Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel has filed the government's response to Donald Trump's application to stay the mandate of the D.C. Circuit regarding Trump's bizarre claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution even after leaving office as president. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300627/20240214180323991_23A745_Trump%20v.%20United%20States_Gov.%20stay%20resp_FINAL.pdf To secure a stay, applicant must show “(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam). “In a close case it may be appropriate to balance the equities -- to explore the relative harms to applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.” Conkright v. Frommert, 556 U.S. 1401, 1402 (2009) (Ginsburg, J., in chambers).

The government asks, as an alternative to a straight up denial of the stay, that SCOTUS should treat the stay application as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the writ, and put the case on an accelerated track for briefing and oral argument, so that a decision can be had. rapidly. Another option, which Special Counsel does not mention, is for SCOTUS to grant cert and immediately issue a summary affirmance pf the D.C. Circuit decision. That would perhaps be the ideal resolution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I'm not mistaken, Trump is arguing that he has immunity now for acts he did as President. I would suggest considering the consequences if he doesn't -- the consequences to Biden in 2026.

I'm not talking just Federal prosecution here, either. Why can't Texas prosecute him for letting in illegal aliens? Etc.

[SRG2]

It's merely a delaying tactic. I doubt Trump's lawyers believe any of the arguments they're making.

[Riva]

They don’t believe arguments grounded in the constitution, precedent, and historical practice? The only parties that don’t feel bound by precedent and the constitution are Jack Smith and, so far, the DC federal courts.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, look, it’s yet another MAGA “IKYABWAI?”

[Riva]

I was expecting a stupid, obnoxious response but you’ve outdone yourself.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The courtroom discussion in Defense for Children v. Biden suggested the possibility of post-presidency indictment of Biden for the US federal capital crime of genocide.

The spectacle of trying, convicting, and hanging Biden would be an excellent healing moment for the nation. Everyone hates Biden.

US AG Garland is probably aware that but for presidential immunity Biden should be indicted. Hur's report may have been created to immunize Biden from the future execution of a death sentence that he without question deserves.

[Theendoftheleft]

Durka durka... jihad?

[Drewski]

I would personally find it hilarious if some prosecutor walked into a courtroom seeking an arrest warrant by alleging that Biden had, personally and with his own hands, committed murder (which is required to seek the death penalty for genocide). It would be even funnier if a magistrate issued it. It obviously wouldn't get past that even in the worst case but it would make for a pretty entertaining news cycle or three.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hark back to 1872. President Ulysses S. Grant has a bit of a lead foot when it comes to the horses. He has the need for speed.

So he gets arrested on the streets of DC for speeding. (He'd gotten just a warning the day before.) He submitted and was booked.

Presidents weren't always kings in America, it is worth recalling from time to time. They used to just be ordinary citizens who held a particular job.

[Drewski]

What would be funny is not the question of criminal immunity, but the accusation itself. Unless you think Biden has, personally, murdered at least one Palestinian in furtherance of a genocide program. Sane people do not believe this, you see.

[Riva]

That’s absurd. Recognizing immunity for the president in the execution of his official duties respects the role of the president consistent with the constitutional separation of powers. It does not make him a “king.”

[David Nieporent]

You're not really smart enough to understand the issues here. "Separation of powers" doesn't even make sense as a reference, since it's the executive branch prosecuting him.

Yes, saying the president can break laws with impunity would indeed make him a king. The king couldn't be prosecuted because the king was the sovereign, was the state. The president is just an employee.

[Riva]

What are you ranting about? We have the Judicial branch and we have the Executive, embodied in the President. Having the judiciary delve into the mindset of the president’s in his execution of official duties shows gross disrespect to a coordinate branch of government. You really have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, do you? Or you might want to use a new AI program to draft your next response.

[David Nieporent]

1) Donald Trump is not the president.
2) Donald Trump is not the president.
3) Donald Trump is not, in fact, the president.
4) Not sure why you keep talking about ‘delving into the mindset,’ as if the disgraced ex-president is being mind probed rather than criminally prosecuted.
5) The “Judiciary” isn’t doing this; the Executive branch brought this prosecution.

[Riva]

The relevant fact is that he was the president during the conduct charged under the indictment. And, if you don't think the judiciary is exercising power against the president in this federal criminal trial than you woefully misunderstand the process.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's not the relevant fact. Most people agree that it would be problematic to try to prosecute the president. But none of the considerations that make it problematic apply once he is just a private citizen, no longer the president, no longer with any role in the government. "Former president" is not a title of nobility in the U.S. Former presidents are ordinary people, no different than anyone else.

And if you still don't get that only the executive can prosecute a former president (or anyone else), then you don't have any idea what we're discussing.

[Riva]

Uh, no. Civil immunity is extended to a president after he leaves office. The same considerations, and more, apply in the context of criminal liability for official acts. In fact, it wouldn't mean much at all if politically motivated prosecutors could just wait out the term and launch their nonsense cases at the appropriate time after a president leaves office, even timing their cases to interfere with the presidential election cycle.

[Darth Buckeye]

The key is that the immunity only applies to "official duties." The challenge will be when a President and his staff do something illegal and then present a pretext in an effort to argue that their illegal action was performed as official duties.

[David Nieporent]

That's exactly what happened here.

[John F. Carr]

Texas may not have any authority to prosecute him for allowing or even actively facilitating illegal immigration. A trial court hearing is coming soon to decide whether Texas' new immigration law can be enforced.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would have said the same thing about Georgia and Trump.

But we've gone through the looking glass...

[Zarniwoop]

Grampa Ed blathered:

I would have said the same thing about Georgia and Trump.

And you'd be wrong, per usual.

Pop quiz! Is there a difference between
1) A state attempting to prosecute a former president over policy differences related to the forer prez's discretionary enforcement decisions of Federal laws

and

2) A state attempting to prosecute a former president for direct violations of that State's own laws, for a subject that is not related to a presidential or Federal power

Why yes ... yes there is a difference.

Easier example for the brain-impaired among us: NY could prosecute Trump if he shot someone on 5th Avenue, even if he tried to claim "murder" is within the outer limits of the President's job.

[Riva]

Unfortunately, the only way to end the absurd democrat perversion of constitutional law may be to subject democrat officials to the same treatment. Unless the S. Ct properly steps in and puts an end to this nonsense.

[myself]

If I’m not mistaken, Trump is arguing that he has immunity now for acts he did as President. I would suggest considering the consequences if he doesn’t — the consequences to Biden in 2026.

Consequences considered, can't see any.

I’m not talking just Federal prosecution here, either. Why can’t Texas prosecute him for letting in illegal aliens? Etc.

Because qualified immunity is REALLY well established. And just like it allows police officers to get away with all but the most egregious abuses in the line of duty it does the same for Presidents.

To lose your qualified immunity you need to do something especially egregious and obviously illegal, like trying to overturn the election.

[David Nieporent]

If I’m not mistaken, Trump is arguing that he has immunity now for acts he did as President.

Although 99.87% of the time you are mistaken (and/or lying), this is part of the 0.13% in which you are not.

I’m not talking just Federal prosecution here, either. Why can’t Texas prosecute him for letting in illegal aliens? Etc.

You mean, besides the obvious, that it isn't a crime?

[tylertusta]

Trump’s bizarre claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution even after leaving office as president

Why is it bizarre? Presidents have civil immunity, and the Supreme Court has hinted at some kind of criminal immunity as well.

You might not like the prospect of Trump potentially having immunity, but that doesn’t make it bizarre.

and put the case on an accelerated track for briefing and oral argument, so that a decision can be had. rapidly.

I had a big laugh when I read the Special Counsel’s weak sauce rationale for requesting this case to be expedited.

Takes a lot of gall to tell the Supreme Court that witnesses may become unavailable or may have their memories fade if Trump gets the regular process for consideration of appeals before SCOTUS. And we’re not talking about a multi-year process either. We’re talking about a year, 18 months tops for a ruling.

For context, the statute of limitations is five years. It’s been barely three years since the events of January 6th, 2021. If preserving the memories of witnesses and prompt consideration of cases is so important, then Congress would have shortened the SoL.

(It’s not important. Smith is full of crap.)

If Smith is so concerned about the memories of his witnesses, perhaps he should have interviewed them ahead of time.

Or perhaps he should have found more witnesses whose memories are more reliable.

Or perhaps he shouldn’t lie to the Court about why he wants to expedite the case.

[not guilty]

“Why is it bizarre? Presidents have civil immunity, and the Supreme Court has hinted at some kind of criminal immunity as well.”

To the contrary, no decision of the Supreme Court has indicated that a former president is immune from criminal prosecution. Former presidents are immune from civil damage suits arising out of actions or omissions within the outer perimeter of their official duties. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982).

Officials who are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages actions are nevertheless subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

SCOTUS in Nixon v. Fitzgerald opined that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than in criminal prosecutions. 457 U.S. at 754 n.37. Chief Justice Burger (who was essential to the 5-4 ruling) expressly opined in his concurring opinion that a former president’s absolute immunity is limited to civil damages claims. Id., at 759.

[tylertusta]

:

To the contrary, no decision of the Supreme Court has indicated that a former president is immune from criminal prosecution

You can find hints of it in Spalding. Before you fire up your keyboard with a rebuttal, I acknowledge that yes, Spalding is dicta.

But then again, so is everything you’ve cited as well is dicta.

Until the Court rules, that’s all we have-except for the DC panel’s opinion, of course.

[not guilty]

I am not familiar with a case known only as Spalding, Do you have a more complete style of the case or a citation?

Do you claim that "Former presidents are immune from civil damage suits arising out of actions or omissions within the outer perimeter of their official duties. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982)" is dicta? If so, is that as true as everything else you have said?

[tylertusta]

I’m referring to Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483 (1896)

Here’s a link

I’m referring to this section where the Court quotes Yates v Lansing favorably:

“The doctrine which holds a judge exempt from a civil suit or indictment for any act done or omitted to be done by him, sitting as judge, has a deep root in the common law. It is to be found in the earliest judicial records, and it has been steadily maintained by an undisputed current of decisions in the English courts amidst every change of policy, and through every revolution of their government.”

Pair that with this:

We are of opinion that the same general considerations of public policy and convenience which demand for judges of courts of superior jurisdiction immunity from civil suits for damages arising from acts done by them in the course of the performance of their judicial functions apply to a large extent to official communications made by heads of executive departments when engaged in the discharge of duties imposed upon them by law. The interests of the people require that due protection be accorded to them in respect of their official acts.

The logic here is that judges have civil and criminal immunity for their official acts, and that executives and judges have the same ‘general considerations’ for immunity.

But, like I said, dicta.

Do you claim that [Fitzgerald's central holding] is dicta? If so, is that as true as everything else you have said?

I'm claiming that cases where the Court may have indicated that the President doesn't have criminal immunity is dicta. Burger's concurrence, for example, is just a concurrence.

[not guilty]

Thank you. You claimed above that everything I’ve cited above is dicta. Again, do you claim that “Former presidents are immune from civil damage suits arising out of actions or omissions within the outer perimeter of their official duties. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982)” -- word for word what I wrote above -- is dicta?

[tylertusta]

My apologies, I did not mean everything.

[David Nieporent]

That's not mere "dicta." That's dicta upon dicta, and the part that is dicta is clearly wrong. It's dicta from a New York State case, carried over to a second round of dicta from SCOTUS solely in a quote from that earlier case. And your chain of reasoning — that if judges are immune from prosecution then so must executive officials be —  is rather undermined by the fact that judges are not immune from prosecution.

[Riva]

Not immune for official acts?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Riva]

Uh, no, at least if you’re referring to Ex Parte Viriginia, that was a state judge and not a judicial act. But with Trump’s case, we’re talking about acts that are facially proper, not illegal, and I would say arguably within the scope of his official duties, that become criminal only by ascribing to him a criminal intent in the execution. Where not talking about a bad act per se, eg robbing a bank. Even if there were a case for criminal liability for a president, this ain’t it.

[Don Nico]

As always, thank you for a clear statement based on legal citations

[David Nieporent]

Why is it bizarre? Presidents have civil immunity, and the Supreme Court has hinted at some kind of criminal immunity as well.

The Supreme Court has not said it, suggested it, hinted at it, speculated about it, or even guessed wildly about it. There is precisely zero text, history, or logic behind criminal immunity for a former president, and nobody except Trump's lawyers have ever suggested otherwise. Indeed, even the question of whether a sitting president has immunity is unsettled in the courts.

[Josh R]

I thought the next step might be a petition for en banc review (it would delay the process, which is what Trump wants). I can only guess the circuit panel held that the trials can go forth while such a review is sought and that only SCOTUS can issue a stay (forcing Trump to petition SCOTUS for a stay). As you point out, the standards for that stay is the likelihood of SCOTUS granting cert.

What I was wondering is whether SCOTUS might issue a stay based on there not being a petition for en banc review yet, rather than the likelihood of SCOTUS granting cert.

[not guilty]

Issuance of the Court of Appeals mandate was briefly stayed by the panel to allow Donald Trump to seek a further stay of the mandate. When the mandate issues, jurisdiction reverts to the District Court. Trump could thereafter file a petition for rehearing en banc and/or a petition for writ of certiorari, but such filings would not delay the jury trial.

[David Nieporent]

…unless granted. The DC Circuit expressly said that a grant of rehearing en banc would result in the mandate being recalled.

[Josh R]

Makes sense.

Would SCOTUS ever intervene at this point and issue a stay pending a petition for en banc review without regard to whether SCOTUS is likely to grant cert later on?

[David Nieporent]

SCOTUS can do anything it wants (er, almost), but I cannot see any reason why it would do what you suggest. It's none of SCOTUS's business (I'm being overdramatic here) how the DC Circuit handles its own business in that regard; the circuit court has discretion as to managing its own docket. If enough justices think Trump's claims have sufficient merit, there's no reason why they wouldn't grant a stay pending SCOTUS's review.

[Riva]

While the trial proceeds at a pace unheard of in the history of the DOJ? That’s fair.

[David Nieporent]

What on earth makes you think that? Besides that you read it on Twitter, I mean?

[Riva]

Some J6 cases have been pending for years but this highly complex unprecedented matter, it has to be resolved before Nov. for some strange reason. Not in any way political of course.

[David Nieporent]

So if "some" cases have been pending for a while, that means to you that trying a case in less than a year is "a pace unheard of in the history of the DOJ"? Is that your argument?

It has to be resolved before November for the entirely non-strange reason that if the election in November goes one way then it can't be resolved for years, if at all. That is not "political," no.

[Riva]

So much for the DOJ policy against interfering with elections.

[David Nieporent]

So much for you saying anything that isn't a stupid MAGA talking point.

There is of course no such "DOJ policy." There is a DOJ policy against making announcements right before an election. But there's no candidate immunity any more than there's presidential immunity. You don't get to run for office for several years and thus preclude anyone from prosecuting you.

[Riva]

They have no such policies? Not what I heard. You may want to check your sources. Any source actually. Oh and where, in any filing by this hack Smith, does he actually admit the election cycle is dictating his never ending whines for accelerated process? It seems he's trying to pretend the election has nothing to do with his oddly fast pace.

[Riva]

The only thing bizarre is your failure to appreciate the serious constitutional separation of powers violations that inhere in allowing Art. III courts to make decisions on the mental state of the president underlying the execution of his official duties in order to determine criminal culpability. Or maybe ignorance and/or bias better describe your views. The Circuit Court opinion was grossly disrespectful to a coordinate branch of government and should not stand.

[Kazinski]

"is for SCOTUS to grant cert and immediately issue a summary affirmance pf the D.C. Circuit decision. That would perhaps be the ideal resolution."

Have they ever done that before?

I think the best solution is for the SCOTUS to remand to the district court for additional fact finding. Clearly there are competing interests here, nobody wants a president to get away with murder, corruption, or any other of the parade of horribles.

But we also want a President looking over his shoulder when he is ordering a hit on a terrorist, calling out the national guard to.suppress civil.disorder, etc.

So I thin when a President, is being charged for actions.while in office the court should have a bench trial before a jury is empaneled and the prosecution has to show.by clear and convincing evidence that the overt acts, and objective were not legitimate uses of presidential power.

That would create a middle ground between immunity, and potential prosecutorial abuses.

And I will point out, all the judges from the district court up through the Supreme Court have even more robust immunity than that, so does the prosecutor. Those that don't think this more modest safeguard, is too much deference to the President should justify that in light of judicial and prosecutorial immunity.

[not guilty]

Summary reversals or affirmances by SCOTUS are not unusual. In this case a summary affirmance would preclude any other circuit reaching a conclusion contrary to that of the D.C. Circuit.

The instant indictment does not allege any conduct within the outer perimeter of a president’s official duties. Additional fact finding would serve no purpose other than delay.

If there are other circumstances where immunity should arguably apply (e.g., a future former president indicted for actions taken as commander-in-chief of the armed forces), that can be litigated in future cases.

“So I thin [sic] when a President, is being charged for actions.while in office the court should have a bench trial before a jury is empaneled and the prosecution has to show.by clear and convincing evidence that the overt acts, and objective were not legitimate uses of presidential power.”

That would require a constitutional amendment. Jeopardy attaches in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn.

[Kazinski]

I'm aware that summary recersals are common enough there is they have a an acronym for it GVR, but never heard of GA, GAR being a thing.

And perhaps I mispoke, maybe bench trial isn't the term, but judges hold pretrial hearings all the time to hear evidence and make rulings before a jury has been sworn, See your post about Fani Willis below, did that require a constitutional amendment?

I concede it would require some judge made law, which is never ideal, but so did judicial and prosecutorial immunity.

[David Nieporent]

“is for SCOTUS to grant cert and immediately issue a summary affirmance pf the D.C. Circuit decision. That would perhaps be the ideal resolution.”

Have they ever done that before?

Sure. Summary affirmances are not common (for obvious procedural reasons), but they are not some esoteric process. Google “summary affirmance” and you’ll see plenty of references.

I think the best solution is for the SCOTUS to remand to the district court for additional fact finding.

That doesn’t make any sense. There are no relevant facts to find here; the issue of immunity presents a pure question of law.

But we also want a President looking over his shoulder when he is ordering a hit on a terrorist, calling out the national guard to.suppress civil.disorder, etc.

I think you had meant to say “don’t want,” but if so, that’s wrong. We want everyone from hobos to the president, looking over their shoulders to be sure they aren’t committing criminal offenses. (And note that even under Trump’s formulation, a president would be subject to prosecution for a crime if he was impeached and removed for that offense, so he never can actually escape having to look over his shoulder.)

And I will point out, all the judges from the district court up through the Supreme Court have even more robust immunity than that, so does the prosecutor.

They do not. There is no prosecutorial or judicial immunity from criminal prosecution. (Other than the obvious unwillingness of prosecutors to prosecute other prosecutors, of course.)

[Riva]

No, we absolutely don’t want a president to be “look[ing] over his shoulder” when making decisions on vital national security questions.

[David Nieporent]

Okay, maybe you don't. I do. As much as I hope Donald Trump burns in hell, and quickly, I don't want Joe Biden thinking he can legally have Trump killed to expedite that process.

[Riva]

Recognizing immunity for official actions does not mean condoning blatant wrongs committed by a president. First, the act you describe is not within the scope of official duties so it’s not even within the realm of what we’re discussing with the present charges. Second, even if you think it’s somehow official, its commission would result in immediate impeachment and then Indictment and conviction.

[David Nieporent]

Recognizing immunity for official actions does not mean condoning blatant wrongs committed by a president.

It literally does! That's what immunity means!

First, the act you describe is not within the scope of official duties so it’s not even within the realm of what we’re discussing with the present charges.

If he does it gratuitously, maybe not. But if he claims he's defending the country against an insurrectionist, then it's within the scope of his duties. At least according to Trump's logic, in which trying to overturn an election result is within the scope of his.

Second, even if you think it’s somehow official, its commission would result in immediate impeachment and then Indictment and conviction.

Well, if Biden did it, maybe. But we know from experience that if Trump did it, the GOP would back him and he would never be removed from office.

Moreover, under Trump's proposed legal standard, all Biden would have to do is resign before he was impeached, and then none of that could happen.

[Riva]

Funny, I seem to recall the democrats impeaching President Trump after his term ended. Weird, huh?

[not guilty]

Uh, no. Donald Trump was impeached on December 18, 2019 and again on January 13, 2021. Trump left office on January 20, 2021.

[Riva]

The trial for the second impeachment occurred after President Trump left office.

[David Nieporent]

It did indeed. What's your point? I posited that Biden resign before he's impeached, not before he's tried. Note that Trump was acquitted despite his obvious guilt precisely because a bunch of cowardly Republican senators seized on the idea that he couldn't be tried in the Senate after he left office.

[Riva]

My point is that under your nonsense hypothetical, the president perpetrating the criminal acts alleged could be still be held responsible notwithstanding the recognition of presidential immunity for official acts. But one need not resort to the insanely improbable facts you make up. 200 plus years of no criminal prosecutions of presidents, despite numerous real world examples of legal violations, is more than a sufficient historical background strongly supporting that such actions are not constitutionally permissible.

[David Nieporent]

Um, it's not my hypothetical; it's Trump's. That you think it's "nonsense" just shows how crazy Trump's position is.

There is zero constitutional text, structure, or history to suggest presidential immunity. Zero. None. Zilch. Literally nobody before Trump ever suggested any such thing existed — probably because nobody before Trump ever tried a coup.

Ford pardoned Nixon, costing himself the election. According to your ill-informed theory, that was totally unnecessary because Nixon couldn't have been prosecuted. Clinton surrendered his law license in exchange for not being prosecuted. According to your ill-informed theory, that was totally unnecessary because Clinton couldn't have been prosecuted.

[Riva]

Point out in any court filing where anyone representing President Trump made the argument that he could murder someone with impunity, leave office and escape any accountability? What would the leftists call your comment, misinformation or disinformation? I call it a lie.

[Riva]

And as for Clinton and Nixon, not official acts. No relevance here.

[Magister]

Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive’s broad immunity to criminal prosecution.

The hypothetical was presented to Trump attorney John Sauer who answered with a “qualified yes” that a former president would be immune from prosecution on that matter or even on selling pardons.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

That would be Trump attorney John Sauer in the DC District Court of Appeals. Maybe it's not actually a filing; I don't know if arguments in a hearing before a court count. But David Nieporent only said Trump's hypothetical, and there it is.

[Riva]

That isn’t Trump counsel’s hypothetical. And the summation you note misreports the nature of the stupid hypothetical and counsels response. At any rate, it’s an insanely stupid hypothetical proposed by an apparently stupid judge. How to respond to such an absurdly phrased hypothetical without additional details? And the judge crowned her idiocy by suggesting that Congress didn’t impeach the fictional president. Such a hypothetical describes a coup, in which discussions of legal process have little meaning anyway. Historical examples abound of presidents allegedly breaking the law with no criminal process resulting. This insanely stupid fiction was not helpful.

[David Nieporent]

Not only was Riva clueless about Trump's position, but he/she is also clueless about American history (and recent events, for that matter.) On what planet were Nixon's crimes "not official acts"? They were far more official acts than Trump's were. Nixon was directing the FBI and CIA in their investigations. Trump was attempting to steal an election. (If we were only talking about the break-in at the Watergate hotel, that would be closer to what Trump was accused of. But Nixon's crimes were primarily about the coverup, not the break-in.)

[Riva]

Well not sure of all the minutiae of Watergate, I was thinking in terms of breaking and entering, and not sure how many other aspects of that could be characterized as official acts but it may be a combination of both, hence the pardon is explainable in that sense to cover non-official conduct. Well understandable to most people of average intelligence. Not you of course. Clinton, whom you ignore, clearly did not concern official acts. And it certainly is not Trump's position that a president can commit any act with impunity. Conduct within the scope of official duties and of course Congress can impeach and convict and remove all immunity.

[Magister]

That isn’t Trump counsel’s hypothetical. And the summation you note misreports the nature of the stupid hypothetical and counsels response. At any rate, it’s an insanely stupid hypothetical proposed by an apparently stupid judge. How to respond to such an absurdly phrased hypothetical without additional details? And the judge crowned her idiocy by suggesting that Congress didn’t impeach the fictional president. Such a hypothetical describes a coup, in which discussions of legal process have little meaning anyway. Historical examples abound of presidents allegedly breaking the law with no criminal process resulting. This insanely stupid fiction was not helpful.

It was exactly what you asked to have pointed out. Nice try to cover your embarrassment with a barrage of lazy insults.

[David Nieporent]

Funny, I seem to recall the democrats impeaching President Trump after his term ended. Weird, huh?

That is funny, since it did not in fact happen.

[Riva]

For the purposes of your insane hypothetical, the trial occurred after he left office. So the then impeached and convicted Biden could in fact be tried, even if he left office. But as I wrote above, your insane delusions do not describe an official act. But more important is what has actually has happened, or didn't. In the entire history of this country there have been no prosecution of presidents for official acts. Until the corrupt Biden and democrats cut loose with their lawfare.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Multiple sources are reporting that the Five Eyes had been spying on Donald Trump since at least 2016, that he declassified the proof of that and took an 8" binder of it down to Mira Lago with him when he left the White House, and THAT is what the FBI was after.

If this is true, (a) what does that do to the case against him and (b) what are the political implications when this comes out at trial?

the other issue that has never been addressed is the legality of the Five Eyes itself -- foreign intelligence agencies spying on each other's citizens (which the domestic agency couldn't legally do) and then giving the intelligence to the domestic agency. In other words, British intelligence spying on US citizens and then giving what they found to the CIA.

If what is being alleged is actually true, Brandon is far dirtier than Nixon ever dreamed of being. I emphasize "if" but this has gone beyond mere conspiracy theory at this point. There's actual smoke.

[Brett Bellmore]

If true, Trump is an utter moron. You have something like that, you don't SIT on it. You use it, immediately. You don't give them TIME to retrieve it.

So I'm really dubious.

[Brett Bellmore]

After the initial raid, I speculated that Trump had taken something really embarrassing or incriminating as insurance, and they were moving to get it back. The way they were acting was over the top otherwise.

But if he'd done that, he'd have been a fool to keep it where it could be so easily found, and he would have used it by now, so I had to abandon that notion as likely untrue.

[Commenter_XY]

This '8-Inch Binder' (this needs a catchy name, like the Binder of Doom, or something similar) sounds like the illusory 'Binders of Women' that Candidate Romney allegedly had. Surely, there must be a copy somewhere, yearning to break free.

Suppose the 8-Inch Binder of Doom exists. So what. Does it matter?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Someone who has paid attention to the facts wouldn’t ask such a stupid question unless they were a partisan dipshit.

Oh, right. It’s you.

[tylertusta]

If there is proof that the CIA and our allies were running their agents against a major US presidential campaign with the specific intent to gin up a criminal investigation, then yes, that's a big f'ing deal.

[Nelson]

No, it's a completely delusional deal. The insanity of the Trumpkins and their willingness to say (and believe) completely out-of-left-field, evidence-free, ridiculous-on-its-face things seemed like it would eventually collapse under the weight of shame after repeated proof that their beliefs were insane. But apparently Trumpworld is immune to shame, facts, evidence, and reality.

It is literally the most frightening development in American politics since I was born in 1970. And yes, I include Nixon.

[Theendoftheleft]

Really? Isn't the fact that your current president is not really compos mentis FAR more worrying?

It is for those of us in the rest of the world.

[Nige]

That the same people supporting the guy who tried to illegally overturn an election he lost are the same ones pushing the non compos mentis story hardest is a factor, as is the fact that the other guy tried to illegally overturn an election he lost, promised to support Russian invasions of allies, to set up conentration camps, to invade red states, and to use the power of the government to target his enemies. Meanwhile Biden, a man witha life-long stutter, makes verbal gaffes, as he always has.

[KaDaSha]

Some are immune to shame, facts, evidence, and reality. Most just don't care because it is their party.

[Drewski]

"the illusory ‘Binders of Women’ that Candidate Romney allegedly had"

You mean "claimed to have." Allegations come from other people. (Mind you, it was just a poor choice of phrasing in the moment.)

[Moderation4ever]

Did it every occur that it was as simple as NARA wanted the documents back? They asked nicely and were rebuffed. So, what the next step take it up with Justice. It is not hard to understand the value of Presidential documents and the mission of NARA to preserve them. We know that the former President was bad with document and so there is even more reason to protect them.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump is not the brightest and if he had something like this he would have used it much earlier, likely during the campaign. So, I rate this idea as ludicrous.

[Krayt]

This. Were they spying on his campaign because of Russia, or just political spying? Why hold it in reserve if it's bad?

Like all his supposed fraud proof, there's nothing there. Just claim there is for rhetorical purposes, but never reveal it except intimations.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But Trump comes out of the NYC Real Estate world — maybe there you DO keep dirt on people quiet, reminding them that you have the dirt but keeping it quiet.

The reason for this is that an unfired gun is a greater threat than a fired one — they don’t know what the consequence of a release is, but once you do release it, you have nothing left…

I've heard it referred to as "knowing where the bodies are buried."

[Nige]

He's resorting to blackmail? I thought you guys wanted to shoot extortionists?

[Riva]

That’s a nicely unprincipled take on the gross abuses of government power directed against President Trump.

[Kazinski]

Its things like the abuse of our national security institutions that make me think a second Trump term may be necessary. As bad as Jan 6th was it was people who weren’t being paid public money acting on their personal convictions.

The CIA requesting foreign intelligence agencies to do things the CIA is barred by law and tradition (supposedly) seems much more of a threat than a 78 year old almost zero institutional support.

The biggest threat to our democracy isn’t a chaotic outsider attacking our institutions. Its our institutions pulling out all the stops to protect their preferred candidate and stymie the outsider in order to protect their own power and.perogatives.

That said I will probably vote for Nikki Haley next month in the primary because I wish our outsider was younger and more competent.

[Sarcastr0]

a second Trump term may be necessary
First, you're taking an Ed post as truth.

Second, so much for Never Trump, eh?

[Kazinski]

Like I said, I am voting for Haley while she is on the ballot.

But, the more the DOJ, FBI, CIA.and Pentagon, FDA, NIH, CDC don't want Trump, the more I am reconciled to.another term.

[Mr. Bumble]

That term should have been winding down had those alphabet agencies not interfered with the 2020 election.

[Nige]

You two should know, there's right-wingers over on another thread pooh-poohing the idea that right-wingers are somehow especially prone to falling into conspiracy-theory thinking.

[Kazinski]

You got me there Nige, the idea of intelligence agencies conspiring with each other to get around domestic laws is a pretty far out conspiracy.

But I'm so far gone, I assume its a given that intelligence agencies do that.

Go ahead, have at me, have your fun.

[Nige]

'have at me, have your fun.'

Thanks. Right now I'm pointing and laughing at your shift from the specific to the general.

[KaDaSha]

It seems a demographic within the party is more susceptible. There are many studies that speculate as to why.

[Sarcastr0]

That kind of reverse barometer nonsense is awful, shallow thinking.

But you've also been defending Trump up and down this comments section for *years*.
Forgive me if I find your Strange New Respect convenient and worthy of some skepticism.

[Kazinski]

Sure, and I expect to vote for Trump in November, but even if something healthwise or legally causes him to drop out I expect the candidate will be DeSantis not Haley.

But I have said since Jan 6th I prefer another candidate.

[Nige]

If you preferred another candidate you'd vote for Biden. So clearly, you do not prefer another candidate.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don’t worry, nobody ever said you had an intelligent reason for your support of Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, I don't know, maybe $2.00 a gallon gas and 2% inflation?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL still trying to pretend the economy is doing badly these days?

You're like the last one yelling after everyone else has moved on.

[Mr. Bumble]

Someone is "pretending" but it isn't me.

[Ed Grinberg]

Classic Gaslighto!

[Kazinski]

Intelligent or not, I'm not alone:

"Despite a growing economy and little opposition for his party’s nomination, President Joe Biden confronts a dissatisfied electorate and a challenging political climate nine months before he faces re-election, according to a new national NBC News poll.

Biden trails GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump on major policy and personal comparisons, including by more than 20 points on which candidate would better handle the economy. And Biden’s deficit versus Trump on handling immigration and the border is greater than 30 points.

The poll also shows Trump holding a 16-point advantage over Biden on being competent and effective, a reversal from 2020, when Biden was ahead of Trump on this quality by 9 points before defeating him in that election."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-biden-trump-economy-presidential-race-rcna136834

If Trump weren't such an asshole he would be ahead by 20 on policy and competence.

By the way Jason, I've always thought people throw around the insults they are most sensitive about themselves. You must be awfully sensitive about your intelligence. Its ok, I don't know you, but I don't think a whole lot of people laugh about you behind your back. you shouldn't worry about it so much.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You intend to abandon any sense of morality or patriotism, and support a candidate for office who has shown that he doesn't care about anyone or anything other than himself.

Trump intends to appease our enemies, abandon our allies, invalidate our treaties, and demonstrate to the world that America is not a country which can be expected to stand against naked aggression. He's running to assuage his ego and seek shelter for the crimes he's committed.

You're (allegedly) an American who will vote to destroy America and bring the free world closer to WWIII. You could simply choose note to vote, but instead you are going to actively support our destruction.

You and your kind are treasonous morons, no different than those who supported Hitler 80 years ago. This isn't about me, but I'll give you a 1/2 star for the attempt.

[Theendoftheleft]

You don’t really talk to allies in other countries much, do you?

Most of us are pretty sure Biden is dragging us into WWIII.

You conflate America’s national interests with America’s imperialist interests. Trump clearly has the better take.

We DON’T like Russia. We don’t want a world run by China. But your current international posturing and machinations, let alone your totalitarian social re-engineering projects domestically, make it very difficult to trust your government presently.

What’s interesting about your domestic discourse, too, is that the American Left, the hard left of the Dems, ALSO doesn’t want these current international postures. (They want the cultural and legal imperialism, though. And they’re all for totalitarianism domestically.) They would scale back your military presence globally. They would probably stop funding Ukraine. Etc. Yet you don’t regularly accuse those folks of being ‘treasonous’. Why not?

[Nige]

'Most of us are pretty sure Biden is dragging us into WWIII.'

No, of all the reprehensible acts US military imperialism, helping Ukraine resist a Russian invasion is the one least likely to cause WWIII and insamuch as it does pose risk of escalation, the fault lies with Putin, no-one else.

[Krayt]

He was president, with all this fraud info. You have an address to the nation and go through it. You have investigators go through it.

Or it's all lies.

[tylertusta]

Probably doesn't have much bearing on the current set of charges against him, except to perhaps bolster his argument that he really is the target of selective prosecution for political purposes.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, it's an investigation by Matt Taibbi. It's one source, being reported multiple times.

And Taibbi is not one to jump on for facts at the moment; I know you're not one either, but normal people should take a beat and wait a bit for actual reporting to follow-up.

[Kazinski]

What has.Taibbi been wrong about in the past? He certainly was right about Russiagate as much as you stil cling to it, he had the receipts on the Twitter files.

[Sarcastr0]

Taibi is into sounding persuasive to people who want to hate whatever institution he's going after. He is not into finding or establishing facts. He's not a reporter these days, he's a hot takes engine.

No, he doesn't have the receipts on the twitter files. He speculated wildly without support and called it reporting.
He calls every university and NGOs with a grant a government agent, so he can call a bunch of stuff government censorship programs.

He thinks Russiagate was a Democratic conspiracy.

You agree with him, so you take him as an authority. That's not how this should work, but it is very much how you work. So I guess you're all in on the ground floor of the CIA anti-Trump conspiracy.

[Michael P]

Don't start substantiating your assertions now, champ.

[OtisAH]

Rarely do I care what you think but I am dying to know what you think “substantiate” means.

[Michael P]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/substantiate

Your ignorance is firing on all cylinders today.

[OtisAH]

Well, I will admit ignorance to why you told sarcastro not to support his assertions. But I did know you had no idea what “substantiate” means so I’m calling it a push.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0's rant about Matt Taibbi was entirely evidence-free flame breathing. He should have been substantiating assertions long before now, but never bothers to do so. My advice to him was entirely sarcastic, but you're too dense to pick up on that kind of thing.

[Nige]

I just noticed, there’s a reverse ad hominim where you strenuously *defend the person* rather than their argument.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc claimed Taibi was not good for facts. Sarc could, to substantiate that claim, provide an example of a fact that he believes to be untrue.

Sarc did not, however, substantiate his remark. Instead, he bloviated.

Michael P told Sarc not to start substantiating his assertions. That was a tongue-in-cheek remark. Not this time, nor most any time, seems to be a time for Sarc to start substantiating his assertions.

Lighten up there. Your fittin' to blow a gasket.

[Sarcastr0]

Taibi is not credible; he is a hot takes machine.

I say 'twitter files were crap' and then you say 'do you have a source for that?'

Google. It's very fast. Or don't, and continue to be openly ignorant. I could loop in the NY Magazine story. Or NPR. Or Politico.

I will stick to the reality-based community, and you can form a club that makes bad faith demands for sources that you won't believe.

[Nige]

Nobody seems particularly interested in bringing up whatever it is Taibbi is proving so persuasively in that link. Makes you question exactly how much it actually proves.

[Michael P]

Bwaaah, don't you get it? NY Magazine and NPR and Politico have only published one article each, you just have to read that one article to understand how wrong Taibbi is. Just don't accidentally read Rolling Stone's A Rape On Campus or MSM coverage of Russiagate or MSM denials that Hunter's laptop was Hunter's laptop.

[Darth Buckeye]

They just insult Taibbi and anyone who works with him. Taibbi is willing to admit his mistakes; something that his critics and opponents don't seem to be doing.

I just listened to the latest America This Week podcast that Taibbi did with Walter Kirn where they discuss CIA/NSA/FBI surveillance of Trump which had been going on since 2015. Were the agencies just surveilling Trump or were they surveilling everyone? It could be that the US intelligence agencies and their partners around the world are doing what the FBI was doing during the J. Edgar Hoover days. Now the major media are assisting the intelligence agencies by refusing to investigate these abuses. The intelligence chiefs responsible for these abuses are retiring and getting lucrative contracts with the news media.

Intelligence leaders illegally gather information. Intelligence leaders fabricate other information. They leak this information to preferred media outlets. The media outlets report these leaks as if they are real and generate lots of headlines and revenues. The intelligence chiefs responsible for these abuses later retire and get lucrative contracts with the news media.

Much of the public suspects that something is wrong but only a few journalists like Taibbi, Greenwald, and Jeff Gerth report on this. No wonder the major news media are losing credibility.

https://www.racket.news/p/many-reporters-paid-for-covering

[David Nieporent]

Much of the public suspects that something is wrong but only a few journalists like Taibbi, Greenwald, and Jeff Gerth report on this. No wonder the major news media are losing credibility.

Occam's Razor suggests that if "only a few 'journalists'" are reporting something, it's their credibility that should be in doubt.

Also, did you catch the thing Taibbi recently posted on Twitter (because of a feud with Musk) in which he inadvertently told on himself in admitting that in the past he was refusing to criticize Musk in his work?

[Kazinski]

He thinks Russiagate was a moral panic and reporter stampede with no substance behind it. His focus was on the press breathlessly reporting unsubstantiated crap, like the pee tapes, the Alfa bank server, the phantom Cohen trip to Prague, etc.

And Matt Taibbi is right to speculate on motivations of NGOs getting government funding, surely you can see the see the problem with the government funding organizations to identify information the government doesn't like, then advocate it be suppressed by tech companies the government threatens if they don't comply.

Its not like the left never checks funding sources discern motives.

[Sarcastr0]

Matt Taibbi is right to speculate

All you say is about him having opinions you agree with. Nothing about actual reporting.

As DMN notes below, when Taibbi does rely on fact, he distorts his sources to align with his thesis.

50-50 this CIA thing becomes right wing conventional wisdom in a month. But saying it's true because Taibbi says it? That's just you wanting to believe.

Which you do a lot.

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, S_0 is busy denying things left and right simply because he wants to disbelieve.

Sometimes there really is a conspiracy, for example Anthony Fauci's efforts to squash the ever-more-credible idea that COVID-19 escaped from the WIV lab.

[Nige]

But not this time, and Taibbi and Kazinski are talking through their arses, right? But over there, Fauci!

[Nige]

'He thinks Russiagate was a moral panic and reporter stampede with no substance behind it'

Except for the Mueller Report, presumably.

[David Nieporent]

He has no "receipts" on the Twitter files. He would report something, and cite something selectively leaked to him by Musk, that wouldn't actually support what he claimed. Twitter's own lawyers said — in court filings — that what he was saying wasn't true.

[Tom for equal rights]

It defies logic that Putin would have preferred a republican as president over a president from the democrat party, especially HRC based on her prior behavior such as the russian reset, or as secretary of state during the pro russian obama administration.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You don't understand what "defy" means or you don't know anything about logic.

Hillary was a notorious Russia hawk.

Trump hid his attempts to complete business deals with Russia during his campaign and then, as just one example, pretty immediately tried to get Russia back into the G7 (to make it the G8 again) and thereby undo one of the few consequences Putin suffered for invading and annexing Crimea.

Logic absolutely supports that Putin would want Trump. Moreover, the Mueller Report (and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence headed by Republicans) conclusively established that. You should learn from those facts that, at minimum, your assumptions about Hillary or about Democrats or about Trump are absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong.

[Joe_dallas]

NOVA Lawyer 3 hours ago
You don’t understand what “defy” means or you don’t know anything about logic.
"Hillary was a notorious Russia hawk."

Really - Since When?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Most reporting today is one source who is then repeated by everyone else.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "Multiple sources are reporting."

You're lying to try and get some authority for your latest nonsense.

[Absaroka]

"an 8″ binder"

An 8 inch stack of binders, OK. But *an* eight inch binder? Is this like a 3 ring binder? Is that physically possible?

[Krayt]

I don't know of 8" ones, but there are ones thicker than a ring as the "ring" is more of a D shape with a long bar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes -- they once were commonly used for computer printouts.

This is a six inch one -- an eight inch one would just have longer cables. https://www.staples.com/acco-presstex-6-3-ring-hanging-binder-dark-blue-54133/product_612028

[Absaroka]

Yeah, we had a room with millions of lines of source code hung up on those, used to use them all the time. Which is why an 8 inch binder seems kind of unlikely to me.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

Multiple sources are reporting that the Five Eyes had been spying on Donald Trump since at least 2016

Mark Steyn has been talking about this for years; see here.

[John F. Carr]

I see no reason why the document should affect the case against him or come out at trial. None of the 32 documents Trump is charged with possessing matches your description. The government is not required to charge all crimes of which it is aware. "I really had 33 documents" is not a good defense. If he could testify that the government permitted his possession of the binder, he might be allowed to so testify in his defense. Not to acquit him of the uncharged conduct of having the binder. To rebut government arguments that he was not allowed to possess any classified documents at all. When I write permitted I do not mean merely tolerated. His keeping classified documents was tolerated for a while while the Biden administration tried to do things the easy way.

[David Nieporent]

Multiple sources are reporting that the Five Eyes had been spying on Donald Trump since at least 2016, that he declassified the proof of that and took an 8″ binder of it down to Mira Lago with him when he left the White House, and THAT is what the FBI was after.

Well, not really "sources" reporting that; it's a few bloggers like Taibbi. It's obviously false, because (a) there are no such sources; and (b) If Trump had "proof" of this, what was he saving it for, his family Christmas card?

If this is true, (a) what does that do to the case against him and (b) what are the political implications when this comes out at trial?

(A) Nothing; and (b) None, because how do you think this could "come out at trial" anyway?
​
​
Also, it's Mar-a-Lago, not Mira Lago. Can you get nothing right?

[Nelson]

"Multiple sources are reporting that the Five Eyes had been spying on Donald Trump since at least 2016,"

No, they were monitoring people with concerning connections to Russian intelligence that were also part of the Trump campaign. That is a completely different thing.

If you hire 26 people that had been compromised (or potentially were being run) by Russian intelligence, is that because you are idiots who can't understand when you're being played by Vladimir Putin or is it because you're intentionally working with Russian intelligence?

When it comes to Trump and his campaign, the answer is "both".

[Kazinski]

It seems the Biden Brand was.more than just the illusion of access. It turns out that some.of the classified documents Joe "wilfully retained" dealt with Ukraine and eere.from the time period Hunter was on the Burisma Board.

"Burisma significantly reduced Hunter Biden’s salary once his father left office, according to Hunter Biden’s federal tax indictment in California. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to the tax charges at an arraignment on Jan. 11.

Federal investigators found additional documents related to Ukraine in Biden’s possession, including a confidential Sept. 2014 memo prepared by Biden staffers covering U.S. energy assistance to Ukraine, Hur’s report indicates."

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/08/robert-hur-report-biden-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-burisma/

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...There is already an FBI form FD-1023 where a foreign national formally accused POTUS Biden of taking a bribe for 5MM.

This latest is a surprise?

What is no illusion: We have a cognitively challenged, corrupt AF POTUS, and a wastrel child enabled by aforementioned corrupt AF POTUS.

Kaz, I just tell myself that it is (D)ifferent. And don't believe my lying eyes.

[Kazinski]

Yes. Not only that but one recent poll shows about 80% of the public thinks Biden is too old for another term.

John Stewart had some observations about that, and Trump too of course in his return show.

[Nelson]

Jon Stewart was amazing Monday night. God, I missed that sort of honest, bullshit-calling, intelligent comedy.

Yes, both Trimp and Biden are too old and are mentally slipping. Neither should be running for Prsident. Yet we're stuck with this nightmare choice unless we can get Ranked Choice Voting and a serious alternative before November. So we're stuck with this nightmare choice.

Given the choice, Biden is the barely-more-palatable choice in terms of mental fitness. He's moderately better on policy. But in integrity, decency, class, and morals he is vastly superior.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Stewart and I would have some serious policy disagreements, but I agree that his piece on Monday was spectacular.

In particular, I thought it was refreshing to see that he didn't just bash Trump, but also went after Biden.

"Did....anyone videotape that?" LOL

[Nelson]

He often gets bashed by the right for being a leftist, but he's actually someone who has a set of beliefs and gets worked up about the things he feels passionate about.

Especially the 9/11 first responders. He went to war with several Republicans over the years about the fund for medical care not because they were Republicans, but because they were the ones trying to screw the first responders.

He is consistent in his principles and isn't afraid to call politicians out when they're hypocrites. I'm so psyched he's back, even if it's only one day a week.

[Joe_dallas]

Commenter_XY 4 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"What is no illusion: We have a cognitively challenged, corrupt AF POTUS, and a wastrel child enabled by aforementioned corrupt AF POTUS."

Commenter XY - not according many leftist commentators who frequently post here. No dementia, no cognitive decline, just the same typical gaffes that he has had over the last 40 years.

Of course many of those commentators are blinded by partisanship

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Hilarious! Self aware much?

[Nige]

'This latest is a surprise?'

IIt's not really a surprise that the documents he's trying to link to Hunter and Burisma have nothing to do with either.

[David Nieporent]

Kaz…There is already an FBI form FD-1023 where a foreign national formally accused POTUS Biden of taking a bribe for 5MM.

No, there isn't. There's an FD-1023 in which a completely unidentified person says that he was told that Biden was given a bribe. He did not "formally accuse" Biden of anything; he had no firsthand knowledge of anything. And the person that told him said that the payments weren't actually sent to Biden and couldn't be traced. Which is rather convenient, right?

[Kazinski]

No there is an FD-1023 in which an individual who has not been publicly identified said he was told by the person who made the bribe about it. The FBI knows who the person is and they have provided credible information previously.

[Nelson]

"he was told by the person who made the bribe about it"

I believe you are mistaken. It wasn't a report of being told something by the person claiming to have made the bribe. It was a report of being told something by a person who was told something by a person claiming to have made the bribe. It's Whisper Down The Lane.

[David Nieporent]

No there is an FD-1023 in which an individual who has not been publicly identified said he was told by the person who made the bribe about it.

Um, that's literally what I said. This guy doesn't say he personally bribed Biden. He doesn't say that he has any firsthand knowledge of Biden being bribed. Rather, he says that someone told him that Biden had been bribed.

Oh, and amusingly, the FBI just arrested the guy today for lying to them about the whole thing:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/politics/former-fbi-informant-charged-biden-burisma/index.html

[Zarniwoop]

The indictment can be found on the DOJ's web site:

https://www.justice.gov/sco-weiss/pr/grand-jury-returns-indictment-charging-fbi-confidential-human-source-felony-false

[Jason Cavanaugh]

David,

How dare you.

I've been informed multiple times that James Comer is certain that Biden is corrupt and has accepted bribes and whatnot, and here you are with evidence that the people Comer relies upon are liars!?

Next you'll be telling me that James Comer can't be trusted to housesit someone's indoor plants.

[Commenter_XY]

Now that is amusing. Whoa! I literally did not know that. Exquisite timing, too. 🙂

[Zarniwoop]

Just finished reading the indictment. With the usual caveat that they’re one-sided … it sure looks like the FBI has the receipts on this. As in, things like Defendant changing his story to assert a meeting with Burisma in Kiev along with an “Associate 1” and “Associate 2” in 2015/2016 while Biden was VP, where the alleged $5M bribes were allegedly discussed.

The indictment, para 31(o):

Associate 2’s trip to Kiev in September 2017 was the first time he had left North America since 2011. Thus, he could not have attended a meeting in Kiev, as the Defendant claimed, in late 2015 or 2016, during the Obama-Biden Administration.

“Whoops”

[Zarniwoop]

Also good is paras 51-54:

51. The Defendant also shared a new story with investigators. He wanted them to look into whether Businessperson 1 was recorded in a hotel in Kiev called the Premier Palace. The Defendant told investigators that the entire Premier Palace Hotel is “wired” and under the control of the Russians. The Defendant claimed that Businessperson 1 went to the hotel many times and that he had seen video footage of Businessperson 1 entering the Premier Palace Hotel.
52. The Defendant suggested that investigators check to see if Businessperson 1 made telephone calls from the Premier Palace Hotel since those calls would have been recorded by the Russians. The Defendant claimed to have obtained this information a month earlier by calling a high-level official in a foreign country. The Defendant also claimed to have learned this information from four different Russian officials.
53. The Defendant told investigators that the four different Russian officials are all top officials and two are the heads of the entities they represent. These Russians said that conversations with Ukrainians about ending the war will include the next U.S. election. The Defendant told investigators he is involved in negotiations over ending the war and had been for the previous four months. According to the Defendant, the Russians want Ukraine to assist in influencing the U.S. election, and the Defendant thinks the tapes of Businessperson 1 at the Premier Palace Hotel is all they have. The Defendant told investigators he wants them to ask Businessperson 1 how many times he visited and what he did while at the Premier Palace Hotel.
54. Businessperson 1 has never traveled to Ukraine. The few Burisma Board meetings that Businessperson 1 did attend were all outside of Ukraine.

“Whoops”

[Nige]

This aged well.

[Zarniwoop]

Cue claims that David Weiss, who [checks notes] "was nominated by the former president in 2017 and confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote in early 2018" is actually a deep state plant who is in the tank for Biden.

[Nelson]

"We have a cognitively challenged, corrupt AF POTUS, and a wastrel child enabled by aforementioned corrupt AF POTUS"

That's the former POTUS. You make an excellent argument against Trump getting re-elected.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“There is already an FBI form FD-1023 where a foreign national formally accused POTUS Biden of taking a bribe for 5MM.”

You are aware, aren't you, that foreign national is being charged with crimes because he made up key parts of the information in the FD-1023, altered documents, and otherwise was caught lying about the alleged bribes to snooker rubes like you?

[Commenter_XY]

I sure am, NOVA Lawyer. It literally came out yesterday.

Now I have two good things to say about POTUS Biden.

One, I am forever grateful to POTUS Biden for giving Israel the weaponry and real time intelligence to hunt down, and kill every Hamas member Israel can lay their hands upon.

Two, the bribe story from the FD-1023 was bullshit, I am very happy POTUS Biden didn't take that particular 5MM bribe.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, is genuine concern about malfeasance right out of sight for you? Seems like your gig is only to cook up retaliatory stuff to threaten if Trump doesn't get a pass. That puts you in plentiful company on the political right.

You advocate a risky course. To hear you guys tell it, government is out-of-control, dangerous, and tyrannical. Maybe that's pure bullshit. If you all really believe it, what happens to folks like you if Trump turns out to be just your own power-wielding retributionist, after your side loses to someone else's retributionist?

Or, much more likely, what happens if the future turns out full of busy-body gentle reformers not to your taste? But fully in control of the levers of power.

I think you do believe the Ds are just pussies who will sit and take it. No thought at all about what happens next. What happens next is a completely predictable big deal almost no one has been thinking about—too many distractions.

The nation is about to experience one of the sharpest generational transitions in politics ever. Thousands of folks you and I never heard of, mostly younger than we expect, will quite suddenly arrive en masse, to become leaders nationwide. I have no idea how their political priorities will turn out. But Hunter Biden does not come to mind.

When that transition happens, folks you and I see as waiting their turns in the wings of power will instead get shouldered aside. It will be a big, unpredictable reset, long overdue. It will not be a fulfilling time for folks who end up on the new generation's reform agenda. Retribution will not be part of it, nor will it be needed. Changed priorities will accomplish more.

You know Trump has been this nation's most-criminal leader ever. Trump wants you to whip up an even-more-destructive dynamic, with no thought for the future—tit for tat, a test of power, a pass for Trump, then retribution. That's the train you bought your ticket for. Maybe think it over, and don't take the ride. On that line, the bridge to the future will likely be out.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, practically speaking, by the time 'The Great Transition' you posit happens, you'll be dead. You're already old. Just breathe for now. 😉

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, I expect to see that transition, and to live long enough after to be reassured for years. The nation will be half through the next presidential administration when the transition begins in earnest, during the mid-term election.

I expect the president elected in 2028 to be aged in the 39–43 year-old range, possibly younger. Which means someone likely off the political radar now. Even the younger also-rans for this upcoming presidential election will all be too old to compete in transition-era politics. No more Haley, no more Newsom. At age 50 in 2028, even DeSantis will probably be too old.

I plan to last at least long enough to celebrate my 50th wedding anniversary in 2036. I won't even be a centenarian until 2047.

By the way, fell free to engage substantively if you think you can keep up.

[Commenter_XY]

So lathrop, you are 77-ish. You’re not going to be around because the scale of ‘The Great Transition’ you wrote about will take many years, like at least 10. The odds are, in the next 10 years:

– you will experience a significant health event requiring more than 22 days in a hospital (roughly 50/50 odds); and/or,
– you’ll be pushing up daisies (greater than 50% chance of being dead)

You want to be a nonagerian? You have an ~8% chance.

Dude, just breathe. Leave the thinking to the people who actually do it.

[bernard11]

Not clear where you got your numbers, XY.

According to this 53,685 out of 100,000 males in the US will live to 77, and 14,370 will live to 90, so the chance of a 77-year-old male making it to 90 is better than 25%.

[Commenter_XY]

SSA

[NOVA Lawyer]

The life expectancy of a 77-year old male is 9.32 years. That includes all 77-year olds. Lathrop presumably knows something about his health, which given his statements, suggest he is in better than average health. He also knows his family history. All of this suggests, he has a significantly greater life expectancy than 9.32 years (86 years old give or take).

I am absolutely willing to bet a substantial sum with 50-50 odds that Lathrop will make it to 90. He likely has closer to a 75-80 percent change of making it to 90, unless he actually has a serious health condition or other major risk factors (morbidly obese, etc.) which he is either lying to himself or to us about. But I doubt that.

[Commenter_XY]

I'll take the under = lathrop sees age 90

[Don Nico]

"I expect the president elected in 2028 to be aged in the 39–43 year-old range, possibly younger. "
Give us some names and tell us how they got Gavin Newsom out of the way.
Or do you really see AOC getting the D nomination?

[Bob from Ohio]

JD Vance is 39 and Jon Ossoff 35 so both would qualify. Britt is 40 so would be too old per his fantasy.

Sarah Sanders is the youngest governor and she’s 41.

Nobody has been elected directly from the House since 1880.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, the point is that when transitions of this sort happen, they catch most folks by surprise. The youthful figures who will be newly empowered are so young today they have mostly not yet achieved prominence.

Generational transitions are times of meteoric rise for some, and abrupt displacement for others. Five years before he was elected, who except his father expected John Kennedy would become president? In 1957, who were the expected presidential contenders for the 1960 election? You have forgotten their names.

Thereafter, the birthdates of Kennedy's successors were clustered around Kennedy's for ~ 32 years:

Kennedy 1917
Johnson 1908
Nixon 1913
Ford 1913
Carter 1924
Reagan 1911
H.W. Bush 1924

Thus, from 1961 onwards until 1993 the nation was led by presidents born within a span of only 16 years, and arguably Lyndon Johnson was an outlier who would never have been elected absent Kennedy's assassination.

Then, beginning with Clinton, a similar pattern repeated. Remarkably all the presidents who would serve for the next 32 years were born between 1942 and 1946 (with 3 born in 1946), with the exception of Obama, a bit of an outlier born in 1961.

If you check, that pattern of clustered birth dates and long leadership intervals is recognizable at least back to the Civil War. I first noticed that pattern in 1984, and graphed it for every president since the Civil War until that date.

Another generalization was evident from the graph. During the service interval of every generation, in the first years after transition, the presidential ages were young, and tightly clustered. Thereafter the same cohort aged in office, with presidential successors getting progressively older, instead of matching their birthdates to the advance of time. Also, during that ~ 32 year service interval, age clustering did get looser as time advanced toward the next transition. Then the next transition, and the pattern repeated, with introduction of another young, tightly-age-clustered generation.

The pattern can't properly be called deterministic, but it looks too strong to be coincidental. Also, multi-year periods immediately prior to generational transitions tended to be marked by notable civil unease.

On that basis in 1984 I predicted the generational transition which began with Clinton's service in 1993, and cautiously suggested that the years prior to 2025 would be marked by civil unease, followed by another generational transition in either 2021 or 2025. So far, things seem on track.

I now cautiously predict there will be a multi-year interval of civil unease circa 2050 – 2057, culminating in a generational transition in presidential leadership at that time. I enjoy the certainty that I will not be around to be proved mistaken.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The last "great transition" was in the 1970s when things swung left.

This time the outsiders are on the right and hence I suspect things will swing right.

[Kazinski]

I'm not worried I've got kids in their 20's and 30's and lots of nieces and nephews, they all have their heads on straight and so their friends. Sure they are a lot more liberal than I am but they seem to be following the traditional arc of becoming more conservative as they age. As a former hippy that came of age in the 70's they are actually have more conservative lifestyles than I had. They are definitely all capitalist.

The kids are allright.
I

[Nelson]

"but they seem to be following the traditional arc of becoming more conservative as they age"

It always makes me laugh when people drag out the old "people get more conservative as they age" chestnut. That's just not demonstrably true.

What happens is people generally retain their political views, they just become a little more aware that there isn't a single, true, unequivocally correct political belief system. And come to understand that politics as bloodsport is idiocy.

As society and culture continue to advance, what was liberal when you were 20 becomes mainstream when you're 40 and conservative when you're 60. It's why conservatism will inevitably lose the culture war, as the people who adopted those beliefs in their youth slowly die off.

Also, capitalism is overwhelming belief of Americans. There is a cohort on the left who think that because capitalism is flawed (for economic reasons), socialism could be better, but the number of people who think that socialism is a good system is miniscule.

Much like there is a cohort on the right who think that because capitalism is flawed (for cultural reasons), a command economy that forbids cultural positions by corporations could be better. But the number of people who think that a command economy requiring profit-only behavior by companies is miniscule.

[Sarcastr0]

What are you even saying here? You think if you say Burisma enough it turns into a thing?

[JohnSmith97]

We already know that it is (D)ifferent when (D)emocrats do it.
After all, Joe is on camera bragging about withholding UA funds if they didn't do what he wanted.

As we found out during the Trump admin, congressional spending bills are sacred, and the money can't be delayed by a millisecond.

Maybe next we can ask why the confused old man had classified documents dating from his time as senator. I'm sure it is somehow (D)ifferent then when an (R) does it.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes there is a massive pro-Democrat conspiracy in the judiciary.

Go with that; persecution complexes don’t make you look like a whiney toddler at all.

Like it or not, we are set up to require spending bills once a year or a bunch of stuff breaks down.

[Nige]

'dealt with Ukraine and eere.from the time period Hunter was on the Burisma Board.'

And yet they had nothing to do with the Biden 'brand' or any kind of 'access.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

The issue with Russian space nukes isn't just satellites -- the EMP from a nuke detonated that high would fry all our electrical/electronic stuff and put us back in the 18th Century.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the plus side, we’d spring back really fast, because we know how to do a lot of stuff we had to figure out the first time around, and because an event like that would result in the people currently gumming up the works being torn limb from limb if they tried to play their usual games.

So it would probably only kill 3/4 of our population, and we’d be back where we were in a half century or so.

(Yeah, the bright side here isn't very bright, I admit.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not so sure.

Even though we have the blueprints and know it can be done, NASA can't make more Saturn V rockets anymore. Something about not having the skilled machinists anymore.

We have two generations that are so reliant on computers that -- well they can't even read a map. Schools don't teach handwriting anymore and most millennials have trouble even reading handwriting. And how much stuff is stored on paper anymore?

It's been forty years since we have had cars with mechanical ignition timing (points & condensers) and no one remembers the mechanical vibrators that the early cars had. And how many people even know why this is necessary? (You can't run DC through a transformer -- you have to pulse the DC in order to run it through a transformer (coil) in order to go from 12 volts to a few thousand volts for your spark plugs.)

How many people know how to butcher a hog or milk a cow?
All of the food preservation technologies that mothers taught their daughters a century ago are now forgotten -- home canning, drying, salting -- it's all gone.

There is so much 18th Century knowledge that is forgotten that even though we know how to do stuff in the 21st Century, we don't know how it is done, nor the underlying technologies that our modern technologies are built on. Food comes from a store, water out of a faucet, and electricity out of an outlet -- that is ALL many people know.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha what are you talking about? Millennials can’t read handwriting? No one know about home canning? Don’t you pretend to know about rural Maine?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Millennials can’t read handwriting? "

Some yelling in my office earlier in the week. I asked the Millennial employee about it later and he said it happened because the other person gave him notes in cursive and he told her he couldn't read cursive.

[Sarcastr0]

Giving someone else your handwritten notes is a dick move, IMO.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was mainly just names and phone numbers. He couldn't read the names in cursive.

In olden times, most offices had small pink pads for phone messages, all handwritten.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tell me he couldn’t have googled the numbers and come quite close on most of the names….

And I much preferred the NCR ones where a copy remained in the book.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Or getting mad that someone can’t read your hand written notes. I have had a boss who wrote notes. They’re often illegible. And when I can’t read them he doesn’t get mad because he knows his writing sucks.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Are you sure this was a millennial and not someone who is more like Gen Z? Because most millennials would have learned cursive since they’re mostly well over 30 with only the tail end being born in the late 90s.

[Estragon]

“All of the food preservation technologies that mothers taught their daughters a century ago are now forgotten — home canning, drying, salting — it’s all gone.”

Well, there are quite a few people in my community who would be surprised to hear that—myself included.

This sounds like yet another drunk boomer grandpa rant at a Nashua bowling alley bar about KIDS THESE DAYS. You should cut back on the cutty sark and get out more.

[Kazinski]

I know how to make beer and distill whisky, i'll survive.

[not guilty]

I am impressed with how Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee conducted a hearing on motions to quash subpoenas in the effort to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewtzcoo9ics The judge quickly identified which of the alleged facts may arguably constitute grounds for disqualification, as well as which facts clearly do not. He indicated that he likely will aggressively use Rules 403 and 611 to exclude extraneous matters, even absent an objection. He seems willing to allow the proponents of disqualification a broad opportunity to develop an evidentiary record, without turning the hearing into a circus.

Defense counsel for Mike Roman, Ashleigh Merchant, introduced her husband, John Merchant, as co-counsel. His name does not appear in the signature block of the motion. Does anyone else find it more than passing strange that, in a motion that claims that adversary counsel riding the bologna pony of another lawyer who represents the same party is problematic, Ms. Merchant omitted this information?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, are most judges like that in your experience? Meaning, the 'no nonsense just get to the facts and lets get it over with' type? The vast majority of judges are not raving partisan lunatics, right? This is my impression: The overwhelming majority of judges just do their job. Am I correct?

As for The Smasher (Fani, Fani...no smashing the hired help!)...she has some things to answer for. So does The Adulterer (Wade). It is always the sex, and then the money they spend on it (or to hide it) that gets them into trouble, like here.

"bologna pony" - very alliterative 🙂

[not guilty]

Judges come in all types. I like a no nonsense judge who considers the parties' submissions and cuts to the heart of what he needs to know about in order to decide the issues.

I see the nub of the dispute regarding Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade as whether either has a personal interest (distinct from their obvious professional interests) in convicting Mr. Roman or any other defendant. How they may have spent money while dating does not suggest such a personal interest. Whether the jury convicts, acquits. or is unable to reach a verdict has absolutely nothing to do with the prosecutors' activities while on vacation.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, you have a gift for the 'turn of phrase', I will say that. I have enjoyed that immensely 🙂

What did you think of the Trump v Anderson argument? I listened to the argument and read the transcript simultaneously. Wow. What are your thoughts? Who walks away with the win, and why?

[Michael P]

Fani Willis has two clear personal interests in this prosecution: a scalp for her future electoral campaigns, and a warm bed paid for by public funds she directed to a seriously underqualified attorney.

[not guilty]

Ashleigh Merchant has completed her direct examination of Nathan Wade. I don't know what lies in store for the remainder of the hearing, but to this point there is no smoking gun evincing any personal interest in the prosecution by any person.

Michael P kvetches:

Fani Willis has two clear personal interests in this prosecution: a scalp for her future electoral campaigns, and a warm bed paid for by public funds she directed to a seriously underqualified attorney.

If that is the case, how does the conviction of Mike Roman or any other defendant enhance that? How does the conviction of Mike Roman or any other defendant diminish that?

"Personal interest" doesn't mean what Michael P seems to think it means. If anyone were working on a contingency fee here, that would be both an actual conflict and a serious ethical breach.

[Jonathansingletary]

Not to mention that his first point was that she’s only doing her job to advance her career, which is literally what most people with careers do.

[Nelson]

Wait, people don't just do their jobs without expecting (or even hoping) it will help them advance their careers?

[Jonathansingletary]

Only the most corrupt people who are members of shadowy cabals do that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I see the nub of the dispute regarding Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade as whether either has a personal interest (distinct from their obvious professional interests) in convicting Mr. Roman or any other defendant. How they may have spent money while dating does not suggest such a personal interest.

You're even more of an idiot than I thought. The facts at hand strongly suggest that she has a personal material interest in pursuing the case to begin with, never mind getting a conviction, and that she's corrupt as hell.

[Kazinski]

Is Ashleigh Merchant paying her husband with public funds?

Was the relationship between the two defense counsels known to her client?

But in any case Fani can go ahead and file her own motion about the relationship between the defense co-counsels. In fact, based on your description of the judge I would enthusiastically encourage her to do so.

[not guilty]

Fani Willis hasn't shown any indication of being a bedsheet sniffer. The defendants, OTOH, are unseemingly eager to talk about anything other than the evidence or absence of evidence that they did what they are accused of.

An amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of 17 ethics experts and former federal and Georgia state prosecutors contains a good discussion of the issues presented here. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24410261/ethicsamicusfulton_2624.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is Ashleigh Merchant (a) an elected public official who is (b) authorized to disburse public funds?

I think those are two big distinctions, particularly in combination.

If disinterested public bureaucrat disburses public funds to the firm of We Cheatem & Howe for a legitimate purpose (eg criminal defense) and two of WC&H's attorneys are in a relationship, that's very different from a public bureaucrat disbursing public funds to her boyfriend.

The prosecution is also held to a higher standard, as it should be.

[not guilty]

As an aside, Mrs. Merchant today appears quite a bit bustier than she was when she was photographed wearing a Nathan Wade campaign shirt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDcexi-W8rQ Are fake tits deceptive?

[Zarniwoop]

Gotta do whatever it takes to get hired by Trump!

[not guilty]

She doesn't represent Trump. She represents Mike Roman. If her motion fails, I doubt that Roman has any juice to negotiate a settlement.

[Bob from Ohio]

Misogyny is cool when we do it!

[Nige]

For all he's clearly anti-Trump I'm not convinced he's on my side, but you sure can recognise it when you want to, can't you?

[not guilty]

Miss DDD is now examining Fani Willis, who is eating her lunch.

When examining an adverse witness, the proper method is to lead the hell out of her, keeping control of the witness by asking questions calling for yes or no answers. Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.

Ms. Willis is justifiably indignant about Mr. Roman's motion, but she is not doing her cause any favors by showing anger and being argumentative.

[not guilty]

Steve Sadow, who represents Donald Trump, is conducting a more tightly focused examination. Miss DDD was flailing.

[Kazinski]

Miss DDD? That's Mrs. To you.

Looks, brains, tits, and aggression. Not a bad package. Now name recognition, I wonder if politics is next.

[not guilty]

I could make a crass comment about flounder[ing], but I won't.

[not guilty]

Miss DDD is floundering with her examination of Terrence Bradley, Nathan Wade's former law partner and divorce attorney. Mr. Bradley seems dumb as a box of rocks.

[Life of Brian]

And yet, according to the Georgia Bar website Mr. Bradley somehow possesses the minimum intelligence required to maintain his license to practice law in good standing, without a single suspension or even a public censure.

[Kazinski]

They are a good looking couple as 2017 photo shows, met in law school, looks like they have experience ruffleing the feathers of the.local legal establishment:

"When they were moot court partners at the University of Florida law school, Ashleigh and John Merchant probably didn’t imagine the tricky issue they’ve faced together in real court: fighting for access to audio and video recordings from courtrooms.

In one Cobb County case, they received courtroom video and heard a judge apparently discussing the state’s strategy in presenting witnesses, without defense lawyers present. At one point, he told prosecutors, “Well, hopefully this jury does the right thing. Had some unusual cases lately.”

https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/almID/1202791482472/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently that incident caused a large increase in the fees for viewing courtroom security video.

[tylertusta]

Ms. Merchant omitted this information?

Is Ashleigh Merchant under ethical and regulatory obligations to make such disclosures?

No?

Then why bring it up?

[not guilty]

I just find it ironic. And as an aisde, if an attorney appears in court on behalf of a litigant, it is good form to enter an appearance as counsel of record, which AFAIK Mr. Merchant had not done.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't the judge supposed to say something if counsel neglects to jump through the proper hoops -- and it is important?

[not guilty]

It's not hugely important. I suggest that it is bad form, though.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wade claimed in an interrogatory that he didn't have an affair during the course of his marriage. Then he claimed that that wasn't untruthful because his marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, even though he wasn't divorced.

We'll see how the judge tolerates being lied to.

[not guilty]

If that is a concern, it would be a matter for the divorce court judge in Cobb County to deal with, not Judge McAfee in the instant proceeding. I doubt that the estranged wife will bring it to his attention. What would be the point?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Except that he also lied to this judge about his understanding of the interrogatory.

[Sarcastr0]

Next in the twitter feed I found of '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.' (YMMV)

Paul Krugman on Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage.

"Somehow Krugman, in explaining one of the subtlest and most interesting ideas in all of economics, manages to cram in brilliant and clear discussions of evolution, philosophy and history https://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm"

[No date but the 90s I think. About 6.5k words. This takes a bit to get cooking, but it's an attack on the orthodoxy of the simple contrarian in public intellectual circles.
Starts with some belabored carping about writers being facile in arguing against free trade. I think his postulated motives are likely, but I never like speculative telepathy.

But then he starts talking about intellectuals versus people in the field, and how utterly different populations are writing to each of them about the same science. I do take issue with his postulate that cutting out the math in a field based on mathematical models makes your analysis wrong. See below on that.

His discussion of the public not being impressed by complexity and inelegance is EXTREMELY legit, imo. And not something humans must believe - we've trained ourselves in the modern era to think the universe is simple across all disciplines but maybe medicine.
Ends with four tactics for academics seeking to be both robust and public-facing:
(i) Do not overestimate your audiences level of ignorance of the basics of your field
(ii) Adopt the stance of rebel
(iii) Justify modeling over 'common sense.'

My issue with Krugman here - If you can't untangle your science from the math, you're doing it wrong. Math is a tool that clarifies and keeps us honest/consistent in a way that qualitative analysis struggles with. But, apologies to Dirac, putting the math in the driver's seat is like letting an LLM write your case brief.]

[Commenter_XY]

(iii) Justify modeling over ‘common sense.’

This is where I have seen a lot of conflict. In my professional capacity, my experience has been that models are only as good as the assumptions that underlie them, and there are many exogenous factors that are never taken into account. That would not normally be a problem, except there are occasions where the unaccounted for exogenous factor(s) was actually the explanatory factor(s) for the observed behavior the model was trying to simulate. I see this more phenomenon more than I would like.

That is point where the clash with common sense begins, to me. Models introduce false precision, and to me common sense is more 'evaluative' in nature.

Yes, I know, the answer is build a better predictive model. We generally don't. AI will change that. I am not sure if that is good or bad, ultimately.

[Bwaaah]

Models work great for detailing what has happened. And they’re good for tracking variances between what is happening and what was expected…alerts us to where our assumptions are wrong.

But the problem with models is that incorrect assumptions, errors, have a multiplicative effect on overall correctness. The effect of even a little bit of error is not just isolated, but causes distortion of other assumptions as a result of secondary and tertiary effects of that error, all of which compound each other.

Models are great for helping to understand the dynamics at play. But except in the simplest or most understood of systems, they ALWAYS suck at predicting the future. The relationships between models and reality are inherently unstable, like trying to hold repelling magnets together.

[bernard11]

A big benefit of models is that they provide a way to test "common sense."

If common sense tells you A and B are going to cause C, but you can't produce some sort of logical model showing that, you've got a problem.

In addition, it's really not a case of models vs common sense. In economics, at least, models are tested against empirical data constantly. If they fail they are discarded, no matter how elegant the mathematics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, so you like comparative advantage? Help me out, please. Seems like one premise that gets too little attention is whether labor will actually prove fungible, as the theory seems to demand. Seems like the notion of the labor force prevailing at the time the theory was posited was notably more lumpish than what we see now. Famously, our coal miners do not code.

I number more than a normal share of economics professors among old friends. It always seems to strain the friendships just slightly when I raise that point. I can't tell if the resulting subject changes are just polite attempts to avoid condescension, genuine scorn for my ignorance, or the usual unwillingness of professionals to explain technical stuff to an audience they expect will prove incapable to grasp it.

So what do you say? Can comparative advantage work as described if parties in question cannot accomplish redeployment of the labor force in accordance with the theory?

Any economists want to chip in? Please help me save my old friendships.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Prof. Krugman does discuss this in the linked piece. I'd classify you somewhere between category (i) and (ii) in his taxonomy.

In sum, while the concept of comparative advantage may seem utterly simple to economists, in order to achieve that simplicity one must invoke a number of principles and useful simplifying assumptions that seem natural and reasonable only to someone familiar with economic analysis in general. ("What do you mean, objects fall at the same rate regardless of how heavy they are -- if I drop a cannonball and a feather ... you're assuming away air resistance? Why would you do that?") Those principles and simplifying assumptions are indeed reasonable, but they are not obvious.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, thank you at least for commenting.

I'll try again. If labor is not fungible, is comparative advantage viable, or does that wreck the theory? If the answer is, "Yes, it wrecks the theory," then omitting that condition is not a, "simplifying assumption;" it turns the theory into a pipe dream.

If instead the answer is, "It's a theory which only applies in cases featuring fungible labor," then it is a simplifying assumption, but a flawed presentation. Because in this era, ample evidence resulting from costly, prolonged, failed attempts has demonstrated that labor is too often not fungible.

Still famously, our coal miners do not code. Nor has it proved likely that many of their children will—nor do future analogous tasks which replace coding after it gets automated.

Thus, (long ago; in fairness, I read his column, and I think his views have changed since) Krugman wrote :

First, unless it is carefully explained, the standard demonstration of the gains from trade in a Ricardian model -- workers can earn more by moving into the industries in which you have a comparative advantage -- simply fails to register with lay intellectuals. Their picture is of aircraft workers gaining and textile workers losing, and the idea that it is useful even for the sake of argument to imagine that workers can move from one industry to the other is foreign to them.

Note, "for the sake of argument." That idea is foreign to me not because I am some stubborn intellectual incompetent unwilling to listen to argument, but instead because unlike Krugman I have first-hand experience to the contrary. The argument offered for its own sake proves sketchy in practice.

I worked for years in steel fabrication plants alongside workers who used intelligence notably superior to mine, but stubbornly not fungible. They could not get me. I could not get them. Especially, I could not learn one all-but-incomprehesible-to-me expertise. They could reliably bring order out of chaos while building something big, complicated, and never-before-seen. And then do it again on the next project, which was again unlike anything any of us had ever done or seen. No amount of experience enabled my differently-pitched intelligence to rival those capabilities. I had to rely on them, and be pleased to do it.

I concede, a kind of comparative advantage was at work on the shop floor. The practical geniuses I could not emulate often needed me to read complex blueprints for them, and to fill in from time to time with particular manual skills at which I excelled. And the blueprint reading translated into a talent for doing layouts. Thus, working together, we were all comparatively advantaged.

At very long intervals, often when something turned out incomprehensible because we struggled with an unsuspected design mistake, we tried to get help from our engineers. It tended not to help. Typically, an engineer summoned to the shop floor would arrive nervous, take a few anxious minutes studying work in progress, and then announce, "Sorry, I can't even see it."

Our engineers had specialized intelligence to make designs, and draw blueprints; they lacked visual intelligence to see work in progress turned every-which-way for layout and assembly purposes. That much I had learned, and they had not. The engineers' intelligence lacked contributions from physical manipulations; without them they could not grasp a visual skill indispensable to assemble their own designs into final form.

Make no mistake, privileging particular kinds of rationalism ahead of other modes of intelligence—whether native intelligence or learned intelligence—is a fool's errand. And it is worse yet to rely for policy advice on folks who insist on rationalism as policy—and those folks abound.

Rationalism has its uses, perhaps even in politics. But experience must be the final arbiter. That means you try things, keep what works, and discard the others, no matter the explanations for the failures.

To posit an elegant, provable, rationalist policy which again and again founders in practical use cannot supply reason to rely on it yet again. And yet with comparative advantage the rationalists have done that. Such policy's advocates have pointed to externalities, and to political obligations they insist belong to others, and to confounding unknowns, and to god knows what all—but a landscape strewn with economic wreckage must be taken to refute them all.

Policies must perform for real, not for the sake of argument. Rationalist policy advisors have an obligation to understand at least that much. It is neither stubborn nor ignorant to insist on that. That old essay by Krugman complains too much. I doubt if he had it to do again now he would give it the same tone.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I concede, a kind of comparative advantage was at work on the shop floor. The practical geniuses I could not emulate often needed me to read complex blueprints for them, and to fill in from time to time with particular manual skills at which I excelled. And the blueprint reading translated into a talent for doing layouts. Thus, working together, we were all comparatively advantaged.

That's not what comparative advantage means.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, I know. Think of it as approximate metaphor.

Got anything substantive to add about fungible labor?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s not a metaphor: it’s an example of absolute advantage. They were better at building big-complicated-never-before-seen projects, you were better at analyzing blueprints, and so you each contributed the thing you were best at to the collaborative effort, producing a better result.

The key insight behind comparative advantage is that even if they were better than you at both building big-complicated-never-before-seen projects and analyzing blueprints, you still would be better off specializing and sharing/trading the profits than working on your own.

The reason for this (which should be pretty easy to demonstrate for yourself mathematically, now that you know what you’re looking for) is based on the concept of opportunity costs. If there is literally only one productive activity that an actor can perform, there is no opportunity cost and the concept isn’t really applicable. But that’s not really the case for anyone, and is especially not a good model for the national labor market, which is the scale at which the concept is most important.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, you can keep the condescension. I worked out the coconuts and the fish just like everyone else in Econ 10.

Here is what does not apply in the real world: any notion that because the math works in a model, that makes real world application worthwhile, or maybe worthwhile and unchallengeable. No. Demonstrable real-world success is what works. Demonstrable real-world failure is what disqualifies the model.

[bernard11]

Labor is obviously not very fungible in the short term, but it's more fungible than you think, especially as time passes. There are, after all, lots of people who could pretty easily apply their skills in a different industry. And unskilled labor is fungible by definition.

[bernard11]

I meant to add that labor specialization is one source of comparative advantage.

[David Nieporent]

Labor is obviously not very fungible in the short term,

I agree with what you write, but would add that capital is also not fungible in the short term; a factory set to churn out, I dunno, laundry detergent can't simply be converted to a microchip plant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard, things that are so by definition tend at times to be un-so in practice. Those with lives lived notably above subsistence levels tend to overlook that. They enjoy choices unavailable to others. Multiplication of viable choices may be a factor which works as a lubricant for theory performance.

Problem is, only a smaller fraction of the social machinery gets access to such efficient lubrication. And the less-lubricated balance tends to enlarge during times of economic stress. That is a big and mostly unconsidered problem for theorizers.

Some geographic regions are more heavily reliant on unskilled labor than others. Today's Appalachia comes to mind. When one of those regions falls on hard times, and sinks toward bare subsistence, family and cultural ties increase in practical utility. Ability to hold down that cashier job at the dollar store, or to sling burgers at McDonalds, can then depend on availability of grandma to take care of an infant and a toddler. Moving grandma to some other region may not be an option.

Stuff like that multiplies, and collectively makes relocation harder. Especially for unskilled labor, stagnation gets sticky. Residential stickiness is another barrier among many to labor fungibility, and thus a barrier to getting net benefit from comparative advantage.

It is thus important to stay mindful that thinking analytically about what factors impede an elegant theory will prove a waste of effort, while means to adjust the factors remain unavailable. Anyone serious about comparative advantage must begin not with the theory itself, but instead with evaluation of what factors need adjustment to make the theory work, and what political means, if any, are available to adjust them.

During the burgeoning era of pro-trade advocacy, that indispensable caveat became more salient, but less noticed among policy makers. To ignore it proved an enormously costly and consequential blunder. Few policies in history have inflicted so much damage on so many in this nation.

[bernard11]

Stephen,

No economic model is perfect. No model covers all the detail involved in the process being modeled.

The test of whether a model is any good is whether its predictions stand up to empirical testing.

Has the theory of comparative advantage been empirically refuted?

Besides, intro textbook explanations notwithstanding, the changes take place at the margins. A country doesn't suddenly switch from growing wheat to making shoes. As circumstances change, it grows less wheat, and makes more shoes, than it did last week.

[Noscitur a sociis]

During the burgeoning era of pro-trade advocacy, that indispensable caveat became more salient, but less noticed among policy makers. To ignore it proved an enormously costly and consequential blunder. Few policies in history have inflicted so much damage on so many in this nation.

What, may I ask, the fuck are you talking about? Americans are richer than they’ve ever been, and Americans workers the most productive, and free trade is one of the most important reasons why.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, not familiar with Appalachia, small-town New England, the industrial workers who lived along the North Shore of Long Island Sound, rural and small-city Pennsylvania, upstate New York, the Midwest Rust Belt, the formerly industrial Carolina Piedmont, or the MAGA South?

Those have all been for decades scenes of ongoing mass human sacrifice. Sacrifice of actual lives, of course, but more sacrifice of productive lives. Tens of millions were afflicted. Nobody seems even to have been motivated to tally the numbers.

How could you have missed all that? Do you live in some sunbelt boom town, and never get out?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Help me out, please. Seems like one premise that gets too little attention is whether labor will actually prove fungible, as the theory seems to demand."

Huh? The theory relies on resources, including labor, being imperfectly fungible.

[bernard11]

I think he was referring to conditions within a given country.

[Don Nico]

"But, apologies to Dirac, putting the math in the driver’s seat is like letting an LLM write your case brief"
I'd say that you never learned enough physics to conclude that.
The are a great many instances of the physics argument being carried a very long distance by the mathematics alone, before clearly discernable physical interpretation becomes possible. The papers of Chandrasekhar are frequently of that genre. A big chuck of the Gellmann & Glashow paper introducing SU-3 symmetry is that way.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the condescension, but I got through Quantum Chromodynamics, so I am aware of the group theory behind the Standard Model.
My particular specialty was thermodynamic cosmology, which leans on the exact, beautiful, correspondence between the laws of thermodynamics and the fundamental properties and interactions of black holes.

Just like most others in the field, I was taught to loath magic numbers and be happy when they were explained by some underlying fundamental law.

Mathematical aesthetics alone absolutely had it's day; but there is no fundamental reason it should be like that in the future. Just because the universe is pretty over here doesn't mean it isn't lumpy and full of arbitrary values over there.

And too many in physics take prettiness as a rule.

Here's a review of a book that sings that song:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10314

[Don Nico]

My apologies for an incorrect assumption.
" I was taught to loath magic numbers and be happy when they were explained by some underlying fundamental law."

Of course, at certain points in an analysis (especially at the end) contact with physical meaning is important if not essential. But that is not the same as arguing that truth derives from mathematical elegance.

However, when equations of intermediate steps reach a full page of paper or more, one generally cannot give a physical interpretation for each term. Ugo Fano was fond of asking such questions, much to the annoyance of lecturers.

[Sarcastr0]

If your explanation is such that each individual term and intermediate step is load-bearing on supporting your claim, you don't truly understand the science.

Which is fine! Plenty of papers are on the ragged edge and we don't have full understanding. But then maybe they're not ready for a public-facing write-up, either.
Not every paper needs to be.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for your condescension in return!
I am really surprised that if your field was black hole dynamics that you consider such work on the ragged edge.
Ugo Fano, doubtless a far better physicist than either you or I was rather insistent on digging out the physics of every term.
Perhaps you never did or cared to study "heroic" calculations. They are not everyone's taste. But some of these works were essential and deep contributions to physics.
As for beauty being the hall mark of great theory, I never hear any of my theory colleagues make that claim, although some string theorists come close.
As for your conjecture about regions where the universe is "lumpy and full of arbitrary values", we don't know of any such places. Could they be hidden by event horizons, we can't know.

[Sarcastr0]

I wasn't talking about black hole thermodynamics in the post you're replying to, but speaking generally, as it seemed you were.

My work on BH was grad student work, hardly cutting edge at the time, and is decades old now, well before the firewall hypothesis and entanglement crisis which are the new leading edge of the field.

I think you don't understand that there is no judgement in 'plenty of papers are on the ragged edge and we don’t have full understanding.' Scientific progress is often raggedy.

Bottom line, you're really mad and I can't tell what you're taking issue with.

I am skeptical of machine learning black box models where phenomenological information goes in, and then a miracle occurs, and close to real predictions come out.
It's technically useful, but there is no understanding there.

One thing you're flat wrong about - arbitrary values abound in physics! The gravitational constant (people posit 11 dimensions just to explain why it's so small. Maybe it's just small!) The mass of the electron, the speed of light.

A lot of M-theory's push came from a need to explain these 'magic' numbers. As though they require explaining.

[Don Nico]

"One thing you’re flat wrong about – arbitrary values abound in physics"
as usual you distort what I wrote so as to disagree.
I did NOT say the values were not arbitrary (they may be).
I did write that there is NO evidence that the values varies, in space or time or direction. There are extreme experiments that confirm the consequences in conservation laws of all these points.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "As for your conjecture about regions where the universe is “lumpy and full of arbitrary values”, we don’t know of any such places. Could they be hidden by event horizons, we can’t know.”

Me: "Right here is lumpy and full of arbitrary values.:

You: "I wrote that there is NO evidence that the values varies."

Don, you may have meant that, but you didn't write that.

Broken symmetry is a huge thing in high energy physics. A broken symmetry means a broken conservation law.

[Artifex]

“The are a great many instances of the physics argument being carried a very long distance by the mathematics alone”

While this is definitely true, I think there is a bit more here. One of the fundamental elements that mathematics brings to the table is a precision and rigour not found in basic language. This makes it much harder to lie to yourself via motivated thought and your errors tend to be obvious to anyone else trained in the art. As much as I dislike Krugman, I believe he is correct here. The essence of science is this self honesty that is enabled by the formalism of mathematics.

Of course, if self honesty is not your thing and like Sarcastro, you revel in a world both subjective and purely axiomatic, this might not be the feature you are looking for.

[Sarcastr0]

you revel in a world both subjective and purely axiomatic

I REVEL

[Artifex]

Well, "stupidly drool while considering" might be more accurate, but revel seemed more poetic and concise.

[Kleppe]

"I think his postulated motives are likely, but I never like speculative telepathy."

90% of your comments here are speculative telepathy. Do I even need to count the number of times you've professed to read Trump's mind?

[not guilty]

I have read the transcript, and it seems that SCOTUS will likely reverse the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. The rationale and contours of the decision are anyone's guess. There is a smorgasbord of potential grounds for reversal. Whether further proceedings may be had should depend on the grounds for decision.

A ruling that the President is not an officer to whom the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 applies would be a grand slam for Donald Trump, which would end the controversy. I doubt that the Court will reach the factual issue of whether Trump did or did not engage in insurrection. SCOTUS ordinarily defers to lower courts' factual findings.

If SCOTUS decides that the state courts applied incorrect definitions of "insurrection" or "engage[ment]" therein, ( a question of law reviewable de novo,) the appropriate remedy would be to remand to the Colorado Supreme Court for further proceedings under the correct definition(s).

Some justices seem concerned about whether it is appropriate for state officials or courts to disqualify a candidate for federal office. If SCOTUS were to reverse on that basis, without more, that would set up a scenario that I would like to see happen later this year. When the Republican National Convention nominates Trump to appear on the general election ballot, the Colorado Secretary of State could sue Trump in United States District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for declaratory judgment as to whether Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3. Under Fed.R.Civ.P 57 the court may order a speedy hearing of a declaratory-judgment action. Under Rule 39(c) the court could empanel an advisory jury. A final judgment would be appealable as of right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Once a notice of appeal is filed, either party could seek certiorari before judgment under Supreme Court Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e). SCOTUS has shown itself to be capable of moving very quickly when a Republican presidency is on the line. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, thanks for that. That is a very interesting scenario you posit in your last paragraph.

Is the rebuttal...that sec 2383 is the enforcement mechanism for insurrection, and that Congress can remove the disability (a summary declaration of being The Chief Insurrectionizer) up to the point of taking office (ex: voting the day before he takes office, to remove the disability).

What I would also say. Just as a layman and citizen, I found the oral argument amazing. I felt like I learned a lot, and the way it was spoken about was very understandable and relatable. Anyone could follow it. I really like how all the Justices had questions. You just knew they had to coordinate the questions in advance. They covered a lot of ground.

My DW (an immigrant) wants to go to SCOTUS now to listen to an oral argument. Many years ago, before we were married, we had a private tour of the Supreme Court (never saw a Justice). She wants to go back. The JW Marriott awaits. 🙂

[not guilty]

I argued before the Supreme Court in 1991, when I was four years out of law school. It was quite an experience.

[Mr. Bumble]

What was the outcome?

[not guilty]

I had won the case in the Supreme Court of Tennessee. SCOTUS reversed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Win some (Tennessee), lose some (SC). Now with the passage of time how do you view the loss at the SC; correctly decided or not?

[not guilty]

I still think the Tennessee Supreme Court got it right.

[Life of Brian]

Proof positive that loose lips sink ships, Mr. not not guilty. Sort of like a bad penny indeed!

[Commenter_XY]

NG, may I ask a personal question? What was that like.

What were you thinking at the time?
How did it feel, emotionally?
What's it like looking at CJ Rehnquist and making your argument?

It had to be totally amazing.

[not guilty]

It was awesome. I was cautioned during my moot courts not to be unnerved if, during the argument, Chief Justice Rehnquist were to get up and walk around. Apparently, his doing that helped to alleviate back pain.

[MoreCurious]

For some reason your comment brought to mind my first day sitting in the hearing room as a clerk for a justice on the supreme court of my state. It was pretty awesome listening to the arguments and questioning from the justices. Suddenly, the chief justice (not my justice) motioned to me to come up behind the bench. I was petrified! What if he asked for my thoughts on the appellant’s brief, or wanted my interpretation of a case just cited in the argument? He asked for a Diet Coke. I managed to find one and deliver it without spilling a drop.

[not guilty]

Congress has never required a criminal conviction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2383 or otherwise, as a condition precedent to disqualification as a civil sanction under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3. I have explained the numerous differences in the two several times before on these threads.

It bears repeating that disqualification imposed as a criminal penalty by an Article III judge under § 2383 cannot be removed by Congress. Only the President, pursuant to the pardon power, can do that.

[tylertusta]

If you’ve written on this before, I’d be eager to see what you have.

It bears repeating that disqualification imposed as a criminal penalty by an Article III judge under § 2383 cannot be removed by Congress. Only the President, pursuant to the pardon power, can do that.

Why not? Seems to me that Section 3 creates and confers that power to Congress.

I think the opposite is true: a President cannot pardon the disqualification, only the associated criminal penalties.

Edit: freakin quote block tags are broken.

[not guilty]

Disqualification under § 2383 is a criminal penalty. Disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is a civil disability, akin to occupational disbarment.

I will be glad to reiterate what I have pointed out before. There are multiple, material differences between disqualification from federal office under such statutes as 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071(b), 2381 or 2383.

The criminal statutes apply to everyone, regardless of whether the accused has or has not previously taken an oath to support the Constitution. Disqualification under § 3 applies only to one who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States.

Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove a § 3 disability. Pursuant to the constitutional separation of powers, Congress has no authority to remove any part of a criminal penalty imposed by an Article III judge. Only a presidential pardon can do so.

Disqualification under the above-cited criminal statutes applies only to any office under the United States. Disqualification under § 3 applies to both state and federal offices.

Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, criminal punishment cannot be imposed ex post facto. If § 3 had created criminal liability and provided punishment therefor, it could not have been applied to ex-Confederates for conduct occurring prior to 1868. Such an inability would have defeated the raison d'être of that section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The pre-existing ex post facto prohibition can be harmonized with the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 only if the latter created a civil disability.

[Krayt]

So Congress can say he can be president, even if criminal conviction still applies?

[not guilty]

A criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 would require disqualification from holding any office under the United States, which Congress would have no power to remove.

Also, such a criminal conviction would have preclusive effect in any future proceeding to impose a civil disability. Let me illustrate by a hypothetical.

Suppose Donald Trump were tried and convicted under § 2383, sentenced to three years imprisonment and declared incapable of holding any office under the United States. He serves his sentence and after his release from prison, he runs for governor of Florida. In any proceeding under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 challenging his ability to serve as governor, the criminal conviction under § 2383 would have collateral estoppel effect.

[ducksalad]

[not guilty]

Congress could repeal or modify any criminal statute, but it would not have power to vacate or supersede a sentence imposed by an Article III judge after sentence had been imposed.

[ducksalad]

Sorry for the late edit.

You’re right of course that repealing a law doesn’t automatically release those previously convicted from punishment. But could Congress pass such a law?

For example, suppose Congress legalizes marijuana. Could they explicitly include a clause revoking old sentences for marijuana? If not, could Congress bar spending even $1 of federal money to keep those people in prison or to enforce restrictions on stuff like voting and serving in office?

[tylertusta]

Thank you for expanding on this!

[Commenter_XY]

This was a great summary, NG. Thank you.

[Bwaaah]

When you edit a post that has blockquote tags, it removes them. They have to be re-introduced into the edit.

[tylertusta]

When you edit a post that has blockquote tags, it removes them. They have to be re-introduced into the edit.

My problem is that they now no longer appear even after I edit them back in.

This should be in blockquotes

[tylertusta]

Well, now it's working. vOv

[Dr. Ed 2]

For the good of the country, this legal stuff needs to end, NOW.
The election is going to be bad enough, and part of me wants to see Tulsi Gabbard only because she would return some dignity to both the process and the office.

I was attacked the other day for wearing an orange sweatshirt. Orange apparently means supporting Orange Man and anyone supporting him (Trump) apparently deserves to be attacked. I dealt with it, but good Lord....

I think SCOTUS needs to quote the decision that said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and throw the whole thing out for the greater good of the country -- and say "if you don't like Trump, don't vote for him."

[Estragon]

“I was attacked the other day for wearing an orange sweatshirt. Orange apparently means supporting Orange Man and anyone supporting him (Trump) apparently deserves to be attacked. I dealt with it, but good Lord….”

I’m gonna be honest here Ed. This sounds made up.

[David Nieporent]

I’m gonna be honest here Ed. This sounds made up.

What was your second clue, after "Dr. Ed" at the top of the comment?

[Estragon]

The double appearance of “apparently” was the real tell for me

[Nelson]

"I’m gonna be honest here Ed. This sounds made up."

Of course it's made up. It's Dr. Ed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I was attacked the other day for wearing an orange sweatshirt. Orange apparently means supporting Orange Man and anyone supporting him (Trump) apparently deserves to be attacked. I dealt with it, but good Lord….

Setting aside the fact that you're obviously lying, I don't understand what point you're trying to make with the sweatshirt part. You do support Trump!

[David Nieporent]

A ruling that the President is not an officer to whom the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 applies would be a grand slam for Donald Trump, which would end the controversy.

The "officer of the United States" argument is presumably the narrowest possible holding, since it in effect applies to Trump and only Trump, since everyone else has had (and likely will have, going forward) held one of the relevant offices before becoming president. Thus, it would wreak the least havoc on enforcement of A14S3 down the road. And the court would not need to address any of the other issues, including "officer under the United States," the definition of insurrection, self-execution, etc.

[Michael P]

If you vote for Joe Biden, you're voting with Putin: https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-2024-02-14/

[Commenter_XY]

I guess Putin has a new Poodle. Woof. 🙂

[hobie]

Sure. Let's believe Putin. Where did you pick up such a habit?

[Sarcastr0]

I heard Putin say he prefers Biden.

As an outcome-oriented tool, this is something I'm cannot help but take as a great reason to support Biden, only to be surprised people seem leery of taking Putin at his word.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, so you want Putin to work with a malleable POTUS who is predictable, so Putin can use that knowledge of American predictability to advance Russian interests. Outcome oriented, indeed.

PT Barnum was right: There really is a sucker born every minute.

I found one. 🙂

[Jason Cavanaugh]

An anti-glare filter will cut down on those reflections, idiot.

You're so ready to swallow Trump's manjuice that you'll advocate the desires of an enemy of the United States like a well-trained cuckold.

As expected.

[Nige]

Yeah, this comes right after Trump said the quiet part loud.

'who is predictable,'

Like he predicted how invading Ukraine would go.

[SimonP]

When I read about Putin's statement, I predicted that MAGA would quickly pivot to saying, "See? Trump's chaos is a good thing!"

And here it is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, look at history:

When Obama and Biden were President, Putin invaded countries.
When Trump was President, Putin didn't.

I think that fact speaks for itself.

[bernard11]

Yes. No doubt Putin prefers a President who wants a strong NATO to one who wants to weaken it, or even withdraw.

No doubt he prefers a party in power that wants to help Ukraine to one that is happy to abandon it to Putin.

[Michael P]

And now it turns out that Putin preferred Clinton, too, for the same reason -- and the CIA instead "cooked" the intelligence to make it look like Russia favored Trump, in significant part by excluding parts of the IC (DIA and State Department's INR) that have more expertise on Russia and the GRU.

You people should be ashamed after being proven wrong time and time again.

[Nige]

That's the stupidest thing on this thread, and *Dr Ed* has been bloviating.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, when he says, "It turns out," he means that the Taibbi trifecta is acting as stenographers¹ for the House Republican impeachment jokers, and keep citing "sources" that — if they exist at all — are just the House Republicans. "House Republicans claim that Putin really wanted Hillary to win, even though every bit of intelligence says the opposite, because that's convenient to Donald Trump."
​
​
¹Just like they did for Elon Musk when they lied about the so-called Twitter Files

[Tom for equal rights]

Defies logic to believe Putin favored Trump in 2016 after what was accomplished with the uranium one deal.

[Nige]

Which was... nothing.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hey everyone, look!

Yet another treasonous moron supporting an enemy of the United States!

Are you proud of your betrayal and stupidity, Michael?

[hobie]

I'm sure Michael regrets his silly riposte and will retract it

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not until his rubles have cleared the bank.

[OtisAH]

Oh please, nobody is paying a dipshit like MP to post stuff like this when he’ll do it for free without prodding.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Ok, I'll admit that is a valid point which does diminish my argument a bit.

[Michael P]

The dipshits here are the ones who are blindly doing what Putin says is good, as if he never heard of reverse psychology.

The timing of Russia's invasions of Ukraine tell us all we need to know about which president keeps Putin in line.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

The timing of Russia’s invasions of Ukraine tell us all we need to know about which president keeps Putin in line.

Yes.
Remember this?
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-killed-hundreds-of-russians-syria-trump-administration-confirms-2018-4

[Michael P]

Yes, that was pretty awesome. A bunch of mercs from a second-world country tried to cause trouble in a third-world country and accidentally attacked US troops who big-league outmatched them. RIP Russian troublemakers.

[Nige]

The rest of it is all we need to know about how well that turned out for him, if true.

[Both Sides]

By this logic, I assume you believe that the timing of 9/11 and the timing of the U.S. military killing Osama tell us all we need to know about which President kept Muslim terrorists in line.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump opposes helping Ukraine, Biden does not.

That should tell even a reasonably intelligent person which person Putin really wants in office.

You cannot even meet that bar. You're supporting our enemy, and you're too damn stupid to even realize it.

[Michael P]

Why are you talking to a grey box?

[OtisAH]

Oh of course Putin prefers Biden. Biden is the man who united NATO to stand with Ukraine and continues to pledge US support in defense of Ukraine against Putin’s unprovoked invasion. Naturally, Putin prefers that to Turnip, who will immediately end US support of Ukraine and watch Russia roll over the Ukrainians as if they were common Kurds. I’m certain lots of stupid people can follow this logic.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What Putin supports is doing his imperialist stuff without outsiders meddling. Which, come to think of it, reminds me of the preference of certain other great powers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Putin says he prefers 'more predictable' Biden over Trump"

Well, he's certainly gotten a lot more Ukrainian territory under Biden than Trump.

[tylertusta]

Regarding these rumors about Russia having some sort of space-based nuclear capability being worked on:

I hope that readers will understand that while this was banned by treaty, the technology to put nuclear weapons into orbit has existed since the 1960's.

The use of EMPs during an attack has also been known since the 1960s.

There's no new technological trick here. It's just Russia possibly violating (another) nuclear weapons treaty.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Any thought whether actually putting a nuclear weapon in orbit would not be judged too much a security risk? What would prevent the U.S. from scooping it out of orbit, and bringing it down for a good looking at? Or, would some other spacefaring nation which lacked nukes just grab it?

Also, what advantage? Shorter warning times? They are already short to the point of being de-stabilizing.

[tylertusta]

Any thought whether actually putting a nuclear weapon in orbit would not be judged too much a security risk?

It's not any more destabilizing than traditional nuclear weapons are. ICBMs give maybe 15 minutes of warning before impact. A submarine-launched ballistic missile might give just 5 minutes of warning. A stealth cruise missile might give no warning at all.

Having nukes in very high orbits makes it faster to put out an EMP, but there's nothing stopping countries with ICBMs from doing it now.

What would prevent the U.S. from scooping it out of orbit, and bringing it down for a good looking at? Or, would some other spacefaring nation which lacked nukes just grab it?

Nothing, really. Except maybe it's booby-trapped. Or Russia is watching the satellite and will detonate it manually.

Or maybe the satellite is armed with a gun and it'll shoot anything that gets too close. Russia's demonstrated that capability since the 70's I think.

Also, what advantage? Shorter warning times? They are already short to the point of being de-stabilizing.

Shorter reaction times is the main reason. You can deorbit a warhead and ground-based radar may not see the warhead until it's very close. Wikipedia's page on these types of systems has a decent overview of their capabilities and advantages:

Wikipedia page on the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System

[Brett Bellmore]

A bomb in really high orbit would not, IIRC, cause a major EMP. It requires low orbit. 100km or so.

[tylertusta]

The altitude of the detonation determines the area of the effect. For a country the size of the US, you need to go above 500km.

My point is that it's faster to detonate a nuke already in orbit at 500km than to launch a rocket from the surface up to 500km.

In the context of orbital mechanics, yes, 500km is still considered LEO.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is one other possibility — dirty bomb.

I am neither a chemist nor a physicist but Wiki says that Plutonium Dioxide with a particle size less than 10 µm is radiotoxic if inhaled. And anything that breaks up upon reentry can have a debris trail that extends hundred of miles. When the Soviet spy satellite Kosmos 954 crashed in 1978, it had a 370 mile debris path, some of which was radioactive — and that was accidental.

And it is possible to bring a satellite down with some degree of precision as to where it will land — we brought the Apollo capsules down where carrier-launched helicopters could get to them, and that was 50 years ago.

Plutonium oxide (PuO2) is already oxidized so it can’t burn up. It melts at 4,971 °F — the space shuttle was only 3,000 °F — but even then it would quickly solidify much as snowflakes do.

Imagine the chaos and terror that a 400-500 mile path of lethal but invisible radioactive dust would cause. We don’t have Geiger counters around the way we did in the 1950s — no one would know that they are safe. It would create a national panic.

Remember the hysteria of Covid?

And while I don’t know what the LD50 of PuO2 is, do you honestly think that would even matter? Of course not — people would freak out over levels way to low to actually harm them even if they could get their hands on Geiger Counters.

It would be a great psychop weapon because no (civilian) would really know it had landed until people started dropping dead. And it would fit into the Russian mindset.

NB: There is probably other radioactive stuff -- I just picked Plutonium as a a metal and oxide because that's what happens when a metal "burns" and got Wiki on PuO2.

[John F. Carr]

Scattering plutonium over hundreds of square miles is a very bad way to hurt people. You are probably correct that it is a good way to scare people, the same people who think a thimble of botulin or fentanyl could kill all people in Manhattan.

Nuclear weapons and Chernobyl-type incidents are more hazardous than fine plutonium dust. Fallout contains highly radioactive substances that the body mistakes for harmless, essential minerals.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Russians play chess -- and that is what I mean by the Russian mindset (of which Putin is a good example).

It probably wouldn't kill that many people, but it would shut down the whole country, people would freak out. And that's what I mean by the Russian mindset -- how does the US respond/retaliate?

I was involved in public health (and not as a janitor) in the midst of the Anthrax scare 20+ years ago. There was a woman who died in Connecticut, she lived in a centuries-old farmhouse and I'm convinced it was natural anthrax which is around (like Tetanus is). Back in the 1950s, anthrax was so common that they had posters warning tannery workers to watch for infections on their arms.

And yet I remember how badly everyone freaked out.

[Sarcastr0]

The capability to make a dirty bomb has been around for 70 years. You're treating it like an emerging threat.

Because you are a drama elemental.

[tylertusta]

It doesn't make sense for Russia to use radiological weapons in a way that can be traced back to them.

If a Russian nuclear device poisons the United States, our government would likely know if it was done intentionally and would in turn respond with our own nuclear weapons.

With that in mind, if Russia is gonna attack the US with WMDs, they might as well just go for broke and use more effective counterforce weapons in their first attack.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Regarding these rumors about Russia"

Convenient that congress gets briefed on it [whatever it is] just when a Ukraine bill is at issue.

[tylertusta]

I think it's convenient for the FISA 702 renewal, not the Ukraine bill.

[tylertusta]

I came across this article yesterday from Lawfare:

The Consequences of Jack Smith's Rush to Trial by Jack Goldsmith.

One of the defining characteristics of the Trump era, as I explained way back in 2017, is that institutional actors violate norms in response to Donald Trump’s norm violations and possibly illegal actions, thus further damaging norms and institutions. This is, I think, what Jack Smith has been doing in his rush to trial. The Supreme Court to date has, amazingly, avoided this tendency. Whatever it decides with respect to the flurry of legal maneuverings related to Trump’s trial could impact the election. I hope that to the extent possible, the Court in this wildly unprecedented context follows the same rules and principles that it would follow if one of the parties to the case were not an indicted Donald Trump running for presidential office. I was encouraged, in this regard, by the Court issuing the government a normal one-week period to respond to Trump’s request for a stay pending a writ of certiorari.

[Armchair]

Indeed.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not a federal practice guy, but I don't take it as evident that this rush is norm-breaking. If there were some ticking clock-based exigency in any federal trial, wouldn't that be material to it's pace?

Every trial's schedule has a component pf weighing the cost-benefit of speed versus time to prepare. If the cost of delay goes up, it seems seems normal to take that into account.

Again, I'm not experienced in the area, but this seems to assume double standards and I think that needs to be established more.

[tylertusta]

This is an area I'm not well-versed in either. I'm relying heavily on lawyers who know more than I do, but I'll summarize:

The question boils down to what, specifically, Smith relies upon as his interest in accelerating his clock. Smith only points to generic issues: the so-called "public interest" and his worry about witnesses memories.

Smith has no reason besides that generic interest.

So then the question becomes, why doesn't the government prosecute all of its cases this way?

[Moderation4ever]

It seems to me that public interest is important as the defendant is running for office and the public's interest would be served in knowing the results of the trial before voting. Especially since the defendant will have the ability to dismiss the case if elected and there by cheating justice.

[tylertusta]

What about the defendant's 1st and 6th amendment rights?

Do candidates not get fair trials nor the effective assistance of counsel?

[Moderation4ever]

A defendant is certainly entitled to a fair trial, but is that the issue here? The fact is that Trump and his lawyer could make the same immunity claim to a jury. The strategy does not seem to be targeted at a fair trial as much as getting a technical win. If the defendant can delay the trial, they could then be in a position to simple order a dismissal of the case.

[not guilty]

"The fact is that Trump and his lawyer could make the same immunity claim to a jury."

No. Entitlement to immunity or the absence thereof is a threshold matter for the court. If immunity exists, a jury will not be convened. If no immunity exists, that is not a jury matter.

[Moderation4ever]

Could Trump and his lawyers argue to the jury that his actions were within the scope of his official responsibilities, therefore legal and ask for a jury nullification?

[not guilty]

No. A jury has the option of nullification, but to argue nullification is professional misconduct. It might even constitute contempt. And the trial judge through the instructions, not counsel, is the source of the law regarding official responsibilities.

[Moderation4ever]

I have not noticed that Trump's lawyer are strict on avoiding professional misconduct. It seems that the judges in the cases spend a noticeable amount of time correcting Trump's lawyers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"and there by cheating justice."

No.

Look at this from a Good Government 101 perspective.

The pardon power is a check on the court system -- if the people elect a President knowing that he likely will pardon himself -- and I don't think there is anybody who doesn't know that at this point -- then that's democracy. Jury nullification writ large...

[tylertusta]

I'm sure our enlightened lawyer overlords will allow us the freedom to think for ourselves at some point.

[Kleppe]

"Especially since the defendant will have the ability to dismiss the case if elected and there by cheating justice."

Why do you hate democracy?

[Sarcastr0]

I do think the fact pattern of the election coming up is at least in the mix, whether explicitly or not.

Now, how it should be treated in terms of trial cadence, that's where I gotta lean on practitioners.

[tylertusta]

Sure, and that's what a lot of people are saying about Smith's actions: it's to get Trump to trial before November.

Smith hasn't said that, and I think the reason is that if he does, he would be admitting that he's setting out to violate Trump's 1st and 6th amendment rights.

Chutkan and the appellate panel are turning a blind eye- if not implicitly endorsing!- that sort of behavior, but I like to think that even the most vehement partisan Democratic judge will hesitate before explicitly approving violations of a candidates rights just because he or she is a candidate.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t see how Trump’s rights are being violated by a faster than usual trial cadence.

I do think it’s odd that the issue is not being directly mentioned, but that seems like it’s most likely the hidden norm here, not that trials always proceed at a particular pace.

Certainly that’s more likely than a number of judges all ignoring their duties.

But you and I are really speculating without a good baseline; it's fun and all but not very useful; I'm going to wait and see if anyone with experience has anything to say.

[tylertusta]

My understanding is that Trump's case is atypical in that he's being put to trial sooner than your average Jan 6th defendant.

A recent example I'm aware of is Lynnwood Nester, who was arrested for a misdemeanor in May of 2022. Unlike Trump, Nester went almost full year between arrest and the pre-trial conference (April, 2023) with a trial set for October of 2023.

Then the trial judge postponed the trial for another ten months (August 2024), but there was no other proceeding that caused the delay, just scheduling at the trial court. At the beginning of February, the trial court then moved up the trial date for March of 2024.

[not guilty]

Jack Smith hasn't said that he wants to try Donald Trump before the November election, but concluding a federal criminal trial by then would be in the public interest. Donald Trump is highly likely to be the Republican nominee for President. The voting public is better off knowing whether they are voting for someone with a prison sentence to serve or for someone who has been tried and acquitted.

Bail pending appeal in federal court is the exception rather than the rule, requiring a specific set of findings by the trial court. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). An incarcerated President could be regarded as unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office for purposes of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, § 4.

[tylertusta]

The voting public is better off knowing whether they are voting for someone with a prison sentence to serve or for someone who has been tried and acquitted.

According to whom? Jack Smith? As the article says, who died and made Jack Smith the person who decides what the public gets to know?

Furthermore, if that is his actual interest, then why doesn't he say that?

He's had plenty of opportunities, the latest being his response to Trump's request for a stay.

An incarcerated President could be regarded as unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office for purposes of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, § 4.

How is that the public interest? Seems to me like there's already processes to handle Presidents that are unable to discharge his or her powers and duties, so the country will still run.

Smells like a political interest, not a "public interest."

[David Nieporent]

According to whom?

Richard Nixon: "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook."

[tylertusta]

So you're taking legal theories from esteemed jurist Richard Nixon, eh?

When did he write that majority opinion?

[David Nieporent]

Actually, I'm citing him as an expert pursuant to FRE 702.

[tylertusta]

Cool.

I'm calling Denny Crane. I think that means I win.

[Mr. Bumble]

" The voting public is better off knowing whether they are voting for someone with a prison sentence to serve or for someone who has been tried and acquitted."
Not sure what case (Florida or DC) you are referring to but in either case even if a trial was concluded finding Trump guilty it is highly unlikely that it would be concluded before early voting starts and would be sure to be appealed.
Not withstanding the rules you cited there is no good reason to jail Trump during any appeal.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump is never going to an actual prison or jail. Not if he gets convicted 4 times. Its an utter fantasy to think otherwise.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would that be unjust?

It might be more likely home confinement — with severe restrictions, perhaps — would be imposed. No golf, limited communications, no travel, etc.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Odd that these loyal "Americans" (Armchair, Amos, et al.) don't seem to care that Trump is trying to delay his trial so that he can potentially issue a corrupt order to the DOJ to drop prosecution of him.

It's almost like the public interest of justice doesn't matter to them at all.

[Kazinski]

"If there were some ticking clock-based exigency in any federal trial, wouldn’t that be material to it’s pace?"

Why don't you just say they have to convict him before he wins the election?

Other than it gives away the game?

The courts shouldn't care about that political calculation.

Although I think DOJ and Fani did, and that's one reason Smith charged Trump in DC, Fl, and Fani in GA, to make sure one of them was going on all during the height of the campaign.

[Sarcastr0]

Why don’t you just say they have to convict him before he wins the election?

So you ignored all my cost-benefit talk because you got a strawman burning a hole in your keyboard. Because that is not what I said, and not not what I meant.

But there is a telling detail in your hot strawman here...did you forget that acquittal is a possibility? Seems you've convicted trump yourself, even as you defend him to the hilt. Defending someone you in the back of your head think will be convicted is a job, and you do it for free.

Persecution complex by proxy can take one to some weird places.

[Bob from Ohio]

"acquittal is a possibility"

Maybe in Florida. Not in the 3 lefty strongholds.

[Sarcastr0]

Just as damming is preemptively going after the verdict.

I know for you it's costless to go over vast swaths of our institutions, from the intelligence community to our courts to juries to the media to Congress.

But it sure makes it look like your guy is guilty and you're just working an ever widening series of refs.

[Bob from Ohio]

The charges are politically motivated. No different than Navalny in Russia.

[LawTalkingGuy]

All decisions to charge or not charge someone are “politically motivated.” There’s no such thing as a non-political prosecution.

Prosecutors are either elected or appointed by elected officials. They decide to use state violence against someone based on words written by elected politicians. Whether that is appropriate or not is overseen by an elected or appointed politician wearing a robe, and is ultimately decided upon by members of the community conscripted into service by the state for this task. And they do so in a world where decisions have to made based on political factors like resources, achievability and social effects.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Love to see conservatives whine about the jury pool. Who do you think made venue change motions harder?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, why shouldn't the Court care about political calculation? Politics are the means intended by the founders to manage the nation's government. Pro-political jurisprudence is a legal virtue, even a legal duty. And the Constitution, to which the justices swear their oath, is preeminently a charter for politics. Specifically, the very politics of constitutive power you say the Court should ignore.

But I get that when you invoke, "politics," it is with the commonplace cynical attempt to degrade the term, rather than to take it seriously.

[tylertusta]

Do candidates for office have lesser 1st, 6th, and 14th amendment rights than anyone else in the criminal justice system?

[Stephen Lathrop]

tylertusa, yes. At least for those who have previously sworn oaths to support the Constitution. In principle, that is a notably more burdensome undertaking than most realize. For instance, it can reasonably be construed to forbid claims by someone sworn to protect the Constitution that an already-completed and certified election was stolen. Enforcement may be another matter. If today's election crisis shows anything, it shows the nation needs harsher punishments for oath breakers.

Of course, with regard to the 14A, lesser office-seeking prerogatives (not rights; the notion of rights does not apply) for some candidates are actually the point.

Note also, that even with regard to the 6A, there is no such thing as a right to office that any court must respect. Criminal defendants should get reasonable due process. If they happen to be candidates for office, then both the administrators of the laws, and the judicial system, have a long history of balancing due process with political accommodations—both accommodations protective of defendants, and accommodations protective of political processes at defendant's expense.

Ultimately the party which ought to get the most deference is the collectively sovereign People of the United States, who enjoy the sole power to bestow the gift of office, at pleasure, and without constraint—including even constraint by alleged rights of candidates. That is the one principle that SCOTUS should keep foremost in mind. But I doubt they will.

[tylertusta]

At least for those who have previously sworn oaths to support the Constitution.

What constitutional provision or court case says that candidates running for office who have "previously sworn oaths to the constitution" have lesser criminal defense rights?

I referred to the 1st, 6th, and 14th amendments, but we can expand that to all procedural due process rights as well.

What case? What provision of the constitution allows it?

I'm not talking about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause, which even the most ardent anti-Trumper here won't argue somehow transforms a disqualification from holding office into a "nah, it's cool that he can't have a fair trial" argument.

Please point to the provision.

[David Nieporent]

You've got to understand that Lathrop is basically one of the SovCit types. He draws different conclusions than they do, but his methodology is the same: start with an idée fixe about the nature of the relationship between people and the government, and ignore all law, text, history, and reality that contradicts it. He knows it to be true, and therefore all the rest is wrong.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, you know law. You know neither the facts of history, nor anything about canons useful to guide research methods toward valid historical inferences. I do not think I have ever seen anything from you that even concedes those canons exist—contradictions aplenty, but no concessions.

Like almost every presentist-minded legal opportunist, you suppose any lawyer's presentist interpretation of a historical text is as good as that of any professional historian. That is nonsense which only someone totally unfamiliar with historical research could think to believe.

Thus, you may suppose yourself a textualist, but you have no notion that you are incapable to read a historical text in historical context. Nor do you have any idea why doing that would be necessary to practice textualism by any but a chaotic results-first method.

And of course, as your careful weasel-wording discloses, you know there is no similarity between my opinions and the SovCit types whom I denounce as cranks. You like, "SovCit," as an epithet. Do you ever reflect on the incongruity of posing as objective while resorting to epithets?

By your interactions with others, I can see you have potential to do better. I regard you generally as one of the better commenters on this blog. But in the case of my commentary, you are in over your head, full of animus, and on the basis of the record seem incapable to respond substantively.

You do not even recognize when some point I make about history is historically legitimate, especially if it seems to you to inconvenience a purely legal modernist interpretation you favor. Too bad. History will never prove amenable to adjustment by law.

Between modern law and the historical record disagreements and incongruities will always abound. You must learn to expect that, or avoid addressing historically-founded commentary altogether. Try at least to grasp that. If you find that discomfiting, I recommend curiosity as a more constructive response than denunciation.

To respond curiously should prove no more difficult for you than the challenge I accept, to try (sometimes unsuccessfully of course) to avoid judgments about modern legal subjects about which I remain uninformed. A difference between us is that you show little sign of trying.

Have you noticed how often I defer to you and other legal experts? Have you noticed, for instance, how little friction there is between my commentary and not guilty's commentary? That happens because on questions of modern law, I respect his superior judgment, just as I do yours. But he shows better restraint than you do, and apparently lacks ambition you show to mix his legal commentary with ideology.

It seems to be when I cite historically-founded notions which embarrass your ideological priors that our conflicts occur. If you intend to continue to style yourself a disinterested legal expert, I suggest you take not guilty as a constructive model. Worry less about ideology, offer dispassionate legal advice, and if you wish to engage my commentary, show a bit of curiosity about the facts of history, and also about historical research methods.

[Stephen Lathrop]

tylertusta, what due process do you suppose is owed to someone contesting the substance of a constitutional decree? Do you think the jointly sovereign People’s power to rule at pleasure can be constrained or hampered by claims of individual rights to the contrary? The People’s sovereignty is exercised jointly, not individually. As the founder James Wilson explained:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . .

That is the basis of interpretation of Section 3 of the 14A which a historically legitimate Supreme Court ruling would rely upon. As I have already said, it will surprise me if the Court does that. If they do not do it, that will be yet another hit to the Court’s legitimacy, and a further blow against the already shaky edifice of originalism.

[OtisAH]

Turnip is running to be president of the United States. Turnip is also on trial for trying to overthrow the government when he was a sitting US president, and for theft of national security documents, at least a few of which remain missing. What Turnip did with these docs and why he fought so hard to keep them, including obstructing all efforts to reclaim them, remains unknown. And Mr. Goldsmith thinks these are not matters that should be adjudicated before Turnip potentially becomes POTUS again?

[ReaderY]

Was the rush to get the Supreme Court to decide the Nixon case on an accelerated schedule similarly norm-breaking?

[tylertusta]

Was the rush to get the Supreme Court to decide the Nixon case on an accelerated schedule similarly norm-breaking?

Not really. Nixon's case was very, very different from US v Trump.

Nixon's case was civil, not criminal. Nixon was subpoenaed to give up the Watergate tapes, but Nixon himself wasn't charged.

The reason for the expedited consideration of the case was because Nixon's Watergate conspirators were themselves charged and going to trial. That trial required the evidence in Nixon's possession. Nixon's right to an orderly appeal process was trumped by the defendant's procedural right to a fair trial.

For Trump's DC case all of those factors flip the other way. Trump's procedural rights that are at its strongest, and Smith can point to nothing beyond his nebulous 'public interest' as to why the cases are expedited.

Let's be real here: we're talking about a criminal defendant's due process rights. If courts take it away from Trump through this chicanery, they're not just opening the door to similar behavior across our legal system, but instead are inviting it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nobody yet mentioned mass shooting in Kansas City.

The usual revolting, "thoughts and prayers," tap dance from politicians.

Anyone want to justify, "Glock switch," whether or not it turns out to have been used this time?

[OtisAH]

That’s because mass shootings are so common they’ve been relegated to “local news” status. I didn’t even hear about until this morning. Not even a mention on the news aggregator memeorandum last I’d looked.

[Michael P]

Alternatively, you live in an echo chamber. It was reported yesterday by CNN, WSJ, NBC and others. Google's news feed highlighted it to me several times yesterday, mostly as part of its "breaking news"/headline highlights blocks.

[OtisAH]

Wow, I see it every day and yet I remain as freshly amazed at how dumb you are as if each day is the first time.

[Michael P]

I’m not the one who boosted that my ignorance of a mass shooting means it was only “local news”.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Otis, they are irrelevant.

Tragic to those involved, but so are car crashes (which kill far more) and drug overdoses (leading cause of death of young people in MO).

What I find disturbing is that this is widely reported and yet the REASON for the shooting is not. The deceased was a White DJ. At least two of the "detained" individuals are Black. Hmmm....

[ThePublius]

What's "Glock switch?"

[Absaroka]

They are little doohickeys that you install in Glocks that make them go full auto. Here's an indictment of someone importing them from China.

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, let's see. Automatic firearms are currently banned (for civilian use). I don't know of any Republican office-holder who wants to change that. I don't know the NRA's position, but my guess is they are not talking about it either. I'd guess the same goes for "Glock switches" -- i.e., no one (other than folks like Stephen Lathrop) is talking about them.
In the meantime, this is the latest news from my state legislature:
Democrats introduce bill to ban sale or transfer of semiautomatic firearms
I'd say Mr. Lathrop is trying to pull a fast one...

[ThePublius]

"Automatic firearms are currently banned (for civilian use)."

That's not so. There are severe restrictions on importation of full auto firearms, and prohibitions on making them, or modifying firearms to go full auto. But ones in circulation are available for public ownership. One just need follow local laws and buy a federal machine gun transfer stamp (tax), which I think is about $250. The issue is that since the supply to civilians has been cut off, prices have skyrocketed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wondering if a legal, full auto weapon has been used in any of these shooting events, ever?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wonder if any of the perps have ever had a clean rap sheet...

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wouldn't want to fire a fully-automatic Glock and anyone with a scintilla of knowledge of gun safety wouldn't want to either. After about the third or fourth round, Lord only know what you would be aiming at and you well might wind up shooting yourself. And I don't think it would be that easy to let go of the trigger with the gun continuing to recoil.

This is where the government should step in and say "unsafe weapon" and not even license it.

[Absaroka]

"I’d say Mr. Lathrop is trying to pull a fast one…"

Oh, sure. Glock switches etc. are 100% illegal, have never been legal, no one is calling to legalize them, are useless for self defense, are illegally imported from China, etc.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, "useless for self-defense," is an argument would-be gun controllers expect to get chastised for. Gun advocates are quick to assert that their 2A rights include the right to decide for themselves what works best for self-defense.

Obviously, that collides head-on with turning a Glock into a machine gun. Not sure I find the collision reassuring.

To find out, how about I ask you to address the hypothetical that Glock switches become so commonplace that enforcement gets overwhelmed. Do you expect if that happened the pro-gun side would treat that as an emergency, and demand far more money to expand enforcement capacity? Or do you think that would be controversial among gun advocates, many of whom would insist Glock switches are just a new normal for self-defense, which society must learn to accommodate, lest the self-defense powers of the law abiding be overwhelmed?

[Absaroka]

The only controversy about the legality of Glock switches is in your mind.

I can only imagine what kind of sketchy gun owners you hung out with back in the day, but if you head over to your local Rod-n-Gun Club and start asking around about Glock switches I don't think you will find a very warm welcome.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, my question to you, the one you dodged, was based on what I read on this blog. I just played back pitch-perfect what your pro-gun colleagues do say now, and what they would say, I think, if Glock switches came into common use among criminals.

Why don't you go on record instead, and say here that the right answer would be much more money for gun control, but just to target Glock switches? You won't even have to put your real name on it.

[Bwaaah]

But first, I want you to account for the Reverand Arthur L. Kirkland's position, since you and he may be treated as one (in a b.s. world like yours).

[Absaroka]

"what they would say,"

Unfortunately, I have not found your channeling of 'what gun owners say/think' to be remotely accurate.

"if Glock switches came into common use among criminals"

What do you mean 'if'? They are in pretty common use by criminals. And when I googled 'glock switch conviction' and look at the resulting articles, I see phrases like 'possession with intent to deliver meth', 'felon in possession of a firearm ', 'previously convicted felon', 'obliterated serial number', ' stolen rifle...improvised explosive devices', 'violent street gang ...possession of counterfeit notes ... felon in possession'.

Crooks misuse guns among their many crimes. Your notion that law abiding gun owners support criminals when the criminals have guns is a really bizarre fantasy. Go visit your local range and ask whether they think society at large is too tough, or not tough enough on crime.

I might have missed some, but the longest sentence I saw for the above crooks - serious violent criminals - was sixty some months. The problem here isn't catching them.

Here is a non-glock-switch case from a few days ago right in your backyard:

" A Middleborough, Mass. man was sentenced to six days in prison for stealing and selling three firearms from FedEx packages he was responsible for delivering. The government recommended a sentence of 10 months in prison."

Six days - two days per gun (assuming they caught all his thefts)! And the recommended sentence was only 10 months.

The six days, BTW, was time already served. I'm not seeing a lack of enforcement funding as the problem here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, I want to be certain I understand you accurately. Do you say that Glock switches are commonplace among criminals, and that law enforcement to arrest them is already adequate? If so, do you care to explain further the apparent paradox?

I have to recast my question to be sure, because you have a habit of misrepresenting my opinions. For instance, I have never said or implied anything to justify:

Your notion that law abiding gun owners support criminals when the criminals have guns is a really bizarre fantasy. Go visit your local range and ask whether they think society at large is too tough, or not tough enough on crime.

Of course gun owners think otherwise. Especially at pistol-practice gun ranges. They cherish a notion that they embody a thin vigilante line to hold crime in check. I concede that is a notion which sometimes gets vindicated by happenstance. But I nevertheless deplore the view that unlimited gun prevalence balanced on that fulcrum is either wise personal policy, or socially justifiable.

As I am sure you know, I do not even think it would be legally justifiable except for continuing purposeful malpractice by the Supreme Court. I do not expect anything to come to light to make me change that opinion. I hope for a day when a more legally and historically forthright Court will overturn the present too-reckless legal gun regime, and replace it with something wiser and more in accord with the original intent of this nation's founders.

But for now and the foreseeable future I am resolved to live with the law as it is currently interpreted, while advocating policies to minimize the harms. Harsh suppression of Glock switches, for instance, would be minimization. That would include whatever it takes to stop prevalence of Glock switches so commonplace that criminals and the law-abiding alike conclude they have no choice except to go in public carrying concealed machine guns at all times.

If what you say is true, then the logic of the civilian arms race points in that direction. Nobody should be complacent about such a dystopian possibility. See if you can say anything in reply which can pass as proactive and non-complacent.

[Absaroka]

"Do you say that Glock switches are commonplace among criminals, and that law enforcement to arrest them is already adequate?"

I am all for a well funded justice system and law enforcement; it is one of the most basic duties of government. I would probably increase funding for it, relative to other things - for example, the times we have been burgled the officers, politely, explained that, no, they weren't going to lift the obvious fingerprints, or do any other investigation. They said they just weren't funded enough for that.

However, I have to compromise with my fellow voters on that.

That said, funding needs to be balanced between catching crooks and preventing them from reoffending. For example, the Seattle paper did a series a few years ago on car theft. The average number of *convictions* for car theft before the thief spent a day in jail (other than a few days waiting for a bail hearing) was 11 point something. Now, I'm willing some slack to the teen who made a mistake, but 11 mistakes? I forget the percentage of stolen cars that resulted in a conviction - I think it was a single digit number, so our fellow who has been convicted 11 times has probably stolen over a hundred cars.

Looking at that, is your first reaction 'we need to spend more money catching car thieves'? Because spending money catching them and trying them seems like wasted effort if they are just released immediately after conviction. Heck, a couple of them showed up for trial driving stolen cars.

When the police are catching the same crook over and over, the problem isn't an inability to catch them. The only paradox here is why we expend effort to catch crooks and then let them go with minimal consequences.

And the same is true of other types of crimes. The police are catching and convicting people with Glock switches, and FedEx drivers who steal guns. Remember all those people above with prior felony convictions getting caught with Glock switches while committing some other crime? With more consequences for their previous crimes, maybe they wouldn't have been out committing new crimes with Glock switches.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, typical subject changes. Not much else. No acknowledgement of any peril from a civilian arms race spurred by proliferation of Glock switches. That takes pro-gun ideology to a new extreme, unless you are willing to assert Glock switches are not a practical or commonplace possibility. But you seem already to have contradicted that.

You seem at times to be commenting on the basis of a premise that it is simply impossible for any manifestation of civilian guns to be sufficiently dangerous to warrant constraint by government policy. Is that your belief?

[Absaroka]

"No acknowledgement of any peril from a civilian arms race spurred by proliferation of Glock switches"

What are you smoking? Lock up anyone caught with a Glock switch (or stolen gun, or felon in possession, or committing a crime with a gun, or stealing a car, or burgling a car, or beating up their girlfriend, or ...).

" it is simply impossible for any manifestation of civilian guns to be sufficiently dangerous to warrant constraint by government policy. Is that your belief?"

My good fellow, again, what are you smoking? Are you deaf to 'lock the crooks up'?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, my challenge above was exactly this:

Nobody should be complacent about such a dystopian possibility. See if you can say anything in reply which can pass as proactive and non-complacent.

So of course I am deaf to a non-proactive but completely complacent response. To lock up crooks after they commit crimes with Glock switches presupposes the spread of Glock switches.

I asked what you would do to get rid of Glock switches—to at least make them as uncommon in American public spaces as other machine guns. You are apparently dodging the question because you hate use of public policy to ameliorate threats to public welfare from private arsenals—no matter how serious those threats become.

I have tended to think of you as being at the rational end of pro-gun advocacy. If that is where you are, then I am likely to conclude would-be gun controllers need to radically dial up their games. If Glock switches are going to spread, while you complain that law enforcement is too lax, then rational concern for public safety says it's time for a federal ban on Glocks, before everyone concealed carrying is carrying a concealed machine gun.

I had not thought of that as a realistic threat. You have begun to convince me otherwise.

[Absaroka]

"I asked what you would do to get rid of Glock switches"

Are you deaf: lock up the people selling/possessing them?

What's your opinion on ending the scourge of opiate abuse? Lock up drug dealers, or outlaw anesthesia?

"it’s time for a federal ban on Glocks"

Gosh, why am I not surprised to hear that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, consider the implications of your non-surprise. Everyone else will be non-surprised too. Especially including mass murderers, and political extremists.

Do you suppose for a second that the public would tolerate semi-auto AR-15s if there were widespread capacity to make them full auto, and conceal them? Don't you understand that the practical check on converting AR-15s to full auto has been that any such criminal activity cannot be readily concealed? That is why there is not much market for kits to do the conversion.

That constraint will not apply to Glocks. Law enforcement would never be able to check whether a platoon of guys carrying Glocks had brought machine guns to a political rally. You think that would be okay? I guess when you are headed for extremism step-by-step, in increments, it gets harder to notice.

Only a fully fascist society with the machine gunners condoned by the fascists would tolerate that. You can be sure of that because fascist societies are the only ones where any such thing has ever happened. But even in the worst fascist police states, there literally has never been an instance when millions of machine gun owners could be carrying them around unobserved in public every day. Switzerland, with its extraordinarily gun-reliant militia culture does not tolerate anything remotely like that.

But you insist on a society where government would be deprived of any practical capacity to prevent it. Why?

Do you think gun owners as a class are such virtuous types that they would not be party to it. Screw that. Some gun owners are. Maybe even a majority. But a large faction among gun owners is demonstrably avid for all the firepower it can get. And that faction considers any technical advance to increase firepower an existential threat which must be met with like capacity.

You know that. Give some thought to the social and political dynamics it implies.

[Absaroka]

"Don’t you understand that the practical check on converting AR-15s to full auto has been that any such criminal activity cannot be readily concealed? That is why there is not much market for kits to do the conversion."

Bbbbutt...there is such a market, just like for Glock switches.
Here's a presser. Crooks gonna crook.

One of the nice things about putting violent crooks in jail is you don't have to worry about precisely what kind of weapon they might use on any particular day.

I've been reading your comments here for what, 15 years or so? Sometimes you want to ban gun type A, some times type B, some times type C. Each time you fervidly insist that type, and only that type, must absolutely positively be banned or else. I'm not sure if your memory is bad or you think everyone else's is.

[Bwaaah]

"To find out, how about I ask you to address the hypothetical that Glock switches become so commonplace that enforcement gets overwhelmed."

How about you first address a hypothetical that's connected with reality, Mr. Genius. (You're not even in the ballpark.)

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes, thanks. I blanked on the term, but I've seen videos of "kids" in Chicago firing with them.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Anyone have any info on the perp? I haven't seen any reporting to that effect.

[Ed Grinberg]

"If it was a white guy, they would have told us." (source)

[ThePublius]

Multiple perps, four or five apprehended, I think. Two I see in pics are African American, one wearing a Patrick Mahomes jersey.

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/kansas-city-parade-shooting-suspect-wearing-patrick-mahomes-jersey-photo-surfaces-article-107705369

[Bob from Ohio]

"whether or not it turns out to have been used this time"

Classic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, drug overdoses are the #1 leading cause of death among adults age 18-44 in Missouri. Not gunshot wounds, let alone mass shooters. While I can't speak to Kansas City, nor last weekend, there were 1,577 Opioid overdoses in Missouri in 2022.

Here is the state on that: https://health.mo.gov/data/opioids/

[Kazinski]

Glock switches are already illegal.

But I haven't seen any thing yet on who the shooter(s) are, motivation etc.

Usually its unwise to comment on anything about a mass shooting in the first 72 hours because everything you've heard up til then turns out to be wrong.

But for the record: Mass shootings are bad, and.my thoughts and prayers are with the victims, and the citizens that charged the shooters are heroes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Anyone want to justify, “Glock switch,” whether or not it turns out to have been used this time?

What are you asking? Glock switches are machineguns for purposes of federal law and are thus, practically speaking, illegal under almost all circumstances: possessing one is generally a felony punishable by up to 10 year in prison. Are you suggesting that a change in this law would be appropriate? If so, what are you envisioning?

[Moderation4ever]

Perhaps the lesson is that we have the ability to destroy life on the planet and the answer is not in finding ways to stop the weapons we have now. Rather the answer is in finding ways to live together on this increasingly small planet.

[Mr. Bumble]

Should that start here?

[Ed Grinberg]

Israelis were lulled into believing they could "live together" with the murderous savages in Gaza. On 10/7, they learned the truth the hard way.
There are some people who just don't want to "live together" with others -- in fact, they don't want others to live at all. There's only one way to deal with people like that.
Don't let folks like Moderation4ever lull you into foolish inaction. You (or your children) will pay the price.

[Nige]

Aren't the Israelis currently experiencing the outcome of a decade of hard-line right-wing policies on Gaza, which included supporting Hamas and settler expansion? I don't think that had anything to do with "living together."

[ThePublius]

So, securing your border against terrorists is a "hard-line right-wing policy?"

What would be the alternative?

[Nige]

It's certainly a mindless hard-line right-wing platitude, yes. And they failed abysmally.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is that leaders often benefit from conflict that has no value to the common person. People often learn to live together and it is a power seekers that wish to create conflict. This is true regardless of sides. The Israeli would benefit from a stable Palestine as much the Palestinians. The action of Israel at this point seem to benefit the short-term needs of Benjamin Netanyahu more than the long term needs of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

[Bob from Ohio]

"short-term needs of Benjamin Netanyahu more than the long term needs"

Gantz and Lapid and Bennett all agree with the current actions. I am not aware of any significant dissent in the Knesset at all. One member about to get expelled is it.

[apedad]

Below is a look at the top 10 cities with the worst drivers, according to Forbes.

1. Albuquerque, New Mexico
2. Memphis, Tennessee
3. Detroit, Michigan
4. Tucson, Arizona
5. Kansas City, Missouri
6. Dallas, Texas
7. Louisville, Kentucky
8. Phoenix, Arizona
9. Fort Worth, Texas
10. Tampa, Florida

The top 10 cities with the best drivers, according to Forbes, are as follows:

1. Boston, Massachusetts
2. San Francisco, California
3. New York, New York
4. Minneapolis, Minnesota
5. Las Vegas, Nevada
6. Washington, D.C.
7. Oakland, California
8. Raleigh, North Carolina
9. San Diego, California
10. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4467977-report-ranks-cities-with-the-worst-drivers-is-yours-on-it/

[ThePublius]

Ha! I have only lived and driven for extended periods in two locales, the Boston area, and NYC. I wholeheartedly disagree with Boston being in the "best" list, especially first!

Massachusetts drivers have a couple of habits that are not only rude and annoying, but dangerous. First, is when the light turns green, an opposing car will make a left in front of you. The pretty much universal protocol is that straight traffic has the right of way. I had never seen this behavior until I moved here. Second, when making a left they will swing out to the right, even into an adjacent lane, as if they were trying to maneuver a hook-and-ladder into a side street. I've come close to accidents because of these many, many times, and I know people who have been in accidents, and even seriously injured because of this.

I never saw these habits in NYC, or anywhere else I can recall. (I've driven in many states and cities, and in many European and Asian cities, too.)

[apedad]

One note....I think they used data like # of deaths per miles driven and # of DUIs, etc., not the good or bad driving habits.

And I agree with C_XY below; the Capital Beltway (495) is the worst place to drive in the US.

I wish I could slap the mothers of the people who designed it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably the world's largest roundabout.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As you may (or may not) know, many Boston streets were laid out by cows. Literally -- they are the paths that the cows took going to and returning from the Boston Common.

What's worse is that 2/3 of Boston is landfill and a lot of the streets follow a geography that no longer exists.

You have to be a good driver with quick reflexes to drive in Boston.

[apedad]

Try again: https://dca.lib.tufts.edu/features/bostonstreets/cowpaths/index.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some were. There also were three hills that were cut down and used to fill in tidal marshlands. Same thing, really.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The principle of turning left when the light goes green is that you will have cleared the intersection before the oncoming car can get to where you were.

[Kazinski]

What happens if a pedestrian steps out in the crosswalk while you are turning, and you've stepped.on the gas to beat the oncoming traffic?

My son recently moved to a Boston suburb, after living in Seattle/Tacoma and Bellingham, he says he's never seen such terrible drivers and won't ride a bike there.

Tucson didn't seem bad to me, it has lots of wide.straight boulevards and not an overwhelming amount.of.traffic, perhaps the number of older drivers is a factor though.

Phoenix freeways are an adventure, they are fairly well maintained and wide enough and sufficient lanes for fast driving. You can be happily driving with the flow of traffic at 80 and with people zipping in and out of traffic at 90 or 95.

[Mr. Bumble]

I suppose a ranking of states/cities with bad drivers ultimately depends on the metric you are using as a measure.
Too many cars (nad now bicycles and electric scooters) in many places which make driving an adventure.
Aside from generally inattentive and uncourteous drivers my big hates are those who try to beat lights including making turns, blocking the box and worst of all, tailgaters.

[nonluddite]

The quick left on green--I saw that in Albany, NY as well. Maybe they were originally from Boston?

Worst drivers I have ever seen are from the DC area. Driving 65+ on the shoulder of the beltway when all of the other lanes are stopped? Madness.

[Krayt]

The report doesn't mention how it is calculated. It is heavy on "fatal" accidents, but doesn't claim that is part of it exclusively. And if so, is it deaths per mile driven? Or just deaths per capita?

[apedad]

Here's the info for Albuquerque.

- Albuquerque has the highest number of fatal car accidents involving a distracted driver (5.42 per 100,000 city residents).

- It ranks third highest for the total number of fatal car accidents (17.11 per 100,000 city residents).

- Albuquerque reports the third highest number of people killed in fatal crashes (18.11 per 100,000 city residents).

- The city holds the fifth-highest spot for the number of fatal car accidents involving speeding (5.56 per 100,000 city residents).

- Albuquerque also has the sixth highest number of fatal car accidents involving a drunk driver (4.67 per 100,000 city residents).

[John F. Carr]

There aren't five independent values in the list, only one: a high per capita fatal accident rate.

[Don Nico]

Wow, did those guys get the sign wrong.
If you make eye contact with a Boston driver, you lose.
Drivers in Providence RI are much worse than drivers in Boston. To make matters worse the "upgrade" of the freeway systems has made for numerous dangerous exits and on-ramps

[bernard11]

Are you sure they don't have this backwards.

Boston drivers are terrible. A red light here is seen as just a mild suggestion, for example.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...I drive in NYC, Philly, DC and I don't think I would call them best drivers. The data are what the data are...I guess they are. But the f'ing Capitol Beltway is a f'ing nightmare!!!

[SRG2]

Noo Joizey doesn't feature amongst the worst? Those other places must truly suck. I find driving in NYC is pretty easy once you acquire the sixth sense for when a cab is going to change lanes.

[OtisAH]

Few people admit to being from New Jersey.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, in Jersey we actually know how to drive....

Shit, we drive with one knee on the wheel, flip someone off, slurp at a cup of WaWa coffee (the best!) with the other hand, and have a conversation with a passenger simultaneously.

The rest of youse are pathetic drivers. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

In New York one is required to have one hand on the wheel when the car is in motion.

[Commenter_XY]

That is because they can't drive.... 🙂

We don't need no hand on the wheel in NJ.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The absolute worst is the interchange between I-91 and I-84 in Hartford Connecticut. It's even a nightmare at 3 AM.

It's so bad that the French Canadian truckdrivers in Quebec complain about it (in French).

My advice in going from I-91 to I-84 is take *any* exit in *either* direction and then turn around at the next exit if necessary.

[SRG2]

I once saw a driver on Route 17 actually indicate before he changed lanes. But had out-of-state plates, so my shock was ameliorated.

[Commenter_XY]

Signal? Fuggedaboutit.

[Bwaaah]

New Jersey's stats probably gets saved by the fact that they prevent left turns in so many high-traffic places.

[Commenter_XY]

Yep, the old turn 270 degrees right to go left. Only in NJ. 🙂

[MoreCurious]

Jug-handles. Gotta love that term.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, there is soooooo much one can do with that.

[Bwaaah]

I remember when you could really have fun with a setup like that.

[ReaderY]

It would be grossly unfair to people who impeach a cabinet secretary without even bothering to pretend to come up with a high crime or misdemeanor he allegedly committed and without even bothering to pretend to collect any evidence, to accuse them of regarding the Constitution as having any value, let alone “highest value.”

Accusing them of valuing the Constitution would be a gross calumny against their character and integrity, indeed against everything they stand for.

[Bob from Ohio]

“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” Geralf Ford

[Moderation4ever]

Gerald Ford is correct and he would also be smart enough to know that the impeachment of Mayorkas is a farce. It makes MAGA happy but shows the emptiness of the House leadership to the rest of the country.

[Krayt]

With the first Trump impeachment, there were calls to start impeaching Democratic presidents the first chance the Republicans got. This isn't that, but maybe an early warning shot.

Both sides made this bed. Lie in it. I just wish it didn't drag down the nation as pols turn the power of governnent against political opponents.

[Krayt]

No, not your side, of course, dear reader. Your side is as clean as an East Coast snow plow pile in March. I mean the other side, with their cavalier abuses untethered to the spirit of the Constitution.

[OtisAH]

Yes, we’re all familiar with MAGA’s “If you impeach Turnip for high crimes and misdemeanors we’ll impeach your guy just because” strategy. They’ve already tested it out on Biden. I guess you missed it because they only held two hearings, came up with nothing, and then turned their attention to impeaching Mayorkas. Also for no stated reason except “Pwned ya!”

And you know why it’s such a failure? Because Turnip wasn’t impeached because they could impeach him. He was impeached because of specific high crimes/misdemeanors (extorting an ally; trying to overthrow the government). And actually having high crimes and misdemeanors to point to will always be more effective than “You impeached our guy so we’re impeaching yours, how do you like it, nyahhhh!”

[OtisAH]

So then why couldn’t MAGA come up with an impeachable offense?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has he secured the border?
Gross dereliction of duty is an impeachable offense.

[ReaderY]

The English Parliament had a broad impeachment power, both to impeach for dereliction of duty and to impose fines, imprisonment, and capital punishment as penalties. The Framers of the American Constitution specifically rejected this approach and permitted only a limited impeachment power, for crimes rather than political offenses, and with political penalties, not criminal ones.

If it wasn’t clear before, the 13th Amendment makes it absolutely clear that dereliction of duty in general is only a civil matter and cannot be made a crime. If it cannot be made a crime, it cannot be made an impeachable offense.

Even if one accepts the Trump view of the Biden administration’s immigration policies, it’s by no means clear that what happened as dereliction of duty. It’s not like Congress has provided Homeland Security with the resources to deport everyone and anyone. They certainly haven’t wanted to raise the taxes needed to pay for such an effort.

It is, however, entirely beside the point. The 13th Amendment prohinits imposing criminal penalties for simply being negligent in work duties. This means it isn’t an impeachable offense.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If it cannot be made a crime, it cannot be made an impeachable offense."

Nonsense.

And what in the world does the 13th amendment have to do with it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was wondering about the 13th myself...

[OtisAH]

Idiot.

[Nelson]

"Has he secured the border?"

Do you think that it's possible to prevent 100% of illegal entry into the United States? And if there isn't 100% prevention, it automatically counts as a high crime and misdemeanor?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That doesn’t mean that the House shouldn’t exercise principles when evaluating those considerations.

[Commenter_XY]

I find that comment hilarious. We are talking about politicians. I am not being condescending. I really do think it is hilarious.

[ReaderY]

You may find it hilarious that ordinary people actually expect politicians in this country not to orchestrate mass famines to starve or to build complexes of concentration camps and gas chambers to liquidate the portions of the population tending to support their political opponents by the millions. They actually expect to be able to disagree with a politician without their entire family dying by torture. I don’t find that expection so funny.

And it’s only principles that prevents such behavior from being common in our country. Nothing else.

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, I find it hilarious to expect anything remotely resembling a principled stand from anyone in the House. Just look at them.

Politicians are the ultimate utilitarians, and will try to get away with anything the people who they represent will let them get away with. Their operating principles are: get money, get re-elected, pull the lever for the party, leave for private industry and trade on their 'brand'.

The Mayorkas impeachment? Gerald Ford was right.

[Keldonric]

"Politicians are the ultimate utilitarians"
This seems accurate. I would say the interest referred to in the definitition of utility, as it relates to Utilitarianism, is very nearly the politician's own interests.

[Longtobefree]

If you don't consider lying under oath to congress to meet the criteria what does?
Just being republican?

[OtisAH]

“uKRAiN3 caN’t WiN!”

Well, no, not without ammo, weapons and supplies. With them though?

https://kyivindependent.com/media-russian-landing-ship-allegedly-sunk-by-drones-in-black-sea/

“Editor’s Note: This is a developing story and will continue to be updated.

“The Russian landing ship Caesar Kunikov was sunk in the Black Sea in the morning of Feb. 14, the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces confirmed.

“The General Staff said it was a joint operation between Ukraine’s military intelligence and the armed forces.

“Ukraine’s military intelligence later shared a video of the attack and said it had been carried out off of the Crimean city of Alupka with Magura V5 naval drones. It claimed that Russian search and rescue operations were unsuccessful.

“It is the fourth landing ship from Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to be sunk since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, according to the U.K. Defense Ministry…”

[StonewallDeSoto]

What do you imagine winning is for Ukraine? Remaining a sovereign state? With Western countries emptying out their own stockpiles and printing money for them, they can probably achieve that. However, there's only so far you can go with Ukraine's manpower vs. Russia's manpower.

[OtisAH]

Russia out of Ukraine is winning for Ukraine. Obviously. And Russia has been bleeding “manpower” for the past year and a half to the point of emptying prisons and recruiting foreigners in order to have enough bodies for the Ukrainians to kill. If Russian military might was so overwhelming they’d have taken the country before the rest of us had a chance to respond. Couldn’t even do that. And while Pootie Toot’s plans to regain the glories of the USSR should be treated seriously, his ability to carry out this plan is highly questionable at this stage. If he gets run out of Ukraine the plan will be on hold for even longer.

But perhaps you’d like to go on about how we have to let Russia steamroll Ukraine in the name of peace because they’re so superior in might?

[Commenter_XY]

Russia isn't leaving, OtisAH. They're entrenched in Donbass, and Crimea. Now, what seems to be happening is that Crimea is being systematically isolated so that no Russian ship can transit the Black Sea unmolested. That has strategic implications to the Russian Navy (and ours).

Until UKR/RUS decides it is time to stop the killing of their sons and daughters, the war will continue.

All I would say: IF the US goal of the UKR/RUS conflict is to fight RUS down to the very last Ukrainian, and eliminate the RUS conventional threat to NATO, it is succeeding splendidly.

[Nige]

'Until UKR/RUS decides it is time to stop the killing of their sons and daughters, the war will continue.'

Yeah, they equally share the blame and responsibility for the war started by Russia invading Ukraine.

[Commenter_XY]

Nige, I will be completely honest with you.

First, I don't like the Russians. I don't trust the Russians. I grew up in the 70's and 80's, so war was a very real possibility. And to boot, they were Commies. And they're corrupt AF.

Second, I don't like the Ukrainians, either. They are as corrupt as the f'ing Russians, and that is saying a lot. We have two US POTUS' embroiled in UKR corruption bullshit. And to boot, a lot of Ukrainians were perfectly happy killing Jews, historically.

Third, I never thought UKR was our fight, and still do not. UKR should never, EVER be accepted into NATO. However, since we involved ourselves in this fight, we might as well finish the job and deliver a devastating blow to RUS military capability in Europe which seems to be happening.

People can think differently about UKR. That is fine. It is now two years, and all they have is 200K+ dead UKR/RUS sons and daughters. They need to decide to stop.

From what Putin said in his interview, he is amenable to agreement. Maybe talk to the man quietly and find out what that means.

[OtisAH]

Russia invaded Ukraine for no reason except Pootie wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. Ukraine is fighting against this invasion of their nation. And you, naturally, are still trying to “both sides” the conflict with your little sea lion act here.

What Putin said in his interview was the war will be over when the world gets out of the way and lets him take Ukraine. The only “agreement” Putin is amenable to is that we should all agree he gets to take Ukraine. And you, naturally, are still trying to “both sides” the conflict with your little sea lion act here.

So, are you a fool or a liar?

[Commenter_XY]

OtisAH...The reality is that RUS is a) not leaving, and b) is perfectly content to grind down UKR to capitulation. Tell me, what does UKR victory look like to you? UKR has been more or less destroyed and will take generations to rebuild.

It does not matter if you don't like it (you don't). It does not matter if I don't like it (I don't). It does not matter if POTUS Biden does not like it (he doesn't, assuming he remembers UKR). Russia ain't leaving, and I don't feel a strong need as an American to take up arms and push them out. Not our fight.

And I absolutely do not want UKR in NATO.

[Nige]

You don't have to take up a single arm, you just have to ship out some of the vast quantities of unused and nearly-obsolete surplus materiel generated by the obscenely bloated US defence budget, and a vanishingly rare example of it doing some good somewhere.

[Commenter_XY]

Nige, what is the goal? If the goal is to fight RUS down to the last UKR, then say so. That would be pretty hard-core for you. But I could go along with that....I don't like the Russians.

There are 200K+ dead sons and daughters. Putin is ready to talk. I would much rather talk to Putin and make a deal than deal with the sick SOB that would replace him. Russia is not a nice place, Nige. Especially at Putin's level.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Putin has maintained his maximalist goals of taking over the entirety of Ukraine since day 1.

You’re a fucking idiot to believe that he has any interest in negotiation. It is a deliberate ploy to take advantage of morons who want to believe him, so that he can diminish Western support for Ukraine and allow his forces to win.

Someone who actually knows a thing or two might have noticed that Russian forces have not stopped offensive maneuvers IN UKRAINE, despite Putin's alleged interest in 'negotiating' an end to the war.

Perhaps you should attempt to educate yourself on the consequences of losing Ukraine to Russia, and what it would mean for the security of Europe and the rest of the world before you open your idiot-mouth again.

You've shown no willingness to even understand the conflict or the consequences, so I won't be holding my breath that you start to do so now.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Allow me to spoon-feed some of the truth you refuse to acknowledge:

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitri Peskov denied recent Western reports that Russia recently proposed freezing the conflict in Ukraine.[47] Peskov called Western reporting on the supposed proposal “untrue” and claimed that US involvement in Ukraine will not change the war’s course and that Russia will continue the war until all its goals are achieved.[48] Reuters reported on February 13, citing unnamed Russian sources, that the US rejected a ceasefire proposal from Russian President Vladimir Putin in late 2023 or early 2024.[49] An unnamed US source denied any official contact with Russia and reiterated that the US will not engage in peace negotiations with Russia that do not involve Ukraine.[50] ISW has yet to observe evidence that Russian officials are interested in good-faith peace negotiations with Ukraine but continues to observe signals that Russia may be open to bilateral discussions leading to the US abandonment of Ukraine.[51] Russian officials recently blamed the US for the absence of constructive peace negotiations to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as part of ongoing Kremlin efforts to frame the West as the only meaningful negotiating partner in Ukraine and convince the West to accept the Kremlin’s premise that Ukraine has no independent agency.[52] Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (VLA) Director General Kaupo Rosin stated on February 14 that the Kremlin is pushing the false narrative that Russia is interested in peace negotiations in the West in order to undermine Western military support for Ukraine.[53] ISW previously assessed that Russian statements suggesting that Russia is or always has been interested in peace negotiations are very likely efforts to feign interest to prompt preemptive Western concessions regarding Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.[54]

[Nige]

'If the goal is to fight RUS down to the last UKR, then say so.'

Since they don't say so, obviously it is not.

'Putin is ready to talk'

Not until he tells his troops to stop fighting, he's not.

'Russia is not a nice place, Nige'

Which is presumably among the reasons Ukrainians are fighting so hard to stay out of it.

[SimonP]

From what Hamas has said, they are also "amenable to agreement." Maybe Israel should talk to them?

[Commenter_XY]

Israel did talk to Hamas. Conversation goes like this.

Israel: Do you surrender?
Hama-sshole: We want to kill the Jews
Israel: Not a lot to work with here....can we talk?
Hama-sshole: We want to kill the Jews
Israel: Here is your one-way ticket on the Paradise Train to Allah. Enjoy the ride. Ain't no virgins where you are going...

[Nige]

Man, that sounded bad-ass in your head, I bet.

[SimonP]

Point went right over your empty head, didn't it?

[Commenter_XY]

No, it was bullet into the heads of Hamas members.

[Nige]

'Third, I never thought UKR was our fight'

Different thing entirely, but there's strategic reasons for it, no use pretending there aren't.

'From what Putin said in his interview, he is amenable to agreement. Maybe talk to the man quietly and find out what that means.'

For someone so performatively cynical about US politicians you sure are starry-eyed about this guy.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Ukraine will definitely not take back all of its territory, and Russia's manpower advantage over Ukraine is staggering and undisputed.

[OtisAH]

Well, if nothing else your English is pretty good.

[Michael Resanovic (still highly opinionated)]

If Afghanistan can wreck the Soviet Union, and Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan could severely strain the United States; Ukraine can wreck Russia.

Can you imagine the political fallout within Russia from losing Crimea?

[OtisAH]

Turns out to the surprise of no one that True the Vote, a “conservative” group who has claimed to have evidence and testimony proving ballot-stuffing allegations in Georgia, has no such proof and has never had any such proof. Their star witness known to us as “John Doe” who was said to have claimed to have actually participated in the ballot-stuffing antics also does not exist. I wonder if Georgia has any claims to recoup monies spent chasing this lie?

Anyway, True the Vote are frauds just like everyone who isn’t a gullible grundle-sniffing Turnip acolyte has always known.

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elections-true-vote-ballot-stuffing-199113b47bc2df79c63fdf007cd23115

[SRG2]

There will still be posters on the main Reason page who will insist that True the Vote, or some other similar group really really does have evidence of fraud, just as Lucy won't pull the ball away from Charlie Brown this next time.

[Nelson]

There is a cohort of posters here who are completely delusional and believe that Trump won the 2020 election and there was an aberrant level voter fraud, such that the election was stolen.

They will never change their minds, no matter how much evidence there is that nothing unusual happened.

[Zarniwoop]

Wow, it really is that bad. Since there will be people who refuse to sully their eyes with admissions in court by actual attorneys, the first 4 paragraphs are worth posting here:

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — A conservative group has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.

Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff.

A Fulton County Superior Court judge in Atlanta signed an order last year requiring True the Vote to provide evidence it had collected, including the names of people who were sources of information, to state elections officials who were frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence with investigators.

In their written response, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.

(emphasis added)

[Armchair]

sounds like they are protecting their sources.

[Sarcastr0]

Look a lot more like they have nothing.

What a weak attempt lol.

[Nige]

From perjuring themselves.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does Armchair claim to be a lawyer?

[dwb68]

Russians put nukes in Space!!

C'mon, is this really news? Are you telling me we don't have a few up there, and have since the 70s?

[Bored Lawyer]

So King Abdullah II of Jordan came to Washington last week. Met with the president, and then they had a press conference.
In addition to the usual, the King said, “Seven decades of occupation, death, and destruction have proven beyond any doubt that there can be no peace without a political horizon.”
Note the reference to “seven decades of occupation.” That’s well before Israel captured territories in 1967, which was 57 years ago.
IOW, the State of Israel, in its entirety, is an “occupation.” Tel Aviv is as much a settlement as any West Bank town.
And this isn’t some crank on the internet. This is the sovereign of a country that has a peace treaty with Israel since 1994.
(The same country, BTW, that occupied the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 and gave nary a thought to establishing a Palestinian state.)
One of the silver linings of the October 7 massacre and its aftermath is that the masks have fallen off: Israel itself, not its control of the West Bank, is something they view to be eliminated. Yes, the fellow travelers and Alice-in-Wonderland types in the State Department will tell you otherwise. Don’t believe it. The goal is to wipe out Israel. Period.

[ThePublius]

And, interestingly, Jordan wants none of the Gazan refugees, nor does Egypt, or any other ME country, as far as I am aware. What does that tell you?

[Moderation4ever]

It is important to remember that that if refugees leave Gaza, Israel will not likely let them return. I think that many ME counties understand this fact and that taking in these refugees is part of some, not all, Israelis desire to rid themselves of a Palestinian population. Therefore, a desire to provide short term refuge will have long term implications.

[ThePublius]

I don't think that's it, at all! I think it's that they know that many in Gaza are Hamas 'members' or sympathizers, and they will wreak havoc upon their host coutry, as they have done in the past! Remember Black September?

[Moderation4ever]

Do you think Israel will allow the return of refugees that leave after they have clear Hamas out of Gaza?

[Commenter_XY]

No. And good riddance.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Commenter_XY is an avid supporter of ethnic cleansing, as long as he's not the victim.

So was Hitler.

[Theendoftheleft]

So was Andrew Jackson.

[Nige]

The US was built on ethnic cleansing.

[Kazinski]

Do you think the fact that "refugees" and asylum seekers.to the US will likely never return should be a factor in us letting them in?

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden just gave Palestinian Arabs 18 months of protection from deportation and also they get work permits.

[Nige]

'Never *be allowed* to return.' Sure.

[John F. Carr]

King Abdullah sounds like American education officials. On January 7, 2021 a school assembly in my area opened with the ritual complaint that evil white men displaced noble red men four centuries ago. The principal got to the less important stuff like the Capitol riot later. She did not go on to try to give the land back or take the land back by force. It's political signalling.

[Commenter_XY]

Abdullah and hypocritical leaders like him sound like bleating sheep. They're about as effective as bleating sheep as well.

[Longtobefree]

Speaking of (roughly) seven decades, wasn't that how long ago the Arab nations were required to create a palistinian state and refused to do so, attacking the new nation of Israel instead?

[John F. Carr]

An MIT student group has been suspended for protesting in support of Gaza. Formally, for failing to get permission from university officials at least three days in advance of a protest. This follows complaints that the administration had sided with pro-Palestinian groups back in October.

In an email, the CAA [Coalition Against Apartheid] argued these rules either weren’t enforced, or didn’t exist, before their protests for Palestine. An MIT spokesperson said these rules are not new, and they “felt it important to amplify these guidelines” recently due to increased protesting activity last fall and an “unwillingness of certain groups to meet with us.”

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/02/14/pro-palestinian-group-suspended-mit-protest/

[Don Nico]

The group staged its undeclared protest well after MIT promulgated the rules governing protest demonstrations. They dug their own hole.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want to know what they DID.

They could have gone out to the sidewalk along Memorial Drive -- that's Mass DC&R land (formerly MDC) and MIT couldn't have touched them because they would have been off campus.

My guess is that they intended to be disruptive, again, and MIT said "no mas." Now let's see if they punish the individual students....

[Bwaaah]

I too want to know what they DID.

None of the allegations suggest anything other than that they protested without permission. There’s no mention of any kind of disruption having occurred. It seems that the mere violation of the policy requiring permission has resulted in the organization having lost all its formal sponsorship/privileges pending further review.

If anybody sees evidence of anything more than assembly and expression, I’m interested.

Clearly, MIT is allowed to regulate the use of its facilities. But it looks to me like the attack on wrong-think in universities continues, now with support of right and left-leaning constituencies. Sally Kornbluth does a fine job of coaching everybody on what good behavior looks like. In summary: “You are expected to treat those you hate with kindness and respect.”

Anyway…all controversies on campus are to be contained within properly adorned boxes.

[Don Nico]

They violated a clearly enunciated MIT policy.
That is sufficient for interim suspension pending final decision by the Committee on Discipline.

[Brett Bellmore]

There seems to be a shortage of media outlets interested in actually reporting what they did. The illusion that search engines will show you everything gets kind of thin on issues like this.

MIT Leaders Assembled a Faculty Advisory Group on Campus Anti-Semitism. Then They Ignored It.

"Unauthorized anti-Israel protests have plagued MIT’s campus in the months following Oct. 7.

One campus group, MIT Coalition Against Apartheid, organized an infamous November demonstration in which members occupied Lobby 7—a campus hub that leads to classrooms and faculty offices—for roughly 14 hours. School policy prohibits demonstrations in Lobby 7 and other areas of campus where protesters would disrupt classes, and MIT staff delivered slips of paper to protest participants informing them they would be suspended if they remained in the area. The protesters refused, and Kornbluth went on to water down her disciplinary threat, with students involved in the protest receiving a “non-academic suspension” that allowed them to continue attending class.

One month after the demonstration, Coalition Against Apartheid pledged to take “even stronger and even bigger” action against the Jewish state during the spring semester. “When we return next semester, we will … make sure that there will be no business as usual at MIT until Palestine is free! From the river to the sea,” the group wrote in a December Instagram post.

Coalition Against Apartheid made good on that threat Monday night, when it held an “emergency speakout” protesting an Israel Defense Forces mission that led to the rescue of two Hamas-held hostages. The group’s members also denounced MIT’s “Standing Together Against Hate” initiative, with one speaker saying he can have “no f—ing dialogue” with the Jewish state’s supporters, a video obtained by the Free Beacon shows.

“We’re tired of ‘Dialogues Across Difference,'” the speaker said, referencing the initiative’s speaker series. “There could be no f—ing dialogue across difference when bombs are being rained down from one side to destroy, annihilate, ethnically cleanse, and murder the entire people on the other side. What the f— are we gonna talk about?”"

Yeah, that really sounds like a group that's going to peacefully protest while minimizing the disruption of other students' activities. [/sarc]

[Bwaaah]

Usually, assholes like these capture and publish video of their stuff, or are captured by others on video. It's usually easy to find some evidence of their actual wrongdoing. I don't see any here. That's not just unusual, but unlikely, if they engaged in disruption of others. (There's a big, opposing constituency, all of whom possess phones to record bad behavior, and who have easy access to social media to get the scenes out there for sympathizers to see.)

I'm very careful to distinguish expression that offends me from actions that are illegal, as in 1A contours. University speech restrictions are narrower, and for that reason, mostly offend me.

Not many of us would have a problem with our enemies being silenced. And yet, most of us are likely to be somebody's enemy. So when silencers come for them, I am instinctively fearful that they will one day come for me.

To which I say, FUCK EM' ALL, including Good Sally and her advice. (But I do appreciate civility. I really do.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Essentially the held a protest on campus without obtaining a 'parade permit' first. Rather than being an orderly outside protest, they took over a campus building.

The last time they did this, they systematically blocked any student they suspected of being Jewish from entering the building. There's a shortage of detailed accounts, but it's reasonable to guess that the protest was intentionally disruptive of normal use of the building, since that's this group's routine form of 'protest' at MIT.

[Bwaaah]

My preference would be that the school would strictly enforce a policy that would punish people for having crossed a line from permissible expressive behavior to sanctionable behavior, such as harassment or disruption of school functions.

Instead of the school simply punishing prohibited behaviors, it has chosen to establish a policy that requires people to ask for permission to engage in non-sanctionable, expressive behavior. I view this as a prior restraint of expression, and a regrettable effect of their chosen enforcement mechanism

In this most recent case, it is not clear that the expressive behavior of the students had the same kind of sanctionable defects that their prior protests had. They did, however, violate the school's new policy in not having obtained permission to express themselves.

In either case, the school is, I believe, acting within its rights.

[Don Nico]

" I view this as a prior restraint of expression, and a regrettable effect of their chosen enforcement mechanism"
The first expressions by the group had to be dispersed to prevent physical violence.
MIT was gracious in not punishing students who did not disperse immediately. Instead they announced clear rules so that future demonstrations could be monitored to prevent any violence. The student group deliberately violated those rules. They got what they wanted.

[Commenter_XY]

Did the students give up their 1A rights?

BTW, I don't think Kornbluth is out of the woods yet.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

Did the students give up their 1A rights?

MIT is a private school. As such, it should be free to discipline its students however it wants for whatever it wants, including their speech.
(To the extent the law says otherwise, it should be changed.)

[Commenter_XY]

Do they get Federal money? Federal money comes with Federal strings attached.

[Don Nico]

Those strings do allow the receiving institutions to impose rules on access and conduct on their property.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yet....

[Bwaaah]

"Did the students give up their 1A rights?"

It seems pretty clear that MIT's speech policies are narrower than 1A protections. I believe what the students did, that which is now not permitted on campus, would be legal in any public space like a park or a sidewalk.

No. They didn't give up their 1A rights. They don't have 1A rights on MIT's campus.

[Don Nico]

Bwaaah,
You’re plain wrong. This group violated rules of conduct. NO ONE at MIT claimed that the content of their speech was the issue.

[Bwaaah]

As I said, "MIT is allowed to regulate the use of its facilities."

MIT does not provide the latitude of expression that the U.S. affords people, in public spaces, under the First Amendment.

What do I have wrong?

[Don Nico]

what you have wrong is
"MIT does not provide the latitude of expression that the U.S. affords people"
Unless you think that violation of trespass rules are withing the "latitude of expression."

[Bwaaah]

I said: "MIT does not provide the latitude of expression that the U.S. affords people, IN PUBLIC SPACES, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT."

Why did you chop off the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?

1A rights in public spaces are more expansive than speech rights on MIT's campus. I don't dispute the legality of that. This isn't a dispute over the legality of MIT's speech restrictions.

I prefer MIT *not* require students to get prior approval to protest, but that MIT punish students who abuse the freedom to protest through disruptions, harassment, etc. MIT already shit the bed by letting those twits violate already established policies in their previous escapades. This requirement for permission, a prior restraint on political expression, is an ass-backward solution to their failure to enforce existing rules that don't necessitate prior restraint.

But if you like a school that teaches students that they have to ask permission to express themselves, well, you've got it, and quite legally so.

[Bwaaah]

For example, if I want to get together with people in a park in order to carry signs and yell about stuff, I don't believe I need approval from the government.

[Don Nico]

You're correct.
But to do that on private property you need the consent of the owner. Why is that hard to understand?

[Bwaaah]

I said, "MIT is allowed to regulate the use of its facilities."

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[Don Nico]

As Kornbluth wroth, the matter is NOT about speech. It is about the conduct of violating content neutral rules of conduct.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, you don't get to take over campus buildings and exclude students, just because you happen to say stuff while doing it.

[Krayt]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, but you need to get a permit cool beans."

[Longtobefree]

Congress is not involved here, is it?

[SimonP]

Pressure campaign working as intended, then.

[Bwaaah]

Depending on who intends it this way, yes.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's relatively early but all things considered the comments have been surprisingly civil so far.

[ThePublius]

Yes. Arthur must have slept in. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure he's sad to disappoint his fan club.

[Mr. Bumble]

You would have been more accurate if you stopped with "sad".

[Bwaaah]

It's not too late for Resentful Arthur. I think I gave him some stuff to put up on his scoreboard this week. Unintended, but hey, I'm a clinger.

[Bwaaah]

Oops...I posted before I scrolled.

HE's HEEeere.

[apedad]

Trump will face a criminal jury next month after judge refuses to dismiss hush money case in New York, saying trial date is ‘certain’

“You don’t have a trial date in Georgia. You don’t have a trial date in Florida,” (New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan) Merchan said, referring to two other jurisdictions where the ex-president is facing criminal charges, before reportedly snapping at one of Trump’s lawyers for interrupting him.

The trial is expected to take six weeks and jury selection would begin March 25.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-will-face-a-criminal-jury-next-month-after-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-hush-money-case-in-new-york-saying-trial-date-is-certain/

This is the case while Trump was campaigning for the presidency in 2016, he approved a $130K payment to porn star Stormy Daniels but (allegedly) falsified business records to shield the payment.

Let the Games begin!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Let the Games begin!"
Yes, exactly. Games.

[Nige]

Hey, you elected a crooked reality show host for the lulz, so technically it's your clown, your circus.

[Krayt]

'member when Clinton had an affair, and it was no big deal to one side, but it was to the other, and lying about it deserved impeachment and removal from office?

Good times, good times!

[Bored Lawyer]

"had an affair" - funny way to spell perjury.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't even think Ken Starr saw it in such a formalist light.

[Commenter_XY]

And yet, it is true: perjury.

[Bwaaah]

Depends on what the meaning if "is" is.

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives upon a charge of perjury before the grand jury. The House Judiciary Committee recommended a separate charge of perjury during his discovery deposition in Paula Jones's civil lawsuit, but the full House voted against that charge.

The District Court presiding over the Jones lawsuit found Clinton in contempt for giving false testimony during the deposition. Clinton was never charged with perjury as a substantive crime.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right. He was never actually charged with perjury, he resigned from the AR bar before that could happen.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/

It is a fair point.

[Nige]

When did the perjury come in the sequence of Republican outrage over him having an affair in office? Wasn't much to show at the end of it all, was it?

[Bob from Ohio]

Sexual harassment of a subordinate.

[Nige]

They should have said so at the time, then. Not elect a famous misogynist.

[Moderation4ever]

This case is not really about having an affair, it really about how you pay off your mistresses. Do we care about how a rich man pays off his mistresses, no not really. But if you a candidate then it is important. A candidate doing it sloppily gets in trouble. Trump did not want a lawyer like Micheal Cohen doing the work. He needed an attorney with political experience who could have done the job correctly. I don't know if Trump was cheap or using poor judgement, but he now has a problem. I would add that throwing Michael Cohen to the wolves may also come back to haunt him.

[Krayt]

They tried to say the payoff was a non-trivial benefit to his campaign and should have been listed.

Maybe, but that’s weaponization of the concept of financial benefit. The dollars weren’t the issue, the silencing was, and was the benefit of value under the law.

What do the two incidents have in common? Oh, yeah. Dodge ’em cars bumping and weaving as defenders try to say why their guy’s case is minor and the other guy’s major and deserving of removal from office, or criminal prosecution, or something.

To quote Tatsumaki, “You disgust me. Leave.”

[Moderation4ever]

I still have a hard time understanding why Trump did not get this settled when he was President. This a campaign violation and these things are common and usually just result in a fine. So why not negotiate a fine, pay the fine, and be done. Instead, you leave the violation out there to be snapped up and your now in court. It strikes me as leaving the $30 parking ticket unpaid till you owe $300 and the state not willing to renew your divers license until you settle.

[Bored Lawyer]

Because Trump is a stubborn narcissist who believes himself above the law, and by his actions turns minor violations into major ones.

See his handling of the documents he took to Mar-A-Lago as another example.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes.

[M L]

Yes, and also, the people going after him are politically motivated, and any suggestion that he could just as easily settle it for a slap on the wrist like Obama did and other politicians routinely do is nonsense.

After all this, it's easier to understand why a politician can't just go into office and make big or even medium sized changes no matter how much the people may support those changes, if it goes against powerful interests. Like stopping illegal immigration or reducing immigration, reducing foreign interventionism, etc. Because it's basically a requirement that you are a billionaire, otherwise you will always be subject to financial ruination quite easily.

[Nige]

'and any suggestion that he could just as easily settle it for a slap on the wrist like Obama did and other politicians routinely do is nonsense.'

Not true, but if it were, he walked into that one with his eyes open

[Bwaaah]

Yes.

[Kazinski]

Its not being charged as a campaign violation, nor has the FEC even alleged a campaign violation.

[David Nieporent]

I'm shocked. Shocked. Well, not that shocked.

Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing.

“Once again, True the Vote has proven itself untrustworthy and unable to provide a shred of evidence for a single one of their fairy-tale allegations,” Raffensperger spokesman Mike Hassinger said Wednesday. “Like all the lies about Georgia’s 2020 election, their fabricated claims of ballot harvesting have been repeatedly debunked.”

True the Vote’s assertions were relied upon heavily for “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked film by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. A State Election Board investigation found that surveillance camera footage that the film claimed showed ballot stuffing actually showed people submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.

[Bored Lawyer]

Whenever I think of Trump nowadays, I think of an old Jewish joke from Eastern Europe.

A young rabbi is appointed rabbi of a town. He moves in with his wife and children, and then the gabbai (a lay assistant) comes in and says, "Mr. X just died. As rabbi, you are giving the eulogy."

As the young rabbi just moved into town, he did not know Mr. X, and so decides to interview other townspeople to find out about Mr. X. But to his dismay they only have bad things to say about him. "He beat his wife and children." "He cheated in business." "He was a miser who gave no charity."

So he comes to the eulogy and announces: "Does anyone here have anything good to say about Mr. X? Anyone?" He is greeted with silence. "Townspeople, I am shocked no one can say a good word for the deceased."

One man timidly raises his hand in the back, and says, "I can say something. His brother was even worse!"

[SRG2]

And to keep with the Jewish joke-telling tradition, the version I heard had the deceased's wife pleading with the rabbi to say that her husband was a saint - with the promise of a large contribution. So he goes through all the bad things the man did, and then says, "but compared to his brother, he was a saint!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Not bad.

[Michael P]

Good(?) news: Joe Biden is importing people to do jobs at wages that American workers don't want (but big companies do). https://cis.org/Report/Employment-Situation-Immigrants-and-USborn-Fourth-Quarter-2023

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, let's see.
It's good news for:
- big companies
- illegal aliens
- Joe Biden & co. (they get lots of support from big companies and, eventually, electoral support from the "new Americans")
It's obviously bad news for the (existing) American workers.

[David Nieporent]

It's good news for American consumers; you seem to have forgotten about that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not as they go deeper and deeper into debt...

[Nelson]

Maybe you should learn to budget better.

[Nige]

There's a glaring question at the heart of that. I wonder what it is.

[not guilty]

The trial judge in New York has declined to dismiss the indictment against Donald Trump. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf Jury selection will begin March 25.

I may have more after reading the order.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not a surprise. The standard for such a dismissal is very hard, so long as the evidence presented to the grand jury was enough to make out a case, it goes forward. As a judge told one of my adversaries once, "I am sure they know how to draft a complaint."

Interestingly, in NY the defendant can ask to review the grand jury record, and challenge the sufficiency of the evidence there. Very different in federal criminal practice, where grand jury proceedings are strictly secret, and it is rare that a defendant gets to see the testimony.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, how does that work = Interestingly, in NY the defendant can ask to review the grand jury record, and challenge the sufficiency of the evidence there.

If a defendant says, "Yep, I wanna review it" - how long do they get?

[Bored Lawyer]

Here is the provision:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/210.30

No specific timetable, but I assume they would have to give defense counsel enough time to review and incorporate into a motion to dismiss.

[Commenter_XY]

That could be a long time = review

But I think Merchan would deny the motion.

[Ridgeway]

Reading "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson (1988).

What a phenomenal book.

Detailed and scholarly but in beautifully clear prose, and very fair (at least to my eyes).

I am up to the election of 1860. I wonder how things are gonna turn out for Lincoln.

[Magister]

OK, but no spoilers!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yeah, I'm still mad someone blurted out the ending of *The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.*

[Bwaaah]

Don’t tell me. Haven't read it yet.

[David Nieporent]

It was a sled.

[Magister]

Well, that's a relief. I wasn't going to read it when someone returning it at the library told me Adolf Hitler was Captain America's father.

[Nelson]

I took a Civil War history class from him in college. Damn did that man understand the Civil War. He was amazing to learn from. Kinda a dick as a person, but a fascinating professor.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He won a Nelson award in 2002.

[Ridgeway]

Stealth gloat 😉

[Nelson]

No, it's just me pointing out that he wasn't just someone who could make points and be brilliant when he has a year to edit his words, he was just as good, with just as string a grasp of knowledge, in real time. I was trying to let people know that he was the whole package and give him props.

[M L]

Many such posts. Sad.

I'm so bitter.
The trans community says that if you detransition and regret what you did to yourself you have no one to blame but you. But I was TEN. I was ten years old, obese, and already looked more like a boy than a girl. I despised myself. The internet told me this was the way out, gave me tips on hiding from my parents who wanted nothing but for me to not make a huge mistake. I'm 17 now, my breasts are completely stunted, I have a severe eating disorder, and I've never had a boyfriend. I ruined myself at 10 years old and the community that once encouraged me now turns their back and ridicules me. I'm so bitter
https://twitter.com/reddit_lies/status/1592638265232064512

[SRG2]

Has this sad tale been verified?

[Bwaaah]

It's on the internet.

[Nelson]

Well then it's true. Everything on the internet, especially on hot button issues, is 100% true.

[Nige]

'The trans community says that if you detransition and regret what you did to yourself you have no one to blame but you'

No they don't and no-one fully transitions when they're ten.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige 3 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User “No they don’t and no-one fully transitions when they’re ten.”

Nige – starting the process of transitioning at age ten is evil – 5th grade. Far too much long term damage is caused at that age. Children that age are highly impressionable and are easily misled.

[Nelson]

And that's why the story is probably BS. No one transitions at 10. Puberty blockers aren't even used until, you know, puberty. This reads like an anti-trans person trying to create a manufactured outrage, but they're too ignorant about biology to pull it off. Like most anti-trans people.

[Brett Bellmore]

When Should Puberty Start in Girls and Boys?

“Puberty normally occurs in a series of five stages (Tanner stages) that typically begin between the ages of 8 and 13 for girls and 9 and 14 for boys. For girls, the average age for puberty to start is 10 1/2 years, For boys, it begins at an average age of 11 1/2 to 12 years.

…

Recent studies have shown that puberty is occurring at an increasingly earlier age in children. These changes in timing may be due to environmental and other societal factors.”

Overweight/Obesity in Childhood and the Risk of Early Puberty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

"Results showed that childhood overweight/obesity were associated with a significantly higher risk of early puberty in girls [odds ratio (OR): 2.22, 95% CI: 1.65–2.99]."

The idea that nobody, let alone an overweight girl, would be undergoing puberty at age ten is amazingly ignorant.

[Nige]

And it's probably something to be treated with puberty blockers, but has nothing to do with transitioning.

[Nelson]

“normally occurs”

And? Are you claiming that was the case in this instance? Or are you using the cultural conservative idiocy that says that if something COULD happen (even if only in the most fringe cases), we must assume that is HAS happened unless proved otherwise. People who want details and facts like “is that what happened in this case?” are, in the cultural conservative mind, asking for too much.

Disingenuous is the kindest way to describe cultural conservatives. If you want to be a social conservative, have at it. Do what you want, it’s a free country. But if you want to force your social beliefs on the culture at large, fuck off.

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson - trans activists depend heavily on distorting and mischaracterizing individuals who oppose trans treatment.

Your comment about anti--trans people being too ignorant about biology highlights the problems the pro-trans activists advocate.

The reality is that pro -trans activists are the ones ignorant about biology.

[Nige]

How can they be mischaracterising anti-trans people when one of them posted this vile lie while others spread it around? They're horrible.

[Tom for equal rights]

destroying a person's life to advance an agenda is horrible.
destroying an opportunity for an mentally ill person of any chance to return to normal is horrible.

[Nige]

Yes, anti-trans people go all-out to destroy trans peoples' lives, it is evil.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 12 mins ago
Yes, anti-trans people go all-out to destroy trans peoples’ lives, it is evil.

Nige - the Anti-biology activist - Only in the tortured mind of a trans activist is trying to prevent the permanent destruction of a human body, trying to prevent a medical procedure that destroys a persons chance to ever return to normal considered destroying a persons life.

According to the gospel of trans activist Nige, destroying a persons body is compassionate.

[Nige]

Pretty sure the anti-biology stance is pretending that it isn't a recognised medical condition with an established series of treatments and that the outcomes tend to be overwhelmingly positive. Otherwise you wouldn't need gortesque lies like the one above.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 5 seconds ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Pretty sure the anti-biology stance is pretending that it isn’t a recognised medical condition with an established series of treatments and that the outcomes tend to be overwhelmingly positive. Otherwise you wouldn’t need gortesque lies like the one above.

Nige - you keep repeating the statement of the overwhelming positive outcomes. Studies with serious flaws in the methodology, serious problems in the data. You keep repeating that falsehood even after numerous other have pointed to you the pathetic data quality of those studies.

Transgender is not a recognized medical condition. It is a mental disease. Distorting that fact demonstrates the evilness of the trans activist agenda

[Nige]

You and other anti-trans folk fail to ever provide a shred of evidence to the contrary, just as you fail to provide evidence of anyone ever pressured or forced into transitioning. That's why you make up vile lies.

And you are, obviously, lying about gender dysphoria being a recognised medical condition.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige cant even admit that transgender is a mental illness. Like all activists, he has to distort the obvious

[Tom for equal rights]

August 30, 2020
Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health
Allowing scientific debate in transgender medicine improves evidence basis

In October 2019, the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) published a study from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the Yale School of Public Health which reported that “gender-affirming" surgeries for gender dysphoric patients are associated with improved mental health outcomes (1). Looking at mental health utilization in the year 2015, a retrospective analysis showed that the more time passed since surgery, the fewer mental services were utilized by patients, with an average 8% reduction in mental health utilization for each year following surgery. From this, the study concluded that surgery has a beneficial effect on mental health, and that benefits continue to accrue over time. However, following a reanalysis of the data, this conclusion has now been officially corrected to indicate that there is “no advantage of surgery.”

[Nige]

And yet, this is still not a negative result, and gender dysphoria is still classed as a medical condition.

[Tom for equal rights]

Current Concerns About Gender-Affirming Therapy in Adolescents
Open access
Published: 14 April 2023
Volume 15, pages 113–123, (2023)

Recent Findings
Systematic reviews of evidence conducted by public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and England concluded that the risk/benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavorable. As a result, there has been a shift from “gender-affirmative care,” which prioritizes access to medical interventions, to a more conservative approach that addresses psychiatric comorbidities and psychotherapeutically explores the developmental etiology of the trans identity. Debate about the safety and efficacy of “gender-affirming care” in the USA is only recently emerging.

Summary
The question, “Do the benefits of youth gender transitions outweigh the risks of harm?” remains unanswered because of a paucity of follow-up data. The conclusions of the systematic reviews of evidence for adolescents are consistent with long-term adult studies, which failed to show credible improvements in mental health and suggested a pattern of treatment-associated harms. Three recent papers examined the studies that underpin the practice of youth gender transition and found the research to be deeply flawed.

[Nige]

And yet again, not a negative result. There isn't really a 'debate' about this. There is medical practice and research, and there are screaming transphobes like yourself.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - numerous commentators have pointed out those "positive outcome" studies are crap.
Additionally two studies showing those positive studies are crap
Yet you still wont even admit its a mental illness

those men will always remain men, they will still need the prostate exam. There zero medical science that shows you can change biology.

[Nige]

Still no massive negative data to match your hyperbolic mania.

I’m just going by what the medical establishment says, you do you.

In your eyes I’m sure, but you can fuck off and mind your own business and let them live their lives – it’s clear your ‘concerns’ are driven by raging hatred and irrational resentment, and not much else.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - compassionate individuals strongly prefer treatment for trans individuals that provide the chance to return to a normal life

Trans activists such as yourself prefer to foist a treatment that destroys any possibility to ever returning to normal.

Its the activists that are evil.

[Nige]

People like yourself want to force trans people to live the life *you* think they should live, in accordance with your narrow and willfully ignorant conception of what is ‘normal.’ At no point do you take the wishes or thoughts or opinions of trans people into account. Because it’s all about what you want. Which is fucked up.

[Nelson]

"destroying a person’s life to advance an agenda is horrible."

That isn't happening, Chicken Little. Detransitioning and regret in trans people is very rare.

[Nelson]

"trans activists depend heavily on distorting and mischaracterizing individuals who oppose trans treatment."

You mean anti-trans people don't make wild claims about the frequency and age that trans people start treatment, the type of transition they undergo (social, hormonal, surgical), the appropriateness of the treatment for a patient, the morality, intelligence, and abusiveness of parents who choose to let their children transition (again, over 99% non-surgical) or any one of dozens of other false assumptions, claims, accusations, medical facts, and claims of moral lack in those who support doctors and parents making medical decisions for their children?

Oh, wait. Anti-trans people do all those despicable things, and more, in their self-righteous and completely ignorant attacks on parents and doctors.

Anti-trans people, like the anti-gay, anti-black, and anti-legal immigration people, are morally bankrupt, intentionally misleading, phenomenally ignorant, and authoritarian. If you don't like trans people, don't be one. But don't try to force others to accept your indefensible bullshit.

[Nige]

Lying about it is evil, too. And since nobody transitions when they’re ten, the only thing real here is the lie.

[Nelson]

Be precise, Nige. Social transitioning is one type of transitioning and, of the people who transition at 10, that is what they are doing. Puberty blockers (which have virtually no permanent developmental side effects when ceased) are a possibility for the small number of patients who are starting puberty, but hormone replacement and surgery isn't done on patients that age.

The anti-trans folks rely on word games like pretending that "transitioning" means surgery. Don't be dishonest like them.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, you linked another vile twitter account posting a screenshot of reddit telling a questionable story.

When did truth stop mattering to you, if a lie made you angry enough?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It appears the proprietor isn’t the only one with a trans fetish around here.

Differing trans fetishes, though, perhaps.

Carry on, clingers

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : “When did truth stop mattering to you, if a lie made you angry enough?”

It’s not complicated :

1. Today’s Right finds anger entertaining.
2. Today’s Right is all about entertainment – nothing else matters.
3. Like with spectators at a pro-wrestling match, phoniness is irrelevent.

Hell, it’s actually an asset. It’s so much easier to get your tiny little heart pounding with exhilarating rage when the subject is untethered from reality. None of those pesky facts get in the way. Do you think people shrieking themselves red-faced at a WWE event could sit thru a real college wrestling match? Of course not. Like today’s Right-winger, the more cartoon, the better.

They want to be entertained, damn it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I thought I'd seen it all -- all the ways that colleges could screw up.
But then this...
https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/15/school-lists-female-students-virgins-leaking-online-20284259/

Why would you even WANT a list of virgins???

[David Nieporent]

This is in Kazakhstan. Why would you care?

[Longtobefree]

Any volcanos nearby?

[John F. Carr]

A quote from the movie Kids (1995) comes to mind: "Virgins. I love 'em. No diseases, no loose as a goose pussy, no skank. No nothin. Just pure pleasure." That was a good movie. A comment on IMDB summarizes it well: "A journey through the life of a messed up group of NYC kids." The line is spoken by one of the more messed up kids.

Since I'm not planning to visit Kazakhstan I won't bother getting a copy of the list. I'm skeptical of the test methodology too. Does it have too many false positives or too many false negatives?

[tylertusta]

Fani Willis’s testimony is just *chef’s kiss*

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing blog
with a thin, misappropriated
academic veneer has operated
for no more than

TWO

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

EIGHT (8)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least eight discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not just eight racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs,)

This blog is exceeding its
deplorable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published disgusting, vile
racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers probably miss
some of the racial slurs
this blog regularly publishes;
it would be unreasonable to
expect to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
Islamophobic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile. The report that George W. Bush had this one on his playlist is one of the strangest points I have encountered.

This is a good one, too. That Creedence Clearwater Revival never had a number one single is almost as baffling as George W. Bush's listening habits.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones rare bits, by request:

First, recapturing some Exile on Main Street-Sticky Fingers sound for a good cause.

Second, an early version of an open G standout. In the right hands, two strings suffice. (Or, as Keith put it, 'five strings, three notes, two hands, and one asshole . . .')

[BrotherMovesOn]

Excellent

[Ridgeway]

I am not the hugest fan of the 70s-and-laterStones, but I think a big part of that is that Aftermath (US and UK versions), among others during that period, was so incredibly good, that it couldn't be matched. They set the bar too high too soon.

Agree on CCR. They are the Vermeer of US rock-n-roll: Not a huge catalog, but 90%+ of their songs are pure gold.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, Get Yer Ya Ya's Out, and Some Girls advocate persuasively on behalf of the Stones of the '70s.

Goats Head Soup, It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, and Black and Blue have some gems. Love You Live is very strong -- take another crack at the El Mocambo side.

The 1970s was a strong decade for the Rolling Stones.

Let It Bleed, perhaps the Stones' most consistent work, was issued a month shy of the '70s.

[Ridgeway]

I do like me some Monkey Man, and LiB in general is amusing for tweaking the Beatles and their sactimony a bit. I just don't think the later albums quite measure up. YMMV.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here's Monkey Man from a special perspective.

[Michael P]

Literary recognition groups like the Hugo Awards should avoid doing business in China: https://www.404media.co/leaked-emails-show-hugo-awards-self-censoring-to-appease-china/

[Nige]

The major scandal there is that the Chinese didn't do anything, the commitee did it themselves. It's a bit like how Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes because Republicans will retaliate. You're supposed to *anticipate* the authoritarian response, and act accordingly.

[Nelson]

Shocking news! The FBI informant, an anti-Biden businessman, that claimed Burisma bribed Joe Biden with $5 million was lying. Who could have ever imagined that the "Joe Biden is corrupt" narrative is false?

Oh wait, everyone with a brain.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/15/fbi-informant-charged-with-lying-about-joe-and-hunter-biden-00141784

[MoreCurious]

Any bets on when our loyal Trump cultists will try to try refute this news? My prediction: never. Why not?: they're gutless wonders.

[Armchair]

I wonder why charges weren't brought against Christopher Steele...

[Nige]

Is it because he didn't commit any crimes?

[Michael P]

Or Joe Biden, who repeatedly lied about whether he ever met with Hunter's business partners, spoke with Hunter about Hunter's influence-peddling / bribery schemes, whether his family ever made money from China, and so forth. But those lies are (D)ifferent.

[Nige]

Except he didn't lie about any of it, and certainly didn't perjure himself. I get that you're helping build whatever fake case Trump's hoping to throw at him, but it's still all fakery. Maybe it won't matter that it's fake when Trump's in charge, as he has promised, since none of the lies about Clinton ever did him any good in his private court cases against her, and maybe that's the whole point.

[Michael P]

Joe Biden absolutely did lie about these things. See https://news.yahoo.com/least-14-hunter-biden-business-123916913.html and https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-repeatedly-denied-discussing-business-deals-hunter-evidence-suggests-otherwise

[Nige]

I've heard these claims a few times from Kazinski, they always turned out to be dubious at best (there's the importance of double checking) and there's definitely no sign of perjury. Remember, Biden's claim is that he knew nothing about Hunter's business dealings. 'Meeting business associates' doesn't amount to 'knowing about business dealings' since a meeting can encompass a quick handshake and a photo-op.

You want someone arrested for something they didn't do because someone else got arrested for something they did do, which sums up the current conservative concepts of justice and morality in a nutshell.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm unclear as to how the Fani Willis situation is a conflict of interest. She might have violated her office's ethics but I don't see how giving favors to her boyfriend (such as handing him the prosecution) compromises the prosecution or compromises Trump's defense.

[MoreCurious]

If I understand it correctly, the conflict would have arisen if there was evidence that he treated her to lavish gifts, dinners, and vacations. I felt she sounded credible today when she essentially testified that she paid her own way and reimbursed him for expenses that he incurred. Besides, if you believe her and Nathan Wade, their "romantic" relationship didn't begin until after he was already appointed. Stupid: maybe. But conflict of interest: I doubt the judge will see it that way.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I felt she sounded credible today when she essentially testified that she paid her own way and reimbursed him for expenses that he incurred."

In cash with no documentation, when she had a tax lien against her?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t see how that would be a conflict of interest. I mention this because the news stories all use that phrase but don’t explain why it applies here.

[Armchair]

It acts as a fiscal incentive for her to bring the prosecution. No prosecution, no payday for her boyfriend.

[Dan Schiavetta]

She could hardly not bring that prosecution.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I felt she sounded credible today when she essentially testified that she paid her own way and reimbursed him for expenses that he incurred.

Every bit as credible as Jussie Smollett.

[Armchair]

It acts as a fiscal incentive for her to bring the prosecution.

If she brings the prosecution, she can pay her boyfriend large amounts of money, and he will in turn spend that on/with her.

If she doesn't bring the prosecution, she can't pay her boyfriend.

[Nige]

That's just another way of saying she has a fiscal incentive to work for a living.

[Armchair]

She's got a job regardless. But hiring a special prosecutor for a special case, and handing that special prosecutor job to her boyfriend at inflated rates of pay....that's a conflict of interest.

This isn't complicated stuff. But let's use a different example for you, if that's OK. Imagine you're a government employee, a city manager. Imagine you need to pick a company to handle towing responsibilities for the city. You can go with any of a number of options. But instead, you pick the company that is run by your boyfriend, even though he has no experience in it, and his quoted rates were 3 times higher than the competition.

It's a conflict of interest. You're using your personal relationship to drive the contract (of taxpayer money) towards your boyfriend.

Get it?

[Nige]

It's unethical, corrupt, even, but I'm not seeing a specific conflict of interest, sorry.

[Michael P]

None so blind as who will not see.

Willis and Wade benefit from every hour he bills in these prosecutions. That puts a thumb on the scale of "should this be prosecuted?", which is supposed to be purely a question of the public interest.

[Nige]

Yes, that just means they benefit from her working and her appointing him to something. There's nothing *specific* about the case you're concerned with, so far.

[Michael P]

Nathan Wade was appointed specifically to these cases, not to others. If he had been appointed to handle others, this conflict of interest would exist in those as well.

[Armchair]

Exactly

[Nige]

Any case he'd be appointed to would be the specific case he was appointed to, this is circular logic, leaving out any actual substantive claim.

[Michael P]

Nige, what threshold of specificity do you think is required before a conflict of interest exists? You're arm-waving at an idea that doesn't have any obvious basis in law. The argument here isn't that Trump or other defendants were specially discriminated against (although they were), but that Willis has a conflict of interest because she appointed her boyfriend to do this work, and that's corroborated by both his lack of relevant experience and his high hourly rate.

[Nige]

I'm saying that benefitting someone unethically in the process of bringing a case does not mean there's a conflict of interest in the case itself, just in the behaviour towards the person benefitted. If you can show that she initiated this massively high-profile case purely so she could benefit him, then you have a point. Till then, not so much. Which is not to say that it wasn't an act of epic self-sabotage.

[Michael P]

Nige, what you're describing would be bringing a case for an improper purpose (enriching a friend or relation), but "conflict of interest" is much broader. See, for example, Standard 3-1.7(f) at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/:

The prosecutor should not permit the prosecutor’s professional judgment or obligations to be affected by the prosecutor’s personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other interests or relationships. A prosecutor should not allow interests in personal advancement or aggrandizement to affect judgments regarding what is in the best interests of justice in any case.

[Nige]

Absolutely. Now prove it extends beyond just basic cronyism. Or maybe that's sufficent for the relevant legal standard, I don't know. We'll see.

[Armchair]

As a government employee, hiring or contracting with someone you have a family or romantic relationship with is almost always going to be a conflict of interest.

You're setting the government's financial interests (in getting the best deal) against your own financial interests (in helping out your family member/romantic partner).

[Nige]

Yes, but the conflict of interest lies in the unethical behaviour in relation to that person, ie giving them beneficial treatment because of who they are, not in relation the cases you're dealing with.

[Armchair]

OK, now you see the conflict of interest at least.

Now, let's imagine a different situation. As a city manager you want to be able to pay your boyfriend for some services. But, your boyfriend is an artist. So, as the city manager, what you do is you CREATE a project which will be painting murals on buildings, for the sole purpose of getting money to your boyfriend.

The project really only exists because its a means to pay your boyfriend taxpayer money. And if your boyfriend wasn't around, the project wouldn't exist either. What's the status of the project when the conflict is found out?

[Nige]

All you have to do is *prove* that the project was conceived and funded purely for that purpose and not something that was on the cards anyway or not outside the normal exercise of her powers. That is, if you were for some reason focused on denouncing the project itself rather than the behaviour. Same as here. Which is different from doing what you were going to do anyway, but benefitting someone unethically on the side. We'll just see how this turns out.

[Armchair]

"All you have to do is *prove* that the project was conceived and funded purely for that purpose"

It's actually a different standard. You can almost always come up with some rationalization to do a project. But there are competing interests, limited resources, etc. The standard is, what would someone who did not have those fiscal incentives do?

[Bored Lawyer]

It's worth noting here that the conflict of interest involved is not the usual one. Generally, lawyers can't represent divergent interests. Like suing a current or former client, or representing two parties in a transaction or litigation that have different interests.

There is no claim here that being adverse to Trump and the other defendants creates a conflict of interest.

The issue here is that a prosecutor represents the State (or in federal cases, the United States). The party in interest is the State itself. The State has laws about who gets to represent it and who gets to make decisions about whom to prosecute and how. Part of that is insisting that those decisions be made by someone with no personal interest in the decision. If these decisions are tainted by personal interest, then there is a conflict -- between the prosecutor and his or her client, the State.

[David Nieporent]

What you say isn't wrong, but it proves too much. Every prosecutor has some "personal interest" in the prosecution in a high profile, high stakes case. At the very least, it will benefit their careers if they win, especially if their jobs are elected positions (which Willis's is).

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, but winning the case is does not generate a conflict of interest the same as having government funds siphoned to your friends and relatives. In every case, the prosecutor wants to win, and winning is good for that person's career.

[Ridgeway]

The related issue is that it is not the defendant (Trump) being harmed by the conflict. The harm (if any) is to the public.

The reason we don't want government officials hiring friends and family is that we believe the work will be overpriced or substandard, because the transactions were not at arms length.

If anything, Trump would benefit from Wills' hiring an incompetent boy-toy.

In other circumstances, I could see an argument that a particular prosecution was just "make work" for the boy-toy, and would not have been brought but for that relationship. That does not seem to be remotely the case here. I doubt anyone questions Wills' sincerity in wanting to throw the proverbial book at Trump. They may question the merits of her case, but not her desire to put Trump in jail.

[Nige]

'The reason we don’t want government officials hiring friends and family '

Trump excepted, obviously.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's a bingo.

If these right-wing hayseeds don't learn to keep their gloves up, the culture war is going to become even less sporting than it has been for the past few decades.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not only that. Prosecutors enjoy considerable discretion. That discretion should be exercised in the public interest. Not the interest of making money for your friends.

Would another Georgia prosecutor have gone after Trump on the same facts? We don't know.

[Ridgeway]

"Would another Georgia prosecutor have gone after Trump on the same facts? We don’t know."

I dont think that is the right question.

The right question is: Would Willis have brought the same charges and spent the same amounts of money if she had not been having an affair with any of her subordinates/outside prosecutors?

[Armchair]

Yep. The special prosecutor made more than $600,000 from the taxpayers in Fulton County. Meanwhile, Fulton county still has a very large backlog of criminal cases.

Some might think that $600,000 could have been better spent clearing up that backlog.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’m unclear as to how the Fani Willis situation is a conflict of interest.

Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher how launching a major prosecution that involves hiring your thoroughly unqualified bed partner at well-above going rates who then proceeds to spend boatloads of that taxpayer-funded compensation on you could possibly be viewed as a conflict of interest.

[mydisplayname]

What? Me worry?
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/289784/what-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-what-me-worry-it-isnt-mad-magazine

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Unsurprisingly, the whole “recycling plastic” thing is a a hoax, more or less like "filter-tip" cigarettes, which are no better for you than other cigarettes.

[Nige]

Greenwashing is a pox on our civilisation.

[Michael P]

Is the "Center for Climate Integrity" the same outfit as "Pay Up Climate Polluters", and is it headed by the same Richard Wiles who has been a professional crank since co-founding the "Environmental Working Group" that also regularly lies and distorts science in its advocacy?

[Nige]

Are you saying plastic recycling as it currently operates isn’t mostly a cover for dumping plastic waste on poorer countries?

[Michael P]

I'm saying that if those people told me the sun rises in the east, I would double check the assertion.

I mean, the American Chemistry Council called this report flawed and based on outdated information. They're American! And a Council! Could they possibly have any ulterior agenda in debunking a report with a transparent ulterior agenda?

[Nige]

You should always double check assertions, that's just sensible, but given some of your claims elsewhere, I question your checking abilities. The plastics scam has been well known for a while now, along with the carbon offsetting scam and the carbon credits scam. None of these things *need* to be scams, that's just how corporations and their pet politicians roll.

[Frank Drackman]

Parkinsonian Joe visiting Palestine today, wait till he realizes it's the one in Ohio. Selenelion!

Frank

[grb]

Alexei Navalny is dead. Can you imagine the courage it took to return to Russia after Putin's assassination attempt? He must have known the high risk he'd be murdered.

[Bwaaah]

Was it courage? Or was coercion?

Everybody knows that enemies of Putin have a propensity to jump out of windows. Less known is that friends and family members of enemies of Putin also have a propensity to jump out of windows.

"Come home, Mr. Navalny. Your fate is here."

[Nige]

Brave either way. Still, as Trump said, Putin can do as he likes, with his encouragement.

[Bwaaah]

It's always about *you*, isn't it, Nige? Always about you.

[Nige]

What an odd thing to say.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bwaaah mostly flails.

[Commenter_XY]

Navalny was hard core; I admire that.

[Nelson]

I always wonder what makes some people persecuted and killed by evil regimes into martyrs and what makes some just disappear into history. I hope Navalny proves to be one of the former, not the latter. He was a man of immense courage and conviction.

[David Nieporent]

The fraud ruling is in. Trump has to pay $355 million and is barred from running a company in NY for three years. His two adult (chronologically, anyway) sons are barred for two years. And the court ordered monitor remains in place at the Trump Organization.

He will appeal, obviously, but he has to put up a bond to stay execution on the judgment.

[Armchair]

Not a surprise, given the judge and his previous actions.

[Nige]

D'you think Trump's tactics inside and outside the courtroom paid off?

[Armchair]

I think Arthur Engoron's mind was made up before the trial even started, and nothing Trump did was going to do anything to change it.

The appeals court may (likely will) view things differently. The fine is grossly out of proportion to the actual damages. Allowing a fine and verdict like this to stand will dramatically hurt business in NY in the long run.

[Nige]

Of course you do. That's what everyone who supports Trump thinks about every judge who finds against him.

[David Nieporent]

Just think of all the businesses that will be deterred from committing fraud if this stands!

[Armchair]

Oh businesses will be deterred...from doing business in New York.

Much of this "fraud" consisted of people with different interpretations of the value of a property. And properties will differ wildly in value from year to year, and from assessed (for tax purposes) to actual. To say Mar-a-Lago was only worth $27 Million in 2020...whatever its assessed value was for tax purposes...is simply wrong.

There are plenty of New Yorkers with Florida homes which likewise have low assessed values (for tax purposes) that they're borrowing against in home equity loans or second mortgages or other items at the estimated market price. Now they're all "committing fraud" against the state of New York. And that doesn't even speak to businesses which have properties elsewhere that they're borrowing against at values that may differ from "official" values.

If you have business in NY...I'd get out of dodge.

[David Nieporent]

Much of this “fraud” consisted of people with different interpretations of the value of a property.

False. All of the fraud consisted of Trump lying about the value of a property, making claims with no factual basis at all.

And properties will differ wildly in value from year to year, and from assessed (for tax purposes) to actual. To say Mar-a-Lago was only worth $27 Million in 2020…whatever its assessed value was for tax purposes…is simply wrong.

I mean, you don't have the foggiest idea what the property is worth, so I don't know how you can claim it's "simply wrong." What you don't get is that outside the realm of armchairs, and inside an actual courtroom, one needs evidence. Trump presented no admissible evidence about the value of Mar-a-Lago, so it would have been hard for him to prevail on a summary judgment motion.

[David Nieporent]

Obviously many Trump supporters are shameless liars, or they wouldn't be Trump supporters. But I do think a lot of low-information Trump supporters think this is a situation in which there were competing appraisals and Trump's being punished for using the higher ones. We're all likely familiar with trying to secure a mortgage or home equity loan, and one appraisal says $650,000, and a subsequent one says $690,000. And it would be pretty outrageous to prosecute someone for claiming the home is worth $690,000 in that situation. But that's not remotely the facts of the Trump fraud.

These were just outright lies. Like Trump had an appraisal that said one of his properties was worth $35 million, and Trump — based on nothing — just wrote down on his financial statement that the property was worth $90 million. (Those aren't exact numbers, but that's the type and scale of the fraud he was engaged in.) Anybody who is interested should read the summary judgment decision from a month or two ago, as well as the court's decision from yesterday.

[Kenneth Almquist]

An example from page 21 of the recent ruling: Allen Weisselberg told Claudia Markarian that the valuations in the 2018 and 2019 SFCs were determined by professional appraisers, even though they weren't. Weisselberg also made misrepresented the amount of cash on hand. Those were lies, not disputes about valuations.

[Magister]

I'm not familiar with securing mortgages for properties worth more than $600,000; I'm only familiar with banks choosing their own appraisals when I got a mortgage against homes or business properties worth less than that. Truly, the slightly richer are different from me.

[Magister]

In fairness, the actual value of Mar-a-Lago might depend on the value of classified documents stored behind the drywall, and Trump could hardly be expected to present evidence like that. Just sayin'!

[David Nieporent]

The thing about the value of Mar-a-Lago — besides the fact that Trumpkins are lying when they say that the state claimed the property was only worth $18 million — is that Trump permanently deeded away the rights to develop the property (for the purpose of lowering his property taxes), and yet for the purpose of the financial statements, pretended that he could legally develop the property.

[Nige]

Or the guy who had a fraudulent university and a fraudulent charity committed more fraud. Also, he's a rapist.

[Magister]

And an insurrectionist.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Or, you know, those pesky facts you never engage with.

Poor babies, the both of you.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, remember all the ink electrons Brett Bellmore and other Trumpkins here spilled inventing fantastical scenarios where the Trump Organization would be liquidated for pennies on the dollar, just to spite Trump?

Well, Engoron decided not to order any such dissolution. Trump can't run the place for several years, but it is not being sold off so as to bankrupt Trump. I guess the Deep State got lost on their way to Engoron's house to blackmail him.