Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[David Nieporent]

So… Henry Kissinger died.

[AmosArch]

I'm mixed on a lot of what he did but I get the feeling when you're in the position he was in you're going to be controversial no matter what.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I remember hearing that Nixon installed the taping system to keep track of what Kissinger had said the last time.

[Nige]

Yes, when you've illegally bombed a neutral country with estimates of deaths up to half a million plunging the country into chaos and leading to one of the most infamously evil regimes in history, it's a wee bit 'controversial.'

The 'sabotaging peace talks for short-term personal political gain leading to the deaths of thousands' will be popular with the NetanYahoo! crowd, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, said purportedly "neutral" country was permitting war materiel to be transported through it, and *that* is what was bombed.

Well. it's like sinking neutral shipping carrying war materiel to the enemy -- a perfectly legitimate thing to do. And as to plunging the US into crisis, just imagine what Woodrow Wilson would have done. We were at war, a war that was lost on American college campi.

[Nige]

War crime apologist.

[MoreCurious]

Reminds of earlier this week when Dr. Ed tried to pretend that the victims of the My Lai massacre were armed combatants and not unarmed babies, children, and elderly people.

[Absaroka]

One difference would be that claiming the My Lai victims were combatants is false, while claiming Cambodia was transiting military supplies, both from the port of Sihanoukville and in eastern Cambodia is true. Large parts of eastern Cambodia were in fact occupied by the North Vietnamese army.

The font of all knowledge:
"In 1966, Sihanouk made an agreement with Zhou Enlai of the People's Republic of China that would allow PAVN and VC forces to establish base areas in Cambodia and to use the port of Sihanoukville for the delivery of military material."

[Nige]

Cambodians weren't combatants either.

[DWB]

Then why did the Khmer Rouge kill so many of it's people?

Speaking of war crime apologists...

[Nige]

Are you completely dense or just pretending? The Khmer Rouge killed so many Cambodians for much the same basic reasons Kissinger did: because they wanted to, they had the power to do so, and nobody stopped them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is the exact opposite of what Dr. Ed wrote.

What Dr. Ed wrote was that there were armed combatants who were children (carrying a ticking grenade over to US troops), women (with AK-47s), and elderly tripping bombs. Furthermore, must combatant's be armed? Francis Gary Powers wasn't - neither the U-2s nor the SR-71s were armed. So if the elderly were acting as forward observers, weren't they combatants?

But what Dr. Ed ALSO wrote was that he presumed that My Lai was a war crime....

[David Nieporent]

.

What Dr. Ed wrote was that there were armed combatants who were children (carrying a ticking grenade over to US troops), women (with AK-47s), and elderly tripping bombs.

There. Were. No. Combatants. At. My. Lai.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-teenage-girl-gang-that-seduced-and-killed-nazis?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

How do you know there were no combatants at My Lia???

[David Nieporent]

Because I don't get all of my historical information from hazy memories of things I imagine some local Maine cop would've said in a hypothetical situation that never happened.

[Kleppe]

No substantive response, just an ad hominem.

[Bob from Ohio]

"neutral country"

"Sihanouk allowed the Vietnamese communists to use Cambodia as a sanctuary and a supply route for their arms and other aid to their armed forces fighting in South Vietnam." Cambodia, wikipedia

Its not a neutral country if you knowingly allow one belligerent to use your territory to attack another belligerent.

[Nige]

Killed up to half a million people and threw the country to Pol Pot.

[Bob from Ohio]

I guess the NVA and VC shouldn't have used Cambodia for bases then.

Cambodia let the NV Reds use its territory to kill Americans and South Vietnamese. Bombing and sending troops was fully justified in response.

We weren't the aggressor.

[Nige]

Of course the US was the agressor. It was illegal. He murdered hundreds of thousands.

Funny how the same people outraged over a thousand murdered civilians will justify the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the wrecking of an entire country.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Of course the US was the agressor."

The North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and used it as a staging area to attack targets in South Vietnam. The US response was defensive.

"It was illegal."

What law was broken?

[Nige]

Mass murder is illegal.

[Bob from Ohio]

Self defense is not.

[Nige]

'I murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in self defence. ' Nah, only an idiot would buy it.

[myself]

Bombing a neutral country?

Bombing with reckless regard for civilian casualties?

[Bob from Ohio]

It wasn't "neutral" in fact. It allowed the NVA to use its territory.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Bob: "The North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and used it..."

Wait. Just two comments up you said Cambodia let NV do that:
"Cambodia let the NV Reds use its territory to kill Americans..."

Doesn't sound like an invasion. Of course when you wrote that you were trying to imply that Cambodia itself was at fault for being bombed into the Stone Age. Then, when you contradicted your own comment, you were trying to imply that North Vietnam was the aggressor, and not the country bombing Cambodia into the Stone Age.

[Sarcastr0]

We weren’t the aggressor.

This may be the craziest take on the Vietnam war I've ever seen.

Kissinger claimed we weren't bombing civilians in Cambodia. Guess what? Bullshit.

Did you hear the story of him mocking MacNamara for feeling bad about how Vietnam went? What an awful person.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This may be the craziest take on the Vietnam war I’ve ever seen."

NV was using Cambodia as a staging and supply area to attack US troops in SV. In other words, the invaded Cambodia first. That's a fact. So bombing NV targets in Cambodia was completely justified, morally and legally.

"Guess what? Bullshit. "

NVA and VC was hiding, like Hamas, in civilian areas. Dead civilians are their fault.

"mocking MacNamara"

Nixon and Kissinger had to clean up after MacNamara.

You are angrier at Kissinger than MacNamara, who f**ked up in the first place.

[Nige]

No war crime too big.

[Sarcastr0]

Vietnam was a a war of choice. We were the aggressors.

Being a staging area ignores the scope of the bombing.

"If you are going to ask whether I feel guilty about Vietnam, the interview is over. I'll walk out."

Now I was nervous that Kissinger would bolt. I played my best card. I told him I had just interviewed Robert McNamara in Washington. That got his attention. He stopped badgering me, and then he did an extraordinary thing. He began to cry.

But no, not real tears. Before my eyes, Henry Kissinger was acting.

"Boohoo, boohoo," Kissinger said, pretending to cry and rub his eyes. "He's still beating his breast, right? Still feeling guilty." He spoke in a mocking, singsong voice and patted his heart for emphasis.

Sounds like how you would act.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We were the aggressors. "

Speaking of crazy talk.

We were invited to South Vietnam by its government.

[Sarcastr0]

We were invited to South Vietnam by its government.
Nobody believes that as any more than diplomatic cover, not even you.

[Commenter_XY]

Still, it is an objective fact = We were invited to South Vietnam by its government.

[Absaroka]

S:"Vietnam was a a war of choice. We were the aggressors."
B:"We were invited to South Vietnam by its government."
S:"Nobody believes that as any more than diplomatic cover, not even you."

Do you also believe that we were the aggressors in Korea? If not, can you explain the difference? Neither South Vietnam nor Korea had a particularly democratic government, and both had Northern neighbors trying to take them over.

In hindsight, the Hanoi was a gentler dictatorship than Pyongyang, but that wasn't obvious during either war.

[Nige]

Man, all those Asian land wars; smart and pragmatic guys got so many more people killed for nothing. Heroes!

[Sarcastr0]

Fair point. I had to think to write the below, which shows I had some fuzzy thinking. But I still think I'm right!

Distinctions:

1) Timeline - Vietnam was a slow burn. We didn't even initially engage, we took it over from the French. Vastly more offramps there.
Korea was a susprise attack and we went in along with UN push if I recall my Truman bio correctly.
Sliding in little by little is more of a voluntary act than responding to a crisis.

2) Strategic objective - Korea had a pretty decent push them back objective initially. MacArthur fuzzed that up, but the national strategy had a bright line of demarcation even.
Vietnam had...hearts and minds? We went in without a clear plan. Which is not necessary for a war of choice, but is dang near a war of choice.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh please, you were talking out your ass on Vietnam and Bob from Ohio called you on it. Fuzzy thinking doesn't even begin to describe it. Willful blindness might.

[Kleppe]

"Did you hear the story of him mocking MacNamara for feeling bad about how Vietnam went? What an awful person."

Imagine not only believing the news media, but bragging about it. Unhinged behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

How do you get your news?

Just knowing stuff?

Weird comment.

[Don Nico]

Nige looks to be just another authoritarian socialist apologist.

[Nige]

Oh, sorry, not fully appreciating the great work Kissinger did in mass murder is authoritarian socialist apologism now.

[Kazinski]

Kind of funny, no one in Cambodia blames the US for the Khmer Rouge takeover. I’ve spent well over a year there on and off and I’ve traveled their extensively, and it’s a trope I’ve only heard from westerners.

The bombing wasn’t in any population centers it was along scarcely populated the western border near Vietnam and Laos where the government had already lost control to the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong and Pathet Lao. The population centers of Phnom Penh, Battambang, and Kampong Cham were never bombed.

It was loss of control to those areas that allowed their Khmer Rouge allies to create a base of operations, a weapons supply channel from the Ho ChI Minh Trail, and other support. If the government hadn't already lost control of those areas to a regional communist insurgency their never would have been any bombing, but there isn't any way to blame the bombing for a loss of territorial control that had already happened.

That area of Cambodia and southern Laos near the spectacular Khone Phampeng Waterfall on the Mekong is still so remote that the border isn’t effectively controlled and even tourists routinely go pay water taxis to take them back and forth across the border illegally between the market and the tourist attractions. Although that might have changed recently with the Chinese-Lao hydroelectric project at the southern end of the falls where the 6.7 mile wide falls start to narrow.

[Nige]

https://theintercept.com/2023/05/23/henry-kissinger-cambodia-bombing-survivors/

[Kazinski]

Well now you are moving the goal posts.

I'm not disputing he injustice of the bombing of both Cambodia and Lao, and the impact on the people subjected to it. I've seen the bomb craters on The Plain of Jars near Phonsaven, an archeological site where its hard to imagine any legitimate military objective in a remote agricultural hinterland with no significant population centers even today.

But there is no basis for trying to pin Pol Pot on Kissinger and the bombing of Cambodia. That snowball was already rolling downhill well before the bombing started. It was clearly caused by the same loss of territorial control to armed communist insurgents that prompted the bombing.

If you want to look at where the snowball started it was probably in the streets of Paris where Pol Pot and his older revolutionary comrades such as Zhou Enlai and Ho Chi Minh were radicalized:

"Mouvement Travail-Études), was a series of work-study programs which brought Chinese students to France and Belgium to work in factories as a way to pay for their study of French culture and Western science. The programs aimed to train Chinese radicals between the ages of 16 and 30 through first hand experience in a workers' movement.[1]: 35  The programs were organized between 1912 and 1927 largely by a group of Chinese anarchists who had come to Paris and wanted to introduce French science and social idealism to China."

[Nige]

'I’m not disputing he injustice of the bombing of both Cambodia and Lao,'

Well all right.

'But there is no basis for trying to pin Pol Pot on Kissinger and the bombing of Cambodia.'

Some people think it contributed. It can't have helped.

[AmosArch]

He demonstrably lied and was thoroughly debunked on his original point of a 'neutral country' being attacked so he has to look for a win somewhere.

[Commenter_XY]

A great American, and a complicated man.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Kissinger a great American?

Do you rely on religion because you are aware you have no moral compass, and therefore are trying to simulate one?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes Arthur, a great American. He advanced American national interests in the midst of an incredibly turbulent domestic time.

[Nige]

Crying crocodile tears over a thousand murdered civilians, calmly accepting the necessity of hundreds of thousands of deaths as a function of some sort of deranged psychopathic self-interest.

[Frank Drackman]

I didn't know he was sick

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you have to be "sick" to die? After 100 years things just break down.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being elderly IS being "sick". It's just that it's a disease we all get sooner or later, so we don't think of it as a disease.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I didn’t know he was sick" is a very old joke about a dead person. Internet says it goes back to WC Fields in 1913 about George Washington

[bernard11]

In the Roman segment of History of the World, Part 1, one of the characters says to Mel Brooks(?), "sic transit gloria," to which he replies, "I didn't even know she was sick."

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously, I missed the joke but don't remember ever having heard it.

[bernard11]

Actually, I got it wrong.

The response was, "I didn't know Gloria was sick."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Gleefully oblivious to all the suffering he caused and the media more or less let him get away with it. Practically everything he tried to achieve could have been done less harmfully.

Also nauseating were his appearances before Congress. It was odd to see Senators groveling before a witness instead of the other way around.

At least Carter finally outlived him.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Gleefully oblivious to all the suffering he caused and the media more or less let him get away with it."
Obviously you're referring to our current President.

[Nige]

Derp.

[Krayt]

Also nauseating were his appearances before Congress. It was odd to see Senators groveling before a witness instead of the other way around.

Oh no. The preening pontificator class, the Pharrisees standing on the corner praying where everyone can see them, bit off more than they could chew?

Also blockquote is still busted. Double-busted now.

[John F. Carr]

American politics encourages people to cling to their positions rather than admit a mistake.

[Bob from Ohio]

"groveling"

Its a senator's natural state.

[Don Nico]

At his worst moments he was far better and more effective than Blinken at his best.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the truth.

[Sarcastr0]

What does effective mean to you?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's the question, isn't it?

[Sarcastr0]

Next comes better.
Then necessary.

Lots of papering over.

[Commenter_XY]

What does effective mean to you?

Actually getting something done that serves our national interest would be effective. Blinken is just an incompetent boob. He has kept the chair warm for his successor. Sadly, he cannot overcome his limitations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"serves our national interest would be effective"

An effective SOS is one who carries out the policy set by the president, to ultimate success if possible. Sometimes that policy actually "serves our national interest", sometimes not.

Obama's Iran policy was misguided but Kerry got an agreement. So he was effective.

[Commenter_XY]

That is true.

[shawn_dude]

Mike Pompeo, who negotiated with the Taliban to plan the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, was a failed Secretary of State.

(Unless failure was the plan.. in which case he was successful?!)

[Martinned]

True. Everyone who works for the US government must do whatever the President says, national interest be damned.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

What do you imagine Kissinger got done that served our national interest in Vietnam? Peace with honor?

[Kleppe]

"It was odd to see Senators groveling before a witness instead of the other way around."

Why should anyone grovel before a politician? They're literally the worst people we have to offer.

[OtisAH]

Better late than never. Btw, he was the last of Nixon’s cabinet. Again, better late than never.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing like celebrating someones death to start your day.

[OtisAH]

The depth of your ignorance never ceases to amaze. “Better late than never” is an expression of relief, not celebration.

[Mr. Bumble]

In context and coming from you it is easy to see it as a celebration. Happy to see that you mourn his passing.

[OtisAH]

I don’t. He should’ve died years ago, in prison. That he got to die a free man is a great injustice. I feel for all the people who didn’t get to live long enough to see him die.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hanoi Jane should be in prison, along with thousands of her fellow travelers. THEY are the ones with blood on their hands.

We WON the Vietnam war, only to subsequently lose it because of AntiAmerican AHoles on American college campi.

Kissinger should never have led to the 1973 peace treaty because anyone could see that it would lead to what happened in 1975.

[bernard11]

Oh shut up, you lying imbecile.

By the late 1960's opposition to the war was the majority position in the country.

[In Spring, 1966] fewer than four in 10 Americans thought the U.S. had made a mistake in sending troops to Vietnam.

Within about two years -- by August 1968 -- the California machinist's view had become the dominant one in the U.S., as a majority of Americans for the first time said the country had made a mistake in entering Vietnam

[myself]

Take it easy on Dr. Ed 2. At least he's blaming a multi-ethnic mox of college students for betraying his country and losing the war and not just blaming Jews like certain Germans did back in the 30s.

[Joe_dallas]

Dr. Ed 2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Hanoi Jane should be in prison, along with thousands of her fellow travelers. THEY are the ones with blood on their hands."

maybe not prison, but does fit - giving aid and comfort to the enemy

[John F. Carr]

As far as I am concerned the statute of limitations has expired. I may never like her. I am not out there chanting "lock her up!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently she is in ill health and will soon be meeting up with Henry.

[Bob from Ohio]

"in prison"

For what?

[Nige]

Being a human viagra pill for people like you.

[not guilty]

Does anyone else remember the Jane Fonda workout videos? (Showing my age here.)

The only one I could seem to get the hang of was Klute.

[DonP]

Her career peaked in "Barbarella".

[Brett Bellmore]

Cat Balou was pretty good, I thought. Not great, but fun.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I liked Comes a Horseman. A 1940s Western, but still a classic-style Western. That makes it interesting by itself.

[not guilty]

Did anyone get the workout video joke?

[OtisAH]

Spencer Ackerman, Rolling Stone: “Henry Kissinger, war criminal beloved by America’s ruling class, finally dies.” That’s a better memorial than Kissinger deserves.

[Don Nico]

A better one than you'll ever get.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Who shit in your cereal today?

[Sarcastr0]

Really embodied the shittiest imperial impulses of our country. Hopefully we will do better going forwards.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only really good thing I can credit him with is being the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I always thought Curtis LeMay.

Remember that the film was released in 1964 which means the initial plot would have been written circa 1962, probably after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember that this was during Operation Chrome Dome (1961-1968) when we had B-52s with nukes flying three different circular routes so that there was always one (in each circle) no more than two hours from its target in the Soviet Union -- the plot is that those planes are ordered to go attack the USSR.

Chrome Dome ended after the SECOND crash of a loaded B-52, the first was in Spain and the second in Greenland. No nuculear detonation but massive hazmat cleanups and I believe one of the bombs on the Spain plane is still lost in the Med.

Wiki says Wernher von Braun but he was into strategic rockets, not bombers -- 15 years after WWII, I think it was a general bigotry against German accents. And as to Henry Kissinger, as he points out, at the time he was an obscure academic -- and in 1964, Vietnam itself was an unknown special operation. A British film producer wouldn't have known of either for at least a few more years.

--
Wiki says:
The character is an amalgamation of RAND Corporation strategist Herman Kahn, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun (a central figure in Nazi Germany's rocket development program recruited to the US after the war), and Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb". It is frequently claimed the character was based on Henry Kissinger, but Kubrick and Sellers denied this; Sellers said: "Strangelove was never modeled after Kissinger—that's a popular misconception. It was always Wernher von Braun." Furthermore, Henry Kissinger points out in his memoirs that at the time of the writing of Dr. Strangelove, he was a little-known academic.

[jimc5499]

All of the bombs from the crash in Spain were recovered. The only missing weapon I know of is in South Carolina near Tybee Island.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I stand corrected, but there is more than just the Tybee Island one missing. As an aside, Bill Cohen and Gary Hart, then both Senators, wrote a book about bad guys recovering the Tybee Island bomb, and Cohen thanked the DoD for telling him what to change in the book.

[John F. Carr]

Command and Control by Eric Schlosser is a good review of American nuclear weapons safety that leaves you wondering how we managed not to accidentally nuke anybody. It covers the major incidents of dropped bombs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Once it was a 59 cent switch that saved, I believe, Greensboro, NC.

[John F. Carr]

That was one of the scary details that Schlosser uncovered.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/the-single-switch-that-saved-the-east-coast-from-nuclear-disaster/279916/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not counting the ones unrecovered from sunken submarines, I suppose. Unless that has happened, secretly.

[Don Nico]

An interesting idea. We ought to learn more about that.

[Paladin_44]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
Apparently one of the objectives here was to recover a Soviet nuke.

[Don Nico]

As I said,"An interesting idea. We ought to learn more about that."

[David Nieporent]

.

Remember that the film was released in 1964 which means the initial plot would have been written circa 1962, probably after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As with most movies, the initial plot was based on a book, and the book was written in the 1950s.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Book didn't include Dr. Strangelove.

[Don Nico]

Well, old Joe sure missed with Blinken

[Aunt Teefah]

Vaxxed?

[BrianL.]

Monty Python - Henry Kissinger song:

Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
You're the Doctor of my dreams
With your crinkly hair and your glassy stare
And your machiavellian schemes
I know they say that you are very vain
And short and fat and pushy but at least you're not insane
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
And wishing you were here
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
You're so chubby and so neat
With your funny clothes and your squishy nose
You're like a German parakeet
All right so people say that you don't care
But you've got nicer legs than Hitler
And bigger tits than Cher
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
And wishing you were here

[Nige]

Gives with one hand, takes with another. RIP Shane McGowan. Hope he kicks Kissinger's arse on the way out.

[AmosArch]

All these posts about lawyers getting caught for using AI due to bad references gives me an idea.

Why not use this as a general antiAI measure? Expand this beyond the court and everybody from middle school to college just has to integrate in references throughout any takehome assignment from now on. Of course you’ll have to check those references but its better than nothing. And thoroughly referencing your work is a pretty good practice to adopt in general anyway. Good a time to start as any.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When civilian color laser printers first arrived, the USSS was worried that people would start producing counterfeit money so they had the manufacturers microprint the serial number of the printer in yellow on everything coming out of the printer. I believe this is still being done.

Perhaps make a similar requirement of AI that it insert some sort of digital fingerprint in everything it produces?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a LOT more data in an image than a text, though. Hard to hide extra data there.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, it's still being done, which is why I have to replace my yellow toner more often than cyan and magenta despite 99% of my prints being in greyscale.

The problem with doing the same with AI is that when the AI generates text there's no way to encode any data that won't be lost in a copy/paste, or worst case, by simply retyping it. Even AI images wouldn't be able to be foolproof as you can open the image in an editor and remove any identifying marks or encoding.

[Brett Bellmore]

In principle you can watermark electronic text by including non-printable unicode characters. They're transmitted along with the rest if you do a cut and past, and you can't see them without using a special utility, or at least messing with the font.

[defaultdotxbe]

For many years now I've been in the habit of running copy/pastes through Notepad++ which will display non-printable characters and strip out any other formatting. I guess I tend assume most people would do the same.

[Don Nico]

Ed,
There is much more micro-printing than that on US currency.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the serial number of mt HP printer shows up on a $100 bill, the USSS is going to be asking me questions...

[Absaroka]

Ed is talking about this.

There is different microprinting on actual bills. See 'Microprinting' on page 3.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for the links.

[Randy Sax]

I fed an AI a bunch of my civil engineering codes, ACI-318, ASCE 7-16, Tech Report 13, and then I asked it a bunch a questions. EX. What is the lap length for a #6, condition B, rebar splice? Problem is, it only gets it right ~80% of the time.

[jb]

Yeah, the "confidently wrong" thing is the biggest problem with LLMs at the moment. There's a lot of work being done to address it, but for the moment anything for anything with a factual basis you have to be pretty diligent about checking the output before relying on it. That doesn't mean it's not useful, but it is a pretty big limitation.

[Jacob Grimes]

I think we had to take an oath in law school that we would only submit our own work, so probably any similar pledges would cover AI use.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whatever became of the private Chinese police stations?
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/04/at-least-6-more-secret-chinese-police-stations-in-us-says-report/

Everyone was worried about them a year ago -- and establishing private police stations seems sorta extra-legal to me, not that the CCP exactly observes the niceties of US law...

[Krayt]

Someone(s) starts beating a drum for something, media picks it up, then the original pushers abandon it. Why? Many such cases.

[shawn_dude]

A number of them were investigated and shut down. Onesuch here in SF. These don't appear to be innocent "police stations" but coercive "police state" stations where Chinese expats were harassed in order to provide various gains to the CCP.

[Kazinski]

Jack Smiths Twitter/X warrant for Trump's data was so breathtakingly broad it asked for "information relating to accounts that followed and liked Trump's posts".

While I can see Smith asking for Trump's data, I can't see how he could possibly have probable cause to request the data for anyone that liked or retweeted Trump. Plus the warrant required that Twitter/X not disclose the existence of the warrant, so Twitter couldn't disclose the fact that Smith was asking for those users data, and they had no opportunity to contest the subpoena.

https://www.newsweek.com/did-jack-smith-investigate-trumps-twitter-followers-what-we-know-1848167

[Dr. Ed 2]

Strikes me as more building an enemies list than prosecuting a purported crime.

And what’s even more chilling is what a Trump Dept of Justice could do with the precedent. This goes way beyond Lavrentiy Beria and “show me the man, I’ll show you the crime" and into another dimension of criminalizing everyone who knows the man.

[NvEric]

Well, Jack Smith has TDS among other, as of yet, not publicly disclosed mental health conditions. However, to keep things sporting Jack, come and get me if you will, I'm here even though I've never been on Twitter.

I didn't put Trump into office, but came to realize the utter tommy rot of those suffering from TDS whom spewed forth their bilge in 2020 against Trump. Sad and vindictive are those who have acted against Trump in any way, shape, or form. Since that year I've returned to the foray of concern for my country and will lay life and limb, if required, to ensure evils are addressed directly, legally, and certainly.

Jack Smith is as deranged as are his employers, the Biden Junta, et al, as are anyone else supporting these criminal acts contrary to our country's heritage espoused in law, or otherwise so, since its inception.

Nowhere, today, is there, but a slim minority of persons, so inclined and steeped in certainty of purpose towards our being here. 400 years is little time, but since few others hold to this standard concerning our experiment, I welcome others to take on this burden of concern.

[Nige]

'Sad and vindictive are those who have acted against Trump in any way, shape, or form.'

'I'm not a Trump supporter but I don't understand why anyone would oppose the Man who is clearly Jesus come again.' TDS indeed.

[jb]

Poe's Law! I really can't tell if this is a bad troll or a particularly nutty person.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've warned for decades that we were accumulating the bits and pieces of a police state, and that sooner or later somebody was going to assemble them and fire that sucker up.

Watch closely, they're yanking on the starter cord now, it just hasn't 'caught' yet. When it arrives a lot of the usual suspects here will jump directly from "you're paranoid" to "serves you right!".

[Nige]

No, you're selective, you're dishonest about Trump's crookedness, and you support his authoritarianism.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's probably the excuse you'll use for saying that I deserved to go to the camps, isn't it?

[Nige]

Only one politician promising camps and retribution, only one side warning about civil war if they're thwarted and thinking aloud about how maybe democracy ain’t that great after all. You’ll be exercising your second amendment rights with your big gun while you help round up your neighbours.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean Hillary Clinton, I presume?

[SimonP]

So I can say that, when Hillary was talking about “deprogramming,” she was talking about MAGA’s apparent imperviousness to facts and reason. There just does not seem to be any way to find common ground with these people (as you so ably demonstrate here!) because every attempt at doing so inevitably raises a lot of chaff like your response here.

I don’t think she was talking about literally taking MAGA supporters and physically putting them in deprogramming camps – and I don’t think that’s actually what you’re saying, either. You’re waving your hands about “scary rhetoric” that you think could some day lead to physical camps, but you would have to acknowledge, on some level, that no one on the left is actually talking about physically detaining their political opponents.

Can we say the same about Trump’s rhetoric? When he calls his political opponents “vermin” that he will root out of the country, do you suppose he is speaking just metaphoricaly? When his plans on immigration involve taking a lot of people with protected status now, putting them in camps, and then slowly deporting them as they get processed through an overwhelmed immigration system, do you think he’s just trying to describe a mindset?

When you support his views up and down these threads, what do you hope will happen, to your political opponents? You’ve already been quite clear that you believe that tomorrow’s leftists are so potentially dangerous that we need to take action today to somehow stop them. Are you really just thinking, “beat them in free and fair elections”?

[Brett Bellmore]

"When he calls his political opponents “vermin” that he will root out of the country, do you suppose he is speaking just metaphorically?"

Yes, I do think he's speaking hyperbolically, that he's not actually going to deport his political enemies, just pry them out of their positions of power and immunity by ordinary legal processes.

"When his plans on immigration involve taking a lot of people with protected status now, putting them in camps, and then slowly deporting them as they get processed through an overwhelmed immigration system, do you think he’s just trying to describe a mindset?"

No, that part he means literally. But, of course, we're talking in this case about people who aren't legally entitled to be here in the first place. And I'm quite sure he'd rather process them rapidly through a properly funded system, instead of gradually through a system deliberately starved of resources by legislators who don't want our immigration laws enforced, but can't come out and say so, so they settle for underfunding enforcement.

[SimonP]

Yes, I do think he’s speaking hyperbolically, that he’s not actually going to deport his political enemies,...

He'll deport anyone who's here on a visa, that seems to be part of the plan. Criminal investigations of the Lugenpresse, I'd imagine. I suppose I can make an educated guess on where you'll come out on "investigations of political opponents for tax and political corruption crimes."

...just pry them out of their positions of power and immunity by ordinary legal processes.

"Ordinary legal processes" is a stretch for "broadly re-categorizing swaths of the administrative state as political appointments that can be removed at will." But, no, I'm not surprised that you've drunk that Kool-Aid, either.

No, that part he means literally. But, of course, we’re talking in this case about people who aren’t legally entitled to be here in the first place.

No, we're not. The people without a legal entitlement to be here would get thrown out of the country immediately, under Trump's proposed plan. The people he wants in camps are the people who are pursuing asylum claims or have special protected status. This may be the context in which he'll test out his new interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e., natural-born children of illegal immigrants are not automatically citizens).

In any event, administrative detention of any group of people, without due process, as an apparent effort to get them to waive any legal rights they actually do have, is the kind of thing that authoritarian governments do, and more to the point, authoritarian governments that have historically gone on to do worse things. How long will it take for us to learn, for instance, of sexual abuse, torture, beatings, deaths due to medical neglect, etc., of detainees in the Trump camps?

And I’m quite sure he’d rather process them rapidly through a properly funded system, instead of gradually through a system deliberately starved of resources by legislators who don’t want our immigration laws enforced, but can’t come out and say so, so they settle for underfunding enforcement.

I realize that you mean "Democrats want to push along demographic change," but I would note that inaction on illegal immigration is a truly bipartisan effort, because Republicans and their constituents benefit from having an under-regulated, under-documented, and fully exploitable workforce in the agricultural sector and gig economy.

We could try to fix the problem via a massive infusion of dollars to build up the courts and process claims more quickly, but I think that any sensible person would look at the cost of doing so, combined with the economic effects of deporting a large number of people quickly, and conclude that the best path to better enforcement pairs resources for judicial process and enforcement with paths to legalization/citizenship. If the latter weren't so anathema to conservative white supremacists, we could fix the problem tomorrow.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Remarkable how you can read between the lines and tell everyone what isn't being said by every other person on the planet, but with Trump you think he's being straight-forward.

Also of amusement is how you think Trump will use "ordinary legal process" to accomplish anything, given the respect he's shown to such processes.

For example: Preventing his lawyers from properly complying with a lawful subpoena, and then lying about his compliance in order to obstruct the retrieval of stolen US property.

[bernard11]

we’re talking in this case about people who aren’t legally entitled to be here in the first place.

So they get thrown into camps willy-nilly. Of course, there won't be any mistakes, and no one who is here legally, including citizens, will be hassled. Because you think government is wonderfully efficient, even if only on this project.

And he's going to include people who have been here years, with no problems, who are making contributions to the country, some who arrived as infants. But you don't give a fuck, do you?

"They are here illegally" is all that matters to you, and they can be mistreated in any way Donald Trump and his cultists want. Are you really a Roman Catholic? As I recall you are critical of the Pope frto not being Catholic enough, but here you are. Is this policy in line with your church's teachings?

No. It's inhumane, immoral, and disgusting.

[Tempe Jeff]

What about the ones receiving food stamps for their "Born in the United States" children and section 8 housing for them as well. Do they pay the maternity costs at least? Just kidding. They cost us far more and can't be deported. Can't kick parents of the children out. Am I right?

[bernard11]

Got any data, or just "Welfare Cadillac" BS?

Guess what, the Constitution you RW nutjobs claim to revere is pretty explicit about those kids being citizens.

Take your bigotry and shove it.

[BrianL.]

I usually don't like comparing candidates to Hitler, but in this case:

Trump: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections.”

Hitler: “Should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?”

I'm starting to think Trump is doing this intentionally.

[bernard11]

he’s not actually going to deport his political enemies, just pry them out of their positions of power and immunity by ordinary legal processes.

It's not just political enemies he's talking about. He's talking about everyone (he perceives as) "communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs..."

He goes on to say,

"the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.”

The threat from within. And does anyone think this demented fool is "a capable, competent, smart, tough leader?"

[TwelveInchPianist]

“I don’t think she was talking about literally taking MAGA supporters and physically putting them in deprogramming camps…”

What do you think she was saying? Where else would you do the deprogramming?

[Mr. Bumble]

Colleges and universities?

[SimonP]

I explained what I thought she was saying, in the comment you're responding to.

Watch the video. It was a joke, and received as such. It was intended to be a comment on how MAGA seems to be so pro-Trump that they are not listening to facts or reason.

You, and others, know this full well. You're just pretending that she insinuated something far more sinister, because you'd rather shift the debate from, "Why in the world would any sane person think Trump will make this country a better place," to, "Democrats are lunatics who will put their political opponents in jail." It's part of the "flood the zone with shit" strategy.

Every political disagreement gets reframed over a tiresome debate over reality. And because you are all morons with the emotional maturity of teenagers, and semi-retired so you have plenty of time, you'll just keep pounding and pounding on this, while the rest of us have real lives we have to tend to, ceding the territory.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

MAGA seems to be so pro-Trump that they are not listening to facts or reason

"We choose truth over facts!"

Oh, wait...that was someone else, wasn't it?

[Nige]

No, I meant the current Republican candidate for US president who you WILL vote for.

[bernard11]

Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. She holds no position of power, and is unlikely ever again to hold one.

You might as well quote something I say as evidence of Democrats' intentions to put people in camps.

Donald Trump, OTOH, is the likely GOP nominee for President. That means it makes sense to take his threats seriously, and not excuse them, as you twist yourself to do, by proclaiming them "hyperbole," etc.

As for "ordinary legal processes," I think we have seen how much respect he has for those. After his various ridiculous lawsuits failed, he did not give up, but was prepared to use all available means, legal or not, to stay in office. No. He's not going to restrict himself.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Hillary Clinton is a private citizen. She holds no position of power, and is unlikely ever again to hold one.

She's someone you and others like you supported for the Presidency, and she's still listened to (with adoration) by millions.

[Sarcastr0]

This is from October 2023, Wuz.

You think we got some kinda time machine?

[jb]

Can you remind me what office she's running for?

[Kleppe]

"thinking aloud about how maybe democracy ain’t that great after all"

Democracy got us Hamas.

[OtisAH]

The only people who ever talk about camps, Brett, are Turnip, FOX and the rightwing media universe, and the wide and varied array of rightwing kooks and cranks including you and the other worthless numpties who post here.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember folks, Brett really thinks the left is talking camps for conservatives.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

But of course we mean fun camps with sailing and crafts and cookouts.

[apedad]

"I’ve warned for decades . . . . "

Yup you are good at making predictions - that NEVER happen.

You're just as bad as all the "THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!" crazies.

[Nige]

Unfair. Voting for Trump will finally make those predictions come true. It's the good old 'roll up the sleeves and do it myself' attitude.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're just getting accustomed to the progression towards a police state, as it's been gradual. If we'd gone straight from the 1970's to where we are now in terms of population surveillance you'd be freaking out big time, but they gave you time to get used to being under a microscope.

[Mr. Bumble]

A small victory against the surveillance state:

DISCIPLINING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: NCLA Triumph in Unlawful Charter Boat Surveillance Rule Case Leads Gov’t to Pay Attorneys’ Fees. “NCLA has represented more than 1,300 federally permitted charter boat owners in this class-action lawsuit against the Final Rule, which required every boat to install an onboard Vessel Monitoring System tracking device that continuously transmitted its GPS location to NMFS. The Rule forced charter boat captains to pay for these devices, which tracked boats whether they were being used for a charter-fishing trip or something else. This 24-hour surveillance was unnecessary, unduly burdensome, and violated the Fourth Amendment by searching without probable cause or a warrant. It also exceeded NMFS’s authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. NCLA also complained the rule required reporting data that the agencies had nowhere specified in proposing the rule for comment. The Fifth Circuit largely agreed with NCLA’s analysis and held that the GPS-tracking requirement was unlawful for several reasons.”

Reminder/Disclosure: I’m on the NCLA Advisory Board.
Posted at 7:15 am by Glenn Reynolds

[Nige]

There was a freakout. It was BLM. You were on the side of the police state. As usual.

[bernard11]

You’re just getting accustomed to the progression towards a police state,

You are worried about a police state, yet you defend Trump's statements.

You must be the least self-aware person in the world. How the fuck do you propose putting millions of people in camps while opposing the establishment of a police state?

How the fuck do you defend calling one's political opponents vermin, and promise to root them out, while opposing the establishment of a police state?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How the fuck do you defend calling one’s political opponents vermin

The quote was, "that live like vermin". He did not say that they actually are vermin. But don't let the truth get in your way. Or did you miss the day they covered similes in English class?

[Sarcastr0]

The quote was, “that live like vermin”. He did not say that they actually are vermin

LOL.

[bernard11]

I guess the fascists and communists and whatnot who live in nice homes are exempt from Trump's plans.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I guess the fascists and communists and whatnot who live in nice homes are exempt from Trump’s plans.

How exactly does your snark here make you any less of a liar?

[jb]

If your point is that prosecutors routinely engage in overbroad requests for information because it makes their jobs easier despite often infringing on the civil rights of broad swaths of people, and that modern technology makes it vastly easier to engage in mass surveillance, you’re definitely onto something.

Would sure be nice if you guys cared about this stuff when someone other than Trump was involved, though.

[Commenter_XY]

Just out of curiosity...what would have happened if X (fka Twitter), had disclosed the warrant to the American people when it was issued?

[Brett Bellmore]

I am kind of curious about the penalties for violating these gag orders. Nobody seems to do it, so they must be quite severe.

I guess it starts with a five year prison sentence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, they were fined $350,000 for opposing it and being tardy in turning over the information.

[Kazinski]

They were fined 350k because they dragged their feet complying while they were contesting the warrant.

I suppose fines, or maybe even criminal contempt.

[Sarcastr0]

Did Jack Smith Investigate Trump's Twitter Followers?

Newsweek doesn't know, but they sure will speculate about it!

The info they have: "All other content, records, and other information relating to all other interactions between the SUBJECT ACCOUNT and other Twitter users from October 2020 to January 2021," the warrant said.

That's it. The rest is angry randos on twitter blowing this up based on nothing.

Next time, wait for *evidence* before posting nonsense like this.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just why did he seek this information?

[David Nieporent]

Why would they seek the communications records of someone involved in a conspiracy? Gee, I'm not sure. That's a tough one. Could be lots of things. Maybe Smith was just compiling a guest list for Ivanka's daughter's bat mitzvah?

[Mr. Bumble]

SarcastrO says:
"Did Jack Smith Investigate Trump’s Twitter Followers?"

[Sarcastr0]

Did he? Nothing so far establishes that.

I don't know too much about subpoena practice, but I sure don't trust Newsweek for the tools around here to tell me what's overbroad an what's well tailored.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in the article says that the followers themselves were investigated. Smith wanted to know who Trump may have been communicating with.

[bernard11]

DMN,

Gehe schlug sich kopf in wand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Everyone who read one of Trump's tweets was in on a conspiracy?

[Kenneth Almquist]

No, no more than anyone who sent an E-mail to Trump was in on the conspiracy. Still, if the government subpoenas Trump's E-mail account, they normally get all of the E-mails in the account.

I doubt that Trump's twitter account includes a list of everybody who has read one of Trump tweets, but if it does, then, yes, the government now has that list. The OP calls the subpoena “breathtakingly broad,” but it requests the contents of exactly one account. If that is “breathtakingly broad,” I wonder how the OP would describe a subpoena that asked for the contents of multiple accounts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From Sarc's comment:
"“All other content, records, and other information relating to all other interactions between the SUBJECT ACCOUNT and other Twitter users from October 2020 to January 2021,” the warrant said."

That's very broad, and covers anyone who read a Trump tweet.

[Nige]

'Reading' is an interaction?

[Kenneth Almquist]

“Interaction” means “mutual or reciprocal action or influence” (Webter's Unabridged, 1913). Someone reading a Trump tweet is unidirectional influence unless there is feedback to Trump, so it's not an interaction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From Oxford, hosted by google: "communication or direct involvement with someone or something."

So yes, reading is an interaction.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I found that definition online, although I think it doesn't include the full entry from the Oxford English dictionary. It does provide this example, though: “For a shy person, social interaction can be a stomach-churning, anxiety-filled experience.” A native speaker of American English would have no trouble understanding that this example is not saying that shy people find reading to be a stomach-churning, anxiety-filled experience.

At best you've shown that the wording in the warrant is ambiguous. That doesn't support the claim that Jack Smith was seeking to learn which users read Trump tweets. If Smith wanted that information, the warrant would have said so clearly and unambiguously.

[David Nieporent]

.

I doubt that Trump’s twitter account includes a list of everybody who has read one of Trump tweets, but if it does, then, yes, the government now has that list.

The warrant did not ask for a list of anyone who read one of Trump’s tweets — only people who liked or retweeted them.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The warrant did not ask for a list of anyone who read one of Trump’s tweets — only people who liked or retweeted them.

Wait...liking/retweeting a Trump tweet constitutes involvement in a conspiracy?

[David Nieporent]

No. Conspiring with Trump constitutes involvement in a conspiracy. Communicating with Trump is a necessary element of conspiring with Trump.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Liking and retweeting Trump's tweets (both of which are included in what was sought) are not "communicating with Trump".

[Martinned]

@WuzYoungOnceToo: Are you sure? Given that Trump can see who like and retweet his tweets, I wouldn't say that's obvious. I mean, it might be that the answer depends on whether the liker/retweeter intends for Trump to see that they liked or retweeted his message, but that's not a great answer either.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And exactly what sort of conspiracy-coordinating information do you think is being communicated by a like/retweet?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, is that technically true? I thought conspirators could even be unknown to each other, as long as they were leagued in a common purpose with some other member(s) of the same conspiracy.

[David Nieporent]

You are correct that each member of the conspiracy need not directly communicate with each other member for it to be a common conspiracy. For example, the hub-and-spoke model is a common conspiracy design: there's a central hand guiding the conspiracy (the "hub"), with whom lower levels of the conspiracy all communicate with (the "spokes"), but the spokes don't necessarily talk directly to each other. (That would be the "rim" of the conspiracy.) Think street-level drug dealers, with a drug cartel. But each member of the conspiracy must communicate with some other members, because there must be a common purpose and agreement.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The warrant did not ask for a list of anyone who read one of Trump’s tweets — only people who liked or retweeted them."

"All other content, records, and other information relating to all other interactions between the SUBJECT ACCOUNT and other Twitter users from October 2020 to January 2021,"

[Michael P]

In other news, totalitarian asshole liars think that following someone on Twitter constitutes a conspiracy.

[Sarcastr0]

No one said that but you lot.

[Kazinski]

The search warrant is overbroad, and has no legitimate purpose when it demands lists of people that followed or retweeted Trump.

DM's, perhaps. Maybe that can be justified, but even that can be abused if there is attorney client privilege. I would think they should need to request communications between Trump and specific people where probable cause can be established.

The idea that Americans communicating with elected officials can have their communications secretly subpoenaed is disturbing.

Applying this to Senator Menendez, if the government wanted to subpoena his communications between suspected co-conspiritors great, but not any and all communication between the senator and constituents.

[Sarcastr0]

You say it's overbroad.

I'm not so sure. Impacts of his tweets as his followers say they've locked and loaded etc. could go to knowledge.

Also remember this is not accessing the accounts of his followers, just the interactions his account picked up.

IOW, you're reaching, and your ipse dixit about overbreadth is not something you have the expertise to say.

You just want to believe. And so you do. You're very skilled at that.

[David Nieporent]

.

DM’s, perhaps. Maybe that can be justified, but even that can be abused if there is attorney client privilege. I would think they should need to request communications between Trump and specific people where probable cause can be established.

1) Who the fuck would communicate with his lawyer for legal advice via twitter DM?
2) That’s just not how it works. The fact that it’s possible that some attorney/client communications will be found in a location — well, that’s pretty much always a possibility, but it does not implicate the validity of a search warrant in any way. Nor are search warrants ever executed by looking at each item in advance to decide whether it’s relevant. They seize all the documents in your office and then review them later.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So he didn't investigate Trump's twitter followers, he just got a warrant for records of everyone who read Trump's tweets?

[M L]

Getting broad warrants for information isn't investigating.

*blank stare*

[Nige]

I love it when you guys have to act like complete fucking idiots.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I'm starting to think it isn't an act. At least in a fair number of their cases.

[M L]

No, that’s not it, as it turns out. In addition to demanding all users who liked or mentioned a Trump tweet or followed the account or otherwise interacted, the warrant also demanded “all associated logs and other metadata”, which could include location information, and other details.

Of course most of the warrant is still redacted, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Presumably the location is for the Clinton assassination teams.

Going from 'All other content, records, and other information' to 'all likes or mentions plus location information' is a bullshit framing so you can go for the paranoia outrage.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How's it bullshit? Are you claiming that "All other content, records, and other information" doesn't cover location information?

[David Nieporent]

.

How’s it bullshit? Are you claiming that “All other content, records, and other information” doesn’t cover location information?

For Trump, sure, to the extent that Twitter has it. Not for Trump's twitter followers.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

For Trump, sure, to the extent that Twitter has it. Not for Trump’s twitter followers.

"All associated logs and other metadata" would include the identifiers of accounts that liked, retweeted or otherwise interacted with Trump's tweets and account. And the default Twitter (er...X) account setting is to track and maintain your location (the precision of which depends on a variety of factors) unless you opt to turn that off in your account settings...which most people most likely aren't even aware of. So, yes...that most certainly could (or even probably would) cover location data for many/most Twitter users who interacted with Trump's Twitter account/tweets in some way.

[Sarcastr0]

You went from mere account IDs to data tracked by each account.

But the subpoena isn't to each account.

So you get a lot of account IDs.

And if the ID contains location info, that's on twitter, eh?

[M L]

This breathtakingly broad warrant was not only granted, the judge cited an "undeniable need" to keep it under seal and totally secret at first. Later only a small portion of it was disclosed and it remains mostly redacted now.

What's interesting is to contrast this with Trump's request for a subpoena that was just denied. Trump sought records from the January 6 committee investigation that bear on the subject matter of the criminal charges, records and information that the J6 committee is hiding and may have destroyed.

Wait until you hear what the judge said about Trump's subpoena request. They called it a "fishing expedition." You can't make this up.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump sought records that may or may not have existed. That's a pretty good distinction between the two asks seems to me.

[Kazinski]

Yes, Smith said to Twitter GIVE US EVERYTHING, so that of course exists.

Trump was specific enough that those records may not exist.

Clearly that doesn't apply when you are demanding EVERYTHING.

[Sarcastr0]

So 2 different things are indeed being treated differently.

The analogy is bad.

Now back to your usual drama about EVERYTHING you silly man.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unlike the Soviets, the Nazis kept pretty good records that were pretty much accurate, with those in the Eastern sector being grabbed by the Soviets and kept in secret DDR archives for 45 years after the war ended.

If it's true that there were 127 factories in Dresden manufacturing material for the Nazi regime, with most of them publicly making small amounts of consumer goods to hide the fact that they were actually producing war material, does it legitimize the bombing of Dresden?

And as horrific as it was, did it (like Hiroshima) actually save lives by ending the war sooner?

[Nige]

No.

[Joe_dallas]

The bomb dropping on hiroshima and nagasaki definitely saved lives, probably close to 3million chinese, japanese and american lives. It helped prevent the enslavement of south korea from the perils of communism along with saving the northern islands of japan from the perils of communism by ending the war in August 1945 vs surrender 2-6 months later.

Read Downfall by richard frank.

[Martinned]

That still doesn't legitimise intentionally killing large numbers of innocent civilians.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/

[Joe_dallas]

Maybe yes maybe no

In japan, it meant 1m or 2m fewer civilians dying

[Kazinski]

Everything is legitimate in total war.

But as I have said before my late father-in-law who was an officer in the Japanese Imperial Army at that time preparing to repel the US invasion always asserted it saved at least 10x as many lives, including his own, as the bombings cost.

It's easy to make those decisions now.

[Sarcastr0]

Everything is legitimate in total war.

Then total war is illegitimate.

[Nige]

I somewhat disagree, this seems like justification for an abominable act after the fact, but I was talking about Dresden

[Noscitur a sociis]

Dr. Ed asked whether the bombing of Dresden ended the war sooner. The answer is that it almost certainly didn’t.

https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Dr. Ed asked whether the bombing of Dresden ended the war sooner. The answer is that it almost certainly didn’t.

https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/

Did you actually read that piece? It only mentions the Dresden raids one time, and all it says about them is that they, "didn’t work to collapse German civilian morale", which wasn't their central purpose anyway. Whether or not the bombings "ended the war sooner" and, of so, to what extent is difficult to answer with any degree of certainty. But given the fact that Dresden was both a rail center and a home to multiple arms manufacturing plants it's pretty difficult to conclude that it didn't degrade Germany's ability to wage war effectively. Whether or not that degradation justified the bombings is a separate question.

[Tom for equal rights]

Separate and somewhat unrelated, my recollection was the bomb assessments done post war circa 1945-1946 was that bombing the electric power plants would have been one of the most effective means of curtailing the war plant/war material production than trying to bomb the factories. though the lack of any ability for decent precision bombing rendered that mostly a hope. Maybe the power plants had a bigger footprint.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Graphite and short the plant out.

[NvEric]

The decisions made then might be viewed differently today, but it's done and over. Citizen deaths in war are regrettable in the least.

To those starting war, beware of consequences. A problem is how actions are interpretated in laying initial blame for hostilities. Greater stress must be on how conflicts are ended to all's satisfaction - a near impossibility ! but people still try.

Students of history make assumptions and, hopefully revise those and come to rightful conclusions.

Honesty is lost on those not understanding their own ill-fated actions who continue hostilities past a certain point.

Reacting to initial violence is where maturity is found with a hopeful forgiveness, but the truism is never start violent hostilities.

[ThePublius]

Yes.

[ThePublius]

"Strategic Bombing was the principal means by which the Allies sought to weaken the morale of German civilians."

And, it worked. Here is a quite illuminating review of the "United States Strategic Bombing Survey," prepared soon after the war:

The Effects of Strategic Bombing in WWII on German Morale

[Sarcastr0]

Strategic bombing *didn't* work. We didn't beat Germany because of lack of German morale. So too Japan.

Turns out killing a buncha civs isn't as winning a strat as LeMay thought it would be.

[ThePublius]

Didn't work according to whom? And how is "worked" defined and measured? If it significantly lowers morale among troops and civilians, and turns opinion of the civilian population, and even troops, against their own regime, I would say "it works."

What was the intended effect? If it was to destroy a hundred plus factories that produced war material, and to lower the morale of the population and army, and turn opinion against the Nazi regime, then it worked!

What say you? How did it not work?

[Sarcastr0]

Huge fucking 'if.'

We've learned painfully over and over that going after civs only stiffens resolve, it does not wreck it.

Strategic bombing is the idea that you can fulfill strategic objectives via bombing alone. That was a big thing in the end of WW2, and didn't really turn out to be true except for 2 notable exceptions.

To lay my cards on the table, my source is 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' my Richard Rhodes which goes through the shift of thinking to strategic bombing as part of the decision of what cities were in the mix to be nuked.
It lays out a pretty convincing case that LeMay was a lunatic and said the AF alone could so things that the AF still cannot do. And when they could not do it, he said the issue was they weren't ruthless enough.

[Don Nico]

" So too Japan."
How can you say that. True enough, the US would have defeated Japan, but if you imagine that Japan would have stopped fighting outside of a full scale invasion, you are basically alone in that thinking.
Japan changed from the world's most warlike nation to the most pacifistic nation in 48 hours.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not talking about the nukes, I'm talking about the firebombing of Tokyo and the like.

Though the nukes are also a bad example. The impact of the nukes on the Japanese leadership was not from the civilian casualties.

[Tom for equal rights]

It gave the emperor the chance to finally call for the surrender while still saving face by claiming the japanese only lost because of the technology of the new bomb and not because they were defeated militarily.

[Joe_dallas]

Publius - I cant comment of the positive or negative effects of Dresden, (primarily because the overall effect on the war effort is disputed). It definitely did negatively affect the civilian morale.

However, the firebombing of the japanese cities did hurt the morale the japanese population.

One of the factors that was frequently mentioned in the August 7-13th 1945 time frame was the possible revolt of the civilian population that would destroy the imperial system. Unknown assurances of retaining imperial system was a major impediment to the japanese surrender.

the second point on the public moral was displayed when the emperor toured toyko after the march 1945 firebombing. numerous reports of japanese citizens turning their backs on the emperor during the tour.

[ThePublius]

I think we are agreeing.

I know it's anecdotal, but I have a mother-in-law who was a young teen in Germany during WWII, and indoctrinated into Nazism, who turned on all of that with the bombing, especially because of the death of her younger brother, who had been conscripted my the German army and was killed when a railway station was bombed.

And, I know because my father and all of my uncles fought in WWII, and were greeted with open arms by the German population when they got there.

I reject Sarc_0's definition of the "strategic bombing idea." It was to crush morale, not to accomplish alone all of the military objectives. And, I refute that that was what Lemay thought, as he never said that, as far as I am aware.

[Joe_dallas]

we do agree – along with agreement with jimc5499.

Along with saving 2m-3m lives , it destroyed the culture which allowed a new culture of peace to flourish which has lasted 75+ years. Same with Germany, peace for the last 75+ years vs a country that had gone to war every 20-40 years or so.

Likewise, the culture of the religion of peace which dominates Gaza needs to be destroyed in order for the religion of peace to become a religion of peace. That is a very unfortunate consequence, but if someone has a viable long term solution, I am open to listening.

[Sarcastr0]

I put forth my source.

Wiki seems to agree with me: "The proponents of strategic bombing between the world wars, such as General Douhet, expected that direct attacks upon an enemy country's cities by strategic bombers would lead to a rapid collapse of civilian morale so that political pressure to sue for peace would lead to a rapid conclusion. When such attacks were tried in the 1930s—in the Spanish Civil War and the Second Sino-Japanese War—they were ineffective. "

[Joe_dallas]

Wiki is such a great accurate source of info - sarc

Those two examples are not the best examples - very poor examples

[Absaroka]

That wiki article is exactly correct about what e.g. Douhet thought. That's what Germany was trying to do when it bombed Rotterdam, and Brit cities during the Blitz. At least as far as Britain, it hardened civilian resolve.

Some folks on the Allied side, e.g. Bomber Harris seemed pretty enthusiastic about bombing civilians (as opposed to 'we'd like to just bomb the factory, but our accuracy is limited to somewhere in the city').

I think it must be pretty hard to tell how much of the German loss of morale was due to watching your cities being bombed to rubble vs. noticing that the glorious victories the Wehrmacht was inflicting on the Russians kept getting closer to Berlin and farther from Moscow.

The strategic bombing campaign did greatly help in winning the war:
-it forced the Luftwaffe to come up and fight. This gave the Allies air supremacy over Normandy, which was needed for a successful invasion.
-the petroleum campaign drastically curtailed the fuel supply
-the Germans had to devote vast resources to air defense - over a million men, and many more digging underground caves for factories etc.

[Tom for equal rights]

Absaroka - sorry about the confusion in my response - My reference to Wiki and the spain bombing example is that it was a poor comparison with rotterdam, dresden and the bombing of the japanese cities as far as civilian morale. fwiw, somewhat difficult to fully discuss the complexities in a few paragraphs of a blog post.

That being said your other comments are a very reasonable take on the progress of the european theater.

[Sarcastr0]

It sure did help. You make a rock solid case.
Some very impressive tactical wins.

But fulfilling the strategic objectives it claimed it could were not how it helped.

[Absaroka]

"But fulfilling the strategic objectives it claimed it could were not how it helped."

I may be misunderstanding, but FWIW: there were those who really were into the 'let's bomb civilians until they give up' idea - Douhet for example. But my sense[1] is that much/most of the USAAF really believed in the precision bombing 'pickle barrel from 25k feet' stuff. You don't need that for random anti-morale bombing. When they realized that they weren't going to be hitting pickle barrels in real world conditions, they accepted lots of the bombs they dropped were going to miss the factory and hit houses. Some, I think, worried more about that than others, but generally speaking, I think the USAAF tried to hit legit targets. The accuracy of the day just didn't allow much precision. The USAAF believed strategic bombing would be effective by destroying military production, not morale.

[1]by 'my sense', I mean that's the impression I have from a fair bit of reading; I'm open to contrary evidence.

[jimc5499]

There's a whole bunch of things that were happening in Japan towards the end of WWII. You have to look at the big picture to get an idea. Seldom mentioned were the mass suicides of Japanese civilians during the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa. Then there was the Japanese Military's control of information. The majority of people had no idea about the Japanese losses at Midway, the Marianas and other places. Add in the mass killings of Chinese and Koreans by the Japanese Army. The atomic bombs saved lives. Anybody who says otherwise is pushing an agenda.

[Bob from Ohio]

"LeMay thought"

LeMay was an operational commander, not a planner or policy maker. He was too junior.

He did not think up "terror bombing" aka "area bombing", the Brits started doing it in February 1942. LeMay did not even get to Europe until later in 1942 and was just a group commander.

[Sarcastr0]

He did not make it up, but he sure did push for it to be doctrine.

[Absaroka]

"was just a group commander"

He ended up commanding all US strategic bombing of Japan. When high level daylight bombing wasn't working, for several reasons, he switched to night low level fire bombing.

I think it was effective and justified. The font of all...:

"Presidents Roosevelt and Truman supported LeMay's strategy, referring to an estimate of one million Allied casualties if Japan had to be invaded. Japan had intentionally decentralized 90% of its war-related production into small subcontractor workshops in civilian districts, making remaining Japanese war industry largely immune to conventional precision bombing with high explosives. As the firebombing campaign took effect, Japanese war planners were forced to expend significant resources to relocate vital war industries to remote caves and mountain bunkers, reducing production of war material."

But the civilian casualties were appalling, even if lower than would have resulted from an invasion. War is full of appalling things.

To LeMay's credit, he ran the Berlin Airlift as ruthlessly and efficiently as he ran bombing campaigns, and that was a good thing.

His beliefs during the Cold War are pretty scary: "In 1954 LeMay remarked to pilot Hal Austin, whose plane had been damaged by a MiG-17 while on a reconnaissance mission over the Soviet Union, "Well, maybe if we do this overflight right, we can get World War III started". Hal Austin assumed that LeMay was joking, but years later, after LeMay retired, Austin saw him again and "brought up the subject of the mission we had flown. And he remembered it like it was yesterday. We chatted about it a little bit. His comment again was, 'Well, we'd have been a hell of a lot better off if we'd got World War III started in those days.'""

[Nige]

They literally kept up the bombing campaign because by then they had so many bombers they thought they had to keep using them.

[Jacob Grimes]

Yes. And it's not like the Nazis were being precise, either.

[John F. Carr]

This particular form of war crime is not one we have applied ex post facto.

I remember a novel which put the bombers of Dresden in an inner circle of hell.

[jb]

Since it doesn't seem that anyone is arguing that the Allies knew about the factories, it seems hard to make the argument that it justified the bombing. Japan seems a lot more complicated. I'm glad that the result we haven't had another war on anything approaching that sort of scale in something approaching 80 years, since everyone realizes that millions (or perhaps much bigger numbers) of civilians would almost inevitably die in the process.

[Tom for equal rights]

Not having another major war is due in large part to the actions at Yalta where Roosevelt stated that there was going to full unconditional surrender and occupation of both Japan and Germany until they demonstrated the ability to function in a long term peaceful.

The only two arguments against the unconditional surrender , at least by Germany, is that the military fought harder against the US and England, and not surrendering earlier against Russia which partially facilitated the Russian conquest / iron curtain of the eastern bloc of European countries.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Since it doesn’t seem that anyone is arguing that the Allies knew about the factories

From ...

an official 1942 guide to the city described it as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich"

Whether or not the allies knew which specific factories were there, or which were which might be in question. But it's pretty reasonable to concluded that war-supporting stuff was being produced in a city with that much industrial capacity, and that a large-scale bombing campaign would do a fair amount of damage to that capacity...not to mention all of the indirect damage it would do to Germany's ability to continue effectively waging war.

[Commenter_XY]

re: Hunter Biden subpoena

A question for the lawyers. What happens if Hunter just sez in response to the subpoena, "Up Yours. I ain't coming. Go pound sand."

-- What actually is supposed to happen if you do not comply with a Congressional subpoena? (This is different from what you think will happen here, that is a separate question).

I am more interested in understanding the process part - how this is supposed to work. Subpoena issued, and the person refuses. Then what?

[Mr. Bumble]

What happened to Eric Holder? There is your answer. Nothing.

[Moderation4ever]

Same for Jim Jordan.

[Bob from Ohio]

The House did not refer Jordan for prosecution. It did for Holder.

Its not the "Same".

[apedad]

Comm_XY, check this for some answers.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45653#:~:text=Enforcing%20Executive%20Branch%20Compliance,-Congress%20gathers%20much&text=The%20recipient%20of%20a%20duly,which%20it%20may%20be%20enforced.

[Commenter_XY]

Perfect! Thank you so much apedad. I've been doing some easy stuff in the kitchen. You ever roast purple sweet potatos? Got a simple recipe.

[Mr. Bumble]

You can read 48 pages for your edification, but you'll wind up with my answer above; nothing.
Most likely event is that if Hunter is in any real jeopardy he will receive a pardon.

[Moderation4ever]

Hunter Biden has not actually defied the subpoena, but rather offered an alternative. The House cannot enforce a subpoena and would have to go to DOJ, where I think it would get little attention. By passing the DOJ, assume they did take it to court, what would a judge say when the defendant has agreed to talk but only in a public setting. I don't see the judge being sympathetic to Committe Chairman.

Can you show a case where a person agreed to talk and yet was held in contempt because they would only talk in a public hearing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Being a Biden has its privileges.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically the House CAN enforce a subpoena, via their power of "inherent contempt", last used during the Teapot Dome scandal. Used to have a jail in the Capitol basement, even.

While long disused, the Supreme court has backed them up on having it. I think it's unlikely, though, they don't want the House bailiff ending up in a shootout with the Secret Service.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a demand not to talk in public. Late in the Reagan administration a member of a Congressional committee asked George Shultz about what appeared to be a hostage exchange with Russia. Shultz said he would not discuss it on camera, only in private. I assumed the guy we got back was a spy.

[grb]

Let’s not forget Hunter Biden gave a very good reason for wanting to testify in public only. Comer and the other House Republicans have repeatedly told black-is-white grade lies about testimony that occurred behind closed doors. In the case of Devon Archer, they spent days claiming he said the exact opposite of what the transcript showed.

It would be the best for all to do this in the open where people can see what the GOP has – which is nothing but innuendo and spin. They’ve now spent several weeks furiously lying about Biden’s brother repaying a loan, despite all the facts running against their narrative. Why not do the questioning in public so the American people can watch and learn whether the Republican’s vacuous claims have substance or not?

[SimonP]

The Democrats showed that, through carefully stage-managing public hearings and testimony, you could turn congressional investigations into newsworthy events, attracting attention and shifting public opinion.

So it seems odd that Republicans - who are "investigating" Hunter for the sole purpose of undermining Joe' re-election - would prefer not to attract attention that way. Instead, they'd prefer to do the hearings in private, and feed out details strategically.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about how strong they think their own case is, and their strategy for shaping public opinion about it. How any Republican voter can look at what they're doing and say to themselves, "Yup, I am definitely not being easily manipulated by a political and media class that holds me in total contempt," is beyond me. But then again, I already know that they're not the brightest bulbs.

[Kazinski]

Steve Bannon was criminally prosecuted and went to jail for 4 months for contempt of Congress.

That's too fresh of a precedent, and makes it hard for DOJ to ignore.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not this DOJ.

[Brett Bellmore]

Give me a break, they'll ignore it and not even break into a sweat.

[grb]

Uh huh. Here’s another precedent: Jim Jordan ignored a House subpoena without offering any manner of compliance. Jim Jordan refused to provide the House investigators with any information. Jim Jordan suffered zero consequences.

For those looking for the connecting thread : Steve Bannon was subpoenaed by the House—and refused to appear. Jim Jordan was subpoenaed by the House—and refused to appear. Hunter Biden was subpoenaed by the House, agreed to appear—and Republicans now refuse to let him appear.

Or, even simpler :

1. Jim Jordan refused to testify because he would embarrass himself and the GOP.
2. Comer refuses to allow public testimony because it would embarrass himself and the GOP.

[David Nieporent]

Peter Navarro was criminally prosecuted and convicted also; he's due to be sentenced in January.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sooo, if Hunter defies the subpoena we can expect him to be prosecuted by the DOJ?

[Moderation4ever]

Has he defied the subpoena? He had offered to talk. Would a judge rule against Hunter Biden here?

[Mr. Bumble]

I said "if".

[bernard11]

Can you or anyone else provide a valid reason for the committee to refuse to have Hunter Biden testify in public?

grb has provided what I think is the real reason: They want to be able to lie about what he says, as they have done in the past.

Look, Comer and Jim (“I know nussing about sexual abuse. Nussing!!”) Jordan are complete and absolute scum. Any semi-conscious person knows that. I wouldn’t testify as to the time of day in secret to them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps Mr. Biden could engage in a bit of sport spotlighting the Republicans' silly position as they flail yet again against what knuckle-dragging clingers call the Biden Crime Family.

For example, could the Senate issue a subpoena with which he would comply, and testify before senators while the House Republicans continue to flail? Senators could invite the House Republicans to submit questions.

He could bring a court reporter to the committee session (maybe find one with a law degree who could be brought as counsel) and arrange a transcript (and perhaps release if, if desired).

He could sue the House members (for statements made outside the Capitol, for example), then file a discovery request for a transcript.

He could ask a court to require the House committee to enable him to arrange an independent transcript or recording to defend himself against Republican lies and selectivity, citing the lies House members have stated.

Should the treatment of Hunter Biden make better Americans eager to see Donald Trump, his family members, and other co-conspirators prosecuted, convicted, fined, bankrupted, and imprisoned?

[Kazinski]

They already said they do want him to appear publicly, after he is privately deposed.

This is pretty routine for judges to order private dispositions with subpoenas and the possibility of contempt charges if you refuse or try to impose your own preconditions.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the justification for the nonpublic bit other than to selectively leak, as they’ve been doing with every other nonpublic thing so far (along with constant breathless speculation and promises on FOX that never pan out)?

[grb]

Kazinski : “They already said they do want him to appear publicly….”

Per my recollection, you’ve bit hard on several of Comer’s lies. I recall you rushing to this forum to gush breathlessly on his latest spin – only to have the rug pulled out from under your feet when the real facts emerged. Comer had you absolutely convinced Devon Archer said the exact opposite of what his testimony really said.

Didn’t you find that unsettling – perhaps even humiliating? I recognize all pols lie, but Comer’s pretty damn brazen about it. Wouldn’t it be better to just have it all out in the open?

Granted, you’ll lose a week of exalting over bogus “revelations”. You’ll have to deal with disappointment of Hunter Biden ( Hunter Biden! ) making the Republicans look like fools. But that’s inevitable and – besides – you’re well used to disappointment on this issue by now….

[not guilty]

"Can you or anyone else provide a valid reason for the committee to refuse to have Hunter Biden testify in public?"

I'll give it a shot. A public hearing before a committee of Congress is not a particularly effective method of information gathering. Too many members of the House are more skilled at grandstanding than at asking questions, and each member of the committee has a brief, limited time to ask the witness. Follow-up questions are rare, and there is no continuity in the interrogation.

It is routine for a witness to be deposed by Congressional staff members before a public hearing is held. That having been said, it would be worthwhile if the witness could bring in his own court reporter and videographer to preserve his own record of what is said.

Rep. Comer is a blowhard and a buffoon. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what goes on behind closed doors. Abbe Lowell was smart to call his bluff. If Hunter Biden is subpoenaed, however, he should appear or challenge the validity of the subpoena. He can invoke any applicable privileges on a question by question basis.

The scope of the inquiry should be properly cabined to prevent abuse of the investigative process. "It is the responsibility of the Congress, in the first instance, to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. That requires that the instructions to an investigating committee spell out that group's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity. Those instructions are embodied in the authorizing resolution." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 201 (1957). Any authorizing resolution should be limited to the task at hand, and any investigating committee should be mindful that:

There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. . . . Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated are indefensible.

Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187.

[David Nieporent]

.

A public hearing before a committee of Congress is not a particularly effective method of information gathering.

It's not the public nature of it that renders it ineffective; it's letting members of Congress ask the questions. If those people are interested in information gathering rather than political grandstanding (hahahahahahaha), they will all agree to forego individual questioning and just employ professionals to do all of that work.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hard for DOJ to ignore."

You misspelled "easy".

[jb]

The case seems complicated by the fact Hunter has indicated he's willing to testify, just not behind closed doors.

Not sure if there's precedent for how the DOJ would treat that situation one way or the other, but in any case it seems like it might be very hard to get a jury to convict under those circumstances. Bannon and Navarro just straight up refused to testify. Navarro and Bannon both tried to assert that their testimony was covered by executive privilege, but alas Trump didn't back this claim for either of them. (What a great guy to work for! No wonder basically everyone in his last administration is opposed to him getting re-elected.)

[OtisAH]

In fact what he said was I’m happy to come in for a public hearing as soon as December. To which Comer replied no thank you. Because his case is so strong, probably. But possibly because he just didn’t feel like watching replays all XMas break of him, his cronies, and his ridiculous investigation again being humiliated on tv.

[Sarcastr0]

It is very telling that after all this Hunter carping they refuse to have stuff out in the open. Only selective leaks for these assholes!

Telling how awful these folks are, but the usuals around here don't find that the important part. The lack of Hunter scalp is the important part.

[Life of Brian]

.

It is very telling that after all this Hunter carping they refuse to have stuff out in the open.

It's even more telling that you're so consumed with doing your part trying to preserve the final-degree-of-separation Joe Biden firewall that it's somehow slipped your mind that it's standard operating procedure -- for common-sense reasons even you could sort out in a less-partisan context -- to separately and privately interview suspected criminal conspirators, dismiss other witnesses at a trial while one testifies, etc.

[Nige]

'If he testifies in public everyone will see we haven't linked him and his father's business dealings, let alone shown any of them to have been illegal!'

[Life of Brian]

That's right, trollio -- just ignore the entire substance of my post describing exactly why what Hunter is trying to avoid is standard operating procedure in the legal process, put your head down, and keep doggedly repeating the same press-level meme. If you do that enough, it'll suddenly become correct.

[bernard11]

what Hunter is trying to avoid is standard operating procedure in the legal process,

Is it also standard operating procedure in the legal process for the person doing the questioning to lie like a rug about what was said in private, in order to advance himself and his henchmen and spread a false story before the truth emerged.

We are dealing with a special case.

[Life of Brian]

Yes yes, "this is a SPESHUL CASE that has NEVAH EVAH happened before in history of the REPUHBLICK" does seem to be the common chant these days in the effort to turn the rule of law into an endless game of Calvinball.

But I know you don't really believe that -- even it it actually ended up happening -- your fearmongering scenario would be even remotely unique. You're just looking for excuses to turn a garden-variety investigatory fact gathering exercise into a political circus.

[bernard11]

I don't know if it would be unique or not. I do know it is very likely to happen.

it’s somehow slipped your mind that it’s standard operating procedure — for common-sense reasons even you could sort out in a less-partisan context — to separately and privately interview suspected criminal conspirators,

Hmm. You mean this is a criminal trial, and Comer is the prosecutor? What are the charges? Does Biden get to confront witnesses against him?

Kazinski tells us that,

This is pretty routine for judges to order private dispositions with subpoenas and the possibility of contempt charges if you refuse or try to impose your own preconditions.

So maybe Comer is the judge, and not the prosecutor. Do you think he's impartial? Or does he just get to assume whatever role he wants at the moment?

You guys are pretty slippery about this whole thing.

[Life of Brian]

.

I don’t know if it would be unique or not. I do know it is very likely to happen.

Well, those are two very different things, aren't they? That something is likely to happen isn't any sort of justification for making up new rules for this particular instance of it.

Hmm. You mean this is a criminal trial, and Comer is the prosecutor?

Sorry, but this really strikes me as a disingenuous question when you deliberately snipped my sentence in the middle. I described a principle of separating witnesses when taking testimony so they couldn't collude/coordinate, and gave two common examples (criminal and civil) where that happens. Very uncomplicated.

If you have no cogent argument for why that principle should be scrapped here, that's fine and not particularly surprising. But no need for the straw-man distractions.

[bernard11]

You wrote:

it’s somehow slipped your mind that it’s standard operating procedure — for common-sense reasons even you could sort out in a less-partisan context — to separately and privately interview suspected criminal conspirators, dismiss other witnesses at a trial while one testifies, etc.

Civil example?

[Life of Brian]

Requesting that a judge "dismiss other witnesses at a trial while one testifies" is utterly routine in civil cases. The right to do so has been formalized in the Federal Rules of Evidence for several decades, and there are state-court equivalents for all states of which I'm aware.

[not guilty]

What does the House authorizing resolution identify as the subject matter of the Oversight Committee inquiry here? (I am not asking this rhetorically; I haven't seen the resolution.)

[David Nieporent]

Nice try, but — setting aside that this isn't a criminal investigation (Congress is not empowered to conduct those, especially for purely private citizens like Hunter Biden) — they've been releasing the testimony a week or two later, after they've had a chance to lie about it, and before other witnesses testify.

[Life of Brian]

Setting aside your silly half-distraction about the specific tribunal (you'll note I gave both criminal and civil examples in my original post), y'all need to make up your minds: is the full testimony being withheld with selective leaks, or is it being fully released in short order? If the latter, then Sarc's original whiny channeling of Hunter's persecution-complex cover story is just a straw man.

[bernard11]

is the full testimony being withheld with selective leaks,

It's being withheld with leaks, if you call outright lies about it "leaks."

It's being released after enough time for Comer and Jordan to spread falsehoods about it. Then,

A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on

[Sarcastr0]

Kevin Drum had a pithy summary:

In the House, Republicans have subpoenaed Hunter Biden to provide testimony in a case where there's no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, Biden has agreed to testify and has asked only for the hearing to be public.
This has caused Republicans to flip out.

Over in the Senate, Democrats have subpoenaed Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo to provide testimony about gifts to Clarence Thomas, something that clearly did happen.
Republicans have gone absolutely ballistic over this, desperately trying to stop the subpoena and then publicly telling Crow and Leo they should ignore it. Leo has told the Senate to fuck itself, and Republicans have assured him they'll mount a filibuster against any attempt to enforce his testimony.

Both sides, though.

[Life of Brian]

.

It’s being withheld with leaks, if you call outright lies about it “leaks.”

It’s being released after enough time for Comer and Jordan to spread falsehoods about it.

Ah you really ARE trying to have it both ways! Points for candor.

Hunter has had years to tell the story his way, and has opted for silence. I'm hard-pressed to conceive of who would actually believe in good faith that his goal is for everyone to hear the unvarnished words coming out of his mouth rather than simply derailing the investigative process.

P.S. It's funny how I'm also right in the middle of a discussion downpage about an opportunistic leak from a Trump grand jury proceeding, which will not be released for a long time if ever. You should drop by and weigh in with your disapproval!

[David Nieporent]

.

Hunter has had years to tell the story his way, and has opted for silence.

When's the last time you made public announcements about your personal business dealings, investments, etc.? You've certainly never done it here. Have you been "opting for silence" all these years? Or is that just not normally something one does?

[Life of Brian]

You're making a noble effort trying to have it both ways, but as always it just doesn't work. If he didn't want his testimony to be public, he wouldn't be so desperately trying to dictate that it be so. For any information that he actually is willing to publicly disclose, my prior statement stands.

[David Nieporent]

.

You’re making a noble effort trying to have it both ways, but as always it just doesn’t work.

No. This is dumb. He doesn't want his testimony to exist in the first place, since there's no legitimate basis for the GOP to be taking his deposition. (No, "The other side impeached Trump" does not constitute a legitimate basis.) But if they are going to take his testimony, then he wants it done in public so they can't lie about what he said the way they've done for other deponents. (Including, most recently, his ex-partner Devon Archer.) There's no "both ways" there; those positions are entirely consistent.

[not guilty]

"Hunter has had years to tell the story his way, and has opted for silence."

Hunter Biden has made some boneheaded decisions, but remaining silent in the face of a (potential) criminal investigation is not one of them.

[Life of Brian]

This is just a variation of David's "personal business" fallacy above. Any reason Hunter may have had to keep his mouth shut to avoid potential criminal liability hasn't suddenly evaporated. Anything that he's supposedly willing to say in front of cameras today, he could have said in front of cameras before.

[not guilty]

I said upthread that Hunter Biden should appear in response to any subpoena and assert any applicable privileges on a question by question basis. I am merely pointing out here that he has had good reason up to now to silent in the face of a (potential) criminal investigation.

[David Nieporent]

.

I said upthread that Hunter Biden should appear in response to any subpoena and assert any applicable privileges on a question by question basis. I am merely pointing out here that he has had good reason up to now to silent in the face of a (potential) criminal investigation.

Purely legal advice to Hunter would have been, and would continue to be, "Show up to a private deposition and assert the 5th amendment in response to any substantive question asked."

But obviously that would be terrible politically for his dad; the public mistakenly views asserting the 5th as a tacit admission of wrongdoing, and the GOP has abundantly demonstrated that it has no moral qualms about smearing Joe Biden with innuendo about his family.

[Moderation4ever]

On a related issue the House is talking about a vote on an impeachment inquiry. Now Kevin McCarthy when speaker approve the inquiry without a vote, so what is this about. Does Speaker Johnson now have the votes? Or is he just looking for a way to put this to bed? While the base may love the inquiry it seems to be making a fool of the Republicans, because they cannot produce any evidence.

[grb]

On another related issue, the Senate is about to authorize subpoenas of Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo in Supreme Court ethics probe. Leo has already said he won't testify and Senate Republicans are telling both just to ignore the subpoenas.

I can't wait to see our Bretts, Brians, and Bobs theatrically press back of hand to their forehead, wail about the injustice of it all, and collapse back on the fainting couch.

Me? I'm well aware people from both parties have stiffed congressional subpoenas these last couple of decades. I'll keep an even keel. Plus I'm not as good at this acting stuff as our Bretts, Brians, and Bobs.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It would be good for Congress as an institution if both the House and the Senate aggressively enforced their subpoenas in their respective investigations, including using their inherent contempt power to have their sergeants-at-arms to arrest anyone in contempt, whether it’s Hunter Biden or Leonard Leo.

[Life of Brian]

.

Me? I’m well aware people from both parties have stiffed congressional subpoenas these last couple of decades. I’ll keep an even keel.

Since you invoked my name and (shockingly!) misrepresented my position, I'll briefly respond.

I too am well aware that "people from both parties have stiffed congressional subpoenas these last couple of decades." Had Hunter bellied up to the bar and done just that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What I don't recall seeing before is someone dictating untenable terms under which they'll testify and casting that as complying rather than constructive stiffing, and so many obedient water-carriers immediately falling into line.

[grb]

So you’d be nonplussed if Hunter had just said “**** you”. That would be “constructive stiffing” per you (though that seems a bit oxymoronish to me).

But offering to answer any question before the TV cameras for all to see is dictating untenable terms. To me, it seems the only way for Hunter Biden to assure his answers are honestly reported given the obsessive lying of James Richardson Comer Jr. He didn’t just spin Devon Archer’s testimony, he told up-is-down lies about it. Given what a shit-show the House investigation is, Hunter’s one stipulation seems perfectly reasonable.

Plus here's the real source of Comer’s objection : He still has nothing except lies & spin, and that won’t survive the harsh light of public testimony. And what could possibly be more humiliating than being shown-up in public by Hunter Biden of all people!

[Life of Brian]

.

if Hunter had just said “**** you”. That would be “constructive stiffing” per you

No, that would be actual stiffing -- up front and honest that he's not going to comply. The little game he's playing instead (while you apologists swill beer and cheer him on) is just a particularly clumsy variant variant of "it's not me, it's you."

Plus here’s the real source of Comer’s objection : He still has nothing except lies & spin

Wow, I didn't realize you not only were on the Congressional committee, but had a crystal ball to be able to explain to the rest of us what the sum total of the testimony and other evidence will ultimately show. Thanks for clearing that up!

[apedad]

Man Sentenced for Election-Related Threats Toward Georgia Public Officials

According to court documents, on or about Jan. 5, 2021, Chad Christopher Stark, 55, of Leander, posted a message to Craigslist entitled, “Georgia Patriots it’s time to kill [Official A] the Chinese agent - $10,000.” The message stated the following:

“Georgia Patriots it’s time for us to take back our state from these Lawless treasonous traitors. It’s time to invoke our Second Amendment right it’s time to put a bullet in the treasonous Chinese [Official A]. Then we work our way down to [Official B] the local and federal corrupt judges. It’s our duty as American Patriots to put an end to the lives of these traitors and take back our country by force we can no longer wait on the corrupt law enforcement in the corrupt courts. If we want our country back we have to exterminate these people. One good loyal Patriot deer hunter in camo and a rifle can send a very clear message to these corrupt governors.. milita up Georgia it’s time to spill blood…. we need to pay a visit to [Official C] and her family as well and put a bullet her behind the ears. Let’s be very clear to our local law enforcement who have stood down and watch BLM antifa destroy our country and kill our citizens yet you’ll step up to stop Patriot supporters you’ll enforce face mask and you’ll close American businesses??? Remember one thing local law enforcement the key word being local….. we will find you oathbreakers and we’re going to pay your family to visit your mom your dad your brothers and sisters your children your wife… we’re going to make examples of traitors to our country… death to you and all you communist friends.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-sentenced-election-related-threats-toward-georgia-public-officials

This guy is an uncle or father-in-law from one of you guys, right?

Dr Ed?

[OtisAH]

What a short path it is from “ShaLl nOt BEI nFRinGed” to “I have the constitutional right to assasinate elected and government officials!”

[Mr. Bumble]

Will any of the lawyers who comment here be offering their services to the young KC Chiefs fan and sue Dead Spin out of existence?

[Nige]

freezepeach

[Kazinski]

The deadspin idiot just expressed his opinion about published pictures, that's quite different than the Nicholas Sandman case where they accused him of accosting and blocking.the Indian activist, when their was publicly available video that showed that didn't happen.

Truth is a defense libel, and opinions can be wrong without incurring libel if they don't depend on false facts.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're too kind. This A**hole reporter libeled the kid, the Chiefs and the NFL.

[Brett Bellmore]

Definitely an asshole, but I think he did manage to avoid falling under the definition of libel, however narrowly.

[Michael P]

Is there an objectively reasonable basis to claim the kid was in blackface?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

This A**hole reporter libeled the kid, the Chiefs and the NFL.

Is that

(1) a Liberty, Regent, Ave Maria, or South Texas College of Law Houston law degree talking;

(2) something you think you remember from a discount homeschooling outline;

(3) something you saw at a right-wing site such as FreeRepublic, RedState, Breitbart, Stormfront, Volokh Conspiracy, or Legal Insurrection;

or

(3) Hannity's (or Ingraham's, or Gutfeld's) take from last night?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is the new dogma that racism is so subjective you can just call anyone a racist? Sometimes I get that impression.

[Randy Sax]

Duh

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought his first report insinuated that the kid had his whole face painted black. Based on that, the reporter concluded the kid was a racist.

It’s my understanding that opinions based on agreed facts are protected, but fake facts are not protected.

It’s one thing to show someone working hard and to say “working hard, like this guy, means you’re a racist!” The reporter at least disclosed the facts on which his retarded conclusion was based.

But if the reporter says “wearing black on your entire face, like this kid does, is racist,” without disclosing that he was half black and half red, would be an opinion based on a false statement of fact.

[David Nieporent]

It's not "agreed facts," whatever that means. It's opinions based on disclosed facts that are protected. "I see a picture of him in blackface, so he must be a racist" is protected as such because you're not insinuating that there are other facts out there that make him racist.

OTOH, the statement, "He made up his whole face as blackface" is a factual assertion that could be false (and in this case would be) and thus could be defamatory.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"It’s not “agreed facts,” whatever that means."

If the defendant characterized the facts in the same way as the plaintiff, then what's left is opinions and interpretations based on the agreed facts.

“OTOH, the statement, “He made up his whole face as blackface” is a factual assertion that could be false (and in this case would be) and thus could be defamatory.”

What about an *insinuation* that his whole face is blacked up?

[theobromophile]

For those of us not in the know: what happened?

[Randy Sax]

Child wears red and black face paint to Chiefs game, "reporter" takes a screen grab of when the camera is only showing the side of his face painted black, reporter claims "racist kid wears blackface" with misleading picture.

[jimc5499]

It may have been misleading, but, the fact that it is now in the MSM and we're talking about it here, means that the reporter accomplished his goal. People who had never heard of him, now know who he is and some will pay more attention to his stories.

[Kazinski]

Yeah pay more attention to his stories.

Yeah the idiot that inspired thousands of fans to paint their faces black and red to show solidarity to the kid (an enrolled member of the Chumash tribe) for painting his face to support his team, the Chiefs.

https://countylocalnews.com/2023/11/29/chiefs-fans-plan-black-red-face-paint-in-massive-support-for-boy-labeled-racist/

[David Nieporent]

Deadspin is literally the opposite of the MSM.

[Michael P]

NYU's Student Bar Association no longer has a president. The law students voted 707-428-41 to remove Ryna Workman.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hit the road, Ryna
and don't be tryin' ta
Come back no more, no more, no more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSiHqxgE2d0

[Commenter_XY]

Somehow, I don't think Ray Charles had Ryna in mind when he composed that....LOL

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It was composed by the great Percy Mayfield.

[John F. Carr]

In response to my search a presumably AI-generated headline about this news asked "Why did New York University oust its president?"

[theobromophile]

Good for NYU students.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you rooting for a fledgling right-wing bigot and superstitious Federalist Society member to become the new president?

[Mr. Bumble]

WTF happened to Ireland?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/ireland-goes-fascist.php

[ThePublius]

This has been happening over a long time, unfortunately. Scotland is even worse. And the rest of the UK is right up there. George Orwell predicted this.

[Kazinski]

And Johnathan Swift had a modest proposal for a solution.

[Sarcastr0]

WTF is that article? It quotes from a paywalled article and says nothing abot the actual law they’re inveighing against.

Googling about, this appears to be a bog standard hate speech law. I think it’s bad policy, and I’m glad we don’t do that in America. But it’s not new in Europe.

Fascism is just melodrama. Orwell wrote about stuff pretty different from this.

[Absaroka]

"this appears to be a bog standard hate speech law."

I don't really follow the details of European hate speech laws, but the Telegraph is saying "most draconian pieces of legislation in modern times" (full quote below). Do you want to explain why you disagree?

"Orwell wrote about stuff pretty different from this"

He wrote about a lot of things in 1984, but thoughtcrime was surely one of them. Winston wasn't busted for putting bombs on train tracks, but for the contents of his diary. The summary of the new law seems to indicate that one could in fact be imprisoned for the contents of one's diary. That's at least a toe onto the slippery slope.

(and refusing to precisely describe what is and isn't legal ought to be a red flag ... that's writing a blank check to some future evil government)

"Ireland is poised to pass one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in modern times, which will see Irish people facing potential jail sentences of up to two years for the possession of literature “likely to incite violence or hatred” against others on the grounds of certain protected characteristics, including race, gender and sexual orientation.

The police and courts will not even need to demonstrate that the material in question was intended to be distributed to anyone other than the owner. It will be “presumed, until the contrary is proven” that it was. It’s reminiscent of the Soviet Union, where having copies of literature banned by the state, known as “samizdat”, was enough to fall foul of the KGB.

To make matters worse, the Irish government has not actually defined in the bill what “hatred” is, saying that to do so could “risk prosecutions collapsing”. "

[M L]

Yikes. That could easily happen here.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yikes! It definitely could not.

The law would run afoul of the First Amendment and this Supreme Court, flawed as it is, would strike any such law down as violative of the First Amendment (i.e. they wouldn't adopt a radical departure from long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence). Put away you pearls, Michael.

[Brett Bellmore]

It definitely could not with the present Court.

But the Democratic party has developed a great fondness for the idea of exempting sorts of speech they don't like from 1st amendment protections, they've even gone so far as proposing constitutional amendments to reverse speech protective rulings.

Would a Supreme court recreated in the image the Democrats envision reject such a law? I wouldn't bet on it.

[Sarcastr0]

You have come out in favor of censorship of school curricula and libraries, and regulating twitter's speech.

Your 'support Citizens United or you hate freedom of speech' rings quite hollow.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett’s reasoning:

I am going to extrapolate a general principle from one specific case, then I will pretend that this general principle would be applied in the least favorable way imaginable to this other, wholly unrelated, specific case. And, voila! Democrats are evil.

You’re too smart for that. Don’t you have enough actual examples to complain about without imagining what, hypothetically, “Democrats” (as if they are not an extremely diverse party with varying degrees of commitment to free speech) would do if they had complete control of the government? And, wait, they did have unified control of the White House and Congress and they didn’t do anything like this. In fact, they are the party that is against banning books.

Aren’t you one of the ones around here supporting book bans? At least when done in Florida or done to protect people for LBTQ+ stuff.

Let’s worry about the actual book banners instead of applying highly suspect logic to imagine what horrible book banners Democrats would be in a world you imagine. We have the real work book-banning Republicans right here. In these comments.

[Sarcastr0]

The Telegraph’s opinion should be understood as just that. It’s not like British tabloids are not down for some drama, and their bread is buttered on the right.

Hate speech is not thought crime.

Make your own call. The law looks like this: “Bill entitled an Act to amend the law relating to the prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of certain characteristics (referred to as protected characteristics) of the person or the group of persons and to provide for an offence of condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace” https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/

Not my cup of tea for reasons both of culture, liberty, and logistics. But not fascsim either.

Look at ML trying to make it into a domestic partisan cudgel. Meh.

[Absaroka]

I think this is the bill text?

So it looks like your diary is safe because it's not intended to be communicated. But if they find a draft letter to the editor, never mailed, then you're in trouble.

The penalties range from 1 to 5 years depending on exactly what you said/wrote.

Going to prison for a letter to the editor seems pretty bad to me, but I dunno how common that is in Europe.

[Sarcastr0]

It *is* bad. I'm not saying this is cool and good.

I'm saying get off the fascist fainting couch. There's plenty of middle ground and pegging the fear and loathing meter every time is tiresome.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Hate speech is not thought crime."

No, it's verbalized thought crime. "Hate speech" is as close to thoughtcrime as the law can get without mind reading machines.

[Sarcastr0]

Read 1984 again.

[Nige]

Don't worry, this will mostly be used against climate activists.

[Nige]

It thinks the current Irish government are liberals. (Centre-right, socially liberalish , but utter neoliberals in terms of most policy.) Passing this law, and a bunch of other stuff, is what they're doing because they were caught on the hop by the right-wing turds despite repeated warnings and they still don't want to actually stand up to them.

[Kazinski]

A hate speech law that doesn't even require speech.

"You just need to be in possession of written materials that have the potential to incite, not just violence, but “hatred.”"

You could have a book in your possession, that you may not have even read that denigrates gays, and be subject to such a law.

Someone hands you a pamphlet that you stuff in your pocket to read later and you've committed a crime.

It's straight out Fahrenheit 451 stuff.

[ThePublius]

"It quotes from a paywalled article"
I did not find the article to be paywalled. I could read the whole thing without a subscription.

[Nige]

A bunch of racist right wing thugs went on a rampage.

[Randy Sax]

"Travis Kelce Reveals Nickname He Has For Taylor Swift"
"Reality TV Stars Todd And Julie Chrisley React To Divorce Rumors While In Prison"

Hesus Cristo, Daily Wire, I didn't expect good journalism out of you, but I also didn't expect tabloid bullshit nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, did you take a several year vacation from reading anything from them? They've been like that for a while now.

[bernard11]

The fascination this stuff holds for so many is a deep mystery to me. I guess those magazines you see in the checkout line sell. Amazing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will say, though, that back when I was still active in the Cryonics movement, the National Enquirer typically had more accurate cryonics coverage than the MSM. I suppose because the facts were such that they didn't have to invent anything, while the MSM didn't take it seriously enough to bother with accuracy.

[Randy Sax]

Care to give us a Cryonics update? Still doesn't work or what?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, keeping in mind that I dropped out when I married, more than 20 years ago, because I couldn't afford both cryonics AND my obligations to my family...

There is continued advance in cryoprotectant research, and other technical aspects, but I would say that cryonics is still radically underfunded relative to other approaches to life extension.

Honestly, you won't know that it hasn't worked until they give up on the last suspendee. But I'd certainly renew my membership if I could afford to without shorting my familial obligations.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyers have filed his brief in the Supreme Court of Colorado regarding the suit to disqualify Trump from appearing on the Republican primary ballot. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/Cases%20of%20Interest/20CV32577/2023-11-27%2015-57-09%2023_11_27%20-%20Opening-Answer%20Brief%20-%20FINAL.pdf Much of the brief is perfunctory and conclusory. I suspect that Team Trump regards the Colorado Supreme Court as merely a way station on its journey to the U. S. Supreme Court pulling Trump's chestnuts out of the fire.

The brief notably does not engage with the trial court's factual findings that Trump engaged in insurrection. Rule 52 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure provides that findings of fact in a bench trial shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. That is a demanding standard.

"The sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence, and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn therefrom, will not be disturbed unless so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record." Peterson v. Ground Water Comm. 195 Colo. 508, 516, 579 P.2d 629 (1978); Dominion Insurance Company Limited v. Hart, 178 Colo. 451, 454, 498 P.2d 1138 (1972). As the Colorado Supreme Court has opined:

We have repeatedly held that in such circumstances the finding of the trial court, if supported by the evidence, will not be disturbed by this Court even though we might have reached a different conclusion had we been the trier of the facts. Moreover, it is also our duty in such cases to search the record for evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court.

Peterson, at 516, quoting Adler v. Adler, 167 Colo. 145, 148, 445 P.2d 906 (1968).

[not guilty]

The brief submitted by the Colorado Republican State Central Committee is somewhat more persuasive, IMO. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/Cases%20of%20Interest/20CV32577/2023-11-27%2015-47-53%20Co%20GOP%20Appeal%20Response%20-%2011_27_23%20-%20Final%20Version.pdf That body, however, did not apply for review of the trial court's judgment, and accordingly it cannot seek review by SCOTUS.

[Michael P]

Supreme Court amici are not a thing? Who knew!

[Mr. Bumble]

So what's the score card for these 14A cases read so far?

[GawainForever]

Not guilty, what is the basis for your assertion that an Appellee that loses on appeal cannot file a certiorari petition?

[bernard11]

Not what he said.

[John F. Carr]

An Indian national has been charged with trying to have a Sikh separatist killed in America. He was acting under direction of an Indian government official. This plot was related to a successful assassination of a Sikh activist in Vancouver in June. The U.S. and Canada may want to downgrade diplomatic ties with India.

The NPR newsreader called them "sick activists" which sounded ambiguous. They have always been "seek" to me. I checked a dictionary which says either pronunciation is tolerated.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what is the definition of an "activist", sick or otherwise?

[Randy Sax]

Maybe he meant like the skaters say it. A pretty sick activist man, tight.

[Voize]

"Seek" is pretty well established among native english speakers but there are language agitators who insist that foreign words be pronounced the way they are in the original language. They are in the same club as the folks who complain that "the hoi polloi" is redundant.

[bernard11]

Ask them if they've ever visited Paree.

[Randy Sax]

Or Deutschland.

[apedad]

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Religious Land Use Case Involving Oregon Church That Feeds People Who are Homeless or Hungry

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon explaining that a city’s decision to restrict a church’s distribution of meals to people who are homeless or hungry may have substantially burdened religious exercise under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

The statement of interest was filed in St. Timothy’s Church v. City of Brookings, Or., a lawsuit alleging that the City of Brookings imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of St. Timothy’s, an Episcopalian church, with a recently enacted ordinance that prohibits the church from serving free meals to persons in need more than two days per week, subject to a discretionary permit.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-religious-land-use-case-involving-oregon-church

This has been an open case for almost two years and it basically comes down to a zoning vs. religious "freedom" issue.

[apedad]

Here's the original story.

https://reason.com/2022/01/31/lawsuit-crackdown-on-church-soup-kitchens-violates-the-first-amendment/

I think the town will win if they focus on the zoning part and also because it doesn't specifically burden religion.

"Seeing more people at the church more days a week didn't sit well with some of the neighbors. They complained in an April 2021 petition to the city government that St. Timothy's soup kitchen—and its participation in the city's safe parking program, whereby it lets people live in their cars on the church parking lot—was bringing crime and vagrancy to the area.

In response, the city council passed an ordinance in October that said churches and nonprofits in residentially zoned areas could offer free meal service only two days a week. And to do that, they needed special conditional use permits."

[Commenter_XY]

They will lose IMO; the town is not using the least restrictive means to advance a compelling government interest. Secondarily, what is the compelling government interest here?

[apedad]

Reducing crime and vagrancy?

[Moderation4ever]

Wonder why some of the religious freedom groups are not up supporting the church? They are quick to jump in when the issue is denying something to people, like adoption to gay parents, but seem slow when it is feeding the homeless.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Alliance Defending Freedom defends ministry to homeless - ministry faced closure from arbitrary tax -

https://adflegal.org/case/church-isaiah-58-project-arizona-v-la-paz-county

Becket Fund explains how church outreach to homeless takes priority over zoning restrictions:

https://www.becketlaw.org/media/church-attacked-ministering-homeless/

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks, this is good to know.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Episcopalian"

I thought it involved a religious organization?

[SimonP]

Bob succinctly demonstrating why the Court's apparent indifference to the Establishment Clause poses genuine risks even for religious people, not just secular.

[Bob from Ohio]

"ABC News@ABC
3h
Hamas has claimed responsibility for a shooting at a Jerusalem bus stop that left at least three people dead and 16 others injured Thursday morning."

Cease fire now!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, just the Israelis. If they stopped shooting there would be a Solution to the problem. /sarc

[Randy Sax]

Another comes on, and another comes on, Another one rides the bus!

[SimonP]

Did settlers stop attacking Palestinians in the West Bank during the "ceasefire," and did the Israeli military stop raiding Palestinian communities?

[Bob from Ohio]

Hamas apologist checks in.

[Nige]

Oh, I'm sorry, were you hoping nobody would notice that some people the other side were also ignoring the ceasefire? Amazing, though, how killing between 10 and 20,000 people failed to stop this from happening.

[Sarcastr0]

You apologize for Kissinger above.

Don't pretend you have any kind of moral high ground.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your basic position is that the responding party [US in Cambodia, Israel now] are always the bad guys.

Your moral ground is subterranean.

[Sarcastr0]

Not my position in Israel, and not even wrong on Vietnam.

And ignoring very hard all the stuff Kissinger did in Latin America.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its the effect of your position.

Your pal Allende was going down regardless of what the US did or not do. Chile didn't want to be a second Cuba.

[Sarcastr0]

"“[I]n the Eisenhower period, we would be heroes." - someone with nothing to do with what happened in Chile.

Bolivia, Chile, Argentina. Talk to anyone from Latin America.

This is unclassified in the US now; you have no excuse to pretend ignorance.

And certainly no leg to stand on condemning anyone's stand on this blog as being immoral.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Talk to anyone from Latin America."

Latin American leftists always blame the US for everything.

[SimonP]

Pointing out how Israeli soldiers and settlers continue to harass, attack, and murder Palestinians is Hamas apologia?

When "facts," in your view, are "terrorist propaganda," maybe you should re-examine your thinking. I didn't come into this thread to justify Hamas's continued targeting of civilians or any other of their actions, and I'm not calling you a pro-Israel fascist just because you've shared with the group this bus stop attack. But you can't abide by your facts being shared alongside mine, can you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers find it inconvenient when better Americans mention the immoral, violent, right-wing belligerence that is a signature element of today's Israel.

Maybe because they recognize that modern Americans are becoming increasingly opposed to superstition-laced, authoritarian right-wingery at home, therefore disinclined to subsidize it (at great and varied cost) elsewhere.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Anything short of swearing ultimate fealty to Israel is grounds to be called an anti-Semite by certain idiots around here.

[Commenter_XY]

The ceasefire is over. Ben Gvir is right; it is nonsensical to have a ceasefire of any kind when Hamas is killing Jews in Israel. Consequently, Israel will now proceed to kill every Hamas member they can find, until the hostages (dead or alive) are retrieved. No Hamas member anywhere in the world (except possibly Qatar) is safe; they will be hunted down like the human animals they are.

Hezbollah will move beyond the Litani river, or there will be a northern war that starts very shortly (meaning days, not weeks). Lebanon will never recover from that because their infrastructure will be utterly destroyed by Israel. The term that applies to Hezbollah wrt Israel right now: FAFO.

If I were a palestinian in Judea or Samaria, I'd take extra care not to provoke my Jewish neighbors right now. That would likely be a fatal miscalculation. The Israelis are in no mood to be understanding or conciliatory.

All of this aside, the biggest question post-war (a long way off, at least a year, if not more) is what to do with an entire society stewed in a toxic brew of Jew hatred, with Judeocide as the main dish. All I will say is that it will never go back to what it was; Gaza, Judea and Samaria are going to change very substantially.

[Nige]

Jesus, this dumb posturing macho bullshit is genuinely how mass slaughters get driven.

[Commenter_XY]

We will see if my words come to pass or not, Nige.

I wasn't wrong about Ukraine, as Professor Post found out (still waiting to collect, Professor Post). I am not wrong here.

[Nige]

Well, for a start, the ceasefire is holding. But 'we shall see if my words come to pass and if thousands and thousands of people die in the process that's the price I'm willing to pay' is stupid macho posturing of the type that was endemic adter 9-11.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you going to travel to Israel to try to defend that country when America stops enabling Israel, or are you just another all-talk clinger?

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, do the next best thing: Fund-raising. The money I collect is to equip the IDF. Want to donate, Arthur?

[Aunt Teefah]

Just as suspected. At least Frank had the balls to go over there and jerk off some corpses. All you can muster is spewing racist genocidal venom on the internet. That and throwing in a few bucks toward a civilian drone strike. Pathetic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When America turns off the spigot, your fundraising will resemble one guy pissing in the middle of the ocean.

Except that you will be too busy groveling and whining, begging better Americans to reconsider the decision to stop enabling Israel's disgusting right-wing belligerence, to raise even a piss-poor amount of cash.

I tend to doubt you will leave America's safety to help Israel when Israel attempts to operate without the American political, military, and economic skirts Israel has been hiding behind for decades. You seem to be just another tough-talking -- but all talk -- clinger.

[bernard11]

If I were a palestinian in Judea or Samaria, I’d take extra care not to provoke my Jewish neighbors right now. That would likely be a fatal miscalculation. The Israelis are in no mood to be understanding or conciliatory.

Are you seriously justifying Israeli treatment of West Bank Palestinians? Because of Hamas? Really?

[Commenter_XY]

And just how are the palestinians in Judea and Samaria being treated, bernard 11. Considering what happened on 10/7, and the absolutely grotesque spectacle of PA leadership handing out candies to children to celebrate.

I'd call the response to date by Israelis very restrained.

[Tom for equal rights]

Commenter

I would add to your comment - that the behavour of the palestinians and the rest of the arab countries since the 1940's should be taken into account.

[bernard11]

According to Haaretz,

Since Hamas infiltrated Israel on October 7 and killed an estimated 1,200 people, Israel’s security forces have cracked down on Palestinian factions in West Bank cities. They have also detained a huge number of Palestinians and allowed settlers to threaten and attack West Bank residents without consequence.

Since Hamas infiltrated Israel on October 7 and killed an estimated 1,200 people, Israel’s security forces have cracked down on Palestinian factions in West Bank cities. They have also detained a huge number of Palestinians and allowed settlers to threaten and attack West Bank residents without consequence.

One of the main friction points has been the olive harvest. According to Shezaf, many Palestinians find themselves unable to harvest this year at all: Young settlers “have WhatsApp groups where they notify others about where there are Palestinians picking olives, and then they show up to scare them. In one area, settlers put leaflets on Palestinian cars saying they will suffer a ‘Great Nakba.’ Not in all cases, but in some cases, it’s the army that is preventing people from harvesting their olives.”

Just read the whole thing, and other news about the matter, from some place other than your fanatical Likudnik sources.

[Bob from Ohio]

The "Shezaf" in the article is Hagar Shezaf who used to work for Al Jazeera, owned by Qatar which has long been the media of choice for Islamic terrorists.

You should read some place other than fanatical terrorist sources

[bernard11]

So Haaretz is now hiring fanatical terrorists? I doubt it.

Here’s the link I somehow left out.

You can, BTW, google "settler violence West Bank" and find similar stories in any number of news sources.

I guess the media have been taken over by terrorists. Is that what you think?

[Aunt Teefah]

Provocation = having a house on land some settler might want. These people are racial supremacists, pure and simple. And to them, Palestinians are sub-humans.

[Commenter_XY]

Provocation = the passive and active teaching that Judeocide is acceptable, and then acting on that (see Simchat Torah pogrom).

As far as I am concerned, Hamas' actions on 10/7 and their subsequent glorification define them as human animals. Hamas made themselves subhuman by their actions. So I feel no pity (or guilt or sorrow for that matter) at Hamas members' violent deaths; quite the opposite, I am glad they are dead. And I hope the IDF kills all Hamas members, and soon.

They (Hamas) have sworn to kill me, simply because I am a Jew. It is in their covenant they swore to.

[Aunt Teefah]

Notice the shift from discussing Palestinians in the West Bank to discussing Hamas. Do you think you're actually fooling anyone with this? You aren't.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You'll be safe in America. At least, as safe as anyone can be these days.

Which makes me think that any Israeli with a self-preservation instinct should be attempting to emigrate to the United States as quickly as possible.

[bernard11]

XY,

I have no sympathy for Hamas either. Let the IDF wipe them out.

But I can still see that the settler violence is wrong, and should be punished, not encouraged, by the government. Declaring open season on Palestinians is the act of a murderer.

[jimc5499]

Last time I checked, Palestinian isn't a race.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter has been posting about 'The Palestinian Question' lately.

He accused me of antisemitism.

He's deeply lost.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Commenter_XY is rooting for the right-wingers in America's culture war and for Israel's right-wing belligerence in the Middle East.

He is destined to go 0-2. Let him bluster while he still has delusions of adequacy, before the reality-based world stomps his aspirations.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0: You parrot anti-semitic tropes, and 'tut tut' the wholesale slaughter of Jews. You are an antisemite. At least Misek is open about it. You just try to dance around it.

[Aunt Teefah]

The tropes! We love the tropes, don't we folks? Support the tropes.

You and your ilk cheer the wholesale slaughter of Palestinian civilians who you regard as sub-human, all while slandering others as bigots. Beyond pathetic.

[Commenter_XY]

I cheer the slaughter of Hamas; and I do not apologize for that.

As for the palestinian civilians, just remember that I am the guy who supports a completely non-violent alternative: voluntary, incentivized emigration.

[Aunt Teefah]

"I am the guy who supports a completely non-violent alternative: voluntary, incentivized emigration."

Well isn't that nice? Your preferred form of genocide is ethnic cleansing rather than mass murder (not that you're particularly insistent on that preference). What a swell guy you are.

[David Nieporent]

Voluntary, incentivized emigration — however unrealistic it is, and it's incredibly such — is not ethnic cleansing. And ethnic cleansing is not a "form of genocide."

[Sarcastr0]

I have AT blocked for the moment, and I don't walk with her.

But these distinctions you are making depend on the incentive, seems to me.

[Martinned]

@Sarcastro Sort of. In the same way that a robber who holds you up at gun point is arguably only creating an incentive.

But a reasonably conventional definition of ethnic cleansing is: “Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law.”

For context, the genocide convention defines genocide as: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

As for the palestinian civilians, just remember that I am the guy who supports a completely non-violent alternative: voluntary, incentivized emigration.

The best approach would be to bring Israelis (those who wish to emigrate) to the United States -- a win-win-win with little perceptible downside or obstacle.

[Bob from Ohio]

"voluntary, incentivized emigration"

The only way forward. The Arabs in Gaza refuse to be peaceful so they should go.

50 Muslim majority countries, some quite large. Easy to relocate everyone in Gaza, 50,000 per country. Perhaps the larger ones can take more.

They are Arabs, not Phoenicians, so are mere settler-colonists.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It seems more likely the Israelis -- the sentient, reasoning ones with a self-preservation instinct and sound judgment -- will be the ones who leave. I hope America provides a safe home for them and that many Israelis are smart enough to accept America's offer of citizenship, security, and modernity.

[SimonP]

And if the "incentive" comes in the form of bombs, settler attacks, systematic disfranchisement and expropriation, economic sieges and imposed poverty, etc., etc., etc.... so be it!

[Tom for equal rights]

Commenter_xy

Its not only Sacastro that claims he is not anti-semitic, numerous others dance around it/deny their anti-semitism, yet object to any practical solution that will resolve the palestinian issue on a long term basis. Very short sighted understanding of the geopolitical issues.

[Commenter_XY]

I'd like to chalk it up to moral confusion. That I could understand.

I don't think it is moral confusion, and I don't think it is a lack of understanding. They understand perfectly. They're perfectly content to see Israel destroyed and then weep crocodile tears, while lamenting their 'tragic error'. No thanks. One shoah is enough.

What drives them wild is the idea that we Jews just won't die quietly, without protest. The very thought that we Jews will stand up, kick them in the balls and then proceed to kick their sorry ass threatens them. Well, TFB. Never again means just that.

And if they don't like being called antisemites, maybe try to not parrot anti-semitic tropes.

[Nige]

‘What drives them wild is the idea that we Jews just won’t die quietly, without protest.’

Mindreading, strawmanning, macho posturing, atrocities justified by pragmatism, dehumanising, mass killings, ethnic cleansing, magical thinking, etc etc. A Jewish person should recognise those tropes all right.

[bernard11]

You are the one who is morally confused, XY, and badly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You are the one who is morally confused, XY"

Not at all. He has utter moral clarity.

Its not October 6 anymore. The old ways won't work.

[Sarcastr0]

The 9-11 playbook is pretty old, Bob.

It's covered in blood from shitty wars that ended badly for us.

You just see the blood.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/holden-bloodfeast

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What drives them wild is the idea that we Jews just won’t die quietly,

If Israel continues along its current trajectory of right-wing belligerence dependent on American support, the predictable consequences for Israelis probably won't be very quiet.

Unless they emigrate to a better location (such as the United States).

[grb]

Commenter_XY : “The ceasefire is over”

1. Is it? I haven’t seen that yet, but may not have the most up-to-date news.

2. Try thinking: If Hamas launched a bloody provocation, that gives a hint who is benefiting most from the ceasefire.

3. Israel’s war is for revenge, which is understandable after October 7. But revenge is not a foreign policy or strategic objective. Israel has neither in this war.

4. Indeed, the only immediate strategic objective that’s achievable is on the other side. I’m pretty sure the Hamas terrorist attack was to torpedo the Israeli-Saudi treaty talks, probably at the direct bequest of Hamas’ paymasters in Damascus & Tehran. That’s more achievable than any Israeli goal, particularly as the war drags on.

5. Israel will proceed to kill every Hamas member they can find, but how many will they find? I suspect most Hamas fighters are submerged into the background with their weapons cached. The ratio between fighter vs civilians killed will just get uglier.

6. Israel doesn’t have a clue how to get out of this mess. They won’t occuply the Gaza Strip and are quite emphatic on that point. They can’t afford to directly rule over two million stateless persons. But they also don’t want the PA ruling, despite the fact that the PA has cooperated with Israel and Israeli security for decades. But cooperating with Israel has done zero good for the over two million stateless Palestinians living in the West Bank. Remember, recent Israeli governments were happy to water and nurture Hamas to keep the Palestinians divided, with security a secondary consideration. There’s been vague talk about another Arab government or some NGO running Gaza, but how realistic is that?

6. In the end, Gaza will remain a sealed prison, Hamas will remain an active terrorist force, and nothing will change. Pieties about “an entire society stewed in a toxic brew of Jew hatred, with Judeocide as the main dish” doesn’t have much meaning. The Palestinians in Israel proper have second-class citzenship and face systematic discrimination from the Israeli government, but accept that because they have a stake in the state that runs their life. Their DNA is no different than the stateless Palestinians in the West Bank, who have tried cooperating with Israel and got cynical apartheid rule in return. Here’s a stat: In the 60% of the West Bank where Israel’s occupation is total, the occupation authority regularly turns-down 95-97% of all Palestinian applications for a building permit. They don’t want them building anything.

And their DNA is no different than the people imprisoned in Gaza. It helps to see that. It helps to step-back and see this conflict as more than a first-person shooter video game. But the U.S. supporters of both the Israelis and Palestinians seldom seem to get beyond their cartoon fantasies of perfect villians and heroes.

[Commenter_XY]

re 1: They'll be fighting by this weekend.
re 2: Not following, but want to hear more.
re 3: The stated war aims of Israel are: The destruction of Hamas within Gaza, the retrieval of hostages. I see nothing about revenge in those aims.
re 4: You could well be right about that.
re 5: Will they get them all? Not now. Probably not ever. But they won't be in Israel.
re 6: Israel will not be leaving Gaza, grb.

Here is a stat to consider: Hamas enjoys 75% support in Judea and Samaria, 70+% of palestinians supported the Simchat Torah pogrom, and 95%+ reported the Simchat Torah pogrom made them feel better about being a palestinian. Think about that, because that is your peace partner.

Do you think Israel will ever tolerate a two state solution with the palestinians? grb, that is dead.

Population relocation is the likeliest outcome, to me.

[grb]

1. So the ceasefire isn’t over.

2. If Hamas sabotages the ceasefire, Hamas sees benefits in the ceasefire ending.

3. But Israel won’t destroy Hamas (as I note above). A fantasy objective is no objective at all. Likewise, a fantasy “solution” – like believing Israel can pay the Palestinians to just disappear (poof!) – is no solution at all. It’s fascinating to see how many of Israel’s so-called strongest supporters deal in rainbow-colored flying unicorn scenarios rather than face the actual facts.

4. Common ground!

5. Hamas will continue to exist. Hamas will contine to launch terrorist attacks against Israel. Hamas will continue to be armed by Iran and Syria. Do you honestly believe otherwise?

6. Israel has repeatedly and emphatically said they will NOT occupy the Gaza Strip. Just more cartoon fantasy from you.

[Brett Bellmore]

The advantage Hamas sees doesn't have to be any more profound than "more dead Israelis"; They're religious fanatics seeking martyrdom in a glorious cause.

They kill Jews? Win. They get killed trying to kill Jews? Win. The only losing scenario from their perspective is not trying to kill Jews.

[Don Nico]

"If Hamas sabotages the ceasefire, Hamas sees benefits in the ceasefire ending."
Because their stated goal is eternal war against the Jews.
They are earning their place in hell.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

All of this aside, the biggest question post-war . . .

is how Israel will operate when better Americans withdraw the political, military, and economic skirts behind which Israel has been operating for decades.

Aligning with the losing side of the American culture war, the wrong side of history, and the weaker side at the modern marketplace of ideas should -- and, I believe, will -- have consequences. For Israel, those consequences may be as severe as they will be deserved.

Why Israelis -- those who genuinely care about Israel, not the right-winger for whom Jews are role players in a childish fantasy -- would risk this seems inexplicable to me, but I defend their right to act as they wish, even if it seems catastrophically counterproductive. It's their funeral.

[bernard11]

Ben-Gvir. Lovely guy.

[JasonT20]

See recent reporting that at least one of Trump's lawyers told him that he had to comply with the subpoena for documents at Mar-a-Lago and would be committing a crime if he didn't.

Meanwhile, supposedly moderate NH Gov. Chris Sununu answered a question about who he'd vote for if it came down to Trump vs. Biden again:

“I’m a Republican,” the governor replied. Explaining his reasoning, he added: “I just want Republicans to win; that’s all I care about.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He's supposed to be a *moderate* Republican, but he plans to vote for the Republican candidate even if that candidate is Donald Trump!

How can his zeal for voting Republican be reconciled with his moderation?

[JasonT20]

How can his zeal for voting Republican be reconciled with his moderation?

That's the thing, isn't it? "Moderate" and "zeal" are two words that don't fit together.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So I guess the extremists are right - moderates are just people with no strong views one way or the other, who simply shift with the wind.

I myself disagree with that definition - I think, for example, that defending the U. S. Constitution is moderate, but that defense of the Constitution should be zealous and not half-hearted.

[JasonT20]

Context matters, I would think. If a defense attorney was "moderate" in their defense of their client rather than "zealous", they wouldn't be living up to their ethical duty. The same context would apply to defending the Constitution. But a member of a political party that is "moderate" is not so partisan that they'd place loyalty to the party ahead of defense of the Constitution and show a desire for it to win ahead of the good of the country more broadly. Only a zealot would.

Given the kind of criticism Gov. Sununu has given of Trump in the past, I don't see how he can view Trump as anything but dangerous to the Constitution and rule of law in this country. He's said otherwise, "Trump’s too dumb to be a danger to democracy. Let’s not give him that much credit. … I want everyone to relax. It’s all going to work out." But being too dumb to be a danger to democracy would certainly make him too dumb to be President, so that's damning in itself.

The real give away was when he said that wanting Republicans to win was all that he cared about. That's a zealot, not a moderate. That's someone that sees Republican victory as more important than anything else, including the Constitution. Plenty of GOP extremists will say that Democrats winning will be the end of the country and the Constitution, but that is just more zealotry talking. He's just trying to keep himself in the lane of being able to able to run for President in 2028 or beyond. He can't do that if he'd vote for a Democrat. So, maybe he isn't really a zealot, after all. Just the usual politician with no principles beyond his own ambition.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Of course giving strong allegiance to a political party is dangerous zealotry, as the Founders recognized – when they weren’t themselves giving zealous advocacy to *their* political parties.

I wonder how many professed “moderates” in our duopoly actually support candidates outside their party “for the good of the country.” The answer, I suspect, is that these moderates are mostly strong party loyalists who think that the good of their party is the *same* as the good of the country. Or at the very least, that voting for their party is the only way to save the country from the horrible dangers posed by the other duopolist party.

Scratch a “moderate,” and you frequently find someone who supports his party, right or wrong, because the other party are Nazis, and third parties shouldn’t exist.

[shawn_dude]

Mitt Romney voted for Biden. Several GOP members or staff resigned as part of the "Never Trump" movement. OTOH, you can watch Liz Cheney admit she voted for Trump in 2020, that she regretted that vote, but refuse to say whether she would vote for Trump in 2024.

Moderates exist. It's just the Republican party has moved so far to the right that folks like Ronald Regan would be considered centrist Democrats and too liberal to even be RINOs.

[Tom for equal rights]

but of course democrat party is controlled by centrist and hasnt moved left

[shawn_dude]

Democrats are on the shore and Republicans were caught in a riptide and pulled to sea. When they popped their heads up out of the frigid water, they wondered how the shore had moved so quickly away from them and cursed the Democrats for their cunning maneuver.

[David Nieporent]

.

Context matters, I would think. If a defense attorney was “moderate” in their defense of their client rather than “zealous”, they wouldn’t be living up to their ethical duty. The same context would apply to defending the Constitution. But a member of a political party that is “moderate” is not so partisan that they’d place loyalty to the party ahead of defense of the Constitution and show a desire for it to win ahead of the good of the country more broadly. Only a zealot would.

The confusion evinced by this exchange is that moderation can refer to two different things: the positions one takes, and one's temperament.

One can be pro-life and work to elect politicians who will pass whatever abortion restrictions can achieve majority support in the legislature, and work to push the Overton window towards more and more restrictions with the ultimate aim of a ban. One can be pro-life and only support politicians who vote for 100% abortion bans, with no compromises. Or one can be pro-life and assassinate doctors and firebomb clinics. Same position on abortion in each case, but going from more to less moderate in temperament.

Being pro-trans can range from holding the position "Biology is completely irrelevant and anyone who refuses to ignore biology entirely is a bigot who should be excluded from society" to "We should be polite and make people comfortable by treating them as if they were MOTOS in situations where sex is irrelevant, and people who refuse to do that are bigots."

Those are substantively different, not merely temperamentally so.

[John F. Carr]

Trump's lawyers have a strong incentive to turn on him to keep themselves out of jail. The case against him looks strong because of the amount of corroborating evidence, not because one lawyer told him the subpoena needed to be taken seriously.

[Commenter_XY]

Which case? 🙂

[shawn_dude]

+1 on that. Some of the many charges against him rely on what he knew or believed at a given point in time. If his lawyer gave him legal advice and that advice is evidence of him being informed prior to an illegal action, then it's also corroborating evidence.

[John F. Carr]

The testimony is certainly useful evidence if believed. Trump's lawyers can argue to the jury that she has every reason to lie.

[shawn_dude]

Yes, but isn't that true of all evidence?

[John F. Carr]

All evidence can be disbelieved. Not all testimony comes with apparent reason to doubt it. If I witness a car accident between two strangers I have no reason to lie about who ran a red light. If my close colleague commits obstruction I have reason to distance myself from it.

[not guilty]

"The testimony is certainly useful evidence if believed. Trump’s lawyers can argue to the jury that she has every reason to lie."

Keep in mind, this is a lawyer who currently represents Donald Trump in Fulton County, Georgia. I wonder how vigorously Team Trump (D.C.) will try to discredit her.

[Life of Brian]

.

See recent reporting that at least one of Trump’s lawyers told him that he had to comply with the subpoena for documents at Mar-a-Lago and would be committing a crime if he didn’t.

Have you found any quotes of what she actually said? I have to wonder if it's really all that interesting/damning when every account I can readily find is just breathless characterizations like the one you linked.

[JasonT20]

The reporting is sources talking about grand jury testimony, so it is unlikely that we'll get a verbatim quote. Yes, that means that being skeptical of the reporting is warranted, but the article does indicate that it is coming from multiple journalists. If/when it goes to trial and testimony is public, we'll find out with more certainty.

[Life of Brian]

.

Yes, that means that being skeptical of the reporting is warranted, but the article does indicate that it is coming from multiple journalists.

So multiple journalists received the same inflammatory, pitch-perfect, and unfalsifiable leak? Seems like if anything that should make it less trustworthy, not more.

If/when it goes to trial and testimony is public, we’ll find out with more certainty.

Huh. What if it turns out to be not all that clearly damning after all? You could almost imagine the jury conflating the actual evidence they hear at trial with the stream of opportunistic, inflammatory leaks like this one they were subjected to during the runup. Where are the selectively-esteemed gag orders at times like this?

[JasonT20]

So multiple journalists received the same inflammatory, pitch-perfect, and unfalsifiable leak? Seems like if anything that should make it less trustworthy, not more.

How is it unfalsifiable? Surely the Trump attorney quoted could dispute it if it is false.

[Life of Brian]

As I originally pointed out, she wasn't quoted, so it's impossible to know what words she actually said that some combination of the leaker and the press amped up into the inflammatory headline.

And even if she did choose to paint a bullseye on her back and disclose even more of the grand jury proceedings (if that's even permissible for a witness in whatever jurisdiction this is in), at that point you're just at he-said-she-said. You can't prove the leak was false without the actual testimony.

[not guilty]

A witness is permitted to disclose his/her own grand jury testimony publicly. See, Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990).

That having been said, I doubt that Ms. Little was the source of information regarding what she testified to. She still represents Donald Trump in Georgia.

[JasonT20]

Where are the selectively-esteemed gag orders at times like this?

If you're talking about gag orders on Trump, those are about personal attacks on court employees and statements that can easily be viewed as intimidating witnesses. I'm not seeing how leaks are comparable to that.

[Life of Brian]

.

those are about personal attacks on court employees and statements that can easily be viewed as intimidating witnesses

That was just a subset of the stated concern. Search for "gag order" and "jury pool" (you don't even have to include "Trump" since that seems to be perversely implied in just about any search term lately!) and you'll get plenty of articles that may help refresh your memory.

[not guilty]

Judge Beryl Howell held hearings and (apparently) determined that the attorney-client privilege does not shield Donald Trump's communications with his attorneys regarding the pilfered documents at Mar-a-Lago because of the crime-fraud exception to the privilege. I suspect that Judge Aileen Loose Cannon will revisit that issue when Trump's attorneys are called as prosecution witnesses at trial.

The Special Counsel would be wise to seek a ruling in limine prior to trial regarding the scope of testimony from Trump's attorneys before the jury. If the court excludes such testimony, the government can take an interlocutory appeal of the ruling pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. It is unlikely that the May 20 trial date is going to hold firm, so there is no downside to taking such an appeal.

[Bored Lawyer]

I came across the issue a few years ago, and I was shocked at how light the burden is to pierce the privilege on the crime-fraud exception. Basically probable cause on the elements (a crime or fraud was committed or being committed, and the advice was sought by the client in furtherance of the fraud) is enough.

Does not say much for the sacrosanct nature of the attorney-client privilege.

[Sarcastr0]

I was shocked at how light the burden is to pierce the privilege on the crime-fraud exception.

That is at variance to what I learned in law school. Further an existing criminal scheme is not a super common thing in giving legal advice.

[Bored Lawyer]

“a party seeking to invoke the crime-fraud exception must at least demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime or fraud has been attempted or committed and that the communications were in furtherance thereof."
In re Richard Roe, Inc., 68 F.3d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1995)

The Ninth Circuit requires “preponderance of the evidence” for a civil case, and “reasonable cause to believe” which means “more than suspicion but less than a preponderance of evidence” in grand jury proceedings.
In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 479 F.3d 1078, 1094 (9th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 130 S. Ct. 599, 175 L. Ed. 2d 458 (2009)

As for whether it is common, not sure why that matters. And remember two things: (1) most courts do not require an actual crime — a fraud or other civil tort suffices and (2) courts universally hold that the knowledge of the attorney is irrelevant. The privilege belongs to the client, and if he or she believes that the attorney advice is being used to advance a crime or fraud, that is enough. The attorney can be as innocent as a lamb; the client is the one who abused the privilege.

OTOH, I should point out that many attorneys do not understand the scope of the privilege. One, it has to be a communication made in furtherance of legal advice or representation. If the client asks me where the bathroom is, and I say, down the hall and to your right, that is not privileged.

Second, it is only what the client intends to be kept confidential that is privileged. It often happens that clients convey something to attorneys with the understanding it will be passed along to someone else -- a court, and adversary in litigation, and administrative agency, etc. That is not privileged, either.

[Sarcastr0]

Preponderance is the standard for evidentiary issues, including A/C.

Your intial precedent may not stand for what you say it does. It finds no exception, and lays out the minimum initial requirements. Which are:
"we required that there be (i) a determination that "the client communication or attorney work product in question was itself in furtherance of the crime or fraud" and (ii) "probable cause to believe that the particular communication with counsel or attorney work product was intended in some way to facilitate or to conceal the criminal activity."
Probably cause is required for the intent element, not for the actual substance of the exception.

Googling the 9C cite, it looks to be about the prima facie standard, which the court says they *won't* use here: "For several reasons, we conclude that in a civil case the burden of proof that must be carried by a party seeking outright disclosure of attorney-client communications under the crime-fraud exception should be preponderance of the evidence."

And yes I am aware who holds the privilege. That's definitional to the purpose of the priv; it is not something that is material to the burden being light or not.

Bottom line, you're making arguments with cites to authority that is not on point.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that even though you're a practicioner, your arguments are thusfar really wanting.

[not guilty]

Judge Howell would have applied law from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which requires a prima facie showing. In In Re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985), that Court opined:

To overcome a claim of privilege, the government need not prove the existence of a crime or fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the government must first make a prima facie showing of a violation sufficiently serious to defeat the privilege, and second, establish some relationship between the communication at issue and the prima facie violation. A prima facie violation is shown if it is established that the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme. [Citations omitted.] The government satisfies its burden of proof if it offers evidence that if believed by the trier of fact would establish the elements of an ongoing or imminent crime or fraud.

At footnote 3, the Court observed that there is little practical difference between a prima facie showing and probable cause. “Both require that a prudent person have a reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime or fraud, and that the communications were in furtherance thereof.” Id., at 399, n.3, quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984).

[ReaderY]

One of the key differences between both the parties and the justices in Jarkesy v. SEC was that accordingly to the SEC and the liberal justices, the 7th Amendment only applies if the claim made is precisely a common law claim. Remove or alter one element, and the 7th Amendment doesn’t apply. But according to Jarkesy’s lawyer and the conservative justices, the 7th Amendment applies if the claim merely looks like, resembles, or serves the same function as a common law claim.

What was interesting about this debate is that it would seem to flip the parties in the usual debate over originalism. Normally the court’s conservatives are the ones using strict originalist arguments saying that a right has to be as it was historically to be recognized, while liberals have taken a more expansive approach, saying something merely has to resemble, or embody what they consider to be the spirit of, traditional rights – sometimes in ways that can seem impervious to outside scrutiny – in order to be covered.

Yet here the liberals were being the strict ones, holding the common law to exactly the form it has had historically, while the conservatives were the ones suggesting that a claim merely has to be within the spirit of a common law claim to be covered.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know the details of the common law in this situation, but if it’s just a change of terminology, and still remains a common law action, then maybe the 7th Amendment applies.

You can’t just stick a fake moustache on it and say it’s so different from what it was before that it’s outside the 7th Amendment.

[John F. Carr]

The court of last resort decides whether to look through the moustache. We have consumer protection actions that are like cases that would have been heard by a jury under the common law. The Supreme Judicial Court allows them to be decided by a judge alone.

[ReaderY]

The 7th Amendment is one of the few that still don’t apply to the states. The list has shrunk recently. The Supreme Court recently removed the 8th Amendment Excessive Fines Clause, and before that the 2nd Amendment.

[bernard11]

But I thought the issue here was violation of a statute.

Doesn't that automatically make it not a common law matter?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I believe the supporters of the Fugitive Slave Act made the same argument - although an action for the recovery of a human being looked a lot like a common-law writ of personal replevin (de homine replegiando), with a right to a jury trial, since it was a statute the 7th Amendment didn't apply and the fate of alleged fugitive slaves was up to "doughface" federal judges and commissioners. The establishment seems to have largely bought the argument, since the South huffed and puffed against the idea of Northern juries hearing these cases.

[bernard11]

Normally the court’s conservatives are the ones using strict originalist arguments saying that a right has to be as it was historically to be recognized, while liberals have taken a more expansive approach, saying something merely has to resemble, or embody what they consider to be the spirit of, traditional rights – sometimes in ways that can seem impervious to outside scrutiny – in order to be covered.

So conservatives are happy to abandon "originalism" when it doesn't serve their purposes. They want to gut the administrative state, on orders from their sponsors, I suppose.

Before someone points out that the liberals used originalist arguments, note that they made other points as well.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are conflating Originalism with Strict Construction. They are not the same thing.

[shawn_dude]

This is about shifting more cases from administrative (expert) judges to Article III judges, where political power has more sway.

The originalism argument is a red herring. This is just a naked power grab that benefits the sorts of monied interests that can afford to have a pet USSC justice.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is the 7th Amendment the only issue? The right to have an Article III judge is also important, and does not at all depend on the 7th Amendment or even a right to a jury.
There are plenty of cases decided by a judge that still require an Article III judge. Injunctions and other equitable relief spring to mind.

[shawn_dude]

And how would you square that against recent cases that strengthen the right of corporations to force arbitration despite the 7th Amendment right?

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not a right of corporations, it's a right of anyone.

Arbitration is a matter of contract. If you agree to arbitrate, you have to arbitrate. That includes if you do business with a company, and part of the deal is, if you have any complaints, we go to arbitration, not court. You don't like it, go elsewhere. The things sold under such contracts are rarely life requirements.

Most rights can be contracted away. Including 7th Amendment rights.

[David Nieporent]

.

And how would you square that against recent cases that strengthen the right of corporations to force arbitration despite the 7th Amendment right?

Demagogues on the left have tried to make "forced arbitration" happen, but unlike "fetch" there isn't actually any such thing. Litigants — corporations or individuals — cannot "force" arbitration; arbitration is a creature of contract and can only be used if the parties both agreed to use it.

[Martinned]

Market power is a thing.

[shawn_dude]

“Demagogues” like automobile dealerships?

The same companies that included mandatory arbitration agreements into their sales contracts with consumers demanded (and received) a special exemption to prevent manufacturers from doing the same to them. Probably because the Ford dealership didn’t want the Ford Motor Co to attach those clauses and force the dealership to find another franchise (since, in most places, the market is already saturated.) So sure, it’s not forced as in you can decline an employment offer, quit your job, pay for your own health benefits, or close down your business in the case of a dealership, rather than give up your constitutional right to a trial by jury.

If an entire industry’s best option to avoid an unwanted arbitration clause is to pay Congress to pass them an exemption, that lends some weight to the term “forced,” at least from their perspective.

Or, as Martinned said more succinctly: “Market power”

[apedad]

Trump gag order reinstated in New York civil fraud trial

A gag order barring former President Trump and his counsel from speaking about the staff of the New York judge overseeing his ongoing business fraud trial was reinstated Thursday by an appeals court.

In a terse decision, an appeals panel denied Trump’s request to lift the order hampering his attacks on the clerk. Trump’s counsel argued in their request to eliminate the gag order that Judge Arthur Engoron’s enforcement of it “casts serious doubt” on his ability to serve as an “impartial finder of fact” overseeing Trump’s case.

The gag order stemmed from an online attack Trump made on Engoron’s principal law clerk, who has become an unwitting main character in the fraud trial.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4335413-trump-gag-order-reinstated-in-new-york-civil-fraud-trial/

Sigh....someday this will all be over.

[Commenter_XY]

Not for a long time, apedad.

The historians are going to have a field day with this period of American history (1960-2030).

[MoreCurious]

Some of it is already being written. I recommend "The Divider" by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser in which they cover those fun-filled years from 2017 to 2021.

[Commenter_XY]

I don’t know what they will call it, Arthur. All I know is that they’re going to be writing about that time period for a very, very long time.

edit: got posted in wrong spot.

I'll look up the book, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That section of the textbook will be entitled Liberals Win the Culture War

[Moderation4ever]

Is this really a surprise? Courts have a lot of power to limit or end freedom in support of a fair trial and public safety. The gag orders issued to date seem to be tailored to the court and that upcoming trial. The does nothing to stop the former President from talking about his foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, etc.. I'm sure there will be an appeal to SCOTUS and it will be interesting to see their response. I suspect that Chief Justice Roberts will be supportive of the power of the courts to insure a fair trial and public safety

[Mr. Bumble]

How to succeed in business without really trying: br a Congressperson.
"Earlier this month — November 8, to be exact — Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) purchased up to $250,000 in shares of Tactile Systems Technology (TCMD). TCMD shares had been on a real losing streak in 2023, down more than 60% from its 52-week high of $26.11. The price was down nearly another third, to $10.27 from $12.61, in the 48 hours before Smith made her big buy.

Buy the dip, of course. What's remarkable is just how quickly TCMD recovered over the next three weeks — up 43% since the Minnesota senator plunked down her big bucks on a Minnesota company in an industry that Smith's committee oversees."

More at link:

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/11/30/this-sneaky-senators-insider-trade-isnt-the-most-corrupt-part-of-this-story-n4924348

[bernard11]

Certainly looks suspicious, but I'd like to know what, if anything, sent the stock back up so sharply. Was it a big contract, for example, that she would have known about in advance? Classic insider trading.

OTOH, if the market just drew an inference from her purchase that she would help the company in a big way then it's a slightly different story.

Of course, the best thing would be to have extremely strict rules about this - like you put things in a really blind trust or, better still, are allowed to hold equities only in the form of broad-based index funds.

[Commenter_XY]

What happened to the STOCK Act? I thought that was supposed to stop this kind of behavior.

What made that stock jump is a great question...Maybe landing a large government contract? That could make a stock price zoom. Tough to imagine a 'pump and dump' scenario here.

[OtisAH]

https://campaignlegal.org/update/stock-act-failed-effort-stop-insider-trading-congress

[ReaderY]

Bases for distinguishing what the 7th Amendment covers discussed in Jarsky v. SEC included:

1. Public v. private rights. Theee was vast disagreement about what these things meant. The liberals basically said whenever the federal governemnt initiates an action, it always addresses public rights. Justice Thomas said whenever personal life, liberty, or property is implicated, private rights are involved. Jarsky’s lawyer conceded that on unambiguously public matters - immigration, customs and taxes, and decisions about eligibility for government benefits, the 7th Amendment would not apply.

3. Prophylactic vs. remedial. It was argued that if the government acts prophylactically, e.g. improper safety procedures, not meeting reporting requirements, etc. the 7th Amendment does not apply, but if it seeks to punish or remediate a concrete wrong that has already happened and harms private parties, such as the SEC’s claim that Jarsky committed fraud, it does.

3. Whether the claim sufficiently resembles a common-law claim (discussed above).

4. Forum. The SEC lawyer advanced the position that suits are things done in courts, so nothing done before an administrative tribunal can ever implicate the 7th Amendment. Only if you are in court does the question of whether there is a jury right arise. Even Justice Jackson was troubled by the reach of this claim.

5. Remedy. Justice Barrett proposed that equitable remedies (remedies traditionally available to courts of equity) do not require a jury, but legal remedies (remedies traditionally imposed by courts of law) do.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"5. Remedy. Justice Barrett proposed that equitable remedies (remedies traditionally available to courts of equity) do not require a jury, but legal remedies (remedies traditionally imposed by courts of law) do."

This was the simplified analysis Brennan suggested in Local v. Terry, one of the few times he disagreed with Marshall (who wrote the opinion). I did my law review comment on that case.

To my mind the whole business about looking to the state of affairs in 1791 is stupid. (The title for my comment was "The Seventh Amendment Is Senile and Doomed".) Not only should we not care, but law and equity did not have clear boundaries, not then and not ever, except maybe in the minds of law professors.

[ReaderY]

But is this particular unclear boundary really any harder than determining “reasonable” searches and seizures, “probable” cause, “due” process, “excessive” fines, or any other of the many other ambiguous distinctions with unclear boundaries that the Constitution nonetheless requires courts to come up with a way to make and police?

Since when do humans get to be certain about anything? Is this any worse than being mortal, or having to work for a living? Do we have any more reason to expect the answers to these questions to be handed to us on a plate than we do for any other aspect of human life?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That puts it better than I did.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Haven't been able to find your article

It's not about common law having been defined in 1791, it's about there being a thing known as common law which was protected specifically in the Bill of Rights in 1791. If distinguishing between common law and other types of cases is difficult, well, that's the reason the Justices make the big bucks (plus retirement benefits) and have good-behavior tenure.

[Ben_]

Claim: Oceans are rising and islands will be under water.

Reality: "Results show that, between 2000 and 2017, the total land area on these atolls has increased by 61.74 km2 (6.1 %) from 1007.60 km2 to 1069.35 km2. Most of the change in land area resulted from island building within the Maldives and on atolls in the South China Sea. Since 2000, the Maldives have added 37.50 km2 of land area..."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305421000059

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of these islands are coral atolls, which are dynamic structures that can rise with the rising ocean level. They shrink or grow based on coral health, not water level.

[Absaroka]

Wait. I get that coral that is underwater can grow and potentially keep up with rising sea levels. But if you are living on dry land, even if it is coral that was once submerged, how is the coral going to grow upwards while it is still dry land?

(my understanding of coral growth is that it rises by adding new growth on the top ... it's not growth down the stack raising an otherwise dead top)

[Brett Bellmore]

The dry land in a coral atoll is accumulated coral debris.

[Sarcastr0]

Many U.S. Pacific islands are atolls fringed with coral reefs and have maximum elevations of 3–5 meters, with mean elevations of 1–2 meters. Sea level in the western Pacific Ocean has been increasing at a rate 2–3 times the global average, resulting in almost 0.3 meters of net rise since 1990. The 2012 US National Climate Assessment provided global sea level rise scenarios that ranged from 0.2 to 2.0 meters by 2100. Regional scenarios are needed.
A high surf event in December 2008 overwashed numerous atolls in Micronesia, ruining freshwater supplies and destroying agriculture on approximately 60% of the inhabited islands. Sea-level rise will exacerbate the hazards posed by climate change (storms, waves, temperatures, precipitation, etc.) to infrastructure, freshwater supplies, agriculture, and habitats for threatened and endangered species on U.S. and U.S.-affiliated atoll islands.

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/pcmsc/science/impact-sea-level-rise-and-climate-change-pacific-ocean-atolls

1. Seems other timescales see an effect
2. Seems you are making a more general statement than is supported by this single study.

I think a lot of the catastrophist studies seem to be wrong, but the
nonsense from the right goes well beyond that to just outcome oriented cherry picking and pretending that's science.

Y'all hate science. Egghead experts are all liberal hoaxers and idiots.
And yet here you are. No one buys it.

[Randy Sax]

I'd argue the climate deniers on the right and the climate alarmists on the left are equally retarded.

[Sarcastr0]

You'll find dumbasses in just about any policy movement of sufficient size.

As usual the asymmetry is who is given a voice in the policymaking.
Despite some on here yelling, no one from the Dems is going full Eat Bugs End Cars.
The GOP Congressional delegation, otoh, just pivoted from 'nothing is happening' to 'we can't do anything about it it's not humans' fault' as they oppose any and all policies and even funding research in the area.

[Randy Sax]

"Despite some on here yelling, no one from the Dems is going full Eat Bugs End Cars."

A measure approved by the California Air Resources Board in August 2022 requires all new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks sold in the state to generate zero tailpipe emissions by 2035.

New York's new law will effectively ban natural gas stoves in most new homes and buildings by as early as 2026.

"We have the greatest respect for folks who are worried about the climate crisis and want to throw everything we have at the problem, but building new nuclear plants just isn't a viable solution." - Greenpeace 2023

Several US states, cities, and counties across the country have introduced legislation to ban plastic straws, and more are considering following suit. Paper straw production requires more energy than that of plastic straws, resulting in a greater carbon footprint for paper-based products.

[Sarcastr0]

California can be out there, but 2035 seems more aspirational than insane.

The stove ban talk is largely spin since it’s about new stoves you can buy. And due to this blog I’ve seen the science; it’s not unreasonable.

Greenpeace is not the mainstream Democratic party – they are in fact the fringe, have been for decades. By their own design and admission.

If your left with calling “legislation to ban plastic straws” madness, versus the GOP’s position of all experts but the ones the oil industry pays are in on a huge hoax, you’re straining to bothsides two sides that are not equal.

There are actually plenty of reasonable folks, even politicians, on the right. Some GOP statehouses are pretty good, actually.
But those folks are not driving the national party.
By contrast, California being a one party state doesn't leak out of California much. Unless you fear a President Newsome. Which I do not.

[Randy Sax]

When I was aspiring to become an environmental engineer, (I fell into structural for heavy industry), the largest hurdles to actually making change and a difference came from the left. For two main reasons, they either A. fought against a good solution because it wasn't a perfect one that couldn't have possibly existed. Or B. drastically overstated effects of climate change/environmental damage and when those effects didn't come to pass it bolstered right wing dumbasses who could then say "see all this climate stuff is BS".

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this tracks. I’m young compared to many around here, but I took energy policy in 2013 and the endless lawsuits tactic of the environmental movement, especially regarding nuclear power, were quite clearly one of the main impediments to good policymaking for the 70s and 80s (and maybe 90s?).

I’m not saying the left isn’t full of dumbasses re: the environment (though I don’t buy the right wing nonsense about them all being sekret communists [even if the watermelon appellation is kinda clever]).
But if you’re fighting in the courts, you’re not running a political party. And I find the latter to be a lot more concerning *today*. Especially as someone who favors geoengineering solutions (though not to the exclusion of renewables and research and reduction policies)

[Don Nico]

"I’ve seen the science; it’s not unreasonable"
Of course it is unreasonable. Compared to all other sources of emission from process heat, it is a trivial addition to the greenhouse cocktail.

[Sarcastr0]

The science is not about global warming; it is about public health.

It's cited right there in the proposed reg announcement.

[Brett Bellmore]

The public health science in this case is unreasonable, too. They cherry picked a badly done study that supported what they wanted to do anyway, which was to phase out use of natural gas just because it's a fossil fuel.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems you're assuming a reversed causality.

[shawn_dude]

Note that California's 2035 mandate is for new cars only (you can drive your old belching Chevy Nova until the engine falls out) and it includes fully electric cars, plug-in electric/gas hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles.

If you own a standard ICE vehicle now. You can keep it. If you want to buy a fancy new Jeep, congrats, you can buy a 4XE model after 2035.

[Don Nico]

Sure, new only. Fortunately there will be many ICEs with sound bodies in CA that lower income people can drive.

[shawn_dude]

And many used hybrids and electrics.

The shocking (pun!) news about this isn't the zero/low emission mandate but the mangled electrical utility deregulation that California hasn't fixed and which is causing us to have some of the highest electricity costs in the country despite producing more power than we can use during sunny days. Mostly this has to do with how the three main power monopolies are structured and the state's legal responsibility to keep them profitable. PG&E's negligence resulted in 85 dead Californians and a half-billion dollar settlement that inevitably led to the coming 13% rate hike.

/rant

[Brett Bellmore]

End Cars seems well underway, by the simple expedient of pushing up emissions and mileage requirements so high that affordable cars can no longer be sold. Last year the Biden administration issued new mileage requirements requiring that fuel efficiency increase 8% annually. By '32 you couldn't legally sell cars that get less than 66mpg.

At the same time the EPA is proposing to mandate that nearly 70% of vehicles be electric by '32. (Compared to less than 6% today.)

The automakers are already piling up unsold inventory of EVs that they've had to manufacture despite people not wanting to buy them, in order to be permitted to manufacture the vehicles people ARE willing to buy. They're being forced to subsidize the EVs people don't want by jacking up the price of the ICE vehicles people ARE willing to buy; I've seen estimates that as much as $15K of a new ICE car cost is subsidizing the unsold EVs.

[Sarcastr0]

End Cars seems well underway

Unless you look outside. Or at a car dealership.

[Don Nico]

That comment is pure disinformation, and i suspect that you know it. But it is more fun to argue with Brett

[Sarcastr0]

No, the comment is that Brett's 'end cars' thing is
melodrama.

Nothing is 'well underway.'

Pretending it's 15 years from now and every proposed regulation has been instantiated with no change is nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the usual. We're not allowed to notice what you're doing until it's too late to stop it.

[Sarcastr0]

No - assuming a steadfast government plan will come to fruition over the next 15 years based on a proposed rule is hilariously optimistic.

[Don Nico]

First, 2035 is closer to 12 years away. The fraction of BEVs in Ca is already about ~20%. That sounds like well on the way. It is also true that if all the cars were BEVs in 2035, there is no way that CA will have enough generating capacity to fuel them. And there is zero indication that Sacramento is going to back down from its mandate.
You're just trying to weasel word to keep an argument with Brett going

[Sarcastr0]

Don, Ed is calling it 'End Cars.'

That's utterly unsupported.
And this thread is about the EPA rule, not California. No new goalposts.

You don't need to take the side of BrettDrama.

[Ben_]

Such a huge problem!!!! How will anyone overcome it?

Oh, they already are.

[Nige]

Yes, that seems sustainable.

[Nige]

You twerp.

'Many atoll islands have been subjected to the same engineering interventions observed along continental coasts, including land reclamation, shoreline armouring and island building. The human modification of island shorelines is widespread within populated atoll islands, as nations seek to protect urban infrastructure and create more land to accommodate internal migration and economic development (Duvat, 2020; Duvat and Magnan, 2019; Fallati et al., 2017). The active manipulation of island shorelines has been proposed, and in several cases implemented, as an adaptation option for atoll nations in the face of continued sea level rise (Esteban et al., 2019).'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing blog
with vanishingly thin academic veneer
has operated for no more than

THIRTEEN (13)

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

FORTY-ONE (41)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
41 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 41 racial slurs; many
of those discussions have
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the steady stream of gay-bashing,
misogynist, Islamophobic, antisemitic,
racist, transphobic, Palestinian-hating,
and immigrant-bashing 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.

("General admission" tickets (back of the floor) still seem to be available for most or all shows; they seem a sound selection unless cost is not a factor.)

[dwb68]

Headline: author/activist/founder of “Lead with Love” got lead, with love. He was shot in his 800k Beverly Hills apt, from a homeless CA woman. Now she’s being held on 3 million bail**.

Lead with Love was dedicated to “service, supporting influential women and artists of color and utilizing storytelling, art and more to spark lasting change and bring hope, love and inspiration to communities.”

I think the homeless CA woman brought hope and change to Beverly Hills. Also, an illegal gun. Too bad it wasn’t illegaler.

And the deceased was from a well-connected Hollywood family. I am sure that has nothing at all to do with the $3 million bail on a homeless woman, in a state that prides itself on letting the homeless go free…

Neighbors remain baffled how this could happen...

[Ben_]

"Neighbors remain baffled how this could happen…"

Clearly the fault of capitalism.

[bernard11]

I doubt an "800k Beverly Hills apt" is quite the luxurious dwelling you imagine.

And why exactly are you gloating over the murder of someone, just because you dislike some of their ideas?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There’s not even an element of irony here. The quoted excerpt doesn’t say anything about the victim being a Defund the Police activist, or what have you. Not that he’d deserve to die if he were.

RIP

[dwb68]

How entitled do you have to be to write “I doubt an ‘800k Beverly Hills apt’ is quite the luxurious dwelling you imagine.”?

Do you even realize what you wrote, or are you so snotty and spoiled that you actually think living in an 800k anything is beneath you?

Honestly, step back, dude. 400k is the median home price in the USA. ~800 is above the 75th percentile.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm more seeing the gloating followed by the high horse.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You do not seem to be processing information well, dwb68. Check your synapses.

[Absaroka]

I only found one Beverly Hills listingunder $800k. It's for a 918 sq ft apartment.

Check out the pictures. I don't know what kind of digs you or dwb68 live in, but ... that's not exactly living in the projects.

[shawn_dude]

No, the neighbors aren't baffled since it was a targeted attack--not random like you infer.

This is just like the wealthy CEO Bob Lee case in San Francisco that was used to claim the city was lawless. Except it turned out the attacker, himself a tech leader, killed Lee over a disagreement regarding the attacker's sister.

Also, the 900 block of Alendele Avenue in LA isn't within the boundaries of Beverly Hills. The closest edge of Beverly Hills is 9 blocks away. You might want to check your source and assumptions.

If people are going to use a tragedy to make a cheap political point, they could at least make some minimal effort to be accurate about it.

[OtisAH]

Cheap political points are useful precisely because they require very few resources.

[bernard11]

Do you even realize what you wrote, or are you so snotty and spoiled that you actually think living in an 800k anything is beneath you?

No.

Honestly, step back, dude. 400k is the median home price in the USA. ~800 is above the 75th percentile.

You step back. I wasn’t saying an $800K apartment anywhere was not luxurious. I was saying one in Beverly Hills isn’t.

Do you have any idea what homes cost there?

Here’s a clue.

In October the median listing had an asking price of $5.9M, the median sale was $2.8M.

The median price per square foot was $1300. At that price the palatial apartment you think the guy lived in was all of 1615 square feet.

[dwb68]

Tears being shed for all those grifting progressives forced to live in a 918sq ft apartment in Beverly Hills.

[bernard11]

I mistyped. It's 615 sq ft, not 1615, and not 918 either.

And what, other than blind hatred, makes you think the guy was a grifter.

A guy gets murdered, and all you can do is call him names and insult him. You're scum.

[dwb68]

I know its hard for you to imagine from your Manhattan penthouse, but for 800k you get a lot more house elsewhere, and you can the pocket the difference to donate to a good cause.

Heck he can get a huge 5 bedroom house outside CA and use 4 of the bedrooms to house all the homeless people he supposedly supports.

He’s a grifter because he uses his donations to live richly and selfishly with all the other affluent virtue-signalers in Beverly Hills, while not making a damn bit of difference, and his death was karma.

[bernard11]

Are you trying to score points in the running for Asshole of the Year award or something?

[Don Nico]

yes, he is.

[Nelson]

"for 800k you get a lot more house elsewhere"

Sure, if you want to live in the sticks. In cities, where lots of people want to live, demand drives prices up. A lot. Property value is a function of supply and demand.

"He’s a grifter because he uses his donations to live richly"

That's not how non-profits work. What you're describing is called embezzlement, and it's illegal.

Jobs in the non-profit sector are exactly like in the for-profit sector. You have a salary that you get paid for your work. Donations go directly to the nonprofit, not any of the workers.

You'll have to explain how getting paid to do a job is "grifting" if the job is for a non-profit, but not if it's for a for-profit company.

[shawn_dude]

This guy didn't live in Beverly Hills, though, so what are you going on about?!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Expelling George Santos will be a precedent that will come back to bite the Democrats -- he is the first Congressman who hadn't even been indicted let alone convicted of something and this precedent could be used by a Republican majority to remove a LOT of Democrats.

Anyone remember when the Dems eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations and had THAT to come back to bite them?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This case involves a Republican majority. Even a conservative half-wit -- or right-wing quarter-wit -- should recognize that.

I do not have a firm view with respect to how Santos should be handled. It is worth considering whether expulsion before conviction is prudent. The political advantage to Santos' continued House membership likely favors Democrats.

But Santos is a disgraceful loser (and the people who elected him and stand by him are pathetic losers, too). I hope that, if convicted, he is sentenced to at least a decade in prison and bankrupted by fines, restitution orders, etc. He should resign but seems not to possess nearly the self-awareness, character, or judgment that would incline a better person to do the right thing.

Blaming Democrats for this one, though, is remarkable stupidity even in the context of the flaming shitstorm the Volokh Conspiracy has become.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this before or after the coming Civil War 2?

[shawn_dude]

Remember when a Republican filed a motion to oust the Republican speaker of the House and it was the Democrats' fault? Here we go again...

[Estragon]

Say it to me SANTOS!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture if the Republican House ditches Santos -- no more Bowen Yang as Santos.

Well, probably. Mostly.

[shawn_dude]

Bowen can reprise his role as the iceberg. He's not going anywhere.

And Santos, he's not going to stop being whatever it is he is so I'm sure Bowen will have many opportunities to lampoon him in the future, assuming some new GOP idgit doesn't pop up to take Santos' place.

[Martinned]

he is the first Congressman who hadn’t even been indicted let alone convicted of something

O wow, won't you be surprised when you read more about the history of the US Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blount#Blount_Conspiracy

[Martinned]

This, from former White House staffer Tim Wu, seems like a fair take:

I'm no defender of George Santos, but the amount of time, effort and attention being spent on his expulsion is so typical of the way that Congress wastes time on meaningless performative undertakings, not unlike Santos himself

https://twitter.com/superwuster/status/1730618678767489077

[OtisAH]

The “performative undertaking” was removing a corrupt serial liar, which the NYT so bravely exposed a week or two *after* his election, from congress. If “American legal scholar” Tim Wu thinks that’s a meaningless, performative effort then Tim Wu needs a new line of work and/or can go get fucked.

[Don Nico]

"and/or can go get fucked."
Rendering everything else that you wrote as worthless.

[David Nieporent]

.

Expelling George Santos will be a precedent that will come back to bite the Democrats — he is the first Congressman who hadn’t even been indicted let alone convicted of something and this precedent could be used by a Republican majority to remove a LOT of Democrats.

No, it can't, you loon who spends all his days predicting murders and civil wars. It requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to expel someone.

[Drewski]

Santos was indicted in October, fool.

[Mr. Bumble]

How many times have the events of WWII, Korea and Vietnam be argued on these pages?
Has anyone's mind been changed?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you post to change people's mind?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Crowdsourcing attempt here:

There was a video I watched a while back (2015 maybe?) on Youtube. For the life of me I can’t find it, even after using multiple queries, toying with search settings and filters, trying the search on Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo, etc.

The video, which was a short clip of a longer talk showed Chief Justice Roberts answering a student’s question at the end of a lecture in a university hall.

It went something like this:

“Mr. Chief Justice, when BCRA was being passed there were members of Congress who expressed concerns about its constitutionality, but said they’d pass it and see if courts would uphold it. President Bush expressed similar reservations, but also said ‘We’ll let courts figure it out’. Do you think that is proper?”

Roberts, who has this very mild public persona responded with atypical fervor:

“No I don’t: They take the same oath that we do. They have the same obligation that we do. They commit at least the same infidelity that we would in failing to consider constitutionality. Our role in interpretation only arises because we have to determine how the law decides our cases; not because interpretation was ever made our special province.” (I think he then remarked that a good many things can’t even get into court.) He concluded: “If in passing an act, the Congress thinks it’s unconstitutional, then they shouldn’t pass it, and if in signing an act, the President thinks it’s unconstitutional, then he shouldn’t sign it.” He then thanked the student.

Most of that’s paraphrasing, but if I recall correctly, Roberts' first and last sentences are near verbatim.

Does anyone else recall seeing this/hearing it when he spoke at your law school? I’d appreciate you letting me know. It is neat that we have the chief justice on record insisting that legislators have an independent duty to interpret. I’d like to be able to cite it, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't recall that interview, but I sure as hell recall my disgust with Bush over that.

[ThePublius]

Does anyone here have an interest in Amateur Radio, a.k.a., Ham Radio?

I just got my license. I'm a retired electrical engineer, lifelong electronics hobbyist, and have always been interested in this. I wonder if it's really waning, as one would expect, with the advent of the internet, smart phones, and social media.

I find it fascinating, and I am drawn towards 'nostalgic,' vintage gear, radio history, and even Morse code.

Anyone?

[ducksalad]

Former WA4ALT, gave it up in the late 80s when school and work got to be too much.

The cool thing about Morse is that it’s actually not too bad compared to many modern encoding schemes in terms of efficiency. Not the best by any means but pretty good for something approaching 200 years old. And yet it still leaves a little room to express some feeling outside of the letters and symbols.

[ThePublius]

Very cool, thanks for the reply.

I studied for 6 days and sat for all three tests in one session: technician, general and amateur extra, and passed all three. I haven't been on the air yet, 'though I've collected some gear, assembled my electronics bench to refurb it, and have an antenna going up soon. I also bought a couple of keys, a CPO and a keyer. I'm going to start studying Morse soon, maybe even tonight. I have decided to use the Koch method for learning Morse. Wish me luck!

[ducksalad]

Good luck, Back then I had to hit 13 wpm to pass the General. It was way tougher than the technical exam, even though I hadn’t started EE school yet.

Only hint I’ll offer – when listening don’t try to get every letter. If you miss one, let it go and move on. If it’s plain text you can reverse engineer 90% of the missing letters later.

[ThePublius]

Thank you!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

My client, Kenneth Chesebro, will travel anywhere in the United States to tell the truth about what happened leading up to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

-- Kenneth Chesebro's lawyer, responding to a report that Chesebro is scheduled to travel to Nevada and Arizona soon to provide evidence related to prosecutions of fake elector schemers.

That vise tightening around John Eastman's un-American head must be displeasing some fringe-inhabiting law professors who are shitty judges of character and competence.

This calls for tune!

[Paladin_44]

Seems quite appropriate...

[shawn_dude]

Chesebro and Eastman are like ablative armor... they take the hit so the tank can keep moving towards its objective.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure the convictions (and disbarments, and testimony) of Chesebro and Eastman are going to advance the Trump cause?

[shawn_dude]

No, I think he sheds them like garbage and never looks back. I haven't seen any indication that conservative voters change their minds on Trump when new revelations from former Trump conspirators hit the news.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't care what Trump fans think.

I care about convicting Trump and his un-American co-conspirators.

[apedad]

State high court reverses William Shakespeare’s murder conviction, orders new trial

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday tossed the murder conviction of a man named William Shakespeare and ordered a new trial.

Prosecutors with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office argued at trial that Shakespeare shot 31-year-old Marcus Hall to death after an argument shortly before 12:30 p.m. on June 14, 2016. Barbers said they heard a shouting match between the two, followed by gunshots.

Shakespeare’s attorneys pointed to another man — Mark Edwards — as the shooter.

Edwards testified before the grand jury, which led to Shakespeare’s indictment that he had been at the barbershop between 9 and 9:30 that day. But that was proved to be false by surveillance video from the barbershop, which showed he was in the back of the shop at the time of the shooting. Shakespeare’s attorneys never had a chance to confront Edwards about the contradiction at trial because he was murdered in 2017. The trial judge did not allow Edwards’ testimony to be presented at trial, citing hearsay.

Though the high court said prosecutors had sufficient evidence to prove Shakespeare’s guilt, it argued that when presented with this testimony, it could give a jury reasonable doubt about Shakespeare’s guilt. The testimony can be admitted on the retrial, it said. It can never be known why Edwards told the grand jury he was at the barbershop hours earlier, the high court noted.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/state-high-court-reverses-william-shakespeares-murder-conviction-orders-new-trial/

This seems correct in that the testimony is not accusing the defendant of anything and therefore the 6A right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him," does not kick in.

[ThePublius]

I'm sure you're aware that Desantis and Newsom debated last night. In what fantasy world does Newsom reside?

CLAIM: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) says crime hit “50-year lows” in California, despite higher crime rates than the national average.

CLAIM: California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said more Floridians have moved to California in the past two years than vice versa.

And so on....

[Martinned]

CLAIM: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) says crime hit “50-year lows” in California, despite higher crime rates than the national average.

Is the second half of what you wrote there supposed to rebut Newsom's claim?

[ThePublius]

No, two claims he made that are patently false.

[Martinned]

Are they? https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/#:~:text=Property%20crime%20and%20violent%20crime%20appear%20to%20be%20trending%20up%20in%202022%20but%20rates%20remain%20relatively%20low

[Sarcastr0]

Patently false? Not obvious to me. I wouldn't bet on Newsom's honesty, but do your homework, dude.

[shawn_dude]

Crime can be at a 50-year low within California while still having a higher crime rate than the national average. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. That's just basic math. Further, Hannity's slides omitted murder rates because (surprise!) the rate in Florida is higher than in California.

Newsom's comment about murder rates in Florida was accurate. According to the CDC, Florida homicides were 7.4 per 100K and California was 6.4. The national average is 7.8.

Net migration between California and Florida is roughly 13K to Florida per year. There are nearly 40 million Californians with 28K moving to Florida equaling .00093 of the population. Florida has nearly 22 million residents and it's losing .00127 of its population to California. Net migration is a .00032 loss for California. Per capita, Florida is losing slightly more residents to California; it's just that the Golden state has close to double the population that pushes net migration to Florida's favor.

OTOH... all those Californians moving to Florida are going to have a bigger impact than the reverse on local politics.

[ThePublius]

Biden gaslighting on inflation, and blaming prices on corporate greed:

“Let me be clear: To any corporation that has not brought their prices back down — even as inflation has come down, even supply chains have been rebuilt — it’s time to stop the price gouging — giving the American consumer a break,” Biden said.

First, inflation is nowhere near what it was when he took office. And, prices are at the discretion of the manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer. (For the record, I completely reject the notion of gouging, and regulation and law against charging what you want for your stuff and your labor.)

I wonder if this line was fed to him, or if her really believes it.

[Martinned]

That's your objection to that statement??? I would have thought that the bigger problem is that apparently among the 15 people who worked on drafting that statement there isn't a single one who understand the difference between inflation coming down and prices falling.

[Martinned]

inflation is nowhere near what it was when he took office

Technically true is the best kind of true...

US CPI:
- January 2021: 1.4%
- April 2021: 4.2%
- June 2022 (max): 9.1%
- October 2023: 3.2%

[Martinned]

prices are at the discretion of the manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer

Is Biden saying otherwise?

[ThePublius]

When he uses the term "price gouging," given many laws and regulations against 'demand pricing,' he is implying it's immoral and illegal.

[Sarcastr0]

So not quite gaslighting as not agreeing with your assumption that corporations can't be doing anything bad if no one is taking them to court right this instant.

[ThePublius]

The gaslighting referred to his comment on inflation - and the B.S. narrative the WH has been promulgating about Bidenomics. This has even appearing in some media outlets (wonder of wonders) - that people just don't understand the economy, and no one is giving Biden credit for the miracle he's wrought.

The truth is, the economy sucks since he took office, because he took office, and inflation, real inflation, is much worse than the WH reports.

[Martinned]

Oohhh.. "real" inflation. Tell me Publius, is that real inflation in the room with you right now?

In the world that the rest of us can see, the US economy is growing like gangbusters and inflation is rapidly coming back to the 2% target.

[ThePublius]

Note that inflation is a rate. The first derivative, if you will. Prices are still up - the zeroth derivative - and wages/income isn't. Food prices are probably up 30% in the last 3 years. Gas is still up almost as much.

[Martinned]

That in no way backs up your claim that "inflation, is much worse than the WH reports."

[bernard11]

Food prices are probably up 30% in the last 3 years.

Why bother to check when you can throw out a number?

From Oct 2020 to Oct 2023 food prices rose by 20.7%.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, if you slavishly punch in "3 years" and snip off the initial Q2 inflationary surge from the COVID free-money orgy, you do drop a few percentage points. Is that supposed to make Joe Consumer feel better?

[Martinned]

You think Joe Consumer should blame Biden for things done by the Trump administration?

[Life of Brian]

Blame? The only relevance Biden has to this thread that I can see is that he (or whichever handler it really was that crafted the tweet) made the grade-school and fully unforced error of conflating disinflation with deflation.

[shawn_dude]

Uh, this undercuts your statement that there isn't price gouging. If prices are up and wages, which generally represent the highest cost for most goods, aren't, then that could support Biden's claims.

Given Martinned's inconvenient inflation numbers, the different between Biden's first quarter year as president and the last is just 1%. 4.2% and 3.2% are "no where near" each other?! And it's lower now than it was then.

[Sarcastr0]

'Biden is gaslighting us by using the generally accepted numbers and not the REAL numbers!'

It's amusing you post this kind of parallel universe stuff thinking it will be taken seriously by other people.

[OtisAH]

Another dipshit who *still* has no idea how to apply the term “gaslighting.”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's enough to make one wax wroth!

[Mr. Bumble]

Henry Kissinger is still dead.

[Martinned]

So are Shane MacGowan and Alistair Darling.

[ThePublius]

And Franco is still dead.

[Mr. Bumble]

OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT...

[John F. Carr]

No doubt people are lining up to drive stakes into him to make sure.

[Martinned]

I would always prefer someone like Kissinger who did what he truly believed was right over the latest generation of populists who don't even pretend to care about doing the right thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The checkout line seems busy.

Henry Kissinger, Sandra Day O'Connor, George Santos, Mike Johnson's reputation, Ron DeSantis' campaign, medium- to long-term prospects for American subsidization of Israel . . .

Things are looking up for UCLA, though.

[Don Nico]

I agree with you on that score, Martin. It is almost the essence of Realpolitiek

[ThePublius]

(Wouldn't it be cool to have not just Monday and Thursday Open Threads, but a continuous open thread? And one where you could collapse threads to just the initial comment, i.e., collapse replies, and search by date, author, keywords, etc.?)

What should be the limits of government? I don't recall granting the Federal government the right, power, authority to regulate what fuels we use, how we heat our houses, the extreme, overt management and manipulation of money, what we charge for our goods, what pronouns we use, and so on. It has truly become totalitarian.

How can it ever be reeled in, save by revolution?

[Martinned]

I don’t recall granting the Federal government the right, power, authority to regulate what fuels we use, how we heat our houses, the extreme, overt management and manipulation of money, what we charge for our goods, what pronouns we use, and so on.

Out of curiosity, which powers *do* you remember granting to the Federal government?

[ThePublius]

See the constitution.

[Martinned]

Did you sign your name under it? Because it sure sounded like you were claiming you did.

[ThePublius]

You're just being a troll now. Cut it out. Say something substantive.

[Sarcastr0]

'No one gave me a personal invitation to modernity!' posts a man who makes up his own economic numbers to stay mad, as he complains of tyranny while living in comfort unimaginable when he was born.

[ThePublius]

I confess I'm not following that, even though I can only assume it's directed at me.

[Don Nico]

He does it all the time to have something to argue about.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you implying Publius had a substantive argument in his call to revolution above?

Or are you just taking his side outta cussedness?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we're just trying to figure out how everything we dislike and you like ends up being "modernity". Like, if the federal government were deprived of the power to micromanage intra-state economic transactions, wham, the stars would reverse their courses and it would be the 1700's again.

Seriously, has it ever entered your mind that people can think a change was a mistake, and undoing it would constitute progress?

[apedad]

You mean like same sex marriage?

[Sarcastr0]

if the federal government were deprived of the power to micromanage intra-state economic transactions, wham, the stars would reverse their courses and it would be the 1700’s again.

Every country this side of Somalia has a government that regulates internal commerce.
Mere reactionary small government because 'tyranny!' is ideology, and does not give a lot of purchase to anyone else.
See, too, 17A chat.

[Don Nico]

No, I am commenting that you made up a comment to attribute to him for the sake of argument. You shouldn't do that.

[Sarcastr0]

If people want to buck my paraphrase, they are free to.

It's surprisingly rare that people do.

[Don Nico]

Paraphrase, hell no. It is building new goalposts and moving them immediately.

[Sarcastr0]

TP takes issue with the modern state. As he lives in the comforts it has provided.

I called him out. Many others did on the exact same point.

You, speaking for him, take issue with how I called him out. Acting like " is the same as '.

I know you're not so simple minded you can't grasp the connection between his knee-jerk libertarianism and modernity. So I think you are just being contrary.

It's not a very amusing gimmick.

[Martinned]

Now there's a nice example of gaslighting...

[apedad]

"I don’t recall granting the Federal government the right, power, authority to regulate . . . . "

You don't vote?

Because if you did I (Charles Barkley voice) GUUUAAAAARRRRANNTEEEE you voted for someone who wanted to regulate something.

[shawn_dude]

Assuming he votes, he almost certainly voted for someone who wants to force people to use specific pronouns according to his own moral preferences and who would strip certain subjects out of public schools because they disagree with his opinions--and do all of that under the guise of "freedom."

"I don’t recall granting the Federal government the right, power, authority to regulate what fuels we use, how we heat our houses, the extreme, overt management and manipulation of money, what we charge for our goods, what pronouns we use, and so on."

[ThePublius]

That's a very odd, extreme leap, extrapolation, based on what I said! I put that in the category of ad hominem.

[shawn_dude]

The leap is I assume you vote for Republicans. Republicans are in favor of prohibiting choice in use of pronouns, banning books, restricting non-adult performances by drag queens, etc. Just pointing out your obvious hypocrisy.

[Don Nico]

I am glad to see that Israel has resumed offensive operations against Hamas. The longer the ceasefire continued, the more difficult it would be to resume as Hamas–aided by the SWJ left in the US, UK and EU–has all but won the propaganda battle.
Sympathy, which was with Israel until Jews fought back, seems clearly on the side of protecting Hamas and it terror infrastructure. Media love to show photos of rubble and crying Palestinian women with every story. Those pictures carry the Hamas message.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am glad the day at which I no longer will be asked to subsidize Israel’s right-wing belligerence is getting closer.

Israel’s conservatives seem too stupid (or angry) to recognize that they may be bombing Israel’s gravesite into readiness.

That Israelis would want to provoke America to withdraw the political, economic, and military skirts behind which Israel has operated for decades seems inexplicable, but it’s their call — and their funeral.

(Related: Should one wear black, or gray, to that funeral?)

[Sarcastr0]

'the SWJ left.'

Woke is the current right-wing target; SJW is so 4 years ago.

Second, you continue to ignore the antisemitism on the right. Which does not do favors to your credibility.

Israel until Jews fought back
Switching from Israel to Jews is not something you can freely do in good faith. I know plenty of Jews who don't agree with Israel's prosecution of this conflict, nor it's government, nor it's rhetoric. A couple are even Israeli.

I'd check out some opinion scores before you despair at sympathy being on Hamas' side.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/545045/americans-back-israel-military-action-gaza.aspx
And that's even buying your shitty 'zgree with everything Israel does or you love Hamas' framing.

[Martinned]

Some Israelis even write very loud articles about it: https://prismreports.org/2023/11/30/why-i-am-renouncing-my-israeli-citizenship/

[Don Nico]

I'd say, "good riddance."

[ThePublius]

Antisemitism on the right is vanishingly small compared to the loud, large antisemitism on the left, on clear, unabashed display all over, at universities, cities, and so on. And, I assume you are referring to neo-Nazis - about which, I am compelled to remind to, is a phenomenon of the left; Nazism, communism, fascism - all phenomena of the left.

Tell me about right wing antisemitism.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out Tucker Carlson. Or Elon Musk. Or Charlie Kirk. All with recent quotes about those nasty Jews and their $$$

Not twitter randos; antisemitism is mainstream in right wing thought-leaders.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspirators -- and their deplorable fans -- exhibit a highly partisan approach to bigotry, censorship, and everything else. These assholes wouldn't recognize a principle if they tripped over it on their way to a Klan book-burning.

[shawn_dude]

Socialism, Communism, Marxism… all left wing. Correct. Nazism, despite them claiming the term “socialist,” are fascist and fascists are right-wing.

Oxford: “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. ”

Or, there’s this dude at Yale who gets paid to think a lot about these things and has a professional take on it.”

[Don Nico]

"woke" and SJW antiSemitism are two different things. Don't confuse them. I don't.
Was it rightists that shut down the Manhattan bridge? No. I don't see rightists in the US, UK or EU clamoring for a ceasefire or true. If you do, give some examples.Not doing so does no favors to your credibility.
"I’d check out some opinion scores ..,"
I only need to visit my local campuses in Cambridge. I only need to read comments about the Administration pressuring Israel about the conduct of operations. You are just loaded with disinformation about this topic.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't really find either woke or SJW is well defined.

Your myopia about what antisemitism looks like is telling.

So is discarding statistics in favor of your chosen anecdotes. You seem to want to be losing this opinion war for some reason.

the Administration pressuring Israel about the conduct of operations
Can you think of any other reasons why this would be coming up other than the Admin throwing in with Hamas?

You are just loaded with disinformation about this topic.
What that I said is disinformation? Not even your nonsense here actually mentions anything I say as disinformation.

That word is not a magic one. You have an chose view you really really like and you are really not happy with any kind of pushback.

[Don Nico]

“Your myopia ” My myopia? You are willfully blind to it as a de facto phenomenon. I don’t know why, but you are. ” the Admin throwing in with Hamas?” thee you go again with your dishonest distortion of what people say. The Administration is pressured by the potential loss of many of Mr Biden’s base voters. He is moving the goalposts as you like to say. BUT that does not mean–and I did not say–that Biden has thrown in with Hamas.
Your game is not pushback; it is lying.

[Sarcastr0]

I call out the left and the right. You, on the other hand, are tilted and only see to the left.

Not a great plan in the long term.

You: "Sympathy, which was with Israel until Jews fought back, seems clearly on the side of protecting Hamas"
Your proof in the face of the opinion polls: "I only need to read comments about the Administration pressuring Israel about the conduct of operations."

You are saying the Administration is on the side of protecting Hamas. Don't walk away from that shit and pretend you never said it; own it or apologize.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You probably will never understand why better Americans stop subsidizing Israel.

Just as you can't stand all of this damned progress in America.

Losing a culture war will continue to have consequences -- for our homegrown clingers and for Israel's parasitic right-wing belligerents.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Sympathy, which was with Israel until Jews fought back"

No wonder you don't post under your real name. Who would want such stupidity associated with their professional life?

Sympathy was and still is with Israel. Where it is not, is with Israeli tactics of bombing refugee camps and showing general disregard for the lives of anyone who isn't a Jew. Israel could prosecute this war with far fewer civilian deaths. They have deliberately chosen not to, because Palestinians simply don't matter to them.

That is why Israel is losing support across the globe, not because they decided to fight back, but because of how they have decided to fight back.

[David Nieporent]

.

Israel could prosecute this war with far fewer civilian deaths.

Joe_Dallas is a fake epidemiologist, but fortunately Jason Cavanaugh is a real military strategist.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Tell me David:

Was Israel required to bomb a refugee camp in order to kill a target while surrounded by civilians? Could they have chosen not to? Could they have waited until he was somewhere else? Could they have used a more precise munition? Could they have sent in Commandos or Special Forces? You can argue whether any of those alternatives are 'right' or not, but you can't argue that most or all of them would've reduced civilian deaths. Extrapolate that across the current war and how many fewer civilians might die?

Could they be more restrictive on their acceptable collateral damage counts? Could they use a ground campaign instead of aerial bombing?

These things would reduce civilian deaths substantially. Come up with an actual argument next time.

[ThePublius]

Well, Hamas not deciding to plan an operation for over a year to enter Israel and slaughter, defile, and rape Israelis could have reduced casualties, too.

Was Hamas required to do this?
Could they have waited until it was just IDF targets?
Could they have used a more precise munition or manner of attack, agains IDF forces?
Could they have sent in Commandos or Special Forces?

Why don't you comment on that?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hamas sucks.

Israel sucks.

So far as I am aware, I am subsidizing just one of those two deplorable groups -- the one engaging in right-wing belligerence.

Every Israeli bomb in Gaza (and every settlement advance or incidence of settler violence in the West Bank) is a step toward the day at which I will not longer be asked to subsidize Israel's right-wing religious kooks.

[shawn_dude]

We shouldn't expect more from a stable, democratic all--that we fund--than we do a terrorist organization?

[Don Nico]

We can, we should, and we already do.
When Gaza city is now built on Swiss cheese, why do you think that the terror infrastructure can be destroyed without serious damage to what is on top.

[David Nieporent]

"Israel could prosecute this war with far fewer civilian deaths." vs. "Israel could lessen civilian deaths by not prosecuting this war."

Your statement is the equivalent of "The police didn't have to kill him. Couldn't they have shot the gun out of his hand?"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sigh. You're usually better than this.

No, that is not an equivalent analogy, because "shooting the gun out of someone's hand" is virtually never an appropriate choice. All of the options I listed are valid in many different scenarios.

You also completely ignored what I would argue are the two most important choices Israel could make which would reduce civilian deaths.

I'm not saying they're going to accomplish the impossible and kill zero civilians, but they absolutely could - and should - choose to do better.

[OtisAH]

The better question is whether Israel was required to bomb the same refugee camp one day after claiming to have met its objective with the previous day’s bombing of the refugee camp.

[Joe_dallas]

Why is it being called a refugee camp ?
is it really a refugee camp?
A refugee camp since 1947?

[Martinned]

Why does that matter? Is bombing old refugee camps OK but not new ones?

[Don Nico]

It matters only with respect with the press swallowing the propaganda language of Hamas. Remember those are the guys who divert $300M each year from Qatar to fund a terror machine rather than improve the lives of gazans i the "refugee camp."

[David Nieporent]

.

is it really a refugee camp?

It is not. It is the special Palestinian definition of refugee/refugee camp, which — uniquely among all other peoples of the world — is a permanent status. What Palestinians call "refugee camps" are for everyone else called "villages." These are not a bunch of tents in the desert where people temporarily reside because they just fled the current fighting. These are permanent homes for permanent residents, and this guy was in a building there.

[ThePublius]

"Israeli tactics of bombing refugee camps and showing general disregard for the lives of anyone who isn’t a Jew."

That's total horseshit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The refugee camp bombing part was reported by reliable sources, as I recall. Do you contend those reports were mistaken?

[Joe_dallas]

how old is that "refugee Camp" ?

From which war? 1947 ?

[shawn_dude]

It's almost as if Israel isn't made up of Jews, Arabs, and other races/religions.

[ThePublius]

I hope that Israel continues this offensive, and completely eradicates Hamas from Gaza. In doing so, if innocents perish it's a shame, but so be it. And then I hope they pursue a policy of de-Hamasification in Gaza and all of Israel, as the Allies did in Germany post WWII. It will take decades, but it's the only way.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That "so be it" attitude will be a substantial precipitate of better Americans' decision to stop subsidizing Israel's violent, immoral, superstition-drenched right-wing belligerence.

When Israel's genuine supporters are begging for reconsideration, groveling for resumption of American taxpayer-provided military, political, and economic skirts for Israel to operate behind, I expect to recall -- and repeat -- that "so be it" attitude.

[JasonT20]

I hope that Israel continues this offensive, and completely eradicates Hamas from Gaza. In doing so, if innocents perish it’s a shame, but so be it.

Yeah. I can see how much it pains you.

[apedad]

Philadelphia bans ski masks: ‘No discernible public or private good’

Philadelphia on Thursday banned ski masks and other facial coverings in the city on the grounds that most crime there has been committed by suspects wearing them.

The vote passed 13-2 despite some opposition, per FOX 29.

"We must send a message that masks are of no discernible public or private good when they just create fear and anxiety," Councilmember Anthony Phillips said.

The new law prohibits people from wearing ski masks in parks, schools, or on public transportation. Those caught wearing a ski mask risk a $250 fine — $2,000 if committing a crime.

The law allows some exceptions for religious purposes.

It has seen broad support from law enforcement. Opponents, such as the ACLU, have argued that it could violate free expression rights and unfairly target youths.

The bill now goes to Mayor James Kenney’s desk for his signature.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/philadelphia-bans-ski-masks-no-discernible-public-private-good

Prof. Bernstein reminded us in October that Virginia also has a law prohibiting the wearing of face coverings in public.

"It shall be unlawful for any person over 16 years of age to, with the intent to conceal his identity, wear any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing." Virginia statutes § 18.2-422.

Still can't see how this is constitutional.

[SimonP]

As a winter cyclist commuter, ski masks and balaclavas have been key parts of my kit for years. It would suck to have to stop using them, lest I give the cops some pretextual reason to pull me over.

It's bizarre that it's an offense even if you're not committing a crime. What a shitty law.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know, it's just a perfectly ordinary anti-Klan act; Were those ever declared unconstitutional?

[shawn_dude]

Reminds of the UK angst over hoodies or the recent Red State angst over male drag queens wearing dresses.

[ThePublius]

I also can't see how it's constitutional. Wow.

[Life of Brian]

As is traditional, the red-meat, clickbait headline grossly misrepresents the actual legislation, which merely added "ski mask" and "balaclava" to an already-existing law that's chock-full of mental state requirements:

"No person shall, with the specific intent to intimidate or threaten another person, or with the specific intent to hide one's identity during the commission of unlawful activity, wear a mask, hood, ski mask, balaclava, or other device or means of hiding, concealing or covering any any portion of the face for the purpose of concealing their identity on public property or private property."

[apedad]

HOUSE EXPELS GEORGE SANTOS IN HISTORIC VOTE

The House voted Friday to expel Rep. George Santos, ending the New York Republican’s tumultuous tenure in Congress and officially etching his name in the history books as the sixth lawmaker ever to be ousted from the lower chamber.

The extraordinary move, unseen in 20 years, took three attempts over six months and required support from large numbers in both parties to meet the inflated threshold — two-thirds of the chamber — for expelling a sitting member. The final tally, 311-114-2, surpassed that mark, with 105 Republicans joining almost all Democrats to remove the scandal-plagued Santos after just 11 months in office.

~~~~~

I guess the one thing that's troublesome is that has not yet been convicted of the alleged crimes.

He WILL be convicted but it just has not yet happened.

[Martinned]

I guess the one thing that’s troublesome is that has not yet been convicted of the alleged crimes.

I’m not sure he even committed any serious crimes, but I’m sure it will be helpful that no one in the GOP has any reason to slow down any prosecution anymore.

[OtisAH]

Please to be defining what you consider “serious crimes” in this context.

[Martinned]

Pass. Everything I know about George Santos I know from SNL, and I'd like to keep it that way.

[Don Nico]

Bravo!!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Inflated" threshold? Seriously, would you want expelling members to be as simple as a majority vote? I certainly wouldn't.

[apedad]

That’s from The Hill story and I forgot to add quotes or the link.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4337205-house-expels-george-santos/

My comment is below the ~~~~~.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, when can we expect to see the Senate expel R, Menedez so that smilin' Phil Murphy can appoint his wife to the seat?

[OtisAH]

Dunno, ask them.

[Martinned]

I shouldn't think there are a lot of people outside of New Jersey who oppose expelling Menendez.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/fetterman-demands-sen-menendez-expelled-from-senate-view-senator-egypt-not-new-jersey

[OtisAH]

I’m not troubled by that at all. The evidence is so clear against him that even the MAGA-led House Ethics Committee had to read him for filth and recommend expulsion. As you say, he *will* be convicted. Good riddance to bad garbage.

[Martinned]

.

[not guilty]

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has opined that Donald Trump is not entitled (at the pleading stage) to absolute immunity from civil suit for damages for his conduct in regard to the January 6, 2021 breach of the Capitol. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A3464AEB2C1CB89985258A7800537E73/$file/22-5069-2029472.pdf

The Court opined:

When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act. The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about
who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office
is not an official act of the office.

(Slip op., 4.) This decision should be dispositive of Trump's claim that the official act immunity from civil suits recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), should be extended to the criminal proceedings against him in D.C. I expect that Judge Chutkan will rule on that issue quickly.

[not guilty]

Judge Chutkan did not waste any time. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.171.0.pdf Her opinion is tight as a drum.

Donald Trump likely will seek interlocutory review of today's District Court order. The Court of Appeals opinion in Blassingame should enable that Court to address such an appeal in short order. Briefing can be completed in days rather than weeks, and the appellate court need not tarry long once the case is submitted.

[Don Nico]

Again, thank you, ng, for the neutral and informatory comment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No skin off my nose, I don't wish to vote for either of these clowns.

But it's a curious, and convenient, definition that a member of a duopoly party can't be a moderate if he prefers his own party's nominee to the other party's.

The answer is of, course to be nonbinary - politically, that is - and stop reflexively voting for a party. But this concern-trolling is about avowed members of a major party, saying they should remain party members in good standing while voting for the other major party.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Who would be an example of a moderate Democrat, and who would be a Democratic extremist?

[Joe_dallas]

200k vs 1m-2m -

Take your pick
As a detailed above, total lives saved was in the range of 2m-3m plus the prevention of the enslavement by the soviets of south korea and the northern japanese islands from the perils of communism.

Big picture

[Joe_dallas]

Jim -T"he atomic bombs saved lives. Anybody who says otherwise is pushing an agenda."

Looks like someone didnt understand your statement

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen read up on operation downfall, olympic, coronet, the islands of Kyushu, Honshu, etc , the Russian invasion of manchuria, the kuril islands.

Read up on the food shortages that existed in Japan in the summer and fall of 1945, and continuing during the winter of 1946.

As others have stated, the 2m+ is in the very low range of the estimated deaths without the use of the atomic bombs. There is more than ample documentation.

[apedad]

I only eat the flats and it's a hill I'm willing to die on so bring it on!

[TwelveInchPianist]

What's the strawman?

[Commenter_XY]

I don't get it either. My attitude is make the time to get the pronunciation right; it is respect.

[Nige]

Biden's a moderate, and there are no Democratic extremists, not compared to Republicans, who include actual Qanon believers and assorted criminally accused.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's exactly what someone in on the conspiracy would ask!

[John F. Carr]

A woman from Punjab lives in my neighborhood. I don't think she's a Sikh. She's from the region where Sikhs live. I will try to get her opinion.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My attitude is make the time to get the pronunciation right; it is respect.

Says the clinger who uses a derogatory term with respect to transgender people roughly as frequently as Prof. Volokh launches a racial slur.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Respect being such an important issue for you that you go around calling transgender people "trannies."

Let's not forget your general dehumanization of anyone who lives in Palestine.

:rolleyes:

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 9 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User “This is stupid. You’re guessing at what might have happened and presenting it as a fact outweighing what did happen which was thousands upon thousands of kids and women murdered.”

Queen – what is stupid is the shallowness of your understanding of the entire picture. go back and read everything I have said on this thread on this subject along with reading the historical research on the topic, – making of the atomic bomb or Downfall by Frank, Numerous other good historical works on the topic. Read and understand the post WW2 history of germany and japan.

two major points you repetitively fail to grasp 1) It saved 2m-3m lives 2) the result are substantial change in the culture of the two countries which resulted in peace for 75+ years

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 4 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
You’re still being stupid. You cannot prove a hypothetical, that 2-3 million lives were saved. We don’t know what would have happened absent the bombs being dropped. We can only *guess.*

Queen - you are demonstrating your complete ignorance on the subject - I have provided you with numerous well document historical books on the ending of WW2. Calling others stupid due to your ignorance shows you have no interest in becoming educated on the topic. Unfortunately it is quite typical of your behavour.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re still being stupid. You cannot prove a hypothetical, that 2-3 million lives were saved. We don’t know what would have happened absent the bombs being dropped. We can only *guess.*"

Well, the firebombing of Tokyo killed about as many people as each bomb, and was similar in nature. It seems a reasonable assumption that the bombings prevented a few events like that, so right there you have a wash.

[Brett Bellmore]

NRA, fearing gun registry, joins ACLU in opposing NSA phone records sweep

"Leaders of the National Rifle Association plan to press members of Congress in the coming weeks to block the National Security Agency’s controversial program to collect records of Americans’ phone calls, arguing that the surveillance efforts can be used as a “backdoor” to construct a national gun registry.

“We will be up there and we will be making our feelings known,” David Keene, a member of the NRA’s executive board who served until this spring as the group’s president, told NBC News. “Our members are concerned about this. This metadata can be used to construct a list” of every gun owner.

Keene’s comments signaled a new determination by the gun lobby to take up opposition to the NSA surveillance efforts as a political cause, joining with civil liberties groups and others on the left who have been lobbying against the program for months, and potentially complicating the Obama administration’s efforts to preserve the phone surveillance program. "

I was, along with the NRA, opposed to that legislative atrocity.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, friend to the friendless Hamas...sticking around like a case of long covid. Really Jason, are you that hard up for the 50 cents?

[Jacob Grimes]

The rules of war have almost always been based upon reciprocity because abiding by them comes at the cost of military advantage. It makes no sense not to follow the same rules set by your enemy.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm sorry, we're talking about respect, and your use of slurs while pretending that you care about respect.

I'm not sure why you'd want to change the subject from your prolific use of slurs to your equally embarrassing mental midget claims that anyone who doesn't support the mass-murder of Palestinians is somehow a supporter of Hamas.

What does the Torah say about using slurs? Anything in there about respect? I'd say that your parents and your religion failed you, but in reality it is overwhelmingly clear that it's you who has failed them.

I will give you credit for consistency though. You pretend to care about respect while intentionally using slurs, just like you pretend to care about anti-Semitism while deliberately trying to promote it.

You're a disgrace to your people.

Back on topic now, if you're capable.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"there are no Democratic extremists, not compared to Republicans"

That's more in line with the response I expected.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Goofy” is not the right word for Trump’s T-giving message. You didn't mean it but you are playing along with the glad-handling the media too often does when it describes Trump's behavior.

Better words are: immature, disgusting, small-minded, hateful, ignorant, divisive, undignified, reprehensible.

[jimc5499]

Pretty good chance that one of those lives saved was my Father's.

[Nige]

That's because it's blitheringly obvious.

[shawn_dude]

You're welcome to nominate and explain who in the Dems is an extremist. Generally, the Dems are pretty tame. Left-wing violent extremists tend to form their own parties or groups and anarchists are generally not fond of political parties at all. Bernie Sanders is likely the most political extreme we have, and like Trump, he's a populist. Otherwise, to move to the extreme left of our political spectrum, you have to jump from the Dems to the Greens and their platform is predictably nerdy and boring. They're for overturning our energy grid and not our democracy, for example.

But by all means, who in the Democratic party is advocating for extremist positions akin to insurrections, "Second Amendment solutions," calls to suppress the free press, etc?

[Nelson]

"That’s more in line with the response I expected."

That's because it's Nige. Unapologetic fringe Democrats/progressives are as deluded as unapologetic fringe Republicans/conservatives.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most of our vestial bigots have learned to try to hide their bigotry, recognizing that open bigotry is no longer welcome in modern America. They hold their tongues and try to hide behind euphemisms ("traditional values," "conservative values," "religious values") in public, expressing their genuine opinions solely in what they perceive to be safe spaces (private homes, online message boards, Republican committee meetings, etc.).

Some, however, -- such as Commenter_XY and Prof. Volokh -- do not attempt to mask their bigotry. I sense this is because they are particularly cranky about all of this damned progress, reason, science, and inclusiveness and recognize that they have lost the culture war and are going to continue to see their stale, ugly conservative preferences rejected by modern, mainstream America.

So they flash their slurs and bigoted beliefs like gang signals (for their co-clingers) and middle fingers (aimed at the mainstream).

How these losers wish to spend the time they have remaining until replacement is their call, of course.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit.

[Kazinski]

You left out the best part "watered by the blood of tyrants".

https://x.com/GrrrGraphics/status/1171437243824656385?s=20

[Sarcastr0]

Not gonna click but LOL if you posted a Garrison comic unironically.

[shawn_dude]

And anyone who, knowing all of this, would vote for him anyway.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No one claims everyone who read one of Trump’s tweets was in on a conspiracy. But, any some of them might have been."

It sure sounds like DN was claiming that.

"Consider an investigation of Tony Soprano for the murder of Big Pussy. It’s thought he talked to other conspirators on the phone. You ask for his phone records. Does “oh, so anyone who Tony talked to must be a conspirator” make any sense?"

No. That's the point of my comment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Dear Lord, your media exposure seems fairly limited. I’ll leave it to the Republicans here to post the necessary links about the 2020 riots, Maxine Waters and the Chauvin trial, the attempted disruption of the Kavanaugh nomination, Hamas sympathizers, and all the rest.

If I posted all the links you’d say I had it in for the Democrats, and that I thought they were uniquely evil, as opposed to the real situation, which is they’re driving the ship of state a little faster than the Reps, but in the same direction – toward disaster.

[shawn_dude]

2020 riots: police reform related to higher death rates for Black Americans. That's "extreme?" You're balancing that against an attempt to overturn our government and saying it's worse?!

Kavanaugh nomination: You think basic political opposition and asking tough questions of someone accused of sexual assault is, again, extremism?! Confrontational, sure, but it's not extreme. It's how our system is designed to work.

Hamas sympathizers: While I'm sure there are a small number of idiots that support terrorists, the Right defines "Hamas sympathizer" as anyone with empathy for Palestinian civilians and "Hamas member" as anyone who was born Palestinian.

You gotta define left-wing Democratic extremism better than Americans angry with racist, murdering cops, sexual abusers seeking the highest positions of political power, and strawmen terrorist sympathizers. All you've done here is post a bunch of rehashed FOX news boogeymen like that somehow is meaningful in comparison to trying to stage a coup or provide support to those who did.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

All these things were discussed in Reason and Volokh. Including the Hamas sympathizers, the riots, etc.

[shawn_dude]

Exactly. Which is why I'm confused as to why you thought these things represent extremism in the Democratic party? At best this is an attempt at false equivalence. Yet you deflect when called on it.

[shawn_dude]

Flats have a higher sauce/skin to meat ratio and they're easier to eat in one bite. (no nibbling!)

https://youtube.com/shorts/re-P31zrYVg?si=pLIBuoQvADkZVsMk

[John F. Carr]

She says English is spoken little in Punjab. In English, "seek" is fine. In Punjabi, the singular is "sick" and the plural is "seek". She insisted there was a difference between kh and k. I could not hear it. The sound was not as conspicuously different from k as the sounds of Hebrew and Russian that are transliterated kh.