Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is time to purge Hamas from American Higher education.

1: Anyone who was not born here goes home the first time he/she/it supports Hamas, and that includes speech supporting Hamas.

2: Hamas rape, torture, & murder videos/images are defined to be "kiddie porn" and both pursued and prosecuted to the same extent by the same courts.

3: Institutions receiving Federal Funding -- that is every college in the land excepting Grove City and Hillsdale Colleges -- has to affirm they have no Hamas supporters on their payroll. Any administrator who falsely affirms (i.e. has them but says he doesn't) is banned from higher education FOR LIFE.

4: Minimum felony sentence for anyone disrupting Congressional proceedings -- ie the Hamas Fan club last week.

5: Audit of all nongovernmental agencies.

Enough is enough.

[Martinned]

First Amendment FTW!

[Frank Drackman]

Here's my chance to say what you Schmucks always say about the 2d Amendment.
It's not "Absolute"
actually I like having the Ham-Ass supporters out in the open, will make things easier.
No, not to kill, just not to socialize with, hire, help change a flat...

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

If they were Nazis, they'd be deported -- and they actually are a form of Nazi, so why do we need to give them the benefits of a society they wish to destroy?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If they were Nazis, they’d be deported

You do know that we do have actual self-proclaimed Nazis here in the U.S. (that aren't being deported) right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you mean the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei?

They'd have to be over 100 years old now -- the party essentially ended in 1944 and if someone joined it then at age 21, the person would have been born in 1923 -- 100 years ago. The person also would not have been *born* a US Citizen -- and over the years we have revoked the naturalized citizenship of a lot of German Nazis

We can neither deport American-born Nazis nor American-born Hamas and that is now what I was advocating.

I was saying revoke the NATURALIZED citizenship of those who have it and SEND THEM BACK.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do you mean the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei?

You're aware that there are more than one organization holding to the tenets of Nazism, right? And that some are still active?

[Nige]

Can't deport them, they're Trump voters.

[Idihax]

The only rights they think are absolute are killing babies and having gay anal sex.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

But in what way are you a citizen if eg you don't support Freedom of Religion but instead kill relatives who leave your religion?

REmember the basic facts, which you aren't.

"survey of 41,000 Americans. The results showed that in the highest-performing state, only 53 percent of the people were able to earn a passing grade for U.S. history. People in every other state failed; in the lowest-performing state, only 27 percent were able to pass."

HERE WE GO : Even more disturbing, only 27 percent of those under the age of 45 nationally were able to demonstrate a basic understanding of American history.

SO, you are criticizing the taste in paintings of blind people

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, why isn't Kiddie Porn protected by the First Amendment?!?

[Idihax]

It's time to purge all leftists, not just Hamas supporting ones, from America and the world.

[bernard11]

Can't wait for the anti-cancel culture warriors to chime in.

[VinniUSMC]

Why? Does Ed represent us? We we need to rebuke Ed?

I'll still take Ed over all of the Nazi lefties that popped up in the past 2 weeks. Misek's friends all came out of the woodwork.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The leftists were always there -- I've been dealing with them for decades...

[Ridgeway]

Heckuva job, Ed!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bernard, sincere question - is there anyone on the right that’s this far out. That is openly supported rape and murder?

[Nige]

Maybe whoever's sending all the death threats to the Republians who won't vote for Jim Jordan? Bomb threats to schools and hospitals? They seem like they'd be okay with them.

[jb]

They're probably just trolling so it's hard to tell, but there's people on this very site that's routinely argue for mass murder of black Americans (or even all "leftists" in some cases), civil war in the US, etc. As pointed out above, there's also literal Nazis that get to the same murderous antisemitism from the right as some of these extreme left wing voices get to from the left.

So the answer to your question is definitely yes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Besides Dr. Ed, you mean?

[VinniUSMC]

Well, Misek and the several other Nazis. The list of which grew substantially in the past 2 weeks.

[not guilty]

In an opinion filed Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the law regarding when a criminal defendant acts "corruptly" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C2D55C9FFF7B9FCB85258A4E004D0713/$file/22-3062-2022902.pdf The decision is not good news for the hundreds of January 6 defendants charged with corruptly obstructing, impeding or influencing an official proceeding or attempting to do so under § 1512(c)(2).

Donald Trump is charged in D.C. with violating § 1512(c)(2) and conspiracy under § 1512(k). He is charged in Florida with multiple counts of violating § 1512(c)(1) regarding documents and security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago.

[Krayt]

When one thinks of corruption, one thinks of seedy backroom deals. Whatever this was, it doesn't seem like that.

[Martinned]

"Corruptly" is not the same as corruption.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=jleg

[Martinned]

For the amusement of people here, the judicial committee of the Privy Council discussed the question of "corruptly" when interpreting the election offence of treating in an appeal from Mauritius just last week: https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2023-0006-judgment.pdf

[Life of Brian]

Biryani for the win!

[Reallynotbob]

When one thinks of chairs, one thinks of four-legged platforms with backs. Whatever large sittable bean bags are, they don't seem like that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As a legal layman I do not know whether to be impressed or appalled at the amount of effort invested to reach that decision. Given the context and the stakes, I suppose I must decide in favor of being impressed. I get that the decision is armor-planted to anticipate or at least embarrass a potentially corrupt contrary decision by the Supreme Court.

But really, how many paragraphs, let alone pages, does it take? After the court ascertains that someone armed himself, declared a flagrantly unlawful intent, used unlawful violence, and then destroyed evidence, what is left to do?

Anyway, thanks to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for overwhelming any claim that corrupt intent was charged ambiguously in cases such as this one. The defendant was a criminal who executed a violent attack on government, not a tourist out for a Capitol visit. Any other decision would have been an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

[David Welker]

Apparently, you did not read far enough to realize that there is a dissent.

[David Welker]

The Court essentially ruled that nearly all unlawful obstruction is corrupt.

I do not believe that this is a good interpretation of law regarding the intent of Congress, given the penalties associated with this charge.

I also think it is interesting that the majority consisted of an Obama appointee and a Biden appointee, whereas the dissent consists of a Bush Sr. appointee. This shows that simplistic stereotypes that Democratic appointees tend to be more favorable to criminal defendants while Republican appointees tend to be more harsh does not always hold.

However, my tentative pet theory is that these Democratic judges are stretching the law to “get” people they really despise. In this case, by interpreting the word “corrupt” in a highly expansive manner. If they were more sympathetic to the defendants, it is unlikely that they would seek to interpret the word “corrupt” as requiring so little.

The real winner here will be government officials, quite possibly including quite possibly Trump if he is re-elected, who wish to use the law as a weapon against political opponents who engage in unlawfully protest. The loser is Congress, which probably expected the word “corrupt” to be interpreted in a more reasonable manner to include more serious wrongdoing.

[Krayt]

That also occurred to me, defining it so broadly almost nothing doesn't qualify for it. This also suggests it doesn't mean what it was intended for.

[Kazinski]

Well hopefully the Supreme Court will narrow the decision and not write corruptly out of the dictionary.

There is a long history of prosecutors and lower courts trying to expand definitions beyond their intended reach. I'm thinking here of honest services fraud, official acts as in the McDonnell case, and the reversal of the Arthur Anderson conviction in the Enron trial which of course destroyed Arthur Anderson. And in state courts the Rick Perry indictment was also an example.

Corruptly has always meant trying to obtain a material gain that one was Enot entitled to. I this case it would mean getting paid to obstruct Congress or obstructing Congress to prevent it from passing legislation that you believe would harm your financial interests, or even possibly to cause the stock market to drop.

Not because of a political demonstration.

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski, when the shoe is on the other foot, then we will see what 'corruptly' actually means.

[John F. Carr]

There have now been two split decisions on the scope of the law and many affected defendants so it is a good case for the Supreme Court to take. If the Supreme Court thought the issue urgent we could have a decision in time for Trump's DC trial. More likely in the 2024 term.

[not guilty]

"There have now been two split decisions on the scope of the law and many affected defendants so it is a good case for the Supreme Court to take."

How so? What appellate court has construed "corruptly" in a manner contrary to the Robertson panel?

[Life of Brian]

First, a "split decision" just means there was a dissent. That happened both here and in Fischer.

Second, the circuit split that you're presumably alluding to isn't required for the Supremes to grant cert. The importance of the issue along with the clear tension within the circuit (observe the extended tug-o-war between opinion and dissent re whether Fischer was controlling) should be plenty if they want to take it.

[not guilty]

The cert petition in Fischer includes only one question presented:

Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/279307/20230911135230273_Fischer%20cert%20petition%20Final.pdf

Fischer is an opinion reversing the pretrial dismissal of an indictment. 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Robertson upheld a jury verdict against the appellant's claim of evidentiary insufficiency. As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

[Life of Brian]

Why in the world would you think the questions presented in the Fischer cert petition has any relevance here? Did you read the Robertson dissent at all?

[not guilty]

Of course I read the Robertson dissent. I find it unpersuasive.

[Life of Brian]

I'm utterly unsurprised that you'd find something not written by your team unpersuasive.

But regardless of whether you agree with it, if you'd read it why were you playing dumb about what it said?

[not guilty]

I readily acknowledge being a partisan Democrat. (I cast my first vote during Prick Nixon's presidency, and I have seen nothing in the intervening decades to redeem a political party that nominated him at five separate national conventions.) But that having been said, I don't have a "team" regarding the federal judiciary.

The majority opinion in Robertson deals with the points in the dissent quite effectively.

If you are accusing me of confirmation bias, projection is a powerful thing.

[Life of Brian]

If you are accusing me of confirmation bias, projection is a powerful thing.

Aside from being tacky, this variation on "yo momma" simply isn't correct here.

I'll repeat my only observation in this thread (beyond reminding you what a "split decision" is): "The importance of the issue along with the clear tension within the circuit (observe the extended tug-o-war between opinion and dissent re whether Fischer was controlling) should be plenty if they want to take it."

Those garden-variety facts should be uncontroversial regardless of whether you think the Robertson or Fischer majority is correct. It's frankly baffling why you aren't able to just agree (expressly or tacitly) and move on, rather than repeatedly trying to pivot to straw men so you can disagree with those.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Corruptly has always meant trying to obtain a material gain that one was Enot entitled to.

Kazinski, as the decision points out, in one class of cases, which dealt specifically with material cheating. You seem to ignore the other cases cited, which dealt with other classes of corruption. I will let the lawyers tell whether it was a comprehensive decision which covered everything. It looked that way to me.

[David Nieporent]

And by "political demonstration" you mean insurrection, or at the very least a violent attack on Congress.

I do not believe there is any textual or precedential support for your claim (and Robertson's) that "corruptly" requires personal financial gain, or was intended to so require.

[David Welker]

It is not an insurrection if you believe you are trying to uphold an election, Nieporent.

Why? Because then you are trying to uphold the system rather than overthrow it. Recall that Trump was telling these people that elite individuals had rigged the system. In that circumstance, appealing to these same individuals to fix it would be futile.

If this teaches us anything, it should teach us that we shouldn’t tolerate dishonesty among politicians. Because when we do, it leaves the system vulnerable to dishonest claims by people like Trump that everyone else is dishonest.

This is a more systemic issue. Lack of standards (people in each party giving their own side a pass while only seeking to hold the other side accountable) has created massive distrust. And that is the real issue.

[David Nieporent]

It is not an insurrection if you believe you are trying to uphold an election, Nieporent.

That's like saying that it's not obstruction of justice to plant forged evidence if you really believe the suspect is guilty.

[David Welker]

Incorrect. Planting evidence obstructs justice because it robs tribunal of the ability to make an informed decision.

I am not arguing that many of the Jan 6 protestors didn’t engage in trespassing and obstruction. I am arguing that they did not engage in insurrection.

Planting evidence is bad. But it isn’t, by itself, insurrection. (One could imagine how planting evidence would be part of an insurrectionary scheme.)

Overall, your analogy is a poor fit.

[David Nieporent]

Incorrect. Planting evidence obstructs justice because it robs tribunal of the ability to make an informed decision.

Whoosh! Your argument was that because the insurrectionists thought that their end goal was the legitimate outcome they weren't really insurrectionists. By the same logic, the evidence-planter thinks that his end goal is the legitimate outcome.

Planting evidence is bad. But it isn’t, by itself, insurrection.

Which is why I said it was obstruction, not insurrection.

[David Welker]

But insurrection involves a particular goal to overthrow the government. You are trying your best to make something very simple into something very difficult.

There is no doubt that someone who plants evidence is intending to obstruct. To be an insurrectionist, you must intend to overthrow the legitimate government.

The concept of “accidental insurrectionist” is invalid.

[David Nieporent]

To be an insurrectionist, you must intend to overthrow the legitimate government.

No; to be an insurrectionist you must intend to overthrow the government. Whether you think it's legitimate or not — or even whether it actually is legitimate or not — is irrelevant.

[David Welker]

I disagree. Because when it comes to elections there is the question of which people constitute the government.

Your position moves towards making insurrection a strict liability offense, where if you are correct about legitimacy you aren’t an insurrectionist but if aren’t correct, you are an insurrectionist.

Contrast with the Civil War. It is true that some people in the South felt the Constitution wasn’t being followed; they we’re still insurrectionists because they rejected the Constitution itself rather than particular people they believed were not following it.

Your view is extremely unsound and dangerous, because it implies that insurrection consists of being factually wrong.

If Congress really did conspire to steal an election, it would be perfectly appropriate for We the People to interfere. Because the people are sovereign and Congress is not.

Your view turns this upside down, saying that people had better not challenge their supposed masters (even if the masters reject the Constitution and the goal is to restore the Constitution) or they will be insurrectionists. But under our system, we don’t have masters, we have representatives. And we say it is the representatives, not We the People, who are the servants.

It is obvious that the Jan 6 protesters broke the law. And they should pay for that. But to label them as insurrectionists or traitors is simply false.

And fundamentally, you are demonstrating a failure on your part to understand even the most basic constitutional principles. To the extent you have decided that the politicians are masters and that thwarting or obstructing them is therefore insurrection (as opposed to attacking the Constitution itself), you are demonstrating an ignorance as profound as the January 6 protesters.

Stupid actions to uphold the Constitution are stupid and can even be criminal. But they cannot be insurrectionary.

[David Nieporent]

Your position moves towards making insurrection a strict liability offense, where if you are correct about legitimacy you aren’t an insurrectionist but if aren’t correct, you are an insurrectionist.

I literally said exactly the opposite in the words you were responding to. (And in the analogy you ignored.) It doesn't matter whether you're "correct." George Washington was an insurrectionist in 1776. He was right to be one, but that didn't change the fact that he was one.

[David Welker]

Nieporent:

Whether Washington was an insurrectionist or not depends on how you interpret the unwritten British Constitution.

If you think that King George III has a right to rule, then George Washington was an insurrectionist for denying him that right. On the other hand, if you believe in no taxation without representation, then under the theory underlying the British Constitution itself, King George III did not have a right to rule because colonialists were not represented in Parliament.

From the perspective of George Washington, he was upholding not overthrowing the system. The colonialists were merely demanding their rights as Englishmen and men more generally.

There are, of course perspectives under which George Washington is an insurrectionist. If you believe in the divine right of kings to rule AND believe that this right is unconditional (no representation is required), then maybe George Washington is an insurrectionist.

The view of OUR society rejects the view that George Washington was an insurrectionist. We don’t believe in the divine right of kings to rule. Instead, we believe that government officials are public servants and that sovereignty exists in We the People. From this perspective, insurrection would consist of rejecting the Constitution BECAUSE that is the document that We the People have established to govern ourselves.

Your statement that George Washington is an insurrectionist reveals our differences. You see insurrection in defiance of mere individuals, mere public servants. As if those public servants have some sort of right to rule similar to expansive claims made by King George III. But under our system, it is not defiance of mere individuals but defiance of the Constitution and seeking to overthrow the Constitution that makes you an insurrectionist.

In our society, no one who seeks to uphold the Constitution is an insurrectionist.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Your position moves towards making insurrection a strict liability offense, where if you are correct about legitimacy you aren’t an insurrectionist but if aren’t correct, you are an insurrectionist.

Welker, your advocacy on this topic has been muddled. But the bit above provides opportunity to un-muddle. In the election context, government legitimacy lies only in following the Constitution on election procedures, which office holders have sworn an oath to defend. Whatever other constitutional values you may think are at stake, government must follow prescribed procedures for elections, or legitimacy is gone.

Yes, people, even sworn office holders, are at liberty to oppose an uncertain election result, right up to the moment that continuing to do so obstructs election procedures. At that point, election result opponents who have sworn to defend the Constitution must give way in their advocacy, lest by continuing they initiate a contest with the People for the nation’s sovereignty.

Every election is an exercise of the People’s sovereign constitutive power. Every election result thus becomes a sovereign decree on par with the Constitution itself, which no one sworn to uphold the Constitution has legitimate power to contest.

Elsewhere you assert without supporting argument:

It is obvious that the Jan 6 protesters broke the law. And they should pay for that. But to label them as insurrectionists or traitors is simply false.

Legal cases dating back to the Burr treason charge make it nearly certain that some among the mob which attacked the Capitol, and some who helped organize the attack, were both insurrectionists and traitors. Of course, the latter charge depends on application of the standard for making war against the United States.

The case of Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout outlines by detailed hypotheticals what conduct comprises making war against the United States, and what conduct does not. I suggest that if you read that 1807 case, stemming from Burr's treason trial, you will be surprised to discover how unambiguously the facts of the Capitol attack support a charge of treason against some of the January 6 participants, very likely including ex-President Trump.

I insist that it has been unwise for the Justice Department to undercharge defendants for whom facts support a treason charge. Observers, including you, seem to have been needlessly confused by implication that there exists some blurry less-than-treason criminal status with which to label an actually warlike attack on the nation. These debates would have been clearer and easier to follow if the Justice Department had instead elected to charge treason, and thus forced citizens to pay careful attention to the long-established legal norms which define that crime.

[bernard11]

Planting evidence obstructs justice because it robs tribunal of the ability to make an informed decision.

But what if you think the defendant is guilty, but that the jury is going to acquit because some of the evidence was wrongly, or even legitimately, withheld.

"They threw out those bloody clothes because the police didn't have a warrant, so I'll give them something else to make up for it."

[David Welker]

Then you should advocate for changing the rules of evidence or even a Constitutional amendment to change the exclusionary rule.

But note, say you do plant evidence. This violates the constitutional rights of the defendant and is an obstruction of justice. But unless it is part of a scheme to overthrow the Constitution (and even mire fundamentally reject the sovereignty of We the People), it isn’t insurrection.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Nobody said that planting evidence was insurrection. Analogies: how do they work?

Me: "Dog is to doghouse as bird is to birdcage."
Welker: "Dogs aren't birds."

[Kazinski]

The clear answer is it wasn't an insurrection because nobody was charged with insurrection.

Charge someone, let's hear the evidence, and let a jury of their peers decide.

[not guilty]

Why would DOJ want to do that? The J6 rioters charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 are subject to more severe penalties than insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 carries. Charging both offenses could be overkill.

[Kazinski]

If they aren't charged with insurrection then don't call them insurrectionists, call them obstructors.

[Nige]

'It is not an insurrection if you believe you are trying to uphold an election, Nieporent.'

It is if you're full of shit.

[Drewski]

"It is not an insurrection if you believe you are trying to uphold an election, Nieporent."

Is it murder if you believe you are carrying out the correct verdict? Is it resisting arrest if you believe there's no probable cause for arrest? No reasonable person would think that the proper way to challenge an election is to personally show up and try to do it by force of numbers.

[David Welker]

We aren’t arguing whether it was proper or not. Not all illegal acts and not even all constitutional violations are insurrection.

Insurrection consists of trying to overthrow the Constitution and more fundamentally the theory upon which it is based.

[Nelson]

"Insurrection consists of trying to overthrow the Constitution"

You mean like trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power by stopping the certification a free and fair election?

"more fundamentally the theory upon which it is based"

You mean like the will of the people being expressed through democratic processes? Or the part where we are a nation of laws?

Oh, wait. You mean the most fundamental theory of societies that respect the rule of law, that unfounded accusations lack any political or legal validity. And that trying to overthrow valid and legal election results is a crime against not only the Constitution, but everything it stands for.

That's what you mean, right?

[Drewski]

This one is, though.

[Life of Brian]

I do not believe there is any textual or precedential support for your claim (and Robertson’s) that “corruptly” requires personal financial gain, or was intended to so require.

Good thing Robertson never made that claim, then! Robertson's definition is provided on page 25: "an act dishonestly done, with a hope or expectation of either financial gain or other benefit to oneself or a benefit to another person”.

[not guilty]

The January 6 rioters were acting in hope of unlawfully obtaining a second presidential term for Donald Trump -- another person.

[David Welker]

Problem is that most presumably did not believe that such an outcome was unlawful. Instead, they wrongly thought they were preventing an unlawful outcome.

Say you mistaken grab an iPhone thinking it is yours. That isn’t corruption, that is just a mistake.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Once again: it doesn't matter whether the outcome was unlawful; they knew that the process they were employing was unlawful.

That's the point of the planting evidence analogy: the person doing the planting may sincerely believe that the person is guilty, and therefore that the resulting conviction is lawful. But it's not, because planting evidence is inherently unlawful even if it leads to the correct result. Just like trying to violently change the outcome of the certification is unlawful even if it leads to the correct result.

Say you mistaken grab an iPhone thinking it is yours. That isn’t corruption, that is just a mistake.

But let's say that you grab someone's iPhone because you believe the owner of the iPhone owes you $1,000. That is theft. It's theft whether your belief is correct or not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In fairness to the analogy, the iPhone example has to be set up differently. It has to be an iPhone you have every reason to believe is yours, but stolen from you by the person you grab it from.

But even put that way, it doesn't work to get the Capitol insurrectionists (or Trump) off the hook. That is because the iPhone example is a two-party contest, but the election issue in dispute at the Capitol involved 3 parties—the Ds, and the Rs—both in the posture of supplicants seeking the gift of office from an all-powerful 3rd party—the collective sovereign of the nation, We the People.

[Nelson]

"Instead, they wrongly thought they were preventing an unlawful outcome."

Actually, believing that the 2020 election was won by Trump, especially after so many court cases and audits and recounts and re-audits and re-recounts, is a delusional belief, not just "wrongly thought".

An insanity defense might be appropriate, given the complete removal from reality that would be required to believe, by January 6th, that Biden being certified as the winner was an unlawful outcome.

When virtually every legal case is decided against your preferred outcome yet you still refuse to accept its legality, it is no longer "just a mistake". It is ignoring the lawful outcome and trying, through unlawful violence, to prevent the certification of that lawful outcome.

And since none of the violent mob were Donald Trump, they were all trying to do it for someone else's benefit.

[Life of Brian]

That's a nice choice of next lily pad and all, but what does that have to do with the thread you dropped in to about what Robertson's claim actually was?

[Life of Brian]

I do not believe there is any textual or precedential support for your claim (and Robertson’s) that “corruptly” requires personal financial gain, or was intended to so require.

Oh, and the dissent walks through the legislative history of 1512(c) as part of a truly heartwarming takedown of the improbable notion that has bothered me from the beginning: that a rump statute from the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 somehow was meant to cover riots. Here's the sum-up from page 24:

Section 1512(c) was enacted at the same time as section 1519 but as a last-minute addition, having been “introduced in a floor amendment late in the legislative process.” Fischer, 64 F.4th at 347 (citing 128 Cong. Rec. S6542 (daily ed. July 10, 2002)). Section 1512(c) has two subsections: “(c)(1) prohibits ‘corruptly’ altering or destroying a ‘document, or other object . . . with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding’” and “(c)(2) is a residual clause, making it an offense to ‘corruptly’ ‘otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding.’” Id. at 358 (Walker, J., concurring in part) (alterations in original). “Subsection (c)(2)’s inconspicuous place within the statutory scheme suggests that it is an odd place for Congress to hide a far-reaching criminal provision,” id., including, in particular, the egregiously ill-fit of prosecuting trespassing protesters. Giving “corruptly” its common-law meaning correctly limits its reach. “Even though (c)(2) has a broad act element—there are many ways to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding—its mental state keeps it in check: A defendant is liable only if he intends to procure an unlawful benefit.” Id. Indeed, to conclude that hundreds—perhaps thousands—of individuals entered the Capitol building “corruptly”—by reading “corruptly” to mean nothing more than “acting with an independently unlawful purpose or through independently unlawful means”—would strip the
word of any independent meaning.

[Life of Brian]

Oh the crickets, they are deafening. Two quick follow-ups for the daring ones:

1. Had you heard this story before about how 1512(c) came to be?
2. Does it affect your thinking at all about the proper interpretation of 1512(c)? (Don't bother, NG -- I'm sure you're a hard no regardless of the merits.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Until and unless cert denied, this is meaningless and you know that.

[John F. Carr]

The decision may affect plea bargains.

[Martinned]

Since some commenters expressed concerns about the democratic controls in the EU, with regard to Commissioner Breton's efforts to enforce the Digital Services Act: There will be a meeting of the European Council (i.e.. the Heads of State or Government) later this week. The draft conclusions only have one reference to disinformation: "The European Union will intensify its work with partners to counter false Russian narratives and disinformation about the war."

(The draft conclusions aren't available publicly yet, except behind paywalls, so let me know if you want to know what the Council is going to say about any other topic.)

[Martinned]

For people who still think the economy is doing terribly, the 10-year treasury yield has gone above 5% for the first time since 2007. Basically markets think that the US economy will keep growing, and that pressure against inflation will be applied on the monetary side (by having the Fed increase its rates) rather than on the fiscal side (by reducing the Federal deficit).

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, what a news flash, you mean the Federal Deficit’s not going down?? And good thing that rising interest rates don’t affect peoples house payments, credit card bills, could hurt a certain stone faced Scranton bumpkin's re-erection hopes (that and his < 1yr life expectancy)

Funny that a POTUS who’s pushing Electric F-150’s (what? you can’t afford a $90,000 Pick Up? C’mon Man!) has depleted 1/2 of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, (Some 350,000,000 barrels) That’s alot of CO2 in the Troposphere if you believe the Global Warming bullshit. Trying to remember what “National Emergency” warranted tapping the reserve? Oh yeah, Parkinsonian Joe’s anemic poll numbers,

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

...are you better off today than you were three years ago (question intended for the general readership, not Martinned specifically)?

[Frank Drackman]

Most peoples are 3 years older and deeper in Debt. I'm just 3 years older, that's bad enough.

[Mr. Bumble]

Worse than the alternative?

[Frank Drackman]

My Urologist asked if I can still get it up in the morning, I told her (yes, my Urologist's a chick, not letting some Homo play with my balls/Prostrate)
"Get it up in the morning? I'm lucky if I can find it in the morning!!" (Rim Shot)

Actually no problems in that area, I just go for the Strudel (strange that you have to go to a Urologist to find great Strudel)

Frank "Yes, Doctor, I am happy to see you"

[Martinned]

I am, yes. Even though I live in a country where productivity (in output per hour worked) has been flat for almost 20 years.

[Mr. Bumble]

So (for whatever reason) your income must be increasing much faster than inflation. To what do you attribute that and do you think that applies to a majority if the people?

[Frank Drackman]

Watta ya expect when more than 1/2 the population sits on their fat asses all day??. One thing Mitt Romeney was right about. And I'm tired of hearing how miserable, sad, and mistreated the Gazan's are, looks like they do plenty of fucking when they aren't terrorizing.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

NO!!!!!

[David Nieporent]

Yes, absolutely.

To be clear, I am pretty sure that there hasn't been a three-year period in my life where I haven't been better off at the end than I was at the start. (In material terms, anyway; I was better off before my mother passed away than right after.)

[Nelson]

"…are you better off today than you were three years ago (question intended for the general readership, not Martinned specifically)?"

Yes, and I'm not even impacted by the low unemployment rate. People who need a job are doing better than they have in decades.

[bernard11]

Yes. Both financially and healthwise, though I don't think Biden had much to do with my health.

[Kazinski]

What a terrible misreading of how financial markets work.

Government issued securities Interest rates don’t rise because investors think the economy has good growth prospects, they rise because investors want an increased risk premium to compensate them for risks of default and inflation.

Of course other factors is competition with other fixed income sources and stock market returns.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned is equating Slo Joe;s "economy" with that of the formerly worst president J. Carter.

[Martinned]

The President has very little power over the economy. (But still gets blamed for it.)

[Mr. Bumble]

…and takes credit for a good economy.
Given the failure of Congress to properly do much of anything, presidents, through executive actions play a bigger part in the direction of the economy then they have in the past.

[Martinned]

That's true for most policy areas, but in the case of the economy the key drivers of outcomes are the levels and types of taxation, and the levels and manner of spending. All of which is controlled almost exclusively by Congress.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe the amount of innovation affects the economy too? Come on...play with me here. Pretend that there are things other than government decisions that drive economies.

[Nelson]

"presidents, through executive actions play a bigger part"

And that's a terrible thing. Obstructionism in Congress has moved the power of governance away from the Legislative and to the Executive, which has already too much power.

Those who simultaneously applaud Congressional inaction and decry Presidential overreach are clueless. The first causes the second. If Congress can't do their job, it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing it. It just allows a single person, the President, to do what they want since Congress isn't there to stop them.

If you love Congressional inaction, by extension you love Presidential overreach.

If you believe that the most powerful branch should be (and was intended to be) Congress, stop cheering when idiots on the fringe prevent it from functioning. It just gives the President more power.

[Frank Drackman]

Who depleted half of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Who's been buying Zolensky's Hookers? Who gave $100,000,000 to Ham-Ass?? Who's trying to let billions of deadbeat Millennials out of their loan (re)payments?? It sure the (redacted) wasn't "45"

Frank "Wait! there's more!"

[SRG2]

By what quantifiable economic criteria do you deem Carter "worst president ever"?

[Frank Drackman]

the "Misery Index" Jimmuh made up himself when he was running against Gerald Ford in 1976 (Ford had to deal with Watergate/Pardon/Losing Vietnam and still almost won) when it was umm, 12.7%.
After 4 years of Jimmuh Cartuh wearing Sweaters, Killing Swamp Rabbits* it was 20.1%
I'll give Parkinsonian Joe Credit, he's doing his best to match Jimmuh

Frank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident
*

[Mr. Bumble]

Formerly worst president ever. Surpassed by Obama and Obama surpassed by Biden.

[SRG2]

By what quantifiable measure? Or is this simply "Democratic president baaaad, GOP president gooood"?

[Kazinski]

I remember that mortgage interest rates hit 18% under Carter.

I actually voted for Carter twice, but I saw the huge difference in the economy when Reagan came in and I have consistently voted Republican since.

Jimmy Carter singlehandedly turned me into a Republican. Although I do appreciate his very real and very beneficial efforts at deregulation in trucking, railroads, telecommunications, and especially home brewing.

He seemed even more helpless I tackling inflation than either of his predecessors Ford and Nixon.

I certainly don't subscribe to those who call Carter "History's Greatest Monster".

[Nelson]

Do you consider yourself a Reagan Republican? Meaning was it the policies of Reagan that brought you to the Republican party or was it opposition to the Democratic party?

[Kazinski]

I'm more of a libertarian than a Republican.

I think drugs and sex should be decriminalized, which wouldn't be considered Reaganism, but I do believe in peace through strength.

And I definitely believe in free markets over government regulation, which Carter was very strong on, or at least realized had gone way too far, but certainly not opposed by Reagan.

[Nelson]

Sorry, I read the "turned me into a Republican" part literally.

Does the "peace through strength" part mean military action like Vietnam and Iraq? Or more along the lines of proxy wars like Syria and military support for allies like Ukraine?

[bernard11]

I remember that mortgage interest rates hit 18% under Carter.

The peak rate under Carter was 16.35%, reached for a few weeks in April, 1980.

He seemed even more helpless I tackling inflation than either of his predecessors Ford and Nixon.

Ever heard of Paul Volcker?

Guess who appointed him.

[SRG2]

I remember that mortgage interest rates hit 18% under Carter.

Many people do, but their memories are often wrong. Mortgage rates continued to rise, and peak, under Reagan.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US

You can win money betting on this, I have.

[Krayt]

Unless Trump wins and lets a dictator's tanks roll through Europe.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's happening now under a Democrat president.

[Martinned]

Not a lot of rolling happening at the moment...

From Mitch McConnell:
"No Americans are getting killed in Ukraine. We're rebuilding our industrial base. The Ukrainians are destroying the army of one of our biggest rivals. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with that. I think it's wonderful that they're defending themselves- and also the notion that the Europeans are not doing enough. They've done almost 90 billion dollars, they're housing a bunch of refugees who escaped. I think that our NATO allies in Europe have done quite a lot."

https://twitter.com/BrianKarem/status/1716152032233468063

[Frank Drackman]

It's merely Roosh-a taking back one of their rebellious former republics, like Lincoln did to the South, I thought that was a good thang?

[Krayt]

One ended slavery, the other is spreading tyranny. I don't see an equivalence of good thang.

[Drewski]

Thinking isn't exactly your strong suit.

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski, what do you expect from antisemitic Eurotrash? = What a terrible misreading of how financial markets work.

In addition to what you said, there is another very relevant point. A treasury bond =/= bond fund. They behave differently. Most retail investors own bond funds, not individual treasury bonds.

[Martinned]

That comes dangerously close to implying that only Jews understand financial markets.

[Commenter_XY]

That comes dangerously close to implying that only Jews understand financial markets.

What I expect to read from financially illiterate anti-semitic Eurotrash

[Frank Drackman]

Well according to the Anti-Semites, we control them, so we should understand them, goes back to that whole "Learned Elders" bullshit.

Frank

[Nelson]

"That comes dangerously close to implying that only Jews understand financial markets."

It doesn't come anywhere close to implying that. It's disturbing to see such a unfounded, insane statement. It sounds like something wingnuts like BCD would say.

[Martinned]

It's not one or the other. Part of the rise in yields will definitely be the Republicans' inability to elect a Speaker. But I didn't want to bring that up, because I reckoned that wouldn't lead to any productive conversation.

But if you don't think that interest rates on everything are driven by expected future Fed rates, I might direct you to a Macro 101 class.

[Armchair]

No. Interest rates are ultimately driven by risk.

To give an example, the Argentina 10Y Government Bond has an estimated 49.680% yield. That has approximately zero to do with the federal funds rate, and everything to do with the approximate risk of the investment.

[Martinned]

So you're telling me that today the US is a lot less risky than when Reagan was in office? https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/US10Y

[Armchair]

Yes. There are many types of (financial) risk. Including inflation.

[Kazinski]

It depends. Nominal interest rates include all risks. Real interest rates mostly take out inflation risk, but also include the risks of current inflation.

[bernard11]

No. Interest rates are not "ultimately driven by risk."

The Argentine example is almost surely a case of very high inflation expectations, combined with some default risk.

Default risk should be practically non-existent for US Treasuries, except that the Republican idiocy about the debt ceiling has created a tiny bit.

[Armchair]

"Armchair 10 hours ago
Yes. There are many types of (financial) risk. Including inflation."

[bernard11]

Well, it's tricky.

If you look at events, as risks rise interest on Treasuries will go down, not up. Look up "flight to safety."

[Armchair]

Sigh. Let me clarify.

Interest rates on a given security depends on the risk inherent in that given security (as well as the demand for that given security). There are multiple types of risk, including default risk and inflation risk.

If a government security is deemed a higher default risk, it will have a higher interest rate. This is default risk.

If a government currency has a higher inflation rate (or is believed will have a higher inflation rate in the future), it will have a higher interest rate. This is inflation risk.

Relative demand for a security can lower a interest rate beyond what it may otherwise be considered reasonable in a vacuum. A common example are "war bonds." Individuals would buy the bonds to show their patriotism, despite interest rates that may not justify their otherwise being purchased.

[bernard11]

Spare me the patronizing sigh, Armchair. I know about 100 times what you do about this stuff.

You are mangling together a variety of things.

Interest rates on a given security depends on the risk inherent in that given security (as well as the demand for that given security). There are multiple types of risk, including default risk and inflation risk.

Are you talking about bonds? The rates on US Treasury bonds are the real risk-free interest rate plus expected inflation. There is virtually no default risk - there would be even less if Republicans weren't such idiots. This is generally true of countries that borrow in their own currency - of which there are few. Those that don't might default.

The other big risk with government bonds is unexpected inflation. The price today reflects today's inflation expectations. If those prove wrong the price will change. Argentina has high rates because of both possibilities. (They do not borrow in pesos.)

Corporate bonds face the additional risk associated with the business. This can be diversified away to some extent, but there is still a lot of underlying systemic risk.

[Armchair]

1. If you know "100 times" you should understand that inflation is a risk, and "inflation risk" its its own special category.

2. If you want to understand what a government security is, it's not just bonds, and they aren't just from the US government. They are from a variety of different governments, national, state, and local. These all have different levels of risk.

3. "The other big risk with government bonds is unexpected inflation. The price today reflects today’s inflation expectations."

This is...inaccurate. There are several things doing on, beyond just today's inflation expectations. There are reasons that typically a 30-year US Treasury bond will have a higher interest rate than a 3-Month US Treasury note. You need to account for these items.

[Davy C]

the Republicans’ inability to elect a Speaker.

The Democrats have *also* been unable to elect a Speaker. They prefer the chaos, apparently.

[Martinned]

That's exactly what I meant by "wouldn’t lead to any productive conversation".

[loki13]

"The Democrats have *also* been unable to elect a Speaker. They prefer the chaos, apparently."

This is someone who truly has drank the Kool-Aid.

Feel free to use your historical knowledge to tell us the last time the minority party elected the Speaker of the House.

And then explain to us, like we are slightly dumb golden retrievers, why it is the Democrats' fault that the GOP, which has the majority in the House, first (1) decided to remove their own Speaker, and then (2) has been unable to elect a new one.

Go on. Seriously, the whole, "This is somehow actually the Democrats' fault," has got to be the weirdest thing I've heard- but I guess gullible isn't in the dictionary?

[Bwaaah]

The Speaker was removed by 208 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Those Democrats knew very well they had no ability to fill the seat once it was emptied. Looks like a BURN-IT-ALL-DOWN strategy to me. (They call it a loss for “the other guys” and pretend they didn’t just sh_t our bed.)

[loki13]

Again, this is bizarre and revisionist history.

The Democrats did not attempt to remove the Speaker. You know that, right? That was a motion made by a Republican, under rules created by the Republicans, that could only have passed if the Republicans allowed it to pass.

Moreover, the "Democrats" did not know that the MAJORITY PARTY would be unable to choose a speaker, as always happens. This is purely on the GOP.

Your argument is basically this- the Democrats were required to vote for a GOP speaker, despite not having any bargain or arrangement to do so, and despite not wanting that person as their speaker.

This is quite amazing, actually. I am not mad- I am impressed! Somehow, in your mind, you have managed to transmogrify this ongoing problem that is entirely the GOP's fault ... into something that the Democrats did? I notice you didn't even bother to look at history ... for obvious reasons.

If and/or when the GOP is serious about governance, they are welcome to strike a deal with the Democrats, or to do what is always done and just elect their own speaker. They have done neither.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Again, this is bizarre and revisionist history.

This from the clown who once informed the class that Richard Nixon was the only U.S. President (pre-Trump) to have ever been impeached.

[David Nieporent]

I find it highly unlikely that loki13 said that, but it's certainly on brand for WuzY to make up some fake claim about some individual post someone made from several years ago to avoid responding to an actual point.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Coming from a proven liar and infantile coward like you that means....nothing at all.

[jb]

Wow, was that you proving David's point on purpose, or just an infinite monkeys kind of situation?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Apparently it was me proving what an illiterate dumbass you are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I find it highly unlikely that loki13 said that..."

He said that Nixon was the only US president to ever have been impeached and removed.

Fortunately for him, he said it on the wapo and those comments have apparently been memory-holed, so it can't be proven that he said it. But he knows he said it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Unfortunately for Nieporent, his repeated regurgitation of the braindead talking point that the Ivermectin prescribed to people (including for Covid, which I’m aware is not indicated by any good evidence) is “horse de-wormer”…even after it was proven to be a lie…is still readily available, as is his cowardly doubling-down on the lie and compounding it by making up even more BS in order to attack the messenger.

[Nelson]

“the braindead talking point that the Ivermectin ... is “horse de-wormer”

https://extension.umn.edu/horse-health/controlling-and-treating-parasites-your-horse

– “Use ivermectin and moxidectin to treat against larval stages.”

– Use ivermectin, oxibendazole, pyrantel pamoate, or piperazine to treat against adult worms.”

Not only is it used as a horse dewormer, it’s a heartworm preventative for dogs.

Would you prefer it be called a canine heartworm treatment rather than a horse dewormer? Both are accurate, but apparently horse dewormer bothers you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Would you prefer it be called a canine heartworm treatment rather than a horse dewormer? Both are accurate, but apparently horse dewormer bothers you.

Congratulation on outing yourself as exactly the sort of mouth-breathing window-licker that talking point was aimed at in order to reinforce your delusion that you’re smarter than you actually are.

https://www.webmd.com/drug-medication/what-is-ivermectin

“There are two types of the medication. Doctors prescribe one kind for certain health conditions in people, and veterinarians prescribe another that’s safe only for animals.”

There are two different types of product based on Ivermectin, one formulated for humans and the other formulated for livestock. I even gave you a clue with the phrase “the Ivermectin prescribed to people”, but you were too stupid to benefit from it. In short, the version of Ivermectin that was being prescribed by a handful of physicians for Covid treatment is not veterinary formulation.

That form of Ivermectin was developed to treat a variety of ailments in humans, and was generally considered one of the “wonder drugs” for the number of lives it improved (or even saved) after its introduction:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

“It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ the braindead talking point that the Ivermectin … is “horse de-wormer”

Eclipsing out “prescribed to people”? Pretty weak.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Eclipsing out “prescribed to people”? Pretty weak.

This is a shining example of just how screwed up some people are, in that they'd rather go down repeatedly making complete fools of themselves and proving to the world how utterly devoid they are of anything even remotely resembling integrity because they lack the courage to simply acknowledge that they were taken in by a bit of propaganda.

[Nige]

Lol wuz took horse dewormer.

[Nelson]

"Congratulation on outing yourself as exactly the sort of mouth-breathing window-licker that talking point was aimed at in order to reinforce your delusion that you’re smarter than you actually are."

Congratulations on trying to set up others, but only proving you are an idiot who doesn't think things through.

Ivermectin, as formulated for animals, is harmful to humans. However ivermectin, as formulated for people, is not harmful to animals.

Because it is the exact same drug, Ivermectin, the drug as formulated for people will deworm a horse and will prevent heartworm in dogs.

Can you comprehend the difference? If it is the same drug that produces the same results without harmful side effects, it can be referred to as such.

So yes, it is a horse dewormer and a canine heartworm treatment.

You apparently aren't smart enough to understand simple concepts like "the same drug is the same drug". Nor that, because it is the formulation (as in the sum total of all ingredients added to the Ivermectin), not the drug itself, that is dangerous, it remains a horse dewormer in the human-safe formulation.

You're also apparently too stupid to realize that, without any reason, believing a horse dewormer that treats parasites will have any impact on a virus is really, really dumb. Which has been proved by every piece of evidence collected since then.

However, because making medical decisions based on your hatred of a political party is such a collosal, almost unimaginable level of stupidity, it makes using a horse dewormer to treat a virus seem like a genius move in comparison.

[loki13]

Huh. I am somewhat baffled as to how a comment about voting for the Speaker for the House became ... something about a horse de-wormer ...

But then I notice a whole bunch of comments from people I muted, and it all makes sense!

Some decisions keep paying off. 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You’re also apparently too stupid to realize that, without any reason, believing a horse dewormer that treats parasites will have any impact on a virus is really, really dumb.

Given that I've already said that there is no good reason to think it's an effective treatment for Covid, the stupidity here (as well as in the rest of your quantity-over-quality post) is all yours.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But then I notice a whole bunch of comments from people I muted, and it all makes sense!

Some decisions keep paying off.

Yes, but just not in the way you think...dumbass.

[David Nieporent]

Huh. I am somewhat baffled as to how a comment about voting for the Speaker for the House became … something about a horse de-wormer …

TL;DR: WuzYoungOnceToo's go to response when humiliated in a discussion (a pretty much daily occurrence) is to say, "Oh yeah? Well three years ago you said X [even though the person often hadn't said X, or even though X was correct], so you're a poopyhead."

For some reason he thought he could win an argument about the House GOP's dysfunction by pointing out that I've mocked MAGA loons in the past for their promotion of ivermectin for treating covid. His protests-too-much defense is, "Not all of the gullible idiots used the horse paste version; some of them used the equally-not-useful-for-covid human formulation." (Which of course I know, but that kind of misses how mockery works. But he pretends to forget that during the height of the ivermectin craze, many couldn't easily get the human version and instead used the animal one.)

[loki13]

Wow!

Given I’ve commented on VC for, what … oh no, it’s closing in on 20 years now … I am pleasantly surprised that someone would have to go years back to find a single misstatement I have made! Well, whatever it actually was (or was alleged to be), I can probably self-own a lot better than that. I still remember that I argued to Prof. Kerr, early in the 2016 primaries, that it would be good for the GOP to nominate Trump. I mean, I knew who he was. So I assumed that there was no way he could win, and that not only would it be entertaining, his doomed candidacy might actually cause the GOP to engage in some self-reflection and get back to (small-c) conservative, pro-business policies as its bedrock. Prof. Kerr did not agree with that point, at all.

Oops……

Anyway, “I’m the smart guy here! I took the HUMAN version of Ivermectin,” is probably not the amazing retort the person thought it was when it was bouncing around in their head. But just further evidence that, like the relative who sends you their forwarded news in ALL-CAPS, it’s best to not pay that person any attention. After all, that’s what they want. They can just howl into the void.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

WuzYoungOnceToo’s go to response when humiliated in a discussion...

FFS...you're surpassing even Sarcastr0 in your absolutely shameless dependence on bald-faced lies on top of bald-faced lies. What a waste of oxygen you are.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Anyway, “I’m the smart guy here! I took the HUMAN version of Ivermectin,” is probably not the amazing retort the person thought it was when it was bouncing around in their head.

And here you demonstrate just how stupid it is to not read what you’re commenting on, and instead rely on the word of someone who has repeatedly proven that he’s just as full of shit as you are...because you're also a pathetic coward.

[Sarcastr0]

Wuz continually invoking my name like a talisman of badness.

[Nelson]

Yeah, Wuz "got me" by setting me up to fall for his "the human formulation is different because the horse and canine formulations are harmful to humans".

I notice he didn't respond to my post pointing out that the human formulation is safe and effective for use in animals, so even his "gotcha" trap showed that Ivermectin, in the human formulation, is still a horse dewormer and canine heartworm preventative.

I wonder why he hasn't responded? He must be busy with ... stuff. And things.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I notice he didn’t respond to my post pointing out that the human formulation is safe and effective for use in animals, so even his “gotcha” trap showed that Ivermectin, in the human formulation, is still a horse dewormer and canine heartworm preventative.

Because the purpose of referring to it as “horse de-wormer” in that context was to ridicule people by making it sound like they were taking a medication intended for veterinary use and not human use, you moron. The pride you’re taking in the fact that you’re too stupid to understand that is…misplaced.

But thanks for reminding me why I had previously muted you, and why temporarily undoing that this time was a mistake..

[David Nieporent]

Because the purpose of referring to it as “horse de-wormer” in that context was to ridicule people by making it sound like they were taking a medication intended for veterinary use and not human use, you moron.

Congratulations on finally figuring out the obvious! (But as I noted previously, the problem is that you don't realize (or pretend not to) that people actually were doing that.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Congratulations on finally figuring out the obvious!

Did you mean to direct that at Nelson? You know, the idiot who couldn’t figure it out?

(But as I noted previously, the problem is that you don’t realize (or pretend not to) that people actually were doing that.)

Your non-stop barrage of bullshit here makes your accusation of dishonesty on my part funny as hell…as is your consistent doubling-down on that cowardly approach. Also, this certainly didn't age well, did it?:

"I find it highly unlikely that loki13 said that, but it’s certainly on brand for WuzY to make up some fake claim about some individual post someone made from several years ago to avoid responding to an actual point."

[Nelson]

"Because the purpose of referring to it as “horse de-wormer” in that context was to ridicule people"

When I want to ridicule people, I do it like this: What sort of dumbass thinks that an antiparasitic drug would be an effective treatment for a virus? And what sort of mental defective continues to believe such idiocy when every scrap of evidence proves it doesn't work?

That's what ridiculing people looks like.

Calling it a horse dewormer and a canine heartworm treatment is just accurately describing the drug's applications, using the paradigm cultural conservatives utilize in anti-trans and anti-abortion rhetoric, just without the dishonesty and lying they love so much.

"But thanks for reminding me why I had previously muted you"

That's not surprising, since I tend to address each point when I respond and often include links and logic chains to support my replies.

You seem like the snowflake type who can't read factual rebuttals of your beliefs without flying into a rage and launching ad hominem attacks.

[Don Nico]

The GOP's primary fault is stupidity.

[David Nieporent]

That having been said, the GOP's primary strength is also stupidity.

[Don Nico]

It sure seems that way

[Kazinski]

101? I went up into the upper division classes and developed an appreciation more for micro than macro, the head of the department was trying to get me to change my major to Econ, but I stayed in IT. My father in law was a upper division calculus professor at the same University. I knew what I was in for if I switched majors to econ, and business calculus was plenty rigorous enough for me. My father in law helped me learn differential equations but skipped so far ahead I'm not sure it helped, in my classes, but it was enlightening. In IT the most complicated math you need is x = x+ 1.

The Fed certainly is part of the risk equation, but more because they are trying to get out in front of the risks than being the source of the risks.

Look up “failed treasury auction”, you’ll see things like this:https://jameslavish.substack.com/p/when-treasury-auctions-fail

Or this headline from Barons last last week: “Oct 12, 2023 · An auction of 30-year Treasury debt on Thursday is the latest warning signal that demand for U.S. government bonds is sinking.”

And then you can delve into the mysteries of the dreaded inverted yield curve, where perceived short term risk is higher than the perceived long term risk.

And you better understand the difference between nominal and real interest rates because real interest rates are what tells the fed what they should be doing.https://www.longtermtrends.net/real-interest-rate/

The fed didn’t have anything to do with real interest rates going negative last year, but obviously they had something to do with them going positive because they had no choice but to raise rates in response.

[Martinned]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

[Kazinski]

I couldn't agree more, and greater knowledge can be even more dangerous.

I knew a guy once that was so brilliant he thought he could play cocoa futures.

[Bwaaah]

Well then you're in no danger. (Although if you think knowledge is dangerous, you should also consider the risks of false confidence.)

[Joe_dallas]

Kazinski 4 hours ago (edited)
101? I went up into the upper division classes and developed an appreciation more for micro than macro, "

Understanding Micro is one of the most useful subjects. Supply and demand curves along with understanding the difference between cost benefit analysis and marginal cost /marginal benefit analysis are very useful. marginal cost v marginal benefit spans so many disciplines.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, understanding macro is useful for understanding a lot of whys and wherefores in politics, monetary and fiscal policy.

Micro economics is more useful in understanding our daily lives, easy to see that's a lot more useful.

[Armchair]

Ummmm... no.

Typically bond interest rates go up when an investment is deemed a riskier...not a safer...investment. Investors demand more return to cover the potential risk.

[Martinned]

Bond rates also go up when the alternative uses for that money, such as investments linked to the Federal funds rate, become more lucrative. The higher the Federal funds rate, the higher the yields on everything else.

[Armchair]

What "investments" are "linked" to the federal funds rate? Be specific on the investment and how they are linked.

[Martinned]

Google Scholar is your friend: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=fed+rate+transmission&oq=fed+rate+tran

[Armchair]

I asked you, not google scholar.

Try again.

[Armchair]

No response, eh. If you can't explain your position, perhaps it's a problem.

[Nelson]

Let me get this straight. A detailed list from knowledgeable sources isn't acceptable to you because ... he didn't say it in his own words?

When you ask a question, but reject an answer for spurious reasons, it's pretty clear you ignored the lawyer's adage: never ask a question that you don't know the answer to.

Apparently you thought he couldn't answer the question. You were wrong.

[Armchair]

A spam of a bunch of partially related links is not acceptable. He did not answer the question, he punted...

[VinniUSMC]

Let me get this straight. A detailed list from knowledgeable sources isn’t acceptable to you because … he didn’t say it in his own words?

Did you follow the link and make even a 1/10th-ass attempt to understand the "detailed list" that wasn't? No, because you're a braindead lefty shit.

[Nelson]

Yes, I did. And several were directly on-point, which answered the question that was asked. But like the wingnut you are when you get a valid answer you don't like, you respond by attacking the messenger and the means by which the message was conveyed.

Armchair's question was: "What “investments” are “linked” to the federal funds rate?"

Ignoring the infantile use of scare quotes, some of the multitude of investments that are directly impacted by the Fed rate were identified in a simple web search. The fact that Armchair doesn't like the form of the response doesn't change its substance.

[Armchair]

Since you've seen fit to inject yourself into the conversation Nelson, perhaps you can be specific. What investments are linked (not impacted by, but linked) to the Federal Funds rate?

Be specific, don't just spam some links.

[bernard11]

The higher the Federal funds rate, the higher the yields on everything else.

I think you're a bit confused. It's not god for the fed to raise the rate. The reason other rates, like the prime, go up is that they are based on the Fed funds rate or something similar.

Banks make money on the interest rate spread. When the Fed funds rate goes up they raise the prime.

[bernard11]

Interest rates for the specific investment do go up when the investment is seen as risky.

But that doesn't drive up other rates. As risk in the economy increases Treasury rates go down.

[Martinned]

It is utterly fascinating to me that the Trumpist talking point seems to be that higher Treasury yields are about risk rather than inflation. Who do they think is causing that risk???

[Armchair]

Inflation is a type of risk.

[Kazinski]

Trumpists talking point?

Don't be naive, the green eye shade crowd doesn't care.

George Soros would sink a few billion into Trump futures in an instant if he saw an arbitrage opportunity, and sell them just as fast when the timing was right. Accessing risks and deciding whether to invest in treasuries isn't affected by talking points.

[Martinned]

Soros is retired, but otherwise I agree 100%. What (most) people in financial markets do is not affected by talking points. But what people write in the VC comments section is absolutely affected by talking points that commenters see on TV and hear on talk radio. If five different Trumpists tell me the same thing, odds are they all heard it more or less in the same place.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does the same apply to those with TDS?

[Martinned]

Probably. Why?

[David Nieporent]

those with TDS

That’s what he said: Trumpists.

[bernard11]

Um. You do realize that interest rates reflect, in part, inflation expectations?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

For people who still think the economy is doing terribly, the 10-year treasury yield has gone above 5% for the first time since 2007. Basically markets think that the US economy will keep growing

Now look at how the S&P 500 (and other major indices) has performed over the past 3 years...not to mention the past 30 days...and tell the class what the markets think.

[Martinned]

Over the last 3 years the S&P 500 is up by 17%, which is below par but not terrible.

The S&P being down in the last few days is exactly what you'd expect when interest rates are going up. Do you really need me to explain why, or are you going to keep trolling?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Over the last 3 years the S&P 500 is up by 17%, which is below par but not terrible.

And the cumulative rate of inflation over those same 3 years is 18.9%.

The S&P being down in the last few days

I said the past 30 days...you know, an entire month...not "the last few days". That's currently a loss of about 1.8%.

Do you really need me to explain why

Give the above it's pretty clear that the only one who needs things explained to them is you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’m still waiting for you to explain how an inflation-adjusted annualized rate of return of -0.033% for 3 consecutive years and a significantly worse adjusted return for the past 3 months (roughly -5.9%)...for an index that has averaged an adjusted ARR of +7.25% since 1945...isn’t terrible, and what it says about what the markets think.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oops…

a significantly worse adjusted return for the past 3 months (roughly -5.9%)

….should have read…

a significantly worse adjusted return for the past 3 months (roughly -27.3%)

I read the wrong part of my spreadsheet, and so was being far too generous.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Aaaaand.....still waiting.

[Martinned]

H/t prof. Kerr: E.D.Pa.: Driver’s failure to laugh at odd question during stop not RS

Officer Smart testified that he regularly asks individuals a question concerning possession of “firearms, drugs, cats, dogs, alligators, and weapons” at vehicle stops because it “helps [him] read people’s body language and their demeanor.” … He further testified that he was trained by other officers to infer that an individual who does not laugh at such a question is nervous about either firearms or narcotics … and that he typically receives a “laughing response” to that question …. While courts “do give considerable deference to police officers’ determinations of reasonable suspicion, … courts do not owe them blind deference.” United States v. Alvin, 701 F. App’x 151, 156 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). The Court does not find that laughing at a law enforcement officer while being questioned about drugs and weapons would be an appropriate response. Moreover, failing to laugh at a bizarre question while being questioned about drugs and weapons does not create reasonable suspicion to remove an individual from a car after a traffic violation.

https://fourthamendment.com/?p=56109#more-56109

[Mr. Bumble]

Officer Smartass?

[loki13]

I am reminded of a series of cases I read where officers routinely found reasonable suspicion because people were either nervous (showing that they had something to hide), or because they weren't nervous (showing that they weren't regular people who would be nervous when stopped by LEOs).

[Mr. Bumble]

Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't there a market for smuggled baby alligators?

If I were returning from Florida and an officer asked me that question, I would think he was serious.

[John F. Carr]

If the driver laughed, he would have been nervously trying to hide something. A recent Short Circuit listed some pairs of court decisions where either possible reaction to a police officer was considered a sign of guilt.

[bernard11]

Yes. The whole thing is utter BS.

People react different ways to various situations. It's not for the cop to decide that the reaction was an indicator of guilt.

Maybe the driver was nervous because the stop was making him late for an important appointment, or because he was worried about how much the ticket was going to cost, or something else altogether.

On top of that people with different backgrounds may react differently to being stopped.

IMO it's right up there with "the demeanor of the witness."

[not guilty]

Another one bites the dust. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/20/chesebro-guilty-plea-trump-georgia/

With plea/cooperation agreements with Kenneth Chesbro and Sidney Powell, it is time to set a trial in Fulton County for the remaining defendants. Donald Trump will be busy otherwise beginning on March 4, but there is no reason that the remaining fifteen defendants cannot be set for trial beginning in January or February. Setting a trial date would likely prompt other defendants to plead guilty, so the logistics of a joint trial could be manageable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Re. Powell and Chesebro: a fine example of the tendency of prosecutors to abuse the law by overcharging.

[not guilty]

Which of the charges against Powell or Chesebro do you contend was not supported by probable cause? Please be specific.

For your convenience, the indictment is here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.1.1.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Whether supported by probable cause or not, the question is why would a prosecutor agree to a plea for misdemeanors for someone facing multiple felony counts?

[not guilty]

"Whether supported by probable cause or not, the question is why would a prosecutor agree to a plea for misdemeanors for someone facing multiple felony counts?"

I surmise that is because Sidney Powell's proffer included information valuable to prosecutors regarding other defendants. That, and she is 68 years old and facing six years probation, the likely loss of her law license, and the prospect of future prosecution by federal authorities.

[Mr. Bumble]

So lawfare. Overcharging to coerce a plea.
See Techno Fog's take on this:
https://technofog.substack.com/p/prediction-sidney-powell-wont-be

[not guilty]

What do you claim evinces overcharging or coercion? Powell always had the option of going to trial and take her chances on going to prison.

Instead, she appears to have agreed with Sir John Falstaff that the better part of valour is discretion. Henry IV, Part I, Act 5, scene 4.

[SRG2]

It's funny how Trump supporters h are only concerned about deficiencies in the :U:S justice system when their people are snagged by it.

Bad prison conditions? They DGAF until the Jan 6 rioters experience them. Delays between charges and trial? Ditto. Overcharging for plea deals? They DGAF until Squidney and Cheese Bro took plea deals.

So they may have a point, but they're still hugely hypocritical.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hugely hypocritical"

Runs both ways, no?

Lefties here are giddy about how Trump et al. are being treated.

[SRG2]

Lefties here are giddy about how Trump et al. are being treated.

I'm not a leftist, except according to the Trump--centric definition that anyone who opposes Trump is a leftie.

They're being treated very well. All of them have had bail granted, they have their choice of counsel, and there's no evidence of any denial of due process.

Of course, if you think that "when Trump does it, it's not illegal", naturally you'd whine about his being charged.

[David Nieporent]

Bad prison conditions? They DGAF until the Jan 6 rioters experience them. Delays between charges and trial? Ditto.

At the very same time they're complaining about pretrial confinement for insurrectionists, they've been demagoguing attempts at bail reform.

[loki13]

Because the first people to take the deal, get the best deal.

I am quite sure that the other defendants are looking at those terms, and thinking to themselves ... I don't want to be the last person to talk to the prosecutors, after they have everything they need.

[Commenter_XY]

The psychology aspect you just mentioned is interesting = I am quite sure that the other defendants are looking at those terms, and thinking to themselves … I don’t want to be the last person to talk to the prosecutors, after they have everything they need.

Is this axiomatic, generally accepted consensus; conventional wisdom (I am asking out of curiosity) = Because the first people to take the deal, get the best deal.

How do you 'pitch' this to the client? When do you know to take the deal? What tells you, as a lawyer?

[loki13]

Well, there’s a reason that the most well-known problem in game theory is the prisoner’s dilemma, because it’s canonical.

There is no simple way to “know.” It’s always a risk/reward calculus. What’s the expected payoff/risk of going to trial (based on what you know of the evidence and the charges … and the possible sentence) as opposed to what is the offer?

In a case like this, however, the more co-defendants that flip, the more the calculus changes. The first people to flip provide the most valuable information- after a while, the prosecutors no longer need the cumulative testimony and the offers will get much worse.

ETA- I should add that in addition to getting testimony and witnesses, the prosecutors also got something else invaluable. Had this trial moved forward, then the other defendants would have received the benefit of watching the case play out once ... now, they don't get that benefit.

[Commenter_XY]

Poker players find 'tells'. What do lawyers find (to tell them it is time to make the deal)?

(the question is open to any lawyer, not just loki13, and I really appreciated his answer - a lot of context)

[not guilty]

The decision to plead guilty or go to trial is ultimately that of the defendant alone. The defense lawyer can advise, persuade and make a recommendation, but in the event of a disagreement between the attorney and the client, the client's decision controls.

That having been said, plea negotiation is an art rather than a science. A defense attorney who deals regularly with prosecutors and judges will often learn the proclivities of each. Every case is different, each with strong points and weaknesses. A good defense lawyer, where possible, will develop a theory of the case that accounts for and explains the government's evidence in a manner inconsistent with the charged offense.

Likewise, every defendant is different. Some present themselves better than others.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed.

[Moderation4ever]

You did not answer the question. What charges were not supported? You moved on in your argument.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The whole freaking thing is not supported -- and I hope people realize the consequences of putting Trump into Prison -- it's going to be the middle ceasing to hold.

Racism and racial slurs will lose their stigma when Joe Sixpack realizes that this was Black Lawfare against a White President.

They are children playing with gasoline.

[Idihax]

I hope so. Whites, if they acted in concert, could easily wipe the black population off the map forever.

It's just a question of awakening the understanding.

[SRG2]

Whites, if they acted in concert, could easily wipe the black population off the map forever.

Yes, but as most whites are not genocidal racist cunts like you, it doesn’t matter.

[Idihax]

You realize that most of the black population hates you and is jealous of you, don't you? You're a useful idiot.

[SRG2]

Don't mistake blacks hating you for blacks hating the rest of us.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The middle currently holds -- all bets are off when it ceases to hold.

[Magister]

The middle seems quite robust, with a majority of Americans thinking that Donald Trump should be prosecuted.

But Dr. Ed 2 is indeed "full of passionate intensity".

[David Nieporent]

He still can't get the quote right, folks.

[Frank Drackman]

I love some Yeats on a Monday

[Idihax]

What percentage of that majority are racist anti-white blacks or mestizos?

[Frank Drackman]

It only takes a few

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When Prof. Bernstein reads that comment he is going to

(1) immediately resign from the Volokh Conspiracy, with public flourish and a stern denunciation of that sentiment

(2) publish at least three posts castigating Idihax for expressing such a vile, immoral position

(3) do what the Volokh Conspirators customarily do when a member of their blog’s target audience publishes a vile, immoral, bigoted comment . . . nothing, except perhaps publish another polemical, disaffected rant objecting to the conduct of the liberal-libertarian modern American mainstream.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The early . . . and smart . . . money is on 'Prof. Bernstein and the other Volokh Conspirators will resemble matadors, waving the bigotry through yet again, for reasons ranging from partisan cowardice to passive embrace of the ugly conservative comment.'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Looks like its partisan cowards and/or bigot-hugging right-wingers all the way down at this white, male, movement conservative, faux libertarian blog.

[Frank Drackman]

Helter Skelter, She's coming down fast!

[SRG2]

Ah, by definition Trump is innocent (or above the law, which amounts to the same thing) so if he is charged it must be unjust, black lawfare.

[Michael Ejercito]

In this case, it is absolutely correct.

[SRG2]

Do you think that Trump is innocent of all charges in all current cases?

[Moderation4ever]

First you again did answer the question, instead you threw your hands up and said they are all not supported. Not offering any logical reason why they are not supported.

You then moved on to this idea of a terror campaign by Joe Sixpack whoever that is? Who is Joe Sixpack and why does his feeling matter more than the rest of us?

BTW - is Joe Sixpack like Joe the Plumber, who wasn't really a plumber

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The number of people here who are too dumb to perform a simple internet search is astounding.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=joe+six+pack

[Kazinski]

Are you trying to kill the conservative movement, I’m as conservative as they come but I want nothing to do with racist asshats like you.

It’s not entirely implausible that Fani Willis is motivated somewhat by racial Animus, but the answer, if true which is just speculative, isn’t countering with more racism.

Blacks and Hispanics are social conservatives, and Asians while less socially conservative are more egaltarian and free market oriented. Whereas Whites are more diverse and range from independent freethinkers to regimented self loathers. Which is my contribution to mindless racial stereotyping for today.

[Drewski]

You forgot to change accounts before replying.

[apedad]

“The real import of this plea is the signal it sends to the other defendants,” said Chris Mattei, a former federal prosecutor.

“Number one, that your time is running out for you to cooperate, because as cooperators come in and plead guilty, the prosecution continues to build its case and may not have a need to cooperate with other individuals,” he continued.

And another legal commenter wrote, "the plea agreements leave Trump’s attorneys without the advantage of seeing the duo’s trial, which would’ve enabled his legal team to see prosecutors’ theory of the case and gather impeaching material before facing a jury themselves."

[Moderation4ever]

I agree. The prosecution sent a message and avoided a long trial. Both were wins.

[John F. Carr]

The prosecutor had a strong incentive to avoid a long and expensive trial to bring in a small fish. Trump is the target. Powell and Chesebro are bycatch.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then why charge them in the first place?

[John F. Carr]

Adding two defendants to a big RICO trial is a small incremental cost. When the judge ruled there would be two separate trials the case got nearly twice as expensive and somewhat more risky because Trump's lawyers would get a free look at the prosecution's witnesses.

[SRG2]

You would not be so faux-naive were this a series of mob cases and a couple of goons had pleaded down early on.

[Moderation4ever]

Is Trump really the target? I am guessing that Trump could get a plea deal as readily as anyone else if he chose to seek one. I think the target here is to vindicate the Georgia election system which was attacked. Every plea deal, Hall, Powell, Chesebro shows the election system did work and that people lied about fraud.

[John F. Carr]

Trump is the target. The case would be much simpler without him. Prosecutors do not need to charge a vast RICO conspiracy to get people for casting fake electoral votes or accessing voting machines without authorization.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Al Capone, John Gotti, and other apex criminals were targets, too . . . did that bother you, John F. Carr?

[Letters_Triumverate]

I didn't know Al Capone was targeted with RICO...

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, but they could have indicated Trump on the single charge of soliciting election fraud for the call to Raffensperger. I think the AG is looking to show a plan to undermine the election and by the State winning also vindicate the election process.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I think the target here is to vindicate the Georgia election system"

Dumbest comment of the day! Congrats!

[Moderation4ever]

No, I think you just beat me for that.

[Bob from Ohio]

You think Trump was not the target. An insane take so, no, its still you.

[Moderation4ever]

I think that Trump could as much as anyone accept a plea deal. Were he to do that and then the case was dropped you would be correct. I don't think the AG would simply drop the case were Trump to plead out. I think it would continue, although I think Trump accepting a plea would likely cause most or everyone else to accept one.

[M L]

The target is to interfere with elections and try to prevent Trump from being elected again.

Eventually they'll probably claim Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett must recuse bcuz they were appointed by Trump??

[Sarcastr0]

You a 2020 election truther?

Because you're already setting up to be a 2024 truther.

[Moderation4ever]

As Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett did not support Trump in 2020 why would they do it in 2024?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

At least you take off the mask once in a while and remind everyone of your true self.

Normally you don't have the courage to even admit your own positions.

[Kazinski]

Incredibly stupid take.

Fani Willis is a Stacey Abrams supporter who attacked the Georgia Election system much more vociferously than even Trump did.

[Moderation4ever]

Stupid take? In what way did Fani Willis attack the Georgia Election system? That she is a Stacey Abrams supporter means nothing as I expect most Georgia Democrats do as well.

[Frank Drackman]

Fucking Gang Members doesn't exactly give one confidence in her judgement, or impartiality
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-accuses-fani-willis-relationship-gang-member-what-we-know-1818410

[apedad]

Knoxville man facing decades in federal prison and a lifetime of supervision after jury finds him guilty of trying to help ISIS

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/crime/knoxville-man-convicted-for-helping-isis/51-6c790faf-b738-4676-959e-04a71d39c87b

Wanted to ask about this specific item, “Prosecutors asked potential jurors if they had . . . a problem with the way certain evidence was collected.”

IANAL so, is this a standard question?

If the evidence was unconstitutionally collected then, yeah I would have a problem with it.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, that guy Carpenter is a real POS. When you post your undying love and admiration for ISIS to social media, translate their videos to English....you got a problem.

The article was not specific on “Prosecutors asked potential jurors if they had . . . a problem with the way certain evidence was collected.” unless I missed it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like an odd question to be asking potential jurors.

[Kazinski]

Well obviously the courts didn't think it was unconstitutional, or there would be no need to ask the jury about their views.

A strict fourth amendment absolutist might have problems with it.

The fourth amendment doesn't apply to non-US persons, so that means if the guy was communicating with ISIS, then they could intercept ISIS communications with him without a warrant and they would be admissable in court.

[John F. Carr]

The question might be aimed at perceived entrapment. The defendant responded to an FBI solicitation. The FBI is allowed to ask him to commit a crime, whther it is translating for a designated terrorist group or meeting a "15 year old girl" he's been chatting with. I would be inclined to acquit anyway if I thought the FBI was trying to save America from an FBI plot. The prosecution would like jurors who understand he is a bad person and needs to go to prison for being a bad person.

[Kazinski]

The House last month released a series of emails where Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, Eric Schwerin and Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky were discussing a contract with deliverables to protect Nikolay Zlochevsky from prosecutors in Ukraine. The email chain was around Nov. 15th 2015. Viktor Shokin was fired February 2016, Joe Biden's famous freelancing trip when he said 'fire him or your not getting the money' was just a few weeks later in December 2015.

I had been assured repeatedly that there was no threat from the prosecutors office during that timeframe, but here is an email, with Hunter a recipient, discussing a contract with the "ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine,

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-10/T42-Exhibit-306-Email-from-Burisma-Regarding-Proposal-11.02.2015_Redacted.pdf

[jb]

Did you read the email that you linked to? It lists a whole bunch of activities that Burisma wants, and none of them have anything to do with getting Shokin fired.

[Kazinski]

Can you read?

"ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine"

[jb]

Yes, I can read. And I can read the whole e-mail, which goes like this:

1) Hey guys, you didn't really tell us exactly what you are going to do for us. But I understand that maybe some of what we want might sound sketchy so that's cool, but let me make sure you understand what I really want you to do.
2) Specifically, what I want you to do is get some US officials to say nice things about Burisma and Nikolay to Ukranian officals,
3) So that they will stop investigating us.

And as usual, your analysis tries to take #1 and #3 out of the context of #2 to support the idea that what they were really asking for was to get Shokin fired. But as you yourself noted, this is Burisma being completely direct about what type of interventions they want out of the arrangement, so rather than supporting the idea that they wanted Shokin removed it actually undercuts it. Why do you think they wanted Shokin fired when Devon Archer testified that he was "handled" and when here they tell Hunter exactly what they want him to do and somehow fail to mention it?

[Nige]

There's more smoking guns for Hunter Biden than there are for the lab leak theory.

[Kazinski]

The Daily Mail has an interesting scoop too:

"EXCLUSIVE: Joe Biden paid nearly $2.75million CASH for Rehoboth Beach house within weeks of Hunter sending 'threatening' text to Chinese business partner demanding to close $10million deal
DailyMail.com can reveal that Joe Biden bought his six-bedroom Rehoboth Beach house in June 2017 for $2,744,001 cash
The transaction was within weeks of a questionable text that Hunter Biden sent to a Chinese associate demanding to seal a deal worth $10million a year
'I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,' Hunter wrote on WhatsApp"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12649277/Joe-Biden-paid-nearly-2-75million-CASH-Rehoboth-Beach-house-weeks-Hunter-sending-threatening-text-Chinese-business-partner-demanding-close-10million-deal.html

[Martinned]

Wow. Makes you wonder what kinds of new laws private citizen Biden passed in 2017 to earn that bribe. #sarc

[Mr. Bumble]

Payment for past efforts.

[Armchair]

Almost like he knew "not" to spend the bribe when he was VP. But hold onto it until the spotlight died down.

[Moderation4ever]

So, the original comment was that he spent the money right after Hunters text, but you are saying he held off to avoid incrementation. What is it? Right after or he waited?

[Armchair]

He obviously took the actions while VP. Then got payment later.

[not guilty]

Supporting facts?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair. If something "obviously" occurred, providing evidence of the occurrence should be a lead pipe cinch.

[Armchair]

Hey now, some of us have real jobs and can't respond on your whims.

If you want actions that Biden took in regards to China, well, it's not like he was point man for the Obama administration in dealing with China.

Oh wait... He was. No possible room for influencing US policy towards China as point person on China....

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-s-trip-china-son-hunter-2013-comes-under-new-n1061051

And....writing letters of recommendation for Hunter's business partner's son?

[not guilty]

So you have nothing but conjecture and speculation? Why didn't you say so in the first place?

[Armchair]

You asked for the actions he took. I provided them.

[Sarcastr0]

No, the hilarious thing is you link to a story full of speculation about Hunter and not providing any actions Joe did.

The fact that you think that counts says a lot about how weak the GOP is in pushing this.

People are dumb, it may work. But factually you've got nothing.

[not guilty]

"You asked for the actions he took. I provided them."

No, I didn’t, and you didn’t.

I asked for facts supporting your ipse dixit claim that Joe Biden “obviously” took the actions while VP and then got payment later. The NBC News article you link to describes no untoward actions by Joe Biden, and it says not one word about any payment to him. Did you actually read the article before linking to it?

The article itself states, “Despite Trump’s accusations, there has been no evidence of corruption on the part of the former vice president or his son.”

[Armchair]

You asked for actions Biden took. I provided those actions.

That you don't like it, doesn't mean Biden didn't take actions with regards to China.

[Sarcastr0]

You asked for actions Biden took. I provided those actions.

As has been pointed out, neither your link nor your post provided any Joe Biden actions.
You can drop the mic all you want, it doesn't make your statement supported.

[Kazinski]

Probably demanding payment for past services.

But read the mail article, they link to a previous piece where they compared his tax returns to his ethics disclosures and found a $5m discrepancy.

[Nige]

'Probably.' Much serious. Very evidence.

[Kazinski]

Exactly what the payment is for isn't clear, the fact that Hunter was threatening his father's retaliation if payment wasn't made from a Chinese CCP affiliated company isn't in serious dispute, nor that the payment was made.

[Nige]

You haven't even established that there was a payment, let alone what the unestablished payment was 'probably' for.

[Commenter_XY]

It is not even Halloween...and the steady, weekly drip-drip of financial and digital revelations leading to an impeachment vote continues*

*This assumes that the DC Toddlers (otherwise known as Team R) can actually get it together and vote for a Speaker they can live with. One wonders.

[Moderation4ever]

I might add that Kevin McCarthy never even put the impeachment investigation to a vote because he did not have the votes.

[Commenter_XY]

Several months ago, I stated we would see an impeachment vote before the year is out. We will see. If I am wrong on timing, meh. But be sure POTUS Biden will be impeached; it is politics.

[Moderation4ever]

You are right about it being politics, but those pushing impeachment have safe seats and those Republicans in competitive seats may not want to vote to impeach.

[Sarcastr0]

Impeachment votes alone, as the conservatives have been eager to point out, says more about the party in power than any factual evidence of guilt.

But you know that. You're almost as eager as Kaz, at this point.

[Kazinski]

And I stand by my assertion that impeachment is probably not the end game. It's finding out what Joe got and when he got it, and what Joe knew and when he knew it, and even more important when he forgot it all.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean why not execution?

You're so sure all those whistleblowers who never amount to anything are gonna come together like some kinda evidence Voltron to reveal some story about Joe Biden's massive crime empire.

[Sarcastr0]

As many on here have told you, your threshold for what counts as a drip is so low it's laughable.

[bernard11]

Did you read the whole article?

In 2017, the first year Joe was out of office after 36 years in the Senate and eight more as vice president, the couple declared an income of $11 million, and a further $4.58 million in 2018.

At the time of Joe’s Rehoboth house purchase, local news site Delaware Online reported that it had been bought ‘using part of their advance from a multi-book deal’.

[Voize]

The article also eventually gets around to admitting that the cash purchase "within weeks" of Hunter's text to Zhao was actually seven weeks before the text.

The Daily Mail seems to have missed the real story, that Joe Biden has invented time travel.

[jb]

You're really struggling with your timeline here. Joe bought the house with money he already had in June. Hunter sent the WhatsApp message in July, so it's quite obvious that Joe didn't use that money from the Chinese to buy the house despite your breathless innuendo.

[Martinned]

H/t prof. Adler: West Point's Lieber Institute is doing an online symposium about the laws of war. (For those who are still confused.)

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/articles-of-war/

[Longtobefree]

According to M*A*S*H, rule number one in war is "good young men die", and rule number two is "doctors can't change rule number one".

[Frank Drackman]

I read the original novel by Dr. Richard Hooker (the sequel "M*A*S*H goes to Maine" was pretty good to, including one of the best descriptions of surgery for Tracheal Cancer you'll ever read)
but don't remember that part.

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

The quote is actually "young men die", not "good young men die". The second part is correct.
The line was spoken by Colonel Blake, straightening out Captain Pierce after he lost a patient.
- MASH nerd

[Ridgeway]

And then Hawkeye narks on Opie Cunningham.
"I hope its a long and healthy hate"

-TV Nerd

[Armchair]

GOP demonstrates direct payments from Biden family members to Joe Biden.

One of the big questions about the Biden bribery investigation has been "has Joe gotten any money from it?"

The way the proposed scheme works is, companies and countries who want to bribe Joe Biden for "favors" do so by paying Joe's family members, Hunter and James Biden. Then Hunter and James pass that money off to Joe, essentially acting as an intermediary.

It's been demonstrated repeatedly that Biden family members were raking in big bucks for questionable "services". Now, we see that some of that money was being transferred to Joe himself. A personal check from James Biden to Joe Biden for $200,000 has been disclosed. It's noted as "loan repayment" which brings in a lot more questions

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-evidence-of-direct-payment-to-joe-biden/

1. What was this supposed loan? Are there any records? What were the terms of this loan? Did Joe help out James, to ensure this loan would be repaid?

2. If this wasn't actually a loan, did Joe report this as income or a gift? Did he pay taxes on it?

The scandal grows....time for a Congressional audit of Joe's finances...

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly this shows Joe Biden is guilty because when do family members ever give other family members loans?

[Armchair]

$200,000? What was that money "for" exactly?

[Moderation4ever]

It doesn't matter. It is a personal loan between private individuals and relatives at that. How many Americans give a private loans to a relative, usually your kids. Mitt Romney even suggested to young people, don't go to bank for a college loans get it from your parents.

I ask you and the readers, should the government be able to demand answers on a private loan between relatives?

[Armchair]

Well, when those private loans are linked to Government figures, or crimes, or civil lawsuits and bankruptcies, well then....

If corporation lends James $600,000, then James immediately uses part of that to "repay" a loan go Joe, and the corporation later sues for its $600,000 back...but never seems to get it.

Seems there's an interest in that little inter-family loan now, doesn't it?

[Nelson]

"Seems there’s an interest in that little inter-family loan now, doesn’t it?"

Based on your hypothetical? No, it doesn't.

[Armchair]

You don't think the corporation wonders where it money went? Why it couldn't get its loan back from James?

I think otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

What the hell? Do you know how loans work? What money is missing here?

[jb]

I don't understand. I thought the idea here was that various entities (I guess the corporation) in this theory were funneling bribes to Joe through intermediaries like his brother. But the fact this corporation wants to be repaid for it's loan is pretty clear proof it's not bribe money, doesn't it?

[Moderation4ever]

Your suggestion is that any Government Figure must disclose personal loans to family members. Does that include Jim Jordan, James Comer, and the rest of Congress?

As for your hypothetical, there are rules for personal loans to family members and how those are treated during a default. But that is not the case here as there is no default.

[santamonica811]

When I first saw the thread about potentially sleazy loans/gifts between family members, I assumed it would be about Trump getting all his seed money from his daddy. Nope; I was wrong…it was all about the Bidens.

[David Nieporent]

I assume it was to pay off Hunter Biden's cocaine dealer. It's the only thing that makes sense.

[Moderation4ever]

Except the money or loan was not to Hunter but to James Biden.

[Armchair]

David is confused in his snark. There's so much corruption between James and Joe and Hunter and Archer he can't keep his comebacks straight.

[David Nieporent]

That just makes the Biden Crime Family even more sneaky!

[loki13]

So, this is like "your thing" every open thread, right?

You post a breathless link to a so-called Biden bombshell. And ... it goes nowhere. Usually because it's just 100% wrong.

But instead of learning from the same lesson you receive ... every ... single ... week .... you just continue on?

It's like Charlie Brown and the football. At some point, do you ever stop to think that maybe you should take a deep breath and realize that this you're stuck in a loop of posting the same old stuff that doesn't pan out? That the past is prologue? That perhaps you want to believe so badly that (to quote Rounders) ... you're the mark?

Or not! Hey, you do you! 🙂

[Nige]

It's a smear, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be out there.

[Kazinski]

You are disputing what the facts mean, not the facts.

And moving goalposts, I've been told for months that it's been totally debunked that there was any active investigation against Burisma/Zlochevsky when Joe used 1b in government funds to get Shokin fired.

Now we have an email proving that it was a key deliverable for Hunter and "Brand" to deliver just weeks before Joes trip. Here is the text from the email again:
"ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine".

And that the deliverable was too sensitive to put in the contract so the email chain was to make it clear, that's what the money was for.

And absolute crickets now when it comes to disputing those facts now there is indisputable proof that Hunter was getting paid to get Joe to fire Shokin.

[jb]

Dude, I responded to your post above about your email that proves the opposite of what you think it does. Maybe respond up there rather than pretending that you've finally found something even vaguely incriminating.

[Nige]

'And that the deliverable was too sensitive to put in the contract'

Hahahahahahaha

[Sarcastr0]

This one got debunked right out of the gate. It was paying back a loan; the paper trail is clear.

It's nothing more than bait for the dumb at this point. You bit.

[Armchair]

Is it now....where's the full paper trail?

I like how "Joe" gets repaid his loan, but Americore Health doesn't get their loan to James repaid...and how James immediately paid off Joe with the Americore Health money.

I wonder what role Joe played there?

[Sarcastr0]

where’s the full paper trail?

I mean the oversight committee says so, but you can go birther on this if you want. Not like you have any dignity left at this point.

[OtisAH]

Remind us again what Joe Biden’s official title and responsibilities were on March 1, 2018, when that check was deposited?

[David Nieporent]

Or, to put it another way: Joe Biden lent his brother some money. His brother… paid it back two months later.

Despite all the MAGA lunacy, this did not happen through a complex maze of so-called "shell companies." It did not involve wire transfers to random LLCs. It did not involve China or Ukraine. It did not involve payment in satchels of cash or gold bars. It did not involve third parties paying Joe Biden's personal expenses to disguise the payments. It involved the incredibly stealthy money laundering technique of… Joe Biden's brother writing a check from his personal bank account.

Oh, and all of this happened while Joe Biden was a private citizen.

(You can tell that the GOP thought this was the smoking gun that justified impeachment because they dumped it on a Friday afternoon during a Middle East crisis.)

[OtisAH]

There was nothing requiring them to release anything at all. It’s not like they’re on deadline. It could be Comer was simply feeling a little neglected. But chances are he and all the other Niedermeyers put their heads together and decided to try to change the discussion away from MAGA congressional incompetence. And trying to hurt the president in the midst of multiple crises while they’re at it. They released on Friday to let it ferment under the heat lamps of MAGA media like a batch of conservative jenkem for a couple days so they’d hit Monday running.

Of course using the impeachment to counter talk about MAGA incompetence is hilarious. Using it to try to drag attention away from far more critical issues is incompetence. And using it to hurt the president who’s juggling domestic and international crises, all of which feature the nonfunctional and malicious MAGA opposition party as a player, is abhorrent. But then again, the nonfunctional and malicious MAGA party is hilarious, incompetent, and abhorrent so it all tracks.

Oh, and I suspect that if they never mentioned the impeachment again, nobody would notice.

[Armchair]

Or to put it another way....

James borrowed money from Americore Health to pay off is loan to his brother. Then when Americore came calling, James couldn't repay, and stiffed Americore....

As for the companies.

Rosemont Seneca Bohai
Rosemont Seneca Partners
Rosemont Seneca Thurston
Rosemont Seneca Advisors
Rosemont Seneca Technology
Owasco LLC
Owasco PC
CelticCapri
Giacoppa

How do you keep them all straight?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you can say whatever you like. But I think it says a lot that your rampant speculation is once again not aimed at Joe Biden.

Because y'all got nothing.

[Armchair]

Take a look who owns the last two corporations.

[Sarcastr0]

You list companies and then say 'two of them are owned by Joe Biden!!!'

This isn't even corkboards and string.

[M L]

I don't keep up on these details, but maybe it is Biden's turn to have a..

Biggest Investigation Of All Time Starring The FBI and Seventeen Other Countries' Intelligence Agencies Going On Five Years

One thing's for sure, if Biden family members were making money from foreign countries, CCP affiliates, and corrupt foreign companies like Burisma, there's a thousand times more predicate for such an investigation than there was with Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Between ML and Armchair/Commenter/Kaz, you have the current GOP in a nutshell.

A mix of the credulous and spiteful.

[Commenter_XY]

Re: Alumni donor pulling bequests from elite universities because of pro-Hamas rallies on campus....(Harvard, UPenn, etc)

My question is what if this actually becomes a trend; does it modify the behavior of academia? If so, in what way?

I personally don't think it will become a trend or modify behavior.

[loki13]

I doubt it will be a trend, unfortunately.

Look, the one thing I spend absolutely no time caring about is whether or not schools like Harvard are getting enough donations for their endowment. As was recently noted, Princeton's endowment is large enough that they could fund the entire school's operations just with the money earned off of its endowment.

That's right- they wouldn't have to charge tuition, or get research grants. It literally could just continue on with the money it already has. And yet, it continues to receive massive donations. And charge tuition.

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO = Look, the one thing I spend absolutely no time caring about is whether or not schools like Harvard are getting enough donations for their endowment.

Yes. 🙂

[Don Nico]

"And charge tuition."
And raise tuition.

[Idihax]

It charges tuition to the top, but does not to the bottom. So basically, whites pay tuition, and blacks don't.

[Bwaaah]

You left out the most significant "race" in that analysis, which leads me to believe it's all "black and white" to you (even when it's not).

[Idihax]

The courts are STILL sitting on the post-Bruen "sensitive places" litigation. Delay is their intent. They don't care if they win or lose at SCOTUS, because winning isn't the point.

[Martinned]

The people here who keep complaining that it's tough to be a white man might be amused by this one: "World Rugby have confirmed they will formally review the alleged use of a racial slur by Bongi Mbonambi towards Tom Curry during England's defeat to South Africa last weekend."

https://twitter.com/ITVRugby/status/1716430033416327378

[Life of Brian]

Google Translate indeed confirms that "whit kant" means "white side" in Afrikaans. You can even push the audio button to hear how close the pronunciation of "kant" is to what Tom Curry thought he heard.

All sorts of genuine reasons for concern over "our turn" racism -- this ain't one of them IMO.

[Martinned]

Is that what he said? Yes, can confirm that "kant" means "side" in Dutch and Afrikaans.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The people here who keep complaining that it’s tough to be a white man...

Names?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The people here who keep complaining that it’s tough to be a white man…

Names?

[Ben_]

"The people here who keep complaining that it’s tough to be a white man…"

We can conclude that there’s no such thing as racism against blacks in America because Oprah is rich.

[Nige]

'Names?' ^

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, a local Sinn Fein politician in Northern Ireland just asked us to spare a thought for this IRA terrorist who accidentally blew up himself and nine others 30 years ago: https://twitter.com/KevinCampSF/status/1716367693228441841

What a knobhead.

[VinniUSMC]

It would be like Hamas, and Hamas supporters like yourself, praising Hamas for "standing up to the EVIL JEWS!" and killing 1200-1400 civilians, in an attack aimed AT civilians. Tell me more about how terrible Israel's response in Gaza has been though.

I bet you missed the irony of you making that comment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5 (decided October 23, 1973): denies application for citizenship by Philippines-born veteran who fought there and was imprisoned there by the Japanese because the Nationality Act of 1940 (as amended), which made citizenship available for any non-citizen who served honorably in World War II, set 12/31/46 deadline for applications, even though Nationality Act provisions were never publicized in the Philippines and there was no office there where one could apply (Hibi didn’t apply for citizenship until he moved to the United States in 1964); no equitable tolling because no “affirmative misconduct” by Government (Douglas, Brennan and Marshall dissent)

Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35 (decided October 23, 1967): confession by black defendant of rape-murder of white woman when in hospital recovering from police gunshot wounds and under the influence of painkillers was not voluntarily made (defendant had already made a confession, but it was at the scene and at gunpoint)

Bacon v. Rives, 106 U.S. 99 (decided October 23, 1882): diversity jurisdiction exists where real party in interest defendant (executor who made off with estate funds) is out of state even when nominal defendants (co-executors who had an interest in the dispute) are in-state

[SRG2]

More on Beecher: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25440035

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an article worth commenting about.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/10/22/george-floyd-ethics-train-wreck-update-dont-tell-me-this-is-a-surprise/

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, Floyd was a worthless POS criminal, drug addict. That is not the issue, to me. How to address the indifference to human life that Chauvin displayed, for all to see? That cannot go unaddressed, ME. It simply cannot.

Floyd can OD, and Chauvin can display complete indifference to human life which must be punished by civil society. Both things can be true here.

[M L]

I can’t figure out what your comment has to do with the post you're replying to. Who said anything at all about Floyd being "worthless POS criminal, drug addict" or suggest that was the issue? Did you just take a random guess at what the article said and then respond to what you imagined? Anyway using a “by the book” restraint method that was taught in the manual does not seem like “complete indifference to human life,” mean schoolyard bullying if used unnecessarily, sure.

[loki13]

"Floyd was a worthless POS criminal, drug addict."

I'm going to push back on this a little. If you've lived much of a life, you've probably known at least one person (and probably a lot more than one) that has succumbed to drugs and/or drink. Maybe racked up a small criminal record. The two things are often related.

A lot of the time, this ends badly. But not always. Sometimes, that person can claw their way out of it.

When we talk about people, we have to remember- they are people. They are someone's son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother. This does not excuse the bad things that they have done, or are doing. But we have all loved people that have, at some point, done something bad.

And the hope that we all have is that they live long enough to make amends. There is a callousness too many people have, a lack of empathy. It's ... it's not good.

[Absaroka]

I agree with you generally, but I'm not sure I'd call "In 2007, Floyd faced charges for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; according to investigators, he had entered an apartment by impersonating a water department worker and barging in with five other men, then held a pistol to a woman's stomach and searched for items to steal" (from the eponymous wiki article) a small criminal record.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, I thought the prosecution and conviction of Chauvin was appropriate. He displayed complete indifference to human life. That cannot be tolerated in civil society, especially by LEOs.

Floyd was a reprobate, a criminal, and a violent drug addict. Yes, he was a human being created in the image of God.

[Mr. Bumble]

...except neither Chauvin or the other officers murdered Floyd and should never have been charged with any type of homicide.

[David Nieporent]

In fact, he's not really dead, is he? That was just a crisis actor.

[Mr. Bumble]

Floyd is dead but was not murdered.

[Frank Drackman]

and hasn't beat up any more women either, funny how that works.

[Mr. Bumble]

Win, win except for Chauvin and the other three cops.

[David Nieporent]

I’m going to push back on this a little.

I'm not saying that your statement is wrong, but I think that by doing so you undermine C_XY's point, which is that it doesn't matter. By arguing about whether Floyd was a POS one implicitly is conceding that it might. But even if Floyd was a POS, he still didn't deserve to be murdered by cops that day.

[Mr. Bumble]

What matters is that Floyd wasn't murdered.

[David Nieporent]

Surely you should change your handle to Dr. Bumble, with that level of medical expertise.

[Joe_dallas]

The hennipen county medical examiner was the only one that came close to the primary cause of death, albeit with only hints at the actual cause.

Oxygen enters the blood stream via the tiny alveoli (air sacs ) in the lungs. the excess fluid level in the lungs prevented the normal exchange of oxygen through the alveoli. The ME did hint at this issue when he admitted that there was excess fluid.

The video does show floyd complaining about not being able to breathe 30-45 seconds prior to be place prone on the ground.

How the lungs work to remove co2 from the blood and put oxygen into the blood stream is taught in 8th or 9th grade biology.

So while Chauvin contributed to Floyds death, he was not the primary cause of death.

[Sarcastr0]

The word expertise is like a siren call for Joe_dallas to come in, drop some jargon, and contradict the actual experts.

[David Nieporent]

I see Joe is fresh from his virology training to being a coroner.

[Joe_dallas]

I see that neither you or sacastro have any knowledge of 8th grade level biology

[Don Nico]

Joe might even be correct medically, but it does not remove Chauvin's guilty of the death of Floyd.

[Joe_dallas]

Don - I am correct medically
I also think Chauvin was guilty of some crime, violation of civil rights, failure to render aid, impeding medical assistance, excessive force or some other crime (not sure which, but definitely guilty of something), just not murder or various levels of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. I am certainly not condoning his behavior.

[Joe_dallas]

Don - that also brings up a question on what is allowed during cross examination. It is my understanding that if an item is not raised on direct, then it cant be raised on cross. So for example if the cardiologist doesnt mention fluid in the lungs, then he cant be crossed about the any fluid in the lungs. Even to the point where the witness said the cause of death was "A", then on cross, the defense cant even ask if he considered "B" as a possible cause.

Perhaps a defense attorney can address this question.

[David Nieporent]

Don – I am correct medically

You're not correct medically…

It is my understanding that if an item is not raised on direct, then it cant be raised on cross. So for example if the cardiologist doesnt mention fluid in the lungs, then he cant be crossed about the any fluid in the lungs. Even to the point where the witness said the cause of death was “A”, then on cross, the defense cant even ask if he considered “B” as a possible cause.

…and you're not correct legally.

[Joe_dallas]

Queen - another person admitting they dont know even a basic level of biology taught in the 8th grade.

Queen - How much medical training is needed to understand basic biology or are you trying to prove your ignorance.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 37 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User Don – I am correct medically

You’re not correct medically…

Yes I am – this is 8th grade biology. Are admitting that you lack basic knowledge taught in the 8th grade.

YOu are also ignoring a basic point in the autopsy – “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation. Mr. Floyd did not exhibit signs of petechiae, damage to his airways or thyroid, brain bleeding, bone injuries, or internal bruising.”

Absolutely nothing in the autopsy supports the prosecution theory for the cause of death

[not guilty]

"It is my understanding that if an item is not raised on direct, then it cant be raised on cross. So for example if the cardiologist doesnt mention fluid in the lungs, then he cant be crossed about the any fluid in the lungs. Even to the point where the witness said the cause of death was “A”, then on cross, the defense cant even ask if he considered “B” as a possible cause."

That is partially correct. Rule 611(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence states that "Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. An accused who testifies in a criminal case may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility." (Some jurisdictions have wide open cross.)

As to the application of the rule, fluid in the lungs or the absence thereof would likely be within the scope of the subject matter of the direct examination of the cardiologist. Asking whether the witness considered alternative causes of death would definitely be within that scope.

[David Nieporent]

YOu are also ignoring a basic point in the autopsy – “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation. Mr. Floyd did not exhibit signs of petechiae, damage to his airways or thyroid, brain bleeding, bone injuries, or internal bruising.”

Absolutely nothing in the autopsy supports the prosecution theory for the cause of death

1) The prosecution's theory was positional asphyxia, not asphyxiation due to damage to his airways.
2) All of this was known at the trial, and hashed out in cross-examination. This is not something that was just uncovered, just because Tucker Carlson told you it was. The jury heard the evidence, and rejected the theory that Chauvin didn't kill him.

[David Nieporent]

That is partially correct. Rule 611(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence states that “Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.

I wouldn't really call it partially correct. The abstract statement that cross shouldn't exceed the scope of direct is of course true, but what he's describing doesn't remotely fit that rule. The prosecution can't prevent the defense from exploring the entire autopsy just by asking about only part of it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because you are such a pompous, know everything ass I doubt you'll read the linked story which details how Dr. Baker (Hennipen County ME) was coerced into changing the autopsy to support the charges that were brought against Chauvin.

https://spectator.org/chauvin-did-not-murder-george-floyd/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yes, Floyd was a worthless POS criminal, drug addict.

I would love to hear your argument for the proposition that the bigoted, superstitious, backward operators and fans of this blog are not every bit as worthless you believe Floyd to have been.

Good luck with that, clinger.

[Letters_Triumverate]

It’s pretty clear he was stating that in a “for the sake of argument” tone. And even if he wasn’t – for the sake of argument, let’s assume I’m wrong and your reading is completely correct – he would be saying that even worthless pieces of shit shouldn’t have their lives callously taken by officers of the law, which I thought was what really mattered about the events of May 25th, 2020.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clear from what . . . the introductory "yes?"

[M L]

Ethics concerns. That's putting it mildly.

_______

“He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation,” Sweasy said, according to the transcript.

“He said to me, ‘Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?’ And then he said, ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’”

[David Nieporent]

It's really not. There's absolutely nothing new there or relevant to the Chauvin prosecution. There was political pressure to prosecute? Okay. WGAF? What does that have to do with whether Chauvin is guilty? The jury was shown the evidence relating to the actual incident, the defense had every opportunity to challenge it, and the jury (unanimously, obviously) concluded he was guilty. Juries can get it wrong, but cherrypicking stuff that they already considered and random other stuff not relevant to guilt or innocence does nothing to address that.

The only "ethics train wreck" is Jack Marshall, who apparently charges people for spewing his personal mental urges as if they had anything to do with ethics.

[jb]

I love how this article starts with "the MSM will never touch this story" when it turns out they already did, back when the trial happened because Baker testified at that time that (1) yes he did originally say there was no structural damage, but then (2) he learned more from experts in this particular type of restraint and the way it can affect the body which led him to his conclusion that Chauvin caused Floyd's death, and (3) that he wasn't pressured to change his findings.

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-george-floyd-minneapolis-thomas-lane-homicide-76841a4d8c62df790bad5d81b23e894d

It's just the the right wing rage machine likes to report on #1 and totally leave out the sworn testimony on #2 and #3 because it's inconvenient to its narrative.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Prominent Georgetown Law Professor Arrested, Charged In Domestic Violence Case
The former jailhouse lawyer may be headed back to jail.
Above the Law By STACI ZARETSKY
on October 19, 2023 at 12:44 PM"

Excerpt:

"In case you’re not familiar with him, Hopwood served more than a decade in federal prison for bank robbery but he went on to go to law school, and later became a professor at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.

Now, the Georgetown Law professor may be headed back behind bars, as he was recently arrested and stands accused of some rather disturbing allegations of domestic violence."

[Aunt Teefah]

"Israeli soldiers find they must rely on private donations for essential equipment"

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/21/1207138183/israel-gaza-hamas-idf-invasion-troops-supplies

What happened to the ~$4 billion in military funding that US taxpayers send them every year? Where did it go?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those cigars and liquors in the Netanyahu inventory do not pay for themselves.

[Commenter_XY]

Where did it go?

Answer: Iron dome missiles to battle Judeocidal terrorists who indiscriminately fire missiles at civilian targets.

Hamas be dealt with, violently and terminally.

[Aunt Teefah]

Consider whether the money may have been better spent on things like helmets and other basic supplies instead of overpriced Iron Dome gadgets that failed spectacularly when actually put to a test. Or better yet, why American taxpayers should be footing the bill for any of this at all.

[Longtobefree]

Or American individuals with means:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/floyd-mayweather-private-jet-israel?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Afternoon%20Auto%20Trending%207%20Day%20Engaged%202023-10-13&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement

[ReaderY]

A difficulty with framing everything about what’s going on in Israel in Hamas terms is that Israelis do seem to be nickling and diming its Arab/Palestinan minority in various small ways that add up.

Whole long-established Beduin towns in the Negev can’t get any services because they aren’t considered to legally exist. There is no Arab language university, and hospitals are scarce in Arab areas. Arab towns are relatively underfunded. Arab land claims tend to be held to exacting standards, and families that have held land for generations have lost because their claims informal and weren’t documented in Ottoman Empire records. There has been a crime wave for some time in Arab towns in part because police are underfunded. Police enforcement tends to be heavyhanded. Nobody likes living under military rule. And so on.

All these things are lost when Hamas claims Israel committed widespread massive genoicide. None of this is anywhere close to genocide, none of it has prevented the Arab population feom increasing and attaining a high standard of living by area standards if somewhat lower than Israeli Jews, and some of it is justifiable by the security situation. But the very enormity of the claims Hamas and their ilk are making lets denial of these claims give a pass to the petty retail-level problems. People like Professor Bernstein never have to concern themselves with such things.

[Ben_]

Here’s some Democrats rioting in Minneapolis:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-pro-palestinian-mob-shuts-down-minneapolis-street-terrorizes-motorists

[ReaderY]

I think Biden’s responses here belie characterizing this as purely Democratic.

Are you aware that it is primarily Republicans, not Democrats, that are currently obstructing aid to Israel in Congress?

I think both parties need to take a look at what’s going on with their wings here.

[Ben_]

The only individual identified in the story was Democrat city council candidate.

Congress was not involved in the rioting. Why would you lie about Congress being involved in the riot?

[Bob from Ohio]

"primarily Republicans, not Democrats, that are currently obstructing aid to Israel in Congress?"

Source?

[Jerry B.]

Really. It would have taken only a dozen Democrats voting for McCarthy or Jordan to have a speaker in place and Congress to be rolling right along.

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden announced something, I don' think funding has been formerly requested. House can act with its pro tem speaker if really needed anyways.

Dems could just be absent, its a majority of voting, not an absolute majority.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think Biden’s responses here belie characterizing this as purely Democratic.

You're kidding...right?

Are you aware that it is primarily Republicans, not Democrats, that are currently obstructing aid to Israel in Congress?

No, they're not. And even if they were...what the hell does it have to do with violent rioting in the street lead by a Democrat candidate for office?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This remarkably white and strikingly male movement conservative blog has operated for no more than

FOUR (4)

days without publishing a racial slur; it has published racial slurs on at least

THIRTY-FIVE (35)

different occasions (so far) during 2023 (that’s at least 35 different, distinct discussions that include racial slurs, not 35 racial slurs; many of those discussions featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address the broader, incessant stream of gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic, antisemitic, racist, transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs and other bigoted content published daily at this blog, which is presented from the receding, disaffected right-wing fringe of modern legal academia by members of theFederalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

If any of the persons who operate with blog — or any of the institutions associated with this blog, perhaps against their wishes — are willing to address the rampant bigotry at this blog, this would be a fine time to say something.

Amid this blog’s stale and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mark as spam.

[Ridgeway]

This is the Times' version of Emperor Hirohito saying, after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombings: "The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I notice there's zero mention of the fact that the photo of a destroyed building they included with the story was not even the hospital.

[SimonP]

To paraphrase: "People who consume news via headlines are apparently too stupid to appreciate what the headlines actually say, and never bother reading the stories themselves, which we should probably have anticipated."

[Aunt Teefah]

10/7 was an inside job:

"This was the degree that the “Palestinian problem” was thought to be contained. It got to the point where the Israeli government not only could believe it could act with total impunity, but that they could manage Palestinian politics like they were moving pawns on a chessboard. In a series of shocking comments made to police investigators during a 2019 interrogation about his corruption case, Netanyahu flatly described how he saw Hamas as an asset in hobbling the Palestinian cause. “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he said. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” Not really something you’d hear from someone who thought that peace could even hypothetically be preferable compared to the status quo. But this wasn’t even his most blatantly arrogant admission of the interrogation. Also speaking about Hamas, he said to the same officers:

“I mislead them, destabilize them, mock them, and then hit them over the head. It’s impossible to reach an agreement with them...Everyone knows this, but we control the height of the flames.”"

https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/israels-tet-moment?r=hhnk1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

[SimonP]

Not exactly news, even!

So we know: Israel had long maintained a policy of "divide and conquer" between the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, where the PA would administer the WB and Hamas would control Gaza. Netanyahu received advance warning that "something big" was coming, from Egyptian intelligence. Right-wing politicians in Netanyahu's coalition are in favor of annexing the occupied territories outright (without a clear answer for what to do about Palestinians living in them). They are now trying to coerce half the population of Gaza to relocate southward, toward the Egyptian border, while precipitating a humanitarian crisis by restricting the movement of aid to the territory.

The question that comes to mind is not whether Netanyahu is culpable for not doing more to defend against Hamas's attack on 10/7, but exactly how culpable he actually is for those deaths.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That should quiet all the Netanyahu supporters here. /sarc

Israel may want to get some better leadership.

Note that this criticism of Netanyahu presupposes that Hamas is bad.

In contrast, these American "acivists" we've been seeing are not operating under that assumption, so I don't see how they have standing to criticize an Israeli politician who worked with Hamas.

[Nige]

Equating an Israeli politician working with Hamas, essentially playing a crucial role in creating the current situation to say nothing of the intelligence failures, with a bunch of young people in a college somewhere saying dumb stuff about resistance really, really highlights exactly how much work is put in to distracting from the stuff people with power actually do by generating outrage at people with no power whatsoever.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I said they have no standing to criticize Netanyahu, since the criticism is premised on Hamas being bad.

And "they're just harmless kids, they'll grow out of it" is such a discredited trope.

[Nige]

Good thing I didn't evoke that trope, I just said that their significance and Netanyahu's significance are utterly incomparable, such that the current conflict seems to require multiple attacks on one while carefully ignoring the other. Eg:

'That should quiet all the Netanyahu supporters here. /sarc'

Funny how all the trenchant supporters of his policies here avoid his name, and the effects of his previous actions. And some of these are people who think it's fine to kill Gazan children for not overthrowing Hamas.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Explaining my point about Israel needing new leadership: Netanyahu should quit (or be kicked out of) his position, because he didn't protect his country like he was supposed to. I think that part was clear enough.

Americans, meanwhile, should worry about their *future* leadership glossing over, ignoring, or even being indifferent to terrorism directed at Jews (except to blame Israel for it).

[Nige]

I think the ones they need to worry about are the ones who seem determined to perpetuate the conflict. Netanyahu was one of those, and look how that worked out.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If he resigned like I said, the decision about "perpetuat[ing]" the conflict would rest with someone else altogether.

And which conflict - the current shooting war, or the Israel/Palestine conflict generally?

[Nige]

Yeah, good luck. You elect shady right-wing demagogues, you can’t expect them to act rationally for the good of the country.

Same conflict. This is an escalation. (Initiated by Hamas, obvs.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

UPDATE:

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This remarkably white and
strikingly male movement
conservative blog has
operated for

ZERO (0)

days without publishing
a racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

THIRTY-SIX (36)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
36 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 36 racial slurs; many
of those discussions featured
multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic, and
immigrant-hating slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this faux libertarian blog, which is
presented from the receding, disaffected
right-wing fringe of modern legal academia
by members of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale and ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too. (Roger on guitar?
He was the band's original lead guitarist . . . Pete played banjo and John played trumpet when the lads began to perform together.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you including the times when commenters quoted you using the word yourself?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Generally, no.

How much of a factor is Prof. Volokh's fondness for vile racial slurs in attracting you to his blog?

Is it a core element in attracting right-wing racists to this white, male blog, or is it icing on an already powerful magnet for disaffected, conservative, angry culture war casualties?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"How much of a factor is Prof. Volokh’s fondness for vile racial slurs in attracting you to his blog?"

None, any more than your presence attracts me.

But in any case I waste more than enough time here.

[Brancron]

The only thing that's on my mind is what we're going to do for dinner tonight.

[Mr. Bumble]

What did you decide on?

[Ben_]

This is quite the story, if this tweet is accurate:

"Jewish middle schoolers at [Manhattan Beach CA public school] were reportedly attacked by other students …. Some students allegedly said “revenge is beautiful” and “all Jews should be killed.”

The school investigated and concluded that it wasn’t hate speech, the perpetrators received no punishment, and the school made the victims sign a gag order to not discuss the incident."

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1716494430935351388

[Nelson]

Libsoftiktok, eh? You couldn't find a more credible source like InfoWars?

[Ben_]

You’re extremely shallow.

[Sarcastr0]

'If this tweet is accurate' and then the tweet comes from Libsoftiktok...credibility concerns do come to mind.

[Magister]

A more credible source reports on the incident:
https://www.foxla.com/news/manhattan-beach-student-allegedly-told-jewish-classmates-all-israelis-and-jews-should-be-killed

The school statement includes "Unfortunately, much of what is being shared on social media and within the local community is not based in fact." It appears to have been only one student making hateful statements to Jewish students; the school statement continues:

The situation was immediately reported to school officials, and a thorough investigation took place. Student privacy laws preclude divulging specific details of investigatory findings, so we cannot comment on the specifics of the matter. However, please know that appropriate consequences have been administered based on the authority vested in schools under the California Education Code.

The "gag order" was a "No Contact Contract":

These agreements are commonly used in school districts across the country and even in universities. They ask students to avoid each other and not speak to one another in order to avoid re-igniting situations we are trying to resolve. This allows us to ensure that further interactions occur with adult guidance and not when students are in settings where that might not be available. The goal of these agreements is to help protect all students from any future conflicts with one another. Although the school requested that all students who were directly involved in this incident to enter into its standard ‘No Contact Contract,’ no students involved in this situation were required to sign it, nor was a gag order ever administered. Upon review, the District is updating the language of its current "No Contact Contract" in order to eliminate confusion regarding its purpose and intent.

[Nelson]

Gee, what a surprise. Libsoftiktok completely misrepresented every aspect of the situation.

Who could've seen that coming?

[David Nieporent]

Libsoftiktok may have misrepresented everything, but "The school district issued a CYA statement quibbling with details" does not prove that. Just because the district says "Oh, no, we didn't force them to sign it; we only requested that they sign it" does not mean that the district did not force them to sign it. Especially since the district implicitly concedes that what the document actually provides for is problematic.

[Nelson]

Perhaps, but the difference between "a mob attacked and hurled antisemitic slurs at Jewish students" and "one student assulted and insulted a Jewish student with antisemitic slurs" is vast.

The insinuation by LOTT is that the school somehow condoned a group of students assaulting Jews with slurs and violence.

But "one bigot attacked a Jewish student" doesn't push the cultural conservative narrative. In fact a distressing number of cultural conservatives would be happy to rally for the bigot with Confederate flags and Nazi salutes.

[Zarniwoop]

A bit late for Monday open thread, but Jenna Ellis just pleaded.

Rumors had swirled for weeks that Ellis might be among those seeking a plea deal — in part because of her public complaints that Trump was unwilling to pay her mounting legal bills.

Perhaps Trump should reconsider the merits of buying off Rudy ... er, I mean, coughing up some funds to cover Rudy's legal bills.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lost my scorecard. Which case is this?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is the one that increasingly seems the strongest candidate to generate the first conviction of Donald Trump . . . and one that is beyond the federal pardon power.

Should Trump instruct his lawyers to begin pursuing a plea bargain with Fani Willis today . . . or should he have done it weeks ago?

Carry on, clingers. Behind bars, though, in some cases.

[David Nieporent]

The Georgia state attempted election theft case.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, the phony felonies case. Thanks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"phony felonies case"

3 of those.

[Nige]

The dear leader can do no wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nige and Putin: Use of criminal law against political opponents is good!

[Zarniwoop]

Use of criminal laws against actual criminals is good.

You're just making excuses for the criminal behavior of your Dear Leader.

[Bob from Ohio]

Another fan of the ruling party using law to punish opponents.

[Zarniwoop]

You'd bleat about "punishing opponents" if Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue and was held accountable for ... shooting someone.

Sometimes a crime is a crime; we live in a nation of laws, not blind obedience to Dear Leader.

But feel free to move to North Korea if you feel differently.

[Nige]

Bob and other Trumpists: Trump is above the law!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The affidavits were phony.

The electors (and their documentation) were fake.

The legal theories were phony.

The evidence was illusory.

But the felonies were real.

Fani Willis is holding un-American wrongdoers to account . . . and schooling a bunch of worthless, deplorable, disaffected culture war casualties.

Enjoy the recurring admissions of guilt and convictions, clingers. Especially the convictions of John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark -- those are going to hit a few Volokh Conspirators especially hard. Unlike former Judge Kozinski, those two Republican jackasses will not be permitted to slink away in uneventful disgrace, excused from accountability. Those two seem destined for prison cells.

[Nelson]

"Oh, the phony felonies case. Thanks."

I missed it when they got thrown out of court for being phony. Nor could I find any mention of it in the news. Is it possible that your claim that they are "phony" is your heavily biased opinion, not reality?

I'll wait for someone with actual knowledge and authority to declare them "phony". It's a slow, boring way to play it, but you really aren't very credible.

[loki13]

Penny wise, pound foolish.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One point about Jenna Ellis is that she likely was accurate when she described herself as in over her head. She had no real legal credentials or experience; she was mostly ambition, religious street cred, energy, and lack of judgment.

She went to court today dressed for Dollar General rather than for a legal proceeding (let alone as a lawyer), then claimed Christianity is relevant to legal ethics or performance. She sniffled and whimpered. In groveling and deflecting, she seemed as disingenuous as she is gullible. But mostly she seemed a small-timer caught up in bright lights, right-wing celebrity, faith-based stupidity, and presidential seals.

I also do not believe Donald Trump -- dangerous, antisocial asshole that he is -- is the most culpable person in this clustermuck. No one (well, no one sane or experienced) considers him as a responsible pillar of society. He is a user, a parasite, a vainglorious and vulgar boor, a man unfit for public position (as an elected official, public employee, or officer of the court).

Instead, I believe those who should take the hardest hits in this context are the seasoned lawyers -- Eastman, Clark, Giuliani -- who ostensibly knew better. Society relies on people in their positions to advance and respect, rather than mock and abuse, the structural framework of modern American society.

They were properly educated. They had experience in legitimate circumstances. Important positions had been entrusted to them. They were bound to ethical rules and professional responsibilities. They should have known better and probably did.

Those assholes, after conviction, should spend at least a decade behind bars.

[Frank Drackman]

Only a decade Jerry?? you're serving way more than that

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe the Volokh Conspirators and others can use that joke to try to lift the spirits of their pals when they visit fellow Federalist Society assholes Eastman and Clark at the prison.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters (or, in some cases, the warden and disciplinary authorities) permit.

[not guilty]

The charge that Jenna Ellis pled to is here. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24079495/criminal-accusation-for-ellis-102423.pdf

[John F. Carr]

Donald Trump's lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution. That is two separate reasons. On the selective prosecution side, they observe that at least seven other elections with contested results did not result in prosecutions. I think this argument will fail. The indictment charges that Trump knew he was lying about the election. Trump supporters went way beyond legal means to dispute an election. Trump is not in the same position as 1876 loser Samuel J. Tilden.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Trump is not in the same position as 1876 loser Samuel J. Tilden"

"The Democratic strategy for victory in the South was highly reliant on paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts and the White League. Using the strategy of the Mississippi Plan, the groups actively suppressed both Black and White Republican voter turnouts by disrupting meetings and rallies and even using violence and intimidation. They saw themselves as the military wing of the Democratic Party."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election

[Longtobefree]

So antifa?

[Nelson]

No, more like Oathkeeprrs, Three Percenters, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boyz, etc.

[John F. Carr]

Trump is only charged for his acts after election day.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, of course.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Republicans are deemed bigger fraudsters in 1876 because they diddled with the ballots. The Democrats merely stepped into the process earlier to violently prevent Republicans from casting ballots in the first place.

That doesn’t make Trump innocent. After all, Trump let people violently riot on his behalf, totally unlike Tilden. /sarc

[John F. Carr]

There is a separate motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds which ought to fail for the same reason. It is not clear beyond doubt that a conviction would be for constitutionally protected conduct.

There is a third motion, to strike references to the January 6 crowd. The indictment, his lawyers argue, does not explicitly say he was responsible for their acts so describing them is unduly inflammatory. As a judge I would reject this motion because I take the indictment to hold him responsible for the crowd. The prosecution may intend to prove that Trump obstructed Congress by riling up a crowd, or sought to infringe the rights of electoral voters by having an angry mob intimidate the people counting their votes.

Then there is a fourth motion, the strongest of the lot, which seeks to dismiss the indictment on statutory grounds. Simply put, he isn’t accused of violating the letter of the law. I would rule that it is not clear beyond doubt that he did not obstruct Congress or violate the rights of voters. On the conspiracy to defraud the United States I want to read the government’s reply brief before forming an opinion.

By charging a big plot instead of discrete acts the prosecution has insulated its case from pretrial review. For example, if it was legal to ask Pence to throw out electoral votes that does not make him conclusively not guilty of any of the charges against him. If the acts of the January 6 mob were struck from the indictment, that does not make him conclusively not guilty.

Documents here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/

[Nelson]

Through reading your posts (and the other lawyers who have made on-point, factual, legal analysis - THANK YOU!) I was under the impression that the DC case, unlike the Georgia case, was pretty weak. Have I read that wrong?

In this post you seem to indicate that all four of these motions are losers, just that some are bigger losers than others. Is that just based on the arguments in the motions? And if so, what arguments might be winners? I am asking only about the DC case.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mr. Carr deserves credit for addressing legal issues the Volokh Conspirators are too cowardly and partisan to touch.

What a bunch of pusillanimouses.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kirkland, they have taken it farther than that. The Conspirators have systematized it into evasive editorial practice, and thus become pusillanimists.

My compliments on a worthy coinage. Please forgive me for moving in on it so quickly. I couldn't have invented it myself, but can't resist taking advantage.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's just say they are a bunch of paltry pusses, for short.

Should it be pusillanimouses, or pusillanimice?

(If any of the Volokh Conspirators want to express a preference before we decide, let's hear it! They're the ones who will wear it.)

[David Nieporent]

Through reading your posts (and the other lawyers who have made on-point, factual, legal analysis – THANK YOU!) I was under the impression that the DC case, unlike the Georgia case, was pretty weak. Have I read that wrong?

I think you have. The only case that's pretty weak (and petty) is the NY case. The Georgia case is sprawling and complex, but that doesn't make it stronger than the DC case; if anything, it makes it weaker.

Of course, the strongest case is the stolen documents case, where the facts are not only nearly undisputed — Trump has essentially admitted them on national television! — but the crime is virtually res ipsa.

[Nelson]

I was under the impression that the NY case was highly questionable, the DC case was weak, the Georgia case was strong, and the documents case was pretty much already proved by Trump himself. Thank you for helping me reassess the middle two.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The only case that’s pretty weak (and petty) is the NY case.

The New York prosecution was weakened by passage of time (including faded evidence), law enforcement neglect, concealment by wrongdoers, etc. . . . but I sense it is today's straggler of the current bunch.

[John F. Carr]

My feeling so far is the D.C. case stretches the law too far given the available evidence. If you dropped me in the jury room right now and made me vote on the evidence I have seen, I would vote not guilty.

But at this stage the question is not "is Trump guilty?" but "is it possible he could be proved guilty, given more detailed evidence not included in the indictment?" At least two counts should survive a motion to dismiss. The Appeals Court has already ruled that some acts on January 6 were not tourism but criminal obstruction. Submitting false electoral votes is obstruction of a more traditional kind. If Trump is legally responsible for either of those, he is guilty. If he is guilty of conspiring to obstruct the electoral vote count he is also guilty of conspiring to violate electors' civil rights.

[loki13]

I largely agree with you, with some quibbles.

Brief aside- by NY, we are, of course, talking about the pending NY criminal case, not the ongoing civil case ... which hasn't been going very well for Trump.

In terms of strength, I think that the NY state case is ... not great. Very weak.

On the other hand, I think that the case in S.D. Fla. is beyond strong. The only caveat, of course, is the judge ... who has shown an inclination to make curious decisions. I'm being nice.

I think that the Georgia case is getting stronger and stronger as witnesses flip. And I also think that because it's a state prosecution, there are inherent leverage points that don't exist in the federal prosecution.

On the other hand, I think that the federal case in DC is actually really strong. And it's not like federal prosecutors are known for losing cases. That said, the inherent unknowability of how certain legal doctrines that are being used might end up being construed by SCOTUS leads to more uncertainty than would exist in a typical case. IMO.

[John F. Carr]

Federal prosecutors are known for losing public corruption cases, both at trial and on appeal.

The serious part of the Florida case could easily go wrong for the government. In my opinion the prosecutor charged him under the wrong subsection of the Espionage Act. The defense will make a motion for acquittal at the close of evidence. It is customary in close cases for the judge to deny the motion when it is first raised and reconsider when it is renewed after a guilty verdict comes in. That way the issue can be decided by Court of Appeals. If the judge is convinced Trump is being targeted unfairly she can grant the motion the first time and then the government has no practical recourse.

A related problem with the government's case in Florida is the filing of an individual count for each document. The judge might instruct the jurors that to convict on count 666 they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew that he had a copy of the war plan for liberating Northern Cyprus on or after August 1, 2021. (The prosecutor says January 20, 2021 is the relevant date. I disagree.) Trump knew generally he was holding onto classified documents. He even bragged about one which was not listed in the indictment. I have some doubt that he knew exactly what documents he had after he was not allowed to have them.

On the obstruction charges he'll have to rely on a sympathetic jury. "He was only moving boxes around inside his own house!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump lawyers say a lot of things. That's what tends to get them indicted, disrespected, cautioned, convicted, disbarred, fined, and mocked by their betters.

Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force.

I remember litigating against those un-American, inept, lying dumbasses (most of the reputable, experienced, capable Republican lawyers jumped ship relatively early, leaving a pathetic legal residue to advance Trumpers' positions).

I am content with just about any negative consequence of their conduct that they might experience.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is not in the same position as 1876 loser Samuel J. Tilden.

Even if he were, "Someone did the same thing 144 years ago and wasn't prosecuted for it, so I can't be prosecuted for it either," doesn't even rise to the level of frivolous.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My narrower point is not to valorize Tilden, given the tactics he accepted from his Southern supporters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dysfunctional Republicans have identified two reasons they pushed Tom Emmer (the most recent Speaker nominee of the Republican caucus) to withdraw:

(1) He voted for same-sex marriage.

(2) He declined to vote against certifying the 2020 election results.

So the half-educated, obsolete bigots and un-American, delusional assholes are in control of the Republican caucus.

Sounds like the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Don Nico]

"The United States on Tuesday rejected growing calls to support a cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hamas because such a move would only benefit Hamas, a White House spokesman said."
What is becoming clear is that Hamas will survive this period of conflict. Intense negotiations for hostage release will keep the IDF sidelined. Pressures on the US will grow from more and more countries and gradually the US will warn Israel more and more forcefully that an invasion is unwise. Iran and its clients will make threatening noises in the north. And eventually Israel ill decide that the reservists are better off on the job keeping the economy humming along.
Thus Gazan casualties are converting a threatened extermination of Hamas into just another mowing of the grass,

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, there is an historical analogy which no one has yet mentioned for what is now threatened in Gaza. I hesitate to use it, because it invokes similarities between Nazi attacks in Eastern Europe and what you seem to be advocating for Gaza.

I get that merely mentioning history in this case will draw invective and outrage, but history is what it is. So I make the point that I reject any comparison of Nazis in WW II with Israel now. But I will compare Nazis in WW II with what you seem to be advocating for Gaza now.

As the Wehrmacht pushed eastward, its principal tactic was to accomplish a series of encirclements of enemy forces, referred to as, "kettles." Because those encirclements encompassed considerable areas, civilians who had not fled in advance were also trapped in them. Then the Nazi tactic was to guard the perimeter of each kettle, bombard the interior of the kettle, deny entry or exit to all, and to starve or kill by exposure whatever trapped victims escaped the bombs and artillery fire.

Use of that tactic was a principal reason Eastern Europe became an atrocious killing field for everyone caught up in the kettles. It thus famously turned that area into one of the deadliest regions affected by an extremely deadly war.

Do you really think it will serve Israel's long-term interest to make its Gaza campaign into something which could hand Israel's enemies a reasonable-looking comparison to a Nazi kettle campaign in WW II? If forced encirclement of Gaza is the tactic, featuring a bar to exit by would-be refugees, by what other means do you suppose, "extermination," of Hamas could be accomplished, except by the mass killing of an appreciable fraction of all Gazans? Does your demand for, "extermination," extend that far?

[Martinned]

Let's be careful about the lessons you draw from that. Encircling the enemy is in no way unlawful.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/the-law-of-armed-conflict

[Don Nico]

Stephan.
Thank you for the polite reply. The bit of history is interesting but as an analogy it fails in significant ways.
1) The implied moral of Israelis with Nazis is not only wrong, but repugnant.
2) The equivalent of Gazans with German and Eastern European Jews is grossly wrong in many ways. Jews did not have a terrorist wing killing Germans. Jew were not at war or in conflict with Germans until Hilter began his extermination campaign.
3) Until Hilter's Nazi's began their ethnic cleansing, German Jews were proud of being German.

Now to get to your claim about my advocacy.
I advocated nothing at all for Gazan. I simply predicted that within weeks, Israel would be pressured by the EU and the US into accepting the status quo ante, i.e., living with a murderous Hamas governing an even more resentful Arab population in Gaza. They will probably also be guilted into providing "humanitarian relief." The tunnels will remain, the Hamas will remain, the Palestinian authority will be frozen out, powerless and corrupt.
Please read more carefully next time.

You should also apologize to Jewish readers for making a false equivalence now with Nazis and in the past with Hamas terrorists.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico I asked you this, which you chose not to address:

If forced encirclement of Gaza is the tactic, featuring a bar to exit by would-be refugees, by what other means do you suppose, “extermination,” of Hamas could be accomplished, except by the mass killing of an appreciable fraction of all Gazans?

You then followed up with an assertion apparently contrary to your former call for extermination of Hamas in Gaza.

Perhaps I should have mentioned in my initial comment that the targets of the kettle campaigns in Eastern Europe were mostly Red Army combatants, not civilian Jews. Some civilian Jews were certainly victims as well, along with non-Jewish Eastern European civilians of various nationalities. But notoriously, Eastern European Jews were targeted for extermination mostly in separate operations.

I owe no apology to Jews generally. The only similarity I suggested was between Nazi kettle campaigns, and what I took to be your advocacy for Gaza. I have no notion whether or not you are Jewish, by the way.

[Don Nico]

Simple, SL. There is no means. Can't you understand what I wrote?
"Israel would be pressured by the EU and the US into accepting the status quo ante, i.e., living with a murderous Hamas governing an even more resentful Arab population in Gaza. They will probably also be guilted into providing “humanitarian relief.” The tunnels will remain, the Hamas will remain, the Palestinian authority will be frozen out, powerless and corrupt."

Indeed, that is contrary to my call to exterminate Hamas. The world changes. Intelligent people adapt to changing conditions? Is that strange to you? What Israel could have done 10 days ago it will not be able to do. Certainly not after another week of delay and bombing.

Comparing Israeli Jews to Nazis is offensive. Turn up your sensitivities to others.

[VinniUSMC]

SL- "Jews are never allowed to defend themselves. Doing so makes them like Nazis."

Fuck you Nazi scum.

[Nige]

'just another mowing of the grass,'

Anticipating people learning absolutely nothing whatsoever from this mess, then?

[Don Nico]

Nige,
What is there to learn? The situation will return to the status quo ante. The US will see to that. (Not what I advocate but what I predict).

So it will be just another moving of the gras and more weeds will spring up.

[Brett Bellmore]

About that Time Magazine "crying girl" cover ...

"The picture of a crying Honduran girl has become the symbol of family separation outcomes from border enforcement. The picture ran far and wide in the media, so much so that Time Magazine put her on the cover of its latest issue. Time posed her with Donald Trump in an apparently heartless stare down at her, complete with the words, “Welcome to America.” Time even turned it into a GIF"

Only problem? The child was only crying because it was late and she was tired and hungry. Mom was right there. They were never separated.

Oh, and mom had taken off with her without consulting dad, who was opposed to the idea, leaving him to wonder for weeks where his youngest daughter and wife had disappeared to.

Nice lady. [/sarc] Very dishonest magazine.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

mom had taken off with her without consulting dad, who was opposed to the idea

She consulted him (how would she know he was opposed to the idea?) and apparently disobeyed him (or, at least, disregarded his opinion).

This reminds me of when a client says, 'I have called this person 10 or 12 times with no response; I can't get any communication," and I reply, 'a dozen times? That person is communicating . . . and the message seems clear.'

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately the press has become very dishonest in that respect. The behavior is disinformation at its finest.

[Brett Bellmore]

The important thing about 'disinformation' is that everybody today using the term means by it, "information that would lead you to think something I don't want you believing". Whether or not the information is true doesn't even enter into it.

[David Nieporent]

I am mystified about why you are discussing a five year old story right now.

[David Nieporent]

Does anyone know where Dr. Ed is?

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you read the story? If not your comment is meaningless.

[BrotherMovesOn]

That's "Doctor Bumble" to you!
Show some respect.

[VinniUSMC]

How can you tell someone is a butthurt lefty? They intentionally misquote you in order to make it appear as though you've said something else.

Yes, Ed is better than you Queenie. For all of his faults, many faults, still better than you, Nazi pervert.

[Don Nico]

"Israel only needs our diplomatic support."
Not so. Actually, with Hezbollah and Iran threatening attack if Israel moves into Gaza, Israel also needs a show of US military force and resolve.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course there are those drones launched from Yemen.