Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

Who would have thought a general court-martial would issue a twenty-seven month (not year) sentence for espionage?

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1744592328978047243/photo/1

[Kazinski]

Well it wasn't like he was spying for Israel, it was just China.

[Frank Drackman]

Eli Cohen got hung for taking photos of stuff you can see on Google Earth today

[Michael P]

Also in Syria, I hear you can get thrown off a roof or out of a window for kissing the wrong person.

[Frank Drackman]

or Detroit, Paris, London.....

[Brett Bellmore]

You can get thrown out a window almost anywhere for kissing the wrong person, if the right person happens to be present at the time...

[Michael Ejercito]

Great point!

[Martinned]

As we've discovered in recent months, espionage can cover multitudes.

[Sarcastr0]

As usual, you link to a source committed to propaganda, not truthtelling, and don't bother to check other sources.

Even for conservatives on the VC, you seem really into people telling you what you want to hear.
In this case you want to hear right-wing violence is being punished too harshly. Which says a lot about your political worldview.

The Navy Sailor
crime:
He provided information about the US Navy's large-scale drills in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as electrical diagrams and blueprints for a radar system located at the US base on the Japanese island of Okinawa.
He was paid at least 14 separate bribes to a total of at least $14,866.

punishment:
He plead guilty and was sentenced to a little over 2 years (27 months) in jail. He faced a maximum 20 year sentence.

The Proud Boy (Biggs)
crime:
He was chosen by Proud Boy leadership starting in late December to attack the Capitol. They established a chain of command, chose a time and place for their attack, and intentionally recruited others who would follow their top-down leadership and who were prepared to engage in physical violence if necessary.

On Jan. 6, the group and the men they recruited and led participated in every consequential breach at the Capitol on Jan. 6. The group began their assault when Biggs, Rehl, and others marched an assembled group of nearly 200 individuals away from speeches at the Ellipse and directly toward the Capitol.
When law enforcement appeared to have successfully controlled the crowd by pushing them back, the men again pushed forward with Biggs and other co-defendants leading the charge.

Biggs Biggs recorded a podcast-style interview in which he called Jan. 6 a “warning shot” to the government that showed them “how weak they truly are” after being “bitch-slapped . . . on their own home turf.”

punishment:
This case went to trial, with a jury finding he had conspired to prevent, hinder, and delay the certification of the Electoral College vote and to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.
Joseph R. Biggs, 39, of Ormond Beach, Florida, was sentenced to 17 years in prison

Despite what you say, looking at the facts here, especially given one plead guilty and the other did not, I don't think it is self-evident these sentences represent a double standard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I do -- the proud boy is a criminal thug and should be considered and treated as such. 5 years would be appropriate for what he did -- 17 is vastly excessive.

OTOH, the SPY had given a hostile power (and our most likely enemy in any future shooting war) stuff that would be damn valuable, both in itself and when combined with other things they already have. Blueprints and wiring diagrams for radar enable one to learn its weaknesses and how to exploit them. Something that could kill hundreds (if not thousands) of American sailors in a future war.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that if you look at different cases charging different crimes involving different defendants prosecuted under different laws in different jurisdictions, it's not surprising to find different sentences. And I certainly have little enough sympathy for Biggs.

That said, this seems like a shockingly lenient sentence in the espionage case.

[Absaroka]

"That said, this seems like a shockingly lenient sentence in the espionage case."

+1

This wasn't one of the 'secretary unwittingly lets secrets slip in pillow talk with unknown to him/her intelligence agent lover' kind of things. This was selling secrets for cash.

[Sarcastr0]

I chalk that up to 2 things:

1) the guilty plea
2) The paucity of facts in the Navy story leaves a lot unclear.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There could very well be good reasons for the outcome (and good reasons for the government not to share them). But I think that sentence is pretty well below what most people think should happen to a member of the military who sells information to a communist dictatorship (even if he pleads guilty).

[Sarcastr0]

But I think that's too general to get a sense of what the sentence should be.

We don't know the classification of the materials; we don't know their actual impact/cost. We do know the guy got 14K.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two thoughts:

1: It is always possible that there is something else that they didn't want to have to reveal to the defense that justified this approach -- I've heard of that happening with civilian spies and while it started with courts martial here, wouldn't he be entitled to a civilian lawyer if desired?

2: It's always possible that this is how you create a double agent -- but I don't think our government is bright enough to pull something like that off anymore.

3: Which leads to the most likely conclusion -- Obama's purge of the upper ranks has had its intended effect. Scary...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of sentences, I believe the pink hat lady reported to prison this week to begin her 57-month term of incarceration for un-American criminal conduct. I hope she experiences the hardest 57 months of imprisonment that can be reasonably and lawfully arranged.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't be surprised when he comes down with Jeffrey Epstein's disease.

[Kazinski]

I wanted to thank everyone for their criticism and suggestions on my proposed brief I posted in the Monday open thread.

As a result I did update it to explain and refute one misunderstanding that cropped up repeatedly, I do think it's a somewhat unnecessary tangent, but if it cropped up at least half a dozen times I should address it.

Here is the new section, a link to my entire rough draft is below:
It has been asserted that when Article 1 states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…” that it doesn’t signify a exclusive grant of power under the United States Constitution to Congress, because states also have power to lay and collect taxes. The problem with that argument is it misunderstands our federal system of dual sovereignty, Article 1 only grants those powers to Congress, the states have pre-existing power to lay and collect taxes from derived from their own constitutions. States most assuredly do not have authority to collect Duties, imposts and excises, it would certainly be absurd to suppose a single clause would confer the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…” to Congress, but the same words would only confer the power to “lay and collect taxes” to states without even mentioning them.

Similarly the 16th amendment does not authorize the states to collect Income taxes, the states had that authority and exercised it before the 16th amendment was ratified, and despite the fact a federal income tax had been set aside decades earlier.

When the Constitution states “The Congress shall have the power…” it neither forbids nor grants that power to the states, unless the language explicitly does grant or deny it to the states.

That principle that the states have their own iherent powers, like laying and collecting taxes, was never stated plainer or more succinctly than in the Articles of Confederation:
“Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

The same principle is included less clearly, but just as surely, in the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Entire document:/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z1d-Q8dzR8tGeAXGRXLqY82dkXQIVS_0fAG_KaIW65g?usp=drivesdk

[Michael Ejercito]

The only limit on the states' power to tax is the 14th Amendment which incorporates the Bill of Rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only federal constitutional limit is via the 14th amendment. States DO have their own constitutions, after all.

[Dan Schiavetta]

States can’t set rules as to election to federal offices.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, they can to a great extent.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

And their power over the election of Presidents is damn near plenary.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,..."

They don't even have to hold Presidential elections, though if they opt to, they're then subject to some federal controls.

What they can't do is change the qualifications for the offices.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

But why can’t they change qualifications for offices? What part of federal law takes that power from them? Assuming it needs to be granted looks at the law of union backwards, as Justice Thomas correctly pointed out in Thornton.

Now, it may be pointed out that a state controls only a slice of the presidential vote. If the EC elects one who is 40, the state that wants only presidents over the age of 45 doesn’t get to pretend the office is vacant. However, that doesn’t mean they have no power.

I am a voter, one of many, so I don’t control qualifications for anything single-handedly. But I DO control my slice. If I think the governor of Ohio needs to be 50, the qualification for receiving my vote is what I say it is, and for a 49 year old it will be that much harder to get elected. A state can do the same with respect to its presidential electors.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm busy today, but I wanted to say that I didn't get a chance to read your Thursday stuff, but I respect that you did the exercise.

I'm absolutely sure I'd find your wrong and probably ridiculous, but you clearly did some thinking then put it out there to be engaged with.

Even if I think you're really bad at critical thinking, doesn't mean I don't want you trying.

[Kazinski]

Thanks for your kind words.

As for my critical thinking skills, I'll have you know that I come from a family of learned doctors.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hh1oaumUoyc

[NOVA Lawyer]

While I didn't find it at all convincing, it was a good effort for a lay person with (apparently) no legal training. And, while I often disagree with you, etc., I understand the logic of your argument, though, again, I think there are big holes and things you think are self-evidently true or should be but which, in fact, are not true.

Among other things, your entire argument hinges on Section 2383 being legislation passed by Congress to enforce 14th Amendment, Section 3. And that's not, I think either the better or the majority view, for reasons others (particularly including not guilty), has pointed in other threads.

[Kazinski]

"lay person with (apparently) no legal training"

Not quite true, I spent 3 months on jury duty once as an alternate on a murder trial. Doesn't that count for something?

I learned judges and Lawyers get 90 minute lunch breaks, enough time for me to walk two blocks to the pool hall and get in on the daily lunchtime game of "golf" on the 6' x 12' snooker table.

I didn't go to the Stephen Lathrop school of history either.

[David Nieporent]

I learned judges and Lawyers get 90 minute lunch breaks, enough time for me to walk two blocks to the pool hall and get in on the daily lunchtime game of “golf” on the 6′ x 12′ snooker table.

For the record, the long lunch breaks in trials are not so we can sit at the sidewalk cafés sipping our cappuccinos and watching the pedestrians stroll by; they're so we can grab a quick bite and prep for the afternoon based on what happened that morning.

[Kazinski]

You do what you do, I will be at the snooker table.

I have important things to do too with my 90 minutes.

[Zarniwoop]

And that’s totally fair. You and jurors should take the extended lunch break. No one wants to keep you in a closed room if you’re not needed.

My experience as a clerk was that during trials, it was only the jurors that got the actual lunch break. Judge was working, and if he was working, we were working. I usually ate a sammich brought from home in front of my computer.

I think it’s characterizing the lunch break for jurors as the norm for “judges and Lawyers” that David Nieporent was pushing back on. And I’ll push back on that as well.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, neither did I.

Like you, and everyone else, I had to learn how to research history from others—in my case others more experienced and smarter than me. Historical research is an evolved art, made continuously better by critical thought about methods used to do it. Where you and I differ is that I recognized there was much to learn, and later discovered that much I had been certain I did know was mostly mistaken . . .

[VinniUSMC]

Kazinski, neither did I.

*Proceeds to describe the SL Skul of history*

later discovered that [everything] I had been certain I did know was [entirely] mistaken

Would that you did.

[David Nieporent]

Just to reiterate: my objection was partially to the reasonableness of his theories, but also to the fact that there just wasn't any evidence for any of them.

[Kazinski]

That's fair, because my "brief" is purely textualist.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But it kind of ignores the text unless you believe cases like Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, Sweatt v. Painter, etc., were wrongly decided because Congress hadn't passed legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment and pursuant to which the winning parties could have pursued their claims?

You didn't explain why other parts of the 14th are self-executing and the Section 3 is not. Or, alternatively, be up front that you advocate a textualist argument that upends probably half of all important precedents that have construed the 14th and, so, maybe isn't as self-evident as you seem to think.

And, as a textualist argument, you can't say Section 3 is different because of the policy implications of finding the other parts to not be self-executing or the policy implications of finding Section 3 is self-executing. (And those are the only grounds I see for treating Section 3 differently.)

[Josh R]

.

When the Constitution states “The Congress shall have the power…” it neither forbids nor grants that power to the states, unless the language explicitly does grant or deny it to the states.

Doesn't this conclusion negate your argument that "Congress shall have the power" is an exclusive grant of power to Congress, and thus negate your argument that 14.3 is not self-executing as a direct consequence of the "Congress shall have power" text?

[Kazinski]

I was referring to the 18th amendment, which uses a slightly different flavor of the phrase, when I said "unless the language explicitly does grant or deny it to the states."

"The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

As for an example of a self executing amendment which can and does put a disability to hold office the Office of President on some candidates, if fact their are two individuals today that suffer this disability, see the 22nd Amendment:

SECTION 1
No person shall be elected to the office of the President
more than twice, and no person who has held the office of
President, or acted as President, for more than two years of
a term to which some other person was elected President
shall be elected to the office of President more than once.
But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the
office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding
the office of President, or acting as President, during the
term within which this Article becomes operative from
holding the office of President or acting as President during
the remainder of such term."

It does not have the "Congress shall have power.." Section to grant power to Congress to execute it, because it self executing.

Its my contention, that no amendment or clause that gives power to Congress to execute it is self executing.

Which also doesn't mean it voids the Supremacy Clause and courts don't have the power to strike laws, regulations, or enjoin actions to the contrary.

[Josh R]

You did not address my point.

Your argument was “Congress shall have power” is used consistently throughout the Constitution, and always means Congress has exclusive power. You have now conceded that “The Congress shall have the power… neither forbids nor grants that power to the states.” Thus, “Congress shall have power” does not always mean Congress has exclusive power, and hence your “consistency in the text” argument falls apart.

[Kazinski]

Exclusive power granted under the constitution, not exclusive power granted under other authority.

A well known example of that principle is the 5th amendment says "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". Her the courts have ruled that the federal government charging someone for the same offense when they have been acquitted of state charges doesn't violate the double jeopardy prohibition. Why, the states and federal government have dual sovereignty, and they each get their own bite at the apple based on their separate sovereignty. Same with taxes.

[Josh R]

OK. But, that still leaves enforcement of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment through judicial review, a power which is granted under the Constitution.

[Kazinski]

Of course, but that only allows courts to set aside laws, regulations, and state constitutional provisions that are contradict section 3, or contradicts Congress's enforcement scheme enacted under section 5, not decide how to implement Section 3 upon their own.

Judges, although they aren't always cognizant of that fact, are not executive officers.

[Josh R]

Repeating my earlier post (with changes noted in bold):

Your argument was “Congress shall have power” is used consistently throughout the Constitution, and always means Congress has exclusive power granted under the Constitution. You have now conceded that courts have the power granted under the Constitution to set aside laws when the text says "Congress shall have power" Thus, “Congress shall have power” does not always mean Congress has exclusive power, and hence your “consistency in the text” argument falls apart.

[Tom for equal rights]

Kaz - fwiw - Gorsuch's dissent in Gamble was spot on. While most agree that 14th incorporated the bill of rights against the states, the bill of rights was incorporated against the federal government at ratification. In summary , the dual sovereign argument is pure bs to circumvent the plain language of 5a

[Noscitur a sociis]

I was referring to the 18th amendment, which uses a slightly different flavor of the phrase, when I said “unless the language explicitly does grant or deny it to the states.”

No you weren't! You were talking about the 16th Amendment:

Similarly the 16th amendment does not authorize the states to collect Income taxes, the states had that authority and exercised it before the 16th amendment was ratified, and despite the fact a federal income tax had been set aside decades earlier.

When the Constitution states “The Congress shall have the power…” it neither forbids nor grants that power to the states, unless the language explicitly does grant or deny it to the states.

[Kazinski]

That's the great thing about writing 1500 words on a topic, you've got the bandwidth to propose a general thesis about the constitution, and even reference more than one amendment and multiple examples.

Sometimes you can even separate things into paragraphs and when there is a new paragraph it signals the end of scope of the previous paragraph. In that particular snippet of two paragraphs, I pivot from the specific example of the 16th amendment back to my general thesis.

I don't think its all that uncommon method of writing, I've even heard of people writing books that have more than one character (not that I've ever read any myself).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, once again, how do you account for the 2/3s requirement?

Or do you insist you can just wave away that otherwise peculiar circumstance, as irrelevant to your argument?

[Kazinski]

Its irrelevant to my argument.

I told you my surmise, but I don't think it affects my argument about what the constitution means in the 11 instances where it says 'Congress shall have power'.

I could also note that the phrase 'Congress shall have power' referencing the entire 14th amendment wouldn't specify that Congress needed 2/3 vote to have the power to remove that particular disability, which may also be the explanation.

Feel free to noodle on the question on your own.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Very cool! Looking forward to giving it a read.

[Michael Ejercito]

A federal court denied as preliminary injunction that would have prevented West Point from considering race as a factor in admissions.

Not surprisingly, the Court quoted Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 67 (1981) (“in the area of military affairs . . . . the Constitution itself requires such deference.”)

https://casetext.com/case/students-for-fair-admissions-v-the-united-states-military-acad-at-w-point

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure I understand the basis for saying that the Constitution requires that the military not be bound by a constitutional amendment.

[Longtobefree]

You must not be a lawyer.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm a mechanical engineer who finds law interesting.

[Bwaaah]

Your legal arguments must be at least good enough for them to seek refuge in the you're-not-a-lawyer argument (which is a totally lame argument).

Anyway, in deference to his point, I no longer advocate the merits of wearing a seatbelt because I'm not a physicist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could it be because the military is a power explicitly granted to Congress under Article 1?

[Brett Bellmore]

But the 14th amendment has been held to bind Congress in what they can legislate.

[Kazinski]

Maybe, but when the 14th amendment was ratified we had a segregated military.

Plus the 14th Amendment says "No State shall", its not operative on the federal government, you would have to rely on the 5th amendment, or the civil rights act.

[Absaroka]

"when the 14th amendment was ratified we had a segregated military."

We also had a 'separate-but-equal' segregated society, but Brown v. Board put a stop to that. If the Armed Forces hadn't already been desegregated by then, I would have expected the same logic to apply to the military.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but as I also said, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the federal government, only the states.

Brown only applied to the States too, which is why they issued Bolling v Sharpe that applied the 5th amendment law to desegregate DC schools.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But the 14th amendment has been held to bind Congress in what they can legislate.

What are some cases you think are prominent examples of that?

[Krayt]

This is a nasty example because of discrimination, but I am not a fan of amendments overriding things they were not explicitely described to override. I wouldn't expect an amendment to touch the First Amendment without explicit statements how it does so.

Weasels sneaking stuff in is not a good design decision for a free people and their constitution.

[Kazinski]

There has been a rather strange speed bump crop up in Trumps RICO trial in Georgia.

A court filing has alleged that Fani Willis and her special prosecutor have a major conflict of interest which could force both of them, and perhaps the whole DA’s office to recuse from the case:

“District Attorney Fani Willis improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship, according to a court motion filed Monday which argued the criminal charges in the case were unconstitutional.

The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received. County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. The DA authorizes his compensation.”

“One ethics expert said that the allegations, if true, raised serious questions.

Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University Law School who has written extensively about legal and judicial ethics, said a closer look at Willis’ decision-making is needed before it can be determined whether the indictment should be dismissed.

If the allegations are true, Gillers said, “Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of this case” and wasn’t able to bring the sort of “independent professional judgment” her position requires.

“That does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated,” Gillers said in an e-mail. “It does mean that the public and the state, as her client, could not have the confidence in the independent judgment that her position required her to exercise.”

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/

Allegedly Wade, who was paid 650K in county funds, paid for trips he and Willis took together via cruise ships to the Caribbean, and another trip to Napa Valley.

Other reports allege that Wade, the very “Special Prosecutor” has no experience prosecuting felonies, his previous prosecutorial experience was limited to misdemeanors. And since he left government, his private practice specializes in personal injury cases.

This doesn’t mean Trump and his co-defendants will be thrown out, but there a good chance if the court filings are substantiated that a whole new prosecution team will have to be assembled.

When Willis got dinged for hosting a fundraiser for a democratic LT. Gov. candidate when she was investigating the GOP Lt. Gov. candidate and was from the case by a judge, then “The Prosecuting Attorney’s Council of Georgia” was charged with selecting a replacement district attorney’s office that could proceed with the case.without the conflict.

[santamonica811]

I'm not a flaming hypocrite. I hate the appearance of sleaze with Justice Thomas. And, likewise, I hate how this looks (even if careful analysis shows every iota of reimbursement was justified). I hope someone new replaces him . . . and hope Willis passes all oversight and payment responsibility to another, truly disinterested, person.

[Kazinski]

I think the way it works in Georgia if the allegations are substantially verified the responsibility will be passed to another DA's office, but not by Willis. If she can't be trusted to handle the case disinterestedly, she can't really be trusted to pick who will pick up the reins.

In any case this could push back the trial at least 6 months, while it's sorted out, a new team is assembled, and bones up on the evidence and makes their own assessment of the case.

[Commenter_XY]

Hypothetically Kaz: What happens if DA #2 decides the case is bullshit and elects to drop it? Is that an outcome that is even possible? Looks like a real GA taxpayer money pit is about to be created.

Fani, Fani, Fani….What do I say? I’d start with smashing the hired help is not the way to favorably influence judges with your ethics and professionalism. Oh, and be careful when you’re testifying in that nasty divorce case. Perjury is a real thing.

Also...read your google doc. 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

"Hypothetically Kaz: What happens if DA #2 decides the case is bullshit and elects to drop it?"

More likely, a new DA will decide that there are core allegations that state real claims, but the indictment, including the RICO charges, are a gross overreach, and trim down the indictment to something manageable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just that -- isn't this the ONLY DA's office that would prosecute the case?

Well, if none of the others consider it worthwhile....

[Kazinski]

No, the other DA's office becomes in effect the special prosecutor for the disqualified DA, and has their jurisdiction. And they will still try the case in the courts of jurisdiction.

[jb]

If true (I’m not sure how well substantiated the claim is–it doesn’t seem like any evidence has been presented yet), this is obviously incredibly bad judgement and probably should be illegal. The procedure described by Kazinski above seems reasonable; really, she should just resign, though.

[Frank Drackman]

The "Evidence" is in Assistant DA Nathan Wade's pants (and Fani's most likely).
Fani (and everyone pronounced it "Fanny" until the Marxist Stream Media found out about her and changed it to "Fawn-ee") has been a joke since she entered the DA's Orifice in 2021, she takes years to prosecute cases even her marginally competent predecessor would lose more expediently. Only saving grace is that the Fulton County Jail is run so incompetently it's become Georgia's method of Capital Punishment (10 killed in in the Jail in 2023, already 1 killed this year) and is it really so bad that bad guys sit in jail for 5 years waiting for their trial?
Seriously, if Obama bin Laden had been tried in Fulton County he'd still be alive.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

All of this sounds like there may be a RICO case against Willis and Wade.

[not guilty]

Please elaborate. State or federal? What is the enterprise? What is the racketeering activity? Who committed predicate acts? As to each such act, when and where did it occur?

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to add "show your work".

[Nelson]

Yeah, asking for details and facts is so unreasonable.

[Frank Drackman]

Details, Details

[Kazinski]

I will elaborate for you. Its an ironic statement.

Here is my authority:
"irony
1 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony"

[Life of Brian]

Interestingly enough, there are actually a few pages in the Roman motion to dismiss that discuss exactly that.

[not guilty]

No, there is not. There is reference at pages 36-37 to 18 U.S.C. § 1346, along with fleeting mention of RICO, conspicuously unaccompanied by discussion of the essential elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.

[Life of Brian]

You'll just put your head down like a stubborn bull and argue about absolutely anything, won't you?

Bumble's observation was "there may be a RICO case against Willis and Wade."

The section you allege to have read notes, among other things: "Prosecutions under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) frequently use violations of the honest services statute as predicate acts of racketeering. As such, two direct deposits or mailed checks into Wade’s account by Fulton County would constitute two transmissions in the execution of honest services fraud that could form “a pattern of racketeering activity.”

You're disputing the indisputable.

[Sarcastr0]

You’ll just put your head down like a stubborn bull and argue about absolutely anything, won’t you?

My dude....

[not guilty]

As I said, the motion contains no discussion of essential elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. What subsection of § 1962 is counsel for Mr. Roman attempting to assert? What is the enterprise? (The existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.” Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 947 (2009); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981).) What is the effect on interstate commerce?

Who here has been deprived of the intangible right of honest services? The motion seems to posit (pp. 36-37) that Ms. Willis committed honest services fraud by failing to disclose a conflict of interest resulting in personal gain to her. Unfortunately for Mr. Roman, SCOTUS has expressly rejected that theory of honest services fraud. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 409-411 (2010).

I see no evidence that counsel for Mr. Roman knows her ass from a hole in the ground.

[Life of Brian]

"Attempting to assert"? This is a side note in a motion to dismiss, not an indictment. Hopefully you understand the difference.

And I'm not going to play the guess what you're thinking game on your bare case cite, but I will say one thing at a higher level: if you with your... ahem, legendary criminal defense background wish to try with a straight face to take the position that a sufficiently motivated prosecutor couldn't bring a RICO charge with the facts as alleged, get right on that and I'll go restock on popcorn.

[not guilty]

Uh, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 contains four subsections, each of which defines a distinct means of commission. I cannot discern from the Roman motion what theory of criminal liability that defense counsel is trying to attribute to Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade.

The only attempt to set forth any predicate acts at all rests upon a legal theory which SCOTUS has expressly rejected. No self-respecting AUSA would get anywhere near to this.

[Life of Brian]

You've said twice now that SCOTUS has "expressly rejected" [your careful characterization of] a legal theory / fact pattern, with one bare cite to a case that on its face doesn't appear to say any such thing and not a word tying the two together.

Such caginess usually telegraphs lack of substance.

[not guilty]

Have you read Skilling, LoB?

[Life of Brian]

And eventually, such persistent caginess clearly telegraphs lack of substance.

You're the one who (poorly) cited Skilling -- what did it hold that you feel to be relevant to your argument?

[not guilty]

I asked if you have read Skilling. You refused to answer. Who is being cagey?

Beginning at page 409 of U.S. Reports:

The Government urges us to go further by locating within § 1346's compass another category of proscribed conduct: “undisclosed self-dealing by a public official or private employee-- i.e., the taking of official action by the employee that furthers his own undisclosed financial interests while purporting to act in the interests of those to whom he owes a fiduciary duty.” Brief for United States 43-44.

That is precisely the theory whereby the defendant Roman suggests (pp. 36-38) that Fani Willis committed theft of honest services. (All but one of the decisions cited therein predate Skilling.)

The Skilling Court at pages 410-411 and n.44 rejected the government's proposed construction of § 1346.

[Life of Brian]

More exquisitely careful wordsmithing that tiptoes around the bit you can't deal with. What behaviors did the Skilling court say the scope of 1346 most certainly does cover, dingbat?

[Nelson]

From what not guilty has shown (and you have failed to counter), there isn’t anything in the Roman filing that points to anything that violates the RICO statute.

From the little bit of substance that you have posted, you think getting paid for legal work is an act relevant to the RICO law. But you fail to say why those payments aren’t just payment for services, but are instead criminal acts that are part of a RICO case.

I’m not a lawyer, so maybe I don’t understand, but if you say “These things are part of this” it seems like you have to identify what “this” is.

What are you saying the “this” is that makes those payments criminal?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I understand you're not an attorney, and frankly that's part of the reason I waste time pushing back on NG -- he has a way of [extensively] presenting things that are in and of themselves are usually at least half true, and can sound fairly reasonable to folks around here without the background to understand that much of it is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Here, I'm not making any argument of my own -- this particular debacle developed because NG decided he was going to try to split some sort of pedantic hair over whether the motion to dismiss discussed a potential RICO case, which it clearly does as I quoted above.

Apparently wanting to try to save face, NG then tried to pivot the debate into whether the motion to dismiss contained a legally sufficient description of a potential RICO charge -- something I never said it did and something it certainly doesn't need to do since of course if anything were to come of it, a prosecutor would raise it in a separate proceeding after further investigating the facts.

He then tried to argue that such a prosecution would be impossible, throwing out a Supreme Court case that he said excluded the fact pattern in the motion to dismiss. That's just silly on its face, since the entire opinion is about limiting honest services fraud to cases of bribery or kickbacks, and the motion to dismiss goes into a good amount of detail about Willis funneling $600k+ of state money to her romantic partner Wade and then him at a minimum taking her on a series of lavish vacations (again, a prosecutor looking into this would be able to subpoena bank records and so on and develop this angle further).

So it was crystal clear at that point NG was just playing games, as appears to be confirmed by his disappearance when I asked him to cut the crap and articulate the actual holding of his case. Perhaps even for him it's just too hard to say with a straight face that there's no way the facts here could plausibly suggest a bribery or kickback scheme.

[not guilty]

LoB, you still haven't answered as to whether you have read Skilling. The prosecution theory posited at page 409 of U. S. Reports is exactly the theory that Mike Roman's motion posits. That theory was rejected in Justice Ginsburg's opinion of the Court at pages 410-411, footnote 44 in particular.

The Court there limited the honest services theory of fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 to bribes and kickbacks covered prior to McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). That is not the theory propounded in Mr. Roman's motion, which relies on pre-Skilling authorities.

The First Rule of Holes, sometime attributed to the late Molly Ivins, is STOP DIGGING.

[Nelson]

LoB, the question I have, which may or may not have to do with the filing, is this: how does paying a lawyer to do legal work, assuming it's competent work, constitute part of a RICO case? As a follow-up, how does the way the person chose to spend that money change the character of those earnings? And finally, is hiring a competent and relevant professional who you have a personal or sexual relationship with criminal? Or, perhaps, an ethical violation according to the bar?

Since text can be hard to judge, as to sarcasm, I mean these as serious questions since you are a lawyer.

[not guilty]

The motion filed on behalf of Mike Roman is here. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352568/roman-motion-to-dimiss-010824.pdf

The selection of Mr. Wade smells bad. If Ms. Willis was thinking with her crotch when she contracted with him, that is a bad look. (The motion provides no evidence of a romantic relationship — only gossip and allegations made “on information and belief.”) Whether that entitles Mr. Roman to any relief is a separate question. The motion itself evinces no prejudice to him or any other defendant.

There is a previously scheduled appearance before Judge Scott McAfee tomorrow. The motion deserves an evidentiary hearing in order to make a full record for review.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The motion itself evinces no prejudice to him or any other defendant."

The part where he consults with the Biden administration before bringing the charge could be construed as such.

[not guilty]

How so, Brett? What part of the Roman motion indicates that any such consultation had a substantial effect on the grand jury's decision to charge?

[Armchair]

It not a question of whether the grand jury chose to charge, but a question on what charges (and when) the DA chose to bring before the grand jury.

Since the individual of interest was actively working on the Trump case, and chose to bill the county for work, a reasonable inference would be the meetings were about the Trump case.

I think we need to ask the question, is it appropriate to "consult" with the White House before bringing state level charges against the primary opponent of the man in the White House.

[not guilty]

Since Brett -- who initially posited a showing of prejudice -- is unwilling to answer, I will ask you, Armchair. What part of the Roman motion indicates that any such consultation had a substantial effect on the grand jury’s decision to charge?

[Mr. Bumble]

Lots of unknowns here but why would a state prosecutor have an eight hour meeting (or two eight hour meetings as some reports have implied) at the White House?
On it's face the length of the meeting/s seems implausible.

[David Nieporent]

There were two 8 hour entries; neither said anything about being "at the White House."

The first, from 5/23/22, said, "Travel to Athens; conf with White House Counsel"

The second, from 11/18/22, said, "Interview with DC/White House"

[Ike B.]

In a case about what the President is allowed to do and say with regard to federal elections conducted in the State of Georgia, in the context of the previous President having done stuff about federal elections in the State of Georgia, what exactly is the issue with the special counsel to the Fulton County DA talking at length with White House Counsel on two occasions?

[Brett Bellmore]

What I said was, "could be construed as such".

Are you going to deny that it could be so construed?

[not guilty]

Yes, I deny that. The motion cannot be construed in that manner without resort to conjecture and speculation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have every confidence that you will be able to find a way to construe it that way.

[Armchair]

"What part of the Roman motion indicates that any such consultation had a substantial effect on the grand jury’s decision to charge?"

As I responded before:
"It (is) not a question of whether the grand jury chose to charge, but a question on what charges (and when) the DA chose to bring before the grand jury."

Allow me to elaborate. As we know, a DA has fairly broad discretion in which charges to bring and when. Now, if a DA had, let's say, less than perfect moral character, and an individual offered the DA the following deal: "Press these charges against this person, and we'll pay your paramour $600,000". Might that "possibly" have a substantial effects on whether the DA brings the charges before the Grand Jury?

I await your response.

[Ike B.]

The suggestion here is White House Counsel bribed Ward & Willis?

[Armchair]

No, but keep trying.

[Ike B.]

I, alongside others, am trying to figure out exactly what generates the appearance of impropriety that you're landing on for this. They met with the White House Counsel. What does that appear to be?

[not guilty]

"As we know, a DA has fairly broad discretion in which charges to bring and when. Now, if a DA had, let’s say, less than perfect moral character, and an individual offered the DA the following deal: “Press these charges against this person, and we’ll pay your paramour $600,000”. Might that 'possibly' have a substantial effects on whether the DA brings the charges before the Grand Jury?"

Please identify the page(s) of the Roman motion that allege that anything even remotely resembling such a scheme occurred.

And the entity that paid Nathan Wade's fees is Fulton County, not some shadowy, unnamed individual.

[Armchair]

Oh no...

I have answered your question. Now you get to answer mine. No just asking more questions.

"Might that “possibly” have a substantial effects on whether the DA brings the charges before the Grand Jury?"

[not guilty]

No, you have not answered my questions. I asked upthread, "What part of the Roman motion indicates that any such consultation had a substantial effect on the grand jury’s decision to charge?" You have conspicuously refused to identify any such part of the Roman motion. You instead posited a counter factual, hypothetical scenario.

Don't crawfish away from that now.

[Armchair]

Avoiding the topic. The original post was..

"Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of this case” and wasn’t able to bring the sort of “independent professional judgment” her position requires.

“That does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated,” Gillers said in an e-mail. “It does mean that the public and the state, as her client, could not have the confidence in the independent judgment that her position required her to exercise.”

All in reference to the choices made by the DA.

The fact you avoid this is quite evident. Your continued avoidance apparent.

[Sarcastr0]

we need to ask the question, is it appropriate to “consult” with the White House before bringing state level charges against the primary opponent of the man in the White House.

Well, your scare quotes make it clear where you come down. I'm not at all sure that an OLC consult or something like that wouldn't be a good idea.
This wasn't kept secret or anything so it doesn't seem like anyone thought it untoward. Until the right decided it might be a wedge issue.

[Life of Brian]

This wasn’t kept secret or anything so it doesn’t seem like anyone thought it untoward.

Umwut? Where was it publicly disclosed?

[Nelson]

I think these sorts of things are part of the public record. Certainly they are part of the financial records. They are easily found, as proved by the fact that they were found.

I think you're trying to conflate "disclosed" with "announced". Announcing every hiring to the press seems like something no one would ever do.

[Joe_dallas]

armchair valid observation - "I think we need to ask the question, is it appropriate to “consult” with the White House before bringing state level charges against the primary opponent of the man in the White House."

Odd that the first impeachment against trump focused on the investigation of a political opponent instead of the corruption of the biden family.

[Nelson]

Probably because there's never been any indication that Joe Biden is corrupt, despite the massive efforts (honest and otherwise) of Republicans.

Hunter's dirty as a pig in a wallow, but guilt by genealogy isn't a valid basis for ... well, anything.

[David Nieporent]

The part where he consults with the Biden administration before bringing the charge could be construed as such.

No, it can't.

[Kazinski]

I wouldn't see anything wrong with consulting with DOJ, but the Whitehouse? Looks awfully political to me.

But it will be up to the judge ruling on the motion to decide if it would lead to a conclusion Wade has an appearance of a conflict that would "mean that the public and the state, as her client, could not have the confidence in the independent judgment that her position required her to exercise,” As Gillers the NYU ethics expert said about Willis.

[David Nieporent]

The judge will indeed have to decide that, but he will not do so based on Wade having had a couple of meetings with the White House Counsel.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes it can. I just gratuitously refuted your gratuitous assertion.

[PaulS]

How does it work where they reviewed the January 6 commission files - used information they wanted then left the rest - the rest of those files don't seem to be available to the defense? Or it seems the rest of congress....
Shouldn't the defense have access to all the same info?

[Ike B.]

What evidence did the defense need that it lacked access to?

[Nelson]

I'm pretty sure that's all part of the discovery process.

I don't know the procedures in Congress at all. Can anyone help me?

[Mr. Bumble]

"(The motion provides no evidence of a romantic relationship — only gossip and allegations made “on information and belief.”) "
That might change as Ms. Willis has been subpoenaed by Wade's wife to testify in the divorce case.

[David Nieporent]

The motion itself evinces no prejudice to him or any other defendant.

Actual Georgia lawyers — I am not one!¹ — say that a finding of prejudice isn't required. The remedy is not dismissal as the defendant wants, though, but disqualification of the Fulton County DA's office. But that could amount to the same thing, since then the state AG — a Republican, obviously — can reassign the case to whoever he wants, and that would likely be someone uninterested in pursuing it, at least against Trump.
​​
​​
¹This is an instance where one needs to look for actual experts on the applicable state law, rather than lawyers generally. Nobody outside of a Georgia lawyer has the first clue what he's talking about unless he put in far more work to research the issue than could possibly be justified by the need to have a hot take on the matter.

[Kazinski]

I agree and and I do defer to your expertise.

And I made sure to link to the AJC, rather than other stories on the subject because at least they'd know who to ask. And to have “The Prosecuting Attorney’s Council of Georgia” with authority to replace Willis, if the judge so rules, certainly does seem unique to Georgia.

And its worth noting that Willis was already removed from a related case because the appearance of a conflict, using that process.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds like it's the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council that decides. I have no idea who that dude is or if it's a Democrat or Republican.

[Kazinski]

Here is a pro-tip for Fani:

If you are going to go for a high stakes, high profile, politically fraught prosecution against a former President, try to avoid working a personal grift into your case.

[NvEric]

"This doesn’t mean Trump and his co-defendants will be thrown out, but there a good chance if the court filings are substantiated that a whole new prosecution team will have to be assembled."

OK, but wrong. A new Grand Jury shall be assembled to start again. It's a start over no matter what, for if any corruption was present from the start or during a Grand Jury's deliberations, then, therefore, it shall be re-examined from the start. If corruption of the defendant(s) requires examination, then too must be it be done with those untainted bringing said charges. This is how our system shall operate - corruption at any point requires a absolute re-examination. One can not merely remove one part and proceed as though nothing further be done - NO. All must be excoriated, and started anew. All completed cases must be erased, as, if found tainted by these allegations, then, a completely new case may be assembled according to Georgia laws.

[not guilty]

What is your supporting authority, NvEric? Please cite relevant statutes and/or judicial decisions.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, NvEric.

[ThePublius]

You're often giving out homework assignments. Are you the professor, or moderator of the comments section here? Do you always do as you require of others?

[bernard11]

I don't think asking people to support their claims is exactly "giving out homework."

[ThePublius]

He doesn't just ask people to support their claims, he gives specific assignments; that's why I called it homework. For example, "What is your supporting authority, NvEric? Please cite relevant statutes and/or judicial decisions."
Sounds like a homework assignment or an exam question to me.

[Sarcastr0]

What is your supporting authority is EXACTLY asking people to support their claims, when said claims are about crimes.

[not guilty]

Not on every occasion, but when I make an assertion based on what I understand to be the law, I ordinarily provide supporting authority. Where available, I like to link to original source materials or relevant reporting or commentary.

I do this out of respect for other readers, who can check my work in real time. I don't think it unreasonable to ask that of others (nor to tweak them when they turn tail and run away).

[Kazinski]

NVEric probably left the thread and went back to work in order to avoid a charge of honest services fraud, and possibly get a RICO charge thrown in too, with you as a co-conspirator.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe that would be a good idea, how the system should operate. But it's not how it DOES operate.

[Commenter_XY]

Ever notice it is always the sex that seems to do them in. Doesn't matter if it is Team R or Team D. Or that it is a guy or girl (or a hybrid). There has to be some kind of connection between sex and power at a subconscious level, for these people. I have wondered about that one from time to time.

Have there been many POTUS' who weren't philanderers and betrayed their wives? Sadly, no.

I would wager it is much the same for the House and Senate.

[Ersatz]

gotta luv the honeypot!

[not guilty]

I doubt that Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush or Barack Obama did any skirt chasing while in the White House.

[Commenter_XY]

4 out of 45 is not exactly a great percentage.

[David Nieporent]

I doubt that William Henry Harrison did, either!

[Zarniwoop]

Well played, sir.

[Commenter_XY]

5 out of 45 ain't much better, David. LOL.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe it's not so narrowly a connection between sex and power, but between sex and people? Or, as has been said, "Some people will do anything to get laid."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm -- I don't think Nixon did, and doubt Ford did.

[Kazinski]

No, from what I read, it shouldn't disturb the indictments, but it would leave the judgement of which charges were viable and how to proceed up to the new prosecutor.

[not guilty]

I haven't seen anything in the Roman motion which would require disqualification of any prosecutors.

The selection of Mr. Wade is tone deaf as all get out, but it is not a conflict of interest for adults on the same legal team to have sex with one another.

[David Nieporent]

The argument — not endorsing, just describing — is that she paid her unqualified lover a million dollars to supervise the case, and then he spent a portion of that money on her.

[not guilty]

I understand that is the theory, and Ms. Willis's decisionmaking here is highly questionable. But that does not evince a disqualifying interest in the criminal prosecution.

As the Supreme Court of Georgia has opined:

A conflict of interest has been held to arise where the prosecutor previously has represented the defendant with respect to the offense charged, or has consulted with the defendant in a professional capacity with regard thereto; such conflict also has been held to arise where the prosecutor has acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction.

Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314, 368 S.E.2d 232 (1988).

Mr. Wade is being paid by the hour. That gives him some interest in the scope and duration of the workload. It does not give him an interest in whether any defendant is or is not found guilty.

[John F. Carr]

On one hand, Trump wants an unskilled prosecutor leading the prosecution team.

On the other hand, his main goal in life is to stall criminal cases until he is elected President. Spending a couple months arguing about replacing the prosecution team accomplishes that.

[Mr. Bumble]

That may be, but it wasn't Trump's team that brought this to light.

[not guilty]

It is not Donald Trump’s motion; it is Mike Roman’s.

I don’t see how the allegations of the motion support the relief requested therein. The motion seeks “an order striking the special purpose grand jury report and dismissing the criminal indictment in its entirety against Mr. Roman on the grounds that the entire prosecution is invalid and unconstitutional because the Fulton County district attorney never had legal authority to appoint the special prosecutor, who assisted in obtaining both grand jury indictments” and “an order disqualifying the district attorney, her office, and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting the instant matter.”

The reference to “both grand jury indictments” is a falsehood. There is only one indictment. Footnote 1 of the motion states that the special purpose grand jury did not recommend an indictment or any charges against Mr. Roman. His standing to challenge the special purpose grand jury report is accordingly a mystery.

Dismissal of an indictment is an extreme sanction, used only sparingly as a remedy for unlawful government conduct. Olsen v. State, 302 Ga. 288, 294 (Ga. 2017); State v. Lampl, 296 Ga. 892, 896, 770 S.E.2d 629 (2015). Even under the more restrictive rules governing federal grand jury proceedings, an indictment may not be dismissed for errors in the proceedings that violate those rules unless the errors prejudiced the defendant. Olsen, at 293; Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988). Under this standard, dismissal of the indictment is appropriate only “if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict,” or if there is “grave doubt” that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such violations. Bank of Nova Scotia, at 256, quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 78 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring).

[John F. Carr]

My mistake. I didn't pay enough attention. Roman has little to gain by delay. The evidence against him is strong and President Trump can't save him. So this must be a Hail Mary play.

But Trump is still going to appreciate any delay.

[Zarniwoop]

Maybe. These (as well as Trump's 3 motions) were filed on the motions deadline. It's too late for others to make the same motion or join it (as I understand GA procedure, which is to say in a general sense only).

If the appropriate remedy is indeed to disqualify Ms. Willis, does that apply solely to Mr. Roman, and not the other defendants?

In other words, even assuming the motion is granted as to Mr. Roman, what impact does it have on any other defendant, if any?

[not guilty]

Ms. Willis has previously been disqualified as to another defendant, who is being charged and tried separately. I surmise that a disqualification as to Mr. Roman alone would require severance of him from the joint prosecution and appointment of a successor prosecutor.

[Zarniwoop]

Yep, that’s exactly where I was going with this. Regardless of the impact on Mr. Roman, it’s not clear to me* that it will benefit Trump at all. Well, procedurally… I’m sure he’ll make it part of his stand-up schtick on the campaign trail.

*I’m not a GA lawyer, and this is the sort of thing where local counsel is your go-to expert.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Aren't there bar rules being violated here?

[not guilty]

What rules would that be?

[Kazinski]

Against self enrichment.

Bar rules are pretty amorphous, I don't think there are any bar rules in California against advocating a novel interpretation of the 12th amendment, but that didn't stop them from going after John Eastman.

[Nelson]

You mean a lawyer getting paid for legal work? That seems like a really problematic violation in a capitalist system.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Like what?

[Krychek_2]

An interesting bar discipline case:

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/2-orange-county-attorneys-face-possible-discipline-florida-bar-after-alleging-racial-injustice/GZIYDHNS5RBFBEHIODVYDOBBLY/

Prominent Orlando black civil rights attorney represented a Kenyan doctor who alleges he was terminated from a hospital for race and retaliation for speaking up about racial injustice. Jury returns a 2.75 million dollar verdict in doctor's favor. Trial judge overturns the verdict on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support it and enters judgment for the hospital.

Attorney then goes on social media and complains that a white judge deprived his client of justice and "even when we win, we lose." He doesn't explicitly accuse the judge of racism but it's pretty clear that's what he's saying. Judge, by the way, is a former plaintiffs' attorney whose ruling has since been upheld on appeal.

Judge files bar complaint. Under Florida's system, the case is being heard by a judge from a different judicial circuit whose findings as to guilt and recommended sanction will be forwarded to the Florida Supreme Court, which will make final decision.
Earlier this week, that judge determined that the attorney violated his oath of office by impugning the judiciary. The penalty phase is scheduled for hearing today.

My view is that however ill temperate and ill advised the attorney's comments may have been, there is a major First Amendment problem with chilling attorneys from speaking out about what they perceive as racial injustice. If this ruling is upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, then attorneys will be chilled from speaking up about genuine racial problems within the system. And I think that concern is sufficient that I hope the Florida Supreme Court dismisses the complaint.

[NvEric]

Wanting honest trials, ones which truth is sought verses other reasons, is a great idea, and one for which education shall be required. Free Speech is mandatory in our country, and truthful, accurate, and honest speech that much more valued.

[apedad]

"Trial judge overturns the verdict on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support it and enters judgment for the hospital."

IANAL so don't fully understand how a judge can simply overturn a jury verdict especially where, "the evidence was insufficient to support it."

Shouldn't that have been brought up DURING the trial?

[Brett Bellmore]

Judges can't overturn jury acquittals, they're perfectly free to overturn convictions.

[Krychek_2]

This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial, so there was no conviction. The answer to apedad's question is that in order to find for the plaintiff, the jury must determine that it was more likely than not that the defendant discriminated, and there has to be sufficient evidence for the jury to reach that conclusion; they can't just pull it out of their hat.

The judge apparently believed, and the court of appeals agreed with him, that the evidence the plaintiff offered was not sufficient to prove discrimination. Sometimes at the end of a plaintiff's case the defendant will ask for a directed verdict and argue that the plaintiff has not proven its case, and it's the same principle here, only after verdict rather than before.

[SRG2]

FWIW many years ago a colleague sued Goldman Sachs for sex discrimination. The jury found for her and the judge overturned the verdict on grounds of insufficient evidence.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You can even go the other way. There was once a medical malpractice in Florida where the judge tossed out a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case. He ordered a new trial instead of entering a plaintiff's judgement, however.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/amputee-gets-second-chance-sue-doctors-flna1c9455816

[Bob from Ohio]

Civil Rule 50B in Ohio provides for "Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict" made post verdict.

I think its routine to make the motion but highly unusual for it to be granted.

[Michael P]

Officers of the court give up some significant scope for free speech in exchange for that position.

This looks like yet another case of the race card being played after not even pounding the table worked.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Judge files bar complaint."

What a fucking loser.

"Earlier this week, that judge determined that the attorney violated his oath of office by impugning the judiciary."

The judiciary are a bunch of pathetic losers. The most fragile politicians on the planet. The executive branch and legislative branch also are important constitutive parts of the legal system, but its apparently okay to impugn them. Judges want to exercise political power without criticism from the people closest to the issue: the lawyers and parties. And they'll actually punish people for not adhering to the dumb and self-serving principles they've created to shield themselves from criticism and consequences. Extreme loser-shit. Judicial and legal reform should focus on keeping such pathetic personalities from the bench so that this "I can do no wrong" culture changes.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, it's in the ABA model rules (don't feel like looking up Florida's version). Rule 8.2(a):

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah, I'm saying that rule is self-serving bullshit written by and for fragile personalities.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The judiciary are a bunch of pathetic losers. "

Nice screed. I imagine with your arguing style judges yell at you a lot so I understand your frustration.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nah. People like me. I know that's a state of being that's hard for you to understand.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

The judiciary are a bunch of pathetic losers.

That is an overstatement, in my judgment.

Decades of knowing and observing judges; participating in judicial selection endeavors; and involvement in judicial election activities have persuaded me, though, that judges are rarely our best or brightest. The office should be respected; the person is far too often a coin flip at best.

This issue is not exclusive to judges. Every law enforcement position seems to feature this problem.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, I thought accusations of racism were usually treated as unfalsifiable matters of opinion. I guess judges are special.

[Martinned]

The UK Supreme Court just gave judgment in Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. By a majority of 6 to 1 (Lord Burrows dissenting) the court held that while doctors owe a duty of care to protect the health of their patients, they do not owe a duty of care to members of the patient’s close family to protect them against the risk of illness from the experience of witnessing the death or medical crisis of their relative from a condition which the doctor has negligently failed to diagnose or treat.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0038.html

[Commenter_XY]

What is going on with the Horizon software and Brit post offices....wrongful prosecutions? Bad data? Faulty software? I understand that there is a new TV show in England about it.

[Martinned]

The government has announced a statute that is going to sort it all out. So that can't possibly go wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/rishi-sunak-announces-plan-to-pass-law-quashing-horizon-post-office-scandal-convictions

[Kazinski]

Seems outrageous to me, as a former computer programmer siding with people over software seems a dangerous precedent.

If a computer says you're guilty, then that should be all the evidence needed.

[Armchair]

Hunter's back...this time with his paintings.

We were assured there was an ethics agreement in place, so Hunter would have no idea who was purchasing his paintings.
--Whoops. Looks like there was no ethics agreement. Hunter knew exactly who was purchasing the paintings. Well, I'm sure it affected nothing.

"Presidential appointee and donor Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali bought Hunter Biden's art work, one piece before she was appointed to a federal commission by Joe Biden and one afterwards;"

Coincidence, I'm sure. Not like she refused to buy any paintings before Joe became president.
-Wait she did refuse? Another coincidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't the GOP's Hunter hearings just get totally wrecked yesterday?

I'm busy as hell this week, but from what I can see Hunter showed up, neither party was prepared, but the GOP said some utter bullshit that was inconsistent with previous statements and got called out by the more on-the-ball Democrats on multiple fronts.

[MoreCurious]

Yes, Hunter made the Republicans look like fools with his well-timed dis yesterday of Comer, Greene, Mace, and the others who seem to think that running clown shows is in their job descriptions. I can't help laughing at the hypocrisy. Why are they afraid to listen to what Hunter has to say in an open hearing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Did he comply with the subpoena or not?

[MoreCurious]

You seem to have missed my question: Why are they afraid to let him answer their questions in an open, public hearing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Subjects of subpoenas don't get to dictate the terms of their appearance.

[Moderation4ever]

That is not true, it is common for recipients to negotiate on appearances before Congress.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dictate: To prescribe with authority; impose.
"dictated the rules of the game."
To control or command.

Negotiate: To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement. To arrange or settle by discussion and mutual agreement.

[Moderation4ever]

Take two to negotiate, so who is Hunter's other party in the talks?

[MoreCurious]

You continue to refuse to answer my simple question: Why are they afraid to let him answer their questions in an open, public hearing? And why are you afraid to answer my question?

[Mr. Bumble]

In answer to your question: No they aren't afraid to let him answer their questions in an open, public hearing. They offered him that opportunity after he complied with the subpoenaed closed hearing.
In any event this is all theater because Biden is facing criminal charges and would be foolish to answer any questions.

[Life of Brian]

it is common for recipients to negotiate on appearances before Congress.

Surely you must be referring to recipients of subpoenas to appear before Congress, not to appear for a deposition.

[Moderation4ever]

That is simple, the Republicans have nothing, and they don't really want to admit this fact. They want Hunter questioned privately so they can make up what he says. And yes, the transcripts will come out but not before the lies are spread.

[Nelson]

Is someone insinuating that Comer might take testimony from behind closed doors and misrepresent it in statements to the press?

He's a Unites States Representative! He would never do something so dishone... oh, he's already done it? Multiple times? And all about Hunter Biden?

Maybe insisting on a public hearing isn't unreasonable?

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason the Senate Watergate had John Dean testify in closed session initially, so they wouldn't get surprised by anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, he did, the fact is he offered more than many others. To hold him in contempt while not charging others is hypocrisy.

[Mr. Bumble]

See Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro.

[Moderation4ever]

See Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Kevin McCarthy

[Frank Drackman]

None of whom left an innocent young woman to Asphyxiate (not Drowned, there's a difference) like a certain fat faced Senator from Tax-a-chussetts did.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

How far off topic do you want to take this?

[Frank Drackman]

however far it is from D.C. to Chappaquiddick (some 380 miles as the Crow flies, (460 if the Crow has to drive)

Frank

[Kazinski]

Jim Jprdon , Scott Perry, and Kevin McCarthy have the constitutional protection of the speech and debate clause. If they can't be questioned in any other place for their speech in Congress they almost certainly can't be questioned for refusing o speak.

Of course Congress itself could discipline them.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that those 3 assclowns can just ignore a subpoena because of the Speech & Debate clause?

That isn't how shit works, and you're old enough that you should know better.

If they wanted to use that as an excuse to ignore the subpoena, they actually have to say as much in a court of law and actually file a motion to quash it.

[Kazinski]

Yes, they can ignore subpoena’s from Congress, and I can prove it, because they did.

But like I said, the House could expel them with a 2/3 majority, or censure them with a bare majority.

But the courts would certainly dismiss any charges because: “and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” And not speaking is as protected as speaking.

Requiring to go to court to quash it would mean they had to answer in court, which is most assuredly an "other Place."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How the fuck have you been here this long and learned absolutely nothing about the legal process?

Filing a motion to quash a subpoena is not 'being questioned in any other place.'

You're a goddamn moron, Kazinski. The fact that your GOP idols have no ethical compass does not prove that what they did was legal.

[Zarniwoop]

Jim Jprdon [sic], Scott Perry, and Kevin McCarthy have the constitutional protection of the speech and [sic] debate clause. If they can’t be questioned in any other place for their speech in Congress they almost certainly can’t be questioned for refusing o speak.

Congress - via congressional subpoena - is the one and only place they are constitutionally permitted to be questioned.

Congress asking those Reps for their testimony is the exact frackin’ opposite of them having the “constitutional protection” of the speech or debate clause. FFS, that isn’t hard to understand.

They ignored valid subpoenas and got away with it as a practical matter. But don’t delude yourself that ignoring the subpoenas was legit because of the speech or debate clause.

[Kleppe]

"Why are they afraid to listen to what Hunter has to say in an open hearing?"

I think the normal process is for there to be a closed deposition prior to the public hearing. Not saying that's right (and obviously it is skewed against the witness), but Congress gets home field advantage. Lord knows the Dems did it to plenty of people when they had the gavels.

[Life of Brian]

You're apparently tuned in to some rather motivated, extremist sources. The Gray Lady sums it up thusly:

The arrival of the younger Mr. Biden, who has repeatedly offered to testify publicly in the impeachment inquiry into President Biden but refused to be interviewed behind closed doors, prompted chaos in the proceedings as Democrats and Republicans bickered about whether to allow him to be heard.

The exchange pitted some of the staunchest supporters of former President Donald J. Trump against the son of his successor and chief political rival, underscoring the bitter polarization that is driving the impeachment investigation.

Democrats on the panel urged the Republicans who control it to let Mr. Biden testify right then and there, but G.O.P. lawmakers insisted he must submit to a closed-door deposition as ordered by their subpoena.

As Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, was beginning to speak against the younger Mr. Biden, he and his entourage left the room just minutes after arriving, which prompted Ms. Greene to label him a “coward.”

[Michael P]

Do the "let Hunter give a public dog-and-pony show" people also favor letting Donald Trump speak during his trial's closing argument?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah probably. Trump talking extemporaneously reminds people how batshit he is.

[David Nieporent]

That’s throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall. Nobody suggested that Hunter should be given a "dog and pony show." If he testified, publicly or privately, he should be held to the same standards as any other witness in terms of decorum and sticking to the topic.

And on the other end, nobody was objecting to letting Trump speak; the objection was to letting Trump say stuff that is not permissible at closing argument for anyone.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Marjorie Taylor Greene called him a coward. Nancy Mace said he had "no balls."

Why can't prominent right-wing women keep a man? For more than a short time, of course.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't forget how quickly they were willing to play the "are women allowed to speak" bullshit too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sarah Palin was a trendsetter among "family values" conservatives faux libertarians.

More arrests than graduations in the family.

More unplanned pregnancies than marriages in the family.

More convictions than legitimate jobs in the family.

Etc.

[David Nieporent]

She was appointed to an unpaid position on a commission nobody has ever heard of or cares about. Somehow the notion that she bribed her way onto it by buying a painting seems a bit farfetched.

[Bob from Ohio]

Seems like she cares about it.

[Armchair]

People bribe other people for seemingly inconsequential items all the time. Seems this mattered to this donor. The timing of the purchases is interesting...1 before the nomination, 1 after. Especially given that the donor rejected buying Hunter's paintings...until his father became President.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many of Justice Thomas (and Ginni Thomas') benefactors provided outsize gifts or payments to the Thomases -- or to the person they reportedly treat as a son -- before Clarence Thomas became a Supreme Court Justice?

Does your objection apply to Justice Thomas?

[Armchair]

Let me know when Justice Thomas appoints someone to a position.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's your argument?

Do you claim to be a lawyer?

[Michael P]

DuckDuckGo has a surprising number of OTHER recent stories about "RCMP journalist arrest" beyond this one: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/01/09/its-all-on-video-canadian-police-drop-charges-after-shocking-arrest-of-reporter-challenging-govt-officials-goes-viral-1426128/

It looks like at least five other incidents in the last 13 months. What's going on up in America's toque?

[Ed Grinberg]

I'm sure the Biden administration would be pulling similar stunts here if the media wasn't all-in for them!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whining, grievance-consumed, disaffected right-wingers are among my favorite culture war roadkill.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trudeau is in trouble -- he has to call for an election within 24 months and is likely to go down in flames. I can see him worried about even more bad press.

See: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/10/justin-trudeau-election-politics-00134525

[myself]

As I noted on the other thread this is a bit overblown.

I saw the video. I can’t tell if the RCMP officer moved before contact, but if he did I suspect he was stepping out of the way of the cameraman who was walking backwards.

The rebel news reporter looked directly at the RCMP officer and instead of stepping around like a normal person proceeded to deliberately barge into him complete with a shoulder check. Honestly, if someone did that to me I’d think they were trying to start a fight or something.

The arrest was definitely a big overreaction, but make no mistake, the reporter initiated contact looking for a reaction. I’ve seen other clips of that guy struggling with security while asking questions, it’s kind of his shtick.

Here’s the same reporter in 2019. They weren’t getting along with the Conservative campaign so he stepped in front of the Conservative campaign bus “got hit” and started making an incident until he got arrested.

[Michael P]

Yes, your "shoulder check" claim in the other thread was ridiculous then and still is now. The plainclothes cop intentionally stood in the guy's path with insufficient time for him to change course.

[myself]

Oh wow, watching a little closer the reporter sees the cop and actually seems to take a little run at him. Freeland actually steps to the side to make sure the reporter has room to get by but instead of sticking in her face like usual he takes a run at the cop.

I still think the arrest was an overreaction, but the guy was definitely trying to initiate something with the cop.

[Absaroka]

I sure don't see an assault in that video.

[myself]

Assault no, but the reporter initiated contact.

This is a story of an overreaction from a cop in response to a reporter from a fringe new site who was looking for an overreaction, just like the time he stepped in front of a slowly moving campaign bus so he could say it hit him.

[VinniUSMC]

Assault no, but the reporter initiated contact.

No way. The reporter was walking sort of sideways-ish, and then did a little half-step around the grey pole to not walk into it, realized that the lady walked back around behind him, and moved to swing back around the pole (may have even hit the pole with his left leg/hip), and the officer, who was behind the pole, probably prevented him from falling over with that collision.

I don't think there's any appearance of intent, or "initiated contact", just an accident.

[Armchair]

Looks like Joe's illegal immigrant plan is having unforeseen results....like making kids go back to remote learning.

All those illegal immigrants need shelter. So, NYC wisely put up a tent city. In the winter. Then realized far too late that in bad weather, it just wasn't gonna work. So, they kicked the kids out of the high school, and put the illegal immigrants there. Sorry kids, you're back to remote learning.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/10/metro/floyd-bennett-madison-remote-after-students-booted-for-migrants/

[ThePublius]

One would think that someone in NYC government - anyone! - would have the foresight, and take the initiative, to build barracks-like housing for these people. I know, folks would start calling them "camps," or prisons, or something, but a clean, comfortable, well policed migrant camp, as temporary housing, would be a good thing, and could probably be built relatively inexpensively. It would be good for the migrants, and good for the local economy, in materials, labor, and so forth. Might even be able to employ migrants to help build them, teach them construction skills - building, electrical, plumbing, painting, and so forth.

[Brett Bellmore]

The plan was that all the illegal aliens would be dumped in flyover land. It didn't occur to them that flyover land might redump them.

[ThePublius]

Yes. Why not re-open Ellis Island? That's exactly what it was built for.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is not, in fact, what it was built for.

[ThePublius]

Oh, really? What was if built for, then?

[David Nieporent]

Processing immigrants. Not housing them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not only were immigrants not housed at Ellis Island . . . but they also were pushed out as quickly as possible.

My family's name changed at Ellis Island because a processing agent didn't want to write a name that long (nine letters) on a form.

I was told my ancestor's strenuous objections -- he was brought to America by one of the country's largest corporations for an executive position, and expected to be treated with greater respect -- concluded when the agent looked up, handed a completed form to him, and said, 'Welcome to America, Mr. [abbreviated name]. Next!"

[ThePublius]

"On April 11, 1890, the federal government ordered the magazine at Ellis Island be torn down to make way for the U.S.'s first federal immigration station at the site.[59] The Department of the Treasury, which was in charge of constructing federal buildings in the U.S.,[94] officially took control of the island that May 24.[91]"

Ellis Island from Wikipedia

Sure, the island existed since pre-history, and there was a fort there previously. But the existing facility was built specifically to deal with immigrants.

What say you?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The immigration station was built to "deal with" immigrants arriving in New York Harbor by cataloging them and giving them medical examinations before (primarily) sending them on to New York City and thence wherever else in the country they wanted to go, not housing them after they had already entered the country elsewhere.

I kind of thought this was common knowledge, but it is also discussed on the very wikipedia page you were reading, if you didn't already know.

[BrianL.]

Actually, the school was closed for one day, the 10th, due to extreme weather. They moved the migrants into the school for that day, and the kids went back to school today, the 11th.

[ThePublius]

Where did you see that? I can't find a story with that ending.

[Noscitur a sociis]

https://www.madisonhs.org/

In-Person Instruction will Resume January 11

Regular in-person instruction will resume on Thursday, January 11, 2024.

[ThePublius]

Thank you.

[Mr. Bumble]

BS.

[Bob from Ohio]

"extreme weather"

Thank goodness there is no more chance of extreme weather this winter.

[Armchair]

"Actually, the school was closed for one day, the 10th, due to extreme weather."

--Because the illegal immigrants needed the space. No other records of high schools in NYC being closed due to extreme weather on this date were found. Just this one.

[Mr. Bumble]

House committee votes to cite Hunter Biden for ignoring the subpoena to appear. How will the whole House vote? Will it matter since the DOJ is unlikely to take any action?

[Michael P]

Government will shut down until emergency funding is passed to renovate Congress and build the secret House jail.

[MoreCurious]

Nice attempt at diversion, i.e., starting a new thread on the same topic in order to avoid having to explain why the Republicans on the committee are afraid to have Hunter answer their questions in an open, public hearing. Cowards and clowns -- that's what the House Republicans have become.

[Life of Brian]

I'd imagine that nobody's engaging with your repeated distraction because they're just tired of repeating themselves.

As has been explained by practicing attorneys a number of times over the past couple of months this media meme has been making the rounds, depositions 1) are conducted by lawyers, not politicians, 2) are conducted to obtain sworn factual testimony, not to engage in public political posturing, 3) are conducted in an orderly fashion rather than a circus atmosphere, with the questioner generally taking hours to carefully explore subjects in detail and adapt the questioning to how the witness's testimony is developing before turning the microphone over to countering questions by the deponents' attorney, rather than the single-digit-minute back and forth time slices afforded in public hearings where a witness can much more readily stonewall/filibuster an unfriendly line of questioning and run out the clock, and 4) are conducted in private precisely because they often concern subject matter and/or the deponent him/herself does not wish to be publicly disclosed.

As I've said repeatedly, Hunter is free to stand in front of a microphone, either before (or, if he's smart, after) the deposition and tell the public whatever he wants to say about his side of the story. But this notion that an unwillingness to substitute a public hearing for a private deposition somehow demonstrates a lack of ability and/or intestinal fortitude on the part of the questioners is just an insincere excuse.

[myself]

Considering that the GOP is trying to impeach Joe Biden without any evidence of wrongdoing from Joe Biden I think it's safe to assume bad faith on behalf of the committee.

As I’ve said repeatedly, Hunter is free to stand in front of a microphone, either before (or, if he’s smart, after) the deposition and tell the public whatever he wants to say about his side of the story.

And do what? Recite the hours long exchange word-for-word in front of the microphones?

It's an obvious game, the GOP members leak parts of the testimony that sound damning out of context (really hard to anticipate what that is even after the interview) and that sets the initial framing for the media. Hunter can respond after, but it's much harder to dislodge an entrenched narrative.

But this notion that an unwillingness to substitute a public hearing for a private deposition somehow demonstrates a lack of ability and/or intestinal fortitude on the part of the questioners is just an insincere excuse.

The committee could offer a private deposition but pledge to immediately release the full records. Wouldn't that satisfy Hunter's public concerns as well as all of the issues you laid out? Has the committee made that offer? No? Then they're being insincere.

[Life of Brian]

The committee could offer a private deposition but pledge to immediately release the full records. Wouldn’t that satisfy Hunter’s public concerns as well as all of the issues you laid out? Has the committee made that offer? No? Then they’re being insincere.

It's not a realistic offer to make if they ultimately want the deposition rather than political posturing. To make that deal, Hunter would be blindly agreeing to the public release of that deposition transcript/video no matter the content, and there's no way a competent attorney would advise that he do so even if were so inclined.

Again, in a deposition a witness doesn't have the same sort of outcards as they do in a public hearing -- they ultimately either have to answer the questions or refuse to do so, both of which would almost certainly be problematic. The deposition certainly would go into a level of detail on his business dealings that most rational people wouldn't want to just plaster up on the wall for all to see, and refusing to answer runs directly counter to his indignant "nothing to hide" shtick.

[Nelson]

"It’s not a realistic offer to make if they ultimately want the deposition rather than political posturing."

C'mon. The only people who think this isn't political posturing are people who have never heard anything about it.

Anyone with awareness of the situation and a brain knows future testimony will be handled in the same dignified, professional, and classy way that all previous testimony has ... meaning nothing like classy, dignified and professional.

Comer and the Republicans will take the testimony and use it to present blatant falsehoods to the press in the hopes of scoring partisan points, unconcerned about their complete lack of integrity.

The things they say will be transparently false once the transcript comes out, but they'll get about a week of propaganda out of it, with the possibility that some of their lies stick with people.

Hunter should just do what every high-profile Republican did when the Democrats were in charge. Ignore it. As history has shown, there aren't any repercussions.

Joe Biden isn't corrupt and the more Republicans try to prove it, the more obvious it becomes. Hunter Biden is a dirtbag and everyone knew it before this nonsense started. Joe hasn't mixed his business with Hunter's because he (and everyone else) was aware of the danger of doing so.

I know the zealots on the right fringe desperately want their fantasies to be true. But they aren't.

[Life of Brian]

Hunter should just do what every high-profile Republican did when the Democrats were in charge. Ignore it. As history has shown, there aren’t any repercussions.

Steve Bannon would like a word.

[Nelson]

So you're trying to equate someone who openly and publicly refused to come to Congress when subpoenaed to someone who's willing to come but, due to the repeated lying to the press by Comer and others about behind-closed-doors testimony, is requiring a public hearing?

It definitely is ... a way to look at it. Not honest or reasonable, but it's a way.

[Kenneth Almquist]

“To make that deal, Hunter would be blindly agreeing to the public release of that deposition transcript/video no matter the content...”

Are you saying that, in the absence of a deal requiring the release, the Committee would have to obtain Hunter’s permission before releasing all or part of the deposition?

[Life of Brian]

Nice try, but actually I wasn't saying anything at all about that. If such a deal was struck, Hunter certainly would be waiving any basis to contest the disclosure of any particular information, whatever that basis might otherwise be.

[Kenneth Almquist]

But Hunter wouldn't have any legal basis to contest the disclosure in any case. The Committee has released deposition transcripts in the past. It even released the Devon Archer deposition, revealing that Comer had lied about the contents of that deposition. If Hunter appears for a deposition, he should expect the transcript to be released. Any competent lawyer would advise Hunter that if he appears for a deposition without an explicit agreement by the Committee not to release the transcript, the Committee could release the transcript no matter what the content.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure, "If we do it in public we'll be forced to individually grandstand rather than letting an actually competent practicing lawyer handle the questioning" was the strong argument you thought it was.

[Life of Brian]

And I'm not sure what in the world you read in my comment that you twisted into the bit you put in quotation marks. But who's keeping score?

[MoreCurious]

You can choose to believe me or not, but I know -- perhaps better than you -- exactly what depositions and legislative hearings are. Comer is a clown, and the Republicans on his committee are perpetuating a circus. He's interested in hurting the Bidens merely to distract attention from the fact that his party is led by the dumbest, most immoral, most unethical, most feckless, most evil person to have ever been president. Comer knows there is no there there, but as long as he can find a television camera, nothing will stop his exercise in inanity.

[Life of Brian]

I'll take you at your word, but I'm not sure how that really improves things if you deeply understand the vast differences between depositions and hearings and yet continue to flog people with soundbite partisan media memes that present them as interchangeable.

[Commenter_XY]

Today, the International Court of Justice in the Hague hears the lawsuit put forward against Israel by South Africa. RSA has formally alleged that Israel is/was/will commit genocide in Gaza.

From a legal standpoint, what does this actually do? For instance, will access to capital markets be restricted because of new regulations vis a vis lending to Israel?

Not that this will happen, but what if the ICJ said to Israel, “Stop, or we will find your declared war in Gaza is genocide”?

The war is the war, and the policies are the policies, and the people are the people…I am interested in and asking about the legal aspects of the fallout of an adverse decision to Israel.

[Armchair]

It will just further neuter the ICJ with an adverse decision.

[John F. Carr]

The ICJ is based on the assumption that countries follow treaty obligations. See https://icj-cij.org/how-the-court-works

Suppose the ICJ orders Israel to stop attacking Gaza. Israel will refuse to comply. A vote of the Security Council will be required to enforce the order. The United States will veto any resolution of substance.

[Martinned]

A vote in the Security Council doesn't necessarily settle the matter either. Countries ignore those all the time. It's all still words on a page, but that's the best we've got on a global level.

[Martinned]

what if the ICJ said to Israel, “Stop, or we will find your declared war in Gaza is genocide”?

They would be sent back to remedial undergraduate international law. There is a genocide here or there isn't. And if there is, the ICJ has an obligation to find that there is. There is no threatening about it.

But to answer your broader question: the ICJ operates strictly in the realm of international law. If the ICJ finds that there is a genocide here, Israel has an obligation under the genocide convention to stop. But then, it already had that obligation anyway. It's like any suit to enforce a contract, except without any means to enforce the judgment.

That's what's happening in Ukraine v. Russia as well. The ICJ ordered Russia to discontinue its hostilities, as a preliminary measure, but Russia is still shooting. It had an obligation under art. 2(4) UN Charter not to invade Ukraine, and now it has the same obligation pursuant to the ICJ's order too. And yet it's still shooting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

South Africa?!?

It's not like they aren't involved in their own genocide of White farmers...

[Martinned]

They're not, actually.

[Bwaaah]

Another genocide? How many is that now? Like 10 genocides going on?

It's enough. I'm so over genocide.

[Bob from Ohio]

South Africa hates "genocide" in Gaza but likes actual genocide in Darfur.

I can't post links but the picture shows Mr. Daglo with a smiling South Africa president.

"Sudan paramilitary chief bids for legitimacy in Africa tour: analysts

Cairo (AFP) – Sudan's paramilitary chief spent the first months of the country's war in the shadows. Now he has emerged to embrace civilian politicians and tour African capitals in a bid for international legitimacy, analysts say.
Mohamed Hamdan Daglo -- commonly known as Hemeti -- commands the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) which the United States accused of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in Sudan's Darfur region during its war with the army.

But since late December Daglo has been on his first wartime trip abroad, meeting government leaders in Uganda, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa and Rwanda."

[David Nieporent]

The whole thing is moot, because the San Francisco city council passed a resolution yesterday calling for a ceasefire, so the war is now over.

[Armchair]

Looks like San Francisco is going to be worse for Jews in the future. New teaching out of the schools condemns "Israeli terrorism" as worse than that of Hamas.

Sure, Hamas raped and killed innocent Israeli civilians, and may have thrown some Israeli babies in ovens...

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/exclusive-san-francisco-school-district-directs-teachers-to-resources-that-condemn-israeli-terrorism-as-worse-than-hamas/

[Sarcastr0]

San Francisco Unified School District administrators instructed high-school teachers to engage in classroom discussions about the Israel-Hamas war using an educational resource that argues, “Israeli terrorism has been significantly worse than that of the Palestinians,” according to memos obtained by a parental-rights watchdog group and shared exclusively with with National Review.

This one source is likely not the only one. It is therefore a lie to say this is what schools in SF are teaching.

Also, maybe don't speak for the Jews of San Fran?

Also also "may have thrown some Israeli babies in ovens" is something I think you should probably source.

[Commenter_XY]

Some SF teachers used the materials, or they did not. They did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's a violation of California law -- California has a law which states that all curriculum must be approved by the STATE and that teachers are explicitly prohibited from introducing any other materials into their classrooms.

I was surprised when I came across this in the course of my doctoral research which is why I remember it.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 stands strong with Hamas by implying that maybe the baby's parents rather than Hamas put it in that oven!

[Sarcastr0]

I like actual facts, not lies.

By saying that means I stand with Hamas, it is clear you don't care about the truth.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not lies"

Oh, its a lie now, you are no longer merely skeptical.

Your "both side-ism" is slipping.

[Sarcastr0]

'It is therefore a lie to say this is what schools in SF are teaching.'

I was never skeptical; it was always a lie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"maybe don’t speak for the Jews of San Fran?"

Good thing he just expressed his opinion then.

Nothing said he was speaking for the Jews of San Fran.

[Armchair]

Ah, Sarcastr0's guide to covert antisemitism.

Step 1: Deny, downplay, or obfuscate antisemitic actions in the US. Check.
Step 2: Deny, pretend ignorance, or demand evidence of horribly atrocities committed against the Jews. ie
"--The events of October 7th didn't happen."
-"What evidence is there for the Holocaust"
"You need to source the well reported facts of Israeli Jewish Babies being found in ovens burnt alive after the events of October 7th"
-Check.
Step 3: Engage in some blood libel.
Step 4: Pretend to be horribly offended when your antisemetism is called out.
Step 5: Repeat.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit accusing me of blood libel, or back it up.

Asshole.

[Commenter_XY]

You are not an anti-semite.

Misinformed...yes, from time to time.
Mistaken...occasionally.
Misguided on the nature of some groups of people...Uh yes.

[SimonP]

Is this "six degrees of anti-semitism"?

Your own paraphrase isn't an accurate summary of the link you provided. The story at the link refers to a memo that lists various resources that includes one that cites various articles and viewpoints, including one in particular that includes an unobjectionable statement about degrees of moral wrong, a statement that is then cherry-picked by you to make it seem like this is now part of the curriculum in San Francisco.

Hamas killed 1200 innocent Israelis. Israel has at this point has killed more than 10,000 Palestinian children and has shown no signs of stopping. Which is worse? Gosh, who could possibly say?

[Krayt]

The Next Generation Enterprise D goes into battle.

Picard: Lieutenant Worf, open fire!

Worf: Aye! (Pew pew, pew pew)

Enemies fire back, pew pew.

Ship rocks.

Picard: Open a channel to the enemy ship.

Hot Lt. Hoshi, on loan from Enterprise: Channel open

Picard: Stop firing! We have women and children, whole families, over 2000 non-combatant civilians!

Enemy ship pauses.

Picard: Worf, open fire!

Etc.

[SimonP]

"An unlimited number of civilian casualties are acceptable, if deemed necessary to deter future attacks."

[Ike B.]

“[A]n unobjectionable statement about degrees of moral wrong” is generous. The paper in question is arguing for a framework that allows one to reach a judgment of “just” terrorism.

Notably, when evaluating whether Hamas’s cause is “just” (a key piece of the framework) the author… evades. Because Hamas’s [stated] goals [(i.e., the destruction of Israel)] are fanciful, he suggests that they’re not serious and shouldn’t be taken seriously, and then rather than discuss what the real objectives would be to judge under the framework he set out, he shifts to a discussion of why Israel should negotiate, and blames it for failing to do so sufficiently.

This one guy writing one article for one think tank behind one educational resource listed among others in one memo to schoolteachers isn’t enough for me, a Jew in California, to tear my hair out. Neither is it, however, worth bending over backwards to defend: https://mepc.org/journal/terrorism-and-israeli-palestinian-conflict

Whether you ultimately agree with Professor Slater or not, it’s not a robust piece of scholarship, and we shouldn’t pretend it is.

[Edited]

[SimonP]

And neither is this a serious attempt to rebut it.

Anyway, my point wasn't to "defend" any particular argument in favor of "just" terrorism. It was to illustrate how far off-base Armchair's own claims were.

[Ike B.]

Here's where you get to the antisemitic aspect of it:

Slater's article proposes what would be a pretty drastic reexamination of how we understand terrorism and the destruction of civilian objects. It would have wide-ranging repercussions for conflicts around the world. I think this is unwise, but as an academic matter it's not, by itself, especially problematic.

To explore this reexamination, Slater proposes to use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a long-standing one and he explains all the reasons why he would, but some of those reasons are unique to the American perspective. He doesn't really pretend it's an objective criteria; one might instead choose a different ongoing conflict (like the civil war in Yemen that is still nominally hot) or, perhaps, a conflict that has long-since ended (like the remnants of Yugoslavia). Using a subjective criteria to select the Israel/Palestine conflict, much like Slater's novel theory of just terror, isn't by itself problematic.

And then there's the application of his rubric, which is done poorly. That is a bit problematic, academically, but shoddy scholarship isn't antisemitic by itself, either. The real problem is combining all three: we're inventing new rules, applying them conspicuously to Israel, and then flagrantly bending those new rules to reach the outcome we always wanted, anyways. This is the antisemitic double-standard. This is the kind of work that contributes to the educational resources recommended by the district. That is problematic. Like I said, a Jew raising Jewish children California public schools, I know the Middle East is going to be a fraught subject and mistakes are going to be made. I'm not tearing my hair out about the curriculum (though, a caveat, my oldest is only in the 3rd grade). But it's a mistake, and criticism is warranted, even if Armchair's more than a little off his rocker.

[SimonP]

Slater’s article proposes what would be a pretty drastic reexamination of how we understand terrorism and the destruction of civilian objects.

He also explains why the "new rule" isn't actually that drastic a departure from what we actually believe, citing several instances where "terrorism" was officially or tacitly accepted as an acceptable tactic.

To explore this reexamination, Slater proposes to use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Yes, he proposes to apply his rubric to a scenario where the issue is of central importance in current events, while writing for a think tank focused on the relevant region.

And then there’s the application of his rubric, which is done poorly.

Presto-change-o, his argument is anti-semitic!

I'm not sure where you think Slater's analysis goes wrong - your paraphrases of his argument so far have been wildly off-base - but I think it's noteworthy that he concludes his analysis:

All this said, the argument here should not be construed as a defense of Palestinian terrorism. In the final analysis, despite mitigating circumstances not available to Israel, Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians — even those whose purpose is to end the occupation, let alone to destroy Israel — cannot be justified (as opposed to mitigated), either in terms of morality or, at least in recent years, in terms of their consequences.

The whole point, in other words, is just to say that, while there are no "clean hands" in the conflict, and continued terrorist attacks by Hamas against civilian targets in Israel lack moral justification, Israel's own attacks against civilian targets in Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt are not motivated by their need to act in their self-defense, are not the last available means to do so, and are not even conducive to that end. Their terrorism is thus worse than Hamas's, when evaluated under this "just war" rubric. I see nothing wrong with that conclusion, and it's certainly not "anti-semitic."

[Ike B.]

“Presto-change-o, his argument is anti-semitic!”

That’s an aggressive misreading of what I actually wrote, given that the very next sentence includes the phrase “but shoddy scholarship isn’t antisemitic by itself.” It’s blatant enough that I’m not gonna bother finishing the rest of your comment. Have a day.

[SimonP]

No, you made the equally specious assertion that a combination of non-anti-semitic factors could support the conclusion that Slater's argument was anti-semitic. My response addressed this specious argument by considering each factor, in turn, and then mocking the strange hand-wavey magic you applied to support your conclusory mischaracterization, before rebutting it with Slater's own words.

Flounce if you like. I find that trolls often do, when I've logically cornered them, as I have, you.

[David Nieporent]

No, you made the equally specious assertion that a combination of non-anti-semitic factors could support the conclusion that Slater’s argument was anti-semitic.

Buying a gun, putting on a ski mask, and parking outside a bank are not crimes. Indeed, each of them in isolation is innocuous. Obviously, therefore, nobody can be convicted of a crime for doing all of them consecutively. It would be "strange hand-wavey magic" to even consider them as reflecting criminal intent.

[SimonP]

I'm genuinely astonished that you felt the need to come into this stale thread to leave such a stupid comment. (I had come back, personally, just to see if I had managed to bait Ike into responding one last time.)

Buying a gun, putting on a ski mask, and parking outside a bank, considered all together, done consecutively, would still not be a crime. Right? What crime is it supposed to be?

If your point is that they are all constituent elements of an attempt at bank robbery (once further facts and acts are asserted), then that is also just as true of each of them, considered in isolation, once those necessary further facts and acts are asserted.

Like, honestly. You jumped in here to try to be clever and stump for Israel. But you've fallen flat on your face.

Never mind that your example is completely inapposite. Whether an argument is "anti-semitic" isn't determined the same way one determines whether a course of conduct is criminal. And even if it were, your example lacks the same kind of element that would be required to show that Slater's argument is "anti-semitic."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

How would the fact that the schools are using literature critical of the Israeli government make the city worse for Jews?

[Krayt]

In the fantasized we’re-criticizing-Israeli-politics-not-Jews clear conscience sleeps like a baby, maybe not.

When looking about the Earth at eruptions of anti-semitism, maybe pursuing such could be tempered?

[Nige]

Three things are true: anti-semitism is bad and its current resurgence is horrifying.
The Hamas attacks were evil atrocities.
The actions of the Israeli government are horrifying.

You do not, in fact, have to temper any of those views, and they are not in conflict with each other.

[Armchair]

War is horrifying.... That's why we have laws to try to prevent some of the horror. Laws like.
1. Don't put military operations centers under civilian hospitals
2. Don't launch rockets from school playgrounds
3. Don't make suicide bomber vests for 12 year olds.

But when one side decides the laws don't apply to them...it gets more horrible. Is it horrible when a 12 year old with a suicide vest charges a soldier and gets shot? Absolutely. But put your horror with the responsible party...the people putting them in that suicide vest.

Remember, this horror could be over tomorrow. All Hamas needs to do is surrender. Any conventional force would in Hamas's shoes. Militarily, Gaza is entirely effectively controlled by Israel, aside from small pockets. A unilateral surrender by Hamas would end this tomorrow, and the Gazan Civilian population would be fine.

But Hamas keeps at it. Keeps using its civilian population as proverbial human shields. Keeps stealing the aid meant for civilians. Keeps on making suicide vests for 12 year olds. Their philosophy is abhorrant, like Nazi-ism in several ways.

(And before you say, well Israel should surrender...remember this. If Hamas surrendered, the Gazan civilian population would be fine. If Israel surrendered, Hamas would go on to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child it could get its hands on, civilian or not.)

[Nige]

'War is horrifying'

Hamas would agree, but some war is clearly more horrifying than others and is merely met with a shrug.

[Armchair]

Hamas "makes" war more horrifying.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As usual, Israel isn't responsible for anything.

They aren't responsible for obliterating 70% of all residential structures in Gaza.

They aren't responsible for prolific use of unguided munitions.

They aren't responsible for the collective punishment of preventing enough food, fuel, water, medicine and other supplies from reaching the citizens of Gaza.

That's all Hamas' fault, and anyone who thinks otherwise is labeled an anti-Semite from the "Israel is never wrong" dipshits.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, for now, the primary responsibility of Israel is to prevail in war over Hamas. They (Hamas members) will die, unlamented and unmourned. Poll after poll after poll of the palestinian population tells the story. The people of Gaza broadly support Hamas, and love the idea of killing every Jew alive. The same is true of palestinians in Judea and Samaria.

Just not feeling particularly sorry for them. If palestinians value their lives, they will not engage with the IDF. That would be a lethal mistake. Just walk the other way and go home.

[Nige]

And get bombed to smithereens.

Its amazing how much wholesale slaughter you can justify to yourself.

[Nige]

Their form of warfare is certainly horrifying, but it's dwarfed by the slaughter and devastation inflicted by Israel - or indeed any other military action by an industrial nation.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So any criticism of the actions of the Israeli government or the IDF is by definition antisemitic? Is that your argument? Or is it that one shouldn't criticize Israel, since it has the potential to lead to actual antisemitism? That's an AIPAC wet dream of an argument.

[Michael P]

Hm: https://www.thestreet.com/technology/chatgpt-maker-has-a-strong-response-to-new-york-times-lawsuit

On the one hand, (I've read that) Hollywood was established in large part because copyright law was regularly unenforced in California, so there's history of laxer enforcement of this specific law.
But on balance, I don't agree that we should immunize people because their business model depends on breaking the law.

[Longtobefree]

Hollywood was established because it has a lot of sunshine, a requirement of early filming technology.

[ThePublius]

...and because Jews were discriminated against in the East Coast film studios of Edison, et.al.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently Hollywood arose in part due to California courts' releatively friendly treatment of patent law rather than copyright law.

[Krayt]

And so southernly so the Mexican border could be quickly reached by people violating Edison's patents.

[Nelson]

Can we all acknowledge that the cultural conservative love of book banning has gotten completely out of hand?

https://themessenger.com/news/florida-school-district-dictionaries-escambia-county-sex-ed?utm_source=onsite&utm_medium=latest_news

[Mr. Bumble]

No.

[SRG2]

Do they allow bibles?

[Brett Bellmore]

I give it better than 50% chance that the inclusion of dictionaries in the list was a bit of sabotage by somebody opposed to the law.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If your law allows that sort of malicious compliance it's not a very good law is it?

[Michael P]

Which statutes do you imagine don't allow that kind of malicious compliance/enforcement before a court says "stop being an idiot"?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you say this every time your side has more zealotry than sense.

[LawTalkingGuy]

TBF to him, this is actually a much more likely candidate for malicious compliance (which again, means the law is bad if it's this easy). Unfortunately this attitude also extends to extremely serious things like reproductive health where they think women and doctors are sabotaging their own care to make conservatives look bad.

[Life of Brian]

Your credulity is touching as always, but this was an internal review by the school librarians, not complaints by parents. This apparently was the checklist they were to use.

It would seem to take quite the white mutiny indeed to determine that a dictionary somehow falls in the ambit of the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I’m busy today,..."

Apparently not that busy.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, seems like the school library's too-clever twist on "firemen first."

[Longtobefree]

We can acknowledge that no books have been banned at all.

[Nelson]

Sure, if you aren't being honest. By that logic, abortion hasn't been banned anywhere, either (except perhaps Idaho? I believe that one is the worst, which is a fierce competition).

[SRG2]

If we take some of the pro-Trump eligibility (and other related) arguments to their logical conclusion, I should be able to get on the ballot on all 50 states despite only being a naturalised citizen and certainly without any signatures in support.

1. Eligibility is only determined after election, not before, and hey, a constitutional amendment might be passed before I take office were I to win. So I should be able to go on the ballot.

2. All requirements like signatures, etc. to go on the ballot impose qualifications in addition to those in the Constitution, and are hence unconstitutional.

This does suggest that such arguments are garbage.

[David Nieporent]

In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, SCOTUS struck down a state term limits law, but somehow contorted themselves into saying that ballot access rules like requiring a certain number of signatures are not actually the same thing as imposing additional qualifications, and are thus fine.

[SRG2]

But wasn't that obiter?

Meanwhile, I wonder whether Thomas will decide that when he said, "Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress" his argument applied to Congress but cannot be applied to the Presidency because it's different owing to differences.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it’s different owing to differences"

But it is different.

If enough states disqualify a candidate for president so he cannot win 270 electoral votes, then voters in other states are deprived of any choice.

If a state disqualifies a senate candidate, only the voters n that state are affected.

[Kazinski]

He may well dissent, or even carry a majority on those grounds, although it might be hard for Kagan to sign on to an opinion based on rejecting precedent is.

Thomas often will follow precedent even when he thinks its mistaken.

Other times he thinks the precedent is so egregiously wrong that it deserves no deference.

[Kazinski]

Well, I don't think laws just trying to ensure an orderly ballot are problematic, if they are fair.

Remember All Gore didn't lose the Florida in 2000 because miscounting hanging chads, he lost because Florida's ballot access laws allowed 10 candidates on the ballot and a democratic county clerk designed a ballot so confusing that 2000 people mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan when they meant to be voting for Al Gore.

Sure its great for Democracy to have lots of choices, what's also great for Democracy is not to have so many choices you can't reliably find the Candidate you actually want and vote for them.

Just look at this mess:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#/media/File%3AButterfly_Ballot%2C_Florida_2000_(large).jpg

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And remember Bush had Big Tobacco on his side…much worse than ZuckBucks. I still can’t believe Big Tobacco’s final move before irrelevancy was making Bush president.

[Brett Bellmore]

" that 2000 people mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan when they meant to be voting for Al Gore."

Yeah, the fact that Buchanan's state campaign chair happened to live in that county probably had nothing to do with his getting an unusually high, (But still tiny.) fraction of the vote there.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree, it probably did not have anything to do with that result. Why would it?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Some states have passed laws requiring that for a candidate to appear on the ballot for federal office, they must meet all eligibility requirements. Some states haven't. Some states only require it for the general election, and not the primary.

"Article II and 14A Section 3 is silent on the question of eligibility to appear on a ballot.

And by the way, I'd sign in support of you appearing on the ballot here in NC. You would only need 9,999 more. I'd have to know a little more before making a monetary donation.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Article II and 14A Section 3 is silent on the question of eligibility to appear on a ballot."

Of course they are! As I keep pointing out, the Australian ballot didn't start being adopted in the US until the 1880's. Without the government printing ballots, there IS no such thing as "eligibility to appear on a ballot".

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha true. They didn't know about wiretapping when they wrote the 4th amendment either, but the 4th amendment is definitely not silent about wiretapping.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’ve been struck by some of the comments on Twitter and elsewhere about the presidential immunity for murder hypo and its relation to impeachment. A lot of people immediately jumped to the president killing or threatening enough representatives and senators to avoid removal. Not a lot of people focused on the much more likely outcome: it would be extremely likely that at least 34 senators would genuinely think their party’s president ordering a rival (or anyone really) killed was not only legal and justified but actually a good thing to be praised.

[Moderation4ever]

I suspect they would be looking around for some excuse. The public saw this in the first two Trump impeachments. Senators were justifying their votes. In the first case they said impeachment is unnecessary as he is inexperienced, but he has learned his lesson. In the second impeachment trial, removal was unnecessary with the excuse being that he will be gone anyway in a few weeks. In the Clinton case the excuse was he lied but it was really about a personal matter, not one that affected the country. No President has ever been removed from office and the lesson is that there is always an excuse for Senators from his party.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Eh. I think if we're at the point that the President is sending out kill teams and enough people in the executive branch are okay with that, we are also at the point that there are likely 34 Senators who have moved from "excuse" to "this is good actually."

[Moderation4ever]

I doubt they would actually say that, as that is not the political way. Most authoritarians don't lock up or kill rivals, rather they are cleaning up corruption. Most of the 34 Senators will not be thinking is this OK, but rather will I be next. As I have often pointed out in comment, the authoritarian way is to first dispatch your rivals and next your friends that might threaten you in the future.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The impeachments of Clinton and Trump worked because the opposite party won in the next presidential election.

[Krayt]

Cheating and lying about it was adjudged insufficient for removal, not serious enough.

Trump’s impeachments were adjudged highly partisan, and so removal was declined.

Hmmmm…need to figure out a way to get around a need for either supermajority or national concensus! A way to kick him where only motivated partisans are a sufficient number.

[Dr. Ed 2]

34 Progressive Democrats?
Sadly, I'm not so sure...

[Michael P]

Apparently Sgt Schultz works at NAIAD.

Fauci also testified that he approved of all foreign and domestic NIAID grants without reviewing the proposals, and conceded that he was unable to confirm whether NIAID has any procedure in place to conduct oversight of the foreign labs they fund.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/fauci-said-he-could-not-recall-specifics-on-covid-origins-pandemic-era-policies-over-100-times-in-closed-door-testimony/ar-AA1mHJud

What's the purpose of a government agency that delegates work without performing oversight?

[Longtobefree]

To provide work for fascists?

[ThePublius]

Trump says he's already decided on a VP. Anyone care to speculate as to who?

I would love a Trump/Ramaswamy ticket! Vivek is a brilliant guy, and it would show that Trump is strong and confident enough to have a smart, young guy on his ticket.

[SimonP]

The smartest guess I've seen is Stefanik. Vivek is too attention-seeking (and he's, uh, still running for president).

[Moderation4ever]

Agree here, Vivek and Trump won't mix.

[ThePublius]

I thought Stefanick should be his press secretary! 🙂

[SimonP]

Given that "press secretary" in a Trump administration means, "someone who never holds press conferences and only speaks with friendly media, and is ideally young and pretty like a FoxNews anchor," that seems like a waste of Stefanik's talent for dissimulation and not a good match for what Trump would want.

How can you have spent so many years fellating Trump metaphorically and be so blind to the way the man works?

[Bwaaah]

Hmm. I seem to have vivid memories of Sarah Huckabee Sanders having pretty much daily press conferences with a very hostile press corps. Is that my imagination? Am I "blind?"

[Bob from Ohio]

And Sarah is not "young" and is not usually considered "pretty"

[SimonP]

She's hotter than you can expect to score.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, gay guy.

You'd be wrong though.

[Frank Drackman]

Homofobe much?

[SimonP]

Aw, yeah, scoring some of that fine-ass Huckabee poontang up in here!

Still, low bar.

[SimonP]

That's all you remember, because the two press secretaries who followed Sarah were exactly as I described.

[Kazinski]

Hey, I'd hit Karine Jean-Pierre too. And if her wife was part of a double header, that wouldn't be a turnoff either.

[Kazinski]

Jen Psaki too.

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/05/05/gettyimages-1240471748_wide-292dbe73542137026584a52e540d3b01ff9530c3-s900-c85.webp

[SimonP]

I didn't ask, Ted.

[Kazinski]

You never have to ask a guy who he'd hit on, we are always ready to volunteer the information like we got a chance.

[SimonP]

If you're trying to demonstrate a connection between MAGA conspiratorial nonsense and a penchant for blithely sharing sexual peccadilloes with an unreceptive and indifferent audience, Teddy, consider the point taken.

[Kazinski]

I was just joining in on the topic you started:

"press secretary” in a Trump administration means, “someone who never holds press conferences and only speaks with friendly media, and is ideally young and pretty like a FoxNews anchor,”

"Aw, yeah, scoring some of that fine-ass Huckabee poontang up in here!"

Its me that's out of line?

And I'm not going just sit here and let you insinuate that Joe can't find attractive press secretaries to hire.

[SimonP]

I didn't say you were out of line, Ted. I was saying that you're gross. The sexual fantasies of a pathetic retirement-age backwoods paint-huffer are not appealing topics of discussion. I might just as easily ask the homeless guy down the street what he's into.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the press secretary holds a press conference, answers questions, and the media don't report on it, does it really happen?

[Bwaaah]

For half the country, it becomes immaterial.

[Bob from Ohio]

"young and pretty like a Fox News anchor,”

Sean Spicer erasure.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. But remember how he "only spoke with friendly media?"

[Krayt]

Vivek is a sack of shit, licking Trump's balls to abandon Ukraine, as Trump licks Putin's balls to abandon Ukraine, in a bizarre twist on a human centipede.

[Moderation4ever]

My first guess is Spiro Agnew. Now he is dead, but Trump likely doesn't know that.

[ThePublius]

Occasionally I get a craving for fast food. I installed the apps for McDonalds, Burger King, and a couple of others. Has anyone else experienced that these apps are broken? Hard to use, hard to understand, etc. Such junk!

How can that be? One would think these huge corporations would have working apps.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Think about how many millions of people order McDonalds every day.

Now imagine if you couldn’t figure out how to do it.

Now imagine blaming McDonalds.

[ThePublius]

Not a very useful comment. Have you tried the app? What has your experience been?

I'm not the only one, many people complain about this.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve said “#2 with a diet coke” so many times I can do it in my sleep. Come to think of it, I think I’ve done it in my sleep. Sometimes more technology isn’t better, see “Max, 737” and to show I’m not just slamming Boeing, see “Air France 447”

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, I have ordered food on the McDonalds app. I had no difficulties doing so. And while I'm sure it has occasional bugs like any other piece of software, if you're consistently having problems that sounds like a you problem.

[Absaroka]

Alternatively, the app works on your version of android/ios, and not his version.

I always pitied the poor web developers, because they had to make sure their stuff worked across several different browsers, and multiple releases of each. I was doing the back end stuff, so it only had to work on one platform.

[ThePublius]

Canada has gone bat-shit crazy woke. Holy cow!

Canadian police warn that posting videos of alleged package thieves could be ‘violation' of their privacy

Don't they have freedom of speech there? I mean, how can posting a video taken by one's doorbell camera, i.e., a video of a public place, be a violation of anyone's expectation of privacy? And, the video is clear-cut evidence that the crime is not alleged, it occurred!

Wow.

[Martinned]

This is not actually very difficult. The fact that a video is taken in a public space doesn't mean that it doesn't violate the privacy of the people in it. The most obvious example is upskirting videos, but more generally the fact that a certain identifiable person was in a certain place at a certain time is not the kind of information that they should accept can be put on the internet.

The fact that the video shows the commission of a crime is completely irrelevant here. Evidence of a crime should be handed over to the police. It doesn't belong on the internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This is not actually very difficult. "

True. In the US, there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy so there is none for acts done in public.

[Martinned]

Let's add that to the list of things Americans don't understand...

[Frank Drackman]

What if Hunter Biden rapes one of his Crack Whores on my doorstep? (Could happen)

[David Nieporent]

The fact that a video is taken in a public space doesn’t mean that it doesn’t violate the privacy of the people in it.

Sure it does. Your “upskirting” counterexample doesn’t work because in fact it would be illegal to look up someone’s skirt even if one wasn’t videoing it; the space under someone’s skirt is not a ‘public space.’

The fact that the video shows the commission of a crime is completely irrelevant here. Evidence of a crime should be handed over to the police. It doesn’t belong on the internet.

Someone committing a crime has waived any right to privacy (EDIT: with respect to that crime, I mean.)

[Bored Lawyer]

I am not sure that crime and privacy have anything to do with each other.

You can video people walking on the street, who are committing no crime. They lack an expectation of privacy, and under US law at least, you could post the video on the internet.

Conversely, if you video someone committing a crime in a private area (say, smoking marijuana in his bedroom), I am not sure you lost all privacy rights. Sure, you could hand the video over to law enforcement. But post on the internet? Not clear to me.

[Krayt]

Just a logical conclusion of the bizarre sentiment outside the US, worn as a badge of honor, a virtue signalling, "First Amendment? We don't need no stinking First Amendment!"

[Martinned]

Well, sort of. I think that the evidence that the US version of Free Speech, as compared to the European version, has been a net good for the US is distinctly lacking.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned, I hope you are wrong about that. Street photography has a long history as a U.S. art form, without any legal requirement that the people photographed sign releases. Photojournalism generally would also seem implicated.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Forget it, Stephen. It's Europe.

[David Nieporent]

I thought it was Canada.

[Noscitur a sociis]

America's Europe.

[Krayt]

"It's like the US, but without the gun."

"Or the freedom of speech."

[Martinned]

As it does elsewhere: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/jan/03/robert-doisneau-paris-kiss-photograph-francoise-bornet-young-lover-dies

But you can't just go around taking (close up) pictures of random people in the street. That's not just a question of privacy, but also of their right of portrait. (As I think the concept is called in English.) People can't make money off my likeness without my consent. But of course genuine journalism is another matter, as are photos where no one is visible clearly enough that they can be identified.

[Noscitur a sociis]

more generally the fact that a certain identifiable person was in a certain place at a certain time is not the kind of information that they should accept can be put on the internet.

Come on dude. I know we've got some dim bulbs around here, but surely you don't think we're dumb enough to believe that anyone could actually believe that?

[Bored Lawyer]

"The fact that a video is taken in a public space doesn’t mean that it doesn’t violate the privacy of the people in it."

Who says they are in a public space? The video I saw at the link shows someone stealing a package from another person's front porch, which he accessed by going up a walkway and then several stairs. All private property.

If you come onto private property, especially without permission, I find it very difficult to say you have privacy interests at that locale.

[Krayt]

Iirc, barring fences and no tresspassing signs, your front porch and door are the traditional public access to knock and talk to you, under First Amendmenr rights, which is why people can leave flyers and unsubscribed newspapers and not be accused of littering.

Whether public or private, the owner would have the right to film.

But that's in a country with a First Amendment, not one of those "We don't need no stinking First Amendment" hellholes where politicians abridge free speech to accolades of the population and their own winning of elections.

[Martinned]

Who says they are in a public space?

ThePublius did. I started from their characterisation of the situation.

But, for the record, no, you shouldn't be able to record people who are in your house - by invitation or otherwise - without their permission and put those recordings on the internet.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not even burglars? You really are carrying a maybe defensible position beyond all reason, if you suggest criminals have a right to privacy to prevent images of them committing a crime from being public.

[Absaroka]

That's interesting. I don't think it would fly in the US.

And the first few hits I got searching for "canadian privacy law photography in public" sound like things are the same in Canada, for example:

"In both Canada and the U.S., there is little or no basis for preventing anyone – journalist or ordinary citizen – from taking photos in a public place."

(and it goes on to detail arrests of people e.g. photographing the police, getting detained, and the police admitting they were wrong)

Other sources use the same 'reasonable expectation of privacy' language the US has, and it's hard to see how a porch pirate or burglar can claim that.

It would be interesting to see an authoritative discussion of the assertion by the police,

[Sarcastr0]

Privacy laws are woke now.

Or just everything ThePublius doesn't like is woke.

[Absaroka]

I wouldn’t say that privacy laws in general are ‘woke’, but one of the things that comes under the ‘woke’ umbrella is an overweening concern for the rights of criminals.

And ‘because it could violate the “private life” of the alleged thieves’ seems to meet that criteria. We’re not talking about beating confessions out of presumed innocent defendants. This is about people posting video taken on their own doorsteps of thieves in the act of stealing packages. What next – bank robbers have a privacy interest in the bank surveillance video?

I get that you don’t like people saying ‘woke’, but the term has entered the lexicon, see definition 2:

“politically liberal or progressive (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme”

I for one consider objecting to posting video of thieves on privacy grounds to be unreasonable.

[Nige]

'is an overweening concern for the rights of criminals.'

They're exactly the same rights as everyone else, and probably shouldn't be treated as inconveniences or disposable.

[ThePublius]

That's not true, Sarcastr0, in both aspects. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy for something done in a public place, or in the curtilage of one's house, for heaven's sake! You're saying I can't record what happens on my doorstep, and post it? What if I had a 24/7 webcam there?

And, why do you persist in personal attacks without providing any interesting content?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying none of that screams woke to me, and you're applying US law to Canada.

I'm criticizing your comment, which was: 'Canada has gone bat-shit crazy woke' followed by a story that didn't seem very much about wokeness to me (abrasoka's comment aside).

[Martinned]

Here is some further reading: UK government guidance on putting up CCTV cameras on your property. (Allowed, as long as they don't cover the street or neighbouring property.)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property

[Martinned]

Here is more guidance on all things CCTV from the UK Information Commissioner's Office, i.e. the privacy regulator: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/cctv-and-video-surveillance/guidance-on-video-surveillance-including-cctv/how-can-we-comply-with-the-data-protection-principles-when-using-surveillance-systems/

[Ed Grinberg]

This is a good illustration of how morally obtuse "liberals" are.
(Canada today is a "liberal" country par excellence.)

[Frank Drackman]

They don't (have freedom of speech) in Canada.
Ask Dr. Jordan Peterson.

Frank

[JJJSSS]

5th circuit opinion from Judge Ho denying qualified immunity for an officer who tased an unresisting man at a traffic stop. Holding is that tasing itself counts as excessive force even if there's no lasting injury.

Opinion is here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-20644-CV0.pdf

[LawTalkingGuy]

Blind squirrel.

[Gasman]

So Navajo nation wants to block the delivery of human remains (really just cremains and DNA samples) to the moon.
This is on the theory that they saw the moon first, revere the moon, and as a result cannot tolerate the desecration of the moon with human remains. It is for the moment mooted by the landing craft's in-flight issues that will prevent it from completion of the present mission.

NASA has already left 'human remains' on the moon, and no one has raised a stink about that for the past 50 years.

If North Americans descendants of peoples living here in 1491 want to have some credible claims to property rights on the ground, they need to give this up. If spiritual beliefs can lay claim to real estate, then the first humans of Olduvai who saw the moon get dibs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they saw the moon first"

Would like to see the evidence for that!

[Noscitur a sociis]

While this complaint is quite stupid, neither the quotes in the article nor the Navajo Nation press release nor the letter sent to NASA appear to make this particular claim.

[Gasman]

Indeed, yes, I did in all jocularity mis-attribute to the Navajo the toddler's rule of acquisition, "I saw it first, therefore it is mine"

[Longtobefree]

Do the Navajo realize they actually lost the wars?
Does any treaty give them rights to/on/in the moon?

[Frank Drackman]

I've got "Reservations" about this whole Ish-yew

[Michael P]

The satellite failed to launch properly, and will miss the Moon entirely. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=PEREGRN-1

It's not currently clear whether anyone attributes the failure to supernatural entities being upset at the attempted (alleged) desecration.

[John F. Carr]

Found a religion that claims the Moon as its sacred burial ground.

[Absaroka]

Oddly enough, that's one of the central tenets of we Lunatics. Lunar burial is our Hajj. Blessed be the Holy Tidal Presence.

[M L]

If COVID was a lab leak, what should be the consequences of this fact?

[M L]

From Reason today:

Lab Leak Is Not a Conspiracy Theory, Anthony Fauci Concedes

The doctor's claims that he was open to either explanation is flatly contradicted by his literal words.

https://reason.com/2024/01/10/lab-leak-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anthony-fauci-concedes/

bonus item:

Fauci to Congress: 6-Foot Social Distancing Guidance Likely Not Based on Data

"sort of just appeared," said Fauci

https://reason.com/2024/01/10/fauci-to-congress-6-foot-social-distancing-guidance-likely-not-based-on-data/

[David Nieporent]

Then people should work on better safety protocols at labs, as well as more inspections to ensure those protocols are being followed.

[M L]

Suppose there is a failure to follow protocols resulting in the deaths of millions of people. Should there be liability for these damages? Or do they just say "Sorry, we'll try to do better next time."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did I do that??

[Absaroka]

As a practical matter, I think you'll have a tough time getting Chinese cooperation in determining whether the virus leaked, and even if you get proof collecting damages will be even more difficult.

But looking forward, it doesn't matter whether or not it leaked. If there was even a 10% chance it was a lab leak then we need to get many times more careful with that kind of research. Like only doing it at an international lab located on a remote atoll or something.

[M L]

Assuming Chinese entities and actors are responsible, collecting damages from whoever was involved (and the Communist government is involved in everything there) would be difficult for the individual families and businesses who suffered to do through ordinary civil proceedings. True. But in this situation, it would rise to the level of a momentous foreign policy issue, for which major concessions or even reparations may rightly be extracted at the foreign policy level.

I disagree that it doesn’t matter looking forward. But to your point, the U.S. already went much farther than being “careful with that kind of research” – they banned it altogether.

[M L]

Also - when I ask whether there should be liability, I don't mean civil liability only, but criminal as well.

[Voize]

U.S. already went much farther than being “careful with that kind of research” – they banned it altogether.

Gain-of-function research wasn't banned. The NIH implemented a 3 year funding moratorium

on gain-of-function research projects that reasonably may be anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the resulting virus has enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility (via the respiratory route) in mammals.

while the government developed a policy and review process. The moratorium did

not apply to characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless these tests reasonably are anticipated to increase transmissibility or pathogenicity.

and funding agencies could grant exceptions.

[David Nieporent]

As a practical matter, I think you’ll have a tough time getting Chinese cooperation in determining whether the virus leaked, and even if you get proof collecting damages will be even more difficult.

Yes, but all that's pretty irrelevant, because the FSIA makes it all but impossible to sue a foreign government for its non-commercial actions in its home country. (Unlike Trump's bullshit arguments earlier this week, that's real immunity.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It seems to me the relevant liability is here at home, though.

Fauci arranged to fund gain of function research in China, which was illegal under US law, and which led to the lab leak.

That's why he was so absolutely determined to discourage the lab leak hypothesis. It led back to his own criminality.

As the whole thing was a result of his violation of US law, HE is liable.

[David Nieporent]

You understand that the phrase "lab leak" does not mean that the virus was created in the lab, right?

[John F. Carr]

"Illegal" needs clarification. There are policies, federal regulations, and statutes. If federal agencies said "no gain of function experiments will be approved" it's a different story than if Congress said "no spending money on gain of function experiments."

[Sarcastr0]

Forget it, Brett does his own legal determinations.

[Don Nico]

David,
There are such protocols; they are embodied in BL-4 facilities. Such a facility does not exist in the Wuhan Virology Lab.

The work being done in Wuhan under US NIH funding was not done in an appropriately bio-secure facility.

[Nige]

They get the ghost of Henry Kissinger to fuck up any recompense to the victims.

If it was actually proven, and not 'proven' as it has been so many times, I'd love to see China and the US bankrupted by compensation claims.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, movement
conservative blog has operated for

SIX (6)

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

ONE (1)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least one discussion
that includes a racial slur, not
necessarily just one racial slur;
many of this blog’s discussions
include multiple racial slurs,
as did the Volokh Conspiracy's
inaugural publication of racial
slurs this year).

It seems likely I occasionally
miss some of the racial slurs
published regularly by this blog.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
gay-bashing, misogynistic, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the bitter,
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, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile. Four singular talents walk onto a stage together . . .

This is a good one, too.

Remember that America continues to progress and can continue to be a force for good if it so chooses; try to be part of modern America improvement rather than pining for illusory “good old days” and getting in the way.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones links:

1. I was in the building for this one, which was unexpectedly good. The Stones were so surprised, and enjoyed this one so much, that they extended the song (which they often do . . . one night a song will be four minutes, then seven the next time, then back to four or five, because this is a crack band performing on the high wire).

2. I missed this one, and you might have, too, but maybe it will get some clicks for a tired old blog as we await the Chief-Dolphins game, which should be the best of the weekend.

[David Nieporent]

the Chief-Dolphins game, which should be the best of the weekend.

…which the vast majority of Americans cannot see because it's on Peacock only.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is a curious and novel turn for the National Football League. Maybe it's part of an odd new world in which Pat McAfee is (or is thought to be) somewhat popular and worthwhile.

[OtisAH]

No, they just wrapped the second season of Thursday Night on Prime. This is all just a peek at where they’re heading. And I can’t believe I’m saying it but there might actually be a point in my life where I’m no longer watching pro football. #sadface

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Random regular season games are far different from playoff games in this context. Most fans can't watch more than half of the regular season's games without pay-for-access packages.

[OtisAH]

It’s better than that even. It’s supposed to be so cold that nobody is buying tickets, which has forced them to bring prices down to, I dunno, 1980s pricing or something. NFL playoff tickets for less than $80.

“Best game of the weekend” seems like a reach at this stage.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Dolphins and Chiefs are accomplished, interesting, talented, entertaining teams with star power and question marks. Weather could make the game more interesting, although Buffalo wind might become as entertaining and influential as Kansas City cold.

Meanwhile, watching indolent heirs and other overmatched amateurs decide (or try to decide -- not sure which is worse, the confidence or the wavering) whether to hire and fire coaches such as Vrabel, Carroll, Reich, and Belichick is great sport.

[Nelson]

Considering the Dolphins have lost all but two of their edge rushers (but they signed two more this week who haven't ever been with the team), their two safeties didn't practice, nor did their #3 wideout and #1 running back, I think it's going to be a massacre.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you going to secure your retirement with that 4.5 proposition line?

[BrotherMovesOn]

It got my clicks. Thanks!

[Krayt]

[David Nieporent]

So there was a bunch of drama over the last couple of days about whether Trump was going to deliver a part of the defense's closing argument in the civil fraud case against him in NY. Because he's represented by counsel, he has no right to do so; he needs permission from the judge. The judge, Engoron, told him via his lawyer that he could if he first promised to confine himself to actual legitimate closing. (Commenting on the evidence, the legal theories, etc.) His lawyer couldn't/wouldn't make such a promise, so Engoron said no, after giving him multiple chances.

So then today his lawyer again asked, and Engoron said, "Will your client promise to behave?" And Trump, rather than saying, "Yes," just started misbehaving, launching into a campaign speech, ranting and whining about Letitia James, the legal system, etc. And Engoron let him get away with it. (To be fair, there's no jury so there's no direct harm. Except to the integrity of the judicial system.)

[Moderation4ever]

What you noted is true and Trump did exactly as Judge Engoron had expected. Where I think this helps is it closes off on avenue for appeal. Engoron has been tough on the Trump team but also has been fair.

[David Nieporent]

It's true that, given that it was a bench trial, it made sense for Engoron to give Trump a lot of leeway in general, in order to foreclose avenues of appeal. But this was never a potential argument for appeal in the first place, so that doesn't apply. "I deserve a new trial because the judge insisted that my lawyer, not me, make the closing argument" is something that James wishes Trump would argue on appeal, because it's so stupid it would make every other argument look dumber in connection.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Donald Trump whines and whimpers more than disaffected right-wing law professors do.

Perhaps this judge can give Trump plenty of whine about -- a verdict, a just penalty (including closure of the Trump Organization and a nine-figure fine), and no mercy during any appeal(s) -- and soon.

[SimonP]

If the never-Trumpers collectively agreed to be outraged by everything done by Haley, to gnash our collective teeth every time she clamps down on immigration and cuts taxes, to wail and cry as she pushes through her agenda, do you think we could convince MAGA to agree with the rest of us that this man-child has no business being president? If Haley promised to be "their retribution"?

[VinniUSMC]

Simple Simon should lay off the 'shrooms before posting.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has raised the lower age limit for sentences of life without parole from 18 to 21 years old. The decision was based on "precedent and contemporary standards of decency in the Commonwealth and elsewhere". The defendant was 18 at the time he committed first degree murder. The court did not need to decide whether 19 or 20 years olds could get life without parole.

Commonwealth v. Mattis

[LawTalkingGuy]

A no-bill in the "abuse of a corpse" case where the Defendant tried and failed to flush a miscarriage.

https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/warren-news/trumbull-county-grand-jury-chooses-not-to-indict-woman-charged-after-miscarriage/

I am not particularly surprised by the no-bill. This prosecution was an egregious abuse of power. It's a rare point in favor of believing the grand jury system is a check on prosecutorial overreach.

[David Nieporent]

It's also possible that the prosecutor tanked it (which is 95% of the no bills, given the applicable standard). The prosecutor might've felt like, "Okay, I scored my points with the anti-abortion crowd by bringing it to the grand jury, but I don't really want to prosecute this dog of a case."

[LawTalkingGuy]

That's certainly plausible, but the local politics of this are actually kind of confusing.

The elected county prosecutor is interestingly enough a Democrat. The municipal law department director of Warren which handled the preliminary hearing in municipal court to bind the case over to the county courts for indictment is also an elected Democrat.

Although, that might be a function of that area having such a strong local party for such a long time that the party affiliation for some positions isn't changing while the views of the officials and voters do. But then again Trumbull County, like most of North East Ohio came out strongly for November 1 abortion rights amendment. 57.3-42.7, which is a slightly wider margin than the statewide result. So its hard to see this as a play for anti-abortion voters.

So its kind of confusing to view it this as pure antiabortion politics by the elected prosecutors.

And after the backlash the elected county prosecutor claimed he was "dutybound" to present the case to the grand jury. Lol, no he's not, but when he said that I had a suspicion he was hoping to use the grand jury bail him out of a shitty situation.

https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/warren-news/ap-ohio-prosecutor-says-hes-duty-bound-to-bring-miscarriage-case-to-a-grand-jury/

So maybe (probably) the county prosecutor's office used the GJ to tank the case without taking a stand either way. And they got there because someone in the City PD and law department clearly had some kind of interest in pushing this.

[John F. Carr]

I did not find a definition of "corpse" in Ohio law. Absent such a definition a dead non-viable fetus may not be a corpse. Plenty of early miscarriages go down the toilet or into a pad to be thrown in the trash. She had a late miscarriage, not so late as to be considered a stillbirth.

This is the law:

(A) No person, except as authorized by law, shall treat a human corpse in a way that the person knows would outrage reasonable family sensibilities.
(B) No person, except as authorized by law, shall treat a human corpse in a way that would outrage reasonable community sensibilities.

It may not be any more vague than infliction of emotional distress.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Even if it is a corpse under Ohio law during the time the heart-beat hill was in effect, I don’t think the State could actually prove it would outrage reasonable family/community sensibilities. Having miscarriages in the bathroom is actually super common and fear and confusion about what to do in the aftermath, especially when the hospital clearly isn’t being helpful. You’d have to find a jury that literally knew nothing about miscarriages AND have them disregard all the testimony about common responses to them. Kind of a tall order.

[hobie]

The lawyer for the lady defendant stated something to the effect of 'how can it be a corpse if it never took a breath?'

But this and all the other horror stories across the nation these past two years begs the question for American women: Is getting pregnant worth all the potential jail time if things go wrong?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nice Jello wrestling match in NH -- Dems saying ignore NH Primary, state saying voter suppression...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-hampshire-serves-cease-and-desist-to-dnc-who-called-their-jan-23-primary-meaningless/ar-AA1mF0sd

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mud wrestling is the superior form.

Not sure how it happened, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then the US Army is having trouble recruiting White males......

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html

[Frank Drackman]

as are the Air Farce, Navy, Marine Corpse, Med Schools...

[ThePublius]

Yea, well, if you treat white males as sub-human, what do you expect?

[Sarcastr0]

Ed links to an article that says he's the problem, but he didn't read the article so he'd prefer to think it's the attack on capital-W-White peeople:

"[S]ome Army officials interviewed by Military.com pointed to struggles by recruits from the South to meet service standards, though there are no indications that recruits from the South are disproportionately white. A 2018 study published in the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice found Southern recruits are 22% more likely to get injured in basic training and had the lowest median levels of fitness compared to troops from other parts of the country.

Nationally, the South has the highest prevalence of obesity, something researchers have attributed to a slew of factors, including restrictions on access to health care, high-quality fitness facilities and healthy food. Large swaths of the South also have relatively low household incomes — putting easy access to fitness training and healthy foods even further out of reach.

Another Army official pointed to partisan attacks from conservative lawmakers and media, which has an overwhelmingly white audience. Those groups have used the military as a partisan cudgel against the Biden administration, lambasting the services for being “woke,” or so preoccupied with liberal values that they have abandoned their warfighting priorities. In most cases, those attacks have zeroed in on the services being more inclusive for women, service members from racial minority groups and LGBTQ+ troops.

“No, the young applicants don’t care about this stuff. But the older people in their life do who have a lot of influence … parents, coaches, pastors,” one Army official told Military.com. “There’s a level of prestige in parts of conservative America with service that has degraded. Now, you can say you don’t want to join, for whatever reason, or bad-mouth the service without any cultural guilt associated for the first time in those areas.”"

[SimonP]

In short, conservatives are, once again, the cause of the problems they complain about.

[Armchair]

One of the issues with Sarcastr0's analysis is that the South is overhwhelmingly where most of the military recruits come from.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/costs/social/Troop%20Numbers%20By%20State_Costs%20of%20War_FINAL.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

*My* analysis is just cutting and pasting from the article Ed linked, chief.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone notice Jamie Raskin lost his Do-Rag? Another accomplishment of my new favorite DemoKKKrat, Senator John Fetterman.

Frank

[OtisAH]

You mean the bandana he’s been wearing since January/February 2023 when he began his cancer treatments, you piece of shit?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another un-American Republican insurrectionist -- this one a silver-spooner and a Republican appointee to an elections board -- has been apprehended for a date with accountability. An exceptionally long term of incarceration would be especially fitting for this loser if he is convicted.

No free swings, clingers.

[Sarcastr0]

New Divided Opinion.

[Don Nico]

Whither goes Biden air attack in Yemen?

[OtisAH]

Nowhere good I fear.

[Mr. Bumble]

What would you consider to be "good"?

[OtisAH]

Not letting Netanyahu suck us into a broader regional war.

[David Nieporent]

What on earth do you think our attacking the Houthi terrorists has to do with Netanyahu?

[Ike B.]

If one is credulous, one might believe the other way to stop Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping is to have Israel declare itself done.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

David, I refuse to believe that you are as ignorant of global politics as you pretend to be here.

[David Nieporent]

The Houthis are attacking global shipping. We are defending it, which is something we have pretty much done since the day the country was founded. We'd be doing that if Netanyahu had never been born. We're not doing it to protect Israel, as some loony online leftists are claiming.

[OtisAH]

David, I think when you have the chaos we see now in the Middle East, plus so many other factors relevant, tangential, or otherwise distracting, the facts of the matter rarely control perceptions and actions.

[Martinned]

Nowhere much. Everything that can be blown up from the sky has already been blown up in the last 10 years.

[Don Nico]

Good point. If true, there is nothing to discourage the Houthis from continuing to attack shipping. Also, can the Houthis be more provocative by striking at Oman?
I am not convinced that there was no downside for Biden approving this attack.

[Martinned]

Blowing things up on the shore seems less effective than deploying navy ships from a coalition of countries to protect ships at sea, like they did with the Somali pirates in the past.

[Absaroka]

I'm not optimistic about dealing with the Houthis, but a policy limited to shooting down the missile but never destroying the launcher seems unwise.

[Martinned]

If you want to do that, you have to send soldiers to physically invade Yemen. (Which I would very much recommend against.)

[Absaroka]

???

Hitting a launcher truck with a JDAM doesn't require a land invasion. What I'm arguing against is a policy of 'we set here offshore and try to shoot down the incoming missiles one after another, but never never never attack them before launch'. That's a dumb policy.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree. There has to be a cost to endangering lives even if, given US technology, the risk to lives isn’t extremely high. The Houthis are trying to sink or damage ships and, given that goal, injure and kill people. They need to feel the risk of dying. What they are doing is not acceptable.

Given Martinned is against attacking Houthi ammo dumps and launchers, what would he propose the US and western countries do in response to the Houthi attacks?

[David Nieporent]

Somali pirates were trying to hijack ships. You can protect the ships by shooting the pirates if they approach too closely. The Houthis are trying to attack the ships from shore. How exactly does the navy protect those ships without addressing the people attacking them? Sure, they can try to shoot down the missiles and drones, but that seems a bit hit or miss, pun intended.

[Ike B.]

Not only hit or miss, but there are supply issues. Shooting down missiles and drones is done with specialized weaponry that costs a lot and doesn't at the moment exist in infinite supply.

[M L]

If you practice law it's always good to discuss your thinking and legal theories with other lawyers to test it. Otherwise, you may end up doing something like arguing that "cocaine can have a positive effect on cognitive abilities in low doses" in a disciplinary hearing. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-who-argued-cocaine-can-be-beneficial-now-says-he-should-have-retained-counsel-in-ethics-case