAF once had a fighter nicknamed "The Electric Jet"
but had a Kerosene burning jet engine just like today.

Frank

[SimonP]

The only reason I am replying to you is so that you know that you're not getting a substantive response from me, not because I've muted you, but because you're an incoherent boob.

[Frank Drackman]

The only reason I am replying to you is so that you know that you’re not getting a substantive response from me, not because I’ve muted you, but because you’re an incoherent boob.

[VinniUSMC]

I don't know anything about Trump's speech, or his audience of "no true UAWmen", but building cars in the US is better off without EVs, or at least, without restrictions on ICEs designed to force ICE obsolescence. EVs are not the savior of Earth or the average person.

[SimonP]

I don't suppose that EVs are the "savior of the Earth." I'm just saying that opposing them isn't, in itself, what we could describe as an "industrial policy" that would be expected to shore up American manufacturing. "Make ICEs more competitive again," okay, but then what? What's stopping those jobs from going overseas? Tariffs? Leaning on the DOJ to prosecute anyone who tries it? Didn't seem to work when Trump tried it the first time. What's Trump's plan for 2024, exactly?

[Nige]

They're the saviour of the automobile industry, but they're among the worst solutions to climate change.

[Nelson]

"no true UAWmen"

This was probably based on the post-rally interview where the person holding up a "Union Workers for Trump" sign told a reporter they weren't in a union. They also found out the one with the "Autoworkers for Trump" sign wasn't an autoworker. And that there was a crowd of 500-600 people at a company that only has 150 workers, so almost 3/4 of them were plants.

"building cars in the US is better off without EVs,"

What a great idea! Stop building the cars of the future to build the cars of the past. As if American auto companies haven't been behind the rest of the world for my entire adult life, you want them to double down on the past.

"EVs are not the savior of Earth or the average person."

Strawman, much? They're better for the Earth and better for the average person. No single thing will be "the savior of Earth". I have a hybrid that gets almost 60 mpg, so guess how much I worry about fluctuating gas prices? I guarantee the average person would love to stop being held hostage to the price of a traded commodity that also has artificial scarcity built in. OPEC owns you and your ICE, and always will.

[hobie]

A lot of people WANT EVs. So, fine, don't make them because of spite. Europe and China will gladly fill the vacuum.

[Nige]

It's about as viable as his plan to revive coal-mining was.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Or his healthcare for everyone plan that will be better and cheaper than the ACA.

[shawn_dude]

Easy way to "force" fossil fuel obsolescence: reduce federal fossil fuel subsidies to the same amount as EV subsidies. Paying the fair market value of gasoline and diesel will drive more people to EVs faster than anything else the government could do. (All other things being equal, mind you. There would be significant economic effects from a sudden, massive leap in gasoline prices.)

[Mr. Bumble]

What subsides?

[Sarcastr0]

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for customers below market levels, or for suppliers above market levels, or reduce costs for customers and suppliers.
Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to suppliers, customers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access.

The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

[Heedless]

Banana republics and petrostates tend to subsidize domestic fuel consumption. The US does not, with the exception that a lot of northern states provide assistance for poor households to heat themselves during the winter. (Technically, that’s a subsidy for oil in the same sense that SNAP is a subsidy for agribusiness. somehow I doubt you are really making the argument we should get rid of either.)

Almost all of the other supposed US subsidies are basic business deductions like equipment depreciation.

We do have quite a large gas tax. While I’m sure you would like it to be larger, that doesn’t count as a subsidy either.

[Nige]

Indirect subsidies are still subsidies.

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

Globally the subsidies are in the trillions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the Trump-less debate in the Reagan library shows is that Trump is doing the same thing that FDR did to the remnants
of the Jacksonian Democracy. Unlike when the Whigs split, this time the rump section is in charge which will cause the RINOs to become Democrats, just like a lot of Democrats became Republicans due to FDR.

[David Nieporent]

just like a lot of Democrats became Republicans due to FDR.

That's certainly a thing that happened… in Dr. Ed's fantasy world.

[bernard11]

a lot of Democrats became Republicans due to FDR.

Too bad for the GOP that all those converts never showed up to vote.

[Nelson]

"which will cause the RINOs to become Democrats"

What is your definition of a RINO? Opinions vary wildly.

[not guilty]

Judge Tanya Chutkan in the District of Columbia has denied Donald Trump's motion for her recusal, outlining her reasoning in a comprehensive memorandum opinion and order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.61.0_7.pdf

[Martinned]

I continue to be of the view that judges should not decide on their own recusals. Nemo judex in causa sua and all that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since you're the de facto European commentor, what is the practice regarding recusals in the UK and EU countries?

[Martinned]

In the Netherlands a recusal request goes to a recusals chamber, made up of x number of other judges of the same court. They decide whether a recusal is warranted. (This can get quite irritating in criminal trials where the defendant is pushing the limits of exercising all plausible options to delay the trial, but that is unavoidable.)

In England I think the recusal request goes to the trial judge in the first instance, but is subject to more immediate appellate review than I think would typically be the case in the US: https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/high-court-recuses-organ-grinder-circuit-judge

[Frank Drackman]

How do they do it in Holland and the UK?

[John F. Carr]

In federal practice a recusal order is not immediately appealable. The defendant may appeal a conviction later or seek a writ of mandamus immediately under stricter standards. Whitey Bulger got a writ of mandamus ordering recusal, under highly unusual circumstances involving the appearance of a conflict of interest in a high profile case.

[Don Nico]

That's a fair point

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, is that an appealable decision? Just curious.

[not guilty]

It is appealable posttrial as of right. Interlocutory review would require a writ of mandamus -- a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy “reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 369 (2004), quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–260 (1947).

[loki13]

Thank you for posting the order.

The order is not just comprehensive, it is quite the smack-down. What I appreciated was how thorough and professional it was, but I also enjoyed the small things, such as this particular part-

But justice also demands that judges not recuse without cause. “In the wrong hands, a disqualification motion is a procedural weapon to harass opponents and delay proceedings. If supported only by rumor, speculation, or innuendo, it is also a means to tarnish the reputation of a federal judge.” Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d at 108. Motions for recusal could also be wrongfully deployed as a form of “judge shopping,” Alberti v. Gen. Motors Corp., 600 F. Supp. 1024, 1025 (D.D.C. 1984), permitting “litigants or third parties to exercise a negative veto over the assignment of judges,” In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981).

...ahem.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Defeat for voting rights in Georgia:

"On September 27, U.S. District Court Judge Leigh Martin May dismissed Cowen v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:17cv-4660. This is the lawsuit filed in 2017 by the Georgia Libertarian Party against the 5% petition requirement for U.S. House candidates who are not nominees of a party that had polled 20% of the vote in the last election. The petition is so severe, no party has ever managed to complete it, even though it has existed for 80 years."

https://ballot-access.org/2023/09/27/u-s-district-court-refuses-to-strike-down-georgia-5-petition-requirement-for-minor-party-and-independent-candidates-for-u-s-house/

[Brett Bellmore]

A natural consequence of the fact these judges are all picked by major party members.

And, yes, it's not a violation of the LP's rights, it's a violation of the voters' rights.

[Sarcastr0]

What right, Brett? Is it one of those unenumerated ones?

[Brett Bellmore]

The right to vote, Sarcastr0. As I've pointed out repeatedly, until quite recently, the right to vote, if you had it in the first place, was the right to vote for anyone you damned well pleased, no limit. Maybe you'd be wasting your vote if you voted for somebody who didn't meet the qualifications for office, but you could do it anyway.

Using ballot access to control who people could vote for is a quite recent abuse.

[Sarcastr0]

So it is unenumerated. I thought you thought such rights did not exist. Certainly such a right did not exist upon ratification. Or at lest there are no cases about restrictions. Hence the poll taxes etc.

Courts have instead held right to vote is not a substantive right - it is extended via EPC such that if a state allows anyone to vote it must allow all citizens that chance.

I'm not saying there isn't a right to vote that as implemented touches third party ballot access. I'm saying your originalist logic does not allow such a right.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you're all about enumerated rights, the right to vote for House members *is* enumerated, see below.

[Sarcastr0]

1. No it's not.
2. I'm all about rights that are not explicit as well, since I've read the 9A.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

1. I've quoted the relevant language, would you care to explain why it doesn't mean what it says?

2. So is the right to vote a 9th Amendment right?

[Sarcastr0]

1. I responded below. Broad ballot access does not clearly infringe on any enumerated right. Maybe there's an unenumerated right - I'm down for that.

2. Id like to think so. But 'the right to vote' is not enough to be clearly implemented on the ballot side as you want it to be implemented.

I have no brief against broadened ballot access, except for logistical floodgate issues.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From a Congressional Web site:

"the Supreme Court held in Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that neither Congress nor the states, respectively, can add to the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution for membership in Congress."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C2-1/ALDE_00013371/

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, requirements on which individuals are allowed to run for office are exhaustive.

Ballot access requirements are different under Supreme Court precedent, which is under a 'unfairly or unnecessarily burden' standard.

Don't pretend the law is what you think it ought to be. It is not.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You finally admit that the qualifications spelled out in the Constitution are exhaustive, so belated thanks.

The Supreme Court got ballot access wrong, as I argue below.

If the Supreme Court’s decisions are the law, then how come they themselves defy “the law” by overruling themselves? Repeatedly?

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

(“It’s different when *we* do it!”)

I explained below that these signature requirements are a proxy for popularity, which is a proxy for viewpoint, and viewpoint discrimination is not allowed. If the Supremes don’t agree…well, I suspect there are some Supreme Court decisions *you* don’t agree with, so don’t throw around the term “law” to describe judges’ whims. Unless you want to be a power-worshipping legal positivist.

[Brett Bellmore]

I take it you've never read the 14th and 15th amendments, then?

[Sarcastr0]

Where does either of those texts enumerate a broad right to vote?

[Brett Bellmore]

Thus confirming you haven't read them, because if you had, you wouldn't need to ask that.

14th amendment: " But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to..."

How can you deny somebody a right they don't have?

15th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

14 and 15 were numbers the last time I looked.

[Sarcastr0]

14: limited to 'male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age' which is the language you cut off.

15: only limits are 'race, color, or previous condition of servitude'

This is the problem with originalist/textualist arguments.

You're inconsistent as any living constitutionalist you demonize.

[Brett Bellmore]

"limited to ‘male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age’ which is the language you cut off."

I was aware of the 19th and 26th amendments, obviously, so I didn't quote the language which had been obsoleted. It's not bad enough that you're pedantic, but you're really bad at it, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Those area gain demographic specific.

You're making a broader argument that is not about extending the franchise to women, or blacks, or the young. You want a substantive right for all citizens of age.

Such a right is unsupported by the text of any of the Amendments you cite, at least under your pinched view of proper Constitutional interpretation. Nor is it supported by original intent of any of these Amendments.

Is this silly? So is your flavor of originalism!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Art. I, Sec. 2

As my uncle Olaf used to say, “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” The Constitution lists the qualifications for House, but being in one of the two major parties isn’t one of those qualifications.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Or to rephrase Uncle Olaf’s wisdom, the Constitution establishes the general principle that “the People of the several states” elect the representatives, then carves out some exceptions so the people can’t elect minors, aliens, recently-naturalized citizens, or out-of staters. When these specific exceptions don’t apply, the rule is that the electors get to elect, not have their candidates picked for them.

(Oh, and don't forget Amendment 14(3) which has made such a stink nowadays. This also limits electors' power.)

[Sarcastr0]

When these specific exceptions don’t apply, the rule is that the electors get to elect

I don’t think you have established that.

It may be right, but you can't roll in here saying these are the rights and point to ambiguous language like this.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Who gets to add to the Constitutional qualifications, and under what authority?

[Sarcastr0]

You just switched your rights argument to an authority argument. Not sure if that's a concession or sloppiness.

As to who has the authority, when the Constitution is silent on authority it's assumed to go to the states.

The policy argument of it should be easier for third parties is a good one. The Constitutional argument is pretty thin.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No so fast – who has the *authority* to override the constitutional *right* of the people to choose their representatives?

Only the people can override the constitutional rights of the people, and they did this by spelling out certain specific disqualifications for office.

It’s nice to see your devotion to the 10th Amendment. I suppose you support the Dobbs decision?

[Sarcastr0]

"who has the *authority* to override the constitutional *right*"

This is begging the question. Establish the right, and then we can talk.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’ve done what I could to show that Federalist 52 was right:

“Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C2-1/ALDE_00013371/

Now, tell us about the Dobbs decision and the importance of the Tenth Amendment.

[Sarcastr0]

Federalist 52 is not the Constitution.

Are you making
1) An argument about the current legal state of play?
2) An argument about how the Constitution should be interpreted
3) A policy argument about what we should be doing?

You have a bad habit of rebutting an argument against one thesis by switching your thesis. It's not great.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You just belatedly conceded the qualification argument:

“Sarcastr0 14 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User Yes, requirements on which individuals are allowed to run for office are exhaustive.”

Now after all your delays, we can finally move on to the question of ballot access for qualified persons running for House of Representatives, and whether those ballot access requirements should be viewpoint neutral.

As to your sealioning questions, I'm arguing about what the Constitution means.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[relocated]

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

"it's assumed to go to"

It's (still) reserved to.

[OtisAH]

So, states get to set requirements for office. It’s a minimum 5% support in Georgia. It applies to everyone.

The parties organize and promote candidates. The candidates get signatures and nominations that show substantial support in the state for the candidates. That is, they easily meet the minimum requirement to run for office. Unaffiliated candidates have to meet the same exact requirement the parties have to meet.

In Georgia the minimal requirement is around 185,000 Georgians. If an unaffiliated candidate cannot be arsed to be organized enough to travel the state making their case and gathering signatures that show at least *somebody* thinks they’re a worthwhile candidate, then they don’t get to waste everyone else’s time. This is a perfectly legitimate standard.

[OtisAH]

“Requirements *to run* for office”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“It applies to everyone.”

And both the poor and the rich are forbidden to sleep under bridges.

Why stop at 5%? Why not 10%? Why not 50% signatures?

[Brett Bellmore]

This is more of a "Only people who demonstrate incomes above a certain level may sleep under bridges" rule, though, isn't it?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, that's better than my snark.

[Martinned]

There must be case law in states that have referendums about what an appropriate amount of signatures is. Just because line drawing is hard, doesn't mean that any line is unconstitutional.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The line needs to be drawn a bit differently.

By all means have *viewpoint neutral* standards for ballot access.

But conditioning ballot access on popularity is a proxy for viewpoint discrimination, because it discriminates against unpopular parties and candidates.

And conditioning ballot access on number of signatures is a proxy for popularity.

THEREFORE, conditioning ballot access on number of signatures is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

And even if a qualified person fails the *viewpoint neutral* standards for getting on the ballot (eg, fails to file a declaration of candidacy with minimal paperwork), then voters should still be able to write in their name and have the write-in counted.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

The existence of gray areas does not mean there are no black and white areas.

There is obviously an interest in keeping the ballot relatively short. Excluding would-be candidates who cannot demonstrate at least a non-negligible chance of winning looks reasonable to me.

Remember, the point of an election is to select a public official. It is not to provide a vehicle for an ego trip or a microphone to someone who has no chance to win.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The problem is that Georgia and the other states didn’t design these laws out of a disinterested desire to improve the processes of representative government (as if curtailing ballot options was a reasonable way to do that).

The motive was to protect incumbent parties, in the hopes that gullible people would think they were acting in good faith.

Take Georgia, for example:

“”One of the purposes, if not the primary purpose, of Georgia’s 5-percent petition requirement was to discriminate against the Communist Party,” [political historian Darcy G.] Richardson testified to a federal court as part of a 2017 lawsuit attempting to overturn Georgia’s ballot access requirements. He pointed to a 1943 Atlanta Constitution article that drew an explicit connection between [Georgia Secretary of State John B.] Wilson’s anti-commie crusade and the new law. “No other justification for the petition requirement is apparent in the historical record,” he told the court.”

https://reason.com/2022/07/13/how-georgias-extreme-ballot-access-law-keeps-libertarians-and-everyone-else-off-the-ballot/

"an ego trip or a microphone to someone who has no chance to win."

So, should Democratic candidates be on the ballot in overwhelmingly Republican districts, and vice versa?

[Martinned]

Given the kinds of people who sometimes run for office in districts where their party might expect to get 10% of the vote, I can't see what difference it would make.

(The UK approach is to require all candidates to deposite a sum of money, which they forfeit if they don't receive at least a certain percentage of the votes. That works too.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wait – I’m not sure I get your argument – are you suggesting that Democrats be kept off the ballot in overwhelmingly Republican districts and vice versa?

Are poor candidates be allowed to avoid the refundable filing fee in the UK? If there's a waiver, it defeats the purpose of deterring candidates who "can’t win." If there's no waiver, it’s classism.

[Martinned]

I'm saying that in districts where the Democratic party regularly gets less than 10% of the vote, any requirement to obtain x signatures should apply to them as much as to any 3rd party.

As for UK deposits, we're not talking about a huge amount of money. The deposit is £500, which is small relative to the sums any plausible candidate has to spend just to run. (E.g. the spending cap is £10k per candidate for the last month before the election.)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/lost-deposits/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It would certainly be interesting to see, but I doubt very much the two major parties would want to run even the slightest risk of applying their own laws to themselves.

Also, the “no chance to win” argument would apply in many districts where the minority party gets more than 10% – they just never get a winning proportion of votes – so your 10% solution would be underinclusive of the alleged problem it’s aiming to fix.

(I haven’t looked up the exchange rate, thought I suspect £500 would be enough to deter a financially-straitened UK minor-party person. But if Nigel the Well-Off Eccentric wants to run a minor third party-campaign I don't see £500 stopping him - Lord knows there are plenty of people like that in the UK, so I wonder how often that actually happens.)

[David Nieporent]

I’m saying that in districts where the Democratic party regularly gets less than 10% of the vote, any requirement to obtain x signatures should apply to them as much as to any 3rd party.

For the record, in most states (perhaps all, but there may be some quirky one so I don't want to commit to that), the ballot access based on past support is normally evaluated at the statewide level, not the district level.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think Martinned raises a perfectly good point, if we assume that we should exclude candidates with “no chance to win.” Even if a candidate has a chance to win a state, entitling him to ballot access for statewide race, he may not have a chance to win a particular district or city, thus the argument for ballot access statewide doesn’t apply to local elections in that particular district/city.

Logically, the fact that a candidate has a chance to win in a state doesn't mean he has a chance to win in a subdivision of the state where the party balance is inescapably skewed against the candidate in question.

Of course, in 1948 they didn’t think Truman had a chance of winning. By some strange chance, he won. Good thing he stayed on the ballot!

[Nige]

Running for office is like sleeping under a bridge? Why are you all so bad at snark? The heavy advantage of the priveleged and powerful in running for office isn't snark, it's factual. Try 'rich people with huge party support and people all by themselves living under a bridge need the same number of signatures to run for office.' It's still not really snark, but it's more on point.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Try ‘rich people with huge party support and people all by themselves living under a bridge need the same number of signatures to run for office.’ "

Ah, but they don't, that's exactly the point: The major parties DON'T need to satisfy the signature requirement, that's just on the third parties. It's a sort of grandfather rule: If you're already on the ballot, you're good to go, if you're not, it's as a practical matter impossible to get on it.

[Nige]

That makes your effort at snark even worse! Damn those legacy exceptions! Perhaps some sort of action that would affirmatively help third parties?

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, are you reflexively assuming I'm defending ballot access laws?

I'm a former member of the LP, I only became a Republican because laws like this had rendered the LP futile. I hate ballot access laws with a burning passion.

[Nige]

No, I told you, I'm affronted by the poor quality of the snark!

[bernard11]

I only became a Republican because laws like this had rendered the LP futile. I hate ballot access laws with a burning passion.

Isn't this getting causation wrong?

The only reason the law rendered the LP futile is that the LP didn't have enough support to get on the ballot. So isn't it the case that the source of the futility was the unpopularity of the LP to begin with? (Or maybe it was the lack of organization, which wouldn't be surprising when your party consists of a bunch of libertarians.)

[OtisAH]

Totally called this idiotic response. Just wasn’t sure which idiot would make it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’re defending a Red Scare law passed in Jim Crow Georgia. Are you sure you want to broach the subject of intelligence?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Am I allowed to suggest that that rule often doesn't apply to the constitution, and that Thornton was wrong, and Thomas (and half the court) were right?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Am I allowed to suggest”

You just did!

Thornton (majority and minority) IMHO took the wrong approach, they should have said that the People have imposed some restrictions on whom they can vote for, but have not allowed anyone else to impose extra restrictions. A right of the people, recognized in the Constitution, can only be curtailed by the people, through the Constitution.

And the ability to gather signatures depends on the popularity of your viewpoint, so, if we rule out such viewpoint discrimination, we should look for more neutral criteria of ballot access.

[David Nieporent]

That is, of course, not what viewpoint discrimination means.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Your self-assurance is in inverse proportion to your ability to understand the issue.

Imagine a petition requirement to get advertising space on a municipal bus, and then think about it and try to think of ways to distinguish the cases.

Or a petition requirement for the right to make public comments at a City Council meeting, or in general to have access to a designated public forum.

What is a ballot except a place for candidates to advertise their availability? The voters can always write in the name of a Congressional candidate - unless you believe that write-in votes for qualified people can legitimately be thrown away. But if the voter is entitled to vote for someone, that person should be able to advertise his availability on the same terms as major-party candidates.

[David Nieporent]

A ballot is not, in fact, an advertisement — in fact, it seems more like government speech — and I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment about viewpoint discrimination anyway. "Whoever gets the most signatures" isn't a "viewpoint."

[Brett Bellmore]

Before the advent of the Australian ballot in the US, "ballots" were voter speech; The voter provided them, either personally, or by using one provided by their favored party or candidate.

Pre-printed ballots were introduced as a convenience for the voter, not so that the government could express its own opinion of who they should vote for.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I see you're trying to grope toward making rational arguments. Maybe you're coming to realize that bare assertions won't cut it.

If a ballot is govt speech, like a specialty license plate, then just as the government could choose to exclude Confederate or Communist symbolism from a license plate, it could choose to exclude candidates from a ballot whom government officials deem Confederate or Communist.

Viewpoint discrimination is the whole point of these laws, of course. Popularity is a proxy for viewpoint; signatures are a proxy for popularity.

[David Nieporent]

Viewpoint discrimination is the whole point of these laws, of course.

"Of course" is not an argument, especially when it's in support of something which of course is facially absurd.

Popularity is a proxy for viewpoint; signatures are a proxy for popularity.

No, and no. The first claim is wrong because it's false; the second is wrong because it's not a "proxy for" it, but actually the thing.

[Magister]

Refuting Margrave's arguments is the same kind of viewpoint discrimination as denying victory to the candidate who got fewer votes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What about access to any other designated public forum – supposing the right to rent a city auditorium for your speech depended on getting a large number of signatures supporting your right to speak?

Or if the right to address the City Council during the public comment period was based on a signature requirement in support of your right to speak?

(Plus being required to get a certain proportion of signatures from certain City Council districts, etc.)

Or if the right to advertise your candidate on public property was based on such a requirement?

“Ballot access” is a subset of the above.

Requiring unpopular, poor - candidates to run as write-ins for want of signatures, while putting the names of candidates on the ballot if they either got enough signatures *or* got a certain number of votes in an earlier election - that is discrimination against poor and unpopular candidates - or at least against candidates who aren't wealthy enough to simultaneously (a) get their message out and (b) meet the expensive signature requirements.

You are, of course, a silly person.

[Magister]

What requirements should a delusional crank with literally no support from any other person have to meet to be on a ballot in a jurisdiction with 100,000 registered voters?

You should write up your viewpoint discrimination argument and submit it to Journal of Free Speech Law.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t see why having support from “no other person” can be distinguished in principle from having *some* support but no chance of winning.

Martinned seems sympathetic to a standard that a person with no chance of winning shouldn’t be on the ballot. But he didn’t apply his principles to the bitter end, allowing nonviable candidates on the ballot if they could get 10% – even if it’s a jurisdiction where the candidate can’t expect to get more than, say, 30%.

So…among the class of candidates who (in the judgment of the government) can’t win, who should be on the ballot?

Also, do the same principles apply to primary elections for the major parties? Most of those folks have no chance of winning, and as for running nonviable candidacies for reasons of vanity..well, you know that's at least as common for candidates in major-party primaries as it is for independent candidates in the general election.

I don’t know if your reference to the journal of free speech law is sarcastic, though I suspect it is. I lack optimism about reforming any situation where the establishment acts to preserve its power.

If anyone should elaborate on this argument in the JFSL, it should be Richard Winger or one of the lawyers associated with his outfit. If Winger doesn’t consider the argument viable in the existing political circumstances, why should I?

[Magister]

Don't delusional cranks with literally no support deserve free speech rights and to be free of viewpoint discrimination?

If you won't specify a filing fee for such a candidate, then how many supporters should the delusional crank have to provide evidence of? Is there some other basis for ballot access you have in mind than a filing fee or demonstration of support?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Don’t delusional cranks with literally no support deserve free speech rights and to be free of viewpoint discrimination?"

Sure, if they meet viewpoint-neutral standards. A fee (or affidavit of indigency) would be viewpoint neutral, as would a requirement to have a campaign treasurer. As long as these things aren't simply a mask for discrimination, I see no constitutional problems with them.

[Magister]

So how much should the fee be, given a jurisdiction with 100,000 registered voters? Feel free to state assumptions about the standard of living, or anything else you think it should depend on.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A fee not based on viewpoint, like I said.

I believe I have made my point.

[Magister]

Same fee for everyone? Sounds good. But I suspect you'll be back complaining that fees are unreasonably high in the future, again without actually saying what a reasonable fee would be.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Like I said, if there's a fee which is a mask for discrimination I'd be against it.

Also, piss up a rope.

[Magister]

So how low could a fee be for you still to think it's a mask for discrimination? You won't say, as if you haven't really thought about solutions to the problem you claim exist.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As a compromise, I'll let you use a really short rope.

[not guilty]

Another group of lawyers representing Donald Trump has been sanctioned for presenting frivolous arguments. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991876/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf

[Life of Brian]

Back in the days of 8-track tapes, we used to say people like you have a one-track mind. Good grief.

[Brett Bellmore]

The phrase originated in the 1920's, and had to do with railroad tracks.

[Ridgeway]

From a legal perspective, there is actually an interesting question as to who is bound by the SOL tolling agreement. It is signed by Alan Garten, CLO, on behalf of the Trump Organization, but purports also to cover employees, officers, directors and parents of the TO (among others).

I can see employees, officers and directors being covered in their capacity as such, but not in their private capacities. I have trouble seeing how "parents" can be covered at all, at least not parents as to whom Garten has so signing authority.

The contrary argument would be that those other parties were aware of the agreement and got the benefit of it, so they should be estopped from raising any objection now.

I am not sure I buy that. It seems like lazy/bad lawyering on the part of Tish J.

[Kenneth Almquist]

From the ruling:

In response to both OAG's request for a preliminary injunction and to defendants’ motions to dismiss, this Court rejected every one of the aforementioned arguments. In rejecting such arguments for the second time, this Court cautioned that “sophisticated counsel should have known better.” However, the Court declined to impose sanctions, believing it had “made its point.”

Apparently, the point was not received.

Where does Trump find these lawyers?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where does Trump find these lawyers?

The same place he finds his voters, apparently -- where you find people unworthy of respect. In the cases with which I was familiar, the performance of Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force members was remarkably poor (especially after the able Republican lawyers abandoned ship).

[apedad]

House approves bill striking down Biden's crackdown on hunting and archery in overwhelmingly bipartisan vote

The House voted late Tuesday evening in favor of legislation striking down the Biden administration's decision to block federal funding for school shooting sports courses.

In a 424-1 vote, the House approved the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act with 216 Republicans and 208 Democrats voting in favor, and just one lawmaker, Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, voting against. Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., introduced the bill on Aug. 1, days after a Fox News Digital report in late July revealed the Department of Education was withholding funds for school hunting and archery courses.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-approves-bill-striking-down-bidens-crackdown-hunting-archery-overwhelmingly-bipartisan-vote

I can’t comment on Biden’s decision or this bill (seems like a technicality that the House is correcting), but a House vote of 424 – 1 is kind of nice to see.

Looks like there’s more than enough Senators to also approve.

[Martinned]

Federalism for the win!

[Michael P]

Are there enough Senators in favor to override a veto?

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe. It was stupid of Biden to go after archery, too. That might put the veto override vote over the top.

Assuming Biden doesn't claim it was somebody else's idea, and sign the bill.

[Life of Brian]

I can’t comment on Biden’s decision or this bill (seems like a technicality that the House is correcting)

From your article:

Fox News Digital reported in July that the Education Department shared federal guidance to hunting education groups highlighting that hunting and archery programs in schools would be stripped of funding. The guidance explained that the administration interpreted the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) to mean such programs can no longer receive taxpayer funds.

I suspect the kids in those school programs whose funding was being stripped might opt for a slightly different word than "technicality."

[Voize]

That 2022 bill amended 20 U.S.C. 7906 which restricts the use of federal funds by elementary and secondary schools to add paragraph (7):

No funds under this chapter may be used—
[...]
(7) for the provision to any person of a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 930(g)(2) of title 18, or training in the use of a dangerous weapon.

18 U.S.C. §930(g)(2) reads

(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.

Congress loves to pass the buck but if that paragraph is more inclusive than they intended it's not because the administration is misinterpreting what it says.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bad things happen when GOP joins Dems in "Bipartisan" gun grabbing bills.

[Martinned]

Imagine being such an extremist that you oppose something that *both* Democrats and Republicans support.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, it actually WAS intended to attack HS marksmanship classes, archery and to a lesser extent hunter safety were just collateral damage.

But the Biden administration is clearly capable of tactically misinterpreting clear laws if they don't like their application, so this was on them, too.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Whatever it was intended to do, the language actually passed clearly required the action the Biden Administration took. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, fixed the sloppy language they used. I wish Congress would do this for other sloppily worded bills, instead of leaving it to the courts to parse their verbiage.

[Life of Brian]

Congress loves to pass the buck but if that paragraph is more inclusive than they intended it’s not because the administration is misinterpreting what it says.

Well good -- then there should be no issue now with Biden signing the overwhelmingly bipartisan bill that clarifies their intent.

[Martinned]

I know that there is literally a comment in this thread that claims that Biden is worse than Hitler, but realistically, is he the sort of President who is likely to disagree with something congressional democrats and republicans agreed on?

[Nige]

Well done, they actually found something Republicans don't want to cut.

[Commenter_XY]

RE: NY decision by Judge Engoron (NY v Trump)

A question for the lawyers and law professors. The judge (Engoron) in POTUS Trump's case cancelled the certificates authorizing POTUS Trump (and his family) to run parts of his NY businesses.

What actually happens now? How does this work in reality?

If POTUS Trump wants to sell a company asset, can he?
What about hiring employees?
Signing off on reports, purchases, vendor agreements?
What about mergers, acquisitions?
What business decisions can POTUS Trump (or his management team) actually make and execute w/o restriction?

[Brett Bellmore]

Can I comment on another aspect of this?

I've noticed that Trump just does NOT seem to be learning from experience.

He KNOWS there's a target painted on his back. He KNOWS this. And he KNOWS that the NY government hates his guts.

And yet, he kept all his business empire subject to NY actions like this?

Mind the NRA was similarly non-proactive. How hard exactly is it to move your business from NY?

[Commenter_XY]

Tomorrow is Friday. People get paid. Will employees in the Trump Organization be paid?

Just from a practical standpoint, what actually happens now that the certificates are yanked? How does the business run?

Re: your comment, Brett. It is very difficult to unwind a multi-billion dollar business with fixed assets in an orderly; it might be a case where there just are not too many business entities that could buy the assets, and they are 'waiting and seeing'. Who knows, they might get a huge asset at a fire-sale price. That of course makes it impossible to wind down the business in an orderly manner.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A huge asset at fire sale prices would seriously impact the NYC economy, particularly post covid. It could put a lot of other people's assets in jeopardy.

[SRG2]

That's "yuge asset"

[Sarcastr0]

The corp is not dissolved. It doesn't require Trump to signoff to continue operation.

POTUS Trump
???

[shawn_dude]

I read an analysis (MSNBC) that said the Trump Organization was a myriad of smaller firms and properties from around the world collected into a single trust managed by the TO. This ruling may only apply to those assets directly held within the state of New York. The likely result of which is that a third party executor will be selected by the court to run the TO in the interim. Some of the assets may be sold to cover judgements against the TO.

The larger effect here may not be the dissolution of the TO and reorganization of his assets through another mechanism but the fact that this could make it even harder for him to do business with any bank due to the fraud findings. We don't know how highly leveraged his assets are so it may be that any favorable terms he has on existing loans will disappear over time and his costs will increase along with regulatory scrutiny. As a corporation that buys and sells massive assets, lack of access to banking resources and lower rates could hobble the business.

IANAL.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, here’s what Trump partisans either don’t get or ignore: Donald Trump spent his entire adult life engaged in sleazy and in some cases criminal behavior, while leaving behind him a trail of evidence that Mr. Magoo couldn’t miss. And he failed to appreciate that scrutiny comes with running for public office, particularly the presidency. George Santos has probably had second thoughts about the wisdom of running for public office too.

Your side has a point that the Democrats are going after him with guns blazing, but what you’re not acknowledging is that he gave them the ammunition. He really did do the sleazy, unethical, and criminal things he’s accused of doing. And it’s frankly beyond me that he thought he would get away with it. So you can’t really blame the Democrats for accepting this gift that Trump gave them, all nicely wrapped with a bow. It would be political malpractice for them not to.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am absolutely glad to acknowledge that he gave them ammunition. That’s a major complaint I’m making here: He KNOWS there’s a target painted on his back, should have known they’d be gunning for him from the moment he announced, and he seems to have taken no defensive actions AT ALL. You know, like diversifying his holdings so that he’d have an income stream even if they did this?

This is not to defend what the Democrats are doing. They’d never have gone after him if he were still an assumed to be Democratic real estate guy, rather than a successful candidate for the opposing party.

The thing about Beria is, the charges he found to bring against people weren’t necessarily fake charges. It’s just that they were charges that wouldn’t have been brought if they hadn’t put out a legal hit contract.

And as far as giving them ammunition… Washington DC is one big ammo dump! There’s hardly anybody highly placed in DC who you couldn’t do this to, if they got their magical immunity taken away.

It doesn’t get taken away because they’re all afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction. But Trump got designated as a free target, on account of the GOP establishment hating him, too.

So, he can be guilty as hell, and it STILL sticks to high Heaven.

[Moderation4ever]

What I think your missing is that the former President has engaged in risky behavior all his life and that behavior is catching up with him. Risk managers will tell you this is common because people don't understand risk. Risk is not accumulative it is probability. Trump, like many risk takers, has gotten away so many times that he is lulled into thinking he will always get away with them. His arrogance to the risk also creates that target on his back. Finally, I would say he is not helped by those around him that enable him rather than helping him understand the risk.

[Brett Bellmore]

He engaged in that behavior all his life, and got away with it until he became a political foe of the Democratic party.

That's not the odds catching up with him, that's political targeting.

[Nige]

Who knew running for president would result in heightened scrutiny of his affairs? That never happens. The big scandal here is he got away with it for so long.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not denying it was political targeting, Nige, it's just saying that he should have expected to be politically targeted. I mean, it's not as though he was an obscure figure before he ran for President! All that happened was that he became a political enemy.

And, I agree that, slimy as it is, he should have expected it.

[Sarcastr0]

Running for President means you get scrutinized more than others.

Calling this being targeted is a very impressive break from reality.

Though as M4E notes below, he was already playing a number of very high risk legal game.

[Martinned]

It's basically equivalent to NFL players who suddenly get scrutinised when they start dating a celebrity. Old Tweets that no one ever complained about before suddenly get dredged up. Different standards apply.

[Nige]

'All that happened was that he became a political enemy.'

All that happened was you decided to vote for a crook.

[Moderation4ever]

You can certainly look at it that way. I would suggest an alternative and that Trump's vulnerabilities have caught up with him. He is losing cases and each case lost in-turn shows up his vulnerability and feeds the next case. Trump has lost two cases in NY on summary judgements, Jean Carroll's defamation case and now the property case. He has lost two cases to juries. All suggest that he is spirally downward legally.

As you noted earlier, he need to change. To reorganize his business and listen to his lawyers, but he is Trump and he doesn't change. Trump would be right at home in the list of loser's in Annie Duke's book titled Quit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that it's snowballing now, each legal attack enables and encourages further attacks. It's one of the reasons the GOP shouldn't nominate him, he's going to be busy in court for the next year at least, and the odds of him coming out of this without at least one felony conviction are slim.

Really, the only thing to do is nominate somebody else, and then vow that starting in 2025 there will be an absolute legal slaughter of every Democrat who failed to be absolutely lawful their entire life.

Because this weapon, now that it's being used by Democrats, has to be bipartisan. Either everybody is above the law, or nobody is, one or the other.

[Nige]

'and then vow that starting in 2025 there will be an absolute legal slaughter of every Democrat who failed to be absolutely lawful their entire life.'

What will that look like? Standard Republican campaigning and so-called governance? It's working out well for Biden, all they've proved so far is he's clean as a whistle.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would look exactly like what Democrats did to Trump, only generalized: Republican prosecutors everywhere no longer giving Democrats a pass on the usual crimes, but instead devoting resources to find any laws they'd violated, even if they would never previously have been prosecuted.

It would be all-out war on both sides, and believe me, at least as many Republican casualties as Democratic would be expected, it's not like Republican politicians are unusually ethical.

But when the dust cleared, we might have something vaguely like ethical government.

As bad as general non-enforcement of laws against politicians has been, only one party picking out exceptions would be worse. Let's use that as a trigger to get to general enforcement, instead.

[Nige]

'Republican prosecutors everywhere no longer giving Democrats a pass on the usual crimes,'

Massive assumption right there.

'it’s not like Republican politicians are unusually ethical.'

In terms of raw numbers of politicians who turn out to be crooked, quite the opposite.

'But when the dust cleared, we might have something vaguely like ethical government.'

You think if Trump turns the DOJ, the FBI and the IRA into his personal weapons aimed at his enemies you'll end up with thical government?

'only one party picking out exceptions would be worse.'

You have a very weird, highly situational sense of what constitutes balance.

[Nige]

I notice in all this there's no hint of things like campaign finance reform and stronger white collar laws and enforcement.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Really, the only thing to do is nominate somebody else, and then vow that starting in 2025 there will be an absolute legal slaughter of every Democrat who failed to be absolutely lawful their entire life."

Even for the likes of you, this is about as unprincipled as one can get.

It's a shame that COVID didn't take out more people with your attitude.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeesh.

Stupid should not carry the death penalty.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well I came here to edit that part out, but it’s too late.

Oh well.

It wasn’t his stupidity that prompted that emotion.

[Don Nico]

When risks and their consequences are realized that is not a matter of odds. It is a matter of not mitigating risks in the first place. Trump always has been both a sleaze and a fool.

[Nige]

‘that he gave them ammunition.’

He’s a crook. And you KNEW that when you voted for him. If all the cover and protection and deniability he used to enjoy are being stripped away now because his new position and role have resulted in extra scrutiny, it’s actually YOUR fault.

‘There’s hardly anybody highly placed in DC who you couldn’t do this to,’

The usual bait and switch about presumption of innocence and evidence apply.

‘So, he can be guilty as hell, and it STILL sticks to high Heaven.’

I cant help but notice that this signal example of white mediocrity prospering through crooked dealings and impunity doesn’t fire you up to call for better white collar crime enforcement, just wail that your guy got caught while the consequences are still borderline trivial for what should be treated as criminal behaviour.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He’s a crook. And you KNEW that when you voted for him."

Yeah. And how many people you've voted for are crooks, too, and on some level you know it, even if you'd never admit it? Do you really think Biden isn't on the take, or do you just not give a damn?

[Michael P]

They know he's on the take, they don't give a damn, but they'll insist he is "not guilty" because otherwise they would have to own up to hypocrisy.

[Nige]

Again, speak for yourself. You're projecting.

[Krychek_2]

I'm waiting to see the evidence for it. And I can't speak for anyone else, but if the evidence does at some point demonstrate that Biden is "on the take" I'll be the first to say he needs to go.

[Life of Brian]

if the evidence does at some point demonstrate

Uber sincere question: ex ante, what would you consider to be competent evidence, and what would it have to demonstrate? There's presently a good deal of circumstantial evidence that the entire extended family was in cahoots keeping this money train going -- circumstantial evidence is of course never as preferable as direct evidence, but many, many criminals have still been put away when that's all the prosecutor could scrape up because the actors were minimally intelligent and didn't leave behind documents saying "HEY, LET'S COMMIT FRAUD." What standard do you think should apply here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Circumstantial evidence is basically all that CAN be available, so long as the DOJ is working for Joe. Unless they want to dust off an use "inherent contempt" again, they need the DOJ to enforce their subpoenas, and it's refusing to.

[Krychek_2]

Right, Brett, it's all a conspiracy.

In answer to Life of Brian's question, there was a news story yesterday claiming that Hunter Biden was using his dad's address to funnel illegal money. If that turns out to be true, and if it is demonstrated that his dad knew about it -- both big ifs at this point -- I would consider that sufficient.

I would consider it sufficient if authenticated emails emerged that demonstrated illegal activity on the president's part. Or if there are any witnesses whose testimony can be corroborated. Or if financial records showed obviously illegal money under circumstances that made it likely the president was aware of it. Or evidence of a causal relationship between Biden getting paid and his father enacting some policy favorable to whomever paid him. Other things as well but that's a start.

From where I sit, there appears ample evidence that Hunter Biden is ethically challenged and should not be president. And I'm not trying to prove the negative; I'm not claiming there's evidence Joe Biden *isn't* on the take. It's possible there may be something out there. I just haven't seen it yet.

[Nige]

The DOJ has standards, the Republicans don't. Hence Trump's promises to wreck things like the DOJ that won't go after his enemies on command.

[Krychek_2]

And Nige, that's an important point. Since Senator Menendez was indicted, exactly zero Democrats have attacked the DOJ, threatened to defund the DOJ, threatened violence if he's convicted, attacked the judge on the case, or alleged that it's a politically motivated prosecution. Zero.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Krychek,

What you may have missed about that story (and certainly none of the dipshits on the crusade against Hunter being President will acknowledge), was that it was Hunter's only permanent address at the time.

[David Nieporent]

In answer to Life of Brian’s question, there was a news story yesterday claiming that Hunter Biden was using his dad’s address to funnel illegal money. If that turns out to be true, and if it is demonstrated that his dad knew about it — both big ifs at this point — I would consider that sufficient.

No; this news story is being pushed by dishonest and/or fundamentally illiterate people.

1) There is nothing about the money that is alleged to be "illegal."

2) The money was being sent to Hunter Biden's bank account. (Despite what RWNJ morons say, one does not wire money to a house.) It's just that Hunter Biden listed his Dad's house as his address when he set up the bank account, so that the address appeared on the electronic paperwork.

[Krychek_2]

Jason, you're right. I missed that. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Nige]

'what would you consider to be competent evidence, and what would it have to demonstrate?'

Jesus, I mean, if you have to ask. Even the supposedly circumstantial evidence is all supposition, speculation and inventing connections and motivations that weren't there.

[Nige]

Seriously, dude, speak for yourself. This is a complete rationalisation on your part.

‘Do you really think Biden isn’t on the take,’

I’ve never had any reason to think Biden’s a crook. The more the Republicans search for evidence the more clean Biden seems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/politics/hunter-biden-house-republicans-report.html

‘After months of investigation and many public accusations of corruption against Mr. Biden and his family, the first report of the premier House G.O.P. inquiry showed no proof of such misconduct.’

Gives lie to the mindless 'show me the man' mantra.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm seeing a pretty swift increase in empty appeals to incredulity now that all the hopes and whistleblowers have failed to turn into anything concrete.

Just vibes now.

[SimonP]

Trump tried to defend his absurd property valuations by saying that he could always count on Saudi bribe money to prop them up.

Biden may have sat down to dinner with people who were doing business with his son, business from which he indirectly profited.

Money for access is a constitutionally-protected part of our political system. Democrats have long tried to do something about it, but the Supreme Court has made it increasingly difficult to do so. We tried to change the law so that it would be possible to go after corrupt politicians when it was next-to-impossible to get direct proof that they had engaged in any specific official action, in return for money or gifts. The Supreme Court has cut that law off at the knees.

The difference between the two parties, vis-a-vis corruption, is that the Republicans have consistently sought to protect and engender political corruption, and they've done that at both the state and federal levels. Some Democrats are corrupt, too. Some even as garishly corrupt as Trump (see, e.g., Menendez). But the Democrats have at least tried to do something about it, and recognize that it's wrong.

And look at how you MAGAts scurry about! You're practically falling over yourselves to forgive Trump for his rampant corruption. For you, corruption is the point. You just can't get enough of this smarmy business. Biden is trying to conclude a deal with Israel and Saudi Arabia because it will look like a "win" that Trump couldn't bring home. For Trump, it was only ever about $25 million/year in investment management fees, the LIV tour, and (apparently) sweetheart real estate deals. And you want more of that, because something something wire transfers to Hunter Biden something something.

[Nelson]

"Do you really think Biden isn’t on the take"

Yes. Because there has been zero evidence that he is crooked. The closest you can get is that his son is a sleaze (which has been known for decades) and his family trades on his name (which is SOP in the business world).

When you have to ask questions like "why else would Hunter give him $X?", which is easily explained in dozens of completely legal ways, you know that the person asking the question has an unfounded belief that he wants to pretend is so obvious everybody can see it.

Show me some actual, direct, falsifiable evidence and I might change my mind.

If the Trump prosecutions are "politically motivated" with the massive tranches of evidence that he's a crook, what does that make the completely unsupported efforts of Republicans to make Joe Biden seem dirty? Or is this another example of the right's unshakable belief in the IOKIYAR principle?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is Joe Sixpack’s George Floyd...

[Krychek_2]

No he's not. I very much doubt that even the most extreme BLMist would say that George Floyd should be a viable candidate for President of the United States.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The last time there was a national trucker's strike, it was enforced by snipers on rural overpasses. What's often forgotten about Kent State is that the reason why the Guard had fully loaded weapons was they had been patrolling during a different national trucker's strike (and needed loaded weapons).

You can call it 'domestic terrorism', I'll call it 'wilding', but there's going to be the same level of sheer rage if Trump can't run for re-election.

The BLM rioting happened because people identified with what happened to Floyd. The MAGA rioting will happen for the same reason. In fairness, there was too much BLM rioting for the Feds to stop -- and it will be too much now as well.

[Sarcastr0]

White people rioting has always been treated differently from black people doing same.

Case and point: "wilding."

You racist fuck.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see no point at all in calling terrorism "wilding". Screw that.

[Sarcastr0]

Riots are not terrorism.

Your melodrama is beginning to demand some police state tactics, if you follow it through.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You can call it ‘domestic terrorism’, I’ll call it ‘wilding’"

Standing on a bridge and shooting out the tires of strike breaking trucks isn't "rioting".

[Jerry B.]

So, release all the Jan. 06 detainees?

[Sarcastr0]

Standing on a bridge and shooting out the tires of strike breaking trucks isn’t “rioting”.

Yeah that Florida guy sucks. But that’s not terrorism. Your broadening the definition in service of expanding the scope of forceful government action.

You’re just the worst libertarian. liberals outflank you on government modesty *regularly.*

[Nige]

I dunno, Sarc, I might allow that one.

[Sarcastr0]

If proven, have him go to jail for reckless endangerment.

Terrorism is way too much machine for that asshole.

[Frank Drackman]

Well he's not "Viable" for one thing

[Sarcastr0]

You’ve never spoken for Joe Sixpack, only wrapped your own nonsense up as popular sentiment.

[Frank Drackman]

That's a stupid comment even for you, Dr. Ed 2, which is saying something (stupid)

[myself]

There's a difference between cases brought due to political pressure and cases brought because the media dug up a bunch of evidence and basically handed it to the prosecutors on a silver platter.

The NY business expense fraud case relating to Cohen's payoff feels like the former. I feel like a prosecutor would ignore that in other circumstances.

Everything else? I think anyone would get prosecuted if the evidence was presented. It's just that prosecutors normally wouldn't go digging around looking for it.

Hunter Biden is probably in a similar boat, without the media scrutiny he's just another recovered addict rich kid with shady looking business dealings. Doesn't mean the charges aren't legit.

[Voize]

They’d never have gone after him if he were still an assumed to be Democratic real estate guy, rather than a successful candidate for the opposing party.

It must take a lot of mental gymnastics to square that Bellmore axiom with the fact that it was the Biden administration that prosecuted major donor Sam Bankman-Fried.

[bernard11]

First, we don't know that Trump wouldn't have ultimately been prosecuted if he were less prominent.

But the reality is that a lot of white collar crime goes unpunished because it doesn't come to light, by say, producing catastrophes like Enron or the Madoff case.

But it is a natural consequence of running for President, or other high office, that your opponents are going to scrutinize your record closely, and publicize your misdeeds. When they turn out to be criminal, you are likely to come to the attention of the authorities.

[Don Nico]

" it is a natural consequence of running for President, or other high office, that your opponents are going to scrutinize your record closely, and publicize your misdeeds."
Exactly. So only a fool decides to expose himself in that instance.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Your side has a point that the Democrats are going after him with guns blazing"

Isn't that a problem? That the State (and potentially federal) AGs are specifically targeting Trump because of who he is, and not because of the crimes and cases?

That if it "wasn't Trump" the case would likely not have been brought?

[Krychek_2]

No, it's not. If he committed crimes, then he committed crimes. Do you think he should get a free pass because of his politics? Do you think the fact that he's a Republican should immunize him from prosecution?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Same question, but replace "Trump" for "African American"
Now what do you think?

Does the argument to selectively prosecute African Americans work because " If they committed crimes, then they committed crimes. Do you think they should get a free pass because of their skin color?" (It does not)

There's an argument to be made that justice should be blind. And that..."selective" prosecutions based on skin color or politics is EXTREMELY detrimental to society as a whole, as it weaponizes government against those who have the wrong skin color or party. If the charges are only being brought "because" of the skin color or party...that's a problem. Even if they're real charges.

That's just my view though

[Nige]

‘Do you think they should get a free pass because of their skin color?”’

It would certainly be a novelty. But the argument you're making is that he shouldn't be prosecuted because of his politics. Did anyone ever bother to deny that Bill and Hilary Clinton were singled out, each, and subjected to investigations and hearings that went on for months and years, with nothing substantive to show for any of them, because of their politics?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's [shouldn't be prosecuted] [because of his politics], vs [shouldn't be] [prosecuted because of his politics].

One side is saying that his politics are the reason he's being prosecuted, and the other side that his politics are the basis for saying he shouldn't be. The wording may be subtle, but the distinction is gross.

[Nige]

One side is pointing out that the other voted for an obviously crooked individual and are now reaping what they sowed. The other side is saying 'reaping what we sowed sucks, we're not supposed to have to reap what we sowed, that's not supposed to happen to us.'

[Krychek_2]

It's pretty hard to argue selective prosecution when the Defendant has committed as many crimes over as long a period of time as Trump has. As I spent above, he's been a crook all his life and it's now just starting to catch up to him. In order for the African American analogy to work, you'd need a black defendant who has spent his entire adult life committing crime after crime after crime and then, after many years, is finally brought to justice, only to have the chutzpah to claim selective prosecution.

If the pattern were that Trump were a basically honest person who made a mistake, I might be inclined to agree with you. But that's not the pattern. The pattern is that he's a basically crooked person who mostly hasn't even bothered to try to cover it up.

So yeah, the Democrats are salivating over it (as are many Republicans who hate him too). But they're not making anything up.

[Michael P]

Show me the man, and I will show you three ham sandwiches a day.

[Krychek_2]

All right, I show you Michael P. What are your three ham sandwiches for today?

[Michael P]

Three charges of interstate trafficking of women for immoral purposes because I banged your mom, your sister and your wife last night.

[Nelson]

What are you, 12? Grow up.

[Nige]

That's why Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden have both been indicted.

Trump did crimes. Own it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"It’s pretty hard to argue selective prosecution when the Defendant has committed as many crimes over as long a period of time as Trump has"

Not really....the "as long a period as" is part of the problem really. See, if these were really serious crimes, and were clearly known...why weren't they prosecuted before now? It's not like they were hidden.

But, let's use a clearer example for you. Let's imagine Trump is a very bad man, and you as a member of law enforcement know this. And so, you look into NY State's EZ-Pass records for timestamps on Trump's car. And you can see from the timestamps, it's clear he's been speeding. There's no way for him to legally have entered and exited at the points he did, without speeding.

So, you as a law enforcement agent then issue Trump dozens or hundreds of speeding tickets, one for each offense. This effectively works out to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and instant removal of Trump's driver's license.

Is there anything wrong with this? I mean, Trump was clearly breaking the law, so....

[Nige]

'why weren’t they prosecuted before now?'

That IS a good question.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here’s the answer.

It wasn’t considered a serious crime worth prosecuting. There was no harm done. The "victims" (the banks) didn't complain at all. The AG hardly ever prosecuted anyone for that sort of crime. It’s like jaywalking. Or speeding 5 mph over the limit. Technically illegal, practically the law was not enforced.

But “because it’s Trump”, suddenly, years after the fact, it’s now worth prosecuting. That’s why it’s selective prosecution.

[Nige]

Can you prove any of that? As opposed to, say, a lack of resources to do the kind of motivated digging that occurs when someone becomes president and then runs again for president? It’s odd to suddenly demand that one and only one presidential candidate not be fair game for scrutiny and that one and only one presidential candidate not be prosecuted if found to have broken the law. Ask the Clintons. Ask Biden.

Or can you prove that what Trump did was in some sense normal?

Or can you prove that similar crimes were not prosecuted?

[Sarcastr0]

The switch from an in individual to a demographic is an insane leap.

Demographics don't commit crimes.

[Kleppe]

"He really did do the sleazy, unethical, and criminal things he’s accused of doing"

My experience has been the precise opposite. Everything Dems have accused him of have been lies or hallucinations. Russian collusion, the Fine People hoax, the "insurrection", etc. I don't pay attention to it anymore. If Dems are making the accusation I'm assuming it's bullshit and moving on. If it turns out that they finally told the truth then they have nobody to blame but themselves for endless bullshit over the years. The Boy Who Cried Wolf was a cautionary tale, not a model to be emulated.

[Nige]

'He KNOWS there’s a target painted on his back. '

He KNOWS he's a tax-evading fraudster crook.

[Tom for equal rights]

Brett - my only response to your comment on the Trump v NY case and the finding of fraud is that is hard to move buildings out of NY / NYC.

In regard to the fraud issue - the alledged valuations violations is pretty much standard operating procedure in NY throughout the real estate industry (with the caveat that maybe not to the extent that is alledged in the trump empire)

The second point on valuations - its generally the market value/comparable sales. While most jurisdictions allow property tax valuations to be based on the lower income approach. As such, there is often a huge difference between the Market value approach and the income approach (though in theory, the two methods should be close).

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'd be interested in seeing the valuations that other major developers assigned to their own properties in this time frame, to see if they also inflated their property prices.

Demonstrate that across enough examples, and it looks like selective prosecution.

[Tom for equal rights]

fwiw - there is an entire industry dedicated to fighting property tax valuations. While I dont have first hand knowledge of the differences in valuations for the trump properties using the market value for one purpose and the income approach for property tax purposes, the practice is quite common throughout the real estate industry.

[Life of Brian]

there is an entire industry dedicated to fighting property tax valuations

Yeah, that's one of many comically silly things about this. Hopefully all the Judge Engoron apologists around here rent rather than own, and if they do own they meekly and patriotically accept without question each and every valuation increase from their local taxation authority. Otherwise, this might start looking even more like a marsupial adjudicatory event than it already does.

[Nige]

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How typical of you that you refuse to engage upon the facts of the situation.

Do you need a link to the ruling, or would I be wasting my time in thinking you'd actually have something of substance to say on the matter?

[Tom for equal rights]

jason - The findings of facts in the court opinion seem to be missing a tremendous amount of information. There is no indication of who the statements of financial condition were provided to - so there lacks a victim.
NY law provides for damages to the victim, but there is no indentification of the victim.
NY law provides for disgourgment of profits, but there is no finding of the amount of profits gained.
One of the appraisals was for a conservation easement, but no indication of the whether an actual conservation easement was created.
Mar-go apparantly had a valuation for a restrictive easement, yet the explanation provided by the courts finding of facts doesnt seem coherent.

Several valuations seem grossly inflated which would be fraudulent based solely on the info provided in the findings of fact

The judge is partially correct on the disclaimer provided by the accountants in the SFC report in that the client (trump ) remains responsible for the accuracy. However, the disclaimer doesnt provide liability protection to the accountant preparing the SFC if the accountant has reason to suspect the values are inflated.

[Tom for equal rights]

My commentary is in not defending trump. If the findings of fact are factually true, then yes there is likely fraud. That being said, the findings of fact is lacking considerable information.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “And yet, he kept all his business empire subject to NY actions like this?”

Trump’s business practices get a summary judgement because of egregious fraud. Brett suggests it’s Trump’s fault and everyone gasps at that very un-Brett-like statement. But, no, what follows is just more victimhood whinging.

Let’s look at the Trump Foundation as an example. Its board members were all immediate family except one. The exception, Allen Weisselberg, was listed on the board over ten years but testified he was never told that was the case. There were no board meetings for fifteen years, no staff and no dedicated office space. There were no audits or regular accounting of funds. The charity acted as a ready slush fund for all Trump’s needs. It paid Trump’s business fines, bought baubles for his golf clubs, funded campaign expenses, served as means to divert taxable income, and ignored all IRS and New York charity regulations. Ultimately authorities discovered it wasn’t even properly registered with the state.

A reporter look a hard look (which no one had done before) and found it was a fraud top-to-bottom. No persecution was involved. Trump hadn’t made the slightest gesture towards obeying the law.

The reporter found Trump used his charity to pay Don Jr’s Boy Scout fee. What billionaire breaks the law in such a absurd way over a seven dollar cost? Answer: Someone whose mind is wired towards criminality. Someone who'll cheat or defraud rather that earn an honest dollar. That’s the source of Trump’s problems, not those Bad People out to get him.

[David Nieporent]

What billionaire

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

breaks the law in such a absurd way over a seven dollar cost?

Trump has always acted this way. He's supposedly a billionaire, but he cheats vendors out of 4 and 5 figure monies. He similarly ran a scam with "Trump University" to defraud really gullible people out of small amounts of money each. This stuff should be ashtray money if he's even a fraction as wealthy as he claims, but he gets off on scamming people.

[jb]

How hard is it to move a bunch of large buildings and a golf course out of New York to another state? I'm not in the real estate business, but I'd say very hard. I've heard of people moving some castles across the Atlantic, but I haven't seen it done with a 58 story building and as far as I know nothing like it has been attempted with a golf course.

I don't think this order meaningfully affects the way Trump operates properties outside of New York so I don't think there's much they could have done to build a jurisdictional firewall in this case.

[Nige]

There was a bridge, wasn't there? Which means someone was obsessed with a bridge, but eventually got over it.

[Martinned]

Who is this "POTUS Trump" you speak of? Is he in the room with you now?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have a question -- how the hell is this not a "taking"?

I'm sure it is going to be appealed, likely for the next 20 years, but how does a judge have the authority to do this? And even if a STATE judge does, how does the STATE have the authority without violating the 5th Amendment.

The judge has essentially ordered the arbitrary execution of persons, albeit corporate ones, and where are all the rights of person hood?

[Sarcastr0]

How is a legal penalty for fraud not a taking?

You're so strange.

And the corporation is not being dissolved, so your death penalty argument isn't even germane. But it is very funny.

[bernard11]

I think it is being dissolved. No?

From Reuters:

Engoron also ordered the cancellation of certificates that let some of Trump's businesses, including the Trump Organization, operate in New York, and ordered the appointment of a receiver to manage the businesses' dissolution.

[Sarcastr0]

I stand corrected.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that seems to go an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny bit beyond restitution for any supposed engorgement.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, because this is fraud and restitution is hardly the only remedy.

[Life of Brian]

The question, as I'm sure you can appreciate in your better moments, is one of proportionality.

[Sarcastr0]

Which you're suddenly an expert on.

You didn't even bring up the specifics of the fraud, you just declare it's not proportional.

Because you're not making an judgement or providing analysis, you're pushing a cause.

[Life of Brian]

Yawn. Giving you credit for being capable of independent thought and not just being in mindless "judge SEZ" mode, pray do 'splain what degree of actually harmful fraud would have had to occur in order for total dissolution and receivership of all legal entities within the state to be a remotely proportional remedy. Then we can have a conversation about whether there's anything intermingled with the acrid vitriol in the opinion that would approach that degree.

[Sarcastr0]

You can't read this blog for long without realizing judges get stuff wrong all the time.

But when a judge makes a ruling, the burden is on the people saying the judge is wrong to engage with the opinion and say why it's wrong.

You are conspicuously not doing that.
Instead, you're appealing to a proportionality standard you don't actually have any idea about.
And tone policing.

Pretty lazy!

[Life of Brian]

Yawn again. As we all well know by now you just constrain yourself to your little rhetorical jousting routine and don't ever actually engage on the merits (you're doing it right here, the astute reader may notice, as you simply berate me for questioning proportionality but have squat to say about why you think it actually is proportionate). So I'll give you a point or two for the feigned interest, but no rock fetching today.

[Sarcastr0]

I engage on the merits on subjects I know about - science policy, agency practice, DEI, higher education. Occasional legal subjects.

But oddly, you've turned the subject about how you're saying the judge is wrong without engaging with the opinion into being about my lack of engagement.

You first, buddy.

[Life of Brian]

See above. Not kicking the football again, Lucy.

[shawn_dude]

The Trump Organization is a collection of assets and businesses that can exist outside of the TO. Dissolving the TO just undoes a business construct meant to make managing these assets more efficient.

IANAL and trusts are outside of my experience.

[John F. Carr]

I was confused by that part of the ruling. The judge cited a section of law related to DBA certificates, which does not by my reading give him the authority he claims. He also cited a case where a corporation was involuntarily dissolved after a finding of fraud. He probably does have the power but uttered the wrong words in invoking it.

[Commenter_XY]

That is exactly why I asked. I am just asking from a general 'nuts and bolts' orientation. How does the business run day-to-day when the certificates are yanked? Then what?

When this happens with other companies, how does it work? How does the Court administer the business whose certificates they yanked?

[shawn_dude]

As I understand it, a large number of the properties and business that comprise the Trump Organization are outside of New York and their business licenses are not directly impacted. The TO is, itself, in NY so it's affected but it's just a conglomerate management tool.

The court will assign someone to administer the NY assets in the interim. If there's a judgement against the Trump Organization in the coming NY trial, the appointed administrator may sell whatever assets are needed to meet that judgement. Otherwise, I'd expect the non-NY assets to be reorganized outside the state of New York and for those businesses to continue to function. Trump Tower, in NYC, is probably going to be the more interesting asset to watch. I'm not sure if it will have to be sold or if it can be owned by a new holding company incorporated outside of New York. (my guess is it cannot.)

[Kenneth Almquist]

The law reads:

Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper.

The Court ordered “that any certificates filed under and by virtue of [General Business Law section] 130 by any of the entity defendants or by any other entity controlled or beneficially owned by Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and Jeffrey McConney are canceled.”

In my reading, the statute gives the Court explicit authority to do what it did, with the only qualification that this must be an “appropriate case.” It appears that defendants don't argue that this is not an appropriate case, and the Court explains why it is. “Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor overseeing their compliance, defendants have continued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business.”

[bernard11]

Good questions.

As I understand it the judge ordered the actual dissolution of some of Trump's businesses, including the Trump Organization, and ordered the appointment of a receiver to handle the process. So I suppose Trump gets no sayso, though I suppose the receiver has a fiduciary duty to dissolve the businesses in a prudent and sensible way.

[Brett Bellmore]

New California Gun and Ammo Tax Becomes Law: What to Know

There's no way this law should survive even a moment's constitutional scrutiny; It's not a general tax, it's a tax specifically targeting exercise of a civil liberty.

Complicating things, though, is that there are federal taxes specifically targeting firearms, (All of them adopted before the Court got around to admitting the 2nd amendment guaranteed an actual right right.) and some of them make the California tax look cheap. Will the Court be willing to overturn its reasoning back in the '30's that any tax law was constitutional so long as it raised any revenue at all? (So long as it's a tax on guns goes unsaid.) Maybe they'd do it for states...

This was part of a whole package of new gun laws, basically all of which should be DOA under Bruen. Well, Judge Reinhardt WAS in San Francisco, maybe the state has adopted his "They can't catch them all." motto.

We really need a gun law preclearance regime for states that are multiple offenders against the 2nd amendment.

Incidentally, the search engines are REALLY pushing the Trump conviction news at the moment. I entered a search string, "supreme court nfa tax ruling", and all but 2 of the first page of results were about it.

Sure, the word "ruling" was in there, but that's just pathological behavior for a search engine.

[Michael P]

Incidentally, the search engines are REALLY pushing the Trump conviction news at the moment. I entered a search string, “supreme court nfa tax ruling”, and all but 2 of the first page of results were about it.

Which search engine(s)? The top hits from DuckDuckGo/Bing are about United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the NFA itself, ATF (the bureau), and grant of cert for Moore v. United States (a mandatory repatriation tax case).

I don't use Google because its search results are terribly biased towards whatever narrative Google is pushing.

As a side question, which Trump conviction? The recent headline-grabbing ruling that grossly ignores comps (https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/donald-trumps-mar-a-lago-worth-at-least-300m-sources/) was not a conviction or final ruling in that case.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually WAS using DuckDuckGo in this case. Accessed through Brave.

Granted, not "conviction" as such.

[Sarcastr0]

Now the 2A forbids any direct taxing of firearms? The meaning of infringe gets broader every day.

While at some point a tax does become an undue burden, I think making that point ‘all nonzero’ is an extraordinarily broad reading of that right. See taxes and marriage.

[Brett Bellmore]

Laws of general application can burden exercise of civil liberties, but a tax specifically on the exercise of a civil liberty by definition isn't a law of general application, and is subject to strict scrutiny.

And this was part of a package, other elements of which have already been ruled unconstitutional. This isn't a case of California skating the edge, they're deliberately violating the Bruen ruling.

[Sarcastr0]

a tax specifically on the exercise of a civil liberty by definition isn’t a law of general application, and is subject to strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is an EPC thing, and applies only to specific groups. People who wanna buy guns are not that group.

As I said, people's taxes go up when they marry. Is that now unconstitutional? What about public schools providing a service only usable by folks with kids?

Laws effect a particular subset of citizens *all the time.* Sometimes with respect to a fundamental right (see the voting discussion above, or travel). Another example could be taxing of cable TV specifically.

This would be an extraordinarily broad reading of the 2A which would be in variance with how most of our other rights work.

[David Nieporent]

Brett is more right than you here. Check out Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983).

[not guilty]

Right. In Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of newspapers, which exempted the first $100,000 worth of paper and ink consumed in any calendar year, was held to violate the First Amendment.

[Magister]

Didn't that case involve exceptions which singled out the plaintiff to pay most of the tax?

[Martinned]

Thoughts about the FTC's case against Amazon? Even these lawyers, who are firmly on the "anti Big Tech" side of the spectrum, call it "ambitious"...

https://theplatformlaw.blog/2023/09/28/amazon-ftc-federal-trade-commission/

[Commenter_XY]

I just want to commend the US Senate for passing that all important legislation, critical to the survival of the Republic: A dress code.

Good going, Senators. Keep up the important work. Very relevant to our daily lives. Oh, what would we do without you?

You just can't make these things up. /smh

[DaveM]

It's not the rule that matters, it's that a rule was even needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume this is about the dress code. Schumer apparently didn't bother consulting anybody else before getting rid of it so that Fetterman could attend sessions in shorts and a hoodie.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think it got reinstated because of Collin's threat to wear a bikini.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A dress code is a good idea. If they're not going to be serious, they should at the very least *look* serious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Susan Collins (RINO-ME) threatening to show up in a bikini probably helped things along. Collins is 71....

Now the interesting thing would be if scramblebrain filed for an ADA accommodation to wear his shorts & sweats.

[Sarcastr0]

The Senate can do more than one thing at once. Politics is often the mixing of the ridiculous and the sublime.

That being said, this whole dress code nonsense is aristocratic and I hate it.

[Commenter_XY]

So you're good with wearing sloppy, disheveled clothing on the floor of the Senate (or House). Really? C'mon Sarcastr0. This is the floor of the Senate, not a f'ing 7-11 or Sheetz. Wear a damned suit, even if it is a JC Penney special. There really is something to the saying, "Clothes make the man".

Yes, the fact that Senator Lurch has no sense of propriety, or fashion sense for that matter, is utterly ridiculous. But at least Senator Lurch is not as bad as Senator 'Sticky Fingers' Menendez, senior Senator for the People's Republic of NJ - my state.

There are some real prizes on the Team R side as well. Former Senator Burr comes to mind, specifically. That man disgusts me. He cynically profited on inside information in dumping stock at the inception of the pandemic, and I am still amazed he was not prosecuted for it. He should be.

The Senate is making themselves look foolish and irrelevant. For damn sure, they are disconnected from the people. The world looks at them and what do you think they say?

I am not zapping you, but I am sure disappointed in our elected leaders. They all need to go.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I don’t fucking care how our Senators dress. That’s up to them and their voters.

Personally, I find the idea that our legislative bodies must comport themselves all fancy-lie to be in variance with our anti-royalist roots.

Senator Lurch
Well now we see what’s really going on. This guy doesn’t act like on of The Elect, so he doesn’t belong.

Yeah there are other stuff that rightly piss you off about our Reps, but this shouldn't.

I wear a suit to work, BTW. But only because my default is to be kind of colloquial and informal, and I sometimes need the validity boost when talking to PhDs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"all fancy-lie"

Wearing a suit? Until the 1970s, all men regularly wore suits. Even to baseball games!

He cosplays as a rich kid's idea of a worker. Few actual workers wear gym shorts to work and even fewer wear them to semi-serious places.

He could start with pants. Like normal people.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not 50 years ago.

I don't care what kind of motives you put on him, dress codes are silly and the yearning for our leaders to act like aristocrats is dumb. As is paeons to normalcy.

And when even gently interrogated, seems to largely come from particular animus against Fetterman.

Or fear maybe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Or fear maybe."

Well, the villagers did use torches against his prior version.

If you are implying he has a national political future, I suggest an immediate visit to the emergency room to check for head injury.

[Sarcastr0]

I have no idea what his future entails.

I know the right really hates him at AOC levels. Which says fear to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody fears "AOC" either.

[myself]

I actually don't mind the dress code as long as its not overly restrictive or biased (ie, if formal attire from another culture should be allowed), it implies respect for the institution. Dress codes are fairly common across industry for similar reasons.

I'd say one of the bigger issues in the US legislative branch is the lack of respect participants have for the institution, certainly the dress code doesn't fix that, but removing it may certainly make things worse.

[Sarcastr0]

I understand this point of view, I just disagree with it. I want our leaders, individually and as a group, to earn our respect with their actions, not by some default.

[myself]

I get that, but a dress code strikes me as one of those informal rules (look professional) formalized. And if I were to point to a major problem with the US government (the GOP side in particular) it's the abandonment of the informal rules. And I suspect I'm a bit of an odd progressive in that I do think the pomp and circumstance matters. Every culture developed ceremonial traditions because it encourages the participants to feel part of the group take the undertakings seriously.

Realistically, I'm not sure it will make a difference in that outside of Fetterman everyone is still going to dress formally. So perhaps there's an argument for dropping in the dress code in that it's only real function is that people occasionally get harassed for a sleeveless dress or something. But I don't think it would be a good thing if all the legislators started showing up in casual clothes.

[Frank Drackman]

Even the 3 Stooges wore suits!

[bernard11]

Meanwhile, I wish someone would make that asshole Jim Jordan put on a jacket.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
when you go to a basketball game as a few hundred (or more dollars a pop, you expect the team to be wearing a uniform, not some old shorts and a hoodie

[Sarcastr0]

I agree. I also think our elected officials are not a basketball team.

Being a bit nonprofessional is not a bad way to think about servant leadership if someone wants to go that direction.

Is is probably performative? Sure! But about the same level as a suit and tie.

[Nige]

I think it's hilarious the party of rugged individualism wants everyone to dress the same, and want it enough to make a national issue out of it.

[ducksalad]

That being said, this whole dress code nonsense is aristocratic and I hate it.

It's not aristocratic, it's a safety measure. They security staff needs to be able to distinguish the Senators from invading insurrectionists.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Good point. Maybe the dress code should just be no spears and Viking Horns.

[Longtobefree]

https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/27/now-that-hoodies-are-the-senate-uniform-republicans-should-show-up-sporting-these-slogans/

[Michael P]

"Lectern Guy" prosecutor gets serially stabby. Literally. You'd think lawyers would have some ethical code against assaulting good Samaritans.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2023/09/27/howard-frankland-stabbing-suspect-is-former-assistant-us-attorney/

[not guilty]

Jidge Scptt McAfee in Fulton County has ruled that jurors and prospective jurors shall be identified by number only in court filings or in open court during the pendency of the trial of Donald Trump and his codefendants and has prohibited disclosure of jurors' identities and information. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23990987/order-on-motion-to-restrict-jurors-identity.pdf

Some research suggests that anonymous juries are more likely to convict.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, hypothetically....What if POTUS Trump, during a political campaign speech, cited press articles that 'outed' the jurors, and the alternates - and then proceeded to name them?

What's the penalty? Is there one?

[not guilty]

Trump could be held in criminal contempt pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-1-4(a)(3). That is punishable by fines not exceeding $500.00 and by imprisonment not exceeding 20 days. O.C.G.A. § 15-6-8(5).

It could also authorize a federal court to revoke Trump's pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148 upon motion by the office of Special Counsel. "If there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed a Federal, State, or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community."

[not guilty]

Let me correct myself. I spoke too broadly and quoted the wrong part of § 3148. Criminal contempt in Georgia is not a felony.

The relevant language is subsection (b): To the extent practicable, a person charged with violating the condition of release that such person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release, shall be brought before the judicial officer who ordered the release and whose order is alleged to have been violated. The judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation and detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer—
(1)finds that there is—
(A)probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release . . .
[and] (2) finds that—
(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community; or
(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.

The rebuttable presumption referenced in my prior comment does not apply to state misdemeanors, but the applicable criteria should not be difficult to prove even absent the presumption.

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks not guilty, appreciate the complete response. I learn. 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, does the anonymity extend forever, or just until the end of the trial? Seems like a foreseeable end to that protection could have an effect on jurors almost as baleful as being outed during the proceeding.

[not guilty]

Judge McAfee's order does not address posttrial events. That may or may not be addressed in the future.

The State's motion sought an order:

1) Preventing any Defendant, members of the press, or any other person from videotaping, photographing, drawing, or otherwise creating or publishing images of the jurors or prospective jurors inside or outside the courtroom; and

2) Preventing any Defendant, members of the press, or any other person from publishing any verbal or written descriptions of any information that would assist persons in determining the identity of any jurors or prospective jurors, specifically physical descriptions, telephone numbers, addresses, employer names, and membership affiliations of all jurors or prospective jurors.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23941675/states-motion-to-restrict-jurors-identity.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

"anonymous juries are more likely to convict."

Another thumb on the scale.

[Nige]

If so it's Trump supporters' thumbs.

[OtisAH]

Of course the dumbass Bob whines about election interference because he can’t send deranged emails to the jurors and their families.

[not guilty]

"Of course the dumbass Bob whines about election interference because he can’t send deranged emails to the jurors and their families."

Actually, Judge McAfee's order does not prohibit Bob from doing that. It just makes it more difficult for Bob to learn the names and contact information of the jurors.

[Mr. Bumble]

Have we reached the "Patterns of Force" stage of the Joe John Gill presidency yet?

[Martinned]

Only on talk radio.

[Mr. Bumble]

You listen to talk radio? I don't so where have you heard this?

[Martinned]

I know, I know, you're the guy who doesn't watch Fox, OANN, or listen to talk radio, but just happens to coincidentally have all the same talking points.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're free to believe whatever you want, but I stopped listening to talk radio when Rush passed and have never watched Fox or OANN. If I watch TV news it is usually Newsmax, but not on a regular basis.
So back to my question: Do you listen to talk radio?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, same here: I have a car radio, but it has a hard drive I download all my albums to, currently it has several thousand tracks on it. I basically never listen to the radio while driving, unless I'm checking for traffic updates.

Martinned, have you considered that you could pick three people at random, and they'd all give you the same "talking points" on the issue of the day, if they just happened to have the same ideology? Because a lot of the talking points are just common place observations if you're reasoning in a particular way.

Mind, when the media all come out with the same line? Well, Journolist got exposed years ago, so we know that they really are coordinating behind the scenes some of the time.

[Martinned]

It makes sense you'd have the same ideology. The surprising thing is that you also have the same facts.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The surprising thing is that you also have the same facts."
...and how do you figure that that is surprising?

fact
făkt
noun

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
2.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
3.A real occurrence; an event.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik

[Martinned]

Comment immediately below yours, from your fellow traveller Ed Grinberg:

our president sure sounds like Adolf Hitler. And the enthusiasm this inspires in his supporters is little short of genocidal.

You don't think the American Heritage Dictionary would consider this a statement of fact?

[Mr. Bumble]

That Biden gave a speech on a set that looked like something out of Nazi Germany is a fact.
As for the rest of Ed's comment I would rate that as opinion. One I don't agree with.

[Nige]

'that looked like'

Literally subjective.

[Martinned]

Whether two things resemble each other is not a question of opinion but a question of fact. And in this case the factual claim is utterly delusional.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Martinned:

Look at the linked photo and tell me about delusional.

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2022/09/joe-biden-philadelphia-pa-9-1-22-getty-640x480.jpg

[Sarcastr0]

Judge this contextless photo provided by Breitbart! It tells so much about Biden!

[Nige]

That looks, uh, real.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to SarcastrO:
"Judge this contextless photo provided by Breitbart! It tells so much about Biden!"
The context is his September 1, 2022 speech in Philadelphia and the photo is from Getty images.
GaslightO all the way.

[Nige]

Here's a slightly different angle.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Biden-Lucifer-1.jpg

[Ed Grinberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Force_%28Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series%29

Upon their arrival, Kirk and Spock watch in horror as a Zeon is arrested by Ekosian soldiers dressed as brown-shirted Nazi Stormtroopers. An outdoor video newsreel shows an Ekosian rally featuring huge crowds shouting Nazi-style slogans and waving swastika-emblazoned flags. ... The "Final Solution" is mentioned, meaning apparently the extinction of all Zeons on Ekos

When he talks about "MAGA Republicans," our president sure sounds like Adolf Hitler. And the enthusiasm this inspires in his supporters is little short of genocidal.

[Martinned]

When he talks about “MAGA Republicans,” our president sure sounds like Adolf Hitler. And the enthusiasm this inspires in his supporters is little short of genocidal.

Against stiff competition that may well be the single most unhinged thing I've ever read on the VC. (Although, to be fair, I do have a couple of lunatics muted.)

[Michael P]

You understate your own contributions to unhinged commentary. We are talking about the guy who gave an anti-Republican speech from a stage that was apparently inspired by Leni Riefenstahl.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/02/dictator-in-chief-bidens-extreme-hypocrisy/

[Nige]

Wow, a Democrat being anti-Republican. WORSE than Hitler.

[Magister]

[Biden's] 20 months of dictatorial decrees. Law professor Jonathan Turley observed, “President Biden has arguably the worst record of losses in [federal court] the first two years of any recent presidential administration.”

Odd evidence for dictatorial decrees; no recent president has faced such a Supreme Court packed with partisan opponents. It's been pretty much 5-4 with Roberts the fifth prior to Trump's last pick.

Biden has had some bipartisan successes.

[Nige]

Seems odd to characterise the elected guy's legislation getting blocked by unelected unaccountable lifetime appointees as dictatotrial on the part of the elected guy. Being elected makes it ok to ban books, but not pass legislation?

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's see, how long exactly did it take Germany to go from the most desired location in Europe for Jews, to the Final solution? I think that period would actually have fit inside a couple Presidential terms.

Never think, "It can't happen here."; That's how you lower the barrier to it "happening here".

This country has been accumulating the bits and pieces of a full blown police state for decades now, it's only a matter of time before somebody picks them up, puts them together, and fires that sucker up.

[Nige]

Trans people are learning all this as we speak.

The most ‘police state’ of the police (which is saying something) is the Border Patrol.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's what the Jews feared in Germany: An end to state funded brisses.

[Nige]

Funny thing, trans people weren't doing too badly in Weimar Germany either. The Nazis closed down an entire institute and burned all their scientific research (they even threw porn mags on top for the photos) while sending trans people to the camps.

[bernard11]

You mean like executing Mark Milley, and trying to close media that is critical of the President?

Do you listen to Trump's ravings?

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you pay attention to Biden's actions?

[Sarcastr0]

Never listen to Trump, I guess.

[Nige]

Can't have that, people might think he's an effective legislator and politician.

[Jerry B.]

And, appropriately enough, Germany is rounding up neo-Nazis for teaching children the wrong things.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66934411

[Nige]

Nazi grooming ok, drag queen story hour bad.

[Nige]

‘our president sure sounds like Adolf Hitler.’

Trump calls liberals and Democrats a cancer. Wokism is a mind virus. LGTBQ people are coming for your children. Drag queens are groomers. Black history in the US is racist against white people. There’s a plot to wipe out white people and replace them with non-white people.

Biden’s barely being impolite.

[Sarcastr0]

The only people I've heard talk about camps and gassing are the right, either saying the libs want that secretly, or advocating the right Nazi the left before the left Nazis them.

‘Maybe Biden is a Nazi but via Star Trek’ is an extremely dumb take.

It amazes me conservatives can like Star Trek at all, given it's about a society of successful luxurious space communism.

[OtisAH]

These are people who think the moral of Green Eggs & Ham is “freedom” and who think what makes Blazing Saddles hilarious is the racism. Be surprised if the reason they like Star Trek is because they understand it.

[Magister]

Of course, the interstellar socialist utopia was represented by the military dictatorship of Captain Kirk. Even in Next Generation, Picard (when replaced by an alien who apparently wanted to conduct unethical psychology experiments) was able to order the ship on a suicide mission which was questioned only because he was acting oddly, not because killing everyone on a ship holding many civilians was beyond his authority.

[Sarcastr0]

Starfleet has it's militarism, but the universe of Star Trek is a liberal fantasy, and an anti-conservative one. Multiculturalism, socialism, anti-imperialism (to a fault)...

At least until DS9...don't get me started...

[Magister]

While it was a stereotype at SF conventions that Democrats liked Star Trek and Republicans liked Star Wars, my point is that there's plenty of conservative fan service in early Star Trek; mostly the militarism.

Diplomats and bureaucrats are sometimes the obstacles to the crew's decisive action. (They're also the party poopers who expect Kirk to follow the Prime Directive.) In fairness, it's pretty much only Kirk who can pull off the action hero stuff; Commodore Decker in "The Doomsday Machine" screws up big time, as does Captain Tracey in "The Omega Glory". It's another fault that Star Trek endorses emotional responses (from Kirk) over logical ones (from Spock); the reverse message might be a more useful one.

"Diplomats and bureaucrats may function differently, but they achieve exactly the same results." - Spock (The Mark of Gideon)

"The bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the universe." - McCoy (Star Trek IV)

Ambassador Robert Fox gets the ship in trouble in "A Taste of Armageddon"; Scotty refuses his order to lower the shields that would have gotten the Enterprise destroyed, and Kirk has to resort to destroying some computers to save the day.

"Patterns of Force" has a history professor/cultural observer gone wrong.

Hippie-punching in "The Way to Eden" would appeal to conservatives, I think. Kirk gets called "Herbert" by the hippies; "Herbert was a minor official, notorious for his rigid and limited patterns of thought.". But the hippies get theirs in the end. (Christianity gets some endorsement there but more so in "Bread and Circuses".)

The only partisan political character in the original series is a Republican; Lincoln created by aliens in "The Savage Curtain"; is it unexpected that Kirk's admired historical figure is the Civil War president who declared martial law and suspended habeas corpus (to achieve good ends, like Kirk, of course)?

[Martinned]

It is often fascinating watching Star Trek writers struggle to conceive of the possibility that an army might be run differently than the US army. (The wildest recent example was from Strange New Worlds, where we discovered that Starfleet basically uses 21st century US courtroom procedure.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"army might be run differently than the US army"

Should it be run like the Dutch army? That would be hazardous to Federation citizens as 8,000 Bosnians could testify, if they were still alive.

Its run like a navy you dope. The "fleet" and naval ranks might be giveaways.

[Sarcastr0]

Army is used as a synecdoche for military.

Though Starfleet is more militaristic than formally military. Their purpose is well beyond military. Taxi drivers, diplomats, first contact, explorers...

[Bob from Ohio]

He specifically said "US army", so he was not using a figure of speech. Star Fleet is not organized like the US army.

"Their purpose is well beyond military."

Soldiers and sailors have been used for other tasks [ferrying ambassadors, exploring, humanitarian missions] since forever. They have the equipment and time [during peace] and budget. They remain soldiers and sailors, the military.

[Don Nico]

"Army is used as a synecdoche for military."

Maybe in your brain which could never, ever concede a point to Bob.

In this case you reply is only a lame excuse. Even Bob is correct once in a while.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Assuming facts not in evidence

[Martinned]

Should it be run like the Dutch army? That would be hazardous to Federation citizens as 8,000 Bosnians could testify, if they were still alive.

So you think those 370 UNPROFOR soldiers should have started a war, Rambo-style, with the entire Bosnian-Serb army? Are you on crack?

[David Nieporent]

Started a war? If the Serbs attacked them, I think that would constitute the Serbs starting a war. And I think that they should not have stood down and let the Serbs kill the people that they were supposed to be protecting. (I'm 83% sure that's what the "PRO" was in UNPROFOR.)

[Martinned]

.

[Bob from Ohio]

"society of successful luxurious space communism"

That's the inferior Next Generation. TOS and DS9 had money and scarcity. I think you find that TOS and DS9 are the favorites of most Trekkie conservatives, though of course even good conservatives can have the bad taste to like Picard and company.

[Martinned]

Yesterday Jonathan Adler re-tweeted this Reason story: https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-timpa-wrongful-death-trial-ends-with-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity/

My question: How did qualified immunity end up being a question for the jury? Isn't it a question of law for the judge?

[not guilty]

I am not familiar with this particular case, but sometimes the applicability of qualified immunity depends on the resolution of facts that are disputed. Resolution of those factual disputes is the province of the jury. If the jury resolves such disputes in the plaintiff's favor, the trial court will enter judgment on the jury's verdict. If the jury decides the disputed facts in the defendant's favor, the judge will dismiss the lawsuit based on qualified immunity.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2021-07-30.html#04

[apedad]

During the debate, though, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie laid into Trump, looking directly into the camera and saying:

"Donald, I know you’re watching. You can’t help yourself," Christie said. "You’re ducking these things. And let me tell you what’s going to happen. You keep doing that, no one here’s going to call you Donald Trump anymore."

Christie added: "We’re going to call you Donald Duck."

Trump told Fox News Digital he had not been watching, but dismissed the nickname.

"Anybody that would come up with that nickname shouldn’t be running for president," he told Fox News Digital.

Welp, I'll give this one to Trump.

He is the KING of deprecatory nicknames.

(Sorry Drackman, your juvenile/amateur attempts are simply junior varsity and you'll never make it to the big leagues.)

[Martinned]

Welp, I’ll give this one to Trump.

I guess if you believe he wasn't watching and/or if you believe he doesn't care about being called Donald Duck, you would.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe Trump's nickname should be Napalm for his ability to suck the air out of any event.

[DaveM]

Of course he was watching. C'mon.

[Nige]

Dueling nicknames. Talk about late-stage hedonism. Roman Senators were probably flinging dumb nicknames at each other while the barbarians were marching in.

[Michael P]

Gentlemen, you can't do science here! This is the LGTBQI+ room!

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/09/27/anthropology-groups-cancel-conference-panel-on-why-biological-sex-is-necessary-for-research/

[Ed Grinberg]

Cf. discussion re: reality (and resistance to it) in the Radio Derb segment I linked upthread.

[Nige]

That's called not feeding the trolls.

[Ed Grinberg]

I suppose that rationale can be used to justify any censorship / suppression of ideas. Galileo? A troll!

[Nige]

And you can respond to anything with a lazy reducto ad absurdum, too! Who knew?

[Ed Grinberg]

There wasn't much to reduce in your comment.

[Nige]

But you rely in it so heavily you weren't even challenged.

[dwb68]

i intend to add to my copyright notice page: (to the effect) machine reading and storage for AI generation or using any part of this work to train AI without the authors consent constitutes unauthorized distribution and is a violation of this copyright.

for the hive mind: thoughts?

[Longtobefree]

Good luck, Mr. Phelps.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Thoughts on the Trump fraud case...

This is a very odd case. A decade or more ago, Trump reported on the self-assessed values of a number of his properties in order to obtain loans. Unsurprisingly, he assessed the values of his own properties rather highly.

Now, the banks which he got these loans from didn't assert any fraud or bring any civil lawsuit for damages. Indeed, there weren't any damages assessed. Instead, the AG state of NY looked through these decade old records, and decided there was a civil case here to be made for fraud, because the values Trump assessed his property at didn't match that for the private assessment firms. Indeed, assessed values can change wildly year to year...in one year Trump assessed one of his properties at ~$500 million, while the private company assessed it at ~$250 million. But 3 years later, it was assessed by the private company at $500 million....

Now, any competent bank will require private appraisal for loans. Even for something as small as a house mortgage. It's hard to believe they counted "just" on Trump's reported values. Regardless...

This basically comes down to a difference in assessed values. And it's also odd, because much of the case is so old. And...I'm curious has any other case like this been brought by the State AG in NY before? Because it looks like a "you find the man, I'll find the crime" type situation.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Now, any competent bank will require private appraisal for loans. Even for something as small as a house mortgage."

When I refinanced a few years ago, in a market where housing prices had about doubled, they just did a drive-by appraisal; Somebody looked to see that the house hadn't burned down, (For all I know they didn't even do that, but I know for a fact nobody knocked on our door.) and they applied the local change in the market to the original appraisal.

Now, the fact that I refinanced for about the same as the original mortgage, (I just wanted to lower my rate, screw taking out equity.) so the loan was for much less than the probably new value of the home, probably figured into this.

In Trump's case the property was collateral for a loan; If the loan was for significantly less than the value of the property, they may not have bothered checking.

[John F. Carr]

It was so odd to see summary judgment granted in a fraud case that I read the judge's decision. Here are the key points:

It is not necessary to prove Trump's mental state.

Related to mental state, Trump's vision of what a property might be worth given some contigency does not matter because he was supposed to state current market value.

It is not necessary to prove detrimental reliance on the part of the banks. Maybe they would have treated $3 billion Trump the same as $5 billion Trump. Maybe not, and it's the maybe not that matters.

One may not disclaim the accuracy of facts peculiarly within one's own knowledge. Trump had relied on a standard disclaimer used by accountants who say they rely on the client's representations. That may get the accountants off the hook. It won't protect the person who gave the accountants false information.

If the only evidence in the record says a property is worth $200 million and Trump says it is worth $300 million, and that property is used as evidence of Trump's sound financial state, that is enough for the Attorney General to win. (If it happened repeatedly, which it did.)

I did not bother chasing down all the citations to decide if the judge was right. The one case I read involved a sleazy business quite unlike Trump's. If Trump falls within the reach of the statute, a whole lot of other people do too.

[Ed Grinberg]

If Trump falls within the reach of the statute, a whole lot of other people do too.

Another instance of Trump-Law.

[Idihax]

The judge's ancestors should have been gassed.

[Moderation4ever]

That Trump over valued the property is not unexpected. Rather the case seems to be that the over evaluation where so blatant and over the top. This is what resulted in a summary judgement. It could be argued that a $200 million dollar property is worth $300 million, but not that a $200 million dollar property is worth $600 million. So, it is not a case that other owners over value property but rather at what scale is the over evaluation.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, how often does this sort of thing get prosecuted a decade later, when nobody was harmed, and there were no complaints? Any other similar cases AT ALL?

[Nige]

Or is Trump just uniquely awful? And weirdly well-protected somehow?

[Idihax]

You're a fucking moron.

[Nige]

I'd be worried if you said anything different.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Gray box says what?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed.

[John F. Carr]

Trump overvalued some properties by a lot. But did the financial statements taken as a whole mislead? Overall his claimed net worth was overstated by perhaps as little as 20%. The judge thought the dollar value of that 20% was so large that the misrepresentation was material as a matter of law. I don't think I agree. The trier of fact should decide.

[David Nieporent]

No, the judge did not find it "material as a matter of law." The judge found that the statute pursuant to which the claim was brought for which SJ was granted does not require materiality.

It is settled that a standalone cause of action under Executive Law§ 63(12) does not require a demonstration of materiality but merely that an "act has the capacity or tendency to deceive , or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud." People v Gen. Elec . Co., 302 AD2d 314, 314-315 (1st Dept 2003) (holding that, unlike GBL § 349, plaintiff need not prove "the challenged act or practice 'was misleading in a material way"').

Emphasis added.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I wonder if Biden could be charged under this law, for his repeated false statements.....

[David Nieporent]

It's not a criminal law, so neither he nor anybody else can be "charged under" it, and did these alleged "repeated false statements" by Joe Biden relate to him doing business in New York?

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr, I think there are a number of people in NY who are privately shitting their pants right now at the prospect of getting hauled into court and their business certificate taken away because of a dispute over valuation (real property, or something else).

There is also the 'shoe on the other foot' dimension to consider.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yeah, that was my understanding. It was very odd.

[Sarcastr0]

Is it that odd, or are you as usual ignorant of an area of law and deciding it’s bad when applied to Trump?

I don't know - I'm ignorant as well. But there is a pattern here.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Conspicuously absent from anything AL argues are "facts."

"This basically comes down to a difference in assessed values."

Yeah, listing an apartment that has a square footage of 11,000 as having an area of 30,000 square feet is just a 'difference in assessed values.'

[shawn_dude]

This is long on MAGA talking points.

Trump both over and under assessed the same properties depending on the nature of the filing the assessment was attached to. Tax man got a low assessed value and banker got a high assessed value for the same property at pretty much the same time. This is not normal business behavior; this is fraud.

Trump is a braggadocious criminal who spent his whole life inflating himself in the public eye. No one had to "find the man" here... he started his campaign by paying off a porn star and bragging that he could shoot someone and not lose voters. After four years of investigative media looking into his life, finding a crime or two was like finding hay in a haystack--too much to choose from and all of it messy.

[John F. Carr]

The lack of lawsuits by the banks can be explained by the lack of losses by the banks. Banks loaned Trump money. After the money was paid out Trump submitted periodic statements of financial condition. Those statements made his condition look better than it really was. He still paid or refinanced his debts, as far as we know, despite having a billion or two less than the banks were told.

The judge says the lack of losses does not matter under the particular law the Attorney General is relying on. She is not seeking restitution on behalf of banks.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Would it be bad if that behavior put banks at risk, and nobody knew it was happening?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Current US Federal deficit for 2023...

$1.5 Trillion. Up from 2022.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you didn't post stuff like this when Trump was in office.

Almost as though you don't actually care at all.

[hobie]

He'd weep if I reminded him of the Bush and Trump deficits of 2020 and 2008 respectively

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How are those Trump 'tax cuts' working out?

Are the wealthy still doing ok with all their extra money?

[shawn_dude]

The wealthy and their offshore bank accounts!

[hobie]

I decided I was too ignorant of the facts about the Alabama gerrymandering case. I figured it was something blatantly racist. So I looked at the census bureau maps regarding race and then at the congressional districts of AL, Louisiana (the next one getting sued) and then my district in Houston. Keeping in mind that the majority of blacks are in the big cities, I drew a few simple lines in the images below so that even the simple-minded racists in this group can comprehend the magnitude of the segregation at play.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/D13jbpymmJNNFpoQ6

[Michael P]

even the simple-minded racists in this group

You should probably write for the people who don't already agree with you, not for those who do.

[hobie]

You see that big old black everything bagel in my hometown Houston, Michael? The hole in the middle is the whitest, richest area of the state. Unsullied by the massive amount of negroes immediate to the east. How thata happen?

[Michael P]

You already established that you're the kind of simple-minded racist who thinks race is the only variable that matters. You don't need to further prove that point.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Tell you what. Here's a challenge for you.

Draw your own Congressional Districts for Alabama.
https://districtr.org/alabama.

See if you can get two African American (Or Democratic) majority areas. Bonus if you can do it without looking at the pre-existing maps.

[hobie]

Easy. I'll take them big ol' black cities of Montgomery and Birmingham (or Baton Rouge and New Orleans) and combine them with the closest white neighbors. Each city alone would have more than enough sway. Or are you too blind to see exactly that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I actually did exactly that with this program. Made a district centered on Montgomery or Birmingham. Then included districts around it in a rough circle.

You get two districts. Each about 53% voting age population white and 37% black (+/- 1%)

https://districtr.org/plan/198776

Give it a shot. It's really not that easy to get two majority minority districts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh? And what did that require the map for the rest of the state to look like?

You didn't draw a complete map, I notice. But anybody redistricting the state has to.

[hobie]

I can imagine it isn't easy. The special master seemed to do it. It's all a convoluted mess isn't it? Separating the two cities seems to be the least they can do though.

https://www.wsfa.com/2023/09/26/special-master-files-3-proposals-alabamas-new-congressional-map/

[hobie]

Special Master already drew the correct maps. All you need to do is break up the tendril between Montgomery and Birmingham and then - BOOM - democracy.

https://www.wsfa.com/2023/09/26/special-master-files-3-proposals-alabamas-new-congressional-map/

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, those are both obviously gerrymanders. Those district lines totally fail the compactness criteria. Don't even pretend to satisfy it.

Alabama had already agreed to create the obviously gerrymandered district 7, with that arm up there, and now the Special master turned districts 1 and 2 into stripes across the whole state, too, so that they could capture enough of district 7's black voters to bring district 2 up to about 50%.

But that's the way the Supreme court wants the Voting rights act interpreted right now: As mandating racial gerrymandering. It looks like the Court wasn't ready to back down on that yet, and took offense at Alabama that blatantly resisting its precedents, no matter how awful they are.

[Sarcastr0]

But that’s the way the Supreme court wants the Voting rights act interpreted right now: As mandating racial gerrymandering.

Did you even bother the read the Court's logic?

Given the disparate impact, is there another remedy you can suggest?

[Idihax]

I don't consider blacks not being allowed to bloc-vote for a black candidate to be a problem that needs a "remedy." They have a right to vote the same way as whites do. That's the only thing the Constitution requires.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress, via this law, says you can suck it.

You want to gas people. You can fuck right off to muteland.

[loki13]

I'm reasonably certain that this person is the same as That Guy, who everyone already muted.

Guessing he got a new account when he realized that he was posting into an echo chamber. Muting is the best policy.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh no! not the mute! anything but the mute! What are you? an effing mute??

Frank

[Idihax]

Congress only has the right under the 15th Amendment to enforce the guarantees of Section 1. Not to create new ones.

[hobie]

Is threading the needle and packing all the ni**ers into one district acceptable to you, Brett?

[Idihax]

I'd rather pack them all into a boat and send them back to West Africa as the ACS proposed back in the 1800s, but if that's not an option, into one district works for me.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, that escalated quickly!

[Idihax]

Why should Americans be burdened with a group of people who are constantly demanding our money and special privileges, because they can't hack it on their own?

[Frank Drackman]

Because our ancestors were too lazy to pick their own cotton, its as simple as that. How you gonna make em go back? Abortion’s crimped the population growth somewhat, along with the high murder rate among young Afro-Amucians, but even those factors are trending the wrong way.
Oops! (HT R. Perry) I mean the "Right" way.

Frank

[Idihax]

Very simple. Cut off all welfare programs and bring back sterilization as a punishment for violent crime. That'll thin their population out in a few generations time.

[Brett Bellmore]

The complaint was that they WEREN'T being packed, remember?

I think district lines should be drawn entirely without regard to race, and let the chips fall where they may. The Supreme court is obviously not yet ready to adopt race blind redistricting, though.

[hobie]

There is that. And I agree that this solution is another form of packing. An unfortunate but necessary packing to give the blacks some kind of parity. I also agree with you that the cities should be blocked into some reasonable non-partisan grouping with the surrounding communities and let the chips fall where they may. But the current maps are just blatant, raw racism. They have to go

[Brett Bellmore]

But the replacement maps are even more blatant, raw racism. Just judicially mandated.

[Nige]

RAW RACISM

[hobie]

I tried the rationale of persuasive argument with Brett and conceded a point....it didn't work.

[Bob from Ohio]

"mandating racial gerrymandering"

Its so weird that Roberts spent years and years getting the federal courts largely out of redistricting and, now, wham, right back into the morass.

So much for “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” as well. Seats reserved for a specific race just keeps the race hustlers happy.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the Court might hold the VRA unconstitutional. That'd be on brand.

But not yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

They wouldn't have to hold the VRA unconstitutional. The racial gerrymandering isn't baked into the text, it's a result of (largely judicial) interpretation.

All they'd have to do is say it's being interpreted wrong, and that it's satisfied by racially blind redistricting.

[Sarcastr0]

If you can come up with another remedy for when Section 2 is triggered, then maybe. But until that point, this remedy is strongly implied by the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

The question is, what triggered it? I mean, if it's triggered by a state deciding, for instance, to have a lower ratio of polling places to voters in minority areas, the obvious remedy would be more polling places, not changing the map.

[Idihax]

The court's current interpretation reads the proviso straight out of the statute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10301

[Sarcastr0]

a) A violation...is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

[Idihax]

ONE circumstance. Not the only circumstance. That doesn't change the fact that the statute as written violates the Constitution.

[shawn_dude]

You means besides the usual "cracking and stacking" to dilute the Black vote, which represents 25% of the state electorate, to effectively 14%?

[Idihax]

Were you as upset as Massachusetts diluting 30% down to 0%?

Or do you only care when the semi-retarded races get disadvantaged?

[David Nieporent]

Alabama that blatantly resisting its precedents, no matter how awful they are.

Alabama did not merely resist some "precedents." The state resisted the courts' explicit rulings against the state of Alabama in this particular case.

[loki13]

So ... Alabama is basically upholding state tradition.

[Martinned]

African American (Or Democratic) majority areas

You said the quiet bit out loud there.

[Idihax]

What part do you think is the "quiet" part?

[Brett Bellmore]

That race is being used as a proxy for party, and the actual goal here is the create an extra Democratic district, and looking at the color of the voters is just a means to that end.

[Martinned]

That's not in fact the goal. The only way someone might think that's the goal is if they think there's no way the GOP could ever appeal to black voters.

[Frank Drackman]

"45" got the largest share of the Afro-Amurican vote by a Repubiclown since Richard Milhouse in 1960 (back when only the ones who could figure out the "Literacy Test" voted) still only 10% but it's a start.

[Bored Lawyer]

"The only way someone might think that’s the goal is if they think there’s no way the GOP could ever appeal to black voters."

More silly snark. Black voters have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats for at least 75 years. No reason to think that will change any time soon. They appear to prefer left-wing policies. That is their right, but it also means that the only way to appeal to them in any meaningful way (by which I mean breaking 20% of their vote) is to become a left wing party. Not happening.

[Idihax]

Same with Jews. That's why neither should have any power.

[Frank Drackman]

That's not nice. I'm telling the Learned Elders.

[Martinned]

Black voters have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats for at least 75 years.

And before that they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. Party allegiances are not immutable.

No reason to think that will change any time soon.

I agree, and the reason is obvious.

They appear to prefer left-wing policies.

That's not it.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're going for what looks like the better deal: When Republicans offered equal rights, and Democrats offered Jim Crow, naturally they went with the Republicans.

But when Republicans continued to offer equal rights, and Democrats decided to switch client races and offer racial preferences and quotas? Now the Democrats had the better deal.

There's no way the Republicans can out-bid racial preferences, and still remain committed to equal treatment under the law, so unless blacks break their addiction to those preferences, they're going to continue voting Democratic.

[Nige]

'But when Republicans continued to offer equal rights,'

Skating over exactly what happened here, ain't we?

'and Democrats decided to switch client races and offer racial preferences and quotas? '

ie civil rights.

'There’s no way the Republicans can out-bid racial preferences,'

Sure, go with that.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett believes it's scientifically established that blacks have lower mental capacity, and government policies should acknowledge that.

He calls blacks a client race, motivated politically by handouts and affirmative action.

And then when blacks don't go along with him politically, he says it proves the above.

What a great cycle he's discovered.

[Idihax]

They do have lower mental capacity. That's really not up for debate.

[Nige]

'He calls blacks a client race, motivated politically by handouts and affirmative action.'

It's rather grotesque, but Republicans can't talk about black Americans as voters without being grotesque.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Skating over exactly what happened here, ain’t we?"

Nope, I'm just not validating the Democratic fiction about what happened.

[Nige]

Hey, you rewrite the present as it's happening, why wouldn't you rewrite the past?

[Don Nico]

"Brett believes it’s scientifically established that blacks have lower mental capacity"

I often note that you grossly distorting what people post to have something to discredit in your reply. But you outdid yourself with that one.

[Sarcastr0]

He agrees with The Bell Curve and thinks the debunkings are all fake, Don.

[Idihax]

They can't. Individual responsibility and self-reliance doesn't appeal to inherently violent and unintelligent people who can't fit in to a modern, developed society.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, the whole thing is officially premised on "racially polarized voting", which is to say, exactly on the basis of blacks predominantly voting for one party. If blacks voted D/R in the same ratio whites did, there'd be nothing to do, according to how the VRA is interpreted.

[Idihax]

Yeah, that's ultimately the problem. If blacks voted like other groups, meaning they actually used their minds and came to different conclusions, like nearly everyone else, that'd be one thing. But they don't. They bloc vote for Democrats between 90 and 97% of the time.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not that quiet....

It's an odd quirk that a majority black district isn't required. It just needs to have African Americans elect their preferred candidate.

So, if you have a district that is 40% Liberal black, 20% liberal white, 5% conservative black, 35% conservative white, then because the African Americans can win the Democratic primary, and the Democrats can win the election, then African Americans can elect their preferred candidate. According to this logic. Even if there are only 45% African Americans in the district.

[Martinned]

No, it needs to afford African Americans the *opportunity* to elect their preferred candidate.

Not sure what your primaries-magic has to do with anything though. Care to share some case law?

[David Nieporent]

The principle he describes isn't wrong (although the discussion of the primary unnecessarily complicates it). A majority-minority district isn't necessarily required if there are sufficient white Dems in the district who will support an AA-preferred candidate; such an "opportunity district" may satisfy the VRA. Indeed, the order (that Alabama defied) required that the state draw up a second majority-minority district or close to it.

But of course Alabama didn't argue that the second district they drew up actually was an opportunity district, and the specific hypothetical numbers that AL (Armchair Lawyer, not Alabama) threw out there are a fantasy in Alabama.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The specific hypothetical numbers that AL (Armchair Lawyer, not Alabama) threw out there are a fantasy in Alabama."

Incorrect. Indeed, it's actually relatively easy to create such a district in AL, where African Americans are a minority, yet the district trends Democratic. I did exactly that, with a district centered on Birmingham, AL, in the referenced map (https://districtr.org/plan/198776)

There a number of liberal whites in the Birmingham, AL area...unsurprisingly.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The caselaw is Thornburg v. Gingles.

The particular factor is "Third, the minority group must establish
that the white majority “votes sufficiently as a bloc” to “defeat the minority’s preferred candidate"

In the above example, the white majority is split 2:1, and doesn't vote sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority's prefer candidate.

https://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Sette_May_N_20.pdf

[Michael P]

The story of Covid origins increasingly looks like the story of one man's campaign against the truth. Did Washington DC learn nothing from the behavior of J. Edgar Hoover?

https://public.substack.com/p/fauci-diverted-us-government-away

[hobie]

The house should add Fauci as a retroactive impeachment candidate to its long list of priority impeachment targets

[Michael P]

Impeachment isn't the only remedy for maladministration, Mr. Simple-Minded.

[Nige]

We've been overdue another lab leak smoking gun, I was starting to get worried.

[hobie]

HaHa! Old grievance is all they have, Nige. Like republicans investigating Hilary for a quarter century because she went uppity and tried her hand at health policy as First Lady.

[Moderation4ever]

I'm reading the book American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer and cannot help seeing parallels here. Oppenheimer led development of the A-bomb, was a national hero and then was taken down for political reasons. Dr. Fauci is being targeted to cover the incompetency of the Trump Administration. Dr. Fauci can rest easy knowing that the arc of history will prove him to be correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, trivially so, since "History" is, according to faculty surveys, the most heavily Democratic academic discipline.

So history automatically ends up saying Democrats were right, regardless of what anybody at the time actually thought.

[Nige]

'So history automatically ends up saying Democrats were right'

Even though this is bullshit, it has one massive flaw, as bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

The level of pride it takes to say it’s not you that have things wrong, it’s everyone else telling you stats and history and facts that one vast field of Democratic liars that’s the issue.

Like, the facts of the Oppenheimer security hearing are not really in dispute at this point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"facts of the Oppenheimer security hearing are not really in dispute"

Strauss was right and it was good to remove Oppenheimer's security clearance?

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure you know that's not the overwhelming consensus, to the point I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, you just like being a contrarian.

[Bob from Ohio]

"overwhelming consensus"

Overwhelming consensus of left leaning academics. Very convincing.

Dude's wife, brother, most of his friends, his [now famous] mistress and many of his students were Reds. His program was filled with Reds, Stalin knew more than FDR or Stinson about the operation. He opposed H-Bomb development even as the Soviets worked on it.

He was a dupe at best. Nobody with this circle of Red connections would have kept his clearance, or even gotten one. He only did so long because of his fame.

[Sarcastr0]

That case is not going to be relitigated.
The McCarthyite side you're trying to revivify lost everything but the overdetermined hearing.

And they were bad people.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they were bad people"

Yes, the Soviet agents and their Fifth Columnists here were bad people.

McCarthy overreached but was very right in most things.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, it was also those egghead professors who also needed to be taken down a peg. That was a big part of the motive of the hearing - that resentment.

But of course you're into the Red Scare, one of the more remarkably unfree and fear-filled times in our history - you're also a bad person.

Luckily these days your particular badness is largely outnumbered by folks who learned from that history.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Luckily these days your particular badness is largely outnumbered by folks who learned from that history."

Yeah, the post-1968 left was pro-Red.

Those 'folks' just hound new targets these days such as "climate deniers" or "transphobes" or "homophobes" or "evangelicals". At least USSR and Red china were actual enemies.

[Nige]

Suddenly thinking of Saddam's WMDs for some reason.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "So history automatically ends up saying Democrats were right"

1. Obviously it doesn't. So factually, your statement is off in some dream world.
2. More to the point, don't you ever tire of whiny victimhood?

[hobie]

Democrat teachers have been teaching some kind of alt history?

[Moderation4ever]

You are failing to prove causation. You assume that more liberal views prevail in higher academics it is because professors are liberal. What you fail to consider is that those professors might be led to more liberal views because of the facts they find in their studies.

Oppenheimer was liberal in his social views but there are no facts showing he ever was a security risk. Gen. Groves had him followed day and night providing little opportunity for leaking information. Pulling him down was political as are the attacks on Dr. Fauci.

[Bob from Ohio]

"providing little opportunity for leaking information"

Well, other than, for instance, in his bed with his wife and/or mistress, both Reds.

Or during work conferences with the numerous Soviet spies who got by Groves. Maybe Groves people weren't very good?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

When you try to comment on history, you are at your most entertaining. History as researched and published is just the work of "left-leaning academics," when that history doesn't fit your narrative. But how do you know what history is real, and what is just left leaning propaganda? Is all the history you think you know certified not to come from left-leaning academics?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the facts just radically changed starting about 25 years ago, such that all the conservative historians decided to become left-wing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you have no clue what historical professionalism looks like. You can't tell the difference between reading history, and researching and writing history. Every time you bring up this subject of biased historians, you make a fool of yourself, including even the times you cite the Bellesiles case.

[Krayt]

* Tyrant King launches investigations into political opponent
* Tyrant King tries mightily to keep political opponent off ballot
* Tyrant King expropriates properties of political opponent

All of which the Constitution has deliberate provisions to prevent such abuses. Nevermind. You work around the spirit of the Constitution to do it anyway.

None of which would happen but for being a political opponent.

He's horrible and has said horrible stuff the past few days. Nevermind that, either.

Keep it up as an example to the world, Proud America.

[Nige]

Who's the Tyrant King here, America itself? Because Biden has nothing to do with any of those.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, in Pre-Soviet Russia, there was a saying of "If the Czar only knew..." -- if the Czar only knew what his people were doing, he'd stop it. But no, the Czar was all for what they were doing.

Team Biden is all for this stuff.

[OtisAH]

I love this specifically because of the several MAGAs I’ve seen interviewed over the years who complained about some ailment or financial problem and expressed the hope that if Turnip was only aware of their struggles he’d fix them right up.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, the closest thing to criticism of Trump that MAGA is allowed to publicly express is that Trump hired bad people and trusted them too much.

[Nige]

Good thing this isn't a monarchy. Trump's efforts notwithstanding.

But stopping them would be as much an intervention as initiating them.

[Krayt]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a tyrant king.

Biden need not be sensate enough to drive this. It is unnecessary, and started before him. It is high power brokers on autopilot, be they politicians or otherwise.

During Venezuela's fall to dictatorship (approved by some in America, of the far left communist true believer persuasion) I checked off tick boxes one by one over the months.

Jailing opposition
Shutting down opposition news stations (dictator: they are involved in overthrow. True believers: Yeah!)
And finally, acquiring the emergency power to pass laws by decree -- the "dictate" part of dictator.

Here we have the three things I listed well above, combined with arm-twisting censorship, and deplatforming, all under thd guise of staying within legal lines, they claim and hope.

Which is the exact same assholery Trunp did on Jan 6. Tried to stay within legal trickery lines. Whether the ultimate judgement is such or not is irrelevant.

So four golf clubs from the tyrant's golf bag of tyrant tricks are in play against the political opposition.

Censorship
Umpteen government investigations into a political opponent. One doesn't work, the tyrant king moves on to the next one.
Removal from office, but, like Clinton, no national concensus.
Kicking off the ballot (we love democracy, until we don't. Here, they got rid of the need for national concensus by introducing any number of yokels can do it on their own)
And finally, the tyrant king expropriates the estate of the irritating political opponent.

I guess that's 5 things. There is no nobility in trying to "stay within the legal lines" on all of them.

You are hacks shitting all over the Constitution in spirit, or otherwise.

Trump may deserve it. The nation does not.

Boo on you. Yes, look in the mirror. Boo on you.

[Sarcastr0]

You argue against the Constitution. You use vast generalizations to do so.

Censorship is not happening. The Twitter Files show there is no agency relationship. One recent clue it's always been wankery is the same wankers are now complaining under Musk they've been shadowbanned. They're just the sort who think the world is against them if they don't get the numbers they want.

Government investigations? We're past that now. A shitload of indictments. Not ordered by Biden, BTW (unlike what Trump tried. Investigations are warranted if a person looks like they've done crimes. And being a putative political opponent.

'Removal from office with no national consensus.' You mean impeachment? The Constitution, both for impeachment and for ineligibility due to insurrection/aid and comfort, explicitly create processes officials, not the populous. Removal with national consensus is also in the Constitution. It's called elections.

Kicking off the ballot (we love democracy, until we don’t) is just empty populism. The Constitution is not a populist document in these areas. Policy arguments that it should be fail before the legal reality. And people invariably pivot from those failures to threats. Rather showing their own fidelity to democracy is skin deep.

'expropriates the estate' is about the recent judicial finding against Trump, I guess. It has nothing to do with Biden, and went through due process.

In the end, these protestations of yours look like you don't like the Constitution or the judiciary, preferring populism instead.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not ordered by Biden, BTW"

You don't know that. You don't know what Smith was told or by whom. You aren't privy to Biden/Garland discussions either.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t know what Smith was told or by whom

Sure - coulda been aliens as well!

Absent evidence, all things are possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"coulda been aliens as well!"

No real counter, just bad sarcasm.

[Sarcastr0]

I pointed out your argument proves too much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't be shocked when he abruptly switches from "It's not happening" to "you deserve every bit of it!" without passing through, "Ok, maybe it is happening."

[Sarcastr0]

Trump deserves what exactly? To be found to be an insurrectionist? All the indictments? Probably, but who knows - that's why they will all have their day in court.

Or are you saying when it's at last revealed Biden was the puppetmaster behind it all?

If you're going to make up my future change of position I'd like you to at least be clear about it.

[bernard11]

In the end, these protestations of yours look like you don’t like the Constitution or the judiciary, preferring populism instead.

No. They reflect the belief that Trump couldn't possibly have done anything wrong, so all this must be political.

Pure cultism.

[Nige]

'Here we have the three things I listed well above'

No you don't.

'Trump may deserve it.'

Seems like the most crucial thing in all that free-association, to be honest, if by 'may deserve it' you mean 'may be guilty.'

[jb]

None of which would happen but for being a political opponent.

Even supposing this statement is right (which I don't think it is), there's another necessary precursor which is to actually have flagrantly done a bunch of illegal stuff. If the only argument is "everyone else gets away with it" then you need to be pretty sure you have good examples of lots of people getting away with similarly flagrant acts, and not just hand-wavey attempts of equivalence or straight out made up bullshit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Plus which, Trump did not become a political opponent by any agency of Biden's. Trump became a political opponent by his own agency. Some among Trump's close associates have testified he did that in part because he thought it would complicate prosecuting him for his crimes.

[hobie]

A group of emergency medicine physicians sued an HMO for practicing medicine without a license, because of its routine denial of medicine and procedures requested by the doctors. The court recently denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. This case, I believe, turns in part on Citizens United in that this private equity corporation is being sued as an individual...practicing without a license

https://www.aaem.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Envision-Lawsuit-Lawsuit.pdf

[Michael P]

The federal government pays for some health care but won't pay for my truly worthy jawline enruggedization surgery. Is the federal government practicing medicine by refusing that payment?

[hobie]

If the federal government would get off its ass and start to mass negotiate with the HMOs then maybe they would have a hand in practice. As it is, it's the HMOs that are keeping your jaw from being fixed. How you get that the government has any hand in private practice?

[Michael P]

I don't have any involvement with an HMO, so no, HMOs have nothing to do with my hypothetical.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't most of these HMOs have *a* doctor in management who technically is making all these denials?

And aren't most medical practices corporate individuals even though all the members thereof are duly licensed MDs? For example, "West Suburban Cardiologists" versus Drs. Larry, Moe, & Curley.

[John F. Carr]

I have no idea who is legally right in this lawsuit. In the long term, we will not be well served by requiring insurers to pay for anything a doctor wants. Rates will go way up and quality of care will not.

In some states if a company is providing medical services then all its shareholders must be doctors. Same for engineers and some other professions where the bean counters are tempted to override professional judgment. If the HMO is in such a state and it is legally acting as a doctor instead of an insurance company, having a doctor on staff is not good enough.

[Nige]

'In the long term, we will not be well served by requiring insurers to pay for anything a doctor wants'

There is something deeply dysfunctional about this. Refusing procedures because of the actuarial tables.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That seems like a straw man to me. The argument isn't that insurers must pay for anything a doctor wants, but that in cases where they decline to pay, a licensed doctor has to have a medical reason for declining to pay for the test or treatment.

[Bored Lawyer]

A more basic question is whether refusing payment is practicing medicine. They aren't telling the person what to do or prescribing treatment. They are just saying the treatment is not covered by the insurance policy, in this case because they feel it is unnecessary. The patient can still pay for it himself. So while I understand it can be mighty stressful to the patient, and perhaps completely out his reach financially, I don't see how this is the practice of medicine.

[Nige]

'in this case because they feel it is unnecessary.'

That's practicing medicine.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, it isn't. That decision only controls payment. The patient is still being advised by the Dr. to do the procedure or take the medicine, and legally can obtain same (e.g., get a prescription that a pharmacist will fulfill), just pay for it himself. It's an insurance decision, not a medical one.

I advise clients all the time. That's the practice of law. For which I am admitted to the bar. If some client asks his rich uncle to pay my fees, and uncle says, "no, I think it's a waste of money to hire BL to pursue that claim because I think it's a loser," uncle is not practicing law. He is just saying, no money.

[Nige]

If they decide it’s unnecessary, that’s a medical decision, unavoidably. The fact that it’s a medical decision based on profit margins rather than the patient’s well-being is what’s confusing you.

Medical insurance isn't a rich uncle making arbitrary decsions, or it shouldn't be. It's supposed to cover your medical bills.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are confusing several things. The insurance company does have a contractual obligation to cover treatment within the policy. They can refuse it if they believe it’s not, and then there could be a claim for breach of contract.

But practice of medicine is more than making an insurance decision, even if informed by medical opinion. Practice of medicine means examining a patient, giving him or her medical advice, rednering medical treatment, or prescribing treatment or medicine which might be fulfilled by a pharmacist or other provider. The insurance company is doing none of that. As I said, the patient is still getting the same advice, and still can get the same treatment, just pay for it himself.

[Nige]

'The insurance company is doing none of that.'

And yet still deciding that a procedure is unnecessary. Is that malpractice?

[Bored Lawyer]

Since it's not practice, it's not malpractice.

[Nige]

They decided a procedure was unnecessary. That is a medical decision. There's simply no getting around it.

[David Nieporent]

They decided a procedure was unnecessary. That is a medical decision. There’s simply no getting around it.

Either you're playing semantic games or you're wrong. Anyone on the planet can say, "Your doctor said you should do X? Oh, I don't think that's necessary." That doesn't constitute them practicing medicine.

[Nige]

Anyone on the planet can say it, your insurance provider saying it can make the difference between actually having the procedure or not.

[David Nieporent]

No; the only thing that determines is who pays for it. Not whether you can have it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Now who's playing semantic games? For some very high percentage of patients, if insurance ain't paying, they ain't getting. For that high percentage of patients, it IS determining if they can have it.

[David Nieporent]

It is obviously true that many people will not be able to get treatment if insurance declines to pay — but that is the result of the independent decision of the health care provider, not the insurance company.

"You cannot have this procedure" and "We will not pay for this procedure" is not merely semantically different; it's substantively different. Think about it from the point of view of the health care provider itself, leaving insurance companies out of it. Let's say that you go to the doctor and say, "Doctor, I want knee surgery." The doctor saying, "I won't do this surgery on you because I don't think it will solve your knee problem" is making a medical decision. The doctor saying, "I won't do this surgery on you because you haven't paid me" is not making a medical decision.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps this is a meaningful legal distinction? Because it certainly isn't a meaningful distinction as far as the patient's health is concerned. "I'm not doing this surgery on you..." for any reason is a medical decision, in that the patient isn't getting the surgery.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bored Lawyer, how about when the insurer instructs the hospital to substitute the bio-similar infusion for the original, without telling the patient?

[Bored Lawyer]

I'd have to know the details. Not telling the patient seems like a serious breach of medical ethics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How could a company which is not practicing medicine breach medical professional ethics?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Bravo! Go, group of emergency physicians!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is anyone else noticing the extent to which the Chinese economy, largely backed on real estate speculation, is imploding. The Chinese middle class are now pulling their money out of SE Asia -- that we know, and with China there is always a lot we don't know.

They are putting a LOT of money into their military, will they use it or go broke first?

What would be the economic impact of a Taiwan invasion? Would there be enough value there to loot to prop up the mainland's economy? Or would it become another Cuba?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no way they can take Taiwan without destroying it enough to make the operation a net loss. Unless they can just bribe their way to a victory, which seems to be failing.

If they attack Taiwan, it won't be a result of economic rationality, but just Xi wanting to swallow them at any cost while it's still possible.

[apedad]

Taiwan has about a 35% food self-sufficiency rate, so China would just need to block their ports for about six months.

And Taiwan is too isolated to do a Berlin Luftbrücke airlift.

Basically China can take Taiwan whenever it wants to.

[Michael P]

"Just". How do you think China would do that without committing acts of war against other countries?

[apedad]

Taiwan is Chinese territory and they can claim they're the ones being attacked and are authorized to use force for self-defense.

BTW, I know I'm a lefty but I am in no way a Chinese apologist.

They steal from us/spy on us in a magnitude that maybe on 2% of VC readers fully realize.

And is the US (world) really going to go to war with China over Taiwan?

[Ed Grinberg]

Taiwan is Chinese territory

Ah, no.
(This is exactly how Putin is justifying his invasion ("special operation") of Ukraine.)

[Martinned]

Ah yes. Even Taiwan's government policy is that they are part of China. But that might change rapidly if they are attacked by the CCP, or if the CCP tries to starve them into submission.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, I think Taiwan's government policy is that China is a part of them...

We know how the Chinese will attempt to justify their acts of war, but they'll remain acts of war none the less.

[Martinned]

It would technically be a non-international armed conflict under common article 3.

I find the law (ius ad bellum) in this area particularly outdated, relying as it does on concepts of belligerency that were barely relevant in the 19th century (when people were arguing about who was and wasn't allowed to support each side of the US civil war, for example) and that haven't been observed since. Just like giving weapons to the Ukranians doesn't make us all parties to that war, nor is such support presumptively unlawful absent an act of war by Russia against the supporting state*, any support that anyone might give to Taiwan seems like a question of policy, not ius ad bellum.

* For completeness, I know that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement from 2016 provides a separate legal basis for military cooperation.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be a non-international armed conflict right up until the moment China attacked ships supplying Taiwan which were not Chinese or Taiwanese flagged.

[Brett Bellmore]

Any time it wants to, and several other world powers decide to let them have it, you mean.

I agree that Taiwan can't win a war with China all on its own, as you suggest they could be starved out, if nothing else. But China burned a lot of tolerance they had from the rest of the world with Covid, and the world is now more inclined to oppose them.

[grb]

I don’t trust people who are willing to write Ukraine off as a geopolitical inconvenience, but insist they’d be really, really concerned about Taiwan. The major deterrence against Chinese adventurism is Russia’s current mess. If they see the western world won’t back away and they’ll be a cost, you'll see no invasion.

Of course they don’t always act rationally. If the Chinese wanted to lure Taiwan into a union, they wouldn’t have broken every single damn promise made to Hong Kong. But totalitarian governments gotta totalitarize.

[VinniUSMC]

I don’t trust people who are willing to write Ukraine off as a geopolitical inconvenience, but insist they’d be really, really concerned about Taiwan.

Why? Ukraine =/= Taiwan. Russia =/= China. Different situations call for different responses.

[Longtobefree]

"China would just need to block their ports for about six months."

There are two things in the ocean; US Navy submarines, and targets.

[apedad]

Are you and the US (world) really going to go to war with China over Taiwan?

[Frank Drackman]

they're certainly doing their best to get us into one with Roosh-a over that Shit-Stain You-Crane

[Brett Bellmore]

Given how dependent the developed world is on Taiwan's semiconductor production, and how little the developed world is interested in transforming that into being dependent on China, yeah.

As I said, China screwed the pooch with what they did with Covid, making sure that it got out before people knew it was a threat. And the supply chain disruptions that followed woke a lot of leaders who'd been sleepwalking to just how dangerous it was to be reliant on China for anything economically important.

So the world started disentangling itself from China. And if China takes over Taiwan, that gets in the way of disentangling. THAT is why the world would defend Taiwan. Not because they care about the liberty of people in Taiwan, but because they're prying China's grip of their throats one finger at a time, and aren't about to let China tighten it again.

[Nige]

'making sure that it '

So-called 'non-crazy' Republican overton window has truly shifted.

[Brett Bellmore]

They affirmatively hid Covid while expediting the exit of foreign nationals who'd carry it, even as they were restricting internal travel.

They made sure that if they were going to get hit with a pandemic, the rest of the world would, too, good and hard.

China hid severity of the virus so it could hoard supplies, intelligence documents show

Really, this isn't controversial, except with people who want to make excuses for China.

[Nige]

You implied they let it spread deliberately, rather than fucked up the response. But I guess you support strong government action in an emergency... when it's China?

[grb]

Three Points:

1. Brett (predictably) does more than imply the Reds spread covid purposely.
2. Covid was always going to spread, so Commie Deep State Plots are superfluous.
3. I’d love to personally introduce Brett to William of Ockham.

Maybe get them to shake hands and have a few minutes of intense discussion together. Perhaps then Brett wouldn’t lard-up every single incident or fact with layers of conspiracy-mongering fat. In this case we have a totalitarian government acting with the clumsy secretive stupidity they always do. Same as Chernobyl. I doubt even Brett believes the Soviet’s (clumsy secretive stupid) response was to better irradiate the world.

On the other hand it’s Brett. He never met a conspiracy he didn’t drool over.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't imply that they let it spread deliberately, I came right out and said so. At a time then they were imposing internal travel controls to stop the spread within China, they expedited international travelers leaving China, which would have been fine except that they didn't warn the destination countries that they might be carrying a pandemic disease. So they didn't get quarantined.

Sure, it was always going to spread, but they worked hard to slow that spread internally, and accelerate it externally. Essentially, having concluded that they were screwed, they decided to make sure the rest of the world got it good and hard, too, to preserve their relative position.

How China locked down internally for COVID-19, but pushed foreign travel

Coronavirus: Critics ask why China allowed flights out of Hubei during outbreak

[Nige]

I'm perfectly willing to blame the Chinese government for not responding effectively, they weren't the only ones but they were the first. If you're going to posit *deliberate* spread I'm going to need actual proof not hostile speculation. Allowing foreign travel was in keeping with their idiotic attempt to downplay the severity.

Nice to see your belated support for lockdowns, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're a totalitarian, genocidal regime, but how could anyone think they'd do something bad, deliberately?

[Nige]

Obviously you can and do think anything that pleases you. For that serious a charge I'd prefer proof.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, at this point, you're not even arguing that they didn't take it seriously internally, while trying to keep everybody else in the dark.

You're not even arguing that they were honest and forthright, and didn't obstruct investigations.

You're not even arguing that they didn't expedite foreigners leaving without warning their destination countries.

You're just arguing that the totalitarian, genocidal country presumptively didn't have bad motives for doing it.

[Nige]

No I'm arguing that the specific bad motive you've decided on needs corroboration.

[John F. Carr]

Biden once said he would defend Taiwan.

Does he really have the guts to give the order to shoot? Who knows.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd be irresponsible not to speculate!

[Commenter_XY]

There’s no way they can take Taiwan without destroying it enough to make the operation a net loss.

Absent a clear, declarative statement from the government of Taiwan that they will destroy the semiconductor forges themselves in the event of an invasion....not so sure about that, Brett.

China will move on Taiwan. It is only a matter of time. Hopefully the US will have developed a domestic capacity to forge semiconductors in a mass production environment. We just got started building our advanced semiconductor forging capacity. We're a decade away (at least) and China will move on Taiwan long before a decade is out.

[Sarcastr0]

It's surprising how many things that are only a matter of time peter away instead.

Maybe you're right, but history is not so deterministic.

[shawn_dude]

China's immediate interest in Taiwan is tied to Xi. When he's done, the next guy might be less interested in repeating Xi's mistakes. So unless Xi tries to use an invasion to divert domestic attention away from a sagging economy, it's unlikely that China will advance on Taiwan. (But it does, Amazon will lose a significant portion of their supply.)

[Sarcastr0]

"Last year, a video went viral in China showing a young man who refused to be taken into a quarantine camp being warned by police that his punishment would affect his family for three generations. He coolly retorted: “We are the last generation, thank you.”

The phrase became a popular online meme and the hashtag #thelastgeneration generated millions of comments before it was censored. Many said the abuse of rights under draconian Covid policies had put them off having children.

“In this country, to love your child is to never let him be born in the first place,” read one comment."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/20/the-last-generation-young-chinese-people-vow-not-to-have-children

[OtisAH]

One word about Bob Menendez:

I do not care to hear one word from any MAGA asshat about how they feel about Bob Menendez. Just keep your dick-holsters shut. If you find you have a hot take on Bob Menendez, take it to your nearest street corner and go fuck yourselves with it. Then go somewhere else and fuck yourselves with it there too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for that Mr Asshat, though it wasn't necessary since I haven't seen any Repubs defending Menedez and there are plenty of Dems throwing him under the bus.

[Nige]

There’s at least one Republican supporting him.

Pretty sure he wasn't talking about them supporting him.

Is calling for an indicted politician to resign throwing them under the bus now?

[OtisAH]

The rampant illiteracy around here is very frustrating. If someone could relay my message of “go fuck yourself” to Mr. Bumble that would be helpful. Then perhaps we can avoid these exchanges in the future.

[Jerry B.]

Day drinking can be a problem.

[Commenter_XY]

That was more than one word. 🙂

I live in the People's Republic of NJ, so I feel I am entitled to comment on 'Sticky Fingers' Menendez since he ostensibly represents my state. The man is corrupt AF. Whether he operated inside the bounds of the law is a separate question. That is what the trial is for.

[VinniUSMC]

One word about OtisAH:

Nobody cares to hear one word from OtisAssHole about how you feel about anything. Just keep your dick-holster shut. If you find you have a hot take on anything, take it to your nearest street corner and go fuck yourself with it. Then go somewhere else and fuck yourself with it there too.

[John F. Carr]

Martinned forgot to mention that Ofwat has ordered water companies in England and Wales to refund £114m to customers. The water companies were privatised some decades ago but as monopolies they are still subject to government price regulation. A writer for the Economist thinks they have been drowned in debt by private equity firms. If they go bankrupt, they can't simply be wound up. Somebody new will have to take over.

[Martinned]

There's a very good reason why I didn't mention that. The water sector of England and Wales has taken up approximately 50% of my professional life for the last 10 years, but I find it makes for very poor dinner party conversation.

Even that £114m figure is up for dispute, because it sums over companies that have to refund customers and companies that get to bill customers a little extra. In any case, business plans for 2025-2030 are due to be submitted on Monday!

[Nige]

Thaaaaaat's privatisation!

[Martinned]

If you prefer your poor service without a rebate on your bills, there are plenty of places where you could live...

[Nige]

For which? Water and trains in the UK? Health in the US?

[Martinned]

I don't think the country that gave us Flint and Amtrak should complain about British water and trains.

[Nige]

I expect the people in the UK will do plenty of complaining for themselves. Poor old Lough Neagh.

[Tom for equal rights]

Hillary vists the state department yesterday and condemns trumps foreign policy because it created riffs with our allies.

the first question who are our allies?
Countries in the Europe, Israel and other democracies or Russia, china, and Iran?

Take the Obama / Biden approach with Iran and the JCPOA.
Neville Champerlin may have been foolish to believe appeasing Hilter would stave off war, but he wasnt stupid enough to fund Hitler's war machine.
Compare and contrast with Obama's JCPOA and the money Obama sent to Iran to fund their war machine along with bidens recent $6b sent to Iran

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : “(gibberish) ….. JCPOA ….. (gibberish)”

Even the Trump Administration certified JCPOA was working. The only people criticizing the pact over Iranian “cheating” was the fever dream Right. All conservatives to the normal side of conspiracy-mongering clowns were against JCPOA because it didn’t address conventional weapons or ballistic missiles. The pact shut Iran’s nuclear weapons program down. Even Trump admitted that.

But he wanted to throw red meat to the ignorant (like you). So he pulls out and loudly demands the Iranians renegotiate to include missiles and non-nuclear arms. The ignorant (like you) swooned with joy over the WWE-style spectacle of Trump’s talk. The Iranians shrugged and restarted large-scale uranium enrichment. They are now close to producing an A-bomb.

And the ignorant (like you)? They’re too ignorant to understand how ignorant they are. They don’t understand they cheered a massive foreign policy clusterfuck disaster.

[Tom for equal rights]

GRB - you are vastly too partisan to grasp how poorly you understand the reality. You are complete idiot or gullible buffoon if you think JCPOA shut down Iran's nuclear program.

[SimonP]

It would be correct to say that the JCPOA did not "shut down" Iran's nuclear program, as that was not the intended goal of the JCPOA. The goal was to limit Iran's enrichment activities, so as to extend the timeline for developing a nuclear weapon, as a first step towards further negotiations on disarmament, inspections, and sanctions relief.

But it remains true that the JCPOA was accomplishing that goal, until Trump trashed it. And now things are worse than they were before, due to Trump's unilateral abandonment of the deal.

It's worth noting that the cash "ransoms" provided by Obama and Biden are, lawfully, Iran's money. All that we're really doing is permitting them to access the cash. It is, in other words, discrete sanctions relief.

We need to find a path to normalizing relations with Iran, if we want to address the broader issues caused by the Iran/Saudi antagonism throughout the Middle East, to say nothing of Iran's coordination with Russia, China, and North Korea. Permitting Iran to take "pallets" of its own cash, as part of a prisoner exchange with an eye towards resurrecting the JCPOA or some successor agreement, seems a fair bit better than Trump's alternative approach, which has no end game other than a regional war.

[grb]

SimonP : "The goal was to limit Iran’s enrichment activities, so as to extend the timeline for developing a nuclear weapon"

100% correct. Uranium enrichment was/is the major obstacle to Iran producing a nuclear weapon and the accord limited the numbers and types of centrifuges Iran can operate, the level of its enrichment, as well as the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

To fulfill the last obligation, Iran shipped 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of the deal. Since Trump's withdrawal, the Iranians have steadily ramped-up enrichment production.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with the accord was that we let Iran veto inspection visits. So we don't really have much reason to suppose they were upholding their end even when it was nominally in effect.

Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear inspections despite U.S. pressure

"Inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities, have not requested access to military sites since the agreement went into effect, according to experts monitoring the process."

It's like searching somebody's house for contraband, but they get to designate rooms you can't look in. Kind of pointless.

[Mr. Bumble]

Some good news in the battle against the Administrative State:
https://nclalegal.org/2023/09/ncla-client-michelle-cochran-accepts-sec-surrender-in-wake-of-unanimous-supreme-court-victory/

[Martinned]

Exactly! We can't let the government go after white collar crimes now, can we? That would be outrageous! Next thing you know they might put rich white people in prison.

[Mr. Bumble]

Send your objection to the ruling to the SC.
Maybe first read the article.

[Krayt]

We love democracy so much we want to appoint people while we have power, then forbid the future democratically-elected, an inevitable change of hands of power, from reversing what we did.

[Nige]

You mean, like, the Supreme Court?

[grb]

Another work of architecture (linked below) : Tietgen Dormitory in Copenhagen by the Danish architects Lungaard and Tranberg.

I confess to a thing for round architecture that’s almost fetishistic, but that’s not necessary here. This building is just too darn good. The ground floor is all common spaces – café, auditorium, study & computer rooms, laundry, music & meeting halls. Above are six levels of sixty rooms, divided into five groups of twelve. Each one is served by a stair and has its own lounge and kitchen. Every block is a subtle mix of rooms: four different sizes; some for couples or international students; some with isolated or shared balconies; the rooms shifting a few degrees along the circle at successive levels, projecting out or recessed in. This variation makes it surprisingly easy for a resident to know his own place with a glance at the façade.

The dorm was built with a prefab concrete frame, hoisted into place by crane. The deep cantilevers into the courtyard are tied to the main structure with post-tension cabling. The façade is an alloy of copper and zinc that weathers from bright gold to dark brown. The monograph on Tietgen has chapters on the circular form thru the built history of mankind : How it focuses and concentrates social interaction & ritual – the examples from neolithic village to modern amphitheater. Some pictures suggest that here. Plus it would be a damn good place to reshoot Rear Window.

It was best of dorms; it was the worse of dorms : Charles Munger is a billionaire buddy of Buffet who offered a massive donation to U-Cal at Santa Barbara. To give $200 million to an architect would be the best of deeds. To use the money to play architect is a disaster in progress. Munger’s core belief is people don’t need outside air or natural light. That allows him to squeeze 4,500 students into windowless rooms. Last I heard, the university was still undecided to build or not to build. You cannot speak of reason to the Dane and lose your voice – but this ain’t Denmark & money talks…

https://www.ltarkitekter.dk/tietgen-da-0

https://www.dezeen.com/2021/11/02/architect-resigns-grotesque-design-university-california-munger-hall/

[Brett Bellmore]

Nice of them to include jungle gyms in the design, for all the kids.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe," Charles said in a speech "When it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble."

[grb]

There are lots of reasons to laugh at Charlie, but I think we architects have the best!

[Bob from Ohio]

He is 100% correct, modern architects largely design crap. Like this Copenhagen building, looks like a round jenga game.

[SRG2]

A US export: QAnon meshugaas.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66930536

Following endorsements from QAnon leaders, she built up a band of followers, declared that she had overthrown the legitimate government of Canada, and says her claim to the "Queen of Canada" title is backed by secret, powerful US military interests.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Don't forget the Emperor Norton

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

[M L]

Have you heard dis information?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1706676593261785178

[Nige]

Pandemic truthers and anti-vaxxers really down to the dregs now.

[Ed Grinberg]

When people bring up facts Nige finds inconvenient / unpleasant, his standard response is to call them names.
compare:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/09/28/thursday-open-thread-156/?comments=true#comment-10253481

[Nige]

Now they're too embarrased to wear those titles with pride any more! How the shitey are fallen.

[jb]

Hey, that was pretty useful. It showed how vaccine effectiveness starts really strong and declines over time so then you need boosters to get your immunity back up. Thanks for helping everyone understand.

[M L]

“vaccine effectiveness starts really strong”

Well, media headlines about vaccine effectiveness start off really strong. But they were disinformation all along.

Still funny, I recall one vaccine maker made their announcement and said something like, 90 percent effective! Then the next day, another vaccine maker announced and said, 95 percent! Then the next day the first maker was like, noooooo, correction, ours is 95 percent too! All made up bull shit. And this was after they delayed admitting they had a vaccine ready until THE DAY after the election – that was funny too. Gotta love political dirty tricks masquerading as the pinnacle of medical and scientific advancement. And then all us taxpayers gave them billions of dollars…the humor runs out for me there.

[Nige]

We've come a long way from claiming that the vaccines were designed to wipe out a percentage of humanity to actually the vaccines were awesome and there was some sort of conspiracy to deny Trump credit, even though his supporters were also the people claiming the vaccines were murder weapons, but also the vaccines' efficacy wanes what's up with that? (Nobody mention the different covid strains, they're disinformation!)

[M L]

I haven't gone anywhere.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/19/1010646/campaign-stop-covid-19-vaccine-trump-election-day/

[Nige]

People running in circles generally don’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, it does start out really strong.

They were deliberately trying for what's called "sterilizing immunity". Normally the immune system uses antibodies to identify pathogens for targeting, and for notification to start ramping up defenses.

So, in comes the virus, it gets identified, starts reproducing, and before it gets bad enough that you'd notice, the immune system curb stomps the infection. That's something most people didn't understand: Normally, vaccines DON'T prevent infections, they just see to it that the immune response is prompt enough that you're never symptomatic.

But "sterilizing immunity" works differently: You've got so many antibodies sticking to some key portion of the virus that the virus is, in effect, encapsulated, and can't start an infection at all. It's like the difference between a laser sight illuminating the target, and an industrial cutting laser putting a hole through it.

It's quite normal to see sterilizing immunity towards the end of an infection, when the immune system is at full alert, and your blood is full of antibodies. Vaccines don't normally produce this state for very long, if at all.

They can't! If you had enough antibodies for sterilizing immunity against everything you've developed immunity to, your blood would be as thick as syrup, there would be so much antibody in it.

But that's what they were aiming for, and mostly got it, by targeting the spike proteins, so the antibody could interfere with viral reproduction. But eventually the immune system has to stand down, and sterilizing immunity ends.

The problem is that, once the short lived sterilizing immunity phase was over, the vaccine wasn't very effective. Not nearly as effective as the long term natural immune response, which tended to target the whole virus, not just the spike proteins.

[Nige]

Thanks, vaxpert.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're welcome, nigewit.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Not nearly as effective as the long term natural immune response”

As is often the case, Brett produces a milquetoast version of one of the Right’s fever dream obsessions, allowing him to keep one foot in the camp of the crazies (his brethren) while the other remains with us normal people.

As is often the case, this Twister-like contortion requires some massaging of facts. I don’t claim expert-status on covid vaccines (and will re-emphasis that point a hundred times over). But I’ve read my dutiful share, including the odd two dozen articles touching on the efficacity of vaccines vs. natural immunization. They been a bit all over the place, though not to any extreme degree. One common theme is both as an ideal, though either is better than none. Another theme is both gradually lose effectiveness over time. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim major superiority of immunization over vaccines.

[Brett Bellmore]

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital

The advantages of natural immunity:
Broad spectrum antibody response is more resistant to immune escape.
Tends to last longer.
Disadvantages of natural immunity:
You have to get sick to get it.
You'll be contagious while sick.

The advantages of the vaccine:
Doesn't require you to actually get sick!
Doesn't involve you temporarily being contagious!
More consistent immune outcome.
Generates a bureaucratic record.

I believe that last was really what was driving the government's policy of discounting natural immunity, by the way.

Now, with some diseases, the downsides of getting sick are big enough that which you should prefer is a no-brainer. Smallpox, for instance, or Polio.

With other diseases, the downsides of getting sick are so small, that a vaccine is largely pointless. Rinoviruses, for instance.

Covid was kind of in the middle; Depending on your personal risk, getting vaccinated could be a very good idea indeed, or not such a good idea. Because the vaccine itself wasn't without risk, remember, and for younger people without co-morbidities, Covid was almost totally risk free.

And, once you'd actually had Covid? The downsides of natural immunity were a sunk cost, and getting vaccinated had one solitary advantage: Generating a bureaucratic record. Otherwise it was all risk, no gain.

Of course, the benefit went to the government, the downsides to the person getting the shot, so naturally the government went all in for vaccinating people who were already immune thanks to having already had the disease.

[Nige]

The downsides are in your head and you pretend other strains of covid haven't come along, and immunity wanes the same as vaccines, so boosters are good actually, and 7 million have died of catching covid which puts the risk from relying on natural immunity in the stupid zone.

[Moderation4ever]

What I know from experience is that everyone, myself included, who has had COVID and been vaccinated had very mild symptoms. What I know from reading is that people in areas with vaccine reluctance are getting sicker. What I know from the video is people can assemble something that has little information and importance.

[M L]

Anecdotal experience, fascinating. I had COVID without a vaccine and barely noticed it, just a minor cold. Everyone I know who was vaccinated had it much, much worse.

[grb]

M L : "Anecdotal experience, fascinating"

Actual statistics show much higher rates of death and hospitalization from covid among the unvaccinated. It appears "everyone you know" are all statistical freaks and oddities.

(just a coincidence I'm sure)

[Brett Bellmore]

Actual statistics show that the higher rates of death and hospitalization were only for the elderly, or people with comorbidity. If you were young and healthy, Covid was very low in risk.

So the vaccine was absolutely a no-brainer if you were older than about 45, or had any of a long list of medical conditions.

But some people don't like to acknowledge those details, and pretend it was a no-brainer for everybody.

[Sarcastr0]

"higher rates of death and hospitalization were only for the elderly, or people with comorbidity"

Yeah that only is your wishful thinking.

This isn't longitudinal, but seems a pretty decent analysis with robust results for a single study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9393585/

Unvaccinated individuals had prolonged ICU stay and overall length of stay, and higher proportion requiring oxygen at discharge
...
Following propensity score weighting by comorbid conditions, unvaccinated patients aged ≥46 years demonstrated 1.47 and 3.49 times higher likelihood of requiring oxygen

[Brett Bellmore]

"This retrospective analysis of adult patients aged under 65 years hospitalized with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 "

In other words, it wasn't a study of your risk of being hospitalized, but instead of people who HAD been hospitalized. And a relatively small number of people who'd been hospitalized, at that. Not remotely a representative sample, and tells you nothing about the risk of Covid to non-vaccinated people.

How Many SARS-CoV-2-Infected People Require Hospitalization? Using Random Sample Testing to Better Inform Preparedness Efforts

"Results:

The overall IHR was 2.1% and varied more by age than by race or sex. Infection-hospitalization ratio estimates ranged from 0.4% for those younger than 40 years to 9.2% for those older than 60 years. Hospitalization rates based on case counts overestimated the IHR by a factor of 10, but this overestimation differed by demographic groups, especially age."

The risk from Covid varies dramatically depending on your age, and the presence of co-morbidities. Again, I say: If you were young and healthy, Covid was practically risk free.

[Sarcastr0]

Actual statistics show that the higher rates of death and hospitalization were only for the elderly, or people with comorbidity

So IF you are hospitalized as a nonelderly unvaccinated, you're much more likely to be screwed. But somehow this does not effect the rate of death between nonelderly vacced and unvacced?

That's an extraordinary claim, and I'd say you need to back it up.

This blithe claim won't do it because it's wrong:
If you were young and healthy, Covid was practically risk free.
Data on deaths in patients <65 years old without any underlying conditions in NYC (only place in US with that data): 3.6%
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/

3.6% risk of death is not risk free at all.

I'm just like Googling the sentences you write and immediately coming up with papers that say you're wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

“So IF you are hospitalized as a nonelderly unvaccinated, you’re much more likely to be screwed. But somehow this does not effect the rate of death between nonelderly vacced and unvacced?”

Did you actually read that study?

The unvaccinated population in that study were suffering from all sorts of co-morbidities. 60% were obese. 29% had heart disease. 29% had diabetes.

They weren’t young and healthy! They were middle aged and sick as dogs.

"Data on deaths in patients <65 years old without any underlying conditions in NYC "

Graph of covid mortaliy rates vs age.

Now, you may think that <65 is the definition of "young", but I sure as hell don't. Covid doesn't start being a big deal until you're in your 50's, which isn't even "middle aged" unless you're expecting to break 100.

[Sarcastr0]

They weighting by comorbid conditions.

3.6% without comorbidities is still a big deal.

[Brett Bellmore]

See my edited comment. 50 years old ain't "young".

[grb]

Brett : "Actual statistics show that the higher rates of death and hospitalization were only for the elderly"

That's not what I'm seeing. Rates for hospitalization and death were extremely small for ages 18-49, but in those tiny numbers the death rates were 13X worse for the unvaccinated over vaccinated and boosted. The disparity grew with older age groups but is present in all.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/

[Brett Bellmore]

13X very small can still be very small.

Virtually all serious Covid cases in younger people involve folks who have co-morbidity such as serious obesity, diabetes, pre-existing respiratory issues. If you're young, AND have some kind of health issue, AND haven't already had Covid, by all means, go out and get vaxed! If you're young and healthy, or just have already had Covid? Not really worth it.

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has compiled data from 28 geographically representative state and local health departments that keep track of COVID death rates among people age 12 and older in relation to their vaccination status, including whether or not they got a booster dose, and age group. "

What they were absolutely relentless about NOT looking at, was whether people had already previously had Covid. Do I have to point out to you how utterly irrational that is, from a biological perspective? The unvaxed consist of two populations, the immunologically naive, AND the previously infected, and their statistics are radically different.

People who've already had Covid are at about as much risk from Covid as people who've been vaxed.

Ironically, refusing to make this distinction obscures the benefit from the vaccine, because all of the difference in risk between the unvaxed and vaxed is coming from the fraction of the unvaxed who never had Covid!

They're at about twice the risk SciAm's numbers suggest, because SciAm is mixing the at risk never infected with the now safe previously infected.

Which is why I say, if you're young and healthy, or have had Covid already, the vaccine isn't worth it. But if you're grossly overweight, have diabetes, respiratory issues, or are middle aged or older and never had it?

Get vaxed.

[Nige]

'if you’re young and healthy, or have had Covid already, the vaccine isn’t worth it'

Do not take medical advice from this unqualified fool with certain weird fixed ideas and an astonishing level of confidence about his expertise in areas outside of his expertise.

[SimonP]

A series of headlines, that flash by too quickly in many cases to even fully read, with numbers outlined to suggest a trend downward over time. Oh, did you notice that most of them didn't include dates? And that the ones that did include dates kind of jump around in time? And that minimal information is provided to enable anyone else to doublecheck the stories or sources?

Musk wants you to believe that you're being lied to, about vaccine efficacy. But in fact he is lying to you.

[M L]

No, the talking point is that vaccine efficacy declines over time, so the dates did not jump around. Please circle back with your supervisor, thanks.

[shawn_dude]

In what world is anyone surprised that vaccine efficacy declines over time? A basic, public high school biology class is all it takes to be graced with that information. That's why booster shots are a thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, sure, obviously vaccine efficacy declines over time. Sometimes very, very gradually. Sometimes very rapidly.

Sadly, the Covid vaccine falls into the second camp.

[SimonP]

Watch the video. Pause the video. Notice that most of the headlines have no date included, and that there are headlines later in the video whose associated dates occur prior to dates of headlines earlier in the video.

It's a hodgepodge of headlines, assembled out of chronological order, to create the impression that you've taken away from it, being too stupid to even comprehend my original comment pointing that out, to say nothing of even questioning the video in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

Jerry B. 39 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Day drinking can be a problem.

There's gonna be a shutdown; this is my plan next week.

[Ben_]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics had become another Soviet style institution:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/you-will-never-guess-what-happened-strong-us-consumer-after-todays-huge-gdp-revisions

They’ve joined the DoJ, Defense, CDC, and others as formerly highly respected professionals who are now just another group of clowns no one trusts.

[Sarcastr0]

What breathless reporting of statistical agencies being transparent.

Yes, Soviet institutions are known for releasing statements openly about how they plan to revise their data when new data comes in.

Transparency is very Soviet.

There is a subset of performative conservatives that think if they come at our statistical agencies and declare that they are lying, that proves their antiestablishment bonafides.

Not that they have better facts - their sources are all still the statistical agencies.
In reality, such shallow accusations shows them to be more into the performance than the facts.

[Life of Brian]

Statistics being statistics and all, we would statistically expect to see honest mistakes/uncertainty generate dramatic upward post-hoc adjustments from time to time, rather than instance after instance of dramatic downward post-hoc adjustments. Certainly you're not disputing that with a straight face.

[Sarcastr0]

Could be statistical cluster, an n of 6 looks bad but that's a convenient start date to choose.
But even if it is a systematic issue of some sort, that does not suggest fraud. They had a similar issue in 2018 with seasonality apparently. This might be something else
(check out https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-gdp-revised-down-every-first-quarter-2020-2022-2023-09-28/ for a story without the melodrama of zerohedge)

Of course, we know this because they are being transparent about their revisions. Which is not exactly evidence of bad faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

Weren't you not so long ago claiming that government statistics were accurate to at least a couple of places out?

Zerohedge is pointing out that it's not just one statistic, that this administration has now established a track record of uniformly downward revisions to multiple statistics.

At some point even you will have to admit this is bias, not error. Maybe in 2025 when a Republican takes office...

[Sarcastr0]

Weren’t you not so long ago claiming that government statistics were accurate to at least a couple of places out?

Not that I recall. Certainly I wouldn't have said that regarding economic statistics!

this administration has now established a track record of uniformly downward revisions to multiple statistics
Which you know because *they tell you*

You see the paradox of condemning them for this, yes?

I know folks who work for these agencies; this is not easy work. Maybe there is some thing systematic. Maybe it's Covid shenanigans. Maybe it's statistical cluster. Be interesting to see what they try and do.

But I can tell you that you're not going to prove an agency is putting out false data by noting how they correct themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

“noting how they correct themselves”

The initial releases get front paged, presidents and cabinet secretaries celebrate them at press conferences.

The inevitable adjustments are on page 25 and get 1 minute at 3am on CNN overnight.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a Reuters story. Don't pretend this isn't getting coverage.

[Bob from Ohio]

Please, a few isolated web stories are not the same type of coverage the original reports get.

Was it on prime time cable or the broadcast evening news? What page on the Times or Post?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Because it’s a dog barks at man story. The numbers are always revised because new data. They can only be revised up or down. Two downward revisions of a particular quarter is wholly unremarkable, three is unremarkable.

And guess what, these same people revised the third quarter GDP estimates up in each of those same three years! At this point, they’re just playing with us. Downward revisions in the first quarter, upward revisions in the third quarter. It's diabolical!!! How can this be happening?!?!

/sarc

[NOVA Lawyer]

"this administration has now established a track record of uniformly downward revisions to multiple statistics"

Um, you do realize that 2020 was during the Trump administration. So this (Biden) administration has a "track record" of two years of downward revisions? Three is still easily a statistical anomaly, but two? Ffs, the numbers are going to be revised and it can only be up or down. There's (roughly because there may be bias of some sort, like the seasonal adjustments from years ago) a 50% chance any two years you pick will have revisions in the same direction, and a 25% chance the revisions will both be down.

You are, obiously, statistically illiterate and criticizing an agency that does statistics. Maybe learn something or apply just a bit of thought before you go full in on "This is a giant conspiracy and they aren't even trying to hide it!!!" You just look like a joke.

[Life of Brian]

Of course, we know this because they are being transparent about their revisions. Which is not exactly evidence of bad faith.

How exactly could they NOT be transparent about their revisions? The original numbers are republished to the four winds the instant they appear, and it's not like they can take down the original numbers and hide the new ones in a vault somewhere. Certainly you're not suggesting that not having any choice somehow equates to candor.

[Sarcastr0]

They could just not do revisions. Seems the obvious move if they're lying.

[Life of Brian]

Or, they could just do what they do, which is first dish out optimistic numbers to insane trumpeting in the media, then correct them later when it ends up below the fold on page C33. The administration gets the credit for massively positive growth, and people like you lap up how amazingly cand1d they are.

Seeing through this is only hard because you've decided this particular group of your bureaucratic buddies fall in the bucket where good faith is not only presumed but staunchly maintained in the face of all reason. Had someone you don't like signed off on these, I suspect you'd get religion PDQ.

[Michael P]

That would lead to an accumulation of errors that others would easily detect.

Their initial numbers are strongly and consistently biased. The only question is why.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think either of you know jack shit about US economic statistics gathering. Also look up statistical cluster.

GDP numbers are released 3 times - a 'most timely,' a 'most accurate' and something in the middle.
They are then reopened every year, up to 3 years back to reexamine them and update again, with the addition of some IRS info that has a 3 year lag. And then again every 5 years they do an additional revision. Plus of course reopening everything back to 1929 to rebaseline whenever the real dollar numbers come in.

Each statistical agency also releases a yearly report where they discuss the reasons for their revisions and whether there was any systematic error. They pay special attention to sign changes and the magnitude of the revision.

Also, the statistical agencies are especially insulated. There are *no* political appointees in the statistical agencies. There is a special office the exists to be the go-between and to ensure that the statistics are kept to the highest standards of scientific integrity.

Finally, we as a country are world renowned for being good at this. We're the ones countries go to to teach them how to do economic measures. We're on every group that discusses how to do this and how to improve.
Because *this is hard stuff* and the people who do it take it seriously, and are not going to lie to help the Democrats.

The idea that they are juking the numbers in the first series to make the economy look better is not only not possible, given the number of people who touch the numbers and what kinds of people they are, it wouldn't be the 'everyone reports on the first number' because the sophisticated businesses and agencies that use the numbers are not looking just at the first number. And financial reporters are not doing that either.

Yet again, you both reveal your own lack of integrity with how casually you bring up doing your job badly to help a political party. And, of course, your ignorance.

You read some turd from zerohedge without any context for the process behind the numbers and think you've uncovered a conspiracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Also look up statistical cluster. "

Look up "statistical bias"

You can't just laugh off all the errors being in the same direction, calling it a "statistical cluster". At this point the odds of it being a random cluster are getting absurdly low.

[grb]

Two Points and a Question,

1. Sixty-plus years and I’ve seen economic data readjusted my entire life.

2. If a long run of data is later readjusted the same way, perhaps that’s because of underlying economic factors. Indeed, that’s the more likely reason rather than yet-another Brett Bellmore conspiracy. Please note this economy has confounded economists in multiple ways these last few years. Inflation went beyond all predictive bounds and the recession we were promised with absolute assurance didn’t show. The covid economy has strained all the models. That’s it might be skewing the collection of economic data is perfectly reasonable to me.

3. Question, Brett: How many conspiracies does that make in this comment thread alone? I’ve not kept count or read all your comments, but have to believe you’re in the 5-10 range at least. Do you think that’s an accurate or productive mode of thought?

[Sarcastr0]

You can’t just laugh off all the errors being in the same direction, calling it a “statistical cluster”.
Yes I can. Flip a coin ever quarter for nearly 100 years and you’re quite likely to get a number of spans of 6 in a row. Human intuition on randomness suuuucks. Especially if you want to believe.

Plus, as I laid out above, there are a ton of adjustments to a given quarter's GDP not just 1, and it's not even clear which adjustment is being talked about.

[Ben_]

Democrats love the not sinister, merely incompetent defense.

[Sarcastr0]

The BEA is incompetent until the release their corrections, at which point they're spot on?

Again, this transparency is a sign of honesty and competence. We lead the world in phenomenological economics like this stuff, did you know that?

Anger born of ignorance would be sad, but I know how much you love being angry.

[Commenter_XY]

What breathless reporting of statistical agencies being transparent...

This was the Sarcastr0 I remembered; witty, snappy.

It was a statistical adjustment. They happen. Besides, government forecasting is a WAG. Nobody truly knows with precision. If they did, they'd be gazillionaires.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They happen."

Every month. We treat economic stats, based largely on surveys or sampling, as gospel.

They are more valid than alchemy, but only just barely.

[Commenter_XY]

I know Bob from Ohio...The error bar is 50% for their forecasting. Alchemy is not that far from reality, in truth (statistical alchemy).

[Sarcastr0]

BEA doesn’t do forecasting. At least not for the GDP, their main release.

[M L]

From Nick Gillespie's article today, "It's good to know, for instance, that the Pentagon has unilaterally declared Ukraine aid sacrosanct. "

Pentagon Says Ukraine Training, Weapons Shipments Will Continue Despite Any Government Shutdown

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/09/22/pentagon-says-ukraine-training-weapons-shipments-will-continue-despite-any-government-shutdown.html

Down the tubes we go . . .

[Nige]

What, were you desperately hoping a shutdown would cut Ukraine off from support?

[OtisAH]

They’re more ambitious than that. They thought it would end Ukraine aid *and* all prosecutions of Turnip.

[Sarcastr0]

Exceptions to the Antideficiency Act permit expenditures or obligations in excess of an appropriation where "authorized by law" or necessary to address "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing
blog has operated for

SEVEN (7)

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 from the
fringe of modern legal academia
by members of 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.

[Michael P]

Cassidy Hutchinson, who many here clung to as a brave truth-teller unveiling What Trump Really Did, has had another one of her "gotcha" stories refuted by one of the people she wrote a tall tale about.

https://ijr.com/cassidy-hutchinsons-book-claims-fall-apart-man-story-speaks/

[David Nieporent]

Pro tip: the word "refuted" and the word "contradicted" do not mean the same thing.

[Michael P]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/refute

As usual, you are confident and wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Prof. Volokh would agree with you, in that he's a descriptivist. I am not. I think a bunch of semi-literate people misusing a word does not change its meaning.

Refute means to actually disprove something.

https://lawprose.org/garners-usage-tip-of-the-day-refute/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I think a bunch of semi-literate people misusing a word does not change its meaning.

That is a magnificent point.

[Magister]

I guess that would refute the statement that Vought is a Mormon, but otherwise only denies that he was present at such an incident. She may have been misinformed about his religion, or she may have misidentified the other person who was present.

The last "refutation" of Hutchinson was something she testified to under oath but that the person denying it ultimately wouldn't.

[David Nieporent]

The last “refutation” of Hutchinson was something she testified to under oath but that the person denying it ultimately wouldn’t.

There are actually three problems with that one.

The first is that Hutchinson never said what the Trump cultists claim she said. What Hutchinson said was that she was told that this is what Trump did, not that Trump actually did it. (Since she wasn't there, and never claimed to be there, she couldn't say anything about the latter.) Even if Trump didn't do that, that wouldn't contradict (let alone disprove) anything she said.

The second is that, as you say, some Trump flunkies ran to the press to claim that they would contradict her, but then they ran and hid and never actually did so. I think the reason is pretty obvious: as Corey Lewandowski once said when caught in a falsehood: it's not a crime to lie to the media.

And the third, as I noted above, is that even if they had testified, and said it never happened, that would only reflect that one of the sides is lying, not that Hutchinson is.

[Michael P]

You sure are dead-set on defending hearsay by a serial fabricator who impeached herself regarding that hearsay and claimed to have written a Jan 6th note that someone else did.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes casual accusations of perjury and not understanding hearsay.

[Nige]

I love how someone's lack of credibility entirely rests on your lies about her.

[NOVA Lawyer]

+1

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These flailing dumbasses are this blog's target audience.

This is part of the reason a Volokh Conspirator is generally a poor fit with a strong, reason-based, mainstream institution.

[David Nieporent]

Like I said: cultist.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You should quit while you're behind.

[apedad]

Georgia senator who demanded Fani Willis special session suspended from GOP caucus

Georgia state Sen. Colton Moore, who demanded a special session of the Legislature for an investigation of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D), was indefinitely suspended from the chamber’s GOP caucus Thursday.

“Despite the fact 32 of 33 Republican State Senators, the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, and the Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party agree that a Special Session to take action against the Fulton County District Attorney is impossible, Senator Moore has a right to his opinion,” according to a statement posted to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, by the Georgia Senate Republicans.

“However, during his advocacy for his ill-conceived proposal, Senator Moore has knowingly misled people across Georgia and our nation, causing unnecessary tension and hostility, while putting his Caucus colleagues and their families at risk of personal harm,” the statement continued.

Moore hit back at his suspension, saying he will now refer to the GOP Senate caucus as the “RINO caucus,” meaning Republican in name only.

“The Georgia RINOs responded to my call to fight back against the Trump witch hunts by acting like children and throwing me out of the caucus,” Moore said in a post on X. “But I’m not going anywhere.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4228850-georgia-senator-who-demanded-fani-willis-special-session-suspended-from-gop-caucus/

I like how Moore considers "32 of 33 Republican State Senators, the Governor (R), Lt. Governor (R), Speaker of the House (R), and the Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party" all to be RINOs.

[OtisAH]

Only takes one heresy to become a heretic.

[Magister]

Huuuge RINO stampede.

[Sarcastr0]

Twitter seems to think Sen. Feinstein is dead.

It's twitter, and this would be a prime hoax target, but there seems a pretty strong consensus.

[Brett Bellmore]

New sources are verifying it.

[Sarcastr0]

Cut down in her prime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hardly. She's looked like a walking corpse for months, and obviously been barely more than a prop for her staff, who were actually doing the job.

I'm sorry she died, but, seriously, she should have retired long ago. It's really pathological the way these politicians just cling to power right up to the moment of their deaths, instead of retiring when they start declining, and letting fresh blood take over.

But they don't know anything but exercising power, they have no lives beyond that. And maybe they're afraid of what would happen once they shed that office holder immunity they've enjoyed for so long.

And, yeah, I think McConnell should have retired some time ago, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...more than a prop for her staff, who were actually doing the job."

Couldn't the same be said for most of our elected officials?
Does anyone believe Fetterman is competent to hold any position of power?

[David Nieporent]

I certainly don't believe you're competent.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feeling is mutual.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone believe Fetterman is competent to hold any position of power?

I do.

I blame the fact that I have known him for years and therefore discount clingers' caricatures and bigoted partisan whining.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about sharing some of his accomplishments with the rest of us?

[Magister]

Some politicians do retire, so it's not a universal problem. Some of it may be a denial of their decline, which is supported by a staff who can do all their work. Some of it may be a belief that they are still uniquely able to advance the interests they value. But doubtless a good part of it is those who just relish being important.

The Republicans blocked a temporary replacement for her on the Judiciary committee, so it seems probable that they will seek some way to use her death to block Biden's judicial appointees. Fear of such game-playing could also weigh against retiring. (Similarly, Mitch McConnell retiring would probably put Senate Republicans into a fight over his successor, and they have enough chaos in the House already. So they may prefer simply to steer him back to his office when he freezes up.)

[John F. Carr]

Long past her prime, but it's California's right to keep a zombie in office until she finally gets on the cart.

Is Newsom going to go moderate or full woke?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is Newsom going to go moderate or full woke?

Would you prefer he try to import a drawling, superstitious, half-educated, right-wing bigot for the position?

[Brett Bellmore]

ICE officer fist-bumping illegal aliens after cutting Texas barbed wire so that they could illegally cross the border.

Seriously, you can make an argument for Presidents prioritizing resources, and under enforcing certain laws, but at this point the Biden administration is anti-enforcing our border laws, they’re actually deploying resources to INCREASE illegal immigration.

[Sarcastr0]

Border Patrol agents cut through the wire to take into custody a group of migrants that had crossed the Rio Grande and arrived at the U.S. side of the river

So not illegally cross the border. That wasn't in the tweet you linked, or the dailycaller story it linked.

You full-on lied here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, I'd say you're better than this, except you're not: What do the border patrol do these days, after "taking people into custody"?

Drop them back into Mexico? Lock them up in cells?

No, three quarters get immediately released on their own recognizance, not even an ankle transmitter. Often they'll be put on a plane and flown deeper into the country!

[Nige]

So now BP taking illegal immigrants into custody is also proof of Biden's perfidy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wouldn't be if they KEPT them in custody.

There's a reason those illegals were looking happy to be "taken into custody": They knew it wasn't going to result in them being kicked out, but instead a free meal or two, and help in getting further into the country.

[Sarcastr0]

You said 'so that they could illegally cross the border.' The reality is they were being taken into custody.

You don't illegally cross the border when you are in custody. Definitionally.

I don't care what conspiracies you make up about what happens once they're in custody, you added a statement that was a lie. Not some shading of the truth or overly pessimistic take, but a full-out not telling the truth because fuck the truth you feel this is more true lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're really phoning it in today, you know that?

OK, yeah, by the time they reached the barbed wire that the Border Patrol helpfully cut for them, they'd already illegally entered the country. The Border Patrol just helped them get past the barbed wire and disappear into the general population. "Just".

[Sarcastr0]

The Border Patrol just helped them get past the barbed wire and disappear into the general population.
This is just a different lie.

You know what custody means, quit with this nonsense.

[Nige]

The story says nothing about releasing them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mr. Bellmore is merely following the proprietor's lead, trying to lather this blog's audience with silly fears of progress, reason, modernity, education, science, and inclusiveness.

[apedad]

Brett, the NFL season is in full swing and you’re not allowed to move the goalposts.