Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Six people who falsely claimed to be presidential electors have just been indicted and charged with multiple felonies in Nevada. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24193655/c-23-379122-3-indictment-ind-crm.pdf This is I think the third state where fake electors are facing criminal charges.

It's about damn time.

[Mr. Bumble]

"It’s about damn time."
Sure it is. Three years after the election and a year before the next election.

[not guilty]

As I understand it, the applicable statute of limitations would have expired next week. As the theme from Baretta went, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. (Showing my age here.)

Keep your eye on the sparrow.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

"Don't roll the dice if you can't pay the price."

[Jerry B.]

"...and a year before the next election."

All part of the plan.

[Sarcastr0]

No sign of any kind of planning or coordination; just vibes is enough for the paranoid right.

Not that everyone on the right is paranoid, but there is a strong vein of QAnon adjacent tin foil enjoyers who are impossible to reach by normal political means.

And of course a majority of the GOP believes 2020 was stolen. (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_111521.pdf/)
There will be a reckoning with that kind of remove from reality.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think of Dems as the Borg. No "plan" necessary just a hive mind.

[Nige]

Not disproving his point with that one.

[Kazinski]

Well you don't have to be paranoid to notice that it took 2 1/2 years to charge Trump in Georgia, but now time is of the essence trying him on the charges.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, weird how the indictment and trial follow so closely.

Of course once Trump is President he'd be immune. Is there some principle of justice that prosecutors must ignore that upcoming get out of jail free card?

[Kazinski]

Indictment and trial follows closely? Not always.

Its not exactly fair process for prosecutors to take as much time as they want and sharply constrain the defense in time to do discovery and prepare their defense.

If the justification for taking 2/1/2 years for an indictment is that its a complex case and it takes a lot of time to amass the evidence, then surely that same justification applies for the defense being allowed plenty of time to prepare.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't follow at all. If I kill my wife and bury her body in the woods, they may not be able to prosecute me for murder because they can't prove that she's dead (as opposed to just having disappeared.) It may take five years for them to find the body and then arrest me. It does not therefore follow that it takes me five years to prepare my defense against these charges.

[Drewski]

The plan? In what way would trying or convicting them affect the election, except perhaps to discourage people from fraudulently claiming to be electors? You can't just hint at a ridiculous and impossible conspiracy with no end goal and think everyone will nod knowingly.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

"That's right - a plan."

"VERY SECRET!"

[John F. Carr]

Five groups of fake electors should have been charged back in 2021. The other two put disclaimers in their paperwork. This is not a complicated case. It is not an open and shut case as to the low ranking electors who may have been misled. When it becomes clear that a particular fake elector's main crime was gullibility, the prosecutor should offer a deal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Five groups of fake electors should have been charged back in 2021."

Why? No one was deceived, no one was harmed.

Its a victimless process crime.

Prosecution discretion only applies to leftist protestors is the lesson.

[Sarcastr0]

The only criminals Bob doesn't want to bloodily execute without due process...

[Bob from Ohio]

The only criminals that Sarcasto wants to punish.

[Sarcastr0]

You think people accused of crimes are all criminals and are not worth humanity.
And being a Dem counts as being accused of a crime to you.

Unless they are trying to overturn an election.

[OtisAH]

“Process crimes” against the foundations of our nation deserve prosecution.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Un-American, disaffected clingers disagree.

And they get to whine about it as much as they like.

[Frank Drackman]

again, Coach, I realize you played during the time of Leather Helmets (Coach Sandusky loves the Leather "Helmets") but it's "Klinger" with a "K", like on MASH.
Looks like Senator Fetterman's getting more lucid, good for Amurica, not so good for your commutation chances

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Unless committed by Hilary Rodman Clinton

[Bob from Ohio]

Political motivated prosecutions are a direct attack on the foundations of our nation.

[Nige]

Won't be voting for Trump, then? That's pretty much all he's promising.

[grb]

Nige : "That’s pretty much all he’s promising"

Not fair! I understand he's got another secret plan to replace Obamacare. Probably will get Mexico to pay for the wall this time around. Plus I'm sure he'll do Infrastructure Week another five or six times during a second term.

[santamonica811]

You're being unfair. Trump had Infrastructure Week at least a dozen times in his first go-round, and there's no reason to believe he won't do the same in a second term.

[Nelson]

"Why? No one was deceived, no one was harmed."

Let's unpack this. If they had succeeded, Donald Trump would have remained in office even though he lost the election. A democracy that accepts the loser as the winner when the loses has no facts on his side has failed. So not only was what they attempted illegal, it would have undermined the very system that has brought such prosperity to America, democratically elected representation and the peaceful transfer of power. Do you agree that it was a serious fraud with devastating consequences?

Unless you think that attempting a crime shouldn't be punished (be it murder, fraud, auto theft, etc.), they should be tried for their crimes, agreed?

"Its a victimless process crime."

It was an attempt to commit a crime that would have thwarted the will of the voters and installed an illegitimate President, if they had been successful. There would be about 350 million victims.

Again, this is assuming you believe attempting a crime should also be criminal, regardless of the attempt's success or failure.

[Sarcastr0]

.

[John F. Carr]

Forgery, false statements within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and so on are still crimes if nobody is fooled. Because the attempt here was such a complete failure I think the sentences should be short. Maybe straight probation for all but the leaders.

Somebody pointed out in a recent thread, those Nigerian found money scams don't fool many people but are still illegal.

[Zarniwoop]

Bob blathered:

Why? No one was deceived, no one was harmed.

Forgery is still illegal if the bank refuses to honor a forged check. Should the Attorneys General of various states adopt a “no harm no foul!” approach for con artists?

Forgery is still illegal even if that $20 isn’t accepted by a store teller. Should the Secret Service just ignore any counterfeiter whose work can be detected?

This is about the stupidest rationale I’ve seen from you in … oh, probably a week. Maybe two.

[Zarniwoop]

Better to be a Wisconsin fake elector than the ones indicted in Nevada, though:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4345271-wisconsin-pro-trump-fake-electors-lawsuit-false-2020-filings/

The 10 Wisconsin Republicans who falsely asserted former President Trump won the 2020 election there conceded that their actions were part of an effort to subvert the state’s election results as part of a settlement agreement made public Wednesday.

The alternate electors affirmed that President Biden won the 2020 election in the Badger State and that they were not Wisconsin’s “duly elected” presidential electors as they previously claimed, revoking the false documents they filed Dec. 14, 2020 — the first time any pro-Trump electors have done so.

[Brett Bellmore]

A civil lawsuit brought by Biden's electors. I'm puzzled about the basis for their claiming $2.4M in damages. Well, I suppose you don't need much of a claim if all you're asking for is a statement, and the people you're suing can't afford to lose.

In New Mexico and Pennsylvania the Trump electors filed certificates saying that they should only be considered valid electors if Trump won a court challenge on the question. THEY are fairly safe.

The rest were morons to do it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I don;t understand is the difference between Trump's electors and, say, Hillary's electors.

Doesn't each candidate have to have a slate of electors in order to RUN in a state? And each slate has a credible argument that it is the winning slate if the election is in dispute.

[Brett Bellmore]

But you don't generally have the losing slate of electors send in a certificate to Congress saying that they're the winning slate.

Also, some of these fake electors really WERE fake, in that they didn't originally file as electors in the first place. Like I said, only in New Mexico and Pennsylvania did they do everything right, the rest of them were just asking to end up in jail.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What did Gore do in Florida in 2000?

[Brett Bellmore]

He enlisted the courts. The courts have a lot more tolerance for things the courts do, even if equally illegitimate, than they have for non-judicial shenanigans.

[SRG2]

Why don't you just say explicitly that the fake electors shouldn't face charges because they're Republicans? That's obviously what you think - just have the sack to admit it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually think there's a strong case for charges against at least SOME of these fake electors, the ones who weren't even elector candidates.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Justice is supposed to be blind.
The Dems contested 2000, 2004, & 2016.
The GOP contested 2020.

I think all four groups of people should be treated equally -- and if the first three weren't charged, the fourth ought not be as well.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you don't care about equal.

The GOP will make up whatever facts you want about Dem perfidy they got away with to rationalize the GOP getting off on the actual fake elector stuff they actually did in real life.

[bernard11]

What did the Democrats do in those years that was illegal?

Nothing. Take your false equivalence and shove it.

[Frank Drackman]

Senator Menendez? a lot of shit apparently, according to Senator Fetterman

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, in 2000 Gore got some illegal recounts. (According to Florida law, recounts after the challenge period were discretionary on the part of the SoS, and the SoS didn't think one necessary. The Florida judiciary decided to have one anyway.) But that was pseudo-legal, because he got a court to order the law violated, and that's somehow not really violating the law.

In 2004 and 2016, Democrats conspired to have electors illegally vote for somebody other than who they were pledged to.

[David Nieporent]

.

In 2004 and 2016, Democrats conspired to have electors illegally vote for somebody other than who they were pledged to.

Another Brett fantasy/conspiracy theory. (Unless "conspired to have" is construed unfalsifiably to refer to something that Brett read in a newspaper that people were talking about but that didn't actually happen.)

Of course, that's not 'illegal' in all states, and even in the ones where it is illegal, that issue was unsettled before 2020, when SCOTUS said that faithless elector laws were enforceable.

[ReaderY]

Pseudo-legal? The Florida courts followed Florida law, which was consistent with longstanding standard practice done in many states at the time. The Supreme Court later found the Florida law involved unconstitutional. Everybody at the time, agree with the decision or not, acknowledged the case involved to be a case of first impression, and the decision a novel one.

Aren’t you forgetting that state laws are presumed constitutional until explicitly found unconstitutional? Everything done in Florida was absolutely legal at the time it was done.

Indeed a core purpose of one of the Bill of Rights clauses – the Ex Post Facto Clause – is to prevent people whose conduct was legal at the time from being subsequently punished if their political opponents gain power and change the law. It’s the very purpose of the principles underlying the Ex Facto Clause to protect the people on the losing side of Bush v. Gore from people like you.

[Nelson]

"Everything done in Florida was absolutely legal at the time it was done."

Aren't you one of the ones who thinks that exact same reasoning is invalid for Pennsylvania in 2020 and should have resulted in ... something bad for Biden?

As an aside, I've never understood how anyone could believe that a small process ruling in a single case would suddenly flip the election to Trump, but that's what the Trump faithful believe.

[Nelson]

"The Dems contested 2000, 2004, & 2016."

Yes, through legal means. And when they lost all their legal cases, that was the end of it. They didn't try to do extralegal things to deny the winner the Presidency. You are capable of understanding the difference, yes?

"The GOP contested 2020."

They did a lot more than that. They aren't being prosecuted because they contested the election, it's all the illegal stuff they did afterwards that they are being prosecuted for. Even you are smart enough to comprehend this, even if you may not be honest enough to admit it.

[not guilty]

"And each slate has a credible argument that it is the winning slate if the election is in dispute."

The word "if" is doing some heavy lifting there. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, "If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped."

The election was in dispute in no state when the pretenders submitted their bogus "certificates".

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course it was in dispute. Just not with much chance of success.

[OtisAH]

If I point at a corpse and you insist it’s alive, we are not having a dispute. You are just being an asshole.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually in that case we ARE having a dispute. Disputes don't magically cease to exist just because one side is right, and certainly not just because one side is certain that it is right.

[OtisAH]

The most Brett response that ever Bretted. No, Brett, you wanting to argue over objective reality is not a dispute. It’s still just you being an asshole.

[VinniUSMC]

The most Brett response that ever Bretted. No, Brett, you wanting to argue over objective reality is not a dispute. It’s still just you being an asshole.

What the fuck do you think "dispute" means?

[Sarcastr0]

Technically correct is not the best kind of correct.

In common parlance, someone being delusional or lying does not render whatever his delusions or dishonesty are about 'in dispute.'

[Brett Bellmore]

Another term for "technically" correct is objectively correct. You want to declare things either in dispute or not depending on your subjective opinion about how serious the dispute is.

A right I doubt you'd ever let the other side exercise, so why expect to be granted it yourself?

[Sarcastr0]

The whole point of technically correct is that you are not *functionally* correct.

Enjoy your formalistic consistency. We'll all be over here enjoying semantic functionality.

[Drewski]

It doesn't mean the theory of gravity is a debatable proposition just because Time Cube Guy made a website about it. When one side is an insane person saying ridiculous things, it's not a "dispute" it's a "delusion" or at most a "rant." Learn to English like a native speaker, bro, or shut the fuck up.

[Nige]

Yes, we know the 'dispute' is entirely in bad faith.

[bernard11]

By your definition anything that is not unanimously agreed to is "in dispute."

Was Babe Ruth a great baseball player? Well, some crackpot at the end of the bar says no, so I guess that's "in dispute."

[Nelson]

"Disputes don’t magically cease to exist just because one side is right"

That's exactly how disputes end. Arguing against something that has been proved to he true isn't a "dispute". To be a dispute there has to be two (or more) sides that have a credible argument. "You're right but I don't like it so I'll say you're wrong" isn't a credible argument.

[VinniUSMC]

Dispute isn't a synonym of "credible argument". Odd. Something can be "in dispute" and be not a "credible argument".

[Nelson]

Dispute means that there are potentially valid positions on both sides. In this case only one side had a potentially valid position. The other had lies backed up by nothing, resulting in zero chance of being a valid position.

That isn't something that's in dispute. That's something that is being denied by one side because they don't like it, which is a much different thing.

"Something can be “in dispute” and be not a “credible argument”."

You may believe that, but sane, logical, intelligent, rational, and honest people don't. "Refusing to acknowledge reality" isn't a synonym for "dispute".

[bernard11]

No, actually in that case we ARE having a dispute. Disputes don’t magically cease to exist just because one side is right, and certainly not just because one side is certain that it is right.

If you insist on that idiocy, you are also saying that "the matter was in dispute" is a useless claim about anything.

Dr. Ed thinks "each slate has a credible argument that it is the winning slate if the election is in dispute." So all it takes to justify all kinds of crap is someone saying, "I think the other guy won." "In dispute" means never having to say you're sorry."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Otis -- people HAVE woken up in the morgue.
And look up the meaning of "saved by the bell..."

Just sayin....

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, that's not what it means, of course. That's just an urban legend. It comes from boxing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No it doesn't: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/saved-by-the-bell.html

[Absaroka]

From your link:

"There's no evidence to show that anyone was ever saved by these coffins or even that they were ever put to use, and there's a similar lack of evidence of the phrase 'saved by the bell' ever being used in that sense prior to it having been used in other contexts.

In fact, the expression is boxing slang and it came into being in the latter half of the 19th century. A boxer who is in danger of losing a bout can be 'saved' from defeat by the respite signalled by bell that marks the end of a round."

[Nelson]

"people HAVE woken up in the morgue."

True, but this isn't about the Ressurection, so your observation isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Voize]

If a fact being in dispute means only that somewhere there is someone sufficiently disconnected from reality to dispute it then every fact is in dispute.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty much, yeah.

[Sarcastr0]

Your choice of definition renders the term useless.

This would be a clue that the term is not used like you want it to be.

[Voize]

Then you agree that Ed's statement

And each slate has a credible argument that it is the winning slate if the election is in dispute.

is nonsense. If every fact is in dispute because some crackpot denies it, then the existence of a dispute isn't a credible argument for anything.

[VinniUSMC]

then every fact is in dispute.

If someone should choose to dispute it. If no one disputes A, then A is not in dispute. Hell, I can dispute A, even if I don't believe it.

Dispute isn't that complicated of a word.

[Nelson]

And yet you can't seem to understand it.

[John F. Carr]

Some of the fake electors claimed to have been "duly elected". They were not. Even if there was outcome-changing fraud, they were not properly elected.

[Davy C]

Wisconsin broke its election laws in 2020, counting ballots which the law said must not be counted. Trump might well have won if those ballots were not counted.

[Martinned]

Wow! That's quite a revelation. Someone should probably litigate that issue.

[Sarcastr0]

Glad Davy is here to tell the WI courts about WI law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we know you're some kind of legal positivist, but most of us can still recognize a law as being violated even when a judge decides to authorize the violation.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm an *institutionalist*

I don't have the ego to pretend my take is always the be-all end-all of objective truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

Legislatures are institutions, too, you know. You're taking sides here with the judiciary OVER the legislature. You're not being an institutionalist, you're being a judicial supremacist. You're letting the judiciary take election laws and rubber stamp violations.

Do you not realize that an awful lot of our current political dysfunction stems from the decision in 2020 to use Covid as an excuse to treat election laws as election suggestions, instead, and start cutting corners in an ad hoc manner? At precisely the time when trust was lowest, you made "trust us!" your mantra.

[Sarcastr0]

Legislatures have a different job than courts.

I'm taking the side of the folks who interpret the law as to how the law should be interpreted. That's how institutionalism works; take the side of the people whose job it is.

Importantly, I am not taking *my* side. Unlike you, who instantiate Brett's take as the One Truth. Thus, because you think that the courts are interpreting the law is wrong, that means the courts are wrong.
And, because you are you, everyone agrees with you that the courts are wrong, they're lying about it because they are all liberals.

Our political dysfunction comes from Trump and GOP trying to tear down our institutions.
It's not 'trust us' it's 'trust our Constitutional system.'

Meanwhile 'Look what you made me do' is becoming the mantra on the right.

[bernard11]

Only Brett knows what the law means.

[David Nieporent]

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

[Brett Bellmore]

There is a distinct difference between having the duty to "say" what the law is, and having the authority to make it what you want it to be. If you ignore that difference, you turn the courts into a super-legislature.

Court, IOW, are entirely capable of mistaking what the law is or lying about it, when they "say" it's something other than what the legislature enacted.

[grb]

If anyone is looking for the background on this, I’m happy to help:

1. Brett wants to be part of the “Stolen Election” crowd. They may be freaks, conspriratorial loons, and (closer to Trump) complete criminals, but they’re Brett’s people.

2. But (bless his heart) Brett likes to maintain a certain plausible deniablity when it comes to outright craziness.

3. The answer here is the Independent State Legislature Theory. Granted, it involves Brett forgeting the courts have intervened to some extent in every election during his sixty-plus years. It involves Brett ignoring the Theory was trounced 6-3 before the Supreme Court. It involves Brett pretending the pandemic wasn’t a real public health issue. And it involves Brett signing off on the Right’s belief that allowing people to easily vote is completely unfair to Republicans. But like all right-wingers, he really, really, hates voters.

4. But it does one thing: It lets Brett be a “stolen election” guy in a way that’s (superficially) not bat-shit crazy.

And that’s that. It’s a very practical thing. The Independent State Legislature Theory allows him to posture, and posturing is all he’s ever about.

[Nelson]

"Wisconsin broke its election laws in 2020"

Really? Is that a proven fact or a MAGA "fact"?

[Michael P]

"Technically" the prohibited (but used) procedures were only unconstitutional, not illegal-illegal! https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-2020-election-state-supreme-court-rulings-008127465796

[Nelson]

That is a rather ... extreme way to view a disputed (using the word correctly, as in something that could possibly go either way) assertion of illegality.

Since no one can see the future, elections have to be held according to the rules on the books at the time and future reversals don't invalidate the results. "The practices were legal at the time of the election, and the rulings certainly do not mean the election itself was “illegal,” election officials and experts said.".

Legal voters voting legally according to the legal procedures at the time aren't illegal. The voters voted for their preferred candidate, which wasn't Trump. Saying that made the election "illegal" or that it invalidated the votes is ridiculous.

There isn't any reason to believe that the legal voters who used legal means to vote at the time wouldn't have voted if the rules were different. The fact that some, theoretically, night not have voted is rank speculation and illogical in the extreme, given that the voters demonstrated a desire to vote and made a clear (and undisputable) indication of their preferred candidate.

Thus makes grasping at straws look hood. This is pure nonsense parroted by bitter and angry people who can't accept reality.

[David Nieporent]

More fundamentally, a lot of people — led here by Brett — fail to understand, or pretend not to understand, the difference between an invalid vote and an invalid election procedure.

If election officials knowingly or unknowingly do something that violates election law, they can be reprimanded, punished, fired, or — in extreme cases — even prosecuted. But that has nothing to do with counting ballots.

An example I've used before is a hypothetical law that says that a voting precinct can't be sited within 500 yards of a liquor store. Suppose that the elections board establishes a voting precinct only 250 yards from a liquor store. This could be an oversight (they didn't realize a liquor store was there). This could be deliberate flouting of the law (they said, "that's a stupid rule; this is a good place for one and we're not going to pick somewhere else just because of that store"). It could be based on a misinterpretation of the law (maybe they measured door-to-door, when they should've measured from the closest corner of the buildings). Whatever. The point is, they do it. Thousands of people cast their ballots there. After the election, someone figures out that this precinct was illegal. Okay. Maybe there are repercussions for the election board. Maybe there's a court ruling to move it for next time. Whatever. But none of that invalidates a single ballot. The ballots aren't illegal. The election can't be challenged based on that. It's just something to change for next time.

[awildseaking]

This is a bizarre take and far too naive. If legitimate voters cast ballots in invalid election schemes, they shouldn't be punished as it wasn't their fault, but their vote shouldn't be counted automatically either. You're leaving too much leeway for election schemes. There are bad actors in every facet of life; why treat elections differently? Without a feedback mechanism, election systems can be engineered to be more likely to produce favorable results. Yes, it still depends on the legitimate voter voting, but it's like letting a robber keep what they stole. That's why murder is such a vile crime. No matter what punishment society provides, you can't bring people back to life. If the goal was killing someone, mission accomplished.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I have learned some very colorful phrases from you. Truly, this one was hilarious. I have to find a way to use it.

If a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass when it hopped.

This one was funny. I just need to figure out the perfect context to use it. Can't wait.

[not guilty]

I like to give credit where it's due. That phrase comes from the "Wayne's World" movie.

[Nige]

Great, they disputed the meaning of 'dispute.'

[Moderation4ever]

I think you got the moron part right. As the fake Wisconsin electors noted they themselves were conned into the scheme. In the case of the Wisconsin people they failed to add conditions that would have protected them from this court case.

As for the money, none was exchanged and I don't think that was the main purpose of the lawsuit, but rather the acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

[Krayt]

$2.4 million! How could they arrive at that much unless they include kickback and corruption losses from failure to take power?", he asked sarcastically don't sue me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

F L O O D
G A Z A !!!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Hamas delenda est.

[Martinned]

*sit (unfortunately)

[Sarcastr0]

The bloodthirsty psychos are sure enjoying an excuse these days.

[Nige]

Shedding a tear for a thousand murdered innocents, aflame with bloodlust for thousands and thousands more. I swear to God, the thing that gives them the most joy is that Israelis, and by extension, because they try their hardest to make it so, all Jews will take on the guilt for this blood sacrifice.

[Sarcastr0]

These idiots don't get to define anything about Jews writ large.

They reveal things only about themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

"These idiots don’t get to define anything about Jews writ large."

Jews in general are perfectly fine with the IDF effort.

"57.5% of Israeli Jews said that they believed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were using too little firepower in Gaza, 36.6% said the IDF was using an appropriate amount of firepower, while just 1.8% said they believed the IDF was using too much fire power, while 4.2% said they weren’t sure whether it was using too much or too little firepower. "
"Despite thousands of protesters gathering in Tel Aviv to demand the release of the hostages held by Hamas, only 10% of Israeli Jews in the Israel Democracy Institute poll said they would support a pause in fighting in order to exchange hostages." What Israelis Think of the War With Hamas TIME

Stop thinking Jewish Voice for Peace or Not in My Name speaks for anyone but a small fraction of Jews.

[Martinned]

You realise that Israeli Jews /= Jews, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

Only half of them.

Plenty of antecdotal evidence that US Jews have largely similar views. At last month's pro-Israel rally in DC, the crowd chanted "no cease fire" quite loudly.

[Commenter_XY]

No one in my rather liberal shul is complaining that the Israelis are using too many bullets and bombs. Nope. The uber-libs in my shul are raising funds to feed and equip the IDF; I gave.

The arabists are tactfully keeping their mouths firmly shut; probably better for them. They are as popular as gonorrhea. Were they to speak at all, it would be like letting out a wet fart in shul.

One shul wit suggested we start a fund to send troops sufganiyah; I gave, of course.

[John F. Carr]

Flooding the tunnels below is more humane than bombing the civilians above.

[Nige]

Probably why they're not doing it, then.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've never been to Gaza (or Israel) so I neither know how high Gaza is above sea level nor what the soil is like.

Flooding the tunnels will raise the water table to the level of the flooding as water will inherently leak out of the tunnels into the adjacent soils. This is also why they can't be pumped out -- doing so would bring all that water (and silt) into the tunnel and even if you had the capacity or patience to literally lower the water table back to where it is now, you will have massive cave-ins and sink holes because of all of the silt that you removed in the process.

BUT raising the water table can change the dynamics of the ground as well. Depending on how buildings are built, this can crack foundations, tilt slabs, I've even heard of entire foundations "popped" out of the ground by the hydraulic pressure of water.

Anything the Israelis built would be to Israeli code -- but as it's so dry over there, and they aren't building on filled-in land -- I doubt that their codes anticipate a high water table. And they definitely don't anticipate 3 feet of frost in the ground... And Lord knows what standards the Palestinians used for the stuff they built.

So who knows what this is going to do to the buildings -- or how many sink holes will show up if the Israelis ever *stop* pumping water into the tunnels. It could be interesting...

[John F. Carr]

The average low temperature in Gaza in winter is about +10 C. There will not be deep frost.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's my point -- the Mass building code anticipates frost heaves.

[awildseaking]

I just enjoy the irony. From the river to the sea? More from the river and the sea.

[santamonica811]

Ouch. Ok, that was clever. (And sorta mean.)

[Commenter_XY]

Bill Ackman nailed it. Again.
https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1732179418787783089

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Of course this partisan jerk loves Ackman, who conducted a vendetta against a bunch of students for being insufficiently enthusiastic about Israel’s lethal and immoral right-wing belligerence, then cuddled up to Elon Musk’s antisemitism.

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit . . . in particular, until they stop subsidizing superstition-addled right-wing assholes.

[VinniUSMC]

So, speech is violence, unless it's anti-Joos, then only violence is violence, and even then, it's only violence violence after they're already dead, and not just a few, not just 1000... how many? All of them?

Fucking nazi scum leftist shits.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

They could conduct hearings on Brandenburg v. Ohio and whether its imminent-lawless-action test is the best test for 1A purposes, but simply giving out-of-context demands that universities be stricter than the Brandenburg test is dubious. The witnesses should have simply said that even the feds, thanks to Brandenburg, can’t do what they’re pressuring the universities to do.

But the whole Congressional crusade is misconceived. They could have used the occasion, not to demand *more* censorship, but to highlight the double standards on censorship held by federally-supported institutions.

Why can student “dissent” take the form of cheering terrorists, but challenges to orthodoxy about sex, gender, etc., can cause trouble for them? Same question for faculty.

[Roger S]

Ackman needs a dictionary. Expressing a political opinion is not bullying.

[SRG2]

Expressing a political opinion is not bullying.

Missing the point somewhat. Given the sundry codes of conduct, speech codes, etc. that now prevail in US universities and colleges, pretty much anything that might make some members of the student body feel uncomfortable or unsafe would be regarded as bullying or harassment. Except these specific protests because, in David Baddiel's words, "Jews don't count".

[Bob from Ohio]

“Jews don’t count”.

Exactly.

Yale forced out a resident hall director over just defending free choice in Halloween costumes in 2015.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, my son, in elementary school, noticed a friend was outside the building, and said, "Hey, [Name redacted] has come out!".

Everybody laughed, then he got written up for bullying... It's that bad.

[Frank Drackman]

Unless it's about niggers or fags

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do any clingers still wonder why UCLA had enough?

Which Conspirator will be next?

[SimonP]

Bill Ackman is a hedge fund manager who has no business commenting on university administration or any other public debate.

Why do we insist on giving wealthy people a platform, like they're some kind of experts? You're not a master of all trades just because you've figured out how to trade on inside information without getting caught.

[Life of Brian]

Huh. Any thoughts about what he actually said and why you feel it's inaccurate?

[SimonP]

I've read his tweet a couple of times, and I can't say that he's making any kind of argument that is even capable of rebutting.

It's a hyperbolic smear and grandstanding. Is it an accurate characterization of a stupid congressional hearing? No, but who gives a shit? The hearing was a waste of time, Billy's a waste of time.

Do you people get it? He's calling for censorship. He can go fuck himself.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, if he mischaracterized the hearing that badly, it's fascinating that he linked to it and specifically asked readers to watch it. But it sounds like you didn't since you decided it was a "waste of time."

And if the only play you have here is to cast as "censorship" the expectation that a university's code of conduct would prohibit calling for Jewish genocide, well, bless your heart.

[SimonP]

Yeah, and you didn't watch it either, so go back to slobbing his knob, fuck-face.

[Life of Brian]

Both incorrect and... well, just tacky.

But thanks for further reinforcing that you don't have any actual cogent arguments and are just here to make angry noise.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ackman raged against a bunch of students and strong schools but issued an express pass on Elon Musk's antisemitism.

The only people who care what Ackman has to say are right-wing bigots looking for a chance -- regardless of the substance -- to snipe at their betters.

[zztop8970]

He has as much business commenting on matters of public concerns as any other person, and as a Harvard alum, probably more than the average person on matters directly related to his school.

[SimonP]

Oh, do please stand up for the hedge fund billionaire. Suck his dick while you're at it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, it's the golden rule -- those with the gold make the rules.

[Kazinski]

I guess Ackman has no business contributing to Harvard either then?

Ackman has a lot of influence both because of his checkbook, which Harvard directly benefits from, and his hiring which Harvard graduates directly benefit from.

It's also to Harvard's direct benefit for Ackman to tell Harvard his expectations if they want such benefits to continue.

[SimonP]

I realize that the only reason these presidents are quaking in their boots is because donors like Ackman are making threatening noises.

That's not, you know, how persuasion is supposed to work. All you're saying here is that (financial) might makes right.

If Billy Ack-Ack wants to tell some CEO how to run his business, he may have more credibility on the subject. But outside that realm he should be ignored.

[Kazinski]

Well you don't have succumb to financial blackmail like that, someone with committed principle when given a choice between their principles and someone exerting financial pressure on them to abandon their principles would tell them: "Go Fuck Yourself".

[SimonP]

Do you have a point you're trying to make, Teddy?

[FivebySixThree]

Of course proposing to kill all members of another group would likely elicit a completely different answer from them. the hatred for Israel is just so bizarre but Jews are world wide minority and unlike some other groups don't see out to kill all those who don't follow their beliefs.

[Commenter_XY]

Letter to POTUS Biden from White House interns.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24191380-whletter

This is who has access to the POTUS every day. What I don't understand is why they do not come out publicly like thousands of others; if you're pro-Hamas, say it loudly and proudly...why be anonymous?

I know, I know...they're just interns right? Who will they be in 30 years?

[apedad]

" . . . why be anonymous?

Do you see the irony in this statement "Commenter_XY?"

[Commenter_XY]

Do you, apedad? 🙂 [see the irony, that is]

O/T...Made this very easy one baking pan recipe.
https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/242352/greek-lemon-chicken-and-potatoes/

[Don Nico]

No, there is no irony. Just lack of cojones

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Have you been rehearsing your groveling, Commenter _XY?

[Frank Drackman]

Have you stopped buggering young boys, Coach Jerry?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thank you for being a conservative, Frank Drackman.

I would hate to be on your side -- the illiterate, bigoted, antisocial, obsolete, right-wing side -- of any argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they don't want to be fired, obviously. How is that complicated?

The real hilarity is leading an anonymous letter with "We, the undersigned"; Did they use some kind of form letter, or are they just that stupid?

[Dr. Ed 2]

...that stupid....

[Martinned]

I suspect that they're not worried about the White House knowing who they are, but about crazies on the internet knowing their names. Hence the omission of actual names, while including enough identifying information for an internal reader.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if White House interns have stronger political opinions than the average person of the street. Who'd have thought? What will they do next, come out in favour of Medicare for all?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember one thing: White House interns can afford to be UNPAID interns, which means they come from money.

[Martinned]

That too. (You would think that a Democratic White House would pay its interns, like AOC does. But I guess that never occurred to anyone.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously they need to unionize.

[Martinned]

Possibly, though as Ed points out, it's mostly the people who aren't working as interns in the White House because they can't afford to who are losing out, not the actual interns who are getting paid in higher future earnings.

[Sarcastr0]

Dem professional and member staff only just began to unionize.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1125257131/congress-staff-union-election-win-andy-levin

[Nelson]

"Remember one thing: White House interns can afford to be UNPAID interns, which means they come from money."

Yes, poor people are incapable of seeing how a White House internship on their resume would be a benefit. It's not like they can't work another job to pay for their living expenses, right?

Poor people who work their asses off to excel and escape poverty are legion. Yet again, you make a sweeping generalization without any reasonable basis.

[bernard11]

This is just your beloved market at work.

The supply of would-be interns is large, so the price comes down, to zero in this case. Much the same happens in many corporate intern programs.

So yes, the wealthy kids have an advantage. Funny you just noticed that.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course they can afford their own knee pads.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they’re just interns right"

In olden times, interns just performed fellatio on presidents, now they do the same for Hamas.

[apedad]

Marjorie Taylor Greene on shrinking GOP majority: ‘Hopefully no one dies’

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) offered a grim outlook on the shrinking GOP majority after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced his plans to resign by the end of the month Wednesday.

“Now in 2024, we will have a 1 seat majority in the House of Representatives,” Greene wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “Congratulations Freedom Caucus for one and 105 Rep who expel our own for the other. I can assure you Republican voters didn’t give us the majority to crash the ship.”

“Hopefully no one dies,” she added.

Greene was referring to the House Freedom Caucus’s push to remove McCarthy from his role earlier this year and to the 105 Republicans joining almost all Democrats to expel former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from the House last week.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4345522-marjorie-taylor-greene-shrinking-gop-majority/

Rats. Sinking ship. Leaving.

[Brett Bellmore]

The difference is that removing McCarthy from the leadership role didn't change the numbers Republicans had, just who would be leading them. Removing Santos did reduce their numbers.

Really, the only connection here is that the left wing of the Republican caucus saw an opportunity to reduce the right wing of their caucus by one, as a bit of payback.

Seriously, even Fetterman thought it was ridiculous to be removing Santos, given that other members of Congress were more deserving of expulsion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm waiting for Santos to write a tell-all book about the 105 Republicans.

And that might not be a bad thing, either.

[Moderation4ever]

Well so far, he has set up a cameo account and a book would be next. The thing is how many people will actually want a Santos cameo or to read his book. I am guessing his 15 minutes of fame are done. He can take pride as he will go down in the history books as one of the few people ejected from Congress.

[Martinned]

Anyone betting money that he'll pop up on SNL?

[Zarniwoop]

I‘ll take that bet: he won’t show up on SNL except as a caricature, like their fairly brilliant cold open last Sat. How would the real thing improve on that?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEY97fGoeAY

[Martinned]

SNL has a long history of putting the person being imitated in a sketch with the cast member imitating them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Removing McCarthy from leadership seems to be removing McCarthy from the majority’s inventory, too.

Two months after McCarthy pledged not to quit on his colleagues.

Carry on, clingers. Well, as best you can manage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watch for McCarthy to show up with some nice gig as either a lobbyist, in academia, or in the media. He's got a deal somewhere.

But getting rid of him-- it's a safe R district -- is not inherently bad. He was a RINO and everyone knew it - yes, he raised money but he also wasted most of it on RINOs.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see I was behind the news: McCarthy decided that if he couldn't be in the leadership, he'd take his marbles and go home, and vacated his seat early.

Well, that's the sort of FU to Republicans that proves he did need to be removed from leadership.

[Sarcastr0]

Loyalty should not be blind, nor should it ignore abuse and rejection.

[Nelson]

"proves he did need to be removed from leadership."

Or, more likely, it proved to him that the right fringe has too much of a stranglehold on the Republican party and he doesn't want anything to do with unserious people doing unserious things for petty reasons.

Would you want to be part of that shitshow now that the Freedom Caucus has been emboldened? The chaos and dysfunction will only get worse between now and the election and will probably cost the Rs control of the House. He obviously wants to wash his hands of the whole mess. It isn't worth the headache.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, the party establishment has routinely told the right, "Suck it up, you can't expect to win on everything, you've got to support the party even when you don't get what you want."

They've also routinely taken their marbles and gone home when THEY didn't win on everything, like abandoning a seat when a right wing challenger wins the primary.

The right thinks it's the party establishment that's the shit show, and on policy? They're right about that.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett defines compromise as between the GOP and the GOP.

[Martinned]

Look, the party establishment has routinely told the right, “Suck it up, you can’t expect to win on everything, you’ve got to support the party even when you don’t get what you want.”

When in, say, the last 10 years have they ever said that? All I see is the party leadership bending over backwards to accommodate the Trumpists.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don't forget the right-wing racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, antisemitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, and other core elements of the conservative platform.

[Nelson]

"Look, the party establishment has routinely told the right"

You say that as if the Freedom Caucus was a center-right, reasonable group. They aren't. And "the establishment" recognizes that if the Rs were to pursue the FC's agenda, they would get wiped out in the next election.

"abandoning a seat when a right wing challenger wins the primary"

Yes, because they aren't stupid. Unless it's a deep red district, a hard-right candidate is going to get slaughtered in the general. The Freedom Caucus and cultural conservatives are completely out of step with typical Americans. We are a center-right country and largely reject extremist candidates unless they are gerrymandered to safety.

"The right thinks it’s the party establishment that’s the shit show, and on policy? They’re right about that."

Again, what the fringe believes is almost always out of touch. AOC and "The Squad" are as toxic to the Ds as the Freedom Caucus is to the Rs, but the Ds have prevented their wingnuts from getting a hand on the steering wheel.

Do you really think that abortion-ban-centric, impeachment-without-evidence, shut-down-the-government oriented policies will result in winning back the Senate and holding the House? And since none of it would pass the Senate (if it didn't lose before it even got there), what would be the benefit of a series of Phyrric victories?

[bernard11]

The right thinks it’s the party establishment that’s the shit show, and on policy? They’re right about that.

To start with, could we stop dividing the GOP into "right" and "left" factions. The Freedom Caucus is the lunatic right. The establishment Republicans are merely the extreme right, with perhaps a center-right individual or two thrown in.

And what exactly is the nature of the "shit show?" I agree the GOP establishment is a shit show, but less of one than the FC's policy ideas.

[OtisAH]

Kevin McCarthy, Tea Party politician and man who flew to Mal da Lardo to console a 75 year old man who was sad about being a loser, *is* the “right fringe.” Eating with a knife and fork and using toilet paper to wipe his ass, assuming he does these things, does not a moderate make.

[Sarcastr0]

They're already turning on the new guy.

This is what happens when you have no ideology other than negative party affiliation; internal conflicts become pure power struggles with nothing to compromise over.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The new guy will self-destruct in a haze of superstition, old-timey bigotry, and backwater ignorance. That guy believes in some seriously shitty, stupid, and silly things.

[bernard11]

Watch for McCarthy to show up with some nice gig as either a lobbyist, in academia, or in the media. He’s got a deal somewhere.

I actually agree with Dr. Ed here.

He doesn't want to be a backbencher after five years in the leadership, especially when he can probably make a lot more money elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if he had an offer in hand before resigning.

It's just self-interest, and I don't think the criticism is fair. Besides, why should he feel loyalty to those who removed him from the speakership?

[SimonP]

McCarthy was still, you know, technically, a congressional representative of constituents who put him in office. If they're just going to be waiting for a better gig, they shouldn't be running for office.

[Martinned]

Or, to put that differently: If they’re just going to be waiting for a better gig, their constituents should do a better job choosing.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed does not know what the fuck the word "RINO" means.

[Frank Drackman]

What does it mean? I only know cool acronyms,
like "FINS" (HT J. Buffett)
you know, when you're at some pubic space, and you hear loud obscene rap music, and somebody says,
"Man, there's a bunch of FINS here today"

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to cloak your racism at this blog, Drackman. The proprietor can't get enough of the vile racial slurs. He seems to live for it.

[Zarniwoop]

I mean, I’d be amused if McCarthy just switched parties and handed the House to the Democrats. “F and also U, ‘Freedom Caucus’!”

[Brett Bellmore]

That would basically be a kill shot for the Republican establishment, though. The GOP's cold civil war would turn hot in an instant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would that be a bad thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

Given what the Democrats might get up to while they were at it? Maybe. That's always been the establishment's trump card: Tolerate us, or the Democrats win it all while we fight.

[grb]

Here’s the quiet part out loud : The vaunted difference between Brett’s heroes and the “establishment” he loathes is 99% theatrics and cartoon fireworks. That’s what his heroes provide : Inch-deep “revolutionary” flim-flam entertainment, all to make Brett’s little heart beat faster as he cheers & cheers – just like the spectator at a pro-wrestling match who screams himself red-faced at the good guy & villian in turn throughout the whole phony spectacle.

Just tally up the actors : Trump – huckster fraud. DeSantis – huckster fraud. We just had the new House Speaker, Mike Johnson, claim he was blurring 06Jan rioters to protect them from DOJ. Aside from that bizarre spectacle itself, DOJ already has the footage anyway. Huckster fraud. But – hey – they all provide entertainment. That’s all that matters. That’s what separates them from the drab RINOs Brett hates.

(who are no fun at all).

[Brett Bellmore]

The PR difference is minor, because they're appealing to the same voting base. It's the rubber hits the road difference that's big.

[Nelson]

"Really, the only connection here is that the left wing of the Republican caucus saw an opportunity to reduce the right wing of their caucus by one, as a bit of payback."

Santos was the "right wing"? How?

And it's disturbing that the desire to cling to power was a no-brainer for half of Rs when confronted with a moral choice between removing a proven liar and fabulist and kicking him out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even Fetterman thinks the Dems are in no position to be making that argument given some of their own members.

[Sarcastr0]

Santos was extra crazy and extra criminal. Pretending he was normal because Dems Bad is not true, it's just a reflection of the right's negative party affiliation and how it requires the obliteration of perspective.

[Frank Drackman]

More Criminal than Menendez? More of a Fabulist than "Danang Dick" Blumenthal? More of a disgusting piece of shit than Dick Turban of Illinois? More Crazy than Crazy Senator Kimino from Hawaii??

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a bad idea to expel legislators before trial just because they were indicted by the executive. Its an incentive for executive interference.

[David Nieporent]

Santos was not expelled because he was indicted. He was expelled after an independent investigation by the House ethics committee (controlled, of course, by the GOP).

[Sarcastr0]

It takes 2/3.
I'm not concerned about abuse.

Neither is Bob, he's just a tool for his side.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob is another guy I am glad to see aligned with the superstitious, bigoted right-wingers. I wouldn't want to be on his side in any debate.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is an utterly bizarre interpretation of Fetterman’s point.

[Nelson]

"the Dems are in no position to be making that argument"

And? So if there are bad Ds everyone should ignore the bad even worse R? C'mon. You're a rank partisan and apologist for the Republicans and cultural conservatives, but even you have to accept that "they do it, too" isn't a defense for anything.

And notice that Menendez, for example, has almost half of all elected Ds telling him to resign. With Santos, the Rs were almost all unwilling to denounce him, so even in your preferred relativistic framing, the Rs are worse. Which isn't an excuse nor an absolution for that gold-bar-loving, corrupt scumbag.

[OtisAH]

The “left wing of the Republican Party.”

Live long enough and you will eventually hear or see everything…

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, you think the wings of a party should be measured relative to the other party, rather than relative to its own center? "How dare you call it the "East coast", it's West of Europe, so it can't be East!"?

Nope, both parties have right and left wings. Defined relative to their own centers.

[Nelson]

"Oh, you think the wings of a party should be measured relative to the other party"

No, relative to the entire electorate. That's why normal people talk about "center-right" and "center-left" politicians, not gibberish like "the left wing of the right".

There used to be actual liberal Republicans (Rockefeller Republicans), usually around social policy (which I guess would technically make them libertarians). There was no need to obfuscate with "the left wing of the right wing" doublespeak.

There still are conservative Democrats, both culturally and fiscally, at least until Joe Manchin's term ends or John Tester loses. Connor Lamb would fit in there as well, but he gave up his seat to run for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania that Fetterman won.

[Bob from Ohio]

Tester is not conservative at all.

He, for self preservation, is not a gun grabber.

[Nelson]

If you don't think Tester is conservative it says a lot about where you think the line is.

[Krayt]

Why do we insist on giving wealthy politicians a platform, like politicians're some kind of experts? You’re not a master of all trades just because you’ve figured out how to lie convincingly and gain power promising lies.

[Sarcastr0]

There are kinds of expertise beyond factual.

Our leaders are elected as policymakers. They are thus looked to as experts on America's policy.

In my opinion policy is best thought of as a combination of facts and values, but YMMV on that front.

[Don Nico]

"Our leaders are elected as policymakers. "
Huh?
Our politicians are elected to carry the water.

[Sarcastr0]

Actual electoral politics is local. It's not just generic R vs. generic D; those are actual people winning actual voters over. You're being too cynical.

[Don Nico]

What does your inane response about generic R vs generic D even mean?
I heard Tip O'Neil say "All politics is local." That has zero to do with your response. It has a lot to do with carrying water for constituents.
I worked for a US Senator for 6 years. Once in office many develop serious policy missions, which may or may not have been serious concerns of the local electorate.
I am not cynical; I have my ears and eyes open.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at what I wrote: "Our leaders are elected as policymakers. They are thus looked to as experts on America’s policy."

We are talking about perception. It is about what they run on and are seen as, not what they do.

I also worked in Congress. I know the PSMs make the real policy. But don't pretend an interested member in committee leadership is absolutely a policymaker as well.

Remember the initial question: "Why do we insist on giving wealthy politicians a platform, like politicians’re some kind of experts?"

I hope this helps.

[Nige]

Because they're elected representatives?

[not guilty]

Governor Ron DeSantis has reportedly asked for an appropriation of $1 million to enable Florida State University to sue the College Football Playoff committee for excluding the Seminoles from the playoff. https://theathletic.com/5117066/2023/12/06/ron-desantis-cfp-florida-state-snub/

This is of course grandstanding. What does DeSantis posit as a theory of liability?

[Martinned]

That's OK. It's not like DeSantis went to law school. So how is he supposed to know about such things? /s

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could he argue defamation?

I'm not saying could he win it, but could he credibly argue it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman would probably take the case.

Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesebro seem to have have become too well to attend.

Eastman can probably count on some Volokh Conspirators for help, though.

[not guilty]

"Could he argue defamation?"

Where is the false statement of fact? No, he couldn't credibly argue it.

[David Nieporent]

.

Could he argue defamation?

I’m not saying could he win it, but could he credibly argue it?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Randy Sax]

The only thing Ron DeSantis does is grandstanding.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is it really "standing" if you're in four-inch heels? More like grandtryingtostanding.

[loki13]

The (slightly) funny thing is that this is just in-line with DeSantis's repeated choices to pick litigation fights that he thinks are great ideas, but really aren't. See also, Disney.

Let's briefly unpack this. Does it really help him in Florida? Well, for FSU fans, sure. But not everyone in the state is an FSU fan. Most UF fans and Miami fans are likely feeling a little bit of happiness at this result, and don't particularly want to see the state pony up money on another loser lawsuit.

More broadly, this would be an attack on ... yep, Texas and Alabama. Or even more broadly, an attack on the SEC and its fans. With not actual legal basis.

Just because something is in the news, doesn't mean you absolutely, positively, have to beclown yourself. When you're desperate, I guess every opportunity looks like a life raft. But to any one outside of his (incredibly shrinking) bubble, it's just sad desperation, amounting to nothing.

[grb]

loki13 : "But not everyone in the state is an FSU fan"

Yep. I say this as someone who lived in the state four years. My desk was between a Seminole & Gator. Before the big game I'd have to slouch down to avoid the crossfire.

[Kazinski]

It's probably that they didn't adhere to their charter and the established guidelines selecting the teams to the playoffs.

I have no idea whether it's valid complaint, but certainly it's pretty common legal theory that an organization owes a duty to its members to adhere to the terms of its charter when it makes decisions that affect its members.

[loki13]

You know that the guidelines are published, right?

So why don't you explain to the rest of us the genius theory behind this lawsuit?

[Kazinski]

You first.

But I did say I don't know whether its a valid complaint, what I said is that is a cognizant legal theory for a lawsuit, so I don't know why you are asking me.

Just getting to fact finding would be a victory, and that might be enough to do it.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Just getting to fact finding would be a victory...."

Please explain how.

"Why didn't you pick FSU?"

"We were tasked to pick the four best teams in the country. After Florida State's starting QB suffered a season-ending injury, we didn't think they were one."

End of story and totally true. I don't object to their fans whining because that's what fans do. But anyone else trying to make something of this non-story is wasting everyone's time.

[loki13]

If you bothered doing anything other than reflexively coming up with an excuse, you'd understand that it wasn't a cognizable legal theory. Hint- when I say something is publicly available, there's usually a reason for it. But you couldn't be bothered when coming up with your "cognizable legal theory." I mean, I'm sure that DeSantis can claim the tort of "peeing in my cheerios," but good luck with that.

But thanks for playing!

[not guilty]

"Just getting to fact finding would be a victory, and that might be enough to do it."

No, I don't think so. The complaint would first have to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[awildseaking]

I know everyone is making this sound like a crackpot theory because they don't like Desantis, but you're putting the cart before the horse. Why do you think he offered funding? Because the school is actually considering suing.

Some facts to consider:
ACC payout to FSU drops from $6m to $4m as the team did not make the playoffs.
Exclusion of FSU from the playoffs means inclusion of FSU in bowl games. This bumps other ACC teams and substantially redirects revenue away from the ACC to the SEC.
Loss of reputation (no confidence in ability to make playoffs) harms current and future recruiting.

These are real, tangible losses. Would be interesting to hear a legal argument over them.

[not guilty]

I don't doubt that the CFP committee decision caused economic harm to Florida State. Where, however, is any viable theory of liability?

If Ron DeSantis is not the dumbest graduate of Yale and Harvard Law School on the planet, he is at least in the running.

[Martinned]

As mentioned in the Monday thread, we now have visibility of the actual text of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill 2023. And it is an utter legal marvel, though not in a good way.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65709c317391350013b03c36/Rwanda_Bill_as_introduced.pdf

cl 1. Introduction, etc. When the Supreme Court ruled that the government's Rwanda policy was illegal, there was only an MOU between the UK and Rwanda. But last Monday that MOU got upgraded to a proper treaty. Hurrah!
Note that under the treaty, Rwanda is to be treated as a safe country, but not for people who are fleeing from Rwanda.
cl 2. The legal presumption. Notwithstanding actual facts, every court and other decision maker must treat Rwanda as safe. This clause also ousts the jurisdiction of the courts over any claim that sending someone to Rwanda violates the law in any way.
cl. 3 Disapplication of the Human Rights Act. Human Rights do not apply to the question of sending immigrants to Rwanda. That includes things like the interpretation provisions of the HRA, which normally require the courts to interpret legislation in a way that avoids human rights problems whenever possible.
Note that on the cover it says that the Secretary of State is unable to make the usual statement that the bill complies with human rights law, but wants Parliament to proceed with it anyway.
cl. 4 OK, in rare instances the individual circumstances of an immigrant can still be taken into account to show that Rwanda is not safe for them. But the risk that Rwanda might send a refugee to some 3rd country - a possibility that was explicitly part of the Supreme Court's judgment - may not be taken into account.
cl. 5 Yes, the Tory Party still really hates the interim measures that the European Court for Human Rights sometimes imposes to stop human rights violations from becoming irremediable while it is deciding a case.
cl. 6 Some consequential amendments
cl. 7 Definitions. A definition includes a purported decision, which is important, because when the courts ignore ouster clauses, they normally do so by arguing that ultra vires decisions aren't legally decisions in the first place.
cl. 8 The Act covers the entire UK. It can also be extended to cover the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
cl. 9 The Act enters into force when the new treaty with Rwanda does.
cl. 10 Short title.

[Martinned]

By the way, the immigration minister resigned over this bill, because he thought (we gather) it doesn't go far enough.

[Martinned]

Today the bill has resulted in some interesting discussion about different conceptions of the rule of law. Spinninghugo is, as always, worth reading, though I don't think he gets this quite right:

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2023/12/07/rwanda-and-the-rule-of-law/

[John F. Carr]

What legal protections, if any, can not be revoked by a majority vote of Parliament? In America whatever the courts currently think the Constitution means is sacred.

[Martinned]

That's the big question. Ouster clauses have historically proven extremely difficult to get past the courts, and there is some dicta in recent (ish) Supreme Court cases that suggest that the courts might refuse to enforce an Act of Parliament that completely did away with the rule of law. But the traditional rule is that a parliamentary majority (= both houses) can do what it likes.

[Bob from Ohio]

Repeal the act that created a "supreme" court, just go back to the Law Lords, quicker and easier.

[Martinned]

Why do you think that makes any difference? The Supreme Court has behaved exactly like the judicial committee of the House of Lords used to, as you'd expect, given that it consists of the exact same (sorts of) people.

[Bob from Ohio]

They were part of Parliament so less likely to undermine Parliamentary supremacy.

[Martinned]

There is literally no evidence for that. (Also, Law Lords and other judges who are peers are barred from voting in the House of Lords.)

[Martinned]

For example, one of the cases where the Law Lords suggested that the courts might refuse to apply an Act of Parliament that went too far in undermining the rule of law was Jackson v. the Attorney General (2006), one of the last cases of the old judicial committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General

Lord Steyn:

If that is so, it is not unthinkable that circumstances could arise where the courts may have to qualify a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism. In exceptional circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary role of the courts, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of a complaisant House of Commons cannot abolish.

Lord Hope:

Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute ... It is no longer right to say that its freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute legislative sovereignty of Parliament ... is being qualified ... The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based. The fact that your Lordships have been willing to hear this appeal and to give judgment upon it is another indication that the courts have a part to play in defining the limits of Parliament's legislative sovereignty.

Baroness Hale, who later went on to be the second President of the Supreme Court:

The courts will, of course, decline to hold that Parliament has interfered with fundamental rights unless it has made its intentions crystal clear. The courts will treat with particular suspicion (and might even reject) any attempt to subvert the rule of law by removing governmental action affecting the rights of the individual from all judicial scrutiny.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What's on my mind? Anarchical right-wing anti-institutionalism. Which naturally brings to mind Liz Cheney, who as a steadfast institutionalist becomes a perfect litmus-figure to sort it out.

If polling showed Cheney could put together a third-party candidacy which would not toss the election outcome to the House of Representatives, would you vote for her to stop Trump? I would.

All my adult life I have voted as a leftish progressive type, mostly hostile to conservative Republicans and centrist Democrats—the latter tend to resemble too closely for me the conservative Republicans. I have from time-to-time voted for centrist Republicans in governor's races.

Cheney's record shows her to be a nearly-extremist right winger on policy questions. But nevertheless, because she is a courageous and committed pro-institutionalist, I would vote for her. The next election will be one in which to prioritize institutionalism ahead of policy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cheney’s bad news and a fraud — she isn’t from Wyoming. She is a NeoCon as opposed to Freedom Caucus.
Were she male, she'd be "who?" -- the GOP needed a female leader.

If the election went to the House, Trump would probably win.

[bernard11]

Cheney’s bad news and a fraud — she isn’t from Wyoming. She is a NeoCon as opposed to Freedom Caucus.

First, the Freedom Caucus is a gang of fools, knaves, and liars, so not being a part of it is to her credit.

Second, maybe you could point to some anti-conservative votes she took while in Congress.

[Nelson]

"Second, maybe you could point to some anti-conservative votes she took while in Congress."

Ha! He probably can't even point to any center-right votes she took. She's deeply conservative, it's just because she called Trump out on being a criminal scumbag (paraphrasing, there) that the hard right hates her. If she didn't have integrity, the wingnuts would love her.

[Bob from Ohio]

Parties are tribal, you can't go against it in such a public way and survive in office. You especially cannot accept an appointment from the opposite party like she did.

Her replacement is just as conservative yet not a "traitor".

[bernard11]

Parties are tribal, you can’t go against it in such a public way and survive in office.

Well, that's probably true, but so what? Should she have elevated the party and her seat in Congress above what she thought was in the best interest of the country?

And what does that have to do with Dr. Ed's claims?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Should she have elevated the party and her seat in Congress above what she thought was in the best interest of the country?"

No, just not whine about it. And when her voters rejected her, shutting up was a good option.

I was responding to Nelson, not Dr. Ed

[Nelson]

"Parties are tribal"

And in your mind that is more important than speaking the truth and serving when called? The lack of integrity, morality, and honesty such a belief requires is exactly why today's Republican party is morally bankrupt. Every time someone does the right thing, they get excommunicated.

Honest people aren't interested in joining a group when they see honesty earning hostility and punishment. Moral people don't want to join a group that protects and defends the immoral, usually with dishonesty and untruths. Decent people don't want to join a group that lauds indecency and revels in a philosophy of "the ends justify the means".

Today's Republican party is self-selecting for dishonesty, immorality, rage, and despotism. If that's what American values are, it will be a successful long-term strategy. I don't believe it, possibly because my heart would break if it's true. But I truly think we're better than that.

I think that once Trump and Biden are inevitably (and unfortunately) the two major-party candidates, Trump's behavior will be so angry, vindictive, petty, whiny, and delusional that a sizable number of those who keep voting for him because he's the only Republican will be pushed past their breaking point and either vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils or refrain from voting for President entirely. I think that the average American is too good to stomach much more of Trump and the modern Republican platform.

And while Biden isn't a good President, he's also not a bad one. That would give Rs four years to accept that they have gone too far right and course-correct. Ideally they would go back to basics and support balanced budgets, less regulation, a flat tax (OK, that one's just a pipe dream), individual liberty, and a Reaganesque willingness to compromise. And stop with the culture-war authoritarianism. A candidate like that would make a great President, preferably one under 50 years of age.

[Bob from Ohio]

Democrats are just as tribal.

Your last paragraph is just: I wish the GOP went back to being the tame losers of 1954-1994.

"And stop with the culture-war authoritarianism. "

Leftists start all culture "wars", its just normal until conservatives fight back. Then its a bad thing.

[Nelson]

"Democrats are just as tribal."

And yet they condemn, ostracize, and refuse to defend people like Menendez, Al Franken, or Anthony Weiner. You would have thought that Santos' nonstop lying and fraud would have resulted in condemnation by Rs, but nope. Apparently there is no level of unethical or immoral behavior that today's Rs won't overlook or apologize for.

"Your last paragraph is just: I wish the GOP went back to being the tame losers of 1954-1994."

Yes, Ronald Reagan was known around the world as a tame loser. Or is it the "succeeding through compromise" approach that you don't like? That would be self-defeating, since the "succeeding" part is the goal. But maybe you prefer the loud, but ineffective, approach of people like Newt Gingrich and Matt Gaetz?

"Leftists start all culture “wars”"

No, the inevitable and constant change in culture causes cultural conservatives to lose their minds and try to force everyone to stop changing using government force. "Leftists" don't have to do anything except wait to see culture shift away from outdated traditionalism.

"Then its a bad thing."

Cultural conservatism is always a bad thing. If you use the power of government to project your values onto other people who don't share those values, you are in the wrong. If you choose conservative values for yourself, great. But no further.

[Krayt]

She isn'f gonna win, just be a spoiler for Trump pulling away votes. So go vote for Republicans for Congress, and don't vote for president at all, or Biden, and move towards the same goal.

[Brett Bellmore]

She doesn't have enough support to BE a spoiler, though.

[OtisAH]

Cheney could *only* help elect Turnip outright or throw it to the House. Of all the third party candidates if we include Cheney, she’s the only one who can pull folks from the left who might be more focused on her anti-trump stance, and Biden’s age, than who she is and what she believes. Not enough to win, but enough to muck things up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Otis, that's the concern I have in mind. Otherwise, in my reckoning Cheney's outstanding commitment to constitutional values and institutionalism outweighs even policies I oppose. Given normal future uncertainty, I wonder if the possibility of a Cheney candidacy might later become a draw for Republican-leaning voters who otherwise share similar values to mine.

By later, I mean after criminal convictions for Trump show up. Or after trials and investigations disclose presently-unknown shockers to further discredit Trump. For instance, how about evidence that Trump was hoarding secret documents to trade abroad with foreign despots, in exchange for real estate development opportunities?

[John F. Carr]

All Cheney can do is split the conservative vote. Liberals will convince themselves that the Democratic nominee is a better person than either Trump or Cheney and vote D.

[OtisAH]

He is clearly a better person than Turnip. Most people are. And to a lefty, his policies are infinitely more appealing than hers. But his policies vs. hers would likely take a backseat to his age in some lefty minds if the opportunity presents itself. Again, not enough to win but enough to elevate Turnip.

[Brett Bellmore]

At her current popularity level, she can’t split the conservative vote, either, because she doesn’t have enough support to make the ballot.

But if she did make the ballot?

According to the latest polling, she’d split the liberal vote, rather than the conservative.

According to this poll, without a third party/independent candidate, Biden wins by 4%. With Cheney in the race?

Trump wins by 8%. Cheney gets 11% of the vote, and almost all of it comes from Biden. Democrats are apparently much more desperate for an alternative to voting for Biden, than Republicans are for an alternative to Trump.

Of course, that’s a nation-wide popular vote, and that’s not how Presidents are elected. Likely in that scenario Trump would get an electoral college landslide, as she split the anti-Trump vote in all the purple states.

But the most likely scenario is that she doesn't even make it onto the ballot. Ballot access is hard, if you're not a major party candidate, by design.

[Kazinski]

She will split the Never Trump vote, which by definition would never be Trump voters in the first place.

I can't think of any attribute that would draw potential Trump voters away from him, it certainly isn't that she has a better chance to win.

There might be a small sliver that might think it would increase our chances of getting our troops into another mideastern adventure.

[Armchair]

New Evidence demonstrates Joe Biden was personally receiving direct monthly payments from one of Hunter Biden's shell company...directly after the shell company received large cash deposits from Chinese-government linked companies.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/hunter-bidens-direct-payments-father-coincided-chinese-transfers

At this point it's increasingly clear, Hunter was acting as a middleman for cash going from foreign companies and powers to Joe Biden. This is worthy of an impeachment investigation.

[Commenter_XY]

Months ago, I stated that there would be an impeachment vote just before Xmas. I was mocked. Here we are. The impeachment inquiry vote is the toxic political version of 'Merry Xmas Mr. President'. Now I suppose the actual impeachment vote will be next quarter (Feb?), but it will happen (unless POTUS Biden resigns or croaks, first). It is sad that it has come to this.

What a spectacle we are in front of the entire world. Is it un-American to feel shame?

[Martinned]

Is it un-American to feel shame?

I don't think that's something you and your ilk have to worry about.

[Michael P]

That's only because you almost never think.

[Moderation4ever]

Whether you were mocked depends on what you meant. Is a vote on an impeachment inquiry the same as a vote on impeachment? An impeachment vote will not happen as many, mostly Republicans, have noted that would be a gift to President Biden. Republican has less than they have on Clinton and that did not go well for them.

My thought is that a vote on the inquiry could be a way for Speaker Johnson to put the investigation to bed. The fact is that investigation is looking sillier and sillier as time goes on. The Republican don't want this clouding there 2024 ambitions.

[Armchair]

Question. Why does it look sillier?

Joe Biden has repeatedly denied he had any interaction with Hunter's "business". That has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, at best.

If Joe is receiving money from foreign companies and countries, presumably for actions taken as a government official, ...isn't that a problem?

[Nige]

You guys have claimed repeatedly to have proved otherwise, why would this be any different?

[David Nieporent]

If Joe Biden kidnapped, chopped up, and ate some hobos… isn't that a problem?

[Armchair]

Well, since Joe has repeatedly denied having anything to do with Hunter's businesses...then it's found that he in fact was directly being paid by Hunter's business...

Perhaps there's something there.

[David Nieporent]

And perhaps you're a liar and a fool. He was not in fact "being paid by" Hunter's business, which of course is not the same as "having anything to do with" Hunter's business. He advanced some money for Hunter's car payments. Hunter paid him back — again, we are talking about a grand total of $4,000, at a time when Joe Biden wasn't in office — from one of his law firm's bank accounts. None of those facts are disputed.

[bernard11]

If Joe is receiving money from foreign companies and countries, presumably for actions taken as a government official, …isn’t that a problem?

Well Trump actually took money "from foreign companies and countries, presumably for actions taken as a government official." You didn't think that was a problem, but suddenly Biden's imagined reception of money is. Wonder why?

[bernard11]

If Joe is receiving money from foreign companies and countries, presumably for actions taken as a government official, …isn’t that a problem?

The transfer, $1380, was in September, 2018. Remind me what government office Biden held then.

Also, I think bribes to officials tend to run somewhat larger than that. Maybe it was small because Biden did actually have any government power.

[bernard11]

"didn't have any government power."

[Armchair]

It's like you've never heard of "buy now, pay later" type of deals. An "no payments till two years from now!"

[OtisAH]

Oh I love this one.

“So, you know Joe, if in a couple years you *do* decide to run for president and manage to defeat the incumbent, keep us in mind okay?”

What do you suppose the plan was if he didn’t run or didn’t win? Would he have to pay back the money?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not that there aren't serious charges, or evidence of them. Plenty of that. But so long as Democrats don't care, and are half the Senate, impeachment is foredoomed to end in acquittal.

Impeachment is only a serious option, no matter how genuine the offense is, if the President's party has some shame about what the President did.

So, they can prove Biden is on the take from a strategic foe, but it's going to the voters, not the Senate, because half the Senate Will Not Care.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Shame" is not in the Democrat dictionary.

[Sarcastr0]

As usual Brett assumes everyone agrees with his take but is secretly lying about it.

There is not plenty of evidence. Comer's lies won't cut it with any but the true believers.

[Commenter_XY]

Bank records don't lie.

[Nige]

Bank records are not the ones usually lying about this issue.

[bernard11]

Bank records don’t lie.

And what do these particular records tell us about official corruption by Biden?

Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bubkes. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien.

[Michael P]

Keep insisting that you can't see anything through a pinhole. The rest of us have noticed that there are thousands of pinholes in that paper, and they make it pretty easy to see through Biden's lies.

[Sarcastr0]

This whole 'you don't disagree with me, you're just lying' is just a particularly salty way to disengage from the conversation.

[bernard11]

What I’ve noticed is that every time someone breathlessly announce new evidence against Biden it turns out to be completely absurd.

Like this.

ML thinks the fact that Hunter Biden repaid three months of car payments in 2018 proves that his father was on the take from the Chinese – $4140, at a time when he had no position in government.

Somehow he and those who cheer this “evidence” are not embarrassed.

[Armchair]

Then why did Joe Biden deny any such transactions ever occurred?

Why lie so publically about it?

[David Nieporent]

Joe Biden at no point denied loaning money to his son, or his son paying back such a loan. Why are you a liar?

[Moderation4ever]

There is no evidence even the Committee's own witnesses said there is not evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/28/biden-impeachment-hearing-house-republicans#:~:text=Two%20of%20those%20witnesses%2C%20Jonathan,did%20not%20amount%20to%20corruption.

[bernard11]

From M4e's link:

With little substance to debate, and no fact witnesses to testify, the hearing often turned theatrical. At one point, Greg Casar, a representative of Texas, asked members to raise their hands if they thought both Hunter Biden and Donald Trump should be tried, and held accountable for their actions if convicted. All of the Democrats present raised their hands, but no Republicans did.

Republicans are all abut "the rule of law." Right?

What a gang of assholes.

[Nelson]

"It’s not that there aren’t serious charges, or evidence of them. Plenty of that."

There is no credible evidence of these "serious charges" (aka unfounded accusations by Republicans). I mean Comer claimed a car payment was "proof" of corruption. It only took about an hour to debunk that one. Every time they claim they have "evidence", it turns out all they have is wishful thinking.

"But so long as Democrats don’t care"

They do care, they just know it's complete fantasy. No reasonable person acts in response to fiction. And the "Joe Biden took bribes" story is pure fiction.

"and are half the Senate, impeachment is foredoomed to end in acquittal."

Welcome to the easily-predicted outcome of the Trump impeachments. And both of those had way, way, way more evidence than this nonsense.

"Impeachment is only a serious option, no matter how genuine the offense is, if the President’s party has some shame about what the President did."

Yes, but we aren't talking about the moral failings of Republicans during the Trump impeachments.

"So, they can prove Biden is on the take from a strategic foe"

They couldn't even prove that in The People's Court. Unfounded accusations don't count as proof.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Republican has less than they have on Clinton and that did not go well for them."

I wonder if the Republican leadership are as easily blackmailed today as then? Wouldn't shock me, DC hasn't gotten cleaner in the meanwhile.

Anyway, you're fooling yourself: Republicans have a lot more on Biden than they had on Clinton. You're just less interested in whether your people are corrupt at this point.

[Nige]

'you’re fooling yourself'

[Sarcastr0]

Blackmail from decades ago and blackmail today.

This is the kind of joke behavior that happens when you believe stuff because it fits the story you've decided is true, not because there is evidence.

But note that Brett is setting up a way to believe there's a ton of evidence against Biden while explaining why none of it amounts to anything - GOP blackmail!

[Kazinski]

Don't get out ahead of yourself, a vote for authorizing an impeachment investigation is not the same as a vote for impeachment.

They need to step up the pace of the investigation, but I don't think there is any huge hurry on an actual vote for impeachment.

[Nelson]

Since it's pure political theater designed to keep the wingnuts engaged and motivated to vote in November, there is absolutely no urgency. As soon as they have to present facts instead of sending out speculative press releases, the game is over because they have nothing with any substance.

[Nige]

'At this point it’s increasingly clear'

But only if you reay really want it to be.

[David Nieporent]

It's not new, there's no shell company, and it actually shows Hunter Biden paying back his father a small amount of money for a loan. The funny thing is just how stupid and gullible Armchair Disbarred is. Joe Biden — who was not in office at the time — got $4,140 from Hunter Biden. That's three "monthly payments" of $1,380. It was paying back Joe Biden for three monthly car payments that he made on Hunter's behalf.

Even if we didn't know for a fact that this was a loan repayment, how fucking stupid does one have to be to tout $4,000 changing hands as some sort of evidence of corruption? $4,000! Joe Biden would have to be the least greedy bribe-taker ever.

[bernard11]

Also, Biden was out of office at the time - 2018.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I might have mentioned that, in small print boldface.

[Sarcastr0]

😀

[bernard11]

Speak louder next time, David.

Maybe use all caps.

I'm a little hard of hearing sometimes.

[OtisAH]

Being out of politics and accepting bribes todo the Chinese COMUNIST Party’s bidding is the exact sort of devious scheming The Tyrant Biden is known for.

[Kazinski]

How much of that cash flow was arranged when Biden was in office?

We do know that Hunter flew with Joe on Air Force 2 in 2013 and met with Chinese Executives and set up his Chinese Shell company.

“What wasn’t known then was that as he accompanied his father to China, Hunter Biden was forming a Chinese private equity fund that associates said at the time was planning to raise big money, including from China. Hunter Biden has acknowledged meeting with Jonathan Li, a Chinese banker and his partner in the fund during the trip, although his spokesman says it was a social visit.

The Chinese business license that brought the new fund into existence was issued by Shanghai authorities 10 days after the trip, with Hunter Biden a member of the board.”

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

Not to mention, again, Hunter's Ukraine gig was set up for Hunter just months after Joe became the "Point Man" on Ukraine for the Obama Administration, and those cash flows continued until 2019.

[Sarcastr0]

Just sad at this point.

[grb]

To be fair, Kazinski spent weeks trying to resurrect the Shokin nothingburger using real evidence. Of course it was a total fiasco, but at least he tried. Most right-wingers skip straight to the fantasy facts.

And you gotta feel for the man. On more than one occasion he rushed breathless to this forum with Comer’s latest “revelation”, only to be humilated when it fell completely apart. Poor Kazinski was absolutely convinced Devon Archer had provided the missing piece of evidence, until the transcripts showed that “evidence” was black-is-white lying by Comer. You don’t have to feel sorry for someone that desperate & gullible, but I kinda do.

[Nelson]

I had forgotten about his screeds on Archer and his silence when it turned out to be a Comerism (aka a baldfaced lie).

[Armchair]

A few thousand here, a few tens of thousands there...starts adding up to real money.

I wonder if Joe paid taxes on it?

[bernard11]

Loan repayments are not taxable income, you buffoon.

[loki13]

Let's see. The only things in life that are inevitable are:
1. Death.
2. Taxes.
3. Armchair breathlessly announcing a "new" Biden revelation in the open thread, that is not "new," is not a "revelation," and is quickly and easily shown to be a lie.

Kinda like Charlie Brown and the football. You'd think he's learn by now, but c'mon .... HE WANTS TO BELIEVE!

[Commenter_XY]

Death is inevitable....taxes, I wish we could make them 'evitable' (lol). 🙂

[SRG2]

But he posted a link! from the web! And meshuggenersnews.com is an unimpeachable source!

[OtisAH]

And linked to world renown scholar John Solomon’s website no less!

[grb]

I remember back when Solomon worked for The Hill. Everytime he would post another bit of tinfoil hat conspiratorial gibberish, I would rush to the comments.

It was like a block party, with hundreds of people showing-up to gleefully eviscerate Solomon’s weaseling, distortion and lies. It was like journalistic integrity, crowd-sourced. I think some people were actually disappointed when he was fired for being a liar and embarrassment.

[David Nieporent]

You are slandering him. He was fired for being an undisclosed propagandist. Okay, and a liar. He was fired for being an undisclosed propagandist and a liar. And an embarrassment. He was fired for being an undisclosed propagandist and a liar and an embarrassment.

Nevermind.
​
​
(The Hill's standards are about as low as it's possible to be while still being a news outlet (not in terms of partisanship, but just in terms of quality). And he still got shown the door for not meeting them. They first tried to move him from news to opinion, but that didn't help because even opinion columnists are required to adhere to journalistic standards of not-making-shit-up and not-having-undisclosed-conflicts.)

[John F. Carr]

I stand by my prediction from earlier this year. The House will not impeach Biden. Any investigation will not turn up enough evidence to change Democrats' minds. This is a political assessment. I do not spend much time worrying about how corrupt Biden is.

What is the modern Democratic equivalent of "a dead girl or a live boy"? That is what Republicans need.

[Sarcastr0]

The choice to impeach is in GOP hands, remember.

I know the temptation is that only Dems have agency, but turns out there's a whole 'nother party in the majority in the House!

[John F. Carr]

The first 200 votes or so are easy. After that it only takes a handful or Republicans to recognize that a failed impeachment will not advance their interests. It only takes a handful of Republicans to decide that Biden is not a crook despite smelling bad. I think the Speaker will not bring the vote to the House floor if it will fail there.

[Sarcastr0]

Or maybe even if it would succeed, depending on the political winds.

[grb]

Mike Johnson claims he has the votes - but there isn't a lot of cofidence in his voice doing so....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nixon was never impeached.

[OtisAH]

Your political instincts are less than optimal. The MAGA House will absolutely impeach Joe Biden. Or they’ll look for a new Speaker. Since there’s no evidence of any high crime or misdemeanor to justify ann impeachment, you’re right that no dem will change their minds. But there will be an impeachment.

Comer and his dipshit goons will again look foolish while wasting everyone’s time. And the folks around here will fall all over themselves pretending anything of significance was accomplished. But it’s happening or Johnson’s done.

[David Nieporent]

.

The MAGA House will absolutely impeach Joe Biden.

With Santos expelled, once McCarthy steps down the GOP will have a two vote margin in the House. There are at least two GOP members of congress who will not vote to impeach Biden.

[Nelson]

I'd like to think so, but ethical and honest behavior by today's Rs was killed when Liz Cheney and Adam Konzinger did the right thing and were eviscerated for it. I have no faith in any R being willing to get stabbed in the back for doing the right thing.

[bernard11]

In fact, the investigation itself will be an embarrassment to Comer&Co.

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton survived impeachment, in part because his harshest critics -- Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Kenneth Starr -- were loathsome human beings.

Sort of like Jim Jordan and James Comer today.

[Nelson]

All three are less loathsome than Jordan and Comer. And Ken Starr actively covered up rapes at Baylor.

[not guilty]

I loved the irony of Kenneth Starr being removed from his position at Baylor for being too lax in investigating a sex scandal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is worthy of an impeachment investigation."

Forget it, Biden could take a bribe on 5th Avenue and his apologists here won't care.

[Commenter_XY]

Presumably after POTUS Trump shot 'em... 🙂

[Armchair]

Biden could take a bribe on TV in the form of gold bars, personally handed to him from Putin and the apologists would spin it.

[Nelson]

"At this point it’s increasingly clear, Hunter was acting as a middleman for cash going from foreign companies and powers to Joe Biden."

Only on the fevered imaginations of the rage-filled right. "Circumstantial evidence" isn't even attainable given the fact that every breathless attempt to tie Joe to corruption fails.

Remember when Comer claimed repeated $1300 payments were corruption, but less than an hour later it was proved to be repayment of a car loan?

"This is worthy of an impeachment investigation."

You know that Rs are already doing that, right? It's going very badly for them and their preferred outcome.

[Armchair]

You have documentation about this supposed car loan? Evidence Joe paid anything?

[Nelson]

Try reading a news source that isn't in the QAnon/MAGA silo. It was easily debunked, like all of Comer's "revelations".

[Nige]

Wait, you mean you didn't, and haven't, checked? How shockingly irresponsible of you.

[Armchair]

"January 6th Jurisprudence"

That's what defense lawyers are calling it. The extremely biased jury pool being used to convict those accused of crimes related to the January 6th protests.

A review of court transcripts, however, raises questions as to whether Chutkan fulfilled her promise. A jury questionnaire exposed a bias so strong against Jan. 6 protesters that half the respondents were automatically eliminated from consideration. Many who remained were also problematic.

After one day of voir dire, which is the direct questioning of potential jurors, Chutkan still allowed individuals who expressed critical views about anyone involved in Jan. 6 to serve on the panel. One juror said people who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6 “were probably guilty.” Another who worked as an investigator for federal agencies, including DHS and TSA, admitted he had “strong feelings about the individuals who gathered at the Capitol on January 6.”

Chutkan rejected a defense attorney’s request to remove that juror from consideration. “I’m going to deny it because he said he has training; he’s by nature trained to be skeptical..

Right.... 50% of jurors automatically eliminated in a jury pool

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/12/05/heres_the_jan_6_jurisprudence_about_to_be_unleashed_on_trump_996431.html

[Armchair]

A staffer for Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, a Democrat from New Mexico, also got the nod, despite telling Chutkan he knew many Capitol police officers – several of whom are routinely called as government witnesses in Jan. 6 trials – and his confession that the day was “pretty impactful” on him.

On several occasions, Chutkan reassured the skeptical defense team that the selected jurors would set aside personal feelings to objectively weigh the evidence.

The jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on all counts in less than four hours.

Alford now wonders whether jurors were being honest. “They told us what we wanted to hear so they could get on the panel,” Alford told RCI by phone from a halfway house last month. He had just finished serving 176 days of a 12-month prison sentence imposed by Chutkan. “In any other jurisdiction, we would have won. We thought we could get a fair shake, but they all were connected to the government.”

Alford’s experience is not an outlier. Post-trial interviews with jurors have often revealed bias. In a lengthy discussion with C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb following her service on an Oath Keepers’ trial earlier this year, a woman named Ellen, a former co-worker of Lamb, described how she desperately tried to get selected as a juror. When she finally was selected, Ellen admitted she “was shocked beyond belief.”

Over the course of several days of deliberations, Ellen said she successfully persuaded reluctant jurors to render guilty verdicts against the six defendants, including a 72-year-old who didn’t enter the Capitol and an autistic young man. She worked in tandem with a juror who had worked as a lawyer for the Department of Justice, the same government agency prosecuting the defendants. “How that was allowed, I’ll never know,” Ellen told Lamb. “He couldn’t believe it.”

Amazing. A lawyer from the DoJ...the same prosecuting agency...also on the jury?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whining, un-American, disaffected clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties . . and this wingnut blog’s core audience.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"A lawyer from the DoJ…the same prosecuting agency…also on the jury?"

Isn't that the sort of thing one gets disbarred for?

[Zarniwoop]

Looks like time for another simple answer to a stupid question!

No.

[John F. Carr]

A lawyer in the jury pool has an obligation to disclose his job and potential conflict of interest to the judge. He does not have an obligation or even an option to refuse to serve on a jury.

[Zarniwoop]

“Desperately tried to get selected as a juror” … interesting spin.

Politico’s take with actual quotes from Lamb’s interview:

Ellen said she volunteered during jury selection that she worked for C-SPAN, finding it odd that she was never asked to identify an employer until the later rounds of questioning. Though three defense witnesses jumped up to question her, they ultimately agreed she could be an impartial juror.

“Did you want to be on the jury?” Lamb asked.

“Yes,” Ellen replied.

“When did you make that decision?” Lamb said.

“When I get the summons,” she added. “I’ve always wanted to be on a jury my whole life.”

(Emphasis added) A long-standing interest and desire to do one’s civic duty to serve the country when called is not evidence of bias against a particular defendant or desperation to serve on a particular case.

[Bob from Ohio]

“I’ve always wanted to be on a jury my whole life.”

Obviously insane people should not be on juries.

[Nelson]

I wanted to be on a jury as soon as I turned 18. I think the way we choose juries is awesome and I always wanted to be part of such a fascinating process.

Since then I've been on a jury and have seen the flaws in the system. Especially on my last case where a police officer claimed the defendant pointed a gun that had been discarded much earlier, claimed that the evidence tag was wrong (even though it was another officer, who the prosecution never called, who tagged it), claimed that something that was caught on bodycam never happened, and yet two jurors said they believed him over the tag and the video because he was a police officer.

But I would still do it again, gladly. It's still an experience that strengthens my love of America and the Constitution. I don't think it's insane to want to be on a jury at all.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "Obviously insane people should not be on juries"

I seize every possible chance to agree with Bob. Serving on a jury is watching justice done - and like making sauage, it ain't pretty. My one time (as forman, no less), wasn't an uplifting experience...

[Mr. Bumble]

"On several occasions, Chutkan reassured the skeptical defense team that the selected jurors would set aside personal feelings to objectively weigh the evidence."
Her Jamaican Voodoo mind reading ability.

[Sarcastr0]

Why so racist?

[Martinned]

Who knew that jury trials were a terrible idea?

[Armchair]

Not terrible. You just need an unbiased pool.

The pool in DC is too biased and too limited. The trials should be moved to a neutral venue.

[Martinned]

Like where? Rural Alabama?

[Armchair]

Literally anywhere else. It would be a fairer trial in NYC.

[Nige]

Your argument seems to be that Trump going out of his way to piss off everyone who doesn't worship him has backfired. The ol' master manipulater strikes again.

[Armchair]

You've lost the train. This isn't Trump.

[Nige]

Fair enough. Point stands, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maryland. It's where it would be held if DC didn't exist, it's a Blue state with similar demographics.

[Martinned]

I'm sure putting Donald Trump on trial in Maryland would not result in any complaints from Trumpists about the unfairness of the trial at all...

[Bob from Ohio]

Of course there would still be complaints but Trump got 32.15% in Maryland versus 5.4% in DC.

[not guilty]

The voting behavior of the District of Columbia in presidential elections is not relevant to a defendant's seeking a change of venue. See, United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc) (per curiam).

[Nelson]

"You just need an unbiased pool."

That's literally impossible. All humans have biases. What you need is an impartial jury and most people can impartially assess evidence and testimony even though every single one has biases.

Your "DC is full of liberals so all DC juries are incapable of impartiality" theory says more about how you would act than how others would act.

Most people can be impartial on a jury. I've been on two and seen it firsthand. People chosen for a jury almost always take that duty seriously. Between my two juries and my
partner's two, only one person out of all the members and alternates didn't take it seriously. I don't understand why MAGAland insists that people are incapable of honest jury service.

[not guilty]

"A jury questionnaire exposed a bias so strong against Jan. 6 protesters that half the respondents were automatically eliminated from consideration."

Uh, weeding out biased veniremen is the very function of a jury questionnaire.

[Armchair]

But when 50% of the pool is automatically weeded out, you need to ask "Is the pool irredeemable biased, and the trial should be moved to a different venue"

It was with other trials, for example the OK city bombing trial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why isn't that being appealed?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-443_m6ho.pdf
somewhat similar issue.

[not guilty]

I surmise that those convicted defendants who sought a change of venue prior to trial and again after voir dire are appealing the issue.

That kind of issue is not subject to an interlocutory appeal prior to trial. See, e.g., Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984); United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263 (1982).

[David Nieporent]

Why isn't what being appealed, and how do you think the case you cite would be favorable to such an appeal?

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2’s link to United States v. Tsarnaev, 142 S. Ct. 1024 (2022), is indeed puzzling. That SCOTUS opinion makes no reference to any request for a change of venue, even though venue had been litigated extensively in the lower courts. See, United States v. Tsarnaev, 968 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2020). The matter came before SCOTUS on the government’s application from the Court of Appeals decision vacating the death sentence.

The SCOTUS opinion in Tsarnaev, is relevant for another reason, though. Prior Supreme Court cases dealing with the requirements of voir dire had distinguished between those that were tried in federal courts, and are therefore subject to the Supreme Court’s supervisory power to formulate and apply proper standards for enforcement of the criminal law in the federal courts, and those that were tried in state courts, with respect to which federal courts’ authority is limited to enforcing the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Mu’min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 422 (1991); Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 797-98 (1975). The former category of decisions was somewhat more defendant friendly.

The Supreme Court in Tsarnaev sharply curtailed the Court of Appeals ability to exercise supervisory authority over District Courts regarding the conduct of voir dire.

[Moderation4ever]

The Oklahoma City bombing trial and the January 6th insurrectionist trail are not similar. In the case of OK the prosecution was asking for and did get the death penalty. That is quite a bit different than asking for a few years loss of freedom.

Can you give a more comparable case? Say a case where people tried for rioting had the venue moved? The Chicago Seven trial in 1969/1970 was held in Chicago, so that would not work.

[Armchair]

Sure.

When Baltimore Mayor Mosby was charged with corruption and perjury related offenses, the trial was moved from Baltimore to Southern Maryland, due to concerns over the Jury pool being tainted.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/2023/09/08/judge-moves-marilyn-mosby-case-from-baltimore-to-greenbelt-orders-2-trials-for-former-city-states-attorney/

[Armchair]

If you want to look at the state level, the Rodney King trial was also moved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King#:~:text=The%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20District,Valley%20in%20neighboring%20Ventura%20County.

[grb]

Is that really the example you wanna roll with ?!?

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I would like you to try a thought experiment. You were a defense atty for a long time.

Suppose for a moment, you are hired as a defense atty (and you accepted the case in a moment of weakness and insanity) by a J6 protester. You're the one. Now, what's the legal argument that not guilty makes to move the trial location to a neutral venue?

[not guilty]

The applicable standard is set forth at Rule 21(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Upon the defendant's motion, the court must transfer the proceeding against that defendant to another district if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.

I would attempt to show the pervasive nature of media coverage of the events of January 6. The difficulty would be showing prejudice to my particular defendant. I would argue the spillover effect from prosecutions of other defendants arising out of the events of that day. If my client had the resources to do so, I would commission an opinion poll in the District of Columbia. I would propose a jury questionnaire and renew a pretrial motion for change of venue after voir dire is completed but before the jury is sworn. I would make sure to exhaust all peremptory challenges and proffer for the record what other veniremen I would have challenged if I could, in order to preserve the issue for appeal.

That is not to say that I would be successful.

[Armchair]

When the judge is biased against your client as well, it's tough.

[loki13]

We start with jurors being biased against the defendants.

Then it's the judge being biased against the defendants.

Underlying this is the constant refrain that "the system" is biased against the defendants.*

I wonder when people might recognize that there something else biased against the defendants? The facts. Yeah, probably not.

*It is weird, isn't it, that the very same people who are crying out that there is, um, systemic bias against these particular people for this particular issue seem to successfully convince themselves that there has never been any systemic bias in the criminal justice system again, um, other people.

A long time ago, F. Scott Fitzgerald said the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. Pretty pretty sure this wasn't what he had in mind.

[LawTalkingGuy]

MAGA learning about how the criminal justice system works as it happens to Trump is both hilarious and maddening.

[Armchair]

Take a look at some of the statements the Judge has made. And how her sentencing decisions (but just for January 6th defendants) are inevitably harsher than those the prosecution asks for...let alone similar cases (that weren't January 6th).

[LawTalkingGuy]

So judges say mean things to defendants they dislike, give harsher sentences disproportionately to some groups compared to others and give harsher sentencers in high profile cases? Yep that was unheard of until
Trump and definitely is not a common feature of the criminal justice system or anything.

[Armchair]

Liberals used to oppose such things.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Still do. Was talking about judges giving out bad sentences the other day with another lawyer. But they were cases involving people you don’t know about, don’t care about, never would have cared about anyway, and who you won’t care about once all this Trump stuff is done.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

What if the defendant's impulses were biased against the defendant?

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing that interests me, and which I've seen no coverage of, is what did the government do in the way of preemptory challenges?

Because the DC jury pool is so heavily Democratic, (and party registration is a public record in DC,) that the prosecution undoubtedly had enough challenges that they could have weeded every last Republican out of the jury pool.

Did they? Would be interesting to know.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, thank you for that complete response.

[Moderation4ever]

I would emphasize, "The difficulty would be showing prejudice to my particular defendant."

It seems that most cases where a request to move the venue is granted is for individuals and small groups (officers that beat Rodney King) and not for large groups.

[Armchair]

One way would be to look at the statistics.

Federal criminal convictions in 2019 were high, with just a 17% acquittal rate for people who went to trial.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

But the statistics DC juries for January 6th are...insane.

Juries have convicted Jan 6 defendants on an eyebrow-raising 97.3 percent of the counts before them: 112 of 115. On those 115 counts, D.C. jurors acquitted only once—on a misdemeanor—and were hung—or irresolvably split—as to two counts, including one felony and one misdemeanor.

Which is amazing....

[grb]

Given the defendants are usually on videotape exalting in their criminality, I wonder at the missing 00.7 percent.

I also wonder how that didn’t occured to you – until I remember you’re a partisan hack.

[loki13]

"Federal criminal convictions in 2019 were high, with just a 17% acquittal rate for people who went to trial."

Actually, federal prosecutors have a 99.6% conviction rate (2018). You forgot to include plea deals. There is, however, a 14% acquittal rate for those who make it to a jury trial.

But you have to put those numbers in perspective- those jury acquittals include a large number of well-financed white collar criminals with complex and difficult-to-understand cases. And you can't measure by "counts," you have to measure by defendant. That's the important one, not counts. That skews the number in your favor. Which you probably knew.

[Armchair]

and indeed, that's been done.

The federal public defender office in D.C. commissioned the firm Select Litigation LLC to assess the jury pool. It did two comparative polls — one of D.C. and the other of Atlanta.

“Prospective jurors in the District of Columbia have decidedly negative impressions of individuals arrested in conjunction with the activities of January 6, 2021,” Select Litigation said in a report filed in court. “Their bias against the defendants is evident in numerous results and is reflected in a significant prejudgment of the case: a clear majority admit they would be inclined to vote ‘guilty’ if they were serving on a jury at the defendants’ trial.”

[Armchair]

And again.

"Mr. Caldwell’s attorney, David W. Fischer of Glen Burnie, Md, and Juli Z. Haller, Ms. Meggs’ Washington attorney, retained Lux Research to back their change of venue motion to ensure the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment rights to an “impartial jury.”

Lux selected four “test areas” — D.C., Florida, North Carolina and Virginia — to survey jury-qualified people.

“Results from the Study show that the DC Community’s attitude is unique among the Test Areas — and is decidedly negative toward Defendants,” Lux said. “The study shows that the DC Community is saturated with potential jurors who harbor actual bias against defendants.”"

[Nelson]

That makes sense, given the crimes happened in DC. I would expect the same would be the case in Atlanta when an anti-abortionist bombed the Olympics. Or in Oklahoma City with Tim McVeigh. Or in Boston with the Marathon bombers. That isn't the same thing as being incapable of impartiality.

[David Nieporent]

Because Armchair isn't a real lawyer, he's not quoting a court decision; he's quoting an op/ed from the Washington Times. And, thus, not surprisingly, he's not engaging with the actual legal standard for a change of venue.

It's not whether people in an area hold a negative view of a particular crime. Nor is it whether they have a more negative view of that crime than people in another area. It's whether they have a negative view of the defendants — and more precisely, whether they have such a negative view of the defendants that it's impossible to find impartial jurors.

[Sarcastr0]

Another reminder that voting for a Democrat is not a sign you're too biased to vote.

Many here are committed to this incorrect view of Dems. They are wrong. But it says a lot about their own worldview. It is, in fact, quite possible for someone to support a political party and yet be able to put that aside.

The embrace of the partisan brain worms make none of you worthy of serving on a jury; says nothing about the nation at large.

[David Nieporent]

Armchair non-lawyer is again showing his ignorance of the legal system. Most people do not want to serve on juries; if everyone who gave any reason was automatically excused, they wouldn't be able to hold trials. Therefore, judges do not generally let people evade service just based on an initial claim to have anti-crime sentiments. Judges probe to see whether the prospective juror says that s/he is able to set aside those sentiments and be fair. If so, they are required to serve. (Obviously a party can still use a peremptory challenge on them.)

[Armchair]

David is apparently not reading properly again, if he thinks that's what's going on.

[Nelson]

It seems more like you have a belief that you don't want to give up. David gave specific (and common) factors that judges have to consider, as well as walking us through a typical situation. Your posts are ... decidedly less fact-based.

[John F. Carr]

"The extremely biased jury pool being used to convict"

You reminded me of my only time in jury selection. A young black man from the urban part of the county was charged with dealing cocaine. The jury pool was all white.

[not guilty]

One of Donald Trump's favorite red herrings is his kvetch that the various criminal prosecutions of him are partisan witch hunts. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported on the prosecution's almost 200 person witness list in Fulton County. https://www.ajc.com/politics/exclusive-fulton-prosecutors-list-top-trump-aides-ga-officials-as-witnesses/FC4RPKGUIVCVRDGS3VP37L6UXY/

Remarkably absent from the AJC story is identification of anyone publicly known to be a Democrat. The list of persons having information inculpating Trump is chock full of Republicans.

[VinniUSMC]

Did you just now learn that NeverTrumpers include Republicans?

I expected Trump to have great difficulty getting anything to happen in Congress because of 0 support from Dems and a severely fractured Republican party. In fact, that was the best thing about Trump's presidency. Almost nothing was possible. As opposed to a Clinton presidency would would have been 100% blue rubber stamped, with plenty of RINO support for the blue agenda.

[not guilty]

Who among the prospective witnesses identified in the AJC article do you regard as a NeverTrumper? I noticed Trump's Vice-president, an attorney general, an acting attorney general and his deputy, a very pro-Trump Congressman, a former White House chief strategist, among others.

Some may be NeverAgainTrumpers, but who is a NeverTrumper?

[Longtobefree]

My three favorite nothings were a vastly improved economy, energy independence, and a middle east treaty.

[Krayt]

Witnessess called in to testify have little to do with whether it’s a political prosecution or not. If nobody would have bothered butfor him being a political opponent, that’s a political prosecution — using the government’s power of investigation against a political opponent because you want to harm them.

And yes, this includes real potential crimes. Tyrant kings of yore would investigate opponents, knowing full well there would almost be certainly some illegality they could tag them with. These are powerful people with fingers in many pies.

Maybe there are some legimate issues to investigate, but that the opponents have been trying every conceivable tack, one fails to harm him, move on to the next, casts serious doubt on facetious claims these are honest, disinterested applications of “nobody is above the law”.

Hint: “Nobody is above the law” is a subset of “Everybody is equal before the law”, which also includes things like not siccing government on political opponents because they are political opponents.

[Krayt]

And my usual disclaimer, I would be honored not to vote for Trump a third time, as his re-election would be a disaster, allowing Putin to roll tanks through Europe.

But I won't give up on these long-term principles which have served the US so well for so long, just for a transient contemporary goal nobody will care about in 10 years when all principles are dead and we've moved on to the next opponent-as-terrible.

No compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.

[Sarcastr0]

While I'm happy to hear the rest of your post,
No compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.

Rorschach is not someone you should emulate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Principals?

[David Nieporent]

No, I'm pretty sure he meant principles.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"nobody will care about in 10 years when all principles are dead"

i.e. Biden, Trump, Pelosi, etc.

[Frank Drackman]

The Atlanta Urinal Constipation is about as reliable as Hunter Biden's Child Support payments. It's even thinner than USA Today, most of it's articles are from other newspapers, and you can't even get it delivered outside Atlanta.

[not guilty]

Hey, give credit for the epithet where it is due. Or are even you embarrassed to channel the late and unlamented Rush Limbaugh?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It took me a while to find it but the George Santos saga reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQsACuldWA8

[SRG2]

I had never come across Pat Paulsen before. Thanks!

[Dan Schiavetta]

The straightest faced comedian ever. Which made his material funnier.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Colbert gave Paulsen a deadpan stroll for his money.

Rare and important talents. The end of the Colbert Report was a national tragedy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not widely remembered now, but a famous deadpan from the 19th century went by the stage name, Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby. He cracked up Mark Twain.

Twain described how Nasby would center himself on stage, gaze for a lengthy interval into the center of the audience, and then begin by intoning, "We are all descended from grandfathers!"

[Kazinski]

Pat Paulsen came to prominence with a weekly spot on the Smothers Brothers show in the late 60's.

That segment was from his short lived ABC series he got after the Smothers Brothers was pulled off the air by CBS because Tommy Smothers started resisting submitting his tapes to CBS censors before they aired.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was called "Pat Paulsen's Half a Comedy Hour". I was a Smothers fan and tried to watch every episode. It lasted only three months IIRC.

When the network told him it would be his last episode, he announced it on the air and said he always wanted to sing on TV. He did a few songs (not comedic) and displayed a good voice.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Another great deadpan comic was Tim Conway.

He had a series of shows which quickly bombed. In one of them (I think the last one), he goes onstage and says, “I’ve always wanted to do a Christmas show, but I’ve never had a show that lasted until Christmas. So even though it’s early October, let’s celebrate.” The curtain opens, snow falling outside, sound of sleigh bells, and he waddles to a living room with a Christmas tree, wreath, etc. He sits on a couch (deadpan) next to what we are to believe are his wife and kids. One kid looks up at him and says, “Daddy, when are you going to get a job?”

[Kazinski]

My favorite comic from the 60's was Tommy Smothers. Certainly not deadpan though his stick was a naive incredulous exuberance.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He'd finally resort to "Mom always liked you best!"

[BrotherMovesOn]

He, and his brother were fantastic.
Satirist in those days must've walked a fine line but according to old YouTube videos they got away with a lot.

[Armchair]

James Biden has "avoided" his Congressional subpoena to testify.

Similar actions got Steve Bannon put in jail.

Is this a situation where only "one" type of person is actually prosecuted for avoiding Congressional Subpoenas?

[Krayt]

[grb]

Armchair : Is this a situation where only “one” type of person is actually prosecuted for avoiding Congressional Subpoenas?

You might try asking Jim Jordan.....

[Commenter_XY]

Today is Pearl Harbor day. Spare a thought today for the 3,000+ American servicemen who lost their lives on this day, 82 years ago.

May their memory be as a blessing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What many people forget is that the Japanese did not attack just Pearl Harbor. To quote from FDR's "Day of Infamy" speech:

"Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong: Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island."

[Commenter_XY]

That was the truly audacious (and brilliant) part of it all; it was a three-pronged attack. There are lessons we can derive today from the cultural ethos of the people who designed that plan.

If I remember correctly, I think there was a senior US serviceman (Billy Mitchells?) who posited an attack very much like we saw in Pearl Harbor....but in the 1920's. And he was dismissed as a crackpot (at the time).

And to the ahistorical doubters....No, FDR did not have advance knowledge and no it was not an inside job.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No, the attack was not an inside job, but it was a big relief because it got the U.S. into a war that FDR knew had to be fought. As Churchill put it, after the attack “I slept the sleep of the saved and the thankful”.

[Commenter_XY]

Who are the Billy Mitchell's of the US military, today, captcrisis?

The iconoclasts, the ones who think way differently. These people (like Mitchell) see a target that nobody else even sees, and hit it. Some call it clairvoyance. Others call it zero-th order thinking. It is an intangible quality that defies description.

How do we grow those people, and more importantly, protect them?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think it’s perception so much as “luck” (I put that in quotes because for people like Mitchell being correct hurt him).

Various people look at the future, all using correct information, all competently and objectively evaluating it, and arrive at differing predictions. But not everything is foreseeable. The fact that one person ends up being proven correct may be a matter of happenstance, and not a sign of any particular perspicacity.

This happens all the time in the business world. Someone like (say) Jeff Bezos developed a model for online shopping that ended up working. Others tried other models which on the face of it were just as viable, but either because of unknown variables, or timing, were not as successful. And as a result some lost their shirts.

[Mr. Bumble]

What I have always wondered is why the Japs (as they were regularly referred to at the time) did not follow up with a second attack, since they missed the aircraft carriers, or invade Hawaii. As it turned out it was a Pyrrhic victory with the US still having a base to launch operations against Japan.

[Commenter_XY]

They tried, but whiffed = Why didn't the Japs hang around for the knockout blow. They did not know where the Enterprise was.

As I understand it, Yamamoto basically took the huge victory, and went home. Meaning, he knew he achieved his primary objective(s) and did not stupidly try to do too much. Brilliant strategist.

Many, many glasses of sake have been consumed discussing that battle.

[Randy Sax]

From my understanding the goal was to severely cripple the U.S. navy with the goal of trying to entice the U.S. into an early surrender. The japs did NOT want a prolonged pacific theater war.

[Commenter_XY]

Exactly correct.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps the two of you could discuss this without the racial slurs?

Well, one of you might be able to abide by that request.

[Kazinski]

Well I’ve always wondered why Japs is a slur but Brits isn’t?

For the record my kids, who are half Japanese, never expressed much umbrage about jap, but my son broke another kids nose in High School when he called him a “Chink”. Although to be fair, I think that was post hoc justification for punching him.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Because of the etymology. A quick stop by Wikipedia should clear up any confusion.

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

[Kazinski]

I am still confused even after reading the wiki:

"Koto Matsudaira, Japan's Permanent Representatives to the United Nations, was asked whether he disapproved of the use of the term on a television program in June 1957, and reportedly replied, "Oh, I don't care. It's a [sic] English word. It's maybe American slang. I don't know. If you care, you are free to use it."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you're going to quote that section, at least quote the rest of it. I would've thought the History & Etymology section was clear enough why it's considered a slur here.

Here's what you didn't quote:

In 2003, the Japanese deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Yoshiyuki Motomura, protested the North Korean ambassador's use of the term in retaliation for a Japanese diplomat's use of the term "North Korea" instead of the official name, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".[15]

In 2011, after the term's offhand use in a March 26 article appearing in The Spectator ("white-coated Jap bloke"), the Minister of the Japanese Embassy in London protested that "most Japanese people find the word 'Japs' offensive, irrespective of the circumstances in which it is used".[16]

[Randy Sax]

Pretty simple, Brits are white, Japs aren't.
Frenchman - white - OK
Chinaman - not white - "not OK"

[Kazinski]

Frenchmen white? There is some debate about that.

The Brits used to say "Wogs starts at Calais."

I am a quarter French Canadian, but we sundered yourself from their genetic pool 3 or 4 centuries ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am surprised that the Japanese, knowing how valuable oil was and that we had to haul it 3000 miles *to* Pearl, didn't hit the tank farm.

Had they destroyed that -- and I suspect that just a few tanks burst open and afire would have lit the rest -- then the fleet would be crippled by lack of fuel. It would have to be brought from either California or Texas by relatively small tankers that the Germans did a good job of sinking. (Gasoline rationing was required because so many tankers from Texas to NYC were being sunk, apparently there were no pipelines then.)

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "I am surprised that the Japanese ... didn’t hit the tank farm"

Martin Cruz Smith built a very entertaining novel around just that question. It was a bit implausible, but not enough to challenge willing disbelief from a grateful reader.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671775928/reasonmagazinea-20/

(note : It’s one of those books that have been sold with different titles. It also became a great audiobook)

[Nige]

I love Smith but whenever I finish the new Arkady Renko book I lament that I have no more Smith to read, forgetting his non-Renko books entirely. I will go get this sharpish.

[grb]

Did you find his last Renko novel, Independent Square, any good? I was a bit disappointed, seeing it as sparse, disjointed, and barely having an ending. I’m afraid his sickness (which is incorporated in the book, as Arkady discovered he has Parkinson’s) has finally affected his writing. However I really liked the previous one – The Serbian Dilemma – though it too had a bizarrely truncated ending.

As for non-Arkady books, December 6 is very good. It involves a shady hustling ex-pat American who owns a bar in Tokyo on the eve of Pearl Harbor. Just the glimpse of everyday Japanese life on the eve of the attack is worth the read.

The other one I’d suggest is Rose. Set in late-Nineteenth century English coal mining country, its main character is a down-on-his heels American mining expert desparate to return to his true loves – the African contintent and its unexplored wilds, the search for African gold, and a native wife he was forced to leave behind. The only ticket back is satisifying a deeply cynical Bishop locate a missing curate in a mining town. Again, it will introduce you to a world you never imagined.

A bit less good is Girl From Venice, set in that city during WWII and facist rule, but it’s still worth reading.

I think the last truly great Smith book was Wolves Eat Dogs, which brings up an interesting point. Have you noticed how the typical Smith book is regularly built on a repeating template? You have the hero, who is thoughful, world-weary & idealistic all at once - and always sharply witty. You have the heroine, who loarthes the hero through about half of the book. And you always have some Alpha Male who is relentlessly intimidating and impossibly formidable until his comeuppance in Act V.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The airplane was a toy in the 1920s, but Billy Mitchell was right -- airplanes had only existed for 20 years, and given another 20 years of advancements, would be far more lethal than fixed guns, even on (relatively) slow moving ships.

It was the aircraft carriers that won the war, battleships were largely obsolete.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Billy Mitchell demonstrated his novel ideas about air power by staging an air attack on some old navy ships right off the coast of Hatteras Island in 1921. The only airport on the island is named for him, even though he has no other connection to the Outer Banks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the state of the educational system in this country I doubt that many have any idea as to what happened on that Sunday when the Germans attacked.

[SRG2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

[Martinned]

Also the anniversary of the murder of Cicero, the death of justice Potter Stewart, and the terrible 1944 Tōnankai earthquake that caused 3,358 casualties in the Tokai region in Japan.

[Commenter_XY]

Justice Potter Stewart....a SCOTUS justice forever known by his pragmatic, constitutional test that is still in use today: I know it when I see it.

🙂

[not guilty]

I have read -- I think it was in The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong -- that Potter Stewart joked that "I know it when I see it" would be inscribed on his tombstone.

It is sometimes overlooked that the famous comment was in regard to a movie that as a matter of law was non-obscene. The broader operative language is:

I have reached the conclusion . . . that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring) [footnotes omitted].

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was a French movie called "The Lovers" and it's on youtube. I commented on it on June 22 along with that case. I couldn't pick out anything obscene in it (maybe the obscene stuff was in the dialog -- I don't speak French). But it's set in Algeria and the cinematography is beautiful.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I have had occasion as a parent to haul out that very pragmatic test from time to time when a child did something that was tantalizingly 'on the line' between right and wrong. 🙂

I think all parents have used that test, at least once.

[Josh R]

And Delaware becoming the first state.

[Martinned]

Well, the first state to ratify the constitution. That's not the same thing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Delaware has so little to distinguish itself that I don’t begrudge them putting “The First State” on their license plates.

Also it seems unfair that they were the first to approve our system of government but they didn’t get a President until now.

[Martinned]

It's the corporate law capital of the western hemisphere. That seems a lot more noteworthy than beating Pennsylvania by five days.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I agree.

Also the most efficient court system in the country. You can go from filing a complaint to a decision by the Delaware Supreme Court in two months.

Also, not surprisingly, the most business-friendly. It's the only state which does not accept the theory of strict product liability.

I remember going there in 1989 on my way to law school, and being amazed at the smallness of official buildings. Even Rhode Island's are bigger.

And also being reminded that it was a slave state. I drove down toward the water and ate in a restaurant where everyone was black and, if not poor, certainly not well off. I might as well have been in Mississippi.

[Commenter_XY]

I hear some of those Delaware state judges are pretty smart, and really good readers. 🙂

[grb]

Martinned : “Also the anniversary of the murder of Cicero…. ”

Cicero is an interesting case study, brave and timid in turns. I’m still convinced the Catilinarian Conspiracy was puffed-up way, way beyond its actual danger, but Cicero spent years shamelessly promoting himself as the great savior of Rome in defeating it. By the time he relentlessly harried Mark Anthony, he was looking to recoup some of that heroic feeling, but this time it came with a brutal cost.

[Nelson]

RIP Norman Lear. He was a brilliant man. At 101 he was still mentally sharp and had as much penetrating insight into America as someone half his age.

[Mr. Bumble]

Even now he is sharper than Brandon on his best day.

[grb]

Uh huh. And when Biden debates Trump live on-stage before a national audience, who comes off sharper?

Biden, of course, just like the last election. And therein lies the trap in your bullshit. Last election, the Right also relentless pushed the meme Biden was overcome with dementia. Wing-nuts on this forum insisted he wouldn’t even show for the debate; his people would invent some excuse to cancel.

But he did show and kicked Trump’s ass. When it happens again the same thing will follow: In just a couple of hours, a major selling point the Right has invested years of effort promoting will be exposed as an empty fraud.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Archie Bunker was held up for ridicule but also a complex and mostly sympathetic character, especially as the series progressed. The creation of Lear's liberal and basically good-hearted mind.

[Krayt]

It was controversial for him to act that way, but it's an effective technique. Haul out the bad behavior in a context of humor. People have a laugh, then think, "That's not how you're supposed to behave."

People learn by seeing things for themselves. Preaching at them hardens the heart.

Never forget that, you damned, dying-out klingers!

[Sarcastr0]

It's not the 70s anymore; media doesn't work like that.

Nowadays you have the option to wallow only in media that validates your priors, and that's where most folks end up.

A main thing in the right's makeup nowadays is how put upon they are; they will take anything across media that doesn't sufficiently validate them and make it into broad-spectrum persecution. Quotes from years and years ago; commercials; just vibes.
You're doing it right here.

The left has their own degeneracy in terms of representation. The discourse over the Killers of the Flower Moon movie is a great example of that.

A social scientist in my office says the Internet has killed the locality of community, and that's going to bring us down as a republic.
I'm not nearly so pessimistic, but lets not pretend All in the Family would play today but for liberal contempt for the right.

[Commenter_XY]

Aw Geez...Edith was reincarnated as Sarcastr0.

[Mr. Bumble]

+1

[John F. Carr]

We watched All In the Family in my childhood home, when families had one television tuned to the channel the parents wanted. Even at a young age I thought Archie Bunker was funny and understood he was not a role model.

Now with words are violence and all that he would likely be run off the airwaves, or turned into a caricature with every show ending with him stepping on a rake.

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought it was also pretty clear that Meathead really was a meathead a lot of the time.

[Commenter_XY]

Some things do not change....Rob Reiner is still a meathead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Obsolete right-wingers devoid of self-awareness still seem to dislike him.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Both characters eventually got fully fleshed out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owQNtBNCg0Y

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Rob Reiner is still a meathead"

Anyone responsible for The Princess Bride deserves respect, damn it.

[Commenter_XY]

That is true, grb. 🙂

[Nelson]

Abso-fucking-lutely.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Not a lot of the time. There were a few episodes that clearly showcased a condescension or hypocrisy on his part but they were explicit, ended benignly and were the exceptions that proved the rule.
Once you add in Lionel, the other Jeffersons and the Italian neighbors, Mike's view was 'sympathetic' in about 5 of every 6 episodes.
Arch never stood a chance.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree that there was definately a thumb on the scale in the direction you say. It's just that it wasn't one dimensional, like you'd probably see it scripted today. Sometimes Archie was right, sometimes Meathead really was a meathead. Reiner didn't need to portray Archie as always wrong.

I doubt you could get away with that sort of nuance today.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Agree

[Dr. Ed 2]

The version I heard is Lear never expected Middle America to identify with Archie.

[Longtobefree]

Best Bunker line ever:
"Anyone who lives in a commune is a commune-ist".

[BrotherMovesOn]

Or any line he utters at Edith's high school reunion.

[Defenderz]

Turns out that the UNLV shooter was a 67 year old non-tenured professor, and Pedo Joe is calling for an assault weapons ban and magazine ban based on it.

Assuming the professor had a clean record, which I suspect he did, and he just snapped, there's absolutely no gun control that could have stopped it, other than a full ban, which of course is what the left wants.

[Martinned]

Still not a fan of evidence-based policy making?

[Defenderz]

Evidence should be taken into account, sure. What point exactly are you trying to make?

[Martinned]

That watching people get gunned down day after day, year after year, should maybe make you reconsider your views on gun control?

[Defenderz]

First, it's a constitutional right whether or not there would be policy benefits. Second, you've shown zero evidence that any of your proposed "gun control" would have any benefit at all.

[Martinned]

First, it’s a constitutional right whether or not there would be policy benefits.

So that's a yes on "not interested in evidence"?

Second, you’ve shown zero evidence that any of your proposed “gun control” would have any benefit at all.

Like the man said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[Krayt]

Looking at the number of people currently living under the boot of dictatorship, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the real reason for the second amendment as an anachronism.

[Martinned]

If only Venezuela and Syria had more guns, I'm sure they'd be paragons of liberty.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hugo Chavez was democratically elected. At some point, he took steps to entrench himself in power, i.e., to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship. At that point, if enough Venezuelans (1) had guns, and (2) were willing to take on Chavez's (no-longer-democratic) regime -- yes, Venezuela today might be a paragon of liberty.

[Nige]

If Trump wns and carries out his authoritarian promises, will you rise in violent rebellion?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No lol. A good chunk of the “guns will lead to liberty” types would join or support paramilitaries and death squads in support of an authoritarian regime.

[Defenderz]

LawTalkingGuy, yes, that is true. Joining death squads in support of a regime that will use force against leftists makes one a freedom fighter.

Sometimes you have to kill to preserve freedom.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah but you’re a huge pussy so you won’t even do that.

[David Nieporent]

People die in car crashes day after day, year after year, and it hasn't caused me to reconsider whether cars should be outlawed.

[Martinned]

No, but has caused a fair few people to think about laws like requiring driving licences, seat belts, regulating the shape of bumpers, etc.

[BadLib]

None of which apply to a car stored or operated on private property or to cars being transported ("carried") but not operated on public land.

[Nige]

Mind you, people have been pointing out how cars have been made needlessly bigger and bigger, increasing pedestrian deaths and injuries. Some aspects should definitely be outlawed.

[Kazinski]

Needlessly?

Isn't that because consumers want them bigger? If I'm an auto exec, I would think I "need" to give consumers what they want to buy.

If I'm an authoritarian bureaucrat, of course I would get to decide what people need.

[Nige]

It's needless whether consumers want it or not. It's dumb, wasteful, jacks up the price, jacks up costs of road maintenance, kills more people on the roads, kills more people with air pollution. Faceless auto execs shouldn't be getting away with that kind of murder.

[David Nieporent]

"I don't want or need this, so nobody should."

[Nelson]

"have been made needlessly bigger and bigger"

Needlessly according to who? I drive a Prius because it's fuel efficient and can fit 5 full-grown Labs in the back if I have to transport them. But I don't have kids, so it's perfect for me but insufficient for a medium- to large-sized family.

My guess is this is another of your "cars add to climate change, so people should be forced to give them up or be required to use the smallest one possible" stupidity. If you think it's important, drive a small, fuel-efficient car. But don't presume to tell people you don't know how to live their lives.

[Nelson]

"People die in car crashes day after day, year after year, and it hasn’t caused me to reconsider whether cars should be outlawed."

This trope is such nonsense. The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of a gun is to kill things. When a car kills someone, it's an unintended consequence caused by physics and the fragile human body. When a gun kills someone, it's doing what it was made to do.

I think many gun control policies are terribly misguided, but pretending a car and a gun are equivalent is not a serious argument.

[David Nieporent]

1) Dead is dead, whether the thing that caused the death was manufactured for that purpose or not.
2) If the purpose of guns is to kill, then there are hundreds of millions of guns in the U.S. not — and never — fulfilling their purpose.

[ThePublius]

The constitution is not a matter of policy.

[loki13]

That would be a shocking statement to the people (politicians) who discussed it as a political document, and explicitly bargained about its provisions on policy grounds ... not to mention the Federalists (and anti-Federalists) who tried to convince people to vote for it on policy grounds.

But sure. Maybe it was handed down from Baby Jesus, or Santa, or something. Like the Bible. Or the recipe for Coca Cola.

[Longtobefree]

Here's you evidence:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You want gun control, just get this repealed.

[Martinned]

Yes, and as a policy matter that would be an excellent idea.

[Ed Grinberg]

Why do I have the feeling that the folks eager to repeal the 2nd Amendment would also repeal the 1st, the 4th, the 5th... And, with all that accomplished, what's to stop them from ending "the equal protection of the laws" (14th), denying certain people the right to vote (15th), re-introducing slavery (13th)?! With the government holding all the guns, who's gonna stop them?! They'd be able to do literally anything to you!

[Defenderz]

They are fine with slavery as long as it's religious photographers having to take photos of a wedding ceremony whereby the Rev. Kirkland consummates the marriage by sticking it in LawTalkingGuy's rear.

[grb]

Kinda strange, but we never seem to get thru a set of comments without some right-winger showing a perverted obssession with male rectums.

Something about men's anal passages and right-wing thought seem to go together like chips & dips.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why strange? The Volokh Conspirators carefully cultivate a particular, predictable target audience. These are the comments and commenters they want to have. Downscale, disaffected, obsolete right-wing bigots.

[Dan Schiavetta]

We don’t do Letters of Marque and Reprisal any more, even though it’s in the Constitution and never been repealed.

Why? Because the era of privateers instead of navies is as far in the past as . . . the era of militias instead of standing armies.

[Frank Drackman]

Restrictions on African Amuricans owing weapons? nope.

[Nige]

Oh, which shooting was that? There were so many since last week it's hard to keep track.

[Defenderz]

Yeah, in a country with 320 million people, of which 100 million are black or Hispanic, and where gun ownership is a constitutional right, there will be a lot of shootings. What's your point?

[Nige]

Don't leave out the white people. That said, you've made it for me.

[Defenderz]

White people account for fewer than 5% of non-suicide shootings.

[Martinned]

That's still a lot of shooting.

[Defenderz]

No, it's really not.

[Martinned]

I guess it all depends on what you're used to.

[SRG2]

How does it compare with shootings in other Western countries?

[Defenderz]

How does the number of shootings by whites in America compare with the number of shootings by whites in other Western countries?

Pretty even actually.

[David Nieporent]

A racist lie from a racist jackass. The worst part is, blacks are overrepresented in homicide commission, but you couldn't just leave it with that fact; you had to completely make something up.

Per the FBI's UCRs, in 2019 (chosen not because it's unique but because it's the first dataset that came up in my google), whites were 41% of the offenders among those whose race was known; blacks were 56%. (The remaining 3% were "other.")

Even if blacks committed every homicide for which the offender's race wasn't known, whites would be 29%, not 5%.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I suspect Hispanics were considered White in this data.

[Sarcastr0]

I suspect you could look that up but didn’t bother.

Like that guy who stabbed Chauvin being black in your imagination so you posted about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Keith Ellison as much as said he was.

[David Nieporent]

In the quote you fabricated?

[Estragon]

“I don’t make things up”

-Dr. Ed

[David Nieporent]

You of course suspect incorrectly. Hispanics were considered whatever race they were. White Hispanics were considered white; black Hispanics were considered black.

[Defenderz]

And what about mestizos? They can't be considered Indians, because they don't have a tribal card, so they get counted as white.

[Defenderz]

You fucking moron. Hispanics who are 95% Incan or Mayan are considered "white" by the census.

How fucking stupid are you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How does an ostensibly academic blog attract so many racists?

By design.

Does the Volokh Conspiracy generate bigots, or merely attract them?

[ThePublius]

How many were there since last week? (Not counting Chicago, of course.)

[Nige]

So many you've become completely desentisized.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's not being said is the "why" and if people are going to speculate on the "how" then I'm going to speculate on the "why" -- and starting with the known facts, he was a 67-year-old faculty candidate who had taught in two other states.

Under what circumstances did he leave those gigs, and why wasn't he hired at UNLV? Was he one of the people forced to live their entire lives as adjuncts because they were unfortunate enough to have been born White males? And did a minority or female get the job that he thought he would get?

I'm not saying that's what happened, only if people are going to speculate on guns, let me add that driving a fuel truck into the building would have killed a whole lot more than three people -- although reports are that his homicides were NOT random.

White Lives Matter...

[grb]

Sixty-plus years as a white male and I’ve never once been oppressed for being white; never once for being male. Yet everywhere around me are whiny babyfied right-wingers sobbing in anguish over the terrible burden of being born white, male, or (horrors!) both.

I guess there are two explanations : First, I’m just darn lucky to be one of the few white people who escaped relentless repression because of my skin color. Second, there are an awful lot of right-wingers who find victimhood a masturbatory pleasure of explosive orgasmic porportions.

(my money is on the second explanation)

[Dr. Ed 2]

The first is more likely.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say the "sixty-plus years" is the give-away. By the time oppressing people for being white became a thing, he was entrenched enough to not be vulnerable to it. it's those who AREN'T sixty plus years who have to worry about it, like kids applying for college or their first job, and being rejected because they're not diverse enough.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It also depends on what field he went into because the anti-White-male stuff started in some before others.

[grb]

I guess when someone (like Ed or Brett) is determined to luxuriate in their vicitimhood like a person settling into a steamy warm bath, there just ain’t no stopping them.

Me? Unlike you, I have no interest in seeing myself as a victim. I have no interest in finding spurious reasons to consider myself “oppressed”. I don’t have the slightest clue why you guys lust so after victimhood. What’s the point?

I do note that the Right of my youth was the law&order party, while today’s excuses gross criminality and creates bizarre conspiracy theories to explain it. The Right of my youth was for fiscal responsability, while today’s explodes the deficit every chance it gets, using crude supply-side lies as cover. The Right of my youth was for personal responsibility, while today’s evades it as a matter of course. And the Right of my youth raged against victimhood thinking, while today’s is the biggest bunch of snowflake whiners on the planet.

There seems to be a pattern here. The Right shrieks against an issue using hysterical rhetoric, and then finds themselves seduced by the very boogeyman they opposed. It’s probably too much to think they’ll soon be decked in transvestite garb en masse, but I wouldn’t be surprised. More likely – and troubling – is this : Having convinced themselves there was massive voting fraud (with no basis whatsoever), they’ll follow the same pattern and decide they want part of that action. Expect to see evidence of that in ’24…

[Nige]

'By the time oppressing people for being white became a thing,'

It is not a thing. It is the basis for an anti-semitic and racist conspiracy theory, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Talk to the kids you claim repression on behalf of Brett.

Their politics are by and large not really aligned with white resentment.

[Defenderz]

Whites should be resentful. We're objectively the best, smartest, and most resourceful humans on earth, and have created everything worthwhile the world has, and we're maligned for it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hard to believe Volokh, Blackman, and the other Conspirators aren’t deans of strong law schools, isn’t it?

Instead, Volokh is packing his bags, Blackman is mired at one of the shittiest law schools in America, and the other Conspirators are nothing more than token clingers, disrespected and marginalized by the modern mainstream of legal academia.

Maybe Trump will do something about this.

[Defenderz]

Not to mention that anyone in that age range has lived on the U.S. printed money and debt regime. Fuck Boomers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog Of Poor, Persecuted White Males

[Sarcastr0]

For every 30 mins you spend on tiktok you become 17% more antisemetic!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is tiktok really used for something other than looking at scantily clad women? I guess I've been using it incorrectly.

[grb]

Your priorities seem right to me.....

[Martinned]

From Politico: US government claims right to seize patents of certain high-priced medicines

The Biden administration has determined that it has the authority to seize the patents of certain high-priced medicines, a move that could open the door to a more aggressive federal campaign to slash drug prices.
The determination, which was described by three people familiar with the matter, represents the culmination of a nearly nine-month review of the government’s so-called march-in rights. Progressives have long insisted that those rights empower the administration to break the patents of pricey drugs that were developed with public funds, in an effort to create more competition and lower prices.

[Mr. Bumble]

Eminent domain for drugs?

[Martinned]

Apparently that's exactly what it's not.

[Moderation4ever]

I would note the important point here is "developed with public funds". It might be interesting to ask how many drugs would we have today if there were no public funding for research as some point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's a different issue here that you're missing completely -- if government funds were used to develop the drug, then the government should already have at least partial ownership of the patent.

[Krayt]

And if government wants to leave a profit motive to the researchers by keeping their hands out of the profits or ownership, then lump it. Or change the law. In any case, from what I've heard, it might be another case of misusing a law for something it wasn't intended for. We shall see.

[Sarcastr0]

Can != should.

[Sarcastr0]

If there is an open policy on when the US will use it's march-in rights that may be a good incentive.
I should take a look, maybe I'll submit a public comment!

I can tell you university research does not have this 'sits on the shelf' problem.

[John F. Carr]

One of the controversial policy decisions of the 1980s was allowing universities to patent government-funded research.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WRONG policy decision....

[Sarcastr0]

Bayh Dole has been a great source of spin-offs and innovation. Capitalism doing the job the government won't do.

Meanwhile, big pharma doesn't seem to be up for that task. Though that's anecdotal; I'd be interested in seeing some stats.

[Bob from Ohio]

"right to seize patents"

That's not going to have any future negative consequences.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, none at all. What could possibly go wrong?

[John F. Carr]

The government already has the power to seize patents for military uses and order the person filing for a patent not to disclose the invention. The government is supposed to pay a royalty. Because the use is secret it is hard to get a fair trial on royalty rates.

I was told that after filing a patent for the RSA cryptosystem, Adi Shamir ("S") got a "patent secrecy order" telling him not to disclose his invention under penalty of criminal prosecution (35 USC Chapter 17). At the time he was in Israel and the algorithm had already been published in Scientific American. A lot of crypto work went to Canada or beyond because cryptography was considered military technology.

From 37 CFR 5.2:

When notified by the chief officer of a defense agency that publication or disclosure of the invention by the granting of a patent would be detrimental to the national security, an order that the invention be kept secret will be issued by the Commissioner for Patents.

[ducksalad]

Haven’t been directly involved in one of those.

I think it would be relatively easy to get fair compensation for actual time, effort, and expenses put into it. Fair compensation for the hypothetical that there would’ve been enormous royalties, yeah not so much.

[Commenter_XY]

Chag Semeach Hanukah to my fellow Tribe Members (starting at 505pm Phila time for me).

[Both Sides]

Same to you!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with vanishingly scant academic veneer
has operated for no more than

ONE (1)

day -- a single day --without
publishing at least one racial
slur; it has published vile
racial slurs on at least

FORTY-TWO (42)

occasions (so far) during 2023
(that’s at least 42
different, distinct discussions
that include vile racial slurs,
not just 41 racial slurs; many
or most of those discussions have
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the steady stream of antisemitic,
misogynist, Islamophobic, gay-bashing,
racist, transphobic, Palestinian-hating,
and immigrant-bashing slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this bitter, 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.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm thinking Darling Nikki Haley/Vivisection Ram-a-Swami probably weigh less combined than that Tub O' Lard Christ Christie, Jeezus, even his stretch marks have stretch marks, he's got more chins than a Chinese Phone Book, his blood type is "Gravy".....

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Spoke too soon (and not for the first time):

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with vanishingly scant academic veneer
has operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

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

FORTY-THREE (43)

occasions (so far) during 2023
(that’s at least 43 different,
distinct discussions that include
vile racial slurs, not just 43 racial slurs;
many or most of those discussions
have featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the steady stream of antisemitic,
misogynist, Islamophobic, gay-bashing,
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.

You're welcome, late '90s fans.

[Martinned]

Cue someone suing the judge in 3..., 2..., 1...

A Texas judge granted a woman’s abortion request, despite the state’s bans, in one of the first cases of its kind since Roe v. Wade ended. The judge agreed that the procedure was necessary to protect the woman, whose fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, from a potentially dangerous birth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/us/texas-abortion-ruling-exception.html

[apedad]

So now we have a govt official making medical decisions!

Exactly what Republicans want/don't want.

[bernard11]

From the article:

The Texas attorney general’s office, which argued on Thursday against granting the order, could seek the intervention of a higher court. The office has said that Ms. Cox did not qualify for a medical exemption to the state’s abortion bans. It did not immediately comment on the judge’s ruling.

From USA Today:

Her pregnancy puts her at increased risk of gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, uterine rupture from Caesarean section and post-operative infections, among other conditions, and carrying the pregnancy to term would make it less likely that she will be able to carry a third child in the future, Cox's doctors advised her, according to the filing."

[John F. Carr]

Those are standard risks of pregnancy. There is a small chance you could die or be sterilized. The article I read did not give me any reason to believe that her pregnancy was any riskier to her than an ordinary pregnancy.

[Nige]

I mean, we've been pointing out that carrying a pregnancy through to term is risky to life and health, which is one more reason why women should be allowed to choose to do so.

[grb]

From the NYT linked article :

"Ms. Cox’s fetus was found to have trisomy 18, a genetic condition that in all but very rare cases leads to miscarriage or stillbirth, or to the infant’s death within the first year. Her lawyers said she had visited the emergency room four times because of pain and discharge — including once after her suit was filed on Tuesday — but that doctors had told her that under Texas law, she had to continue her pregnancy."

"In her order, the judge found that Ms. Cox’s doctor “believes in good faith, exercising her medical judgment,” that an abortion is medically recommended and that the medical exception “permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances.”

Of course, Dr. Carr finds this a "standard" pregnancy, and blithely dismisses any risk to the woman's health. No doubt many other "medical authorities" are equally eager to make sure this woman doesn't escape the consequences of her actions, such as Dr. Ken Paxton.

[ducksalad]

Not going to go past the paywall, if you have more info help us out.

First paragraph "doctors" tell her the law prohibits the abortion.
Second paragraph, "Ms. Cox's doctor" says she qualifies for an exemption under the law. Those are opposite things.

Is this same doctor? Did her doctor recommend the exemption, but it was denied by some other doctor she was sent to for the procedure?

I guess my real question is: before it got to court and Ken "Grandstand" Paxton's organization got involved, did some agent of the state tell her she couldn't have an abortion? Or did some doctor just misunderstand the law and say no? Or was some doctor/lawyer pair looking to create a case with favorable facts?

[Sarcastr0]

If it appears in the NYT good bet you can find other reporting about it if you check around.
stltoday.com/news/nation-world/texas-judge-grants-pregnant-woman-permission-to-get-an-abortion-despite-states-ban/article_12803683-c888-5070-810f-f78cf444ec3b.html

[ducksalad]

Thanks for link, but it still doesn’t say who first “went to law” here.

Paxton’s in the wrong either way here. But I would still like to know if this started with (a) someone like a police officer or DA telling a doctor not to do the abortion, or (b) a doctor who legitimately thought the abortion didn’t meet the exemption criteria, and Cox disagreed, or (c) a nervous doctor deciding to go to the authorities to confirm legality and then it got bumped up the chain to Paxton, or (d) the doctors were all ready to go but Cox was more concerned about the principle of the thing than getting the abortion, and decided let’s troll Paxton, write some op-eds, demonstrate how extreme he is and build up opposition to the law.

If it was (d) they were successful. But I do object to the modern tactic of claiming a law bans something that it doesn't. Any chance of some reasonable compromise between 37 weeks for any reason, or 0 weeks with no exceptions, gets ruined when an activist claims something actually legal is banned, and then a nasty no-limits no-decency piece of work like Paxton agrees with them.

[grb]

ducksalad : "Any chance of some reasonable compromise between 37 weeks for any reason, or 0 weeks with no exceptions, gets ruined"

Said reasonable compromise was ruined when Roe was overturned by an activist court. Roe was the reasonable compromise. Now, here are the questions:

(1) How many pro-choice supporters want 37 weeks for any reason? Answer : Almost none. Effectively zero.

(2) How many anti-abortion supporters want 0 weeks with no exceptions? Answer : Much of the right-wing world.

If you want an honest debate and the chance of a reasonable compromise, the place to start is by admitting there's no Both-Sides-ism here. All the unreasonableness comes from one side alone.

[myself]

Paxton’s in the wrong either way here.

Morally yes. Legally? That's a harder question.

If the fetus survives to term it will die shortly after birth. An unnecessarily horrific experience for the parents but not a factor under the Texas law.

The pregnancy carries significant health risks that may lead to death or disability, but so do many pregnancies. The trouble is that there's no clear dividing line. Preeclampsia carries a risk of death but is a fairly common condition, is it grounds for abortion? Pro-life folks would surely say no.

But combine preeclampsia with a non-viable pregnancy, force a woman to risk her life to carry a fetus to term and then watch it die? That's insanely barbaric. But since the law ignores the viableness of the pregnancy it's the situation you're left with.

That's the trouble with the Texas law and others like it, it ignores the tough questions by pretending they don't exist, and in doing so it creates injustice when confronted with not only the tough questions but the easy ones as well (non-viable pregnancies, rape, incest, etc).

[grb]

myself : "Morally yes. Legally? That’s a harder question"

The law has nothing to do with Paxton's actions. From the NYT story:

"After the ruling, Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to top hospital officials in Houston, where Ms. Cox’s doctor practices, saying she and hospital staff could still face criminal and civil penalties, despite the judge’s order.

“The T.R.O. will not insulate you, or anyone else,” Mr. Paxton wrote, adding that it would expire “long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.”

So the Texas Attorney General tried to threaten and intimidate the doctors and hospital despite the court order.

[myself]

Did the court order prohibit his action?

Is a Judge actually able to insulate the doctors and nurses from being prosecuted by the AG?

Like I said, immoral, but I'm not sure illegal.

[grb]

myself : “Is a Judge actually able to insulate the doctors and nurses from being prosecuted by the AG?”

The judge cetainly tried. From the NYT article :

“Mr. Paxton’s letter contrasted with the order issued by the judge, which barred the state from enforcing its laws against Ms. Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, as well as anyone else involved in the procedure”

As to the effectiveness of that, I don’t know. (best DeForest Kelley voice) :
“I’m an architect, damn it, not a lawyer”

[bernard11]

I don't think you either face a risk or not. There are probabilities involved. In this case her doctors decided they were quite high.

Tell me, John, WTF does the Texas AG know about evaluating the risks of pregnancy?

[John F. Carr]

I would not lightly assume that Ken Paxton knows anything about pregnancy risks.

The fetus or baby was going to die. That ought to be grounds for abortion regardless of the legality of elective abortions in general. Not in Texas, I gather. Doctors have to come up with something to make it about the mother’s health, even though it’s really about not enduring a pregnancy that will end in stillbirth or death not long after birth.

(By fefinition fetal death after 20 weeks or so is classified as stillbirth. Before that it is a miscarriage. The distinction is mainly technical. I gather the experience is much the same whether it happens at 19 or 21 weeks.)

[grb]

There's something brutally sadistic about forcing a women to carry a fetus nine months to term when it's going to die. But the anti-abortion crowd often prove themselves simply evil.

[Commenter_XY]

Is that the proverbial 'bright line'? = ...did not give me any reason to believe that her pregnancy was any riskier to her than an ordinary pregnancy

Meaning, there was no additional risk to the fetus bearing person mother at that stage than any other pregnancy. Does it have to be more risky to become the exception (I assume that is the case).

[LawTalkingGuy]

Outside of pure sadism and sociopathy... I don't understand what the Texas AG's thought process is here. Their law has a serious health risk exception, and I guess they want to avoid a moral hazard or something about invoking it too much...but they want to fight people on invoking the exception on THIS record?! That's like just insane legal and political strategy that will not endear them to most people and really undercuts the position that their law isn't actually barbaric and is in fact life affirming. I mean literally no one benefits from this. Not the fetus with trisomy 18, not the women, not the father. Not the family and friends. Not the medical establishment. Not society at large. There is nothing good that comes from not allowing this termination now.

And hardline applications tend to lead to massive pushback that leads to a broader right to an abortion. Happened in Ireland. Happened in Ohio. Do they want that to happen in Texas too? I just don't get the strategy here.

[bernard11]

I just don’t get the strategy here.

Easy. The AG is trying to curry favor with evangelicals and other extreme anti-abortion types.

He doesn't give a crap about any of that other stuff.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bingo. Pandering to a bunch of half-educated, superstition-addled, misogynistic culture war losers (who turn out to be a substantial portion of the population in our desolate southern backwaters).

We never should have enabled those losers to resume statehood. Texas should still be an unincorporated territory.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

While still allowing the Good Old Boys to fix our cars, do our plumbing and (in the case of Lyndon Johnson) be President.

[myself]

News of the suffering family and prosecuted doctors will eventually fade from the newspapers.

But that 100% rating from "pro-life" groups will stay with him to his next election campaign.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting article — and explanation for why the SFFA decision exempted military schools.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-went-woke-time-make-some-changes-top-opinion-1849290

Scary…

[Ben_]

Obamacare made health insurance significantly more expensive:

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/did-obamacare-work

[Sarcastr0]

Zero Hedge does a counterfactual.

Meh.

[bernard11]

It's a rotten counterfactual.

He did a linear projection starting in 2010. That means he assumed the cost would increase by a constant amount ever year. It also means he started four years before Obamacare went into effect.

That's useless and proves nothing at all. One might almost call it dishonest, or innumerate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

zerohedge is not aiming at the literate, numerate, reasoning, well-adjusted, modern, successful audience.

[myself]

Weird, that bears no relation to per capita spending.

Hmm... why does the specific measure of "average annual expenditures for heath insurance per household unit" go up when the ACA takes effect but not health care spending?

Oh yeah, because the ACA included an insurance mandate.

So a bunch of households without insurance bought insurance, and the average spent on insurance went up.

Congrats zerohedge, you demonstrated that the law designed to get people to buy health insurance actually got people to buy health insurance.

[Sarcastr0]

I wonder how many on this blog would have those of us on the left killed by the state if they had that power.

How many would just jail us.

How many would be cool with us being fired/blacklisted.

How many are content for us to live in fear of the above.

[Nige]

Apparently JD Vance just called for an investigation into a journalist who wrote an article about the dangers of Trump's authoritarianism. There would be a lot of that, at a bare minimum.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That was really on the nose. I mean I guess a major lack of cognitive dissonance is kind of core to the authoritarian project, but "please abuse state power to investigate this guy for saying that someone might abuse state power" is pretty ridiculous even for Vance.

[Nige]

Ya think? My guess is it'll be SOP.

[Bob from Ohio]

I wonder how many on this blog would have those of us on the right killed by the state if they had that power.

How many would just jail us.

How many would be cool with us being fired/blacklisted.

How many are content for us to live in fear of the above.

[Sarcastr0]

No one, Bob.

That's kind of the issue.

[Bob from Ohio]

Utter bullshit. Aunt Teefah and Kirkland and Randal certainly for starters.

Your comment is just my side good, your side bad.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Your comment is just my side good, your side bad."

I mean as far as these blog comments go, the right-wingers tend to be demonstrably bad people under various theories of human morality. How many openly advocate for violence or strongly imply it? How many thirst at the prospect of shooting people? How many casually dismiss violence they support as acceptable? I mean you of all people should realize this because you are one of these people!

You are openly cruel and unfeeling about the suffering of others and mocking of empathy. Never forget you said "need a tissue" when I expressed sympathy for the child lying on the ground shot by a police officer who was aiming for a nonthreatening dog.

You are openly disdainful of fairness in the legal system.

Yet you whine incessantly when you think someone you like isn't being treated fairly.

You think lying is good and routinely lie yourself.

You are cowardly when pressed about the reality of your views and their practical implications. You whine about ultimatums and stomp away like a toddler. Yet you are hypocritical and demand answers and apologies from others.

Oh and on top of that you just aren't that smart.

These are all really bad traits! And you're one of the more normal ones here somehow. So "my team good your team bad" seems to be a defensible characterization.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yawn. Tedious comments from a most tedious person.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sometimes trying to be good is tedious. And indeed, if tedious is the best you got on me I'd say I'm doing quite well. I'd take being tedious over being a shitty person 10/10.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, I dunno LTG. Are you the same guy who was all to eager to slime a sitting federal judge over demonstrably false accusations? Does that act make you tedious, shitty, neither or both? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You should stick with guys like Bob from Ohio, Commenter_XY. You deserve each other, and you are each about all the other has left in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.

Your stale, ugly, right-wing thinking can't be stomped into irrelevance at the marketplace of ideas quickly enough.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many times must I repeat:

Bigots have rights, too.

Clingers get to complain about all of this damned progress, inclusiveness, education, science, reason, and modernity as much as they like.

Superstitious dumbasses have rights, too.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I don't want you to worry about me doing anything to you in Sarcastr0's Hellish Inverse Terraform (SHIT, for short) World. I would keep you alive. And I would not put you in jail. I would not blacklist you or get you fired from your job...these things, I would not do. Nope. Can't do.

You can choose to live in fear of SHIT World if you want to; most libs I know are a little neurotic and self-obsessed anyway, they think it is always about them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don’t worry about what you would do. The culture war’s casualties will not get to decide much of anything, nor do much beyond continuing to comply with the preferences of their betters.

Carry on, clinger. So far as better Americans permit. You get to whine about it as much as you like, and fantasize about being relevant in an improving America that rejects your stale, ugly, superstitious thinking, of course — but you will comply.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I wouldn't! I would however pay a decent amount for many of you to go to therapy or somewhere where you can learn to be less of an asshole. Voluntarily of course.

[SimonP]

No one, Bob. Unlike the right-wing domestic terrorists who lurk on Reason’s pages, dropping tidbits from time to time about their violent fantasies, the left-leaning commenters really never go there.

To be sure, we pity you and mock you in the same kinds of terms and rhetoric you use against your preferred targets. So that’s uncomfortable – you’re accustomed to left-wing decency and respect, without needing to return in kind. You feel threatened because we don’t hold our punches – or not all of us do, at any rate.

But the truth of it is that the conservative right-wing MAGA mind-virus is not something that any of us believe must or can be eradicated through force or violence. The VC has a lot of retired and near-retired, white men working out their frustrations as society – culture wars notwithstanding – steadily erodes their power and status. You’ve been left behind by a politics and economy that is no longer shaped around your lifestyle or your beliefs.

And it’s all leaving you behind because you were raised by a generation that didn’t care for your mental or physical health. Your parents’ generation built a strong middle class and passed down to you a boon of intergenerational wealth, and you’ve largely just squandered it on yourselves, burning the supports of our country out from underneath you. Now it’s starting to collapse, you’re seeing it collapse, and you lack the ability to understand why or how it’s all your fault. So you’re afraid and reverting to the only thing you really know – a time when the country felt safer – trying to click your heels and go back to the days when somehow everything just took care of itself, from your then-and-still juvenile perspective.

The truth is, Bob, that you – and Brett and Mr. Ed and Eugene and countless others – are victims. You’re patsies. You're being exploited by your media masters, by entrepreneurs like Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity and Josh, by the Murdochs, by a whole industry that has found a way to extract from your bloated white carcasses a bit of wealth and power. They promise you that your delusions are reality. That we can go back to your childhood utopia. That the only thing stopping you are these nasty liberals talking about pronouns and diversity and climate change. You believe it because you want to believe and have no choice.

But that’s not your fault. Like I said, you grew up in emotionally distant or abusive households, drank and breathed lead in your water and air, grew up sheltered from reality. The solution is simply to address your feelings of fear and paranoia by addressing your generation’s anxieties through sound policy and rational decision-making.

It is true that, as a mob, you’re inclined to hand power over to dangerous fascists. But individually you’re just a bunch of scared children.

[Brett Bellmore]

"the left-leaning commenters really never go there."

The left-leaning commenters here pretend that riots that kill dozens, cause billions in property damage, and involve arson against occupied buildings, are just peaceful protest. Violently taking over an area of a city and ruling it like some Mad Max warlord is just a lark.

They go there without admitting it.

[SimonP]

The left-leaning commenters here pretend that riots that kill dozens,...

This is an intentional lie, straight from Trump's own mouth. Only a small number of the deaths that Trump attributed to the riots came at the hands of rioters themselves. Others were deaths of rioters or unrelated crimes happening contemporaneously with the riots.

...cause billions in property damage, and involve arson against occupied buildings, are just peaceful protest.

And no one says this, either. They say: "most of the protests were peaceful." Which was and remains true. You would prefer to focus on the violence, because that serves your narrative, and you attribute to left-leaning commenters an apparent endorsement of the violence because they refuse to focus on or condemn the violence that you insist on bringing up at every opportunity. But no one endorses, explicitly or implicitly, that violence. They just tire of dealing with your lies and misrepresentations.

[Mr. Bumble]

"This is an intentional lie, straight from Trump’s own mouth. "

Strange that YOU put credence in something said by Trump.

[Voize]

How is calling a statement a lie putting credence in it?

[Nige]

It's the only credibility Trump voters recognise. It ain't credible if it isn't a lie.

[Kazinski]

And you call right wingers paranoid.

[Sarcastr0]

You either have a lot of people blocked or you're a damn liar to score Internet points.

[ThePublius]

There's a whole lot of projection going on in that post.

The way I see it, all of the calls to kill people, the actual jailing of people (J6), the firing and blacklisting, and the causing people to live in fear is coming from the left!

Note the political correctness of universities and corporations, and the consequences for bucking it, for example. People on the right can't open their mouths at work or in universities lest they be fired or otherwise pushed out.

It would be interesting to see a quantitative study of this.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm talking about this blog.

I have zero doubt which side you would cheer for it I were jailed for liberalishness.

Your fear and loathing about those innocent lambs on Jan 06, and all those woke schools and corporations is what I would expect you to cite as why a little dictatorial retribution is a good thing.

I'm happy to be corrected on this - am I wrong about you?

[Moderation4ever]

What you have is the extremes on the left and right that are intolerant to anyone that disagrees with them. Most of us are moderates that simple choice to ignore the extremes. We (moderates) listen, consider, note what makes sense and ignore the rest. Problem is the part we ignore is getting bigger as the part that makes sense shrinks.

[LawTalkingGuy]

With the caveat that I am not an expert on NJ professional conduct enforcement, ordinarily, baring a felony conviction, it is insanely hard to get indefinitely suspended or disbarred from one transaction. But if this is true, Habba might be one to get there! Especially if she takes a very confrontational and dishonest approach to the disciplinary proceedings.

https://mcusercontent.com/4a79b9be775bc92174318c05e/files/f9e4546b-5e4e-3e61-d65b-1824fc9d62cc/filed_verified_complaint.pdf

[bernard11]

What kind of approach do you think she is likely to take?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You’re probably asking rhetorically but I actually don’t know what she’ll do if/when disciplinary proceedings start. On the one hand this alleged misconduct is quite egregious but also run-of-the-mill POS lawyer behavior. And run-of-the-mill POS lawyers tend to cooperate/stipulate if they want to ultimately keep their license. On the other hand, she is deeply in Trump world non-sense very late in the game and apparently hasn’t learned anything from the varying lawyers in trouble over the election stuff or from Michael Cohen. She might think that since this incident likely won’t land her in criminal court, it’s better to fight/lie her way out. So I actually don’t know for sure.

[David Nieporent]

This is not run-of-the-mill POS lawyer behavior. All lawyers are not paragons of virtue, but the alleged behavior described by the lawsuit is some of the worst I've heard of, of the non-felonious variety, by a lawyer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I agree. I was in-artfully trying to distinguish this behavior from some of the crazier election conspiracy related Trump-world misconduct which I wouldn’t describe as “run of the mill.” It’s among the worst of the worst but I also wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if I saw some random lawyer in another jurisdiction have a case like this come out.

[bernard11]

Is she likely to have to compensate Bianco because she tricked her into taking a crappy settlement?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well this came to light because of a lawsuit for fraud so she’s on the hook for damages if the plaintiff prevails. That’s separate and apart from any discipline

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My experience with Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force indicates it is mostly bottom-feeders who take cases experienced, able lawyers won't touch (or walk away from). They produce shoddy work. They lose. A lot. They exhibit no admirable qualities.

This complaint indicates Habba fits right in.

[Bored Lawyer]

"it is insanely hard to get indefinitely suspended or disbarred from one transaction."

Not always. In NJ, you steal from a client, you are disbarred for life.

That's not this case, but it's analogous. It's an abuse of the attorney-client relationship.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Happy Chanukkah (or Hanukkah)!

A cursory look at the source material shows that Chanukkah isn't really a touchy-feely holiday; it celebrates a violent revolt of Jews against their oppressors.

Said oppressors killed a whole family when they wouldn't eat pork.

The Maccabees weren't really what you'd call pacifist in their response to this sort of thing.

But however it started, if you're into Chanukkah you can celebrate it. Even in London, it seems.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/1/london-council-proceeds-hanukkah-celebration-after/

[Commenter_XY]

My candles are lit, the menorah in the window. A great miracle occurred there. 🙂

Really glad to see that London town do the lighting ceremony. A little holiday light for us all.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's a pretty minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. But it's usually around Christmas time, so it gets big billing.

[Liz From SoCal]

Mr Volokh,

This is a comment about an interview you did with Bianca Quilantan for Politico. In it you implied that Jews were defined by religion so university policies around racism would not apply to them. My father is an atheist but according to his 23 and Me results, no surprise, he is 99.8% Ashkenaze Jewish: do you think Nazis or Hamas or white nationalists would give him a pass because he’s not a practicing Jew? Do any of the Jewish stereotypes have to do with the religion (some) Jews practice? I’m a strong advocate of free speech but the hypocrisy displayed by universities and some progressives when it comes to how they talk about Jews versus other minorities is both infuriating and scary. Suggesting we can choose not to be Jewish gives ammo to the notion that anti Jewish rhetoric does not deserve the same level of outrage that any other racism would get:

[Commenter_XY]

I think this is the interview, Liz From SoCal

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/can-free-speech-on-campus-survive-the-israel-hamas-war/ar-AA1l2ew2

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Defining who is Jewish is a tricky business. My kids are around 50% Ashkenazic Jew, but they are not Jewish because their mother isn't. I'm not sure genetics gets you there. But religious practice doesn't get you there either, as your father and I demonstrate. It's some weird hybrid of the two things, I suppose.

[loki13]

"Defining who is Jewish is a tricky business."

That may be the case, but as readers of this blog know, defining who is NOT Jewish is very easy ... for Josh Blackman!

Too easy?

[John F. Carr]

The Nazis came up with some hybrid definitions before genetic testing was available. If you hold yourself out as a Jew or have too many recent Jewish ancestors, you are a Jew. A genetic test will reveal I have an Ashkenazi great-grandparent. Seeing no overt trace of Judaism in my family, Hitler would have considered me of a decent bloodline. But Hitler was a contemporary of my grandfather, not me. My grandfather had a Jewish parent. I think he would have been a Jew despite not practicing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Give the widespread dispersal of Jews from the time of the Romans I think many people would show some Jewish ancestry if they had their DNA tested.

[Martinned]

Indeed.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-03-30/ty-article-opinion/russia-ukraine-roman-abramovich-putin-sephardic-jews-portugal/00000180-5baf-df19-a7f3-dbff6a2a0000

(Although that case is technically not about whether Abramovich is Jewish, but about whether he's Sephardic.)

[mydisplayname]

So, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has, like Benjamin Netanyahu, said he would annex extranational territories. "Obviously" Venezuela is not Israel -- that is, Yeeha hasn't spit cider into to the ear of Maduro and Maduro supporters haven't made contributions to any Congressional campaigns -- so the United States has responded with a joint military exercise involving the Guyana Defense Force protecting the targeted territories. Makes perfect sense!

[Kazinski]

Well I guess I missed Guyana parasailing terrorists into Venezuela first to precipitate the invasion.

But if it turns out 1400 Venezuelans were killed and raped by Guyanan terrorists then I will stand with Maduro, but until then I'm all for Gaddafi'ing him.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Reading “Paradise Lost” for the first time in many decades.

If you respect the iambic pentameter, “Satan” is always pronounced with the stress on the second syllable. “Sa-TAHN”.

[John F. Carr]

According to the OED, by the late 19th century stress was on the first syllable. The edition of the OED I consulted does not record ancient pronunciations. A dictionary of Middle English does not indicate stress, only vowel length: Sā̆tan.

[JasonT20]

Nope. That is definitely not the right way to say it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_mePjkQW_c

[Voize]

San Francisco is cracking down on politicians who adopt Chinese names.

The city's population is more than 20% Chinese, so for more than 20 years ballots have been bilingual. Many non-Chinese candidates have created Chinese names instead of just transliterating their names phonetically as a more recent law requires. The city plans to crack down on this practice.

“Cultural appropriation does not make someone Asian. There is no alternative definition to whether someone is Asian or not. It should be based solely on a person’s ethnicity and heritage. That’s what this law is about.” said city supervisor Connie Chan, an Asian woman who uses a European name.

[not guilty]

I'm no mental health expert, but is House Speaker Mike Johnson schizophrenic? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/mike-johnson-christian-nationalist-lawmakers-moses.html?cx_testId=2&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=2&cx_experienceId=EXTN1AT3F4AZ#cxrecs_s

Per Wikipedia, the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz wrote: "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."

[BrotherMovesOn]

Shouldn't that be "if you talk to the dead, you are a spiritualist, if the dead talk to you, you are a schizophrenic."?

[BrotherMovesOn]

I looked it up and it is indeed ad you quoted.
Seems backwards to me; if you murmur aloud a thought to a lost loved one who often walked that meadow with you, that's not schizophrenia, but if the dead start talking 'to' you, may be problems there.
Maybe I have schizophrenia.

[Moderation4ever]

Insane for all time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

All Harvard students have to go through mandatory training that says they can be disciplined for things like ableism, misgendering, etc. and that such conduct perpetuates violence.

I guess they don't think that calling for the genocide of the Jews perpetuates violence.

[Sarcastr0]

First, look up the training rather than picking a propaganda source. Well, do that if you care about the truth.
https://gsas.harvard.edu/title-ix-and-gender-equity/annual-training looks like what they're talking about.

From the topics, it's not actually some super woke thing.

You have no actual counterexamples so you jump up a pretty normal sexual misconduct training talking about what *could* happen as though that's the same thing as it actually happening.

Weak Sauce.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're saying that the training doesn't say that students can be disciplined for ableism, misgendering, etc.? Nothing in your link supports that.

The fact that this sort of thing is included in normal sexual misconduct training is one of the reasons the college presidents couldn't respond to the Rep Stefenik with a robust defense of free speech, and had to respond with gibberish about, well, it depends on who they're taking to when they say it, whether they actually try to do it, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying that if you have ever taken a training they always have a component of 'if you don't follow these rules the consequences could be dire.'

That could is always doing a lot of work.

I had the same thing in law firms before I want gov. Maybe you really are this ignorant of this decades-long institutional practice. But suffice to say that you're writing checks off of nothing.

So here you are, trying to attack these schools for having a double standard without actual evidence of a double standard.

Meanwhile, *you* want to go after 'free Palestine' speech *and* go after schools for not being free speech absolutists.

You've got two too many competing agendas. Get some evidence, come up with a single thesis, and then come back to this thread and make an argument.

[My position is typically wishy-washy - speech and conduct rules are not bright lines, since they are attempting to balance these two competing issues of inclusion and free speech. Therefore the answer given in the testimony, that the rules depend on context *is the right answer*.
Stefanik very deliberately didn't ask the presidents how they personally felt. That's by design to give ammo to the shithheals.]

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh come on. I've never taken a training that talked about abelism, misgendering, etc.

But you're denying the whole leftist mantra of words are violence, microaggressions hurt, etc., you're just being dishonest.

The reason the presidents couldn't respond with a robust defense of free speech is that they don't have a robust policy in favor of free speech. Fire, for example, rates the speech climate at Harvard as "abysmal"

[Don Nico]

"Stefanik very deliberately didn’t ask the presidents how they personally felt. "
That was because it is the school policy that was at questions not the presidents personal opinions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I didn't say that the said those exact words, but as I pointed out above, these schools don't have robust free speech policies. They have a myriad of policies designed to protect students from "harmful" speech.

That's why the presidents are standing there with their dicks in their hands when asked if calling for the genocide of the Jews violates their bullying and harassment policies.

[VinniUSMC]

Oh no, not those exact words? You really have to be much smarter to be pedantic. Run along now.

[Sarcastr0]

The phenomenon of the 'consequences' part of training is not limited to DEI trainings, TiP. Insider threat, record keeping, safety compliance...

If you're not playing dumb, you're doing an incredible impression.

Why you gotta play these tedious games?

Your source didn't meet what you offered it for. Rather than pretending you just fell off the turnup truck, perhaps find a better source or don't bother making the comment even if you want it to be true.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, QA is the one being pedantic here.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Didn’t show the proper deference to Congress!"

In their world, GOPers are mocked and derided so they thought they could smirk and deflect without consequences.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Conservatives are mocked and derided for the disdain for science and the reality-based world, the lack of education, the racism, the can't-keep-up communities, the gay-bashing, the belligerent ignorance, the antisemitism, the alternative facts, the misogyny, the childish superstition, the transphobia, the un-American insurrectionism, the Islamophobia, the random capitalization, the bigoted immigrant-bashing, and that country music.

(Country music doesn't have to be such a desolate cultural sinkhole. But it is.)

[Michael P]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to sit there and type that because administrators have discretion in whether to throw the book at people -- discretion that is used to ensure the book-throwing consistently goes one way -- that there's not actually a policy that people need to watch what they say or else they can be punished.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your source didn’t meet what you offered it for. Rather than pretending you just fell off the turnup truck, perhaps find a better source or don’t bother making the comment even if you want it to be true."

It absolutely did. You just don't believe what they say the training said. Which is your right, but is a little strange given your credulity of, say, Hamas causality figures?

I mean, talk about chutzpah? Calling my source "propaganda" after you were defending relying on Palistinian propaganda?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what job you have, but I guess it doesn't include trainings on compliance.

It should not come as some outrage to you that law as implemented is often not the same as the law as written.

Bottom line - if you and TiP want examples of this kind of punishment to support your double standard narrative *find actual examples*.

[Don Nico]

"are standing there with their dicks in their hands"
Even though none have dicks to hold

[Sarcastr0]

It was a show, Don. Don't pretend otherwise.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a figure of speech.

[Commenter_XY]

Ladydicks? (held in the hand) Ok, Ok...that was a little rough.

It would have been so easy to simply state that calling for genocide is abhorrent, and morally wrong...BUT, the lawyers tell me this is the line we must respect and so we do.

Had anything like that come out of their mouths, we would not be writing about it. The real show here was watching amateur hour in academia, courtesy of the US Congress.

I swear, they were worse than Ilya 'The Somewhat More' Shapiro with his abortive move to Georgetown U. I did not think he could be 'bested' - I was wrong.

The Three Stooges (marlene, maureen and shirley) did great, otherwise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Even though none have dicks to hold"

Maybe they do. How dare you assume their genitals.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You should probably have started by explaining the relevance of your question.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you think an orange is the same as a sock?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If I'm supposed to make guesses, I would guess that many universities - or their best and brightest in the form of rent-a-mobs - would make little distinction between saying "down with gender ideology" and calling a specific person a "transphobic" slur. To many universities, both are hate crimes.

[Don Nico]

Your response is actually meaningless, S_0.
You are typically much more interested in picking a fight that answering what I offered as a mild defense of the hapless 3.

If it was a show, all three were beclowned. For what they are paid and how they are coached, each should have been ready to do a hell of a lot better than she did, especially Magill who is likely on her way out as a result.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress put on the show; the Presidents were only players. They were well coached and didn't screw up worse than they were forced to by the curated questions.

If you're taking more out of this than that, you're falling for the show.

[Don Nico]

Your saying that Congress put on the show is pathetically naive. I commented about Magill's poor performance. All you can do is blame someone else. Many hearings are a show. Many hearings about the Orange Clown have been a show. You applaud those.

You seem to be grossly insensitive to the existential fears that that Hamas supporters have provoked through highly confrontation demonstrations on campuses. You might feel different if your identity were different.
On my campuses, Jewish faculty post-docs and grad students have been gathering many days at lunch time for support sessions. You don't see that. I do. The claims of existential fear are real. Interference with Jewish students going to class are real. Heckling is real. Pres.Gay's proviso about persistent multiple, etc. is fulfilled, but she does nothing.
The show was well deserved. It is what you buy as a job duty when you accept a $1M/yr compensation.

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, I prep folks to testify before Congress. It is theatre. You're the one speaking from ignorance.

You seem to be grossly insensitive to the existential fears that that Hamas supporters have provoked
You seem really into pretending drama is an argument.
Don't tell me I don't get to speak because I'm not Jewish. It's stupid when the left does it and it's stupid when you do it.

That in this discussion about the meaning of the testimony you wander off into this? You've got passion, but nothing substantive.

[Don Nico]

You prep folks. Good for you.

You have a lot of nerve telling me that I am ignorant, when you show yours every day.
I have done plenty of cpach and as for trainers, we always used professional, specialists, which I suspect that you are not. I admit I am not a specialist .

As for Magill, she has failed at her job. The primary role for a university president is fund raising. She has lost credibility with her donors.Whether you approve of their reasons is irrelevant. She need to be replaced for the good of Penn.

[Sarcastr0]

There are two reasons for hearings on the hill:
For Members to look tough to their constituents.
for Members to look smart to their constituents.

Questions are pre-briefed in both directions. It is rare for anyone testifying to be surprised up there. It is just about impossible for a Member to be surprised, if they're being at all diligent.

That you think such an overdetermined situation allowed for any chance to avoid pissing people off shows you don't know the lay of the land at all.

Or you just want to condemn someone and don't much care about the factual predicate to do so.

[Don Nico]

A crude one at that

[Don Nico]

I don't want anything to do with their genitals