Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

The latest chapter of the Fani Willis Saga has out intrepid heroine hanging from a cliff, waiting for another hearing and the judge to eventually rule.

The thing that strikes me as somewhat amusing is when the first news came out the most common reaction was "It certainly sounds bad, but I'll wait to hear more and whether the relationship is actually confirmed, and just having Wade on the payroll might not be enough to disqualify them, especially because no evidence was submitted backing up the claims.

Then the position started.hardening and it seems nothing is enough to remove Willis and Wade from the prosecution.

Since then Ashleigh Merchant submitted receipts showing Wade paid for hotels, cruises, plane fare on about a half dozen getaways for the two.

Then Willis claimed Merchant lied in her submissions.

And we.were told it didn't matter because subsequently Willis claimed she paid her own way for all the trips.

Then on the stand Willis said all the reimbursements were in cash.and she didn't have any documentation for the cash withdrawals, and that didn't matter.because her daddy told her to use cash.

Then Wade said he was paid all the cash but, he didn't have any deposit receipts or any of the cash anymore either.

Then they both said that the relationship didn't start until after Wade had been hired. And that Wade and never stayed overnight at her condo.

Then Willis friend testified that the relationship started in 2019, three years before Willis and Wade claimed it started, but we were told that didn't matter because Willis"s friend had a falling out with her and her testimony wasn't credible.

Then Wade's former coworker and attorney didn't testify asserting attorney client privilege, even though the judge was skeptical about its applicability.

Then came the geolocation phone records analysis which purports to show that Wade spend several nights and evenings, hours at a time in the vicinity of Willis' condo, and we.are.told.that doesn't matter because it can't pinpoint Wade.and the condo, and is irrelevant because it can't prove they were actually having a relationship.

And finally we have the rest of the phone records which show 2000 phone calls and 10,000 texts between Willis and Wade in the year before they had an employment relationship, and before they claim the relationship started.

That's just too many data points connecting, and really you only have to believe one, the sworn witness testimony that Willis and Wade lied about the start of their relationship. But ignoring that and the confirmation from the phone records just doesn't seem possible. That not only proves the relationship but also Wade and Willis lied to the judge under oath.

But Willis is right about one thing, she isn't on trial here, Trump and Roman, et al, are on trial, and the judge doesn't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to remove Willis and Wade as prosecutors.

[Commenter_XY]

Did The Smasher commit perjury? Yes or No
Will The Smasher lose her law license for lying to the Court? Yes or No

[Kazinski]

I don't even really care, I just want a professional prosecutor without an axe to grind to take over the case independently evaluate it, then decide whether to go forward. After the election of course.

Everyone knows this and the other cases are expressly for election interference, but its backfiring.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, no. Before the election.

It is critically important for American constitutionalism that political crimes be defended against by non-partisan but specifically political prosecutions. Politics as understood constitutionally is not the raw cynical epithet tossed around by fools seeking to quash political engagement by others.

Constitutional politics is the method prescribed by the founders for the nation to conduct its public business. A would-be political criminal must expect to be opposed by a non-partisan but jealously political guardian of the nation's system of governance. No such guardian would be doing his duty if he entertained avoidable postponement of prosecution for election-related crimes until after an election.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Indict Biden!!!!!!

[not guilty]

Indict Biden for what specific conduct and under which statute(s)?

Please show your work.

[Jerry B.]

Selling government secrets to the Russians? It doesn't matter if he really did it or not, the idea is to tie someone up in court, and have an innuendo barrage up until the time of the election.

[Sarcastr0]

It says a lot how many Trump defenders think 'I will prove these cases against Trump are in bad faith by proclaiming my own lack of principles' is an argument for anything but their own lack of a moral compass.

[Commenter_XY]

Actually, it (what Jerry B posits) demonstrates 'the shoe is on the other foot now, how does it feel?' phenomenon. It generally doesn't feel very good.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Indict Biden" demonstrates the "shoe is on the other foot" phenomenon?

You're a partisan dope. Jerry B. is no better.

And you are both the target audience of this white, male, hackishly partisan, wingnut blog.

Fortunately, your obsolete, disaffected preferences have scant future in modern, improving America.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The right wing playbook for years: When your guy gets caught doing something too horrible to defend, do these 2 weird things immediately:

1. Never concede even the slightest evidence against your guilty-as-sin guy. His innocence is beyond question, despite security camera footage showing him doing the crime, and his arrest at the scene.

2. Instantly charge someone on the other side with the same crime. It is important that this charge be without evidence, and flagrantly irresponsible. After all, the charge against your guy is flagrantly irresponsible. The objective is to show they are all flagrantly irresponsible, and to force the other side to say so too.

[Nige]

Didn't Republicans just get caught trying to do exactly that, not that it wasn't already obvious, with help from Russia? Incidentally showing that it's not as easy as it sounds.

[Don Nico]

ng,
you're wasting your "breath." You know that there is no law and no specific, provable conduct.

The Biden blah-blah is just the weakest excuse for clear illegal and/or tortuous conduct by the Orange Putz.

[not guilty]

Yes, I know that. Why do you think I asked the questions?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anything and everything under the sun.

[not guilty]

IOW, you've got bupkis.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, too soon to tell. It takes more time than usual these days. Critical evidence against the Biden Crime Family got currency for years, before anyone found out Republicans were pushing lies supplied by a Russian operative. That makes me cautious about the evidence against Willis. You have to admit, that stuff against Biden looked bad, right?

[Don Nico]

"That makes me cautious about the evidence against Willis."
I don't know what you expect since, you are basically admitting that nothing will satisfy you short of a confession.

[Nige]

That's ok, he doesn't have any say in the matter, just lots of experience with right-wing 'evidence.'

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's probably telling that you interpret "makes me cautious" as "nothing will satisfy me short of a confession".

You don't see the issue?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You don’t see the issue?

In this case the issue appears to be irreversible brain damage on your part.

[Riva]

What lies from a Russian operative?

[Nige]

That he won the 2020 election.

[Riva]

Your probably believe in the existence of the pee tape and that Hunter served on the Bursima board for legitimate reasons.

[ReaderY]

I’ll just say that, after the Clinton impeachment debacle, Fani Willis displayed extreme stupidity not just to have an affair like this in a state where adultery is still illegal, but to publicly advertise it by thrusting her lover, who had no experience or credentials in this type of prosecution, into the middle of one of the most important and difficult cases of her career.

What did she think would happen with a well-resourced defense eager to comb through her trash and use any hint of scandal as a weapon?

She might as well have put a “kick me” sign on her back. What did she think was going to happen?

[Dr. Ed 2]

But she's Black and can do no wrong...

[Don Nico]

" Fani Willis displayed extreme stupidity not just to have an affair like this in a state where adultery is still illegal, but to publicly advertise it by thrusting her lover, who had no experience or credentials in this type of prosecution,"
But even that won't convince Lathrop.

[not guilty]

If I were a Fulton County voter, I would have reservations about re-electing Fani Willis, who has shown poor judgment here. But that is a red herring -- in no way germane to the evidence or absence of evidence that the defendants did what they are accused of.

[Don Nico]

Your correct, but that is not a reason that the judge should not replace them.
Trump needs to be put down by someone who is so insensitive to personal conflicts of interest.

[not guilty]

The burden of showing grounds for disqualification -- by admissible evidence -- is entirely on the defense here. They have fallen woefully short of carrying their burden.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, what evidence do you really need to determine that the 'appearance of conflict' is enough to remove?

What's the legal line for 'appearance of conflict'? Is that just up to the judge to determine?

This same judge worked for The Smasher in the past. Does the judge have a conflict?

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Georgia has opined:

It is perhaps helpful to view the issue of the attorney disqualification as a continuum. At one end of the scale where disqualification is always justified and indeed mandated, even when balanced against a client's right to an attorney of choice, is the appearance of impropriety coupled with a conflict of interest or jeopardy to a client's confidences. In these instances, it is clear that the disqualification is necessary for the protection of the client. Somewhere in the middle of the continuum is the appearance of impropriety based on conduct on the part of the attorney. As discussed above, this generally has been found insufficient to outweigh the client's interest in counsel of choice. This is probably so because absent danger to the client, the nebulous interest of the public at large in the propriety of the Bar is not weighty enough to justify disqualification. Finally, at the opposite end of the continuum is the appearance of impropriety based not on conduct but on status alone. This is an insufficient ground for disqualification. This is particularly clear in this case in light of the trial court's specific finding that there was no actual impropriety on the part of any of the parties.

Blumenfeld v. Borenstein, 247 Ga. 406, 409-410, 276 S.E.2d 607 (Ga. 1981).

The reversal of a criminal conviction due to a prosecuting attorney's conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved. Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 311, 816 S.E.2d 151 (Ga.Ct.App. 2018); Whitworth v. State 275 Ga. App. 790, 793 (1)(b), 622 S.E.2d 21 (2005).

[David Nieporent]

For obvious reasons, the reversal of a conviction is going to be a higher standard than a pre-trial disqualification.

[not guilty]

I'm not so sure. It is possible for a disqualifying conflict of interest to arise where a prosecutor has acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction. Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314-315, 369 S.E.2d 232 (1988); Head v. State, 253 Ga. App. 757, 758, 560 S.E.2d 536 (Ga.Ct.App. 2002). The trial court's ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Head, at 758.

The trial court's discretion, based on evidence, is the key. "Such an exercise of discretion is based on the trial court's findings of fact which [the appellate court] must sustain if there is any evidence to support them." Whitworth v. State 275 Ga. App. 790, 791, 622 S.E.2d 21 (2005). Neither Georgia not any other jurisdiction permits a criminal defendant to choose his or her prosecutor. State v. Mantooth, 337 Ga. App. 698, 700, 788 S.E.2d 584 (Ga.Ct.App. 2016).

[Commenter_XY]

Wow NG, thank you for that cite. That clarifies for me how Judge McAfee will evaluate this. Now I see why you kept stating: you must have submitted evidence. This case is in the top end of that continuum discussed in Blumenfeld. So if I am following you, the phone data doesn't mean jack diddly squat if it is never entered into evidence.

Then it becomes a question of whether smashing the hired help is behavior egregious enough to disqualify one from a case. I think it will in this case but it isn't the sex that will nail her (heh heh), it is the money that will do her in. Cash reimbursements? Vacations on the side with the guy she is paying (a huge amount, btw). No records? No way.

[not guilty]

If boinking one's co-counsel while both represent the same party were a conflict of interest, Ashleigh Merchant would have problems representing Mike Roman along with her husband and co-counsel John Merchant, whom she presumably fucks.

The phone records go to a collateral matter, not to whether Ms. Willis or Mr. Wade has a personal interest in the outcome of the prosecution of Mr. Roman, Mr. Trump or any other defendant.

If I were Judge McAfee, based on what I know at this point, I would not disqualify the prosecutors, but I would refer Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade to disciplinary authorities to investigate further whether either or both testified falsely under oath.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The burden of showing grounds for disqualification — by admissible evidence — is entirely on the defense here. They have fallen woefully short of carrying their burden.

ROFLMAO!!! Tell us again how you're also not yet convinced that Jussie Smollett made up his story about being doused with bleach by two MAGA hat-wearing white guys.

[not guilty]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Judge McAfee will require Terrence Bradley to testify about what he knows about Nathan Wade's relationship with Fani Willis. https://www.ajc.com/politics/judge-wades-law-partner-must-testify-about-relationship-with-willis/FQLTCWX75JBG7AX3O4GVWEMFHE/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If Trump's goal is to have the GA prosecutors replaced by more focused and competent ones, I really can't object to that.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, the resistance to Willis being removed is a head-scratcher.

She's made bad decisions in the past 2+ years and has only compounded those errors in the last 2 months.

Surely even Democrats here would prefer to have a prosecutor who doesn't lie on the witness stand for everyone to see.

[Michael P]

Apparently not, on that last point. Their revealed beliefs are that only an adulterous perjurer would think these RICO charges are tenable.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, the resistance to Willis being removed is a head-scratcher.

Last year, Willis was required to recuse herself from the prosecution of one of the defendants in this case, because she was a supporter of the guy this person was running against. (This wasn't controversial.) That was a year ago, and TPTB haven't bothered to name a replacement at all, so his prosecution has gone nowhere.

[tylertusta]

Yes. And?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. And?

And that explains the resistance to Willis being removed: the case may just languish forever if she is. There's reason to believe that would happen.

[tylertusta]

So, it's better to have a conflicted prosecutor than to wait until an unconflicted prosecutor can be found?

That's like saying asking for a haircut and instead of a trained hair stylist, you're stuck with a lumberjack armed with a chainsaw.

No, thanks. Do it right.

[Life of Brian]

There’s reason to believe that would happen.

If that's really correct, it doesn't really seem like a ringing endorsement for the strength and propriety of the case, does it?

[Kazinski]

Do you think a more unbiased prosecutor would use Georgia's RICO law for an election dispute?

[Martinned2]

Why not? They've used it for everything else under the sun.

[John F. Carr]

The RICO charge is a stretch and takes a lot of resources to prosecute. A replacement prosecutor would almost certainly be less politically motivated or have a Republican bias. Such a prosecutor would likely settle for the easy-to-try charges. The call to Raffensperger is a simple case. Not a guaranteed conviction, but a simple case. Mailing fake electoral votes is a simple case.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
I think that you have an excellent explanation, almost as if RICO is a crime that does not require evidence to convict.

[Martinned2]

It does, but my understanding of it is that the whole point of inventing RICO was to make it easier to lock up gangsters, by getting rid of certain pesky evidentiary requirements.

This, from Wikipedia, seems worth quoting:

Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it merely to apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."

[David Nieporent]

Georgia's RICO law is very different than the federal government's.

[Bored Lawyer]

At this point, though, there is a timing issue. If Wade is replaced, then the trial will most likely be delayed until after the election. Which would go against the primary motivation of bringing the case.

[tylertusta]

When was the trial scheduled to be held? I thought it wasn't happening this year anyways.

[not guilty]

There has been no trial date scheduled yet in Fulton County.

[BadLib]

The timing of an election should have NO impact on the timing of a trial in a criminal case.

Trump is a citizen who happens (unfortunately) to be running for President. That in no way justifies either rushing this case or delaying this case just because he's participating in an upcoming election cycle.

Personally, as unseemly as Willis' (and Wade's) actions seem to be here, I don't think the justifies the court removing her from this case as her misconduct seems not to impact the evidence in the case. Her motives don't seem to have been effected by her affair with Wade - although her effectiveness in reaching her goal may be reduced (surely there are many much better qualified for the job than Wade - sleeping with the DA doesn't seem like a relevant professional qualification in spite of the fact that being Willie Brown's chew toy seems to eventually boost one's ability to become VP and, quite likely in the next four years, President).

Of course Willis is "out to get Trump" - that was obvious from the onset. She's an elected politician whose (now likely shattered) goals were to ascend to much higher levels and the "get Trump" strategy was a campaign strategy. Of course she's utilizing "prosecutorial discretion" in hopes of feathering her own pillow. Surely there are plenty of other cases for her to devote resources to and pursue with a vengeance that actually impact Fulton County residents uniquely and which will likely escape effective prosecution without her office's intervention. However, none of that means that she's wrong to pursue this case - that's between her and the voters of Fulton County.

Of course her extraordinary lack of professionalism and ethics, if the allegations are true, should motive her to resign and, if she fails to do so, the voters should recall her or she should be impeached and convicted if either is possible under Georgia's laws.

Unfortunately, due to her apparent ethical lapses, her continued presence in the case will amplify the Trump camp narrative that Trump is being treated unfairly and may have quite the opposite effect Willis hoped for.

[David Nieporent]

The timing of an election should have NO impact on the timing of a trial in a criminal case.

That's just dumb, sorry to say. The timing of an election should of course have no impact on the substance of a trial in a criminal case. But real world considerations always go into scheduling trials.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note also: this is not a routine criminal case. It is a trial focusing on political crime. To insist no political notice be given is thus a demand to disarm prosecution.

The defendant is entitled to a prosecutor who can function without partisan bias. But the defendant and the state should expect a prosecutor both forthright and zealous in defense of the political system. That includes issues like completing a trial to a verdict prior to an upcoming election.

During prosecution, there should be no quailing from explicit denunciation of the defendant's political chicanery if there is proof to show it. Prosecutors should be deaf to critics who insist on kid-gloves treatment for a political candidate who is on trial for political crimes.

[Armchair]

I mean, the geolocation data and timestamps are pretty damning. I simply don't know how you can spin "yeah, I spent like 5-6 hours between ~10 PM and~ 4 AM at a residence near or close to her house, before we said we were having a romantic relationship".

Based on the evidence, perjury charges should be brought, in my opinion. But at a minimum she needs to be removed.

[Michael P]

Wade claims he might have been at the driving range or something else nearby, which are famously places that one goes at 2 AM to blow off a little steam. Especially after calling and texting a nearby resident tens of thousands of times. He was just part of her "kitchen cabinet" and going to her condo was just for work meetings that sometimes have to be scheduled for overnight. There are totally innocent, credible explanations that do not involve adulterers committing perjury about their illicit relationship.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You haven't seen the evidence, and evidently you haven't bothered to read about it from any kind of reputable source (shocking), or you'd know that the cell tower in question covers approximately 9 square miles of area.

"Based on the evidence, perjury charges should be brought..." No, call it what it is: Based on your partisan assumptions about evidence you've never seen, you think charges should be brought.

[Armchair]

" at a residence near or close to her house,"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't know it was a residence.
"Near or close to" are doing a lot of heavy lifting here given the area involved. Some would say a dishonest amount of assumption.

Within 9 square miles of my home, there are a few hundred businesses and a few thousand homes. If you want to make the partisan assumptions you're obviously intent upon making, you need GPS data.

It's fine to be suspicious about the data, but you're forming conclusions the 'evidence' just does not prove.

[BadLib]

Do retained cell tower records include hand off information and signal strength information from each cell phone interaction? Although such information might not allow for deriving very accurate location data from a single "instance", across many instances over time and weather conditions it seems likely that a much more precise location could be determined within a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

How can a 911 call from a cell phone usually be located quite precisely (far less than "nine square miles" in a populated area)? Is that information discarded or only captured if a 911 call is initiated from the phone?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I can't answer your first question. The 'evidence' as far as I'm aware, isn't even raw cell tower data, but rather an analysis of it. To say it has some defects in veracity would be an understatement.

As to your second question, this is why (specifically the E911 section):

https://www.fcc.gov/general/9-1-1-and-e9-1-1-services

[Armchair]

“According to Mittelstadt’s report, Wade’s phone arrived in Hapeville at 10:45 p.m. on Sept. 11 and remained there until 3:28 a.m. The records indicated that he sent a text to Willis after arriving home at 4:20 a.m.

On Nov. 29, 2021, Wade received a call from Willis at 11:32 p.m. at his East Cobb home. His phone then pinged off the tower near her home at 12:43 a.m., remaining at that location until 4:55 a.m.”

I’m sure there is a perfectly logical explanation to receive a call from Willis, then ping off the cell phone tower near her house, and remain at that location between the hours of 12:43 AM and 4:55 AM. Perhaps he was golfing. At night.

I look forward to Mr. Willis’s explanation.

[not guilty]

"But Willis is right about one thing, she isn’t on trial here, Trump and Roman, et al, are on trial, and the judge doesn’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to remove Willis and Wade as prosecutors."

Disqualification does, however, require admissible evidence, which defense counsel have failed to provide. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24439923/state-motion-to-exclude-cell-phone-records.pdf

[Moderation4ever]

This is the point that seems to be missed is that having an affair alone doesn't get Fanni Willis off the case. The defendant's lawyers will likely be successful in dirtying up Willis, but they have not shown a reason to have her removed. This trial is a long way off and the outcomes of this hearing are unlikely to be remembered at the time of trial.

[Kazinski]

The judge said the standard would be either a conflict or the appearance of a conflict.

And if you don't think.lying to.the judge in open court is enough to provide an appearance of a conflict then what would?

If a prosecutor is so motivated to get a conviction they would repeatedly lie in open court when testifying, then I think that shows improper motivation for the prosecution.

Prosecutors are supposed to be seeking justice, not a conviction at at all cost.

[tylertusta]

I don't see how lying alone gets us to "conflict or appearance of a conflict."

What the lying on the stand does is undermine their credibility, such as it was after their testimony earlier this month.

[Kazinski]

Lying to a judge gets your law license suspended or gets her disbarred.

Do they hold the case until that is resolved?

[tylertusta]

No, they won't.

If McAfee rules against the defense for the motion to DQ, Fani Willis and Nathan Wade can be prosecuted independently and concurrently to their prosecution of Roman and Trump.

[tylertusta]

Disqualification does, however, require admissible evidence, which defense counsel have failed to provide.

Inadmissible according to the prosecution, you mean. The defense disputes that, of course.

NG, if allowed into evidence, does the cell phone evidence move things in favor of disqualification? Why or why not?

[not guilty]

In my opinion, it does not. A personal relationship between co-counsel representing the same party is not disqualifying. An amicus brief filed on behalf of 17 ethics experts and former federal and Georgia state prosecutors and defense attorneys who have extensive experience with the disqualification and conflict of interest issues that apply to prosecutors includes some enlightening discussion. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24410261/ethicsamicusfulton_2624.pdf

OTOH, if Ms. Willis and/or Mr. Wade are shown to have lied under oath, that can have professional disciplinary consequences. That is not a pleasant situation for an attorney to be in.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, do you believe The Smasher and her Consort lied under oath to the Court?

[not guilty]

My belief is irrelevant. My evidence-based opinion is that no admissible evidence has shown either to have lied.

If Judge McAfee reopens the proof, my opinion could change.

[Bob from Ohio]

A witness testified that they were "dating" before he was hired, counter to their testimony.

[not guilty]

That witness is a former employee of the District Attorney's office who was told to resign or be fired. Her demeanor while testifying was not convincing. She likely is disgruntled and holds a grudge. Hardly the most credible source of information.

[Bob from Ohio]

the judge may think otherwise.

[Frank Drackman]

so DON'T 'Believe the Women' ???

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I understand. = If Judge McAfee reopens the proof, my opinion could change.

[tylertusta]

The judge doesn’t seem to agree with amici’s conclusions. This was earlier this month when McAfee ordered the first hearing:

“The state has admitted a relationship existed,” McAfee said in court on Monday. “And so, what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again, if there even was one. Because I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

So, with the judge’s statement of the law in mind and with the new evidence under consideration, would the admission of evidence change anything?

Seems to me like it would. Wade and Willis testified that there were cash reimbursements, but their credibility is now under question due to the new evidence that contradicts their sworn statements.

[not guilty]

No "new evidence [is] under consideration," although Judge McAfee may decide to reopen the proof. The proffered analysis of phone records has no bearing on whether there were or were not cash reimbursements; if evidence thereof is admitted, it goes only to a collateral matter. I surmise that defense counsel's theory there is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Even that maxim, however, is merely permissible inference that the factfinder may or may not draw.

[tylertusta]

No “new evidence [is] under consideration

Fine- the judge will be considering whether to consider the evidence.

(Yes, I rolled my eyes at having to write that response to the previous comment. 'This is why people hate lawyers' I thought to myself.)

McAfee seems to be fully onboard with seeing where this all leads. If it's just a collateral matter, then why is he indulging the defense with Bradley's testimony?

[David Nieporent]

I was not impressed with that brief when I read it a few weeks ago.

First, that one gets a bunch of people to add their names to an amicus brief doesn't mean a whole lot. Even if the brief represented their own work rather than just their signatures, those "17 ethics experts and former federal and Georgia state prosecutors and defense attorneys" are almost all not Georgia lawyers and have no relevant expertise with Georgia law, which is what's relevant here. You've got one former AUSA from Georgia, which doesn't have anything to do with Georgia law. And one former Georgia prosecutor, which does. Moreover, the brief cites a whole bunch of non-Georgia law on disqualifying prosecutors, which seems pointless and irrelevant. And it mostly cites cases with very different fact patterns and says, "Disqualification wasn't required here," which… well, so what?

[tylertusta]

Yeah, I was less than impressed. Their argument boiled down to "the prosecution of Trump is so important that it outweighs any other factor in the alleged conduct" when that alleged conduct is monetary kickbacks on behalf of the prosecutor, then they've lost it.

[Kazinski]

When you have.two witnesses in testify where one has to be lying on a material matter, the evidence that would.settle who is lying shouldn't be admitted?

Say what you will now, the court is going to.rule.on that question at least on Friday.

[not guilty]

The purported analysis of the cell phone records has not been tendered in admissible form. Judge McAfee has the option of reopening the proof so that defense counsel can attempt to do so through the testimony of live witnesses who have raised their hands, sworn to tell the truth, and submitted to the crucible of cross-examination.

In the words of John Henry Wigmore, cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 3 Wigmore, Evidence §1367, p. 27 (2d ed. 1923).

[Martinned2]

Can I have some of what Mr. Wigmore was smoking?

[tylertusta]

The defense asked Judge McAfee to permit the evidence on Feb 15th. The defense is asking the judge to admit the evidence and allow their investigator to testify. That would then give the prosecution the opportunity to challenge it.

[not guilty]

As I have said, the judge has the option of reopening the proof. If Judge McAfee regards the belated information as important to his decision on the motion, or if he merely wants to give the defense wide latitude to create a full record, he may do that. But the investigator's affidavit at this point is inadmissible hearsay and lay opinion, as the State's response explains. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24439923/state-motion-to-exclude-cell-phone-records.pdf

[tylertusta]

as the State’s response explains

I've already read it, so no need to link it again in the same thread in which you already posted it.

Have you read the defense's response to the DA's response? What are your thoughts?

[not guilty]

Not yet.

[tylertusta]

In case you're missing it, here's a link:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24440637-trump-reply-re-cell-records

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. The dearth of citation to Georgia authorities is noteworthy.

I heartily agree with the statement at page 8 that "the preferable method would be to allow Mittelstadt to testify and be subject to cross-examination by the State." Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade are also subject to recall. As the response observes at page 5, "They are certainly the ones who should testify and say exactly what was happening on those occasions, so nobody will complain about improper speculation, or improper efforts to distort the truth, or nefarious contacts with the media."

All of that depends on Judge McAfee deciding to reopen the proof.

[Commenter_XY]

What is: Reopen the proof? (have you ever done that, NG?)

Is that like getting a second chance to present evidence you did not have before? Is that solely the discretion of the judge?

[Drewski]

I assume it's the same thing as reopening the record. Maybe it's a Georgia thing?

[not guilty]

It's not just a Georgia thing. Ga. Code § 24-6-611(a) provides:

(a) The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:

(1) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth;

(2) Avoid needless consumption of time; and

(3) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is almost identical, and AFAIK every state has a similar rule. The trial judge has boatloads of discretion.

[David Nieporent]

In the words of John Henry Wigmore, cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 3 Wigmore, Evidence §1367, p. 27 (2d ed. 1923).

As a purely formalistic matter, fine. But come on. These are telephone records produced by the phone companies; I don't think anyone is actually challenging their validity. No cross-examination needed. Now, apparently the defendants did some analysis of those records, and I guess in theory Willis can cross-examine to find out whether that analysis is valid. But my view is that the "analysis" was pretty much just mechanically going down the records and highlighting the calls/texts between two phone numbers, and just circling the times the phone connected to a particular cell tower. I'm not saying that they don't have the right to cross-examine; I'm just saying that it's a pro forma exercise here.

[Voize]

Maybe the calls and texts speak for themselves, but the cell tower data needs expert interpretation. Does it mean his phone was within a hundred yards of the tower, or a couple of miles? Did it also ping towers that were not near her house? It's not clear the investigator is qualified as an expert.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Maybe the calls and texts speak for themselves, but the cell tower data needs expert interpretation. Does it mean his phone was within a hundred yards of the tower, or a couple of miles? Did it also ping towers that were not near her house? It’s not clear the investigator is qualified as an expert.

He didn’t interpret the data. He used a well-known piece of software named CellHawk that is, to quote many sources, “the gold standard in cellphone records analytics”, and which has been used by law enforcement and widely accepted by courts as evidence for over a decade now.

[Voize]

They need to find an actual expert to testify to the reliability of the analysis and that the tool was used correctly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They need to find an actual expert to testify to the reliability of the analysis and that the tool was used correctly.

Having had your premise debunked you're now moving the goalposts.

[Voize]

I said they needed expert interpretation, and then I said they needed expert testimony. That's a different view of the same goalposts.

Maybe their investigator can fill the bill, if he's received proper training.

[not guilty]

The defense investigator's affidavit recites "While I am not a cell phone tower engineer or expert, I have the equivalent experience and training of those individuals routinely tasked by law enforcement agencies or the District Attorney's Office with identical analysis responsibilities." He nevertheless offers opinions as to the efficacy of CellHawk and how it works. This proffer is necessarily based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Ga. Code § 24-7-702, and is thus inadmissible as lay opinion testimony according to § 24-7-701(a)(3).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why would the defendant rely on an unqualified "expert?"

Why not engage a qualified person?

Why rely on this particular person?

How long before Mike Lindell gets involved?

[Voize]

For those following along at home the affidavit can be found here.
Although he disclaims the title of cell tower expert, his training and experience in cell data analysis might qualify him as an expert as per 24-7-702 but it requires more than his assertion that he is as qualified as anyone the DA's office uses.

[David Nieporent]

The problem for Willis is, if they argue against the reliability of this analysis, then every defense lawyer in Fulton County is going to be throwing that in their face on their own cases.

[Voize]

They are already disputing the conclusions, saying the data only locates Wade within a 7 square mile area.

There won't be downstream problems if when the DA's office introduces cell tower evidence they use trained operators of the tool who can testify to the proper interpretation and reliability of the results. If they aren't doing that, they deserve to be challenged.

[not guilty]

It would be prudent for the State to offer qualified expert testimony to contravene the defense investigator's proffer.

[David Nieporent]

You miss the point. They routinely argue that, e.g., locating someone within a 7-square mile area is good enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you give an example of such a case?

[David Nieporent]

As I said, check out Andrew Fleishman's twitter feed; he's a Georgia defense lawyer and he's been posting case after case where this sort of data was deemed sufficient to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Voize]

One of the cases Fleishman points to is this one.

Williams was convicted of murder based on a collection of circumstantial evidence including cell call and text records and location data from the day of the shooting. Plus statements of co-accused, and the resemblance of Williams and the Mitsubishit SUV he drove to a man and car seen leaving the scene. He challenged the phone data, saying it was

insufficient to show anything other than his general proximity to the crime scene, noting that the records could show only a three to five-mile radius in which a cell phone was located at a given time and that they offered no evidence regarding the actual identity of the phone's user at a given time or the content of any given communication.

Still the court upheld the conviction, concluding that

the quantum and nature of all this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of Williams' guilt and to exclude all reasonable hypotheses but for that of Williams' complicity in the crimes.

There is no suggestion that the prosecutor misled the jury about the significance of the data or the precision of the location computed.

Compare with the Mittlestadt affidavit. He analyzed 11 months worth of data and then for unspecified reasons focuses on two days out of over three hundred, one in September and one in November. (He says "I was directed to conduct a deeper analysis on two specific dates" but doesn't indicate why those particular dates were chosen) Were they the ripest cherries to be picked? These are questions the court needs answered to know how much weight to give this testimony.

[Bob from Ohio]

"defense counsel have failed to provide"

Link to the response too.

They already have a witness who testified that the relationship started before they said. As Fani herself said: testimony of a single witness is, if believed, sufficient to convict.

[tylertusta]

Might be two witnesses soon if Judge McAfee says that Bradley can't hide behind privilege.

Plus Bradley's messages and emails to Merchant.

[not guilty]

IIRC, Terrence (dumb as a box of rocks) Bradley's lawyer said at the hearing on February 15 that any ruling compelling Mr. Bradley's testimony is immediately appealable to the Georgia Supreme Court. (I haven't independently verified that that is true.)

Mr. Bradley’s messages and emails to Ms. Merchant are inadmissible hearsay. If he later testifies in contradiction to those statements, they may become admissible as prior inconsistent statements, but if so, they would be offered only as bearing on the credibility of Mr. Bradley's in court testimony, and not as substantive evidence of the matter asserted. I also wonder if Ms. Merchant could authenticate such statements without becoming a witness herself, which would require her own disqualification per the advocate/witness rule.

[tylertusta]

Bradley's text messages already came up because the DA tried to sanction Ms Merchant for lying. She had Bradley read them into the record IIRC.

[Krayt]

The thing that strikes me as somewhat amusing is when the first news came out the most common reaction was “It certainly sounds bad, but I’ll wait to hear more and whether the relationship is actually confirmed

See, this could be much more succinct if this posting host had animated emoticons like a guy eating popcorn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just lynch her -- that's what would have been done 60 years ago.
She definitely deserves it, so.....

[David Nieporent]

At least he isn't saying she should be raped first, folks.

[Estragon]

Can you go 48 hours without posting a murder fantasy?? Try it! Challenge yourself

[Noscitur a sociis]

No! Don’t hold back Dr. Ed, tell us what you really think!

[Drewski]

Honestly haven't paid much attention to it. Seems like a lot of hand-wringing over a minor personal scandal.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Honestly haven’t paid much attention to it. Seems like a lot of hand-wringing over a minor personal scandal.

Ignorance of a subject isn't really the best basis for drawing conclusions and issuing commentary about that subject.

[DaveM]

In 2015, Google became Alphabet, and changed its company motto from “Don’t be evil” to “Do the right thing”. This was a facinating change in their stated mission for several reasons.

First, it completely flipped the unspoken social contract between their customers and their company. Whereas before they saw their role as trying to stay out of their customer’s affairs, now they see themselves as having a duty to actively engage in them.

Secondly, where previously they presumed that their power could corrupt, now they see it as benign or at least directionless, a force not to be guarded against, but merely to be properly channelled.

And lastly, they now see themselves as being on a mission of change. They’re like a fabulously profitable religious organization, happy to hand out free bowls of soup — provided we stay for the sermon (and the collection plate). For a taste of this evangelical fervor, see https://about.google.com/belonging

As a company, they have strayed far from their roots as just enablers of technology. As the debacle with Gemini shows, they are willing to change even your OWN words without telling you. [The AI was discovered to be silently rewriting search queries to make them more “diverse” before submitting them to the image generator.]

In short, they are apparently willing, in the name of “doing good”, to quite literally inject their morality into their customer’s affairs. I guess we should have been paying more attention to their motto.

[Kazinski]

I noticed.somthing else a week or so ago too, if you do certain searches like 'latest inflation news', you get sponsored headlines like "Inflation drops dramatically - US economy Soars in 2024', from outfits like family-compassion. Org.

Of course on a day when the market drops 2 percent because inflation was higher than expected its not going to fool anyone but a fool.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time," but politics is based on the principle that you only need to fool enough of the people enough of the time.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett you think they just lie via the US statistical agencies, why would the conspiracy bother with Google?

The Bellmore cinematic universe is falling apart with inconsistencies lately.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NUKE GOOGLE -- break them up like ma bell was broken up.

[David Nieporent]

I just did a search for 'latest inflation news,' and got no sponsored results, let alone the one you describe.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Same here. WTF is he talking about?

[Sarcastr0]

I got ads once, but when I tried again with quotes I got none, and when I went back to without quotes, the ads were gone and never returned again.

Google musta heard Kaz and shut down their operation!

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, I tried it both with and without quotes.

[Don Nico]

"Google musta heard Kaz and shut down their operation!"
They did not have to.
There were plenty of news items in my search this morning with essentially this same message.But when you're looking to have a polemic, any weak reeds are sufficient.

[Kazinski]

Well, like I said I did the query on Friday the 16th, when the inflation report came out and the market dropped 2%.

Maybe the ad buy expired.

[Martinned2]

Of course on a day when the market drops 2 percent because inflation was higher than expected its not going to fool anyone but a fool.

Jimmy Kimmel had a funny compilation video of the Fox News approach to reporting the economy the other day. Sorry for the source, I couldn't find it anywhere else: https://www.tiktok.com/@4thepeoplebythepeople/video/7339755104909921582

[Krayt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wvoQ2n80lc

[Sarcastr0]

Guardrails on AI are not some sinister plot to force you to become woke.

Yes Google fucked up in a silly but very public way. That’s it. The utter paranoia from the right on this is the usual leaning in on ignorance so you have something to explain why you feel persecuted.

It worked for schools as an j expected wedge issue for like an election cycle. This isn’t even that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Guardrails on AI are not some sinister plot to force you to become woke."

Doesn't that kind of depend on the guard rails?

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring your inherent conspiracy, are people using LLMs as moral authorities?

[StonewallDeSoto]

Why do you think it's necessary to have "guard rails" making it impossible to generate images of human beings of the White race?

[Sarcastr0]

Because wiping out the scourge of cracker demons starts with AI pics.

[In reality, I don't expect the guardrails were 'no white people'; that is much less likely than unexpected emergent behavior from 'don't make all scientists white' type guardrails.]

[Krayt]

Impossible is one thing, drawn from a larger, more general pool, more cosmipolitan is another. That’s not unreasonable, though in particular domains like Popes or Founding Fathers (or guys raising the Iwo Jima flag, to use a pre-computer example) it may seem ahistorical.

But isn’t that the opposite of woke. I’ve argued many times that, in spite of flaws, the Founding Fathers were a huge net benefit not just to America but the world.

Their ideas of freedom weren’t wrong. What was wrong was who they extended them to. The subsequent centuries have been a slow and sometimes bloody fight to extend them further and further.

You have rights inherent to you, and not as a gift from government, or a king, or the rich amd powerful, or even democracy. Then you form the government to protect and secure those rights, giving it list of powers and specifically no others.

This is the great development. And extending it to all, not just rich land owning white men, rather than tossing it out with the bathwater, well, wouldn’t we have been better off with Founding Fathers of all races and genders?

[StonewallDeSoto]

Are you actually the Google engineer who trained Gemini's ideology? Black Popes, Founding Fathers, and soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima "may" "seem" ahistorical. But...wouldn't it be better if they were anyway?

[Nige]

You're aware that there are actual real images of the Founding Fathers and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, right? And that if you go to AI for historical accuracy, you're an idiot?

[Nige]

Presumably if you reduce the guard-rails to exclude black people to the extent you lot seem to want or portray them the way you prefer, you'd end up with a Nazi AI, and that would be bad for the corporate image. Conservatives might get mad at images black people, but conservatives get mad at everything.

[Don Nico]

"Google fucked up in a silly but very public way."
It would have been more honest to say that Google fucked up in a politically motivated but very public way that demonstrates the dangers of generative AI.
Fortunately Google employees were so stupid that their "indoctrination" of the bot produced glaring hallucinations.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Don, that wouldn't be more honest. That's just you editorializing and speculating and calling it the Real Truth.

[Don Nico]

Wow, you really want to ignore reality.
Editorializing? Bullshit.
Generative AI does not produce consistent false results without having been trained to do so.
Your politics obscures your good sense and your own honesty

[Sarcastr0]

1. You assume a political motive. I don't think that's at all established.

2. Generative AI does not produce consistent false results without having been trained to do so.
This is absolutely completely laughably untrue. See, e.g. case names.

Your politics obscures your good sense and your own honesty
You're wrong, and being a dick about it.
And you also are not using the word honesty right.

[Artifex]

"This is absolutely completely laughably untrue. See, e.g. case names.'

Not so much. A certain cartoon bozo has a habit of rewriting narratives to try to win arguments. The meaning that the bozo tried to modify in this case is the phrase "consistently false".

With case names, the problem is that they are sometimes wrong in circumstances where the requirement is that they are consistently correct. They were trained for form of result, not accuracy of result. If you hit cases that just happen to be in their training set, they will be correct. In this case they are not consistently wrong, they are simply not always right. Don Nico's point is correct as presented. If the net is consistent, it was trained that way.

[Sarcastr0]

Read some of Prof. Volokh's posts about AI case names - some folks are getting consistently wrong cites. Nonfederal cases mostly.

If you hit cases that just happen to be in their training set, they will be correct

Now you're bucking my simplification to text. Because that particular issue does not analogize up to picture generation - the scope everyone is het up about here is about pics of generic, not real, Popes. That's not even something you can put a right/wrong on.

If the net is consistent, it was trained that way.
Convergence is part of the training criteria, so some consistency is to be expected.
The issue here is not about the net, it is about guardrails. Which are not really part of the net (and which, with careful prompting, you can always overcome)

[Artifex]

The problem is the word “consistent”. When used by a political hack such as yourself, it simply implies that you are only including data that supports your argument and that the data you have decided to use is consistent. All other data you simply drool, look the other way and find some reason to exclude. This might be a great tool for folks such as yourself to fuel their motivating thinking, but as usual, you understand and explain the real world poorly.

Actually, lets look at this empirically, a point where you classically fail. Let’s do the experiment of asking ChatGPT : “What cases did the supreme court consider when deciding Roe vs Wade?”

ChatGPTs answer: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Loving v. Virginia (1967), Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) as a start.

Given a non-bozo definition of “consistently wrong”: If ChatGPT were consistently wrong, I would expect the majority of them to be fake cases, Are they ?

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, lets look at this empirically
Me: "Read some of Prof. Volokh’s posts about AI case names – some folks are getting consistently wrong cites. Nonfederal cases mostly."
You: ::jump into federal cases::

I guess being consistently wrong means you get to choose the subset not me?
Insults don't cover your failure to answer my example.

Nor do they cover how you missed the rest of my e-mail, about the pictures and guardrails.

[Artifex]

“I guess being consistently wrong means you get to choose the subset not me?”

indeed, the point of “consistent” is that we look at all data, not a subset cherry-picked by some dishonest twit. You are the type of guy that claims “I hit the bullseye 100% of the time” where the subtext is that you only examined the data in which you hit the bullseye and discounted all the misses. You personally can parse the data anyway you want, but as usually you have little or nothing to say about the real world. I am sure you can find a couple of cites that the network gets wrong. It takes a certain type of idiot to call that “consistent” however.

Nor do they cover how you missed the rest of my e-mail, about the pictures and guardrails.

Why should I be focused on your attempt at a face saving goalpost shift ? I was too busy laughing at your silly cherry picking.

[Sarcastr0]

the point of “consistent” is that we look at all data, not a subset

I do not believe 'consistently wrong' applies the the entire set of possible prompts.
I think this is new goalposts from you.

And you once again use insults and anger to ignore a lot of my post. Does that work well for you outside the Internet, or is are you only this lazy on this medium?

[Artifex]

"I do not believe ‘consistently wrong’ applies the the entire set of possible prompts. I think this is new goalposts from you."

Of course you do. With the standard Sarcastro cherry pick, you can prove and believe anything you choose. Just pick out the portion of data that you like, find a reason to ignore the rest and pound your shoe on the podium. As the cherry on top, simply accuse others of your standard dishonesty at the end of the process. I am sure the true believers find you a beacon of light. It's not what you believe that makes you ridiculous, it is how you believe it.

And you once again use insults and anger to ignore a lot of my post.

Your telepathy works about as well as usual. Are you going to accuse me of that next ? It's your style after one of these attacks when you need to avoid substance. I am not angry at all. One of your tactics is to make ridiculous statements and then when called on it, Gish Gallop off to some other topic. Why play that game ?

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not cherry picking to note that the scope of an AI being consistently wrong for every single prompt you put in is an incoherent question no one asked until you just now brought it up in a desperate attempt to salvage your argument.

That isn’t the case for Gemini, which should be a clue you’re way off the reservation now.

I don’t think you’re dishonest, I think you’re so focused on winning you’ve stopped caring about the truth, and gone into a realm of insults and evermoving bespoke goalposts.

You were fun and all, but now you're just repeating the same tired rant mostly. Kind of like an AI stuck in a degenerate loop, come to think of it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don’t think you’re dishonest, I think you’re so focused on winning you’ve stopped caring about the truth, and gone into a realm of insults and evermoving bespoke goalposts."

Sarcastro's projecting again.

[Nige]

'With the standard Sarcastro cherry pick, you can prove and believe anything you choose'

You LITERALLY cherry-picked one example.

I can't even tell what you're mad it. Impugning the good name of AI?

[Don Nico]

"This is absolutely completely laughably untrue. "
Do you seriously think that the software invented black female storm troopers without any underlying prompting?
That is what is laughable.
I am continually amazed at what you defend.

[Nige]

Displaying black people is political, now. Yeah there's no racism driving this specific complaint against AI while completely indifferent to the broader implications.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"In 2015, Google became Alphabet, and changed its company motto from “Don’t be evil” to “Do the right thing”. This was a facinating change in their stated mission for several reasons."

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that Google/Alphabet's change of company motto (from something fairly juvenile and silly to essentially the same thing using more "corporate" words), represents a "flipping" of the "unspoken social contract between their customers and their company"?

[Drewski]

You're doing a lot of hermeneutics over a motto nobody ever took seriously. A number of people who worked at Google in the early days have written about their experiences, and they do not jibe with your read. Google's early culture was not one where social responsibility was considered at all, let alone taken seriously. Of course today they're as politically reactionary as every big corporation that sits in the public eye.

[Martinned2]

Well, yes and no. The decision to put advertising on their website was a pivotal one. Arguably before that point there was a lot of idealism in how Page and Brin viewed their project.

[Nige]

To paraphrase someone else, the early days of the internet were committed guys with clear goals focused on making connections. Nowadays its CEOs chasing higher bonuses while pissing ads into your eyeballs.

[Martinned2]

That's one of the problems with the regular economic models of innovation. Perhaps unavoidably, they don't capture non-financial incentives very well. As a result, the policy recommendations over-emphasise financial incentives (e.g. patents), which might have the effect of crowding out certain types of innovation.

[Don Nico]

" hermeneutics "
Bravo, a word seldom heard in ordinary conversation

[Drewski]

Well, conversation here is rarely ordinary. It is nice to sometimes get out the ten-cent words and give them some air.

[Roberta]

Does this have anything to do with their stopping adding to Deja Google (Usenet) archives, or to the disappearance of the cached results from Google Web searches?

[Jonathan Affleck]

Netchoice Final Ruling

When I worked for the AT&T legal department on Title 35 and on Title 47 cases, I had a good record in predicting a decision from the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit or from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. SCOTUS has always seemed less predictable to me. A definitive ruling in the Netchoice cases probably requires first determination of a matter of fact by a trial court. (See my interrogation of ChatGPT. As I provide ChatGPT with more facts, its response to a question changes.)

I hope for reversal in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and remand in both cases so that a trial record can be developed in both cases. I would prefer that Texas and Florida regulate common carriage of a message as California, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts do. The legal issues would be simpler.

Texas seems to have Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kagan on its side. Before Kagan became a Justice, I discussed with her how Section 230 caselaw negates public accommodation anti-discrimination law. I wonder whether she remembers. With proper determination of the technological facts, Roberts, Brown Jackson, and even Kavanaugh might support reversal of Moody and remand of both cases. If the technological facts of the Internet are understood, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) seems irrelevant to the Internet. Coney Barrett seems to like detailed non-obvious legal analysis. Sotomayor might follow Kagan.

Interrogation of ChatGPT

User
In Florida is a social medium platform a telegraph?

ChatGPT
While Florida is known for its unique characteristics, it hasn't adopted telegraphs as social media platforms! Social media platforms typically refer to digital platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., where users can interact, share content, and communicate online. Telegraphs, on the other hand, are outdated communication systems that transmit messages over long distances using wires and electrical signals. So, in Florida or anywhere else, a social media platform wouldn't be considered a telegraph.

User
Doesn't a social medium platform transport messages over long distances by means of wire and electric signals?

ChatGPT
You make a good point! Social media platforms do indeed transport messages over long distances using wires and electric signals, similar to how telegraphs operated. However, the key difference lies in the technology and the medium of communication.

Telegraphs were a specific technology developed in the 19th century for long-distance communication, primarily through Morse code transmitted over telegraph wires. Social media platforms, on the other hand, use the internet and various digital technologies to transmit messages, photos, videos, and other content. While the underlying principle of transmitting information over wires and electric signals is similar, the methods, infrastructure, and purposes of telegraphs and social media platforms are quite different.

User
Not every telegraph used a Morse code encoding. Did any legal statute, which regulated a telegraph system, specify that a telegraph system had to use Morse code encoding?

ChatGPT
You're correct that not all telegraphs used Morse code encoding, especially as telegraph technology evolved over time. Morse code was one of the earliest and most widely used encoding systems for telegraphy, but other encoding methods were developed later on.

As for legal statutes regulating telegraph systems, they typically focused more on the operation, ownership, and regulation of telegraph lines and networks rather than specifying the use of Morse code. These statutes would outline matters such as licensing requirements, rates, service standards, and the rights and responsibilities of telegraph companies.

However, it's important to note that specific regulations may have varied depending on the jurisdiction and time period. Some early telegraph regulations might have referenced Morse code specifically because it was the predominant encoding method at the time, but as technology advanced and alternative encoding methods emerged, regulations likely became more technology-neutral or focused on broader aspects of telegraph communication.

User
Doesn't a telegraph system use digital transmission?

ChatGPT
Yes, telegraph systems do indeed use digital transmission in the sense that they transmit information in discrete, binary form. In early telegraph systems, this was typically achieved through encoding messages into a series of electrical signals representing dots and dashes (as in Morse code), which were then transmitted over wires.

In modern terms, we can view telegraphy as an early form of digital communication, where information is represented by discrete symbols or codes (such as dots and dashes or other encoding schemes) and transmitted using electrical or electromagnetic signals. While the technology and encoding methods have evolved significantly since the early days of telegraphy, the fundamental principle of transmitting information in digital form remains the same.

User
Can any legal statute be identified that would regulate a telegraph system and into whose definitions would not cover the system of message transport of a social medium platform?

ChatGPT
Legal statutes regulating telegraph systems typically focus on aspects such as licensing, operation, service standards, and other technical and operational requirements specific to telegraphy. These statutes were often written long before the emergence of modern social media platforms and may not explicitly cover them.

One example of a statute regulating telegraph systems in the United States is the Telegraph Act of 1866. This law, among other things, granted rights of way for telegraph lines along public roads and highways and established regulations for telegraph companies. However, such statutes were drafted in a time when communication technology was limited to telegraphy, and therefore may not directly address the unique characteristics of social media platforms.

Modern regulations governing telecommunications and digital communication may provide a more relevant framework for regulating aspects of social media platforms. These regulations often cover a broader range of communication technologies and services, including internet-based communication platforms. However, even these regulations may not always perfectly align with the specific features and functions of social media platforms, which can be highly diverse and rapidly evolving.

In summary, while legal statutes regulating telegraph systems may not directly cover the system of message transport of a social media platform, broader telecommunications and digital communication regulations may apply to certain aspects of social media platforms.

User
As far as I can tell, state regulators continue to use the traditional definition of a telegraph, and no federal statute has overridden this definition: "A telegraph service is a service that transmits a message electrically by wire or by wireless means." See Easylink Servs. Int'l, Inc. v. State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 101 A.D.3d 1180, 955 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8366 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). The operative rule or regulation is N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 20 § 527.2 (d). A social medium platform meets the definition of a telegraph service in NY and probably in every other state. As long as a legal statute has not been repealed and as long as all the terms and clauses of the statute apply to a social medium platform of today, shouldn't a Court apply this statute even if the statute were written in the 19th century?

ChatGPT
You bring up an interesting point regarding the interpretation of legal statutes in the context of technological evolution. Courts often apply legal statutes based on their plain language and intended purpose, regardless of when they were written. If a statute's language is broad and its purpose is to regulate the transmission of messages electronically, it could potentially be applied to modern forms of communication such as social media platforms, even if the statute was enacted in the 19th century.

In the case you mentioned, if the statute defines a telegraph service as one that transmits messages electrically by wire or wireless means, and if social media platforms meet this definition by transmitting messages electronically over the internet, then the statute could indeed be applied to regulate social media platforms.

However, it's worth noting that the application of older statutes to modern technology can sometimes raise questions of interpretation and context. Courts may need to consider whether the language and purpose of the statute are still relevant and appropriate in the context of contemporary technology and societal norms.

Additionally, legal interpretation can vary depending on jurisdiction and the specific facts of each case. While a statute may apply in one context or jurisdiction, it may not necessarily apply in the same way in another context or jurisdiction.

Overall, while courts may consider older statutes in cases involving modern technology, they must carefully analyze the language, purpose, and context of the statute to determine its applicability to the issues at hand.

User
The following four definitions specify an interactive computer service.

1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4)Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

If a social medium platform does not provide access to the internet, can the social medium platform be an interactive computer service as the interactive computer service is specified above?

ChatGPT
Based on the definitions provided, an interactive computer service is defined as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.

If a social media platform does not provide access to the internet, it would not meet this definition of an interactive computer service as specified above. The key criterion here is that the service enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including access to the internet. If the social media platform operates independently of the internet, it would not fall under this definition.

However, it's worth noting that the definitions provided may be specific to certain legal contexts or jurisdictions, and the interpretation of these definitions may vary depending on the applicable laws and regulations.

User
The following four definitions specify an interactive computer service.

1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4)Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

If a social medium platform is within the Internet and does not provide access to the Internet, can the social medium platform be an interactive computer service as the interactive computer service is specified above?

ChatGPT
If a social media platform operates within the Internet but does not provide access to the Internet itself (meaning it doesn't allow users to browse the broader web or access external content), it would still fall under the definition of an interactive computer service as provided in the given definitions.

The key criterion for an interactive computer service is that it provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server. As long as the social media platform allows users to interact with the platform itself, create or access content within the platform, and communicate with other users or entities within the platform's environment, it would meet the definition of an interactive computer service, even if it doesn't provide access to the broader Internet.

In essence, the platform operates within the Internet but doesn't serve as a gateway to the Internet itself for its users. It still provides a service that allows users to interact with each other and with the platform's content, making it an interactive computer service according to the provided definitions.

User
The following four definitions specify an interactive computer service.

1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4)Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

If a social medium platform is within the Internet and includes specifically neither a service or nor a system that provides access to the Internet , can the social medium platform be an interactive computer service as the interactive computer service is specified above?

ChatGPT
Based on the definitions provided:

The "Internet" refers to the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet-switched data networks.
An "interactive computer service" is defined as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.
An "information content provider" is any person or entity responsible for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
An "access software provider" is a provider of software or enabling tools that perform various functions related to content.
If a social media platform is within the Internet but does not specifically provide access to the Internet itself (meaning it doesn't allow users to browse the broader web or access external content), it may still be considered an interactive computer service under the provided definition.

The key aspect to consider is whether the platform provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server. If the social media platform allows users to interact with each other and with content hosted on the platform itself, even if it doesn't provide access to external internet resources, it could still be considered an interactive computer service.

However, the interpretation of legal definitions can vary, and the specific circumstances of each case would need to be considered. Additionally, legal definitions may evolve over time through legislative or judicial interpretation. Therefore, it's essential to consult legal experts familiar with the relevant laws and regulations in a particular jurisdiction for a precise determination.

User
The following four definitions specify an interactive computer service.

1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4)Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

If a social medium platform is within the Internet, includes specifically neither a service or nor a system that provides access to the Internet, and provides a user only with access to a backend database , can the social medium platform be an interactive computer service as the interactive computer service is specified above?

ChatGPT
Based on the definitions provided:

An "interactive computer service" is defined as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.
If a social media platform is within the Internet but does not specifically provide access to the Internet itself and only provides users with access to a backend database, it may not meet the criteria of an interactive computer service as specified above.

The key aspect of the definition is that the service enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including access to the Internet. If the platform only provides access to a backend database and does not enable users to interact with each other or with content hosted on the platform itself, it may not be considered an interactive computer service under this definition.

However, interpretations of legal definitions can vary, and the specific circumstances of each case would need to be considered. It's essential to consult legal experts familiar with the relevant laws and regulations in a particular jurisdiction for a precise determination.

[David Nieporent]

At least conversations with dumb chatbots is better than filing frivolous lawsuits, I guess.

[Bwaaah]

That was a long post.

[Jonathan Affleck]

ChatGPT wrote a lot of the post.

[Drewski]

Don't worry if you didn't finish it. I'm sure Affleck will copy and paste it back into the comments regularly.

[David Nieporent]

+1, or -100, depending on how you look at it.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah....I finally did hit a BK for the Spicy BK Royal Crispy sandwich. It was good; I was surprised.

I don't think Chik-Fil-a needs to worry about the King dominating, though.

[Bwaaah]

So there it is: Bellmore's second rate chicken sandwich? Ouch.

I have never been to a Chik-Fil-A. (There's one that I know of in midtown NYC.) That's a want that's been waiting a long time to happen for me. I'm going to make it so. Soon.

No more of that second rate Bellmore chicken. Next time, I'm goin' first class. I'll let you know if it's everything you and everybody say it is.

[Commenter_XY]

Stop whatever you are doing on Tuesday at lunchtime, and schlep your ass to midtown! I used to work close to the diamond district. 😉

[Don Nico]

I rather hear about the "baby-killer nation."

[Randal]

Texas seems to have Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kagan on its side.

You obviously wrote this before the argument. Totally wrong. I mean Alito, obviously, although it was funny when Prelogar practically laughed at his fearmongering. And Thomas probably. But Gorsuch gave the most eloquent defense of Facebook of anyone there. (Kavanaugh, surprisingly, was #2.) And of course, Kagan wasn't having it.

Jackson, on the other hand... I guess her populism puts her with Alito on this one...??? Who knew.

Texas loses 7-2 or 6-3 depending on whether Jackson's stomach can really take being in dissent with the other end of the bench.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Consider the constitutional advantage to charge Trump with treason.

A thread which scrolled out of sight yesterday developed the theme that an incarcerated presidential election winner is a practical near-impossibility to manage. Yet that outcome looms as a predictable potentially-logical result of present litigation.

All the outlandish difficulties arise only because of one flaw. None of the serious felonies with which Trump is now charged automatically disqualifies him from office. Thus, he is quite likely, if convicted, to find some technical legal method to defy any sentence of incarceration, take office, and escape punishment altogether.

That, and the public reaction to it if it happened, would be a political disaster for American constitutionalism. The risk is too dire.

Other potential charges would disqualify Trump upon conviction—either insurrection or treason, for instance. The Justice Department has been unwise not to use one of those charges instead. Of the two, the treason charge is the better choice. Debate over Section 3 of the 14A has shown that the notion of insurrection is too ambiguously developed in the law. A potent defence is available that to convict Trump of insurrection would open the door to frivolous tit-for-tat retaliation, undertaken for the purpose of pure partisan politics. A great deal of conduct which might be criminal as presently understood, but not typically charged as insurrection, would thus become fodder for that kind of constitutional abuse.

Perhaps surprisingly, the charge of treason seems less vulnerable to that kind of abuse, and thus a wiser choice. Not only is treason defined specifically in the Constitution, but it also has been extensively defined within a previous opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall. That case is titled, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout. It is one case, not two.

Anyone inclined to scoff that treason is far from an appropriate charge for Trump should read that case, to benefit by Marsahll's analysis of what conduct conviction for treason requires. Critics are likely to be surprised who suppose that before a treason charge can be considered, the Constitution imposes a context of warlike array. Marshall is specific that the requirement to, "levy war," against the United States can be proved by showing conduct by groups of only a few people, without any necessity of actual large-scale warfare. It is the intention of the conspirators which matters, with a further requirement for at least one overt action by any of them to set in motion a violent design toward a treasonable purpose.

In short, a treason charge requires far less than what the nation saw on January 6. Of course to say that is not to suggest proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists to connect Trump to such a treasonous plot. That would be for a trial to decide.

I will not try to apply Marshall's reasoning in detail here to the case against Trump. It is sufficient to say simply that such a charge would rivet the nation's attention as no other could do. And that every detail of the evidence and the elements of the crime would become familiar to all those who do pay attention. That in itself would be a notable help toward improving public consensus to back either a guilty verdict, or a not-guilty verdict, for Trump.

And at the end of the trial everyone would know for certain whether Trump was qualified, if he wins the election, to take the oath and enjoy a term of office. Which would be a huge improvement over the fraught muddle toward which current legal process seems to be compelling the nation.

A prompt superseding charge of treason by Trump would be a wise choice for the Justice Department, and for the nation. Assuming there is still time to get a fair trial and a verdict prior to Inauguration Day, the Justice Department would be wise to drop its other cases against Trump, charge him with treason in Washington, D.C., and move for a trial at the earliest reasonable date.

[Kazinski]

Well I for one wish Jack Smith would try to indict Trump for treason or insurrection, if for no other reason than to show you how wrong you are. But of.course when it went off the rails you.would.blame the execution not the case.

And to get Trump up to a 10 point lead in the polls too of course*.

* However I did mail in my primary ballot for Haley on Friday, but even the Koch’s have apparently given up on Haley, and reportedly will not be writing anymore checks for her.

[David Nieporent]

There's only one (relevant) Koch, and even if there were still two, it would be Kochs, not Koch's.

It's hard to see any path for victory for Haley, other than Trump dying or being in jail, but I certainly hope she can stay in. At the very least, she exposes how weak a candidate Trump really is.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I agree that Trump is a weak Republican candidate. The Republican Party could probably nominate the pig Babe and defeat Biden more easily and with a much larger margin. Babe was the hero of the successful 1995 movie Babe. Trump reminds me of Babe, but Babe was better looking.

Trump could supercharge his campaign if he promised to order his AG to try Biden for genocide and to seek the death penalty.

Biden is the Hannibal Lecter of presidents.

[Martinned2]

Trump could supercharge his campaign if he promised to order his AG to try Biden for genocide and to seek the death penalty.

You said the quiet bit out loud.

[not guilty]

Jonathan Affleck, as I asked you on a prior thread, what facts evince Joe Biden’s specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group? Which specific group? Where and when did he kill members of that group? Where and when did he cause serious bodily injury to members of that group? Where and when did he cause the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques? Where and when did he subject the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part? Where and when did he impose measures intended to prevent births within the group? Where and when did he transfer by force children of the group to another group? Whose death resulted from any of Joe Biden’s actions?

If your theory is that Biden conspired to commit genocide, who are his co-conspirators? What is the specific objective of the conspiracy? What facts evince Joe Biden’s agreement to achieve the conspiratorial objective?

On the prior thread, you provided nothing but ipse dixit assertions of conspiracy. Here is your chance to redeem yourself. What is the specific objective of the conspiracy? What facts evince Joe Biden’s agreement to achieve the conspiratorial objective? Who are Biden's co-conspirators, and what specific overt act(s) did any conspirator(s) commit in furtherance of the conspiracy? Which conspirator(s) committed overt acts, and where and when did each such act occur?

[Don Nico]

ng,
your rattle off your rhetorical questions as if Afflack could not answer.
"what facts evince Joe Biden’s specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group?"
Gross public support and millions of $ in weapons to the baby-killer nation

Which specific group?
Gazan Palestinian civilians.

Where and when did he kill members of that group? Where and when did he cause serious bodily injury to members of that group?
Through the agency of the the military arm of the baby-killer nation, he has killed at least 200 women and children every day. He has support publicly the war-crime of collective punishment against said Gazans,
"who are his co-conspirators?"
Bibi Netanhayu and Benny Gantz
"What is the specific objective of the conspiracy?"
to rid Judea and Sammeria of the hated Palestinians.
ETC.

There is no point in asking Afflack these questions

[Jonathan Affleck]

A Zionist propagandist strives to nitpick any Israel-critical or Zionism-critical argument to death. I used to be a Zionist until Baruch Goldstein celebrated Purim by spree-murdering Palestinians at the Mosque of Abraham. I know how Zionist propagandists operate. I have attended Zionist propagandist training sessions.

[Frank Drackman]

that's "Dr." Baruch Goldstein, who had more character in one of his Pubic Hairs than in your entire corpulent Corpus Delecti.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Last weekend Biden took part in an LA fundraiser that was hosted by Haim Saban. The fundraising looks like a payoff for Biden's enablement of the State of Israel to commit genocide against Palestinians. Haim Saban coordinates with the State of Israel.

Because the State of Israel is now obviously perpetrating genocide, such coordination both of Saban with Israel and also of Biden with Saban's group is probably a criminal violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists. Wadie Said has addressed SCOTUS' approach to the 1st Amendment, § 2339A, and § 2339B in "Humanitarian Law Project and the Supreme Court's Construction of Terrorism" and in Crimes of Terror. § 2339A directly references 18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide. The definition of genocide in § 1091 is almost exactly the conventional definition of genocide in the Law of Nations.

Fundraising and coordinating with a political contributor like Saban are not official duties of the president. Likewise, when Biden against the advice of a presidential aide repeats the 40 beheaded babies propaganda of the Israeli government after consulting with Netanyahu, Biden perpetrates the US federal crime of genocide incitement in conspiracy with the Israeli government and in conspiracy with Netanyahu.

Biden's actions above cannot be considered official duties of the president.

Biden's actions provide a basis for a specific ATS genocide complaint against Biden that is short, comprehensible, and devastating politically. Because the complaint would be directed against Biden in his personal capacity and not in his presidential capacity, the litigation would not take place until Biden left the presidency.

Biden's actions also provide a basis for investigation, indictment, trial, almost certain conviction, and sentence of Biden to death as § 1091 requires.

Biden was consistently warned before the IDF began its ongoing military operation that the State of Israel intended to perpetrate genocide. Biden has twice publicly stated that the State of Israel was bombing indiscriminately. Bombing indiscriminately is wanton destruction. If express malice or dolus specialis of physical destruction of group is present, bombing indiscriminately is a genocide.

By transferring weapons and money to an intending or active state perpetrator of genocide with scienter, Biden may be more than a conspirator. Biden may be an active conspirator in genocide.

Biden has criminal mentality of a serial/spree murderer that operates at Holocaust levels. Biden is the Hannibal Lecter of presidents.

The logic of exercising prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute Biden for mishandling confidential government documents does not apply to Biden's conspiracy in an obvious genocide over the last 5 months.

[not guilty]

Is that all you've got? A head of state's support for a foreign government does not evince conspiracy to commit genocide, doofus. Any indictment alleging that factual theory would be quickly dismissed on a defense motion.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The CCR incorrectly litigated the issue of US government support for a state perpetrator of genocide by invoking the Alien Tort Statute.

Before the US government enacted 18 U.S. Code § 1091, the president had foreign policy authority to provide support to a state that intended or perpetrated genocide.

After 1987 if a plaintiff had standing pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1346 - United States as defendant (a)(2), he would have a substantial likelihood to obtain an injunction against transferring weapons or money to the State of Israel if the weapons or money were intended to be used to perpetrate the crime of genocide because such transfer by the US would be in violation of § 1091.

§ 1346 was enacted to provide (among other things) a mechanism to provide a way to stop the US government from violating the Constitution or committing a US federal crime.

[not guilty]

What does any of that have to do with Joe Biden being indicted for genocide? You took an outré position here. Don't crawfish away now.

[Jonathan Affleck]

If Biden abused his office to violate § 1091, he could not violate § 1091 in his official capacity. As soon as he leaves office, he must immediately be arrested, indicted, tried, almost certainly be convicted, and sentenced to the maximum penalty under § 1091.

§ 1091 is a US federal capital crime without a statute of limitations.

The anniversary of the execution of Biden's sentence should become a celebration of rededication to the US Constitution and to justice. It could be a day of amusement for children that could try to smash a hanging Biden piñata.

[Drewski]

I do sincerely hope Affleck is not allowed to own firearms. I honestly worry a lot more about his matter-of-fact, passive-voice murder fantasies than I do Ed's gleeful predictions of mass carnage. As least I think Ed is mostly trolling.

[not guilty]

"If Biden abused his office to violate § 1091, he could not violate § 1091 in his official capacity."

The word "if" there is doing some heavy lifting. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY

[Bwaaah]

I think your Haley vote is a good one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you forgotten the whole, "Two witnesses to the same overt act" requirement? What do you propose the overt act is?

Wouldn't it just be enormously simpler to just charge him with insurrection? And yet they haven't done that. Why do you think?

It's because to convict somebody of a crime, it isn't enough that they be figuratively guilty, or "obviously" guilty. You have to actually prove them guilty.

And they've never had evidence of him committing insurrection that would persuade anyone who didn't start out hating him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, why the subject change? I recommended against charging insurrection. You all wound up to defend against insurrection charges, and incapable to consider anything else?

[Michael P]

No one remotely serious thinks Trump committed treason, because they understand what the Constitution means in its definition of treason. It, in fact, requires far more than what happened on January 6th or at any other time during that election-inauguration period.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no subject change here, Lathrop. I asked whether you'd forgotten the constitutional requirement to prove "treason", two eye witnesses to the same overt act. What overt act would you propose, remembering the meaning of "overt"?

I only brought up insurrection because it covers the same supposed factual basis, it's an easier charge to prove, and yet they've never attempted to bring that charge. Why?

Because they didn't think they could prove it. And if they can't prove insurrection, they'll fall laughably short of proving treason.

In legal terms, you're advocating that people who haven't attempted the garden path to the top of the hill instead climb Everest.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, part of my original comment was that insurrection is a flawed charge. We have seen that it invites a range of interpretations so wide that any verdict based on it would be vulnerable on appeal. It has also been asserted that answers to the question what conduct proves insurrection will metastasize, based on nothing more than tit-for-tat partisan pique. Those purely legal difficulties, without regard to evidence questions, seem adequate to explain why the prosecution avoided an insurrection charge.

A treason charge seems not comparably vulnerable. The crime is Constitutionally defined. Legal analysis already exists, and from one of America's greatest Justices. That analysis authoritatively defines the minimum standards for conviction. The occasion was collateral to the nation's most noted treason trial, in a case which resulted in the release of those accused.

Also on point, a treason charge will as a matter of complexity be tried to a comparatively simple standard. Conspiracy happened. Violence happened. Overthrow of a government process happened. Those components of treasonable conduct will be simple to prove. My legal layman's expectation is that only one material question would become the principal focus of the trial: was Trump a conspirator, as witnessed by two people? Upon the answer to that one question will depend whether Trump is found guilty or not guilty.

I think, maybe naively, that such a trial would be far simpler than the present two-pronged federal approach, with all the legal devilments which are evident and ongoing already. If nothing else, Trump's scheduling burden would prove simpler, affording him more time to campaign, and less claim that he was so over-burdened that due process was impossible.

I have one afterthought. Especially if you think Trump is self-evidently not guilty, I cannot understand why you would not prefer a charge which you assert would be harder to prove.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, maybe answer the question you were asked by Brett.

The Constitution lays out specific criteria for a charge of treason. Maybe you'd like to name the two witnesses you expect to testify to the overt treasonous act(s), and the specific 'treason' you allege.

As NG would say: show your work.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, to show work that Trump could properly be charged is not the same as meeting a demand to show that he could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why leaving the question for trial is what makes sense.

Suffice to say, if you paid more attention than you apparently do to mainstream media, you would already be able to suggest many approaches to proof sufficient to convict Trump by 2 or more witnesses. A brief mental review by me suggests at least 12 such separate potential lines of proof with multiple attesters:

1. Preparatory efforts to inculcate would-be rioters with false belief in a stolen election;

2. The fake electors scheme in its entirety;

3. Attempts to subvert state election counts in Georgia and other states;

4. A pattern of systematic lying to enrage rioters, dramatically demonstrable by a history of multiple election results briefings by expert staffers to Trump, followed again and again by prompt tweets from Trump with contents exactly contrary to each briefing, which Trump used to summon rioters and goad an attack;

5. Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence to organize a coup around the vote counting;

6. Ssummoning rioters by tweets, in a pattern coordinated with others who did likewise on multiple media;

7. Trump’s and/or Trump’s associate’s contacts with para-militias planning violence and carrying it out;

8. Urging rioters Trump knew were armed toward the Capitol;

9. Goading by tweets an attack on Pence in real time, while violent invaders stalked Pence through the Capitol;

10. Doing nothing while the attack happened;

11. Trump’s continuing efforts after the Capitol attack to renew and continue public belief in the stolen election theme;

12. Trump’s still-continuing attempts to organize and staff with known election deniers state election management apparatus.

Remember that there is no doubt at all that Trump planned with others for weeks or months to attempt a coup, and did attempt it. The only open question I can see is whether prosecutors can connect Trump to violence, by evidence links satisfactory to a jury.

I suggest whatever slight doubts might attach to any particular theory of connection would be overwhelmed by a pattern which shows such a mass of evidence all tending in the same direction, with much of that evidence not doubtful at all, but irrefutable.

If you continue to have doubts, then your very doubts supply good reason for a public test of evidence by a jury trial competent to engage the highest level of public attention. The very possibility of any trial for Trump on the federal charges now contemplated remains reasonably in doubt. Even if such trials are held, they will be incapable by any verdict they can deliver to much command public consensus that Trump’s guilt or innocence has been properly determined. A treason trial, if it could be properly scheduled, would do that, no matter what the verdict.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, you certainly put in a lot of work. I do want to acknowledge that.

For each act of treason that you list (looks like 10), do you have two witnesses who will testify that they were in acting in concert with The Chief Insurrectionizer? This is where Brett was going, much more of a 'nuts and bolts' kind of thing. That is what the Constitution requires. Lathrop, you listed 10 different treasonous acts, so I am thinking a list of 20 unique witnesses. Easy Peasy. Federal Court awaits.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, the Constitution does not require acting in concert. It requires witnesses. Those can include also folks present and arguing against what was happening, or mere bystanders.

Even you should be able to see that some of the items on that list were witnessed publicly, as they happened. Or were recorded on media which have been preserved, such as the Georgia telephone call, to which many were parties. Others were reported in a book authored by Cassidy Hutchinson, and in another book by Liz Cheney. Both authors named participants as eyewitness sources.

In addition, on a more speculative basis, we know, for instance, that Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has cooperated with prosecutors, but nothing has yet been revealed about what he has told prosecutors, or what other names he has provided as potential witnesses. Given the familiarity with Meadows described by Hutchinson, who worked in his close proximity, it will be surprising indeed if Meadows does not turn out to be a copious source of other evidence, including names who will also have been interviewed.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, open up the pocket copy of the constitution you carry around and start reading. It is in black and white. In the meantime, the only 'requirement' you have is to get that witness list. After that, you can take the case to Court yourself.

I thought you did ok, lathrop. I don't want to discourage you.

[PaulS]

"It’s because to convict somebody of a crime, it isn’t enough that they be figuratively guilty, or “obviously” guilty. You have to actually prove them guilty"

Why do you think that this is required to convict Trump? Were Donald Trump so charged, why do you think "obviously" will not work with the jurors of DC?

[ReaderY]

We’ve been through this before. The Framers deliberately chose a narrow version of treason to prevent its applicabiligy to even a political coup absent an external enemy. Insurrection and treason are distinct constitutional concepts.

If you are entitled to ignore this because you think the modern situation needs a living constitution with a modern, broader conception of treason, why isn’t Mr. Trump equally entitled to ignore the provisions about Presidential elections etc. because he also, like you, thinks tbe modern situation needs a living constitution?

His conception of modern is different from yours, he for example thinks a modern constitution needs a modern, broader, greater conception of executive leadership. But so what? If you’re entitled to try him for treason based on your concept, if he regains power he’s equally justified to try you based on his. And for that matter equally justified in ignoring that archaic relic “due process” that has prevented so much progress.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY, for pity's sake, read, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout.

And don't tell me you have read it, because your comment is impossibly stupid if you have.

I should mention that your misunderstanding matches pretty closely what I was taught in middle school civics class, which is why I was surprised when I discovered how wrong I was by reading the case. Apparently to my middle school teacher, and even most lawyers commenting here, the phrase, "levy war," seems plausibly interpretable to mean, "There's gotta be a war." Turns out, plausibility is an unreliable standard—doubly so when you are trying to interpret text after a lapse of hundreds of years.

Also, "We've been through this before," is an annoying tic, even if you are careful to use it only when you are 100% right. Which is not what you are doing.

[Michael P]

So which actual convictions for treason do you think are relevant precedents for your hypothesis? Shirley, you can find an example or two from the Civil Wars to support your idea. John Brown and Aaron Dwight Stevens, convicted and executed for treason against Virginia rather than the United States? William Bruce Mumford, a civilian convicted by a court martial for tearing down a union flag?

[Don Nico]

Lathrop,
No one accepts your obsession with the treason hooby-horse. Give it up.
When the Orange Putz is charged with such or even insurrection, people may listen to you.
Until then Trump is covered in a pile of shit that he shoveled himself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I do not intend to be governed by your interpretation of what, "No one accepts." I do not trust your judgment about what, "No one," knows, let alone, "accepts."

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for the clarification and the Wilson quote. That's a sovereign I can get behind (or be, as it were). Looks like we've ceded our identity to the state; an unfortunate divorce of self from sovereign. Am I understanding this at all?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah, I am challenged by your engaged response to try to take this a bit farther. I do think you have begun to understand at least what I have been trying to say. I hope my own imperfect understanding of a complicated and subtle subject will not mislead you.

Deeper insight demands a willingness to probe ambiguities, and even to approach the edge of reliance on faith—but only faith in a mysteriously efficacious secular means which delivers practical power in proportion to the faith it commands. Religion has nothing to do with it—despite the fact that, "power in proportion to the faith it commands," might be counted an accurate description of medieval religious institutionalism as well. I do not think that parallel is coincidence, by the way, but that is a subject for another discussion.

A couple of points to illustrate specifically. Where you say, "an unfortunate divorce of self from sovereign," I suggest you substitute, "collective self." To fully understand Wilson it is necessary to embrace a slightly paradoxical notion—that citizens enjoy bifurcated capacities, with differences depending on what level of political hierarchy is referenced.

Citizens are only jointly sovereign, never individually so. When they do not act in that joint capacity, citizens default individually to the status of subjects of government. In their status as government subjects, they continue to enjoy individual rights which they themselves have chosen at pleasure to recognize collectively, in their co-existing joint-sovereign capacity.

Because the joint sovereignty enjoys unlimited power over government, it can deliver power to stay the hand of government, especially on behalf of whatever individual rights it recognizes for the citizens. Individual rights thus get vindicated by that means, and by that specifically sovereign power, and not by any power inherent in government—which continues in its ever-suspect capacity as the most likely threat to individual rights.

Government power is posited sufficient to overawe the personal power of almost any citizen. Government power is posited unequal to any challenge to stand against the unconstrained power of the joint sovereignty to act at pleasure and without constraint.

The history of practical reliance on ideas of that sort to guide American constitutionalism is a history of early flourishing, followed by gradual decline. And eventually—after nearly two centuries during which such ideas were at least commonly remembered among both the citizens and officials in government, and granted at least slight scope for influence—almost total abandonment around the middle of the 20th century.

I suggest that respect for oath keeping, as it has been variously manifested from time to time, is probably a useful index. At moments when government subordination to a popular sovereign has been well recognized, oath keeping has enjoyed notable respect as a public virtue. To the degree to which notions of popular sovereignty as described by Wilson have declined, so has mindfulness of the obligations undertaken among those who swear oaths to support the Constitution.

I know of no time since the founding when oath keeping has been so widely disregarded as it has been at present.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This would not be the first time the courts have been shut down

[Martinned2]

Let's see if this works. It seems like reason.com decided that my original account had submitted enough comments for a lifetime.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It worked. Welcome to the second account club.

[Nige]

Is that what they call a Double Dutch?

[VinniUSMC]

Quite the group. I dub thee "Pedo buttplug and the Nazis."

[Commenter_XY]

Over the weekend, there was some lively debate here at VC on the RUS/UKR war, two years in. Here is the current situation.

Crimea status unchanged; held by RUS.
20% of UKR has been occupied; annexed by RUS.
UKR counter-offensive has failed; RUS is entrenched.
Military losses are substantial for each side; RUS capacity to attack NATO degraded.
UKR is currently having difficulties getting a conscription bill passed (let alone implemented). UKR are exhausted.
NATO added Sweden and Finland to the treaty alliance.

There is nothing political about this list, it is reality.

Can someone list for me, what are the concrete US foreign policy goals of our UKR policy? Because I have not read a concise articulation of what concrete foreign policy goals America has from it's involvement in the RUS-UKR war. What is America trying to achieve and get out of our UKR policy?

The time is coming very quickly where America will have 'to fish, or cut bait'. RUS is moving down the Black Sea coast; Odessa is in their sights. The war will escalate. It looks to me that UKR is being slowly pulverized into rubble. There is no guarantee that RUS stops at the Dnieper river, is there?

Is there any scenario where American troops enter UKR to fight RUS?

I am quite serious about asking what concrete American foreign policy goals we have for UKR. I just want to understand what VC Conspirators believe we are trying to concretely achieve.

[Martinned2]

What is America trying to achieve and get out of our UKR policy?

1. Ukraine survives as a sovereign nation.
2. Ukraine survives as a sovereign nation with its proper borders.

Is there any scenario where American troops enter UKR to fight RUS?

None that I can see.

[Commenter_XY]

Please define your 2 (proper borders). Not being a smartass, here.

[David Nieporent]

The recognized international borders of Ukraine.

[Commenter_XY]

Do those borders you refer to include Crimea, David? That is where it gets tricky.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why wouldn't they?

[Martinned2]

That's not tricky at all. Crimea is 100% part of Ukraine.

[Krayt]

Exactly. It is un-American to lick the balls of a tyrant rolling tanks into Europe using the exact same reason Hitler did with the Sudetenland.

That was a lesson for history learned the hard way.

Un-American.

[Krayt]

Never forget!

"Thanks, Gramps!" -- Russian state TV thanking Republicans, Trump ball-lickers, for getting in the way of money for Ukraine.

Who's proud of that position?

[Michael P]

I would expect that means the borders that Russia, the US and the UK guaranteed to Ukraine in 1994 in the Budapest Memorandum.

[Commenter_XY]

That interpretation makes sense to me = ...the borders that Russia, the US and the UK guaranteed to Ukraine in 1994 in the Budapest Memorandum

[JasonT20]

Unfortunately, I don’t think that the agreement used the word “guarantee”. That word implies military defense, I think, in diplomatic terms. I’d have to refresh my memory, but that agreement might also have included language about not joining NATO. That last part is one of Russia’s talking points about why they invaded.

That’s still a bullshit reason, if so, however. As a sovereign nation, Ukraine is free to make treaties and alliances with whatever countries it wants to. Russia can make all the arguments it wants about spheres of influence and past promises not to expand NATO, but none of them could possibly justify invading another country and killing tens of thousands of civilians and displacing millions more.

[David Nieporent]

You're correct that it did not use the word guarantee. Each of the parties separately agreed to respect the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. But they did not agree to protect Ukraine against encroachment by each other (or by others).

[Don Nico]

"None that I can see."
Thank G_d.

[Michael P]

I think the main hope is now that Ukraine lasts until Putin dies, such that Russia either thinks better of its invasion or is too busy fighting internally to hold its positions in Ukraine. Sadly, there seems no viable path for Ukraine to win on the battlefield against the current Russia, no matter how many high-tech weapons we give them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Korea didn't end until Stalin died.

[Martinned2]

That's more of an indirect factor than a direct cause. The Soviets weren't fighting in Korea, and had a complicated relationship with both Mao's China and Kim's Korea.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Sadly, there seems no viable path for Ukraine to win on the battlefield against the current Russia, no matter how many high-tech weapons we give them."

They've done quite well for themselves when ammunition and artillery have been properly supplied.

You're a Russian propagandist though, so it all makes sense why you'd ignore the evidence and assert otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe we have several concrete policy goals:

1) Exhausting a strategic adversary. Seems to be working. Sadly, even with support Ukraine is getting exhausted faster. Hardly shocking given their relative sizes.

2) Waking NATO from their slumber. If we’d just let Russia take another bite of Ukraine, Europe could have continued to pretend that the threat NATO was formed to counter wasn’t real. As it is, they’ve at least started rearming, and disentangling their economies from Russia.

3) Restoring some credibility to our government’s promises. We DID promise Ukraine security in return for giving up their nukes, after all! (So did Russia, but only fools actually believed Russia.) This, frankly, still needs a bit of work, and we could lose the progress we’ve made to date by abandoning Ukraine.

Admittedly we are treading a fine line here: We need to supply enough aid that Ukraine can hold the line, while not helping them to the point where Putin might be tempted to go nuclear. Really, the end game here is waiting on Putin to die, and be replaced with somebody less interested in trying to reassemble the USSR.

It’s not an ideal situation, but no situation that involves Russia with Putin as dictator is ideal.

[Commenter_XY]

re 2: NATO expanded as a result of RUS invading UKR. NATO expansion could have been a concrete foreign policy goal, no doubt. We (meaning American troops) are now stationed right on Russia's border (Finland, Baltics).

re 3: The Budapest Memorandum (signed by POTUS Clinton), that is what you are talking about, right? I just want to be sure I have it right.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the one.

[Longtobefree]

The policy goal of the current regime is to expend enough US arms that we cannot respond in a meaningful way when Communist China makes it move on Taiwan.
It started with leaving a gazillion dollars worth of weapons in Afghanistan, then shipping most of the oil reserves to Communist China, then sending the as many weapons as possible to Ukraine.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Seeing things the way you do takes a very special talent.

[myself]

The time is coming very quickly where America will have ‘to fish, or cut bait’. RUS is moving down the Black Sea coast; Odessa is in their sights. The war will escalate. It looks to me that UKR is being slowly pulverized into rubble. There is no guarantee that RUS stops at the Dnieper river, is there?

If the US cuts and runs it's arguably a bigger embarrassment than the Vietnam war.

In Vietnam the US had three big problems:
1) Instead of being pure liberators they were fighting against a lot of the native population.
2) Their allies weren't exactly the 'good guys'.
3) A LOT of Americans were dying.

In Ukraine you're protecting a population from genocide, where the allies are Democratic and generally pretty nice, and the only Americans dying are the ones who actually volunteered to fight for Ukraine.

Would either party blink at a 10% increase in the US military budget? Yet a fraction of that spent to actually defend an ally against an enemy is suddenly too much? Right now, the US looks like a joke.

As for goals:

#1 Further degrade an adversary in Russia.
#2 Allow Ukraine to fully expel Russia from its borders (give them weapons again, not that hard).
#3 Create a strong regional ally (NATO member or not) in Ukraine.
#4 Demonstrate that the US is a reliable ally (letting Russia stomp over the Budapest memorandum and then cutting off Ukraine's weapon supply shows the US is unreliable).
#5 Demonstrate the US is a serious country with political resolve so don't mess with their friends (meaning everyone wants to be your friend).
#6 Maintain the US's status as "leader of the free world" (other countries picking up the slack is a bad look).

[JasonT20]

“Demonstrate the US is a serious country with political resolve so don’t mess with their friends (meaning everyone wants to be your friend).”

This has always been the reason why all of Putin’s arguments and propaganda fail. He would have the world believe that Russia has an inherent right to link itself to its neighbors and historic allies. (Actually, it’s historic conquests rather than allies.) All of the past expansion of NATO to former Soviet Bloc countries and former Soviet republics is a threat to Russia in his eyes.

But the threat he sees isn’t that NATO will someday invade Russia. It is that NATO countries will offer Russia’s neighbors and former allies a better deal, and that Russia would not be able to dominate them in an imperial fashion. Too fucking bad, I’d say to Putin. Try being a good friend and ally yourself to those countries instead of trying to dominate them, and maybe they’ll choose you instead of the West.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm of multiple minds about this, including the innocent spouse.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/06/07/retired-army-major-general-reduced-to-second-lieutenant-for-sex-crime-conviction/

[David Nieporent]

Multiple minds? That's an improvement on the usual zero. Let me guess: "Slut probably deserved it" and "We should nuke her house."

[Dr. Ed 2]

You either are obtuse or pretending to be -- in the civilian world the wife would still get full social security. Here she isn't.

[David Nieporent]

I guess I'm obtuse, because I have less idea what you're talking about after your "explanation" than before. Where do you see anything about the wife, or social security, in the article, let alone a claim about how it's different in the civilian vs military world?

[Magister]

The article mentions that Grazioplene "will maintain any benefits or privileges authorized for retired officers in the grade of second lieutenant." Presumably this is less than that of a major general. But that's the deal for military personnel and their spouses, I guess; don't join the military if you're going to do crime.

His wife apparently knew about the crimes back when; Wikipedia says "Jennifer Elmore's mother and the retired major general's wife, Ann Marie Grazioplene's letters to a relative detailing how she had found her husband preparing to sexually molest her daughter were used by the prosecution as evidence of the crimes." So "innocent spouse" is maybe going too far, given that the daughter was repeatedly molested over her childhood and there was no investigation until decades later.

[Sarcastr0]

Next in that twitter thread 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.
https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1749647212811084061

I remember reading this paper in one ecstatic sitting: what I find unique about it is that it probably combines theory and experiment better than any other analysis I know. With it were laid the deep foundations of magnetic resonance. https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.73.679
[I found it hard sledding but YMMV - Sarc

2 more to go after this one.]

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Gays have destroyed CPAC -- they had help from the RINOS and the big-money promoters, but after a dozen years, they've finally destroyed it.

Three things: It isn't in DC anymore, it is now scheduled for K-12 spring break, and they are letting the Nazis in.

[David Nieporent]

The Nazis are the CPAC/MAGA base, so it's hardly surprising. It was not, of course, scheduled for spring break, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Nazis are not the base, and K-12 February Vacation, since 1971, has been the week of Washington's birthday - which was the week CPAC was on -- last week.

It used to be in March.

[Martinned2]

The Nazis are not the base

Sure, the dude said this because he thought it would be unpopular: https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1761060770161267084

[David Nieporent]

K-12 February Vacation, since 1971, has been the week of Washington’s birthday

Yet another cryptic comment from Dr. Ed.

I don't know what "K-12 February Vacation" is — google does not reveal that to be a term of art — and the previous statement was about "K-12 spring break," which I am confident has never been in February.

[Sarcastr0]

Jack Posobiec, who is legit a far-right racial purist authoritarian, was an invited speaker at CPAC.

Nut quote: "“Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on Jan. 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it.”

When you invite that kinda shit, it's not nothing. CPAC is a Nazi event.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that's the clip I linked to on Twitter immediately above.

I tend to reserve the Nazi label to actual genocidal maniacs. But fascist seems like an obvious descriptor.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Fair put on Nazi.
2. Dropping a comment about the definition of fascism below; it's an interesting conversation to have.

[Life of Brian]

Of course, the actual footage is clear that the Pierogi Czar was channeling/mocking Democrats' concept of democracy. The summary conveniently provided in the tweet, for those who fear clicking (much less watching the actual footage) will give them righty cooties:

My plan to end democracy:

- End paper ballots
- Remove all voter ID
- Replace in-person voting with low integrity options
- Place state assets in all media
- Censor social media
- Lock up protesters
- Arrest the opposition leader 4 times

And the true "nut quote" at the end of the clip: "Folks, this is THEIR [air quotes] 'democracy' -- this is the regime we will overturn!"

Congrats at getting hoodwinked by hopeful headlines yet again.

[Nige]

The right's 'saying shit you actually mean but sarcastically so you can pretend it's a joke when called on it' schtick is wearing out.

[Bwaaah]

"The right's [...] schtick is wearing out."

It never wears out, because the left always takes it seriously, as if its trumped up demons were an accurate depiction of its adversaries.

The shtick is made for you, Nige. It exists only because of you. You are the anti-shtick, then, now, and probably for life. With you, the shtick works as well as it did the first day.

Acknowledge your ugly bedfellows, Nige. Know where you sleep.

[Nige]

Well, you’re acknowledging it is a schtick, and lazy, and childish, and you get mad if it’s taken seriously and you get mad when no-one takes you seriously, and it’s always someone else’s fault, and you want to have it both ways and you get confused because no-one cares. Now you've sarcastically had sarcastic nazis at CPAC and one sarcastically said you were planning on ending democracy, and oh dear, being an edgelord is so 2010 and doesn't get you very far outside your bubble.

[ThePublius]

That's nonsense.

For background, the Dems have called every presidential candidate Hitler, going back to Dewey. Even Romney was called Hitler!

Yet, Naziism, and fascism, are phenomena, extensions of, the left; of socialism, and communism. Current Dem policies and actions are much more aligned with Naziism and fascism than anything the Republicans have done, or purport to do. And, as a reminder, conservatives have just about zero political power today.

[Martinned2]

Calm down. It sounds like you forgot to take your medicines today.

[ThePublius]

Oh, get lost. You're apparently just another lib who attacks the person when they have no cogent rebuttal themselves.

Why don't you respond with something of substance?

[Martinned2]

I honestly wouldn't know where to begin. Your comment is a perfect example of Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong". It's incoherent accusations combined with incorrect factual claims.

[Nige]

‘And, as a reminder, conservatives have just about zero political power today.’

Was all that gerrymandering for nothing, then?

The Nazis all go to CPAC, dude.

[Sarcastr0]

conservatives have just about zero political power today.

"It's not true! It's actually the you guys!! And even if it were true it wouldn't matter!!!"

Working hard out there, ThePublius?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

For background, the assertion that "the Dems" do something because some of them do it is asinine. Right on-point for the level of intelligence you display.

Naziism is a far-right totalitarian ideology. Again, you're an idiot.

Conservatives control the House and split the Senate. They have little political power only because they have no proper ability to govern, not because anyone is stopping them.

If they weren't so busy taking their marching orders from Trump's dick, they could probably get some things done that might even be good for the country.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The Nazis are the CPAC/MAGA base

You sound more like a 14 year-old incel with every post.

[Nige]

It's always someone else's fault, even though the causation here is more obscure than usual.

[tylertusta]

Looks to me like Fani Willis is in deep trouble.

After Friday's revelation of phone records that contradicts Willis's and Wade's sworn testimony, Willis's office fired off a response with the court.

To all of you lawyers out there, is it customary to allow parties to file responses that are bold, underlined, and in all caps?

Anyways, Willis is arguing that the evidence shouldn't be considered. The defense obviously disagrees and they filed their reply brief yesterday. Additionally, I've seen some folks pointing out cases where Willis's prosecution team used cellular geofencing and metadata to help obtain convictions in Fulton County, so there's a certain irony to Willis's protests.

I hear that today (the 26th) is the day that Judge McAfee is meeting Terrence Bradley alone to determine whether his testimony is actually privileged. I get the feeling that no, his information is not considered privileged and McAfee will require him to answer the defense's questions.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see how it could possibly not be privileged. But it may be entirely unnecessary given the rest of the evidence.

The formatting choices of Fulton County were "allowed," but rather bizarre.

[Michael P]

Wade and Bradley were partners at the same firm before Bradley represented Wade, and they socialized with each other. Bradley and another lawyer both donated to Willis's election campaign. There seems to be plenty of scope for Bradley to have leaned about the affair through non-privileged channels.

[tylertusta]

I have no idea how Wade telling Bradley he was shaboinking Willis in 2021 could possibly be in furtherance of Bradley's legal representation of Wade.

[Michael P]

It doesn’t have to be in furtherance of Bradley’s representation of Wade.

The two relevant bits are state code, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-24/chapter-9/article-2/part-1/24-9-24/, and rule 1.6 from the state bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, https://www.gabar.org/barrules/georgia-rules-of-professional-conduct.cfm

The second one covers a lot more ground, but also has those notable exceptions, and technically is about confidentiality rather than privilege.

[tylertusta]

Rule 1.6 does not apply here.

§ 24-9-24 clearly cabins privilege to things in furtherance of representation.

[not guilty]

In addition to Ga. Code § 24-9-24 related to attorney-client communications, § 24-9-25 states:

No attorney shall be competent or compellable to testify for or against his client to any matter or thing, the knowledge of which he may have acquired from his client by virtue of his employment as attorney or by reason of the anticipated employment of him as attorney. However, an attorney shall be both competent and compellable to testify for or against his client as to any matter or thing, the knowledge of which he may have acquired in any other manner.

This statute appears to exclude testimony in a manner broader than § 24-9-24.

Also, Rule 1.6(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which creates an obligation of confidentiality broader than privileged communications, contains an exception for disclosures which are required by order of the court. The relevant statutes contain no such exception.

Judge McAfee has reportedly called for Terrence Bradley and his lawyer to appear at the Fulton County courthouse this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. ET for the in camera review that’s conducted in the judge’s chambers. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/politics/private-investigator-trump-georgia-fani-willis/index.html IIRC Mr. Bradley's attorney stated during the evidentiary hearing that a ruling compelling testimony would be immediately appealable to the Georgia Supreme Court.

[tylertusta]

No privilege for Bradley, per Judge McAfee.

[Martinned2]

I like it when extremists get their just deserts swift & certain:

A conservative Christian family moved to Russia to escape LGBT ideology - only to melt down when their bank accounts were frozen and there were no English speakers to help them.

Farmer Arend Feenstra and his wife Anneesa made the decision to move their family of 10 from Canada to Russia a month ago, but their dream appeared to go quickly downhill upon their arrival.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13116159/Canadian-family-russia-bank-frozen-apology-feenstra.html

(And yes, with those names they definitely have recent Dutch ancestry.)

[Martinned2]

See also:

Austrian Activist, Who Was Detained For 9 Months In Afghanistan, Released By Taliban
Trying to prove that Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is safe, Herbert Fritz, 84, travelled there last year and published an article titled "Vacations with the Taliban".

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/herbert-fritz-austrian-activist-who-was-detained-for-9-months-in-afghanistan-released-by-taliban-5127489

[Armchair]

What exactly makes you happy about this story?

[Martinned2]

In this world, justice is wanting far too often. It is nice to see it meted out in such a satisfying way in these cases.

[Armchair]

Justice for what exactly? What is the crime?

[Martinned2]

Who said anything about a crime? Being a racist idiot isn't a crime.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with your sentiment, but recall you chortling at liberal misery no shortage of times, so challenge your good faith here.

[Martinned2]

This is not so much chortling at misery generally, but chortling at someone asking for something and then getting it.

As a general rule, I'm a big fan of the idea that democracy means that people should get exactly what they ask for, right between the eyes. But the problem with that approach is that there are always innocent bystanders, like the people who got outvoted or who could not vote. (Like me in the Brexit vote.) A more individualised example of someone getting exactly what they ask for, on the other hand, seems extremely just to me. If he was ever so slightly more self-aware, you could tell the same story about Donald lock-her-up Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

I've always been a softy and think stupid should hurt, but not all that much.

[Martinned2]

Fair enough. I certainly do feel bad for the kids.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Nothing delights a psychotically extremely partisan more than seeing human beings destroyed simply for having beliefs/opinions that are different from the partisan's.

[Nige]

Where did it say they were being 'destroyed for their beliefs?'

[BrotherMovesOn]

Wuz has been an insult cruise missile for years. If I were you I wouldn't waste your time.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Wuz has been an insult cruise missile for years. If I were you I wouldn’t waste your time.

Perhaps you should invest some time in thinking before responding. My response was not a gratuitous insult. It was an assessment of the previous poster's bizarre expression of schadenfreude over the misery incurred by someone who, as far as he knows, is guilty of nothing other than holding an opinion that he doesn't share. If you don't find that to be repulsive then its time for some self-reflection.

[Nige]

They're not being punished for holding an opinion. It just turns they had very bad opinions and they shouldn't have acted on them.

[Voize]

Your clue that they are not the brightest kulaks in the room is their moving to a non-english speaking country and then complaining that nobody speaks english.

Who knows, maybe they will be happier there. There are plenty of people worldwide whose idea of freedom is freedom from influences they disagree with. They want to conform, as long as the society is one they are comfortable conforming to. Maybe the Feenstras can find that in Russia.

[ThePublius]

That's a rather peculiar brand of schadenfreude you've got there, and not particularly attractive.

[Nige]

‘their family of 10’

That’s too many kids for schadenfreude.

[Martinned2]

That's why civilised countries have laws that allow the authorities to step in and protect children against their parents.

[Armchair]

Do you believe the government of Canada should have seized their children? If so, why?

[Martinned2]

If I remember the story correctly, they went from the US to Russia, not from Canada, so back when they were still in Canada there wouldn't have been a reason to take the children away. But moving your family to Russia in the middle of a war while no one in the family speaks the language definitely seems worth a conversation.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS is dawdling on Donald Trump's application to stay the mandate of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding that Court's rejection of Trump's claims of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. The application was submitted two weeks ago, full briefing was completed three days later, and two Friday conferences have occurred since then.

I suspect this means that the Court is going to deny the stay, and Justices Clarence Toady and/or Samuel Alito are dragging ass while writing dissents from the denial.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I am very surprised to not see something on Trump v Anderson. Is it taking longer than you thought for a decision?

[not guilty]

Given that the Court fast tracked the briefing and argument, I am a bit surprised that we don't have a decision yet. But there is a smorgasbord of possible rationales upon which to decide the case, and I would not be surprised to see a splintered decision, with some justices traveling under one theory and other justices another, with no group commanding a majority of the Court. That would take longer to write.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not even a bit surprised about Trump v. Anderson. While I think it overwhelmingly likely that Trump wins that one, it's a complex case with (as we've discussed) many possible off-ramps. It's not going to be quick to settle on one (if they ever can) that gets 5 votes.

[Commenter_XY]

That truly was a fascinating oral argument.

[tylertusta]

Shadow docket cases don't go through conference like cases do in the cert stage.

[tylertusta]

To add onto my comment, the response brief was due by Feb 20th. Amici were still filing briefs right up until the 20th.

That the government filed its response on the 14th and Trump on the 15th doesn’t change that deadline for the 20th.

The Court doesn’t necessarily dispose of shadow docket cases during the big orders lists (often on the 1st business day of the week). Instead, the Court might issue a miscellaneous order at any point.

Example here of a stay being denied:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022224zr_e2pg.pdf

Here’s an example of a stay being granted:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/021624zr1_bp7c.pdf

The last piece is that we might see the case being referred to the whole court in the docket, like we can see in 23A741's case page:

Application (23A741) referred to the Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a741.html

[tylertusta]

(Replying again because this website sucks at giving you a working commenting tool)

To add onto my comment, the response brief was due by Feb 20th. Amici were still filing briefs right up until the 20th. That the government filed its response on the 14th and Trump's reply was filed on the 15th doesn’t change that 20th deadline.

The Court doesn’t necessarily dispose of shadow docket cases during the big orders lists (often on the 1st business day of the week). Instead, the Court might issue a miscellaneous order at any point.

Here’s an example of a stay being granted:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/021624zr1_bp7c.pdf

Example here of a stay being denied:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022224zr_e2pg.pdf

Also consider that this request for a stay wasn't sent to the whole Supreme Court for consideration. It was sent to the Chief Justice.

We might see the case referred to the whole court and not just for Chief Justice Roberts like here:

Application (23A741) referred to the Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a741.html

In the above case, both the referral and a denial may happen at the same time.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure about that at all, there are post argument conferences:

"When Court is in session, there are two conferences scheduled per week – one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Friday afternoon. At their Wednesday conference, the Justices talk about the cases heard on Monday. At their Friday conference, they discuss cases heard on Tuesday and Wednesday."
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=When%20Court%20is%20in%20session,heard%20on%20Tuesday%20and%20Wednesday.

And cert petitions are also discussed at conference:
"The Case Distribution Schedule identifies the dates on which petitions for writs of certiorari, along with corresponding briefs in opposition and reply briefs, will be distributed to the Justices. It also identifies the dates on which those petitions are scheduled to be considered by the Justices at conference, although this schedule is subject to change."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx

If they are meeting twice a week there is certainly time to discuss shadow docket, and rocket docket cases pre-cert, and post-argument, just like other cases.

[tylertusta]

All true, but this case isn't in posture for a cert petition or is post-argument. So far, this case is just a request for a stay. That’s a different docket from the cert or post-argument stage.

Applications for a stay are handled by just one Justice that oversees that particular Circuit. In this case, that’s Chief Justice Roberts. Until it’s referred to the whole Court, the application for a stay remains with him. There’s no conference for a stay petition until the case is referred to the whole court. Maybe. If the Court bothers with a conference at all.

The briefing schedule for the response says that briefs were due by the 20th, and in fact our old friend Calabresi filed his own brief on the 20th. The Court is under no obligation to cut short its own briefing schedule just to satisfy Smith.

Stays and other emergency docket items may be handled during the regular release of orders. However, they may be also issued at any time of the week under the “Miscellaneous Order” category on the Court’s website.

Speculation that one or more Justices are writing dissents over a denial for a stay are just that- speculation. CJ Roberts has had 4 business days (including today!) to look into the case.

If we get a dissent for a denial of a stay, I imagine we’ll see a “referred to the whole Court” on the case’s docket page followed by weeks of nothing.

I’m not sure that we’ll get a denial for a stay. I think there are good odds that the Court will grant some kind of a stay, though maybe they’ll modify it from a stay for a en banc petition to a stay to file cert.

[Kazinski]

Ok, I got a a little confused, and thought we had pivoted to trump v Anderson, but I see you were replying to NG's original post.

But I will note that Smith's petition to deny the stay also requested that if they do grant a stay, then they should treat Trump's petition for a stay as a cert petition to hear the immunity case.

[tylertusta]

Yes, he did ask that. The Court can always turn this around into a petition for cert.

That's not a guarantee, though. I feel like before CJ Roberts converts the stay into a petition for cert, he'll consult the other Justices first, and we'd see that in the docket.

[tylertusta]

Aged like milk, NG.

[F.D. Wolf]

HuffPo is reporting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only sitting justice to have travelled with a medic, marking the start of the left-wing pressure campaign to encourage her to resign before the presidential election in case Donald Trump wins. Sotomayor will have sat on the Court for 15 years this August. Should she resign before the election, she would become the shortest-tenured justice since Abe Fortas resigned in 1969, after having served less than four years on the Court.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sonia-sotomayor-medic-retirement_n_65d8ec05e4b0cc1f2f7bab77

[Martinned2]

Remind me, why did Fortas resign again?

[Kazinski]

Ethics. He was doing undisclosed legal consulting on the side.

His nomination to be elevated to chief justice had also stalled due to a filibuster, because he was seen as too close to Johnson. He was a frequent visitor to the White House and reportedly advised Johnson on both political and domestic policy.

[David Nieporent]

He was getting bribes on the side, which were called "consulting" so that people couldn't say that they were bribes.

[Kazinski]

No he wasn’t, at least there is nothing in his Wiki that alleged anything close to bribery, this is what brought him down: “Fortas remained an associate justice, but in 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a US$20,000 (equivalent to $160,000 in 2022)[42] retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client, in January 1966. In return for unspecified advice, it was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for the rest of Fortas’s life (and then pay his widow for the rest of her life).”

And there was this but this hardly can be characterized as a bribe either: “Fortas’s acceptance of $15,000 for nine speaking engagements at American University’s Washington College of Law became a source of controversy. The money had come, not from the university, but from private sources that represented business interests connected to 40 companies; Senator Strom Thurmond raised the idea that cases involving these companies might come to the Court, and Fortas might not be objective.”

And: Thurmond also hammered at the issue of pornography. He condemned Fortas for voting with the majority to overturn obscenity laws dealing with pornographic films. Thurmond obtained some of the films in question and played them in the Senate building while the hearings were out of session.[27] These showings became known as the “Fortas Film Festival”, and the association of Fortas with some of the films’ strip-teases and especially the rape or homosexual sex depicted in one film, Flaming Creatures, was effective in tarnishing Fortas’s image and disheartening his supporters.[”

[not guilty]

According to that same Wikipedia article, Louis Wolfson was under investigation for securities violations at the time, and it was alleged that he expected that his arrangement with Fortas would help him stave off criminal charges or help him secure a presidential pardon. He asked Fortas to help him secure a pardon from Johnson, which Fortas claimed that he did not do. Fortas recused himself from Wolfson’s case when it came before the Court.

Louis Wolfson, meet Harlan Crow.

[Kazinski]

What has Harlan Crow been accused of?

For what did he request a pardon? And who was Thomas supposed to ask this non existent pardon for a non-existent crime from.

I will note that after he left the court Fortas opened up a firm in Washington and was relatively successful for a number of years, he was definitely tarnished, but hardly disgraced. And never charged or really even accused of bribery.

[Bob from Ohio]

"HuffPo is reporting "

LOL The pressure campaign begins.

The left learned from Ruthie that its best for sick justices to resign while a Dem is in the White House.

[Sarcastr0]

I've tried to stop using fascist so much, but as I hear more about fascism, it seems like it's not just a historical artifact from a particular time.

Per Eco, it's
It's authoritarianism+nationalism+asthetics/vibes. It's a narrow class, but if you don't see it as showing up in the US, you're being wilfully blind.

[Martinned2]

Yes, there are a number of people who have written thoughtfully about the proper definition of fascism in the last ten years. Like Madeleine Albright, for example. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/08/madeleine-albright-fascism-is-not-an-ideology-its-a-method-interview-fascism-a-warning

It seems to me like no useful purpose would be served by limiting its use to specific historic examples only. Like communism, it's an ideology that has a clear enough meaning that you can apply it to new phenomena as well, if the shoe fits.

[Michael P]

Yes, Jonah Goldberg literally wrote the book on that.

[Martinned2]

Well, he certainly wrote *a* book.

[OtisAH]

And even *that* volume of bound sludge was too much for you to read.

[Sarcastr0]

What was Jonah Goldberg's working definition of fascism, Michael?

Or did you just read the title and move on?

[Nige]

Jonah Goldberg concluded that *organic farming* was fascism.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, many years ago Orin Kerr (Orin Kerr!) barred me from the VC after I tried to explain in historical terms why I thought the third-party doctrine resembled fascist practice. He didn't like the word. There was mumbo jumbo about a polite dinner party, which seemed inapplicable, given I had never been to a dinner party published world-wide.

Anyway, I decided to omit "fascist," as a shortcut not worth the trouble, and thereafter substituted longer explications based on generally-accepted notions of whatever, "fascist," aspect of the discussion seemed appropriate, while omitting the word itself.

I have to admit that I think Kerr did me a favor. It's more trouble to write at length, but I learned that even if you attempt to use, "fascist," with precision, it almost never gets heard or read with precision.

Then, still later, I learned that really smart folks who study fascism historically had pretty much given up trying to systematize what the term means at all. They had begun to insist on just defining the term with reference to specific historical occurrences involving self-described fascists, and concede that those meanings are so variable and contradictory it's as if the term itself can never be defined accurately.

Anyway, thanks, Orin, really. It was good advice. People get what I am trying to say better when I explain in detail than when I use that ugly freighted shortcut.

But Sarcastr0 is right about whatever it is that is showing up in the U.S.

[Martinned2]

I learned that even if you attempt to use, “fascist,” with precision, it almost never gets heard or read with precision.

Well no. Like 'racist', 'leftist', and 'neoliberal' it is not a term that people like to apply to themselves, or like other people to apply to them. But I'm not sure that's necessarily a reason to stop using it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Especially when it's used without a commonly understood definition?

[Martinned2]

Yes. Consistently with my previous, we should definitely not use words that are ill-defined. Neoliberal is at the top of my list for that one.

[David Nieporent]

What's particularly bad about "neoliberal" is that it's a European term from a European context, that some progressives imported to the U.S.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Neo-conservative" gets used a lot, too. And stopped actually making sense about the time the Berlin Wall fell.

[David Nieporent]

Neoconservative is often misused or inconsistently used, but at least it's an American term and Americans actually self-identify as such.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or used to at one point.

[Nige]

I thought all those guys dubbed themselves ‘neoliberal,’ and they mostly seemed to think it meant 'get Saddam.'

[Krayt]

One of the key prongs for the definition of fascism is: Nominal private ownership of industry with strong state "partnership".

Third Party Doctrine, that the 4th Amendment protection of your papers, can be skipped because your papers are held by a company instead of in your house, sure as shit seems like nominal private ownership with strong government "partnership".

[Krayt]

And to you defenders of Third Party Doctrine, I’m sure most of you just wanna catch bad guys, and are not secret tyrant enablers. But you should be looking to buttress rights, not work around them. Enormous swaths of humanity still live with a boot on their neck, forever. And when the US does stuff like this, they sigh as the boot presses a little forever-er.

This also applies to Democrats looking to work around the First Amendment using argument-by-brain-damage.

[Drewski]

"But you should be looking to buttress rights, not work around them."

What a simple-minded worldview.

[Sarcastr0]

This kind of 'lets take Italy's 1930s branding at it's word' nonsense is why it's not a great definition to use.

Especially when you reduce it such that US 4A jurisprudence becomes fascism. Or that there's a sliding scale of total government regulation from laissez faire to fascism.

That's abuse of terminology.

[Kazinski]

Well since modern fascism started in 1930's Italy and Mussolini was the archetype of the fascist movement for the first decade, and Hitler was seen as a Johnny come lately imitater, I am having trouble seeing how its nonsense.

If you are only talking about Nazi style fascism, then just call them Nazis.

[Sarcastr0]

Because branding is not necessarily true. In the end Italy's fascism was authoritarianism+nationalism+aesthetics, more than any actual economic system.

That's why I went with Eco's definition.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

if you don’t see [fascism] as showing up in the US, you’re being wilfully blind.

Let's see: disrupting events held by their opposition, declaring their opposition illegitimate (illegal!), putting their political opponents in prison... You're right!

[Martinned2]

This, of course, perfectly illustrates Stephen Latrop's point that discussions about semantics are rarely productive, and that using the term fascism is more likely to throw the discussion off the rails than lead to anything useful.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what should we call the actions Ed Grinberg describes?

[Martinned2]

In a word: nonsense

[Nige]

Ed Grinberg's comments are consistent with the historical rise of fascism - nobody howled louder that they were being oppressed than the fascists. Let's see what's oppressing the Ed Grinbergs of today: a computer programme notorious for being unreliable produced a picture of a black pope.

[Nige]

Somone suggested that a lot of people have reverse-engineered fascism after falling for the asthetics first, and I suppose if you look narrowly at the unironic imagery generated by Trump supporters from 2016 on and their increasing devotion to him and his more openly fascist promises and the Christian Nationalist plans, they might have a point.

[Brett Bellmore]

This sort of unironic imagery?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. Some random screenshot (entitled Satanic Ghoul SS.jpg) is not actually unironic fascism.

Good lord, you're unserious sometimes.

[Nige]

Isn't that one of the images altered by the right to enhance the effect they claimed to see? Unironically?

[Kazinski]

Doesn't look that much different than this version in the New Yorker:

https://images.app.goo.gl/rGNe87ecUsivThxt8

[Nige]

Oh, I can see some significant alterations.

[Kazinski]

Really, the only thing I see is its been cropped.

What else do you see?

[Nige]

This is so in character it has to be a bit, surely.

[Kazinski]

Per the fascists its national socialism.

As opposed to Communism, which is international socialism.

Obviously there are degrees but there certainly are a lot of parallels between Nazi Germany and Communist China. Both have are run by a party where decisions are made at the highest level. Both allow run a seeming capitalist economy, but under state control. Both have large camps for disfavored minorities (Uighars and Falun Gong in China) and utilize slave labor in the camps.

Of course China has passed the initial stage of virtual one man rule when Mao died and his successors tuned the party apparatus. And China didn't launch any massive wars of aggression, mainly just Korea in the early 50's.

But I certainly see the parallels.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither communism nor fascism are only authoritarian+attacking outgroups. You've blown them out so say 'you see the parallels.'

You make a great argument to not use the term at all, because it becomes almost whatever a poster wants it to be.

[Kazinski]

Why don't you just read what I said and not run it through ChatGPT to translate it first?

"but there certainly are a lot of parallels between Nazi Germany and Communist China."

I picked two specific examples to compare, not communism
and fascism as wholes, although they are leading examples. Italy as a fascist state and Cuba might be exceptions to camps for minorities and slave labor, but I'm no expert. But I certainly stand by my observation.

[Sarcastr0]

You're still failing at what fascism entails.
As I said before, don't stick to the branding, consider the actual practice.

But then you are stuck with a term that's only relevant historically. Which is why I keep bringing in Eco. He doesn't buy the branding, but he does make some good points about the underlying driver and what made those movements rare but not unique.

Marshalling reductive historical comparisons is just faffing about and utterly missing any actual insight. Though it could let you eventually call Biden a fascist, so I get why there's an appeal to you.

[SimonP]

It's been really admirable watching conservatives respond to the IVF ruling in Alabama, as they all affirm their belief that yes, life begins at conception, so obviously IVF, to the extent its practice is foreseeably likely to result in the destruction of multiple embryos, must come to an end.

I really didn't think that American conservatives would stick to their high-minded rhetoric about the need to ban abortion through all of its obvious implications. Surely, I thought, they'd try to find some kind of negotiated middle ground, acceptable to a majority of Americans, that necessarily implies a continuing tally of dead babies (in their parlance).

[hobie]

From SNL's Weekend Update:

"The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos created by IVF are children. And that black embryos can be tried as adults."

[John F. Carr]

Echoes of an old Onion story: Judge rules white girl will be tried as black adult.

[Frank Drackman]

Black embryos/feti are certainly executed in much larger numbers than Black Adults. Almost like it was a plan to limit their population growth.

[ReaderY]

We had a sensible negotiated middle ground on whether African slaves and their descendants were really people or not, with the abolitionists sensibly not willing to disturb the country by reaching the full implcations of their rhetoric despite some initial posturing, for nearly a full century after the Civil War. They largely shelved their Scholastic type absolutist thinking, accepted modernity and the teachings of the new science of race, and reached a result acceptable to the majority of Americans.

And how did that work for us?

Whether it’s wise policy or not, whether I personally agree with it or not, is beside the point. Alabama has the right to take the argument to its logical conclusion if it wants to.

[Martinned2]

Alabama has the right to take the argument to its logical conclusion if it wants to.

Like I said, give the people what they want, right between the eyes.

Fortunately (I guess) Alabama doesn't really have courts or a rule of law. If the people don't like this IVF rule, they can simply elect different politicians to sit on the state "supreme court", which can then make a different rule.

[Nige]

Depends. How gerrymandered is Alabama? Very gerrymandered. So, not simple at all.

[Martinned2]

I think the elections for the supreme court are statewide, so no gerrymandering. Whichever politician get the most votes for each of the three seats that is up for election gets to take it.

[Nige]

Good luck to them, then.

[Frank Drackman]

OH, so Alabama's not 'Gerrymandered' then? If you had any honor you'd take the Lane Price "Dignified Exit" after such a humiliation

[OtisAH]

The Dude has a name for folks like you. “Human paraquat.”

[Josh R]

The people of Alabama don't like the logical conclusion. I strongly suspect most pro-lifers don't like the logical conclusion. We can only conclude the argument that life (i.e., personhood) begins at conception was always bogus for most who made the argument.

[Zarniwoop]

I am willing to believe that for many folks in the "life begins at conception" camp, they make (or made) this as an overgeneralized statement based in low-information idealism, rather than concluding their original belief itself is "bogus".

In other words, the potential impact on IVF just wasn't on their radar; they were thinking in a simplistic manner, solely in terms of the unassisted biological route to pregnancy, where a fertilized egg will implant - or not! - as god sees fit ... and that was good enough for them until reality of IVF got in the way.

I suspect that even a lot of "life begins at conception" folks are going to suddenly find that Jesus really meant there's a "in a womb" requierement. Heck, the GOP-dominated Alabama Leg seems to be barrelling down that train track right now.

[Josh R]

What's the principled logic behind a womb is necessary for personhood?

[Nige]

Anything else is unnatural and ungodly?

[Josh R]

I don't think a fertilized egg before implantation is unnatural. But (it now) takes implantation to make the blastocyst a person? That seems as arbitrary as viability or birth.

[Nige]

Anything can be unnatural if your God tells you it is.

[not guilty]

Married hetero couples with the discretionary income to pursue IVF are highly likely to be Republican voters, whom the Alabama legislature is loath to offend.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man! Black People are just as likely to pursue IVF as rich people!

[ducksalad]

I think you’re overthinking their underthinking.

They’re in favor of people trying to have babies and start families. They’re against people they perceive as doing the opposite: anti-natalists, abortion proponents, etc.

The context of the ruling was couples who had their embryos destroyed against their wishes. It’s not surprising that they felt they’d been wronged, and that the damages should be more than if someone had discarded their toenail clippings. I suspect even a strongly pro-choice woman trying IVF would feel she’d been wronged.

Declaring the embryo a human being was not a good way to get them some justice. But I haven’t seen any indication that Alabama intends to prosecute the stuff this ruling theoretically makes illegal, despite all the dramatizing here. Anymore than NY intends to prosecute and levy fines everytime there is disagreement on a real estate valuation, even though the Trump ruling would theoretically indicate that.

[Randal]

But even if it remains solely within the civil realm, wrongful death liability can be expensive. Just ask OJ.

[ducksalad]

In the actual context – someone produces embryos and then for whatever reason ends their ability to produce anymore, trusting that they will be preserved – then I think losing the embryos is in fact a major loss and should be damn expensive for whoever is at fault. “Wrongful death” is the wrong word for it, but it’s something serious.

If it was third-party pro-life activists involving themselves on behalf of embryos no longer wanted by the parents, yeah, the law ought to disallow such suits.

[Randal]

But that has nothing to do with the topic. That's like saying if a person's medical files get leaked or the kidney they were donating to their daughter gets negligently destroyed, they should have a civil action for damages. Well sure, why not, but that has nothing to do with medical files or kidneys being children under Alabama law.

[ducksalad]

Topics drift sometimes.

As for the original topic: I agree that if Alabama proceeded to treat every embryo as a child, in every context, that would lead to lots of unacceptable conclusions. I'm less convinced that Alabama has some intention to do that.

I'm seeing arguments of this form: if they do A, then to be consistent they just have to do B, and B is outrageous. The flaw in this argument is that they don't have to satisfy your standards for consistency, and they probably don't even want to.

[not guilty]

Assuming arguendo that the clinic was negligent, I wonder what the Plaintiffs will claim as damages. The Plaintiff couples have already had successful pregnancies. The various opinions of the Alabama Supreme Court do not indicate whether any Plaintiffs wished to implant embryos in the future. If so, I surmise that the Plaintiffs would need to show by a preponderance of evidence that future implantation(s) would result in successful pregnanc(ies), and if so, they would offer evidence of the economic value of each potential offspring.

According to the lead opinion, the Fonde Plaintiffs elected in their contract to automatically "destroy" any embryos that had remained frozen longer than five years; the LePage Plaintiffs chose to donate similar embryos to medical researchers whose projects would "result in the destruction of the embryos"; and the Aysenne Plaintiffs agreed to allow any "abnormal embryos" created through IVF to be experimented on for "research" purposes and then "discarded." https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/4b56014daa6dda84/a039b1d9-full.pdf

I haven't looked up whether negligent performance of a contract is actionable in Alabama, but I think it would be difficult for a jury to sort out what part of a contract that has already been substantially performed (the successful implantations) is attributable to the embryos sitting in a cryogenic nursery pending their eventual destruction.

[ducksalad]

You've looked into it detail. If the clinic did everything by the contract then that (ought) to be the end of it. But if the contract said preserve for period X and the clinic failed to do that, well, why shouldn't they be liable?

[not guilty]

My analysis assumed liability. But damages might be limited to a small fraction of the contract price. The clinic fulfilled most of its obligations.

[ducksalad]

Suppose some woman went in for a routine $65 pap smear and the doctor accidentally destroys her ovaries and makes her infertile.

Would we be arguing about what fraction of the $65 the doctor has to return? Or would we be talking some kind of 5-6 digit settlement?

I think this is analogous. The damage is making the couples effectively infertile, through negligence. (If that's what actually happened here.)

[not guilty]

My analysis above acknowledges that damages are quite different if the Plaintiff couples had wanted to implant the embryos to achieve future pregnancies compared to if they had not.

[Josh R]

.

They’re in favor of people trying to have babies and start families. They’re against people they perceive as doing the opposite: anti-natalists, abortion proponents, etc.

I thought the pro-life position was opposed to embryonic stem-cell research even though that has the potential to save lives. If that's not acceptable, why would destroying embryos in the name of starting families be acceptable?

Come to think of it, while pro-life heads have been spinning since the Alabama ruling, why wasn't there a public outcry that caused similar head spinning for stem-cell research?

[Nige]

'Whether it’s wise policy or not, whether I personally agree with it or not, is beside the point.'

Oh I reckon whether you think black people are really people or not would be quite the point.

[Martinned2]

US Air Force man dies after setting himself on fire at Israeli embassy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68405119

[OtisAH]

There’ll be far more discussion about the pic of the police officer with his weapon drawn on the man on fire than there’ll be about why he did it.

[Martinned2]

True. I'm sure lots of people will see that picture and advocate for better police training.

[hobie]

Well, at least Kyle Rittenhouse found employment

[StonewallDeSoto]

I mean what if he started running at you while he's on fire and probably covered in fuel?? What are you gonna do then?

[Martinned2]

Try to put the fire out?

[OtisAH]

“But he’s all sticky and… on fire! And the smell!”

[StonewallDeSoto]

I don't think the plastic water bottle the average cop is carrying around is gonna cut it. While the suicidal inferno is running toward you, are you gonna try to grapple him and force him to stop drop and roll?

[Martinned2]

I would hope the cop would have the good sense to step aside if a person who is on fire is walking at them. And, while he's doing that, he might look around for any improvised solution to put the fire out.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Brilliant. If a maniac is running at you while he's on fire, simply step aside and you will be safe. What if he runs toward some other person, or towards a building? I'm just saying the guy is clearly a maniac willing to kill himself, it's not insane to pull a gun on him. Of course we hope someone else is calling the fire department and finding a fire extinguisher in the meantime.

[Martinned2]

Pulling a gun on a guy who is in the process of killing himself is pretty insane, actually.

[Mr. Bumble]

Setting yourself on fire to protest "genocide" is pretty insane, actually.

[Mr. Bumble]

Genocide is the stated policy of Hamas, so is that what he was protesting?

[Nige]

It's an act of despair, when you cannot endure being complicit with acts of horror any longer. It's a grim and terrible thing to do, and it's a kind of marker, even if it doesn't change anything: this is what was done while the horror was allowed to continue.

This is actually the second such incident.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The existence of the State of Israel negates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law.

Dishonest Zionist propaganda attempts to deflect from Zionist genocide by projecting the Zionist crime of genocide onto a completely legitimate native resistance group that struggles against vicious bloodthirsty Zionist invaders, interlopers, thieves, impostors and perpetrators of genocide.

A Summary of the White States' Betrayal of the International Anti-Genocide Legal Regime in the Context of Palestine

Today the State of Israel is perpetrating actus rei (criminal acts) of genocide with mens rea (criminal mentality) of genocide and with dolus specialis (specific malicious strategy) of genocide. Zionist leaders have been crystal clear about their goal since the invention of Zionism in 1881, and the Zionist movement has developed dolus specialis of physical destruction of the Palestinian group since 1881.

Zionist leader Vladimir Dubnow, wrote in October 1882: “The ultimate goal … is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years… The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.”[1]

In January 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference, Weizmann “The Zionist objective was gradually to make Palestine as Jewish as England was English.”[2] This goal is predicated on destruction of Palestinian group (genocide). In 1919, genocide was a sovereign right. Count Three of the Indictment of the 1946 Nuremberg International Tribunal provides the first international legal definition of the crime of genocide.

Throughout the period of their occupation of territories overrun by their armed forces the defendants, for the purpose of systematically terrorizing the inhabitants, murdered and tortured civilians, and ill-treated them, and imprisoned them without legal process.

The murders and ill-treatment were carried out by divers means, including shooting, hanging, gassing, starvation, gross overcrowding, systematic under-nutrition, systematic imposition of labor tasks beyond the strength of those ordered to carry them out, inadequate provision of surgical and medical services, kickings, beatings, brutality and torture of all kinds, including the use of hot irons and pulling out of fingernails and the performance of experiments by means of operations and otherwise on living human subjects. In some occupied territories the defendants interfered in religious matters, persecuted members of the clergy and monastic orders, and expropriated church property. They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.

The 1946 Nuremberg International Tribunal convicted Julius Streicher of genocide incitement
1. even though he had neither harmed anyone nor ordered harm to be inflicted on anyone and
2. even though hyperbolic or inflammatory speech during a war is rarely considered a war crime.

The Nuremberg International Tribunal concluded
1. that Streicher’s speech was in anachronistic terminology genocide incitement that was an intrinsic element of a deliberate and systematic strategy [specific malicious strategy (dolus specialis)] of physical destruction of a group and
2. that this genocide incitement merited the death penalty.

The 1946 Nuremberg International Tribunal ended on Oct 1, 1946, and Streicher was hanged on Oct 16, 1946.

At this point in time, this precedent of customary international law made genocide into a defined crime during wartime.

[I question whether customary international law of genocide requires dolus specialis. Lemkin, who wrote Count Three was familiar with common law doctrines. These doctrines determine liability by categorizing the type of malice accompanying any given criminal action between:

1. Express malice – deliberate intent to bring harm to the victim; and
2. Implied malice – Indifference to harm that a victim may suffer due to the defendant's carelessness or inattentiveness.

Lemkin seems to have meant that genocide should be a crime of express malice and did not ever make dolus specialis into a requirement. Dolus specialis is nowhere mentioned in the Genocide Convention.]

On Dec 11, 1946 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) unanimously banned genocide either in wartime or in peacetime by means of A/RES/96. (See image below.) Because the UNGA vote was unanimous, no United Nations Security Counsel (UNSC) resolution was necessary
1. for A/RES/96 to have force of international law and
2. for the ban to become jus cogens (a non-derogatable peremptory international legal norm).

“[A] treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm [jus cogens] of general international law.”[3]

Likewise even if an action or a right is based on a treaty, the action becomes banned and the right becomes invalid if the action or the right conflicts with a later defined peremptory norm [jus cogens] of general international law.

Dec 11, 1946 marks the start of the international anti-genocide legal regime.

Because Zionism became a criminal genocidal ideology on Dec 11, 1946, the Zionist leadership, which hoped that the major powers were still too exhausted from WWII to take any action against Zionist colonial settlers, put into high gear the planning of the logistics, PR, and legal defense for the final solution to the presence of a Palestinian native majority in Palestine.

On September 30, 1947, the US Military Government for Germany reconstituted Military Tribunal I, which had earlier been convened for the Doctors' Trial, to try the RuSHA Case (United States of America vs. Ulrich Greifelt, et al). This was Case #8 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings.

When the US Zionist movement succeeded in pressuring Truman to support Zionism’s genocidal goal, the US compelled the UNGA to support the optional non-obligatory Partition Proposal of United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The UN did not create the State of Israel. Except for the rare situation of a unanimous UNGA vote, a UNGA resolution has no effect in international law unless the UNSC affirms the UNGA resolution — something the UNSC never did.

Because the Zionist leadership feared a UNSC veto and had no interest in a dialogue with the Palestinian leadership, the Zionist leadership gave Palestinians no chance to respond to the Partition Proposal and immediately started the genocidal crimes that are now called the Nakba. The brutality of the Nakba was probably greater than the Gaza Holocaust and is the start of the never ending genocide that continues until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country.

On March 10, 1948 in the midst of these Zionist genocidal crimes, the US subsequent Nuremberg Tribunal of the RuSHA case concluded with the conviction of Nazi leaders of the genocidal crime of Germanization, which is defined in Count Three of the 1946 Nuremberg International Tribunal.

(J) GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists.

This Plan included economic domination, physical conquest, installation of puppet governments, purported de jure annexation and enforced conscription into the German Armed Forces.

This was carried out in most of the occupied countries including: Norway, France (particularly in the Departments of Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, Moselle, Ardennes, Aisne, Nord, Meurthe and Moselle), Luxembourg, the Soviet Union; Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.

In France in the Departments of Aisne, The Nord, Meurthe and Moselle, and especially in that of Ardertnes, rural properties were seized by a German state organization which tried to have them exploited under German direction; the landowners of these exploitations were dispossessed and turned into agricultural laborers.

Lemkin explicitly calls Germanization a form of genocide in Chapter IX of his book, which is entitled Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.

New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.The following illustration will suffice. The confiscation of property of nationals of an occupied area on the ground that they have left the country may be considered simply as a deprivation of their individual property rights. However, if the confiscations are ordered against individuals solely because they are Poles, Jews, or Czechs, then the same confiscations tend in effect to weaken the national entities of which those persons are members.Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor's own nationals. Denationalization was the word used in the past to describe the destruction of a national pattern. The author believes, however, that this word is inadequate because: (i) it does not connote the destruction of the biological structure; (2) in connoting the destruction of one national pattern, it does not connote the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor; and (3) denationalization is used by some authors to mean only deprivation of citizenship.

Many authors, instead of using a generic term, use currently terms connoting only some functional aspect of the main generic notion of genocide. Thus, the terms "Germanization," "Magyarization," "Italianization," for example, are used to connote the imposition by one stronger nation (Germany, Hungary, Italy) of its national pattern upon a national group controlled by it. The author believes that these terms are also inadequate because they do not convey the common elements of one generic notion and they treat mainly the cultural, economic, and social aspects of genocide, leaving out the biological aspect, such as causing the physical decline and even destruction of the population involved. If one uses the term "Germanization" of the Poles, for example, in this connotation, it means that the Poles, as human beings, are preserved and that only the national pattern of the Germans is imposed upon them. Such a term is much too restricted to apply to a process in which the population is attacked, in a physical sense, and is removed and supplanted by populations of the oppressor nations.

Nazi Germanization is no less a crime and no less genocide when Zionism renames Germanization to Judaization.

Because Palestinians are darker non-Europeans, the white states gave the Zionist colonial settlers a pass to commit genocide with impunity approximately one year after the international community banned genocide. The mere existence of the Zionist state negates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law because no one can take international law seriously if international law is not enforced uniformly and equally. Since its founding 75 years ago, the Zionist state has been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.[3a]

In resolution 260 A (III) of December 9, 1948, the UNGA approved the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and proposed the Convention for signature and ratification or accession by means of General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of December 9, 1948. The Convention entered into force January 1951, in accordance with its article XIII.

Apartheid and persecution of Palestinians under Zionist domination are byproducts of the ongoing genocide. In addition, apartheid and persecution are directed to “deliberately inflicting on the [Palestinian] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”[4] The Zionist colonial settlers hoped that Palestinians would be pressured into leaving their stolen homeland. Instead, when Netanyahu started his latest term in Dec 2022, the native Palestinian population under Zionist domination had become larger than the Zionist colonial settler population, and the Palestinian population was much younger than the Zionist colonial settler population is.

The Zionist colonial settlers have become crazed and frantic. Since Dec 2022, the attacks of Zionist colonial settlers on Palestinians, on Palestinian property, and on Palestinian communities have been steeply increasing. Zionist colonial settlers have kidnapped and imprisoned thousands of Palestinians. Zionist colonial settlers have been terrorizing Palestinian children and schools. Zionist colonial settlers have besieged Palestinian religious sites. Zionist colonial settlers have stepped up efforts of Judaization of Jerusalem and of Hebron.

Hamas is a native resistance movement within stolen Palestine and hardly differs from a native resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Europe. Just as the Nazis called the native resistance terrorist, the Zionists and their supporters call Hamas terrorist even though Hamas like the French or Polish resistance to the Nazis is heroic. On Oct 7, 2023, Hamas reacted to the unspeakable barbarism of the Zionist regime.

The kibbutzim of the Gaza Envelope are military bases
1. that are intended to make irreversible the ongoing genocide, which started in Dec 1947 and
2. that have been been camouflaged with civilians that have the role of human shields.

A native resistance movement like Hamas is fully justified in attacking such military bases. The civilian residents of such military bases are not protected noncombatants.

Hamas broke out of Gaza to seize Zionist colonial settlers so that they could be traded for kidnapped Palestinians and for a cessation of attacks on Palestinian religious sites.[5] The US federal code defines such hostage taking for exchange to be a legitimate non-criminal act during a war. See 18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes.

When Zionist forces understood the actions of Hamas fighters, the Zionist military perpetrated unspeakably heinous and random slaughter in accord with the Hannibal Directive. Zionist military seems to have caused practically all civilian casualties and deaths during Oct 7.

The incompetent but depraved, murderous, and genocidal Golani Brigade collapsed.

In response, the Zionist regime has revenged itself on the Palestinian population by destroying Gaza just as Nazi forces destroyed Warsaw. Even though genocide is not a legal or legitimate response to any act, the Zionist regime has achieved the grand slam of crimes of genocide:
• mass murder genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIa),
• physical and psychological maiming genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIb),
• hostile conditions genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIc),
• birth prevention genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IId), and
• child-kidnapping genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIe, mostly in the West Bank).

Notes
1. This claim is arrant nonsense. Rabbinic Judaism is a Babylonian religion that has little connection to Palestine. After the maniac Bar Kochba and depraved Tannaim like Rabbi Akiva completely discredited Judaism by persecuting the Judean peasantry during the moronic rebellion against Rome, the Judean peasantry rapidly abandoned Biblical Judaism and converted to Christianity. Later the descendants of the peasantry converted substantially to Islam and became modern Palestinians. The Roman Expulsion can be considered a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts practice. Vicious bloodthirsty racial supremacist Zionist colonial settler invaders, interlopers, thieves, and impostors have been committing genocide against the true descendants of Greco-Roman Judeans on the basis of a fairy tale.
2. Wikipedia, Chaim Weizmann, Accessed on Jan 23, 2024.
3. Legal Information Institute, jus cogens, 2024.
3a. For 12 years the Nazis indoctrinated Germans and propagandized other Europeans with the falsehood that asserts European Jews are non-European and belong in Palestine. This lie is a fundamental principle of Zionism. Thus Germans especially but also other whites continued to carry out Nazi genocidal policies even though the Nazi government had been eradicated. The effects of Nazi indoctrination and propaganda seems finally beginning to wear off despite the efforts of hyperwealthy Zionists to maintain a Zionist cultural hegemony throughout the world.
4. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 78, p. 277, available at: 23 January 2024].
5. Hamas, Our Narrative… Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Published: Jan 21, 2024 [accessed 23 January 2024].

[Bob from Ohio]

"protesting genocide "

There is no genocide though.

[Nige]

There never is. Until there is.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He said wistfully.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The mentality of a supporter of the Nazi nation and the mentality of a supporter of the baby-killer nation are completely congruent. Each type of supporter denies the obvious genocide, which his beloved nation commits.

If a supporter of the baby-killer nation belongs to an organization that coordinates with the baby-killer nation in some way, he is probably in some way giving criminal material support to the baby-killer nation and should spend the life in prison by operation of US federal criminal law. See 18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists.

[StonewallDeSoto]

When a suicide bomber approaches a military base do you suggest they pin him down and try to remove the vest, or perhaps step aside so the bomb misses?

[Martinned2]

A cop who can't tell the difference between a suicide bomber and a guy who set himself on fire maybe shouldn't be a cop.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter: cops are cowards.

[Kazinski]

Well anybody who watches this shooting video: ... https://www.kbtx.com/2024/02/14/graphic-police-shoot-woman-through-her-apartment-door/

Or the Acorn shooting video:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/video-shows-officer-shooting-at-man-after-mistaking-acorn-falling-for-gunfire-204224581629

...Knows that a lot of cops go around in a state of imminent terror. Perhaps they ought to have body monitors and when a cop routinely has his pulse and blood pressure spike in normal everyday interactions they ought to.evaluate his fitness for duty.

[Moderation4ever]

Self-immolation is drastic and scary but it does tend to get a response. Buddhist monks doing this in Vietnam got people attention on the war. This type of act also started the "Arab Spring".

[Bob from Ohio]

Self-immolation is stupid and useless.

[Martinned2]

Like Moderation4ever said, historically it is may well be the most effective thing a single person has done to achieve change.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what did his examples achieve?

[myself]

When you can't be bothered to read/respond to the points raised in three short sentences it tells people there's not much point in engaging with you.

[Bob from Ohio]

“most effective thing a single person has done to achieve change.”

Yeah, the Arab Spring really worked out. And the Vietnam War just ended in 1963 because of those monks.

But I do think more Hamas supporters should make this choice.

[Nige]

The Vietnam War was deliberately prolonged. I guess some people feel more strongly abut that sort of thing than others.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Correct. The people who most need the message are the least likely to respond to the act in the way the activist desires.

[Frank Drackman]

Good (riddance)

[ReaderY]

In the social media regulation cases being argued today at the Supreme Court, I think there are two fundamental questions:

1. Whose speech is it? The social media company’s or the individual poster’s?

2. Who gets to decide whose speech it is? Federal courts, by creating a body of federal social media speech-property common law allegedly mandated by the Constitution, or by Congress and the states applying their traditional general powers to regulate transfers of property ownership to the new field of social media intellectual property?

My personal view focuses on issue 2. As I see it, the First Amendment doesn’t give non-owners of intellectual property the right to interfere with the owners or render laws inposing duties on non-owner carriers to protect owners unconstitutional. Social media posts are simply a kind of intellectual property whose transfer of ownership gets to be regulated by legislatures just like other kinds of intellectual property. Like other kinds of intellectual property, to determine who owns it you have to establish a chain of ownership that begins with creation. The creators, at the top of the chain, are the first owners. Anyone else claiming ownership (i.e. claiming to be the speaker when the intellectual property is a kind of speech) has to establish that ownership was validly transferred to them.

Put this way, I think the outcome is relatively simple. Congress and the states have just as much power to regulate ownership transfer of this new kind of intellectual property as they have to regulate past kinds. This includes the power to set rules on when ownership can be validly transferred, which certainly includes the power to protect original creators from would-be carriers, publishers, what have you that in the legislature’s view impose unfair and onerous terms. And I think that’s really all Texas and Florida have done here.

I think it’s as simple as that. It’s clearly debatable whether large social media platforms act as publishers or act as common carriers. I personally think they run a mixed business that actually does some of both, at least in terms of its effect on society. I think legislatures only need a rational basis to regulate transfer of property.

I think that at least when social media companies have significant market powerand exercise significant practical control over individual citizens’ communications with each other, as they clearly do here, legislatures have every right to pass laws declaring that terms of service saying that whatever you post on our site is ours and we own it and we can do what we want with it represent an excessively onerous contract, void as against public policy. They can declare that the creator retains ownership, the creator remains the speaker and has the rights of the speaker, and the social media company has only the rights, and indeed the duties, of a carrier.

None of this violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment only comes into play when the speaker’s rights of ownership. Legislatures, applying their traditional broad powers to regulate economic and social matters, can regulate transfers of ownership here as well, and can validly declare that terms of service that regard posts as the property of the social media company simply upon posting are void and against public policy. There is enough evidence of common carrier status and effect on society that they can impose common carrier status if they want. It’s simple economic and social regulation, regulation of onerous contracts and transfers of ownership, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Once we establish that the posters retain ownership and are legally the speakers by a valid operation of state legislative powers, the social media companies’ First Amendment claim simply vanishes. Once we establish that the posters are legally the speakers, the posters are the ones with First Amendment rights.

Whether any of this is wise or good policy or not is entirely beside the point so far as the Constitution is concerned.

[Krayt]

Corporations have no right to speech! — Democrats, many-a-decade.

Corporations have a right to speech! — Republicans lo those same decades.

Corporations start censoring the way one faction likes. You won’t believe what happens next!

Corporations have no right to speech! — Republicans, for a couple of years.

Corporations have a right to speech! — Democrats lo those same few years.

[ReaderY]

Whether speech created by posters belongs to social media corporations (and triggers their First Amendment rights) or not is a completely different question from whether social media corporations have First Amendment rights with resspect to speech they create themselves.

[Bored Lawyer]

I must have missed where Republicans have argued that corporations have no right to speech. Please give a citation.

What Republicans HAVE argued is that (a) when the government or a state pressures private parties to censor, then there is a First Amendment infringement and (b) large platforms who engage in one-sided or biased censorship should be subject to criticism. Neither of which are what you said.

[David Nieporent]

I must have missed where Republicans have argued that corporations have no right to speech.

Not all corporations, of course. But the corporations covered by these laws. That's what declaring them to be "common carriers" means.

To be sure, doing so does not strip all of their free speech rights — the platforms can still affirmatively speak — but it strips some of their free speech rights — their right to avoid compelled speech.

[Bored Lawyer]

Fair enough. Although the "common carriers" is not law, at least not yet. But some have floated it. So fair point.
But, as you say, that is still a far cry from saying corporations don't have First Amendment rights.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Corporations are people, too!

[Harvey Mosley]

Soylent Green is corporations!

[Nige]

SoylentGreenCorp: We're just full of humanity.

[Randal]

Fair enough. Although the “common carriers” is not law...

Uh... it's law in Florida and Texas. Which is what today's SCOTUS cases were about.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The FCC does not define a service to be a common carriage service. The common law definition of common carriage determines whether a service is common carriage.The FCC decides whether a communications-related common carriage service is a telecommunications service that the FCC should regulate.

47 U.S. Code § 153 (11) Common carrier defines a communications common carrier. 47 U.S. Code § 153 (51) Telecommunications carrier defines a telecommunications carrier. If a telecommunications carrier is a common carrier, it is a communications common carrier, but not every communications common carrier is a telecommunications carrier.

Every social medium platform is a communications common carrier and must obey those Title 47 statutes that pertain to a communications common carrier, e.g., 47 U.S. Code § 202. Such a communications common carrier must also obey applicable state common carriage law.

[Jonathan Affleck]

A message in a backend server of a service is bailment of the service and not speech of the service. This issue was decided long ago in the dial-a-porn litigation. The message is the speech of the person that entered the message into the backend server.

[Randal]

Corporations have no right to speech! — Democrats, many-a-decade.

Not really. Putting Citizens United aside for a second, there's NYT, Hustler, etc... on the whole, Democrats have always been more pro-free-corporate-speech than Republicans.

Looking at Citizens United, the argument wasn't even really that corporations have no right to speech as much as that donating money isn't speech in and of itself. Still a problematic argument IMO, but really Democrats have never been anti-free-speech for corporations. That's just a weird right-wing meme.

[David Nieporent]

Looking at Citizens United, the argument wasn’t even really that corporations have no right to speech as much as that donating money isn’t speech in and of itself.

Not donating money. Spending money. Citizens United did not relax any limitations on making campaign contributions.

[Randal]

That’s part of what makes the argument problematic… but even in Citizens United, weren’t they donating money to superpacs rather than spending it directly on speech?

[David Nieporent]

No. Citizens United was a not-for-profit corporation that produced an anti-Hillary movie called Hillary: The Movie. (Nobody accused them of being overly creative.) It wanted to distribute it via video on demand, and it also produced several commercials to promote the movie.

But it wanted to show the commercials and the ad w/in 30 days of primary elections in 2008, and under McCain-Feingold, no corporation could spend any money on an "electioneering communication" — which was defined in part as any communication which so much as mentioned a candidate — too close to an election. (30 days for primaries, 60 days for the general election).

That's what the case was about: whether a corporation (except, of course, for news organizations, which got special treatment) could spend its own funds to talk about a candidate.

At the first oral argument, the DOJ argued that the FEC could even ban books that mentioned candidates. Arguing in favor of book burning didn't really sit well, so on re-argument, the DOJ tried to walk that back, but couldn't explain why; the statute clearly applied to books just as much as TV.

[David Nieporent]

I think there are two fundamental questions:

And you've been told repeatedly that your thought is not just wrong in its answer, but in its entire conception. Nothing about this case has anything to do with property in the speech. (A concept that itself is incoherent, except for discussing copyright.) Nothing in this case turns on that. Nothing on this case has anything to do with copyright. You just fundamentally misunderstand what the case — what the entire issue of content moderation — is about.

legislatures have every right to pass laws declaring that terms of service saying that whatever you post on our site is ours and we own it and we can do what we want with it represent an excessively onerous contract,

You're worse than Lathop here. NONE OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE OF ANY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM SAY ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

[ReaderY]

The social media companies claim it’s their First Amendment rights which are at stake. For it to be their first amendment tights, the speech involved has to be in some sense theirs. That makes the question of whose speech is it anyway relevant to this case.

A publisher, like a newspaper or book takes ownership of and responsibility for the speech. A common carrier does not. The ownership question is relevant to the publisher/common carrier dichotomy as well.

[David Nieporent]

The social media companies claim it’s their First Amendment rights which are at stake. For it to be their first amendment tights, the speech involved has to be in some sense theirs. That makes the question of whose speech is it anyway relevant to this case.

No. Maynard v. Wooley. Miami Herald v. Tornillo. Almost by definition, compelled speech is someone else's speech.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, to say he is worse than I am is to imply ReaderY and I are headed in the same wrong direction, with him in the lead. The reality is that I am headed in the same right direction as you are, with me in the lead.

On this point, Reader Y and I could not be more opposite.

You, of course, continue full of foolish pique, for no reason except that I oppose some of your ideological priors. You should try to at least notice that I oppose your views on some points, and endorse them on others.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, to say he is worse than I am is to imply ReaderY and I are headed in the same wrong direction, with him in the lead.

No, it's not. It's to say that you're both stubbornly wedded to your own personal frameworks that don't have any relation to established reality. Your respective frameworks are different, but wrong.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thus cautioned by the voice of, "established reality," what can I do but defer. I will give it the weight it deserves.

[Drewski]

Reddit does, so I assume you're talking out of your ass:

"When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A non-exclusive license is not ownership, but the license does seem quite comprehensive.

[David Nieporent]

Reddit does not do so. That — like the TOS of other social media companies — grants the company a license to stuff you post. (It would have to; otherwise you could sue such a company for contributory infringement when another user shared something you had posted.) It in no way transfers ownership of the copyright. Those are two very different legal concepts.

[David Nieporent]

The First Amendment only comes into play when the speaker’s rights of ownership.

100% wrong.

Once we establish that the posters retain ownership and are legally the speakers by a valid operation of state legislative powers, the social media companies’ First Amendment claim simply vanishes.

1000% wrong.

Once we establish that the posters are legally the speakers, the posters are the ones with First Amendment rights.

1,000,000% wrong.

Even 5 seconds of thought should make it obvious how misguided your arguments are. Barnes & Noble is the owner of exactly 0% of the content of the books and magazines it sells. The books are the speech of the authors and publishers. There's no dispute about that. Does that mean that Barnes & Noble does not have the 1A right to decide what books to sell? Of course not. (If you think otherwise, you are Wrong with a capital R. The government cannot compel Barnes & Noble to sell Mein Kampf.)

Even though the books are the speech of the authors/publishers, the choice of what books to sell is the speech of Barnes & Noble.

[ReaderY]

If Barnes & Noble gets a consignment of books to sell, the First Amendment does not give it a right to simply seize and destroy them because it doesn’t like their message.

The ownership question has something to do with that.

In all candor I think a state could, consistent with the First Amendment, impose a common carrier obligation on the only bookstore in town, which Barnes and Noble often is. I think the role of the only bookseller in town would be more analogous to the only wharf in town than a newspaper, which directly creates content rather than simply distributing others’ content. A bookseller doesn’t create content. It simply moves it. A specifically religious bookseller may have additional First Amendment rights. But I’m not sure a general bookseller would.

[apedad]

Additional First Amendment rights?!?

Why would a religious bookseller get "additional" First Amendment rights?

[David Nieporent]

In all candor I think a state could, consistent with the First Amendment, impose a common carrier obligation on the only bookstore in town, which Barnes and Noble often is.

Not only is that a fundamentally loony position which I assure you is antithetical to the 1A, but SCOTUS expressly rejected the monopoly justification for compelled speech in Tornillo.

The wharf is irrelevant because the wharf isn't engaged in speech; it's engaged in loading and unloading boats.

A bookseller doesn’t create content. It simply moves it.

Which literally has nothing to do with anything. You are using distinctions that do not exist in the 1A. Deciding which speech to move is not "simply" moving speech; it is in fact creating it.

[ReaderY]

In Tornillo, the Supreme Court disagreed with Florida’s claim that a monopoly or scarcity situation existed. It found that newspapers weren’t monopolies. I recognize that these days the existence of Amazon etc. likely means that local book stores’ decisions don’t actually much impede the ability of consumers to get books. So perhaps my bookseller hypothetical is no longer relevant. But social media companies, unlike newspapers, have network effects. And network effects tend towards monopoly as the most efficient form of organization. And unless monopolies are regulated monopolies, society loses considerably because they have power to he rapacious. Libertarians hate this, but I think it’s pretty well established economics.

At any rate Tornillo can be easily be distinguished. Here government isn’t establishing a point/counterpoint in any exact ratio. It’s just establishing that social media companies have to accept carriage. More fundamentally, as I noted above, while customers use social media companies as substitutes for newspapers, they also use them as substitues for post offices and telephones. As I said above, social media companies run a mixed business, some elements of a traditional publisher and some elements of a traditional common carrier. Legislatures get to pick which it is. They can demand social media companies break their businesses up into separate publishing and common carrier components if they want to. Or social media companies can comply by doing this themselves.

[David Nieporent]

In Tornillo, the Supreme Court disagreed with Florida’s claim that a monopoly or scarcity situation existed. It found that newspapers weren’t monopolies.

It did not. Where are you getting that from?

[David Nieporent]

Legislatures get to pick which it is.

No, they don't.

[Randal]

ReaderY, you basically don't know what you're talking about.

But let me throw you a bone by the name of Turner v FCC (the 1997 one, not the 1994 one) in which SCOTUS found that cable's effective monopoly did justify government interference with the cable operators' editorial judgements, their First Amendment rights notwithstanding.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thank you, David, for effectively and accurately pointing out the utter wrongheadedness of ReaderY’s position on this case. It’s not that reasonable people can’t disagree about the result (though I think one side is decidedly better), but that his analysis is so absolutely and incredibly misguided.

He just makes up new ideas and principles that, in themselves, make very little sense, and, more importantly, are actively at odds with settled law (and/or are irrelevant to the actual legal questions).

[Jonathan Affleck]

Barnes & Noble is a distributor and has liability for distributor libel.

A long time ago, I received Time magazine by mail. The USPS was a common carrier and not a distributor. The USPS had no distributor liability for delivering Time magazine.

If FedEx is substituted for USPS, FedEx would have been a common carrier, would not have been a distributor, and would not have had distributor liability.

[Krayt]

So I’m driving to the office, which is to say Tim Horton’s, to get a drink on the way in. I am accidentally listening to a country station, but the ratcheting irritation hasn’t risen above critical, yet, so I don’t realize it. They have their every 30 minute news roundup. Traffic by AI reader, sports by human, general news by AI reader.

Normally that stuff is done by real humans, often paid partly by they themselves being granted ad slots that they go shop around for as much as they can get. I guess even that can be cut away for savings.

[Martinned2]

If enough listeners hate it enough to switch to another channel, it'll stop.

[Krayt]

As this was honest over the air, and I am not a radio Nielson family, they will never know that I tuned away, much less why (or whys plural.)

I haven't bought a car since they were all online. Do new radios track and report your station habits back to home base?

[Martinned2]

You sound like you don't believe the market for radio advertising is efficient. Surely that can't be right?

[Nige]

If every channel is doing it, they’ll be obliged to accept it. Maybe they’ll all turn off, then radio as a medium dies, one more thing people enjoy killed by modern tech capitalism.

[Martinned2]

In that case, why would someone come along and start and old school radio station?

[ReaderY]

The important stuff people actually listen to gets the human. The trivial stuff they know nobody’s going to pay attention to anyway gets the AI.

[Krayt]

That occurred to me. AI sports would have been a bridge too far, the straw that broke the camel's back, especially on a presumptively male-heavy station.

[Nige]

AI are machines for firing people so CEOs can have bigger bonuses. If the results are shit, so what? Everyone's doing it, so take what you get, pay through the nose and feast on these ads, suckers. Thing is, they're not actually cheap to run so they'll implode, but if anybody gets rehired after that it'll be to do way more for way less.

[Roberta]

I love the AI that's been implemented (by a volunteer) on WFMU's human-curated alternative streams when a human DJ isn't on: the Rock & Soul Bunny and Owl Sun. And then there's the pretend AI done by humans on the Sheila's Jungle stream.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with a vanishingly thin academic
veneer has operated for no more than

FIVE (5)

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

THIRTEEN (13)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 13 discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not just 13 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs,
as its management desires.)

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, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, racist, and immigrant-hating
slurs (and other bigoted content)
published at this faux libertarian
blog, which is presented from the
disaffected right-wing fringe of
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.

If that one sounded familiar, this might be the reason.

[Krayt]

occasion (so far)

Occasion should be plural. You use plural for other numbered nouns elsewhere.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Correct. At the start of the year, it was a single occasion and I failed to change it as the occasions increased. Thank you.

[Frank Drackman]

No luck with Senator Fetterman on your Commutation? Notice I don't call him Stuttering John anymore? He's the only D in the Senate with the Cohones to wave an Israeli Flag. I wonder if he's...umm, you know,
a "Member"
heck, Rod Carew, Sammy Davis Jr, I'll take help from anyone who's on our side

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the defender Prof. Volokh and his fellow right-wing misfits deserve, Frank Drackman. While you bigots huddle together at this fringe blog for warmth, your betters will be effecting even more progress against your wishes.

Open wider, clingers. More progress is coming, and you will continue to comply.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones excursions, by request:

First, two for the price (or at the cost) of one.

Next, getting off on Hullabaloo (with fine camera work).

[Mr. Bumble]

The best part of Hullabaloo was Lada Edmund Jr.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have seen a few Hullabaloo clips but am not familiar with Lada Edmund Jr.

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

REV. ARTHUR L. KIRKLAND

It has now been

THIRTY (30)

months since the spectacular failure of his idiotic court-packing prediction:

"I wouldn’t mind seeing Judge Barrett confirmed, if only because I believe it would precipitate the installation of four new, better justices during the first half of 2021."

Kirkland predicted there would be

SEVEN (7)

liberal justices on the Supreme Court before August 1, 2021. Instead there are only

THREE (3)

liberal justices as we approach March 1, 2024.

The Supreme Court Kirkland said would be 7 - 6 liberal has overturned

ONE (1)

liberal "super-precedent" in Roe v. Wade, and kicked Kirkland in the groin an additional

ONE (1)

time by gutting the race-based college admissions he constantly defends.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigoted, faux libertarian, disaffected right-wing assholes are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Try to be nicer, Sandra, or your betters might reconsider being so magnanimous toward you and your fellow culture war losers. What the culture war's victors permit will be a matter of grace and discretion. And we don't much like antisocial bigots and superstitious faux libertarians, so it might not take much . . .

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

Ahhhh, the "[blank] are among my favorite [blank]" template. Still fresh after 10,000 uses! 🙂

"What the culture war’s victors permit will be a matter of grace and discretion."

For decades, abortion (never mentioned in the Constitution) was a constitutional right. And gun ownership (mentioned in the Constitution) wasn't.

Today it's the opposite. So your line about "permitting" things doesn't even make sense. There's no way you'd "permit" the Court to kick you in the groin that hard. On the contrary, you did everything possible to prevent it. Still happened anyway.

Even more humiliating for you, the abortion reversal was handed down by a Supreme Court you said would be 7 - 6 liberal.

How stupid did that make you feel? To watch your favorite "super-precedent" shredded by a Court you thought would rubberstamp one victory for Democrats after another?

Was it as stupid as you felt watching the same Court nuke race-based college admissions?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Conservatives are handling getting stomped in the culture war -- by better people and better ideas -- in different manners.

That doesn't change the result, though.

This blog is operated by and for culture war losers huddling for warmth as society passes them by and they approach replacement.

Some of you dumbasses should try to recall that the magnanimity of the culture war's winners is among the few bright spots on your horizon. Prof. Volokh might be considering that point as he heads north, newly separated from the American mainstream. Some of you other clingers should think about that and about how you should handle yourselves as America continues to improve against your wishes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not much on You Tube for Hullabaloo, but she was one of the cage go go girls. Long blond hair and hotter than a pistol. She had a pretty interesting career. See link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_St._Edmund
(She started her career as Lada Edmund Jr. but changed her name along the way)

[Bob from Ohio]

Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student was murdered by an "asylum" seeker, previously arrested and released in NYC.

Open borders and no cash bail movement combined to kill her.

[Bored Lawyer]

I must say that if Trump is elected in 2024, he has Gov. Abbott, and to a lesser extent Gov. DeSantis, to thank. There are many traditional Democrats who are fed up with the current policy. How that translates at the ballot box remains to be seen.

[Don Nico]

Are you talking about the next Sec. of Homeland Security Abbott?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You believe Trump is going to pull off another three-cushion bank shot at the Electoral College?

Do you also believe that fairy tales are true? Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Jesus Christ, etc.?

[Martinned2]

Is there any reason why you put "asylum" between square quotes? Are you suggesting that this person wasn't seeking asylum?

[Bob from Ohio]

"square [sic] quotes?"

I am saying he was just an economic migrant, like 99%+ of them.

Though perhaps he was just seeking new victims.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why in the world would anyone seek asylum from the peoples paradise that is Venezuela?

[Michael Ejercito]

Was he fleeing persecution?

[Mr. Bumble]

Persecution or prosecution?

[Martinned2]

I am saying he was just an economic migrant, like 99%+ of them.

He may well have been, but that doesn't turn an asylum seeker into "not an asylum seeker". (It might eventually turn him into an unsuccessful asylum seeker, but an unsuccessful asylum seeker is still an asylum seeker.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Way to focus on the key issue.

He should have been immediately deported twice before. He has no reason to be in this country. She would be going to class today.

"asylum" is a concept that no longer works.

[Nige]

'Unknown assailant' would be more of a key issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to have "unknown" and "not yet convicted" confused.

[Nige]

It's precisely because I do not have them confused that I'm pointing out the distinction.

[Martinned2]

See above for an example of a dude who went to Afghanistan to prove how safe it was, and found that asylum is a concept that very much still "works".

[Bob from Ohio]

"found that asylum is a concept"

He went, got arrested and then released. What does asylum have to do with it?

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "She would be going to class today"

General observation : Looking across our vast country, a crime will be committed by every possible demographic entity within any given timespan, even the most brief. I'm sure cranky right-wingers from Ohio named Bob commited several last week, but you could probably also find a left-handed albinio pipefitting murderer if you looked hard enough.

So when someone produces a criminal from one of his targeted enemy groups, it's really not saying anything. In the case of immigrants (both legal & illegal) this agitprop is even more vacuous given crime rates for immigrants across the board are much, much lower than the native-born's (excepting the illegality of illegal immigrants, of course!).

Though I can't remember any specific example, I'm probably not without sin. I've probably dragged up the mug shot of some MAGA hooligan which (of course) proved nothing. Or maybe I picked on the demographic of former huckster buffoon presidents who tried to steal an election. That set of one is 100% criminal.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't, in much the same way being caught in the bank vault after hours with a sack and safecracking tools doesn't turn you into "not a loan applicant".

[David Nieporent]

Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student was murdered by an “asylum” seeker,

Laken Riley was killed by an unknown assailant.

Open borders and no cash bail movement combined to kill her.

The guy who is only a suspect was stopped by the Border Patrol, which sounds pretty much like the opposite of open borders.

[Nige]

The lies traveled all the way down here before the truth - or lack of truth since it's a 'don't know' - raised its head. This is one way to get people to vote for a guy promising to open concentration camps.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Walk over the border and turn yourself into BP. Read the script given to you by an NGO so you can claim asylum. Get a court date 500 years from now to determine your eligibility. In the meantime, you're free to roam the country and take advantage. Totally not an open border!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So, surely you'd want to spend more money to bring that court date forward 499 years or so...

...unless doing so might help the other candidate.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just have the BP agent make a determination on the spot. Wouldn't cost anything.

[Moderation4ever]

Are you willing to spend more money so the BP agent can be trained to correctly make that decision? Will that decision be recorded for review so that it is correctly done? Say the BP agent make the decision that the person should be granted asylum do you accept that determination? Are you thinking of BP agents more along the Judge Dredd line of “I am the law”?

[Bob from Ohio]

The decision should be no 99+% of the time.

[Moderation4ever]

How would you decide that? What is the criteria for getting asylum? Or does 99+% really mean 100%?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

The decision should be no 99+% of the time.

It is fortunate that bigoted, un-American, backwater white nationalists such as Bob from Ohio are doomed to failure in the culture war.

[Bob from Ohio]

"who is only a suspect"

You and many here have already convicted Trump of many alleged crimes so I can convict this dude too.

[Nige]

Your flexibility, and your willingness to offload responsibility for it, is hardly surprising.

[David Nieporent]

Trump's crimes were committed publicly. Hell, he often admitted to them on tv.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay but you used to do this way before Trump. So it's not exactly honest to be like: well Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You don't get to do much of anything, Bob from Ohio.

That's the consequence of being on the wrong side of history, the weaker side at the marketplace of ideas, and the losing end of the culture war.

You mostly get to comply with the preferences of your betters. Until replacement.

[Frank Drackman]

The Replacement our 'Bettors' keep say isn't happening? You should have used a TBI Defense, coach

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cranky old Republicans take their obsolete, despicable conservative thinking to the grave every day in America and are replaced in our electorate and society by better, younger Americans -- less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backwater, more diverse.

It's the American way!

Clingers hardest hit.

[Frank Drackman]

Stopped and released you stupid fuck, to bad you're not a hot chick so he could have raped/murdered you instead. Her murderer is.....
Jose Ibarra, 26, was arrested by University of Georgia police Friday and charged with seven felonies, including malice murder—and multiple outlets have reported that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson has said Ibarra was also arrested last August in New York for driving an unregistered car with a child inside.
Ibarra, an undocumented migrant from Venezuela, illegally crossed the border near El Paso, Texas, and was arrested by Customs and Border Protection on Sept. 8, 2022, before he was paroled and released while his immigration case is pending, an ICE spokesperson told multiple outlets.
University of Georgia police on Friday accused Ibarra, who lived less than two miles from where Riley’s body was found, of acting alone and said he did not know Riley prior to the killing, describing it as a “crime of opportunity.”
Ibarra’s wife, Layling Franco, told the New York Post the couple and her 5-year-old son stayed briefly in El Paso after they were stopped by border police and were then bused to New York City. When the couple broke up, Ibarra moved to Georgia to live with his brother Diego, Franco reportedly said. The Justice Department charged Ibarra’s brother, Diego, 29, with possessing a fake green card after he was questioned by local police in connection with Riley’s murder because he matched the description of the suspect, federal officials said.

[OtisAH]

Check out piece of shit pretending he gives one fuck about this woman in order to score points on the VC! Way to go, piece of shit! You tell ‘em!

[Michael Ejercito]

Andrew B . Chung, M.D., Ph.D, wrote about gender dysphoria.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/euGqyEsRe_4/m/Jdiu3EdmAgAJ

"if My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land (of even gender dysphoria)." (2 Chronicles 7:14 w/ parenthetical
clarification)

[Longtobefree]

It's that tricky "turn from their evil ways" part that trips up the lefties.

[Nige]

It's that tricky 'anything different I disapprove of is evil' is the part that drives persecution and opression.

[Nige]

Does he always turn to the bible for medical advice? Which he amends to suit himself?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's the living bible, not the originalist one.

[David Nieporent]

Been listening to the Netchoice oral arguments, and the Justices, shockingly, don't seem to grasp basic procedural things like how preliminary injunctions work.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which Justices?

[David Nieporent]

IIRC Alito was one, but I'd have to go back and read the transcript. Still listening to the arguments. (The Florida one is almost done; then comes Texas.)

[David Nieporent]

To be clear: several justices seemed not to grasp that a preliminary injunction is literally that: preliminary. And that the case could came out the other way once it gets sent back down.

[loki13]

Yep.

To be honest, the easiest and best way to deal with this case given the rather expansive questions would be to simply reverse on the issue of the preliminary injunction and then allow for a full evidentiary record to consider.

In other words, while I think that certain parts of the laws (such as the demand that social media platforms can't engage in content moderation) are going to correctly end up being losers as a matter of law, I also think that the laws are attempting to do a lot of different things, and could apply in different ways, and having an incomplete evidentiary record is not particularly helpful to a major ruling.

[Krayt]

McDonald's's new "Savory McDonald's sauce" for nuggets is a sweet sauce, not a savory sauce.

I guess to MdDonald's's admen, anything less sweet than their last disaster sauce, grape jelly with spices, is "savory".

Loosly, cuisine is sweet or savory.

Hmmm...I just detected a hint of grape. 🙁

[Nige]

Someone was saying that calling what Trump did fraudulent was the sort of bannana republic behaviour you'd never see outside of the US.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24141169.trump-found-fraudulently-boosted-scots-homes-value-200m/

[NellieBly]

It's Volokh day over at the Supreme Court. Unable to make head or tails out of the Texas and Florida statutes requiring access to tech platforms, counsel repeatedly cited a work by Volokh. Sure hope the justices read it.
Sure hope they will remand with little said.
Landmine legislation. There is no way to step on it without an explosion. Less is more in these cases.

[SimonP]

Sure hope they recognize it as the simplistic and misguided work that it is, and pay it no mind.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A number of people -- including elected officials -- who have supported or developed "life begins at conception" laws are now claiming they support in vitro fertilization practices.

Is there an explanation -- other than stupidity and ignorance -- for this?

People who choose superstition over science are fools.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Jerry Sandusky Ladies and Germs, reknowned Medical Ethicist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This guy figures I am a registered Republican, lifelong conservative, and resident of the part of Pennsylvania that might as well be in West Virginia, Alabama, Idaho, or Mississippi.

Does the Volokh Conspiracy generate disaffected, bigoted, un-American, right-wing dumbasses . . . . or merely attract them?

[Theendoftheleft]

What is the established scientific criteria for when life commences? Do you even know, fool?

Three generations of progressive-liberal imbeciles are enough, AIDS. It's time to admit that they cannot be afforded the choice to carry to term---not that most of them breed nowadays, anyhow.

Choose science over superstition, American airhead. There's no free will, no god made people equal, and all the empirical evidence points to the fact that your value system is an evolutionarily inferior meme.

[Frank Drackman]

You're a "Registered" something alright

[grb]

Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland : “Is there an explanation — other than stupidity and ignorance — for this?”

First you need to understand this didn’t just slip by the Alabama legislature. The question was raised during the debate over the state’s abortion ban. The sponsor of the bill, Republican state Senator Clyde Chambliss, responded: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

So you have to recognize the true heart of the anti-abortion movement is opposition to the effrontery of women. The transubstantiation that makes a “baby” out of a fertilized egg only works with a women too “irresponsible” to avoid the consequences of harlotry and so “selfish” she looks for the easy way out. That’s what causes the so-called babyhood of a few cells to blaze in the minds of the faux-pious and fake-righteous.

It’s like a binary compound. The Holy Perfection of the Right’s abortion logic can’t do it alone since no one takes that completely seriously, the Right least of all. IVF doesn’t count and abortion is “murder” although no one even bothers to pretend it’s so. One poll found 40% of anti-Choice believers would help a friend or family member get the procedure if asked. No doubt that friend, sister, daughter or mother isn’t the irresponsible selfish slut all those other women must be.

Because that’s the second half of the binary compound. Woman qua women going against nature to evade the consequences of her actions. That’s what changes a fertilized embyro into Little Sally or Biff. But here’s the really sick thing about these disgusting people : The story of women nearly dying from an ectopic pregnancy for the sake of pious appearance doesn’t bother them. The case of the ten-year-old rape victim was greeted with sneers, disbelief, and a petty vindictive campain against the doctor who reported it. The tens of thousands of women whose lifes will be blighted if the anti-choice crowd gets full control over their lives and bodies? They have zero understanding or sympathy with their dead hearts & rotted-out ethics.

But IVF? That’s thrown them into a panic. Try taking the measure of that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Relax. The culture war, the modern marketplace of ideas, and replacement (in the natural course) are in the process of solving these problems.

That's why conservatives are so cranky, disaffected, and increasingly delusional.

[Theendoftheleft]

Replacement of your entire value system, you mean. Choose reason and science, AIDS. Trust demography.

[Frank Drackman]

Her name is Laken Riley, Her Name is Laken Riley
and most of you fucks are like "whuhhh???Who???"
Will Parkinsonian Joe show for her funeral? Common-Law Harris? Al Sharpton?
Say hello to "47" she's gonna be the Willie Horton of 2024

Frank

[OtisAH]

Divination and conjuration are witchcraft and sins, piece of shit. Or are you work-shopping a new bit?

[tylertusta]

According to Judge McAfee, Terrance Bradley can't claim that (at least some of) his knowledge is privileged.

Things continue to get worse for Fani Willis.

I keep thinking that Fani Willis will decide that this isn't worth digging a deeper hole for herself, but she keeps proving me wrong by doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down. She's like Trump, but somehow much more stubborn.

Usually courtrooms are dry, boring affairs. But this week is certainly going to be spicy, and Friday should be downright climatic, assuming Willis doesn't have Bradley arrested before then.

[tylertusta]

Well, well, well.

Looks like Bradley is going to testify tomorrow (2/27) at 2PM.

The hearing on March 1st will take place in the afternoon and it will address the phone record evidence.

[John F. Carr]

People need to remember that this isn't a disciplinary proceeding against Willis. It is a decision on who prosecutes the 2020 election case. If she is disqualified she doesn't have to wear a MAGA hat or anything like that. The judge doesn't have to hold her in contempt or refer her for discipline. All he has to do is find that the situation in its entirety presents the appearance of a conflict of interest.

[tylertusta]

To add, it doesn't necessarily end the trial, but McAfee will have to deal with the motions to dismiss at some point.

But what hurts the government's case were Fani Willis's public statements. After this whole scandal blew up, Fani Willis made statements that, in any other context, be very problematic.

[not guilty]

Dismissal is not an available remedy for one prosecutor diddling another.

Judge McAfee appropriately declined to even hear evidence about Fani Willis's out of court statements, in that they are simply not germane to the motions under consideration. How, do you contend, are they problematic?

[tylertusta]

Those are different matters, not under the DQ motion.

Trump's attorneys have filed an additional motion to dismiss based on Fani Willis's out of court statements.

[not guilty]

Mike Roman's motion to dismiss or disqualify referred to the comments that Ms. Willis made to a black church in January. Judge McAfee rightly recognized that that matter is not germane to dismissal or disqualification.

I haven't yet seen Trump's motion. What do you contend is problematic here about what she has said?

[tylertusta]

What do you mean by “here?” For the DQ?

Or for a MtD to be considered after the DQ is handled?

[not guilty]

By “here” I mean in the matter of State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump, et al., Case No. 23SC188947. No matter whose motion.

[tylertusta]

She likely broke Rule 3.8(g).

[not guilty]

Assuming arguendo that Ms. Willis has said something that violates 3.8(g), (a point which I don't concede,) that may be grounds for a minor professional disciplinary sanction, but how does that entitle a criminal defendant to dismissal of an indictment found by the grand jury? Do you have any authority on point?

[not guilty]

What statements in particular do you refer to?

[not guilty]

No Rule 3.8(g) authorities, tylertusta? Why am I unsurprised?

[tylertusta]

Why do you consider disbarment "minor disciplinary sanction?"

Why are you assuming that my spending the evening with family (and thus not answering your comment) constitutes a lack of knowledge?

To answer your question, the answer is that a violation of 3.8(g) may constitute egregious prosecutorial misconduct which may mandate dismissal if the defendant has "demonstrable prejudice to the defendants' recognized constitutional or statutory rights or was so outrageous that it is "fundamentally unfair and `shocking to the universal sense of justice mandated' "by the Constitution or statute as to deprive him of a fair trial as a matter of law"

See McGarvey v State and US v Morrison

Fani Willis's statements arguably inflamed racial tensions against the defense, tainting the jury pool.

[John F. Carr]

For comparison, consider In re Bulger, a case decided under the federal rule for disqualifying judges. The federal rule is similar in purpose to the Georgia conflict of interest rule being applied. Judge Richard Stearns was disqualified from presiding over the case against Whitey Bulger. He had refused to recuse. The First Circuit took him off the case. He was not disciplined because he did nothing wrong. He was not even accused of doing anything unethical, biased, or otherwise wrong. His prior work as a prosecutor presented the appearance of a conflict of interest under the peculiar facts of the case. He is still on the bench. As a resident of his judicial district I see no reason he should not preside over the next organized crime case to be assigned to him.

In Georgia, the judge does not have to find that Willis lied to take her off the case. The judge does not have to nail down a precise range of dates when boss and employee could be considered a couple. He does not have to resolve the question of whether their finances were separate. He does not have to find that she would have done anything differently. He has to decide what justice and the appearance of justice require. He may decide some of those subsidiary issues in the process.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone in the case have any credibility? The testimony of Willis, Wade and now Bradley does not seem to reflect well on any of them.

[not guilty]

A trial judge has discretion to disqualify a prosecuting attorney, and his decision will not be reversed unless he abuses that discretion. "Such an exercise of discretion is based on the trial court's findings of fact which [the appellate court] must sustain if there is any evidence to support them." Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 791, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga.Ct.App. 2005).

The crucial word there is "evidence," which cabins judicial discretion. Judge McAfee has prudently decided to conduct a full evidentiary hearing, and he is bending over backwards to allow the grandstanders defense counsel a full opportunity to make an evidentiary record -- to the point that the hearing has turned into a shitshow. I surmise the judge wants to try this case only once.

[tylertusta]

Shame that Bradley had a sudden bout of amnesia. I was hoping for something entertaining listen to, but there's no point now.

The next bit of fun will be Friday afternoon's hearing, where the cell phone evidence will be considered.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bradley's "testimony" was painful to watch. Wonder if they had to mop up the slop sweat under his seat when he finished?

[Frank Drackman]

He should have done the old Vinny Ba-ba-ba-barino bit,
"Who?" "What?" "Where?" "Why?" "Who?" to every quetion

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

tylertusta, when you reckon the fun you plan from right-wing evidentiary claims, do you allow for their superpowers? Like sudden disappearance.

[Frank Drackman]

So the Airman/"Guardian" who self immolated the other day....
Do his survivors get his SGLI??

Frank

[tylertusta]

Yes, his beneficiaries will get his SGLI. It's only forfeit if you're convicted of treason and similarly grave offenses. Suicide is not one of those offenses.

[Frank Drackman]

Seems it would come under "Destruction of Government Property", or "Not in the Line of Duty" unless setting yourself on fire is part of some MOS I haven't heard of, might be an idea to lower the Military Suicide rate, stop rewarding it.
Frank

[tylertusta]

From the VA:

The coverage provided by the SGLI program will be forfeited only when an insured member is found guilty of mutiny, treason, spying, or desertion, or refuses, because of conscientious objections, to perform service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or refuses to wear the uniform of such force.

No insurance shall be payable for death inflicted as a lawful punishment for crime or for military or naval offense except when inflicted by an enemy of the United States.

https://www.benefits.va.gov/INSURANCE/sgli_myths_rumors.asp

[Martinned2]

Nazi's and people who don't mind consorting with Nazi's. Or, as those people are known, Nazi's.

[Tom for equal rights]

Virtually all the anti-semitism is from the left - Who are the real nazi's

[Mr. Bumble]

Does it concern you that Smirnov was considered a trusted (and paid source) by the FBI for at least a decade?

[SimonP]

The saga over Fani is such a convenient insight into the way that the MAGA-mind works. We're so deep into it now that I doubt many MAGA-heads will be able to explain why the phone records mean that the case against Trump has to be thrown out. But that is, of course, the whole point of the argle-bargle.

[ThePublius]

The "Smirnov debacle," as you put it, is working. The administration and the left, in general, are using this to negate, erase, all of the mountain of evidence of corruption of the Biden family. I would not be at all surprised if this was concocted for that reason. I predict Smirnov will never be convicted of anything.

[Tom for equal rights]

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy elaborated on “David Weiss’s Very Peculiar Smirnov Indictment in the Biden Case.” He commented: “[N]one of the most critical evidence of Biden-family influence-peddling comes from Smirnov or Russians.”

I sat down intending to demonstrate the irrelevance of the Smirnov indictment in light of the evidence accumulated to date, but Andy has done my job for me this morning in today’s NRO column “The Smirnov Indictment Does Not Vindicate the Bidens.” Subhead: “There is already extensive evidence, having nothing to do with Smirnov, of corrupt Biden-family influence-peddling.” If you can’t see the corruption, you’re not paying attention or you’re not looking. It’s in plain view. Miranda Devine also makes this point in her accessible New York Post column “Despite media spin, there’s still overwhelming evidence Joe Biden knew of family’s business dealings.”

[Kazinski]

Kimberly Strassel WSJ:
"House Oversight Committee Republicans say the FBI told Congress their source had worked for the bureau since 2010, had been paid roughly $200,000 for information, and was deemed “highly credible.” Ranking Oversight Democrat Jamie Raskin acknowledged the FBI’s briefing about credibility. Republicans say Director Christopher Wray also confirmed the FBI used Mr. Smirnov’s information in investigations until June 2023 (when the bribery claims went public). The FBI affirmed Mr. Smirnov’s credibility so long as it was useful to do so.
It isn’t useful any longer. Republicans for months have hounded special counsel David Weiss, who is handling the Hunter Biden probe, to explain what he’s done since 2020 to verify or refute the Smirnov claims. Last week’s indictment, which he sought, is his answer. The FBI’s “highly credible” source is now presented as a brazen liar, a boaster, a profiteer who played a double game with the bureau, and a partisan who had it in for Joe Biden.

If this is true, it ought to be massive story that the FBI for 13 years relied on a man who prosecutors now worry has troubling and “extensive” ties to Russian intelligence. Instead, the media in its desire to embarrass Republicans is working to absolve the FBI, with the New York Times explaining the bureau never did “think much” of the Smirnov claims and concluded in 2020 that they “did not merit continued investigation.”

[Sarcastr0]

The FBI might suck? Holy smokes!

You are deflecting from the GOP's entire attack on the Bidens being based on a Russian-fomented pack of lies, and you are as usual being quite unsubtle about it.

Are you at all bothered that Comer has been relying on this false source to tell you lies about the Bidens?

[David Nieporent]

Does it concern you that Smirnov was considered a trusted (and paid source) by the FBI for at least a decade?

It does: I hope the prior cases where he provided information are scrutinized very carefully, now that we know he's dishonest. (I assume that he did not actually testify in any of those cases; normally one would not want a CHS to do so.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for your penetrating analysis, GaslightO.

[Sarcastr0]

QA did it pithier below.

You're trying to shift the conversation - stick to the topic at hand. Which is the GOP embracing a liar harder than the FBI ever did, and reporting his too good to check lies to the American public, including you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?

[not guilty]

The Fulton County defendants will embrace any red herring to avoid talking about the evidence or absence of evidence that they did what they are accused of.

[Bob from Ohio]

"case against Trump has to be thrown out"

Strawman. The new prosecutor can continue the case if he wants, or seek to modify the indictment to make it more narrow.

[David Nieporent]

I doubt many MAGA-heads will be able to explain why the phone records mean that the case against Trump has to be thrown out.

Although the defendants asked for the case to be dismissed, that does not appear to be the appropriate remedy under Georgia law. Rather, disqualification of the Fulton County DA's office would be.

The phone records not only appear to corroborate the claim that they had the affair in question but also appear to suggest that Willis and Wade both committed perjury. It would seem difficult for them not to be disqualified under those facts.

[OtisAH]

They made a “fetal personhood” ruling not an IVF ruling. They say that frozen embryos are people in the context of a law in Alabama called “Wrongful death of children” iirc. It creates civil liability for the destruction of embryos.

IVF is impacted because, by necessity, IVF leaves a bunch of frozen embryos that will never be used and must be disposed of. And IVF programs in AL shut down because of the liability, not because AL ruled against IVF. But as happens constantly the actual horrifying issue of “fetal personhood” is ignored while everyone screams about the emotionally triggering threat to IVF.

As for the state lege “protecting IVF” I don’t know how that’s possible with this ruling. The state Supreme Court says frozen embryos are people. I don’t think the lege can now say “Yes, they’re people, fully realized humans in fact, but in this context we can kill them anyway so it’s cool, y’all!” Seems as if any such law would get overturned at the state Supreme Court. And quickly too, because there are many more miles to go down the Civil Rights for Blastocysts — and Blastocysts Only — Highway.

[Commenter_XY]

Rev Arthur is your man.

[Jerry B.]

And lots of defense. See, for example, any Washington Post story about her.

[Brett Bellmore]

"IVF leaves a bunch of frozen embryos that will never be used and must be disposed of."

As far as I know, neither point is true. By which I mean that IVF could be conducted on the basis that extra embryos would be 'adopted out' to couples who could only pay for the implantation portion of the procedure. And could simply be retained until such couples became available, or the original couple wanted more children.

Destruction of the embryos is actually just a convenience or cost saving measure, not inevitable.

[Jerry B.]

So if I freeze and adult to death, you can't charge me with murder until they're thawed out and proven dead, but if you thaw them out and they're dead, isn't the thawer guilty of murder?

[Bob from Ohio]

"by necessity, IVF leaves a bunch of frozen embryos that will never be used and must be disposed of"

IVF does not require this. Often the harvesting procedure only results in several viable enough to implant, which are all implanted.

[David Nieporent]

IVF is impacted because, by necessity, IVF leaves a bunch of frozen embryos that will never be used and must be disposed of.

They do not need to be disposed of, and as long as the clinics do not do so, nothing in this decision prevents them from operating. (One can argue that it's bizarre to suggest that keeping "people" frozen forever is okay, but this ruling doesn't forbid that.)

[Josh R]

The ruling interpreted “child” in the wrongful death statute to cover embryos. Being based on statutory interpretation, the legislature should be able to pass a law which exempts embryos not in utero without risking being slapped down by the courts (even though there is no principled logic for why a zygote in utero is a child while a frozen embryo isn’t).

[Nige]

Women can have personhood, or blastocysts can. Not both.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's funny coming from a defense attorney.

[OtisAH]

Ah yes, just that simple. As far as Brett knows, which is always quite far as far as Brett knows.

So my partner and I we freeze 100 embryos. The first few don’t implant then we get lucky, leaving let’s say 90. The next couple comes in, freezes 100 embryos, have a harder time but still leave 75 embryos. Next couple, same deal. Try some, leave many. And the next and the next and the next. You now have thousands and thousands of frozen embryos. And this is going on in every clinic in the US.

But don’t worry Brett says because we can give the rest away! To who? People!

Where will these thousands and thousands of people come from so that no clinic wastes one embryo? Around, of course!

Any issues if people don’t want other peoples’ embryos? Of course not. We’ll pass laws saying they have to.

Problem solved! As far as Brett knows.

[Moderation4ever]

You are correct that discarding embryos is for convivence and cost savings, but that does not mean these considerations are trivial. Keeping embryos that will never be implanted forever is foolish. What is the limit? We know embryos can be frozen for long times, but how long do we keep funding the work to preserve them. There are also ethical concerns about turning over a couple's embryos to outside people. Remember the case of Henrietta Lacks (HeLa cells). The best solution is to leave the decision to the couple.

[John F. Carr]

IVF has to harvest more eggs than the number of desired children because the losses are so high and unpredictable. The eggs could be frozen and thawed and fertilized one by one. Doing so would lead to loss of eggs from additional handling. Doing so would require much additional time and effort.

The eggs are normally grown for five days and graded. Some are clearly dead or apparently usable. Some of the fertilized eggs will grow to embryos that are still alive but look wrong. Normally these would be discarded. Can they be discarded in Alabama? Some will be found on testing to have a trisomy or other serious genetic defect. Normally these would be discarded. Can they be discarded in Alabama?

Trisomies fall into three categories: almost certainly fatal early in development, usually fatal but sometimes resulting in live birth (Santorum's daughter), and Down's Syndrome.

[OtisAH]

Wut?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you keep an actual person in below freezing temps they will die.

You do so with embryos and you're preserving them.

Almost as though they are very very different!

[Drewski]

"If" the dead guy is still dead when you thaw him out?

[OtisAH]

Oh, and let’s not forget that any embryo that doesn’t implant is a “dead person,” the loss of which may trigger their own liability claims. Better get it right the first time, doc!

[SimonP]

Like I said, it's just argle-bargle.

What does Willis/Wade's truthfulness regarding their relationship have to do with Trump's criminal conspiracy to thwart the will of Georgia voters?

[SimonP]

Is it a strawman? Trump may be content with merely a new prosecutor, but isn't this really about laying the groundwork for tossing the criminal case entirely, or motivating the Georgia legislature to impeach Willis and taint the whole investigation?

Never mind that none of this sideshow lays a legitimate basis for replacing the prosecutor. You're not even arguing for a "conflict of interest" in bringing the prosecution any more. You're alleging that Fani ought to be replaced because she may have lied (NB the phone records don't conclusively demonstrate this, even assuming the analysis of what they show is correct) during a separate hearing on whether she has a conflict of interest in bringing the case against Trump.

It's the Clinton impeachment all over again. You don't give a shit about the underlying criminal conspiracy that Trump and his goons engaged in. You'll grasp at any straw to defend this con man.

[SimonP]

No, this is not true, and certainly not best practice.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for answering the question the Queen avoided.

[David Nieporent]

The “Smirnov debacle,” as you put it, is working. The administration and the left, in general, are using this to negate, erase, all of the mountain of evidence of corruption of the Biden family. I would not be at all surprised if this was concocted for that reason. I predict Smirnov will never be convicted of anything.

There You Go Again. There is no such thing as "the Biden family." Only people, not "families," can be prosecuted. (Or impeached.) And there is not only not a "mountain of evidence" of corruption of Joe Biden, but no evidence of any sort. Not one iota.

[OtisAH]

Is this mountain of evidence in the room with you right now? Or any room anywhere with anyone right now? Will we ever get to see this mountain of evidence? Do you think repeating “mountains of evidence” will eventually conjure actual mountains of evidence? And are you guilty of witchcraft if you do conjure mountains of evidence? Have I now invoked “mountains of evidence” enough to conjure the mountains of evidence or does it require a longer commitment to the bit?

[David Nieporent]

[N]one of the most critical evidence of Biden-family influence-peddling comes from Smirnov or Russians.”

That's not what House Republicans said when the Smirnov FD-1023 was revealed. They treated it as the smoking gun.

Also, there's no evidence of "Biden-family influence peddling." There's a bunch of evidence that Hunter Biden is a nepo baby, and he might have tried to sell — as Archer testified — the 'illusion of access.' There's no evidence Joe Biden had anything to do with any of this, got any money or did anything wrong.

[David Nieporent]

No more than a miscarriage is. Only if there's negligence (or worse, obviously) would it be wrongful death.

[Sarcastr0]

You, though, continue to run away from the original question

[Commenter_XY]

They did = treat it like a smoking gun

I was quite surprised that the FBI was 'burned' by one of their most reliable informants (their description). That was eye-opening.

[Moderation4ever]

The truth is a couple cannot get divorced and a man looking to move on to his next wife would be stuck waiting also. My biggest concern would be financial and does one party attempt to screw the other during the waiting period.

[Sarcastr0]

Even then there is an ongoing exposure for negligence.

'It's not illegal, just entirely impracticable over most timescales!' is an overly technical read IMO.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The American Society for Reproductive Medicine designed clear embryo transfer guidelines for different populations. You may want to transfer two or more embryos if you:

Are over the age of 38
Have undergone multiple IVFs cycle with no success
Have an unfavorable prognosis for IVF" The Fertility Institute

That is why I said "often" and freezing was not "required". Those exceptions cover a lot of women.

[Don Nico]

Simon,
That is what the appearance of conflict is all about. Ms. Willis should step aside and let a new prosecutor take the case.

[Don Nico]

Willis has likely perjured herself or purposely tried to mislead the Court. That is sufficient reason to remove her from the case.

Appearances are important. A new, clean prosecutor should move forward against Mr Trump as soon as possible.

Why are you so intent on defending indefensible conduct by the prosecutor and DA?

[Bob from Ohio]

"underlying criminal conspiracy"

Did not exist.

[Don Nico]

"Rather, disqualification of the Fulton County DA’s office would be. "
Exactly.

[not guilty]

I don't see how impeachment on a collateral matter is grounds for disqualification. Professional discipline? Yes. Criminal prosecution? Maybe. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony was material to the issue or point in question, as Ga. Code § 16-10-70(a) requires, is iffy.

Showing that Fani Willis or Nathan Wade has any personal interest in the prosecution of Donald Trump, Mike Roman and the other remaining defendants? Not a chance.

As John Randolph of Roanoke said of Edward Livingston, Donald Trump is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump in prison is his chief fantasy.

[Drewski]

Scathing insult from a chronically unemployed guy.

[Brett Bellmore]

In my experience the woman gets the financial screwing over done before she lets you know she's divorcing you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Portrait of queen -- with her head still on.

[Bored Lawyer]

Time will tell. Remember also that "stay home and vote for no one" is an option for many disgruntled Democrats. (And disgruntled Republicans, too. Including yours truly.)

[OtisAH]

“Can they be discarded in Alabama?”

I think no? My stronger guess is nobody is going to risk fortune, and eventually freedom, to find out. And I doubt protestations by the ALAG or the lege will reassure anyone.

Until clumps of cells in Alabama are restored to their actual status as “clumps of cells” I’ll assume any fertility treatment that could result in the loss of one or more embryos is done or doomed in the State of Alabama for the foreseeable future. And there are some 10-12 states already looking to get in on the fun, but it’s possible their rolls may slow based on the reaction to AL. I doubt it though. MAGA is not know for restraint, and they really really really like the idea of fetal personhood (largely because they cannot conceive of how it will affect them personally).

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't one answer here to pass a law forbidding the freezing of embryos? Wouldn't that sidestep the entire issue?

IVF embryos are implanted or allowed to expire (and are not frozen).

[Nige]

It’s an odd fact that Russia was always so much better at straight-up espionage (including the suborning of officals and agents) than the US or the UK. Seems to still be the case to some extent.

[Nige]

So women would have to fear a police investigation if an embryo fails to implant the way women fear investigations if they have a miscarriage.

[Randal]

According to the National Advocates of Pregnant Women, there were 1200 manslaughter prosecutions for miscarriages in the US between 2006 and 2020.

[apedad]

B.O. meant more Hamas supporters should kill themselves - just cause......

[Martinned2]

Just transport them to another state and discard them there?

[Krayt]

I was disturbed to read that article over the weekend. Nazis were walking around openly like it was a sketchy web site.

Is your desire for power that philosophically poverty-stricken? Do meme posts hating gays and brown people resonate with you?

Mr. And Mrs. Middle America of both parties were the folks who crushed the Nazis. The Nazis are not your peeps.

[Nige]

Militant terrorists being willing to die and even kill themselves to get at their targets are a bad thing, actually.

[Martinned2]

Wait, what?

It may be because of the way comments are shown here, but I feel like I missed something.

[Mr. Bumble]

There was no question, only a statement.

[Martinned2]

Why is that odd? They have a much stronger incentive to be good at it, since the leadership's very lives depend on it. (See also: China, Syria.)

[Martinned2]

I feel like this was probably not intended as a reply to me. At least, it makes no sense if it was.

[David Nieporent]

You are correct that discarding embryos is for convivence and cost savings, but that does not mean these considerations are trivial. Keeping embryos that will never be implanted forever is foolish. What is the limit? We know embryos can be frozen for long times, but how long do we keep funding the work to preserve them.

When you bury someone in a cemetery, part of the cost is for maintenance of the ceremony in perpetuity. If this interpretation of Alabama law remains, then built into the cost of IVF will be a similar trust. The marginal cost of keeping the embryos frozen forever is tiny compared to the cost of the overall procedure.

[David Nieporent]

Which is to say, they don't. There are zillions of miscarriages a year. How many women get investigated for them?

[Nige]

It's just rarely acknowledged, even in fiction, LeCarre excepted. Robert Littell's The Company did a good job of portraying it from the US angle, though.

[Nige]

It doesn't take many to make women afraid, it just has to happen and be arbitrary, and there aren't zillions in the affected states.

[Nige]

This reduces women to the baby-making machines conservatives want them to be.

[Sarcastr0]

Fine, you continue to fail to react to the original comment in any way other than throwing chaff.

Which is I suppose an answer in and of itself.

[David Nieporent]

The word "ceremony" should've been "cemetery," of course. Autocorrect.

[Moderation4ever]

While I think the cemetery analogy is good, I do think it falls short of what happens and is needed for embryos. First cemetery burial is not required while the Alabama SC IVF ruling leaves couples little in the way of options. A second point is that perpetual care of a cemetery is essentially lawn care, while care of embryos is significantly more expensive. That expense will accumulate over time and cannot really be priced in perpetuity. Finally, there is the question of people rights with regard to the embryos they have created. How would any one feel if 50 or 100 years from now those embryos were taken and then used for something the couple found immoral. I read enough science fiction to think of some pretty awful things. IVF is medical care and I believe the best course of action is to allow the couple who created the embryos to determine their fate.

[Randal]

The people in the cemetery are dead. They might have estates, but they don’t have any rights. If the cemetery floods, its owners don’t get charged with murder.

If all these thousands of frozen embryos are living children, they have rights of their own. The liability of storing them is enormous, and potentially criminal. Imagine the power goes out and you get prosecuted for a million wrongful deaths. Even if everything goes well you’ll have CPS up your butt for not reading to them and giving them jackets.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see women anywhere refusing to get pregnant because they're worried about being prosecuted for a miscarriage.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

More like the appearance of stupidity.

[SimonP]

Argle-bargle, argle-bargle!

No legal standard cited, no logical link. It just kinda feels wrong, man!

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think you quite grasp how cheap liquid Nitrogen really is.

[Don Nico]

That too. But dissembling at best in court is more than stupid

[Bwaaah]

Well...something on which we agree, maybe?

When they started putting pineapple on pizza and tangerine slices in green salads, it was the beginning of a lot of unwantedness for me. Indeed, it is as if somebody spilled the desert into my entrée. And what does that then say for desert? Oh no...more sweets?

For me, sweets overpower and destroy pretty much any savory flavor. (And I love sweets!)

That's one more reason I don't like going out to eat with people who like to order "for the table." Makes me have to pick around pieces of their fruit mixed into my entrée. And I swear to god: I'm not an angry person. (Not too much one, anyway.)

[Moderation4ever]

It is interesting in the way our tastes develop. I have noted that a number of savory middle eastern dishes include cinnamon as a spice. While I like the dishes most of my family do not and they assume that cinnamon can only be used in sweet dishes.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie prefers the Cumofsumyunggoy

[Sarcastr0]

It's odd how these libs sure seem to comment on reason, patriots.win, gab, etc. in support of Trump a whole bunch!

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you grasp what ongoing legal exposure means.

But I do think there are logistics issues in forcing every IVF facility in the state to become embryo hoarders for all time.

[Nige]

Nobody gets pregnant thinking they're going to have a miscarriage.

[Commenter_XY]

I will not object if hamas members begin to self-immolate, wherever they are. Certainly more cost effective than having to hunt them down and kill them.

[Commenter_XY]

The lizard guy from Star Trek that Captain Kirk had to defeat (one of my all-time fave episodes!)?

[SimonP]

Seems that a grand jury disagrees with you. But continue denying reality, if that suits you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"microscopic persons"

“A person's a person, no matter how small.”

[SimonP]

Willis has likely perjured herself or purposely tried to mislead the Court.

We don't have evidence of this. What's been disclosed is enough to spin the media for a cycle or two, and to convince people like you that she lied. But the phone records don't show the existence of an intimate relationship that contradicts what was said under oath.

Appearances are important. A new, clean prosecutor should move forward against Mr Trump as soon as possible.

Until you can find dirt on the next "clean" prosecutor, you mean.

You need to keep in mind that the argument you are making is that Fani is now "unclean" because she may have lied in an ancillary proceeding relating to the question of whether she had an impermissible "conflict of interest" in pursuing a criminal case against Trump's gang of crooks. You are arguing, in other words, that none of the original grounds for removing her apply, but that she somehow made herself "unclean" in the process of confirming that there was no reason to remove her.

Do you understand how fishing-expedition this is? Of course I'm going to defend her. You're all a bunch of bad faith fascists defending the worst president in American history. Honestly, go fuck yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

But-for cause is an awful way to assign responsibility or blame.

I'm not saying the policy is great, but Bob is using some janky logic here.

[David Nieporent]

but there’s a point buried in there:

Yeah, but that's a dumb point. It is 100% guaranteed that someone from Florida killed someone in Georgia recently. That's not an argument for closing the border between Florida and Georgia.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow Queenie, logical for once, apparently you have a Cracker in the Woodpile

Frank

[Randal]

People do make this argument all the time and it sucks every time they make it. Sometimes it's in the form of "if they just hadn't paroled that guy, Lady Somebody wouldn't have been raped." Or "if they just hadn't let that guy off with a warning when he had been caught speeding, he wouldn't have crashed into that bicyclist." Or "if they just would've involuntarily institutionalized that kid, he wouldn't have shot up the school." Or "if they had just denied bail, her husband would still be alive." Or "if they had just taken her statements to the police more seriously, he'd have been in jail rather than stalking her."

The logical conclusion is always "if everyone were in prison, exiled, committed, or dead, there'd be no crime." Brilliant deduction, numnutz.

[Nige]

Most of your opinions on the slaughter in Gaza have a ghastly pollyanna-ish tone about them, so sure, why not?

[David Nieporent]

We don’t have evidence of this. What’s been disclosed is enough to spin the media for a cycle or two, and to convince people like you that she lied. But the phone records don’t show the existence of an intimate relationship that contradicts what was said under oath.

Sure they do. People have convicted beyond a reasonable doubt based on less evidence than that. (Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia defense attorney, has been tweeting many examples of the Georgia courts upholding convictions based on phone records less substantial than this.)

The sheer number of communications is telling, but beyond that, it's the timing and geographic location of his phone. When she calls him at 10 pm, his phone shows him traveling to the vicinity of her place, staying there until 4 am, and then returning to his place, it would take a rather determined jury not to make the obvious finding.

[Krayt]

It's hard to believe but I submit it's not about him, but about the American People and their rules for government investigation.

He does deserve this in some cosmic sense. You even quote one of my favorite reasons why. But he needs to go down in flames the old fashioned way, instead of the really old fashioned way, with those in power turning the investigative and prosecutorial power of government against a political opponent, like tyrant kings of olde.

[Bwaaah]

Have you ever noticed people, particularly in fast food restaurants, who take a bite out of a hamburger and then immediately suck in some of their Coke to be part of the whole chewing and swallowing experience?

What is that? A Coca Cola mash? Is there no place for taste in these people?

[Bwaaah]

And yet, there's a part of me that says (even to the Coca Cola mash), "MMMMmmmmmm...FOOD." (throw in a fry LOL)

[David Nieporent]

Isn’t one answer here to pass a law forbidding the freezing of embryos? Wouldn’t that sidestep the entire issue?

That law would do far more damage to the IVF industry than a law requiring them to maintain the frozen embryos in perpetuity. IVF is an extensive and painful process that often requires multiple cycles. Extracting exactly one egg at a time, waiting to see if successful, and then starting the process over if not, would not be feasible.

[Krayt]

Sure, it's funny he gets stuck with Kaiju-sized judgements.

What's not funny is those in power functionally expropriating the estate of an irritating nobleman because he's irritating, a thing unlikely to have happened, and certainly not with expediency, but for him being an irritant who will not just go away!

[Nige]

This is dumb. Being a politician doesn’t make you immune to the law, or to investigation by your political opponents. You’d have had to let Dennis Hastert go free if it did, and Whitewater would never have happened. It's special pleading for Trump, because the rules are different for him.

[Sarcastr0]

those in power functionally expropriating the estate of an irritating nobleman because he’s irritating

So did you read QA's comment, and just kinda got lost before you could reply to her points, or did you not even bother with reading because posting your take yet again was too important to waste any time engaging with the person you're replying to?

[Moderation4ever]

While the judgement is large everything says it is in line with the size of the offense. If I get a speeding ticket for $200, I will be more careful in the future. What size fine do you need to give Trump to get him to follow the rules? This is a large penalty but the problem with smaller penalties for Trump and those with wealth is that they are just the cost of doing business, the penalties often don't stop the behavior. It is also worth mentioning that were Trump not running for the Presidency, he would like just negotiate a smaller settlement. It seems he has done that in the past.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He was punished once for defamation. He defamed her again. He has been punished again, more severely.

That's the way this should work. People who object do not understand the situation.

If he defames her again (compounding the original assault, which was despicable), he is likely to be punished anew, even more severely. If that bothers you, you have little to contribute to reasoned debate in this context.

Carry on, clingers.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, you and Bumble trying the same shitty deflection. I will admit, I had you pegged for a bit better than that.

This is not news about the FBI. Now, react to the actual story, which really puts a lot of egg on your particular face.

[David Nieporent]

with the New York Times explaining the bureau never did “think much” of the Smirnov claims and concluded in 2020 that they “did not merit continued investigation.”

But that's empirically true. (For good reason, given that it was unverifiable hearsay.) They took this statement and stashed it in a drawer, until someone who the GOP called a "whistleblower"¹ told the GOP about it and they demanded that it be produced, even though​ the FBI told them it wasn't reliable.
​

¹Again, that's an IKYABWAI? word that the GOP only started using after the first impeachment, when there was a whistleblower who revealed Trump's Ukranian extortion attempt. So now any disgruntled current or former government employee who says anything bad about any Democrat is labeled a "whistleblower."

[SimonP]

Chip, I'm surprised that you're so eager to jump to this conclusion.

What is the "obvious finding"? Have you never hung out at a friend's place until 4 a.m.? Do we know that they were alone during that time? The mere fact that the records may show that they were together during certain periods of time, and texting and calling, doesn't demonstrate that either of them were lying while under oath.

You're being a credulous oaf on this, for reasons I can't discern. Anyway, why it should result in disqualification, you also haven't bothered to explain. Just kinda feels right?

[SimonP]

Bobby, what you specifically said was: "Often the harvesting procedure only results in several viable enough to implant, which are all implanted."

This is no paraphrase at all of a guideline that states: you may want to transfer two or more embryos if you are older or have had difficulty with IVF in the past.

I'll take your response as a concession that you were wrong in the first instance, googled to try to rebut my claim, and could do no better than a half-assed non-rebuttal.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is that if you are a President there is always a headwind. Every President had borne this headwind and looked past it. Only Trump has sat and whined. Reagan had Iran Contra, Clinton Whitewater, Bush outing the CIA spy Valerie Plame, Obama had the birthiers and Fast and Furious. It is a fact of life for a President, you put your head down and work. Trump whines.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, do you actually think they didn't know about Hastert until he retired? And then, suddenly, they found out? That's cute.

[Randal]

That's how I took it.

[David Nieporent]

And I'm betting that 1,150 of them involved women who used cocaine while pregnant. That's the only time that gets prosecuted.

[Kazinski]

Kimberly Strassel Wall Street Journals words not mine. I don’t see anything to disagree with, but she is an experienced journalist with posts in Brussels and London and she did her senior thesis at Princeton on the Russian Security services.

And I have spent little effort on the FD1023 other than noting the allegations and it hadn’t appeared to be thoroughly investigated.

I’ve spent far more time on Biden’s own words, Archers testimony, Glenn Less let’s updated fact check in the WAPO, and other undisputed facts.

Maybe I can do an extensive recap in Thursday’s open thread if you’ve forgotten and want to.claim the FD1023 was the basis of what I was posting on. Yes, that’s a threat.

FAFO.

[OtisAH]

Funnily enough, no, the guy who named himself after the Unabomber and who goes to the wall to defend and excuse literally every MAGA fever dream is not better than the functionally illiterate Mr. Bumble.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mushrooms, onions, pineapple, and anchovies. My favorite pizza.

After my financee got here from the Philippines, every time I'd order pizza, she'd say, "No anchovies!". I'd reluctantly comply each time.

Then, last day of our honeymoon, we ordered pizza from room service, and I put my foot down, and insisted on anchovies on half the pizza.

It arrives, we open the box, and she exclaims, "Oh, THOSE are "anchovies"!", and started gobbling them down. She'd thought it was a vegetable like eggplant...

[Krayt]

Let's group order! Ordered with a group at a Chinese restaurant. Get something like General Tso’s, but spicy, not sweet at all, and not from cruddy cuts.

Others: We’ll have two broccoli chickens, two chicken fried rices, and a chicken chop suey.

They bring it out and spin the giant lazy Susan. My dish gets around to me, empty, but enough chicken with broccoli is left the new Space X monster couldn’t lift it.

[Frank Drackman]

wit a side o' dat water melon??? ooo-mah-lawd!

[Frank Drackman]

No, because I’m not some creepy dude who watches (and cares apparently) about others dietary preferences. When I come back to Jaw Jaw after months away I’ll eat nothing but Boiled Peanuts for 3 or 4 days, (don’t like em? because you had the canned variety, or worse, the ones they sell along I-95 to Yankee Saps, so much Aflatoxin your Kupffer cells are cancerous by the next exit) OK, I do notice people who like Mayonnaise, what the fucks up with that?

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Thats so fucking stupid you should be retroactively aborted

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, it's a mystery why anyone would conclude that a multiple-perjury-committing pair of prosecutors who used a case to materially enrich themselves at taxpayers' expense could be disqualified from continuing to prosecute that case.

[not guilty]

What is Ms. Willis's or Mr. Wade's personal interest in the conviction of any particular defendant here? They will have each received the same remuneration if Trump, Roman and the others are acquitted as they will have if they are convicted. Please be specific.

Impeachment on a collateral matter (if that occurs -- it hasn't yet) doesn't feed the disqualification bulldog. Although it might warrant professional discipline after further investigation.

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, do you actually think they didn’t know about Hastert until he retired? And then, suddenly, they found out? That’s cute.

It’s entirely possible.

I like to have some evidence before I posit a huge pedophilia coverup, even when it’s within the GOP.
Because it's a serious accusation; seismic to one's worldview really. And at least a bit of actual evidence would be nice before you jump into those waters.

Swear to God you’ll be ranting about adrenochrome within a decade.

[Nige]

You think this is some sort of argument in favour of politicians being above the law?

[Randal]

True, but that's only because of prosecutorial discretion. I think there's a justified fear that pregnant women are under increasing suspicion in this country, and if the only thing protecting them is prosecutorial discretion, that's pretty scary.

What if you miscarry and it turns out you had a vitamin D deficiency, or were dehydrated, or had eaten a shrimp, or whatever? There's no bright line between "she was negligent by doing a line of coke" and "she was negligent by having a glass of wine" and "she was negligent by choosing bleu cheese dressing."

[Sarcastr0]

Learning proximate cause was retroactively one of the better concepts I got out of law school.

[Bwaaah]

Whatever you like, however wrong it is.

I'd have to try that mixture before I could dismiss it. There's too much going on there for me to know how it would hit my palette. The anchovies are kind of a game changer.

Could be very good. Could be a disaster.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

After my financee got here from the Philippines

Have awkward males who can't handle these educated modern American women have finally found a type of immigrant they don't hate?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Prof. Volokh.

And the reason you should be in the market for plenty of cardboard boxes right about now.

Have a nice trip.

[Jmaie]

Gotta ask, what do you consider a "cruddy" cut of chicken?

Personally I'd be happy if broccoli chicken were all that was left from that order. To each their own, of course...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Order another.

Problem solved. Point made.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Almost an exact retelling of the classic SF short story "Arena" by the great Fredric Brown.

[David Nieporent]

Have you never hung out at a friend’s place until 4 a.m.?

Like, in college? Maybe. As an adult professional? No, I don't go out at 10 pm and hang out at friends' places until 4 am.

[Bwaaah]

You'd be the creepy dude with the thing about people and mayonnaise. Mayonnaise.

[Bwaaah]

Wow. Do you even know when your dick is hanging out?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The original Martinned would have understood.

[Bwaaah]

Me, personally, I likes the chicken. Never known no "cruddy cuts." Maybe I've had 'em, but my standards are so low I just liked 'em. Probly that. Probly just liked the "cruddy cuts."

[SimonP]

Well, maybe you shouldn't be opining on what doing so "obviously" implies, then.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well if you don't do it, then I suppose that means nobody does.

Very convincing.

[David Nieporent]

You can pretend, but no fact-finder is going to say, "Maybe these two people — who we know were hooking up a few months later — were just hanging out playing Settlers of Catan. Who can say?"

[SimonP]

Evidently the idea that people could just enjoy spending time together is foreign to you, Chip.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, that’s one of the worst parts about life after college. The parties suck and end way too early.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

David,

Your assertion of what others cannot possibly think is a piss-poor argument and you should know better.

Perhaps you don't have any experience in relationships, but they frequently start with friendship and then progress to something more. It *is* entirely possible that they were spending time together as friends without having become intimate yet.

Get out more and maybe you can experience the same thing.

[Magister]

My impression of Hastert's case is that some people knew about it, and even brought forward the information while he was Speaker; the sister of one of his (deceased) victims brought the information to journalists, but they could not corroborate it and Hastert denied it. He paid millions in hush money after he left office and became a lobbyist; perhaps not entirely surprising because he would have much more money then and an accusation would harm his lobbying business far more than it would have harmed his political career.

[Michael P]

Yes, why doesn't he just shut up and fall in line with the orders from his "bettors"?

[Frank Drackman]

Mayonnaise is Gross, and if you don't agree my friends Jules and Vincent will pay you a visit.

[Nige]

If he started obeying the law he might lose support from his base.

[David Nieporent]

Because all his casinos went bankrupt?

[OtisAH]

Oh my, piece of shit does impersonations too?! When does your HBO comedy special hit, piece of shit?

[OtisAH]

Good note. I suppose it’s the same principled logic that holds that “life” (a fertilized egg) equals “child” or “person.” Which follows the same principled logic as “originalism” does.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Great comment, clinger.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not as cheap as flushing them, sure. But "necessity" is a huge exaggeration.

[Sarcastr0]

Put yourself in the shoes of a General Counsel.

The actual, real-world practical effect is not hard to see.

[John F. Carr]

Might make a good choice of law question on an exam.

If I take a cooler across the state line to Florida and dump the contents on the ground, I expect Alabama law to apply. If I transfer the embryos to an IVF facility in Massachusetts and the freezer there fails, I expect Massachusetts law to apply.

But I would seek honest legal advice from an Alabama lawyer. Honest means "tell me what will happen" as opposed to "tell me what I want to hear so I can plead reliance on legal advice."

[Martinned2]

It's swings & roundabouts. Dictatorships may be good at espionage, but often terrible at getting the information to the right people. Nobody wanted to tell Stalin the Germans were going to invade, etc. Operation RYAN is also a classic example of top-down intelligence gathering that could have gone very, very wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_RYAN

[Martinned2]

Whatever happens to a "person" outside the borders of Alabama seems no concern of the laws of Alabama. But I can see how you might end up accused of conspiracy (within Alabama) to "murder" these persons outside Alabama.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Again...you have a pair of prosecutors who are engaging in lying to the court in an effort to cover up an arrangement that appears to have been designed for them to personally profit from the prosecution at taxpayers' expense, inviting disbarment and/or criminal charges for themselves.

Their personal interest is in the prosecution itself.

[John F. Carr]

Often the lex loci principle applies but exceptions exist. I think if I took a cooler full of frozen embryos from Alabama and dumped them in Massachusetts, in one continuing act, that an Alabama court would choose to apply Alabama law. A Massachusetts court would not apply Alabama law because Alabama law is so wrong by Massachusetts standards. (The "public policy" exception.) As for Florida, who knows.

[Nige]

Obviously it didn't do them much good in the long run, but still. If the US had been a smidgen better and the USSR a smidgen worse the whole Cold War would probably have played out differently.