Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind, on this unusual day?

Comments

[darkknight9]

Binging old episodes of Night Court does wonders for the soul. Especially if your soul is taunted by kids, social media, etc with a bunch of time sensitive nonsense words.

Period humor from earlier periods is better than new stuff.

[Frank Drackman]

Just the way Jack Benny said "Raw-chest-er........." still cracks me up, Jeez, I'm sounding like Larry King's old USA Today column...
" Nobody could do an eye poke like Moe Howard.....for my money Gil Hodges was the best first baseman in Dodger history...I wouldn't kick that Shelly Winters out of my bed..."

Frank

[ThePublius]

I had a wicked crush on Markie Post. I loved everything about her, her natural beauty, her hair, and her figure - oh, my! Ha, ha. She died too young, 71.

[ThePublius]

https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/08/NINTCHDBPICT000671865935.jpg?w=1240

[jimc5499]

I met her when they were filming "The Fall Guy" at NAS North Island in the early 80's. Had a Polaroid of me, in my Dress Whites getting a kiss on the cheek from her. I was 18 at the time.

[ThePublius]

Cool!

[darkknight9]

Very cool! I had the same crush. 🙂

[feff422]

You should try Barney Miller. That's an even deeper cut. A lot of the humor political and social sentiments transcend time. Plus, Ron Glass is funnier than anything currently on t.v.

[Don Nico]

Despite the size of the “uncommitted” vote in Michigan, does anyone think that will change who is on the ballot for President in November?

[Kazinski]

No, in fact i read somewhere that the uncommitted vote is not substantially out of line with previous Michigan primaries.

But i.do think there is at least a 50% chance Biden will be replaced before the end of the summer, and that is what I thought before the primary.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If Biden were replaced at the end of summer, what candidate except Harris would then be able to raise the $2 billion or so necessary to fund a competent campaign? How could it be done?

[ducksalad]

One would guess most of their serious donors (e.g. large amounts routed into PACs) and a good fraction of the small ones are committed either to the Democratic party or to anti-Trumpism, rather than Joe Biden personally. Likewise for their voters. Whoever gets the nomination will get most of the money and all (or more) of the votes. And multiple Democrats (e.g. Klobuchar) already demonstrated in the 2020 primary that they could out-campaign Harris.

The Democrats have many options if/when Biden strokes out.

It’ll be harder for the Republicans to replace Trump, since many of their voters are committed to Trump only and quite a few don’t care about, or even actively hate, the rest of the Republican party. Read a bunch of CPAC interview quotes from Trump supporters saying they want him to pick someone from outside the party as his VP candidate.

They might grudgingly switch if he is actually dead. But if he’s merely comatose, with Stage 5 metastasis and multiple organ failures, needing a roomful of equipment and a 100 yds of tubing to keep the heart sort of halfway beating, all in a prison hospital, they’ll still vote from him and actively attack any alternatives.

And even if he is dead, they’ll be inclined to put most of their effort into conspiracy theories about his death, rather than electing some other Republican.

[Nige]

If Democrats were Republicans they'd vote for Hunter.

[David Nieporent]

The size of the uncommitted vote was only big in raw numbers, because so many people voted. The percentage of the uncommitted vote was not significantly different than in prior years. Of course, because Michigan was incredibly close in 2016 and pretty close in 2020, even small differences can matter, but it doesn't say anything.

And no, of course it won't change who's on the ballot. Joe Biden remains on the ballot unless he is physically unable to be president.

[Kazinski]

He's physically and mentally unable.

He seems worse than Brezhnev or Andropov were back in the late 80's if you remember. I'm sure Joe remembers those days, its the last week or last decade that trips him up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Worse in what way? The Russians you mention were politically useless. Biden is getting quite a bit done politically. Even you seem to worry that Biden could pull off a victory.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I noticed that the Obama (oh, Biden) Impeachment Hearings are starting.

[Sarcastr0]

Doctor Kaz reads only conservative sources but has all he needs to diagnose.

Biden meets regularly with GOP Congresspeople. If he wasn’t with it we’d hear about it a lot more than we do.

[Nige]

Biden has an absolutely packed public schedule, too. Imagine the hours and hours of footage they'd have if he was really losing it, instead of a few clips.

[Kazinski]

I'm not Mitch McConnell's doctor either, but I also thought it was time for him to step down.

And I already said I thought Trump was too old.

As John Hinderaker observed:
"It was time to go, if only because the geriatric era in Washington needs to end. While nowhere near as debilitated as Joe Biden, McConnell’s health issues in recent years have been visible. It is highly desirable for Republicans not to be seen, like the Democrats, as a party of octogenarians."

[Sarcastr0]

"He’s physically and mentally unable."

"I think he's too old."

These are different goalposts.

[Riva]

I bet Democrat vote counters have pizza boxes on stand by to block any view of their processing of all the unquestionably legitimate harvested mail in ballots.

[grb]

It's never too early to start inventing excuses for the next election you'll lose!

[Commenter_XY]

I do not believe we are going to have a Biden v Trump rematch in November.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What do you think will happen to keep Trump out of the race?

[ducksalad]

Lots of possibilities.

1. If he gets disgusted enough by his assets being seized, forfeited, or frozen I could see him giving a "This country doesn't deserve my greatness" speech and going to live in some country that doesn't cooperate with US prosecutions.

2. HIs health, while way better than Biden, isn't great. They're at an age where he could have a one-and-done heart attack while Biden lingers on semi-conscious for another decade.

3. And of course, controversial candidates with obsessive media attention are always at risk from delusional individuals thinking they'll singlehandedly save us. As many have mentioned here, it's surprising there hasn't been an attempt already.

Note what's not on the list: disqualification, criminal convictions, or change of heart in his supporters.

[bernard11]

Hard to imagine Trump not being the nominee.

Ducksalad's list makes sense to me.

The only other thing I can think of is the discovery of some even worse behavior than we already know about - accepting bribes from Putin, say, or a smoking gun about his intentions on Jan. 6.

[Mr. Bumble]

More fevered dreams.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 53 mins ago
Flag Comment
"The only other thing I can think of is the discovery of some even worse behavior than we already know about – accepting bribes from Putin, say, or a smoking gun about his intentions on Jan. 6."

Do you mean bribes such as Hunter biden was obtaining (filtering through the biden family) or the pay for play with the clinton foundation ( of course the pay for play with the clinton foundation died as sudden death once HRC's political future died.

[bernard11]

filtering through the biden family

You left out "crime," you jackass.

[Joe_dallas]

at least you are not disputing the funding of the biden family for foreign individuals attempting to influence us policy

[grb]

Wow! Has that supplanted 3 truck payments as the reigning “evidence” of Biden corruption?

Though Smirnov still provides the most comical entertainment. His story was so goofily absurd you needed to be a dim & gullible child to fall for it. So Biden was paid 5mil to follow what was public U.S. policy & protect Burisma from Shokin – even though Shokin wasn’t threatening the company, had protected Burisma from an English investigation, could himself be bought for a fraction of the price, and Burisma was more worried about a Shokin replacement anyway ?!?!

That was Smirnov’s story. How lackbrain stupid must you be to believe bullshit like that?

[Joe_dallas]

U.S. policy & protect Burisma from Shokin – even though Shokin wasn’t threatening the company, had protected Burisma from an English investigation,

GRB - Think about the logic of that democrat talking point . Hunter was getting a pretty nice deal on the board of Burisma. Why would would the Obama administration try to get Shokin fired if he was NOT investigating Burisma?

Think through the logic without resorting to a BS talking point

[grb]

Joe_dallas : “Why would would the Obama administration try to get Shokin fired if he was NOT investigating Burisma?”

Golly. That’s a hard’un! Maybe for the same reason all our European allies wanted Shokin fired. Maybe for the same reason a bipartisan group of Senators wrote a letter demanding Shokin go. Maybe for the same reason the IMF, World Bank and European Bank of Reconstruction & Development demanded it. Maybe for the same reason every anti-corruption group in Ukraine itself demanded he be ousted. Hell, there were street protests in Kyiv against Shokin alone.

To sum up:

1. You’re not very well informed about this subject, are you?

2. All these countries, organizations and groups around the world wanted Shokin fired because he was grotesquely corrupt. They wanted him gone even before his two top prosecutors were raided and the cops found bags of diamonds, fake passports and guns in their house. (spoiler alert : Shokin saw the charges dropped, the investigation ended, and the loot returned).

They did not want him gone (worldwide) because he threatened Burisma.
Least of all because he never did.

[bernard11]

When you produce some evidence that Joe Biden is taking bribes I'll be interested to see it.

Suggestion: Don't rely on Alexander Smirnov.

[Moderation4ever]

I’m game what do you think happens?

[Frank Drackman]

No, Sleepy Joes 3-4 month life expectancy will.

[Mr. Bumble]

But according to the Black, lesbian raggedy Ann doll press secretary he passed his physical with flying colors.

[Michael P]

You should be better than raising KJP's token traits. Yes, those are why Biden retains such a dishonest and non-credible press secretary, but remember and follow Ronald Reagan's example of not making a political issue out of his opponent's youth and inexperience.

[Nige]

Remember when Trump's physical showed he was the fittest healthiest man in the world then it turned out they'd been doling out pills to staff the whole time he was in office?

[Mr. Bumble]

No.

[Nige]

Speaking of poor memories.

[Moderation4ever]

This might help;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/25/trump-white-house-medical-unit-drugs-improper/#

[Frank Drackman]

Thats sort of what the White Physician's supposed to do. Nige-bot wouldn't know it, but Humans have this condition called Jet-Lag, and it can be treated with either 'Go' or 'No-Go' pills, more commonly known as Amphetamines and Benzodiazepines, of course you could just have a 'Fighter Pilot's Breakfast' (Black Coffee and a Cigarette) or a few Old Fashioned's like I do, but you know all those Prima-Donna WH staff wanted their Ritalin and Halcion (R&H we used to call it) Current WH doc's doing the same thing, funny how the 'Complete Physical' didn't mention a Mental Status Exam or Drug Screen,

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Why in the world did you decide oh hey it’s time to bring up race and looks and sexual orientation?

I mean I have a theory but how in the world did you think that would be productive?

[Nige]

Because it's getting ok to be racist again.

[Mr. Bumble]

Describing a Black woman (I even capitalized it) is "racist"?

[Nige]

Using black as a pejorative is.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “Describing a Black woman (I even capitalized it) is “racist”?”

This has been another edition of :

1. I Just Said Something Racist,
2. Because I Enjoy Being Racist,
3. But Now I’m Going to Be “Baffled” That Someone Noticed.

It’s an old-timie two-step that ALWAYS gets old

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble:
“Japs”
“Dumb Mick(s)”
“Fags” (referring to gay Americans)
“Fuckwad”, “Dipshit” (addressing practitioners)
“Jamaican Voodoo judge” (referring to an African American federal court judge)

Remind us again what master race produced you?
You absolute cretin.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you and Nige would have something to say.
She is Black, a lesbian and looks like Raggedy Ann.

[Frank Drackman]

I was thinking more Shirley Temple

[Joe_dallas]

As a good Catholic, Biden gave up his cognitive test for lent

[Don Nico]

Cute comment

[grb]

Thus Don.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Michigan was a Pro-Hamas vote.

Biden is in a difficult position because he is at risk of losing the core Jewish voting block in a party increasingly antisemetic.

See: https://freebeacon.com/elections/protest-vote-gets-traction-in-michigan-spelling-trouble-for-biden/

[Commenter_XY]

Genocide Joe POTUS Biden has shown unusual mental moral clarity in providing Israel with all the weaponry and real time intelligence needed to enable Israel to kill every Hamas member they can lay their hands upon.

Recall, those Judeocidal Hamas terrorists also killed over 2 dozen Americans. That alone deserves a lethal and enduring American response.

I am forever grateful to POTUS Biden for standing by Israel. I personally think he is misguided on two-state, but that doesn't stop me from being very grateful to him for having done the right thing. At the right time. Israel just needs to do better at killing more Hamas members faster. Rafah awaits.

POTUS Biden does not need to worry about the majority of 'The Jewish Vote' (whatever that actually means...Jews are not monolithic). The Black Hats are unlikely to vote for him in big numbers (30% or thereabouts); another 40% (reform, conservative) are solidly in POTUS Biden's camp, and about 30% Unaffiliated/Secular/Just Spiritual/None (that vote goes for POTUS Biden, but not overwhelmingly).

You are not thinking it through if you think that Jews will bail on POTUS Biden. They won't. The big exception: If POTUS Biden pushes two-state, it is game over. Upwards of 80% of Israelis oppose it; the time for TSS came and went. If POTUS Biden tries to force that, it changes everything...for the worse.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : “If POTUS Biden pushes two-state, it is game over. Upwards of 80% of Israelis oppose it.”

For the record, Biden is not running for reelection in Israel. I tried to find recent polling of American Jews over the Two State Solution, but failed (aside from reading the U.S. Reform movement, the largest Jewish denomination in the country, still supports Two States).

As they should. While looking, I ran into several articles from Israel’s so-called supporters raging against the idea of a separate Palestinian state. All of them shared one common feature : They proposed no alternate answer. The closest was this: “We can afford to continue limping along with the burdens of the occupation for another generation or two, by which point many unforeseen things will have come to pass that may make a solution either more or less obvious”

Not very reassuring, but at least it’s not some flying-unicorn-fantasy-solution, as your dreamy hopes the Palestinians can be paid to magically vanish. And at least you both tried to say something. It’s been my long-running observation that most of Israel’s so-called supporters absolutely refuse to consider the country’s long-term choices – just like a small child who puts fingers in his ears and makes loud noises not to hear something unwelcome.

As for Biden, he’ll be fine. He’s always supported two states because that’s the only long-term option that offers Israel an escape from the toxic dead-end road it’s gone done these past few decades. He has no magic answer to bring that about anytime soon because none exists, particularly after 7Oct. But just to make the Israelis consider an alternate to endless apartheid rule over 4-5 million stateless people would be a start. Maybe a new Israeli leader could take a few tiny constructive steps. Maybe a new Palestinian leader would reciprocate. I don’t claim it would be easy; I just note it’s Israel’s only real future.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘…most of Israel’s so-called supporters absolutely refuse to consider the country’s long-term choices …’

Don’t consider, or don’t state…? (Not that Israel’s even like to make it as a going concern.)

‘I just note it’s Israel’s only real future’.

False necessity claim. As just one possibility, what is Jordan’s future as a state if American-British support for it collapses with its loss of global power and influence? Will the domestics and the neighbourhood prop up its British-created monarchy?

‘Israel an escape from the toxic dead-end road…’.

If America loses this new cold war, what happens to the international order (and so apartheid as a legal crime)? Surely the Israelis, and many others, are considering THAT possibility.

Regardless, will China give up its control of Tibet and other places it claims as its own, ones that no one else currently recognizes as Chinese? No.

Will India give up Kashmir? No—or at least, not without getting something of equal geostrategic value in return (which, admittedly, is difficult to imagine if you know the map, and also if you know the history there).

Will Turkey give up Kurdistan or Cypress? No.

Will, over the next fifty years, most of South America and Africa even be composed of the countries as we know them today? Highly doubtful. Will their new political arrangements abide by Western norms about how societies should organize and inter-relate? Equally doubtful.

What will America do, moreover, when it’s painfully confronted with the fact that its attempted normalization of an imperialist apartheid belief system IS IN FACT such a system, and that efforts to silence criticisms or castigation as function of ‘phobia’ completely fall apart?

Some further food for thought:

How does Aisha’s treatment fit with second or third wave feminism? Was her treatment properly classifiable as child sex abuse—by a man of superlative virtue who NEVER did anything wrong?

With the loss of Western hegemony, will a religiously-driven-and-sanctioned international slave market rise again? And are there not good reasons to think that, with that turn of fortune’s wheel, genuine apartheid conditions will increase globally, rather than decrease?

[Nige]

Ok doomer.

[grb]

Theendoftheleft : “Will Turkey give up Kurdistan or Cypress? No”

A shit-ton of words from someone totally clueless. There’s a gaping flaw in all of your historical examples. For instance, Turkey invaded Cyprus and remains there still. But they claim the section of the island they control as part of greater Turkey and its inhabitants are citizens thus.

The same is true of your other examples. If Israel had claimed the West Bank and Gaza as part of their country and given the people who always lived there Israeli citizenship, there would have been a brief ado almost fifty years ago, now long forgotten. Of course the Arabs in the conquered lands would have gotten second-class citizenship like the Arab minority in Israel proper, but at least they would have a say in the government that controls their lives.

But Israel refused. For nearly a half-century, they’ve held the land but kept its inhabitants stateless. By now its pretty clear they want to keep the West Bank but still leave millions of people in a limbo without rights. The closest analogy to that is South Africa.

As for the rest of your comment, it’s fever-dream nonsense. No doubt you’ll be deeply embarassed when you sober up.

[Theendoftheleft]

You’re the one who had just demonstrated your complete cluelessness and dishonesty. Thanks for doing so.

What does international law unquestionably hold about Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus? (There’s no partisan interpretation to be had there.) Turkey nonetheless ASSERTS jurisdiction because it doesn’t give a shit about the international legal position.

So too with China, India, etc.

Your point about Israel is also question begging; and you demonstrate that you fundamentally misunderstand what dhimmitude is and has always been. Palestine, whether as an autonomous country or as under Jordanian and Egyptian shared control (as per pre-1967), would not, and has not, actually ever afford(ed) equal rights to different peoples. The dhimmis would always remain second class citizens—at best.

Jordan itself is a monarchy created by the British and propped up by America, one that denies the Palestinian majority therein equal rights and real self-determination.

It is you who needs to wake the hell up and understand that we’re in a new global cold war, one that directly threatens the international system. ‘Inflection point’, says the non-compos mentis POTUS. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/21/remarks-by-president-biden-before-business-roundtables-ceo-quarterly-meeting/

Traditional Americans are not enlisting in the US military precisely because they can see what you REALLY want them to be fighting for, both globally and domestically. You can keep repeating the old Roman error of enlisting foreigners with the promise of jobs and citizenship, but that won’t turn out well.

[grb]

Dude, you need to proof all your comments and ask yourself this:

"If a normal person reads this won't he laugh hysterically at me?"

Upon answering "yes", you should get out your editing pen and try (struggle) to make some kind of rational point. You should strike-out all your fever-dream gibberish and make some kind of connection to the real world. You should attempt to focus on a single point and not drift off into fantasy tin-foil-hat galaxies. Upon finishing, you should ask, "If a normal person reads this won't he laugh hysterically at me?"

Upon answering yes, you should try again. Eventually you'll sound at least human....

[Theendoftheleft]

Dude, YOU just re-validated my previous comment to you below about your incapacity to offer anything other than superficial, uninformed, disingenuous replies. Thanks for doing so. Again, you are just a sanctoramus.

[Kazinski]

Wild day in the Fani Willis disqualification hearing Tuesday.

First off the Judge ruled that Terrance Bradley’s claim of attorney client privilege did not hold up and that he could testify about personal knowledge of their relationship. Then Terrance totally lost his memory and wits. Whereas before he had texted Ashleigh Merchant that the Wade-Willis relationship had “absolutely” started before Wade was hired by Fani on the stand he couldn’t remember any dates, or timeframes. Once when he was asked to refresh his memory by reviewing the texts, he mutters ‘dang’ when seeing what he had texted Merchant with no hedging, or qualifications.

Georgia law however allows the court to give as much consideration to the text messages, as to his testimony on the stand since Terrance acknowledged the text messages as his, and whatever the court finds more credible they can incorporate into the facts.
Here is a sample of his testimony.
https://youtu.be/x_aeBdYzS2U

But the wildest thing is the level of cooperation Terrance provided Merchant before his testimony, there were over 400 text messages, AND she sent him copies of her motions before she filed them so he could check the facts on the financial information, and when their affair started:
“CNN — A key witness in the push to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election case against Donald Trump had a much deeper involvement in the effort than was previously known, according to hundreds of text messages obtained by CNN.

The 413 texts between Terrence Bradley and Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for one of Trump’s co-defendants, reveal months of communications between the two, underscoring the extent to which Bradley assisted Merchant’s pursuit of evidence to back up claims Willis and her top prosecutor, Nathan Wade, engaged in an improper romantic relationship.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/terrence-bradley-texts-fani-willis/index.html
Now of course one might ask why Wade’s former partner would be such an enthusiastic source to Merchant, then try to back out, first by claiming AC privilege, then by his Joe Biden imitation forgetting all the details he was “absolutely” sure about before.

Well the answer may be that Terrance is now Wades former partner because he allegedly sexually assaulted one of the staff members of the firm, and he had to quit or be fired.

And there is a credible threat that Fani Willis’s DA office could prosecute Bradley for the alleged sexual assualt.

All of which the judge will ponder when he decides who to believe. But now there are two sets of admissible statements on record from two witnesses that the relationship started long before what Willis and Wade testified to, and those statements are backed up independently by the cell phone records.

[santamonica811]

I watched about an hour of his testimony, and he did not come off as particularly credible. I think that his attorney did a pretty bad job of witness prep. How I would have handled it, I think:
Trump's lawyers: You gave opposite evidence when contacted by one of our lawyers, and you knew we were looking for evidence. Why is your testimony so different today?
Bradley [as it happened in court]: Um, well, um. Today I'm saying I have no proof of when that relationship started.
Bradley [if prepared by me]: Why is my testimony different today? Because today I am under oath, and I was not when I was texting Mrs. Merchant. Yeah, I was throwing shade at my former friend and speculating in a way that would make him look as bad as possible? Why? Because I'm a human being, I'm a flawed human being, and we humans sometimes behave in spiteful and childish ways. BUT . . . today I am in court and I am under oath. If I lie under oath, today, I can lose my license to practice law. I could even be criminally prosecuted for perjury. I am in no danger of perjury if I tell the truth today. So, with all that said, I emphasize that I have no evidence that the romantic relationship started earlier than those two have testified. My guesses of an earlier start were just that . . . rank speculation. I have no idea why Mrs. Merchant, after seeing my texts, did not follow up with an affidavit from me. If she had, and I was forced to make declarations under oath, I would have said what I am saying today in court--that I can guess and speculate about when a romantic relationship started, or I can testify as to my first-hand, actual, knowledge about when it started. And, I've already testified about that, although I understand that you are not pleased with the facts as I've laid them out in my testimony.

---------
In my own litigation career, I've used this technique often. And the reason it comes up fairly often is because people DO lie or exaggerate or guess in their normal lives. Or, they use definitive language when they really don't intend to be definitive. "I know the Dodgers are going to beat the Mets tonight." Do I really *know* this? Of course not. I'm making a wild guess, in line with my hopes/expectations. "Donald Trump clearly committed a felony when he took presidential records down to Florida, and refused to return them and then hid them, and then lied about possessing them, and then tried to destroy video evidence." Now, that's how people speak. But really, I don't *know* it was a felony. I've seen and heard 1% of the actual evidence. Maybe he has a justifiable excuse, or a perfectly reasonable explanation, and this will come out in court.

My point was and is: People say and write untrue things all the time. Sometimes with evil intent; sometimes with perfectly understandable and innocuous intent.

Bradley sure failed (in my opinion) at giving the judge any explanation as to why he has told two different stories. Bad lawyering? Bad performance on the stand after getting good legal advice??? Don't know. But I now think the judge's upcoming decision re DQ of the DA's office is now close to a coin flip.

[Kazinski]

Would you have Bradley say the exact same thing even if you knew he was lying?

He honestly didn't have much of a poker face.

Then the other question is: could he face any sort of bar discipline for providing information he knew was false to Merchant (if it was false which I doubt), and fact checking it in her motion when he knew she was going file it with the court? It seems a possibility to me, she wouldn't know its false, but he would.

[not guilty]

Terrence Bradley could face professional discipline for breaching confidentiality by gossiping with Ashleigh Merchant about his former client in violation of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(a):

(a) A lawyer shall maintain in confidence all information gained in the professional relationship with a client, including information which the client has requested to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to the client, unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or are required by these rules or other law, or by order of the court.

Per Rule 1.6(c), "The duty of confidentiality shall continue after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated." The maximum penalty for a violation of this rule is disbarment.

That duty of confidentiality is broader than just maintaining the privilege of attorney-client communications. Mr. Bradley's courtroom testimony was "required . . . by order of the court," but his gossiping with Ms. Merchant was not. That would explain Mr. Bradley's severe case of assholus constrictus while testifying. His ethical violation became plain for all the world to see.

[Kazinski]

Ok NG, I will bite, how binding is that confidentiality of "information gained in a professional relationship" when the information shows possible violation of ethics and the public trust?

Ill bet it's the lawyerly equivalent of the blue wall of silence that cops have.

But of course that misses that Bradley did not get disclose 'information gained in the professional relationship with a client" because Wade wasn't a client or in the process of becoming a client when Bradley got the information.

But in any case its pathetic to claim that Bradley violated any sort of privilege when the judge ruled the information was not privileged and ordered him to testify in open court about that.

That decisively ends any possible professional sanctions on the matter for Bradley.

What it doesn't end is the possibility that Willis will retaliate and charge him with the unrelated sexual assault, which was obviously what was hanging over Bradley's head when he was testifying.

[not guilty]

Have you read Rule 1.6, Kazinski? Yes or no?

Mr. Bradley testified on February 15 that Mr. Wade began consulting with him about contemplation of divorce during 2018. From that point forward he was obligated to hold in confidence all information he gained in regard to Mr. Wade's marriage, his contemplated divorce, and his later divorce proceedings -- both during Mr. Bradley's representation of him and thereafter. That obligation of confidentiality is broader than the privileged communications that Mr. Bradley received from Mr. Wade; it extends to all information the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to Mr. Wade.

Mr. Bradley was authorized to testify as to this information when called as a witness and Judge McAfee ordered him to testify -- Rule 1.6(a) authorizes disclosures which are "required . . . by order of the court." Mr. Bradley was not authorized to gossip with Ms. Merchant about Mr. Wade's marital relationship. That gossip was a serious ethical breach.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Kazinski. Have you read Rule 1.6 or not?

[Commenter_XY]

So wait, your counsel to your client would be to answer something like this?

Q: Why is my testimony different today?
A: Even though I lied and did not tell the truth to Ms. Merchant, you can totally believe me today because I am under oath.

Does this actually work, in a case? To the litigators out there, how often do you have to use this kind of tactic? I am asking just out of curiosity. To me, you guys have to be the worlds best salesmen because that is a hell of a sale (to the jury): I wuz lying then, but I swear I am telling you the truth now. Many of you are/were successful (looking at you NG) defense attorneys.

How do you actually do it? The mechanics of putting together your logical argument and reasoning, and persuasion.

[santamonica811]

It works much better with a jury than with a judge trial. You have to frame it correctly, and the witness has to be believable. But think about your own life. When you have had a bad breakup, you probably have said some bad things about your ex boyfriend or ex girlfriend, or your ex-wife or ex-husband. Some if it may be totally true, some of it may be totally lies. And some of it may be grounded in truth, but you (justifiably wounded, you would say at the time) shade it in the most unflattering way.

Juries understand that. (At least, if there are jury members who have either done that, or had that done to them, or had seen friends do it to others.) You say it with a sheepish smile, and embarrassed acknowledgment that you're now ashamed that you were not completely candid from the beginning, and so on. If you come across as believable? Yeah, juries and judges even often find that completely credible.

There are a million fact-specific and case-specific details that move the needle a large amount in any given case, of course. But the general point: "I didn't tell the truth originally, but now I am." . . . yup, it's pretty common.

(Disclaimer: I specialize in child abuse cases, so I totally get it if my own courtroom experiences are *not* the same as other litigators.) 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, thank you for an illuminating answer on how it works for you, in the trenches. Your world (law) is really fascinating.

Your analogy to one's own life...yes. That brought it home. I understand.

[not guilty]

Commenter XY, it's not this case, but that sometimes comes up when a testifying defendant has given an incriminating statement to police when arrested. Lay the groundwork by closely cross-examining the police officer(s) who took the statement. Through leading questions, let them describe the circumstances of the interrogation, emphasizing any factors which could have made the accused uncomfortable, such as the presence of multiple (armed) interrogators, the experience and training of the officers as to how to elicit incriminating information, the accused's inability to leave on his own (often a person in custody may vainly hope that by agreeing with police he will be able to leave), any intimidating tone or mannerisms by police, any intellectual limitations of the accused, any use of trickery or outright lying by police, whether the accused appeared to be tired, hungry or impaired, etc.

Follow that up with direct examination of the accused, allowing him to explain what was going through his mind when he gave an inculpatory statement, any incentives or false hope engendered by police (hoping he would be released is a big one there), any lack of education or intellectual deficiencies the accused may have, (if applicable) his prior inexperience dealing with the criminal justice system, etc.

A colleague from Memphis whom I greatly respect has put before the jury the analogy of a trapped animal chewing off a limb in order to escape -- not something the animal would ordinarily do, but which was rational under extreme circumstances.

[Commenter_XY]

Hmmmm...interesting. I will say that a lot of your 'selling' (to the jury) relies on analogy. The more colorful, the better. I can see how that trapped animal analogy 'sells' in TN.

Nice set-up on direct exam of the cop to neutralize any potential confession. The message is: Look at all the underhanded crap the very well trained cops did to my poor client, who is guilty of just being an innocent naif. That is pretty good, NG. 🙂

[Dr. Ed 2]

"And the reason it comes up fairly often is because people DO lie or exaggerate or guess in their normal lives. Or, they use definitive language when they really don’t intend to be definitive."

Then why is Trump facing criminal charges?

[DaveM]

Two drums and a cymbal roll off a cliff...

[Kenneth Almquist]

Yes. Merchant's questioning sounded like a deposition, where she wanted to get the witness's answers and make an argument later, but Steve Sadow (Trump's lawyer) was more like a lawyer playing to a jury.

Q: If you're being asked [by] Ms. Merchant as the attorney for a co-defendant...and she's asking you about the relationship, and she's clearly asking you about the timing, why wouldn't you just have said, in response, “I don't know when it started.”

A: I don't know why I said, “I don't know.”

That could be the truth--people are quite capable of editing their own less than admirable behavior out of their memory--but Bradley is fortunate that he is not a defendant and thus doesn't have too much to lose if his testimony is not believed.

[Estragon]

Lost interest in Hunter, have we?

[Kazinski]

Not at all, I offered to do a recap of all my Hunter posts just in Sunday's open thread, when my posts were mischarachterized.

But I didn't have any takers.

Should I consider this a request for an extensive recap and an update on new developments?

I can probably work it in if Trump v Anderson gets released fairly soon.

[Nige]

I mean, at least this is going your way so you can afford to be more or less accurate, as opposed to having to bend and stretch things and take the oddest things at face value when they don’t, as with ‘the Biden crime family.’

[Riva]

Since when have any of your side been fair with respect to President Trump? Just curious.

[Nige]

What constitutes fair? Ignoring the things he says and the things he does? Pretending he isn't a criminal who tried to illegally overturn an election he lost? And which he still insists he won? Seems to me that would be breaking the concept of 'fair' to pieces.

[Riva]

So the answer is never?

[Nige]

The answer is this is what being fair is to someone like that.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep making predictions based on your analysis. Which a is good checksum.

But your predictions have never come true, and yet you keep plugging away.

[Estragon]

Yeah, why don’t you go ahead and do that. I like to see how the huckleberry talking points evolve. Be sure to work in Smirnov’s detention hearings from LV and cal.

[grb]

Kazinski : "I offered to do a recap of all my Hunter posts just in Sunday’s open thread"

And here I offer a shout-out to Kazinski. He once spent 2-3 weeks of open threads trying to salvage the Right's Biden-Shokin meme. No surprise there, but Kazinski did something stunning & unique : He tried to do so using only real actual evidence....

Of course he failed miserably, but right-wingers who confine themselves within the bounds of reality are pretty rare on the ground these days. I thought I was looking at the last dodo, passenger pigeon, or west african black rhinoceros.

[Kazinski]

Thanks for that, especially after I was accused lying about everything.

[Nige]

I would say like most conservatives who try to maintain some tiny shred of dignity, you are selectively credulous.

[OtisAH]

I have a different take from that quote. He’s not an attorney. He doesn’t work at Reason and is not a paid contributor to the VC. So whose approval for posting his “recap” was he seeking and who denied him that boon to the community?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Anyone checked to see if Bradley got help from Russian operatives? Can't be too careful these days. For instance, if you needed cell phone data that looked as real as possible, who but Russian intelligence could do a better job of faking it? /sarc

[Michael P]

What help do you think he would have gotten?

I think the only relevant testimony that Bradley gave relating to cell phones was to confirm that the text messages he sent to the defense attorney were, in fact, his own. Do you suggest that he somehow faked those messages?

[Bwaaah]

As I understand the contemporary red scare, only "right-wingers" get help from the Russians, and even then, they do so mainly as unwitting stooges while they pay fantasy homage to strongman Putin.

Bradley is a Democrat. Therefore, he will not be compromised by Russian manipulation. He is wise to it. He knows all about disinformation. (Democrats are experts in disinformation.)

We want Bradley's sudden amnesia to be treated as genuine. So let's all keep straight faces and not float the he's-a-Russian-stooge smear. If judge McAfee finds Bradley to be not credible, then we'll consider an alternative way to smear him. But the Russian interference allegation should only be used for right-wingers and their sympathizers. (Our base embraces this model; let's not waste it on friendly fire.)

[Nige]

Give yourself a couple of days, you'll believe that all of this actually hapened.

[not guilty]

Terrence Bradley appears to be stupid. Notwithstanding his limitations, he ate Ashleigh Merchant's lunch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRCCnxB94Z4 I suspect what happened is that Mr. Bradley and Ms. Merchant had conversations wherein Mr. Bradley breached his duty of confidentiality, see Georgia Rules of Professional conduct 1.6(a), and gossiped about his former client Nathan Wade. As to the verbal interviews, Ms. Merchant appears not to have had a third party present, such that she cannot testify as to what Mr. Bradley said without withdrawing as counsel pursuant to the advocate/witness rule. That is an amateurish mistake. Failing to have a third party present, she could have followed up by contemporaneously memorializing the conversations in letters to Mr. Bradley, asking him to promptly correct any information that was mistaken, misleading or incomplete.

Ms. Merchant should have known that Mr. Bradley's very competency as a witness was questionable here. Ga. Code § 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.

"Knowledge of which he may have acquired from his client by virtue of his employment as attorney" is broader than privileged attorney-client communications.

FWIW, Judge McAfee did not admit the cell phone records as substantive evidence. Toward the end of the hearing he took the proposed Exhibit 38 as a proffer, saying that if they became important to his decision he could reopen the proof later.

As an aside, Steve Sadow shows some signs of intelligence, moreso than Donald Trump's attorneys in other matters.

[Kazinski]

The judge ruled already ruled that information Bradley had prior to representing Wade was not privileged, so that’s no longer a concern, the judge discussed the issue with Bradley in camera and then made his ruling. Why bring that question up when its already been settled?

The interactions between Merchant and Bradley that were discussed in court were via text messages, so Bradley didn’t try to deny any of the information he provided her.

You really felt for Bradley when he was trying to reconcile his new story while reading the text messages and he sighs and says “dang” looking at the monitor before him.

[santamonica811]

Happy Birthday wishes to the co-founder here. I think this is his 15th birthday, no? One more, and he'll be able to legally drive. So, watch out on the roads in Northern California, come March 2028!

[bernard11]

I don't recall any discussion here of the Texas bill allowing school boards to hire chaplains in place of school counselors.

Seems like one of the world's worst ideas.

[Don Nico]

But, bernard, it's Texas.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sheridan, after service in Texas following the Civil War:

"If I owned Texas and all hell, I would rent out Texas and live in hell."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Texas and childish superstition go together like . . . any two terrible things.

Or like the Volokh Conspiracy and racial slurs.

[Theendoftheleft]

Or like AIDS and mindless hypocrisy.

Keep importing deeply religious folks from South America and the middle east to outbreed you. 🙂

[Nige]

Huh. A Great Replacement guy. Figures.

[Theendoftheleft]

I like to regularly remind AIDS that his lot doesn’t meet replacement rate, and that they’re fundamentally dependent upon immigrants who don’t believe what they believe to come in and prop up their system and society from demographic collapse.

In his hubris and ignorance, AIDS assumes that such folks will be acculturated to become, not even current Blue Teamers, but the people Blue Teamers aspire to be. His assumption is wholly unwarranted, of course. There is no reason why those immigrants’ superior evolutionary memes can’t just simply come to dominate; and there are good reasons to think that, despite all the education system’s efforts, the media propaganda, and the other forms of social pressure and nudging, theirs won’t.

Does that help, Ingsoc? These immigrants are your superiors. It doesn’t take much to be so, though, because your values are dumb and yours is a suicide cult.

[Theendoftheleft]

*nudging; theirs will predominate.

[Nige]

As near as I can parse the ridiculous verbiage, you’re basically saying immigrants will support Republicans. Well that’s certainly a point of view, though it fails to take into account the Republican’s shrinking into a xenophobic ball of hate with absolutely nothing to offer anyone except minority rule wherever they can grab it. The same Great Replacement theory you’re promulgaing kinda cuts against them winning over immigrants at scale.

[Theendoftheleft]

They'll actually replace your current ideologies, let alone political parties (even the labels as shells remain); I had also already stated that they'll outbreed your domestics, Ingsoc. So, that obviates the need for any colour team to win them over.

But you've demonstrated, time and again, that you're neither smart nor honest. So, who cares what you think? Still, keep paying your illegal neo-serfs sub-minimum wage salaries whilst blathering on about how it is OTHERS who are xenophobic and hateful. The jig is up, Ingsoc.

[Nige]

'They’ll actually replace your current ideologies, let alone political parties'

What does this even mean? In the future things will change? Fucking hell hold the presses.

'Still, keep paying your illegal neo-serfs sub-minimum wage salaries whilst blathering on about how it is OTHERS who are xenophobic and hateful.'

You think the OTHERS want them paid fairly and given worker protections and even the chance to unionise?

[Theendoftheleft]

God, you’re dumb. Maybe superficial political theory was the best you could ever achieve?

[Kazinski]

Chaplains have.long had dual roles as counselors, especially in the military, I don’t see a problem, and I am an atheist.

[santamonica811]

It makes sense in the military, as logistics suggest that you can't have 30 different spiritual advisors in a unit of 300 people. One person is gonna have to wear a bunch of different hats. (In the military, I would hope that a rabbi or an Imam or shaman can serve the same role...I can't imagine that it would be legal to say only a spiritual advisor rooted in Christian beliefs can serve this role in the military...but will defer to your greater expertise, if you tell me I'm wrong about this.)

Same thing for this Texas bill. I admit to not checking out the bill yet. But I assume that although Bernard specified chaplains; he really meant any religious advisor who serves in that function for any recognized spiritual group. (Same Equal Protection and/or First Amendment issues as with the military hypo, above, if I'm wrong about that.)

[bernard11]

I assume that although Bernard specified chaplains; he really meant any religious advisor who serves in that function for any recognized spiritual group.

Actually, it's not clear that that's even a requirement. There is zero training of any kind required, and volunteers are acceptable. You don't even need a mail-order degree.

[Nige]

Are they at least vetted for child safety?

[NvEric]

Imam ?
Why ?
Islam is not a religion, but rather a force of conquest and genocide.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely not true, I've had more than one Muslim girlfriend when I travelled a lot in Asia before I remarried, one for well over year, none of them were jihadists or militants even though they were devout enough to observe Ramadan and avoid pork. Although one swore up.and down, not very convincingly, that she didn't know Pina Coladas had alcohol in them.

[Frank Drackman]

12 year olds don't usually know their cocktails.

[Kazinski]

She was 29, but her biological clock was on overdrive.

Frank, I probably knew better than to unmute you just to read that, but at least I remembered why you are on mute in the first place. But nothing personal.

[Don Nico]

Don't worry Kazinski. Those Pina Coladas are mostly water

[bernard11]

one swore up.and down, not very convincingly, that she didn’t know Pina Coladas had alcohol in them.

"Just enough to act as a preservative."

[bernard11]

Some differences:

Members of the military are older than high-school students.

At least some of the time there will be military chaplains of several different faiths.

Then there is this:

The bill was delayed last week after Texas House members sought an amendment that would have required chaplains to have similar accreditation as chaplains who work in prisons or the U.S. military. That amendment was defeated during negotiations between both chambers Friday.

And this:

Earlier this month, House Democrats also offered amendments to bar proselytizing or attempts to convert students from one religion to another; to require chaplains to receive consent from the parents of school children; and to make schools provide chaplains from any faith or denomination requested by students. All of those amendments failed.

So you're going to allow completely untrained chaplains, including "volunteers," to go in and pretend to be counselors, with no limits on what they can do or say and apparently no parental consent requirement.

So no, you can't dismiss it with a shoulder shrug. It's a blatant 1A violation, not that the TX legislature gives a shit about the Constitution.

And it's further evidence that the Christian right has no grasp of religious freedom, and is willing to do what it can to impose its views on everyone.

[Commenter_XY]

It doesn't sound like a good idea to me, at all = the TX bill

It is not law. It might not even pass out of the TX House to the Senate, where their committees will presumably study the bill (meaning study the bill forever, one hopes).

I'd really want to see the final qualification standards TX adopts if the bill is ever presented for a vote. That matters a lot.

[bernard11]

No, XY.

It is law

Senate Bill 763 was approved in an 84-60 vote in the Texas House, one day after it passed the Texas Senate [May,2023]. It allows Texas schools to use safety funds to pay for unlicensed chaplains to work in mental health roles. Volunteer chaplains will also be allowed in schools.

[Joe_dallas]

The wording says It allows, but no mention that it is a requirement

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not sure that's the 1A standard...

[Joe_dallas]

What is the 1A violation - Its a person who is working in a mental health role who may or may not be a chaplin. The person is not working in a religious role, he or she is working as a mental health counsellor.

Its not a 1A violation for a teacher to be ordained or even be religious, so why would this be a 1A violation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The new law does not define the term “chaplain” nor provide any educational or other professional standards a chaplain must meet to qualify. The only qualification listed in the law is that the chaplain not be convicted as a sex offender or placed on deferred adjudication for such a crime. In fact, the law specifically provides that no state educational certification is required.

So, if chaplain means a Christian chaplain (which if you go by the dictionary definitions, it pretty much is), then providing special privileges to unlicensed religious leaders from one religion over similarly situation religious leaders of other religions or over individuals with no religious affiliation whatsoever would seem to run afoul of the establishment clause. The law fails to require any qualification whatsoever other than they are a “chaplain” (and not a convicted or accused criminal) and “chaplain” is not defined in this bill or, apparently, in Texas law. But, again, dictionaries pretty much peg it to Christian clergy.

The government can’t give special privileges to Christians consistent with the First Amendment. That’s black letter.

I would argue the government can’t give special privileges to religious people generally consistent with the First Amendment, though I think pretty clearly there are multiple instances current law does.

[bernard11]

Not much of an argument there, Joe.

At least the moment a school board does it it's a 1A violation.

[Commenter_XY]

I thought about it. It still doesn't sound any better to me after 8 hours.

As long as there is some kind of vetting of the chaplains, meaning criminal background checks, maybe pilot it in a few counties before going 'whole hog' (pardon the pun). I am still uneasy. Why? Because when it comes to children and public schools I think TX wants and expects a higher standard to be followed in hiring and retaining staff. There is a lot more at stake when it is kids.

The religious part worries me much less than the criminal background check and the objective qualifications part, for a chaplain position in a school district.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yeah, it looks really bad:

The new law does not define the term “chaplain” nor provide any educational or other professional standards a chaplain must meet to qualify. The only qualification listed in the law is that the chaplain not be convicted as a sex offender or placed on deferred adjudication for such a crime. In fact, the law specifically provides that no state educational certification is required.

The only real limit is who a school board decides to hire as a "chaplain". And there are definite 1A problems depending on how that term is applied. Out of 1200 Texas school districts, what's the likelihood they are all going to make non-discriminatory hiring decisions of people who actually have a clue how to counsel children? It seems highly likely more than a few will hire wholly unqualified people who use the opportunity to proselytize.

[Michael P]

The First Amendment already bars the government -- and that includes people working on a volunteer basis in a designated role like this, and this has been incorporated against the states including Texas -- from proselytizing. So the first listed amendment to the bill would have done nothing. Schools don't require consent for most counseling they give children, and cannot create people out of thin air to serve as chaplains based on parental request, so the other two amendments to the bill -- especially the last one -- were bad ideas meant to weaken the law.

[bernard11]

The First Amendment already bars the government — and that includes people working on a volunteer basis in a designated role like this, and this has been incorporated against the states including Texas — from proselytizing. So the first listed amendment to the bill would have done nothing.

Indeed it does. Do you think that requirement will be honored in Texas?

Schools don’t require consent for most counseling they give children,

Which is part - not all - of the problem here.

The same idiots who raised objections to that acting thing a few days ago have no problem making kids go see untrained religiously oriented "counselors."

There is a world of difference between seeing a trained, licensed, counselor, and seeing Reverend Bubba, who just thinks if you get right with Jesus everything will be OK.

[Michael P]

Do you think the First Amendment is equally "honored" in California or Hawaii?

[Nige]

So, no, you don't think it will be honoured.

[Michael P]

I think he was setting a standard that he knows he would not apply to states he likes.

[Nige]

But red states are supposed to be better, aren't they?

[bernard11]

Yes.

I'm not aware of a law in those states that permit a school to force a student to go see a "counselor" who has zero qualifications other than his religious beliefs, who is allowed to proselytize those students as he wishes, and who is likely to do active harm

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it’s further evidence that the Christian right has no grasp of religious freedom, and is willing to do what it can to impose its views on everyone.

No, it's the consequence of the Progressive APA having no concept of religious freedom and losing its monopoly as a result.

This is a good thing.

[Frank Drackman]

One of the Chaplains with the Marine Unit I was with loved playing the Piccolo, at hours when normal peoples were trying to sleep, and Yes, we made every Homo-fobic joke you can think of (really unfair, as he was a Catholic Priest) I think his protected status was the only reason he didn't get a blanket party

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sounds like what I predicted is happening because of the Keeton case -- if the APA won't let observant Christians & Jews be counselors, then the schools will hire chaplains instead.

I think it is a very good idea.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think Nazism and Communism are worse - or as ChatGPT might put it, we have to make up our own minds based on our own values.

[bernard11]

I agree Nazism and Communism were worse.

Does that mean we have to tolerate all lesser evils?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If chaplains are worse than the existing counselors, they’re a worse idea. Or not having any kind of counselor could be a better idea.

In any case, chaplains are not “one of the world’s worst ideas.” That assertion is an assertion in the Hyper Bowl.

[bernard11]

chaplains are not “one of the world’s worst ideas.

Chaplains in general certainly are not.

In this context - utterly unqualified chaplains who are going to rely on religious dogma to "help" students who have no choice about whether to see them, and whose parents need not consent, they are indeed a terrible idea.

OK. I can think of worse.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In this context – utterly unqualified chaplains who are going to rely on religious dogma to “help” students who have no choice about whether to see them

Please cite for us the language in the bill (which I'll wager you didn't bother to read) that says anything about students being required to see a chaplain even if one is on staff.

[Krychek_2]

I think that's entirely a function of when and where you live. The Incas and Aztecs might very well have found communism preferable to Christianity, but of course they were the victims of Christian genocide so we can't ask them. Gay people currently living in Christian Uganda and Ghana would also like a word.

The bottom line is that no religion is to be trusted with political power. Today's American Christianity appears to be benign because none of us saw the Inquisition, the pogroms, the witch trials. What made American Christianity benign was depriving it of political power. If and when separation of church and state ever comes to the Muslim world, it, too, will become a benign religion.

As to the specific examples given, I'm not sure either communism or naziism are technically religious, but they certainly have religious aspects to them. So long as they don't acquire political power they're relatively harmless too.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was responding specifically to claim that the proposed school chaplains are "one of the world’s worst ideas."

Maybe the length of the thread made it unclear that this was what I was replying to.

[Krychek_2]

Probably not one of the world’s worst ideas, simply because the competition for that title is so fierce, but probably not a great idea either.

Since it is impossible for every school to have a chaplain of every religion, it will have the appearance of favoring one religion over another. And of course there will be parents who object to chaplains whose views they find heretical or distasteful; you know what is going to happen when a Satanist applies for the job, or how many parents will object to the presence of an imam or a rabbi. People who push these things tend to assume that the only religion to benefit will be theirs. Which is a big part of the reason for the First Amendment in the first place.

And even if we get over that hurdle, how are you going to police not having them proseletyze? What happens when a student goes for advice about birth control to a chaplain, whose advice conflicts with what the parents believe? It will be a mess.

Yes, I know, the military has chaplains too, but the members of the military are all adults and that’s a huge difference.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Again, I'm not defending the idea of chaplains for public schools (see below for some skepticism), I'm suggesting that the overreaction is...an overreaction.

[Joe_dallas]

yes very much an overreaction - The bill allows, but there is no requirement.

[bernard11]

The bill allows, but there is no requirement.

Again, Joe, that's not the fucking issue. It shouldn't be allowed.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes it is the issue - you are assuming that the preacher/chaplin is going to be operating as religious preacher instead of as a mental health counselor. There is no 1A violation for a chaplin to be working as a mental health counselor. That is all the bill allows.

Its the same as a Chaplin or a priest or rabbi employed as an math teacher or a history teacher. There is no 1A violation in any of those situations.

the 1A violation doesnt come into play until the person starts preaching religion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's like you've literally never encountered hyperbole ever before, not even once.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, I have encountered many entrants in the Hyper Bowl.

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times - don't exaggerate.

[bernard11]

Point taken, Azilla.

Having been a student of a minority religion (guess!) in a Christian-dominated public school system, both before and after Engel v. Vitale (entirely ignored by my school) I'm sensitive to these issues.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“a student of a minority religion (guess!)”

Zoroastrianism?
Odinism?
The cult of Cybele?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Krychek, we are having the religion of Progressiveism rammed down our throats. Where is your separation of church and state on that?

[Krychek_2]

By what bizarre definition of religion does progressivism qualify?

[bernard11]

And by what bizarre definition of "rammed down our throats" is Progressivism being so rammed?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Kirkland's definition.

[Kazinski]

Can't ask the people who were victims of Aztec genocide either.

Well maybe you could ask the tower of skulls the Aztecs constructed with their victims, but you'll have to provide your own answer.

https://images.app.goo.gl/PwTnPYPWXrGRySJi7

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"allowing school boards to hire chaplains in place of school counselors"

What's the value-added for chaplains or counselors?

https://reason.com/2024/02/29/do-u-s-public-schools-really-need-77000-more-counselors/

[Dr. Ed 2]

The value-added is that devout Christians & Jews aren't otherwise allowed to be counselors.

[bernard11]

What a fucking lie. You really are a stunning imbecile.

[Joe_dallas]

Irrespective of the merits or lack of merits of what Dr Ed stated, there is no indication that such chaplin working as a counsellor is going to be preaching religion.

You are making the false assumption that because a chaplin is being hired as a mental health counselor that such person will be preaching religion.

[bernard11]

My assumption* is that some number of these "chaplains" will in fact be preaching religion. Thia apparently is an assumption shared by the TX legisalture, since they declined to forbid the practice.

*Another assumption, not relevant to the religion issue, is that it's a terrible idea to hire untrained, unqualified people to provide mental health services to students, and even the ones who have good intentions can easily do more harm than good. Would you hire a school nurse with zero training and qualification?

[VinniUSMC]

The problem here is that Texas seems to be using the term "counselor" as a catch-all term for things that should be outside the scope of a traditional school counselor.

The ASCA, cited in the Reason "77,000" article, says that counselors are highly educated, professionally certified individuals who help students succeed in school and plan their career. Setting aside whether counselors are, or should be, "highly educated and/or certified", they aren't intended to be mental health professionals, and shouldn't be used as a stand-in for such. Then, why should a high school counselor be any more qualified than a college advisor?

Untrained/uncertified chaplains (or any other people) shouldn't be involved in mental health care, but there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to help kids plan their courses and prepare for a job or college.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

allowing school boards to hire chaplains in place of school counselors

The bill says nothing at all about chaplains being hired "in place of" counselors.

[Kazinski]

Interesting chart over at Powerline by Steven Hayward showing Professors, Psychologists, Social Workers, Scientists, and Writers overwhelmingly make contributions.to Biden over Trump by Margins of over.75 points, for instance Professor contributions are.93-7, a margin of 86%

While Construction Workers, Mechanics, Entrepreneurs, Truckers, and Farmers contribute to Trump at huge margins on the other side of the spectrum.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/the-daily-chart-forget-red-v-blue.php

"Workers of World Unite".

[DaveM]

It takes a lot of higher education indoctrination to vote D. There are many policy paradoxes which only academics can rationalize away for you. Voting R, however, is easy, you just need to love losing.

[SRG2]

Voting R, however, is easy, you just need to love losing

Or hate "those people".

[Krychek_2]

Google has a function that allows you to find out the geographic distribution of people who make searches of certain topics. So if, for example, I want to know how many people in Peoria googled recipes for chocolate chip cookies, I can find out.

In 2016 there was an interesting study done that showed that there was a direct correlation between counties that voted for Trump, and counties in which there were lots of google searches for racist jokes. Color me shocked.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The people in the counties that voted for Biden already knew them.

[Kazinski]

I don't know about "hate 'those people'" although there is some of that on both sides.

I just helped my Mother fill out her primary ballot for Joe Biden (her vision is a little bit of a problem, but not her cognitive ability. Her current wordle streak is double figures). She has never liked Joe, but there wasn't much of an alternative in her view but I did make a pitch for Marriane Williamson as a protest vote. And she thinks he is too old, even though she is literally old enough to be his mother.

[David Nieporent]

He is too old, but there's no alternative.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is this an attempted endorsement of ignorant, stupid, half-educated, (and bigoted) dumbasses?

[Theendoftheleft]

So... classism is an acceptable form of bigotry?

Good, AIDS. Keep showing everyone you're an insincere, mindless imbecile.

[bernard11]

Professors, Psychologists, Social Workers, Scientists, and Writers overwhelmingly make contributions.to Biden over Trump by Margins of over.75 points, for instance Professor contributions are.93-7, a margin of 86%

Bear in mind that these are percentages of individuals in those professions who actually donate. If there are 1000 chimney-sweeps, and one of them tosses in $5 for Trump, the chart will show 100% of chimney-sweeps' donations going to Trump.

Numerically accurate, of course, but hardly meaningful.

[Brett Bellmore]

Numerically accurate, but hardly meaningful if you make assumptions you didn't bother to back up.

[Sarcastr0]

The other way around, not meaningful unless you make some assumptions.

[Mr. Bumble]

Kind of like most of your comments.

[Michael P]

That comment is, yes, but the major conditions for the results in question being meaningful are met by (a) the explicit statement that it considers jobs listed by at least 1,000 unique donors, (b) the explicit statement that those are the most polarized jobs, and (c) the fact mentioned below that the FEC only reports this data when the donor gives at least $200 to a candidate.

It is remarkable how bernard11's assertion was totally wrong.

[bernard11]

You are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable. I'd say it was remarkable.

Per wiki,

In 2020, the National Center for Education Statistics counted 189,692 professors, 162,095 associate professors, 166,543 assistant professors, 96,627 instructors, 44,670 lecturers, and 164,720 other full-time faculty.

So the fact that at least 1000 donated means nothing.

[Michael P]

The fact that at least a thousand people donated at least $200 each does, in fact, mean quite a lot. An awful lot of national political polls use fewer than 1100 respondents.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of being stupid when your example assumed, contrary to what the chart said, that the chart would show a job with a single donor.

The chart was also based on all the donors listing a given job. It wasn't that Hayward somehow picked just 1,000 professors and 93% of them donated to Biden. It was 93% of all professors who donated (at least $200) that cycle.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Seriously, Michael P?

An awful lot of national political polls use fewer than 1100 respondents.

Those polls are useful because they are randomly chosen samples. Here, the sample is self-selected from those willing to donate $200 or more.

It wasn’t that Hayward somehow picked just 1,000 professors and 93% of them donated to Biden.

That would have been far more enlightening if Hayward had picked them randomly. Instead, you have a self-selected subset of professors which doesn't tell you much about the political leanings of professors overall given, it appears, it is a very small percentage of all professors.

Pollsters use random sampling for a reason, Michael P. But you know this.

[Michael P]

What fraction of professors do you think that includes? Is that a third unsupported assumption in your argument?

Some of us would think that comprehensive statistics about how the fraction of a profession who care to donate much to a political campaign is a good proxy for political bias/strong affiliation.

And others as dumb as bricks.

[bernard11]

First, Michael, you need to study NovaLawyer's comment carefully. It is correct.

Second you need to learn some basic statistics, assuming you have the brainpower.

It's not a goddamn random sample of professors, for Pete's sake, Mr. Bricks.

[Kazinski]

Its the percentage of Professors and Truckers that care enough to donate $200 to a candidate. Which is not, of course, the same as professors and truckers in the population as a whole, nor does it purport to be.

BUT, I don’t think anyone is going to dispute that politically active donors that are willing to back their opinions with cash donations have an outsized influence on our political process, so the metric is quite useful on it’s own.

It says exactly what the metric its measuring is and its not really a valid criticism that you want it to measure something else.

And if you think occupations of donors of more than 200 isn't useful information, then take it up with the FEC, they are the ones that mandate collecting the information, and then publish it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kazinski,

I agree with most of your points. However, this:

It says exactly what the metric its measuring is and its not really a valid criticism that you want it to measure something else.

I was responding to Michael P’s comment:

An awful lot of national political polls use fewer than 1100 respondents.

But, as your comment illustrates, that’s a complete non sequitur. These stats do something entirely different than national political polls. The fact that some national political polls use fewer than 1100 respondents and provide useful data says nothing about this method and what these numbers mean. Again, as you point out, this is not doing what Michael P thinks it does (and, if there were any question as to what he originally meant, he doubled down in response to me only to be corrected again by bernard11).

In other words, if you think I am the one that that “want [the FEC] to measure something else” you’re pointing at the wrong guy. It’s Michael P that misunderstands what the FEC is measuring.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe! Feel free to outline the assumptions I’m making.

I’m not saying btw the study is bunk just that the magnitude of the effect is not clear from this method.

And the Brett put the burden on the wrong side.

[Michael P]

The magnitude of what effect?

As usual, you didn’t make any specific claim or agreement, you just posted an empty accusation of error. You post a lot of attacks but almost never post anything falsifiable. When you do, you run away easily — like when you asserted an empirical observation about binding energy was a universal proof and you called it a timeless and very clear piece, you declared that you could not figure out whether it was a Sokal-style hoax.

Brett put the burden in exactly the right place; bernard11 should have read the very short and simple thing he was criticizing, which showed that bernard11 made wrong assumptions.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah Bernard outlined the source of error.

Brett posted something wrong about that and I pointed that out.

Are you complaining that I don’t editorialize more on the OP but rather react to posters?
First that isn’t my style.
Second, you are one to talk.

[Michael P]

Bernard made up something that was wrong on multiple faces. Brett pointed out that Bernard did not back up those wrong assumptions. You posted your usual vacuous attack in reflexive defense of another person's error just because of the political affiliations.

Be better.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Bernard made a great point about baselining.

There is no assumption there; that's elementary statistical hygiene.

This is about procedure not facts.

[Michael P]

bernard11 made two basic assumptions in his example and therefore his argument: that a single donor would be shown as a profession in the chart, and that $5 donors would be counted. The chart itself refutes the first assumption, and the second assumption also turned out to be wrong.

bernard11's argument was flawed because it didn't back up those assumptions, as Brett pointed out, and further: one cannot substantiate those assumptions.

[Sarcastr0]

That is not what he assumed; that was an example of the sample bias issue he was highlighting.

[Don Nico]

"Brett posted something wrong about that"
Brett posted an anodyne comment, "hardly meaningful if you make assumptions you didn’t bother to back up."
What exactly was incorrect with that?
No one has cited the original data source; without that it is difficult to make an actual statistical judgement.
Of course, the chart makes for great polemics.

[Sarcastr0]

I parse Brett's comment to say that the only reason Bernard thinks that number isn't meaningful is because of assumptions he didn’t bother to back up.

Bernard seems to have had the same take below.

Not an anodyne comment at all.

[Don Nico]

No, you read Brett incorrectly. The statement that a statistic is meaningless absent the statement of underlying assumptions )about sample, method, etc.) is anodyne. The one who did not bother to quote the source and its assumptions was Kazinski who cited the graph.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe Brett said something that repeated a trivial part of the above comment.

Or maybe his reply that appears postured as an objection was actually an objection, just a bad one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

No, you read Brett incorrectly.

Maybe he is not an antisocial, autistic, disaffected, delusional, bigoted, backwater right-winger?

[bernard11]

Don,

What assumptions is everyone talking about?

I did a simple calculation, showing why certain conclusions some commenters jumped to could not be drawn from the chart.

The only assumptions were the ones of ordinary arithmetic. I'll give Brett slight credit for withdrawing after realizing his mistake - that I made some sort of bizarre assumption - but Michael P. Bricks isn't clever enough to do that.

[Kazinski]

“The one who did not bother to quote the source and its assumptions was Kazinski who cited the graph.”

Come now Don, I linked to the Original graph which had all the data and breadcrumbs available. If someone is curious they just have to click on the link.

I’m not going to ask just how much babysitting I have to do on a thread to make sure people understand what is being presented, because evidently its quite a lot. But of course their are a lot of levels of effort that might be expected based on the capabilities of whom you are babysitting (e.g. are they capable of wiping themselves?). Maybe I assumed too high of a level for this thread.

See GRB's comment below, we don't agree on much, but he doesn't seem to need any babysitting to make sure he doesn't get confused and fall down the steps.

[Kazinski]

"Yeah Bernard outlined the source of error."

Bernard didn't point out any error.

All he did was tell us his misunderstanding of what the data was wasn't useful for answering a completely different question that what the person compiling the data was intending.

When someone presents a chart purporting to use dataset A to show conclusion B, it really isn't useful, or pointing out an error, to say dataset C isn't useful in showing conclusion D.

Which is exactly what Bernard did.

[bernard11]

Excuse me, Brett, but I made no assumptions.

I took my information directly from the chart.

And surely even you can understand that the chimney-sweep example was just intended to point out the problem, not to claim anything about chimney-sweeps or other professions.

[Michael P]

You should have taken the rest of the information from the chart, which showed that your example was wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

How so?

[Michael P]

bernard11 claimed that a single $5 donor would have shown up as a 100% profession. A profession needs to include at least 1000 donors to be included in the chart, according to the note at the bottom of the chart.

Kazinski and I independently pointed that out ~6 hours ago. Kazinski further pointed out that donors would only be counted if they donate at least $200, although that was not explicit in the chart -- inclusion of $5 contributions was just a bad assumption by bernard11.

[David Nieporent]

How can a hypothetical be wrong?

[VinniUSMC]

Easy. When the chart says "at least 1,000 unique donors", and the hypothetical posits "1 donor".

[Don Nico]

You may not have but the FEC statisticians did.
Do you have a link to the report.

[Kazinski]

Now I'm not claiming scientific certainty but Hayward only used job titles of at least 1000 unique donors. And Hayward probably cherry picked the ones to include that met his criteria, or maybe just picked the ones with the biggest margins.

But your chimney sweep example is excluded because the FEC only tracks occupation data for contributors that exceed $200 in donations to a candidate.

So the 1000 Chimney Sweeps donating 5$ would not be tracked by their occupation.

[bernard11]

Like Brett, you seem to have trouble with abstraction.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, maybe that's why I like database queries of government mandated and collected data to use to understand complex questions so no abstraction is needed.

Run the query, check the results, then boom, there you go.

[Michael P]

The caption within that image says that it only includes job titles used by at least 1,000 unique donors. How many donors do you think the threshold should be?

[Don Nico]

bernard,
Do you have a link to the original FEC data. I could not find one.

[bernard11]

No, Don, I don't.

[Kazinski]

Here it is

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?two_year_transaction_period=2024&min_date=01%2F01%2F2023&max_date=12%2F31%2F2024

But there are other orgs that take the data and provide their own query tools such as open secrets.
https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/industry-totals?highlight=y&ind=N07

But then Steven Hayward is a public policy professor at Cal, wouldn't surprise me if he or a graduate student downloaded the FEC database and used their own commercial data mining tools to look at the data for a lot more than just the one chart.

I once set up a mysql database on my laptop that had every at bat and every player going back 50 years to do my own analysis, modern baseball databases collect data like velocity, spin rate on three axis for every pitch, and a reasonably priced laptop is capable of holding the data and analyzing it, if you have the skills to do it.

[grb]

Sweet! I just did a quick search of architects and the first thirty checked were 25-5 Democrat. Not as good as I'd hoped, but still respectably righteous.

[Michael P]

Another great victory of Obama-Biden drug policies: https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2024/02/27/74-year-old-man-who-got-clemency-from-obama-is-sentenced-to-5-years-in-new-federal-drug-case

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's worse than that: On April 13, 2019, Burgos was on probation for the drug sentence Obama commuted when U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents caught him arriving at the downtown Greyhound bus station from Texas with a backpack containing almost 2,000 oxycodone pills laced with fentanyl

You'd think they'd check about pending charges.

[Frank Drackman]

They should make these a-holes take every single pill they're caught with.

[Nige]

So what? People get second chances, not all of them work out. You guys are supporting a man who pardoned a rake of his own confederates, who in theory could or would have testified against him if he didn't have the pardon power. He also committed fraud twice before he was elected, so you in your celemcny gave him a chance, and then he went and committed fraud AGAIN.

[Michael P]

Burgos's criminal career goes back to 1967, almost 60 years ago. This was not his second chance, and probably not just his third either.

[Nige]

That's sad. Does this mean you won't be voting for him for president?

[Michael P]

Does your question mean you will?

[Nige]

On top of all the fraud and the sexual assault, there were all the drugs being handed out to staff in the Trump White House, so really, you’ve already voted for somone just like him. A hardened recidivist.

[Kazinski]

Who related to Jan 6th did Trump pardon?

And other than Michael Flynn did Trump pardon before their case was resolved in Russiagate?

[Nige]

You must know who he pardoned. And who he has promised to pardon, for that matter.

[Sarcastr0]

I heard victimless crimes don’t count.

[Bob from Ohio]

"selling fentanyl-laced oxycodone"

victimless!

[Michael P]

A federal judge finally acknowledges the obvious, and dismisses criminal charges against conservatives as selective prosecution: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.728039/gov.uscourts.cacd.728039.334.0.pdf

[not guilty]

There is no indication from the opinion that the Bush II appointed district judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter. A commenter on another thread yesterday said that the Court of Appeals has ordered the defendants held in custody pending appeal.

I am unaware of anyone not named Yick Wo having successfully asserted a claim of selective prosecution and thereby obtained final relief from an indictment or conviction.

[Michael P]

Nancy Pelosi corruptly organized a blatant violation of the federal constitution. I look forward to the non-selective prosecution of House Democrats for seditious conspiracy: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-court-concludes-congressional-proxy-voting-rule-is-unconstitutional

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, while I agree that it's unconstitutional, the odds are a higher court is going to overturn this on the basis of the enrolled bill doctrine, which essentially states that, Constitution be damned, Congress can do whatever they want internally, so long as their leadership say everything was kosher.

[Sarcastr0]

A single court in Texas.

Your standard for blatant sucks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Federal courts in Texas don't count?

[Sarcastr0]

Single district courts generally do not count. Circuit courts do.

Except for the Fifth (half joking)

In general review of Congressional procedures by the judiciary makes me itchy.

[Michael P]

How many quorum-less votes in the House do you think are required before the violation becomes blatant? I think the answer is one.

[Sarcastr0]

You are asking the wrong question.

[Michael P]

Don't ever change, Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

I will not buy this is unconstitutional base on a single district court.

Neither would you if you hadn’t been told it’s anti Dem.

[Mr. Bumble]

However, Judge Chunkabunka's decision on Presidential immunity is the new national standard?

[Sarcastr0]

A wise man once said, "Single district courts generally do not count. Circuit courts do."

[Don Nico]

Especially a state district court when SCOTUS is about to issue a relevant decision.

[Sarcastr0]

No argument.

[Estragon]

“Judge Chunkabunka’s”

While this is slightly better than your attempt yesterday, I still think it needs more workshopping. I believe in you!

[Mr. Bumble]

Yesterday's was a typo. Feel free to suggest improvements. It's at least as good as ng's Judge Loose Cannons.

[Estragon]

“Yesterdays was a typo.”

So you put as much care into your schoolyard nicknames as you do into your attempted citations?

(I will give you partial credit there— it was an attempt at something actually substantive, which is… not the usual flavor of your contributions)

Here’s a thought: how about don’t? Or, do— I like it when huckleberries are loud and proud, but it makes you look like a dumbass trying to be like Trump or something. Not a fan of Loose Cannon either. Shrug.

[Commenter_XY]

I might have suggested Judge Red Diaper baby...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You might be a bigoted right-wing write-off.

[Theendoftheleft]

You most certainly are a bigoted Yankee Doodle write-off.

[SRG2]

This came up on the main Reason pages. My guess is that an appellate court will overrule Judge Cracker and say that once the president has signed the legislation, it's over. This would follow common law principles from Britain, where questions over the legitimacy of certain legislation no longer mattered once the sovereign had signed their assent.

[Kazinski]

Greg.Lukianoff has an essay on his Substack that states very plausibly:

Online censorship in the UK has led to far more arrests than the first Red Scare
Cancel Culture is happening on a historic scale, Part 4
https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/online-censorship-in-the-uk-has-led

There are a lot of parallels, blacklists, shunning, firings, arrests in some countries. But of course Communists did pose more of an actual threat to our societies in the redscare of 40’s and 50’s than the anti-rainbow and anti-multiculturist victims of today do.

[Nige]

Uh, the UK is has been governed by an increasingly far-right (and deranged) Tory government for fourteen years now. They pretty much let the Met do as they please.

[Bob from Ohio]

"far-right "

Its a Whig government in Tory clothes.

[Nige]

It’s a playschool of mini-Trumps without the base cunning or a fanatical following.

[Kazinski]

"base cunning". I hope you don't mind if I assume that's directed at me. I know it sounds needy, but that would be one of the nicest compliments I've ever received, so I really want it to assume its for me.

[Nige]

'I assume that’s directed at me'

I have no idea why you would think so. You're more of a mouthpiece.

[Theendoftheleft]

Were that it was so, Ingsoc, you pathological liar. Hence, why they purged Truss and Braverman, unfortunately.

It's also why conservative voters cannot trust the Tories anymore, as if everything they did after 2016 wasn't proof enough that they're uniparty/puppets of the oligarchs.

[Nige]

I have no idea what you're disagreeing with, or why you seem to suggest Trust and Braverman were different from the rest in any way other than being too awful at their jobs even for the Tories.

[Theendoftheleft]

They were purged for their views.

Have you had a full day in the last twenty years where you didn't lie at least once? Do you get sexually aroused by lying or something?

[Nige]

They were fired because they were shit. But what views are you claiming cuased them to be purged and do you have any evidence to that effect?

Now there's some projection, eesh.

[Theendoftheleft]

They were fired because they were doing their job and their politics weren't liked. Sunak is a puppet.

I have evidence: Braverman's letter, which is neither rebutted credibly nor even denied. Sunak clearly lied. There is no serious Labour or Lib Dem voter who disagrees about what Sunak actually did---even if they reject Braverman's policy preferences; and there's no need for them to disagree, either.

Your ideology is dying, Ingsoc. It has no purchase with the youth, who are moving left and right. Perhaps it's time for some serious, honest introspection about WHY that's happening---even if you, as a matter of disposition, cannot be honest with others about it.

[Nige]

They were both completely incompetent. They were a laughing stock, only they were both doing serious damage to actual people so it wasn’t actually funny.

‘Your ideology is dying, Ingsoc.’

You keep saying this, and yet you repeatedly fail to identify what my ideology is, other than as pertains to not persecuting trans people.

You’ve also failed to identify why Braverman and May fell, aside from the obvious, that they were an utter embarrasment even to the usually completely shameless Tories. Sunak lying about something doesn’t prove anything, they all lie reflexively. Whose puppet?

[Theendoftheleft]

Ingsoc, what have I repeatedly said about your sinecure position?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Assume Jack Smith were to convene a grand jury. On the basis of evidence Jack Smith already has, the grand jury indicts Trump for treason. Smith drops the Capitol attack charge, and the Florida document charge. Smith then pushes for a trial in DC on the treason charge, at the soonest possible date. When could a trial happen? What privileges or other delaying tactics would be available to Trump to slow it down?

I insist that a trial on a treason charge prior to the election, even if it resulted in acquittal, would be a better and fairer path to justice than what is happening now. At least there would be occasion to put the evidence before a court, and thus before the public, prior to the election. Getting that done is much more important than whether Trump is convicted of anything, although for reasons I have mentioned in previous threads, I expect Trump would be convicted of treason.

[Michael P]

Assume the moon was made of green cheese. How long would it take before Lathrop posted a long-winded comment insisting it was blue?

[tylertusta]

If Smith drops everything right now, then the immunity ruling from the DC Circuit will be vacated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This whole thing is unmitigated Bullshyte and I think Jack Smith (et al) should be tried for treason.

You are ruining the concept of "rule of law" in this country.
And like the French Revolution, this will not end well -- for anyone.

[SRG2]

The right-wing conception of "Rule of Law" appears to be, "let the law rule unless it's Trump, in which case, let Trump rule."

[OtisAH]

New charges out of Smith’s office are highly unlikely. But even if new charges are in the works they will not be filed until the Supreme Court is done playing Bandit to Trump’s Snowman.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you, but why?

[OtisAH]

Because their agreeing to hear the matter likely means their ruling will be made on or about the last day of their session in mid- to late-June, which is close enough to the election for people to declare they shouldn’t be held till after.

If you’re asking why no new charges at all, because it’s highly unlikely that Smith is prepping two federal trials of a former potus while still working on creating a new one. My guess is everything he has charged Turnip with is everything Tirnip will be charged with.

[OtisAH]

Oh and if you’re asking why no new charges will be filed until the ruling, my guess is because why would file new charges with the possibility the indicted has blanket immunity in perpetuity?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yes, that is what I was asking.

Possibility? In what frame of reference is it possible to believe the President of the United States enjoys immunity from a charge of treason? Which would be to say that the founders somehow decreed in the Constitution presidential impunity from treason charges, but with no text in the Constitution to say so, not even in the only text in the entire Constitution which defines a particular crime, which is the treason definition.

[OtisAH]

In two ways: The first is the fact that anything is possible, especially if you have a near-majority of highly motivated Supreme Court justices. The second is the fact there’s an “originalist” argument out there already that might help those motivated justices scoot Turnip over the line:

Our illustrious, saintly and infallible Blessed Founders wanted to make George Washington a de facto king.

[Bob from Ohio]

"When could a trial happen? "

Never, because it would be dismissed by the court prior to trial.

[David Nieporent]

Assume Jack Smith were to convene a grand jury. On the basis of evidence Jack Smith already has, the grand jury indicts Trump for treason.

Stop trying to make fetch happen.

[not guilty]

"Assume Jack Smith were to convene a grand jury. On the basis of evidence Jack Smith already has, the grand jury indicts Trump for treason. Smith drops the Capitol attack charge, and the Florida document charge. Smith then pushes for a trial in DC on the treason charge, at the soonest possible date. When could a trial happen? What privileges or other delaying tactics would be available to Trump to slow it down?"

Since I don't want to fight the hypothetical, I will say initially that Trump would no doubt assert the same delaying tactics as to any new charge that he has asserted as to the existing charge, including an interlocutory appeal from any denial of an immunity defense.

That having been said, what earthly reason would Jack Smith have to substitute a charge more difficult to prove for the existing charges, which are simple and straightforward factually?

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, first, with treason the only crime defined in the Constitution, and no presidential immunity mentioned there or elsewhere, and nothing in precedent, what am I missing? Doesn't a claim of immunity need some show of support before you waste a court's time with it?

Ask yourself, if it were your task to impress a court with the notion that a U.S. president was immune from a charge of treason, what specific sources would you tell the court to rely upon? Can you think of anything that would not make you seem ridiculous?

Second, why can anyone think it would be more difficult to prove treason, in comparison with other charges for which a reasonable prospect of even getting into court before Election Day looks increasingly unlikely? Remember, the preparation clock on the other changes has already been stopped to await conclusion of whatever dilatory process Trump's SCOTUS defenders can cobble together. And there already exists a scheduled nearly 2-month delay before that process even begins.

Then note the Court's reframing of the question, to encompass what might well turn out to be an encyclopedic review of almost every conceivable circumstance relevant to every possible claim of presidential immunity. That by itself could turn into an indefinitely protracted exercise in judicial scholarship, played out in agonizing counterpoint to a developing and possibly violent constitutional crisis as it unfolds.

I should also mention one other thing. From a layman's standpoint, the other charges against Trump do not look simple at all. They look tangled, poorly defined, and in terms of practical application uncertainly precedented. They also seem to invite appeal as too vague as applied, creating danger that a precedent on the basis of those could goad tit-for-tat partisan political retaliation against other political figures guilty of nothing, or only of relative trivialities. Commentary on this blog has been insistent about those hazards.

It seems relevant that Jack Smith has estimated that the existing charges against Trump are expected to take 3 months to try. That does not seem to anticipate a simple case.

If Smith could charge treason sometime during the next 10 days, that would advantage the schedule by ~ 140 days compared to the delays already stacked against hope of progress on the previous charges—and with those delays still open-ended and incentivized in the view of some parties to grow without limit.

Except for one thing, the treason charge looks simpler, easier to understand, and not subject to comparable legal lability. But the one thing is admittedly somewhat imposing. It is that almost everyone seems to have been taught at one point or another a misunderstanding that the law of treason applies only in context of general warfare—a context which did not apply in this case.

Nevertheless, clear text exactly on point to combat that misunderstanding is available from a decision written by Chief Justice Marshall to resolve issues relevant to the treason trial of Aaron Burr. That was the nation's most historically noted treason trial ever, and Marshall's analysis appeared in a separate controversy collateral to the Burr case.

A lawyer relying on Marshall's analysis would enjoy the advantage to point out that the misunderstanding prevalent today is at least partly related to unfamiliarity among modern readers with the original meaning of the antique term, "levy war." That lawyer could then move step by step through Marshall's hypothetical examples, to demonstrate the clarity with which his interpretation debunks the modern misunderstanding. It shows that even small attacks, by parties numbered in single digits, which are never concluded or which fail, can justifiably be charged as treasonable if the objective of the conspirators was to achieve a treasonable purpose by violence. Marshall insists it is indispensable to the treason charge that some quantum of violence, however modest, be not only intended, but also furthered by some overt act intended to carry out the violence. It is that attempt to commit violence, however feebly executed, which defines the import of the term, "levy war," in Marshall's analysis.

Thus, I suggest a treason trial for Donald Trump would quickly boil down to proof of only one contested point. Other elements of the crime, including geographic jurisdiction, existence of a conspiracy, violent intent, intent to levy war in its original meaning, intent to interfere with the U.S. government, and even intent to illegitimately seize presidential power, seem already beyond dispute on the basis of evidence already known among many of the public. Those points would be presented quickly, and proved conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt in any courtroom.

The only point that would be left to prove is what evidence exists to connect Trump himself to the conspiracy, and whether Trump's conduct witnessed by two people delivers that evidence.

I am no expert at predicting how long a criminal trial might continue, but it seems to me that a trial to prove treason by Donald Trump would take notably less than the 3 months Jack Smith predicted for the existing charges. Given tight timeline constraints, even the length of the trial itself must be reckoned as a factor worth controlling. The sooner before Election Day a verdict is announced, the better it will be for the nation.

[not guilty]

There is no plausible legal theory whereby Donald Trump is immune from prosecution on the charges he is presently facing in the District of Columbia, but not immune from prosecution for treason. Immunity, if it exists at all (it doesn't), is not offense specific. Trump would interpose the same frivolous claims of immunity in a motion to dismiss a treason charge as he has in the now-pending case, and when the District Court denies the motion, the Court of Appeals would entertain an interlocutory appeal from that denial. Those Proceedings regarding the claim of immunity would delay the trial beyond the November election.

On the substantive charge, Donald Trump did not levy war upon the United States, and he did not adhere to and give aid or comfort to any enemy of the United States. A good prosecutor does not let his pleadings write checks that his proof cannot cash.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, so I can be clear about your distinction, is it your view that the Capitol attack was not an example to satisfy a definition, “to levy war,” or is it your view that it did satisfy that definition, but there is no proof or insufficient proof to link Trump to it?

To save time, I assume you have read, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout. If your distinction insists the Capitol attack did not, “levy war,” then having followed your commentary I suppose you disagree with Marshall on the basis of other sources. I do not know of those. It would help me better tailor my own advocacy if you could help me out with a reference or two to the best critique or refutation of Marshall’s analysis you know of. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, on what basis could a court purport to modify with an exception the Constitutional definition of treason? Do you know of a basis you can point to in due process, or separation of powers?

We know that doctrines of immunity exist, and get supported by courts, both on the basis of constitutional principles, and on the basis of explicit text. Given an explicit Constitutional text to define treason, I had supposed the analysis might operate like Constitutionally decreed qualifications to hold office, which are not subject to change by anyone, except by amendment.

I doubt anyone would get cert from SCOTUS to insist on a change in the presidential age requirement. Why would it be any different for the treason definition?

[David Nieporent]

What are you talking about? He didn't say anything about modifying the definition of treason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, he posited a claim of immunity for the President from treason charges. That is not supported in the definition. Under the definition, everybody is subject alike to the law of treason. To add immunity for the President would modify the definition in a dramatic and important way.

[David Nieporent]

The definition of treason is entirely unrelated to whether the president is immune from it.

Trump could be 100% guilty of treason under the constitutional definition (hypothetically) and could still be immune from prosecution for it. Trump's claim is that a former president is immune from prosecution for all official acts, even if what he did indisputably met the definition of those acts — unless he was first impeached and convicted for it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, we already reached an impasse. Repeating your take does not add anything.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you should blame your failure to understand law on § 230.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, I rely in that instance less on law than on politics. Simply to be contradictory, you take the political bait.

Thus, you end up claiming that the Supreme Court would put itself on the hook to decide whether a president of the United States, charged by a grand jury with treason, cannot even be tried. That posits a possibility exists that the president could be constitutionally—however invisibly—empowered by the Court with some novel doctrine to commit treason with impunity.

Leaving aside implacable rage from the charged president’s enemies, do you suppose this Supreme Court would even be capable to stomach the public glee of the president’s supporters? Maybe a Court willing to go down in history as defiantly corrupt, and treasonous itself, would do that.

Would even this covertly corrupt Court majority permit itself to do anything so publicly stupid? It would force them to decide—without insight whether a treasonous overthrow of government could be completed, or worse for them, not completed—before the members of the Court majority themselves were brought to justice.

It is shocking to see how advocates to prevent and punish Trump’s violent, ongoing attempted coup have turned abruptly cowed. Apparently, it is not yet sufficiently obvious that a dangerous choice by the Court to disregard the election timetable has ratcheted the case closer to existential crisis for the nation.

The Court’s delay has attenuated the defense against crisis, and thinned it to little more than reliance on luck, and hope for favorable happenstance. Members of the Court will shortly realize that as the stakes increase, that kind of reliance risks peril for the Court along with everyone else. Nothing could bring the Court to that awakening quicker than to be challenged to declare Trump immune from treason charges.

That is not a case even this Court would be stupid enough to take, unless it had already been deprived somehow of its liberty to turn it aside. Assuming that possibility has not yet been realized, members of the Court should consider whether it soon could be, unless they themselves do something to prevent it. That is what they swore their oaths to do.

Jack Smith should put the case before the Court immediately.

[David Nieporent]

Thus, you end up claiming that the Supreme Court would put itself on the hook to decide whether a president of the United States, charged by a grand jury with treason, cannot even be tried.

Yes; they just granted cert to do precisely that. I think it overwhelmingly likely that they will say that former presidents do not have immunity from criminal prosecution, but that's what they are currently considering.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even if an indictment were returned later today, there is absolutely no possibility of a trial starting (much less finishing) before the election.

Now, Trump isn't going to be charged with treason at all, so if you want to daydream about it I suppose it's harmless enough to have the trial happen soon in your fantasy. But in the real world, it absolutely could not happen.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, then you must suppose Jack Smith's other charges are also ruled out for pre-election verdicts. And that others commenting here to the contrary don't know what they are talking about.

Or do you think for some reason a treason charge filed now would somehow take longer to reach a verdict than the others, even if they are already delayed for an unforeseeable interval, and the treason charge is not?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Charlottesville lie debunked.
https://amgreatness.com/2024/02/12/charlottesville-and-trump-will-the-big-lie-finally-die/

[David Nieporent]

Simply denying what he said does not constitute "debunking."

[VinniUSMC]

It's amazing what you'll believe is true when you insist on denying any contrary evidence. It's not like his words are publicly available or anything.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're one of those dipshits still claiming that he recommended that Covid patients inject themselves with bleach, aren't you?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you should just respond to the things I say and not the voices in your head.

[Estragon]

Gosh, you’re so right:

“I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”

He doesn’t actually say the word “bleach.” You win the internet today!

[John F. Carr]

An election is coming up in Russia. Russians living in Latvia can vote at the embassy in Riga. The Justice Minister of Latvia says she can't keep Russians from going to their embassy. What they do inside is their own business. But if they do vote, she adds, they can be prosecuted for supporting war.

Kind of the opposite of the Australian system where if you don't go to the polls you are whipped with wombat hides. Or fined or something, I forget exactly what.

[Kazinski]

Your analogy breaks down a little. Latvia has no interest promoting Russian election turnout.

But it seems a somewhat risky strategy for Latvia to poke the bear that way.

[Bob from Ohio]

"poke the bear"

Latvia has 4,000 NATO troops including US in-country.

[Kazinski]

Mark Green from Homeland Security sent Mayorkas a demand for Jose Ibarra's immigration file.

Ibarra is an illegal immigrant from Venezuela who murdered Georgia Student Laken Reilly.

According to the law once Ibarra was in immigration custody, which he had been, an individual determination had to be made to release Ibarra on Parole.

Green wants to see that individually determined assessment that decided that it was appropriate to release Ibarra out upon our citizens.

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/02/27/chairman-green-issues-letter-to-dhs-demanding-documents-in-case-of-murdered-georgia-student-laken-riley-should-be-alive-today/

[Sarcastr0]

Populist red meat.

[Kazinski]

Sure it is, but it might also be useful to check and see if Mayorkas followed the law.

If blanket paroles are being used instead of the individual determination required by law that is certainly something Congress might want to know for Mayorkas's impeachment.

[Sarcastr0]

What law is he breaking Kaz? The GOP had some trouble there.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's an interesting question. What law does an official of the government break when they act 'ultra vires'?

It's a trick question, of course: While private citizens can do whatever they want unless a law prohibits it, government officials can only, in the scope of their employment, do what the law authorizes.

If the law says he can release them with an individual evaluation, then it IS illegal for him to do it without one.

[OtisAH]

“What law does an official of the government break when they act ‘ultra vires’?”

This is a quintessential Brett Bellmore response. Deflect from the evidence-free claim that “immigration law” is not being enforced by introducing an evidence-free claim of officials acting outside of their authority. And all in the format of “just asking questions” questioning.

[Joe_dallas]

GasO

the GOP at least tried to enforce immigration, where as the Biden administration effectively announced an open invitation.

You may have noticed the huge increase in illegal immigrant border crossings at the start of the Biden administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. ‘immigration.’

Much legal. Very seditious.

[Joe_dallas]

GasO
Illegal immigration
Do you have difficulty with the facts or you just being your usual jerk

[Kazinski]

Section 1182(d)(5)(A) grants discretion to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to temporarily “parole” an alien who is applying for admission to the United States into the country “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”

And I didn't say Mayorkas broke the law, I said Congress needs Ibarra's immigration record to determine.that.

If the record does not show there was an individual case determination for Jose Ibarra's release because of "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit", then Mayorkas was in violation of Section 1182(d)(5)(A).

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11102

[Sarcastr0]

What a backpedaling clarification.

You think this obviously political play is legit.
Because when called upon by the GOP you can become a born yesterday naïf.

[Kazinski]

Umm, what did I say above that I am backpedaling from?

[Frank Drackman]

You wouldn’t say that if it was your daughter murdered by an Ill-legal Pediofile who'd already been in INS custody twice and released, or some piece of shit criminal like Floyd George.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does soy-boi even have kids?

[Michael P]

Red meat is packed with essential nutrients, but you evidently are of the persuasion that has no actual argument yet who demand the public be happy eating bugs instead.

[Nige]

It also appears to make you forget all the demands made to respect the holy presumption of innocence when applied to, er, other suspects.

[Joe_dallas]

A production US citizen is brutally killed due to the very policies instituted by the Biden administration ie the non enforcement of immigration policies (almost an open invitation to cross our southern border). Yet not a single comment from the Biden adminstration.

Compare with the immense reaction to the death of career criminal , (Floyd) massive protests, tweets from Biden campaign etc

[Sarcastr0]

But for cause is some silly shit, Joe.

[Joe_dallas]

GasO
Is that your way of stating that you approve of Biden's non enforcement of immigration policies , ie Biden's effectively open border policy

[Sarcastr0]

He is enforcing immigration policies, you're just ignorant and angry-confident as you do.

Open border is a fucking laugh - look at the deportation stats, you yutz.

But most importantly, your blame is not how blame actually works. Otherwise you could blame the bus that took her there, and the gun manufacturer etc.

[Joe_dallas]

No he is not really enforcing the border -
Talk and defend all you want with talking points - the reality is he hasnt really made a serious effort to defend the border until just recently when it became evident that the democrats in those progressive sanctuary cities discovered the problems

[Kazinski]

But that's the point, granting immigration parole by law is not based on "policy" its based on an individual determination of the facts, if that individual determination of facts sufficient to establish the conditions of parole specified by law was not done then Mayorkas broke the law.

Policy can't override the law.

[Sarcastr0]

You're saying the procedure does not meet the Congressionally required level of individuality.

That's pretty in the weeds, dude. Hardly worth Congressional inquiry.

But you do love the red meat, even as you convince yourself it's actually vegetables.

[Kazinski]

Mayorkas has already been impeached, so yeah, I think it is worth a congressional inquiry to make sure that Mayorkas malfeasance or negligence didn't contribute to the death of an innocent young woman minding her own business.

Maybe that's a topic a Democratic congressman could speak on: that it isn't worth Congress's time to figure out if Laken Riley's death could have been prevented if DHS had properly followed the law.

Her family might have a few comments in response.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh good lord no there is no contribution. That is not how blame is attributed ever. See also hysteria about ever Covid death from Trump not sealing us in our houses.

And the impeachment barely had charges; leaning on red meat to legitimize other red meat will just give you digestive issues.

Your last paragraph is just sophistry, difference between you and everyone else is I think you fool yourself.

[hobie]

What I'm most interested in is whether DeSantis or Abbott had a hand in busing this guy to the East Coast

[Nige]

So if cops had murdered her it'd have been ok.

[David Nieporent]

Ibarra is an illegal immigrant from Venezuela who murdered Georgia Student Laken Reilly.

Wow, that trial was fast!

[Kazinski]

I don’t need anyone’s permission to opine on what I think the facts are.

But I’ll apologize and take it all back if you show me where you said nobody should call Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer, either before or after his trial.

Or say nobody should call Trump an insurrectionist until he has been tried either.

[David Nieporent]

I am pretty sure that there was video of Rittenhouse shooting those people, and plus he didn't dispute it. How to characterize those acts were the only issue in dispute. In contrast, there is (as far as I know) zero evidence you've seen linking Ibarra to this murder.

Having an opinion based on facts is one thing. Having an opinion based on, what, vibes? is quite another.

[Kazinski]

He did dispute he murdered anyone, those were lawful killings.

I'm just asking for a little consistency, but I don't think I'm going to get it.

[Nige]

Another plea from the 'Biden crime family' quarter.

[David Nieporent]

So, in other words, you agree with me: he didn't dispute that he had done it; he disputed only the characterization of it as legal or illegal. Whereas you have zero evidence that Ibarra did anything.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Two trials: the one which determined he had entered the US illegally, and the murder trial.

I was wondering why I had been unable to locate the "ICE" statement which was referred to in Chairman Green's press release, which cites a Fox News story:

"In a statement to Fox News Digital, ICE confirmed he had been encountered by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on Sept. 8, 2022, after entering near El Paso and was "paroled and released for further processing.""

Does this mean it was't a traditional public statement from ICE, but a "statement" made to Fox News Digital (and possibly paraphrased by Fox into words its viewers were better able to understand).

That would explain why someone who had supposedly been "arrested" was simply "paroled and released", like an asylum seeker would be--suggesting he wasn't arrested at all.

Has anyone managed to find the original "ICE statement" online anywhere?

[Mr. Bumble]

Disqualification is still floating around as noted by Somin's post regarding an Illinois judge's ruling.

[tylertusta]

That IL judge is whistling past the graveyard.

[Don Nico]

"the graveyard"
That is where all the votes are in IL and especially in Cook County

[tylertusta]

While Tuesday's hearing with Bradley was a let down due his sudden discovery that he, in fact, has no memory of anything, tomorrow's hearing in Georgia should be much more interesting.

Judge McAfee will consider the new cell phone evidence in the hearing. Should be fun to watch.

Maybe we'll get another surprise appearance from special guest star Fani "Perry Mason" Willis?

[not guilty]

No, Judge McAfee did not admit the cell phone records as substantive evidence. Toward the end of the hearing he took the proposed Exhibit 38 as a proffer, saying that if they became important to his decision he could reopen the proof later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRCCnxB94Z4

[tylertusta]

NG, I'm not going to say "consider to consider" after this comment.

[VinniUSMC]

he took the proposed Exhibit 38 as a proffer, saying that if they became important to his decision he could reopen the proof later

So, in less words, the judge will consider it?

[not guilty]

That is not at all what I said, VinniUSMC. Are you unclear on what a proffer is?

The judge will consider the proffer only to the extent of determining whether to later allow the defense to call a live witness to raise his right hand, swear to tell the truth and subject himself to the crucible of cross-examination. The judge's exercise of discretion is cabined by the requirement that it must be based on evidence. He will reopen the proof only if he regards the information contained in the proffer to be admissible and relevant.

Judge McAfee seems to be bending over backwards to give defense counsel the broadest opportunity to support their red herring motion with substantive evidence. He wants to try this case once and only once. Seeking to offer lay opinion testimony on a collateral matter may be a bridge too far, though.

Nothing that defense counsel have put forth supports their theory that either Fani Willis or Nathan Wade has any personal interest in the conviction of any defendant here. They spent some time banging one another, but so what? (Ashleigh Merchant has presumably done the same with her co-counsel John Merchant, but that is not grounds for the State to seek to disqualify either or both of them.) Mr. Wade has been paid hourly for (some, but not all of) the time he has put in, but that is true regardless of whether Mike Roman, Donald Trump or any other defendant is convicted or acquitted.

[Kazinski]

So the Judge is saying he already has enough information to make up his mind without the cell phone records.

Me too.

Sounds bad for Willis, if she has already been fatally wounded the cell phone records won't help. If he somehow still thinks there is a possibility she was not lying, then the cell phone records will bury her.

It became clear to me that their wasn't much of a possibility the Judge would look the other way when he forced Bradley to testify.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's still possible that the judge doesn't give a damn, and is just going through the motions.

[not guilty]

Actually Judge McAfee is being careful and cautious, and he is taking pains to see that a full evidentiary record is being developed. I'm sure he wants to try this case only once.

[not guilty]

Judge McAfee has allowed defense counsel the broadest possible latitude to provide evidence in support of their red herring motions. A failure to allow such presentation of evidence could conceivably result in reversal on appeal and a retrial. The maxim about enough rope to hang oneself comes to mind.

Excluding Mr. Bradley's testimony could have risked reversal. Extrinsic evidence of impeachment on a collateral matter, though, can be properly excluded. See Scott v. State, 309 Ga. 764, 770, 848 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. 2020) ("A party may not use extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness by contradiction on a matter collateral to the material issues at trial.")

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ted Cruz as Senate Majority leader...

[David Nieporent]

Something you should be able to relate to: nobody likes Ted Cruz. Everyone who has met him can't stand him. It's not about ideology; it's about personality. He was strongly disliked in college — by no later than a few weeks into freshman year — and hasn't gotten more popular since.

So, no, nobody is making him Majority Leader.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Somebody made him Senator...

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny how you know what people think. Obviously enough people in Texas liked him enough to elect him.

[David Nieporent]

Um, you know that — unlike in an election for majority leader — the vast majority of people who voted him into the senate hadn't met him, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

Have you?

[David Nieporent]

Yes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have not met Cruz, but a senator told me that if Cruz or Paul were shot and killed during a Republican caucus meeting no one in that room would testify against the killer.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And apparently, none of his financial backers had met him, either!

[Bob from Ohio]

Somebody married him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s not super compelling evidence that anyone actually likes him.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : “Somebody married him”

Would that be the same wife Trump crudely smeared? At the time, Cruz raged, calling Trump a “coward” and saying “Donald, real men don’t attack women”. Later, of course, he licked Trump’s rear spotless like a good obedient dog. “We don’t want a president who traffics in sleaze and slime,” the Texas senator told reporters before. After, he just meekly said, “Yessir” to whatever his master desired.

It’s not surprising. Cruz also “forgot” Trump’s attack against his father, claiming (without evidence) that Rafael Cruz was involved in the assassination of JFK. That didn’t prevent Ted from keeping Trump’s shoes well polished, but maybe he likes the taste of leather on his tongue.

So Ted Cruz doesn’t hold a grudge. Hopefully his wife doesn’t either.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Years ago EV praised Cruz effusively.

[Estragon]

Ah yes, the junior senator from Texas. A man who truly embodies the priceless German term “Backpfeifengesicht.”

“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father… [my pledge to support the party’s nominee] was not a blanket commitment that if you slander and attack Heidi I’m going to nonetheless go like a servile puppy dog.”

A few moments later

“I am proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for President… I look forward to supporting him enthusiastically.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can you imagine how confused the Cruz children must be concerning how a man should act when someone attacks the mother of his children?

The children don’t get a say yet, but Heidi Cruz, by staying with her husband, and Ted Cruz, by acting like a mewing bitch toward the man who repeatedly attacked his wife, have demonstrated how fucked-up that marriage and family are.

Maybe even worse than the Boeberts, the Taylor Greens, and the Trumps.

[Theendoftheleft]

'...a mewing bitch...'.

Misogyny! Straight from AIDS' festering mouth!

Or is acceptable when a Blue Team airhead, such as yourself, says so?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Accurate, straightforward descriptors with respect to a guy who responds to an attack against his wife by blustering pathetically, then suckling the attacker's scrotum.

[Theendoftheleft]

Dodging the substance won't help you, AIDS; you're a misogynist and a bigot simply for using such language as such.

Ask ANY undergraduate or grad student at ANY of your 'better' unis today whether you would be properly so classified for merely using the word in this way.

Carry on, clinger, till your American betters no longer tolerate you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Today is my wife's birthday. She's 16. I married her when she was 8.

[Frank Drackman]

So how old is that in Human years?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are we using Earth years or Pluto years?

[Sarcastr0]

It is Feb 29

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, I see. I was kind of slow catching on.

Anyway, happy birthday to your better half.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

(her children are ages 43, 27 and 25 — I don’t think she’ll ever catch up to them)

[Krychek_2]

Happy birthday to your wife, and many more happy years to both of you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[Zarniwoop]

It’s my Dad’s 21st birthday today! I might buy him a beer.

[Armchair]

We've discussed this before, but is it time for Congress to make a law to move some trials from DC? It's become increasingly clear that the DC jury pool is politically biased.

Now, for most trials that's not a problem. Most crimes are simply local, with local implications and local consequences. If a local murderer or thief in DC is let loose via jury nullification by a friendly jury, well, the people of the community get to live with the consequences of having that thief or murderer with them.

But some crimes have national implications and are potentially national in scope. And that's a bigger problem. To give a simplified example, imagine a thief who steals from the rest of the country, but gives most of it back to DC, and is tried in DC. Now DC residents don't want to convict him, because he's bringing in lots of money. It's the rest of the country being damaged. So, the jury engages in nullification, and keeps the money coming in..to the detriment of the rest of the country.

One can imagine a similar situation with a case with political implications. Where people of a certain political party have a strong advantage in DC, and people of the other party don't. We've even seen lawyers make statements to the DC jury along the lines of "if you support this person, you're supporting Trump" in cases that aren't actually about Trump.

What's the fix here? Can Congress make a fix here?

Perhaps an alteration to the law for DC trials that allows either the defense or prosecution to request a moving of the venue...for any reason...to a random venue from any of the 50 states. That may be effective. Alteratively, for cases of national implications, perhaps a national jury pool is required. In this given day and age, there's no real reason why jurors couldn't be flown in for a trial.

The next Congress should consider some sort of fix. Otherwise, the gaming of the jury system via its political biases will continue.

[Kazinski]

Let's just get rid of DC, cede it back to Virginia and Maryland.

However using those states for a jury pool might not be much better.

[Armchair]

Depends where in Virginia and Maryland. Parts would be fine.

[bernard11]

You want it in some rural outpost, where "Real Americans" live, and vote GOP.

What an ass you are.

Then there is this small problem:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Armchair]

That's a whole lot of projection going on there.

[tylertusta]

You need to go one step further: Move the capital to Kansas.

Maryland can deal with the mess that is DC, especially after it deflates due to the government leaving town.

[Armchair]

I've floated that idea before. Or rather than just move the Capitol to Kansas...move it around the country. There's no reason that Congress can't travel (they do it on an individual basis clearly), and given the relatively small size of Congress, there are conference centers almost anywhere that could handle the numbers. Have a new annual or semiannual session in a new state, every time. You could do it alphabetically.

The Spring 2025 session could be in Alabama. Fall 2025 in Alaska. Spring 2026 in Arizona. Fall 2026 Arkansas.

It would allow Congress to really SEE the rest of the country, and the issues that faces the rest of the country, as well as allowing people from these states to more easily petition and access Congress.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“move it around the country”

Put the capital on a floating island, like in Gulliver’s Travels.

I'm not the first one to suggest this comparison:

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/fac_books/29/

[tylertusta]

I've been thinking the same. However, Having Congress put down roots in any one particular state has its own dangers, but the logistics of building and securing 50+ sites on a rotational basis would be a nightmare.

Where I think the most value would be in moving executive agencies to different parts of the country.

The military can remain in the Pentagon, but there's reason for the CIA to remain in Langley. Ship them to North Dakota.

Send the FBI to Indiana. I'm sure DHS would love to be better situated to secure the border, so put their headquarters in Texas.

Move the EPA to Anchorage, Alaska, so they can see the impact of their bone-headed decisions first hand on a population that's always one fuel shortage away from freezing to death.

[Armchair]

Who said anything about "building" anything?

There are conference centers, lecture halls, auditoriums, meeting chambers, government facilities in every state. Rent, lease, borrow. No need for "building" anything. It's not "That" many people, 535 for a joint session of Congress. Hell, in a pinch you could use a large high school gymnasium. (That's a little extreme, but you get the point).

As for security...bring it with you. The Capitol police force is currently over 2000 officers. Bring just 1/2 that with you, and you could secure an open field in the middle of Kansas by just using the police alone holding hands with one another.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem with moving the capital anywhere is the lobbyist would just follow. You could move it to a small conservative state and it would be liberal city within a few years.

[Armchair]

That's why you keep moving it every 6 months to a year.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, require them to teleconference from offices in their home states and districts. With a camera confirming that it’s actually them present, streaming to the public.

The Capitol building could become a museum used occasionally for ceremonial purposes.

This would nicely convert all votes into roll call votes, too!

[Armchair]

I do prefer in person, for multiple reasons. Teleconferences only go so far.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The former Virginia part was returned to Virginia in 1846.

[Michael P]

Article III, Section 2:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

DC is not a state, so Congress has an easy fix here. The Sixth Amendment doesn't speak clearly to the question of the case of there being no "State [] wherein the crime shall have been committed", so it shouldn't be read as modifying this clause.

[Armchair]

Exactly. The next Congress should fix the DC Jury problem by allowing either the prosecution or the defense to move the trial from DC for whatever reason they deem fit.

The details on whether it should be a random district, or a selection of districts, or a national-type-jury pool. Well, those are interesting items to consider.

[Nige]

'It’s become increasingly clear that the DC jury pool is politically biased.'

Show your work?

[OtisAH]

His work was reading it in some rightwing media swamp and typing it out.

[Jerry B.]

The city government in DC is 100% Democratic or left leaning Independent, and generally elected by large majorities. Seems reasonable to expect that the population, and the jury pool, are liberal biased.

[OtisAH]

“It took me an hour to write so it only makes sense it will take you an hour to read.”

[Sarcastr0]

liberal biased

Party affiliation does not mean you can't have integrity to be an unbiase jurod.

Republicans have been on juries that found against Trump. No one raised an issue there.

[Nige]

So? Where's the actual evidence of bias in these juries?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It’s become increasingly clear that the DC jury pool is politically biased.

STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(territories included; 52 jurisdictions ranked)

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
District of Columbia 16

COLLEGE DEGREE
District of Columbia 1

ADVANCED DEGREE
District of Columbia 1

The reason conservatives, Republicans, and Federalist Societeers dislike the District of Columbia is that there aren't enough half-educated, gape-jawed, superstitious bigots around for their deplorable taste.

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans -- plenty of whom reside in the District of Columbia; not so much in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi, Idaho, Arkansas, and South Carolina -- permit.

[Theendoftheleft]

That, or because it's a thoroughly corrupt cesspool.

More likely the latter.

Since, as is well researched and documented, most of your universities have become thoroughly dumbed-down, grade-inflated institutions (per education inflation in the USA), and so that cannot hold a candle to unis in more civilized countries, what do you think your little factoid means to your betters in better Western countries?

And, as we've noted before, AIDS: 50% of Cali high school grads are functionally illiterate. You're doomed, AIDS. You're regressing to a pre-modern civilization. This will only get exacerbated by your domestics being outbred by illiterate aliens with alien cultures.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Un-American, bigoted, right-wing losers are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and a core element of this white, male blog's target audience.

[Theendoftheleft]

I'm not part of your culture, you imbecile.

Your inability to face reality, including about how your unis work, is also pathetic.

[Nige]

Really? You fit right in.

[Theendoftheleft]

You don't.

[Nige]

Lol

[not guilty]

The Sixth Amendment requires that a federal criminal prosecution be brought in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. Congress cannot modify that by statute.

The accused can presently waive this requirement and seek a change of venue. To allow the prosecution to do so by statute, however, would violate the accused's Sixth Amendment right.

[David Nieporent]

D.C. is not a state, though. Article 3, Section 2 says that when a crime isn't committed in a state, Congress can legislate where the trial will be, and I don't think that anyone contends that the 6A altered that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not one to rest on her laurels NY AG is suing the world's largest beef company:
"New York AG Letitia James Files Lawsuit Against Worlds Largest Beef Producer for ‘Misleading Public’ About its Impact on Climate"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/new-york-ag-letitia-james-files-massive-lawsuit/

[Nige]

You go, girl.

[apedad]

Alternate title: State AG Enforces Existing Law

[SimonP]

I have been thinking about James and Paxton, two AGs who are using their office to pursue various kinds of politically-motivated and charged lawsuits.

For her part, James has gone after charitable organizations that corruptly misuse donations, corrupt businessmen who defraud bank lenders, and businesses that try to mislead the public in violation of state law.

For his part, Paxton has gone after municipalities who want to legalize weed, parents who want to get gender-affirming care for their kids in states where it's legal, federal benefits for pregnant women, and Planned Parenthood.

Whatever you think of their political beliefs, one consistently goes after the big guys, the other consistently goes after the little guys. And only one of the two remains under federal indictment and has been impeached for their actions in office.

I cannot fathom why someone would want to live in a state where Paxton is pursuing his agenda, rather than James. You might think not agree with what she is trying to do, and you might (I think validly) believe that her cases are politically-motivated. But she's not coming for you. She's coming for the crooks. In contrast, Paxton is a crook, and his efforts will impact you or people you know.

[ducksalad]

I cannot fathom why someone would want to live in a state where Paxton is pursuing his agenda, rather than James.

Just a brief reminder that normal people in the real world give politics maybe 2% weight when deciding where to live. And out of that 2% weight, maybe 2% is the state AG.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

On the other hand, it is no coincidence that so many poorly educated, disaffected, superstition-addled, roundly bigoted, gullible, obsolete people live in places such as Texas, South Carolina, West Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi, Idaho, central Pennsylvania, backwater Ohio, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.

[SimonP]

Maybe, unless you're someone likely to be sued or prosecuted by Paxton for doing things that would be legal in other states.

[Moderation4ever]

Wisconsin had a warmer than normal winter affecting lake ice condition throughout the state. Those conditions are expected to affect the a walleye spanning with a decreased survival rate for the young. Climate change will be important but less for the big changes and more for the many small changes that will affect people. The walleye beloved by the fisherman and those who love to eat walleye will be the losers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Weather is not climate change.

[Nige]

No, but guess what climate change is? Not going to go away even if you stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes real tight.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/warmest-january-record-12-month-average-over-15degc-above-preindustrial

Sea temperatures are rocketing. Hey, that won't affect 'weather,' eh?

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - calm down
The average global land and ocean surface temperature was 2.29 degrees F (1.27 degrees C) above the 20th-century average of 54.0 degrees F (12.2 degrees C), ranking as the warmest January in the 175-year global climate record. This was 0.07 of a degree F (0.04 of a degree C) above the previous record from January 2016.

A) the .04c delta is less than the measurement error.
B) the rate is still only 1.0c per century.

Our climate scientists still have figured out why the earth shifted from a cooling phase in the 1800's to a warming phase at the start of the industrial revolution when co2 went from 280 ppm to 281 ppm.

[Nige]

Yeah, no, your expertise is unimpressive as usual, as are your impassioned pleas for complacency.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

[grb]

You should see him on vaccines!

[Moderation4ever]

What’s this got to do with weather. Wisconsin lakes are warming and walleye are a cold water species. The failure to develop good ice is not weather it’s climate change.

BTW - it has also been a hard year for the northern Wisconsin tourist industry.

[Nige]

Alberta's running dry.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/02/19/Alberta-Brutal-Water-Reckoning/

[Nige]

This isn't weather, either, though it might as well be. Five raging wildfires, one of them the second biggest in Texas history.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02/27/texas-panhandle-wildfires-evacuations/

[Frank Drackman]

Her name is Laken Riley. Will Parkinsonian Joe call the parents? He's supposed to be the "Consoler in Chief", how about Secretary Major-Dork-Ass? it was their policies who let her murderer go (twice that we know of) I hear Joe's going to the Border today to meet the President of Egypt.

Frank

[Armchair]

California passed its new law, requiring fast food workers to be paid $20 an hour. (Wow!). Unless of course the fast food restaurant "bake and sell their own bread as a standalone item". Which conveniently exempts Panera.

That's odd. Why?

https://www.kcra.com/article/report-california-fast-food-law-panera-newsoms-relationship-with-billionaire-franchisee/60014966

Oh, because the owner of a bunch of stores is friends with Governor Newsom....

[Sarcastr0]

Ahh California.

Those of you that want the Dems destroyed, this is what a single party state gets you.

[Michael P]

This is what a Democrat state gets you, at least.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes because of the incredible integrity of Republicans.

The high minimum wage is a Dem thing. The special exception for buddies if you can swing it is a universal thing.

[Armchair]

Blatant corruption, for which there are no consequences? Using the law to extract "special favors" for your rich buddies?

This is the effect of Democratic single party rule, and good Governor Newsom

[Sarcastr0]

California has its issues, and corruption is one of them. It is pettier and more open than most places because CA is effectively a one part state.

It is not special in corruption being a thing. Your outrage is, as always, at core partisanship not anything else.

[OtisAH]

I see the problem. You’re confusing democratic corruption with the political persecution of MAGA…

[Sarcastr0]

Abuse of power and corruption are the same thing but on a different scale.

CA is full of small scale nonsense. And frankly some dunderheaded policy ideas.

Meanwhile Texas, Alabama, and Florida are openly abusing their power to make the fringe of the GOP happy. Yeah, that's not even the same kind of fucked up.

[Armchair]

Ad hominen, attack the speaker, ignore the corruption.

I could point out that Biden was assassinating US Citizens and you'd be like "So, who cares? You're just a partisan!"

[Nige]

Really? He hasn't been worked in to the Clinton Assasination Syndicate yet? How remiss.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Have you read the federal tax code? It's full of these strange little exceptions...

[bernard11]

Oh STFU.

Single-party rule, GOP or Dem, is going to tend to produce corruption, of which there are many kinds.

If you think the GOP is a bunch of saints you're a idiot.

[Armchair]

And so you just ignore it?

That's why Newsom gets away with this. You...just don't care.

[Don Nico]

It sure is what a single party state gets you. If you lived in CA you know that. Highest income tax rate in the US and yet Newsom has the state $73 B in the red this year. And he inherited the state with a huge budget surplus from Jerry Brown, who became a great governor for CA.

[Sarcastr0]

I have lived in CA. 4 years SoCal 3 years NorCal. Though that was a decade and a half ago.

It was a silly place politically at times, but it's not awful by any stretch.

[Don Nico]

Times change. I'm happy that we left last year.

[Sarcastr0]

I suspect you and I get very different experiences from California.

[Armchair]

Yep. CA's gotten far worse.

[Frank Drackman]

Calvin Loathsome, the Great White Hope of the DemoKKKrat Party. Wonder if Barry Hussein will be like those Reconstruction Black Senators/Representatives erected after the Civil Wah (talk about race-ism, why do they always say "the first Black whatever since Reconstruction" don't the ones erected during Reconstruction count? of course they were all Repubiclowns so it screws up the D narrative. Where was I?

Oh yeah, first Black POTUS, then next one is 100 years later.
And even though Common-Law Harris might be POTUS at this moment, or later today, she doesn't count.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you meant the Great White Dope.

[OtisAH]

Oh cool, piece of shit is up early today and he’s on a roll! Go get ‘em, piece of shit!

[ThePublius]

Yea, I heard that. So corrupt!

If I were McDonalds, Burger King, In and Out Burger, Wendy's - I'd just start baking and selling bread - perhaps the buns. They could bake one item per day and satisfy the law.

Maybe I'll start a business making a tiny oven and individually par-baked buns to market and sell to California "fast food" outlets.

[Bob from Ohio]

Won't work. You had to be baking bread by a certain date, I think the law's effective date. No new entrants qualify.

[David Nieporent]

If I were McDonalds, Burger King, In and Out Burger, Wendy’s – I’d just start baking and selling bread – perhaps the buns. They could bake one item per day and satisfy the law.

You can't. Even if these restaurants were equipped to do this, the bread exception is a grandfather clause; you had to have been selling bread as of September 1, 2023.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Is there no "Today in Supreme Court History" post for Feb. 29? Should I post today's cases here instead?

[Sarcastr0]

Hmm it’d get lost here.

[ThePublius]

Sure go ahead!

[Bwaaah]

As throngs of trespassers forced their way into and through the halls of Congress, causing a halt of all business there, the President of the United States WATCHED AND DID NOTHING FOR OVER AN HOUR.

He knowingly allowed unidentified people to not just stop the business of our elected government, but to stop the business of electing our government.

Was it not the President's job to protect and defend our elected Congress from the riotous threats of trespassers?

Here was his oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Does the Constitution not provide for our Congress to be sustained?

I can not reconcile my regard for the institution of the United States with the actions of the President that day. He failed to defend the Congress. That was an egregious abdication of his Presidential responsibility, and a dereliction of the duty of his office.

No explanation cures that defect.

[ThePublius]

"Was it not the President’s job to protect and defend our elected Congress from the riotous threats of trespassers?"

No! It was the responsibility of Nancy Pelosi! Where have you been?

[Kazinski]

Read the Pentagon inspector generals report that investigated the response leading up to Jan. 6th.

In the week before Jan. 6th the Pentagon requested, and the President approved making Nat Guard troops available both in the Capitol and in DC generally for crowd control and other problems.

Mayor Bowser accepted the offer, Capitol Hill officials refused the offer, (The Senate and House Sergeant of Arms specifically, the Chief of the Capitol Hill police wanted to accept the offer).

The SecDef, and Chairmen of Joint Chiefs Milley, also met with the President in a routine meeting, at the meeting Trump asked them do you have any contingency plans for Jan 6th. He was told ‘We have a plan and we’ve got it handled’. No details were asked for, nor were any details given.

On Jan. 6th no one at the Pentagon asked for, nor were they waiting for further orders from the President. The IG report said that much of the delay was due to making sure the deployment would not violate the Pass Comitatus Act since the congressional officials had already refused troops a few days earlier.

As a matter of practicality, the President was right to stay out of it on Jan. 6th, if HE ordered in troops many would have characterized out as a military coup, and rumors would fly adding to the chaos.

This pretty much explains all the delay:
“Guard officials located with Major General Walker at the Armory all say he seriously contemplated aloud the possibility of breaking with the chain of command,” according to the report. “‘Should we just deploy now and resign tomorrow?’ [an officer] recalled Major General Walker bluntly putting it.”

Walker told the committee he “would have done just that,” had acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy not sent out two memos just days earlier. Those documents restricted National Guard deployments around the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, over fears they could be viewed as too political.

“While the delay seems unnecessary and unacceptable, it was the byproduct of military processes, institutional caution and a revised deployment approval process,” the report states. “We have no evidence that the delay was intentional. Likewise, it appears that none of the individuals involved understood what President Trump planned for January 6th, and how he would behave during the violence.”

Those memos restricting National Guard deployments were the direct result of the rejection of troops by Capital Hill officials because of “optics”.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3787032-dc-national-guard-deployment-wasnt-purposefully-delayed-on-jan-6-final-report-finds/

[Bwaaah]

A benefit of being Commander in Chief is that you can call the shot; the Guard works for you. Trump is good about ignoring how he looks to his adversaries. They could characterize his defense of Congress as “an attempted coup.” So what? (They would call it that anyway.)

There are important things that matter enough such that looks don’t matter enough. Congress, its function and its defense, matter enough. His action would have been, should have been, an unequivocal defense of Congress. And that probably would have looked better than President Do-nothing.

I’m going to speculate that for Donald Trump, the trespassers were the good guys and Congress was mainly the bad guys. The day was still young, he wasn’t out of office yet, and who’s to say how a riot in Congress ends? (“constitution shmonstitution…I’m gonna ride this one out with my peeps there on the hill”)

Gotta give it to him…the guy’s got moxy.

[Armchair]

There's been a long-running question about "How much immigration is too much". Well, Canada, long heralded as a paragon of good immigration policy...may have hit that limit.

Canada's fallen into a "population trap", where increased immigration actually decreases the per capita income overall. Economists are calling for rapid cuts to Canada's immigration levels. But that may also have other negative consequences as well.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10229466/canada-immigration-reform-population-trap-economists/

[David Nieporent]

Note that assuming any of the analysis has any validity, it says something very different than what American xenophobes are saying:

In Monday’s report, Marion and Ducharme, said Canada’s annual total population growth should not exceed 300,000 to 500,000 in order to avoid that “trap.”

But Canada, populationwise or economywise, is roughly 1/10th the size of the U.S. So this analysis — again, if accurate, and also if applicable to the U.S. — would imply that U.S.'s total population growth should not exceed 3 million to 5 million per year — a far higher figure than the modern GOP wants.

Also, from the article, this analysis is not primarily about immigration at all, but temporary visitors to Canada: students and temporary workers.

[Kazinski]

Which totally glosses over that over 90% of Canadian immigration is legal immigration, rather than what's going on here where we are being swamped by illegal immigration, which is actually impeding our ability to process legal immigrants.

By all means expand legal immigration here, if that's what Congress decides, but what the Biden administration is doing is refusing to enforce the laws.

[David Nieporent]

If the issue is the ability of the economy to absorb and house them, whether they are legal or illegal is irrelevant.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, if you assume that legal and illegal immigrants are interchangeable. But why would you assume that people who illegally sneak into a country are the same as people who come in legally after rigorous vetting?

[mulched]

Incorrect. Legal immigration pathways allow the US to select immigrants that will be able to contribute to their new country, i.e. skills, resources, community.

Illegal immigration is just whoever shows up.

[David Nieporent]

I believe in free markets rather than centrally planned Soviet-style economies, so I think that "whoever shows up" is more likely to match the country's needs than what some politicians or bureaucrats "select" for.

Most people who consider themselves Republicans do not think the government is competent to decide which microchips the economy needs, and how many of each. Or trucks, or steel, or grain. But when it comes to labor, suddenly they think the government's picking and choosing works better than supply and demand.

[Kazinski]

The legal immigration route also almost always requires a sponsor who must agree to reimburse taxpayers if the immigrant becomes a public charge, and must demonstrate they have the means to support the immigrant if they cannot support themselves.

[Armchair]

Glad you brought up the numbers David.

So, Canada has a population of 38 Million. The numbers of immigrants you're talking about are ~1% of the population per year (300,000 to 500,000). And it's hitting that population trap based on that excessive level of immigration.

Now US LEGAL immigration is far lower. It regularly sits at ~1 Million a year for a population of ~330 Million. Right around 0.3% of the population immigrating per year. Perfectly reasonable. However, US ILLEGAL immigration is on the order of 2 million to 3 million per year. Now, you're looking at total immigration of 3 million to 4 million per year. And that's right at that ~1% of population immigrating per year. Same levels that are causing a population trap for Canada. And the same levels that are causing all the problems seen in Chicago and New York and along the southern border.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. You didn't read. That's not "Same levels that are causing a population trap for Canada." That level is what these "population trap" theorists say would not cause a problem for Canada.

[Armchair]

Current Immigration to Canada is ~500,000 per year

https://www.statista.com/topics/2917/immigration-in-canada/#topicOverview

And we see population trap effects.

[Voize]

As David correctly pointed out earlier, the "population trap" alarm is triggered by total population growth in Canada, not just immigration. Total growth last year was not 0.5M, it was 1.25M. That number consists of a small net positive birth rate, plus about 420K net immigration, 15k asylum seekers, and a 750K increase in the number of temporary residents with work and/or study permits. That's why an action the government is considering is to reduce the number of student visas offered.

The trap the report talks about has nothing to do with the desirability of these people, only the country's ability to absorb them, especially the strain they put on housing supply when the population grows by 3% in one year. For the US to experience a proportional increase the population would need to grow by about 11 million. Estimates put the current growth at under 2 million per year.

[bernard11]

Canada’s fallen into a “population trap”, where increased immigration actually decreases the per capita income overall.

Well, that's an interesting report, but it doesn't have crap to do with falling per capita income. Immigration will virtually always decrease per capita income, and that's not a problem per se.

Most immigrants have low incomes, so of course they lower the average. That absolutely does not mean, or even suggest, that the income of current residents goes down. It may well increase.

At the risk of sending Michael P into another fit of stupidity, let me try an example.

You have a population of 1000, with per capita income of $50,000, so total income is $50M. Now here come some of those awful immigrants, 100 of them, say. Because there are not a lot of cardiac surgeons, hedge fund managers, etc. among them their average income is low, $30K, say.*

Now total income is $53M, divided among 1100 residents. Per capita income has dropped to $48,182. What's the big deal?

Suppose that the immigrants had the effect of driving current residents income higher, say by $1000, $1M total. Now total income is

$50M original
$3M immigrants' income
$1M gain to current residents.
Total: $54M, and per capita is $49091.

That's still lower than before, but everyone is better off.

[Armchair]

"Immigration will virtually always decrease per capita income,"
"Most immigrants have low incomes, so of course they lower the average."

Oh god, no! Not at all! I'm actually amazed you believe this!

"Because there are not a lot of cardiac surgeons, hedge fund managers, etc"
But...there are!

I suppose we should back up for a second, and you need to look at the Canadian model of immigration. The primary Canadian model of immigration is to bring in immigrants, in the beginning or prime of their working careers, in areas of specific professional need. They bring in workers in areas of high professional need. Family Physician, Software Developers, etc. Here's the full list below.

(Edit...check Canada's list of the federal skilled workers. Reason doesn't like links from .ca)

The problem Canada's run into is that they don't have the capital and infrastructure support the new individuals, even if they're in high demand, high paying professions. As a result, its driving up prices for everyone, without corresponding increases in productivity.

But seriously, you do need to educate yourself about immigration systems that aren't the US.

[bernard11]

I suppose we should back up for a second,

You're the one who needs to back up. not me.

The whole per capita income business that you claimed was a "population trap" is nonsense. Even Brett doesn't seem to disagree with that.

Stop trolling with your BS.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Most immigrants have low incomes, so of course they lower the average. That absolutely does not mean, or even suggest, that the income of current residents goes down. It may well increase."

The problem, of course, is that said increase, if it does happen, isn't going to be uniformly distributed. If immigrants, (This is Canada, so I'm assuming mostly not illegal.) have low incomes, it's because they have jobs that are low income.

So, they compete for that sector of the job market, dragging pay rates down for the low income citizens who were already poor.

Meanwhile, the wealthier, who don't have immigrants competing with them for jobs, do very well. If they run businesses, they face lower labor costs. If they hire gardeners or domestics, likewise. All gain and no pain, for them.

It's sort of an anti-welfare program, redistributing income upwards.

You know, income inequality was extraordinarily low during the period the US had essentially closed its borders to immigration. So low they call it the Great Compression.

The Great Compression ended right about the time the US threw those gates open again.

[bernard11]

Brett, if you want to argue that the income distribution effects of immigration are a reason to restrict it, then go ahead. So far you've just asserted it.

And if you do go ahead it will be the first time you have objected to something that benefits the nation as a whole on the grounds that it hurts low-income workers.

Somehow I'm not inclined to think your concerns are severe. If you are, let me ask you a question. Suppose we could, somehow, tax away most of the benefit to high-income people and redistribute it to lower-income ones. No one would be made worse off, and some people would be better off (including, of course, the immigrants). Would you favor or oppose that?

[Michael P]

A journalist lamented the plight of poor, put-upon Palestinian activists:

You can’t protest peacefully. You can’t boycott. You can’t hunger strike. You can’t hijack planes. You can’t block traffic. You can’t throw Molotovs. You can’t self-immolate. You can’t heckle politicians. You can’t march. You can’t riot. You can’t dissent. You just can’t be.

Some of these things are not like the others....

[Krayt]

A US soldier just self-immolated. Go for it.

[Frank Drackman]

again? are our pets heads falling off too?

[Frank Drackman]

He was an "Airman" (can you blame him? "Air-Man" sounds like a Comic Book) Of course now he's a "Well Done" Air-Man.

Frank "Well Done, Airman, Well Done"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That poor bastard may not have had much of a chance. He reportedly was raised in a religious kookery colony.

In a just world, his parents died lonely, painfully, and young.

[Ed Grinberg]

"You can’t dissent."
"You can’t protest peacefully."
"You can’t march."
"You can’t boycott."
"You can’t hunger strike."
"You can’t self-immolate."
???

"You can’t heckle politicians."
Depends where / what politicians. Heckling a Republican politician at a university? They'll give an award for your "courage"!

"You can’t block traffic."
"You can’t riot."
"You can’t throw Molotovs."
"You can’t hijack planes."
True. (Thank God!)

"You just can’t be."
Sure you can. Just don't be an asshole.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What follows is every case decided on February 29, 1892. This is in honor of my wife, born on February 29. Page numbers are to 143 U.S. except where noted.

Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hanford, p. 187: buyer of mortgaged property is first in line for payment of mortgage and original mortgagor not liable if buyer gets extension of time

New Orleans City & Lake R.R. Co. v. New Orleans, p. 192: City charter giving tax break to railroad company did not prevent it from adding different tax later on

Waterman v. Alden, p. 196: Will provision stating that brother still owed estate (all other intrafamilial debts being forgiven) did not apply to debts incurred after date of Will

In re Woods, p. 202: personal injury action where only issue was collateral estoppel effect of dismissal at close of plaintiff’s case was not important enough to grant cert

Horner v. United States, p. 207: prisoner properly moved from New York to Illinois for trial because that was where his crime of “delivering” gambling material through the mails was committed as defined by statute (he had mailed it in New York but addressed it to a person in Illinois)

Lawrence v. Nelson, p. 215: claimant who had obtained judgment against administrator in another state not bound by in-state requirement that claims against estate be filed within two years

Hammond v. Hopkins, p. 224: certificates of two long-dead justices of the peace admissible and outweighed testimony of wife that she never heard of property deed nor signed it (also at issue was a Will touchingly leaving “my little slave boy Frank to my daughter Victoria Hopkins”)

Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed Wire Co., p. 275: competing patents for “improved” barbed wire (diagrams are in the opinion); issues are whether one was devoid for “want of novelty”, proof needed to show that later-patented product was in use first, and whether date of application or date of patent is relevant (it’s the date of application)

Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, p. 293: bank’s change of status during lawsuit from state bank to national bank did not change the issues

Ludeling v. Chaffe, p. 301: assignee in bankruptcy has rights superior to pre-bankruptcy creditor

Horn Silver Mining Co. v. People, p. 306: New York tax on all capital stock of corporations doing business in the state even including out of state stock does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause

Chandler v. Pomeroy, p. 318: enforcing agreement between all testator’s children to divvy up estate equally and to cancel the Will “to get the property out of the hands of the lawyers” (suit brought by executor named in Will)

Chicago & Grand Trunk R.R. Co. v. Wellman, p. 339: error to instruct jury that statute setting railroad rates was unconstitutional (effect of which was to necessarily hold that rates testified to were unreasonable)

Briggs v. United States, p. 346: allowing suit by planter for cotton seized by Union Army during Civil War to go forward; suit was allowed by the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863, cotton was bought in transaction between private parties without C.S.A. involvement, and United States could not use Statute of Frauds as a defense (this is an 1892 ruling because claim couldn’t be brought until court of claims was given jurisdiction in 1888)

Nebraska v. Iowa, p. 359: in original jurisdiction case, awarding some land to Nebraska and some to Iowa because in some places Missouri River changed due to accretion (change in boundary) but above Omaha by avulsion (no change)

Winona & St. Peter R.R. Co. v. Plainview, p. 371: out-of-state parties declared to be bona fide purchasers by federal court based on state court decision holding bonds valid did not lose their rights when state appellate court reversed

Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Mike & Starr Gold & Silver Mining Co., p. 430, and Sullivan v. Iron Silver Mining Co., p. 431: “placer claim” (right to mine specific area) does not apply to vein or lode already known to exist there

Schwab v. Berggren, p. 442, and Fielden v. Illinois, p. 452: one sentenced to death does not have to be present when appellate court affirms judgment

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, p. 457: Anglican minister was not worker of the type subject to immigration restrictions (“cheap, unskilled labor was making the trouble, the influx of which Congress sought to prevent”)

The Sylvia Handy, p. 513: Court cannot disturb finding that Russian “promiscuous” killing of seals, so as to disturb their mating grounds, took place in Alaska waters (justifying seizure)

Budd v. People, p. 517: New York statute regulating loading of grain elevators did not impact interstate commerce

Hoyt v. Latham, p. 553: heirs of “very large estate” ratified unauthorized grant of land by their inaction

United States v. Texas, p. 621: border dispute under Court’s original jurisdiction is equitable (not at-law) claim (i.e., the Court can fashion whatever remedy it wants)

Field v. Clark, p. 649: court cannot look to journals, minutes, etc. of Congress to determine if proper procedures were followed; clerk’s authenticated bill sent to President is conclusive proof (law was to allow President to retaliate against foreign powers by restricting importation of “sugars, molasses, tea and hides”)

and --
​
United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1: journal of House of Representatives is conclusive proof as to whether quorum was present in passing a bill (distinguished Field v. Clark) (law concerned classification of fabrics for customs purposes)

[John F. Carr]

"certificates of two long-dead justices of the peace admissible and outweighed testimony of wife that she never heard of property deed nor signed it"

Reminds me of the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule. A man can be convicted of hitting his wife even if she denies under oath it ever happened and there were no eyewitnesses or physical evidence. The jury gets to decide whether she was legitimately distressed when the neighbor heard her screaming for help, or whether she is a good actress.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's not unusual for domestic violence victims to try to withdraw their accusations. I used to work in that field and I remember a woman doing that even though I had seen her bruises when driving her from her home (when her husband was away at work) to the shelter. The reasons for doing so are pretty easy to figure out.

[John F. Carr]

I understand the reason for the rule and for policies against withdrawl of domestic violence complaints. The rule still bothers me. Its absence would bother me. One way abusers get away with it. The other way innocent men go to jail.

When there are bruises the prosecution has corroborating evidence. When he hurts her without leaving a mark, or pulls out a gun or a knife, that's when excited utterances may be all there is to the prosecution's story.

[Dan Schiavetta]

All true.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have yet to encounter a single case that was filed (much less one that resulted in a conviction) where the only evidence was an uncorroborated excited utterance.

[Magister]

Blackman had a post for Supreme Court history in 2020 on leap day, but apparently the automated posting cannot replicate that feat. (Holy Trinity Church v. United States decided, which is summarized by captcrisis above.)

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/02/29/today-in-supreme-court-history-february-29-1892/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Automated? You mean these posts are automated? (/sarc)

The Holy Trinity case was in our intro course casebook in law school — I think, as an example of how a court infers the intent behind a statute (i.e., Congress wanted to keep out grubby illiterate immigrants like my grandparents, but not Anglican ministers, even though on its face the statute would apply to them).

[David Nieporent]

Scalia despised Holy Trinity.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Opportunities for wholehearted agreement with Scalia are limited, but he was right about that one.

[theobromophile]

Happy birthday, Prof. Volokh!!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes! Happy birthday, Eugene Volokh! ("this unusual day"!)

[ThePublius]

Anyone here play the sax? I'm taking it up, albeit late in life.

[Magister]

That's the problem with today's society, too much sax and violins.

[Don Nico]

Ouch!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you have neighbors?

[Moderation4ever]

The Trump lawyers have been successful in delaying his trials, but these trials could still likely take place before the end of 2024. Normally I would think it bad to have a trial in the heaviest part of the Presidential campaign. That is after Labor Day. My feeling are that if the Trump lawyers want to push it back and it happen in September or October then it is on them and let it happen. A conviction or acquittal in October would be the ultimate in October Surprises.

[theobromophile]

Alternate theory: first step to delaying until 2025 is to delay until late 2024.

Another alternate theory: Trump does better in the polls (by some measures) when he's being tried for things that no other former President or Congresscritter would get tried for. A trial might endear him to the right, many of which are reluctant to vote for him again. "Screw the Democrats for pulling this" is a valid campaign strategy.

Not saying I endorse any of this, just that it's likely what his lawyers are thinking.

[Illocust]

It will certainly endear him with independents to have a reminder right around when they are voting that Biden's party is trying to prosecute his opposition. It's not a good look in a non-third world country.

[Nige]

Might also remind them that this is the guy that tried to overturn the election he lost and invaldate the votes of millions, and still claims he won, and yet his party and supporters are running him again. The sheer contempt of that is pretty striking.

[theobromophile]

If Trump's team knows what they are doing, they have the polling in that question. It's not just how it changes people's perceptions of him; it's how it changes their willingness to vote at all.

Flipping a vote is great. So is getting someone to stay home who would have voted for the opposition, or getting someone who would have stayed home to vote for you. The first counts twice (minus one vote for the opposition, plus one for you); the latter is a minus one for the opposition or a plus one for you, respectively.

Thing is, if someone would already crawl over broken glass to vote for the opposition, it doesn't matter if they would now crawl through snakes and then over broken glass to vote for the opposition. It is still one vote for the opponent. If that action, however, gets fence-sitters to vote for you, it's a net positive.

The question is if they have done this polling and if they are smart enough to assess the results.

[Nige]

Well everyone keeps assuming that Trump never gets any blowback for the things he does, and Biden and the Democrats get nothing but blowback for crticising or acting against the things Trump does. 7 million votes didn’t changed that attitude, somehow. It’s a weird standing assumption.

[bernard11]

The question is if they have done this polling and if they are smart enough to assess the results.

But I think this overlooks one important thing - the trial itself. Let's suppose Smith's case is exceptionally strong, including some evidence not yet publicized. I'd say that hurts Trump badly. Remember, most people don't follow all this stuff that closely. They go by tribal instincts, overall impressions, etc. If you suddenly hit them every day with actual trial reporting they might well change their minds.

The opposite is possible also, of course. Smith's evidence persuades the jury, but not Trumpists or Trump-leaners, and some moderate types have doubts. I don't think polling today is going to tell us which of these is more likely.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Not saying I endorse any of this, just that it’s likely what his lawyers are thinking.

Is there any (sane) reason to believe his lawyers' thinking is relevant?

They do as they are told.

That's part of the reason Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force lawyers fail spectacularly, look like silly dumbasses, and lose their law licenses.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the indictments boosted Trump among Republican and may have insured his nomination. But helped less with other groups. A trial itself would be brutal in bringing up all the evidence. That could hurt as much as a conviction.

[David Nieporent]

Trump got a small but noticeable bump in the primary polls after the first indictment (the Alvin Bragg one), and none from any of the others.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Speaking of flipping, a trial would sort out who is going to say what against whom. We aren't there, yet.

Random example: somebody stands up and says Trump told him to destroy evidence. How's that kind of testimony going to assist Trump with even his basest of base voters?

[tylertusta]

If SCOTUS issues an opinion on the last day of the term (June 20th), then the DC trial will start no earlier than September 16th, though possibly slightly later depending on when the Court issues its mandate.

If the Court issues its opinion before the end of the term, such as on June 6th, then the trial will start no earlier than September 2nd.

Trump's lawyers have nothing to do with that. That's all on the district court.

However, if SCOTUS finds that there may be immunity in play, then the case will bounce back up on appeal, making a 2024 trial utterly impossible.

[Michael P]

Three cheers for the new "Flag Comment" button asking for confirmation! Thank you, Reason web developer person/people.

[Illocust]

Go to the main page. The comments section is about to go pay to play.

[ThePublius]

Not for VC:

"Commenting privileges on all reason.com posts that have comments enabled. That's right, to comment on reason.com posts (except for Volokh Conspiracy blog posts) you'll need to be a Reason Plus subscriber. Recent commenters have been grandfathered in with commenting privileges (but no other Reason Plus benefits) for the time being."

https://reason.com/2024/02/29/were-rolling-out-reason-plus/

[Ed Grinberg]

LOL
Most of the comments on the non-VC posts consist of people brutally taking down the post's author for being stupid and/or un-libertarian. I guess they figured they might as well make money off it. Good luck. (I don't think I'll be subscribing.)

[John F. Carr]

The Attorney General of Massachusetts recently sued the town of Milton for not having enough multi-family housing near its transit stops. The complaint is mostly a press release. There is little doubt about the facts: Milton is not in compliance with state law. The question is the remedy. State law already specifies penalties for noncompliance. The town is not eligible for certain state grants. I say there is no other consequence than the one specified in the law. The Attorney General wants a court order requiring the town to pass a zoning law she likes. Zoning laws are passed by town voters. She wants a judge to order residents to vote a certain way in an election. So much for democracy. A more exciting remedy would be a declaration that the town's zoning ordinance is unenforceable. We had calls for "a day without an immigrant" a decade or two ago. For women to go on strike from domestic work. How about "a year without a zoning law"?

A few other towns are also defying the state on this issue. Most have rezoned to the state's satisfaction.

I do not live near a transit stop and my life will be unaffected by this issue. When I did live near a transit stop the neighborhood already had apartment buildings and multifamily houses.

[ThePublius]

I don't understand the logic or the legality of such a law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is Massachusetts -- legality doesn't matter.

[SimonP]

It might be an open question whether the AG can compel compliance.

But the law is an ordinary limitation on municipal governance. It says that, if your community is served by mass transit, you need to zone for some dense development near the transit, or risk losing state funding. The logic of such a rule is to increase housing supply near transportation networks that can serve families looking for housing options other than single-family housing.

Milton is just a typical NIMBY small town (median house value of $1 million) that doesn't want to alter its "small town" feel notwithstanding having several transit stops through the area.

[John F. Carr]

The logic is, everybody(*) knows there is a housing crisis and a climate crisis. Building more housing near transit stops will increase the housing supply and the new residents will ride trains and buses instead of driving cars. I am skeptical about the last part. I do think a few thousand more housing units in the Boston area will do the area good.

From a libertarian point of view, although the state is abusing municipalities it is helping property owners.

(*) everybody = all influential people in Massachusetts politics

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm waiting for some town to say "Fuck the MBTA" and demand that the town go transit free.

[OtisAH]

Well, you are an idiot and an asshole so…

[bernard11]

You mean, tear out the T stations and tracks?

Yeah, that would be popular.

[Bwaaah]

I'm not saying I'd be for that. But there'd be a whole lot less screeching through town. Just sayin'.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard, you can leave the stations and tracks in place, and just cancel the service. Less expensive even than tearing anything out. Like in Plymouth, MA.

There, high density condo residents adjacent to the station got short shrift. The MBTA shut down service to the station. No more walk to the station, and commute to Boston. It had been the southern terminus to the commuter line along the shore.

They put the new southern terminus in Kingston instead, basically one town to the north. That station is cited in nowheresville. Get off the train and you had better have someone with a car waiting. Otherwise, in winter, your life could be in danger. Not a building in sight in any direction. Just a disused multi-acre parking lot carved out of the woods.

Seems stupid. No idea why they did it. Plymouth is actually a modest little destination resort, previously accessible by rail from Boston. They bill Plymouth Rock as the most visited state park in Massachusetts.

Very few folks use the Kingston station, or can even find it. My son reports that a lot of the time when he rides that commuter line, he rides for free in a car he has almost to himself. No one even shows up to sell him a ticket.

[Ed Grinberg]

Shouldn't the local zoning laws be up to the local voters? Why does the state legislature get to dictate them? Seems wrong...

[SimonP]

Counties, cities, towns, villages, etc., are all creations of state law. They do not have "home rule" unless and only to the extent that state legislatures permit it.

[OtisAH]

“Local zoning laws” derive their authority from state enabling legislation. In Massachusetts that’s Ch. 40A of the General Laws. Municipalities can set the specifics of their codes but only within the framework authorized by the state.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts towns are creations of the state and the state is free to grant and revoke powers. In some other states home rule municipalities are more or less immune from state interference in local affairs.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Why does the state legislature get to dictate them? Seems wrong…"

Might be, but it's what the Tenth Amendment and federalism compel. All powers not given to the federal government belong to the state governments. States can and often do delegate some of their powers to local bodies (home rule), but are always at liberty to withdraw that authority.

Note that this works in equal measure in "red" states, where their "blue" cities will try to raise minimum wages, provide paid leave, and the like, and then get preempted by the state legislature. I trust this similarly "seems wrong" to you. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not live near a transit stop and my life will be unaffected by this issue.

Good for you. Likely a poor reflection with respect to your character, though.

Fortunately, self-centered clingers have a diminished voice in the context of the shaping of modern American progress.

[Frank Drackman]

Last time I rode a bus was 1992 in Guantanamo Cuber, where I was deployed treating Haitian Refugees, first and last time I saw any cases of Filariasis, Malaria, Scrofula (Google it). We didn't have cars, lived in tents, and only way to get to McDonalds, O-Club, Golf Course, or the several Jamaican/Cuban Restaurants was to walk, or take the Gitmo-shuttle, that went up and down the main drag every 30 minutes or so.

Frank

[Don Nico]

John,
How near is "near" a transit stop in MA.

[John F. Carr]

This is the part of the law explaining what the state expects:

(1) An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to any further limitations imposed by section 40 of chapter 131 and title 5 of the state environmental code established pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A; and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 3A(a).

The reference to "title 5" is about wastewater disposal, typically into septic tanks and leach fields in rural areas.

[Don Nico]

Thanks very much John.

[bernard11]

Does "bus station" refer to an ordinary bus stop, or an actual station, with possibly many lines?

[John F. Carr]

An ordinary bus stop. Some have said that the rules require a shelter. I don't think that's accurate.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/mbta-communities-faq-iteration-2-03-10-22/download

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like you have a version of our infamous 'Mt Laurel' decision series vis a vis affordable housing. My sympathies.

Something I have noticed. When legal decisions have roman numerals (like Mt. Laurel I, Mt Laurel II, Mt Laurel III), the taxpayers are gonna lose, big time.

[Nige]

Yeah, they aren't coming for birth control:

https://iowastartingline.com/2024/02/27/a-handful-of-iowa-house-republicans-trying-to-tie-birth-control-to-abortion/

But also:

'There are four other amendments to the bill that would require pharmacists to ask if the person getting the birth control has some connection to a pimp. One of the pimp amendments requires a person accompanying someone to get birth control to fill out a pimp form and pay a $10 tax.'

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Not saying it's a *good* idea, but it seems analogous to people who want cold medicine getting treated like drug addicts.

[Nige]

That's bad, though.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We're agreed! I remember a copaganda program where the heroic police were battling the evil profit-hungry corporations who wanted consumers to have cold medicine without hassle.

[Nige]

I don't remember the cops doing shit about an evil profit-hungry corporation, even in fiction.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You often encounter such cops...in fiction.

[Nige]

Honestly can't remember the last time. If you go the Evil Corporation bad guy route they usually own the cops. Accurately enough.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This strikingly white, tellingly male,
movement conservative blog
with a vanishingly thin academic
veneer has operated for no more than

ONE (1)

day -- a single day -- without
publishing at least one racial
slur; it has published racial
slurs on at least

FOURTEEN (14)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 14 discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not just 14 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs,
as its management seems to
desire.)

This blog is exceeding its
remarkable 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
anyone 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.

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers, by request:

First, a favorite among the lesser-known works, featuring Wayne Perkins on guitar (from the "audition sessions").

Here is another nice one from those sessions, with Harvey Mandel (the "two-hand tapper" and "sultan of sustain") on guitar.

Enjoy these underappreciated tunes and guest guitarists!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Today’s Rolling Stones pointers, by request:"
Whose request?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I forget. You could look it up. The person sometimes comments concerning the Rolling Stones links.

Did you enjoy the tunes?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Well, I was at least one of them.
I have enjoyed the deep cuts and alternate versions of the tunes of the (world's greatest rock and roll) band posted here. Thank you RAK.

[Frank Drackman]

The Brain Scrambled Coach Sandusky apparently has erased these Stones Lyrics from his 240mb Tandy Hard Drive

"Gold Coast slave ship bound for cotton fields
Sold in the market down in New Orleans
Skydog slaver know he's doin' all right
Hear him whip the women, just around midnight"

Frank

[tylertusta]

When the Florida government took back governance of Reedy Creek, I was told that it would be horrible for everybody, that Disney's masterful attorneys would stiff arm the state with a massive bill and then win in Court.

Doesn't seem to be working out that way.

DeSantis even took a moment to dab on Disney yesterday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/desantis-taunts-disney-claims-special-district-takeover-saved-florida-taxpayers-millions.html

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

ON my mind: WS Gilbert's immortal words on leap-day:

CHANT – PIRATE KING.
For some ridiculous reason, to which, however, I’ve no desire to be disloyal,
Some person in authority, I don’t know who, very likely the Astronomer Royal,
Has decided that, although for such a beastly month as February, twenty-eight days as a rule are plenty,
One year in every four his days shall be reckoned as nine and twenty.
Through some singular coincidence – I shouldn’t be surprised if it were owing to the agency of an ill-natured fairy –
You are the victim of this clumsy arrangement, having been born in leap year, on the twenty-ninth of February;
And so, by a simple arithmetical process, you’ll easily discover,
That though you’ve lived twenty-one years, yet, if we go by birthdays, you’re only five and a little bit over!
RUTH. and KING. Ha! ha! ha! ha! Ho! ho! ho! ho!
FRED. Dear me!
Let’s see! (counting on fingers)
Yes, yes; with yours my figures do agree!
ALL. Ha! ha! ha! ho! ho! ho! ho!
FRED. (more amused than any) How quaint the ways of Paradox!
At common sense she gaily mocks!
Though counting in the usual way,
Years twenty-one I’ve been alive,
Yet, reckoning by my natal day,
I am a little boy of five!
RUTH and KING. He is a little boy of five! Ha! ha! ha!
ALL. A paradox, a paradox,
A most ingenious paradox!
Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!, etc.
(RUTH and KING throw themselves back on seats, exhausted with laughter.)
FRED. Upon my word, this is most curious – most absurdly whimsical. Five-and-a-quarter! No one would think it to look at me!
RUTH. You are glad now, I’ll be bound, that you spared us. You would never have forgiven yourself when you discovered that you had killed two of your comrades.
FRED. My comrades?
KING. (rises) I’m afraid you don’t appreciate the delicacy of your position: You were apprenticed to us –
FRED. Until I reached my twenty-first year.
KING. No, until you reached your twenty-first birthday (producing document), and, going by birthdays, you are as yet only five-and-a-quarter.
FRED. You don’t mean to say you are going to hold me to that?
KING. No, we merely remind you of the fact, and leave the rest to your sense of duty.
RUTH. Your sense of duty!
FRED. (wildly) Don’t put it on that footing! As I was merciful to you just now, be merciful to me! I implore you not to insist on the letter of your bond just as the cup of happiness is at my lips!
RUTH. We insist on nothing; we content ourselves with pointing out to you your duty.
KING. Your duty!
FRED. (after a pause) Well, you have appealed to my sense of duty, and my duty is only too clear. I abhor your infamous calling; I shudder at the thought that I have ever been mixed up with it; but duty is before all – at any price I will do my duty.
KING. Bravely spoken! Come, you are one of us once more.

Here's Angela Lansbury et al.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WTSlr_WRgo

[Aunt Teefah]

"More than 100 Palestinians have been killed and some 700 others wounded after Israeli troops opened fire on hundreds waiting for food aid southwest of Gaza City, health officials say, as the besieged enclave faces an unprecedented hunger crisis."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/29/dozens-killed-injured-by-israeli-fire-in-gaza-while-collecting-food-aid

The Israeli military is now using food aid to lure Palestinian civilians to be shot for sport. Their depravity truly knows no bounds. Yet Biden continues to provide these war criminals with unqualified support. Utterly reprehensible.

[ThePublius]

"The Gaza Ministry of Health said..."

This should be your hint.

The Gaza Ministry of Health is an arm of Hamas. Why do you believe anything they say?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If it occurred as described, ThePublius, would you object?

Do you understand that developments such as this imperil -- for good and ample reason -- American support for Israel (especially with respect to educated, modern, successful, reasoning, and younger Americans) and therefore endanger Israel's existence?

Keep pushing, clingers. Then, try not to whine and whimper quite so much about the predictable consequences imposed by better Americans.

[ThePublius]

Of course I object to the slaughter of civilians! Jeez! I just don't believe anything coming out of the chronically lying Gaza Ministry of Health.

[Nige]

Down below you blithely *accept* the slaughter of civlians.

[ThePublius]

I don't "accept" it as in gleeful acceptance, and I don't condone the intentional slaughter of civilians. I recognize that in war there will be collateral damage that includes civilian deaths. And, it's unfortunate, but the nature of war.

Plus, I recognize that many so-called innocent civilians in Gaza are actually either combatants themselves, or strong supporters and sympathizers. And for them I feel less bad.

[Nige]

You don't have to be openly gleeful. You accept it. Then you go on to say they deserve it anyway.

[Krayt]

Obviously Israel bombed a crowded hospital courtyard. They do that kind of thing.

[Nige]

How many hospitals have been left standing, or at least functioning?

[Theendoftheleft]

You haven’t thought this through, AIDS. (Let’s not kid ourselves: you don’t have the brainpower to do so.) What happens when a critical mass of American Hebrews finally comes to feel completely alienated, delegitimized, and physically endangered in America?

1. Well, for one thing, key ones know where all the bodies are buried.

2. But, more importantly, having learned to hold their tongues for centuries in the ME and in Europe for fear of violent repercussions for merely speaking the truth (including in compelled debates, as happened from time to time), the American Hebrews’ fear of speaking out and getting tortured or killed for it will finally become overshadowed by their fear for their immediate safety and their socioeconomic standing.

So, many of them will respond by promulgating the truth—widely. Empirically verified, scientifically grounded and/or well-academically-reseached truth. By hook or by crook, the truth will be presented across the American media, unis, courts, etc. This will be very uncomfortable for Americans, and the world, to say the least.

It will include irrefutable info about the incongruence of certain cultures. It will involve irrefutably demonstrating to the masses how and why certain religious systems have always been, and shall always be, imperialist apartheid orders. It will involve showing the large-scale cultural appropriation, of systemic misogyny, of racism and slavery-promoting, values, etc., undertaken by adherents of such faiths.

A smile comes to my face just imagining a Blue Team judge having to confront these issues, publicly. Understanding, to some extent or other, that merely talking about such matters, let alone having the gall to presume secular American JURISDICTION (as an infidel or dhimmi) over such topics will place his or her family into mortal danger. ????

It will additionally involve showing the American masses why many advocates for ‘decolonization’ have REALLY come to live in the United States. It will involve showing HOW and WHY ‘decolonization’ discourses are nothing more than a power grab by those who want all the benefits of the ‘white’ settler colony at the expense of traditional Americans.

It will also involve an explanation of what the world order is really about…

Suffice it to say that doing these things, speaking the truth thus, will, in the least, entail that your efforts at inclusion and diversity, let alone a global order, will take take a massive, and probably irreparable, hit. Your progressive-'liberal' political ideology probably won't survive it---not that it would otherwise do so anyway.

Carry on, AIDS, till your American betters finally come to understand what your lot has really been conspiring to achieve and hold you accountable in ways you never thought possible on United States soil.

[Nige]

'It will include irrefutable info about the incongruence of certain cultures. It will involve irrefutably demonstrating to the masses how and why certain religious systems have always been, and shall always be, imperialist apartheid orders. It will involve showing the large-scale cultural appropriation, of systemic misogyny, of racism and slavery-promoting, values, etc., undertaken by adherents of such faiths.'

You're just hanging around waiting for the 'American Hebrew'' to reveal this 'truth?' When Islamophobia is one of the more acceptable forms of bigotry in the US and features most or all of these 'truths' routinely? What pathetic contortion is going on here? One crowd holds the Jews respinsible for the Great Replacement, you're here waiting for the Jews to, what, thwart it by saying things people on the right say every day?

[David Nieporent]

As an American Hebrew™, I will reveal these glorious truths to you, Nige. But in the way of my kind, only if you pay me.

[Nige]

Do I have to pay extra for the 'irrefutable' package?

[Theendoftheleft]

'forms of bigotry...'

This very (dubious) classification is part of the reason why you're going to lose. 🙂

[Theendoftheleft]

It's also part of the reason why groups, such as Labour in the UK, are so desperate to have Islamophobia misclassified as a form of racism. Absent the pseudo-biological basis/component, it just becomes a question of assessing a belief system's merits and demerits, congruence or lack thereof with other value systems, etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/27/what-is-islamophobia-and-why-does-tory-government-not-accept-definition

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/18/councils-islamophobia-definition-government-free-speech/

[Nige]

No, it’s just that racism is a shorthand for various forms of bigotry. Not all that complicated. You haven't realy clarified what role the 'American Hebrew' is playing in your, er, theory? and why and how they are suddenly going to produce something 'irrefutable' that will definitively clinch it.

[Theendoftheleft]

No, it really isn't: it's a category mistake. And when that's point out, including to government officials such as Labour officials, it's just repeatedly denied.

Nice, try, though, Ingsoc.

[Nige]

It’s a fairly belaboured and well-worn defence of Islamophobia at this point, hearkening back to when a person couldn’t be homophobic because they weren’t ‘scared’ of gay people.

Still mute on the 'American Hebrew' thing?

[Theendoftheleft]

It really is. Islam is a belief system, with adherents from any ethnicity, tribe, or ‘racial’ group. Your bald denial of that fact is moronic.

Your analogy also fails: the claimed ‘phobia’ label presents matters as if they were predicated upon fear-based ignorance, as opposed to say, recognition that evolutionary duds hardwired to same-sex drives aren’t equal or worthy of being held as being in equal esteem.

The American Hebrews point made earlier already intimated the answer you now seek. Figure it out for yourself, you superficial political theorist ideologue now housed in a sinecure for a dying ideology. (Did you cry when the Koch brothers cut off funding for Haley?)

You’re a waste of time, Ingsoc.

[Nige]

'Islam is a belief system'

Well, so is your bigotry.

'as opposed to say, recognition that evolutionary duds hardwired to same-sex drives aren’t equal or worthy of being held as being in equal esteem.'

That's homophobia, squire.

'Figure it out for yourself'

That's just comical. You can't even articulate it yourself.

[Theendoftheleft]

Moving the goalposts, yeah (from racism to bigotry on Islam)? Good work---and thanks for validating my point.

And for both cases, it's just circular reasoning to assert that either of those cases constitutes bigotry (ignorance-based-or-driven hatred or fear). Indeed, that's a core part of the reason why your messaging is failing globally.

You should have studied basic logic instead of doing superficial political theory work.

[Nige]

Is it? I think it’ll be down structural advantages and various forms of voter supression like gerrymandering that benefit and protect the Republican minority, also their billionaire donors and a cowed/slavish/disembowelled media.

[John F. Carr]

There have clearly been many deaths in Gaza these past few months. Do you have a better source for a body count? Israel doesn't publish its own figures. The government of Israel has been using reports from Gaza in internal discussions, without formally agreeing with the numbers in public statements.

[ThePublius]

There's no good source, no. And body count is not a good metric of the prosecution of this war. Of course civilians will be killed. That's unfortunate, but inevitable, given the place. And, many so-called civilians are actually sympathizers and combatants. The goal is to eradicate Hamas. The 'civilians' should help, don't you agree? I haven't heard of any kind of Gazan resistance effort. That speaks volumes.

If the IDF dropped handguns on Gaza on little parachutes, as the Allies did in France in WWII, the 'Liberty Gun,' who do you think would be shot with them, Hamas soldiers or IDF forces?

[Nige]

'The ‘civilians’ should help, don’t you agree? I haven’t heard of any kind of Gazan resistance effort. That speaks volumes.'

Any Gazans who fight back against the people who are killing them by the thousand, who 'resist' you might say, are presumably automatically Hamas.

[ThePublius]

By resistance I meant Gazans who would resist Hamas. Analogous to people of Nazi occupied countries fighting internally against their occupiers.

You are, by definition, not an innocent civilian if you support Hamas in any way.

[Nige]

But why would they resist Hamas? It's the Israelis who are slaughtering them and destroying their homes.

[David Nieporent]

But why would they resist Hamas? It’s the Israelis who are slaughtering them and destroying their homes.

Like, spontaneously? Israel just woke up on October 8, 2023 and said, "You know, there's nothing good on TV; it's three years until the next World Cup. We're bored. What can we do? I know, let's bomb Gaza!"

Or, maybe, was it a response to Hamas's actions?

[Nige]

Not to be glib, but: cool motive, still the slaughter of thousands.

[David Nieporent]

Irrelevant to the point, which is why Gazans might be mad at Hamas. Or, rather, not irrelevant, but cutting the other way: that the consequences of Hamas's actions were so bad is why Gazans might be extra mad at Hamas.

[Nige]

They might well be mad at Hamas - has anyone asked them? - but they're likely madder at the people killing thousands of them, destroying their homes and talking about driving them out to wander the wilderness, all for crimes that they had nothing to do with.

[David Nieporent]

The issue isn't whether the body count figures themselves are accurate. The issue is whether the description of events that led to those body counts are accurate, as well as the characterization of the people in the body counts as civilian or Hamas.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Why do you believe anything they say?"

Because they have an established track record of being correct about these things, as even the western press has recognized. See, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry

Regardless, there is no question that the incident happened. It's been independently verified by multiple sources, and video evidence is starting to emerge. Israel used food aid trucks to lure Palestinian civilians and shoot them. If it turns out that a *mere* 600 were shot rather than the 700 initially reported, you may see that as some sort of vindication, but I doubt many would agree with you.

[David Nieporent]

Because they have an established track record of being correct about these things, as even the western press has recognized. See, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry

Again: the issue typically isn't casualty figures in terms of numbers of dead people. (Although as someone here just alluded to, we had the fake hospital bombing where the casualty figures were made up.) The issue is who killed any given group of people, and whether those people were combatants or civilians.

Regardless, there is no question that the incident happened. It’s been independently verified by multiple sources,

That people were killed, maybe. Your ridiculous characterization, no.

[Aunt Teefah]

"whether those people were combatants or civilians."

David Nieporent thinks 700 people starving Gazans trying to get some flour to survive might have all been Hamas. (Just asking questions, of course).

The depravity of these people is truly without parallel.

[Commenter_XY]

AT....Maybe wait for the facts to come out? I would like to see if this is a case where what we initially thought happened, didn't (like that hospital bombing). The IDF has surveillance footage, it will be made public.

[David Nieporent]

Aunt Teefah is very good at the petitio principii fallacy. Not so good at reading, though.

[grb]

Well, here’s the earliest set of facts : Food trucks arrived and the crowd rushed them. The Israelis started firing and some dead/wounded had bullet wounds, but the majority of deaths were from the truck drivers plowing through the crowd in fear after the shooting started.

There is no evidence the Israeli soldiers started shooting out of anything but panic over the unruly mob. There are enough objections to make over Israel’s handling of the war without a spurious accusation otherwise.

[Nige]

Like starving people to death.

[ThePublius]

Did the Allies provide "humanitarian aid" to the German populace during WWII? Including not just food, but fuel, medical supplies, etc.?

[Nige]

Ah, yes, the case for starving children to death. It's not WWII any more.

[grb]

It's kinda telling that defender's of Israel's war tactics must repeatedly go back to WWII, where entire cities were incinerated and 60 million people died. It was easily the most grotesque horror ever seen in human history, but for Israel's defenders?

It's their ethical guide.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This. And not just this, but usually they end up reduced to saying the IDF's actions under Netanyahu's leadership are no worse than Germany's. I mean, the irony is palpable.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/middleeast/gaza-food-truck-deaths-israel-wwk-intl/index.html

You offer no rebuttal whatsoever, and instead just dispute the source. Maybe you should pull your head out of wherever it's buried.

[Frank Drackman]

Murdering innocent women and children has consequences.

[Aunt Teefah]

For Israel, the consequence of murdering innocent women and children is an additional $15 billion in handouts from the US, plus protection from the craven cheerleader for genocide Joe Biden.

[Bwaaah]

"craven cheerleader for genocide Joe Biden"

You probably say that with a straight face.

[Aunt Teefah]

Bi, actually.

[John F. Carr]

Conspirator Paul Cassell has blogged here about the deal between the Justice Department and Boeing. The government agreed not to prosecute Boeing over fraudulent conduct related to regulatory approval of the 737 Max. Boeing agreed to try not to kill so many people in the future. The dropping of charges was expected to be a mere formality, a paper to be rubber stamped by a judge. The Fifth Circuit has since ruled that families of 737 crash victims can object to any request to dismiss charges.

In this week's news, the Justice Department is investigating whether the missing bolts in the door plug of the Alaska Airlines 737 suggest Boeing is not living up to its promise to stay within the law and cooperate with investigations. It is possible that the government could proceed with criminal charges against Boeing. Unlikely. More likely than a year ago.

I predict the government will decide Boeing is too big to fail.

[Krayt]

Too big to fail? Also, leaving the world with (everything except Boeing) will increase or decrease safety?

[John F. Carr]

The U.S. government will not want to cede the airliner market to Airbus. The U.S. military will not want the inconvenience of having its main supplier of manned military aircraft barred from government contracts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If that's the case, it would illustrate why we need a robust Victims' Rights Act.

[John F. Carr]

The Albama House has approved by a large margin a bill that reads in relevant part:

no action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving goods or services related to in vitro fertilization.

The bill goes beyond declaring embryos not to be children. They are not property either. If the bill becomes law an IVF provider, but not an uninvolved third party, may negligently or even intentionally destroy embryos without consequence.

In my opinion, stored embryos should be considered personal property. They cost thousands of dollars to create.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was told that I was exaggerating the Republicans’ abandonment of the prolife cause. Now one legislative house in a Red state shows that corporate interests supersede respect for life.

And the leading Republican Presidential candidate wants to split the baby on abortion.

I was told (by a Democrat, I believe) that I was exaggerating the Republicans’ lack of principle. I don’t think I am.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Now one legislative house in a Red state shows that corporate interests supersede respect for life."

Why did you suppose it took so long to get Roe overturned, despite Republican Presidents putting one Justice after another onto the Court? I tell people that the Republican leadership aren't representative of Republican voters, and they laugh at me. But it's true.

[David Nieporent]

Why did you suppose it took so long to get Roe overturned, despite Republican Presidents putting one Justice after another onto the Court? I tell people that the Republican leadership aren’t representative of Republican voters, and they laugh at me. But it’s true.

Why do you suppose you keep repeating this even though it's empirically wrong?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Right, the leadership of both parties are a faithful reflection of the views of most party members. They're not a heterogenous coalition with factions having incompatible goals, and the leadership certainly has no interests separate from the interests of their voters!

[David Nieporent]

Yes, that's true.

But that wasn't what I was saying was empirically wrong. What I was saying was empirically wrong was Brett's conspiracy theory that Roe hadn't been overturned before now because the GOP leadership didn't actually want to overturn it and were somehow sabotaging the attempt to do so. It's just wrong. The GOP has consistently appointed pro-life justices for thirty years.
Indeed, for forty years, with 1½ exceptions. (The 1 full exception was Souter. The ½ was Kennedy, in that he was actually the third choice for that seat; Bork was the first choice and he'd have been a vote to overturn Roe.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Roe stayed on the books until a disruptive president (who was hated by Republican leadership) put two anti-Roe justices on the Court, tipping the balance after nearly half a century.

Cui bono? Running against abortion, while managing to garner at least some support from pro-abortion voters because the anti-abortion laws you pass will be struck down by the courts which keep not overruling Roe…you’d have to be a reverse paranoiac to see this as innocent behavior.

“pro-life justices”

No, the anti-Roe justices are not pro-life. They’re Stephen Douglas judges who don’t care whether abortion is voted up or voted down.

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : “Roe stayed on the books until a disruptive president (who was hated by Republican leadership) put two anti-Roe justices on the Court”

1. You’re entirely missing DN’s point : Any GOP president would have appointed Justices off the same list. The “disruptive” shtick you’re selling was (and is) irrelevant. Senator McConnell had more to do with Roe falling than Trump, and last I heard he’s a very non-disruptive squish.

2. You’re swallowing Brett’s ludicrous talking point whole. Policy-wise, Trump was little different than G.W. Bush or dozens of mainstream GOP leaders. Brett just finds him excitingly “disruptive” in a thrilling & sexy way because of his entertainment value. Nothing thrills MAGA-world more than watching their man-child leader wipe his lard ass on any civic or political institution that comes within reach. So disruptive! Such knee-slapping fun!

[David Nieporent]

Policy-wise, Trump was little different than G.W. Bush or dozens of mainstream GOP leaders.

Woah. I don't agree with that at all, unless you're limiting your comments to judicial appointments in general and Roe in particular. Otherwise, policywise Trump was a massive shift from GWB and other (formerly) mainstream GOP leaders.

[grb]

Well, judges and Justices were the opening point, and I don’t want to suggest agreement beyond that.

However, I’m curious : In what policy ways was Trump substantially different than (say) W Bush. There was the same economic policy. The same deregulation policy. The same wild spending on top of tax cuts. The same enviromental policies. The same take on social issues in general. The same kind of appointees to cabinet posts and other government positions.

I admit Trump’s extravagant theatrics sometimes merged into policy at the edges, creating differences in, say, immigration and tariffs. But I don’t see this as caused by any divergence in core values. No doubt W could never be so gleefully cruel with the former or mindlessly loosey-goosey with the latter.

And there were things Trump did that W Bush might have thought too irresponsible, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, dropping out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and (effectively) voiding the agreement with Iran. But who knows? Trump bungling Iranian mistake almost exactly matches W’s with North Korea.

The anti-NATO thing? Definitely Trump’s alone.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I admit Trump’s extravagant theatrics sometimes merged into policy at the edges, creating differences in, say, immigration and tariffs. But I don’t see this as caused by any divergence in core values."

The policies are what's observable. The core values have to be inferred. If not from the policies, from what?

[grb]

Brett : “The policies are what’s observable.”

Fair enuff, but is that it? Does Trump’s cartoon cruelty on illegal immigration or insipid tariff policy really provide the distinction between “rino” W and “true right-wing leader” Trump? Because aside from the latter’s reality-TV performance art, their isn’t much more there there.

One commenter here – maybe even you – made the case for W as squish by sneering at his “Points of Light” talk. Which would be typical and just proves my point: Empty rhetoric vs WWE-style theatrics being the substantive difference between a mealy-mouth leader who sold the Right out, and a great conservative hero who led them out of the desert.

Or – to sum up – Trump entertains them more.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Did Brett just suggest Trump has any core political values? His core values are whatever is good for Donald J. Trump. If you haven't figured that out by now, god help you.

[David Nieporent]

The policies are what’s observable. The core values have to be inferred. If not from the policies, from what?

Trump is literally the only person about whom Brett can form no conclusions of any sort about his thoughts based on things he has said.

[David Nieporent]

One commenter here – maybe even you – made the case for W as squish by sneering at his “Points of Light” talk. Which would be typical

Typical in that Trumpkins get all their facts wrong? "Points of Light" was George Herbert Walker Bush, not GWB.

[David Nieporent]

Did Brett just suggest Trump has any core political values? His core values are whatever is good for Donald J. Trump. If you haven’t figured that out by now, god help you.

The only thing Trump cares about is himself — not even his family; he's a true sociopath. But while he has no firmly held values or principles relating to most issues that animate American politics — not guns, not abortion or gay rights or those sorts of things, not climate change, not the size of government, etc. — he does have at least one core belief that has never wavered over the years: trade is zero-sum.

[grb]

David Nieporent : “Typical in that Trumpkins get all their facts wrong?”

Unfortunately, in this case the mistake was mine. The comment about W. Bush existed, I’m pretty sure it was by Brett himself, and it did depend entirely on sneering at an empty piece of W rhetoric.

But it was my snafu in transposing the “points of light” of the father for the “compassionate conservatism” of the son. (I must always remember not to trust my memory – which is a quandary if you think about it)

[not guilty]

When Bush I nominated John Tower to be Defense Secretary in 1989, I recall jokes about 1,000 pints of Lite.

[grb]

not guilty : “When Bush I nominated John Tower to be Defense Secretary in 1989, I recall jokes about 1,000 pints of Lite”

I have a few standard examples of DC at its most surrealistic worse, such as the ugly farce about Terri Schiavo or Brett Kavanaugh’s doing the Foster suicide probe as a partisan frat boy prank. But the confirmation hearing of John Tower was unique in being both ugly and nonpartisan. It seems everybody loathed him and the knives were gleefully out. (I expect the same thing would happen if Ted Cruz was nominated to a post requiring confirmation)

[David Nieporent]

Roe stayed on the books until a disruptive president (who was hated by Republican leadership) put two anti-Roe justices on the Court, tipping the balance after nearly half a century.

1) Trump put three anti-Roe justices on the Court.
2) Yes, but that had nothing to do with any unusual — let alone unique — qualities or preferences of Trump. It wasn't because Trump wanted to do that and Bush didn't. It was because Trump had the opportunity and Bush didn't. And that opportunity had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump; credit/blame goes to (1) Mitch McConnell for holding Scalia's seat open for a year for Gorsuch, and (2) RBG's ego or foolishness, for not retiring when Obama was president, leaving her to die while Trump was president.

Every single one of the 17 people who ran for the GOP nomination in 2016 would've done exactly the same thing vis-à-vis SCOTUS.

[Sarcastr0]

The decision may have only struck down Roe but saying the Justices weren’t pro life is some weird telepathy.

As is your uniparty push when Dobbs is like the counterexample of that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“your uniparty push”

By this time, you and your Republican opponents are simply scrambling for the spoils of office and other government benefits while trying to pretend it’s about some high principle.

And if you’re willing to assert that the Dobbs majority are *personally* pro-life, then you’re the would-be telepath; you’re looking at alleged subjective feelings rather than objective acts. Your own party leaders used to pretend to be *personally* prolife.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"if you’re willing to assert that the Dobbs majority are *personally* pro-life"

That's a weird response.

"No, the anti-Roe justices are not pro-life. They’re Stephen Douglas judges who don’t care whether abortion is voted up or voted down."

I get that is your take. And it's fair right up to the point you say "who don't care whether abortion is voted up or voted down."

I don't think it takes telepathy to be 95%+ sure that Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would each vote (and maybe have voted) for abortion laws (in the sense of their vote for a politician was based on significant part on promising anti-abortion laws). While there are some people out there who's interest really is simply in "letting the states decide", those 6 aren't them. At least, it is highly unlikely given their politics and their religion, at minimum.

*And I am assuming people are using the "pro-life" term here to mean, generally, opposition to other people getting abortions. I agree it is a rather Orwellian term for that lot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Looking at a politician - or judge's - stance should be based on objective actions, not personal *feelings* the person is presumed to have.

Certainly, *you* think the anti-Roe justices are acting purely on an activist basis, regardless of the law. You deny that they have a principled commitment to federalism. Then why don't they simply enact their "personal views" and declare a right not to be aborted?

Far better to look at what they actually do - not caring whether abortion is voted up or voted down.

[not guilty]

As I have said before, hetero married couples with enough discretionary income to afford IVF are highly likely to vote Republicans. The Alabama legislature would be loath to piss them off.

[ThePublius]

"hetero married couples with enough discretionary income to afford IVF are highly likely to vote Republicans"

That's such made up nonsense! So, Republicans are rich, and Democrats are not? Ha, ha, ha.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So, Republicans are rich, and Democrats are not?

You're really bad at English comprehension. That's not what his words said. At all.

[grb]

You need to understand this didn’t slip by the Alabama legislature in the first place. The question was raised during the original 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.”

Thus the true heart of the anti-abortion movement: Disgust over the effrontery of women. The transubstantiation that makes a “baby” out of a just-fertilized egg only works with a women too irresponsible to avoid the consequences of her sluttish behavior and so selfish she wants the easy way out. The same egg in the lab doesn’t cut it, baby-wise.

The Right’s pristine abortion logic can’t do it alone. This is because almost no one takes that logic completely seriously, the Right least of all. IVF doesn’t count and abortion is “murder” despite no one making the slightest pretend that’s the case. A study found 40% of anti-Abortion believers would help a friend or family member get the procedure if asked. No doubt that friend, sister, daughter, aunt or mother isn’t the irresponsible selfish harlot all those other women must be.

But consider : Women nearly dying from an ectopic pregnancy for the sake of pious appearance doesn’t bother the pro-life crowd. The case of a ten-year-old rape victim was greeted with sneers, disbelief, and a petty vindictive campain against the doctor who reported it. They have no understanding or empathy for the tens of thousands of women whose lives are blighted by state-control of their bodies. To all this they have dead hearts & an ethics completely rotted-thru

But IVF? That’s thrown them into a panic. These are truly sick f**ks.

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm, I seem to remember a Civil War fought over a similar belief.

[Krayt]

If the embryos are used for their intended purpose, to place a number of them in hopes one survives, necessarily some, most will die as they will not implant. This is the scientific design of the process.

Is this the intent of the legislature, to provide a roundabout way to squash IVF?

[grb]

Don't know. But last I heard the Alabama bill protecting IVF was supposed to automatically void-out a few months after the next election. It's sponser discribed it as a "temporary fix".

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress blocked a bill protecting IVF there.

[OtisAH]

“The bill goes beyond declaring embryos not to be children. They are not property either.”

I don’t think it does either of those things. I think it just says that “children” destroyed as part of IVF cannot be a cause of civil or criminal action.

[Voize]

Which means the courts can't be used to enforce any rights with respect to them.

An amendment was offered in the House that would retain liability for intentional acts causing death of the embryo, but it was not adopted. As a result, will an IVF patient have any recourse if the clinic takes their money and immediately destroys the eggs?

[OtisAH]

No, I don’t think it means that clients have no recourse under any and all statutes. The ruling is particular to a specific wrongful law and the bill appears to be a response to that specifically. My error in my post was not being more specific by attaching the wrongful death provision to “no cause of criminal or civil action”

If the clinic takes their money, destroys all of the eggs/embryos, and the folks never get their baby? My guess is they’d still have recourse under fraud statutes or some other civil action regarding contracts. But they could not get relief or recompense under Alabama’s “wrongful death of children” law.

[Voize]

The text of the bill provides immunity “notwithstanding any provision of law” for “any action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo” in the context of IVF services. John F. Carr characterized this as eliminating property rights in the embryo. I think he did so correctly, even if a breach of contract cause of action remains viable.

[OtisAH]

Maybe that’s correct then. It wouldn’t be the first time MAGA tried passing a law they hadn’t spent much time thinking about. One that will always stay with me was an attempt in AL or MS way back when to ban monies going to “madrassas” (anybody else remember when “madrassas” was a thing?). It was going so well, too, until someone pointed out the law necessarily bans funds from going to any religious school.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly.

OtisAH, I think you are putting too much weight on the reason they are passing the law (which is to undo the practical effects of the court decision) without realizing that the motivating political force behind the law doesn't mean the Alabama....Alabama....legislature managed to quickly draft a coherent piece of legislation that did what they wanted it to do and only what they wanted it to do. The text of the statute eliminates liability for destruction of an IVF embryo. Period. This doesn't restore the status quo, it now exempts IVF embryos from laws based in either personhood or property rights which was not the case prior to the statute.

(And, of course, the Republicans can't really say in the new law that IVF embryos are property, because that won't stand. They can't even say they aren't people, because that's what a significant part of the right wants. They just want to be able to kill "innocent people"** in order to have a go at IVF. So, it would be hard to craft a law undoing this decision and avoiding saying politically unpopular true things about embryos but not otherwise doing violence to the law.)

**The "pro-life" crowd, as this IVF in Alabama episode shows, definitely think it is absolutely painfully obvious that a fertilized egg is an actual human, an innocent person, right up until they or a family member have a personal interest in killing it, then not so much.

[tylertusta]

I forgot that the FL case for Trump had a status conference tomorrow until I saw it pop up this evening.

Jack Smith suggests that the May trial date get moved to July 8th. Trump reiterates his request to have the FL trial in 2025, but suggests August 12th as a compromise date.

If the Court chooses the August date, that's a decent sign that neither the FL nor the DC trials will happen until after the election.

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon is deeply in the tank for Donald Trump. I would predict that she will schedule the trial for August 12, not with intent that the trial will realistically begin that day, but to block Judge Tanya Chutkan from scheduling an August or September trial after SCOTUS denies Trump's request for immunity.

[tylertusta]

This is almost certainly a problem of Smith’s own making. Had he fulfilled his discovery obligations instead of trying to manipulate Cannon’s docket (to get his DC case to trial first) he wouldn’t be in this boat.

Besides, these cases are complex and difficult. Even when you have a cooperative Judge who is willing to throw caution in the wind and put her thumb on the scale in favor of the government (Chutkan), things will happen outside of that Judge’s control that will cause the case to get moved back.

Like Trump’s immunity appeal. That upended Smith's desired timetable even with a cooperative district court judge.

Trump hasn’t even filed one in Cannon’s case yet, but if he does, then that case will get paused as well.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has filed a motion in Florida purportedly seeking dismissal of Counts 1 through 32 on the basis of presidential immunity. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.324.0.pdf Unfortunately for Trump, the gravamen of the 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) offenses alleged in those counts relates solely to actions taken after Trump left office as president -- willfully retaining national defense documents and failing to deliver them to the National Archivist.

Trump's motion to dismiss is frivolous on its face, and because it states no colorable claim to immunity, any denial thereof should not be subject to an interlocutory appeal.

[tylertusta]

Thanks, I didn't realize he asked for immunity on counts 1-32.

any denial thereof should not be subject to an interlocutory appeal.

"Should."

Heh. We'll see, won't we?

[not guilty]

An interlocutory appeal and stay of proceedings in a criminal case requires a non-frivolous showing of entitlement to relief. Federal courts' treatment of interlocutory appeals where a district court has denied a defendant's double jeopardy claim are instructive.

An interlocutory appeal requires a colorable double jeopardy claim. The appealability of a double jeopardy claim depends upon its being at least "colorable," Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 322 (1984); United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 862 (1978). "Frivolous claims of former jeopardy" may be weeded out by summary procedures. Richardson, at 322, quoting Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 n.8 (1977).

Numerous circuit courts have ruled that a district court may retain jurisdiction to proceed with a trial, despite the pendency of a defendant's interlocutory double jeopardy appeal, where the appeal is found to be frivolous. United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 539 (2d Cir. 1989) (collecting cases). In the Eleventh Circuit, an appeal from the denial of a frivolous double jeopardy motion does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial, if the district court has found the motion to be frivolous. United States v. Dunbar, 611 F.2d 985, 986 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc). [All decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued before September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981).]

Since Counts 1 through 32 of the Florida indictment do not allege criminal conduct occurring while Donald Trump was President, his claim of entitlement to presidential immunity is plainly frivolous.

[tylertusta]

Come on, NG. Your opinion of Judge Cannon has been made every opportunity you've had to give it. Your opinion of her is probably as low as mine is for Judge Chutkan.

As I said. "Should."

Do you really think that Judge Cannon will consider it to be frivolous?

[Theendoftheleft]

Some questions about New York Executive Law 63(12) and the recent Trump case.

1. Are any or all of the following violations of Due Process? If not, why not?

I. There are no clearly established criteria of application for the provision’s robust definition. (It is equitable-ish fraud.)

II. The trial judge, Engoron, also clearly erred in his citation to elements of such fraud (Re Essner, on page 75/92 of the judgment).

III. Causes 2-7 required the plaintiff-AG to prove that Trump intended to violate various NY penal laws. But the AG seemingly only needed to meet the lower standard here (balance of probabilities)

2. If any or all of the above violate Due Process, could Trump seek an injunction against NY from seeking the disgorged funds pursuant to Ex Parte Young (1908)?

3. 63(12) empowers a court to make an order for restitution and damages. The judge in this case awarded disgorgement. If, with Liu v SEC (2020), disgorgement means restitution, then it seems as though NY state cannot claim (at least in terms of disgorgement) anything more than the wrongdoer’s net profits. Indeed, the judgment states the well-known, long-established principle that disgorgement is not a penalty; it merely seeks to deprive the party of an ill-gotten gain. (Judgment on page 82/92, citing People v Ernst & Young NY’s 1rst dept 2014. See also Liu v SEC (2020).)

Yet, in this case, the banks basically all testified that they’d done their own homework and would have given Trump the loans at those same rates regardless. Accordingly, if Trump would have received the same rates irrespective of his own filings, then there are no net profits from fraud here. Hence, should the disgorgement have been $0?

4. Liu v SEC (2020) also states that disgorgement, for US federal law at least, must be awarded to the victims. Could Trump challenge the idea that the state, as opposed to the banks, is a bona fide victim, i.e., it dubious state-as-a-market-host theory? (After all, the bank could have lent out some of that money to other borrowers instead of to Trump, on the state's own theory.) If so, could the banks then disclaim the disgorgement award, letting Trump completely off the hook?

5. NY 63(12) states the following: ‘Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law’. State Finance law § 4 subdivision 11.a concerns depositing the disgorged funds into either the state treasury or some fund, unless one of the things in subdivision 11b applies. For example, 11.b(2) states: ‘(2) moneys to be distributed solely or exclusively as a payment of damages or restitution to individuals or entities that were specifically injured or harmed by the defendant’s or settling party’s conduct and that are identified in, or can be identified by the terms of, the relevant judgment, agreement to settle, assurance of discontinuance, or relevant instrument resolving the claim or cause of action…’.

Again, could it nonetheless be argued that any disgorged funds (assuming arguendo it is $450 million and not $0) must instead be given to the banks, as they are the victims in any normal sense of the term? If so, could the victim banks disclaim the disgorgement, thereby permitting Trump to keep his money?

6. In an act of sheer folly, the First Congress entitled the federal government become an equitable plaintiff in private equitable actions. It did so in The Judiciary Act of 1789 ch 20 § 11: ‘… at common law or in equity… and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners…’. (Now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018). See Aditya Bamzai and Sam Bray, ‘Debs and the Federal Equity Power’ (2022) at 705 Footnote 30.

Was doing so constitutional?

More importantly, what is the NY state constitutional grounds for entitling and empowering the state AG to serve as an equitable plaintiff to seek disgorgement remedies FOR the state? (Is it Section 30 of the NY Constitution?) Is there a cogent basis for deeming 63(12) unconstitutional under state and/or US Constitutional grounds—at least to the extent that it empowers the state to claim disgorgement qua plaintiff in circumstances where there is a more obvious private law plaintiff?

[Brett Bellmore]

"If so, could the banks then disclaim the disgorgement award, letting Trump completely off the hook?"

Sure, if they wanted the AG's cross hairs to shift over to them, they could do that. "We're going to refuse this huge sum of money, despite the fact doing so will piss off the state AG who has already demonstrated a willingness to engage in legal vendettas."; Think that's what any bank is going to say?

[Theendoftheleft]

So, Hochul's lie would be exposed immediately thereafter by the banks' actions? The AG would utilise 63(10) against all those banks too?

I find that doubtful, but am open changing my mind about it. What are your reasons for thinking the AG would actually do so, or something comparable, rather than just be pissed off? (After all, the banks had already testified in Trump's favour in court.)

[grb]

Brett : “Sure, if they wanted the AG’s cross hairs to shift over to them…”

Why should they do anything for Trump? I’m sure you can come up with a better answer than your typical dark Bellmorian muttering. Remember : He tried to repeatedly cheat them all. Read the factual findings and it was fraud in a systematic and very large way. No doubt you and theend burn incense in your homes before a image of The Great Orange Leader, but I doubt most bank CEOs are so inclined.

Let’s take Deutsche Bank as an example. In 2005, the Commercial Divison of the bank lent Trump more than $500 million for a building project in Chicago. Wary of the repeated deadbeat, they insisted he personally guaranteed $40 million of it, meaning the bank could come after his personal assets if he defaulted.

By 2008, the skyscraper was mostly built. But with the economy sagging, Mr. Trump struggled to sell hundreds of condominium units and the bulk of the loan was due. So Trump said he didn’t have to pay, claiming the economic downturn was an “Act of God”. With a conman’s brazenness, he actually sued DB because they wanted the debt paid. Per Trump, that was worth three billion in damages.

After that, Deutsche Bank’s Commercial Divison wouldn’t touch the sleazy huckster with a ten foot pole. But another division, Personal Loans, stepped in. Needless to say, Trump tried to defraud them as well. Why should Deutsche care about Trump?

[Theendoftheleft]

‘Why should they do anything for Trump?’.

What do you think the banks in question did in THIS very case, in court? What’d they say outside of court?

If you think what Trump did properly constituted 63(12) fraud, how, then, could it not be the case that scores of thousands of others who do business in NY also violated this law and so warrant being subject to AG action? The expert testimony that what was done, including such filings typically being rife with errors, basically constituting STANDARD practice, was neither rebutted nor even really denied.

Granted that you’re evil, GRB, surely even you can see (even if you won’t admit) why anti-Trump people in more civilized countries cannot believe Hochul’s or the NY AG’s claims here, yeah? These are the political machinations of a banana republic.

[grb]

Theendoftheleft : “…could it not be the case that scores of thousands of others who do business in NY also violated this law…”

1. I seriously doubt it. Those “scores of thousands” don’t have a lifelong record of incessant lying and criminality. Trump does. The factual record documented grossly extravagant & absurd fraud. Maybe one business in twenty thousand comes anywhere near that level of abuse. But what do you expect? Trump is a supposed billionaire who used his fake charity to pay little Don Jr’s seven dollar Boy Scout fee. That’s the kind of mindset you see with street corner drug hustlers. They’ll walk an extra mile to earn a crooked dollar over a straight one. They prefer being criminals. So does Trump.

2. Granted you’re a wild-eyed spittle-spraying ranting fool, much of your diatribes are safely ignored (or publicly ridiculed).

[Theendoftheleft]

1. Your doubts are garbage. The Executive Law, if you bothered to even read it, requires repeated actions. The factual record was accompanied by unrebutted testimony that such errors and claims are standardly incorporated into such such filings by people. Your characterisations of Trump’s particularly as being ‘grossly extravagant & absurd’ are thus irrelevant. What matters is how many OTHER people do the same for the law in question to be equally applicable to them.

That’s an empirical question, about which you know nothing.

2. You offer superficial, disingenuous responses to my comments that consistently fail to touch the merits and belie your ignorance—even about such incontestable things such as Turkey’s illegal occupation of Cyprus. So, it’s safe to say that YOUR judgment about ignoring me is for the best because YOU’RE a wholly uninformed airhead who knows nothing about the world. Your judgment, your opinions, and your input are garbage.

The relatively new nomenclature for Americans such as yourself is ‘Sanctoramus’. It is applied for very good reasons.

[grb]

Sigh. It’s hard to deal with someone who can’t reason his way out of a wet paper bag. Take your dull-witted incomprehension over my point on Israel and Turkey : YOU asked why the Israeli case was different from Cyprus. I told you.

Yet you keep coming back and saying I don’t recognize the Turkish occupation is not internationally recognized as legal. Aparently you’re too lackbrained dense to see I never challenged or denied that. It was merely extraneous to my point.

[Theendoftheleft]

Your assertion completely missed the forest for the trees; and your second paragraph confirms that you don't understand MY point.

God, you're dense.

[David Nieporent]

The expert testimony that what was done, including such filings typically being rife with errors, basically constituting STANDARD practice, was neither rebutted nor even really denied.

(a) The "expert" testimony was 100% conclusory. "I review lots of filings and find lots of errors" really shouldn't even be admissible, but NY courts are a lot more lax than federal courts about expert testimony. But in any case, it didn't need to be rebutted because that doesn't actually prove anything about Donald Trump's conduct.
(b) "Errors" do not come within the ambit of 63(12).
(c) You can't have it both ways. You can't cite the guy who says that these are inadvertent errors and then say that lots of other people should be prosecuted.
(d) Sorry, Putin's bitch, but you are not spokesperson for "anti-Trump people in [so-called] more civilized countries." In fact, the vast majority of them think Trump is being treated too leniently. (Source: the same ass you pulled your claims out of.)

[Theendoftheleft]

b. Never said that it does.

c. Sure you can. The expert said these were common errors. The judge nevertheless denied that, stating that these things qualified as fraud. So, if the judge is correct, which he needn’t be, then those common practices are widespread fraud.

How about this: write out your proposition using first-order symbolic logic.

d. All the evidence points to YOU being Putin’s bitch. YOU are the one who supports the comprehensive undermining of American national security via mass illegal immigration. How many of Putin’s agents (or Xi’s, or terrorists) have entered the USA because of the retarded policy YOU promote? Your projection won’t work on me. YOU advance Putin’s undermining of America with your express propaganda.

Admit it: you’re a traitor to the United States and promote its national security being undermined through mass illegal immigration. You thereby promote sedition and subversion of the United States government.

[Theendoftheleft]

* merely errors, ones that are common. The judge denied the former part (only), deeming them to qualify as fraud per 63(12).

[David Nieporent]

c. Sure you can. The expert said these were common errors. The judge nevertheless denied that, stating that these things qualified as fraud. So, if the judge is correct, which he needn’t be, then those common practices are widespread fraud.

No; the expert said (purely conclusorily) that errors in filings are common. He did not and could not testify that Trump's lies were errors.

[Theendoftheleft]

You aren't actually contradicting me. The errors in filings are common. Those sorts of errors are common. If some or many of those errors are nonetheless lies (so that the expert was WRONG in classifying them as being mere errors), or otherwise fall under the provisions expansive definition of fraud, then many more people ought to be subject to the provision.

[David Nieporent]

YOU are the one who supports the comprehensive undermining of American national security via mass illegal immigration.

Immigration is good for the U.S. Blood-and-soil Europeans don't understand that, but actual Americans do. Of course, Putin just wants you to spread division.

How many of Putin’s agents (or Xi’s, or terrorists) have entered the USA because of the retarded policy YOU promote?

None. That would be an incredibly stupid and inefficient way of getting foreign agents into the country. Countries with actual resources would have no need whatsoever to do such a thing. And there's not a single documented case of a terrorist attack in the U.S. from anyone who snuck across the border.

[Theendoftheleft]

Question begging about whether it is done or not, not whether it would be the most efficient means.

How do you think you're contradicting me by stating that there's no document TERRORIST attack in the USA based on a border smuggler? Further, 1/4 of your illegals are visa overstays and others who just land in the country.

You know who would be wholly motivated to downplay or lie about this obvious national security threat? An agent for Putin or Xi. Which of them do you work for? Why are you promote the subversion of the United States and its national security? Are you not a traitor?

[Sarcastr0]

Speculative blackmail or irrational persecution explains all facts and findings that appear to be against Trump.

When you have a fact-free way to discard all facts you don't care for, that's no longer a hot take, that's your own world.
How you can go this unfalsifiable rout and think you have a modicum of critical thinking left is beyond me.

[Theendoftheleft]

Discarding facts, like the banks' own testimony?

You still haven't read the case, yeah? And you certainly don't even care how 63(12) works.

Go back to Russia.

[David Nieporent]

I like to procrastinate as much as anyone by posting here, but even I'm not willing to take the time to respond to your, "I have a plethora of half-baked notions about the American legal system; prove to me why each of them is wrong." If you make an affirmative case for one or more of these theories, maybe I'd be willing to respond to it.

But #2 invites a quick response, so I'll give it: look into Rooker-Feldman.

[Theendoftheleft]

They were genuine questions, so your framing is (unsurprisingly) disingenuous; it’s even impossible to parse some of them as being anything other than as interrogatories.

Perhaps if you put aside your visceral hatred of DT, and calm your emotions (given your anger and sadness about the current demise of your long-held ideology), you might be able to read things in a new light.

[Nige]

https://www.jezebel.com/145-gop-members-of-congress-ask-supreme-court-to-slash-access-to-the-abortion-pill

[Nige]

Police state:

https://www.404media.co/police-bodycam-shows-sheriff-kootenai-idaho-hunting-for-obscene-books-at-library/

[grb]

All I can say is this : Thank God I never wore a body cam when I went looking for dirty books.

[Nige]

It's a Porky's remake.

[grb]

On the bright side, the good thing about a body cam is it leaves both hands free. Know the sailing adage, "One hand for yourself and one for the ship"? It's something similar to that......

[Nige]

Rest assured those worried about AI being woke - this is AI being fundamentally anti-woke as fuck. Stealing water, devouring power, contributing to climate change, all to produce a picture of black Nazis.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/ai-water-climate-microsoft/677602/?gift=iWa_iB9lkw4UuiWbIbrWGSgF7Etgr_BhmgDCCZVB-xA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

[not guilty]

In Fulton County, Mike Roman’s counsel John Merchant (who is himself presumably porking his co-counsel) is focusing on the appearance of conflict rather than the existence of any actual conflict of interest. He even quoted Justice Potter Stewart’s infamous “I know it when I see it” line from Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964). It is perhaps significant that Justice Stewart's quotation in full is "But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." [Emphasis added.]

The defense has nothing of substance.

[not guilty]

Steve Sadow is hammering on (parts of) Terrence Bradley's testimony. If wonder. If Mr. Sadow had an important decision to make, and his only information came from Mr. Bradley, would he take that information at face value, or would he seek out additional information?

[not guilty]

The third defense lawyer to argue is yapping and yammering about Fani Willis's talk to the black church -- the content of which is not in evidence and which the judge at the outset of the hearing said he didn't want to hear about.

This grandstanding is for the benefit of Trumpworld, not to persuade the judge deciding the motion.

[tylertusta]

Abbate was awful. Why did they put him on there?

[grb]

There were Right-types in this forum convinced Hunter Biden testifying before Comer's hack committee meant their day had arrived. They would be ushered into the Fields of Elysium, Biden-scandal-wise.

Well, the reality proved pretty much the opposite. The transcripts are out (the Dems demanded Comer release them quickly to give him less time to lie), and Hunter made them look like a fool. Apparently there's no video, which is a shame. There was one exchange with Gaetz that would have been sweet to watch.

Remember, a close door session was supposedly the one chance the Republicans had to avoid an embarassing debacle. Public testimony was expected to be much worse. Given that, start making the popcorn. The open testimony will surely be something to see.

[OtisAH]

My guess is talk of a public hearing is just posturing. Comer, Jordan, et al., are stupid, but they’re not suicidal. Be pretty funny if they hold it though.

[Theendoftheleft]

Here’s another REAL question for the horde here, especially since you’re in favour of loading up your military with third worlders (because your domestics know better than to enlist).

I have a friend who is a professor at a reasonable uni in New York. Over the last year, this professor has been regularly harassed by a particular student regarding the latter’s grades. The student demanded that he be given an A (even though he earned a B-). Eventually, he made an explicit death threat, in writing, if his grade was not boosted thus; he said he would kill her if she did not give him an A.

The prof reported it to the university, who just covered it up.

The student is from central Asia. He is on a student visa AND is a member of the US military, with the promise of citizenship if he remains in it.

My professor friend is terrified of this student and sincerely believes his threats.

How, then, can I report this to the US military, and not just to the NY police, in a way that least places my friend into danger? Everything my professor friend has reported suggests that this student is a threat to others, including his fellow soldiers.

Serious question. Straight up.

[David Nieporent]

I don't believe your story, including but not limited to the fact that it is almost impossible to be here on a student visa and be in the military. But if there were an actual death threat in writing, then reporting to the police, immediately, would be the appropriate thing to do.

[Theendoftheleft]

OK.

Is there also a way to get the uni on the hook because it has a copy of the written death threat (email) but just sat on it?