Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

So on Monday Hunter Biden got indicted in LA for 3 felonies and 6 misdemeanors related to his tax evasion.

First it totally vindicates the IRS whistleblowers who came in for a lot of unfair criticism. It completely confirms their assertion that Hunter was guilty as sin (or at least there is plenty of evidence to charge him while still presuming his innocence of course), and that the Delaware plea deal was a sweetheart deal forced upon Weiss by he DOJ. The fiction that Weiss did have full authority to bring whatever charges he thought were appropriate, wherever he wanted just can't stand up to the fact that now that Weiss does have full independent counsel authority he brought new and more serious charges in the venue where the NY Times reported he had been previously rebuffed by the US Attorney.

Second it will bring more attention the the inescapable fact that Merrick Garland was either completely clueless or purposely misled Congress about Weiss authority.

[Armchair]

Indeed.

What's equally interesting is what's missing in these charges. The tax crimes from 2014 and 2015 to start, which luckily (for Hunter) just managed to be outside the statue of limitations. That's on Weiss for not getting an indictment sooner, and they were well known.

In addition, you've got the potential FARA charges.

[DonP]

"luckily"???

Anyone want to bet the delay was planned?

The documentation "accidentally" fell behind a file cabinet, in the basement, of another building, was damaged by a plumbing leak, before being carried off my mice to line their nest.

Otherwise they would have gotten right on it.

[Nelson]

DonP, your tin foil hat is loose again. You need to adjust it (or your meds).

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s 7:09 AM EST on Monday — has this happened yet?

As to Meritless Garland, we dodged a bullet with him being on SCOTUS…

[Sarcastr0]

Your selective lack of skepticism and obsession with Hunter Biden remain the tops.

I still don't know if these charges would have manifested if Hunter were not who he was. He's being targeted, but also investigators are being extra careful.

First it totally vindicates the IRS whistleblowers
No it does not. Those whistleblowers ended up dissolving like partisan smoke under scrutiny.

Most especially as the connection to the President remains utterly unestablished.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 52 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Your selective lack of skepticism and obsession with Hunter Biden remain the tops.

I still don’t know if these charges would have manifested if Hunter were not who he was. He’s being targeted, but also investigators are being extra careful."

Sarcastro -Seriously being targeted? A few $mil of unreported income . Spouting nonsense as usual

[Nelson]

I have to agree. Hunter is almost certainly guilty.

But that has nothing to do with Joe Biden. Lots of honest parents have children who are criminals.

[Don Nico]

S_0's defense of the indefensible is typical for him.

[Sarcastr0]

You used to be above empty name calling.

[Michael P]

That's not name-calling, it's just an observation of who you have turned yourself into.

[Sarcastr0]

You're a tool; I don't really care if you call me bad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro's not above empty name calling, as we know.

[David Nieporent]

.

Sarcastro -Seriously being targeted? A few $mil of unreported income . Spouting nonsense as usual

For which he ultimately (if very very belatedly) paid the taxes. Nobody denies he failed to do so originally. But that usually isn’t prosecuted criminally, especially if the taxes have already been paid.

[Armchair]

Of course, there's the millions of dollars from 2014 and 2015 that Biden never actually did pay income taxes on...

[Bwaaah]

"Those whistleblowers ended up dissolving like partisan smoke under scrutiny."

What part of Gary Shapley's testimony "dissolved?" (I thought his testimony was impressively straight.)

"Most especially as the connection to the President"

Shapley gave little if any testimony about the President. It was mainly about years of very unusual intrusion into, and thwarting of, the investigative process by numerous people and parts of the DOJ.

All you need to believe is that that was all done without Joe's knowledge. That's a partisan debate, not Shapley's.

[Sarcastr0]

He provided no concrete evidence, and in fact no new facts. Just opinions about things we already knew.

IIRC he's the one that implied there were authority issues when the stuff he was horrified about was all pretty ordinary course of business?
That could have been one of the other ones; I mix them up because nothings all look alike.

[Bwaaah]

"He provided no concrete evidence, and in fact no new facts. Just opinions about things we already knew."

Do you know who Gary Shapley is? Did you hear (or read) his testimony?

As the lead IRS investigator, he provided a drove of *direct* evidence of very unusual procedural twists and turns.

For example, there was a night the IRS was scheduled to do around 20 surprise interviews around the country (with warrants and subpoenas) of Hunter Biden and others implicated in the investigation. The interview planning, staffing, and logistics had been going on for months. But just a few hours before the scheduled "knock-on-door" time, DOJ called for a delay and notified Hunter of the surprise. The other interview targets were somehow notified as well at that time. The interviews were scuttled.

See:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23856879-shapley-transcript

It's not that his testimony dissolved. It's that your interest in the actual investigation never materialized, and yet, you still speak with authority about it.

[Sarcastr0]

In doing some initial Googling of this news, I found: “I.R.S. Halts Surprise Visits to Homes and Businesses A decades-long practice is ending amid political backlash and increasing threats to agents.”
July 24, 2023 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/24/us/politics/irs-surprise-visits.html

Man they really went hard to the paint on this one, changine their global policy to cover up their protection of him!

[Bwaaah]

You don’t refute any of my points. Let’s try again:

What part of Gary Shapley’s testimony “dissolved like partisan smoke.”

Hint: you’ll have to refer to his testimony. It was as sober as I’ve ever seen on Capitol Hill. And even though you act like you’re talking about it, you’re actually talking about parties who are talking about it.

You’re just doing a tactical smear of an honest little guy you know little about who finds himself in the middle of a giant partisan battle, but with very relevant facts to share. He is courageous, and now doomed for his forthrightness. Destroy him, Sarc, for being on The Wrong Side.

[Michael P]

That policy change was long after the DOJ prevented the IRS from visiting Hunter Biden and his unindicted co-conspirators, and unsurprisingly, the failing NYT did not mention the actual impetus for the change: https://www.atr.org/irs-paid-an-unannounced-and-unprompted-visit-to-the-home-of-matt-taibbi-the-same-day-he-testified-to-congress-about-government-abuse/

[Mr. Bumble]

A noted by Don Nico above:

"S_0’s defense of the indefensible is typical for him."

[Bwaaah]

“Research,” for him, is seeking information that proves what he believes.

Notice how he researched this one: what he researched, where he researched, and what the conclusion of his research was. His efforts tend to be only tangentially related to the particular question [he] raised. His purpose is not clarification; it is VICTORY!

[Sarcastr0]

I find myself admitting I’m wrong about once every 3 weeks or so on here. No doubt I’m wrong more than that.

But have you *ever* done that?

My research is slanted, because it's usually in response to one of the rare times you lot bring a source. So I look for countervailing evidence. When I find none, I admit I'm wrong. But when I do find something, I bring it up. Perhaps for rebottle, but that rarely happens.
Mostly you lot do not react well to your lazy one-source posts being fact-checked and cry lies and bias.

Sad, really.

[Bwaaah]

I find myself admitting I'm wrong with approximately that same frequency. I post much less than you, so I suspect my I'm-wrong rate is higher than yours. (That's not intended to one-up you on the point.)

I do commend you for any attempt at understanding. This is a much more hostile forum for you than it is for me. And though I'm typically disinclined to be snarky and snotty, in this online venue, I'm uglier than usual in that way.

If it's any consolation, I find you to be worth arguing with. I hope that counts for something.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Shapley testified that the interviews were scheduled to happen on Dec 7, 2000, over two years before the policy change.

Another claim dissolving into partisan smoke.

Dude, why don't you just admit you have no idea what you're talking about?

[David Nieporent]

December 7, 2020? I guess the White House shouldn't have interfered!

[Mr. Bumble]

You guessed wrong unless Lesley Wolf was in the White House.

[Bwaaah]

Did the White House interfere? Is that what you believe?

[David Nieporent]

You guys seem to believe that, and you also seem to believe that Joe Biden was in the White House at the time.

[Kazinski]

Unbelievable how clueless you are.

The policy you are citing has nothing to do with criminal investigations. It only refers to ordinary tax matters and unannounced visits.

The investigation into Hunter is a formal criminal investigation and they can avail themselves of all the normal tools of criminal investigation used at every level of government.

The policy change above was prompted by congressional outrage at an IRS showing up at Matt Taibbi’s home on the same day that he was testifying to a congressional committee investigating government abuses. Taibbi was actually owed a refund and not suspected of any wrongdoing.

[Sarcastr0]

I posted that this was only initial Googling because I didn't get farther; stuff came up.

But pretty rich for you to come at me. How many times have your breathless Hunter posts been proven utterly wrong over the past months of this obsession of yours?

You don't know or care; just gotta keep posting or else Hunter might go free.

[Kazinski]

Give me an example where I was wrong.

I stand by every word.

[Sarcastr0]

'Joe is hiring 80,000 new IRS agents' is a layup.

Picking a random open thread:
"there is also the independent FD1023 that alleges Biden coerced Burisma into paying 10m in bribes to himself and Hunter, 5m each."

That was debunked by DMN right after you posted it.

Posting bullshit you read from Comer is your MO. Standing by every word is part of why it's so funny; not even Comer does that.

[Kazinski]

Here is what Kiplinger said about the 80,000 agents:
IRS $80 billion funding in the Inflation Reduction Act
Of the $80 billion for the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act, $45.6 billion is designated for enforcement. A recent debt ceiling agreement claws back some of the IRS's $80 billion.
Since the new law calls for more IRS hiring, there will be more IRS agents in the coming years.
Those new agents will have to be trained to conduct compliance audits (which takes time), but ultimately, there will likely be an increase in audit activity as well.
Why does Speaker McCarthy mention 87,000 agents? The 87,000 number appears to have come from a Treasury Department estimate of the level of hiring needed to maintain IRS efficiency and keep up with retirements and other staff declines. However, the actual number of new IRS agents that will be hired remains to be seen."

It's a plausible estimate, especially with the amount of revenue they expect to raise with increased enforcement.

Here are the allegations in the FD1023, DMN didn't debunk anything:
"The FD-1023 cites an unnamed source who recounts a series of interactions in 2015 and 2016 with Mykola Zlochevsky, the chief executive of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm that hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2013.

The source says in the FD-1023 that in a meeting and in phone calls over the next year, Zlochevsky claimed that he was "forced" to pay Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each, apparently in exchange for firing a Ukrainian prosecutor named Viktor Shokin who was purportedly investigating Burisma at the time."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rare-move-grassley-releases-unverified-fbi-source-report/story?id=101531599

You'd think if DMN debunked it that ABC news would have retracted their news report.

[bernard11]

It’s a plausible estimate.

No. It isn't plausible. Not remotely. You or someone else pulled it out of their ass.

Did you follow my link below?

Again, here's some of what it says:

WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (Reuters) – New U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) hires over the next decade will mainly replace retiring Baby Boomers, answer taxpayer questions and program new computers, U.S. Treasury officials and tax experts said, responding to Republican claims that the IRS will recruit 87,000 new agents to harass Americans on their taxes. Emphasis added.

Unlike Reuter's, your Kiplinger article (link, please) has no detail at all about the hiring numbers, beyond the 87,000 total.

It does mention, like Reuter's that many are replacements, and doesn't actually specify what "enforcement" hires are. They could easily include staff other than agents. (emphasis added).

So no, not 80,000 new agents. A maximum of 43,000 total additions to staff, possibly many fewer. Meanwhile,

The Republican attack ads and social media messages follow a decade of Republican-passed budget cuts in Congress for the IRS, leaving it with 16,000 fewer employees in 2021 than it had in 2010. The agency is responsible for collecting the bulk of nearly $5 trillion in annual U.S. revenues.

Oh, and CNN tells us, among many other things that show how full of shit you are, that

Many of the new hires will be replacing staff that the IRS has already lost or is expected to lose through attrition in coming years.

Last year, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told lawmakers that staffing has shrunk to 1970s levels and that the IRS would need to hire 52,000 people over the next six years just to maintain current staffing levels to replace those who retire or otherwise leave.

So no. You're lying.

[Jerry B.]

"He provided no concrete evidence, and in fact no new facts. Just opinions about things we already knew.'

So, whose indictments are you talking about, Hunter Biden's or Donald Trump's?

[Sarcastr0]

You think I'm arguing Hunter Biden is innocent?

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 7 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User "You think I’m arguing Hunter Biden is innocent?"

No - Sarcastro - you were arguing he was targeted.

[Nige]

Are you arguing that Reublicans have not targeted Hunter Biden?

[Bwaaah]

No, Nige, nobody is making that argument. Did you see somebody make that argument? Did I miss it?

If you're going to employ a "straw man" tactic, it helps to include the argument part and not just leave it at, "Isn't there a straw man?"

[Nige]

Tell Tom for equal rights, not me. But good for you acknowledging that Republicans have viciously and cynically targeted Hunter Biden.

[Kazinski]

Republicans run the IRS and DOJ?

They are the ones targeting Hunter.

Republicans like myself are just concerned citizens following the news.

Congress of course is following its oversight responsibility, but they don’t have prosecutorial powers either.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress is targeting Hunter. Don't try to be cute.

[David Nieporent]

.

Republicans run the IRS and DOJ?

They are the ones targeting Hunter.

Weiss is a GOP appointee.

[Nige]

'They are the ones targeting Hunter.'

I said 'Republicans,' you may assume I meant 'Republicans.' Are you saying that Republicans haven't been targeting him?

As for the DOJ and IRS, you've been arguing all along that *neither* of them have been targeting Hunter Biden and that was the whole problem!

[Brett Bellmore]

"What part of Gary Shapley’s testimony “dissolved?” "

Well, duh: The news coverage.

[Bwaaah]

Embedded in these stories and armchair debates are some real people who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Gary Shapley looks to me like one of those. His only misstep is that he didn't STFU.

Where would we be without at least a few courageous honest players in the game? (Institutions don't do a good job of accounting for themselves, partly because they don't have "selves"; people do.)

Smear him, Sarc! Smear him!

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Shapely is the true victim here.

What did I even say that went after him as a person?

You see the politics of personal destruction where it is not. In a Hunter Biden thread. Impressive.

[Bwaaah]

Gary Shapley is one of “the whistleblowers.” You said their testimony dissolved like partisan smoke. I speak only of him, only of that one person, because I think your characterization of *him*, by way of *them*, is wrong. I know you weren’t speaking specifically about him. But his professional life as an IRS agent does appear to be pretty much destroyed by the inevitable smear that comes with being in his position.

As I watched and reviewed his testimony, he looked to me like a person who wasn’t looking to be part of the partisan fray, the Hunter Biden hunt, at all. He worked faithfully, in very good standing, with the IRS, for 14 years. And he compellingly described, in detail, *many* extraordinary deviations from standard IRS operating procedures.

I could examine what happened in the investigation through the eyes of VC commenters, or the NY Times, or Jim Comer. But I’ll always prefer an expert opinion from the front line in the field, if it looks like an honest one. And Shapley’s looks like an honest one to me.

So I’m defending Gary Shapley because he seems to be just defending the professional protocols of the IRS, and he’s paying dearly for that. I know you’re not attacking Gary Shapley, who is a nothing in the big partisan battle. But “those whistleblowers,” like “those black people” and “those homeless people” and “those Jews” and “those immigrants,” are not a thing. They’re abstract categories of real people, individuals, each with their own real story. Gary’s appears to me to be much more than “partisan smoke.”

When Comer brought him to testify without giving Democrats on the committee any chance to examine his prior testimony beforehand, I maintained skepticism. At the end of the hearing, Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman reminded everybody that real life tends to be very different from the story a partisan committee wants you to believe, and that they would be looking very closely at the real life and testimony of Gary Shapley. (It was a chilling, but justified, remark.) I withheld any conclusive judgement about Shapley for a few months in order to give the Democrats a chance to cross examine his story. They certainly have good reason, and resources, to do that effectively. But I have heard nothing from any credible source that has challenged *any* of the facts presented about Shapley.

I come not to attack Hunter Biden, but to defend Gary Shapley. And you unwittingly attacked his credibility. So this is where I came from.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry you can’t tell the difference between a man and his testimony.

[Sarcastr0]

That was flippant.
You put good work into this post. Alas, I'm about to walk into a conference so I can't engage robustly.

But others in this open thread have explained why Shapley's whistleblowing did not do a lot of proving.

You can also Google to see how his delivery didn't meet his promise. And why his opinion is not one to privilege just because he was on the front lines.
That is more Comers fault than his, but relying on him to weave a whole IRS coverup is building a house on a shaky foundation.

[Bwaaah]

"That is more Comers fault than his, but relying on him to weave a whole IRS coverup is building a house on a shaky foundation."

Understood. I'm not on board with the committee, or the Hunter Biden hunt. I stumbled onto Shapley's testimony in a C-SPAN video. His intro drew me in. It was undoubtedly carefully prepared, with Comer's assistance, to do that. But I gave him (not the committee) the benefit of the doubt. And it still looks straight up to me.

I'm not trying to build an attack on Joe Biden here. And I'm not trying to support Republican propaganda efforts either. (My relatively non-partisan angle is probably difficult for you to sincerely believe.) I'm not trying to build any house on this, and even if I were, it would be my own house that stands aside from others and is of no [apparent] relevance to the greater political theater.

Shapley's testimony to me doesn't implicate the IRS so meaningfully as it implicates the DOJ and the White House. What's Joe Biden's crime? Trying to keep his son out of trouble, I suspect. Is that very wrong? No. Cause for impeachment? Not for me. I've never had the kind of taste for blood that so many partisans do.

So where's my real concern? The devil is once again in the details provided by Shapley. It took a lot of people in a lot of places to frustrate Shapley's team. The place I most seek integrity is in the DOJ. (Remember: that's our place for *law enforcement*.) As political leaders and appointees come and go, trying to grab the reigns of power and twist them to their ends, career people must not only resist corruption of the integrity of their operations (which I very much believe in), but have a culture within which maintaining integrity is possible.

No less than a dozen political appointees at the top reached down and through hundreds of Federal career people around the country to frustrate this process. All the people at the bottom knew it was meddling from the top, and yet, had few mechanisms to resist. That's VERY concerning to me.

(Whistleblower laws have done little to mitigate the career destruction that inevitably befalls those who speak up.)

The career people are the foundation of our government's integrity, *not* the elected officials. The career people need to know that their institutions are not partisan candy stores; that they are the real custodians of those institutions, and they are the only fiduciaries who can, in the long term, preserve the public trust in the midst of interminable partisan waves.

I am concerned about institutional rot in the DOJ, unrelated to the Republicans' angle on that. This is my substantive concern.

Comer did show me the entrance to this one. (Even a broken clock is right two times a day.) But I'm not on his mission or anybody else's. I want light shined on all the people who each compromised themselves in small ways here. Because big institutions are made up of little people, and when those people compromise their integrity, so become the institutions.

[OtisAH]

I’ve read a lot of folks who believe he absolutely would not have been indicted if not for his name and the political pressure applied. Particularly since he paid the back taxes and penalties already. And I also understand the salacious details of his spending that are included in his are not particularly common within tax evasion indictments. Turns out the most salient details of a tax evasion case are the evaded taxes, not what the delinquent monies were spent on.

[Kazinski]

The IRS whistleblowers didn’t say they uncovered any connection to the President, so you are debunking the wrong thing.

They did say that they were not allowed by their superiors and the DOJ to investigate any connection to Joe, or follow up any leads.

But their Principle allegations were: 1. There was more than sufficient evidence to support more serious charges than the Delaware misdemeanors in the plea bargain the whistleblowers helped scuttle.

2. Weiss did not have authority to bring charges outside his Maryland district, and was turned down twice when he attempted to bring charges outside his district.

3. And of course #2 means that Garland misled Congress, because he told Congress that Weiss could file any charges anywhere he saw fit.

Those allegations have been proved true both by the failed plea bargain, and by the subsequent charges in LA when Weiss was formally granted the authority Garland claimed he already had.

Its easy to refute allegations that were never made, but why don’t you detail just one substantive allegation the whistleblowers actually made that turned out unfounded?

But I do thank you for your kind words: "Your selective lack of skepticism and obsession with Hunter Biden remain the tops."

[Voize]

 

There was more than sufficient evidence to support more serious charges than the Delaware misdemeanors in the plea bargain the whistleblowers helped scuttle.

Sure but all that is pretty standard. Prosecutors have strong evidence of guilt of a serious crime, but agree to a lesser charge in return for a guilty plea. It's what puts the "bargain" in the phrase "plea bargain".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm curious Kaz,

"Those allegations have been proved true both by the failed plea bargain, and by the subsequent charges in LA when Weiss was formally granted the authority Garland claimed he already had."

Do you ever get tired of proudly being wrong?

[Kazinski]

So explain to me how that’s wrong?

Did the plea bargain fail?

Yes

Did Weiss get turned down when he tried to file charges in California before he was granted Special Counsel status?

The NY Times said they independently confirmed that with a source in a position to know.

And now about 6 months after Weiss was granted SC status he files charges in California that go far beyond the counts in the failed plea bargain.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You keep claiming that Garland said something he didn’t fucking say.

1) Plea bargains almost always drop or lessen some of the charges in exchange for the plea.

2) Garland has always maintained that Weiss could pursue charges anywhere he wanted, and that if he needed Special Counsel status, he (Garland) would grant it to him.

Weiss previously attempted to get cooperation from other jurisdictions, they declined, so he asked for SC status and was granted it immediately by Garland.

Exactly as described, and promised, and testified to.

I don’t understand why you have to be told this over, and over, and over again and yet you continue to come and misrepresent the situation.

I can only presume at this point that it’s deliberate.

[Kazinski]

Garland told Congress Weiss had the authority, he didn't until May of this year, in he fallout of the failed plea deal, and after the IRS whistleblowers had come forward
letting Congress know they had been duped.

Doing something after saying it's already been done, doesn't get you off the hook.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Garland told Congress Weiss had the authority, he didn’t until May of this year"

You.
Don't.
Know.
That.

You keep assuming that the only reason he requested SC status is because he couldn't do what he wanted. You have never, ever, proven that to be anything other than an assumption on your part.

[Kazinski]

You are pathetic.

How do we know Weiss couldn't do what he wanted to do before Weiss was appointed special counsel in August?

Because the whistleblowers said in May that Weiss was turned down by the US Attorney when he tried to charge Hunter in LA, and the NY Times confirmed that from an independent source.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You have no idea what you're talking about and assume everything with magical hand-waving, and yet claim I'm the pathetic one here.

Provide some fucking evidence with your answer to the following question:

How do you know, that Weiss didn't ask someone else to deal with it because he didn't want to focus on it himself? HOW DO YOU FUCKING KNOW HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO IT?

Your whistleblowers have been full of shit each and every time. Here's Wiess' direct refutation of your idiocy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-special-counsel-david-weiss-congress-criminal-charges/

"I am, and have been, the decision-maker on this case," Weiss told members of the House Judiciary Committee. "At no time was I blocked, or otherwise prevented from pursuing charges or taking the steps necessary in the investigation by other United States Attorneys, the Tax Division or anyone else at the Department of Justice."

I suggest you read it carefully, because it refutes your other bullshit too.

You insist that there is one and only one reason for being appointed Special Counsel status. You're making assumptions out of ignorance and can't bring yourself to just be a man and admit that you've been offering rank and ignorant speculation.

[David Nieporent]

Garland told Congress Weiss had the authority, he didn’t until May of this year,

Yes. He. Did.

I used this analogy once before: let's say that you're working on a project at work, and you might need to come in at night or on the weekend when the office is normally closed. You ask your boss if you can, and he says, "Sure. Just knock on the door when you get there and show your ID; the security guard has been instructed to let you in whenever you do that."

In that scenario, you can't get in unless you first ask the security guard to open the door. If you didn't bother to show up on the weekend and knock, did that mean that you didn't have the authority to come in on the weekend? No rational person would describe it that way; all you had to do was ask.

That's all Weiss needed to do: ask. He had the authority.

[Krayt]

It's almost like it's a cheesy use of the government's power of investigation and prosecution to hurt political enemies, while facetiously maintaining disinterest from that, and "merely pursuing evidence of criminality nobody is above the law right everyone agrees right?"

[Nige]

Damn Joe Biden for weaponising the DOJ against Hunter Biden.

[Bwaaah]

Is that what you believe?

[Sarcastr0]

If the DoJ is Biden's partisan weapon, as the right is screaming it is, this seems and odd choice for it to make, no?

[Bwaaah]

The DOJ couldn’t get away with its shenanigans after Gary Shapley’s testimony. They quickly tried to finish off the affair when they sought approval from a judge for an alleged “plea agreement.” I say “alleged” because there wasn’t in fact an agreement, and yet there they stood in a courtroom, the defense on one side and the DOJ on the other, neither being able to explain to the judge what they were trying to do.

Stop dismissing the undisputed evidence by parroting simplistic arguments. Of course it’s not “Joe Biden’s DOJ.” It’s the United States DOJ, and unexplained efforts among numerous of its employees to minimize prosecution of Hunter Biden have not only been revealed, but as a result of that light, they are becoming less effective at thwarting the investigation.

[Sarcastr0]

The things you claim the DoJ is getting away with, and this is the one they can't manage? Seems odd.

There is undisputed evidence Hunter did crimes. But everything else is unestablished (though I'm sure it'll be received wisdom on the right like Obama being a Kenyan Muslim).

Comer has made a fool of himself over and over. And all of you even more so as you make promises this is the Real Proof and have egg on your face over and over.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastro - Oblivious to the actual facts makes another unforced error.

[Bwaaah]

Read Shapley’s testimony. He was the lead investigator, and his testimony is about the investigation, not yours or Comer's partisan concerns. It’s clear and it’s chilling. And no, it hasn’t been refuted.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hadn’t he already paid back what he owed? Why are they prosecuting him?

[Nelson]

I believe this is a new issue. Wouldn't surprise me if he cheated on his taxes multiple times.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No, he paid them back in full, three years ago. There is no allegation of further tax misconduct.

Has this ever happened before? Someone cheats on taxes, is caught, pays them back, and three years later, is indicted on it anyway?

[Tom for equal rights]

captcrisis 58 seconds ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
"No, he paid them back in full, three years ago. There is no allegation of further tax misconduct."

Hunter 's tax liability got paid by a sweetheart democrat party member.

[grb]

Leaving captcrisis' question unanswered....

[Tom for equal rights]

GRB - just clarifying his first statement since it was highly deceptive without full context

Try again

[Dan Schiavetta]

I am aware of the situation and the $ was paid back via a loan from his attorney. This sounds like champerty to me (unethical for an attorney to do) but not related to why Hunter is being indicted now as to his tax history.

If you want to see political $ diverted to paying personal liabilities, look to what Trump has been doing.

[Life of Brian]

When did Hunter become a politician?

[Nige]

Wait, he's not a politician, depsite being Republican Public Enemy No 1? How does that work?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so Al Capone, El Chapo, etc. were politicians too? I'm learning so much today.

[grb]

Life of Brian : "When did Hunter become a politician?"

Gosh. I just assumed Hunter Biden was a politician. Otherwise, why would the GOP House be so determined to impeach him!

[Life of Brian]

Wow, first "politician" and now "impeach"? At this rate it won't be long until very few words in the English language will be left with any objective meaning. Full speed behind!

[Nige]

Hunter Biden is a latter day Al Capone!

[grb]

Tom for equal rights : "GRB – just clarifying his first statement since it was highly deceptive without full context"

Your "clarity" was irrelevant to captcrisis’ question. He asked how often criminal charges on taxes issues are filed years after full restitution was made. I suspect we'd find that sequences has almost never happened, pointing again to the conclusion that H.B. hasn't received special favorable treatment, but special harsher treatment instead.

You observation on where Hunter got the funds to pay is relevant exactly how? Do you think DOJ or prosecutors cared in any other case if a tax delinquent had help footing the bill?

[David Nieporent]

.

Has this ever happened before? Someone cheats on taxes, is caught, pays them back, and three years later, is indicted on it anyway?

I'm sure it has. Paying back taxes after you're caught having committed tax fraud is not a get-out-of-jail-free for having committed tax fraud; that would be an odd approach. But it's rare, because they're typically more interested in collecting the money you owe. It's specifically when they also want to send a message that they bring criminal charges.

[Kazinski]

That's kind of like robbing a bank, and when you see the lights and siren behind you trying to go back to the bank and return the money.

Its not only the unreported income its also the false statements and tax fraud, characterizing things like a sex club membership as a legitimate business expense. And the rather ostentatious flouting of the law spending the cash he owed the IRS on hookers and blow.

The hypocrisy of letting Hunter off while Joe is hiring 80,000 new IRS agents, and imposing new reporting requirements for people getting more than 600$ of electronic transfers a year doesn't perturbed you?

[Nige]

They let Hunter off?

[Bwaaah]

No. Did you think they did?

[Nige]

I was assured he was being protected from legal consequences by his father.

[Kazinski]

I was answering Captcrisis question:
"Has this ever happened before? Someone cheats on taxes, is caught, pays them back, and three years later, is indicted on it anyway?"

That seems to be what he is suggesting should be done.

I'm glad to have you on my side for once.

[Nige]

I think he was noting that no amount of punishment for Hunter Biden is enough for you lot.

[bernard11]

Joe is hiring 80,000 new IRS agents

Why on Earth do you spread this blatant lie? What's your problem?

WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - New U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) hires over the next decade will mainly replace retiring Baby Boomers, answer taxpayer questions and program new computers, U.S. Treasury officials and tax experts said, responding to Republican claims that the IRS will recruit 87,000 new agents to harass Americans on their taxes.

The Republican attack ads and social media messages follow a decade of Republican-passed budget cuts in Congress for the IRS, leaving it with 16,000 fewer employees in 2021 than it had in 2010. The agency is responsible for collecting the bulk of nearly $5 trillion in annual U.S. revenues.

[Bwaaah]

For what it's worth, the Treasury report on which the initiative is based rounds out its headcount objective like this:

"This effort will support the hiring and retention of at least 5,000 new enforcement personnel."
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/The-American-Families-Plan-Tax-Compliance-Agenda.pdf

Also note that of the $80 billion IRS budget proposal, about $73 billion is to sustain existing programs, and about $7 billion is for new/enhanced programs.

And since the report was written in 2021, and just for fun, it also includes this under section III. C. Inequities in Tax Enforcement:

"Although the tax code redistributes income in a way that mitigates racial and income inequality, [...] scholars have increasingly focused on aspects of the tax code that disadvantage Black and Hispanic families in particular."

But don't be distracted by that. They're clearly going after rich people.

[Sarcastr0]

They’re clearly going after rich people.

Yes, those are the ones that get away with not paying their taxes because enforcing on them is too burdensome.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for leftsplaining that.

(Admitted: I'm being snotty.)

[Commenter_XY]

That was funny = leftsplaining. I'll have to remember that one and keep it handy. It is perfect.

[Nige]

Might even keep you honest.

[bernard11]

Are you claiming that this supports Kazinski's claim that Biden is hiring 80,000 new agents?

[bernard11]

At least 5,000. OK. I'm fine with that.

Probably should be more. Do you, or Kazinski, think that we have no problem collecting taxes that are legally due?

[Bwaaah]

I consider it to be indisputable that the IRS has problems collecting taxes that are legally due. I just wanted to move past b.s. numbers, and accusations of b.s. numbers, to possibly realistically correct numbers, and to share that with commenters (and to share that quote about inequities just for fun because I think it'll age like bellbottoms).

But I wasn't in the fight over whether or not the IRS should have more resources, and took no position. For what it's worth, I feel no ideological opposition to the IRS, and to the contrary, want it to be effective at collecting due taxes. (I do have a softer spot in my heart for capital formation than I do for taxation.)

[Tom for equal rights]

Kaz comment - "Second it will bring more attention the the inescapable fact that Merrick Garland was either completely clueless or purposely misled Congress about Weiss authority."

More likely Merrick Garland was active in stalling the investigation.

[Nelson]

"Hunter was guilty as sin"

Agreed. Hunter Biden is a terrible person. That's not sarcasm, he's really a bad, criminal man.

"forced upon Weiss by he DOJ"

That's not true, it's what you choose to believe.

"Second it will bring more attention the the inescapable fact that Merrick Garland was either completely clueless or purposely misled Congress about Weiss authority."

Let's see. Garland said Weiss had all of the authority he needed and clarified that if he needed any more he would get it. Weiss said he had what he needed, then decided he needed more. He asked for more and got it, at which point he filed charges using that authority. So exactly what was claimed was, in fact, true.

Why take something that is simple and spin it into a conspiracy theory because you don't like the specificity of the words used? Weiss hasn't been impeded at all. The President's son is being prosecuted by his father's DOJ and the President isn't intervening. This is exactly how it's supposed to work.

You are a partisan. Why don't you just take the W? Why go for double-or-nothing on semantics?

[Tom for equal rights]

Nelson nice deflection - however your response doesnt reflect the facts

[Nelson]

"nice deflection"

Are you confused at how deflection works? I directly addressed Kazinski's comments, using true statements to refute his thesis, and I agreed with the accurate characterization of Hunter. So nothing at all like deflection.

"your response doesnt reflect the facts"

I'm not sure why the anti-Biden folks want to try to stick the square peg of "Garland lied and Weiss doesn't have the authority he needs" into the round hole of "Garland said that any authority Weiss needed to pursue the case was his for the asking and when he asked for more, it was granted".

Most people know that "I don't believe that Garland was telling the truth" is proved to be wrong when he does what he said he would do. Weiss has been given all the authority he needs to pursue this case wherever it goes. That's a reality that no amount of revisionist history about Garland can obscure.

So yes, my response directly and accurately reflects the facts. This a level of logical pretzel-twisting similar to "calling people by their preferred pronouns is the government violating my free speech rights by making me lie" when the government isn't requiring you to say anything.

This is cut-and-dried. Garland said Weiss would have anything he needed if he asked. When Weiss asked, Garland provided. It's not hard to understand unless you really, really don't want to accept it.

[Bob from Ohio]

'Hunter Biden got indicted "

Total waste of time. He's getting a pardon next December.

[grb]

Nah, Joe will wait until the end of his second term....

[Bob from Ohio]

And make Hunter pay for a defense? No, win or lose next year, its a Christmas pardon.

[Kazinski]

No indicting Hunter and making face trial is worth the effort on its own.

Much better than sweeping it all under the rug despite knowing that Hunter is very unlikely to ever spend a day in jail.

[David Nieporent]

Every accusation is a confession. That your hero Donald Trump would pardon people corruptly does not mean that Joe Biden would.

[Moderation4ever]

Question for the lawyers, if you are Hunter's lawyers do you want to move this case fast. Republicans want this case out during the election and they will make noise when it happens. Second, your client is guilty but you have a good case that the prosecutors went overboard with the charges. You can point to the fact that they offered a plea deal with no real new evidence coming in since the deal fell through. You can ask the jury for acquittal on over charging or for a guilty verdict on a lesser charge. Essentially ask the jury to approve the equivalent of plea deal rejected by the judge.

[not guilty]

Evidence of plea negotiations would not likely come before the jury at trial. I haven't researched what lesser included offenses are available under the indictment.

[Nelson]

It seems like the lawyerly consensus when overcharging has come up is that it never wins as a defense in court. It often comes up when the discussion turns to jury nullification.

[jb]

You seem confused about what the skepticism about Shapley's testimony was, and even more confused about what Weiss and Garland have been saying all along.

The skepticism about Shapley had nothing to do with whether or not Hunter was guilty of tax evasion, it was that he asserted that Weiss didn't have the full authority to bring charges against Hunter. In particular, it was the claims that Weiss had been denied special counsel status and that he was "not the deciding person" as to whether to bring charges or not. Both Weiss and Garland have consistently said that these claims by Shapley were incorrect and the California indictment actually shows that he was wrong all along.

This article does a pretty good job of summarizing the situation:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-special-counsel-david-weiss-congress-criminal-charges/

tl;dr: Weiss insists no one has interfered with the investigation politically, that he did not request Special Counsel status until August when it was promptly granted to him and that prior to that point he didn't need it in order to drive the investigation as he saw fit. This all is 100% consistent with every bit of evidence we have other than Shapley's testimony, including the California indictments.

[David Nieporent]

.

The fiction that Weiss did have full authority to bring whatever charges he thought were appropriate, wherever he wanted just can’t stand up to the fact that now that Weiss does have full independent counsel authority he brought new and more serious charges in the venue where the NY Times reported he had been previously rebuffed by the US Attorney.

Second it will bring more attention the the inescapable fact that Merrick Garland was either completely clueless or purposely misled Congress about Weiss authority.

In fact, Garland and Weiss's statements were consistent with both each other and with subsequent events. Why do you people keep lying about this?

[Bwaaah]

As I recall, Garland said Weiss had full authority to prosecute as he saw fit. Weiss then sought cooperation from the U.S. Attorney’s office in California to seek an indictment there. The U.S. Attorney’s office said it would not pursue the prosecution. Weiss stopped there.

(I think Weiss made a similar request in another district [D.C.?], and the U.S. Attorney’s office there also refused to pursue the case.)

Please explain your definition of “full authority,” or what happened there.

[jb]

He had full authority, as evidenced by the fact that when the US Attorney for the Central District of California did not want to get involved, Weiss went ahead and charged Hunter in that jurisdiction without his help.

It is kind of mind boggling to see people trying to turn the fact that Weiss just charged Hunter info evidence that somehow Weiss and Garland were lying about Weiss's ability to charge Hunter. Maybe just once when the evidence is contrary to the conspiracy theory it means that actually the conspiracy theory was wrong?

[Mr. Bumble]

...but only after he received special counsel status.

[Nelson]

Which he didn't need if the California US Attorney had agreed to co-prosecute. See, this is how to actually do things in an effective way. Take enough power to get the job done. If that proves insufficient, ask for more so you can get the job done. Then when the guy who said you would have everything you needed follows through on that promise, use it to get the job done.

Considering we're talking about government action, you would think libertarians would cheer a government prosecutor for refusing more power than necessary to do the job. Weird.

[jb]

... which he was granted as soon as he asked for it

I'm sure you think you have a point though

[Bwaaah]

What about Mr. Bumble’s point? Why was he given “special counsel” status *after* he tried to pursue prosecutions and did not get cooperation? What was/is the purpose of the Special Counsel designation?

(Couldn't Garland have simply made a call to those U.S. Attorney's offices and requested they assist Weiss as needed?)

[Nelson]

Because that designation gave him the authority to prosecute Hunter regardless of whether they agreed or not. I'm honestly a huge fan of Weiss' "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach. Everybody gets one chance to do the right thing and if the don't he gets a bulldozer and flattens the obstacles.

Are you really arguing that secret pressure campaigns are good and transparent processes are bad? Really?

[Bwaaah]

“Are you really arguing that secret pressure campaigns are good and transparent processes are bad? Really?”

Whuh? (Seriously? Where’d that come from?)

Does the AG requesting cooperation from a USA to assist in prosecutorial authority he has already granted constitute a “secret pressure campaign.” Where’s the secret? Where’s the campaign?

It seems pretty evident that Weiss didn’t have “full authority” (adequate authority?) to pursue the case until Garland gave him Special Prosecutor authority. The assertion that his authority before then was “full authority” strains a rather straightforward analysis of the assertion. Maybe it could be said, more correctly, that Garland told him earlier that he would grant him whatever authority he needed, as such authority was requested?

[Nelson]

"Does the AG requesting cooperation from a USA to assist in prosecutorial authority he has already granted constitute a “secret pressure campaign.” Where’s the secret? Where’s the campaign?"

A US Attoirney who had already chosen not to allow the prosecution is called by his boss and "asked" to reconsider his decision sounds like pressure. The other option was to give Weiss the authority that he asked for when the US Attorney denied him. One of those is a transparent process and one is a pressure campaign. Which do you think is more transparent, not to mention more efficient.

"The assertion that his authority before then was “full authority” strains a rather straightforward analysis of the assertion. Maybe it could be said, more correctly, that Garland told him earlier that he would grant him whatever authority he needed, as such authority was requested?"

Look at those two things. Neither of them is even slightly obstructionist. The "whistleblower" made false claims about Garland and the DOJ obstructing Weiss' investigation and claimed that Weiss didn't have the authority to make charging decisions. Both of those claims are not true.

But some people refuse to believe that Joe Biden (and/or his administration) isn't impeding the investigation, despite repeated evidence that they arrn't interfering.

So they have latched onto the most nitpicky of nitpicky semantic arguments, that "Weiss has all the authority he needs" and "Weiss will have all the authority he needs" somehow proves that Garland is preventing Weiss from pursuing the case against Hunter. And yet, Weiss has said that he has what he needs, every time he's needed something it's been granted, and the prosecution not only hasn't stopped, it's grown.

The reality is that it is completely reasonable to assume that Garland's assurance that Weiss has the authority to pursue this case was meant to convey that Weiss had the full support of the DOJ for whatever he needed. And that has been proved to be true (and the "whistleblower's" claims to be false) by everything that's happened since then.

Claiming Garland lied or was obstructing the investigation is a completely unfounded accusation. Picayune arguments that Garland saying (and proving) Weiss had full authority is somehow equivalent to obstruction is as partisan as an argument gets.

[David Nieporent]

Why was he given “special counsel” status *after* he tried to pursue prosecutions and did not get cooperation?

Um, because that's when he asked for it? He didn't need it if those offices wanted to take the cases.

(Couldn’t Garland have simply made a call to those U.S. Attorney’s offices and requested they assist Weiss as needed?)

Again, people might not realize it because Donald Trump thought the DOJ was supposed to be his personal lawyers, but that's not how DOJ works. USAOs have autonomy to take cases or not. If D.C. wants something done that a US Attorney doesn't want to do, then D.C. can take the case itself, but it doesn't go around ordering USAOs to prosecute specific cases.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Nelson]

"The U.S. Attorney’s office said it would not pursue the prosecution. Weiss stopped there."

I believe that he not.only didn't stop there, when he asked for more authority in order to overrule the California US Attouney, it was granted to him and he used it to file new charges. So the exact opposite of "Weiss stopped there"

[Bwaaah]

Understood.

[David Nieporent]

Once more: A U.S. Attorney ordinarily can only bring cases in his own district. So Weiss had two ways to initiate a prosecution of someone outside his own district:

1) He could ask that outside district's US Attorney if that guy wanted to prosecute, and then hand the case over to that office if he said yes.
2) He could ask the AG (Garland) to give him an appointment that would let him prosecute anywhere.

Last year (or whenever it was; I've lost track) Weiss did the first, and the US Attorneys for DC and CA said that they weren't interested in taking the case. But he never did the second. Both Garland and Weiss testified to Congress that Garland told Weiss that all Weiss had to do was ask, and that if Weiss had done so, Garland would have said yes.

A few months ago, he finally did ask, and Garland immediately said yes, naming Weiss as special counsel, just as he had testified that he would have.

[Joe_dallas]

Hunter biden - still no charges for foreign influence peddling, unregistered foreign agent, nor the Bursma shakedown by the biden family.

[Nelson]

"the Bursma shakedown by the biden family."

You just can't accept this is false, can you? Remember those three $1300 payments from Hunter to Joe that proved Joe was taking bribes? Oh, wait, that was paying back a loan. Just like every other breathless Comer-ism that supposedly proves Joe Biden is corrupt that always turns out to ... wait for it ... not do anything of the sort.

As far as foreign influence peddling and being an unregistered foreign agent, I haven't seen anything regarding that, but Hunter is a complete scumbag so it wouldn't surprise me if it's true.

The problem you have is that Hunter is dirty as hell and Joe isn't. You desperately want to make people believe that because Hunter is shady, so is Joe. And you keep failing to prove anything. In fact, every false (and easily disproven) claim of proof backfires and just shows that Joe isn't corrupt.

I understand that this is acceptable politics for Rs, courtesy of Trump, when facts and truth have no meaning or relevance. But it's pretty sickening to those who love this country and haven't signed on to the lunatic fringe.

[Kazinski]

In other Hunter news, Hunter said that the GOP is trying to 'kill' him by forcing him into a relapse. I can assure Hunter everyone in the GOP wants Hunter to be healthy, clean, and sober until he stands trial.

But I don't have any doubt that Joe will pardon Hunter as soon as practicable after the election, win or lose, either before or after the trial has completed.

And I will also state again that I think the gun charge against Hunter is unconstitutional under Bruen, and I'd like to see him fight that and win.

In one other Hunter related item, James Comer the GOP Chairmen of Ways and Means, claimed that Hunter was indicted to protect him from having to testify in front of his committee. That seems to me like destroying the village in order to save it.

While its certainly possible Weiss could have moved up the indictment in order to put the kibosh on the subpoena, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that Weiss could have his own reasons for not wanting to have Hunter forced to testify in front of Congress before his trial. Anyone who remembers Oliver North getting his conviction overturned on appeal after being forced to testify in front of Congress first can think of good reasons why Weiss would also want to avoid that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

In one other Hunter related item, James Comer the GOP Chairmen of Ways and Means, claimed that Hunter was indicted to protect him from having to testify in front of his committee.

How would that work?

[Kazinski]

Well Hunter would just have to claim that forcing him to testify before his trial would either force him to self incriminate, or he would have to plead the 5th any questions of substance.

Just as the DOJ refuses to testify before Congress about any matter that is pending, Hunter could surely do the same without a grant of immunity.

[JasonT20]

He could have pleaded the 5th to any questions of substance while not being under indictment as well. Prosecuting someone for defying a congressional subpoena is for not showing up at all when courts refuse to quash it. (See Bannon and Navarro)

I'm sure it happens all the time that executive branch officials will respond to letters requesting their testimony that they can't talk about what the committee wants to hear, and then the committee never bothers with a subpoena. If they do go ahead and demand that they testify, the official will avoid and dodge meaningful questions with claims of executive privilege, pending investigations, etc., and congressmen would just whine and complain to the media about it.

That's why this has been an exercise in political theater from the start. Hunter Biden is not as stupid as Trump. He won't say anything under oath that would undercut a defense, he'd refuse to answer. Comer et al just wanted to be able to say that they hauled him in for a deposition and bonus if they could find something he said that could be framed to their narrative. They didn't want it to be public because of the number of times they've been shown to have nothing of substance to ask about.

[Kazinski]

Sure, but don't you see the political problem of asking Hunter "did you ever convey to your father any of the funds you received from your Chinese joint venture?"

And Hunter answering: "I decline to answer because it might tend to incriminate me."

[Dr. Ed 2]

You're assuming that there isn't something completely new that we don't know about. There is always that possibility.

[Bwaaah]

"Have you taken into account what you don't know?"

That's always a relevant question, and usually a non-substantive argument.

[JasonT20]

Sure, but don’t you see the political problem of asking Hunter “did you ever convey to your father any of the funds you received from your Chinese joint venture?”

And Hunter answering: “I decline to answer because it might tend to incriminate me.”

Like I said, political theater. Republicans figure that they get a win no matter what Hunter says, as long as they get to control what is made public about his testimony.

[David Nieporent]

.

Sure, but don’t you see the political problem of asking Hunter “did you ever convey to your father any of the funds you received from your Chinese joint venture?”

Yes. As I said last week: purely as a lawyer the obvious advice to Hunter Biden is: "Show up, and assert the fifth in response to every substantive question."

But that would be politically a disaster for his father, because people assume that taking the 5th is a tactic admission of wrongdoing, and because the GOP has been working hard to get people to treat Hunter and Joe as the same person.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they could just read passages from Hunter's book "Beautiful Things" into the record?

[OtisAH]

Well, as we’ve seen written here the idea is to apply so much pressure that Hunter backslides into his addictions. From there either the severity of that becomes public news, or it actually kills him. In both instances the idea is the additional stress and heartache on top of the already the incredible stress of being a U.S. president becomes too much for Old Joe to bear.

[Commenter_XY]

The steady 'drip, drip' continues. The impeachment vote is coming, unless POTUS Biden croaks or resigns first.

My question: When does lobbying for foreign companies cross the line for FARA purposes?

[Kazinski]

You keep saying that, but I think the goal is a thorough investigation and a thorough airing of the documentation and results.

It would make for great campaign commercials, listing all the money Joe and his family got and from what sources.

And it would work better for the GOP I would think for the DNC to have to replace Joe because the stink is too ripe for the voters to put up with than to do it through impeachment.

[Commenter_XY]

As many (myself included) have pointed out. POTUS Biden will not be removed from office, when impeached. The votes are just not there. It (impeachment) is political retaliation, pure and simple.

What I find absolutely mind-blowing is that POTUS Trump currently leads POTUS Biden in polling (admittedly, polls at this stage are trash; Bob from Ohio is right about that). POTUS Trump is a guy they're trying to put in jail (or worse), and he is more popular than the incumbent. I can scarcely believe it, myself.

Here is a question for VC Conspirators. What is the likelihood the 2024 matchup is Trump v Biden again? I am going with 60% (and I was seriously thinking less than 50%). Might be an interesting result. I'll count and post downthread.

BTW. could anyone write a political thriller better than the political reality we have experienced for the last 7 years?

[Z Crazy]

Brandon's not gonna be the nominee.

That's why these polls are worthless.

[JasonT20]

POTUS Trump is a guy they’re trying to put in jail (or worse), and he is more popular than the incumbent. I can scarcely believe it, myself.

It makes perfect sense, actually. Trump is a perpetual victim in his own eyes and the eyes of his followers. Prosecuting him is just proving how deep the conspiracy goes to them, no matter what evidence they can present. Biden, on the other hand, does not whine about every accusation on his own failing social media platform multiple times a day, nor does he have followers that hang on his every word.

[JasonT20]

BTW. could anyone write a political thriller better than the political reality we have experienced for the last 7 years?

Anyone competent in the genre would. In political thrillers, the conspiracies are real, not delusions about Satan worshiping baby-blood drinkers. The conspirators are intelligent, competent people that are brought down by determined individuals that are even more intelligent and competent that manage to find verifiable information that is hidden. They aren't over the hill, alcoholic former prosecutor/mayors that get fooled by Borat after holding press conferences at Four Seasons Total Landscaping a short walk from a sex shop. They don't find laptops left for repair. They have to sneak or con their way into secure offices or homes and hack them, and they don't find and make a big deal of the dick pics when they do.

What has been frightening about the last 8 years (since the golden escalator ride) is the farcical nature of everything surrounding Trump. Ask anyone, even staunch Republicans and Tea Party faithful circa 2010, if they saw themselves believing and following a known huckster and reality TV star that had inherited hundreds of millions and managed to lose billions in net worth after his initial successes following in his daddy's footsteps in the 80s, see several ill-conceived business ventures fail in spectacular fashion, endure several bankruptcies, divorce two trophy wives to marry a third, get caught on tape pretending to be his own non-existent PR man talking about how great he is to reporters and how so many beautiful, famous women want to be with him. Could anyone then have imagined such a person actually winning an election for President? Could anyone have expected anything but utter chaos if he did?

What is worse, that it all happened, or that the absurdity of it is further proof that he must be America's chosen savior to his most devout followers?

[Mr. Bumble]

huckster /hŭk′stər/
noun

1.One who sells wares or provisions in the street; a peddler or hawker.
2,One who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product.
3.One who writes advertising copy, especially for radio or television.

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

By using "huckster, I assume you mean #2 above.
Seems that describes most politicians.

[JasonT20]

If you're going to be cynical, sure. But Trump most definitely fit that definition of huckster even without any cynicism. Trump Steaks? Trump Vodka? Trump Airlines? Trump U?

[Commenter_XY]

What is the likelihood we see the Trump v Biden electoral matchup in 2024, Jason T20?

[JasonT20]

Hard to say right now, since no one has cast any actual votes yet.

Trump has also benefited from his strategy of hiding from the debates. Having to be on stage with other candidates (as if they were his equals!) would subject him to real questions, rather than being able to give his usual rambling speeches to friendly audiences, what are supposed to be softball interviews, and posting on Truth Social. Not to mention that the other candidates wouldn't just sit there while he attacked them in his usual ways. They would actually have to criticize him (gasp!).

I'll never understand how people that supposedly value tough leaders support such a coward.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously? Yeah, I think less of him for ducking the debates. But I'm supporting DeSantis this time around, and was even before the ducking began, so I can't say it really changed my mind.

[Mr. Bumble]

It bothers you that Trump is "ducking debates" but not that Biden has kneecapped any opponents?

[Bob from Ohio]

"also benefited from his strategy of hiding from the debates."

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — President Joe Biden’s campaign is not yet committing to general election debates next year, the latest sign that a staple of modern White House campaigns may not be in play in 2024.

Seems like a trend!

[JasonT20]

Incumbent presidents typically do "kneecap" opponents, but generally don't need to. I think Teddy Kennedy vs. Jimmy Carter was the last time a President running for re-election faced a significant challenger in his own party.

[JasonT20]

"not yet committing" to a general election debates more than half a year from the party conventions is not equal to having skipped 4 debates with the Iowa caucuses a month away. You have a "trend" if Biden refuses to debate the Republican nominee or at least says he won't.

[not guilty]

I think Pat Buchanan's challenge to George H. W. Bush in 1992 was pretty significant, though unsuccessful.

[David Nieporent]

.

What is the likelihood we see the Trump v Biden electoral matchup in 2024, Jason T20?

95% barring medical issues. That's based on the idea that there is no chance Biden drops out (if he's healthy enough), and maybe a 5% chance Trump does if he's in prison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interesting hypothetical: Trump is both elected *and* incarcerated in either NY or GA on state charges. Imagine the pressure on the Governor to pardon --- particularly if a MAGA Congress shuts off all Federal funding to the state as pressure. No highway aid, no school aid, no urban aid, maybe no Medicaid aid (although that likely would go to court). So you're the NY Governor and the NYC subway is shut down for lack of money and the Mayor is screaming, what do you do? Or the FAA has shut down the Atlanta airport and Delta's screaming...

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite the imagination you have.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember how the 21-year-old drinking age was imposed....

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Quite the imagination you have"

You must be new if this is your first introduction to Nostradamus Ed. The seer's all-seeing gaze looks deep into a future of calamities, apolocyptic discord, nuclear conflict, economic collapse, multiple race wars (a regular favorite!), revolutionary upheaval, civil wars by the dozen, and scores of other unpleasant events.

[Sarcastr0]

1) Congress would not have the majority to do this insane thing.

2) We have learned over and over that people's reactions to being targeting with harsh sanctions like that is not to capitulate.

You have these scenarios where evil libs are brought to heel by extreme conservative action; you post them often.

But you don't understand people so they end up being artificial and bad.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And what's the drinking age?

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not a great analogy to a partisan push to free someone duly convicted.

Not many were in the tribe of drunk driver defenders. Trump justice-seekers is a lot more of a cohesive cohort. I think it’d hit quite differently.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, Georgia's governor does not have pardon authority.

[Bob from Ohio]

But the GOP dominated pardon board does and the 5 year waiting period is waived for the elderly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Generic Democrats always tend to over-perform in the polls, because you can imagine them as not having the real life warts of a real life Democrat. They're imaginary perfection.

In 2020, Covid provided Biden an excuse to stay largely sequestered. You would normally think that doing practically no campaigning would hurt a Presidential candidate, but it actually helped Biden, because he managed to remain a generic Democrat right through election day, competing against real life Trump.

He's no longer a generic Democrat, he's Joe Biden, warts and all. Turns out he's got a lot of those warts.

[Commenter_XY]

So...what is the likelihood of a Trump v Biden matchup next year?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump will likely stand trial in DC in the spring and in Atlanta in the summer. The latter trial will be televised. Trump will have to be present in the courtroom while damaging evidence is presented.

If the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate a slimy crook like Trump -- well, Napoleon said never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.

[Commenter_XY]

Napoleon was right.

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point it looks like a near 100% chance of Trump being the nominee, barring either medical misadventure, or better evidence of genuine criminality than has surfaced so far.

I suppose it's possible the Democrats have that evidence, and are just delaying revealing it until Republicans have committed to Trump as the nominee. But I suspect somebody would have jumped the gun by now if they had it.

Democrats seem to be a bit scared about their prospects with Biden as the nominee, I think they're looking for a plausible way to pull a Torricelli. Avoiding Harris taking his place is a complication, though.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : ” …. or better evidence of genuine criminality than has surfaced so far.”

Oh, come on, Brett. The documents case is criminality cut&dry, and all we’ve heard from the GOP base is endless excuses. The cases built around Trump’s attempt to steal the election are supported by evidence that has been relentlessly reported, but the Right just doesn’t care. They think subverting U.S. democracy is great as long as Trump is doing it and have no trouble creating excuses for that as well – the independent state legislature theory being one of the lamest.

Maybe Trump couldn’t get away with shooting a stranger on Fifth Avenue, but there’s little sign of it. I think the cult would ignore the evidence for that as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, all I've seen so far is stuff that only looks like evidence of criminality if you start out by assuming the crime.

[bernard11]

And this will remain true for you, wrt Trump, forever.

[Kazinski]

I'm not going to comment on the legal issues, we can let that play out in the criminal trial.

I will just ask why a voter would be so concerned than an ex-president had classified documents in his residence, but have no concerns whatsoever that a ex-senator and ex-VP had classified documents stored in his garage for years?

I can't see making a choice between the two candidates based on that. The fact that the ex president was charged and the current president gets a pass for his conduct wouldn't change that much.

[Nelson]

"I will just ask why a voter would be so concerned than an ex-president had classified documents in his residence, but have no concerns whatsoever that a ex-senator and ex-VP had classified documents stored in his garage for years?"

A competent voter can differentiate between documents sitting in a garage that were returned when discovered and documents intentionally hidden in defiance of a subpoena. Voters aren't stupid, they can see the intention on Trump's part to keep things that weren't his, even if there isn't any evidence that he was irresponsible in sharing secrets with random people (and there seems to be such evidence).

False equivalence only work if your target shares your biases.

[Don Nico]

Both instances are examples of wanton disregard of the rules that almost 100% of people with access to classified documents works under.
Trump is in deeper shit because of his lies and obstruction.

[Nige]

'the current president gets a pass for his conduct'

The current president did not conduct himself the way the ex-president did. No amount of lying will change that.

[Nelson]

Don, you hit the nail on the head. Apparently people taking documents that belong to the people happens every time a President leaves office. While the carelessness that fact highlights is disturbing, the papers were returned upon request. Only one time did the former officeholder refuse the request (and subsequent subpoena). That's what changed it from an honest mistake to a criminal matter.

[David Nieporent]

.

Only one time did the former officeholder refuse the request (and subsequent subpoena). That’s what changed it from an honest mistake to a criminal matter.

Not exactly. What really changed it was not refusing the request, but lying about it.

Assuming for some reason that an ex-president (or anyone else) was desperate to retain the documents and honestly believed he had a right to, the correct thing to do was to legally challenge the subpoena. Refuse and run to court to get it quashed, or comply and then sue for the documents to be returned. Anyone else would have done one of those. And wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Trump instead first tried to hide the documents, and then lied about having looked for them and returned all of them. Any time before he did that, he had an off-ramp.

[Defenderz]

Except that Pedo Joe, Slick Willie, or Obongo would never have been prosecuted for the same thing. One set of rules for Democrats, and another for Republicans who are not uniparty like Jorge Bush.

[Commenter_XY]

I remember 'The Torch' well. It was quite controversial here in the People's Republic. Another case where the democrat democracy was saved by a state supreme court.

[bernard11]

Generic Democrats always tend to over-perform in the polls,

Typical Bellmore one-sided view. Do you think Trump doesn't have plenty of warts?

Generic Democrats always tend to over-perform in the polls when matched against specific Republicans. Similarly, Generic Republicans always tend to over-perform in the polls when matched against specific Democrats.

[Nelson]

"The votes are just not there."

Nor is any evidence.

"I can scarcely believe it, myself."

I can. Inflation is down and it was handled in such a deft way that thete hasn't been a recession. But "it's better now" doesn't erase the memory of when it was bad and no one sees or feels something that was prevented. But the high inflation from early 2023 is seared in people's minds. The economy is strong, the job market is great, and unemployment is low, but none of that sticks in voters' minds like 9% inflation.

"What is the likelihood the 2024 matchup is Trump v Biden again?"

Barring a health emergency for either, 100%. The Ds won't take a chance on someone else being worse than Biden and the Rs don't care about character or criminality, especially with Trump. He could run from prison and have roughly the same support he would get on the campaign trail.

[Commenter_XY]

wow....a 0%, a 100%, a 60%. Real consensus. 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Ok...the results

Value n size
0% 2
60% 1
90% 2
95% 1
100% 2
Total 8

Solid VC consensus that it will be Trump v Biden next year (IOW, 63% of respondents are at least 90% certain it will be Trump v Biden). We'll see if the wisdom of the crowd works. 🙂

[Nelson]

Considering we're discussing a Presidential race between a sub-par Baby Boomer President and a bottom-five Baby Boomer ex-President, can we change "wisdom of the crowd" to "resignation of the crowd" on the official record?

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO, yes Nelson. I stand corrected. 🙂

In this instance, we shall call it...the resignation of the VC crowd.

[JasonT20]

Your numbers don't include my response, since I didn't give a number. You should include a "no prediction" in your list or otherwise note that.

[Kazinski]

I have to agree I think the Fed is doing a good job tamping down inflation, but there was nothing deft about how the Biden Administration of us into this inflationary mess.

But it still isn't lost to me that my retirement savings have lost 20% of their spending power in the last 2 1/2 years. I'm never getting that back.

[Nelson]

"my retirement savings have lost 20% of their spending power"

If it has it's due to poor Investing, not inflation. Inflation hasn't had that impact in the last 2 1/2 years.

[Kazinski]

Well I look at BLS inflation calculator and see that if I had 100k in Jan 2021, that by October 2023 (last month available) I would need $117,619.33 to have the same spending power.

So that’s only 17.6% of my retirement savings that have evaporated. I overstated it by 2.4%. That makes me feel 2.4% better.

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

[bernard11]

Well, 15%, actually.

Did your account earn zero in the 2.5 years?

[Commenter_XY]

The problem was 2022. It was historically bad, in real terms. And especially so for bond markets. A lot of retirees are screwed by what happened in 2022.

[MoreCurious]

Man, you better quickly fire your financial advisor. My retirement accounts are doing quite well and lately getting even better -- up more than 15% so far this year. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the markets are setting all-time records.

[Defenderz]

Yeah, well people shouldn't have to buy overpriced stonks to keep up with inflation. People should be able to trust the currency.

[Nelson]

Apparently in Defenderz's world inflation is something rare. Weird place, that.

[Defenderz]

It's not rare, but it should be. What's your point exactly?

[Nelson]

That inflation is always something that you have to keep up with because it's always present and sticking your money in a mattress doesn't earn a return.

So "people shouldn’t have to buy overpriced stonks to keep up with inflation" is one of the only ways to keep up with inflation. And if you're buying overpriced stocks, you're doing it wrong. You should stop that.

[Defenderz]

Nelson, what exactly is your point?

[Defenderz]

The Fed hasn't done a good job doing anything. dropping inflation is not enough. We need deflation to make up for the 20-25% spike from Pedo Joe's excessive stimulus.

[Nelson]

Do you understand what deflation is, what causes it, and the negative repercussions? Obviously not.

[Defenderz]

Yes, I have heard the Keynesian arguments as to why deflation is bad. The central bankers hate it because their job is to funnel wealth to the Rothschilds of the world, not to protect the common man.

It's complete BS.

[Nelson]

This from someone who thinks investing is a bad thing. For some reason I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Are you going to tell me about how coming off the gold standard will destroy the economy? Any day now ...

[Defenderz]

Well, yes fiat currency is bad. But ponzi schemes are now investing.

[David Nieporent]

.

I have to agree I think the Fed is doing a good job tamping down inflation, but there was nothing deft about how the Biden Administration of us into this inflationary mess.

I don't think the Biden Administration helped matters, but inflation has been a worldwide phenomenon, not merely a U.S. one, in the last few years.

[Defenderz]

Yeah, because of excessive central bank printing.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nelson comment "...and the Rs don’t care about character or criminality,"

neither do the D's care about character or criminality - The last two D nominees are Hillary and J Biden

[Nelson]

Whataboutism is pathetic and Joe Biden isn't a criminal. Nor is there any evidence that he is. Speculation and repeated "revelations" that turn out to be nothing don't count as evidence in the real world.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nelson 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Whataboutism is pathetic"

Yes Whataboutism is pathetic - especially if the one condemning it is the one that started it

[Nige]

Doesn't change the fact that neither Hilary Clinton nor Biden are credibly accused of any criminality.

[Defenderz]

Biden is credibly accused of conspiracy against rights as codified in 18 usc 241

[not guilty]

"Biden is credibly accused of conspiracy against rights as codified in 18 usc 241"

Is that so? Let's flesh out those bare bones.

What are your supporting facts? Accused by whom? With whom is Biden accused of conspiring? What rights in particular? What facts, if any, evince the accuser's credibility?

Conspiracy is a legal conclusion. What action(s) or omission(s) evince Biden's participation in a conspiracy? When did each such act or omission take place?

Please show your work.

[Defenderz]

He conspires with other Democrats to trample on the constitutional rights of conservatives. Plus he's a disgusting senile fag who shoots off inside Obama.

[Nelson]

Wow. That didn't sound like an unhinged rant at all.

[not guilty]

IOW, Defenderz, you've got bupkis.

Once again, what are your supporting facts? Biden is accused by whom? With whom is Biden accused of conspiring? What rights in particular? What facts, if any, evince the accuser’s credibility?

[not guilty]

Still waiting for a straight answer, Defenderz.

Not one pulled from your nether regions.

[Nige]

QED

[Nelson]

"the one condemning it is the one that started it"

Really? Apparently you struggle with reading comprehension. I've never whatabout-ed this, or anything else.

I gave valid reasons why the Ds wouldn't replace Biden and the Rs wouldn't replace Trump. You understand that isn't whataboutism, right?

Biden isn't a criminal, which is why the Trump logic wouldn't apply to Biden. The Rs don't have the Ds pathological fear making a problem worse, so that wouldn't apply to Trump. See? Two separate rationales, to which you responded with unfounded whataboutism regarding the Trump comment. Although I personally agree with you about Hillary, even if there's never been a court case to prove it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’d say the chances of Trump v. Biden in 2024 are about 90% at this point, with most of the 10% uncertainty due to the fact that it is possible that enough Republican voters will come to their senses that there will be a different GOP nominee.

Biden is the sitting President. It would be extraordinarily unusual for him not to be the nominee and there are multiple other factors which have prevented any challenge and each day that goes by makes it much less likely there will be another serious contender for the Democratic nomination.

I think Trump charges and trials and his reactions to them are too unpredictable to put this any closer to 100%.

And 100% is never the right answer to these sorts of questions. There is a non-zero chance that any one of us will die today, even more in the next 10 months. Even more so for people pushing or at 80. (As just one example of many other possible scenarios that would result in something other than Trump v. Biden.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

And, according to the actuarial tables from the SSA, there is somewhere between a 5% and 8% chance of a 78-82 year old dying in the next year. Granted, these are two octagenarians with better health and much better health care than the average person, but even if you say it's just a 1% chance for each, you're down to 98% (very roughly).

And that's just on an age-health basis, to say nothing of a very small (hopefully negligible) chance of either being assassinated. Add to that the possibility of a major health event that, though not fatal, is debilitating to the point of being unable to run, the health/death aspect alone seems to get the number down to near 95%.

[Don Nico]

I think that is all correct and that 90% is the right answer.

[Tom for equal rights]

Better health than most their age -
Maybe maybe not.
Trump likely has obesity and high cholestoral.

Biden has early to mid stage dementia and poor mental acuity, typically lifespan after onset of dementia tends to shorten lifespans significantly, frail is good term for his leg muscle strength.

In summary, in good health? maybe maybe not.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Trump likely has obesity and high cholestoral."

As, I think, do most 80 year old U.S. males. I'm not saying he is in any way an example of great health, but to be among the more healthy at his age he mostly just needs to not be in a hospital or nursing home, able to ambulate, etc. It's a low bar. The fact that he can get up on stage and talk for an hour probably puts him mostly ahead of the curve. (There's a reason 5-8% die within a year....most aren't very healthy at all.)

"Biden has early to mid stage dementia and poor mental acuity,"

Thank you Dr. Tom. I understand that's gospel on the right, but being old and showing it and having dementia are not the same thing. Yes, poor leg strength and falls are a concern, but they are for most 80 year olds (those that can still walk at all, which are well more than half, but how much more than half?).

At any rate, I don't think there's more than a 2% chance of either of them dying prior to November 2024 and it's probably much closer to a 1% chance.

[Joe_dallas]

Nova - Biden does have early to mid stage dementia and poor mental acuity,”

Nova- it takes a seriously case of denial to be unable to admit the obvious. Its not a talking point on the right - its complete denial on the left

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, you have an awful habit of asserting something and then immediately shitting on people for not agreeing with you.

It's a great way to alienate people for no gain.

[David Nieporent]

Remember, Joe took high school biology — no evidence he passed it, but he took it — so he's an expert on everything science.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Joe, you have an awful habit of asserting something and then immediately shitting on people for not agreeing with you."

Sacastro - Perhaps its because you regular disparage the person making factually accurate statements. Biden's current mental state of decline is very well known and acknowledged. Only someone wanting the deny reality would disagree.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"very well known and acknowledged"

What a joke you are.

Acknowledged by whom, exactly?

[Tom for equal rights]

NOVA Lawyer 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“very well known and acknowledged”
What a joke you are.
Acknowledged by whom, exactly?"

Nova - are you trying to claim Biden doesnt have the onset of dementia or other form of substantial mental decline.

its a joke that you refuse to admit the obvious.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You (backtracking at high speed from your initial assertion): "are you trying to claim Biden doesnt [sic] have the onset of dementia or other form of substantial mental decline"

Me, in the very post to which you decided to add a definite diagnosis of "early to mid stage dementia": "being old and showing it and having dementia are not the same thing"

This has been another episode of stupid questions already asked and answered (with a large helping of goal post moving courtesy of Joe).

Nobody denies Biden is old. The armchair diagnoses of dementia are overwrought (history may or may not prove them accurate, but it's dumb of you to be certain that Biden has dementia as your goal post shifting to "other...mental decline" admits).

[Nelson]

"Trump likely has obesity and high cholestoral."

Likely? Unless you believe that Trump is built like Mike Tyson in his boxing days (6'3", 215) obesity is a given. And he takes statins, so high cholesterol is also a given.

"Biden has early to mid stage dementia and poor mental acuity"

Isn't that what Rs were saying right before the 2020 debate where Biden decimated Trump? Do you think that if you keep saying the same thing, eventually it might be true?

It'll be interesting to see if this "Biden is senile" thing plays against Trump during the debates of the 2024 general when Biden doesn't seem senile at all.

Unless Trump runs away because he keeps forgetting Joe Biden and Barack Obama are different people and that Obama isn't the one in the White House.

[Bob from Ohio]

"impeachment vote is coming"

GOP has a one seat majority. Not happening.

[grb]

Oh, it would happen if the GOP had one little tiny bit of evidence against Joe. But they have nothing except empty spin and transparent lies. We should note for Commenter_XY that the “drip, drip” of one lie following another still amounts to nothing.

On the other hand, this has given Comer his fifteen minutes of fame and that’s been a hoot….

[Sarcastr0]

James Comer the GOP Chairmen of Ways and Means, claimed that Hunter was indicted to protect him from having to testify in front of his committee

Congrats on highlighting the stupidest lie Comer has -pushed yet.

And you have turned off the critical thinking skills to even see how utterly stupid it is, so you dutifully report it.
Pretty funny, but for the pathos of you being so bent on hatred for Hunter, who you have never met.

[Kazinski]

Dutifully report it? You seem to have turned off your critical reading skills to miss that I'm dismissing his concerns as unlikely.

"In one other Hunter related item, James Comer the GOP Chairmen of Ways and Means, claimed that Hunter was indicted to protect him from having to testify in front of his committee. That seems to me like destroying the village in order to save it."

[not guilty]

James Comer is as dumb as a box of rocks. Hunter Biden being indicted on additional charges has nothing to do with whether he is obligated to appear in response to a deposition subpoena.

He should appear and assert applicable privileges on a question by question basis.

[Kazinski]

I think its apparent to even admitted partisans like Comer that forcing someone to come before Congress and testify about many of the same facts they are under indictment for would be both unproductive and a bad look.

Hunter deserves a fair trial no matter how evident his guilt is, and we all know these things are really about getting someone to admit to facts they've already uncovered, not uncover new revelations.

[not guilty]

What authorizing resolution has the House passed defining the subject matter of any committee investigation?

I'm not asking rhetorically. Does anyone have the text of such a resolution?

[grb]

Kazinski : "I think its apparent to even admitted partisans like Comer that forcing someone to come before Congress and testify about many of the same facts they are under indictment for would be both unproductive and a bad look"

Comer had already decided public testimony by Hunter was a "bad look" for the GOP before the laatest indictments. That's what comes from having nothing.

[Commenter_XY]

And in other news...The on-going Three Elite Stooges Saga, the chapter called 'Crash & Burn'.

One of the three 'elite' stooges has resigned over her disastrous testimony before Congress on antisemitism in academia. That was the UPenn president. Not to worry, she'll be busy instructing law students at UPenn that you need to act on genocide first before it becomes harassment - for the Jews, that is. Quite the legal luminary. Memo to Tribe parents: Think about your little darling learning law from this lady, and then think about how much money you're spending for that.

A second elite stooge is in serious hot water...that is the Harvard president (ugh, those glasses). Currently there is a truck parked on campus, with 24/7 projection, calling for her resignation. And now plagiarism questions over her thesis have surfaced. I actually thought she had some nice things to say the day after when she realized she brain farted did not do well testifying...I was paying attention. She was right: words matter. Looks grim for her.

Must be tough to be humiliated on the world stage like that, and so poorly represent our best and most elite academic institutions. One could empathize.

Oh, advice to future congressional witnesses...Don't fuck with Elise. Bad idea.

[Z Crazy]

Immoral speech has no place anywhere.

These people should have suppressed immoral speech!

[Commenter_XY]

You can't Z Crazy = suppress immoral speech

We either have the freedom to say what we think, or we do not. If we do not, then the American experiment is over. The conflict comes when standards are not applied consistently.

[Mr. Bumble]

"A second elite stooge is in serious hot water…that is the Harvard president (ugh, those glasses). "

She looks like Steve Urkle :
Did I do that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This was like the Suez Crisis which showed the world that England and France were no longer world powers. This showed the world that those are no longer world class universities -- something that some of us already knew....

[Noscitur a sociis]

As usual, you can count on Dr. Ed for the dumbest possible take.

[Z Crazy]

Does anyone remember good cause requirements by some states and cities to be allowed to possess a handgun. And that a bare desire for self-defense isn't good enough cause.

Why not expand this concept?

If cops want to search someone's home to investigate crime, they should not be required to have good cause. The people inside should be the ones required to have good cause to stop the cops. And a bare desire for privacy shouldn't be good enough cause.

Or what about getting a lawyer? People should be required to show good cause before being allowed to have a lawyer. And being accused of a crime shouldn't be good enough cause to have a lawyer.

What about not being tortured as punishment for crimes? The criminal should be required to show good cause as to why he shouldn't be tortured. And a bare desire to avoid pain shouldn't be considered good enough cause.

What's wrong with this? Wouldn't we be safer from the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member if we adopted these good cause requirements?

[Bwaaah]

An easy one. We want to make it difficult to intrude upon our liberties, so good cause is required from the intruder. We don't want to make it difficult for us to exercise our liberties, so we don't require good cause there.

Why would you favor any of your propositions? They're silly at best, and would appeal to very few people. (It's almost as if you think that the mere fact that your argument has structure is enough to make it a reasonable one.)

[Michael Ejercito]

Look up the Sullivan Law.

Good cause requirements for the exercise of civil rights have already happened.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. And I find that not just unfortunate, but troubling.

[Harvey Mosley]

Thank you for making a great pro gun argument. If it is okay to violate a person's enumerated rights in the name of safety we should do it for all enumerated rights. Lawyers only protect the guilty; innocent people don't need them. If you're innocent you don't need the right to remain silent; only those that have something to hide would refuse to answer questions. Innocent people should have no concerns about letting the police randomly search their homes and their persons; only guilty people hide behind the 4th Amendment. Juries aren't needed; if the police arrest someone they are obviously guilty.

Just think of how many lives we could save if we eliminated the Bill of Rights!

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an answer by Paul Harding.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14

All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.

For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I'd catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I'd find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child's bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I'd find out for sure whether a lab was there.

How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we've got some evidence, but it isn't enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.

Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I'll make the world safer for you. No question about it.

The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I'm allowed to do to you, what's going to keep you safe from me?

Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.

That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven't really thought through the consequences. I won't argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.

Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.

Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.

[Defenderz]

Women should need good cause for an abortion; the fetus having non-white DNA will be deemed good cause, and gay men should need good cause to have bedroom fun.

[David Nieporent]

Troll better. This is lazy.

[Defenderz]

Do you let your wife peg you with a strap on?

[JasonT20]

https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-decision-10767891a475e7ce2c82b1404450908a

This case is just showing the extremes that anti-abortion policies will go to. I find it sickening.

[Moderation4ever]

Dr. Savita Halappanavar died in 2012 in Ireland, after being denied a necessary medical abortion. We are on the road to that in the US and are waiting for the first woman to die, because that is the only thing that wakes people up. Abortion is part of health care for women and needs to be recognized as such.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Slightly different take: people are already woken up. They know the stakes. Look at Ohio. The problem is that there are genuine psychos in power who don't respond to either popular sentiment or individual cases of suffering.

[Armchair]

A stay on a case? For an abortion at 20 weeks? Regarding a child with a medical condition (like Down Syndrome)?

Because, yes, there are adults with Trisomy 18, who are alive and healthy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7762407/#:~:text=Trisomy%2018%20is%20associated%20with,a%20stable%20state%20of%20health.

But let's be honest here. If she really wants to abort the child, and can afford to hire lawyers, she can get to New Mexico.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but that wouldn't fit the narrative.

[Armchair]

And...she's leaving the state.

https://www.aol.com/texas-woman-sought-court-order-193215244.html

So, Texas can declare her case moot.

[not guilty]

A situation being capable of repetition, but evading review is a well recognized exception to mootness. By having the instant abortion, Ms. Cox is preserving her ability to become pregnant again, so her condition is capable of repetition.

[Armchair]

Under these exact circumstances? Another child with the same genetic disorder?

Vanishingly unlikely.

[grb]

Armchair : “Another child with the same genetic disorder?”

She’s had two children without the genetic disorder, so there’s that. I opened up the Texas Supreme Courts ruling against her (which is always dangerous for someone so non-lawyerly as me). Two observations:

(1) The anti-abortion crowd is full of sicko sadistic evil people.

(2) The Texas court ruling repeatedly said a court order wasn’t necessary and a medical emergency finding is by doctor alone. This seems strangely divorced from the reality on the ground in Texas, where doctors are uncertain about acting and afraid of government retaliation – and where the State Attorney General threatened revenge against the doctors even if the initial ruling held.

I have to wonder if the Texas Court is complicit in that – recognizing that government bullying undermines one of the few limitations in absolute state control over women’s bodies in the law – but welcoming that bullying to ensure that control.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is all very very easy for you to say because its not your body that is risking carrying the nonviable pregnancy that is already leading to severe complications. It's not you who is risking infertility. It's not you who the state is forcing to have a c section, which is a major surgery. It's not you who the state wants to deliver a child she wanted only to watch is die within minutes. It's not you who has to take this risk knowing that there are two kids who will be motherless if things go south.

Also its not you who are going to have to watch this. You're not going to be there hearing the cries and screams of her and her family, watching them needlessly suffer. You're not going to be the one delivering this news. You're not going to be involved in ANY of this. You're just an internet tough guy who isn't going to deal with any suffering caused by the policies you want.

[Moderation4ever]

Well said.

[bernard11]

Yes.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Very well said.

[Zarniwoop]

+1

[Michael Ejercito]

Since when was there a constitutional right to bodily autonomy?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Whether or not a “right” exists in constitutional law is immaterial to what I said.

[Nelson]

See Not Guilty's post below.

This is a question that I have always wondered about.

Lawyers, does a Supreme Court decision that establishes bodily autonomy under common law mean that it is a Constitutional right as well, under the 9th Amendment?

[not guilty]

Not standing alone, but it is one factor to be considered in determining whether an asserted right is of constitutional magnitude. For example, SCOTUS cited the Botsford decision in determining that Nancy Cruzan had a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment which would preserve her life.

[Nelson]

What other factors would contribute to it being established as a Ninth Amendment right?

[not guilty]

The right to bodily autonomy is of long standing at common law. SCOTUS opined in 1891:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by Judge Cooley; "The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: to be let alone." Cooley on Torts, 29.

Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty...How does Buck v Bell square with Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford? Didn't Buck reach the opposite conclusion about bodily autonomy....one justice writing something about three generations of imbeciles being enough? That was compulsory sterilization.

I had the impression that under precedent (meaning Buck), we did not have bodily autonomy. Am I wrong?

[Armchair]

As much fun as your emotional strawmen are, let me know when you're ready to have a real discussion on the topic.

While you're doing that, consider the following hypothetical. A premature baby is born at 23 weeks. Mother is still out, but will recover. The doctors give the child 10% chance at living through the week. Can you ethically say "Well, the child probably isn't going to live, so we can just kill it now to avoid any emotional trauma the mother may have later"

[bernard11]

You let us know.

Your hypothetical is typical BS.

There is no risk to the mother at this point, unlike in the actual example.

I don't know if you're being tendentious, trolling, or are too stupid to understand how ridiculous this and you many other hypotheticals are.

[Armchair]

Sorry, a hypothetical about a child born at 23 weeks having a 10% chance to live is "typical BS"??

I suppose the odds are a little higher. But improvements in medical technology and all. Call it 21-22 weeks at birth then....

"Survival among actively treated infants was 30.0% (60/200) at 22 weeks and 55.8% (535/958) at 23 weeks. This is a considerably higher rate of survival than when the study when previously conducted between 2008-2012, in which survival to discharge was 7% (22/334) for live-born infants at 22 weeks and 32% (252/779) for live-born infants at 23 weeks."

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/new-research-shows-survival-rate-improvement-for-extremely-pre-term-infants

[Armchair]

Furthermore, you need to ask…

What is the risk to the mother? In actual percentages?

If there’s a 1% chance of death to the mother, does that mean a child with a 10% chance of life should be killed What about a 0.1% chance of death to the mother? 0.01% chance?

What’s your math here?

[Nelson]

The consideration always goes to the actual, living human being over the potential human being. It's not that complicated, unless you ascribe to the "potential is the same as actual" dissociative belief of anti-abortionists.

It's probably why you can't seem to understand the difference between a human being that has been born alive and a fetus that hasn't. After birth, the percentage chance of survival is irrelevant. Before viability, it matters.

And like I said mentioned before, in the conflict of rights between an actual person and a potential person, the actual person wins.

[Armchair]

No.

Under your logic, if there was an 0.000001% chance of injury to the mother, it would justify aborting the child at any time.

I don't agree with that. That's just "Abortion at any time until birth".

[JasonT20]

I don’t agree with that. That’s just “Abortion at any time until birth”.

But that's a straw man. How often do women seek abortions post viability just because they don't want it compared to how often it is due to a medical complication that increases the risks? How many doctors would actually perform a procedure that kills a viable fetus without there being some unexpected problem? Are you really okay with what Texas did here to this woman just because of some hypothetical threat that someone will get an abortion at 39 weeks when labor could have been induced perfectly safely instead?

[Nelson]

"Under your logic, if there was an 0.000001% chance of injury to the mother, it would justify aborting the child at any time."

Strawman, much? There is obviously a balancing point, but the bottom line is that the health of the fetus is never superior to the health of the mother. Because the mother is an actual person and the fetus is not, although that is a possibility at some point in the future.

"I don’t agree with that. That’s just “Abortion at any time until birth”."

No, it is a balancing between the health of the mother, which is a valid consideration, and the health of the fetus. And the health of the fetus is never more important than the health of the mother.

While a woman can always choose to risk her own life to try to deliver a healthy baby, there is no justification for the health of the fetus being placed above the health of the fetus.

Do you have an argument in favor of treating the health of the woman as inferior to the health of the fetus? Or is this just your personal belief that you want to force on everyone else?

[bernard11]

Funny. you weren't interested in math when you posted your oh-so-clever hypothetical.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://twitter.com/internethippo/status/870010013900611584?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

His entire shtick is this tweet.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Emotional strawmen.”

Again this is very very easy for you to say because you’re not going to be experiencing ANY of the emotions of the woman in this situation.

But I’m glad you responded like this because you’re making it clear that her emotions and feelings and well-being DON’T matter but yours DO. The emotions of the man who won’t deal with this situation at all.

It would be the ultimate virtue signal if your position weren’t so clearly lacking in virtue and your position so meaningless given your utter lack of ultimate responsibility in the situation. About as meaningful as me shaming you for not giving up your kidney immediately to a dying patient. Or better yet, about as meaningful as demanding your government to take it from you.

[Armchair]

Very well. Continue with the emotional strawmen,

[LawTalkingGuy]

You don’t know what a strawman is, do you?

[myself]

As much fun as your emotional strawmen are, let me know when you’re ready to have a real discussion on the topic.

That was a real discussion. It was literally the real case that just went down.

While you’re doing that, consider the following hypothetical. A premature baby is born at 23 weeks. Mother is still out, but will recover. The doctors give the child 10% chance at living through the week. Can you ethically say “Well, the child probably isn’t going to live, so we can just kill it now to avoid any emotional trauma the mother may have later”

So you move on from an actual case to a thing you just made up which isn't even directly relevant?

[Nelson]

Also, notice that he doesn't seem to understand that it is never legal to kill a baby that has been born alive. Despite the BS vcaims anti-abortion groups make to their credulous adherents.

I"m sure he also believes that anyone who supports abortion rights actively wants to kill babies. He seems like that kind of guy.

[Moderation4ever]

The conclusion is that we can bring one Trisomy 18 affected person to adulthood so we should not consider terminating the pregnancy? The mortality rate for this condition is 90% in the first year. This individual has had a tough life, repeated infection, physical and intellectual development problems. I am not sure how many families facing a Trisomy 18 fetus would say this article is a comfort.

[Armchair]

So, if someone has a 10% chance at living....we should just euthanize them now?

[Nige]

Are they in another person's womb?

[Bob from Ohio]

"If she really wants to abort the child, and can afford to hire lawyers, she can get to New Mexico."

Of course, she is just an attractive facts pattern for zealots to use.

You can't easily find out anything about her either, its just "Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two" in every story. All with the same glamour picture she provided.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Has it ever occurred to you that it is dangerous to travel this late in pregnancy with these complications? Do you know how big Texas is? Do you understand people who help her travel can be subject to devastating civil judgments under SB8?

"You can’t easily find out anything about her either, its just “Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two” in every story. All with the same glamour picture she provided."

You are a genuinely disgusting person.

[Nige]

You guys hate it when women are humanised.

[I Callahan]

If you're selfish enough to kill the living being that's inside you, you're the one dehumanizing yourself. As usual, you have reality exactly opposite.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah real selfish for that wife and mother of two to think about the risk to her health and life and how it might affect them.

[Nige]

Since when was being, supposedly in this case, selfish an obstacle to doing anything in the Republican mind?

[MoreCurious]

What in the hell happened to you to turn you into such a hate-filled, odious, repulsive being?

[Nelson]

“You can’t easily find out anything about her either, its just “Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two” in every story. All with the same glamour picture she provided.”

So, what? You think she’s an imaginary person? Not real? Like the raped 10-year-old that anti-abortionists refused to believe was real?

It seems like every time the inhumanity of abortion bans gets exposed by real people who are really being impacted in horrible ways, cultural conservatives refuse to believe it.

When horrifying situations trigger a refusal to believe it’s true, an insistence that it’s a political stunt, and a desire to attack the facts and the principals instead of empathy and sympathy, it exposes anti-abortionists for the people they are. Rageful, vengeful, and self-righteous is the makeup of an anti-abortionist.

[JasonT20]

Did you read that article?

The reported median survival of patients with Edwards syndrome is only 4 days, and only 5–10% of the patients survive until 1 year of age.

And that is those that are born alive. Far more likely (~95%) is that it won't be born alive at all. Texas is insisting that she finish carrying to term, on the tiny chance that it will survive more than a few days after birth. Never mind the risk to her. According to her legal filings, her doctors are telling her that she risks infection if it dies before birth (see the case of Savita Halappanavar that Moderation4ever mentioned) and the ability to have children in the future if a cesarean section is required to deliver (alive or dead).

That is what is messed up about all of this. Pregnancy is a risk no matter how healthy the woman and fetus are. 1 woman dies due to pregnancy complications for every ~4000 live births in this country (the highest rate in the industrialized world, btw). Under what circumstances is someone legally required to take that kind of risk for the benefit of another person?

Texas is insisting that she take these risks of continuing the pregnancy to the end for a fetus with perhaps a 5% chance of being born alive and then a 5-10% chance of living more than a year if so. And she had wanted to be pregnant. (Preserving her ability to have another child is part of her goal here.) She isn't looking to escape responsibility for promiscuity or whatever motivations anti-abortion types normally dream up.

What is the state interest here? The only interest I see is anti-abortion zealots wanting to make sure women and doctors are terrified of even thinking about abortion.

[bernard11]

There is no state interest.

There is only Paxton and other asshole TX politicians posturing for the misogynistic zealots like llocust, who are plentiful there.

[John F. Carr]

If rational basis review applies, the chance of a live birth or even survival to adulthood is enough to save the law.

If you want a better law you need better lawmakers.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If it overrides a medical determination that life is jeopardized maybe not. At least according to Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe.

[John F. Carr]

If the mother is definitely going to die, there is an exception.

[Zarniwoop]

How definite do you need?

And do you want Ken Paxton to be the official who inserts Texas government into women's wombs, disregards medical advice, and risks the health and life of women unfortunate enough to be faced with a terrible, horrible, no-good decision like the one facing Ms. Cox?

[John F. Carr]

If she is 100% going to die without an abortion, and live with one, she gets an abortion. In reality she's going to another state to get one, which was the obvious choice for anybody who didn't want to be a test case.

Paxton isn't the arbiter of birth and death. The legislature made that call before the woman became pregnant. Laws are sometimes enforced by people less enlightened than you. That's part of our legal system. Before Roe was overturned anti-abortion lawmakers didn't put much thought into their bills because they were only political theater. So we got laws without exceptions that most people think ought to be there.

[bernard11]

Paxton isn’t the arbiter of birth and death. The legislature made that call before the woman became pregnant.

First of all, since the law seems to contain some ambiguity, Paxton is in fact the arbiter.

Before Roe was overturned anti-abortion lawmakers didn’t put much thought into their bills because they were only political theater. So we got laws without exceptions that most people think ought to be there.

Which establishes what utter assholes the legislators are. Once Roe was overturned (actually once it became likely that it would be) sensible anti-abortion legislators would have consulted with doctors, tried to understand the problems that might arise, etc. You know, learn something about the subject before passing stupid laws. Of course they couldn't be troubled to do that. Might piss off some idiots.

[Nelson]

"Before Roe was overturned anti-abortion lawmakers didn’t put much thought into their bills because they were only political theater. So we got laws without exceptions that most people think ought to be there."

This is total bullshit. The anti-abortion groups created model legislation designed to get as close to a complete abortion ban as possible. The laws that red states have passed were planned and intentional. They were workshopped and repeatedly edited. They were stress tested by lawyers and former judges. None of these laws were accidental or poorly constructed. They are exactly what anti-abortionists intended.

Anti-abortionists and cultural conservatives, by their desire to use the power of the state to force fringe beliefs (which have never been shown to be any more than faith-based opinion), have established themselves as intentionally and purposefully anti-liberty. They believe they are justified in imposing their personal opinions on the majority of Americans. Their moral arrogance and self-impressed condescension towards the moral beliefs of everyone who disagrees with them is the definition of hubris.

[Sarcastr0]

Passing around the blame from government branch to government branch doesn't make the law any more worthwhile.

But also, yes executives get discretion. This is absolutely a choice by Paxton.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Because, yes, there are adults with Trisomy 18, who are alive and healthy."

Actually, you found ONE. Are you a Doctor? Are you here to refute the statistics with your ONE example?

You have no stake in her medical care or outcome, and all you're interested in is partisan internet points, so just do what we've been asking for years and STFU.

[Nelson]

"(like Down Syndrome)"

No, not like Down's Syndrome. A completely different thing altogether. Trying to insinuate that this woman is trying to end her pregnancy over the equivalent of Down's Syndrome is intentionally dishonest. It's almost like you're trying to insinuate that something bad, instead of just a personal tragedy, is happening in this case.

"Because, yes, there are adults with Trisomy 18, who are alive and healthy."

So if there is at least one survival story, but the overwhelming majority end in death soon after birth or stillbirth, then that's it? What alternative could there possibly be, people making their own medical decisions in consultation with their doctor? How horrifying!

"But let’s be honest here. If she really wants to abort the child, and can afford to hire lawyers, she can get to New Mexico."

Or, perhaps, anti-abortionists should stop forcing their minority opinion on others through government force? Hmm, between authoritarianism and liberty, which should we choose?

[Armchair]

So, what's your cutoff then?

If you've got 3 patients from a car accident, one with a 90% chance of survival, one with a 50%, one with a 10% chance at survival...

Can you just kill off the 10% chance? They probably won't live anyway. What about the 50% chance? What about the 90% chance?

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about, you idiot.

The discussion here is about serious threats to the health and life of Ms. Cox justifying the abortion. There is no comparable danger in your car wreck example.

Stop trying to be clever. It only makes it worse.

[Armchair]

Just wondering what % chance of life you think is low enough not to justify keeping a person alive.

[Nelson]

A person? If there's a chance to save them, you save them. A fetus isn't a person. There is no equivalence.

[Armchair]

Well, if you have that view, then of course.

Most people don't agree that a child in utero can just be discarded like that at any time.

[Nelson]

"Well, if you have that view"

Yes, because the idea that a fetus is a person not only is rejected by most people (and they are just as moral as you, Captain Self-righteous), but has never been proved in any way. The anti-abortion side never even makes the attempt, they just say they are right and everyone else is wrong.

"Most people don’t agree that a child in utero can just be discarded like that at any time."

Agreed. I'm one of those people. That's not what I'm saying. You're building another strawman.

If you want to have a real discussion, we can both explain what point each of us, personally, believes a fetus becomes a person and why we find that point a compelling dividing line. Are you interested in a substantive discussion?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In your dumb hypothetical, you neglect to mention that the 10% chance is actually only a 5-10% chance to last a single year.

[Armchair]

Of course, if they get actual treatment and proper surgery, you're looking at survival close to 50% over 10 years...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2536636

But...., just kill them now, is that your view?

[Nelson]

Again, no one is killing anyone. If you want to claim that a fetus is a person, you have to prove it first, then use it as a premise for further arguments.

A human who faces health complications from a pregnancy is always more important than the fetus.

The whole "chance of survival" thing just emphasizes how inhuman anti-abortionists are, since they seem to think that the woman should have her health and/or life endangered if the fetus has any chance of survival.

To be clear: the fetus is never more important than the pregnant mother's health. Never.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are without a doubt the most disingenuous poster here.

Not a single word of the quality of that study (poor). The fact that surgical interventions are both generally numerous, and have poor outcomes. The quality of life is poor. Do you know what type of trisomy-18 this case had? Nope. In this particular case, the risk to the woman's future ability to have children also exists.

How much are you going to pay out of your own pocket for her would-be child's needs? Nothing? Will you attend the funeral? Will you support the family as they watch their child waste away and die? No? have you written them a letter explaining how they should value the life of a fetus that - according to actual Doctors, might make it a year, versus allowing her to ensure she has the chance to try for a healthy child another time? No?

Then all you give a shit about is trying to impose your will on her life.

Seems to me a decision better made by her Doctors and people who care about the patient and her future. You are neither, and care about nothing.

[Armchair]

So, if quality of life is "poor", that justifies killing someone for you?

[Nige]

If they're in a person's womb, then it's up to the person and their doctor. You don't get a say, unless Republicass pass laws that give you a say in things you don't know about or care about.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Snide remarks as you run away is your best argument? Not a single question posed to you was addressed. Not a single criticism of the study or your knowledge of the subject was addressed.

At least you're historically consistent.

[Nelson]

"So, what’s your cutoff then?"

When a fetus has achieved the minimum development necessary to live independent of the womb (cue the anti-abortionists' faux confusion about what "independent" means in this context), that is where a balance of rights begins. Before that, there is no "two sides" to be considered. And the already-living human's health and wellbeing takes precedence over the fetus, which maybe-one-day will get there.

And the health and life of the mother, who is an actual human being, will always prevail over the fetus, who is only a potential human being.

"Can you just kill off the 10% chance? They probably won’t live anyway. What about the 50% chance? What about the 90% chance?"

No, dumbass. You can't kill people. Once someone is born, killing them is murder.

You know this, you just want to pretend that an unviable fetus is equivalent to an actual human being. It isn't. There is no equivalence between a living, breathing person and a fetus.

You are trying to take the most disputed element, whether a fetus is a person, and make that the baseline assumption for the abortion debate. It's a dishonest, bad-faith act. But par for the course for anti-abortionists.

[Armchair]

"No, dumbass. You can’t kill people. Once someone is born, killing them is murder. You know this, you just want to pretend that an unviable fetus is equivalent to an actual human being."

And you want to pretend that killing a child at 21 weeks, when they have a record of survival outside the womb is just peachy.

Who's being cruel and evil now? Why kill off children who have a chance at life?

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you actually believe all this, the next time we hear about a story like this (which we will), you should travel and find the woman and her family. You should follow her around shouting about
these stats and figures and miracle stories to constantly shame her into doing what you want. You should film yourself doing it and post it online.

And you’ll say: “oh but that will cost money and very likely ruin my reputation!” But is your money and reputation any more valuable than the potential for life? I mean if you want her to risk her health why not your reputation?

But you’ll say: “oh that wouldn’t work anyway, me stalking her wouldn’t do anything.” But it MIGHT! And you’ll have to do it because there’s a chance it might work and the kid might live.

I mean you don’t value yo, money, and, reputation more than potential life do you? Wouldn’t that be cruel and evil?

[Nelson]

"And you want to pretend that killing a child at 21 weeks, when they have a record of survival outside the womb is just peachy."

Actually, I don't. That's my personal belief. There has been one fetus that has been born at 21 weeks (the earliest that has ever survived), so in my mind that's where the line is.

But again you have to go overboard. A fetus at 21 weeks almost never lives. There has only been one fetus in the entire recorded history of the human race that has been born alive at 21 weeks and survived.

"Who’s being cruel and evil now?"

Still you.

"Why kill off children who have a chance at life?"

Still not a child or a baby or a person. It's a fetus. Anything else is scientifically and legally wrong. And you can't kill something that has never been alive.

[David Nieporent]

Trisomy 18 is not Down Syndrome, you hack. That's Trisomy 21. Unlike some here, I don't pretend to be a doctor when I'm not, but all the news coverage says that this pregnancy is unlikely to survive to birth, or to live to more than a few days afterwards. That someone with Trisomy 18 survived is utterly irrelevant to the prognosis for this baby.

Wikipedia says that 95% don't make it to birth, and that half of the ones that do don't live a full week.

[Armchair]

It's a question about the willingness to kill off children based on statistics.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There are also statistics related to the risk to the mother, including her life. But you don’t seem to be posting about those for some reason. It’s almost like you don’t consider her to be a person who has any value.

[Nelson]

"It’s a question about the willingness to kill off children based on statistics."

No, in your mind that what the question is. For most people, it isn't.

Anti-abortionists would be a lot more convincing if they actually tried to establish their foundational beliefs (personhood begings at conception) rather than pretending that isn't a relevant issue.

But they don't, because they can't, so they just skip that part and claim every fetus is a person and its needs are superior to the health and life of the mother.

There's a reason why, after 50 years of anti-abortion propaganda costing hundreds of millions of dollars, only 15% of people believe a fertilized egg is a person. It's not a reasonable belief to most people.

[Illocust]

I'm wondering if this war between Isreal and Hamas will accomplish anything. Terrorist groups are notoriously hard to root out, and this one in particular doesn't have a lot of morals holding it back from harming those around them to keep going. I wonder if Isreal will really be able to wipe out enough of them to slow down their killing if innocents in any meaningful way.

[Commenter_XY]

I’m wondering if this war between Israel and Hamas will accomplish anything.
Answer: Yes. It has shown clearly the degree that palestinian society is steeped in Judeocide.

[Nige]

It has shown that people who claim to hate civilians getting murdered will cheerfully invent rationales for murdering civilians.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, Hamas and their apologists have been very good at that.

[Nige]

They have so much in common. Like peas in a pod.

[Sarcastr0]

Looking elsewhere on the net, such people are actually pretty rare.

The more common are actually the Blackmans and Eds who are turning the whole conflict abroad and at home into just more boring partisan gruel, trying to make Jews into another brand of oppressed Christian white males.

I don't know which I hate more.

[Bwaaah]

"I don’t know which I hate more."

The dilemma of a hater.

[Michael P]

S_0 can't decide whether he hates Jews or Christian white males more?

This is my shocked face.

[Bwaaah]

Those Jews and Christians, acting like people have it out for them.

No, wait. It's those right-wingers, acting like people have it out for Jews and Christians.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe Sarc will chime in and clean up the confusion about who is hating on whom.

(Oh, wait. He already did.)

[Bwaaah]

I'm reconsidering. He's not vacillating over his hate between "Jews" and "Christians." It's between "Blackmans" and "Eds."

I know who Blackman and Ed are. But what are "Blackmans" and "Eds"? It's not clear what he meant there. And it's a quick-sandy kind of question for him to jump back in.

It comes down to a definition of *those* people. Maybe he's just referring to people with bad hair and lousy arguments? That would explain the "Eds," but not the "Blackmans." (That's not a class of people. There's only one head of hair like that in the world.)

Still, neither seems to be a worthy cause for hate.

[ThePublius]

Nige, are you saying the Israelis have invented rationales for murdering civilians?

If so, that's patently false, in a couple of dimensions. First, Oct. 7. Second, it's not murder, legally or otherwise, for civilians to be killed during a war when proportional force is used. And proportional force doesn't mean bullet for bullet, it means force necessary to accomplish a military objective. If anyone is guilty of 'murder' in the deaths of Gazan civilians, it's Hamas.

[Nige]

I don't think they're doing much inventing of rationales, they're just going ahead and killing them. They put out the odd weird fake story every now and then, though. You, on the other hand, are presenting an invented rationale for murder, as is commenterXY

[Commenter_XY]

Commenter_XY is perfectly fine annihilating every Hamas member in a war. A war they (Hamas) have repeatedly affirmed. And a war whose goal of Judeocide has broad support within palestinian society.

What is there to negotiate with Judeocidal terrorists? Nothing, aside from the size of their burial shroud. I am not a bit sorry the Israelis are killing thousands of Hamas members.

As for the civilians...I hope life after Hamas is better for them. Elsewhere.

[Nige]

See? Murder away, according to CommenterXY.

[bernard11]

Commenter_XY, IIRC, is also perfectly fine with Israel having dominion "from the river to the sea."

If Palestinians wanting that for themselves is advocacy of genocide (it is) what is it when Israelis want it?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, the palestinians are now 5-time (or is it 6-time) losers in wars against Israel. The losers (which is what the palestinian civilians are) do not dictate terms to the winner (who is Israel).

I am not sure what you'd like to call that. Might makes right? To the victors go the spoils? That is, in fact, what is happening here. Hamas will be obliterated in gaza. Israel is never leaving gaza. The PA is a corrupt joke held in contempt by most palestinians. The Holocaust denying PA president is serving the 18th (or is it 19th) year of his 4-year elected term from 2004. The fact is, they were celebrating the Simchat Torah pogrom in Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah by handing out candies to children. It is all there on social media. Palestinian society suckles on Judeocide along with their mother's milk. And you think they ought to have a state?

Extending Israeli sovereignty over Gaza, Judea and Samaria would improve the lot of every palestinian substantially simply by removing the endemic corruption and graft. It would end a lot of arab gang vs arab gang violence (actually a big problem in Israel, as I am sure you know). That would actually benefit palestinians (the ones who stay in Israel) the most: access to best middle east economy, best quality and standard of life in ME.

My preferred solution is to pair that sovereignty extension with a voluntary, incentivized emigration program.

[Nige]

Wow, winning six wars didn't solve everything? Maybe time to try something new.

[Michael Ejercito]

How is it sdifferent than what the U.S> did to Japan between 1941 and 1945?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Are you not smart enough to answer that yourself or do you like posting rhetorical questions which you think make your point but actually undercut it?

[Nige]

It was a completely different war in a completely different area of the world with completely different antagonists and completely different strategic concerns. Other than that.

[Bwaaah]

Nige: "It has shown that people who claim to hate civilians getting murdered will cheerfully invent rationales for murdering civilians."

ThePublius: "Nige, are you saying the Israelis have invented rationales for murdering civilians?"

Nige: "I don’t think they’re doing much inventing of rationales."

Question: What's the difference between Nige's first statement and his second?
Answer: About 4 hours.

[Nige]

You're admitting you're not smart enough to follow the conversation? Brave.

[Randy Sax]

Israel is shaving their pubes. In eight to ten years or so they will grow back and Israel will have to shave again. It's been going on for decades. It might take a while, but they'll always grow back.

[ThePublius]

Kind of like how Nazism, or Nazi-like sentiment and movements has grown back on US college campuses.

[Randy Sax]

Do you mean actual bald-headed, goose-stepping, fourth reich enthusiasts? I'm not in favor of anti-semitism, but using the word Nazi to describe all anti-semites or people that oppose Israel is lazy and just waters down the word.

[ThePublius]

I’m referring to people who support Palestinian ascension, and by extension, Hamas, who chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which means wiping Israel off the map, and Judeocide. That chant is the current equivalent of goose-stepping.

Make no mistake, Hamas embraces literal Nazism. One piece of evidence are the copies of Mein Kampf in arabic that are distributed in Gaza. If you support Hamas you support Nazism. Period.

[Randy Sax]

IMO Hamas is evil enough to earn its own unique moniker.

[grb]

ThePublius : “I’m referring to people who support Palestinian ascension, and by extension, Hamas, who chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which means wiping Israel off the map, and Judeocide”

As I noted in another recent thread, there’s no shortage of Israeli politicians and supporters using the same talk. It’s been featured in Likud’s party platform : “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”.

Of course we’re supposed to accept the double-standard view that’s completely different, but it’s not. The rhetoric of both sides typically makes millions of people magically vanish without a trace. The supporters of Israelis and Palestinians regularly pretend-away the rights, standing, history and humanity of a whole other population. That’s pretty common, particularly in this country, where the issue is debated at the most cartoonish level. More uncommon is someone looking at the blindness, stupidity, brutality and deep cynicism of both sides. You don’t see a lot of that here.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, you know it will never go back to what it was, policy-wise. Oslo and two-states is dead. Disengagement is dead. Conflict management is dead.

If the palestinians want to support Hamas (they do) and their Judeocidal goals (they do), they will never have a state. When the palestinians care more about building a state for themselves then killing Jews, they will have a state. BTW, Hamas is doing a splendid job destroying any sympathy they could get by parading the dead and mutilated bodies of hostages on social media (you know, the dead bodies with their eyes gouged out). And they dance in the streets of Ramallah to glorify and revel in it. Revolting.

And you really think a state is in the cards? C'mon grb.

[Bob from Ohio]

grb is just "both siding" it, he sees no difference between Hamas murders and Israeli reaction

[grb]

As opposed to what? Your child-like belief the whole problem will disappear because the Israelis will pay the Palestinians to magically disappear?

Here’s the thing, Commenter_XY: You no doubt hold yourself a advocate of Israel, but I’m so much more a strong supporter than you. I don’t believe in elfen fairy dust and flying unicorns when looking at the existential choices Israel faces for its future. There are only three :

1. The apartheid status quo endless into the future. Israel controling the land and lifes of 4-5 million stateless Palestinians while refusing them citizen rights. Here’s a recent description of life in the West Bank :

“A West Bank under rigid military rule that administers one justice system for Israelis and a different, far harsher one, for Palestinians. Roadblocks, travel restrictions, segregation, checkpoints, Israeli-only roads, and countless other indignities of daily life. Censorship and long lists of banned books. Restrictions on visitors. Military tribunals that imprison thousands of Palestinians on specious grounds, including hundreds held in “administrative detention” without even the charade of a trial. Construction of a 400-mile prison wall manned by military guards who shoot anyone on the Palestinian side who gets too close. Steady carving up of the West Bank that splinters Palestinian territory into Swiss cheese and makes a mockery of any future Palestinian state. Military raids against Palestinian towns. Extremist outposts that are tacitly supported even though they’re illegal even under Israeli law. Settler violence against Palestinians that’s rarely punished. Routine land seizures from Palestinian enclaves”

That’s a partial list covering Israel’s ugly rule. For instance, in the 60% of the West Bank where Israeli control is total, they turn down 97-98% of all Palestinian applications for building permits. They don’t want them building anything. Please remember, these are the “good” Palestinians who have cooperated w/ Israel security for decades. That has only brought them more oppression.

You may think that’s substainable indefinitely, but I don’t. Every year it costs Israeli support in the world and U.S. – along with a further toxic effect in Israel itself. People still pretend Israel isn’t an apartheid regime because of a threadbare agreement over 20yrs old that Israel is purposely working to sabotage. How much longer is that pretense possible? More pointless wars. More pointless dead. All for a future that leads nowhere.

2. Full Israeli citizenship for everyone in the lands it controls. But no one wants this option because it leads to a Jewish minority in Israel.

3. Two states.

A true supporter of Israel would face those choices and plan accordingly. He would not avoid them with meaningless fantasies. He would look at them squarely, because none are simple or easy. Are you a true supporter of Israel, Commenter_XY?

[Bob from Ohio]

With supporters like you...

[grb]

So what’s your answer, Bob? Maybe you prefer a meaningless fantasy solution like Commenter_XY. Maybe you prefer to just pretend the whole issue doesn’t exist. But in the end, there are only three possible answers. And two clearly don’t work.

Also note : I'm a "bad" supporter of Israel because I accurately describe the situation and all the options the country has. Per Bob, a "good" supporter of Israel would ignore the facts and pretend tough choices don't exist. Does that sound right to anyone?

[Bob from Ohio]

"what’s your answer, Bob?"

That's up to the Arabs. They can continue to get whipped or not.

"fantasy solution"

Arabs believe their own propaganda, they think Israel is Algeria, a "settler colony" filled with people with other places to go. Talk about a fantasy solution.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bob,

You're just ignoring grb's point which pretty much confirms he's right. Or, alternatively, you're fully invested in option #1 (which, perhaps, is what you mean when you say "Arabs" continuing to get "whipped")

With friends like you.......

[Bob from Ohio]

"ignoring grb’s point "

Yes, his premise is bogus. There is no apartheid regime so #1 is just BS.

Whipped is just a reference to 1948, 1967 etc. They keep starting stuff, losing and being worse off. Even 1973 was an Arab loss in the end.

The biggest problem is Israel seldom completes its work and gives the bad guys hope. Need to avoid that trap this time.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"There is no apartheid regime so #1 is just BS."

Exactly which of the examples of unequal and/or harsh treatment by Israel of Palestinians living in the West Bank do you dispute?

And even setting all of that aside, #1 is still a valid point as the status quo (even if not an apartheid status quo) is not a viable continuing option. As the Israeli government has claimed as partial justification and motivation for their current military actions. No matter how just you think Israel's actions during the past decades of status quo (no one state or two state solution), the status quo doesn't appear to be a viable (much less desirable) path forward for the future.

But, again, you know this and you just avoid it and answering grb which, again, confirms he is right and your sole objection is to his characterizing the status quo as an apartheid status quo. (And, while he gave actual examples supporting his characterization, you've merely given your ipse dixit that the terminology is wrong.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"he gave actual examples supporting his characterization"

Half of which he just copied from somewhere.

grb may have the energy to write Lathrop/Loki length screeds but I don't. Any restriction on the Arabs is caused by their continuous terrorism.

Believe what you want about my "silence", I simply don't care.

[Nige]

Bob does not object to brown people being killed en mass. In fact, he quite likes it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Half of which he just copied from somewhere."

lol. None of which you've even suggested were in error, much less refuted.

"Any restriction on the Arabs is caused by their continuous terrorism."

Restrictions are, as I understand it, on all Palestinians in the area, yet only a small fraction of them have committed terrorism or are part of a group (other than by racial/ethnic/religious makeup) part of a group that committed terrorism. You understand assigning group guilt based on racial/ethnic characteristics or general religious beliefs is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

[Don Nico]

grb,
Did you forget who started the 1967 war and who lost. The "stateless" folks on the West Bank were Jordanian citizens. Please correct my impression that there were never serious talks between Israel and Jordan about restoring the land lost in Jordan's war on Israel to Jordanian control.
No doubt Jerusalem would always have been sticking point, but for the rest of the west bank, an agreement could have been reached. Why Jordan ceded the initiative of that region to a corrupt leader like Arafat I have no recollection.

[grb]

Don,

You’re amazingly oblivious to the main point : None of what I listed above is affected the slightest by who started the ’67 war (which is a more interesting historical questions than you seem aware of). It’s also not affected by who’s the foul loathsome villian whose every move speaks of satanic evil. Or who’s the shinning virtuous saint, whose actions are totally pure and virtuous.

That’s completely irrelevant. All I’m interested in is what options are available to Israel going forward and which choice is best. It’s a question I’ve asked over the years and been goddamn lonely doing so. There are five respones:

1. 95% of Israeli supporters don’t want to hear the question, don’t want to think about the question, and frequently have shown bitter resentment when someone asks. This includes most politicians in Israel itself, very few of which seem to have the slightest long-term vision for their country.

2. 4.9% of Israeli supporters invent fantasy solutions to make the question go away unanswered. Instead of picking on CXY again, I’ll mention the perennial favorite, Jordan. So many times I’ve seen faux-supporters of Israel lazily dream that Jordan will commit national sucide to become Palestine Redux and – Poof! – Israel’s problem magically goes away. A professor who used to post here had the rainbow unicorn dream the Palestinians will one day wake up satisfied and happy with their stateless condition, no longer fretting over their absence of basic rights. There are a good dozen magical solutions and they’re all totally worthless.

3. Which leads us back to the three options listed above. If you’re a real Israel supporter you need to study them and decide the best. If you’re a faux Israel supporter, no doubt you’ll return to willfully ignoring the future, go back to making the issue a new Culture War playtoy, or dream up another masturbatory answer with zero relevance.

As for the status quo, it would be an ugly toxic mess that would steadily damage Israel year-by-year into the future. If you want to be serious, please try to challenge that. If you don’t want to be serious, lecture me more on the ’67 war. Israel’s quandry does come from that fight though. It wants the lands conquered then, but doesn’t want the 4-5 million Palestinians living on those lands. That’s a big, big, big problem hard to obscure with a fig leaf of any size.

4&5 : Which brings us to one land with citizenship for all. Or two states. The first seems deceptively obvious. If you take terrority by force into your country, you accept the people living there as citizens. But Israel needs to remain a Jewish state, so that is unacceptable. Leaving two states.

I don’t reach that conclusion by loving the Palestinians or admiring the platonic perfection of their victimhood – either of which is an absurdity. I don’t reach the conclusion by hating Israel but by considering it’s best future course. I don’t claim it could easily happen, particularly since Israel has spent years trying to sabotage the possiblity (with the aid & assistence of imbecilic Palestinian leadership).

I just say that a rational and far-thinking Israeli leader would begin to prepare the ground for the best choice available for the country’s future. Such a leader would be the mirror-opposite of Netanyahu, the ultimate in blind short-term national leadership.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, I know that you are a supporter of Israel like Tlaib and her goon squad are supporters of Israel.

Time will tell if I am right, policy-wise.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As usual, you're called out on your bullshit and immediately insinuate someone's an anti-Semite and run away.

[grb]

Commenter_XY,

1. You have no policy. Fantasy unicorn daydreams doesn’t constitute a policy.
2. You don’t challenge what I argue; you just insult. Why?

[bernard11]

XY,

This comment is offensive and stupid. Just because you're a fan of the fanatic irredentist Judea-Samaria crowd doesn't mean everyone who isn't is not a supporter of Israel.

I consider myself a strong supporter. I want to see Israel prosper far into the future. Yet I despise Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and the rest. They are a catastrophe for Israel, not to mention that they are also plain criminals.

You don't like that? Too bad. You're entitled, as we say. But it is despicable to ascribe anti-Israel sentiments to those who disagree with you.

[Don Nico]

grb,
has little to say unless he can insult the previous speaker. That is what he delights in. But we might all be that way if we were all-knowing and wise like he is.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
My Israeli friends on campus,who have been organizing Jewish self-support sessions have been virulent critics of the Netenyahu regime.
But right now they see friends and family existentially threatened. They see a ceasefire as agreeing to live with a genocidal regime on Israel's border.
I don't see why C_XY's comment is offensive to you. Grow a thicker skin as the likes of grb and fellow travelers have been telling Jews in their posts.
Personally I'd give back almost all of the West Bank to Jordan, which does know how to live amicably with Israel. Abbas is a proven failure as a leader. As for Gazans, I don't have a solution; they can be ruled as a semi-autonomous entity in the Kingdom of Jordan.
But living aside a jahadi regime is not an option.

[grb]

Don Nico : "Personally I’d give back almost all of the West Bank to Jordan, which does know how to live amicably with Israel. Abbas is a proven failure as a leader. As for Gazans, I don’t have a solution; they can be ruled as a semi-autonomous entity in the Kingdom of Jordan"

grb : If you’re a faux Israel supporter, no doubt you’ll return to willfully ignoring the future, go back to making the issue a new Culture War playtoy, or dream up another masturbatory answer with zero relevance.

Don speaks. Zero relevance wins.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do you mean actual bald-headed, goose-stepping, fourth reich enthusiasts? I’m not in favor of anti-semitism, but using the word Nazi to describe all anti-semites or people that oppose Israel is lazy and just waters down the word.

First off, he didn't use the word "Nazi" to describe anyone (unlike so many on the far left routinely do). He referred to "Nazism, or Nazi-like sentiment and movements". I think chanting things like, "Gas the Jews!" certainly has a Nazi-esque ring to it...don't you?

https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/q_auto/c_fill,g_faces:center,h_537,w_822/451002

[Randy Sax]

If I were to draw a venn diagram Hamas and the Nazis would have some overlap, obviously. And they are both horrendous. But they do have some pretty distinct differences. I don't know how many Nazis read the Koran, and I don't know how many Islamic extremists are aryan supremacists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they’ll always grow back"

Unfortunately largely correct, hysterical irredentism is a hell of a drug.

[Moderation4ever]

What it will accomplish is to set back hopes for a real lasting peace. Hamas will likely survive but will be beaten back. Israeli occupation of Gaza will inflame people around the world. The Middle east streets will be inflamed and countries willing to deal with Israel will have to consider their population's anger. In the US, younger people more sympatric to the Palestinians will begin to take the majority. Overall, the 10/7 attacks will have a significant effect. Far more than Hamas imagined.

[ThePublius]

"What it will accomplish is to set back hopes for a real lasting peace."

There can be no hope for a lasting peace with Hamas in play, and Palestinian sympathizers, when they are dedicated to the genocide of Jews and the destruction, the erasure of Israel. To think otherwise is magical thinking.

[Nige]

Scuppering peace was the general idea behind Natanyahu's support of Hamas. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

[grb]

ThePublius : “To think otherwise is magical thinking”

It’s another kind of magical thinking to believe Palestinians can do anything to earn citizenship rights or a state of their own. After all, the Palestinian Authority has cooperated with Israeli and Israeli security for multiple decades now. Their reward has been more suffocating oppression, not less.

And as reported, Israel actually supported & nutured Hamas in Gaza because they wanted a bloodthirsty terrorist alternate to the cooperative PA. The security threat was fine (manageable) as long as it blocked pressure to negotiate two states. It’s almost as if you’re following the (deeply cynical) script, ThePublius. From the link below:

“As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=2

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him"

Did he write anything in 2012 to that effect?

[Don Nico]

" the Palestinian Authority has cooperated with Israeli and Israeli security for multiple decades now."
The weak, kleptocratic Arafat and Abbas administrations have kept Palestinians in a subservient status; Eygpt , Syria and Jordan launched and lost wars that led to the present de facto boundaries of Israel. And The other Arab states don't want Palestinian immigrants or guest workers,

[Bob from Ohio]

"Middle east streets will be inflamed"

A day ending in Y.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What it will accomplish is to set back hopes for a real lasting peace.

Did you hurt yourself falling off that turnip truck just now?

[Nige]

Oh, no, you're right, peace is now just around the bend.

[Bob from Ohio]

You misunderstand him, he is saying there were no "hopes for a real lasting peace" even before the 10/7 pogrom.

[Nige]

Yes, that's the result of hard-right antipeace policies. Plus dumb incompetence, it almost goes without saying. Hence 10/7.

[Nelson]

Not really. Look at the extreme positions of people on this forum who don't even live there.

Commenter XY is an Israel apologist who says that all Palestinians hate Jews and want to kill them, blames civilians for living where Israel is bombing, and doesn't differentiate between the West Bank (which he falsely claims is Israeli territory) and Gaza. His position boils down to "kill 'em all, let Yahweh sort 'em out.

Nige is a Palestinian apologist. He's never gone so far as to say Hamas is justified in terrorism, but he certainly crowds the line. Israel is evil and bent on genocide against Palestiians. Israel's response to Hamas' terrorist attack is unjustified unless they don't kill any civilians, even though Hamas intentionally uses them as shields. His assumption is that Israel is wrong and violence in Gaza is unjustified murder, not self-defense.

And any opinions in between get forced into one of those two camps, with the anti-Israel position called "pro-Hamas" by the pro-Israel side, even when Hamas is specifically condemned, and the anti-Palestinian side being called "genocidal" by the pro-Palestinian side.

The nuanced opinion that believes Israel is completely justified in hunting down and eliminating Hamas, which is indisputably a terrorist organization that perpetrated an atrocity against Israeli civilians on Oct. 7th (as well as regular rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and are Iranian proxes) while also believing Israel is being irresponsible in the way it prosecutes the war as well as unjustified in its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The idea that there are no angels in this struggle Is rejected, possibly because people struggle with nuance and prefer simple narratives.

Given the forces polarizing the debate, how can anything be accomplished? Middle ground solutions like ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank while maintaining the occupation of Gaza, including military action against Hamas while protecting civilians, are doomed to fail.

[Sarcastr0]

An Israeli I know called it a blood transition to a situation worse for everyone.

[Nige]

'He’s never gone so far as to say Hamas is justified in terrorism, but he certainly crowds the line.'

Hey, Nelson. Go fuck yourself.

'His assumption is that Israel is wrong and violence in Gaza is unjustified murder, not self-defense.'

My assumption that anyone who kills over twenty thousand people to effectively cover up their appalling failures is probably wrong.

[Nelson]

"My assumption that anyone who kills over twenty thousand people to effectively cover up their appalling failures is probably wrong."

You make my point for me. You think that Israel is intentionally killing thousands of people for nefarious purposes.

They're being far too casual and unconcerned about civilian deaths and they seem to struggle to hold the line between vengeance and justice, but Hamas caused this, not Israel.

The terrorist attack was completely unjustified and Hamas has no legitimate complaints that Israel responded to their barbarism with military action.

[Nige]

'You think that Israel is intentionally killing thousands of people for nefarious purposes.'

I think Netanyahu is trying to stay out of jail and postpone accountability for 10/7.

I don't give a fuck about Hamas. It's all the tens of tousands of other people who are being killed. Who can measure intentionality when the body count is that high, other than that's the body count they're ok with?

[Nelson]

"I don’t give a fuck about Hamas."

And again you make my point. Hamas attacked, killed, and kidnapped civilians on Oct. 7th, regularly launch rockets into civilian spaces in Israel, and are unabashed and unapologetic terrorists. If you don't think that matters, you are ignoring the entire cause of the present war (and are proudly saying you're morally deficient) Hamas caused thos war, they can't complain when Israel responds.

[Nige]

And you make my point for me. Crying crocodile tears about one atrocity while using it to justify bigger, bloodier atrocities.

I doubt Hamas is complaining. They seem to be getting exactly what they want. Good job.

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, I will help you get it right: Commenter_XY is perfectly fine with killing all Hamas members, no matter where they are on the planet Earth. In fact, I am helping raise funds for the IDF so they can do just that: kill all the Hamas members they can get their hands on. Also, I'm a big believer in sorting it out for the Almighty, so He doesn't have to.

So Nelson, you are wrong about Commenter_XY being the 'kill them all and let the Almighty sort it out' type. Nope. It is more accurate to say I only want to kill some (e.g. Hamas members), and definitely want to do the sorting out beforehand (to spare civilian lives, of course).

I know...How terrible. Actually wanting the death of the Judeocidal terrorists who have sworn to kill Jews like me makes me an Israel apologist.

The palestinian people are a different matter. They will live, that is good. Will they learn? No.

[Nelson]

"It is more accurate to say I only want to kill some (e.g. Hamas members), and definitely want to do the sorting out beforehand (to spare civilian lives, of course)."

Except you are consistently unsympathetic to the West Bank Palestinians, who suffer from ultra-Orthodox terrorist attacks just like Israelis suffer from Hamas terrorist attacks, are disturbingly blase about innocent Palestinians being killed in Gaza, claim that the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli lands, and think denying Palestinians a state and stealing their land is an acceptable outcome.

Your position isn't limited to Israel hunting down and killing Hamas terrorists (which I wholeheartedly support). It is an all-Israel, no-Palestine position. And your definition of "Hamas terrorist" comes across in your posts more like "all Palestinians are terrorists".

[Nige]

'(to spare civilian lives, of course)'

Civilian lives are not being spared.

'They will live, that is good'

Tens of thousands won't, to fulfill your war-game fantasies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"A man should be able to find an education by taking the broad highway. He should not have to take by-roads through the woods and follow winding trails through sharp thickets, in constant tension because of the pitfalls and traps, and, after years of effort, perhaps attain the threshold of his goal when he is past caring about it." -- Meredith v. Fair, 298 F.2d 695, 703

Higher education today is cheating a lot of young people, forcing them to take the winding trails through the thickets and eventually obtaining an education (if they are successful) that isn't really worth a damn thing.

I think that is what the three stooges really demonstrated last week.

[Randy Sax]

Get rid of gen-ed credit requirements. They turn degrees you can get in ~2.5 years into 4 year affairs. I had to take an art credit to graduate. I took Vampires in Films. Waste of fucking time.

[Sarcastr0]

Well rounded citizens are bad now.

I didn't get gen-ed, spending 4 years at an engineering school. I regret that.

[Bob from Ohio]

What engineering school has zero non-engineering classes? Even MIT has a School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences.

[Bwaaah]

"Well rounded citizens are bad now."

Since you're the only one who is saying that, lets consider your implicit logic: An attack on the speech policies of "elite" universities is an attack on "well-rounded citizens."

All my friends who never went to college...what would their shapes be and whom should we blame for that?

Well-rounded, indeed. Like milquetoast.

[Sarcastr0]

My comment was about gen ed requirements not speech policies. I don't see how that was at all confusing.

[I Callahan]

"Well-rounded."

Heh!

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe there is another way to look at it. To me, I'd want to invest heavily in public libraries (and home schooling), and make the educational content you'd get at the Ivies accessible for free, arranged in the same way they (Ivies) deliver content to their students. Then see how degree and non-degreed perform through an objective certification process (like a bar exam, or CPA exam as examples).

You get two things at the Ivies: a degree (piece of paper), and socializing with tomorrow's movers and shakers (perhaps).

[Randy Sax]

I like that for sure for gen-ed stuff. In theory it could work for the more difficult courses, but I think rigorous instruction and practice would be needed for the majority of students in those courses. Thermodynamics, Mechanics of Materials, Electromagnetics (Physics 2), Fluid Mechanics, I don't think I could have passed those without profs or my study group.

[Kazinski]

I tested out of most of my required gen ed classes using the CLEP program. Things like Western CIv, and Marketing 101 in the business school. I'd buy the book for the class in the campus book store and read them, take the test and return the book in the couple of week window they'd allow before the beginning of the term. I got a total of 18 units testing out of classes, more than a full semesters worth.

[bernard11]

Vampires in Films does sound like a waste of fucking time. But presumably there were other choices.

[Randy Sax]

There were 2 other art credits that fit my schedule, one was intro to theater, the other one I forget. Vampire films by far required the least effort. Typical quiz;

List three things about the wise old man.
1. He was wise
2. He was old
3. He was a man

I got full credit when with those answers.

[bernard11]

I would have chosen the theater class. Who knows, you might learn something, or develop a better appreciation of theater.

If you always choose on the basis of the easiest class then a lot of your classes are going to be a waste of time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I would have chosen the theater class."

Being the only straight guy would attract the chicks, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

I think both Randy and bernard are missing a lot of the purpose here isn't learning about vampires in film, but rather how you analyze film and how to compare and contrast similar elements of a larger work.

There will be some bad movies I'm sure; critical thinking as to why they did this or that comes in.

Fun courses, with the right prof, are a spoon full of sugar helping a lot of developing skills on how to think/reflect go down.

[Bob from Ohio]

"how you analyze film"

I can teach that right here.

Did you enjoy it? Its a good film, if not, it isn't.

Unless you go into film as a career, that is all you need to know.

[Randy Sax]

Our prof was really into Keanu Reaves and thought everything was a sexual innuendo. "Arthur staked Lucy with a 3-foot wooden pole. It's significant that the stake was so long, it symbolizes Arthur sexually penetrating her."

[Sarcastr0]

So less a problem with Gen Ed than particular professors.

Yeah, I had an English teacher in HS with sex on the brain. To be fair, I learned a lot about Freudian analysis that year.

[Randy Sax]

My original comment was more about the fact that I could have saved many thousands of dollars and a year and a half of my life if I didn't have to take so many gen-eds. I understand they have some value. But nowhere near what I paid for them. I also should have taken them online over the summer or something. Save time that way.

[Sarcastr0]

I think for reasons largely unsourced that a citizenry that has a largely gen-ed background is something of a public good.

I went to an engineering school, and I shudder to think of a country whose people are all STEM folks.

[Randy Sax]

I think those gen-eds, and a “well rounded” background can sufficiently come from high skool. Not always required for a college degree. I work in an office of almost entirely STEM folks. We have an HR lady, an accountant, and the president has a secretary. Although the HR lady and the accountant are the same person. Small company. My dad’s an engineer, I’m an engineer, I went to engineering skool, most of my friends are engineers (or cyclists, sometimes both). I don’t think it’s that bad.

Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University. Eat Shit Pitt.

[bernard11]

The trouble is, Sarcastro, you are looking at a narrow genre, of mostly bad films. You're not going to learn much there. Better to have "Introduction to Film," where you get a broader view of the matter. Then you can study vampire films.

This is a complaint I have about many of the classes taught today. They have a very narrow focus, with not much context.

[Sarcastr0]

I think your definition of narrow is a bit...narrow.

Plenty of variation in genre, style, quality of films that feature a vampire.
Seems to me lots of fodder to learn.

But also I never got to take those courses in my engineering school so maybe I'm just speaking from envy.

[Nige]

Really? Given the stature of a films like Nosferatu and the Lugosi Dracula, this seems entirely arbitrary. Vampires in films is a perfectly valid area of study.

[Sarcastr0]

You may not higher education, but employers sure do.
Especially from the elite institutions.

The students I talk to are well satisfied, and untroubled by politics on campus. They are largely in STEM but that includes social sciences.

The main challenge I see is not whatever your dumb quote is about, but to noncitizen students who want to continue to do good work on US-based research problems but we keep deporting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reality, Gaslighto, is actually the opposite.

First, employers increasingly are NOT valuing higher education enough to pay a premium for it, and those not subject to the Griggs v. Duke Power mandate (eg state governments) are explicitly removing "college degree" from most hiring requirements.

As to the purported "elite" institutions, we already had Federal judges saying they wouldn't accept clerks from Yale Law, and the real story of the three stooges is that employers AREN'T respecting the purported "elite" institutions anymore. THAT, more than just rich donors (although they are largely the same people) is why it's "one down and two to go."

You are a Federal official -- you don't honestly believe that the students you speak to are representative of their respective student bodies, do you? Really???

And as to my "dumb quote" -- one would think that you'd recognize the citation of Meridith v. Fair, as in Black James Meridith and the University of Mississippi....

[Sarcastr0]

1) Credentialism is absolutely live and well. I personally would not mind if it went away, but you need to deal with reality. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2023/data-on-display/education-pays.htm

2) A few far right federal judges being performative does not a market shift make.

3) I don’t just speak to pre-curated groups of students on site visits (though there is that too!). As part of our DEI and talent retention initiatives, we speak specifically to students who are dissatisfied/facing challenges. The only limiting factor is whether they are being funded in part by a federal grant.

4) OMG I am owned since your quote was by a black guy and as a liberal I am bound to agree with all blacks.

5) I do not forget that among your other issues, you have a huge contempt for students these days. Hard to dovetail that with your sense of the industry (an industry you hated and by all accounts left some time ago but still claim unsourced insights into??)

[Dr. Ed 2]

"3) As part of our DEI and talent retention initiatives, we speak specifically to students who are dissatisfied/facing challenges. The only limiting factor is whether they are being funded in part by a federal grant."

Yet MORE discrimination!!!!
Sucks to be a dissatisfied/facing challenges heterosexual white male, I guess....

"4) OMG I am owned since your quote was by a black guy and as a liberal I am bound to agree with all blacks.

No, it was by a Federal Judge named John Minor Wisdom, who was White.

Meredith v. Fair, 298 F.2d 695, 703 is a legal citation, I believe correctly done, that means that it is on page 703 of Book 298 of the Second Series of the Federal Reporter -- you know, judgespeak.

[Sarcastr0]

Between underserved states, first time college goers, and children of military veterans, I talk to white folks who are part of DEI outreach all the time.

A baseline part of DEI is that white rich guys are the default; the institutions have been built for them by them, and so we look at other groups to see if there are issues these other groups have that aren't being addressed.

That it makes you mad is only a bonus.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Perhaps they were confused because you gave an incorrect citation and are now spelling his name wrong?

The fact that you seem to have completely misunderstood the quotation doesn’t help either.

[bernard11]

WTF does Griggs vs. Duke Power have to with this?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing, but because Dr. Ed only "knows" like two things, he just cites them all the time.

[StonewallDeSoto]

This blog has published broadside after broadside against pro-Palestine sentiment on elite college campuses. Where was all this energy on the right wing when university professors were calling for exclusion and even genocide of Whites? They seem more concerned about oversea conflicts for some reason.

[Jerry B.]

Sorta depends on what you mean by pro-Palestinian sentiment.

"Get aid to Palestinian civilians" is a bit different from "Drive the Zionists out of Palestine by any means necessary, and Oct. 7 was a good start".

[Nige]

Easy to ignore what didn't exist. What they worked hard to ignore were the ones chanting 'The Jews will not replace us.' Or, if not ignoring, agreeing.

[I Callahan]

Still spouting this proven lie. Typical.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1720214/Richard-Spencer-posts-Jews-not-replace-chant-Twitter.html

[Sarcastr0]

,

[Ed Grinberg]

I recall various posts by Prof. Volokh criticizing such calls for exclusion / genocide.

[Bob from Ohio]

Left wing NY assemblyman introducing bill to revoke Columbia and NYU real estate tax exemptions.

Seize the endowments!

[Commenter_XY]

That might not work out too well, Bob from Ohio.

Wasn't it Marshall who said that the power to tax is the power to destroy?

[Bob from Ohio]

"power to tax is the power to destroy?'

I'm already sold on the idea, no need to convince me.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, nice one.

[Noscitur a sociis]

…and then to give the money raised to CUNY.

Don’t tell Prof. Blackman!

[Bwaaah]

“Seize the endowments!”

Under what authority? What could possibly go wrong? Why not just skip to the revolution, and tear it all down?

It reminds me of the story of the big bull and the little bull, standing atop the hill looking down upon the cows in the pasture below.

The little bull says to the big one, “Let run down and screw one!”

The big bull says, “No. Let’s walk down and screw them all!”

[John F. Carr]

Targeted at just those schools, it seems constitutionally suspect.

Cities hate tax exemptions for nonprofits. It's a difficult experience to have to negotiate payments in lieu of taxes instead of taking whatever they like.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its targeted at schools that would pay more than $100 million in property taxes. I understand that would only apply to those two schools, and not Cornell, for instance.

[bernard11]

Maybe, John, but take a walk through Kendall Square next time you're in Cambridge, and then tell me MIT is a freeloader.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Education-despising, reason-disdaining bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and a large part of the reason conservative preferences are doomed in modern, improving America.

Speaking of disdain</a . . . and the smart and wealthy.

[I Callahan]

Thanks for being the poster child for the relegation of higher education to the dung heap.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My side operates our nation's leading research and teaching institutions. Your conservative colleagues operate dozens -- maybe hundreds -- of fourth-tier (or worse) schools, turning every campus they can get their hands on into a nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, strenuously discriminatory, censorship-shackled, academic freedom-rejecting hayseed factory.

I'll stick with Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Penn, Berkeley, Princeton, and the other strong, liberal-libertarian, reasoning mainstream schools. You stick with the Ouachita Baptists, Regents, Libertys, Hillsdales, and Regents. It suits you. And nothing you could do will change the trajectory of the culture war anyway.

Carry on, half-educated, bigoted clingers.

[David Nieporent]

Bob hates education. Also, he's too dumb to read beyond the headline, so he didn't see that the guy wants to give the resulting tax revenues to CUNY, which is a (low quality) far left wing school that makes Columbia and NYU look like Liberty University ideologically.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Another challenge to perfectly reasonable ballot-access restrictions.

Now they say it violates the secret ballot – requiring all those publicly-available signatures to get a party recognized.

Maybe this lawsuit is just a Republican trick to dilute Democratic votes?

Though I didn’t know the Republicans operated in Bangladesh.

https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/elections/news/petition-challenges-provision-independents-3486551

[Ben_]

New president of Argentina reduced government departments by half or more on his first day.

Watch what happens. It will cause some high profile disruptions at first and five years from now almost no one will remember what any of those departments used to do.

Strong sustained economic growth ahead for Argentina.

[Kazinski]

In France there would be overturned buses burning in the streets. A government job is a sacrament bestowed by god, not a job you can be hired and fired from.

[Ed Grinberg]

This attitude isn’t uncommon in Argentina. Argentina has seen its share of the sort of violent protests you describe. We may very well see some in the near future (though the new president has promised to come down hard on those who break the law). Good luck to him (and to the law-abiding people of Argentina).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Argentina is a basket case. I expect the recently elected yahoo will make it worse until he (1) quits, (2) is removed, or (3) is charged and/or convicted.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, so sort of like how your career went at Penn State?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is your fan base, Prof. Volokh.

And the reason you will be departing UCLA soon, headed toward one of the dwindling inventory of separatist spaces in America that still respect movement conservatives.

You and Drackman deserve each other. Maybe you can find solace together as you await replacement.

[John F. Carr]

Brookline, Massachusetts, is taking down its 3 year old "Black Lives Matter" sign because (in my words, not theirs) all lives matter. One of the original sign supporters realized there are many more classes of victims to sympathize with. A new policy will allow constantly changing messages.

The new policy on public signs (or “expressive outdoor fixtures” as the document calls them) is being enacted for “clarity” after a recent controversy over the town’s decision to take down posters of Israeli hostages which were placed on public property in Brookline.

The policy states that only the Select Board can approve the placement of signs on town property, and that they have to express “views supported by the government of the Town of Brookline.” They cannot espouse support of political candidates or parties, advertising or religious messaging.

Brookline has a large Jewish population and is a place I would expect to see pictures of hostages taken by Hamas.

[John F. Carr]

Forgot the link.

https://brookline.news/town-will-take-down-black-lives-matter-sign-after-select-board-agrees-on-new-signage-policy/

[Bwaaah]

Even though they’re taking down the “Black Lives Matter” sign, I don’t see anything in the policy that precludes them from having such a sign.

The phrase “Black Lives Matter” is a powerful symbol of both justice *and* hate, and people who advocate for both operate under that banner.

But why take it down now, when even the new policy permits it? Because for most people who look at that sign today, it’s not the sign that screams, but the empty space next to it, where you kind of feel that maybe there should be another sign that affirms a rightful place on this earth for another category of people.

But no. They’ll go silent about one group before they’ll be heard voicing support for the other one. (In my opinion, they got it wrong when they put the sign up, and not in their choice to not weigh in again with another sign.)

As the town’s new policy says, “the Town of Brookline is itself an apolitical entity.”

That sounds more aspirational than factual. No. It sounds hollow, and not even reasonably possible.

[John F. Carr]

Jack Smith has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, asking the Supreme Court to promptly decide whether Trump has presidential immunity in the election case. The petition notes that the defendant's appeal from the motion denying immunity risks delaying trial. Docket 23-624. The question presented is

Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.

I am confident the answer to the question will be "no". It needs to be a quick "no" to keep the trial on schedule.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-prosecution-immunity-f3e7206bdf169c9faa15a19084541824

[Mr. Bumble]

Didn't the smart guys on these threads tell me that Chutkin's decision was bullet proof when I posted "to be continued".

Why is Smith so hot to get this straight to the SC?

Any guesses as to whether the SC will grant cert or let the normal appeal process play out?

[SRG2]

Why is Smith so hot to get this straight to the SC?

To get this crap out of the way ASAP. Trump is trying to delay everything, regardless of how bulletproof the rulings of the inferior courts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will trying to delay the trial be added to his indictment as another "crime"?

[Zarniwoop]

No.

This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Stupid Questions!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Plagiarizing David Neosporin's lines?

[Zarniwoop]

There's a surfeit of stupid questions, especially with you around, and he can't catch'em all.

But yes, props to DN for the concept.

[David Nieporent]

And it was entirely appropriate here.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble is the Ken Jennings of "Stupid Questions" (when he's not just throwing effeminate, one-sentence insults at practitioners).
Fun to watch him fumble around though.

[Mr. Bumble]

No ambulances to chase?

[Nige]

*sad Mr Bumble, dressed as an ambulance*

[John F. Carr]

As Smith states in the petition, Trump's appeal from the (bulletproof) order delays the trial. If the appeal is not expedited it will take about a year to resolve, first in the D.C. Circuit and then waiting for a decision on a petition for certiorari.

When a right not to stand trial is at stake the claim of immunity needs to be finally resolved before trial can begin.

[Zarniwoop]

Mr. Bumble asks another silly question:

Didn’t the smart guys on these threads tell me that Chutkin’s decision was bullet proof when I posted “to be continued”.

Sure. Because "the decision is bulletproof" is 100% compatible with "Trump will continue to make frivolous claims and pursue zero-chance appeals in order to run the clock."

[Mr. Bumble]

The operative point of the post was "to be continued".

[Zarniwoop]

So .. you're patting yourself on the back for the brilliant observation that Trump will engage in frivolous, time-wasting appeals as a purely procedural delay tactic?

You are a true genius. No one on the intarwebz can possibly compare. I eagerly await your ginormous-brain insights that I cannot conceivably obtain anywhere else.

[David Nieporent]

Why is Smith so hot to get this straight to the SC?

Um, to speed up the inevitable decision so that it doesn't delay the trial?

[SRG2]

"Justices Thomas and Alito would delay hearing the appeal until December 2024" 🙂

[I Callahan]

I hope so.

[not guilty]

The petition is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No.%2023-624%20U.S.%20v.%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20Petition.pdf

The need to proceed expeditiously is to preserve the March 4, 2024 trial date. As the petition notes, (pp. 11-12,) SCOTUS granted certiorari before judgment in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), in that one of the Watergate defendant's cases was scheduled to begin trial on September 9, 1974. On May 24, 1974, the Special Prosecutor sought certiorari before judgment following the district court’s denial of former President Nixon’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking Oval Office
recordings. Id. at 687-688, 690. The Court granted certiorari a week later and set the case for argument on July 8, 1974. Id. at 690. The decision issued 16 days later, and trial began in the fall of 1974.

[not guilty]

CNN is reporting that SCOTUS has directed Trump to answer the petition by December 20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trOOjvlgtV4

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

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-FIVE (45)

occasions (so far) during 2023
(that’s at least 45 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 gay-bashing, white
nationalist, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic, xenophobic,
and Palestinian-hating slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the receding,
disaffected right-wing fringe of
modern legal academia by
members of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

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

This is a good one, too.

[I Callahan]

Oh, grow up you whiny little child.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many vile racial slurs would it take to incline you to be open to the possibility this is a bigoted blog, clinger?

You should try to be nicer to the culture war's winners -- we are not obligated to be magnanimous toward bigoted, half-educated, superstitious culture war roadkill.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These times call for another couple:

Jay Graydon on Peg.

Leland Sklar on Doctor My Eyes. (The action starts about nine minutes in.)

[Paladin_44]

9:26 actually.

[bernard11]

Brian Ray, prominent home-schooling advocate and researcher, is a fraud

[Bwaaah]

They guy is an issue advocate. And so is the Washington Post. (And maybe you too?)

The guy says home schooling produces improved outcomes. WaPo writes thousands of words saying that's not true. Neither dares to cite any test scores.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know who this Brian Ray is, but I know about Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of the Sisters.

Some might read these decisions to mean that parents have a constitutional right to direct their own childrens’ education, but can only exercise that right by choosing the option of organized schooling.

More sensibly, it should stand for the broader proposition that parents can direct the education and upbringing of their own children, subject to a requirement that they teach certain basic things like reading, math and science. And I know of no studies that these subjects are taught better within the magic walls of an *institution* of learning.

And of course the attack on homeschooling has nothing to do with academic quality and everything to do with making sure kids are taught the "correct" politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Homeschooling was regulated well before the evangelicals and Bircher types latched onto it.

It’s flat out paranoid to pretend it’s about the “correct” politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsZP9o7SlI

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Here’s a prominent anti-homeschooling professor from Harvard, “Nationally renowned child welfare expert Elizabeth Bartholet” –

“Many homeschooling parents are extreme ideologues, committed to raising their children within their belief systems isolated from any societal influence. Some believe that black people are inferior to white people and others that women should be subject to men and not educated for careers but instead raised to serve their fathers first and then their husbands. The danger is both to these children and to society. The children may not have the chance to choose for themselves whether to exit these ideological communities; society may not have the chance to teach them values important to the larger community, such as tolerance of other people’s views and values.”

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/05/law-school-professor-says-there-may-be-a-dark-side-of-homeschooling/

I wonder why they call you Gaslightro?

[Sarcastr0]

So the right politics are don’t teach your kids to be bigots?

Well, don’t I feel foolish.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’ve shifted the goalposts from “they don’t want ideological restrictions on homeschooling” to “they want ideological restrictions on homeschooling and that’s a good thing.”

Bear in mind that their definition of bigotry includes opposing any element of their political agenda, including gender ideology/transgenderism, plus affirmative action/racial preferences. They sincerely believe that *opposing* racial preferences means white supremacy. And that support for Israeli “settler colonialism” is bigoted too. And who knows what will be deemed bigotry tomorrow. So I don’t trust their definition of bigotry when it comes to suppressing “bigoted” homeschooling.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know if Prof. Bartholet is on board with all this, I simply say that in practice she will empower people who *do* believe it.

[Sarcastr0]

You said correct politics. I called you on that. You pointed out someone saying homeschooling right now allows bigots to teach bigotry.

That’s quite a definition of correct-with-scare-quotes politics you have.

Also not changing the goalposts pointing out your odd definition of politics.

You come in like it’s forcing people into schools to make them libs. When pressed it’s you defending the freedom of white supremecists. A freedom that actually currently exists.

[Defenderz]

The real bigots are leftists who hate whites and think Haitian culture is just as good as Western culture.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You switched from it's-not-happening gaslighting to "oh, well, they're just teaching kids not to be Klansmen." You know that's not all they mean about "tolerance" and "anti-bigotry."

And you know I was even willing to assume the Harvard woman had personal "good intentions," but pointed out that she was paving the road for those who didn't have such intentions.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a definition of correct politics that no one else is using.

Pointing that out is neither moving the goalposts nor gaslighting.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"society may not have the chance to teach them values important to the larger community, such as tolerance of other people’s views and values.”

I stipulated she may have a naive view that teaching tolerance means nothing but sweetness and light, but it's still her idea of correct politics. And in any event, translating her ivory-tower sweetness-and-light delusions into "teaching tolerance" as it's done in the real world won't be as benevolent as she thinks.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"White supremacy" doesn't mean what normies think it means. It has a special definition which includes *opposition* to racial preferences. Not to mention other "bigoted" ideas about men and women being different sexes, etc., etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome you have your own words to help you interpret the quote you posted above.

I’m going to stick with what the quote actually said. Which does not do a great job in supporting your original post, which I will repeat here to drag you more:

And of course the attack on homeschooling has nothing to do with academic quality and everything to do with making sure kids are taught the “correct” politics.

I’m not even against home schooling. But this is tin foil shit right here. Your only source to help you our is 'some home schoolers are legally teaching their kids bigotry' which is doubly not on point with your above thesis, since it talks about bigotry as the 'incorrect' politics, and because homeschooling to inculcate politics is legal right now.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You acknowledge that there’s simply not the kind of academic differences with institutional schooling to justify attacks on homeschooling. So why attack it? Your pivot from “ideological opposition to homeschoolers isn't happening” to “it’s happening and it’s a good thing” reveals the answer.

[M L]

"homeschooling to inculcate politics is legal right now"

For now . . . muhahahaha.

Public schooling to inculcate politics is traditional.

Bigotry means things like believing men are men and women are women, opposing open borders, observing reality . . . just whatever I choose it to mean, neither more or less.

[Commenter_XY]

I think you hit it Margrave, the issue is control. Homeschooling is a threat to State control.

[M L]

Well said.

[Bwaaah]

Your remarks gave me new useful context for the subject.

[bernard11]

The guy says home schooling produces improved outcomes. WaPo writes thousands of words saying that’s not true. Neither dares to cite any test scores.

Not quite. Did you read the article? The guy cites plenty of data, and is regarded in home-schooling circles, and some courts, as an expert in the matter. The trouble is, his research his fraudulent, based on cherry-picked data and should be laughed at, not cited.

The Post, OTOH, does not say what you claim.

Taken as a whole, the academic literature shows mixed academic outcomes for home schooling: Some studies find benefits; others show deficiencies.

It does point out a lot of flaws in his studies, like using carefully recruited students to compare test scores.

It also notes that his daughter is highly critical of the "education" she got.

History, she said, was taught from a religious and conservative point of view. She said that she was told, for instance, that the slave trade was “meant for evil but God made it for good” and that things worked out for enslaved people “because they got to be Christians.”

Katie Maine, a family friend who spent a lot of time at the Ray house, recalled learning there that the Holocaust was a horrific event but one used by God to help Jews “realize their Christianity.”

Lying crackpot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And they teach that Zionism is settler colonialism which must be resisted.

Wait, that’s what many Harvard people think, my bad.

The adversaries of homeschooling don't have clean hands.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Again, Professor Bertholet may or may not be on board with all these definitions of bigotry, but by empowering the government to eradicate “bigotry” from homeschooling, she’s putting a weapon into the hands of people who have, shall we say, unconventional and nonintuitive definitions of bigotry.

[Sarcastr0]

That data thing….gonna walk away from it?

You don’t get your own facts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Don't believe your lying eyes!

[Absaroka]

I scrolled through a number of results that looked like they might have a dog in the fight to find this from the ACT folks. It doesn't look like home schooling hurts much (the private school line seems really odd, though ... better test prepping?).

This seems to say 'it depends on the quality of the home schooling' ... wouldn't have guessed that :-).

We only know one family that home schools, and their kids are pretty impressive.

[Sarcastr0]

Abrsaoka - here's the issue I was taking.

bernard: "Brian Ray is a fraud"

Bwaaah: "Neither dares to cite any test scores"

bernard11: "Did you read the article? The guy cites plenty of data....The trouble is, his research his fraudulent."

Margrave: "The adversaries of homeschooling don’t have clean hands."

Margrave was changing the subject by throwing chaff.

I'm not against home schooling, if properly overseen. Needs a bit more of that in some places.
I don't think a marginal differential test score outcomes would be an argument against home schooling. We don't force people into optimal choices. (though obviously there is some point where there's an issue).

Also, I don't think folks who like public schools are in a conspiracy to turn every kid into a liberal.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Also, I don’t think folks who like public schools are in a conspiracy to turn every kid into a liberal.”

Who said that, except in your fevered imagination? It’s almost unfair the way I can easily knock over your army of straw men.

Again, “of course the attack on homeschooling has nothing to do with academic quality and everything to do with making sure kids are taught the “correct” politics.”

We are asked to believe that children are safer in public schools - or in Catholic schools! - than with their parents.

[Sarcastr0]

Margrave, what are the scare-quotes-correct politics, huh?

And why did you pivot to some other issue right after?

You absolutely tried for 'anti-home schooling is a conspiracy to make our kids woke' bullshittery and now you're throwing chaff to try and distract.

Bad show to begin with, bad show not owning up and using the shittiest rhetorical tactics to try and deflect. And failing. Badly.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Margrave, what are the scare-quotes-correct politics, huh?”

You know quite well what it means to these people who want to save kids from the “bigotry” of their parents. When I counteracted your gaslighting by showing their motives, you shifted from “it’s not happening” to “it’s happening and it’s a good thing."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“You absolutely tried for ‘anti-home schooling is a conspiracy to make our kids woke’ bullshittery”

You said I was talking about “folks who like public schools.” Go folk yourself, I specifically spoke about the people *attacking homeschooling.*

[Sarcastr0]

Your manic posting is not digging you upwards.

You are now reading in secret meanings to the quote you yourself chose,

Maybe pick a better quote next time.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I deliberately stipulated that she had a naive sweetness-and-light meaning of teaching kids not to be Klansmen like their parents and loving all the children of the world. That ivory-tower naivete (if that's what it is) won’t translate so benevolently into the real world. We know what it means in the real world to say of homeschooling, “society may not have the chance to teach them values important to the larger community, such as tolerance of other people’s views and values.”

If that’s all they wanted, they wouldn’t have to meddle with homeschooling because there’s no evidence kids learn tolerance better in the average public and private institutional school than in the average homeschooling situation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Margrave was changing the subject by throwing chaff."

No, silly person, I was responding to bernard11's anecdote about the homeschoolers who were allegedly teaching racism to their kids. I replied that the enemies of homeschooling are not reliable in protecting children from racism. bernard11 brought up racist teaching, no I, contrary to what you would have the casual reader believe.

[Bored Lawyer]

Taken as a whole, the academic literature shows mixed academic outcomes for home schooling: Some studies find benefits; others show deficiencies.

Same can be said for public schools. Some are excellent, some are abominable, graduating students from high school who can barely read or do arithmetic.

[David Nieporent]

I liked

Ziebart said some of her schooling was robust. Her mother taught her to love reading, and her father was creative and excited about teaching science. But she said she was taught very little math.

“Math,” she said, “is just a big blank empty void.”

Wait until she finds out what public schools don't teach!

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in that article says he's a fraud.

[bernard11]

Charles and Kathleen Moore, of Moore vs. US, are frauds.

[Bwaaah]

They are strategically selected litigants who are challenging, and being used to challenge, a recent tax law change. They are black people who find themselves also being treated like rich people. (That's intersectionality for you.)

Maybe you just want to see higher taxes for rich people, and they don't?

[bernard11]

They are also liars.

[David Nieporent]

You're using that word rather liberally. Nothing in that article that they supposedly didn't disclose is remotely relevant to the case.

[Bwaaah]

Bernard11 is a fraud

[ReaderY]

On the Palestinian flag on the menorah near Yale, I think on this one prosecutors (and courts) should behave responsibly and not overcharge overzealous protesters for acts that didn’t actually hurt anyone. This one didn’t even cause any permanent defacement or damage.

Nor am I convinced that a Palestinian flag, by itself, should be characterized as a hate symbol.

This would be at most a misdemeanor-level crime.

Sometimes the law and its officers should be calming people down and keeping the peace, and shoild resist being drafted to reify people’s feelings of victimhood or to serve as an instrument of people’s revenge fantasies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some of the arguments and methods right-wingers are currently using are going to be quite handy when the culture war's winners criminalize various forms of bigoted conduct and prosecuting clingers of various bigoted stripes.

[Defenderz]

The winners are going to be patriotic minded conservatives, and leftists are going to end up with free helicopter rides. You liberals deserve death. All 100 million of you.

[Bwaaah]

What are you figuring there? Like a third of us?

I'm thinking the problem is more like about 5% of us...the vindictive righteous ones. About 70% can't afford to tangle with them due to their need to keep their jobs, and they have a strong inclination to avoid conflict. Sure, many of them are liberal. But should that warrant a death sentence? (They can be reasonably compromising when nobody is threatening them with SJW litmus tests.)

Anyway, as long as your call for people's deaths is based on their political beliefs, that doesn't seem to violate the prevailing conventions these days.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Calls for violence against liberals are welcome at the Volokh Conspiracy. But if a liberal calls conservatives dumb or makes fun of the right-wing rubes, Prof. Volokh finds his ban hammer.

That’s how a right-winger wears out his welcome on a legitimate campus. Clingers are welcome to engage in that conduct, but strong, reason-based schools are not required to be associated with a serial launcher of vile racial slurs.

[Bwaaah]

Per you above:

"Women should need good cause for an abortion; the fetus having non-white DNA will be deemed good cause, and gay men should need good cause to have bedroom fun."

I thought you knew what fun was. I'm not so sure. This is where I step off.

(Try not to kill too many people in your defense against the killing of people.)

[Defenderz]

I should have put fun in scare quotes. What they do to each other is just disgusting.

[David Nieporent]

And yet, you spend far more time thinking about it and picturing it than openly gay men do.

[Bwaaah]

I wasn't trying to weigh in on the fun of gay sex, but on the absence of it in your remarks.

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, I agree about this = the act of putting a palestinian flag (on a pole) into a outdoor menorah display (no damage caused, from what I saw on X [fka Twitter]) is at most a misdemeanor. No damage? Nobody injured?

Besides, the height of irony is when two accomplices are filmed telling the 'flag bearer' not to jam the flag into the menorah because 'it makes us look bad'. I chuckled at that one. Those two are going viral, ha. Probably punishment enough, in this instance.

[Defenderz]

It shouldn't even be a misdemeanor. "Hate crimes" should not be a thing. If someone wouldn't be prosecuted for putting a Palestinian flag on top of a flower arrangement or a statue on campus, he shouldn't be prosecuted here.

[Don Nico]

"a misdemeanor-level crime"

no argument there.

[Ben_]

Add IBM to the list of companies with illegal discriminatory racist hiring practices:

https://x.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1734374423124176944

[Nelson]

James O'Keefe, a paragon of honesty and rectitude. Yes, that's sarcasm.

[Jmaie]

Back in early November it seemed a no-brainer to plan (and pay for) a post-Christmas ski trip to Tahoe. Now me sad...

[santamonica811]

??? Why you sad?

[Jmaie]

Half way through December, the resorts have minimal snow and nothing much in the pipeline for the rest of December...

[Don Nico]

Previously censored ideas:
A just published 300 page CSJ report says Britain risks Victorian-era inequality; it finds that:
"pandemic lockdowns exacerbated the key drivers of poverty
and had a (catastrophic effect on the nation’s social fabric."

It used to be that tabulated the cost of COVID lockdowns was only for MAGA wingnuts.

[Martinned]

Does the report suggest anywhere that it would have been better not to have done a lockdown? Or does it simply argue that this is a problem that should be tackled going forwards?

[Don Nico]

Martin,

I'll have to study the report.
Your question was not the purpose of the report which was focused on the widening gap between the middle & upper classes, the the poor in Britain.

[Nige]

'Exacerbated' yeah. Brexit and Tory mismanagement exacerbated is a bit of a disaster.

[Don Nico]

As usual you just refuse to accept facts for the benefit of not disturbing your ideology. If you were correct, the UK middle class would be suffering. But it is not.

[Nige]

How do you know the UK middle class aren't suffering?

[Nige]

Edit function still bust - there's an inquiry into the Tory handling of the pandemic -it's a horror show.

[Martinned]

US inflation down to 3.1% in November. Core inflation remains level at 4%: https://www.ft.com/content/51111dac-7084-4a02-9c6f-334bb86f2d3f

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh happy days!

[ReaderY]

As best I could tell, the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in the abortion case basically held that the doctor had used incorrect wording in her affidavit. The doctor’s affidavit said she had a “good faith belief” that the woman met the statutory exception to the abortion statute. That was not enough, the Texas Supreme Court said. She needed to assert that she had used “reasonable medical judgment.” An opinion based on mede “belief,” not reasoned “judgment,” is insufficient to meet the exception standard.

I couldn’t help but thinking that the whole case probably depends on the wording choice of some associate in some lawyer’s office. The opinion barely discussed and didn’t depend on the substance of the woman’s condition, merely the wording in the doctor’s affidavit. I was left with impression that if the affidavit had simply used slightly different wording, the trial court’s ruling would have been upheld.

So the net effect of the decision seems to be that doctors need to be careful about how these affidavits are worded, and in particular should use the magic phrase “reasonable medical judgment” and avoid claiming their judgment is based on “belief.”

Whatever one thinks of abortion, it seems odd to me that things would depend so heavily on wording technicalities like this, which strikes me as unlikely to have anything to do with the actual facts of the case.

[Bwaaah]

I affirm the rationale Dobbs. And I am disgusted by its effects such as this.

It is my hope that these realities will turn the tides toward abortion being a right in every state. Until then, this shit hurts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The anti-abortion absolutists -- like the gun nuts, religious kooks, and a few others -- are going to pay a severe price for hitching their political aspirations to the wrong side of history and the losing side in the culture war.

Better Americans are going to stomp the clingers -- and their bigotry, superstition, backwardness, and ignorance -- into political and cultural irrelevance.

[Bwaaah]

Doh!

"I affirm the rationale of Dobbs."

[Nelson]

"it seems odd to me that things would depend so heavily on wording technicalities like this"

That's because you are thinking like a reasonable person. This result is the goal of Texas' Republican majority. They don't want to focus on the substance or the facts, they just want to stop abortions. And if a few people have to suffer, die, carry a dead baby to term, or suffer any other misery, that's a sacrifice they're willing to make ... other people make.

"which strikes me as unlikely to have anything to do with the actual facts of the case."

To cultural conservatives, those who applaud the use of government force to coerce people into conforming to conservative cultural beliefs, this is a feature of the law, not a bug. They prefer cases thay lack substance and facts when it comes to abortion.

[ReaderY]

The edit feature has stopped working. It lets you edit and submit your wdit, but the initial version doesn’t change. The edit doesn’t do anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

Testing 123.

[David Nieporent]

Is that sew?

[David Nieporent]

It seems that you are correct.

[Bored Lawyer]

You really threaded the needle on that one. Had me in stitches.

[Commenter_XY]

A real patchwork of puns. 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

In several other threads, people have expressed doubt that there is an anti-semitism problem on US campuses.

Rolling Stone magazine just published an article on the very topic:

Antisemitism Is Infecting My College Campus — And So Many Others

A neo-Nazi march. An on-campus assault. Dozens of antisemitic taunts and threats. Hatred is becoming more common on campuses like mine. And worse still, it’s viewed as acceptable.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/antisemitism-college-campuses-1234891263/

The naysayers and deniers here will no doubt try to show this is merely incidental. Don't believe them.

[Sarcastr0]

I have a lot of AT etc. folks on block, but I've never seen people express doubt there's an anti-semitism problem on US campuses.

The question is what kinds of speech restrictions, if any, are called for to deal with it.

[Nelson]

I don't think I've seen anyone denying antisemitism exists in America. It"s quite obvious it does, and it's a bipartisan kind of hatred. When right-wing fascists march with tiki torches and chant "Jews will not replace us" while college presidents vascillate about whether calling for the genocide of Jews is bullying and a left-wing Congresswoman posts antisemitic slogans, that is antisemitism coming from the right, center, and left. I don't think anyone here denies that it exists. Some, like Rob Misek, Defenderz, and Frank, actively support and applaud it.

[Nige]

Plus everyone here who buys into the Great Replacement.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

I can't stand it when people sing "Sweet Caroline".

Not because I don't love the song - it's one of the better pop songs out there.

But because most people have absolutely no sense of rhythm.

[ReaderY]

The Supreme Court granted cert in FDA v Alliance for Hypocratic Medicine today. This is the FDA’s appeal from the 5th Circuit judgment, which overturned loosening of FDA restrictions on but not the original FDA approval of mifepristone. They denied cert in AHM’s appeal, which had asked to revisit the original approval.

I think it’s pretty obvious that AHM has no standing to sue in this case. I think the correct legal outcome is to vacate the 5th Circuit’s opinion and dismiss the entire case for lack of standing.

If the Supreme Court reaches the merits, and I don’t think it should, then I think in general FDA scientific decisions within the clear scope of its mandate get comsiderable deference by the courts, and the 5th Circuit erred in not giving the FDA that deference.

The one thing I would overturn, if the merits were reached, is the approval of supplying by mail order. I think the Comstock Act precludes this. Like any federal agency, the FDA is not governed solely by the statute that set it up, but is also constrained by other federal laws pertaining to the subjects of its concern.

[Kazinski]

I suppose that's directed at me.

I might ask whether we can just disagree civilly without tossing insults and accusing me of engaging in an unsavory occupation.

[Kazinski]

So what’s the conspiracy I’ve espoused?

I’ve done some idle speculation on past and future events, and I’ve speculated a little on the possible motivation of a few individuals, but maybe I don’t think that amounts to any allegations of a conspiracy.

But I do see now the possible link to being a federal prosecutor. They are definitely very conspiracy minded.

[Bwaaah]

Queenie:

How long have you been a player or a coach?

Just a lob from one armchair to another. They can make fun of the two of us, and you can act like the knowing one.

[Commenter_XY]

I hear you, QA.

But what do you think is the likelihood of a Trump v Biden matchup in 2024?

[Moderation4ever]

Two old farts running for President, not the stuff of thrillers.

[Commenter_XY]

Wasn't Colonel North granted immunity for his testimony? That hasn't happened for Hunter Biden. Big difference, right?

(I remember watching North's testimony, and the big binder)

[Kazinski]

Well lets go over those things.

You don't think the original Delaware deal that the Judge through out because it was unprecedented and too lenient was a sweetheart deal?

The IRS agents testified before Congress that there was plenty of evidence to charge Hunter with more serious crimes. They said that contrary to Garland's statements and several by Weiss that Weiss did not have authority to charge Hunter with whatever charges he wanted in their appropriate venue.

Now that Weiss has that authority he has charged Hunter in the venue the IRS agents said Weiss wanted to charge him in.

I don't think speculating Joe will pardon his son is a conspiracy theory. You don't really think that either do you?

Calling Merrick Garland a liar isn't a conspiracy theory either, I am just speculating on how Garland could disseminate such spectacularly wrong and publicly contradicted misinformation to Congress.

What's your explanation of why Garland said Weiss had full authority to make any charging decisions, but hadn't formally given him the power, then a few months later after Weiss formally got the power he charged Hunter with 3 felonies he was willing to overlook just 6 months ago?

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think North was granted immunity and that was why his conviction later was overturned (working from memory so that might be wrong). However his secretary, Fawn Hall, was granted immunity for her testimony.

[JasonT20]

You don’t think the original Delaware deal that the Judge through out because it was unprecedented and too lenient was a sweetheart deal?

Being too lenient was the Republican argument about the deal. Everything I'm reading was that the judge rejected it because she would have been the one to monitor Hunter's compliance with its terms and because prosecutors and defense attorneys didn't agree on whether the deal protected him from further prosecution.

You don't make yourself look like less of a conspiracy theorist when you mischaracterize facts. (We could check the written record from the judge if you don't believe the reporting I'm reading.)

[Sarcastr0]

It's established Hunter wouldn't have been looked on the gun charge if he weren't who he was.

So the deal may be nonstandard, but the situation itself is also nonstandard.

Not that you care. Your parasocial relationship with Hunter is really notable.

[Nelson]

"that the Judge through out because it was unprecedented and too lenient"

That's not why it was thrown out. If you are interested, the actual reasoning is publicly available.

"The IRS agents testified before Congress that there was plenty of evidence to charge Hunter with more serious crimes."

If I remember correctly, the IRS agents testified that they thought there was enough evidence to charge Hunter. That's a opinion by law enforcement officers, not the prosecutors who know what it takes to win in court, so it's an opinion about someone else's area of experience, not a fact.

"Now that Weiss has that authority he has charged Hunter in the venue the IRS agents said Weiss wanted to charge him in."

Wait, Weiss has the authority that everyone said he had? How nefarious.

"I don’t think speculating Joe will pardon his son is a conspiracy theory. You don’t really think that either do you?"

Since he could have already, but hasn't, it's ridiculous. Since you are trying to insinuate that Joe Biden is sketchy with no evidence, it's in that grey are between intentional dishonesty and conspiracy theory.

"I am just speculating on how Garland could disseminate such spectacularly wrong and publicly contradicted misinformation to Congress."

Him claiming that Weiss had all the authority he asked for (which was true) and would have all the authority he needed to pursue the case (which has proved to be true) is the exact opposite of "spectacularly wrong and publicly contradicted misinformation". So yes, that is a conspiracy theory.

"What’s your explanation of why Garland said Weiss had full authority to make any charging decisions, but hadn’t formally given him the power, then a few months later after Weiss formally got the power he charged Hunter with 3 felonies he was willing to overlook just 6 months ago?"

That has been explained numerous times. When someone says that they have any authority they need, then that person asks for more authority and receives it, it doesn't prove what you want it to prove. In fact, it proves the exact opposite.

Weiss has always had a free hand in his investigation and when he determined he needed more authority, he got it. Claiming otherwise is absoluely a conspiracy theory.

[Armchair]

There were multiple reasons for the judge to not approve the deal.

One does have to wonder how some a magical and unprecedented deal for Hunter was written in the first place

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious as to what your alternatives would be.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better a dupe than a useful idiot.

[Jerry B.]

"...Bumble came in her..."

Is that how she got pregnant?

[Illocust]

Back up, why in your world view would watching the fetus die be emotionaly harmful?

For context on where your logic doesn't make sense. I'd never argue that we should be allowed to continue the mass market slaughter of pigs, because an individual having to slaughter and process their own pig would be emotionally harmful to them. Even though many in the modern world would not be able to go through with actively killing a pig for their breakfast. Protecting someone from seeing the results of their actions is just not a relevant arguement on why factory farming should be allowed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah…..

Hardly "unsupported".

[Moderation4ever]

I still wonder if the polls actually reflect Republicans votes. It is one thing to tell a pollster you support Trump another to actually vote for him. Especially knowing that his chance of winning the general is slim.

[Don Nico]

90%

[Sarcastr0]

Do you force people to watch pigs being slaughtered if they want to eat pork?

Such comments are notable. How many of the usuals (and some Conspirators) are very quiet on the threads discussing the upshot of their stated goals is also telling.

[Nige]

'Protecting someone from seeing the results of their actions'

And that's why accident victims should never be treated for their injuries because they might be the result of their actions.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“why in your world view would watching the fetus die be emotionally harmful”

I assume this is edgelord nonsense, but if you actually believe that watching your wanted child suffer and die isn’t emotionally harmful, you probably have a serious personality disorder.

[Zarniwoop]

Illocust blathers:

Back up, why in your world view would watching the fetus die be emotionaly harmful?

I literally did this when my wife and I lost our first, highly wanted pregnancy due to fetal defects that were "incompatible with life". The specific mechanism was abortion via induced labor at about 21 weeks (which some folks try to claim isn't an "abortion" but is a "pre-term delivery" instead, which is unmitigated bool and sheet). I watched her die within a minute of delivery.

Let me assure you in no uncertain terms that it was one of the more emotionally difficult things that has happened to me in my entire life.

Gotta concur with QA: ghoulish to the max.

[Illocust]

Yes, you are being a ghoul. If you know that a woman would be emotionally harmed if she actually witnessed what her doctor was doing, hiding it from her so she remains ignorant that she's participating in an act she would find repulsive if given knowledge of what was actually going on is morally rephrensible and against medical ethics.

Think long and hard on why you feel the need to argue against fully informed medical consent in order to get some women to participate in a procedure.

This isn't a blood is icky situation. This is a becoming aware what a fetus actually is makes killing it a morally hard decision situation.

[Illocust]

The arguement in that case would be letting a accident victim die, because seeing the victim in a wheelchair would be emotionally harmful to the person who hit them. Fully informed consent is a requirement of medical ethics. When you start pushing back on that because you are worried the patient might not agree to your desired course of action, you need to take a long look in the mirror.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn’t a blood is icky situation

Now you delve into telepathy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think the woman with two kids who was planning on a third before this devastating diagnosis knows exactly the stakes. Certainly better than you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"the need to argue against fully informed medical consent"

That term doesn't refer to what you think it does.

Making someone watch videos of pigs being slaughtered, gutted, and dismembered is not necessary to make one fully informed about their breakfast choices. It would be the choice of some vegans, perhaps, because it is emotionally difficult for most to watch unless they've seen it so much they've become inured to it.

What you want has nothing to do with informing people and everything to do with trying to emotionally manipulate people who generally are already in an emotionally fraught, often fragile, state. You are a ghoul.

[Nelson]

"argue against fully informed medical consent in order to get some women to participate in a procedure."

What are you talking about? No one is arguing for that. This woman knows exactly what is happening. She's given fully informed medical consent.

"This is a becoming aware what a fetus actually is makes killing it a morally hard decision situation."

This fetus isn't viable. There is a 0% chance that it can be killed. If you want to believe otherwise, live your life that way. Just keep your personal beliefs (and the government) out of other peoples' medical decisions. How hard is that for a libertarian?

[Sarcastr0]

Think for a moment of the analogy you have chosen, and how being a fetus is utterly unlike being in a wheelchair.

Consider how you got to this ridiculous point.

[Illocust]

See comment about how preventing people from seeing pigs slaughtered isn't a valid arguement for continuing factory farming. I'm not worried about people seeing pigs slaughtered and deciding to stop eating bacon if they do. If learning about how your food is made turns you off eating it, then I'm okay with you making that decision. I'm not invested in keeping you ignorant.

[Sarcastr0]

We have our butchery far away from our consumers. At least partially so consumers don't need to dwell on what's necessary for their delicious pork chops.

You seem to be arguing that is immoral or unnatural.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"See comment about how preventing people from seeing pigs slaughtered isn’t a valid arguement [sic] for continuing factory farming"

That's only a valid response if anyone is stopping pregnant women from watching the videos you want them to watch. It's not a valid argument for forcing pregnant women to watch the material you want them to watch.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And "arguement" (once was a typo, but you keep doing it) where are you from? St. Petersburg?

[Illocust]

You should read more than one comment before responding. The person before me is the one who decided to go off topic and compare fully informing a patient of the results of a medical procedure as equivalent to letting a accident victim die. Maybe consider how you ended up at the point of arguing against fully informed consent.

[Illocust]

Yes, that is called a smart marketing decision. I never called it immoral or unnatural. I made the salient point that I'm not going to get upset if other people show customers how their pork chops are made, because I'm not emotionally invested in keeping them ignorant. If someone is upset at finding out what goes into making a porkchop and stops eating porkchops, nothing ghoulish has happened. A person had just become better informed.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not going to get upset if other people show customers how their pork chops are made

Insisting people being shown something they don't want to see is actually something I do have trouble with. Especially when it's an imposition on a right.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what Nige said.

But even if that's what you heard, there is no reason to double down on an analogy you seem to admit is really bad.

[Nige]

When I had my appendix out they didn't show me a video of such a procedure in all its gory detail beforehand and then showed me a video of the proicedure being performed on me afterwards this means I was not fully informed.

[Illocust]

And there is that arguement against fully informed consent, again.

The funny thing is, that if I had control of school curriculums, it would include tours on how food is made, including sausage, because mass ignorance leads to stupid policy decisions. And again I'm not emotionally invested in keeping people ignorant. I prefer fully informed consent even when it's not medical ethics requirement.

[Sarcastr0]

Now we are back to an argument to show animals being slaughtered to all meat eaters.

That isn’t informed consent.

It also makes some serious assumptions about women getting abortions and how casual they are about it.

[bernard11]

Fully informed consent???

Wow, are you a moron. Informed consent to an abortion deals with the risk to the pregnant woman, not the fact that the procedure is unsightly.

I can be fully informed about my appendectomy without having to watch the whole thing.

[Nelson]

"And there is that arguement against fully informed consent, again."

No, it isn't. Watching videos of the medical procedures you are considering isn't necessary for informed consent. No one has to watch open heart surgery in order to consent to open heart surgery. It's insane to think it sould be required and completely indefensible to legally require it.

Only abortion requires unnecessary, unwanted, and superfluous measures to get a medical procedure. And now, in fringe states, you also have to get government permission.

"I prefer fully informed consent even when it’s not medical ethics requirement."

Only regarding abortion. That's the problem with anti-abortionists. Things that they would resist vehemently in any other context are hypocritically embraced when the subject is abortion.

[Magister]

From Wikipedia article on Oliver North:

On July 20, 1990, the D.C. Circuit vacated North's convictions on the ground that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.

The individual members of the prosecution team had isolated themselves from news reports and discussion of North's testimony, and while the defense could show no specific instance in which North's congressional testimony was used in his trial, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue. Consequently, North's convictions were reversed. After further hearings on the immunity issue, Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991.

[not guilty]

Oliver North was indeed granted immunity for his Congressional testimony. His subsequent criminal conviction was reversed because the prosecution could not demonstrate that none of the government's evidence was derived from the immunized Congressional testimony.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You being a dupe, i.e. an idiot, is actually very useful to people who want to implement harmful policies that force children to give birth.

[JasonT20]

Oh? And how do you know it was a magical and unprecedented deal? Personal experience in tax law? Legal experts in tax law saying from their years of experience that similarly situated clients are prosecuted more vigorously and never offered such deals?

[Nige]

If it wasn't emotionally harmful he wouldn;t be suggesting it. This is punishment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I always make a point of seeing youtube videos of any surgery I'm scheduled for. It's disappointing how rarely you can get home video of your own procedure. At least I got to watch my cataract surgery, they do that with you conscious. Amazing tranquilizers, though...

[Nige]

They did show me my appendix. By then I hated the fucking thing, though.

[Kazinski]

Well I knew because the judge said that she had never seen a deal like that and when she asked the prosecutor for any precedent he couldn't supply one.

"Noreika was, however, still troubled by the potential role she was supposed to play in determining whether Biden had breached the terms of his probation, potentially subjecting him to prosecution on the gun charge and other offenses.

While the government acknowledged that this feature of the diversion agreement was unique and unprecedented, the parties suggested that it was necessary because a future Justice Department under a Republican president might decide, for political reasons, to allege that Biden had breached the terms of his agreement in order to file additional charges against him. ...

Nonetheless, once more, Noreika was having none of it. She expressed concern that she was being cast in the role of essentially deciding whether additional charges could be brought against Biden and opined that putting a federal judge in that role may violate separation of powers principles of the Constitution. She asked the parties if Biden would still enter into the plea agreement if this particular provision was stricken from the agreement. Everyone knew what the answer to that question would be."

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/why-judge-refused-rubber-stamp-the-shady-hunter-biden-plea-deal

When a Federal Judge has concerns the terms of a plea deal and diversion agreement maybe unconstitutional then I think that would be quite unusual.

[Sarcastr0]

Noscitur spoke to this, Kaz, did you forget? I quoted it to you like 4 times.

Basically, the deal is unprecedented *and the thing being charged was rare if not unprecedented* it is generally part of a number of charges used regarding a larger criminal activity.

You keep ignoring that part of it. Because you have really twisted yourself into a ravening crusade against Hunter Biden, of all people.

[Kazinski]

Yeah well tell that to the judge.

If the judge says its novel and unprecedented I’m going with that, at least until she gets reversed, and obviously that’s not happening.

And really I don't have a ravening crusade against Hunter. Its just that he is Joe's bag man and the bag man is often the target in unraveling a scheme because that's where the vulnerability is. That of course is why they use bag men to insulate the principles from the cash.

[Nelson]

"If the judge says its novel and unprecedented"

The judge didn't say it was a sweetheart deal or too lenient. She said she didn't think that the mechanism prosecutors and defense attorneys had created to prevent an R president from arbitrarily declaring Hunter in breach was something she wanted to be responsible for due to, among other things, her belief that it could violate the separation of powers.

That is completely different than your claim that "the Delaware plea deal was a sweetheart deal forced upon Weiss by he DOJ".

"It's just that he is Joe’s bag man"

An assertion that has never had anything more than speculation and partisan animus supporting it. If I had a dollar for each time Comer breathlessly announced a revelation that showed Joe Biden was corrupt that turned out to be an intentional lie, have an innocent explanation, or both, I would be a very rich man.

[Kazinski]

Well we aren't all that dissimilar from two people arguing on a sports blog about play calls, each telling the other how clueless they are, and you can be sure that there will never be an offensive coordinator perusing the comments for insights on his playbook.

[Bwaaah]

That's for sure.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, pretty sure the likelihood of one or both being dead or medically incapacitated makes it lower than that. That's before you get to the question of Ds dumping Biden if constantly declining polls make him look like a certain loser. Or the other question, whether criminal evidence against Trump takes him out of the race somehow. The future can always turn out surprising, and you just put down a 90% bet on two named horses running against the field. Does anyone know if the bookies put it that high?

[Commenter_XY]

I remember that well. Same issue killed the case against Poindexter.

[David Nieporent]

.

If I remember correctly, the IRS agents testified that they thought there was enough evidence to charge Hunter. That’s a opinion by law enforcement officers, not the prosecutors who know what it takes to win in court, so it’s an opinion about someone else’s area of experience, not a fact.

Indeed. Specifically, it's quite common for investigators and prosecutors to have different ideas about the strengths of a case and/or the wisdom of pursuing it. That indicates nothing other than that… different people have different opinions.

As I mentioned when it came up before: there was a prosecutor who published an entire book complaining that the Manhattan DA wasn't prosecuting Trump even though there was enough evidence to do so. Eventually Bragg decided to prosecute. But that disagreement was just that: a disagreement. It was not evidence of corruption or cover up or anything like that.