Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Last Friday when I was scrolling through Thursdays Open Thread for any updates I might have missed. I ran across a post at the bottom of the thread by WAappellate. It seems unbelievable, but I then became aware that a shadowy cabal of Deep State Apparatchiks surreptitiously changed the Constitution to try to undercut the conclusions of my mock draft in Trump v. Anderson.*

Here are the facts: I first published the rough draft of my brief on Jan 8th. The National Archives changed the Constitution of the United States on Jan 12th. I had became aware there were multiple versions of Section 5 floating around about a week ago, and was doing some research on the topic. Thursday’s I noticed a post by WAappelate fleshed out the outline of the story with links to a more thorough account (https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/25/thursday-open-thread-173/?comments=true#comment-10415803), that explained what changed and why and a link to and screenshots documenting the date the National Archives updated their version of the Constitution.

Accordingly I added the following note to my draft brief: [Note: This draft brief was originally written Jan 6th-8th 2024, and was first posted in an open thread Jan 8th,2023 at the Volokh Conspiracy. On Jan 12th the National Archives updated its version of The Constitution of the United States. The update consisted of changing Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, and Section 2 of the 15th Amendment from “The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” to “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

This draft relied in part on the erroneous version as it was written before the correction to the constitution was posted. (details here https://decivitate.substack.com/p/who-misquoted-the-14th-amendment . Other sites that relied on the error at the National Archives include Congress.gov, and constitutioncenter.org )]

*I don’t really think there is anything involved here other than an error, and definitely it has nothing to do with my brief. ‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.’ -Napoleon. Its obvious that a lot of attention has been paid to Section 5 recently so there is nothing suspicious about someone catching an obscure scriveners error that had escaped notice for decades.

[Kazinski]

Slight error, I posted the rough draft of my mock brief 1/8/2024 of course, not 2023.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nobody cares.

[Kazinski]

Yes, I know. That's why I'm inflicting my opinions on you here, rather than my loved ones.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fair enough. It's an open forum!

[NvEric]

Deep State Apparatchiks can go to hell. Whatever they are. Change the Constitution ? If so, then no one is held whatsoever to federal law. We, the People are therefore free of Uncle Sam’s reach since the bond, the contract, the means of slavery, the false God of government is cast asunder.

Now to the nonsense of Michael Cassidy beheading a satanic altar in the Iowa capital late last year being charged with a hate crime. Any satanic thing is not blessed with any sort of protection at all. Satanic things are hate itself ! and not protected as a religious entity. Free speech is fine for those pretending worship of such, it is not a religion whatsoever, thus A2 does not, never can, or will ever be a protection for such defense of existence. Iowa must, again, be taken aback into reality and, if at all, treat Michael Cassidy’s action as a public service or at worst as a simple act of removing filth from public view.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No one "changed the Constitution". That's just Kazinski struggling to accept that lazy legal research (not checking the original source) can have embarrassing consequences.

[not guilty]

David French has a column decrying how those on the right ignore sex scandals when it involves one of their own. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/opinion/pressler-sex-scandal-sbc.html The column was prompted by the Southern Baptist Convention settling a civil suit claiming that Paul Pressler had molested an adolescent boy. News of that settlement was suppressed in right wing circles.

That brought to mind the fact that the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination has been adjudicated as a rapist (as that term is used in common parlance) and a liar. Where is the outrage? (Especially from those who trumpeted Juanita Broaddrick's claims against Bill Clinton, which were never tried and which Broaddrick recanted when approached by Paula Jones's lawyers.)

[santamonica811]

I know a decent number of perfectly nice people who will be supporting Trump in November. I’ve tried, as a thought-experiment, asking them, in essence, “How many women would Trump have to rape before he would lose your support? Is there a specific–or approximate–number that you have in your own mind?”

Almost all of the time; my friends have said that there is no number–that they will be supporting Trump against Biden regardless of how many women Trump raped or rapes. And for pragmatic reasons . . . lower taxes, perceived better positions on the boarder, guns, conservative judges, etc.. And fair enough; that’s a legitimate reason to take the position that any conservative is better than any potential Democrat. Undoubtedly; there are tons of Dems who would support anyone with a pulse against Trump…or against any Rep nominee.

What I found interesting was the qualification that most of my friends had on the above sentiment. “Now, if Trump raped my sister [daughter, wife, et al], it would be different. I would never support him then.” Again; this makes perfect sense. We obviously care much more deeply about a person’s flaws when they have directly impacted us, or directly impacted someone we love. Duh, basic psychology. But since we all have sisters and daughters and moms; it’s hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that we can look past the pretty profound violation of a woman/women, even when she’s/they’re completely unconnected to our own lives.

I supported Clinton in his first run. But, at some point, there were enough question in my own mind where I said to myself that I was not gonna vote for him again. I’m comforted (if that’s the right word) by the knowledge that, for a small number of Republicans and Independents, this might make a difference, in the 5-7 states that will decide the coming election. But for the huge number of people pretending to be religious conservatives, who have spent the 4 decades of my life shouting from the rooftops about how “Character counts!”, I just don’t get it. It’s fine to be a pragmatic voter. But then don’t ever again talk to me about how you are guided by your religion and your religious faith.

There are a lot of very public and very (outwardly) religious Christians in political life. It hurts to see how they are totally willing to whore themselves in service of this (IMO) utterly unworthy gentleman. (Especially since liberal AND conservative media widely report how these same whores just lambast and ridicule Trump when they’re allow to speak off the record. Good grief.)

[Kazinski]

Well since Joe Biden has also, more credibility, been accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade, how do you justify supporting him too?

It just seemed to me that Jean Carrolls story of meeting Trump out on the street, then having him accompany her shopping ending up with a rape in the dressing room of a high end department store almost 30 years ago, was somewhat farfetched.

I don't believe all women.

[David Nieporent]

Tara Reade, of course, has zero credibility; even if she hadn't been caught fabricating aspects of her bio, she's a certifiable loon (who has since defected to Russia). Also, her story (that Biden suddenly molested her in a public place!) was never credible to begin with, and the fact that nobody else came forward to make similar allegations made it even less believable.

In contrast, not only have many women come forward to accuse Trump, but Trump himself admitted that he routinely engaged in such behavior. ("When you're a star, they let you.") Obviously that doesn't prove Carroll's allegations specifically, but a jury had a chance to hear her testimony, as well as Trump's, and found her credible and him not. Which is hardly surprising, since Trump claimed under oath never to have met her, even though there's a photo of him meeting her. He claimed she wasn't his type (not the kind of denial that would instill anyone with confidence) and then misidentified a picture of her as being of Marla Maples, who obviously was his type. Oh, and then when confronted with that he called the photo blurry even though it wasn't.

[Jerry B.]

“When you’re a star, they let you.”

If they let you, it hardly seems to be rape.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not how consent works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, really???

"Let" means "give permission to" and that IS consent...

[Sarcastr0]

Let does not mean giving permission. It means not preventing.

I'm glad you never actually worked with college kids.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Let does not mean giving permission. It means not preventing."

Wtf? By that logic, ever rape victim let the rapist rape her. Is that really what you meant to say?

[NOVA Lawyer]

He clearly meant not trying to prevent. Obviously, someone forced despite active physical resistance is not "letting" a person rape them. But there are legion of instances in which there is an underlying threat of force and the person chooses not to resist the rapist rather than be forced to have sex anyway and likely be beat up or stabbed or whatever to boot. That's still rape.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, there are instances where someone can be said to "let" someone rape them due to a threat of underlying force. But there's no evidence that that was the case with Trump.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But there’s no evidence that that was the case with Trump.

He said when you're a star they let you do it.

Notably, he didn't say, when they're a star they want you to do it. Or they invite you to do it. They let. Let implies passively allowing it.

As Sarcastro said, letting someone grab you by the pussy does not imply consent. The mere fact that a person doesn't resist when you, uninvited, start kissing them and grabbing them by the pussy, which is pretty much exactly how Trump started with her according to Carroll. Her testimony was she did then actively resist.

But for those that don't resist, there are multiple explanations:

1. They were afraid he would be even more aggressive if they resisted and he would get away with it anyway.
2. They were afraid to say no because he could harm their reputation or the business interests of people around him.
3. They would lose their status in his social circle if they complained, so rather than lose status, they "let him."
4. They didn't want it to happen, but, for whatever reason, they were used to men doing this sort of thing so just went along.
5. They wanted it to happen, so let him continue what he started.

All involve "letting" him grab them by the pussy.

Only #5 involves actual consent. But #5 is the least plausible explanation for why most women would let a star "do it."

If you think it isn't the least plausible explanation, I don't think you know many women very well.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's exactly how consent works.

[jb]

Bosses love this one trick with their attractive subordinates...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If she doesn't object to an unexpected and unreasonable imposition, that's consent?

This is how these half-educated, obsolete misogynists and misfits think . . . and the reason they constitute a core element of the target audience of a disaffected, white, male, stale, right-wing blog.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit. Not a step beyond, though.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If she doesn’t object to an unexpected and unreasonable imposition, that’s consent?"

No, and it's not letting you do it, either.

[Nige]

Him thinking they're letting him, because he's a star, is not an indication that anything was consensual. You kind of have to hear the other side, then attack them and bombard them with threats and harassment if they don't agree.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you must have some odd, private meaning for "let"?

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, you don't get it. Nige knows things that no one else does. He knows! And he will tell you. 🙂

[OtisAH]

Wow, imagine saying that to Brett “The Diviner” Bellmore, the man who inherently knows the secrets and motivations of Dems and liberals of all stripes.

[Nige]

No, I just don't take Trump's word for much.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm just going to leave this here for the two idiots who evidently need to learn a thing or two about trauma responses.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-does-fight-flight-freeze-fawn-mean

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt they are positioned to learn anything. The best approach is simply to wait for them to die off.

[JasonT20]

You should listen to the audio of what he actually said.

"You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful...I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait."

"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." "Grab them by the pussy. - can do anything."

He is clearly saying that he does what he wants. In his mind, that he gets away with it, because he's "a star," is them letting him do it. As Sarcastr0 said, that is not how consent works.

[Voize]

"When you're a star, they let you."
Right up there with "When they're unconscious, they let you."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Always a fascinating exchange when this blog's collection of on-the-spectrum incels, unreconstructed misogynists, clingers addled by old-timey superstition, and whatever-it-takes Trump defenders try to discuss any aspect of normal interpersonal relations.

[Frank Drackman]

So Don't "believe the Women"!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation

The timeline of events shows that Tara Reade came forward with allegations of "inappropriate touching" in April 2019--specifically denying that any sexual assault had taken place. E. Jean Carroll's explicit allegations of sexual assault against Trump were published in July 2019, and Tara Reade's new "sexual assault" allegations (which bear a striking resemblance to Carroll's) were made in April 2020.

Since she "defected to Russia" in 2023, it's unlikely her claims will ever be adjudicated in a court of law, but her credibility will obviously become an issue if they are:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771

[Brett Bellmore]

In 2019, Reid accused Biden of sexual misconduct in 1993.
In 2019, Carroll accused Trump of sexual misconduct in 1996.

I'd dismiss both accusations. The idea that you can accuse somebody of doing something in private 25 years earlier, and just didn't bother reporting it to the police for a quarter century, and get taken seriously, is outrageous. It's outrageous no matter who the target is.

It's just a form of political hit job. I though that when they tried it on Kavanaugh, I think that when they try it on Biden or Trump.

[Nige]

'It’s outrageous no matter who the target is.'

That's what happens when women's accusations weren't taken seriously, and when making accusations could destroy their career. Reid's accusations didn't stand up. Carroll's did.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assure you that even 25 years ago, if a woman accused a man of raping her, it would be taken seriously.

Which is not the same thing as taking the accusation by itself as proof of guilt... It would be taken seriously in the manner of any other crime, where the case had to actually be proved.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Please try to recognize that you may not have an accurate grasp of issues such as this one, Mr. Bellmore, and might not help yourself or anyone else by commenting with respect to them.

You have described an on-the-spectrum diagnosis and a concern that some medical treatments might have impaired your thinking. Those points might make you less culpable and deplorable, at least among some observers, but you wreck your credibility with many of your comments about conspiracy theories, intense grievance, and interpersonal affairs.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Frank Drackman]

Neither do you

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the supporter and defender these polemical right-wing hypocrites deserve, Frank Drackman.

[Nige]

You may assure me; women who lived through that time tell a different story.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you know this because?

[Nige]

It's a mystery, ain't it? If someone put you in a round room and told you to sit in a corner you'd starve to death before working it out.

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble...Nige knows things. He just knows them.

Know what I mean. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The god that forged your moral compass is a paltry thing indeed . . . and an illusory piece of shit.

[Nige]

Congrats on the new schtick, I guess?

[huskerdru]

Were you alive/politically aware 25 years ago?? Your assurance is highly contestable by lots of women whose reports of sexual assault were, indeed, not taken seriously. On what basis do you situate this assurance?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And this is why I put together the timeline...

No, Tara Reade did not accuse Biden of "sexual misconduct" in 2019. In 2019 she was still specifically denying that had occurred (read the VOX article). She changed her story in 2020 to include "sexual misconduct".

We don't know for sure that she changed her story in 2020 in response to E. Jean Carroll's accusations against Trump, of course. There could have been any number of reasons for her changing her story.

The law was changed (unwisely, in my view) to allow exactly this kind of lawsuit to be filed. You can't just wish it away.

I doubt Kavanaugh did what he was accused of doing. Ford is a disturbed person, and probably would not have done very well before a jury. E. Jean Carroll seemed much more together--and a jury did believe her.

[huskerdru]

“Ford is a disturbed person.”

On what basis do you so aver?

[Kenneth Almquist]

In the Congressional hearing, Ford answered all of the questions put to her. Kavanaugh did not. So a jury might very well believe her over Kavanaugh.

[Commenter_XY]

Same here = I don't believe all women

Considering the women that The Donald smashed over the years, I actually do believe him when he said that 80-year old wrinkly string bean was not his type.

NY specifically changed laws to enable this lawsuit.

[not guilty]

New York modified its statute of limitations for sexual abuse damages claims. but I am skeptical that Ms. Carroll's complaint had anything to do with the legislature's action there. I think that was more likely intended to give victims of the Catholic Church abuse scandals a window to file claims which otherwise would have been time barred.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, I learn a lot from you. We have a difference of opinion here. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Even after more informed sources have demonstrated that Commenter_XY was lying or intensely ignorant, this dumbass still won't relent.

I guess the more important point is that this misfit can type anything at all with his tongue so firmly affixed to Trump's scrotum.

[Mr. Bumble]

The NY legislature was busy as a beaver in modifying laws pertaining to sexual abuse.
I believe the extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse to 20 years (for new cases?) and also created a one year look back for childhood victims and a one year look back for adult victims (which allowed Carroll's case).
A real gift to trial lawyers with thousands of cases filed during the look back period.

[Nige]

A real gift to victims of sexual abuse.

[jb]

Kind of makes Commenter_XY's assertion that they did it just to allow this particular case sound kind of silly, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they didn't. They did it to allow this sort of case, in general terms. Not specifically "Screw with an unpopular politician" cases, but "Somebody up and decides to allege a long ago rape" cases.

Because rape is too important for normal due process constraints that are used for other crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

The Supreme Court has a very light touch when it comes to SoL implicating due process.

[jb]

We did go through this cultural moment where we realized that a lot of sexual assault had been going on for years and was not well handled by the system at the time. (We don't need to make this political, see Harvey Weinstein as exhibit A.) Doesn't seem crazy to try to do something to address that new information.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, as usual, some interested ideologues pushed for all they were worth and managed to get an over-correction. From "not taking rape seriously enough" to "Women never lie about rape, so procedural safeguards are just protecting rapists."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These assholes are your people, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason the only women who want anything to do with your blog are broken misfits.

[Nige]

'to get an over-correction.'

Yeah that happened. Don't worry, the rapists are safe, Brett.

[Life of Brian]

New York modified its statute of limitations for sexual abuse damages claims. but I am skeptical that Ms. Carroll’s complaint had anything to do with the legislature’s action there.

In the event your skepticism is receptive to actual facts on the ground, Carroll’s own lawyer boasted in a CNN interview that Carroll helped get the law passed.

[Frank Drackman]

“New York modified its statute of limitations for sexual abuse damages claims.” Umm, I think there’s some Legal mumbo-jumbo for a Law, no, make that a Bill aimed at a particular person…. Bill of Something or other, Bill of Remainder?? Reindeer? Attribution, c’mon Man! One of you Shysters help a Brutha out!

"Franklin Drackman-Washington", just to let you Chuckleheads know, I'm getting ready for "Black History Month" where I'll be identifying as Afro-Amurican and posting as my Alter Ego, or you can just call me "FDW" for short (also stands for "Eff Damn Whitey"!)

[OtisAH]

Of course you believe him. Even after he was shown a picture of the ugly woman he would never bang and thought it was a picture of his ex-wife Marla Maples, you believe him. You probably also think you’re a decent person.

[SRG2]

, I actually do believe him when he said that 80-year old wrinkly string bean was not his type.

Which one is EJ Carroll and which one is Marla Maples?

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/346032399_776864340635036_4210673841920815313_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=e4RNQt1v9nAAX8LO1k9&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=00_AfClNIF1e3V6ytEtqhPH_28t1Tzxq2c32UeV7L0k6SUwmQ&oe=65BC3FAD

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Commenter_XY specializes in believing in a lot of dumb shit, starting with the superstition that wrecks his thinking and positions him for replacement.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Considering the women that The Donald smashed over the years, I actually do believe him when he said that 80-year old wrinkly string bean was not his type.

That's the level of thinking that has turned you into a gullible, superstitious, disaffected, right-wing misfit.

You can't be replaced quickly enough for the good of modern America.

[Commenter_XY]

See Arthur, the problem with this whole affair is the lack of evidence. There is nothing.

So what are we left with? It is a 'He said, She said' situation. Which then requires some evaluation.

Which is more likely to you: A billionaire who smashed babes galore in his heyday says 'She ain't my type'...versus...an old harpy with a funded lawsuit from a Team D sugar daddy who says, 'He raped me, but I cannot even remember what year it was..."

Apply common sense, Arthur. 🙂

[Nige]

Yes, like the fabulously wealthy Epstein, who surely had to rape no-one because of all the babes he was smashing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Commenter_XY]

Wondering the same about you....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

/

See Arthur, the problem with this whole affair is the lack of evidence. There is nothing.

Since when does a believer in childish superstition, old-timey nonsense, and silly fucking fairy tales have such exacting standards with respect to evidence.

You have a lot in common with Holocaust deniers.

Guys like you can't be replaced fast enough.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, Jerry, if it's one thing you know, it's "Replacing Guys (Sexuality)"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Jerry Sandusky is a prominent Republican stain on American society.

Joe Paterno was another conservative hypocrite, coward, and wrongdoer.

The part of Pennsylvania in which those guys were able to commit their crimes for decades is a can't-keep-up stretch of central Pennsylvania that might as well be in West Virginia, Alabama, or Wyoming, inhabited by the depleted human residue that remains after generations on the wrong side of bright flight/brain drain. Economically inadequate, superstitious, addicted, dysfunctional, bigoted, half-educated, obsolete Republicans and conservatives.

[bernard11]

No, XY.

It's not a he said/she said case.

[not guilty]

Since Trump declined to testify at last year's trial, it's a she said/he didn't say case. The jurors were entitled to draw a negative inference from Trump's failure to testify. Whether they did or did not do so is known only to the jurors.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

NY specifically changed laws to enable this lawsuit.

Why would anyone assert or believe that?

[Life of Brian]

We could start with the word of Ms. Carroll's uber-trustworthy attorney, as I noted above.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

She did look 30 years younger, 30 years ago, surprisingly!

[Nige]

'I don’t believe all women.'

That's fine, he was found liable in a court of law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Forthcoming appeal will be interesting.

[Nige]

I mean, inasmuch as a prominent politician and billionaire keeps spewing hate and lies at a woman he sexually assaulted while his mob of cultists bombard her with threats and harassment is 'interesting,' I guess.

[not guilty]

The trial where the jury found sexual abuse concluded in May 2023. Any appeal therefrom is already in progress, not “forthcoming.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Picky, picky, picky.

[David Nieporent]

In what way would it be interesting? "The jury shouldn't have believed her" is not a viable avenue for appeal. What legal rulings do you think Judge Kaplan got wrong, and how would those affect the verdict? (It's possible an appellate court would question the size of the damages, but that seems unlikely, too.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Nostradamus.

[Sarcastr0]

What legal rulings do you think Judge Kaplan got wrong, and how would those affect the verdict?

[Mr. Bumble]

Channeling ng?
I did not opine on the basis for an appeal, only that it will be interesting.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I can also speak English and understand connotation.

You responded to 'he was found guilty' with 'Forthcoming appeal will be interesting.'

We all know you meant to delegitimize the finding of guilty.

And we all see you crabwalking away once called to share your reasoning.

[Mr. Bumble]

What you "know" could fit in a thimble with room left over fro Biden's brain.

[BrotherMovesOn]

When we require a legal opinion from a retired auto parts manager we'll beat it out of you.

[OtisAH]

He probably meant “discovery,” because every one of these numpties think all someone has to do is accuse someone else of something in a lawsuit and discovery allows them to comb through everything the defendant owns looking for evidence to support the suit.

[billardl]

Yes, by a jury in SDNY. A White Plains jury might be slightly better, but a jury seated in Manhattan is likely to be at least 7/12 non-white and the whites are likely to be upper East Side Liberal Jews.

The verdicts should be overturned, and a new jury seated comprised exclusively of white men from Staten Island.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, right, that reminds me.

Muted.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

and the whites are likely to be upper East Side Liberal Jews

The Volokh Conspirators -- Profs. Bernstein, Blackman, and Volokh in particular -- will pause their ostensible outrage long enough to issue a pass to you regarding that one, because (1) to some degree they just like you and (2) to some degree they are just like you.

Carry on, clingers.

[billardl]

Liberal Jews are the worst species of human being on the planet. They don’t give two shits about Judaism or Halakha, or they wouldn’t be advocating for killing babies and violating Leviticus 18:22 by celebrating your penetration of other men.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You'll get another pass from the Volokh Conspirators on that one. Because that's how right-wing "scholars" roll.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you can go ahead and replace this guy. I know you're big on replacement. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't replace right-wing culture war casualties.

The natural order does.

Old, cranky conservatives die off in the natural course, taking their stale, ugly thinking (racism, superstition, misogyny, backwardness, antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, pining for illusory "good old days," homophobia, voodoo economics, white nationalism, etc.) to the grave with them. Better, younger, more diverse Americans replace them in our electorate and population. This promotes reason, education, inclusiveness, modernity, science, progress, etc.

It's the American way.

[Commenter_XY]

Just wanted you to know I was good with you replacing that particular asshole.

[not guilty]

The Southern District of New York includes eight counties. It does not include Staten Island.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz throws around 'credibility' way too much. He may be the commenter on this blog with the worst critical thinking to make these determinations.

There are others who just don't care about the truth enough to bother. To his credit, Kaz bothers. But he is really bad at it, and doesn't seem to learn this after being made a fool over and over again.

[David Nieporent]

Kaz throws around ‘credibility’ way too much. He may be the commenter on this blog with the worst critical thinking to make these determinations.

Virtually everyone is guilty of misusing that word. Credibility is a subjective thing that people mistakenly treat as objective. So from the left we repeatedly got "Whatshername's high school accusations against Kavanaugh are credible." But 98.64% of the time, all that means is, "I personally believe them. But I think by describing them as 'credible' it sounds more formal than just expressing a personal belief."

[Sarcastr0]

Credibility is a subjective thing that people mistakenly treat as objective

Eh, I'm not quite so hard and fast. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but we also talk about attractiveness in some consensus-based objective fashion.

That's why I like the phrase YMMV - it captures the very common 'this is generally true, but reasonable minds can still differ' that is a lot of the way we operate on matters of opinion.

I still see plenty of the abuse you're talking about, but I would draw more of a continuum than a bright line between 'subjective' and 'objective' in matters of public opinion like credibility.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well since Joe Biden has also, more credibility, been accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade

Thank you for the perspective of a disaffected, bigoted, antisocial misfit who chooses to live in an off-the-grid hermit shack because he just can't abide modern America and all of this damned progress.

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and a substantial part of the reason your employers regret hiring you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

santamonica811, incongruous in the replies you describe is lack of mention of an obvious alternative—some Republican besides Trump to run against Biden. Why must it be Trump with his baggage, over other candidates without the baggage? That seems to me to be the point where faith in the decency of your acquaintances founders.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Exactly. I would vote for almost any Republican other than Trump. But no, they have to go with their "one-hit wonder", or nothing.

(If Trump doesn't pick Don Jr. as his VP running mate, to establish the US' new hereditary democrazy, I will be very disappointed.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Have you ever voted for any Republican?

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I'm not terribly happy about it, but the Democrats, whether deliberately or unknowingly, engineered this themselves. Their utterly over the top lawfare against Trump made it essentially impossible for Republicans to refrain from backing him. It was impossible to let Democrats tell them who their next nominee could be.

It's a pathological result, but very human.

Come fall, unless the Democrats replace Biden with a very unlikely choice, I will unhappily be voting for Trump. Whatever his personal failings, he was a much better President than Biden.

I just hope he picks a really good VP, because if he does win the election, the odds of his serving a full term don't look great to me, I don't even like the odds of him living until January 20th in that event.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lot of suggestions as to who Trump should pick as a running mate for the VP position none of whom really appeal to me. My choice (FWIW) would be Doug Burgum.

[Commenter_XY]

What is a good VP?

And do you really think POTUS Trump can win GA, MI, and AZ? (The election comes down to these three states, IMO, and POTUS Trump needs to sweep them to win)

Remember Bob from Ohio counsel: Polls are trash right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

A good VP is somebody you wouldn't mind being President.

Who would be a good VP? My favorite, DeSantis, is disadvantaged by EC rules and personal animosity, he's not happening.

Haley would be a bad pick AND clearly isn't happening.

Ramaswamy would be an interesting pick, probably isn't happening.

Really, I don't know who he'll pick. Probably not anybody the establishment likes.

I think it would be amusing if he picked Tulsi Gabbard to create a bipartisan unity ticket. She's about the only Democrat I'd consider voting for that I can think of; I don't agree with her about everything, but she at least seems sane and capable of changing her mind about things when confronted with evidence.

***

Can he win? I've already said that it's stupid to camp your army in a location where you know for a fact the enemy has their artillery already zeroed in.

We know the two big issues: Abortion and the border. Abortion shouldn't be a national issue anymore, it's entirely up to state governments, as it should be. That doesn't mean it won't be a national issue.

The border is a really hot issue, and it's a really hot issue even with the media trying to cover this story with a pillow.

The media were still a little ambivalent back in 2016 about being total Democratic party lapdogs. They're all in on that role now. Republicans running this year are going to look back on the biased coverage of 2016 with considerable nostalgia...

I think that Biden is about the only person besides Harris that Trump could beat, just as Trump is about the only Republican Biden could beat. In that regard it's looking like a repeat of 2016.

Only turned up to 11.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless the President dies in office the VP is mostly irrelevant.
Have you ever voted for a President because of the VP choice?
Sometimes we get lucky, think TR and Coolidge and sometimes we don't, think LBJ but you can't know that in advance.

[Michael P]

I've recently thought that the point of the VP is to discourage the opposition party from trying to remove the president -- and I think that every VP so far in this century follows that model. Republicans prefer Biden over Harris and Obama over Biden; Democrats preferred Trump over Pence and Bush over Cheney.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and I think there's a high chance of Trump dying in office, or even between the election and being sworn in.

First, just because he's older than dirt, and older than dirt people have a substantial probability of dying. Just based on the actuary table, Trump has about a 5-6% chance of dying per year at this age. When you factor in the chance of neurological events that might be legitimate cause for invoking the 25th amendment? I'd say his choice of VP is pretty important.

And if Biden wins, say hello to President Harris. The odds for Biden are even worse.

Second, because as demonized as Trump has been, he IS going to be a target for assassination if he wins the election. Heck, he's got a target on his back already. If he wins he probably should disappear into the witness protection program.

[Davy C]

If you're going to claim that he's so out of it that the 25th should have been invoked, then you of course support his acquittal on the grounds that he's not responsible for his own actions.

[Commenter_XY]

Specifically, what attributes are you looking for in a VP pick, Brett?

If you could pick anyone at all, regardless of affiliation, who would you pick, and why?

For me: Must have private industry experience Must have Congressional experience Must have executive experience at state level Must be independently wealthy, 20MM+

Those four criteria really narrow the field.

After that, I really don’t care. We have plenty of amoral POTUS’ who have run the country well.

[Nige]

If by 'witness protection program' you mean 'his own golf course,' he probably will. He did during his first term, after all. The Secret Service ended up paying him to protect him.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Specifically, what attributes are you looking for in a VP pick, Brett?"

Policy, first and foremost. I'd rather have somebody badly trying to do the right thing, than somebody competently trying to do the wrong thing. The executive branch has enough people in it to backstop incompetence, but it's not designed to negate bad intent.

I'd rather have somebody who arrives at the right policy through genuine conviction, rather than political expediency. Political expediency has proven to be a fragile defense; See Trump's bump stock ban.

Private sector industry experience has proven not to carry over into politics as well as I thought it would. But it would be a good addition to political experience.

My favorite, DeSantis, is ruled out on the basis of being from the same state as Trump, and Florida's EC votes being indispensable. As well as regrettable bad blood between him and Trump, mostly on Trump's part.

Ramaswamy lacks the political experience, otherwise looks good.

[bernard11]

as demonized as Trump has been

Poor Trump, being demonized and all. Same unfortunate thing happened to Al Capone.

Of course to the Trump Can Do No Wrong crowd that's all it is.

Is there any accusation against him that you would find plausible, or are your, let's say, imaginative, defenses completely information-free?

[Nige]

Yes, hysterical scaremongering about the border is going to rise to fever pitch, and the media reporting that there is no particularly unusual level of crisis going on and that the Republicans turned down the opportunity to do something about their supposed concerns and the fact that it's a key part of the neo-Nazi Great Replacement conspiracy theory that is now entirely part of the mainstream right is just unfair.

Actually they'll keep treating the Republicans as good-faith non-lying non-cranks and non-xenophobes out of 'balance' and lecture the liberals for not being kind enough to them.

[billardl]

The great replacement is not a conspiracy theory. It's real. The left constantly crows that "Demographics is destiny" and "You can't stop it."

You don't get to gloat that Texas will flip once it becomes more brown and then say that browning American intentionally to make it blue wasn't intentional.

[Nige]

Texas would have flipped long ago if it weren't for gerrymandering.

[billardl]

Even assuming that is true, how does this counter my argument at all?

[David Nieporent]

Texas would have flipped long ago if it weren’t for gerrymandering.

Um, no. Texas hasn't elected a Democrat to statewide office (for which gerrymandering isn't applicable) since 1994.

[David Nieporent]

Nazi says that Nazi conspiracy theory isn't a Nazi conspiracy theory.

[Nige]

'Um, no. '

Sorry I thought we were indulging in wild fanciful thinking.

[jb]

Even Brett has blocked this guy already. Don't feed the trolls.

[Nige]

'but the Democrats'

Always someone else's fault.

[SimonP]

Maybe you should take one of those dementia tests that Trump keeps bragging about, Brett.

Because, yes, Trump - the guy seeking to tank a deal on immigration because it's coming too soon for him to take credit, the guy rooting for the economy to fail to help get himself elected, the guy promising to withdraw American support for Ukraine and will likely do the same on Taiwan, the guy whose tax plan is now increasing taxes on American workers - this man will be a better president than Biden has been.

For reasons, I guess.

Your case has never made much sense, in the terms you put it, Brett. In one thread, you credit Trump for getting stuff done during his term, stuff that no other establishment Republican could do. In another, you excuse Trump for failing to deliver on his campaign promises, because Congress wouldn't let him. When one points at his plans for a second term, you reason that his worst instincts will be checked by institutional resistance. But you'll vote for him because he is promising to tear down that institutional resistance.

The truth, Brett, is that you'll vote for Trump because you think he'll govern as an autocrat, and that's what you want. When he fails to get an abortion ban through Congress, he'll impose it by executive fiat, and you'll cheer. When he never comes through with a better deal on immigration reform, and instead leans on executive authorities that will be challenged and likely defeated in court (albeit after years of litigation), you'll cheer. When he continues to kick the can on the debt during a growing economy, signs on to more tax cuts, and leans on the Fed to juice the economy, you'll pretend that's what you always wanted. And on and on.

Really, we shouldn't let people in such obvious cognitive decline vote.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because, yes, Trump – the guy seeking to tank a deal on immigration because it’s coming too soon for him to take credit,"

You mean the deal to replace the existing law they're violating, with a new law they'd violate, except that it would actually legally mandate deprioritizing enforcement if they get illegal immigration down to levels we'd never seen before Biden took office? That deal?

The Republican establishment has a long history of trying to take dives on illegal immigration, as a favor to the chamber of commerce, and this is just the latest attempted dive.

[bernard11]

Oh yeah.

Let's let Ukraine fall to Putin also. I mean, Zelensky never came through with any good dirt on Hunter Biden, so fuck 'em. So says Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

I really don't think these issues should be tied together, and I'd rather that the border cave in bill die on its own.

But if it comes to it, better both pieces die, and then we can try to pass a clean Ukraine funding bill.

[SimonP]

Do you know what a whale is, Brett?

[VinniUSMC]

A large marine mammal.

Nailed it!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"..impossible for Republicans to refrain from backing him."

No, that's your broken moral compass giving way to your partisan bullshit.

[bernard11]

Their utterly over the top lawfare against Trump

Oh stop. These are legitimate cases. I remember you raising all kinds of hell about Hillary's emails, but Trump refusing to turn over classified documents is perfectly understandable, according to you. You're in so deep you'll never get out.

If any of the Trump charges or lawsuits had been against Biden you'd be all for them.

[Kazinski]

"But no, they have to go with their “one-hit wonder”, or nothing."

Actually its not the "GOP" going with Trump, its their voters, your neighbors. I too wish we had a different candidate, and I was a Cruz bitter ender in 2016 too.

But that's how democracies work, and we are going to have an election later this year to decide who is the most unpopular, Biden or Trump.

At this point I. Time I think its more likely that Biden will be replaced than Trump.

[OtisAH]

It has to be Turnip because tens of millions of MAGA will stay home if it isn’t. After they burned down the RNC offices, of course.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Damn right.

[santamonica811]

Stephen,
Not one of the above-mentioned friends & acquaintances will be voting for Trump in the primaries. Ron DS was a perfectly plausible alternative--super conservative, bright. Too awful a person for me, personally, but would make a perfectly adequate conservative president. NH would be fine...extremely conservative, articulate, but less of a backbone or moral compass than I'd prefer. But perfectly fine, again.

For me, Ramaswamy was never on my list, as (since I started with the premise that Trump is awful and unqualified) Vivik's merely a younger version of Trump. An awful personality, and either another pathological liar or someone who's batshit crazy. I've made a decision, in my later years, to never vote for an utterly repellent personality. Ramaswamy is on that list. Ted Cruz is on that list. Dem. Anthony Weiner is/was on that list. It's not a large list, but it's notable in that people on the list are disliked by people in the other party . . . but are absolutely loathed and despised and hated by people within their own party. Huge red flag for me.

[Stephen Lathrop]

santamonica811, thank you. That helps me understand where you are coming from, and it makes you sound thoughtful. If I may, however, please allow me to ask where a politician’s take on J6 figures into your candidate taxonomy. I presume you understand there actually was a coup attempt associated with the J6 violence. Anyone as a candidate would be unacceptable to me, if it were someone who had not publicly denounced that coup attempt, and called for legal accountability for Trump and his confederates.

Our politics are undoubtedly wide apart. Mine involve an eclectic intertwining of old-fashioned New Deal liberalism, with a bit of even older prairie populism, with a contrasting thread of Burkean conservatism running with the others. Economically, I am enthusiastically pro-capitalist, but aggressively anti-plutocratic. I honor Brandeis, and disdain Milton Friedman. I think capitalism serves the nation best in the hands of small-scale enterprises numerously diversified, and gets the nation in trouble when it consolidates. I count myself a defender of the natural environment, and emphasize ecological insight as a key to systematizing and advancing environmental goals. I am old enough to have seen Jim Crow operating full-strength in the American South, and that experience left me implacably anti-racist. But I think the twin (or alternative?) doctrines of affirmative action and diversity fell quickly into the hands of opportunists, who mismanaged them disastrously, and inflicted avoidable costs on the nation which vexed our politics right to the present moment. With regard to ideology, I am mostly against it. I think experience provides sounder basis for politics than rationalism can, the more so as the rationalistic tendency burgeons. I first became aware of politics during the Truman administration, but have never yet voted for a Republican for President.

That said, I would consider now any outspoken, anti-coup, Republican institutionalist on offer. I would vote for Liz Cheney—despite an ocean of policy differences between us—in preference to Joe Biden, if it should somehow prove necessary to do that to stop Donald Trump. Would you consider Liz Cheney?

[santamonica811]

SL, I could easily support someone who was appalled by J6 and who remains so. I could see supporting someone who was bothered by J6 but felt at the time (and continues to feel) that it did not rise to an insurrection. [I’d disagree with that person, but I’d respect their well-thought-out reasoning, if it existed.] I’d NEVER support a whore like Linsday, who started off appalled, but made the political decision to affix his lips to Trump’s ass, once he saw where the Republican political winds were blowing. That is, for me, literally unforgivable. Just like I still refer to Oliver North as “convicted felon and perjurer Ollie North” EVERY time I refer to him–more than 30 years later!!!–people like Senator Graham have a place in my Whore and Personal Hall of Shame [Congress Wing].

I’d vote for Liz Chaney in a New York minute. She and I disagree on about 95% of social policy issues, so I’ll add the caveat that I’d vote for her, as president, only if there would be a Dem Senate and/or a Dem House. My hope is that she would lead our country with integrity and conviction, while being unable to enact most of her anti-liberty policies (gay marriage, abortion restrictions, gutting of environmental regulations, etc). My guess is that she would nominate extremely conservative judges…but they’d all be super-highly-qualified conservative judges, and I can live with that.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fact that Trump has been adjudicated guilty of rape on such a flimsy basis mostly makes me think worse of the legal system, not him. Not that I thought terribly highly of either Trump or the US legal system before it happened.

I believe he's been convicted of being an unpopular billionaire.

[Kazinski]

Well he actually hasn't been convicted of anything.

More aptly he was found liable for being an unpopular billionaire.

[Nige]

The best defence he could muster was 'she's not my type.' She was credible. He was not.

[Brett Bellmore]

The best she could muster in the way of evidence was her own word. She couldn't even be specific as to what day it happened on, a quarter century earlier.

When that's the evidence against you, you shouldn't NEED a rock solid alibi.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump did not need a rock solid alibi, he needed lawyers to present his case, which they did not do. He needed to impress the jury, which he basically shaded by not showing up, and he needed to be better in his taped testimony. Did you even see his testimony?

[Nige]

Funnily enough the jury thought that remembering an exact date twenty five years later didn't detract from her credibility, and Trump's team failed to muster any sort of persuasive argument out of it. And he still kept saying 'she's not my type.' He even told her lawyer she 'wasn't his type,' presumably to reassure her that he wouldn't sexually assault her.

[Brett Bellmore]

NOT "remembering an exact date twenty five years later" means "no chance at all the person being confused could prove they were somewhere else at the time".

It's become a staple feature, when you accuse somebody of doing something decades earlier.

[Nige]

Perhaps, but it still didn't undermine her credibility and Trump's team failed to make anything of it.

Not being able to remember exact dates decades later is not unusual. Quite the opposite.

[Brett Bellmore]

It didn't undermine her credibility because she didn't NEED credibility to win. She needed Trump to be a deeply unpopular Republican in an area where the jury pool would be mostly Democrats.

"Not being able to remember exact dates decades later is not unusual. Quite the opposite."

You know what? I agree. Even though I recall incidents from 25 years ago, I couldn't tell you the exact date for most of them, or even prove many of them happened.

It doesn't matter. It's still remarkably convenient as a way of assuring the person you're accusing won't be able to pull out proof they were somewhere else at the time. That it's plausible you'd forget the exact date just contributes to the effectiveness of the technique.

You're planning on accusing somebody of doing something despicable, a quarter century from now? At least write it in your diary, or something like that. Don't make stupid accusations of distant events that you can't prove you didn't fabricate!

[Nige]

He probably should have sexually assaulted her in a jurisdiction where he was more popular then. Some deep red district where they'd be lining up to give over ther wives and daughters for him to sexually assault.

'You’re planning'

Pardon me, I think I just spotted a major flaw in your thesis two words in.

[windycityattorney]

I believe that the plaintiff’s lawyers did call other witnesses – friends of E Jean – to testify that E Jean told them in private of the incident and that these conversations happened decades ago. Of course, because they are her friends, they are potentially biased witnesses. Which Trump’s lawyers would have cross examined them to point this out. But it apparently wasn’t enough [given the verdict].

Preponderance of the evidence is not a particularly difficult standard of proof to meet. I think because the words ‘sexual assault’ are bandied about and are commonly associated with ‘criminal’ actions that the criminal burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is somehow stuck in people’s head. And by any measure, these same allegations and this same evidence is very doubtful to rise to that level of proof. But we aren’t dealing with a hypothetical. The civil cases are over and the juries have spoken. And now res judicata is doing its work and Trump keeps on defaming her and his new lawyers are as bad or worse than his old ones. So he keeps getting hit with multi-million dollar judgments.

[billardl]

Or more likely, the jury didn't really care, and just wanted to stick it to Trump. Much like white juries would convict black men in the Jim Crow South with no real evidence.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not sure why you say this case was flimsy? This was a classic she said/ he said case and in this case, Jean Carroll presented the better argument. The fact is that Trump present little of no defense, his own testimony was damning, and he insulted the jury by not even showing up. Trump expected that anything he said would be believed, that king of unquestioning belief is limited to his most devoted supporters. How do you see it as flimsy?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's flimsy because it WAS just "she said/he said", which means it started out as flimsy, and then it's "she said it happened 25 years earlier", which means it's beyond threadbare.

It's not too much to ask that, if women want accusations to be taken seriously, they make them contemporaneously.

[Nige]

You should read up on womens' experiences of making contemporaneous accusations a few decades ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Womens’ experiences” don’t make evidence free allegations about events a quarter century earlier any solider, Nige. They don’t change what does and doesn’t constitute evidence.

[Nige]

Doesn't make it less solid, either. You've convicted Biden of massive corruption on a lot less.

[OtisAH]

“Nothing” in fact. He’s convicted Biden of massive corruption based on nothing, which I guess technically is “a lot less.” So nevermind.

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't convicted Biden of anything. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a court.

Randos on the street are allowed to call a spade a spade. Judges are only supposed to do it after it's been proven, and if the prosecutors work for the spade? It ain't never gonna be proven before a judge.

[Nige]

Of course you have. You repeat it as proven fact. The lack of a court case hasn't hindered you in the slightest.

[Randy Sax]

The burden of proof in this case was "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". She didn't need to prove anything. It's a fucked up legal system. And she took advantage of it. So at the top of this thread when someone asked "how can you vote for a rapist?" It hasn't been proven and I can't call him that.

[Sarcastr0]

Proving something to a jury by preponderance is still proving.

In fact, it's the quantum most likely to align with the truth.

We're just risk averse about criminal stuff.

Yes, you can legitimately call Trump a rapist, as established in court.

[Randy Sax]

Pardon me, but I'm also risk averse about civil stuff. "more likely than not" does not count as "established" to me.

[Sarcastr0]

You can be like that if you want.

But you cannot say nothing was proven, and be correct.

[Reallynotbob]

She literally had the burden of proof and carried it in a court of law.

Yes, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" but that "of the evidence" part does a lot more work than most non-lawyers recognize. The evidentiary rules are crafted to exclude rumors and proclivities.

[Brett Bellmore]

" but that “of the evidence” part does a lot more work than most non-lawyers recognize."

When the plaintiff testifying that it happened a quarter century earlier on an uncertain date is considered to be reliable evidence, no, I don't think "of the evidence" is doing much work at all.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "more likely than not" = "proven"

(for this moment)

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Bwaaah. That's right.

Winning a civil case means you proved your case.

Civil cases are not just vibes.

[Randy Sax]

Yes Sarc, because every death row inmate that has since been exonerated was "proven" to have done the crime.

[Sarcastr0]

That is correct, Randy.

Humans are not omniscient, so proof will never be metaphysically certain.

Under your retroactive interrogation standard, you could never prove anything.

[Randy Sax]

There is a spectrum of evidence and believability. The theory of gravity is much closer to the metaphysically proven side, and "more likely than not" is much closer to the complete horseshit side.

[Sarcastr0]

Telling someone who got a civil judgement that their case was horseshit will get you laughed out of the room.

[Absaroka]

"There is a spectrum of evidence and believability."

That seems correct to me. If you are a civil juror and think Party A is 50.00001% likely right, they get the judgement. All the bare fact of the verdict tells you is the jury thought the level of proof was >50 and <= 100.

That means, absent more, it's wrong to say that the proof was strong, and equally wrong to say the proof was weak; the mere fact of the verdict doesn't say.

And that range matters; a parachute that works 51% of the time isn't the same as one that works 99% of the time.

People don't like ambiguity, and are all to happy to change a maybe to a certainty when the result is congenial, but it's a mistake.

[Reallynotbob]

Brett -- "reliable" isn't the standard. "Admissible" is. The jury determines what to believe. It might have helped if Trump had, you know, rebutted her story at the trial by testifying.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett — “reliable” isn’t the standard. “Admissible” is.

Admissible evidence is relevant (has any tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence), and more probative than prejudicial.

[bernard11]

I think it’s flimsy because it WAS just “she said/he said”

You're full of shit, just making crap up because you'd like to think it's true.

Carroll called about
ten witnesses, including people she mentioned the incident to at the time, and a number of women who testified that they had been victims of assaults by Trump.

Not exactly he said/she said.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe she, or one of them, should have mentioned it to the police at the time? You know, instead of, assuming she's telling the truth, letting a rapist run free to prey on others?

Seriously, you think it strengthens the case that supposedly 10 or 11 people knew about it, and they ALL kept it secret for a quarter century? Not one blabbed? That's more plausible than friends going along with her story today because they're friends?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Maybe you should learn a thing or two about rape before telling victims what they should do according to your ignorance.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-does-fight-flight-freeze-fawn-mean

[bernard11]

To start with, you might read the linked article before assuming you know what it says. She only told two people. The others testified to various matters – two of them testifying that Trump had assaulted them at other times.

By the way, one of the friends she talked to testified that she cautioned Carroll against taking any steps in response to the incident “because it was Donald Trump and he had a lot of attorneys and he would bury her.”

Oh, and one more reason it’s not he said/she said. Trump didn’t say anything. He didn’t testify, called no witnesses. He never denied, under oath, that the incident happened. I mean, he yelled about it in speeches, which was enough to convince you and XY and others, but when it mattered he was silent.

So STFU with he said/she said. It’s more like she said/he shrugged.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Trump did deny assaulting Carroll in his deposition in the case, and that denial was played for the jury. In the same deposition, Trump claimed that Carroll was “not his type,” but misidentified a photo of Carroll as a photo of Maples, who used to be his wife, and conceded that all three of his wives were “his type.” The jury heard his denial; it just wasn't terribly convincing.

[bernard11]

OK. In the deposition. But he did not actually testify at trial. Wonder why?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump said he didn't know here, which was demonstrably false.

He also mixed her up with his ex-wife, even has he said she was too ugly to be his type.

This is why those who claim the jury must have erred don't really go into the facts of the case...they're not here for truth or actual credibility determinations, they're here to defend Trump no matter what.

[Brett Bellmore]

She can forget the date a quarter century later, but he's supposed to have photographic recall of everybody he ever met? This allowance for imperfect memory is pretty selective...

[Nige]

His ex-WIFE.

He remembered clearly enough to say she wasn't his type.

[Brett Bellmore]

At that point he wasn't relying on memory, he was relying on a photo.

[bernard11]

Non-responsive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perfectly responsive.

[Nige]

He couldn’t even rely his own notion of ‘his type,’ but he nonetheless thought it was sufficent for his defence.

[Sarcastr0]

At that point Trump was lying; flat denying everything in ways that were way beyond 'I cannot recall' and were demonstrably untrue.

That you think a jury couldn't come to that conclusion legitimately is you failing a pretty fundamental test about connection to reality.

[bernard11]

Trump was a well-known figure even 25 years ago.

That means two things:

1. She is very likely to remember any encounter.

2. She may have been reluctant to get into a legal tangle with someone who could swamp her and the police with lawyers, and her with legal fees.

In addition she might reasonably have feared that getting into such a tangle might damage her career in a variety of ways.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? I don't care if you can invent reasons she wouldn't have reported it contemporaneously. I care THAT she didn't report it contemporaneously.

If you're going to accuse somebody of a crime a quarter century earlier, you'd better have actual evidence that it happened, beyond your word, or a REALLY good excuse for not having accused him earlier.

Like, "I was in a vegetative coma for the last 25 years" good, not "He was important, people might not have believed me".

Accusing people of nasty crimes decades earlier is just too convenient a political tactic for it to be sensible to allow it. It neatly circumvents almost any defense you might raise, especially if you can't even be required to identify the exact time it supposedly happened.

[Nige]

'I don’t care if you can invent reasons'

That would be silly seeing how much you tend to depend on invented reasons.

'too convenient a political tactic for it to be sensible to allow it'

You're shit out of luck if your rapist happens to run for high office.

[Reallynotbob]

Complain all you want, but Trump didn't offer the jury any competing evidence. Because he didn't testify. That's his right, of course, but the jury is allowed to draw their own conclusions about the absence of a defense.

What you can't do is assume Trump would have been believed. He didn't testify because, knowing the truth, he thought he would be better off not taking the stand.

[bernard11]

I don’t care if you can invent reasons she wouldn’t have reported it contemporaneously. I care THAT she didn’t report it contemporaneously.

Says the master of inventing reasons when it comes to excusing Trump's behavior

Do you care that she did report it to two friends contemporaneously, both of whom testified to that at trial.

Accusing people of nasty crimes decades earlier is just too convenient a political tactic for it to be sensible to allow it.

The inevitable, "it's all a plot by the Democrats" from Brett.

[OtisAH]

“I know a decent number of perfectly nice people who will be supporting Trump in November.”

No, you don’t. It doesn’t matter how many puppies they’ve rescued, how often they get to mass, or how much they love their mothers. These are not decent people. Your second graf gives one reason why.

[billardl]

That's the way I feel about anyone who supports Democrats. Funny how that works, eh?

[OtisAH]

How an abject idiot views things holds no interest for me.

[DaveM]

You just shot yourself in the foot.

[OtisAH]

My shoes are intact and my feet feel fine.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps your friends are religious conservatives, for similar reasons, e.g. because of the personal benefits that come from being a part of an organized group that does a lot of activities together and pretends to have principles and care about each other.

That is, because of what’s in it for them.

[Reallynotbob]

What do these perfectly nice people say about why they support(ed) Trump against other, non-rapist Republicans?

The statement, "R>D for all Ds in the real set" does not explain their preference in the primaries.

[Longtobefree]

You don't vote for the man, you vote for the principles (if any) in the party platform.
Read the democrat platform and the republican platform and vote for the one that you think best protects your personal freedoms.
As Biden clearly demonstrates, the man in the oval office is not the sole source of government actions.
I did not vote for Trump in the last elections, I voted against fascism.

[jb]

At this point, the Republican party platform is basically "whatever Trump spouts off" so it's pretty hard to distinguish between the party principles and the man.

[Longtobefree]

At this point, the platform is easily accessed on the web, and is not “whatever Trump spouts off”.

[bernard11]

There is no 2020 GOP platform.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You can't reason with superstition.

You can't reason with bigotry.

You can't reason with ignorance.

You can't reason with most Trump supporters.

It is pointless, perhaps even counterproductive, to try.

[Mr. Bumble]

As a self proclaimed, long time defense attorney you put credence in E. Jean Carroll's story?

[not guilty]

A jury empaneled to evaluate her claims believed her. I have no reason to think they didn't get it right.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and I guess you believe Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth? Also, Anita Hill?

[Nige]

If a jury found in their favour, why wouldn't you believe them?

[Moderation4ever]

I would note that several Republicans who voted to confirm Brent Kavaughn said they believed that Christine Blasey Ford was assaulted just that it was not Kavaughn who assaulted her.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/collins-sotu-kavanaugh-cnntv/index.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Where the only basis for believing she was assaulted is her saying it.

Color me unimpressed.

[Moderation4ever]

Are you not echoing the Republican line that women lie about being raped. They, Republicans, know that women cannot get pregnant from rape and so they say any woman seeking an abortion for a rape is lying.

[Brett Bellmore]

OF COURSE women lie about being raped, sometimes. They're human beings, aren't they? Human beings lie sometimes!

The idea that women never lie about being raped is utterly idiotic. It's absurd that we don't laugh in the face of people who assert it.

Even Democrats won't pretend women never lie about being raped, if the woman happens to be accusing a Democrat of rape.

[Nige]

A jury decided she wasn't lying.

[Bob from Ohio]

So every death sentence is valid now. Good to hear, since you have absolute faith in juries being always right.

[Nige]

Glad to hear you're coming out against the death penalty.

[not guilty]

Brett, evaluating the merits of a plaintiff's claims is the reason we empanel juries.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that you did not watch the trial and have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

You decided he was innocent regardless of evidence the moment the allegation was made, and you've made no effort whatsoever to correct your obvious and idiotic bias.

[Sarcastr0]

He mentioned an adjudication via trial; did you miss that part?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump did a HORRIBLE job of refuting her claim. Like, I could not write a less believable denial than he made.

[Bob from Ohio]

"credence in E. Jean Carroll’s story"

The only woman in the Bloomingdale's dressing area, no other customers or any clerks. Then one of the most famous men in NYC just strolls into the woman's dressing area and assaults her. Nobody walks in or hears anything and she just goes home.

Why do you doubt it?

[Nige]

Because men sexually assault women all the time in all sorts of places.

[Commenter_XY]

Agreed....totally. How could anyone doubt that story? The Donald walked in, had his way with the string bean; nobody heard, nobody saw, no physical evidence the dastardly deed. Shit, the old crone could not even remember the year that The Donald diddled with her, but who cares about a little detail like that.

Totally open and shut case. Completely. The Science Law is Settled! 🙂

[Nige]

'the string bean... the old crone'

At the end of the day, no-one can say that Trump doesn't represent Republican values.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or right-wing religious values, such as those exhibited by Volokh Conspiracy fans.

[bernard11]

You disgrace yourself with that language, XY.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Misogyny makes you a worse person than you've tried to pretend to be, not a better one.

[bernard11]

Indeed.

[David Nieporent]

It was Bergdorf Goodman, not Bloomingdale's. And of course Trump was free to present evidence that the dressing room was always staffed or generally full of customers or whatever.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course he was free to present evidence of conditions a quarter century earlier. Easiest thing in the world to prove what was going on in some random store decades ago.

For that matter, he was free to present evidence he'd been elsewhere on that day. If she'd had to specify a day. Or a year.

Do you not understand how allowing allegations of criminal behavior decades ago, without any requirement for any sort of contemporaneous records, or even giving a specific day, biases the whole proceeding against the accused?

All the accuser needs is some friends willing to say stuff, in a context where consequences for lying are incredibly rare. All the accused needs is to somehow come up with evidence proving something else was going on decades earlier.

It's a rigged game, intentionally so.

[Nige]

Suck it up Brett, you're voting for a rapist.

[not guilty]

The jurors in this civil case were entitled to infer from Trump's failure to dispute Ms. Carroll's claims by testifying that her claims were meritorious. Whether they did or did not draw that inference, only the jurors know.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These losers are the precise target audience of a white, male, bigot-hugging conservative blog with a slim, receding, misappropriated academic veneer.

[Kleppe]

I'm voting for Trump. Nothing you or anyone else does is changing that. But I encourage you to keep pouring your money into that pit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Indeed, he could rape your sister and I'm sure you'd still vote for him.

That isn't something to be proud of.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Only centrists and libertarians are dumb enough to treat lawfare and oppo research like some kind of real scandal anyone's supposed to care about the truth of.

[Reallynotbob]

Facts are easier to ignore when you label them "lawfare" and "oppo research." Just say you don't care about them.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Whatever you call them! "Facts" or "baseless accusations about about an indeterminate day a quarter-century ago," I don't care. The OP asks "Where is the outrage?" as if we're supposed to attack our own side in the information war. That's David French's job, not mine. At least when he's not busy writing with bloodlust about how Israel's border must be defended with deadly force.

[not guilty]

Yes, I asked “Where is the outrage?” I followed that with a parenthetical specifically targeting those who trumpeted Juanita Broaddrick's belated, unproven and sometimes recanted claims.

I am unsurprised that no commenter has compared the two situations. The rule on these threads is:

IOKIYAR now.
IOKIYAR tomorrow.
IOKIYAR FO'EVAH!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

French has been touting himself as The Last True Christian on the Right for a while now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He well may be -- so many of the others have fallen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness to David French, he said pretty much about the same thing when he was in Iraq -- that the US Army had an adultery problem. And hence I can respect him on this.

HOWEVER, we are hiring a lawyer, not a minister -- we are hiring someone who is every bit as much as an unChristian bully as the unChristian bullies on the other side. It's the flip side of Scalia's point in RAV -- we can't follow boxing rules if the other side is fighting free form.

Trump is boorish -- he's from New York -- and while he's done things that I don't approve of, I don't think he's actually ever raped anyone in the context of "forcible rape." He's been rich for too long and even a first year law student knows that after a criminal conviction, the civil trial is just about the damages. Someone would have convinced the victim to file charges -- there were feminist lawyers back in the 1980s.

But the thing David French doesn't understand is that -- much as you have to kill people and break things in war -- we can't act as Christians when the other side refuses to do so. The feminists clearly made a political decision with Clinton, and hence decided the rules that we must play by.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Legitimate rape!

[Nige]

'we can’t act as Christians when the other side refuses to do so'

Defeats the point of being a Christian.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is the point of a fairy tale-based life?

This point is not applicable to those younger than 12 or so.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I think they are revealing that they also understand it is a fairy tale.

[not guilty]

"[W]e can’t act as Christians when the other side refuses to do so."

Uh, when Jesus said turn the other cheek, He was facing forward.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“we can’t act as Christians when the other side refuses to do so”

I think I remember Jesus said that. Where was it though? Sermon on the Mount? Or that turn the other cheek thing? I forget.

Remind me where a good, faithful Christian would find support for that repudiation of basically everything else Jesus ever said.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thank goodness conservatives chose childish superstition in the culture war draft.

Second round. Bigotry went number one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Any besides me who have changed their minds about cameras in courtrooms? I was indoctrinated in a college political science class with the notion that there were good reasons to keep cameras out. I bought it. The reasons sounded reasonable.

Watching Trump parade the political advantages his courtroom antics enable when the public cannot see them, I have changed to an adamant supporter of cameras in general. But if that is not possible, at least have cameras in the cases involving Trump. To protect him from scrutiny because he is a presidential candidate gets it backward. There will never be a set of cases in which full public scrutiny of a trial will matter more.

[Martinned]

Cameras in the courtroom for Trump wouldn't have convinced anyone who wasn't already convinced.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump has been treated as if he were above the law. That has political implications in Trump’s favor.

Trump’s contempt of court gets a pass which no one else would ever get. I think a judge who was on camera would be less likely to quail. For one thing, if Trump challenged being jailed for contempt, the judge could have confidence that any appeals court would measure its own response in expectation of the public’s access to video evidence of what actually happened.

If Trump is seen to be openly contemptuous in a trial court, and gets away with it, that is one thing. If an appeals court is seen publicly to tolerate Trump’s contempt, then a graver picture of systemic dysfunction emerges. I think cameras in courts at all levels would go far to stiffen the spines of judges charged with delivering even-handed justice in the Trump cases.

If that happened, I think some Republicans might be less likely to support Trump. Especially any who concluded they could not remain certain he could not be convicted before Election Day.

Folks can see the justice system apparently compelled to give Trump impunity. His contemptuous behavior has demonstrably provoked a flood of violent threats against court personnel, including judges. That not only occasions reflection on how resolute the judges can be, it also encourages some among his base to stick with Trump. It likely encourages more of them to threaten violence.

[Martinned]

I agree. But Trumpists think all of the stuff you're describing is a good thing. (See Ed and others in this thread.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

I never see Dr. Ed on any thread.

[billardl]

And Trump is being haled into court for bullshit that no one else would, before juries and judges that don't even pretend to be impartial. It works both ways.

[ReaderY]

I think you could argue the other way. If there were cameras for Trump to pay attention to, what incentive would Trump have to pay any attention to the judge at all? The courtroom would simply be another sound stage giving Trump another platform to reach his audience. If the judge breaks his assigned role and tries to interrupt or interfere with Trump’s show, Trump could take full advantage and be able to show his followers how the wicked Deep State is persecuting him. Right on camera.

True, the court system might not be willing to add a number to call to donate to Trump at the bottom of the footage. But that’s not such a big deal. It would in all other respects simply be spending public money to produce a Trump fundraising video show. Complete with stage, set, and a cast of supporting evil adversary characters for Trump to alternatively be persecuted by and show up. All paid for at public expense.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY, for Trump-like behavior defendants other than Trump have been jailed for contempt, thereafter to await trial in custody, and monitor court proceedings via a video feed. How do you suppose Trump would make a public stage out of that?

But supposing an appropriately harsh response is for some reason ruled out, maybe the best alternative would be to jail him, and then give him a choice of an early trial date, or to wait out in solitary confinement whatever delays he can engineer, with a Secret Service agent on guard 24/7 at the door of his cell.

[Don Nico]

91 felony counts says that you are wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

One or 91 would it make a difference to you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Flynt v. Fallwell?

I'd love to have a .mpeg of that one...

And what both sides need to realize is that both sides would selectively edit hours-long proceedings into 120 second .mpeg files that were then posted on MeTube, Twatter, & Farcebook. As to what that would do to the "dignity" of the legal system, I don't know...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes -- let the public see the anti-Trump bias....

[Kleppe]

"I have changed to an adamant supporter of cameras in general. But if that is not possible, at least have cameras in the cases involving Trump."

The same people who are willing to commit every injustice and make every exception to fuck one person as hard as possible will then turn around and say "nobody is above the law", lol.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kleppe, fine. Cameras for all. I already said it. The Trump case proves the necessity.

[Bwaaah]

Too late. You already revealed that that which you put forward as a legal theory is really just another get Trump strategy.

You add fuel to the right-side theory that our legal system is being commandeered for political ends.

That type of unprincipled, petty anger infects most of your arguments.

[Commenter_XY]

To be fair Bwaaah, we are not yet at 'Peak lathrop'. As you have seen, I have been coaching lathrop, without success, on just breathing and living life.

I'll alert you when we hit 'Peak lathrop', it is usually pretty good. Pro tip: It always starts with a truly humungous wall of text. 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. It was a no-free-swings-for-Trump strategy. Same rules for everyone. You are the one demanding special rules.

[Krayt]

Haven't w3 b33n down this path?

Partisans: Put cameras in courtrooms to embarrass Trump!

Trump: Yes, put cameras in the courtroom!

Partisans: Wait, do not put cameras in the courtroom!

[Nige]

Who are these partisans you keep 'quoting?'

[jb]

No. I don't think you can find any actual human that flip-flopped their position like Krayt suggests.*

What did happen is that some people on the left were in favor of televising the Trump trials, and also some other people on the left were opposed to it. Krayt thinks that because people on the left have different opinions about a topic that they are just out to get Trump. Confirmation bias is a helluva drug!

* I mean, I'm sure there's at least one. For any possible dumb take, at least one person has it. But no one seriously advocating for either position changed their mind based on Trump's opinion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A note for the pro-libel bloc among internet utopians. With results in from Fox News, Giuliani, and Trump himself, the total libel reckoning associated with the 2020 election is now ~ $1 billion. Claims that the internet has normalized defamation, and that victims need to toughen up seem at odds with the size of the jury verdicts. Those say loud and clear that normalizing defamation has been regarded by jurors as outrageous.

I never thought otherwise. As long as publication without prior private editing is legally permitted, there will be no practical means to control purposeful defamation. Public outrage will continue to grow and spread. That creates ever-greater danger that it will result politically in a legal regime of government censorship of published content.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The concept of "rule of law" is going into the toilet because of this.

[billardl]

Exactly. NBC can edit a tape of George Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound like he said "He looks like he's up to no good, he looks black," and have a judge dismiss defamation. Meanwhile, any liberal gets to make a claim and get huge verdicts based on "reputation."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is this the same NBC that put lit fireworks on vehicles to ensure that the gas tanks exploded in a spectacular fashion?

They HAD a good story, anyone with an IQ above 12 could understand that being doused with liquid gasoline in a MVA is not a good thing, but they had to make it better.

And GE (which THEN owned NBC) wasn't paying damages in this amount...

Lady Justice, RIP....

[bernard11]

Why is that?

You're an idiot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

News broke yesterday of an amicus brief filed by historians with regard to the Section 3 case. New-to-me information in the historians' brief includes a Jefferson Davis cite asserting that Section 3 is self-enforcing—which Davis hoped to use to protect himself from a treason charge.

Also mentioned is something I had not been aware of about the original founding era debates—they included reference to a term referring expressly to, "constitutional officers," encompassing the president, vice president, and members of the Supreme Court. There was other language expressing intent that constitutional officers were not a separate designation for purposes of provisions governing officers more generally. There was specific reference to the extent of the impeachment power as evidence of that identity.

It is not a long brief. Those interested in that debate should read it and comment.

[Kleppe]

"New-to-me information in the historians’ brief includes a Jefferson Davis cite asserting that Section 3 is self-enforcing"

Dems citing Dems.

[dwb68]

Also irrelevant. Supreme Court wont deprive seventy million people of their choice for President, unless that person has actually been convicted of treason.

They will say sec 3 applies to Trump, but he hasn't been convicted by a jury.

If it makes you feel better, Trump wont get the vote of suburban women, not even the republican ones, certainly not enough to win. (unless he changes his mean-against-women strategy).

[Reallynotbob]

It may be, given the current SCOTUS bench. But the point remains that a pro-Trump decision would further decay the fig leaf of originalism that conservatives on the Court invoke to bolster the legitimacy of their decisions.

Here's what I don't get: Trump himself is a huge problem, even if you like his ideas. Genuine conservatives should welcome the opportunity this presents to fix and strengthen the GOP. Claim the high ground. The party is about more than one man, right? If not, it's a cult.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that Trump is a problem, but he's just one man.

The tactics used against Trump are a problem, and they're a problem that generalizes, they're a problem even if Trump goes away.

So Republicans don't dare let these tactics work, or else they'll be rolled out on an industrial scale.

[dwb68]

"they’ll be rolled out on an industrial scale."

I think its too late. The bell has been rung, retaliation is inevitable.

[grb]

So what? They've tried to retaliate with Biden and you can see the result. Turns out it's much easier to prosecute a lifelong criminal (Trump) than to find charges were none exist (Biden).

[Brett Bellmore]

Turns out it's much easier for the guy with the Justice Department to prosecute people, than to prosecute the guy the Justice Department works for.

[grb]

Uh huh. Comer just had another witness testify in closed session and (of course) he lied about the testimony again. As with the other times before, the lies lasted just a few days until the transcripts were released, but if you're James Comer that's as good as life gets. Making up stories beats the hell out of trying to spin three truck payments into "corruption" any day of the week.

In short, Brett, don't blame the DOJ for the fact Joe Biden isn't a lifelong criminal like Trump.

[Life of Brian]

The full depo transcript is here.

What "lies" of Comer's does it refute, and how?

Quoted text (both of Comer and the transcript) would be very helpful in evaluating your claims. From what you've said, it should be a piece of cake!

[Life of Brian]

I guess at this point I'll surmise it wasn't QUITE the piece of cake the frothy news coverage promised, as is true far more often than not.

You can generally tell by the lack of actual quoted passages from the transcript and the substitution of too-convenient sounding paraphrases/characterizations.

[Nige]

Republicans have to teach everyone the lesson that if they want to promote a lawless criminal who tries to overturn elections, then mere laws cannot stop them.

[Reallynotbob]

Odd thing -- the tactics you dislike were largely not used until Trump. Some would say that's because he uniquely deserves them. Others would say it's because Democrats uniquely hate him. Either way, there isn't any evidence that the Democrats are going to generalize the tactics for all possible Republicans. (But there is current evidence the GOP under Trump's thrall is/will.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the idea that they're not going to generalize such tactics if they work requires a level of restraint on their part that it would be silly to anticipate.

Sure, they think Trump is uniquely bad. They've thought EVERY Republican nominee was uniquely bad, until the next one came along. They've literally compared every Republican nominee since Dewy to Hitler. They'd have started sooner, except that nobody would have known who Hitler was...

[Nige]

You're the side promising civil war. They're the side letting the law run its course.

[dwb68]

"if they work requires"

Just getting your enemy to spend time, energy, and money on something is a win. Even if its a decoy or distraction.

[bernard11]

Are you really such a jackass cultist as to believe that none of the accusations or charges against Trump have any validity?

You've truly lost it.

[dwb68]

Are you really such a jackass cultist as to believe that none of the accusations or charges against Biden[Clinton] have any validity?

You’ve truly lost it.

See what I did there?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You gave Prof. Volokh another tingle. A couple of the other Conspirators, too. They seem to live for shit like this.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “So Republicans don’t dare let these tactics work…”

You’d think Republicans would be equally fretful about a two-month campaigtn to steal an election lost in the voting booth. But they (and Brett) don’t care about that in the slightest.

You’d think Republicans would shoulder some of the blame for nominating a life-long criminal to political office. After all, everytime someone examines Trump’s dealings in detail, they always find fraud. When authorities looked at his Foundation, they found fraud. When they looked at his University, they found fraud. When they looked at the valuation of his assets, they found fraud. Trump couldn’t even turn his papers over to the National Archives without committing systematic fraud.

And you know why? Trump is one of those people who enjoys criminal behavior. He’s the type who prefers a crooked dollar or action to a straight one. When they analyzed the cesspool that was the Trump Foundation, a telling delay was found : Trump had used the charity to pay Don Jr’s $7 Boy Scout fee.

Just wrap your head around that, willya? A supposed billionaire commits fraud over seven frigg’n dollars. Everyone you know would have just reached for their wallet and pulled out a bill. Not Trump. He had to show he could beat the law. Ciminality is always his default position. That’s what led him to steal U.S. documents despite dozens of chances to defuse the situation. That’s what led him to brazeningly try and steal an election he lost.

Whatya wanna bet Smith doesn’t have him dead to rights on it either…. I wonder how the Bretts of the world see that playing out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/opinion/donald-trump-scouts-honor-speech.html

[dwb68]

lol at "even if you like his ideas" as Biden both closes the border and opens the border to try to appease both sides while pivoting to striking Iran after he pulled out of the middle east.

Problem for Dems is that Trump was right on much of everything. Now Biden is trying to get a deal on immigration that makes him look tough in time for Nov 2024, so he can go back to ignoring the border to appease to progressives in 2025.

The "Trump is a huge problem" apocalyptic rhetoric lost its impact years ago. blah blah blah, now people see a migrant crisis and war in the middle east.

[Reallynotbob]

But that's true for other Republicans also. There's nothing in your reply that explains why the standard-bearer has to be Trump. GOP could accomplish more of its objectives without him than with him.

[dwb68]

"The GOP" is not monolithic.

[Martinned]

I'd be inclined to agree with you, except that they're on track to choose a nominee more quickly than they've done in any Presidential election where they didn't run the incumbent for decades.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's because Trump IS, for all practical purposes, the incumbent. And the lawfare conducted against him prompted Republicans to rally behind him.

If not for the lawfare, we'd probably be looking at a hard fought primary battle, in which Trump still had the advantage, but not a crushing one. That's how it was shaping up before they got serious with the lawfare.

Look at this graph. It was shaping up to be a serious battle between Trump and DeSantis, until April. Then it all went South for DeSantis, and Trump took a commanding lead.

What happened in April? >They indicted Trump.

[Martinned]

That’s because Trump IS, for all practical purposes, the incumbent.

Yes, that's what people mean when they say that the GOP is monolithic: They all follow this one guy around.

And the lawfare conducted against him prompted Republicans to rally behind him.

Please stop it with this lawfare nonsense. Also, you know full well that the GOP has been walking after Trump since he was still in office, long before he got in trouble with various law enforcement agencies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

war in the middle east --- AND IRAN WITH NUKES!!!!

No one is mentioning that....

[Stephen Lathrop]

Supreme Court wont deprive seventy million people of their choice for President, unless that person has actually been convicted of treason.

dwb68, they can't do that and say so. What kind of phony excuse do you propose to give them?

[dwb68]

They can say whatever they want, lol.

[Bwaaah]

“for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug; it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”

(Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her "Students for Fair Admissions" decent.)

They can say whatever they want. And they do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”

That's mathematically impossible....

[Stephen Lathrop]

BWAAAH, is it true? My money is on Jackson, not on you.

[Absaroka]

Unless the survival rate is less than 50%, Dr. Ed has the math right.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. The fact you cannot make sense out of the math ought to be clue enough to tell you what is going on. You mistook a key inference about the data.

At values near 100%, focus on the relative proportions of small differences in the interval between high-90s% and 100% can result in large proportional percentage comparisons.

Sometimes isolation of that small interval, and analysis of what is going on inside it, gets treated as more significant than the much-larger balance of the data. It can be good practice to do that. It happens especially often when what is going on in the small remnant is something particularly bad or unwanted. If you count yourself familiar with percentage measurements you ought to recognize that analysis when you see it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- there is an error, I forget what is called but you can't say going from 98% to 99% is doubling it.

[Absaroka]

Sigh. This is not hard. The quote is "it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live".

Let's get all math-y and try proof by counterexample. Pick a percentage higher than 50%, let's say X=51%. Double that and you get 102%. That's a problem, because the probability of survival cannot be greater than 100%.

If you start with 75 cents, you can double it and get $1.50. If you start with a 75% survival rate, you can't double it and get a 150% survival rate. Not even by writing a 1000 word essay.

The retraction Bwaaah links says "the mortality rate for
Black newborns, as compared to White newborns, decreased by more than half when under the supervision of Black physician. In absolute terms this study found that patient-physician racial concordance led to a reduction in health inequity. However, while survival is the obverse of mortality and in general terms decreased mortality indicates increased survival, statistically they are not interchangeable."

That's close to right, with the quibble that ' statistically' should be replaced with 'arithmetically'; it isn't a statistical question.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, still misconstruing the analysis. Maybe you get it, but just prefer to be a critic. Assuming you are forthright:

Hypothetically, suppose a statistical distribution in which 97% of black babies survive, and 3% do not. The actual proportions do not matter, but use those for this discussion. Then isolate as the question of interest what is going on among the cases of the 3% of non-survivors. Hypothetically, study shows that one-third of those non-survivors were treated by black doctors, and two-thirds were treated by white doctors. You then conclude—arithmetically or statistically—that deaths among babies treated by black doctors are half as common as those among white doctors. It is perhaps a bullshit statistic—at least until you know what proportions among doctors are white or black, and probably for other reasons, but at least there is mathematical coherence.

Your point did not connect at all with that kind of analysis, but it is commonplace in numerous situations which attempt to explain what factors contribute to undesirable outcomes involving small percentages.

You could be trying to understand why a telescope which successfully focuses 99% of the light it admits is much less expensive than one which focuses 99.8%. Superficially, they both seem very good. Both focus almost all the incident light. Why pay more? The answer is that unfocused light is deleterious, and the first scope, though far easier to build, scatters 400% as much image-clouding random light as the second one.

See how it works? We are talking about fractions of 1%, but their relative proportions can still be legitimately referenced in terms amounting even to multiple hundreds of percent—and doing it that way can deliver useful insight.

[Stephen Lathrop]

500%, not 400%

[Absaroka]

Two simple questions.

1)Can a survival rate (for humans, as opposed to planaria) ever, under any circumstances, exceed 100%?

2)Is 2*51 greater than 100?

Those two questions encompass the totality of the mathematical question here.

I understand the rest of what you are saying - it's obvious and elementary - it just doesn't have any applicability to the ***mathematical*** question at hand.

[Commenter_XY]

The Justice needs to clarify what she wrote. The survival rate of black infants is way higher than 50% in the US.

[Bwaaah]

Is it true?

Well, the Association of American Medical Colleges, who submitted the amicus brief with the dumb statement on which Jackson's dumb statement was based, issued a retraction/restatement of their remarks.

Anyway, I think the good judge was just trying to alert us to another genocide: white doctors on Black babies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could it be because a Black (likely female) MD can say the mother is a druggie and make interventions on that basis to help the baby while the White MD can't because he'd be called a "racist"?

This also is lumping apples and oranges here -- why are (MOST) high risk Black pregnancies high risk? Lifestyle of mother -- drugs, domestic violence, unstable home, etc.

Why are (MOST) White pregnancies high risk? Age of mother and infertility issues.

Those are not the same things.

[David Nieporent]

Well, they're the same things in that they are all Dr. Ed lies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm starting to think that Trump should be MORE mean against women -- what he will lose from Suburban women he will gain (and then some) from Urban Black & Hispanic MEN.

Not only are these cultures way more sexist than ours, but these men are oppressed by women in positions of authority ranging from school teachers to housing administrators and welfare caseworkers.

[BrotherMovesOn]

For you ladies out there here’s the good news
– he’s siiiingle!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not available, not that it's any of your business.

[Commenter_XY]

The ICJ travesty....Israel, report back in a month? What is that? And report what...Hey ICJ, we haven't finishing killing the Judeocidal terrorists yet?

Consider the following: Never in history has one combatant supplied medical care and supplies, incubators, medicine, food and water, fuel, 700,000 warning phone calls and a million flyers dropped from the skies, to its enemy; giving three weeks’ notice to prepare its enemy for the evacuation from the proposed combat zone. Never has one combatant provided safe, controlled routes to evacuate, to the other. -- These are things Israel did. Name another invading country that has ever done anything like this. Certainly not the US, or Russia.

The timing of the decision of the ICJ, coming just before Shabbat and literally the day before International Holocaust Remembrance Day was no mistake either. On the same day, many UN employees (UNRWA) were found to be active participants in the Simchat Torah pogrom.

I am personally disgusted with the vote of the American judge, Joan Donoghue. Her moral compass is broken.

[Nige]

Its probably the thousands and tousands of dead and maimed innocent men women and children. Remember them? Also the intimations of ethnic cleansing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which is why Israel should have nuked Gaza the next day and been done with it.

[Nige]

Not sure I follow your reasoning but I think even the most pro-genocide Israel supporters find your proposed method unsound.

[Martinned]

"Genocidal maniac on aisle 3 in need of an update on how small Israel is!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

What do you think Iran can do with the 6 nukes it soon will have?

[Kleppe]

Just admit you hate Jews, dude. No other reason to be parroting Hamas-cooked figures.

[Nige]

I think you lot hate Jews almost as much as Hamas do, given your determination to implicate them all in Israel’s slaughter.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They hate Jews. They love Israel’s right-wing assholes, and are temporarily willing to overlook the Jewish element because of the superstition, hard-right belligerence, and “own the libs” value.

[Martinned]

Name another invading country that has ever done anything like this. Certainly not the US.

It's unusual of you to be so pessimistic about the US, but I would argue that the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are two examples of a combatant doing exactly this. (And Vietnam, if you want to go further back.) Sometimes for the worse. The US has also used airborne leaflets to excuse civilian bombings.

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

The timing of the decision of the ICJ, coming just before Shabbat and literally the day before International Holocaust Remembrance Day was no mistake either. On the same day, many UN employees (UNRWA) were found to be active participants in the Simchat Torah pogrom.

Don't be silly. Just because Israel decided to undermine the ICJ judgment by attacking UNWRA, which was cited repeatedly in the ICJ judgment, doesn't mean it's all one big conspiracy.

[Commenter_XY]

Martinned: Israel attacked UNRWA!
(cue in hysterical peals of derisive laughter)

Um....Ok. 🙂

[Martinned]

Why does that confuse you? The Trump example (op cit) should serve to illustrate just fine what kinds of things people might do when they worry about losing litigation. (Or actually lose it.)

[Krayt]

In All the Light We Cannot See, on Netflix, the US drops leaflets on the bombing they plan in a town and tell civilians to get out. They try but the Nazis won’t let them leave the walled town. The Nazis know they are losing and want the US killing civilians.

Granted, it's out of pure evil Nazi spite, and not part of a business model to point to the deaths to get idiot westerners to stop the war.

[Voize]

That was fiction, it didn't happen in the real Battle of Saint-Malo.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See Lemay Bombing Leaflet -- dropped on Hiroshima, etc...

[Voize]

Tell me more. What were Nazis doing in the walled city of Hiroshima?

[Martinned]

I am personally disgusted with the vote of the American judge, Joan Donoghue. Her moral compass is broken.

By the way, you realise that the Israeli judge ad hoc also voted for two of the orders, right? Do you want to accuse him of being an antisemite too?

[David Nieporent]

The two things he voted for did not accuse Israel of anything. They were "Israel needs to violate the first amendment prevent incitement to genocide" and "Israel needs to enable humanitarian aid."

[Martinned]

I'm not sure why you moved the goalposts in that way, but Judge Barak did say this:

With regard to the third measure, which concerns acts of public incitement, I have voted in favour in the hope that the measure will help to decrease tensions and discourage damaging rhetoric. I have noted the concerning statements by some authorities, which I am confident will be dealt with by the Israeli institutions.
With regard to the fourth measure, I voted in favour, guided by my deep humanitarian convictions and the hope that this will alleviate the consequences of the armed conflict for the most vulnerable. Through this measure, the Court reminds Israel of essential international obligations, which are already present in the DNA of the Israeli military. This measure will ensure that Israel continues to enable the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, which I see as an obligation arising under IHL.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see where I moved any goalposts or said anything different than you did. The two issues that Barak voted for were future-looking; they did not make any scurrilous accusations about what Israel has done.

[Martinned]

Neither XY nor I was talking about anyone accusing Israel of anything. XY said that Judge Donoghue's moral compass was broken, without expanding very much about why he/she said that, beyond linking it to Judge Donoghue's vote. So I pointed out that Judge Barak voted with Judge Donoghue on two of the orders.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
The ruling was just another piece of evidence that Hamas has won the propaganda war.

In the meanwhile, Mr Biden is stumbling toward full spectrum war in the Middle East. It is not going to be pretty

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hamas has won the propaganda war"

Israel is winning the real war so it balances out.

[Don Nico]

Bob,
It does not balance out because the issues are not on the same plane.
While I agree that eradicating Hamas is most important, fanning the flames of anti-semitism is not to be ignored

[Nige]

Or to put it another way, eroding unconditional US support for Israel due to revulsion at the deaths in Gaza. Not saying anti-semitism isn't being fanned, but they're not the same thing and I really doubt Netanyahu is losing sleep over some dumb college students getting radical enough to say nice things about Hamas.

[Bob from Ohio]

Israel has lost the propaganda war every time since 1973 was spun as a great Arab victory. The Arabs hide behind children and then wave the corpses that they caused.

[Nige]

Which is another way of saying Israel keeps killing children. Always easy to win a war on children.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Hamas garrison is incapable of defending Gaza. Once a defense is hopeless, a garrison has an obligation to surrender.

Hamas fired some rockets today. They are not guided and are fired at civilian areas. A war crime.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : “A war crime”

Jeez, the hypocrisy here is mindboggling. As several news organizations have reported, Israel has dropped hundreds of 2000lb unguided (dumb) bombs into densely populated urban centers, each one with a shrapnel kill radius that extends as far as 1000ft.

US intelligence sources told CNN that almost half of the 29,000 air-to-surface munitions dropped on Gaza were so-called dumb bombs, unguided munitions that pose a greater threat to civilians in densely populated territories like Gaza. The linked article below has a map of one urban site where these massive bombs were used, showing seven schools falling within their kill radius.

So if “they are not guided and are fired at civilian areas” works as a war crime for Hamas, what does that say about Israel? How do you think the IDF managed to kill plus-minus 20,000 civillans in a little over three months?

https://www.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html#:~:text=Extensive%20big%20bomb%20attacks%20around,the%20city%20in%20early%20November.

[Absaroka]

I think accuracy (CEP) is the important factor, not guided vs. dumb. Dumb bombs *can* be delivered with fairly precise accuracy with current computerized bombsights (or lofted into who knows where). Dumb rockets, depending on the type, can be reasonably accurate or merely zip code accurate.

Dive bombing might be releasing the bomb at pretty short range, with a sighting system that is correcting for wind drift. Rockets might be going miles without any wind correction, etc, etc.

Or not; I have no info on which systems Israel and Hamas are using, or how carefully they are using them. I'm just pointing out that just saying 'dumb' doesn't tell you much about the actual accuracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden could give Israel more of the guidance kits....

[Nige]

So is killing 20,000+ a result of accuracy or indiscriminacy? Which is less of a war crime?

[Nige]

War crimes punished with worse war crimes. Killing civilians as punitive exercises.

[David Nieporent]

The ruling was just another piece of evidence that Hamas has won the propaganda war.

Hard to see how. Hamas supporters hoped the ICJ ruling would be "Israel is committing genocide and needs to stop attacking Hamas now." It wasn't. It was, "Israel needs to be careful."

(In contrast, the ICJ ruling on Ukraine was, "Russia is ordered to stop now.")

[Don Nico]

David,
As an interim ruling SA could not have expected better. Asking for Israel to report back in one month does not make Israel look good, (BTW, have you stopped beating your wife.)

[Commenter_XY]

I hope you are right, David. Really, I do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When better Americans stop enabling Israel’s right-wing jerks, how will Israel’s future be measured? Weeks? Months? Years?

Let’s hope that whatever replaces the current Israel is an improvement.

[David Nieporent]

Just like Dr. Ed masturbates at the thought of shooting Mexican immigrants, Kirkland pleasures himself to the thought of Jews being killed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Israel's right-wing, superstition-laced, immoral government (and the consequent selfish, violent, immoral conduct) could be dismantled without injury or loss of life, I would welcome that.

I don't like authoritarian, violent, obsolete, bigoted, "mission from God" right-wing assholes in America or anywhere else, and I see no reason to start with Israel.

You seem to find little or no fault in Israel's authoritarian, superstition-addled, bigoted, stale, violent right-wing assholes. Why?

[Dr. Ed 2]

How is it Constitutional for New York to prevent Trump from owning property?

[Martinned]

Where does it say in the Constitution that you, Trump, or anyone else has a right to own property?

[Randy Sax]

The constitution doesn't give you rights. You innately have them. The constitution is meant to keep the government from violating your rights.

[Martinned]

That may well be, but "constitutional rights" sure as fuck come from the constitution and nowhere else.

[Sarcastr0]

One of the many problems with natural rights, is how do you know what they are?

If I think I have a right to assless chaps everywhere I go, I don't think that's an innate right, but under your formulation I could insist the Bill of Rights left that out because the Founders were in the pocket of of Big Pants.

[Randy Sax]

"If I think I have a right to assless chaps everywhere I go"

Go for it bud. Free expression.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll get arrested or fired, as though inherent rights are effectively meaningless!

[Randy Sax]

Arrested - for what? Ass cheeks are not legally indecent.
Fired - Private contracts, like employment, are just that, private. Free association, if your employer no longer wishes to associate with you, that's his choice.

[OtisAH]

On behalf of my accomplished equestrian friend I must inform you that all chaps are assless. But I won’t yell it at you like she would.

[Sarcastr0]

I think I've been dinged about that before.

Worth it for 'the pocket of Big Pants' IMO.

[ThePublius]

Where does it say in the constitution that you have the right to pick your nose?

[Randy Sax]

Exactly, everything is permitted unless expressly banned. Not the other way around.

[Reallynotbob]

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

Sigh.

[Martinned]

Ever since Richard Posner, of all people (with Easterbrook concurring), signed off on a law that banned the slaughtering of horses for human consumption, but not the slaughtering of horses to make dog food or the import of horse meat for human consumption, I've given up on the US judiciary enforcing some kind of sensible rule of substantive due process.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/1331087.html

[ReaderY]

Nothing in the case prevents Trump from owning property. Limited liability is a privelege granted by charter to businesses that the state thinks will serve a public purpose. At one time, legislatures passed a separate act to create every corporate charter, deciding whether they thought it would be in the state’s interest to do so or not each time. Any state that wants to could go back to that method. For those that don’t, they can create rules corporations must meet if they want to keep their charters.

Corporate status creates a separate personhood. It’s the separate person, who owns any property. Trump’s property rights aren’t being affected here.

Or are you now telling us you think Citizens United is no longer convenient, hence must have been wrongly decided?

[bernard11]

So are you saying the Trump Organization could simply transfer all its properties to Trump personally, and he could continue to operate them?

[David Nieporent]

New York is not preventing Trump from owning property. What are you talking about?

[Sarcastr0]

From the twitter feed of some science history rando ("Ash Jogalekar").
"There are some academic papers that are so brilliantly and so accessibly written and so universal in scope that they transcend disciplines and stand as timeless testaments to both great thinking and great writing. Here's a short personal selection"

Seems like it could be of interest to some folks. I'll be reading through the list and posting one at a time
Number one:

"Philip Anderson's famous "More is Different": I used to literally carry this around all the time in graduate school, in part to explain to physicists why chemistry couldn't be reduced to physics. Anderson captured the very essence of emergence here https://tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf"

[1972. 4 pages - nice and tight.
This one speaks to my own past largely jocular snobbery as a physics student making fun of chemists.
The paper explains that science X is not "just applied Y* and how fields like chemistry that began purely phenomenologically are relevant in their own right as they find emergent symmetries and ignore irrelevant complexities with an efficiency bottom up approaches will never reach.
The scaling to biology and linguistics is also fun. And I might find myself using the phrase 'synthesis may be impossible but analysis can prove fruitful.']

[Martinned]

That's true for pretty much anything by Ronald Coase. (Not a coincidence that his Problem of Social Cost is the most cited law review article of all time by a country mile.)

Otherwise, I'd recommend Fischer Black's Noise. Nobel Prize winner reflecting on the efficiency of financial markets. 15 pages, and the kind of thing they only let you write if you have a Nobel. http://www.e-m-h.org/Blac86.pdf

[bernard11]

Coase was a brilliant man, and a fine writer, but his work, especially The Problem of Social Cost, as well as the lighthouse article, is often misunderstood, or willfully misinterpreted.

[Martinned]

You have no idea how much you're preaching to the choir on that one. His work was a big chunk of the theoretical basis behind my PhD dissertation, so I am irritated by people abusing the Coase Theorem on a quasi-daily basis. For example, there's this garble from everyone's favourite new corrupt dictator Javier Milei: https://twitter.com/UnlearnEcon/status/1732086455587975564

[Archibald Tuttle]

Good point. Because of all the AI news, emergence is a hot topic nowadays. The most understandable examples for the public are in biology.

[Sarcastr0]

My favorite example he uses is the ‘shape’ of ammonia. Which is a real effect, measured chemically.

But which you could not derive from first physics principles, with all its shapeless probability clouds.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason you couldn't derive it from first physics principles isn't that it's not derivable from first physics principles; We're starting to be able to calculate that sort of thing using numerical simulations, which IS a sort of derivation from first physics principles.

It's that the Schrödinger equation is humanly impossible to solve analytically for anything more complicated than a hydrogen atom. Which really sucks for humans.

[Sarcastr0]

If the nucleus is sufficiently small there is no real way to define its shape rigorously…It is only as the nucleus is considered to be a many-body system-in what is often called the [N -> infinity] limit-that such behavior is rigorously definable
…
Starting with the fundamental laws and a computer, we would have to do two impossible things -solve a problem with infinitely many bodies, and then apply the result to a finite system-before we synthesized this behavior

[Armchair]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but....

It might be time for Kamala to take over.
Joe's...not right. Slurring his words, unable to form coherent sentences, implying his son died in combat in WWII...

Seriously...watch the clips

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2024/01/27/biden-freaks-out-and-starts-screaming-south-carolina-over-trump-n2169318

[Brett Bellmore]

They've been pretty smart about continually airing his incoherence; If they'd concealed it, and then his current condition suddenly slipped out, people would be horrified. As it is, people have gotten used to him being incoherent and living in a fantasy world.

[Armchair]

If only a nice group of civic-minded individuals would just air some of these clips during the Super Bowl...

[Nige]

The problem is that in between and beyond these short much-circulated clips, there are lengthy and continuous clips of him being perfectly coherent. Whereas Trump never speaks in anything other than word salad, mixing verbal abuse with well-worn lies.

[Martinned]

Maybe neither of them should be president? Have you guys thought about electing someone younger than 70?

For comparison, Finland had the first round of its presidential election yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Finnish_presidential_election

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree, neither of them should be President.

Let's do something about this, and amend the Constitution to add a maximum age limit for public office. If necessary have it kick in ten years after ratification.

[Martinned]

Wouldn't it be easier to just vote for other candidates in the primaries?

[Brett Bellmore]

How’s that working out?

Arms control treaties, wouldn’t be easier to just not launch missiles?

[Martinned]

So far it has been, yes.

[Don Nico]

"Maybe neither of them should be president? Have you guys thought about electing someone younger than 70?"
I have thought about it to no avail. They should both be off the ballot, but there are too many stupid people among American voters

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it is famously said that half the population is below average IQ.

You're looking at a game of chicken, essentially. Both sides should quit it, but neither side wants to be the first.

That's why I think the only answer is a constitutional amendment imposing an age limit on both sides, which kicks in long enough after enactment that nobody currently in a position to block it would feel their own political ambitions personally threatened.

But we're not going to see that, constitutional amendment originating from Congress are passe. The last one was the DC statehood amendment back in the 70's.

We need a con-con, desperately.

[Martinned]

You’re looking at a game of chicken, essentially. Both sides should quit it, but neither side wants to be the first.

Why not? This makes no sense. (And by extension neither does your nuclear arms race analogy.) I get why the Republicans wouldn't nominate Haley, because she's a woman and a minority, and that would be taking diversity too far. But surely they must be able to come up with an electable white man below 70? They've done so many times before. And in this race, that would be exactly how you'd make the point that Biden is too old to be president.

You know what's a terrible way to make that point? Running another senile old guy against him whose selling point is that he's technically not 80 yet.

[VinniUSMC]

I get why the Republicans wouldn’t nominate Haley, because she’s a woman and a minority, and that would be taking diversity too far

Nazi boy commenting about diversity. Fuck off Nazi scum.

[Don Nico]

Muted

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn't take much to get your panties in a twist.

[VinniUSMC]

Bye, try not to cry too hard. Fuck martin, little nazi boy wants to call other people sexist and racist for not falling in line behind the Democrats in support of Haley? Fuck that. Muted for calling a Nazi a Nazi, fucking lulz.

[Frank Drackman]

LBJ was 56 when he was sworn in for his own term in 1965, beating that War Monger Barry Goldwater, 'W' was 54 when he was sworn in January 2001, Barry Hussein was 47 when he was sworn in January 2009, how did those terms work out.....

[Nige]

Gerontocracy FTW.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe he was angry that a man like Trump referred to his son and others that serve in uniform as "losers". How do you feel about what Trump said? I would be angry if my son were or had been in service.

[Armchair]

"losers"

Fake news.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2020/09/04/the-latest-garbage-hit-piece-on-trump-begins-to-fall-apart-as-real-evidence-emerges-n253508

[Magister]

Former President Trump didn't want to visit a cemetery near Paris for Americans who fought and died in World War I because it was filled with "suckers" and "losers," John Kelly, his longest-serving chief of staff, said in a statement to CNN on Monday.

Why it matters: In the statement, Kelly supported this and several other instances of Trump disparaging service members that were reported by The Atlantic in 2020 and vehemently denied at the time by the Republican 2024 presidential front-runner.

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/02/trump-troops-fallen-soldiers-john-kelly

Seems to specifically rebut your "debunking" link's claim that Kelly would say "yes, this happened" but hadn't.

[Armchair]

This is the same Kelly that convinced Trump not to go to the cemetery due to weather and security concerns?

Hmm... Seems someone has grudge that makes them "misremember".

[Magister]

From Wikipedia, "According to several news outlets in early 2018, Kelly's influence in the White House had been diminished and Trump made several key decisions without his presence." He was replaced in December of that year. Trump blamed the Secret Service (among other stories) for canceling the cemetery visit, and it seems odd that he wouldn't have thrown Kelly under the bus in November 2018 if Kelly had suddenly regained influence.

[David Nieporent]

This is the same Kelly that convinced Trump not to go to the cemetery due to weather and security concerns?

No.

[Brett Bellmore]

How do I feel about what Trump said? Well, first off, you'd have to establish that he said it. Here's what Snopes has to say:

"In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump's alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members "losers" and "suckers." While it was certainly possible that he said those things, Snopes was unable to independently verify the claim."

And that's with them evidently desperate to find reason to believe it.

There's a fairly long history of the media airing derogatory anonymous allegations about what Trump has said or done, usually denied by those actually present. It's a whole genre, really.

[Mr. Bumble]

Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof when it comes to anything Trump. See E. Jean Carroll claim.

[bernard11]

anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump’s alleged words;

Did you read Magister's comment just above? Kelly confirmed the story. Wait, I know, The Democrats made him do that.

[Life of Brian]

I don't know about "made him," but I do think it's a fair question why after laying low for 3 years, he suddenly decided he should offer his version of events that happened over 5 years ago. They were far from bosom buddies at the time the story first broke.

[Magister]

Another entry from the "Trump cannot be wrong, only wronged" brigade.

Pitched as Calming Force, John Kelly Instead Mirrors Boss’s Priorities, "for all of the talk of Mr. Kelly as a moderating force and the so-called grown-up in the room, it turns out that he harbors strong feelings on patriotism, national security and immigration that mirror the hard-line views of his outspoken boss."

He was loyal to Trump at the time, given their shared hard-line views. His attitude toward Trump has evolved steadily, from his dishonest attack on Frederica Wilson in support of Trump in 2017, to declining to deny such reports in 2020, to his recent statement. Given the attempted coup and promises to be a dictator, one can easily understand why this might be; something the Trump cultists seems as unable to understand as Trump understanding why people would volunteer for the military.

[Life of Brian]

Well, I'd rate that as a world-class effort at post-hoc rationalization, the beyond-silly inflammatory rhetoric notwithstanding. But I think Occam remains dissatisfied.

(And on that note, what in the world was the point of the 2017 [paywalled] Times link, which supports precisely none of your "evolved steadily" theory? As I mentioned, they fell out hard in 2018, two years before the rumors first surfaced.)

[Magister]

If one starts, as LoB invariably does, thinking that everyone who disagrees is dishonest, politically motivated, or otherwise not to be believed, then not surprisingly they all end up that way. It is interesting that, when asked by CNN to comment, the Trump campaign immediately attacked General Milley.

CNN reached out to the Trump campaign Monday afternoon, telling officials there that a former administration official had confirmed, on the record, a number of details about the 2020 Atlantic story, without naming Kelly, and seeking comment. The Trump campaign responded by insulting the character and credibility of retired Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark Milley, who had nothing to do with this story.

Not all generals now hate Trump; it just seems that way.

(The NY Times link is for those who subscribe or create a free account for limited access, but one can verify it is accurately quoted by searching Google with the quoted text. If the urge to quibble is not satisfied by only knowing that it said that, then the CNN link above should remedy things.)

[Life of Brian]

I agree bringing up Milley is a distraction. So why in the world was that all you could come up with?

(Speaking of distractions, you also didn't say a word about why you thought the Times article mattered to your argument, instead fixating on my simple observation that you provided a paywalled link rather than one all can readily read, like this one.)

[Magister]

No other presidential candidate in history has had so many detractors from his inner circle.

LoB couldn't be bothered to read the CNN article, and resorts to more quibbling. The Times quote supports the observation that "He was loyal to Trump at the time" which anybody with normal reading comprehension would understand.

Trump has multiple detractors, who corroborate each other's accounts, so that his campaign has no idea who to push back again. It is entirely believable that anyone would progress from loyal administration member to harsh critic, since it's a familiar trajectory for Trump insiders, given his increasingly alarming conduct.

[Life of Brian]

Never any answers with you... just flitting from one swallowed-whole cut-and-paste distraction to the next.

It's clear at this point your theory just boils down to "hey, could have happened!" Golf clap.

[Magister]

I have explained everything that LoB pretends to be incapable of understanding. I have presented no theory, just evidence which LoB is unable to rebut and only trying to make something of the observation that Kelly was once supportive of Trump and now isn't. Plenty of people have followed that trajectory.

[Life of Brian]

More handwavy word salad, with a weird apparent second-person allergy thrown in to boot.

Recall, you were the one who crashed this thread and purported to counter my point I made to someone other than you, so you do indeed have the burden to support your argument. I think you've realized at this point you can't, and are just backing toward the exit.

[Magister]

Recall (or just read up the page a little), LoB was replying to bernard11 who said "Did you read Magister’s comment just above?" and who was replying to someone who was not LoB.

Resorting to claims of comment etiquette violations, in this forum? That's the person who lost the argument (a number of comments ago). Better luck with future quibbling, Loser of Brian.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The "Trump campaign" spokesperson's response sure says "Steven Cheung" to me...

[Brett Bellmore]

"Kelly confirmed the story."

I think we've established that Kelly does not like Trump. I'm not sure that anything more has actually been established.

[Nige]

Certainly not that he's lying in this case.

[Frank Drackman]

Kelly was a Political POS General, joined the Merchant Marine in the late 60's to avoid the Draft, enlisted in the USMC and served 40 plus years without seeing Combat, seriously, check his Official Marine Corpse Bio, doesn't have a 'Combat Action Ribbon', meaning he never heard a shot 'fired in anger' except maybe at the Rifle range. I had a Combat Action Ribbon my 2d year in the Navy [serving with a Marine Corpse Unit]

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

There was no exemption for Merchant Marine. USCG, yes, but not MM.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, I can believe you say this. Because you've been posting out of context videos of Biden for ages.

And you don't really want Kamala to take over, you just want to burnish your non-existent bonafides as you go after Biden.

But everyone knows what you are. Everyone except Brett, I suppose. You two have a good time being credible with one another.

[Armchair]

Why don't you watch the videos. Or find a post to the entire speech. See if its any better.

Biden isn't well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, I've seen the videos. I'm unimpressed.

Biden gets incoherent at times, and he's clearly living in a fantasy world, he can't distinguish between his lies about his past and actual events. But it doesn't help things when they air supposed examples of his incoherence that are really kind of marginal.

It's real, you don't need to exaggerate, stick to the cases that are unambiguous.

[Sarcastr0]

I saw a series of short cut videos, purposefully taken out of larger speeches to get that confirmation bias thing going.

I've seen the same stuff pulled on Trump. And Obama (to show he's got Aids), and Bush (to show he's secretly been drinking) and Pelosi.

You probably have, too. But you have issues with memory, maybe?

Headline: Armchair isn't well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, it's bad enough that he keeps repeating debunked lies about his family's past. Like his 1st wife and daughter being killed by a drunk driver, (She pulled into the path of a sober truck driver.) or his son dying in Iraq.

Biden's been making up shit about his past his whole political career, people have been calling him out on it the whole while. But I think at this point it's not a lie, he actually can't remember that it's not true.

[Nige]

'he keeps repeating debunked lies'

You have to wildly exaggerate and distort and it's still not even a blip on the 'Trump repeating debunked lies' scale.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, your first link includes this:

To be honest, those of us in fire-rescue here in Delaware assumed that Mr. Dunn had been drinking, based on comments made by police officers at the scene. And in the Delaware fire service, rumors travel from station to station like wildfire.

Until he remarried in 1977, whenever Joe Biden attended a public safety event, parade or spoke during a firehouse banquet, police officers and firefighters would approach him and discuss the accident and the tragedy of his wife Neilia and daughter Naomi falling victim to a drunken driver. Imagine how those discussions must have affected the young Senator.

Note also, three facts which seem beyond dispute: an official report said the tractor trailer driver was found incoherent, but without other evidence to show he had been drinking; the report concluded the truck driver was not at fault, and was not charged with drinking; all the original records of the investigation are missing.

So it is not the simple picture of Biden lying you keep asserting.

It is one thing to spout purposeful lies about Biden. But what makes you suppose it's a good idea to mischaracterize a link you actually include? Do you think that gives you cover to expand your allegations beyond what a forthright reading of the record actually supports?

Biden did end up apologizing to the family of the truck driver for saying he was drunk, by the way. There was not competent proof to show that he was. But that is not what Biden had been told repeatedly by people with personal contacts which connected them to the investigation.

[Armchair]

Me: Why don't you find a post to the entire speech. See if its any better?

Sarcastr0. "Nope, not gonna do that.."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kamela's not electable.

[Mr. Bumble]

But Willie Brown thought she was delectable.

[Frank Drackman]

Worst part about eating out an Indian Chick is 30 minutes later you're hungry again

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember, folks . . . the people cultivating this audience are law professors.

Conservative law professors. Disaffected, bigot-hugging law professors. Culture war casualties. Hypocrites, cowards, and fringe losers.

[grb]

Armchair : “Biden isn’t well”

Well, I guess we’ll see it in the debates, huh?

After all, the entire right-wing hive mind was saying Biden wouldn’t even show for the 2020 campaign debates. His handlers would invent some excuse to cancel out. Biden couldn’t be trusted live onstage. And if you pointed out (as I did) that Biden had debated Sanders over two hours a few months earlier, the MAGA lemmings had a ready answer : Biden had gotten “much worse” over that time. You could see it, they insisted!

It’s amazing people were dupe enough to believe this nonsense, but that’s the MAGA mind for ya. And it was funny they invested sooooo much time pushing this meme only to have it collapse on live TV as Biden made Trump look like a fool.

So, tell us, Armchair : Is it going to be different this time? Remember, Joe may have slowed a step, but Trump is the one who can’t string together two coherent sentences. Trump is the one who lacks the discipline to make a rational point. Trump is the one who is deeply ignorant. And MAGA ranting doesn’t sell well to a national audience full of normal people. Whatya wanna bet your Dementia Shtick blows up on national TV yet again….

[Armchair]

Did you watch the videos? Did you see Biden slurring and incomprehensible?

[grb]

I guess we'll see on national TV come debate-time.....

[Commenter_XY]

How bad can it be? = POTUS Biden's cognition

25A is on the books. No one seems to be talking about going down that path. Heard about 25A incessantly during POTUS Trump's term.

[Brett Bellmore]

Harris is the classic life insurance policy VP, nobody really wants her to replace Biden, even Republicans. Pence? Not so much, Republicans wouldn't really have minded a President Pence.

You heard about the 25th amendment while Trump was President because a bunch of yahoos through it was a work around the difficulty of convicting Trump in an impeachment trial.

[bernard11]

Now you want to comment on Trump's cognition?

Because all this crap about Biden sure sounds completely one-sided to me. Have you read any of Trump's meanderings?

Get out of the cult, XY.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I've heard the stuff Trump says. His grammar is painful, but I can always identify the words he's uttering, and if I bother with context, what he means. That's not always the case for Biden.

Tell you what: Let's have them both take cognitive tests with a mutually agreed upon specialist, and publish the results. Deal?

[myself]

Though Trump does straight up seem seem to be mixing up names and events. Here he is mixing up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi for almost 30 seconds. It's hard to claim that full rant is taken out of context, and he uses Nikki Haley's name multiple times.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's older than dirt, only a few years behind Biden. So, yeah, he's on a downhill slide, and it's getting increasingly steep.

We're going into an election, essentially, where the important person is the VP, on both sides.

[Mr. Bumble]

He'll probably live longer than you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Quite possible, I'm a cancer survivor, and chemo is pretty hard on you, it literally takes years off your potential lifespan. Which is kind of depressing; You not only get the obvious side effects, you age maybe 30% faster afterwards due to all those stem cells that get killed trying to repair the damage from the chemo while you're still undergoing it.

Which, don't get me wrong, beats outright dying, but it still sucks.

[Frank Drackman]

If the God you worshipped, did this to you, of what use was worshipping the God.....

[myself]

Biden is slipping verbally, but I'm less concerned since I don't see the same level of confusion and he's also the kind of person to take advice. Biden is more of a classic team/brand Presidency, the President sets the agenda, but a lot of the judgement is done by the team.

The issue with Trump's slippage is that he's already combative and doesn't like to take advice.

Basically, if dementia does really start to inhibit Biden people will take over duties until he steps down and Harris takes over. Not great, but supposedly what happened near the end of Reagan's Presidency.

If dementia really hits Trump I don't see him trusting the judgement of trusted advisors (and his advisor tend to be quite extreme). Instead I expect more and more chaos until he's so obviously deteriorated that he either agrees to resign or they use the 25th.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are entitled to your opinion but not on point in your comment is true.
Per Robert Gates: Biden has been wrong on every policy decision for his whole career.

[myself]

That's... completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

It doesn't matter that much if Biden starts to slip, he's a centrist Democrat and if someone else in his administration takes over officially (or unofficially) the administration will still function as centrist Democrat.

Trump on the other hand is erratic, and his appointees are basically chosen on the basis of loyalty to Trump. If a President Trump goes into major decline no one can tell what's going to happen.

It's nothing to do about whether they're right or wrong (I disagree with you btw), it's about what will happen if they have significant dementia while in office.

[Life of Brian]

he’s a centrist Democrat and if someone else in his administration takes over officially (or unofficially) the administration will still function as centrist Democrat.

Man, the Overton window really is a thing, isn't it?

Even the Gray Lady presents him as scrambling back to the center "after two years championing progressive priorities" because he's such a principled there's an election coming up.

[Roberta]

He was centrist in his branding when he ran for the office, and that positioning is what got him the nomination. However, he's been governing as a mere passive conduit (which, considering his faculties, he's likely to be) for the extreme of his party.

[David Nieporent]

He was centrist in his branding when he ran for the office, and that positioning is what got him the nomination. However, he’s been governing as a mere passive conduit (which, considering his faculties, he’s likely to be) for the extreme of his party.

I assure you that progressives do not view Biden as on their side, let alone a "passive conduit" for them.

The two parties are not symmetrical. "The extreme of his party" are on the outside, unlike in the GOP where the inmates are running the asylum (and all the professional staff have quit).

[Life of Brian]

I assure you that progressives do not view Biden as on their side, let alone a “passive conduit” for them.

So all that "two years championing progressive policies" in the Times article I linked just above was totally unrequited? That has to be sad for him.

[Moderation4ever]

While we ponder on the Nikki/Nancy thing I have another question. Can anyone explain what debanking is?

[Brett Bellmore]

Just what it sounds like: It's when banks are pressured to cut off banking services to some person or organization. Or even, on occasion, do so on their own initiative.

The key point is that it's done on some basis other than actual classical economy criteria. Often the euphemism is "reputational risk".

You first saw this in America, that I know of, during Obama's "Operation Choke Point".

The Biden administration quietly resumed this sort of regulatory abuse a couple years back.

[Moderation4ever]

First isn't reputational risk an acceptable reason to shed a client? The sports do this all the time with players that can damage a team or league's reputation. In a capitalist system reputation is an asset and companies have a right to use that in decision making. I also question if this is a real problem for most companies or if it is limited to the Trump Corporation.

[Absaroka]

"First isn’t reputational risk an acceptable reason to shed a client?"

Sure!

Consider, for example, a Texas bank regulator sending a letter to Texas banks suggesting that providing banking services to Planned Parenthood exposes the bank to reputational risk, and the regulators will be looking at each bank's exposure carefully. For simplicity, let's assume we are at a post-Roe, pre-Dobbs point in time.

That could be a perfectly above board thing - Pro Lifers are common in Texas, and they might look askance at banks that support Planned Parenthood in any way.

OTOH, it's also possible that those regulators are personally opposed to abortions, and are making a not-too-subtle threat that banks need to get on board with the regulator's personal preferences.

Whether any particular decision is the first or second is going to be a fact specific inquiry, and the public isn't required to just take the regulator's word that it is always the first case.

[Moderation4ever]

Actually the Pew Reasearch center lists adults views on abortion in Texas as 45% favoring abortion and 50% opposing. So it would seem to be a poor decision to penalize PP at the bank. Also the distribution of views is fairly distributed over a number of parameters with the exception of wealth and education where the wealthier and more educated tend to favor abortion access. This is a group that might also be more inclined to use bank services and so more valued by banks.

[Absaroka]

Right! That's why you - the apolitical bank director - aren't worried about giving PP a checking account. Except...for that letter from the bank commissioner, saying that banks that service PP are really going to get a good doing over. You're just a businessman, and surely staying in the good graces of regulators is something you want to do...hmmmmm.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So it would seem to be a poor decision to penalize PP at the bank."

Except that, in practice, the only reputation the bank has to be concerned with is their own reputation in the eyes of the regulator that just told them that PP represented a repuational risk...

It's reputational risk in the same sense that "Nice business you've got here, be a shame if something happened to it." is a fire risk.

[Frank Drackman]

Did Sleepy Joe not extend AlGores Internets to your Klinger/Slack jawed Hollow yet....

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Tell you what: Let’s have them both take cognitive tests with a mutually agreed upon specialist, and publish the results. Deal?”

Hell, I’ve got an even better deal. Let them both stand on a stage live, side by side, and take questions for two hours. Then we can all see who’s rational and coherent – and who’s not.

(Those who want to be surprised, avert your eyes – because here comes a spoiler alert : Biden will win these debates like he won the last ones. And what will that do to the right's precious Dementia Meme, so carefully constructed these past few years? They peddled the exact same bullshit agitprop in 2020. The debates left it in tatters)

[Nige]

A suspicious fold of cloth and a blurred shot of his ear will prove he's being controlled by an AI.

[David Bremer]

C'mon now. If your test is whether he can say words, that's a low, low standard.

As pointed out by others, he's already confused between Haley and Pelosi. He doesn't understand, or is perfectly happy to lie to the public, about how tariffs work (psst...they aren't paid by the foreign companies). He routinely says stuff that is demonstrably false.

Now, maybe your response is that these are calculated statements, not confusion. But, honestly, in a lot of ways that makes it worse.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Confusing Haley and Pelosi is ADHD.

[Sarcastr0]

Everything is the fault of the ADHD you have diagnosed Trump with from afar.

Assuming you were ever trained in diagnosing ADHD, (big assumption), quit being irresponsible.

[Frank Drackman]

They're both annoying Bee-otches, although I'd rather give Fancy Nancy a high hard one than that Screechy Nikki

[Moderation4ever]

Would Donald Trump and his supporters accept the results if it showed Trump in decline? I don't see Donald Trump accepting too much why would he accept the results?

[Commenter_XY]

Thought experiment: Which of the two, POTUS Trump or POTUS Biden, will do a better job at speaking extemporaneously for 1.5 hours in front of 50K people?

That is a fair test of cognition that any POTUS would relish: speaking to constituents.

Oh....and no teleprompter allowed.

bernard11, you tell me.

PS: I chuckled at meanderings, that was very funny...and on point!

[Martinned]

Define "better job". Does that mean "talk some MAGAs into a frenzy" or "say something that's actually coherent"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Neither of them are going to be coherent in terms of sticking to English grammar. Neither of them are going to stick to the truth, either.

But you will, at least, be able to identify the words Trump speaks.

[Martinned]

coherent in terms of sticking to English grammar

Can we set the bar a little higher than that please?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd love to. I was going to vote for DeSantis if he hadn't dropped out of the race.

[Martinned]

So now you're going to vote for Haley, as the only coherent candidate left in the race?

[Bob from Ohio]

Unless Brett lives in South Carolina, he won't get the chance. That's her last stop.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually I do live in South Carolina, but I don't anticipate even bothering voting in the Republican primary this time around.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett's so concerned about free and fair elections and Trump not being fit for office that he isn't going to vote against him.

[Frank Drackman]

Was D-Sanctimonious ever in it? I know officially he was, but RFK Jr showed more energy

[Moderation4ever]

I have no doubts that each could speak for 1.5 but would you want to listen. Trump will about his grievances with how he is treated. That can get old real fast. Biden would be like listening to your grandfather. You know he is sweet but he bores you silly.

[bernard11]

That is a fair test of cognition that any POTUS would relish: speaking to constituents.

No. It's not a fair test of cognition. And what's a "better job?" I have no doubt Trump can stand up and lie and rant and rave angrily and incoherently for ninety minutes. Probably Biden can't.

So what? Here's a test of cognition, or maybe just rationality:

You are being sued for defamation because you called someone a liar over an alleged incident of sexual assault. You present no defense and generally act like an ass. The jury decides the incident occurred and the plaintiff is awarded $5M.

Now, after appealing the verdict you:

1. Issue an anodyne statement and then shut up and wait for the appeals court to act.

2. Continue, loudly and often, to defame and insult the plaintiff, thereby inviting a further defamation lawsuit.

[Commenter_XY]

I understand bernard11. 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, I see RED. No, I am not angry! I am looking ahead to February, I see an ‘All-RED’ Super Bowl and Valentine’s Day!

Commenter_XY is ruminating on culinary red things to create for his beloved wife, who loves the color red!

VC Conspirators! For the SB, what ‘Red’ hearty snacks do you make? They have to be healthy, they have to be tasty, and low in carbs. Bonus for nice presentation.

I am making a sugar free, keto version of this (subbing in allulose, almond flour, coconut flour) for Valentine’s Day: https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/231865/red-velvet-cheesecake-swirl-brownies/

[Bwaaah]

I’m not a foodie (BK chicken is good to me). But here’s a try: toasted thin slices of Italian bread (I know – carbs), served with tomatoes/red peppers/garlic, some olive oil and vinegar, served as a bruschetta. Reddish, pretty healthy, tasty good, snack size.

[Commenter_XY]

I've yet to pass a BK in order to try that Royal Crispy spicy shit. But I am gonna do it and report back. I promise.

[Commenter_XY]

I might be able to sub an oat fiber based bread (bread that will not spike insulin) for the thin bread. The oat fiber bread I make toasts well.

[Armchair]

In other news, it appears that the UNRWA agency in Gaza is run by Hamas, and members of the UNRWA may have participated in the terrorist raids that killed over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians.
Hamas is involved in everything. Hamas has their hands on UNRWA administration workers. Hamas manages UNRWA. They are those in charge in the agency. From the day Hamas came to power, they took control of everything. The UNRWA employees are from Hamas. The heads of the departments and the senior staff are Hamas members." —Palestinian from the Gaza Strip to an Israeli officer in a recorded call, X (Twitter) December 27, 2023.

It is now clear that the UN heads were lying when they said they were unaware of the involvement of their employees with terror groups. In fact, they knew but did their utmost to appease Hamas.

In a moment of rare honesty, in 2021 the UN acknowledged that UNRWA's school curriculum referred to Israel as "the enemy," taught children mathematics by counting "martyred terrorists," and included the phrase "Jihad is one of the doors to paradise" in Arabic grammar lessons.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20356/unrwa-jihad-against-israel

Guess Trump was right when he cut off aid to the UNRWA...

[Nige]

'In other news, it appears that the UNRWA agency in Gaza is run by Hamas'

Your willingness to support the inflicting of suffering and death on the people of Gaza is a wonder to behold.

[Armchair]

Not sure how you get from A to B there....

[Nige]

I know, you're fairly blinkered.

[Armchair]

Why don't you explain it then.

Do you support Hamas? Do you support a terrorist organization "running" a supposed aid organization? But in actuality sucking away actual aid designed for its people, so that weapons of destruction can be built with it instead?

Do you support all that?

Or should people actually interested in supporting the people of Gaza be in charge of such an organization? People who won't suck away the aid to make weapons with.

[Nige]

I support an aid organisation helping the beleagured people of Gaza. Accusing them of 'being Hamas' strikes me as a good way to get rid of it, which will increase their suffering by removing a crucial source of aid. It's not that difficult.

[Commenter_XY]

UNRWA will soon be gone. Nige, would you be supportive of Israeli aid organizations that help the people of Gaza?

[Nige]

Yes, and people will suffer and die, well done.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So will Israel, at least in current form. And, ideally, Saudi Arabia and a few others.

Optimism in this context seems amply justified. Progress!

[Armchair]

If slavers provide food for those who are enslaved, do you also oppose getting rid of the slavers? Because the slavers are "helping" the slaves?

[Nige]

You can’t get rid of the slavers without letting the slaves starve to death? Maybe your tactics suck. Or maybe you prefer the slaves dead rather than free.

[ReaderY]

It’s nothing compared to the suffering and death the Americans inflicted on the Germans. The Americans killed over a million people in Auschwitz alone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm no fan of FDR, but how the hell do you blame the US for Auschwitz?

[Krayt]

There are people who say Hitler did nothing wrong, and those that say Hamas did nothing wrong. Oddly, they hate each other.

[Nige]

Past atrocities are not justification for current atrocities.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They are at the Volokh Conspiracy.

It’s part of the reason these clingers are culture war roadkill.

[Martinned]

In other news, it appears that the UNRWA agency in Gaza is run by Hamas

In other news, some people are willing to believe any propaganda that suits their policy preferences. (In this case: making the Palestinians suffer until they leave Gaza.)

[Armchair]

Propaganda... What Palestinians say in recorded calls..

""Hamas is involved in everything. Hamas has their hands on UNRWA administration workers. Hamas manages UNRWA. They are those in charge in the agency. From the day Hamas came to power, they took control of everything. The UNRWA employees are from Hamas. The heads of the departments and the senior staff are Hamas members." —Palestinian from the Gaza Strip to an Israeli officer in a recorded call, X (Twitter) December 27, 2023."

[Martinned]

Oh, a "recorded call" to an "Israeli officer". That's not suss at all, as the youngsters are calling it.

More generally, Hamas infiltrating UNRWA is decidedly not the same thing as Hamas running UNRWA.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not suss"

LOL Don't try acting like a 20 year old.

[Martinned]

Irony is complicated...

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Even UN officials were convinced that the charges are real and they fired the workers in question.

[Martinned]

Yes, but not because they believed what Armchair is selling.

[Armchair]

Read some more.

But before you do, ask yourself "Did the Holocaust happen?" And "Should schools in Gaza teach that the Holocaust happened, or avoid it because it's a Zionist Lie?"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/29/unrwa-is-worse-than-you-think/

[Nige]

Even supposing that's true, you're going to let people suffer and die because of it? People can unlearn bullshit, unless they're dead.

[Commenter_XY]

The testimony of the Hamas human animals and video evidence do not lie. Many UNRWA employees participated in the Simchat Torah pogrom. That is an objective fact. They were UN employees. My question is why have they not been handed over to Israel for prosecution?

Ending aid to UNRWA immediately was the appropriate thing to do. POTUS Biden is acting with moral clarity by ending their funding (permanently?), which I appreciate as an American Jew. It is very unfortunate that POTUS Biden unwittingly helped Hamas when he restored funding to UNRWA upon taking office in 2021.

I am also especially gratified that POTUS Biden is providing Israel with the means to hunt down and kill Hamas members (along with a goodly number of their supporters as well). The world will be a materially better place when Hamas is obliterated. I just wish this would happen faster = obliteration of Hamas.

[Nige]

...right. Not genocidal at all. And sounds weirdly like someone reciting a doctrine.

[Drewski]

XY has a weird diction in general, often responding in the third person, using full usernames, and sticking strictly to simple sentences. But that's not particular to their comments on Gaza, which I agree with.

You personally, frequently quoted the UNWRA as evidence of Israel's wrongdoings. Care to retract those, given your strong feelings about believing propaganda?

[Nige]

You want me to accept Israeli propaganda about supposed Hamas propaganda at face value? I don't recall ever quoting UNWRA as evidence, perhaps if you point to a particular example we can assess whether the claim has been debunked or confirmed, which is surely the only basis for retracting claims.

[Jonathan Affleck]

This response was a mistake.

[Commenter_XY]

We know.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I sent the following email to Biden's attorneys, who represent him in Defense for Children v. Biden.

To: jonathan.kossak, diane.kelleher, jean.lin, brian.m.boynton

Subject: UNRWA, Judge White, and Retaliation by Biden and Blinken [Was Re: [Re: DEFENSE FOR CHILDREN INTERNATIONAL v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr]]

Hi,

I have to rewatch Friday's hearing in Defense for Children v. Biden. I thought I heard Judge White ask the following question out loud.

"The president is not above the law; could President Biden be tried for the US federal capital crime of genocide when he leaves office?"

In response, Counsel for the Plaintiffs mumbled about prosecutorial discretion. She may have been attempting circumspection, but she answered, "Yes."

Do you guys seriously believe that the president can perpetrate a US federal capital crime in his official capacity, or is Biden abusing the office of the presidency?

The Biden administration seems to be doubling down on conspiracy in genocide and in provision of material support to terrorists ( = perpetrators of genocide, see 18 U.S. Code § 2339A. This statute directly references § 1091).

The suspension of funding to UNRWA looks like retaliation against the Palestinian Plaintiffs by making it more likely for the State of Israel to succeed in murdering their relatives in Gaza. Unlike Biden, neither Blinken nor Austin has immunity to prosecution for a crime that he commits while in office but outside of his official capacity. Who knows? Maybe Merrick Garland will remember that he swore an oath to the US Constitution and not to the President.

I looked at the charges against UNRWA. See the attached document UNRWA's Terrorgram from UN Watch. UN Watch contributors are secretive, but the top management of UN Watch (e.g., Morris Abrams and Alfred Moses) have extensively collaborated with the State of Israel against which South Africa is litigating a plausible accusation of genocide before the ICJ. Keep in mind that the president of the ICJ is an American long time State Department employee.

The accusations of UN Watch against UNRWA are completely ridiculous and without foundation.

Many Massachusetts employees (including me) share information and hold discussions on LinkedIn. These mutual contact groups are completely private and have no affiliation with the Commonwealth even if job vacancies are shared among the group.

Regards,

Jonathan Affleck
https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/UN-Watch-UNRWA-Terrorgram-.pdf

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hamas and Israel’s right-wing assholes need to go.

And they shall.

[Davy C]

Until they leave Gaza? Everything I've heard says they aren't allowed to leave.

[Martinned]

The Egyptians are in a bind. On the one hand they don't want to help the Israeli right fulfil their dreams of ethnic cleansing, but on the other hand they can't really leave the Palestinians there to suffer in an ever smaller part of Gaza. Sooner or later they will open the borders.

[David Nieporent]

The only "bind" is because the world regards the Palestinians not as human beings, but as propaganda tools against Israel. If any other country treats them as the former and accepts them as refugees, then they are no longer dying in a war with Israel and aren't useful anymore. There is no other set of refugees on earth — not Ukrainians, not Syrians, not Venezuelans, none — where the argument is "We can't take them in as refugees because that might help the people who we blame for making them refugees."
​
​
(That's not to say that there aren't other refugees that countries don't want to accept, but those reasons are always domestic — we don't want a lot of Those People in our country — rather than based on purported concern for the refugees themselves.)

[Martinned]

The only “bind” is because the world regards the Palestinians not as human beings, but as propaganda tools against Israel.

As opposed to the people who refer to them as "animals" on a daily basis? (Examples in this comments section.)

Anyway, you seem to have overlooked that there is also no other set of refugees who have been chased out 70 years ago and have still not been allowed back to where they fled from.

[David Nieporent]

Anyway, you seem to have overlooked that there is also no other set of refugees who have been chased out 70 years ago and have still not been allowed back to where they fled from.

That is utter fiction. In fact, it is very common for refugees to never be allowed back. I can name three sets just from the time period you're talking about!

1. Refugees from the partition of India. That event created an order of magnitude more refugees than even the most inflated figures about the "Nakba," and nobody pretends that any of them are ever going back.
2. Mizrahi Jews.
3. Germans from Eastern Europe after WW2. Millions expelled from areas of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, everyone who criticizes Israel is a Hamas-supporting Jihad supporter.

Who do you think you are helping with this nonsense?

[Armchair]

No, individuals actively working for Hamas & the UNRWA who participated in the October 7th massacre are Jihad supporters.

Why are you supporting those who participated in such a massacre?

"According to Israel, UNRWA employees took part in the October 7 attacks, and UNRWA facilities and vehicles were used in them; it said it has compiled a case "incriminating several UNRWA employees for their alleged involvement in the massacre, along with evidence pointing to the use of UNRWA facilities for terrorist purposes"

[Sarcastr0]

You said: "it appears that the UNRWA agency in Gaza is run by Hamas."

[Armchair]

""Hamas is involved in everything. Hamas has their hands on UNRWA administration workers. Hamas manages UNRWA. They are those in charge in the agency. From the day Hamas came to power, they took control of everything. The UNRWA employees are from Hamas. The heads of the departments and the senior staff are Hamas members." —Palestinian from the Gaza Strip to an Israeli officer in a recorded call, X (Twitter) December 27, 2023."

"In a moment of rare honesty, in 2021 the UN acknowledged that UNRWA's school curriculum referred to Israel as "the enemy," taught children mathematics by counting "martyred terrorists," and included the phrase "Jihad is one of the doors to paradise" in Arabic grammar lessons."

[Nige]

The first could easily be IDF propaganda, they have plenty of form, the second doesn't say anything about Hamas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on. Gaza, to the extent it's a state at all, is a totalitarian state. And that's just life in a totalitarian state.

[Nige]

Inasmuch as it is a totalitarian state - and I suspect that's a complete misuse of the term for something as deeply dysfunctional as Gaza - it's not a license to kill everyone and deny them aid. Unless it's convenient.

[OtisAH]

It’s not a state at all.

[Martinned]

It's true, it's difficult for refugee organisations to work in totalitarian states. (Although, like Nige, I suspect that life in Gaza was always too dysfunctional to be totalitarian as we'd normally use that word.) You will note that the ICJ's order does not require Israel to work with UNRWA. It just requires Israel to "take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip". That doesn't seem like a particularly unreasonable thing to order.

[Commenter_XY]

The ICJ 'ordered' Israel to do what they have already been doing all along during wartime conditions = provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip

[Martinned]

That should make it easy for Israel to comply with that order then.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right....easy to continue doing what you are doing.

[Nige]

I suppose they will, but at this point nobody can deny knowing what they're doing. This stains Israel beyond redemption.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because the ANC is an example of virtue.

[Martinned]

As long as they didn't commit genocide, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

[Armchair]

Oh boy... Sounds like we have a denier here.

[Sarcastr0]

A Palestinian said this to an Israeli officer?! Seems legit.

1) I can't find this quote except for via the Gatestone Institute. So you have 'according to Israel' and then you have, *without you acknowledging any change of source* 'according to the Gatsestone Institute.' Who are known liars. Not that you care

2) If a Palestinian did say this to an Israeli, I would want to make sure it wasn't under torture. Because this kind of thing is what people confess when they'll tell you whatever you want them to say.

[Commenter_XY]

In rushes Sarcastr0, looking for excuses to look the other way to exonerate UNRWA employees. Good job, Sarcastr0! What a lovely human being.

[grb]

This story has been in the news several days now. Per normal non-Gatestone Institute media, there are twelve UNRWA employees accused of assisting Hamas and dismissed by the organization. Twelve was the number listed in a dossier provided to the U.S. government by Israel. Just twelve out of the plus-minus 13,000 UNRWA employees in Gaza.

[Mr. Bumble]

...that we know of.

[Commenter_XY]

See, that is the point. There are many, many more. Stay tuned.

[Nige]

Why even wait for any evidence?

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "See, that is the point. There are many, many more. Stay tuned"

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some, some more. But this topic was introduced here with the claim UNRWA was under control by Hamas. That isn't a claim Israel or the United States is making, nor is it likely to be true.

[Commenter_XY]

There will be many more, grb. Hundreds.

Hamas controls UNRWA in Gaza. Until October 8th, Hamas controlled everything in Gaza. Like I said, stay tuned. Much more will be coming out.

[Nige]

You're just admitting there is no current evidence to that effect.

[Absaroka]

It's also the kind of thing that, if true, a decent Palestinian might say. I would not assume there are no decent Palestinians.

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0 plays the role of denier, just like Holocaust deniers here.

[OtisAH]

“Hamas is fungible.”

[Don Nico]

Just what nonsense are you talking about.
Even the UN has de facto admitted that at least of 9 of its employees were assisting Hamas with the Simchat Torah pogram.

[Sarcastr0]

Your habit of not reading what I reply to continues to be in full force!

"Armchair: "it appears that the UNRWA agency in Gaza is run by Hamas.”

That's not about 9 employees, Don.

Read. More.

[Bob from Ohio]

Other than a couple at the top, all the employees are Arabs who live in Gaza.

They are all either Hamas or under their thumb.

[Don Nico]

You are in the habit of gross exaggeration. I was simply replying to a comment that the charge was just Israeli propaganda.
I agree that there is no evidence provided that suggests that the UN agency was run by Hamas. But it is not improbable either.

[Sarcastr0]

You replied to me.

I did not say the charge was Israeli propaganda.

[Armchair]

This is why you're viewed as a closet antisemite Sarcastr0.

Imagine the outrage if 9 employees of the US State Department were found to have directly participated in the coordinated rape, torture, and murder of over 1,000 African Americans, in violation of every law.

You'd have major questions, demands, etc. But because they're "Jews"...suddenly "it's just 9 people"

That of course ignores over a hundred other which didn't "directly" act in the attacks, but which intelligence says are hardcore militants of Hamas. And the more than a thousand others which are associated with Hamas and other "Jews all must die" groups.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/at-least-12-u-n-agency-employees-involved-in-oct-7-attacks-intelligence-reports-say-a7de8f36?mod=hp_lead_pos1

But continue to defend the Jew-hate. It shows your real colors.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots at a bigot blog love to call others bigots.

And to publish vile racial slurs.

You lose, clingers.

[Sarcastr0]

No one thinks I’m a closet antisemite.

You are just an asshole.

[Armchair]

Multiple people do.

Whenever incidents come out which demonstrate individuals, organizations and terrorists which attack, violate, rape, and torture Jews, as well as spreading hate against them...when you comment, you always seem to defend and obfuscate for the individuals, organizations and terrorists.

Perhaps you'll put one line in how "Well, it's bad to kill Jews"...but then you'll spend 100 times the effort to obfuscate and defend. And it's a trend.

[Nige]

More time is spent arguing with you lot that asking for evidence or doubting a source isn't actually anti-semitism than whether actual incidents are good or bad because you lot insist that asking for evidence or doubting a source is a blank denial and anti-semitism, in a conflict mired with propaganda and misinformation and the fog of war, no less. The only reason you'd do that is because you don't want people asking for evidence, and the only reason you want that is because you doubt your own sources.

[Don Nico]

I don't read people that I have muted that you reply to. I just read the content of your post as a stand alone statement.
You should try writing that way. It make posts more effective.

[Drewski]

Well, no, but you've made it clear that you are.

[Sarcastr0]

Muted.

[Frank Drackman]

Mute this, Bee-Otch

[ThePublius]

Trump was right about the Houthis, too.

"The Yemen-based Islamist paramilitary organization has caused havoc in the Red Sea, launching dozens of attacks recently on shipping vessels in the area. As a result, the Biden administration chose to redesignate the Houthis as a terrorist organization three years after the Trump administration decided to do so. In Feb. 2021, Biden removed the Houthis from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. "

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/2822177/joe-bidens-reversal-confirms-donald-trump-was-right-about-houthis/#google_vignette

Trump was right about a lot of things, but will likely not get much credit, and certainly not here.

[Nige]

Has anyone asked Trump about the Houthis lately? That would be fun, for certain grim values of fun.

[Commenter_XY]

The real question to me is why KSA has not been more helpful to the US. KSA basically bombed the shit out of Yemen for years (with our support). KSA installed their puppet. With this in mind...You'd think a major strategic ally of the US, an ally who has our explicit protection under our nuclear umbrella, might be a little more helpful. Why is KSA not more helpful to the US when we actually need them?

That is the question to me.

[Martinned]

Because they discovered the hard way that trying to bomb Yemen into submission doesn't work? Not to mention that now isn't a great time to side with the US and Israel if you're an Arab government.

[Bob from Ohio]

There is a universe of difference between the pain Saudi pilots can inflict versus what the US Navy and Air Force can do.

[Martinned]

There is a universe of difference between the pain Saudi pilots can inflict versus what the US Navy and Air Force can do.

Is there? With what the Saudis have been spending?

[Bob from Ohio]

They don't have B-52s or B-1s. Just fighter/bombers, 30 year old F-15s and Tornados.

Nor do they have our cruise missile capacity.

Our pilots are the best in the world as well. Tons more flight time.

[Frank Drackman]

and US Airlines 757's and 767's

[SimonP]

Delisting the Houthis was part of getting the parties there to agree to a ceasefire. Which had been holding, prior to the war in Gaza.

I’m keenly interested in what the Trump fanboys think Trump would be doing, now, in the region. As much as he is lauded for not getting the US into any new military conflicts during his term – notwithstanding the moments we got close – I don’t see a Trump administration with the facts on the ground right now not getting us into a regional war with Iran.

Trump himself – in characteristic fashion – criticizes Biden for being weak but has no suggestion of his own. I’m sure if pressed he’d say he’d have the greatest, most excellent plan for peace, and it would all get done in 24 hours.

But let’s play it out: after the Hamas attacks, Israel gets everything it wants from the US. Arms, diplomatic cover, and so on. Virtually indistinguishable from Biden’s policy, except perhaps that Trump would manage to alienate Democrats in Congress more severely, to such an extent that they might actually break with Israel in a way they are currently reluctant to do.

This prompts groups in the region to respond much as they have been responding, with the Houthis in the Red Sea, militant groups in Iraq, the attack now in Jordan. Israel responds, and America – what? We have Republican Senators now calling for direct attacks against Iran. Does Trump agree? Given that he just about escalated us into war with Iran in his term?

Now I realize that the Trumpboys all seem to think that Trump exudes strength that is, in itself, sufficient to deter these kinds of attacks in the first place. But this is paradoxical – how does Trump demonstrate strength, without exercising it? How can a president deter attacks against American interests when he runs as someone who won’t get the US into further military entanglements?

This isn’t a situation like Ukraine, where Trump just doesn’t care about the geopolitics. This is Israel, where Trump in his first term went out of his way to reshape the status quo in Netanyahu’s favor without getting anything from Israel in return. All of these groups are attacking Israel and attacking American interests because our outsized response makes them look effective and strong. Escalation is what they want. What person in their right mind thinks that Trump avoids an escalatory spiral?

Biden might not, either. But if Biden fails, it will be precisely because he does what Trump would have done in this situation.

[Martinned]

The question is wildly under-determined. A second Trump administration won't be like the first one, but there will still be a lot of back & forth between different types of right-wing foreign policy types. Trump himself probably can't even find Yemen on a map without a clue or two, so it makes all the difference whether his foreign policy team is run by someone like John Bolton or someone like Christopher Miller.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's really amazing that someone could be so full of shit in every comment.

"Which had been holding, prior to the war in Gaza."
That should read: Which had been holding until Hamas broke it with the attack on October 7.

[SimonP]

Bubbles, are you saying that Hamas was a party to the ceasefire between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis? Or are you just a moron and didn't realize that was what I was talking about?

[ThePublius]

"Several countries suspended funding to the U.N. agency for Palestinians in Gaza, following allegations from Israeli authorities that some employees of the organization were involved in Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack.

The move by the United States, Britain, Germany, Australia and others to pause funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, pending an investigation into Israel’s allegations, puts over 2 million people who depend on it “for their sheer survival” at risk, said UNRWA Commissioner General Philippe Lazzarini."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/28/unrwa-funding-suspensions-hamas-gaza-israel/

[ThePublius]

"OMAR: There are areas of friction and that led us to kill each other, but in reality, we are an organized society, brothers and sisters, people of the same blood, people who know they are Somalians first, Muslims second, who protect one another, come to each other's aid and to the aid of other Muslims too.

(...)

The U.S. would not dare support anyone against Somalia to steal our land or oceans. Sleep in comfort, knowing I am here to protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S. system. The woman you sent to Congress is working day and night to protect your interests. She knows your plight and that of Somalia. I am as concerned about Somalia as you guys are. Together, we will protect the interests of Somalia."

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/01/28/watch-ilhan-omar-rips-the-mask-off-and-pledges-allegience-to-somalia-in-disturbing-video-n2169348

Isn't this enough to throw her out of office, or even out of the U.S.?

[Nige]

...why?

[ThePublius]

Because she's publicly pledging her allegiance to a foreign country, that's why!

[Nige]

Where did she do that?

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what she did, though.

[ThePublius]

"I am here to protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S. system."

[Commenter_XY]

ThePublius, you just do not understand. You see, Congresswoman Omar was just performing constituent services. You're just confused on who her constituents are. 🙂

[Absaroka]

Well, I wouldn't vote for her for all the tea in China, but the people in her district can vote for her if they like. A Cuban-American congresscritter can run on a platform of freeing Cuba, a congresscritter can run on a pro-Israel platform, and a Nebraska one can vote for ethanol subsidies because they are good for Nebraska even if bad for the country as a whole.

Did I mention I loath Omar?

Whether it's Omar or Trump, let the voters decide.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, lets not use that standard or else a ton of US lobbying groups will be in big trouble, including AIPAC.

[Commenter_XY]

In rushes Sarcastr0, looking for a way to drag the Jews in it. Such a lovely human being.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "In rushes Sarcastr0, looking for a way to drag the Jews in it. Such a lovely human being"

That's just fucking pathetic. Does it ever occur to you that constantly spraying your surroundings with bogus anti-Semitism charges is counterproductive in the long term? Sarcastr0 made the simple point that the "standard" being discussed would also apply to supporters of Israel. Given their very vocal prominence in this forum now, it was the the most obvious example to make.

[Drewski]

Sarc also denied the October 7th attacks happened at all, calling the reports "propaganda." To my knowledge, he has yet to admit that Hamas ever staged an attack on Israeli civilians. He's antisemitic.

[Sarcastr0]

You got a link to me denying that, fucko?

Because I'm pretty sure I've said a lot of times Hamas needs to be wiped out for what they did on October 07.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He most certainly did not, and you're a fucking liar to say otherwise.

Sarcastr0 doubted Armchair's UNSOURCED claims that Jewish babies were burned in ovens, and asked for a source.

Armchair did not provide a source for his claim until the Monday Open Thread (4 days later, on the 15th), after also lying about it like you are.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/11/thursday-open-thread-171/?comments=true#comment-10394314

You owe Sarcastr0 an apology - if you're a man.

[Life of Brian]

Zooming out from the merits from a second, since (very sadly IMO) comments are no longer indexed by search engines, Jason either 1) keeps a database of past comments; or 2) went scrounging back through old posts by hand to find these.

That's some dogged determination right there. But either way, I highly doubt Sarc is going to date him.

[Sarcastr0]

LoB, not caring about Armchair making scurrilous accusations but only that someon went back a couple of weeks in the archives. And attempting mockery them for what is a pretty easy thing to find.

Wow LoB your priorities fucking suck.

[Armchair]

Sarcastro calls them "scurrilous accusations" despite linked evidence of Jewish babies being burned alive in ovens. Even today. Even with the link directly in front of him.

This is what antisemites do. They deny evidence of wrongdoing against Jews. Can't be putting them in the light of a victim.

This is why the UNRWA (which is effectively controlled by Hamas in Gaza) still doesn't teach about the Holocaust in its schools. Because Hamas objects, considering the Holocaust a "zionist lie"

This is why Sarcastr0 objects to reports of Jewish babies being burned alive, even with the link in front of him. Same logic.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The 'scurrilous accusation' was your claim that he denied clearly linked evidence in the first place.

You provided ZERO EVIDENCE for your claim until 4 days after you accused him of denying said evidence. Something I have called you out on at least three times now, and you've run away like a bitch every single time.

You'll note that what I linked to is the original claim for which Sarcastr0 asked for sources. Sources that you did not ever provide before accusing him of disputing the evidence you didn't show.

You lied about the original interaction. You lied about having provided evidence that he rejected. You lied about the evidence now being 'directly in front of him,' (for that you'd have to look at the MONDAY Open Thread where I called you out on these lies the second time, 4 days after you began spreading them).

You are nothing but a nutless lying sack of shit who is incapable of admitting his lies. Coward.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Shockingly, Armchair runs away again after having his lies exposed (again).

What a pathetic excuse for a man.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Commenter_XY (like a few of the Volokh Conspirators) sees allegations of antisemitism as a handy weapon, a way to help right-wing bigots try to play some offense for once.

The prominent passes those disingenuous clingers issue to right-wing antisemites are glaring evidence of their paltry, partisan, principle-deprived approach.

[Ed Grinberg]

It's a tic a lot of the leftist commenters here have.

[Mr. Bumble]

As evidenced by grb above.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, and those very same leftist commenters just love to solemnly pronounce judgment upon others. Such lovely human beings; I am sure their Mothers love them. Bless their hearts.

[Nige]

'just love to solemnly pronounce judgment upon others'

Irony keels over, dies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You should read the comments some asshole who goes by Commenter_XY leaves at this shit-rate blog.

[Commenter_XY]

Bless your heart Arthur, you're one of my favorite Leftist commenters here at VC. And your powers of prognostication are truly something to behold...

Speaking of prediction and prognostication, how is your prediction of an expanded SCOTUS working out? I think you predicted that one for summer 2021, so we are going on 3 years here. We can can summon Sandra (formerly OBL) if you like. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope every decent Israeli emigrates to the United States before Israel's right-wing assholes cost Israel the indispensable and now undeserved support of America . . . and after that, I shall think of you as I enjoy a fine beer and appreciate not only how those right-wing jerks got what was coming to them but also how you must be taking the news.

Anyone have a suggestion concerning the right beer for the occasion of Israel's right-wing belligerents getting what they deserve (and America no longer paying the severe costs of enabling those immoral conservative jackasses)?

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I have wonderful news for you. Some of those decent Israelis won't need to move here to the US. In fact, there was a well-attended conference in Jerusalem just yesterday on the need to re-establish old Israeli settlements. The Israelis will be moving back into Gush Katif in the coming years to enjoy the beaches.

Israel will never leave, Arthur. Get used to it.

At the very least, Gazan municipal administration will improved markedly with Israelis running it, instead of the shitty Hamas municipal administrators they've has for years.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel is headed toward a reckoning.

The people who support Israel's current government and conduct -- and expect that trajectory to be sustainable -- are the kind of people who never saw desegregation, women's rights, environmentalism, the decline of religion in America, gay rights, and other important elements of American progress coming, either.

Israel will change -- turn away from immoral and superstition-laced right-wing belligerence, in particular -- or pay a severe, even existential, price.

I'll be content either way. How about you?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And there's Commenter_XY celebrating genocide and other violations of international law because it's the "right people" doing it.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, Jason…friend to the friendless Judeocidal terror group, Hamas. Not sorry that your Jew hating Hamas friends are being hunted down like the human animals that they are. A pity you cannot join them.

No, I don’t feel sorry at all about the deaths of Hamas members (or their supporters) who have sworn to kill me just because I am a Jew. I just give money to the IDF to help kill them faster.

I would also like to publicly praise POTUS Biden for providing Israel with the weaponry to kill them. I am very happy POTUS Biden is doing the right thing, helping Israel to obliterate Hamas (and a good number of their supporters, too).

Oh, and Jason....you might want to tell your Judeocidal terror friends in the north, Hezbollah, that Israel is coming. Soon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yawn.

Misogyny, lies and defamation are excellent methods to prove that you're a piece of shit, notwithstanding your little chubby from celebrating the deaths of Palestinians en masse. No wonder you support Trump!

What a sad and pathetic representation of Judaism. LOL.

[Bwaaah]

Rev Arthur: "Anyone have a suggestion concerning the right beer for the occasion of Israel’s right-wing belligerents getting what they deserve (and America no longer paying the severe costs of enabling those immoral conservative jackasses)?"

Plain old Budweiser has special meaning to me from November 11, 2004. On that day, I clanked my bottle of Bud with another one in the hand of an American Russian Israeli émigré. The occasion, we had planned years before, was in consideration of Yasser Arafat as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and our shared hope for peace between Israel and its neighbors. We agreed that we would have a toast on the day when it would once again be possible that such a peace could be attained.

So it was, a toast, two Budweisers, on November 11, 2004: the day Yasser Arafat died. It wasn't a good day, but a reflection that days could be even worse.

[Commenter_XY]

No Jason, deep down what bothers you is that when we Jews say 'never again', we actually mean it. People like you just expect we Jews to passively accept being killed in the streets, turn the other cheek, and say "tut, tut'. Uh, nope.

Don't you have some Hamas supporters to go hug?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When better Americans remove the skirts -- military, economic, political -- behind which Israel has been operating and hiding for decades, Israel will no longer be in a position to call the shots. It may be in no position whatsoever.

American support for Israel's right-wing assholes, their bigoted and disgusting government, and their immoral and violent conduct diminishes daily, especially among younger and better educated Americans. How much longer can that line hold?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't have any 'expectations' of Jews any more or less than I have expectations for any other person on this planet.

I expect people to generally be decent humans who don't gleefully cheer on the deaths of thousands, or tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians because of their perceived sins.

You seem to think that anything short of complete annihilation and occupation of Gaza means that Jews just 'rolled over.' (And to be clear, it's Israel that is responsible for Israeli actions, not Jews.) That's false dichotomy bullshit, based entirely on vengeance and hatred, because you don't see any of them (Palestinians) as people.

"They deserve death for hating me enough to think I deserve death." I'm not sure how anyone in that equation can claim superiority.

To be clear, since I know you'll try to misrepresent it, I don't take exception to your satisfaction with the deaths of Hamas members. You've gone far, far beyond just that, and that is what I despise.

I feel as though I'm wasting my time offering a genuine response, so I'm going to stop now. Here's your chance to laugh at how you trolled me into a legitimate response.

[Nige]

'when we Jews say ‘never again’, we actually mean it'

When some Jews and lots of Christian zionists say 'never again' they clearly don't mean 'never kill lots of innocent people' again, which makes you wonder what they do mean, if anything.

[Nige]

Wait, didn't Trump say that US Jews owed loyalty to Israel? Don't commenter here work on the assumption that US Jews owe some sort of loyalty to Israel? I used to hear a lot about 'self-hating' Jews who dared criticise Israel.

[Nige]

Yes, and? In terms of foreign policy, why shouldn't she advocate for Somalia?

'Congresswoman Omar was just performing constituent services.'

Coming from people who think Israel whould dictate US foreign policy, this is a deeply ironic statement.

[Commenter_XY]

I am sure the people of Somalia are grateful for their representation in Congress.

[Nige]

They probably apreciate that someone there doesn't treat them as human detritus.

[ThePublius]

Here's the oath of office, FWIW:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

[Nige]

And she used no version or form of words that constitute an oath in the quote you supplied.

[StonewallDeSoto]

By your standard, practically everyone in Congress will be thrown out. Very few are America First. So I like your standard.

[Martinned]

By the way, the ICJ has now also published the dissents and concurrences in the South Africa v. Israel preliminary measures judgment: https://icj-cij.org/case/192/orders

- Unsurprisingly, Judge Sebutinde dissented on all orders because she does not believe that the court has jurisdiction. From the headline:

It is not a legal dispute susceptible of judicial settlement by the Court  Some of the preconditions for the indication of provisional measures have not been met  South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent, and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention.

That does not strike me as an unreasonable view to hold, and I'm surprised that more judges didn't end up there.

- Oddly, the Israeli judge ad hoc Barak also concluded there was no jurisdiction, but voted in favour of two of the orders anyway. He seems to have done so purely on a policy basis, which is very, very odd.

- Judge Xue makes a brief point about the erga omnes nature of the obligations under the genocide convention, which will presumably delight her compatriots currently working in Xinjiang.

- I'm not sure what Judge Nolte and Judge Bhandari are trying to add, although I'm puzzled by the latter's statement that "all participants in the conflict must ensure that all fighting and hostilities come to an immediate halt and that remaining hostages captured on 7 October 2023 are unconditionally released forthwith", where the word "must" suggests to me a legal obligation that the Court hasn't found. But Judge Bhandari doesn't say with so many words that he wanted to issue orders that went further than what the Court did.

[Commenter_XY]

Completely agree with you on this = Judge Sebutinde (Uganda) dissented on all orders because she does not believe that the court has jurisdiction....That does not strike me as an unreasonable view to hold, and I’m surprised that more judges didn’t end up there

[Martinned]

For the record, all the international law blogs I read talked about it in terms of "foregone conclusion", etc. https://www.ejiltalk.org/icj-indicates-provisional-measures-in-south-africa-v-israel/

I guess it probably is, if you take into account the ICJ's precedents in cases like Ukraine v. Russia. In that case the ICJ also found jurisdiction at the preliminary measures stage, and I'd also think the relevant intent was non-obvious. But of course the whole point of preliminary measures is that the plaintiff state doesn't have to prove its case at a balance of probabilities level yet. The claim only has to be "plausible".

[Martinned]

More on plausibility: https://www.ejiltalk.org/speaking-the-law-plausibly-the-international-court-of-justice-on-gaza/

[Bored Lawyer]

"Oddly, the Israeli judge ad hoc Barak also concluded there was no jurisdiction, but voted in favour of two of the orders anyway. He seems to have done so purely on a policy basis, which is very, very odd."

Not if you know his history. He views jurists as essentially policy-making positions, and does not let things like jurisdiction or standing bother him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sound like a lot of US judges.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, I read what Barak wrote in his opinion. I got the sense he was playing for time and trying to find a face-saving way out for everyone in the end. There has been much commentary on what he wrote.

PM Netanyahu made an interesting choice in Barak; would love to know what he was considering. I am not sure yet whether Barak was a good choice or not.

[John F. Carr]

A non-update on a case that has been discussed here before.

In August, 2022 a jury awarded Roy Moore $8.2 million for defamation after Democrats lied about him during his Senate campaign. A year and a half later the judge still has not decided post-trial motions. The last activity on the docket is a filing calling to the judge's attention the case permitting news media to lie about Don Blankenship's criminal record.

Democrats are not going to be too sad either way. They won the election. There's not a competitive Senate race in the country where either party wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars to ensure victory. Trillions of dollars are at stake.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like saying he was soliciting sex was defamatory. But you seem to be arguing he's done nothing wrong. Actually, Moore is not a great person for you to be defending.

"The verdict, returned by a jury after a brief trial in Anniston, Alabama, was a victory for Moore, who has lost other defamation lawsuits, including one against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen."

"Leigh Corfman told The Washington Post and said Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the accusation. Other women said Moore dated them, or asked them out on dates, when they were older teens."

"Wendy Miller has previously testified that she met Moore when she was 14 and working as a Santa's helper at the local mall. She testified Moore told her she was pretty, asked her where she went to high school and offered to buy her a soda. He asked her asked her out two years later, but her mother told her she could not go."

"Moore's attorneys argued the juxtaposition of statements in the ad painted Moore in a false light and falsely made it look like he was soliciting sex from girls at the mall."
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117365135/roy-moore-defamation-suit-award-super-pac

[Jerry B.]

But did he sniff their hair?

[Sarcastr0]

Did you immediately change the subject?

You sure tried!

[grb]

Jerry B : “But did he sniff their hair?”

Speaking of changing the subject, how about that Trump guy? Have we ever seen a politician (much less, president) so obssessed with his own daughter as doable and hot? From bragging about Ivanka as a “piece of ass” on the Howard Stern Show, to discussing whether she had breast implants on a another radio show, to endless variants of “I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her” (more Stern), or If “I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . .: (Rolling Stone interview) or “Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?” at the Miss Teen USA pageant (when Ivanka was just sixteen years old).

One time the two were on the Wendy Williams show and the host asked what the two had in common. Ivanka tried “real estate” & “golf”, but Trump jumped in with, “Well, I was going to say sex but I can’t relate that.” Can you imagine the poor woman’s embarassment and mortification?

White House aides said he talked about Ivanka Trump’s breasts, her backside, and what it might be like to have sex with her, remarks that once led John Kelly to remind the president that Ivanka was his daughter. So everytime a Trump cultist tries the “hair thing”, I just have to laugh. Because their orange-skinned idol is a complete sicko freak.

https://www.salon.com/2023/06/28/ex-aide-john-kelly-was-disgusted-as-wondered-what-it-might-be-like-to-have-with-ivanka/

[Dr. Ed 2]

14 + 2 = 16 which is the age of consent in Alabama.

Just sayin....

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Moore wanted to date women who were just over the age of consent. Which some people find squicky, but, definitionally, is not illegal. If he'd married one of them it would have been mildly scandalous, but 10 years later people wouldn't have cared.

So the Democrats accused him of going after girls below the age of consent, which was definitionally illegal, but also apparently untrue.

So, defamatory. But, hey, as Harry Reid liked to say, it worked, didn't it?

[Nige]

'Which some people find squicky'

But not, suddenly, the 'protect the children' crowd.

'it worked, didn’t it?'

That he's a creepy sexual predator who stalks young girls, yes, we found that out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would the protect the children crowd be concerned about non-children? To some extent it's arbitrary where you draw the line between children and adults, but wherever you draw it, once somebody has crossed that line how you treat them isn't about protecting children anymore.

No, he may be creepy for SOME value of creepy, but a sexual predator? That's got an established meaning, and "guy who asks women above the age of consent out on dates, and takes no for an answer" isn't it.

That's why they had to do stuff like fake the student yearbook entry. Because he WASN'T crossing the line, however much you wish the line were someplace else.

[Nige]

A 16 year old is still a child. Just because creepy old men keep it legal to have child brides doesn't make it less predatory.

A man his age asking a 16 year old he's been creeping on since she was 14 out on a date is by definition predatory.

The main defence here is 'But it's LEGAL for older men to prey on young girls in Alabama!'

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, you wish the line were someplace else. But he was following the line that was actually in place.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't know Nige's age but a good argument could be made that he is still a child based on the content of his comments.

[Nige]

Are you excited because then you could marry me?

[Mr. Bumble]

Proof the he(?) is a child or a moron or both.

[Nige]

Stop blushing.

[Nige]

It doesn't magically make him not a creep and a predator.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't magically make him not a creep, but not a predator? As the term is normally used, it absolutely does make him not a predator.

Perhaps you should define what YOU mean by "predator", and why anyone else should be concerned about it.

[Nige]

Any older man who creeps around 14 year old girls with an eye to making a future sexual conquest is easily a predator. You may not be concerned about older men creeping around 14 year old girls with an eye to making future sexual conquests, but you voted for the guy who creeped on the competitors for a Miss Teen America pagaent.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Any older man who creeps around 14 year old girls"

16 year old girls. The 14 year old thing was a fabrication of the Democrats.

[Nige]

The 'more accurate' story shows him creeping her when she was 14, but holding off until she was legal, but still a child, before making a move.

[Frank Drackman]

it's also 16 in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia
so what's your point?
Franklin Drackman-Washington

[John F. Carr]

Blankenship and Moore both did things that many people think are wrong. They did not do what they were accused of doing. The damages award should be based on the difference between what they really did and what they were accused of doing. I think Moore's $8.2 million is too high and Blankenship's $0 is too low.

[John F. Carr]

A George W. Bush quote seems appropriate in these times:

"I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."

I was reminded of this when a headline said "Houthi missile shot down" and the body of the article referred to a type of surface-to-air missile that costs half a million to a million dollars per shot.

The United States no longer has the industrial capacity to win a war using artillery shells and dumb bombs. The United States does not have the will to invade Yemen. So we put expensive craters in cheap sand and tell the country Biden has done something. All he can do under the circumstances.

Too bad we retired the battleships. They would be handy.

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr, I would rather not contemplate the US losing a war because we ran out of bombs, bullets and drones. Between UKR and IL, we are seeing a pretty sizeable drawdown.

We have had 2 years to respond = industrial capacity, since RUS invaded UKR. Hope they are working 3 shifts daily, because it looks like we are about to have a shooting war in the Indian Ocean.

[John F. Carr]

After too many months, when it seemed the war in Ukraine might drag on, the U.S. announced plans to increase production of 155mm shells and restart production of Stinger missiles. This is a multi-year process.

Older American destroyers fire a 70 pound shell. Newer American destroyers do not. The Navy replaced the old 5 inch gun that uses conventional rounds with a new kind that uses unique rounds that are too expensive to produce.

[Nige]

It's like everything that has happened in the 21st century shows the limitations, futility and exacerbating effects of military actions, and the US is still bumbling around going 'duh, fire missile.'

[Longtobefree]

And it would take a nuke to sink one.

[Absaroka]

"Too bad we retired the battleships. They would be handy."

Interesting question. I found a 1989 article that says the annual operating cost was $35M (in 1989 dollars). Ignoring inflation, that's 70 million cheap drones like the Ukrainians are using. I'm not sure the battleship looks all that good in comparison.

[Absaroka]

Yikes, math fail. 70000 quadcopters. Maybe 1400 Shaheeds.

Couldn't find a cost for a 16 inch shell. A few thousand at least, I'd think.

[Bwaaah]

Commendation for trying to run some numbers.

[M L]

15 Facts About E. Jean Carroll’s Allegations Against Trump the Media Don’t Want You to Know

1. Bergdorf Goodman has no surveillance video of the alleged incident.

2. There are zero witnesses to the alleged sexual attack.

3. Carroll first came forward — conveniently — with the allegations while promoting her book What Do We Need Men For? in 2019, which featured a list of “The Most Hideous Men of My Life.”

4. Carroll was unable to remember when this alleged attack even occurred. She told her lawyer in 2023, “This question, the when, the when, the date, has been something I’ve [been] constantly trying to pin down.” She has jumped years — originally beginning with 1994, then moving to 1995, and even floating to 1996. She cannot remember the season in which the alleged attack occurred either.

5. The Donna Karan blazer dress she claims to have worn during the alleged incident was not even available at the time of her claims. . . .

6. She never came forward with these allegations over the years despite constantly being open about sexuality, posting things that were very sexual in nature on social media . . .They include remarks such as “How do you know your ‘unwanted sexual advance’ is unwanted, until you advance it?” . . .

9. Joe Tacopina, an attorney for Trump, pointed out in May 2023 that Carroll’s entire story has incredible similarities to a 2012 episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. . . .

11. Carroll made a joke associating sex with Bergdorf Goodman in a November 1993 edition of Elle, which was before the alleged Trump attack took place. . . .

12. Carroll is financially backed by anti-Trump Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman, who has openly admitted to visiting convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

13. Democrat party activists back her as well . . .

14. The lawsuit was only able to proceed after Democrats created the Adult Survivors Act in 2022. She conveniently pursued this suit in November following the law going into effect, which allowed her to avoid the statute of limitations for this case.

Read the whole thing: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/01/27/15-facts-about-e-jean-carrolls-allegations-against-trump-media-dont-want-you-know/

[Moderation4ever]

You would think with all that you have posted that Trump would have just ignored the story or used spin. But he didn't he got his back up, just like he did with the Pee Tapes. Clearly he is very sensitive about this subject, which makes me ask why? The man is married thiree times, he had numerous affairs, and he has a habit of telling about he approach to woman, grab by the privates. So with all these facts you presented, why do most people believe Carroll?

[Nige]

'Let's vote for the guy so incompetent, stupid and self-destructive that he keeps losing to a woman we claim has no case.'

[ThePublius]

That's a rather stupid comment.

Trump is eminently more competent than the current POTUS: on the economy, energy independence, foreign policy, the border, and on and on. Things are cratering now, or haven't you noticed.

Be that as it may, it doesn't justify the obvious absurdity of this suit and decision and award. EJC is a liar! Same class as Christine Blasey Ford. It's all about hate, Trump, hate Kavanaugh, let's get them!

[Nige]

The primary defence of and apology for Trump has always been his incomptence. 'He's too incompotent to succesfully undermine democracy.' 'He didn't do the stuff he wanted to do, like have his enemies prosecuted, ban all Muslims, and get Mexico to pay for the wall because he was too incompetent.' Can't have it both ways.

Claiming she is a liar based on absolutely no proof is just what you'd expect from a Trump cultist, I guess. If she was a liar, Trump's legal team failed completely to show it.

[ThePublius]

Can't get a fair trial with that venue, that judge.

It's OBVIOUS she's lying, if you dig into her background, previous statements, and the vagueness of her claims.

Such B.S.

[Nige]

Of course, poor Trump can do no wrong, can only be wronged. He's a martyr, she's a liar, yet, weirdly, in court she could not be shown to be a liar, so she remains a liar, as Trump remains President, in the comfort of your bubble, not the real world.

[jb]

Trump may be a lot of things, but "competent" was certainly not one of them. His was probably the least effective administration in memory in terms of accomplishing any of his stated policy preferences. Basically one big tax bill, Covid vaccines (that everyone in his party decided they hated), and that's it.

It's possible to disagree with Biden's policy preferences, but in at least some cases you're pretty clearly deluding yourself if you think it's resulting in a worse outcome than under Trump. Let's take your example of energy independence:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m

I guess you're right that the chart is "cratering", because net petroleum imports continued to decline under Biden and look to be over a thousand barrels per day lower than they were in 2019.

Most economic indicators are as good or better as during the Trump administration (inflation being the main exception, and the US has managed to balance continuing economic growth with reducing inflation better than any other major economy).

[David Nieporent]

Two facts About E. Jean Carroll’s Allegations Against Trump M L Doesn't Want You to Know:

1. The media doesn't care whether you know those things. In fact, every one of those things came from the media's reporting.

2. The jury had a chance to hear those arguments, and decided she was more credible than Donald Trump.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's a low bar, considering Trump's ability to shoot himself in the foot.
I still believe that letting someone sue for an alleged rape 25 years after the fact, is an injustice. Especially when the alleged rape happened to an adult (i.e., not child abuse). Trump may be incapable of telling truth from fiction, but there is other evidence that, had the case been brought closer to the event, might have lead to a different result. For starters, she cannot even remember when the rape happened. Had she sued within 3 years, that would either (a) undermined her credibility or (b) had she remembered, Trump might have been able to prove he was not there. I am sure the staff at Trump-world have records of where he has been and when.
Statutes of limitation exist for a reason -- with the passage of time, evidence is lost. For all his faults, Trump can rightfully complain he was screwed by the retroactive restoration of the statute. (Which was supposed to be for child abuse cases. It's absurd that a women who claims to have been raped in her what -- 30s? 40s? -- get the benefit of that law.)

[David Nieporent]

(Which was supposed to be for child abuse cases. It’s absurd that a women who claims to have been raped in her what — 30s? 40s? — get the benefit of that law.)

No, it wasn't supposed to be for child abuse cases. The NY legislature first passed a law to temporarily extend the statute of limitations for child abuse cases. Then, separately, they passed a different law to temporarily extend the SOL for adults. I wouldn't have done that — it was a gift to the trial lawyers — but this is exactly the sort of situation that it was supposed to be for.

[Bored Lawyer]

So that's even worse. Sorry, I see no excuse for extending the law for an adult.

[Commenter_XY]

David, true or false. In the first trial, the jury found that the Wrinkly String Bean did not prove a sexual assault occurred.

Was that not a specific finding of that jury in the first trial?

[BrotherMovesOn]

No.

[David Nieporent]

Was that not a specific finding of that jury in the first trial?

Not really. The jury was asked to decide what Trump had done. Under the NY Penal law, "rape" is defined as penetration with a penis; "sexual abuse" is defined as penetration with anything else (e.g., fingers). So the jury found that Carroll hadn't proved the former, but had proved the latter.

[not guilty]

Judge Kaplan's order denying Trump's Rule 59 motion is instructive. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html The jury declined to find rape, which under New York law requires penile/vaginal penetration. The jury did find that Trump committed sexual abuse of Ms. Carroll. In common parlance (though not under New York's criminal law), Trump's conduct constituted rape.

[ThePublius]

Not true!

"An attorney for Donald Trump has claimed that her experts were denied the chance to testify before a New York jury that ultimately ruled in favor of a writer who accused the former president of defamation.

Attorney Alina Habba told reporters on Jan. 26 that presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan allegedly made sure that “every single defense that President Trump had” was not raised in the case. She said her team’s “experts were denied” and couldn’t take the stand."

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-lawyer-says-experts-were-denied-by-new-york-judge-5575487?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-01-29-2024&src_cmp=gv-01-29-2024&utm_medium=email&est=5O1anv3Gskd4QXEAs0Pukkq2ITrE4msMFPFqfX%2F09S%2BCP6i3Xz2ARD3IH7m7iQ%3D%3D

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is the same highly competent Trump lawyer who had never before tried a defamation case (and had only been lead counsel on three other cases), according to Mona Charen's column yesterday...

[Kenneth Almquist]

Habba didn't explain how any of the defenses that the judge rejected would have made any difference to the outcome. (I saw her complete statement on television.) Habba’s comments were an attempt to spin the fact that Trump didn’t have any defenses.

The issue with the “expert witnesses” is that the deadline for identifying expert witnesses was October 14, 2022. Trump requested permission to introduce a new expert witness on November 2, 2023, more than a year after the deadline. At that point, Trump didn't actually have an expert witness, but promised to “expeditiously identify his new expert.” Unsurprisingly, the Court rejected this request.

None of this has anything to do with the determination by a jury in a different case that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll.

[M L]

Former FBI officials write letter to Congress about ongoing invasion

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pdclarion.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/9a/f9ab16aa-1396-5762-8198-2efd36fa97b1/65b32e508e0b0.pdf.pdf

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2819856/retired-fbi-execs-to-congress-invasion-at-border-perilous-for-america/

[M L]

SEC is apparently going after the video site Rumble.

Rumble is like a low grade YouTube. It basically exists because YouTube started banning political speech they didn't like, criticism of COVID stuff etc, and Rumble allows that.

Naturally they are trying to destroy it, they will always go after any operation that doesn't follow the program and try to capture, destroy, or hamper it.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/01/29/exclusive-rep-byron-donalds-secs-investigation-into-rumble-may-influence-2024-election/

[John F. Carr]

For those who trust Wired more than Breitbart: https://www.wired.com/story/rumble-sec-investigation/

Confirmation of the probe follows public allegations that Rumble inflated key user metrics, which the company denies.
...
In April 2023, investment research firm Culper Research released a report expressing skepticism about the legitimacy of Rumble’s claimed monthly active user (MAU) counts, a key metric for investors to evaluate the performance of a social media company. Culper Research said it had taken a short position in Rumble, meaning it stands to profit if Rumble’s stock price decreases.

“Combined, the web and app data suggest to us that Rumble has only 38 to 48 million unique users, and the Company has overstated its user base by 66% to 108%,” Culper Research claimed in its report.

[Martinned]

Say it with me: "Everything is securities fraud!"

[Ed Grinberg]

You set up a bunch of catch-all bogus criminal laws. Then you selectively use them to go after your political opponents (or, in this case, a platform that doesn't censor your political opponents). Classic.

[M L]

From the CEO:

The playbook to try and destroy $RUM (Rumble)

A short seller creates a bogus report and sends it to the SEC. The SEC investigates the bogus report. Then the short seller talks to the media to get a story about how the SEC is investigating the report that started with him. The media happily writes the story.

The report is bogus, but that doesn’t matter—it’s all to get investors to sell the stock so the short seller profits.

Good news, it won’t work. We saw the attacks coming, and we prepared for them. Prior to going public, we chose to use Google Analytics to track and report our MAUs, so we could be ready for this very moment.

This is just the start, they’re coming for us in 2024. They can't stand Rumble's mission, but they are going to learn quickly how hard we punch back.

https://twitter.com/chrispavlovski/status/1744484691967684753

[bernard11]

OK. That's the CEO's story.

[bernard11]

Are you insane?

Securities fraud laws have been around a long time. They weren't just created by the Democrats (how would they have done that anyway, with a GOP House?) to nail Rumble.

Some of the stuff you guys post is astonishingly dumb.

[grb]

Yep. They’re insane. Everything revolves around their need to feel victimhood and fantasies of vast conspiracy. And you know why? Because they find victimhood entertaining.

And entertainment is what today’s Right is all about. Reality is completely irrelevant – perhaps even a hindrance. As with a spectator at a pro wrestling match, the only important thing is their little hearts beat double-time and faces flush with excitment while they boo the villian and cheer the hero.

As long as there is media and politicians to deliver that consumer product, your average Rightie is happy.

[M L]

Laws necessarily contain some amount of vagueness, which requires judgement calls and therefore lends itself to abuse. Perhaps especially securities fraud laws.

There's no getting around that. But the grander the scale and jurisdiction the greater the potential for abuse, and the more remote any democratic/republican self-governmental check necessarily becomes.

Government power will always get abused sooner or later, and that what's happening around the country, generally speaking. Many Democrats, believing their opponents are Hitler, are so far beyond the point of justifying any means at this level in their own mind, the point is hardly worth discussing. If you are facing the Nazis and Hitler, violence is not only justified but glorified, plots of assassination are heroic, the height of moral virtue. And if violence and assassination is justified, then a bit of legal trickery, intimidation, persecution, financial destruction, etc is small potatoes.

[Bored Lawyer]

Securities laws have been around since the Great Depression. But the SEC has taken it upon itself to regulate areas far beyond the laws' original purpose. Like climate change disclosures, which are far beyond the purpose of keeping the securities market honest, and frankly beyond its expertise.

I can't speak for what is going on with Rumble. The WIRED story suggests that there may really be some financial shenanigans that happened, or at least worth investigating.

But the issue of mission creep of the administrative agency is a real issue. Notwithstanding that the securities laws are overall a good idea.

[Sarcastr0]

The SEC has been working to ensure that investors receive the complete, consistent, and comparable climate-related information they need in public filings to make their investment decisions.

Companies started doing a new thing related to people buying their stock. SEC makes sure there isn't insider shenanigans going on.

That's no mission creep; that's just the world becoming more complex.
It is, in fact, exactly why we want the flexibility of mission-based administrative agencies.

[M L]

Overstating activity by 66% to 108%?

Those are rookie numbers compared to Twitter when it was publicly owned, FB et al. But they weren't making themselves a political opponent by allowing speech that was supposed to be censored.

And this is according to . . . *checks notes* a "research" firm that is short selling the stock. Oh right, of course. Their "data suggests" it.

[Sarcastr0]

So it didn't happen, and if it did it isn't a big deal, and if it is a big deal everyone's doing it.

Very believable analysis.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This remarkably white, tellingly
male, right-wing blog has
operated for no more than

FOURTEEN (14)

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

THREE (3)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least three discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not necessarily just three racial
slurs; many of this blog’s
discussions include multiple
racial slurs,)

This blog is matching its deplorable
pace of 2023, when the Volokh
Conspiracy published disgusting,
vile racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions (and likely
more).

These numbers probably miss
some of the racial slurs
published regularly by this blog;
it would be unreasonable to
expect anyone to catch all
of them.

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 disaffected,
receding, 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.

This is a good one, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers (by request):

First, a couple of the performers on this one contributed greatly to the Stones.

Next, not the most prominent Stones-Montreux connection, but a worthwhile one nonetheless.

(What was the most prominent Stones-Montreux connection?)

[BrotherMovesOn]

Smoke on the Water?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's a bingo. More Stones a few notches below . . . the silver lining to yet another publication of a vile racial slur by this white, male, conservative blog.

[Davy C]

Complaining about racial slurs while using "white" as a pejorative? From someone who gratuitously insults the authors and commenters daily (and whines that he isn't allowed worse insults)? From someone who whines about having once been banned, yet is still openly here?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not doubt that you can not understand and do not like complaints about racial slurs.

[Davy C]

Not from someone who doesn't hold *himself* to any level of civility.

[Randal]

The word "disqualified" doesn't appear in 14/3.

I've come to realize that "unqualified" would better describe what 14/3 is doing.

[Frank Drackman]

Total Solar Eclipse only 10 weeks away!, might want to make plans to be in its path, next one in the Lower 48 won't be until 2045

[Brett Bellmore]

The last one passed directly over our house, it was an awesome sight. I wanted to travel to see this one, but my wife had other vacation plans.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Opryland's good to.

[OtisAH]

We have an updated list of things democratic presidents are not allowed during election years or within three years of an election:

1. Supreme Court nominations.
2. Immigration reform.

Please make the appropriate changes to your guidebooks.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how you could deny Biden a supreme court nomination, if an opening showed up. He can also pursue immigration "reform", (I remind people who use that word that it just means "change", and change can be for the worse.)

Of course, nothing says Congress has to confirm a nominee, or enact the President's idea of 'reform'.

[Krychek_2]

I think the point is that Congressional Republicans are stalling on immigration reform explicitly so Biden doesn't get credit for it before election day. It's frankly despicable that they'd rather see border problems go unfixed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Lousy people do lousy things.

So long as better Americans permit, anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're stalling on immigration 'reform' because the proposal is tasty electoral poison for Republicans, and they damned well know it. They privately want it, the Chamber of Commerce types are pushing it, but they know their voters would punish them for actually voting for it.

The border problem is that we have an administration that doesn't intend to enforce the law. Changing the law can't help that any, the administration can just refuse to enforce the new law, too. So the deal offers nothing positive at all.

Worse, though many details of the proposal have been kept secret, (And, why?) what hasn't been kept secret is that it included a trigger that would deprioritize border enforcement if illegal immigration drops below 5,000 a day. Which is higher than we'd ever seen before Biden took office!

So all Biden would have to do is slightly ease off on encouraging illegal immigration, maybe subsidize the caravans a bit less, and the new law would actually endorse what had previously been gross malfeasance.

So, absolutely nothing for Republicans in the deal, and they know it. It would be political suicide for them to go ahead with it, so they'll keep 'stalling' at least until the primaries are past, and the ability of the voters to punish them for a betrayal is reduced.

[Life of Brian]

Ha -- I see we were writing in parallel.

[Randal]

The border problem is that we have an administration that doesn’t intend to enforce the law.

A blatant lie that’s been shot down many times but which is too convenient for your deluded worldview to want to part with.

Biden is enforcing the law as it exists, which has been repeatedly affirmed by SCOTUS.

You don’t even have a strawman of an idea about how exactly he’s failing to enforce the law. It’s just a nonsense talking point driven by your psychological dependence on having been brainwashed.

[Davy C]

Wouldn't enforcing the law entail, say, the border patrol not cutting holes in Texas' barriers, and not waving the people through without detaining them? Because I'm pretty sure the holes are not legal points of entry.

[Krychek_2]

No, for the same reason I’m going to get sued if I booby trap my house and a trespasser loses a limb. He shouldn’t have been trespassing and the migrants shouldn’t be crossing illegally but we’re not barbarians. Well, maybe Greg Abbott is.

In a civilized society we don’t want children or asylum seekers to be badly injured by razor wire when their only real crime was wanting a better life for themselves. Doesn’t mean we let them stay, but we don’t jeopardize their lives in the process.

[Davy C]

People are, in fact, allowed to put razor wire up around places like junkyards where people might want to trespass, and the trespasser is not going to win that lawsuit. It's not the same as a booby trap, partially because the danger is quite obvious.

Regardless, if you are the border patrol, doesn't enforcing the law mean you at least *detain* them if they're right there in front of you? It doesn't even matter if the people crossing are secretly US citizens; they're quite obviously breaking the law just by entering there.

[Randal]

They detain as many people as they have the space to detain.

Even SCOTUS acknowledged that Biden can't magically detain people that Congress hasn't appropriated the funds to detain.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, perfectly true: On his first day in office, Biden issued an executive order which revoked Trump's order to the Border service to enforce the law to the maximum extent resourced permitted.

He literally told them to stop enforcing the law.

[Randal]

You posted this before and it was just as stupid then. You don’t need an executive order saying “enforce the law” in order to enforce the law. The executive order had a long list of garbage in it like how we should sanction the countries that the immigrants were coming from. That would’ve lead to more immigrants, you realize that, right? That's why Biden revoked it.

What do you think? Are you gullible, a troll, just a bit slow, or developing a form of dementia?

[Brett Bellmore]

I keep pointing this out: You can literally look at the border service's own statistics and see that there was a huge step increase in illegal immigration once Biden was in office.

Pretending that wasn't a policy decision just makes you look silly. It's administration policy to have a lot of illegal immigration, while lying about trying to stop it.

[Nige]

Almost like there was a massive global pandemic going on when Biden took over and nobody was trying to cross the border until the countries emerged from it. What you need, Brett, is the endless pandemic conditions the cranks promised us was the real reason for covid.

[Randal]

I have explained to you how the step funtion happened a million times. It happened way too fast to have been a function of policy. People were waiting Trump out to try their chances under Biden. Not because of policy, but because of rhetoric. Rhetoric like yours.

You never address this. You also never address the fact that SCOTUS blessed Biden's policies and actions at least twice. You think it's a conspiracy involving SCOTUS? Probably do.

[Life of Brian]

It happened way too fast to have been a function of policy. People were waiting Trump out to try their chances under Biden.

I posted the actual CBP stats below; here they are again.

One fairly significant problem the actual data poses for your handwavy theory is that if there was a pent-up pocket of "asylum seekers" (who apparently just magically made it work in the midst of their oppression and credible fear until the presidency rolled over, but whatevs), you'd see that bubble reflected in the stats: a surge, followed by a dip back into a lower steady-state rate.

The actual data shows an initial surge, followed by a sustained, lower-grade increase for about 6 months, followed by some mild seesawing for the next year and a half, still with an upward trend. The first major drop back below the March 2021 surge level was in January 2023, nearly two years later.

If the data does not fit, you musta quit.

[Randal]

Yeah, there was a lot going on, including the pandemic. That number always moves around.

The only point I was making is that Brett's theory is donkeyshit. The "step-function" -- that inutial surge -- was too quick to be policy-driven.

[Life of Brian]

The “step-function” — that inutial surge — was too quick to be policy-driven.

You keep saying this so matter-of-factly, but why? Again, on Jan. 20/21 Biden got in front of every camera he could find and made a Big Fucking Deal about how he was rolling back Trump's immigration policies right then. January border encounters were flat, there's a 20ish% increase in February, and then the full-on 100+% spike in March.

Hard to see how that so clearly takes cause/effect off the table. Do you think they needed more time to pack their bags or something?

[M L]

Biden is not just neglecting to enforce the law, they are waving in illegal immigrants like a third base coach. They are working feverishly to bring in as many as possible.

[Randal]

Look ML, have you ever been to the Mexico border? It's not like dotted with five-star hotels in the middle of oases. When people show up at the border begging for asylum, it's already too late. We can't let them perish on our borders when we have a legal obligation to allow them to at least ask for asylum.

[Randal]

Brian: you’ve just shown how bad you are at data.

There’s an annual cycle you’re conveniently ignoring. In every year other than 2021, there’s a huge drop from December to January. The fact there was an increase in 2021 shows just how ready everyone was to jump across the border as soon as Biden was in office — well before any policy changes could’ve been implemented — especially if they all came in the last week. (January saw 15% and 40% declines in 2022 and 2023.)

And there’s always a huge increase in March, as the weather improves.

[Life of Brian]

In every year other than 2021, there’s a huge drop from December to January.

With "every other" being two, and with "huge drop" being a little one in one year and a bigger one in the other? Maybe a broader data set shows a more consistent pattern like that, but if this is all you have you just may be getting a bit too high on your own supply.

And there’s always a huge increase in March, as the weather improves.

Same notes on "always" and "huge." And far be it from me to accuse you of just saying what first pops into your head, but pray tell what foul weather conditions suddenly (and, as you put it, always) exist at the 27th parallel in January and February that do not also exist in December?

Seems to me you're doing the equivalent of p-hacking, starting with a theory and trying to massage the data to fit it.

[Randal]

It’s your cite. The trends are clear.

I sense that you in fact have not been to the border in January.

[Life of Brian]

I sense you don't have any principled way at all to distinguish January border weather from December border weather, as predicted.

And it's CBP's data, in which you fancied to envision multiple, rock-solid seasonal patterns that you thought at first glance conveniently fit your hopeful theory, but then when faced with the simplest of follow-up questions came up squarely empty.

[Randal]

Are you that stupid really? I thought it was obvious but ok...

So, as most Northern Hemisphere humans know, January is the coldest month. The lows at Eagle Pass, which is relatively warm, can get down into the low 30s. Why go in January of all times? Juarez can go into the low 20s.

[Life of Brian]

It's really interesting how you get so proud of yourself when you answer only half the question.

The temperature averages for Eagle Pass are to the degree the same in both December and January. There's no basis whatsoever for the weather to cause a yuuuuuge change in traffic between the two months.

(And remember, according to you all these people are in credible fear that prevents them from staying in their home countries -- if they put off their plans just because the temperature drops a few degrees, that sorta takes the air out of the balloon. Reminds me of the ER nurse I dated way back, who absolutely loved to work on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, and the Super Bowl, because most people waited to have their emergencies until the next day.)

[David Nieporent]

You keep pointing out something incredibly stupid. "There was an increase in illegal immigration after Biden took office" is a completely different statement than "Biden made a policy decision to let in illegal immigrants."

[Life of Brian]

And as I keep pointing out and all the apologists just keep ostriching, Biden explicitly ran on rolling back Trump's tighter immigration policies, and did so within hours of taking office.

You can ignore it this time too, but all it does is confirm you don't wish to coexist with reality.

[Life of Brian]

Serious question: what exactly does the legislation purport to "reform"? The last leaked description I'm aware of (since of course we can't actually see anything until minutes before the vote) allocated much more resources to coping with those crossing the border rather than preventing them from doing so, and effectively would bake in an acceptable minimum (that of course nobody could then be heard to complain about since it was a "bipartisan agreement") in the neighborhood of 2M crossers per year. For those keeping score at home, that's about 2x of the rate from ~3 years ago.

Oh, and we're also supposed to believe that all of a sudden, when those "acceptable" levels are exceeded, then and only then can the border be magically closed, like flipping a switch. Can we see a demo of that first?

[Bwaaah]

My understanding is that the "reform" would be a change in law that would somehow administratively foreclose the presumption that an asylum claim entitles the asylee to temporary resident status during adjudication of the claim. (I'm not a lawyer, and know little about immigration law, but belief that to be the vicinity of the idea.)

[Bwaaah]

Of course, the President has sufficient latitude to change the procedures at the border without any additional statutory authority or legislation. His assertion that he needs outside reform is untrue; he can make changes in border enforcement pretty much unilaterally (like Trump did, and like he did earlier in his term).

The power of the Executive to control the borders is pretty much uncontested, as we see in the administration's claims of unfettered authority over the Texas border.

[Randal]

Trump’s “innovations” on the border were mostly found to be illegal.

Biden extended the COVID “emergency” as long as he could, probably also longer than was legal.

The President needs more money and more legal tools. That was true for Trump and remains true for Biden.

Republicans are just being obstinate for political reasons. Obviously.

[Randal]

Your problem, Brian, is that today, everyone gets to come and make an asylum claim... whether they cross at a crossing or not. Everyone agrees it would be better if they came to a crossing, but we disagree on the value of an expensive wall that's expensive to maintain if all it does is channel everyone to a border crossing to make their asylum claims.

You might think we should get rid of asylum entirely, but that's not going to happen. But this bill does, for the first time ever, empower the President to suspend asylum when the border is overwhelmed. We can negotiate what that threshold is.

Then also what Bwaaah said about the asylum process itself being tightned up.

These policy changes -- plus adequate enforcement funding -- are what the border needs, not a pointless wall or pointless and dangerous razor wire.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Your problem, Brian, is that today, everyone gets to come and make an asylum claim… whether they cross at a crossing or not."

And that was a policy change Biden made when he took office, it's not automatic.

First, we're dealing here with people who, almost to a man, even if they have a valid asylum claim are making it in the wrong country, because they've already passed through one or more countries where they could have properly made it.

If your house burns down and you walk to the nearby Motel 6, you're a refugee seeking asylum. If you walk past the Motel 6 to the Courtyard Marriot?

You're just another guy looking for a hotel room.

Secondly, these are people who have passed multiple US embassies where they could have pressed their case, and instead decided to illegally enter our country and claim asylum only if caught.

You've reached the Courtyard Marriot, and instead of presenting yourself at the front desk, you go around back and break in through a locked door. Now you're just another burglar looking to steal a hotel room.

Our general policy here should be, ask at one of our embassies and we'll consider it, break into the country and the answer is NO.

[Randal]

And that was a policy change Biden made when he took office, it’s not automatic.

No, it's automatic. Even Trump wasn't preventing people from making asylum claims.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he wasn't preventing them from making them. He was requiring them to bide their time in Mexico until such time as they were approved.

[Randal]

Finally, you said somethibg true! Notice how this contradicts all the other bullshit you've been spewing all up and down this thread?

Probably don't. Not really in it for the truth of the matter presented, are you.

[Life of Brian]

But this bill does, for the first time ever, empower the President to suspend asylum when the border is overwhelmed.

Cool story, bro. Did you happen to notice how the "OMG I'm gonna die in my home country, pinky promise" claim rate stayed far, FAR below the new-normal-shut-up minimums proposed here back when "remain in Mexico" was in place and immediate gratification was off the table? Fascinating how the already-existing power of requiring some actual skin in the game works miles better than this new, hokey "clap on clap off" power Biden is pretending to want in exchange for the rest of the lefty goody grab bag in the bill.

[Randal]

Hey I'm pretty fine with the status quo. To me the bill is political appeasement. In the unlikely event Trump is president in a year, this compromise is no longer on the table. If Biden's president, it'll be four more years of the same, if this bill doesn't pass.

Seems like you'd want this bill.

[Life of Brian]

But I don't, because I'm not that stupid.

Again, if Biden wished to actually curb the flow, he could have done so already with the tools at his disposal (just strictly for example, he could restore Remain in Mexico with a stroke of the same pen he used to shut it down), rather than whining that his hands are tied unless he gets some weird new power that somehow we haven't needed for the past 200+ years. Ergo, he clearly doesn't wish to. As I said and you didn't touch, this new Orwellian "compromise" is just a gimmick to permanently lock levels higher than they've ever been historically.

And if Trump is president next year, he'll certainly reinstate Remain in Mexico and actually start guarding the border again. So there's literally zero upside to Republicans making a deal like this right now -- which is exactly why there's so much howling that (suddenly, after 3 years of denying there was even a problem) we MUST do something NOW or all is lost.

[Randal]

I did touch it. I said the number is negotiable. What number would be acceptable to you?

The current number is infinity, so... I'm still not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by being obstinate.

[Life of Brian]

The current number is infinity

No, it’s not. That’s just an utter bullshit threat y’all are using to try to force the floodgates you gleefully opened into legislative permanence.

At no prior time in the history of this country have we ever just thrown up our hands and mass-admitted every single person crossing the border just because they managed to touch base and mumble some magic words the coyotes taught them on the trip up. And a huge percentage of crossers aren’t even applying for asylum. As with many subjects these days, the shameless gaslighting is ridiculous.

Mexico doesn’t want them

Gee, Sparky, I wonder why that would be? That certainly doesn’t turn them into our problem.

There’s no reason for people to come at all, because there’s no chance of entry or asylum or even a hearing.

Seems like the vast majority of your arguments are based on the same flawed understanding. If even a majority of the stream right now were actually applying for asylum, you might have a point. But they aren’t, so you don’t.

[David Nieporent]

At no prior time in the history of this country have we ever just thrown up our hands and mass-admitted every single person crossing the border just because they managed to touch base and mumble some magic words the coyotes taught them on the trip up.

True; for roughly the first 100 years we didn't require any words at all. (And for another 50 years the only words we required were "I'm not Chinese.")

[Randal]

Seems like the vast majority of your arguments are based on the same flawed understanding. If even a majority of the stream right now were actually applying for asylum, you might have a point.

Your fantasy girlfriend, Remain In Mexico, also only works on asylum-seekers. You just undermined your own theory of the case. You aren’t a serious person, just another partisan obstructionist.

[Life of Brian]

Your fantasy girlfriend, Remain In Mexico, also only works on asylum-seekers.

And? We of course have much more straightforward recourse against entry of non-asylum seekers -- you were the one trying to hide behind asylum as covering everything.

Seems like to keep your "current number is infinity" pipe dream alive you're going to have to pull another bullshit theory out of your tush why we're somehow stymied from dealing with the ones that don't even pretend to claim asylum. Or, you could just admit you're just regurgitating media/administration hot takes and haven't really thought it through.

[Randal]

Also, Remain In Mexico isn't like the ideal solution that solves all the problems. Those people are still awaiting US court dates. Mexico doesn't want them just hanging out in legal limbo. It's dangerous for the immigrants, and it still puts a lot of pressure on the system to handle all those people.

This bill allows asylum to be suspended entirely, which is a huge difference. There's no reason for people to hang around the border waiting for a court date. There's no asylum processing burden. There's no reason for people to come at all, because there's no chance of entry or asylum or even a hearing. It's a much cleaner solution than Remain In Mexico.

[Frank Drackman]

Would someone tell Sleepy Joe he's President? He could close the border today with an Executive Order, and retaliate against Ear-Ron at the same time. And by "Retaliate" my idea is 1,000,000 dead Ear-Ronians for every 1 dead Amurican, with the entire population of Ear-ron less than 100,000,000 this could be over by MLB opening day.

Frank

[Randal]

He could close the border today with an Executive Order which would be nearly immediately enjoined as having no basis in law.

[Frank Drackman]

He's Commander in Cheese, order the Military to protect Amurica's Border as well as they protect Guantanamo Naval Base's Border (legally not even Amurican Territory)

[Randal]

Well... I suppose he could slap eminent domain onto all the border land of Texas and call it a naval base. Then he'd have authority to defend it as a military complex.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I wouldn't mind seeing him nationalize the National Guard in several of the gape-jawed states . . . then order the Guard members to disregard anything a Greg Abbott or Kristi Noem says . . . just to watch the clingers' heads explode.

(I do not know whether that would be lawful, but if it is it would be great sport.)

[OtisAH]

And here’s piece of shit dancing a MAGA two-step. First made famous with “Don’t have to impeach because they can charge him later, but only if he’s been impeached first,” the MAGA two-step is great for any event or gathering. Today it’s “Don’t need a law because you can EO that shit, which would be a horrible abuse of power if he tried.” Tomorrow it will be something else! The MAGA Two-step, endorsed by pieces of shit everywhere.

[Krychek_2]

Funny your tender concern for fetuses and your total lack of concern for human life once it's been born. You're the living embodiment of what I used to think was a caricature of the right to life movement.

[not guilty]

It's been twenty days since oral argument before the D.C. Circuit panel considering Donald Trump's immunity claim. With the accelerated briefing schedule, I had thought that the Court would rule in a similarly expeditious fashion. I wonder what the holdup is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thoughtful deliberation?

[billardl]

Same reason the 2nd Circuit took forever on the concealed carry case. They only move quickly when a liberal wants to get a license to bust in another man's anus.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whatever happened to those ostensible "civility standards" you claimed to be enforcing when you were censoring liberals and libertarians at your blog, Prof. Volokh?

#Hypocrite
#Coward
#FauxLibertarian

[Moderation4ever]

The oral arguments suggested some skepticism on the merits of Trump's claim. I would suggest that the judges want to make the best decision possible in the hopes that SCOTUS simple accepts the decision and does not grant certiorari for an appeal.

[Commenter_XY]

Which judges were on the panel, not guilty?

[not guilty]

Judges Karen Henderson, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has Trump been claiming to have aced a dementia screening test he described as extremely difficult?

I hope so.

Carry on, clingers.

[Michael Resanovic (still highly opinionated)]

Guess what, y'all! I've been published! (kinda)

Check out "Michael Resanovic on Adding Qualifications for Presidency" over at Originalism Blog. (I'd post the link, but this site doesn't let me do that, for whatever reason.)

[Saallarisa]

Retired 4th Circuit Judge Michael Luttig is urging SCOTUS to reject Trump from the ballot case. 30 years ago, this judge's father was murdered by a nigger, and his response has been to wage jihad on white conservatism in response. Makes a lot of sense huh?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you're a racist. Cool story; thanks for the information.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This blog is racist. This is the first time you've noticed?

[Michael Resanovic (still highly opinionated)]

Boy. Wolf.

Most of what's on this blog is not racist. Thanks for withdrawing attention from the occasional comments that are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Most of . . . this blog is not racist

. . . and some of its friends are Black!

(and this clip is 99 percent nonviolent!)

(and this one not only is 90 percent nonviolent but also is mostly singing and dancing!)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Spoke too soon, yet again . . .

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This remarkably white, tellingly
male, right-wing blog has
operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

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

FOUR (4)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least four discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not necessarily just four racial
slurs; many of this blog’s
discussions include multiple
racial slurs,)

This blog is matching its deplorable
pace of 2023, when the Volokh
Conspiracy published disgusting,
vile racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions (and likely
more).

These numbers probably miss
some of the racial slurs
published regularly by this blog;
it would be unreasonable to
expect anyone to catch all
of them.

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 disaffected,
receding, 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.

This -- from Ronnie and Johnny -- is a good one, too.

A friend once knocked on the door of a record producer's home and that knock was answered by Ronnie Spector in a purple bikini. He still reminisces.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's bonus Rolling Stones pointers (by request):

First, <a href="Like A Rolling Stone."

Next, Rolling Stone Blues.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

LIke a Rolling Stone

[Paladin_44]

Kinda prefer this one Arthur:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vifUaZQL8pc

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This one might change your life.

Another good travel tune.

[Davy C]

47 USC 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

[Brett Bellmore]

Prior to section 230, an interactive computer service could avoid any liability for user content by simply not engaging in any moderation unless directed to by a court. So long as they were a passive conduit, the user themself would retain all liability. So that phrase restates the default rule already in place if you refrained from moderation.

And that's the way platforms like FB operated, while they were growing: As passive conduits.

It's Section 230 of the communications decency act, much of which got struck down by the courts. It's goal was to allow a limited carve out from that liability rule for moderation of defined sorts of offensive content, so that platforms could do SOME moderation while retaining that immunity.

Unfortunately, the courts took the catchall phrase at the end of the list, "or otherwise offensive", and treated it as swallowing the rule, allowing moderation on any basis whatsoever. So we arrived at the present situation, where the platforms essentially exercise complete editorial control over user content while being spared any liability for their decisions. Hardly what the law was enacted to achieve.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And that’s the way platforms like FB operated, while they were growing: As passive conduits."

You're operating under a different timeline than reality if you think FB was around in the late '90's. Getting basic facts wrong calls into question the rest of your conspiratorial nonsense, wouldn't you say?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[David Nieporent]

the platforms essentially exercise complete editorial control over user content while being spared any liability for their decisions. Hardly what the law was enacted to achieve.

That's exactly what the law was enacted to achieve, according to the authors themselves.

But you — like most of your ilk — misunderstand the operation of the law as well as its purpose. The immunity from liability for other people's speech (Paragraph c(1)) is separate from the moderation provision (Paragraph c(2)(a)). There's no cause of action for moderation in the first place, and it's the 1A, not § 230, that allows it. The courts could interpret "otherwise objectionable" incorrectly — as you do — and it would not allow people to sue the 'platforms.'

[Davy C]

My point was that if a commenter uses a slur, that's not properly presented as the *blog* publishing a slur, as a certain person seems to be doing.

[not guilty]

A state representative in Georgia has introduced articles of impeachment against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/221906 The bulk of the resolution kvetches about Ms. Willis's decision to charge Donald Trump and his codefendants in the pending RICO prosecution.

Georgia's Constitution provides at Article I, § II, ¶ III:

Separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. The legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct; and no person discharging the duties of one shall at the same time exercise the functions of either of the others except as herein provided.

I haven't researched the question, but I wonder whether the legislature second guessing the executive as to what allegations of criminal conduct to investigate and prosecute violates the separation of powers. As a prudential matter, that seems egregiously inappropriate.

It seems that Donald Trump's supporters are desperate to talk about anything other than the evidence or absence of evidence of Trump's guilt.

[Davy C]

No. Impeaching an official is not exercising the functions of that official. And even if it was, it says " except as herein provided", and impeachment is "herein provided" by the Georgia constitution.

If, say, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles decided to release every eligible murderer, the legislature could and probably should impeach them, despite that board having the power to do so, and despite that power being an executive power and not a legislative one.

You can argue that it's inappropriate for the legislature to interfere here. But it's not a violation of this clause.

[Michael P]

Prosecuting Donald Trump under RICO was egregiously inappropriate. A senior public official having a romantic affair with an unqualified underlying they hired was egregiously inappropriate. Having that underling pay for trips together was egregiously inappropriate. Impeaching that prosecutor, not so much.

It seems like Trump's critics suffer so badly from TDS that they cannot think of anything except their efforts to persecute him.

[Randal]

Of course, Trump raping Jean Carroll was totally appropriate, right?

It doesn't really work for you to nitpick the appropriateness of all these minor characters when you're so willing to excuse the multitude of glaring transgressions by your anti-savior.

[Michael P]

You really went above and beyond to demonstrate my point. Thanks.

[Randal]

Likewise, I'm sure.

[Michael P]

Nancy Pelosi, red baiter? https://time.com/6589923/nancy-pelosi-pro-palestinian-protests-foreign-influence-russia-china/

[Sarcastr0]

Code Pink is nowadays only about disruption not about policy. And it did an about face on China when it's funding changed ("China is not our enemy").

I wouldn't be sad if someone took a look.

[Nige]

Which of you interchangeable cranks was it used to keep accusing me of being a Chinese agent?

[Martinned]

This morning the ECJ has given judgment in the prejudicial question case of Direktor na Glavna direktsia „Natsionalna politsia“ pri MVR – Sofia (Case C-118/22). The judgment isn’t available in English yet, but the summary says:

The police authorities may not store biometric and genetic data concerning all persons who have been convicted by final judgment of an intentional offence, without any time limit other than the death of the person concerned. Even if that general and indiscriminate storage is justified by the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, the national authorities are required to impose on the data controller the obligation to review periodically whether that storage is still necessary, and to grant the data subject the right to have those data erased where that is no longer the case.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-01/cp240020en.pdf

[Roberta]

Let's discuss things you'd like to see accomplished, or prevented, by the second Trump administration. I'd like the wish list to include only things that seem feasible under reasonably favorable conditions, and that you think such an administration could be disposed to, even if Trump doesn't seem overtly favorable to at this moment.

For my part, I'm afraid we're at such a stage of demosclerosis that significant legislative regulatory reforms are precluded even with little popular opposition. Therefore gains will have to be achieved administratively or judicially, so elected officials can have plausible deniability. Demosclerosis will also impede fiscal improvements, but I think we could see significantly better bargains struck that will reduce deficits, albeit not to 0. In foreign affairs I think Trump will have a freer hand this time, by seizing control from the "experts" no matter what jobs they currently hold.

So for example in food and drug law I think we could get federal rescheduling of marijuana to schedule 5, though probably not complete decontrol. Schedule 5 would have the same effect as decontrol in states that have it dispensed it via pharmacies that deemed all users to have medical purposes in mind, by simply not asking them. I could see a Trump attorney general assuring that that change would happen.

I could see Trump installing a FDA commissioner who would be very permissive, proceeding "warp speed" with anything that needed approval, while insisting that the public safety was still being protected. Since some adverse results will happen no matter how stringently or laxly related rules are enforced, anybody who proclaims a holocaust can simply be said to be crying "wolf", and there'll be no objective standard by which to prove them right or wrong.

[ThePublius]

I'd like to see him deconstruct the FBI, seal the borders, reverse the energy nonsense that Biden has implemented, renew the tariffs, and a lot more.

[M L]

Monday Open Threads are now Monday Meme Threads.

https://ibb.co/d0sqDFJ

[not guilty]

Nathan Wade has reportedly settled the divorce case with his estranged wife. https://www.ajc.com/politics/special-counsel-wade-settles-divorce-case-negating-court-hearing/CJ3TOL6XMVBJJJHV5P5Y5WHPGM/ That obviates the need for him or Fani Willis to testify in that matter, which will no doubt disappoint the voyeurs.

The State's response to Mike Roman's motion to dismiss/disqualify is due on Friday. I see no basis for the Court to grant the requested relief, but with Wade having become a distraction to focusing on the evidence or absence of evidence of the Defendants' guilt, I would like to see him voluntarily resign.

[Martinned]

Don't be silly. The NFL already decided that Taylor Swift has to win at all cost.

[Frank Drackman]

Just glad it wasn’t those D-troit (redacted) OK, let me pre-empt your Ad-Homo about my Horror-Cost Survivor Mom who worked as an RN in the Brooke Army Burn Unit, yes, she ran a train on the entire 1972 San Antonio Spurs, and Harlem Globetrotters….
Surprised Marshall Mathers was allowed anywhere near San-Fran-Sissy-co, he’s said some not so “Woke” things about the Turd-Burglars in the past, my favorite bit is,

“Moby? You can get stomped by Obie You thirty six year old bald headed Fag, Blow me! You don’t know me, you’re too old, let go, it’s over Nobody listens to techno!”

Franklin Delano Drackman-Washington-Jefferson

[Mr. Bumble]

+1

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pity that she's not 35 - Biden could dump Kamela, pick Swift as VP and win in a landslide. Sad -- but true...

Drudge's saying she will be going on the campaign trail for Brandon.

[billardl]

Yes. Any trial presided over by Arthur Engoron does not constitute due process

[StonewallDeSoto]

You're damn right!

[David Nieporent]

He said that Carroll wasn't his type. He was then shown a picture of him with Carroll, and he misidentified her as his ex-wife Marla Maples. When confronted with that, he bullshitted and claimed the picture was "blurry," which it was not.

[Moderation4ever]

That certainly part of his problem and it certainly refuted his statement that Carroll was not the type of woman he rapes. But there was more. Trump talked about the latitude that some people, stars, are given with women. Stars are allowed to do things that others would not be allowed. Then he identified himself as a members of the stars group. It was a good example of why his attorney's don't let him testify.

[Bob from Ohio]

She was born December 13, 1989 so he would be eligible to take office in January 2025.

[Martinned]

Wouldn't be the first time: https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/taylor-swift-political-evolution-timeline-8528527/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump will get the votes of most Volokh Conspirators, too. They and their fans deserve each other, and deserve to continue to get the shit kicked out of them by their betters in the culture war.