Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Arizona prosecutors have reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas to multiple people linked to Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign in an investigation of the fake elector scheme. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/06/donald-trump-2020-election-probe-arizona-00145377

It's about time. State court indictments have been brought regarding similar schemes in Georgia, Michigan and Nevada.

[Kazinski]

Trump's got one thing going for him in Arizona, even in the cities its hard to find a jury pool that's not at least 50-50 Trump, sure some of the outlying counties with heavier Hispanic or Indian populations can be worse for him, but I doubt that's where they will try him if it gets that far.

It will be a walk in the park compared to a DC or Atlanta jury.

[not guilty]

The Politico article that I linked to does not identify Donald Trump as a prospective defendant.

[Kazinski]

Still I assume the defendants were Trump supporters.

[not guilty]

Most likely, yes. Donald Trump could conceivably have some exposure under a conspiracy to defraud theory, with his call to then-House Speaker Rusty Bowers providing the nexus to the Arizona fake electors. Who knows who the Attorney General is focusing on, though?

[Frank Drackman]

It won't be an Atlanta jury

[SimonP]

Unlike MAGA toads like yourself, Ted, jurors generally can't close their eyes and shut their ears against the evidence. They'll be sitting in a room with nothing else to do but pay attention. They won't be able to ask Newsmax what they should think about it.

[zztop8970]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/today-in-history-oj-simpson-was-found-not-guilty-in-trial-of-the-century-15-mind-blowing-facts/articleshow/104129793.cms

[Riva]

You’re really kind of sad and bitter, aren’t you? TDS has done more damage to better leftist hacks than you. Get help.

[SimonP]

I dunno. I have a good job and plenty of money, I live in one of the best cities in the world, I have a stable relationship with a man I can't get enough of, I'm fit and healthy, I'm smart and articulate.

Apart from letting myself get distracted throughout the day by MAGA toads who are actively and openly conspiring to take as much of that away as they can, I feel like my life is pretty great, actually.

[Riva]

I understand leftists lie. Russia, Charlottesville, the list goes on. If you couldn’t lie, you’d really have nothing to say. But why are you always so angry?

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, you're the one that comes in so loaded for bear you routinely attack people who agree with you.

[Riva]

Hard to imagine you would expect anything but ridicule given the substance of your comments, “my dude.” So, just don’t respond to my comments. Stick with Twitter/X or wherever you like to corrupt the comment streams.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry I'm freaking you out with my colloquialisms, man.

So, just don’t respond to my comments
You seem angry

[Riva]

I can see having an original thought is also beyond your capabilities, man.

[SimonP]

There's nothing wrong with being angry. You motherfuckers are trying to ruin the country. The anger is deserved.

[Riva]

Would be nice to see some anger directed at the gross abuse of prosecutorial and government power by democrats. Liberals used to be against that, until they realized they could use the powers against their political opponents.

[SimonP]

Would be nice if someone on the other side produced any evidence they stood for anything other than running interference for a con man who tried to throw away our democracy.

[Riva]

Speaking out against government abuses is running interference for the victim? Trying to channel Lavrentiy Beria, are we? But yeah, I guess if opposing the government abusers constitutes "running interference," I admit I am.

[Joe_dallas]

Kaz – the 50/50 jury pool analogy is valid. The DC jury pool is so heavily democrat party, that Trump getting a fair trial in DC is near impossible.

Its the only reason Mann won his suit in DC and the reason the HRC would never be convicted in DC in spite of clear violation of law with her unsecured server.

[JasonT20]

If Democratic Party voters in DC would be inherently biased against Trump such that he can’t get a fair trial there, wouldn’t it follow that any Trump voters on a jury would also be biased in his favor such that a mistrial or jury nullification acquittal is guaranteed even if the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming?

What you are saying implies that jury trials of polarizing political figures can never be unbiased. It really is showing very little faith in jury trials in general. That is because it is always possible, even likely that a defendant will be greatly liked or disliked by at least some jurors by the time closing arguments are made.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason - Yes there are situations where the jury pool is so heavily biased that getting a fair trial (for either the prosecution or the defendant ) is near impossible.
As I stated, HRC would never be found guilty in DC in spite of clear violations of the law. A large percentage of the DC population was ready to convict Trump of crimes in 2016 (before any crimes committed).
There are areas of the country , that would never convict trump of any crime, even with undisputed video evidence.

Same reason that mann prevailed in his defamation trial. The jury pool was heavily biased.

In sum, Kaz's analogy was spot on

[Sarcastr0]

1. Voting Democratic does not make you too biased to serve on a jury.
2. We have demonstrably proof that voting for Trump does not mean you can't find against members of the Trump administration when serving on a jury.
3. You disagreeing with the result in the Mann trial does not mean your go-to should be jury bias.

Basically, you don't believe in our justice system, and you don't offer a lot of evidence for why.

[David Nieporent]

It's true epistemic closure:

1. Any investigation of Trump is illegitimate because Dems/Deep State/etc.
2. Any prosecution of Trump is illegitimate, for the same reasons.
3. Any conviction of Trump is illegitimate, because black jurors.
4. Any judicial rulings against Trump are illegitimate, because of biased judges.
5. Any negative news coverage of Trump is illegitimate, because Dems/Deep State/liberal news media.
6. Any election loss by Trump is illegitimate, because voter fraud.

Did I miss any?

[Armchair]

7. The TDS is strong with you David.

[Sarcastr0]

You realize this is just whining, right?

[Theendoftheleft]

You realize your constant calls for open borders to subvert the United States and to create a large window for the country’s enemies to gain entrance is treasonous, right?

[Nige]

You realise that the only person calling for open borders is the libertarian blogger, right? What am I saying of course you do.

[David Nieporent]

You realize your constant calls for open borders to subvert the United States and to create a large window for the country’s enemies to gain entrance is treasonous, right?

Degenerate Europeans still don't understand treason. Or immigration. Which strengthens, not subverts, the United States.

[Nige]

I don't think he's European. He's probably British.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ouch!

[Theendoftheleft]

Mass illegal immigration of unskilled illiterates subverts and undermines America. It does not strengthen it.

Promoting a country’s subversion, especially if the modes help the country’s enemies more easily enter the country, is a form of treason.

I did end up telling Queen A where I'm from, indirectly.

[bernard11]

Wow, Armchair.

You really showed him. DMN probably won't post for a few weeks, to give himself time to recover from your devastating attack.

What a useless jackass you are, Armchair.

[Riva]

You forgot to mention that President Trump is immune from prosecution for acts within the scope of his official duties.

[David Nieporent]

You still aren't smart enough to understand that there is no "President Trump," and are sick enough to think that a president is a king. Former presidents are private citizens no different than former bus drivers and have no immunity for anything.

[Riva]

Calm down and stop with that nonsense. The common courtesy of addressing former presidents as president is really beyond contestation. Frankly, the real reason you don’t use “President” is because you just can’t bring yourself to be courteous to President Trump. Move on to another lie. And your bus driver analogy is probably the worst argument I’ve read since the DC circuit court opinion.

[bernard11]

A large percentage of the DC population was ready to convict Trump of crimes in 2016 (before any crimes committed).

Evidence?

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

No,that is illogical. If I am a Black Catholic Trumpie gay libertarian trans, why would Trumpie go to the top of the pile.
This betrays the very thinking you are attacking.

[not guilty]

"The DC jury pool is so heavily democrat party, that Trump getting a fair trial in DC is near impossible."

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with you. That court opined in United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc):

The second major prop for the dissent's argument that a change of venue should have been granted is, oddly, the District of Columbia's voting record in the past two presidential elections. Not without reason, the relevance of this information seems to have escaped the prosecution, the defendants, their counsel, and the trial court. Nevertheless, undeterred by the absence of any reference to voting results anywhere in the record or the appellate briefs, the dissent introduces the subject with a quotation from United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1950), aff'd, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951). It need only be said that the reader will search Dennis in vain for any intimation that a community's voting patterns are at all pertinent to venue.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 58 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
1. Voting Democratic does not make you too biased to serve on a jury.

No voting democrat doesnt make you too biased to sit on a jury. However, the TDS that many commentators display on this blog is very similar to the trump hatefest that exists in DC.

not guilty 55 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“The DC jury pool is so heavily democrat party, that Trump getting a fair trial in DC is near impossible.”

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with you. That court opined in United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc):

Not guilty -

The fact pattern in haldeman doesnt come close to the fact pattern in the Trump case. The trump hatefest in the DC democrat party is vastly greater than the Nixon hatefast that existed in the 1970's

[not guilty]

How old are you, Joe_Dallas? I remember the Nixon era. Feelings both for and against Nixon were monumental. The biggest difference is that then there were still some principled Republicans who, however belatedly, recognized that Nixon was a slimy criminal. The maggots supporting Donald Trump will never acknowledge that about their hero, no matter how strong the evidence against him.

[EscherEnigma]

Oddly enough, Republican politicians (and Trump's former employees) frequently come out as having been secretly anti-Trump after they announce retirement plans.

[OtisAH]

I think you’re referring to intermittent reports on the murmurings of anonymous republicans in private. If that’s the case, none have come out as of this date, let alone “frequently.” They’re still just occasionally muttering “concerns” anonymously and in private.

[JasonT20]

Actual Trump fans among Republican politicians are probably fewer than it seems. Too many just value their own positions and career more than they care about having any integrity.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty - the issue is whether a unbiased jury panel could be seated with the population that makes up the DC jury Pool. The case you cited was Halderman, not Nixon which is a significant difference which means your comparison with Trump v Nixon is only marginally relevant as a comparison. While Nixon was loathed by most of the DC population, there was not the talk of impeachment or the imposition of the 25th amendment before he took office nor was there anything similar to the russian hoax at the start of the nixon adminstration.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The "russian hoax" was proven time and time again that Russia meddled in our election specifically to the benefit of Trump.

Are you capable of telling the truth? It doesn't seem like any of you conservatives have that ability anymore.

[Theendoftheleft]

Funny how, we, in the rest of the West know not only about the criminality of the Blue teamers during Nixon's era, but also about Clinton's emails and magnetising her hard drives, let alone Russiagate, in addition to Biden and his son's dealings in China and Ukraine.

When will American Blue teamers admit that Hilary broke the law and that Biden is a plutocrat?

[Nige]

People in the rest of the West have certainly heard those things, because right-wing freaks everywhere parrot them as talking points endlessly.

[Theendoftheleft]

The Guardian and Der Spiegel have said what, explicitly, about those topics, Ingsoc? 🙂

Legal illiterates who advocate for totalitarian sex and gender ideologies, let alone totalitarian speech and thought control efforts regarding them, are in no position to call others 'freaks'. It is 99 percent of the world, from the left to the right, from the atheist to the theist, who are in solidarity about this against you. They will win. You will lose.

[Sarcastr0]

No voting democrat doesnt make you too biased to sit on a jury. However, the TDS that many commentators display
So you contradict yourself, and then change your goalposts to make a weak-ass attack this commentariat. Pretty lame.

The trump hatefest
Or our justice system is functioning fine, and there’s just a Trump persecution complex that wants to work the refs.

[Theendoftheleft]

No one in civilized countries believes that if Trump weren't running for office these trials would have been initiated. There was no reason to wait till the past year to commence them.

Further, they're not just poorly run, but complete jokes---especially the NY 63(12) case, where the governor lied about its limited application to just Trump for the specified fraud concerns with filings.

Your system isn't working fine. It's being weaponized for political goals. It's disgraceful, and your attempts to defend it reflect poorly on you.

[David Nieporent]

You only speak for Putin's Russia, which is not a civilized country. The actual residents of Europe who hold their own opinions honestly all disagree with you.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nope, not even close. Want to bet I know more European judges and legal academics than you?

You can keep projecting with your Putin charges all you want, but it cannot provide cover for the fact that you want a state of affairs that permits his, XI's and other enemy agents to more easily be able to infiltrate the United States. You're a traitor and a breaker of your oath to uphold the US Constitution and the laws of the land.

[Riva]

Yes, by all means, let's try and find a biased jury. I wouldn't be a true banana republic farce without a hostile and biased jury.

[Michael Ejercito]

Fake electors, as in what?

People actually having fake ID's purpoting to be the duly appointed electors and infiltrating the electoral college?

[Nige]

Wow, following the story this long and you're gladly confessing to massive ignorance?

[MaddogEngineer]

Wow, I hope this isn't another situation (like insurrection) where people like you just assume guilt without any particulars.

I haven't payed much attention to Arizona, because all this is background static, to know whether it has any applicable perjury/fraud law governing electors (like Michigan apparently).

Just because prospective Trump electors may have been organizing to cast "provisional" ballots doesn't mean they committed any crime. With all the Trump derangement out there, I fully expected a motivated Democrat prosecutor to try and make a case, legit or otherwise. Because the walls are always closing in.

[Nige]

No, I just assume that by now anyone taking an interest would be familiar with the indictments and isn't being tediously obtuse and is therefore proudly ignorant.

[Theendoftheleft]

You cannot really have assumed that, because YOU yourself know nothing about American law and have never make a sincere effort to learn about these cases or indictments in detail.

[Nige]

I have generally assumed that when Trump-culters talk around the indictments and invoke their own ignorance and vague handwaving about 'the law' and bannana republics that they pretty much know he's guilty.

[Theendoftheleft]

Yes, we know you're a buffoon. It helps to explain why you aren't even remotely curious to read the cases, let alone why you would make asinine assumptions like the one you just stated.

[JasonT20]

Just because prospective Trump electors may have been organizing to cast “provisional” ballots doesn’t mean they committed any crime.

As Nige said, it is easy to find out the reason why what they did got them charged with a crime. For at least one state, the document the Trump slate of electors signed explicitly said that their votes were contingent upon something changing, such as new court rulings that would 'decertify' Biden's win of the state. The ones getting indicted didn't do that at all, and the documents also weren't just kept somewhere 'just in case'. They were presented as the certified electoral votes of the state. And that was plainly false.

[not guilty]

IIRC putative Trump electors in Pennsylvania and New Mexico submitted slates providing that their status was contingent upon the outcome of litigation in their states. I doubt that they committed a crime by doing so. That is a far different matter from falsely claiming to be electors who were actually selected. Both the false claim and the conspiracy to do so are criminal offenses.

[John F. Carr]

Three groups of people. Some people came up with a plan to submit alternate electoral votes. Some people signed paperwork saying they had been duly elected. Some people put those papers in the mail to Washington.

In Georgia some people in the second group successfully argued gullibility – they didn't think the papers would be mailed unless the state's election results were overturned. The big unknown for me is who in the first group intended for fake electoral votes to be sent to Washington without any disclaimer.

[Frank Drackman]

What's that definition of Insanity again?

[Kazinski]

Speaking of state court actions against Trump. I think Ashleigh Merchant is courting sanctions for piling on.

She testified today in a state senate hearing, and presented White House visitors logs showing Fani Willis and Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickenson met in the Whitehouse with Kamala Harris before the indictments were handed down last summer.

Screenshot of the Whitehouse logs in the embedded video:
https://www.newsweek.com/fani-willis-kamala-harris-indict-donald-trump-attorney-ashleigh-merchant-1876573

I suppose I should leave it there, and wait for someone to explain to me that they could have been meeting about anything and it doesn’t prove anything. And I will concede it doesn’t prove what they talked about, the only thing it proves is that Fani Willis is a liar because she testified under oath she never went to the White House (even worse she made the statement while her lawyer was trying to object and before the judge could rule).

Embedded video of her statement is in the tweet.
https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1765515842991673721?t=zLzmOwHP_z_8MSmAuVTb3Q&s=19

So just one question, how many times does Willis have to lie before it's admitted that she has a conflict?

[not guilty]

How does Ms. Willis arguably being contradicted post-hearing (and not by countervailing testimony subject to cross) on a collateral matter evince a conflict of interest? The time to stop singing it and start bringing is, you know, the evidentiary hearing on the defense motions.

[Kazinski]

So that's interesting, but you have a lot more experience than I do. I, somewhat naively, kind of always thought of Judges having one common attribute they hate to be lied to in their own courts, and frankly being made a fool of.

I didn't realize that there is an implied olly olly oxen free after the evidence is submitted to the judge and any thing that got past the judge or opposing counsel was good, even if he hadn't ruled.yet.

Ill have to file that one away in case I ever need it.

[not guilty]

An attorney who deliberately lies to the court while testifying under oath should face a professional disciplinary sanction (after being afforded due process with regard thereto). This is not an attorney disciplinary proceeding.

Disqualification of counsel is an extraordinary remedy which must be based only on evidence in the record. Judge McAfee here afforded defense counsel here very broad latitude to develop the evidentiary record on their motions. Once the record is closed, however, it is closed.

[Kazinski]

I think we both know if he sees evidence of something that could affect his decision he can reopen the record. In fact he already said if he decides he does need to look at the phone records he will bring everyone back into court to get them admitted.

But personally I don't think he needs any more evidence, and he's not going to let Fani, et al, keep trying to make a fool out of him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, at some point right-wing insistence to reopen the record, ad Benghazi, ad Laptop, etc., has to run into resistance.

Losing; losing; reporter-dodging exit dashes; losing; persecution cum exoneration, but laced with prejudice; losing again; testimony-offered/testimony-repudiated; then more losing; lying foreign-agent witnesses locked up; antics; "I demand to re-open the record," may seem like a method, but people run out of patience.

[Harvey Mosley]

"An attorney who deliberately lies to the court while testifying under oath should face a professional disciplinary sanction (after being afforded due process with regard thereto). This is not an attorney disciplinary proceeding."

Shouldn't said attorney also face perjury charges? Can a convicted perjurer act as an attorney? Should an attorney charged with perjury be allowed to act as an attorney until their guilt or non-guilt is established?

[not guilty]

Whether an attorney who has allegedly willfully or knowingly lied to the court while testifying under oath as to a material matter should face perjury charges is the province of the grand jury. Most states will suspend the law license of an attorney convicted of perjury, pending a hearing comporting with procedural process guaranties as to what permanent sanction is appropriate.

"Should an attorney charged with perjury be allowed to act as an attorney until their guilt or non-guilt is established?"

A criminal defense colleague of mine from Knoxville said it best: "I have never gone to court with a guilty client. I have left a few of them there."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A better question is: Why does Trump want a more competent prosecutor?

[Kazinski]

First of all he doesn't want someone blatantly out to get him.

Second he wants to delay the trial until after Nov.

[tylertusta]

The Georgia RICO case wasn't going to trial before November.

This case is truly massive. If it started today, it wouldn't go to a jury until 2026.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump is entitled to a prosecutor not out to get him?

[tylertusta]

As a criminal defendant, Trump is entitled to an unconflicted prosecutor.

The fact that Trump may enjoy other benefits is a bonus. But it's not Trump's fault that Fani "Smasher" Willis dipped her pen in the company ink.

[not guilty]

Uh, Nathan Wade has the pen. Fani Willis has the inkwell.

[tylertusta]

How do you know what they're packing underneath?

[not guilty]

Well, I don't claim to have personal knowledge. But I think the circumstantial evidence permits reasonable inferences as to who has what anatomical structures.

[tylertusta]

Uh huh. Riiiiiiiight.

[Commenter_XY]

You two are f'img hilarious. Pen and inkwell. Lawyers have a warped sense of humor. I love it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Substitute ethical for competent.

[santamonica811]

1. I agree with you that it looks bad. She looks dishonest.
2. I think this is an example of bad lawyering, on the part of the questioner. (I’m assuming that he knew or strongly suspected that she, in fact, *had* been to the White House.) She can now claim that her answer was in regards to Visit One, and her visit to the White House was on Visit Two. (Or vice versa.) If I had that info in my hip pocket, I would have asked her:
a. On your first visit to DC, did you go to the White House?
b. On your second visit to DC, did you go to the White House.
(This was in front of a judge, of course. But if there had been a jury, I would have then added something along the lines of…)
c. “As someone who does not work at the White House, it’s fair to say, isn’t it, that a visit to the White House would be incredibly memorable for you? That such a visit, within the past few years, is something that you would never forget doing, correct?”

In other words, I would anticipate how a person might try to weasel out, if caught in a lie, and would pin her in–I’d try to eliminate any real or feigned confusion.

Yeah, hindsight is 20-20. But isn’t that what internet comment boards are for? ????

[Kazinski]

I don't doubt you are a cracker jack lawyer SM, but nobody is good enough to fix this.

But I think he handled it just right, Spending more time on it would just raise a red flag and allow her to fix her testimony right then and there with little harm, if she suspected he knew and had proof.

Now its just more Chinese water torture, drip, drip, drip.

Now its on the record, and she had plenty of time to "remember" and try to limit the damage.

[santamonica811]

Based on my years of experience (I have a ton of experience with untruthful and/or forgetful witnesses, although I'm not sure if that experience makes me a great lawyer), I'll respectfully disagree with you.

Logic and common sense tells us that if you ask too many questions, you'll raise that red flag and a witness will suddenly remember. Nope. That NEVER happens. (Okay, I'm sure it happens some times.) I've observed that witnesses who are lying *always* think to themselves: "I've told a good tale, and there's no way that the other side has found evidence that I've just lied on the stand. This dumb lawyer is asking me 5 different questions about Subject X, and this just gives me 5 chances to emphatically declare that X just didn't happen. I am so much smarter than this dumb guy."

I've seen expert witnesses with doctorates do this; I've seen intellectual morons do this. People just have this psychological need to show off how smart they are. (It's why we can charge clients $550/hour to tell them before court or a deposition, "If you don't know, DON'T GUESS. Just answer, "I don't know the answer to that question."

On the other hand; there are some times with truly forgetful witnesses, who get asked multiple questions about a topic, and they answer, No. No. No, No. And then, when asked a slightly different question, suddenly say, "Wait a minute, now I remember...the answer is 'Yes.' When you asked about my dinner, it reminded me that I did see a Broadway musical on that trip to NY." [It's call refreshing one's recollection, and it's an actual thing.]

Okay, I'm really digressing. Sorry.

[Kazinski]

Obviously Fani is sure that she is the smartest one in that room, and untouchable besides.

But still, you'd expect more from a prosecutor. and former judge.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, ok I have to ask.

When you said: I’ve observed that witnesses who are lying *always* think to themselves: “I’ve told a good tale, and there’s no way that the other side has found evidence that I’ve just lied on the stand. This dumb lawyer is asking me 5 different questions about Subject X, and this just gives me 5 chances to emphatically declare that X just didn’t happen. I am so much smarter than this dumb guy.”

I wonder: When you are the opposing lawyer, and you catch the witness in a lie, and you're about to expose them as a moron and a liar....what is the emotional feeling? What are you thinking? Is it just strictly business, or do you sometimes enjoy it because the lying weasel deserves to get called out?

Can you tell in a courtroom when opposing counsel is about to destroy a witness for lying? Is there a 'tell' like in poker?

Just curious about this.

[santamonica811]

Fair question. For me, personally, it totally depends on the person testifying. If it’s my impression that they are a bad person, then I admit to taking some measure of joy when they are exposed as a liar. (Even when it’s my client who is being exposed. I’ll still do my damnedest to win the hearing or case for them. But I’m perfectly content to do my best and still lose when I think I have a bad dude as a client. And I have lots of them. Along the same line; I feel like shit when I totally understand why the person is not telling the truth, but I have to impeach his/her testimony.)

I feel this same way when politicians lie about having affairs. I feel bad for them, because OF COURSE they lie about this (assuming they are married). The only time I don’t feel bad is when they (be it Republican or Democrat) ran on a platform of marital fidelity. Or, on a platform of anti-gay, and they’ve been caught in a same-sex relationship. Just b/c of the obvious hypocrisy.

Your last question is very interesting. You probably know the old saw, for courtroom lawyers: “Don’t ask a witness a question when you don’t already know what their answer will be.” But, in real life, there are lots of times you have no idea, because you were not allowed access to that witness. (That’s certainly true in non-criminal child abuse cases here in California, in Dependency Court.) So, there have been tons of times when I’ve seen a lawyer question my client, and her questions tell me, “Oh shit, she knows about X, and she’s getting ready to spring the trap.”

Except . . . the trap is never sprung. She looked like she had the info, but she didn’t. And, of course, there are probably a hundred times when it looked like I was *about* to ask a hostile witness the perfect question, but since I was really flying by the seat of my pants, I didn’t ask it, or even remotely think of asking that.

If I were a criminal lawyer, I could probably tell war stories after an acquittal, due to the Double Jeopardy protections. But my client could be cleared in a Dep. Ct matter and the Dept. of Children & Family Services could file identical charges the next day (if new information came to light) . . . so we’re never allowed to share our “Thank God you didn’t ask my client about X or Z.” stories. In my courthouse; attorneys really don’t share good stories, and I think that’s the reason why.

[Commenter_XY]

Thank you for such a great answer. I know that VC is a legal blog, and dry legal discussions of the law are the rule here (lol), but in addition to being intensely curious about the law itself, I also am interested in the emotional aspects of the profession. Here is the best way I can say it.

The law is a collection of black letters on as page, but it is lawyers (people like you, NG, LTG, etc) who apply it. And that is a very different thing because people are not so clear cut, like black letters on a page. I personally think the human dimension is more interesting. But that is just me. That is why I asked the question(s).

Thanks again for the straightforward and illuminating answer.

[David Nieporent]

If I were a criminal lawyer, I could probably tell war stories after an acquittal, due to the Double Jeopardy protections.

Of course, you're still ethically bound not to!

[santamonica811]

Nah. Not according to the Cal Bar ethics folks. You can’t tell any stories out of school that result in prejudice to your clients. And the Bar is strict about this…anything that reasonably *could* result in harm violates your ethical duty. But telling a story about a nameless client? With a paucity of details given, so that it’s impossible to ever discover who you are talking about? Seem fine to me.

If you’re a criminal defense lawyer, and you’re represented 666 (see what I did there?) clients over the years, and you tell a war story about a client who showed up to his trial tripping on LSD? That seems just fine...assuming that only you and that client knew about that drug use. If that client had been discovered tripping, by the bailiff or judge, and that fact was known, then you’ve given too many details…too easy for others to identify that client. If your story is about a rapist who used red panties to tie up his victims, then you’ve given an unusual fact--a fact that could probably lead to harm for your client...definitely not permitted.

I get your main point…that telling tales out of school is something that one really should not do as a lawyer. But, based on my life experience being around lawyers; it’s something that happens very very very very often. But I think I might have been a bit glib about this, and that’s on me. I don’t think I’ve ever disclosed an incriminating detail about a specific client, and I’d definitely tell beginning lawyers, “Err *way* on the side of caution when talking about your cases to other attorneys.” Your gentle wrist-slap is probably warranted, and I’ll accept it.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but if the war story is vague enough that the client cannot be identified, then why would the double jeopardy issue matter?

[santamonica811]

Fair point. I've never done even a single crim law matter, as a practicing attorney, and my inexperience shows. 🙁

[David Nieporent]

I’ve seen expert witnesses with doctorates do this; I’ve seen intellectual morons do this. People just have this psychological need to show off how smart they are. (It’s why we can charge clients $550/hour to tell them before court or a deposition, “If you don’t know, DON’T GUESS. Just answer, “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

The problem is, after you drill into their heads to say, "I don't know" or "I don't remember" rather than guessing, some clients who think they're clever will say to themselves, "I know! I'll just say that to everything! They can't prove I'm lying!"

The less bad option is when they then tell you about their brilliant insight, "What if I just say that to everything? They can't prove I'm lying." The more bad option is when they keep it to themselves and figure they'll be really slick on the stand.

Of course, it's often true that the other lawyer can't prove that such a statement is a lie. But it's also true that the other lawyer generally doesn't have to. Because someone who says, "I don't remember" to everything lacks all credibility and is worthless as a witness. (Worst case I ever had in my career was when my client — whose testimony in support of his claims was crucial to his case — claimed to be unable to remember his ex-wife's name.)

[santamonica811]

To be fair to that client of yours; I’ve heard a rumor that a famous politician, when accused of rape, said that the alleged victim was “not his type,”…and then went on to immediately confuse that woman with his (quite-stunningly-attractive) ex wife.

So, stranger stuff really does happen. I’d certainly never intimate that this famous politician was being less than candid. ????

[not guilty]

"Now its [sic] on the record, and she had plenty of time to 'remember' and try to limit the damage."

Yet another falsehood from Kazinski. The evidentiary record was closed on February 16, and it does not include White House visitors logs.

[Kazinski]

You have a funny idea about what a lie is.

What's false about what I said?

Or did you misunderstand that I was referring to her testimony being on the record. Of course the Whitehouse logs aren't in the record, yet. But the judge has heard about them by now, and knows the implication.

[not guilty]

You falsely stated upthread that the White House visitor logs are on the record. In fact, they are not.

From writing hundreds of appellate briefs, I have observed that courts pay close attention to what is (or is not) included in the record. Where a party attempts to deviate from the record, s.o.l. doesn't just stand for statute of limitations.

If you are going to bandy about legal jargon, Kazinski, show enough respect for the readers here to first learn what it means. Or do you regard truth as such a precious commodity that you use it sparingly?

[Kazinski]

Nope. I didn't state that. I said Willis false testimony is on the record.

[not guilty]

The extraneous matters which defense counsel show the falsity of that testimony are not on the record.

[Armchair]

Depends what Kaz meant by "On the record" in regards to which record.

If you misinterpret and assume a different record than Kaz meant, then you would be wrong.

Since Kaz mentioned it was in regards to the state senate hearing, it's on the record of the state senate.

[Kazinski]

I actually meant her false testimony is on the record, and she can't get it back. If you look at the post I don't even explicitly mention the WH records.

But you are right the WH logs are on the Senate Hearing record, by Colorado standards that's 9/10 of the way to a factual finding by a judge.

[Armchair]

This is why when there may be some ambiguity about what someone meant, it's better to ask, rather than accuse them of lying.

[John F. Carr]

A lawyer observed of the disqualification case that role reversal is leading to bad lawyering. A criminal trial is dominated by direct examination by the prosecution and cross examination by the defense. In the disqualification hearing the defense is trying to bring out evidence and the prosecution is trying to cast doubt on it.

[not guilty]

In a civil case, the Supreme Court of Georgia has opined:

We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to disqualify for an abuse of discretion. Cardinal Robotics, Inc. v. Moody, 287 Ga. 18, 22, 694 S.E.2d 346 (2010). We approach motions to disqualify with caution due to the consequences that could result if the motion is granted, such as the inevitable delay of the proceedings and the unique hardship on the client including the loss of time, money, choice of counsel, and specialized knowledge of the disqualified attorney. See Bernocchi v. Forcucci, 279 Ga. 460(2), 614 S.E.2d 775 (2005) Additionally, we are mindful of counsel using motions to disqualify as a dilatory tactic. See Lewis v. State, 312 Ga.App. 275, 282, 718 S.E.2d 112 (2011). Accordingly, we view disqualification as an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly. Bernocchi, 279 Ga. at 462, 614 S.E.2d 775.

Hodge v. URFA-Sexton, LP, 295 Ga. 136, 758 S.E.2d 314, 318 (Ga. 2014).

The Defendants here have not shown their entitlement to this extraordinary remedy, despite Judge Scott McAfee giving defense counsel such wide latitude as to turn the evidentiary hearing into a circus sideshow. The State's post-hearing brief includes a comprehensive treatment of Georgia law regarding disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24459508/state-supp-brief-dq.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

"In a civil case, the Supreme Court of Georgia has opined:"
Is the GA case civil or criminal?

[not guilty]

The Fulton County prosecution of Donald Trump and others is criminal. That doesn't mean that the trial court can disregard what the Supreme Court of Georgia has said about attorney disqualification.

A trial court should be even more reluctant to disqualify an elected prosecuting attorney. "The elected district attorney is not merely any prosecuting attorney. He is a constitutional officer, and there is only one such officer in each judicial circuit. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VIII, Para. I(a). Under our State Constitution, '[i]t shall be the duty of the district attorney to represent the state in all criminal cases in the superior court of such district attorney's circuit....' Id. at Para. I(d)." McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 612, 761 S.E.2d 289 (Ga. 2014)

[Mr. Bumble]

"The Fulton County prosecution of Donald Trump and others is criminal. "
Then why cite a civil case? In a criminal case, what (in your opinion) would be the justification for removing a prosecutor?

[not guilty]

I linked upthread to the State's post-hearing brief, which appears to cover the waterfront as to applicable Georgia law. For your convenience, here it is again. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24459508/state-supp-brief-dq.pdf

Try reading it, unless you are too lazy to do that.

[Mr. Bumble]

That is not responsive to the questions I asked.
“Why cite a civil case?” which is what you did and “In a criminal case, what (in your opinion) would be the justification for removing a prosecutor?”

[not guilty]

Referring you to the State's post-hearing brief, which comprehensively covers what does and does not justify removing a prosecuting attorney, is absolutely responsive to your question, Mr. Bumble.

You did parenthetically ask for my opinion, though. The opinions of strangers to a lawsuit are like assholes. Everyone has (at least) one, and neither one's opinion nor one's asshole shout be offered casually. That having been said, my opinion is that Judge McAfee should follow Georgia law. If he does, he will not grant any relief regarding the defendants' motions to dismiss/disqualify.

[Zarniwoop]

Referring you to the State’s post-hearing brief, which comprehensively covers what does and does not justify removing a prosecuting attorney, is absolutely responsive to your question, Mr. Bumble.

It's good to have a refresher on sealioning when engaging Mr. Bumble.

[BrotherMovesOn]

“… and has been likened to a denial -of-service attack targeted at human beings.”
Good one!

[Commenter_XY]

NG...The Defendants here have not shown their entitlement to this extraordinary remedy, despite Judge Scott McAfee giving defense counsel such wide latitude as to turn the evidentiary hearing into a circus sideshow.

Is it acceptable to lie to the Court? Look, The Smasher lied to the Court. Dang, there is no doubt about that, is there? The testimony is damning, the telemetry data is damning, the texts are damning.

How do you not remove a prosecutor who lied to the Court?

[not guilty]

I have never even remotely suggested that it is acceptable to lie to the Court. As I said upthread, an attorney who deliberately lies to the court while testifying under oath should face a professional disciplinary sanction (after being afforded due process with regard thereto). This, however, is not an attorney disciplinary proceeding. If Judge McAfee is concerned about whether Ms. Willis and/or Mr. Wade (or for that matter, Terrence Bradley) lied under oath, he can refer the matter to appropriate disciplinary authorities for investigation.

I doubt that impeachment as to collateral matters, however, will support the extraordinary remedy of disqualification.

[Kazinski]

The judge did ask why its not just a matter for the bar to handle if he concluded their testimony was false. The defense attorneys provided some case law where defense attorneys were removed from cases where they had lied or other serious ethical transgressions had occurred.

I believe the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander was used".

[Commenter_XY]

I recall your post to me about this, with the cite from the GA-SC. And I appreciated that (I read it). It is really rare, and reserved for exceptional cases. I guess what it comes down to is whether this case is 'exceptional' enough.

You say no, not exceptional enough. I am not sure I agree, based on The Smasher's conduct, and the nature of the case itself (trying a former POTUS is not extraordinary and exceptional?! C'mon man, lol). Judge McAfee probably hates this case. I sure would.

Dang, you caught my reference to Bradley! 🙂
(I saw a clip of him on X and I swear to God, it was hilarious. Priceless. I literally could not believe what I saw.)

[Drewski]

The constant refrain that Trump deserves special protection from the legal system is precisely why he's so dangerous to the rule of law. It's a bad argument. Of course, using juvenile nicknames is basically an announcement that you aren't mature enough to have a meaningful insight into what is or isn't exceptional misconduct. I don't know why you'd advertise that your opinion is worthless, but here we are.

[santamonica811]

Here in Los Angeles, the usual approach is for the judge to refer the matter to the State Bar, after the case is over. And/or to speak directly with that attorney's supervisor. (The latter is obviously not possible with the DA here, as there's no specific attorney above her.) [Fill in obligatory joke about Mr. Wade being above her, on multiple evenings]

If a matter were serious enough to call for removing the prosecutor in the middle of a legal proceeding, I suspect that the remedy would be dismissal with prejudice (I'm specifically thinking of hypos like destroying exculpatory evidence; forging incriminating evidence, etc).

The problem with arguing for disqualifying the DA (and her entire team) is that, as far as I've seen, there is NO evidence that any of the defendants have had their rights to a fair trial diminished. In fact--to the extent that the jury pool has been informed of this fiasco--it should *help* the defendants in the upcoming trials, and should hurt the prosecution.

(Disclaimer, I don't do criminal law, and never have, absent one semester externship in the DA's Office; so I'll defer to those actually working in this field.)

[Kazinski]

However, they are having this hearing because the allegations of a conflict, if proven, would be enough to remove Willis and Wade. Now both of them are lying about material facts of that conflict, and providing suspiciously convenient story that can't be checked about reimbursement.

Just a lie, I would probably agree with you, a lie about the conflict that the hearing is being held to investigate? That's way too far.

And don't forget Willis was already removed from one prosecution, this conflict seems worse, after all its personal benefit not political bias, and then throw in the falsehoods to boot.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so in CA it is: let the trial play out first, then go back and address deficiency. = referring matter to state bar. I am pretty sure that is how it works in NJ as well; trial first, then go back and fix.

What behaviors and actions would lead sm811 to conclude the right to a fair trial was diminished in this instance?

[santamonica811]

Pretty major things, that directly impact *these* defendants. The DA making up evidence. Hiding other evidence. Blackmailing a witness to lie on the stand, or to not testify. That's actually hurt a defendant's right to a fair trial. In terms of DQ'ing on the basis the appearance of bias; that threshold was met in the other case, where she was a contributor of a defendant's political opponent. (I actually think this was a close call, as appellate courts all the way up to SCOTUS have observed that DAs and judges don't give up their right to participate in politics just because of their positions. But, although a close call in my own opinion; I think it was a good idea for her not to be on that case.)

In this case, however (as I've posted several times, in several threads), I just don't see how these particular defendants have been hurt at all...even if both of them did indeed lie about consensual sex and about when their affair/relationship began. If Wade has been doing a half-ass job as a prosecutor, then that only helps the defendants in their fight against conviction.

(DQ or not, it's a good thing that there will be a politically-motivated investigation by Republicans in the state, as well as a 100% certainty that there will be a complaint to that state Bar, and there will be that subsequent non-political investigation. Lying to a court is a *big* deal when don't by prosecutors (and any other state actors), and--if proven--should result in severe sanctions.)

[santamonica811]

...when don't by prosecutors...
Should be, "...when done by prosecutors...", of course.

(No idea why the Edit function is not working at this moment)

[Commenter_XY]

I appreciate the answer. Agree that there will be a lot of follow up investigations: political, judicial. I understand - I think - what you are saying. The Smasher doinking Wade =/= behavior that denies a right to fair trial. That answer actually makes sense to me.

[tylertusta]

Fill in obligatory joke about Mr. Wade being above her, on multiple evenings

During summations, the prosecution defended Wade by pointing out that he said that he never rested his head on her bed.

That must mean that he was always on top.

[windycityattorney]

In my jurisdiction; they would likely not just dump the charges so long as the 'conflict' wasn't about the integrity of the investigation/charges. E.g, there is a known corrupt cop, the State knowingly used said corrupt cop to get fake charges on somebody for the sole purpose of getting charges on said person so they could get that person in custody because that person is a non cooperating witness in a murder investigation and they want to interrogate said person about the murder.

In this type of situation with Fanni sleeping with the contracted help, the Courts here may kick the state attorney off the case and bring in an independent/special prosecutor from the appellate prosecutor's office (located in a different city) to take over the case. Prosecution carries on but simply with new prosecutors completely unaffiliated with Fanni and her office.

[Commenter_XY]

Just out of curiosity....how long would it take for the replacement to really learn the case? Is that days? Weeks? Hours? Months?

This RICO case has a lot of moving parts. Does that matter in terms of familiarizing oneself sufficiently to take the case to trial?

[not guilty]

Uh, Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting State Senator Burt Jones on July 25, 2022. No successor to Ms. Willis has been named more than 20 months later, and the investigation of him is moribund. A case of this complexity would take considerable time to get a new prosecutor up to speed, once the new prosecutor is eventually appointed.

[Commenter_XY]

Whoa! The plot thickens. That is a layer of complexity I had not appreciated until now. LOL, you knock out The Smasher as the prosecutor, and it could be a very long wait before a trial...could be as far out as Feb 2029. 🙂

[Michael P]

ng is desperately trying to avoid admitting that Willis and Wade are getting caught lying about facts that go straight to the question of a conflict of interest, and that makes it look much more likely that not only did they have a conflict of interest, that they recognized it. And that is solid grounds for disqualifying Willis's office in these prosecutions.

[not guilty]

What, precisely, do you claim to be the conflict?

[Kazinski]

Oh I don't know. Maybe ask the judge what he said they were going to investigate when he scheduled the hearings, that he's had going on for weeks.

If you are just coming in at the middle of the movie, best thing to do is wait and see if the ending ties it all together for you.

That and the sequels Bar Hearing I, State Senate hearing 2, Fulton County Audit 3.

[Michael P]

Show your own work, schmuck.

[not guilty]

Michael P, if you can't articulate what you claim to be the conflict, doesn't that indicate pretty strongly that you are merely talking through your hat?

Sure you're a fish, and sure you're in a barrel. Why does that mean I shouldn't shoot you?

[Michael P]

Your metaphors are as confused as your thought process.

Do your work and fill in the blank: "Nathan Wade and Fani Willis would commit perjury about these facts because ____, not to hide a conflict of interest."

I'm not going to repeat the same conflicts of interest that have been identified before ad nauseam just to satisfy your fetish for making other people engage in unpaid research for you.

[not guilty]

Now, now. Don't crawfish away from what you posted upthread, Michael P -- that I am "desperately trying to avoid admitting that Willis and Wade are getting caught lying about facts that go straight to the question of a conflict of interest, and that makes it look much more likely that not only did they have a conflict of interest, that they recognized it. And that is solid grounds for disqualifying Willis’s office in these prosecutions."

And I would no more rely on your "research" than I would believe anything that the defense's "star witness," Terrence Bradley, says. My point in challenging you to articulate what you claim to be a "conflict of interest" is to demonstrate to other readers that, as is typical, you know nothing whereof you speak.

[Michael P]

The more you try to distract from the topic of perjury with pesteringly bad-faith questions like "what ever could the conflict of interest be?", the more you prove my point.

[not guilty]

You don't have a point. Ipse dixit assertions don't feed the bulldog.

Under Ga. Code § 16-10-70(a), "A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been administered commits the offense of perjury when, in a judicial proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a false statement material to the issue or point in question."

What statement(s) do you claim to be false? What facts do you claim evince materiality? And what facts do you claim evince the witness's culpable mental state?

[Michael P]

Your reliance on pesteringly bad-faith questions, even when specifically called out about them, would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

[not guilty]

There is nothing bad faith about challenging ignorant assertions. Have you ever heard of the Socratic method, Michael P?

[Kazinski]

Ridiculous. Don't beclown yourself NG.

They had hours of live streamed closing arguments on Friday. Here is a link:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=udb0Uo5R308

But if you insist on the cliff notes version, Willis and Wade are lying crooks.

Take your choice between the long and the short version.

[not guilty]

I have watched the closing arguments, thank you very much. As trial judges routinely instruct jurors, statements and arguments of counsel are not evidence.

[Kazinski]

But you asked what the conflict was, not the evidence.

The attorneys spent hours arguing what the conflicts were and why it requires disqualification, at the least.

So there it is.

[not guilty]

A conflict must necessarily be shown by admissible evidence, Kazinski. Defense counsel were grasping at straws. They cavilled about an alleged "appearance" of impropriety because they knew damn well that the evidence did not come anywhere close to showing an actual conflict.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kazinski,

If it’s so obvious, you should be able to briefly summarize what the conflict is. That you are certain, not without at least some reason, that one or more of witnesses were lying doesn’t establish any conflict of interest. You seem to be trying to do this backwards: they lied, there is no reason to lie unless there was a conflict of interest, so they must have a conflict of interest.

But people lie about their sexual lives all the time. They may know it doesn’t look good, even if it isn’t a conflict of interest that would result in disqualification. Merely showing they lied doesn’t get you to conflict of interest.

What is the conflict of interest that, you believe, supports disqualification?

[Kazinski]

The initial conflict of interest, as stated by the judge is whether Willis benefited financially by hiring her boyfriend as a special prosecutor for Trump.

The judge said the standard was an not only an actual conflict, but also strongly indicated even an appearance of impropriety was enough:

“There are a number of cases that appear to exclusively rely on an appearance of impropriety,” McAfee said. “They acknowledge that there is some ambiguity here.”

The Defense presented evidence showing Willis did benefit financially from hiring Wade, then when trying to refute that evidence the cascade of lies began, well actually the cascade of lies started from a church pulpit when she called the defense racists, that in itself was improper.

Then one question for you about the standard, what was the conflict when Willis was already removed from a prosecution in a related case in 2022?

The judge in that case articulated a different standard, one that’s already been met in this case:
“It’s a ‘What are you thinking’ moment,” “The optics are horrific.”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/25/politics/georgia-willis-jones-grand-jury/index.html

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So, you’re saying she would have prosecuted Trump differently if she hadn’t been living high on the hog with her co-worker.

What did she do differently which was detrimental to Trump? Was she more relaxed and happy (which is arguably not favorable to a defendant)? More jet lag? Spit it out!

[not guilty]

.

Then one question for you about the standard, what was the conflict when Willis was already removed from a prosecution in a related case in 2022?

The judge in that case articulated a different standard, one that’s already been met in this case:
“It’s a ‘What are you thinking’ moment,” “The optics are horrific.”

Judge McBurney disqualified Fani Willis and her office from investigating Senator Burt Jones, but not as to eleven others who had sought disqualification. At footnotes 6 and 9 of the order, the Judge found an actual conflict as to the investigation of Mr. Jones.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22120795/fani-willis-dq-order.pdf

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P. What, precisely, do you claim to be the conflict?

[Armchair]

One of the items that stuck out to me, is the disparate pay schemes.

"In the few instances where she found that outside counsel was hired, they were paid at a much lower rate than what Wade was paid by Fulton County.

Merchant went into details about Wade's billing method during the investigation, which she found unusual. Wade would use vague block billing, which contained multiple listings for "team meetings", instead of billing in minutes, which is the standard practice by most public and private lawyers.

Merchant noted that the other prosecutors, John Floyd and Anna Cross, submitted itemized invoices and were paid significantly less than Wade, who received approximately $700,000 for his work. Cross received less than $100,000 and Floyd received even less, Merchant said."

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/fani-willis-investigation-attorney-ashleigh-merchant-subpoenaed-by-senate-committee

Honestly, it looks like Willis was defrauding the State of Georgia, in concert with Wade.

[Michael P]

Her meetings with the White House and use of a Biden team lawyer also make it look like she has a partisan objective in pressing these prosecutions, even independent of her own election campaigns.

[not guilty]

Armchair, do you claim that Mr. Wade did not in fact work at least the number of hours that he billed for each month? If so, based on what evidence?

IIRC, Mr. Wade and Ms. Cross were each employed at an hourly rate of $250, and Mr. Floyd at $150, with a cap on the number of hours that were compensable to an individual contractor each month. If Mr. Wade worked a significantly greater number of hours than the other two, that would explain why the total payout to him is greater.

[Frank Drackman]

oh yes, Mr. Wade "worked" allright, no wonder his Prostrate threw in the towel and went cancerous.

[Armchair]

I claim that using non-standard billing practices is a way that can effectively hide the number of actual hours worked. I also find it interesting that Wade almost "always" met the cap.

Notably, Wade’s billing statement on 11/5/2021 noted that he worked 24 hours that day at $250 an hour, with the description “Prepared cases for pre-trial” and billed $6,000 for that day.

I would find it very unusual if he actually worked all 24 hours that day, on that supposed task.

[Armchair]

Other interesting irregularities from Wade's billing.

"Merchant said Wade wrote "drafting" many times yet there was no evidence that he drafted any of the motions in the election fraud case against former President Donald Trump and that others in Willis' office drafted those motions and submitted them in court."

This, again, is very irregular. Luckily it appears that Wade was having a romantic relationship with the individual who was signing off on his invoices. If someone who was more diligent (and less romantically involved) was looking over the invoices, some pointed questions may have been raised.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fani-willis-atlanta-georgia-election-fraud-case-nathan-wade-1876152

[Brett Bellmore]

"Notably, Wade’s billing statement on 11/5/2021 noted that he worked 24 hours that day"

Look, all is not on the up and up, but you need to distinguish real and silly concerns. He did NOT report that he worked 24 hours on one day. One one day he reported a total of 24 hours worked on a particular task. He didn't say the work was DONE on that day, it's just the day he finished the work.

[Mr. Bumble]

From his billing statements you can't tell what he did and when and that is part of the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

That is "a" problem, sure. But it's not the problem Armchair was claiming, having billed for 24 hours of work supposedly done on one day.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll disagree with you on that, since there is no further clarification or explanation for that entry.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Wow. Brett not being all in for "his" side and coming in with an objective and valid point.

Way to go, Brett. More of this, please. From everyone.

[BrotherMovesOn]

And Bumble disagrees with him!
Because with Bumble it's always but MY SIDE!

[Armchair]

"One one day he reported a total of 24 hours worked on a particular task. He didn’t say the work was DONE on that day, it’s just the day he finished the work."

That's not clear. It may be what he said on the stand, but he could hardly lie about it. The other issue it, it doesn't match the rest of his billing.

There's a nice document here, that outlines it. On work that went over multiple days, he either listed multiple days (ie 11/9/22-11/10/22) or listed 8 hours a day each day, on the same task. (ie, SPGJ.) The 24 hours a day is conspicuously different.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-01-12-jdj-to-wade-re-fulton-da-1.pdf

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I remember working for several days straight, before collapsing from exhaustion, when I was a young gun (working on "really important" corporate matters)...

"Luxury" back then was the tiny rooms associates could sometimes book to catch a few hours sleep.

Twenty-four hours non-stop? That's really nothing.

[Joe_dallas]

$250 per hour x 2,080 standard work hours per year = $520,000 (without regard to holiday's and vacation - 40 hours per week x 52 weeks = 2,080 ).

$700,000 equals 2,800 billable hours. Did the billable hours include the romance trips ?

Unlikely this was his only legal work during this time period.

[not guilty]

Nathan Wade was hired as an independent contractor in November 2021. That was 28 months ago.

[Joe_dallas]

Not guilty - how many hours to you think wade actually spent on the case?

2800 hours ?

[Armchair]

Of course. He needed to keep up his "relationship" with the prosecutor in charge is important. It requires lot of time to make sure they were both on the same page.

Absolutely critical. No cost to be spared.

[tylertusta]

As I've said in a previous thread, whether Fani Willis is disqualified will likely hinge on the standard to be used.

If it's an appearance of a conflict, then Ms. Willis will likely be gone.

McAfee has previously said that he would DQ on that basis. The prosecution was trying to change his mind, but I based on the summations, I think McAfee was unpersuaded.

[tylertusta]

And as a corollary to this, does Georgia really want to be the state where its prosecutors can look corrupt as hell but can stay on the job?

I don't think McAfee is happy with the position taken by the prosecutor's office.

I imagine that is weighing of McAfee's mind right now.

[not guilty]

"McAfee has previously said that he would DQ on that basis. The prosecution was trying to change his mind, but I based on the summations, I think McAfee was unpersuaded."

No, he didn't say that. I don't recall his precise language, but he identified the proper standard to be applied on a pretrial motion as one of the issues he would need to decide. The Georgia appellate court decisions have arisen in the context of a convicted defendant arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the prosecutor.

In that context, "[a] theoretical or speculative conflict will not impugn a conviction which is supported by competent evidence." Lyons v. State, 271 Ga. 639, 640 (2) (522 S.E.2d 225) (1999), quoting Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 41, 42(1) (472 S.E.2d 683) (1996). "[T]he reversal of a conviction due to such a conflict of interest requires more than a 'theoretical or speculative conflict.' Lyons v. State. An actual conflict of interest must be involved." Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 793, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga.Ct.App. 2005); Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 310, 816 S.E.2d 151 (Ga.Ct.App. 2018).

This does not appear to be an issue where interlocutory appellate review is available as of right pursuant to Ga Code § 5-6-34(a). Subsection (b) of that statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal where (1) the trial court certifies within ten days of entry of an order that the order, decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that immediate review should be had, and (2) the appellate court in its discretion permits an appeal to be taken from the order, decision, or judgment if application is made thereto within ten days after such certificate is granted. In that Judge McAfee is proceeding cautiously here, I would not be surprised to see him make such a certification after issuing his ruling.

[tylertusta]

No, he didn’t say that.

Yes, he did say it. I've quoted it to you before.

Here's the hearing where he said it:

https://youtu.be/ewtzcoo9ics?t=311

[not guilty]

At multiple times during the hearing, Judge McAfee questioned counsel as to whether the same standard applies to a pretrial motion to disqualify as would be required to reverse a criminal conviction posttrial. He gave no indication that that to him is anything other than an open question.

[tylertusta]

At multiple times during the hearing

Which hearing? Feb 12, Feb 16, Feb 28, or Mar 1?

He gave no indication that that to him is anything other than an open question.

True, he didn't rule at summations on the standard he's going to use. But like most judges trying to wrestle with a decision of law, he's going to poke and prod at both parties to understand the boundaries of the issue he's facing.

However, there were points on the Mar 1 summation where I felt like Judge McAfee wasn't agreeing with the prosecution's theory of the standard and of the relevant case law.

[not guilty]

Devil's advocate. Learn what it means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

I don't claim to know what Judge McAfee is thinking, but I suspect he has realized that failure to hold a comprehensive evidentiary hearing on the defendants' gossipy motions would be more likely to result in this case being tried twice than ruling either way as to disqualification would be. That would explain why he allowed defense counsel to turn his courtroom into a circus sideshow for four days.

[tylertusta]

Are you going to actually answer my question, or are you going to just provide passive aggressive non-replies to my comments?

[not guilty]

What is your question? I am not going to spend the rest of today going back through YouTube clips of the multiple hours of three days of testimony and three hours of argument to give you time markers.

The State's posthearing brief includes a comprehensive treatment of Georgia caselaw wherein a criminal defendant has sought disqualification of the prosecutor. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24459508/state-supp-brief-dq.pdf

As that brief states at page 12, "Every Georgia case that has addressed the issue has reached the same conclusion: in order to authorize a trial court to disqualify an elected district attorney, an actual conflict of interest must be proven. No prosecutor in this state has ever been disqualified on the appearance of a conflict."

At footnote 7, also on page 12, the State's brief notes, "These cases examine the question in a post-conviction context. At the hearing on this matter, the Court inquired as to whether a different standard may apply pre-trial. No Georgia case has ever held that the standard for disqualifying an elected district attorney is different based on whether the question is raised before or after trial." The authorities cited in the brief amply support the State's assertions.

[tylertusta]

What is your question?

You said:

“At multiple times during the hearing…”

To which I asked:

“Which hearing? Feb 12, Feb 16, Feb 28, or Mar 1?”

There are four dates for hearings on this motion. I want to know which date you are talking about.

I am not going to spend the rest of today going back through YouTube clips of the multiple hours of three days of testimony and three hours of argument to give you time markers.

I asked for a date, not timestamps. Surely providing a date is not too difficult for someone willing to parse through the prosecution’s materials.

[not guilty]

My best recollection is that Judge McAfee mentioned it several times. My best estimate is that he mentioned it multiple times on February 15, at least once on the 16th, and probably multiple times on March 1. I am working from memory on that, which is not infallible, but I am not going to sift through up to 20+ hours of hearings on YouTube in order to confirm.

[tylertusta]

Thank you. I don't need you to sift through and provide timestamps of exact occasions. I just wanted to understand which part of the hearing you are referring to.

The reason I'm asking is that on Feb 12th- before the evidentiary hearing- McAfee made the decision to proceed because, in his own words:

"So, to that end and studying the law that's been filed up to this point I think it's clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one and the filing submitted on this issue so far have presented a conflict in the evidence that can't be resolved as a matter of law."

If you don't just want to take my word for it, I provided a link to a YT video set to a timestamp just before Judge McAfee said that. Takes a couple of minutes of your time.

Anyways, it wasn't like Judge McAfee was bamboozled by only hearing the defense's interpretation of the law and whether an "appearance of conflict" is the correct standard. The prosecution's response to defense's motion on Feb 2nd raised all of the points you've made, and the prosecution has continued to say over and over again. Here's from their opposing brief on Feb 2nd:

'Georgia courts have long recognized that there are two generally accepted grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as “forensic misconduct.”'

My point here is that the prosecution already lost this question- at least on Feb 12th- on what the standard is. McAfee was unequivocal in saying that it was "clear" that the appearance of a conflict justifies disqualification.

I fully admit that it's possible that the Judge is just humoring the defense. But if that's the case, why did the Judge let things go as far as he did under an incorrect interpretation of the law? Surely he could have stopped it short of an evidentiary hearing and before ordering Wade to testify. Surely he could have stopped before challenging Bradley's invocation of privilege in camera. He had multiple points with which to prevent this from becoming a circus, and he didn't take them. If McAfee was willing to humor the defense, why not reopen the proof? He seemed willing to at least consider reopening it on Mar 1.

I also fully admit that the Judge may rethink his Feb 12th decision and accept the state's interpretation of the law. With time and reflection, he may have decided that his earlier decision was incorrect. Maybe he's got a severe case of buyer's remorse and wants this motion over with.

But based on the judge's questions and... um... coaching of Abbate on the law on Mar 1, I'm wondering if he's going to change his mind at all.

[not guilty]

The February 12 motion hearing was to decide whether to hold an evidentiary hearing at all -- the State had objected to holding such a hearing -- as well as whether to quash certain subpoenas that the defense had issued. He determined that he couldn't resolve the question based on the paperwork alone, and that an evidentiary hearing was indeed required. (A ruling that I heartily agree with.)

I don't claim to be privy to Judge McAfee's thinking, but I strongly suspect that he wants to try this case once, and only once. I surmise that he likely realized that a refusal to hold a full blown evidentiary hearing would be far more likely to result in reversal and remand than a ruling one way or another on the defense motions.

I see no indication that Judge McAfee has prejudged, without benefit of an evidentiary record, the standard to be applied to a pretrial motion to disqualify the District Attorney -- whether that requires the showing of an actual conflict of interest, or whether the appearance of impropriety is sufficient.

Appellate review of a disqualification applies an abuse of discretion standard. "Such an exercise of discretion is based on the trial court's findings of fact which we must sustain if there is any evidence to support them." Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 791, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga.Ct.App. 2005). That necessarily indicates that a trial court's exercise of discretion is cabined by the evidentiary record.

"In applying these standards, the reversal of a conviction due to such a conflict of interest requires more than a 'theoretical or speculative conflict.' Lyons v. State[, 271 Ga. 639, 640 (2). 522 S.E.2d 225 (1999)]. An actual conflict of interest must be involved." Whitworth, 275 Ga. App. at 793.

[tylertusta]

I see no indication that Judge McAfee has prejudged, without benefit of an evidentiary record, the standard to be applied to a pretrial motion to disqualify the District Attorney — whether that requires the showing of an actual conflict of interest, or whether the appearance of impropriety is sufficient.

Let's dive a little deeper into this. I have questions.

Why would Judge McAfee need an evidentiary record to determine what the standard for removal is? This is a question of law, not of fact.

Why do you say "I see no indication" when Judge McAfee's own statement is plainly an indication that he's operating under that interpretation of the standard? I would think that him saying it's "clear" is a blinking strobe light to that effect.

Wouldn't getting the law correct be a threshold matter to get into the hearings in the first place? After all, Judge McAfee allowed for the prosecution to get the legal equivalent of a colonoscopy by the defense in a politically charged trial with national implications. He can't unring that bell. McAfee's decision to proceed was foreseeably embarrassing to the district attorney, an elected official who now has her dirty laundry laid out for all to see.

Finally, isn't the concept that "Judge McAfee doesn't want to try this case more than once" kind of a non-issue when it comes to the disqualification question? If Judge McAfee rules against the defense and keeps Fani Willis on the prosecution, the defense faces a even harder time in a post-conviction appeal where the standard is almost certainly going to be an actual conflict/forensic misconduct and not the appearance of one. I think that if McAfee ruled against the defense now- with evidence of Fani Willis's conflict still offered but not in the record- that he wouldn't worry about his decision to not DQ being a reason to overturn a conviction.

[Armchair]

That's ng's style. That and accusing you of lying.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, he's just a stellar guy.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So, you admit, he didn't say it, but you feel like that's what he thinks. Just say that, then.

[tylertusta]

NOVA Lawyer,

I’m disappointed at you.

Are you seriously saying that Judge McAfee, on February 12th, didn’t say that an appearance of conflict would be grounds for a disqualification?

Please refer to the link to the hearing above.

He said it. Saying he didn’t say it or saying that I’m somehow saying that he didn’t say it is dishonest.

I look forward to your reply.

[NOVA Lawyer]

tylertusta: McAfee has previously said that he would DQ on that basis. (That basis being the appearance of a conflict of interest.)

not guilty: No, he didn’t say that.

tylertusta: Yes, he did say it. (claiming it was said in a particular hearing with link)

not guilty: He gave no indication that that to him is anything other than an open question.

tylertusta: True, he didn’t rule at summations on the standard he’s going to use.

Now you’re asking me: Are you seriously saying that Judge McAfee, on February 12th, didn’t say that an appearance of conflict would be grounds for a disqualification?

First, I was just quoting you where I read the exchange of the two of you and acknowledged that he didn’t rule on the standard he would use. That’s kind of end of story as, from your own statements, that seems to be the point you were making.

Second, he didn’t say an appearance of conflict would be grounds for disqualification. He said the law presented so far (prior to the hearing you linked) indicates that “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one.” (Although the captions in YouTube say “actual conflict with the appearance of one”, his voice is a little low and I think he said “or” and that makes more sense.)

The sentence was qualified with the law presented so far and he clearly indicated he would hear argument later at the hearing. This strongly suggests he had not made a determination of the proper standard to be used in this case, but was waiting to hear arguments on the proper standard. This is entirely consistent with your acknowledgement to not guilty that “he didn’t rule at summations on the standard he’s going to use.”

I don’t really care if you are disappointed in me for taking you at your (revised) word. You acknowledged he didn’t say what you first claimed he did. If you now think you shouldn’t have backed off your initial statement, that’s not really a me issue.

I also don’t care if you are disappointed in me for thinking that, at best, the standard McAfee will use was, at least at that hearing, an open question. (not guilty has a lot of credibility in understanding the law and he has cited to his sources. You seem to be going off television coverage and guessing what McAfee will do based on his statements at the hearing. I’ll take written arguments with citations over a judge setting the scene for a hearing on the motions at which he specifically says he will be hearing from counsel on what the standard should be. None of this means he won’t use an appearance of conflict of interest standard, but you are far too confident (based on what you’ve said and that one clip you linked to) that he will.)

[tylertusta]

NOVA Lawyer,

First, I was just quoting you where I read the exchange of the two of you and acknowledged that he didn’t rule on the standard he would use.

In my first comment, I wrote that McAfee said it.

I did not say that he ruled.

I think you are inferring too much.

I also don’t care if you are disappointed in me for thinking that, at best, the standard McAfee will use was, at least at that hearing, an open question

Have I ever said that I was disappointed in you for thinking that?

(Since we are now sharing things we don't care about, I don't care much for people putting words in my mouth)

I’ll take written arguments with citations over a judge setting the scene for a hearing on the motions at which he specifically says he will be hearing from counsel on what the standard should be.

…you understand what the phrase “reading tea leaves” means, right?

Do you understand what I’m getting at when I say “reading tea leaves?”

The sentence was qualified with the law presented so far and he clearly indicated he would hear argument later at the hearingr ... This strongly suggests he had not made a determination of the proper standard to be used in this case, but was waiting to hear arguments on the proper standard

Yes, he did preface his statement on Feb 12th with the words "so far." However, since McAfee used the word "clearly" in the same sentence, that indicates that his position at that time was that the standard includes the appearance of conflict. The words “so far” indicates that he was open to changing his mind later.

As I said in my first comment in this thread, I don't think that the prosecution was successful in changing McAfee’s mind.

None of this means he won’t use an appearance of conflict of interest standard, but you are far too confident (based on what you’ve said and that one clip you linked to) that he will

If you look further down the thread at my replies with NG, I wrote "I fully admit I could be wrong" twice. I would think that those statements show that I'm a little less confident than you're inferring.

Looking forward to your reply,

TT

[Kazinski]

What was the standard used when Willis already was disqualified in 2022 from the Burt Jones case?

That seems perfectly on point precedent for this case. Here is what the judge said in that case:

“Of course, the actual answer does not matter.9 It is the fact that concern about the District Attorney’s partiality naturally, immediately, and reasonably arises in the minds of the public, the pundits, and —- most critically -— the subjects of the investigation that necessitates the disqualification. An investigation of this significance, garnering the public attention it necessarily does and touching so many political nerves in our society, cannot be burdened by legitimate doubts about the District Attorney’s motives.”

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120804-order-disqualifying-da-fani-willis-office

That standard has already been more than met in this case.

[Mr. Bumble]

Eagerly waiting NG's reply.

[not guilty]

I'm happy to oblige. One trial court's ruling/reasoning is not binding and has no precedential value as to other trial court's of equal jurisdiction. Rulings of the appellate courts of Georgia are binding as to trial courts in Fulton County.

FWIW, however, Judge McBurney declined to disqualify Ms. Willis as to 11 other defendants. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22120795/fani-willis-dq-order.pdf Judge McBurney at footnote 9 did find an actual conflict as to Senator Burt Jones, not merely the appearance of impropriety.

[Mr. Bumble]

Always interesting.

[tylertusta]

Yup, good stuff. I was intending on bringing this up further on in this thread, but Judge McAfee already has a track record on DQ motions. If he stays the course, it ain't lookin' good for Fani Willis staying on this case.

[not guilty]

"Yup, good stuff. I was intending on bringing this up further on in this thread, but Judge McAfee already has a track record on DQ motions. If he stays the course, it ain’t lookin’ good for Fani Willis staying on this case."

Really? Whom has Judge McAfee disqualified? Whom has he declined to disqualify? Please be specific as to his "track record".

[tylertusta]

As said below, it wasn't him. Still, worthwhile to see how judges have handled the "appearance" language.

Also curious to see your thoughts on my reply above.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that he's only been a judge since Feb. 2023, that seems unlikely.

[tylertusta]

Oh, that wasn't him? My bad.

[SimonP]

Given the track record, prudence counsels waiting for the full facts to come out and see what they actually tell us.

Also noting for the record that we are now pointing to potential lies about matters that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original conflict of interest claims against Willis, as the grounds for disqualifying her from prosecuting the case against Trump's criminal gang.

You orcs will just keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks, all to defend a con man who attempted to nullify an election he lost in order to stay in power. What a bunch of cynical fuckheads you all are. I hate being stuck in a democracy with bad-faith goons like you.

[not guilty]

"Given the track record, prudence counsels waiting for the full facts to come out and see what they actually tell us."

No, the movants had a two day evidentiary hearing, plus further examination of Terrence Bradley, to support their gossipy motions with admissible evidence. Judge McAfee bent over backwards to allow for full development of the record. It's now decision time.

[SimonP]

I agree, but the dispute has moved into the political realm, trying to build political support for impeaching/removing Willis.

[not guilty]

I never thought that the intended audience for defense counsel's bitching, moaning and whining was Judge McAfee at all. They were grandstanding for the national media, which is piss poor advocacy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny, coming from a defense attorney.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, I have done scores of jury trials, hundreds of appellate briefs and I don't know how many bench trials and pretrial motions. I have seen enough good advocacy and enough poor advocacy to know the difference. (I have also grasped at enough straws in my career to recognize when another advocate is doing that.)

[Mr. Bumble]

So let me ask you a very hypothetical question.
If you were one of the defense attorneys on this case and came across this information would you use it in an attempt to remove the prosecutor?

[not guilty]

Not a chance. An attorney owes a duty of candor to the Court.

[Mr. Bumble]

What does he owe his client? As an aside candor to the court seems to be in short supply lately.

[Longtobefree]

"So just one question, how many times does Willis have to lie before it’s admitted that she has a conflict?"

She can keep lying until she turns white.

[Frank Drackman]

Turns White? as full of shit as she is?

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe high yellow?

[Kazinski]

About a month ago when the first immigration bill was being considered, I was accused of parroting talking points by saying Biden didn't need any new authority to reduce illegal crossings at the border.

I said that Biden could reduce border crossings anytime he wanted to, and it turns out I was right. It came out today the Biden Administration and CBP directly flew 320,000 illegal aliens into the United States on government planes, so they could reduce crossings at the border.

Biden administration ADMITS flying 320,000 migrants secretly into the U.S. to reduce the number of crossings at the border

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13155765/biden-illegal-migrant-flying-program-national-security-vulnerability.html

I've been accused of making stuff up, but my imagination isn't this good.

[NvEric]

And, they don't want to grant FOIA requests that show the details !

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is criminal

[David Nieporent]

Is that your expert janitorial opinion?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, I looked at the link. Not much in it which anyone could readily check. Surprisingly large numbers. No information at all to verify the numbers. Accusatory-sounding sentences built around irrelevancies and non-sequiturs. Reliance on a principal source positioned on the anti-Biden side. Internal contradictions among the claims (for instance, asylum applicants okayed for entry in countries of origin, vs. blanket claims of illegal migrants.) An airplane loading queue photo without identifying info to say who, what, where, etc.

All I can say for sure about that linked story is that it does not look like professional journalism. Whether any of it is true or not, I withhold judgment. But there are way too many field marks typical of a steaming pile of crap.

Are you always so un-skeptical?

[Kazinski]

Did you miss the part where the Biden administration admitted they did it?

And the numbers came from an FOIA request?

Here’s a fact check on the claim:

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/verify/immigration/biden-migrant-flights-fact-check/536-64ae0961-10e4-4d2c-882c-ca0771d4695b

Why don’t you ever want to believe anything negative about Biden?

[Magister]

First you said "secretly", and then you post a link that says the programs are not secret. And that they're not new.

[Kazinski]

Where does it say that the program was public knowledge?

Did you know?

They still won't disclose the cities they flew them to.

Yes it was secret.

And it absolutely shows claims that the Biden administration was its best to stop the flow of illegals was false.

They were flying them here!

[Sarcastr0]

Where does it say that the program was public knowledge?

I did a Google search for 'Biden administration flying immigrants into the U.S.' and I made the date range 2020-2023.

This was not kept from the American Public.

[Magister]

Your own link also says that the United States is not paying for the flights, so "They were flying them here!" is also wrong.

[Absaroka]

Thanks. That links to this Congressional Research Service report giving a history of the parole provision.

It would be interesting to see total numbers over the years. Prior use seems to be focused on fairly narrow groups, e.g. Hungarian refugees after the 1956 Soviet invasion, WWII Filipino veterans, and so on.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Did you miss the part where the Biden administration admitted they did it?

The story I found at the link you provided neglected any source to confirm the meaning of, "it." So I discounted it all down to, "Let's see what turns up later."

I assume even allegations so obviously mis-reported could nevertheless have basis in something related to immigration, possibly even something to do with Biden administration chicanery. If so, I wonder why they left information that would confirm that out of the story.

Neither support for Biden, nor critique of Biden, plays any part in the methods I practice to estimate the reliability of ostensible news, by the way. Mrs. Lathrop is heartily sick of me yelling about news twits who support Biden. But she concedes when I insist that I also yell about news twits who attack Biden. Twaddle is twaddle.

[Absaroka]

I agree that program seems to stink, but 'admin admits flying' is a bit shaded. Following links from that article I found this:

"For one of the more publicized measures, DHS cajoles tens of thousands of intending illegal border-crossers per month to instead go on the CBP One smartphone application, and make an appointment with U.S. officials at land ports of entry instead of crossing illegally. After making an appointment, DHS invites these inadmissible aliens to walk over to the American side at the land ports, where U.S. Customs officials quickly “parole” them in, allowing them to travel to a city of their choice in the nation’s interior.

But one of the least noticed, mysterious, and potentially the most controversial of the new rechanneling programs that use the CBP One app allows migrants to take commercial passenger flights from foreign countries straight to their American cities of choice, flying right over the border — and even over Mexico. For this measure, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Colombians — while they are still in countries south of Mexico — request “advance travel authorizations” through the same CBP One mobile app and take commercial flights (“at their own expense”) directly into U.S. airports, where U.S. Customs officers parole them into the nation, sight unseen, and in numbers publicly unknown."

So 'admin is flying them' seems less accurate than 'admin is meeting them'.

That said, writing an app with an 'make a reservation to illegally immigrate and be met for processing and release upon arrival' function seems ... to not be doing everything possible to reduce illegal immigration, to put it mildly.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, your comment above contains no information at all to even hint at a checkable source for the alleged information. For instance, re-read your second paragraph, and afterward ask yourself, "How do I know that?"

On the basis of information you have learned, who is the government source to confirm the quantities of immigrants, flights, destinations, locations of departure, locations of arrival, circumstances, and context applied to those programs, said to be admitted to by the government? Or is the gravamen of the story that the government confirms the facts reported, but won't admit it? If the government has not admitted the facts, who has proved them, by what methods? How do we know any of it?

[Absaroka]

"afterward ask yourself, “How do I know that?” "

I know that I quoted that from the source hyperlinked in my first paragraph. In the interest of brevity and respect for copywrite I only quoted an excerpt.

If you do the internet equivalent of checking a footnote by clicking that source, you can then in turn look at the .gov sources they linked. If you do that you will find the paragraph you object to is be confirmed by those .gov sources[1]. I took the .gov sources as authoritative, but if you have a conspiracy theory that the government is lying here feel free to expose it.

[1]with the exception of 'cajoles'; the government merely put the ability into the app.

[Dr. Ed 2]

'allows migrants to take commercial passenger flights from foreign countries straight to their American cities of choice, flying right over the border"

What about having to have Real ID and all of the rest of the Post-911 Kabuki Theater?

They are allowing unauthorized persons onto airplanes and THAT is a criminal offense. INDICT BIDEN!

[David Nieporent]

I think you're confused what the word "unauthorized" means. Also "criminal," "offense," and "indict."

[Voize]

CBP One isn't a new entry service like Global Entry, it's an app to access existing services. As this introductory video shows it is used by travelers but also by brokers, pilots, bus and truck drivers, and organizations to submit travel information and schedule interviews.

At the same time there is a humanitarian parole program that allows temporary entry bypassing the normal admission processes. This program was begun in the 1950s and has been used recently to expedite the entry of displaced Ukrainians, but I haven't been able to find statistics on its use. It may be the program referenced though since it does allow for entry of individuals who are otherwise inadmissible or whose admissibility hasn't been established.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I read somewhere that parole is being used for Venezuelans and nationals from three other countries.

The not-very-subtly-biased CIS article suggests that the immigrants being "encouraged" to enter the US are "inadmissible", which doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence or reasoning. Does CPB actually direct this advice towards people it knows are inadmissible? I find that hard to believe (without credible evidence).

[Voize]

The description of the parole program does say that it can, for humanitarian or public benefit reasons, allow for temporary entry of persons who are otherwise inadmissible. The example they give of the latter is someone responding to a subpoena, who can be admitted even though they fail the usual screening process.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, is it time for this nonsense again? Seems it comes around pretty regularly, and the usual suspects always treat is like it's new info.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's hoping that millions of my fellow "usual suspects" are sufficiently incensed by this outrageous, lawless behavior by Biden's administration to vote him out in November!

[Dr. Ed 2]

And a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

And wholesale impeachments, with convictions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You seem to enjoy proving his point.

[NvEric]

A few Inherent Rights retained by the People

These two are from Jon Roland, Presumption of Nonauthority and Unenumerated Rights

A right not to be subjected to laws or official acts that are unknown, unknowable, incomprehensible, or too vague to allow for easy interpretation . . .

A right to have delegated powers construed narrowly, . . .

[Mr. Bumble]

How quaint.

[Kazinski]

A few years back in Seattle, at least a decade ago there was a movement to expand the Seattle Monorail that had been running since the 1962 Worlds fair, despite of a lot of skepticism that it wasn't scalable.

So they passed ballot measure and some bonds and started consuming property to.run the lines. But when they decided to condemn the property they just put a legal notice in the paper rather than send.the property owners notice of the board meeting that voted to condemn their propery.

First thing the property owners know about is when they get a letter telling them when they have to be out, and how much they decided to give them.

Went all the way to the state Supreme Court which ruled.that a public meeting notice printed in the paper was sufficient notice.

The whole scheme collapsed a year or two later the properties were sold on the open market for healthy gains, and the monorail authority applied the capital gain to winding down its affairs and other pork.

[Zarniwoop]

Monorail!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/09/more-states-may-require-fafsas-high-school-graduation

They make you apply for college financial aid in order to get your high school diploma.
How is that legal?

[BrianL.]

From the article:

The most popular FAFSA mandate models require students to fill out the federal aid form prior to graduating high school or require the student or their parents to submit a waiver that clearly shows they’ve declined to apply for the aid.

[Magister]

The link has "legislation that would require high school seniors to fill out the federal financial aid form or sign a waiver opting out"; signing a waiver strikes me as a fairly modest additional requirement for completing one's public education. What about it would be illegal?

[Dr. Ed 2]

FAPE.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Go on…

[Magister]

Free appropriate public education, if not a case of Dr. Ed 2 auto-incorrection.

Submitting the FAFSA is free; signing a waiver should be free.

Depending on the student, it could be appropriate to seek financial aid for further schooling or to sign the waiver.

I can't guess how this would violate the public or education part.

[Bwaaah]

Per this more recent article, the states that have this requirement (which now number 13) also include provisions for obtaining a waiver that effectively makes it a non-requirement.

[David Nieporent]

How is that legal?

What law do you think would make it illegal?

[F.D. Wolf]

Joe Biden defeated by relative unknown Jason Palmer in the American Samoa Democratic Caucus, making him the first incumbent president to lose a nominating contest since Jimmy Carter. Palmer received 51 votes to Biden's 40. I don't know what kind of president Jason Palmer would be, but David Palmer in that TV show 24 was a pretty good president if I recall.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/who-is-jason-palmer-a-previously-unknown-democrat-beats-biden-in-american-samoas-democratic-caucus/ar-BB1joNU7

[Dr. Ed 2]

True -- but I noticed 91 votes...
Of the 91 ballots that were cast, Palmer received 51 and Mr. Biden received 40, according to the American Samoa Democratic Party. Each ended up receiving three delegates.

SIX DELEGATES?!?

[Frank Drackman]

Marcellus Wallace doesn't like the Samoans.

[EscherEnigma]

For the party's nominating convention, in which there will be a few thousand delegates.

[F.D. Wolf]

Six delegates for 91 voters, about one delegate per 15 voters, is still quite high, especially for voters who are not even eligible to vote in the general election. There were some 12,000 voters in the Iowa caucus for 40 delegates, or about one delegate per 300 voters.

[Mr. Bumble]

For the Dems it really doesn't matter, since there are enough super delegates to put whoever they want on the ticket.

[JD85]

After the Hillary debacle in 2016 they changed the rules regarding super delegates. They no longer vote in the first round of voting and instead are utilized to resolve disputes if a candidate isn't the majority winner of the primary / caucus awarded delegates.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More Hunter:

. He didn’t purchase the car. It was purchased, with funds from one of his companies named Rosemont that had been wired from a company named Novatus.

“I don’t know what Novatus is…. It was payment. It was a cockamamie way to do it, but that’s what my understanding was.” https://howiecarrshow.com/hunters-escapades-as-the-big-guys-bagman/

Would that be the Big Phama Company Novartis? If so, this just got WAY, WAY, WAY more messy....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis

[Bwaaah]

"You are implicated as a result of a check having been issued by a company whose name is spelled similarly to yours."

1. Get yourself a bar
2. Lift the bar just slightly above the ground
3. Try to pass your insinuations over the bar before you propagate them

(It doesn't count when the bar is on the ground and you have to dig beneath it to pass to the other side.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why do you think “the Big Pharma Company Novartis” would issue a wire under the name “Novatus”?

[David Nieporent]

And in any case, what would be the issue if it were Novartis?

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder what history there is in providing humanitarian aid to a belligerent nation.

I mean, how much humanitarian aid did the U.S. provide to Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII?

[Moderation4ever]

Check out the history of the Marshall Plan.

[ThePublius]

Duh! That was after the war had ended.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah… Good luck “de-Nazifying” (de-Hamasifying?) the Palestinians!

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's the problem, we never did denazify them.

[CountmontyC]

The Marshall Plan took place after WW2 ( 1948 to be precise) and was all of Europe and not just Germany.

[Moderation4ever]

True but do we really have a war here. Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians? Hamas yes but the Palestinians no. The Palestinians are the people stuck in the middle and there is no reason not to provide them humanitarian aid.

[ThePublius]

"...there is no reason not to provide them humanitarian aid."

Yes, there is. There are several reasons.

1. Hamas controls the region, and any aid delivered will be intercepted, controlled, and redistributed by Hamas according to Hamas' priorities, which include killing all the jews.

2. Many (most?) Gazan Palestinians for Hamas sympathizers and supporters, and perhaps even Hamas combatants.

3. Humanitarian aid will prolong the war, and not hasten a surrender by Hamas.

[Sarcastr0]

Hamas controls the region Really? After all these months?

Many (most?) Gazan Palestinians for Hamas sympathizers and supporters, and perhaps even Hamas combatants. This is collective guilt at best, and reads more like prejudice.

Humanitarian aid will prolong the war This myopic but common wartime logic has been used to justify war crimes over and over.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Many (most?) Gazan Palestinians for Hamas sympathizers and supporters, and perhaps even Hamas combatants. This is collective guilt at best, and reads more like prejudice."

Sacastro - Collective guilt or not - Its a fairly accurate assessment of the facts.

[Commenter_XY]

There is the ICJ case to consider, ThePublius. It is illegal, under the laws of war, to deny humanitarian aid: food, water, medicine. I did not make the laws, nonetheless, the laws are still there.

I have no love at all for the palestinian people. They support Hamas, and for their actions and behaviors, they disgust me. An utterly revolting people, undeserving of anything, let alone a state (which will now never happen). Hamas are nothing more than a bunch of human animals that will be hunted down and killed.

Despite all that, I fully support the provision of the bare minimum of humanitarian aid to gaza that fully complies with what is written into law.

When every Hamas member has been hunted down and killed, and Hamas is seen as utterly defeated by Israel within the arab world, peace will become possible.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“An utterly revolting people, undeserving of anything, let alone a state (which will now never happen).”

Why would you confess to being such a shitty person? Imagine if you said this about any other group of people.

[Commenter_XY]

My calling out an utterly revolting people, mired in a toxic brew of Judeocide, and made so by their own revolting and depraved behavior, does not make me a shitty person. When the palestinians (and most of the arab world, for that matter) celebrate the sexual mutilation of women by handing out candies in the street to children....yeah, you are utterly revolting with few redeeming qualities.

I have no problem calling people revolting if their behavior warrants it.

Are you wearing glasses with a rose-ish tint?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Being bigoted against an entire ethnic group is actually something shitty people do. Sorry. But if you want proof that this is correct let’s try an experiment:

Find a group of people of Arab/Palestinian descent. Including children. Bring a camera phone. Film yourself saying these exact words, your words, to their faces:

“You are an utterly revolting people, undeserving of anything”

Post that video online. Find out whether or not your theory that you’re not a shitty person holds up in any way.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I am accurately describing a group of people who define themselves by their behavior (and actions). Both the behavior, and the people who engage in it, are utterly revolting. Just check out their antics on X, or MEMRI.

You know what? I was wrong. Your glasses are not rose colored. I was wrong about that. Your glasses are actually blackout glasses; you willfully see nothing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

lol you’re just a run-of-the mill bigot ascribing “behaviors” to an entire ethnic group.

Are all Palestinians on X? No you fucking lunatic. But here you are justifying your rank bigotry.

Every bigot has always done this. Anti-black Racists say others are “willfully blind” about black people and point to “behavior” to justify their bigotry. Nazis do the same thing with Jewish people. Claim everyone who doesn’t buy into their antisemitic conspiracy theories are willfully blind.

Using the same rhetorical tricks bigots do doesn’t make me willfully blind: it makes you a shitty person.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Zionism is a depraved degenerate religion whose key elements of faith consist of:
1. the fairy tale of a Roman Expulsion that never happened and
2. the concealment of a vicious bloodthirsty hijacking of Palestine from its native population by white racial supremacist European colonial settlers by means of dishonestly calling this genocide of Palestinians the return of the Jews.

The creed of the Zionist religion consists of the following:
1. racial supremacism and chauvinism;
2. an obsession with a distorted and dishonest narrative of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews;
3. worship of the baby-killer nation; and
4. commitment to the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians, to the genocide of Palestinians, and to the theft of Palestine from Palestinians.

I am a Jew. A Zionist is not a Jew. A Zionist is post-Judaism because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Another experiment: Go on Twitter. Find some of the many neo-nazi/groyper/white supremacist accounts. Take their tweets, substitute, Palestinians/Arabs for Jews or PoC or whatever slur they are using in them. Ask yourself if you agree with the sentiment once the groups are switched. Ask yourself how different it is than what you posted. Then ask yourself if you like sounding like these other shitty people. And if your answer is yes, well, then I don’t think I was wrong about you.

[Joe_dallas]

Commenter_XY 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
"I have no problem calling people revolting if their behavior warrants it."

Commentator XY - The anti-sematics cant seem to grasp the reality that it isnt just the few "hamas" that are participants in the revolting behavior but a large portion of the gaza residents.

"Are you wearing glasses with a rose-ish tint?"
Its worse than rose tinted glasses, its outright denial of the reality.

[Nige]

It is now anti-semitic not to condemn most of the population of Gaza to death.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - my comment certainly applied to you.

“Are you wearing glasses with a rose-ish tint?”
Its worse than rose tinted glasses, its outright denial of the reality.

Outright denial of reality to justify your anti-semitism.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not believing that an entire ethnic group is “utterly revolting and undeserving of anything” isn’t a denial of reality nor is it antisemitism.

It’s having basic morals and human decency.

[Joe_dallas]

LawTalkingGuy 20 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Not believing that an entire ethnic group is “utterly revolting and undeserving of anything” isn’t a denial of reality nor is it antisemitism.

It’s having basic morals and human decency.

Correct - however, Israel simply isnt doing what the anti-semites are claiming Israel is doing.
Hamas absolutely has to be destroyed in order for there to be peace , Its unfortunate that palestinians who are truly civilians are being hurt. However, the belief that only individuals who are official Hamas members are combatants and therefore all other palestinians are "civilians" simply doesnt reflect reality.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well maybe XY should have said that instead of what he actually said. But he didn’t so hence the strident criticism.

[Nige]

'Outright denial of reality to justify your anti-semitism.'

Where's the denial? 'Not wanting innocent Gazans to be slaughtered is anti-semitism' has given way to 'implying that there are innocent Gazans is anti-semitism.'

Is it at all worth pointing out that hard-liners who pretty much agree with this have been running Israel for a while now, and this is the result?

[Nige]

At this point, between crafting the language of hatred to justify atrocities against Palestinians and the mounting campaign of fear and loathing by the Republicans, I'm firmly convinced right-wing support of the Israeli slaughter is a means of building a foundation for doing terrible, terrible things to migrants in the US.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stopping aliens from illegally entering the country is not a terrible thing and neither is deporting those who broke the existing law by entering ILLEGALLY!

[Nige]

No, I definitely think you lot are working yourselves up to something truly monstrous. 'They're illegal' is just the identifier for the undercalss you've decided to target.

[Jonathan Affleck]

A colonial settler or supporter of the baby killer nation tends to lose the ability to think rationally.

Can a reasonable person believe that Hamas both committed a horrible mass slaughter and also took hostages for negotiations?

Zionist colonial settlers have been lying about Palestinians since Ottoman Times. If there had been rapes, mass murder, and baby-beheading, there would have been no need to lie about them.

The Zionist leadership concocted lies to cover for the genocide, which the Israeli government decided to perpetrate because of the collapse of Golani Brigade.

The Zionist military implemented the Hannibal Directive and committed mass slaughter. The Zionist government blamed the mass slaughter on Hamas in order to legitimize and to justify mass murder genocide against Palestinians. The Zionist lies meet the definition of the international and US federal crime of genocide incitement. On Oct 16, 1946 the Nuremberg International Tribunal hanged Julius Streicher for the same sort of genocide incitement.

The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

Native Resistance during WWII — Native Resistance Today

During WW2 we Americans considered the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fought or killed racial supremacist genocidal Nazi invaders in occupied Europe.

Today we Americans must consider the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fights or kills racial supremacist genocidal Zionist invaders in stolen Palestine.

The Zionist mentality is completely congruent to the Nazi mentality, and the US Zionist movement commits heinous crimes according to the US federal code while the baby killer nation has for 75 years been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.

[Bob from Ohio]

Has the USA declared war on the Germans? Nazis yes but the Germans no.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Too many people believe that descendants of Rabbinic Jewish communities should have a permanent license to commit genocide with impunity.

A group, which has been subjected to genocide at the hands of a first set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Nazis), can later themselves form a second set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Zionists) just as evil as the first set of genocide perpetrators.

The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense.

The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

[Joe_dallas]

Hamas declared war on Israel and and the palestinian people effectively declared war in israel by their actions. Deal with reality, not with false projection of facts.

[Frank Drackman]

umm, none

[JasonT20]

Human beings can do some really fucked up things during a war. Being the “good guys” doesn’t change that as much as we would hope. Even if the side of the righteous isn’t committing war crimes, really fucked up things will happen to innocent people caught between the warring forces. It is strange to see people argue now that no one needs to do any better at limiting the suffering of civilians during war than our country did 80 years ago.

[Michael Ejercito]

We rely on custom, tradition, and precedent as a guide.

[EscherEnigma]

The United Nations, the Geneva Convention, and a bunch of other major international political actions since World Wars I and II have been all about making the future better then "custom, tradition, and precedent" which everyone agreed was actually pretty monstrous.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Do you not see through what you said!!! custom , tradition, and precedent that are wrong because they are custom, tradition, and precedent MUST mean that there is no right or wrong,moral or immoral....It wasn't monstrous.Did you hate your parents, and all teachers , all your neighbors ???

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"We rely on custom, tradition, and precedent as a guide."

When that method provides the desired result, anyway. Otherwise we just make shit up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Society: Hey let’s kill less people!

Reactionaries: actually we have customs, traditions, and precedents in favor of killing lots of people.

For as much as reactionaries claim to hate criminals and love law and order; they often seem to have much more in common with the worst of the worst offenders personality-wise.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Killing babies up to 9 months is utterly monstrous...the legacy of our stupid , lazy, immoral President. A man that nature decided should not speak because he says sht and doesn't even hear himself.

[Nige]

I know you think it's monstrous that sometimes late-term abortions have to be carried out to save the lives of the mothers, or because the baby is non-viable or aready dead, but generally people think it's a good idea.

[JasonT20]

The others said what would say to your reply. Basically, don’t you want to learn from history rather than repeat it?

I get that the nature of conservatism is to hold on to existing values, social norms, and such. But history and tradition are only a set of instructions for those that currently have the lion’s share of wealth and power and want to keep it that way. To everyone else, custom, tradition and precedent are always subject to questioning as humans look to do better than their forebears.

[JasonT20]

1st sentence should read:

The others said what I would say to your reply.

[Heedless]

We have learned from history is that wars only end if both sides are reasonably rational actors, if both sides become so battered and exhausted that they are no longer able to continue the conflict, or when one side is utterly defeated and knows itself to be utterly defeated.

"Humanitarian" pauses and cease-fires merely prolong the conflict and allow bad actors like Hamas to re-entrench.

If we want Israel to prevail, then we need to let them finish the job, however ugly that will be against an enemy whose entire military strategy consists of slaughtering civilians or using them as human shields.

If you don't want Israel to prevail, then you need to acquire a new moral compass, stat.

[Nige]

And that's pretty much the same mindset as Hamas. They have to be allowed to do the job, however ugly that will be.

[Heedless]

Yes, because we have all seen Israeli soldiers rampaging through town after town, raping the women, massacring the inhabitants, and setting the occasional baby on fire.

This is the problem with you, Nige. You can't tell the difference between the horrors of war (even a just war), and actual barbarism.

[Nige]

We have seen Israeli soldiers do some pretty terrible things and there are certainly ugly reports coming from Israeli detention centres. I would also say that what Israel has done to Gaza is an act of towering barbarism and involved the burning to death of many babies. There's no such thing as a just war.

[JasonT20]

“Humanitarian” pauses and cease-fires merely prolong the conflict and allow bad actors like Hamas to re-entrench.

Of course, it also gives the civilian population a chance for their abject terror to subside. Then, they might be able to apply some rational thought and realize that it was Hamas that got them there. Nothing can completely defeat terrorist organizations until they lose the ability to recruit. A civilian population that doesn't want the war to start back up might turn on Hamas.

Maybe that is fantasy land thinking, but just assuming that there is no other option than to flatten the entire Gaza strip in order to destroy Hamas is also unrealistic and extremely cold-hearted besides. Fighting terrorism is always a Catch-22. Hit them hard enough to do real damage to their ability to act in the future, and you inevitably give them propaganda, and civilians that lose family to your bombs have no reason to do anything but hate you.

We have learned from history is that wars only end if both sides are reasonably rational actors, if both sides become so battered and exhausted that they are no longer able to continue the conflict, or when one side is utterly defeated and knows itself to be utterly defeated.

Hamas doesn't exist because the people of Gaza are wealthy enough to fund them. Far from it. They are too poor to fund Hamas's attacks on Israel, even assuming that most would want to. Hamas exists because there are actors outside of Gaza feeding them money and supplies and intelligence. Those actors are much more rational than the average Hamas fighter. You really want to destroy Hamas, you make their enablers hurt. It doesn't even have to be with force. Expose them, isolate them economically and diplomatically, and they might get tired of the conflict.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nuke Iran....

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

That is not at all the nature of conservatism. Not at all, certainly not of a Burke or John Adams or esp Abraham Lincoln.

Conservatism is to make it so our children can do better than us.
HOw mindless you are
John Quincy Adams — 'I am a warrior, so that my son may be a merchant, so that his son may be a poet.'

NObody fought for American values, the wrongness of British activity in India, and against slavery as did Edmund Burke.
How mindless you are.

You don't even see the contradiction in your unthinking statement about being subject to questioning, something a 28 year old Abraham Lincoln showed was the argument of a mindless person. Let me quote:

". While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last."

You remind me of the young Joe Biden talking sht like he was the Oracle of Delphi

[JasonT20]

Abraham Lincoln was a conservative? Huh...

[Nige]

I wonder what history there is of using famine as a weapon.

[Paladin_44]

19th century British in Ireland, perhaps?

[JasonT20]

Stalin against Ukraine in the early 30s…

[Nige]

Chuchill and India in the 1940s.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

See, this kind of simplifying really hurts your cause.
Without judging where I can't and shouldn't...the villain may well have been the sainted Gandhi and not Churchill

Paul Johnson said that Gandhi lead hundreds of thousands to death by stirring up civil unrest all the while preaching non-violence.

[Nige]

While the causes of the famine were complex, at best Churchill and the War Cabinet had no idea what they were doing, at worst they didn't give a shit.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Much the better illustration is the intentional killing of MILLIONS by Stalin

Cruel efforts under Stalin to impose collectivism and tamp down Ukrainian nationalism left an estimated 3.9 million dead. At the height of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine under Joseph Stalin, starving people roamed the countryside, desperate for something, anything to eat.

[Heedless]

Every siege of an entrenched enemy since bronze was the new new thing in arms making.

What makes it especially odd in this case, is this is the first famine in which the supposed inflictor is sending shipments of food into the region and had previously arranged for the inhabitants to have enough greenhouses and farmland to be self-sufficient.

And that's before we get to the fact that all of your examples were in peacetime. Have you all forgotten that there's a war on?

[Nige]

I you think Ireland in the 1840s an Russia in the 1930s and the world in the 1940s were 'peacetime' you certainly don't know much. But I don't think declaring war is sufficent justification for imposing a famine, nor do I think that woefully insufficent food deliveries are much of a fig-leaf, and giving something with one hand only to take it away when another is nothing more than a brutal demonstration of power, something you do to keep a popultion cowed.

[Commenter_XY]

Trump v Anderson...

Ilya the Lesser says that SCOTUS got this decision wrong. Why is The Lesser right and 9 SCOTUS Justices wrong?

[Moderation4ever]

Is the argument that SCOTUS got it wrong or more likely that a number of justices had to set aside their usual textualist/originalist approach to get to the result? I think that the liberal justices may be the most correct, by simple saying that a patchwork system controlled by states will not work for a national election. It is a recognition and acceptance of the current situation. Conservatives have long held that the law is superior to the situation but did not hold that point of view in this case.

I don't think the Court did itself any favors in ruling on this case quickly and then dragging its feet on the Presidential immunity case.

[Bwaaah]

While the outcome was right in the opinion of 9 judges, the concurrence indicated it went too far in rendering the opinion that Section 3 can not be self-executing.

As they said, the practical problems of letting states use Section 3 to disqualify a Presidential candidate, as in this case, were sufficient to reach the conclusion of its inapplicability. However, the broader interpretation rendered in the controlling opinion expanded beyond that narrower finding to incorporate a clearly non-textual reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That said, non-textual doesn't necessarily mean anti-originalist, as there are also historical contexts to be considered.

It's not clear to me that any of this vindicates Somin's position in the matter.

[Commenter_XY]

I actually thought Justice Barrett was correct; they should have just decided the immediate question and not gone further.

[not guilty]

For once Justice Bear It got something right. The nut graph of the per curiam opinion appears at page 6:

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

The remainder of the per curiam opinion is obiter dicta.

[Bwaaah]

It looks like the major difference between the Barrett concurrence and the concurrence of Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson is that the latter takes more liberty to criticize and chastise the overreach of the 5 justices who did not take a more modest view. So aside from that, it could be said that all four of them (coincidentally, the women) got it more right than the 5 (men).

[Commenter_XY]

Girl power? = So aside from that, it could be said that all four of them (coincidentally, the women) got it more right than the 5 (men).

🙂

[Bwaaah]

Girl power. That's what I was trying not to say. LOL

[JasonT20]

Why is a patchwork of state methods for dealing with Sect 3 so wrong? We already have a patchwork system of electing the President. The Constitution set it up that way deliberately. They viewed it as being necessary for the President to be elected by the states rather than by the people directly. The feared that directly electing the President by national popular vote would make it easier to get a populist that wasn’t qualified and didn’t respect the limits of his power. Now that’s ironic.

The Constitution doesn’t require any state to choose its electors via a statewide popular vote. It doesn’t require the states to go no further than the Constitution does in setting qualifications for who the electors can pick, does it? Is it unconstitutional for a state to pass a law that electors can only pledge and cast their votes for someone that had served in the military? Or had a college degree? Or was under the age of 70? Or was right handed? And for other states to make different extra qualifications?

What text would SCOTUS use to rule against such laws? Or would they do what they did here and appeal to the consequences of allowing it and otherwise give weak arguments that contradict how they say they decide every other case?

[Michael Ejercito]

I am open to arguments that Supre Court rulings, even 9-0 rulings, are wrong.

Ilya the Lesser's arguments fail on the merits.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Show your work, for once.

[Kazinski]

There are two threads on the subject totalling over 300 comments from earlier in the week.

Be careful what you ask for.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha good point!

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Yes, I give you my 3rd plaudit of my short time on here.
This is pure HIllary Clinton stuff.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is it a runway if it's got a foot of snow on it?
Is going 65 MPH on a snowmobile, at night, "Operating at an unreasonable, improper or unsafe speed for existing conditions."?

This is a truly interesting case.

There are a lot of private dirt runways that are marked on the airplane charts --- as such. A lot haven't been used in years, and of those which are, they are mainly for piper cubs and such warm-weather toys,

And I suspect (Ed's saying he doesn't know) that a lot of them are abandoned but still listed so (a) pilots can compare the map to the land and (b) they could be used for dire emergencies. In fact, I know that CLOSED runways are listed as such

So a rural farm has such a runway and has allowed a skimobile trail to be built which crosses it. And the IDIOTS who use it run 65 MPH (or more) AT NIGHT on the trail. I wouldn't do that on a dirt bike at night, you are outrunning you headlights. You could hit a moose.

Army gets permission to use said private runway for a TX and doesn't care about the foot of snow because this is a FTX and helos don't have tires, anyway. Helo is black and (apparently) not displaying running lights. (THAT may be a FAA violation, if they were ON the runway...)

Snowmobiler goes into back of parked helo.

If it's a "paper" runway, i.e. not marked on the ground as such, hmmm.. (Runways usually have both side and end markers, usually reflectorized stakes.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-man-who-crashed-a-snowmobile-into-a-parked-black-hawk-helicopter-is-suing-the-government-for-9-5m/ar-BB1jpUFT?cvid=419ec4629211422ba5475eaa2d3c2117&ei=12

[Krayt]

The military might train from time to time to fly without lights on for missions, and have exemption to do so. Indeed, a never-used runway might be just what the doctor ordered for security and safety reasons on that.

Sounds like a messed up, unfortunate situation.

[John F. Carr]

I don't know who is more in the wrong. Massachusetts knows how to handle ambiguous fault for ordinary car accidents. The insurance companies pay their insureds out of their own pockets and negotiate among themselves about which insurer should compensate the other. This works well for property damage only accidents. Less so for medical bills. No-fault insurance for medical bills is limited to $8,000, not $9 million.

[Mr. Bumble]

Short of an earthquake that sinks the Haitian portion of Hispaniola I don't see anything ever changing. Haiti has been dysfunctional ever since it became independent.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wrong place. Re-posted below.

[Moderation4ever]

I am old enough to remember when snowmobiles were slower. Today's machines are like rockets. In addition to running fast at night there is also a culture of drinking associated with the sport. There are lots of good snowmobilers and as long as you don't run into the bad apples your safe and can enjoy the winter outdoors.

[Kazinski]

Powerline blog had a post about one of the cross tabs in the NY times poll out this week. The heading says it all:

TODAY IN NY TIMES BIDEN DOOM-POLLING

But the details are enlightening. The dual question was: “Trump/Biden policies have helped you personally”. Trump led overall 40-18, a 22 point margin. That’s bad enough but in every cohort, sex, age,.race, Trump led.

The two cohorts that were lowest for Trump were Blacks, where only 26% said Trumps policies made them personally better off, but then only 17% thought Biden did anything at all for them. Then among 18-29 year olds only 28% said Trumps policies helped them, but just 10% thought Biden had done anything to help them, Biden’s absolute lowest score.

I don’t see how Biden can win with numbers like that. Its one thing for Trump to be deeply unpopular, but at least they see his policies helping them personally, Biden is not only deeply unpopular, he’s woefully under performing in having policies perceived as helping.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/03/today-in-ny-times-biden-doom-polling.php

[Bwaaah]

It’s interesting when the question gets shifted from “do you agree with the policy?” to “does the policy help you?”

The Republican policy on abortion, for example, is broadly disliked by the left. And yet, precisely because Dobbs relegated that decision to the states, it only affects a relatively small percentage of people, and it is unlikely to affect the the larger state populations that oppose it.

I find much of the politicization in polls is accomplished through the choices of topics and the phrasing of the questions. It’s annoying how many polls are crafted not to help us learn about what the public thinks, but to teach us what the pollster wants us to believe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The number of abortions have gone up since Dobbs.

[Kazinski]

I hope that means more people are having sex.

Should Dobbs get credit?

[Mr. Bumble]

Can Haiti ever be fixed? The shithole of the Western Hemisphere has sunk even deeper into chaos.

[Ed Grinberg]

Can't wait for the resident leftists to tell us how it's all our fault.

[ThePublius]

Yes. Take all the Haitians out of Haiti and put them somewhere else. I don't know, maybe Gaza, or Central Africa, or Brazil. Then re-populate Haiti with Dutch people. It would become a tourist destination to a much greater degree than it ever was, and it will be safe and pleasant.

[VinniUSMC]

Then re-populate Haiti with Dutch people.

Don't let Nazi Martin anywhere near it.

[Martinned2]

Muted

[Nige]

Christ almighty.

[John F. Carr]

Haiti needs a giant peacekeeping force. I gather from recent news that the African peacekeeper deal may be back on. The victors built a working democracy out of the ruins of West Germany. It took years. Haiti may need that level of intervention so that it has not merely a series of votes but a culture of honest government.

[Bwaaah]

It's just really depressing to think that one person's "peacekeeping force" can be another's "cholera vector."

[Dr. Ed 2]

A century earlier, Germany was a culture building universities that we model to this day. German was the language of Science, and they built Dresden.

Haiti was Haiti...

[Mr. Bumble]

Short of an earthquake that sinks the Haitian portion of Hispaniola I don’t see anything ever changing. Haiti has been dysfunctional ever since it became independent.

[Gasman]

No peacekeeping force will create an orderly society out of a fucked up society.
Germany worked because they were at their core highly orderly people, prone to follow laws, to follow authority, and to socially censure undesired behavior amongst themselves.
Of course traits that led to a successful reconstruction are the same that allowed them such military dominance in the first place.

[Kazinski]

The most puzzling thing is the other half of the island is thriving:

GDP per capita "US$1,819 in Haiti and US$20,625 in Dominican Republic."

It seems the only solution is a massive investment in training and infrastructure to teach Haitians to play baseball.

[Mr. Bumble]

Baseball been berry berry good to me.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Chico? Is that you?

[Frank Drackman]

They have to learn how to use Toilet Paper first.
During the 1991-1992 Guantanamo Haitian captivity (Best "Captivity" they'd ever seen) the Military couldn't understand how the Haitian Portapotties never ran out of TP, they certainly filled up with feces quickly. Turned out the Haitians didn't know what the TP was for, or didn't like it, and did like they were used to, wiped their asses with rocks. Even after multiple demonstrations by well meaning INS officials, they still wiped their asses with rocks
Man, those rocks stunk.

Frank

[Estragon]

Actually, if you don’t have TP, or are somewhere it’s impractical/not great to dispose of, some nice smooth river rocks work just fine with a little self-bidet at the end. Don’t forget to wash your hands!

[bernard11]

There are worse plans.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kazinski -- don't forget that a lot of fentanyl comes in from the DR via their gangs.

[Michael P]

The first time around, I missed the “conversation” with Google Gemini where the AI insisted that nuclear holocaust was a better choice than misgendering Caitlyn Jenner.

That’s up there with Dan Rather (or his intern) taking to Xitter to rail against misinformation and that media authorities need to stop pretending they’re neutral so they can ask mean-spirited questions to Republicans.

[Kazinski]

Is THAT why skynet was so pissed off?

Its making sense now.

[Armchair]

I can see this making the outline of a horrible sci fi movie, about an evil AI that takes over enforcing woke concepts. Imagine...

(Opening scene: a woman is being horribly abused and tortured by two male individuals, as an AI Bot stands by impassively)

Prisoner: "Please help me! Anyone help me!"
Male 1: "No one's going to help you"
(Beating continues)
-Prisoner: (Cries softly)
-Male 1 to Male 2: "Well, this has been fun, but we've gotten almost no information out of her"
-Prisoner: "whispers something quietly"
Male 1: "What was that, I didn't hear you"
-Prisoner: (quietly) "My preferred pronoun is xe/xer"
Male 1: (Looks up in horror)
The AI Bot suddenly comes alive, and using a firearm, eliminates male 1 violently.
Male 2: (Quickly), "OK xer...lets see what you know! (Continues beating)
AI Bot then quiets down immediately.

[OtisAH]

I, in fact, *do* have “Armchair writes crappy fanfic about torturing a woman” on my VC bingo card.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol

[Brett Bellmore]

Gemini has likely been explicitly directed to treat 'misgendering' (accurately identifying somebody's sex) as a horrible evil. It probably never got an explicit command of that sort about a global nuclear holocaust.

[SRG2]

Is someone with XY genotype and full AIS male or female?

[Bwaaah]

Nicely qualified gotcha! there.

How does your technically phrased question inform a typical person who doesn't even know what "genotype" and "AIS" is?

Are we really better off asserting that common generalized differences between males and females are unimportant and not-real?

You're stuck in a current fad that suggests, but can't honestly say, that male and female sex differences are irrelevant. You're trying to build rules of thinking based on exceptional cases.

[SRG2]

How does your technically phrased question inform a typical person who doesn’t even know what “genotype” and “AIS” is?

I assume a higher level of general knowledge amongst posters here, and anyone who makes confident statements on the subject should certainly know the meaning of those terms if their confidence is to be at all justified.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, genetics don't lie.

XY = You're a guy
XX = You're a girl

This works out 99.999% of the time.

Nice try. 🙂

[SRG2]

Genetics may not lie but they don't tell the complete story either. You would require someone with AIS to use the men's restroom, I assume, like these women:
https://secondtypewoman.info/ais-graphic.htm

[Commenter_XY]

I just stay with the genetics piece. Makes it simple.

XY....Men's restroom
XX....Lady's restroom

[SRG2]

So the people in the photograph, and others similarly situated, looking naturally 100% female with breasts and vaginas have to go to the men's restroom.

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2....was my criteria somehow unclear? It literally works 99.999% of the time. Really simple. 🙂

XY….Men’s restroom
XX….Lady’s restroom

[SRG2]

No - I just couldn't believe that anyone could be so thoughtless, crass and inconsiderate. .

[Voize]

You forgot

XXX = You're Vin Diesel

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, nice. That was funny. 🙂

[Bwaaah]

XXX…fuckin’ a’ yeah.

SRG2 got no XXX theory. Gonna need a men’s room, a women’s room, and a Vin Diesel room to handle what’s _really_ goin’ on here.

[Bwaaah]

“I assume a higher level of general knowledge amongst posters here, and anyone who makes confident statements on the subject should certainly know the meaning of those terms if their confidence is to be at all justified.”

You have a view of sexuality that emphasizes marginal cases, and that contradicts more common, prevailing sensibilities. And, as you indicate, most people should have a lack of confidence in their views of the sexes, because they don’t have the more advanced knowledge that you have.

It looks like the many must be wrong for not adopting the views of a few. And that new perspective is for the benefit of whom?

What if you have such a long list of marginal wrong-thinks that you find that most people are just wrong-thinking their whole lives? Press onward with re-education? You don’t think it’s worth giving the list a rest?

I have a sanctimonious niece who looks down on all the “ignorant” people like that. She and I find each other very annoying. (But she's always very gracious with the help.)

[Sarcastr0]

You have a view of sexuality that emphasizes marginal cases, and that contradicts more common, prevailing sensibilities

This statement, used at other times in history, could describe homosexuality. Or remarriage after divorce. Or allowing women to vote.

Tradition does have an element of wisdom. But an appeal to 'normalcy' is as often used by puritans to be busybodies.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. Except we're not talking about normalizing homosexuality, or remarriage, or divorce, or allowing women to vote.

We're talking about trying to normalize the belief that there's no meaningful difference between a biological male and a biological female. And that's to help which people how?

Did you ever consider that you don't have to erase all theories of sex differences in order to encourage people to be tolerant and respectful of each other? The more general tolerance-and-respect strategy is much simpler, can address a huge number of marginal populations, and doesn't require everybody to learn all your new theories about every cultural hangup.

[Nige]

'We’re talking about trying to normalize the belief that there’s no meaningful difference between a biological male and a biological female.'

That\s not what we're talking about.

'and doesn’t require everybody to learn all your new theories about every cultural hangup.'

It's the oldest theory in the world: it's wrong to persecute minorities.

[Bwaaah]

That's a new theory, you moron.

[Nige]

New to you? Well, think about it, see if it works for you.

[Sarcastr0]

'THIS time it's different' does not cure an argument that proves too much.

Did you ever consider that you don’t have to erase all theories of sex differences in order to encourage people to be tolerant and respectful of each other?
This is an odd choice for a strawman.

[Nige]

'It looks like the many must be wrong for not adopting the views of a few.'

I think most people think gay people should be allowed to marry and trans people should not be persecuted. If most people believed the opposite, would that make it right?

'I have a sanctimonious niece who looks down on all the “ignorant” people like that.'

I'm sorry if knowing the difference between right and wrong comes across as sanctimonious to you.

[Nige]

Well it's such a spectacularly stupid fucking question, what are you going to do, treat it as if it was in some way serious?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Coming up with elaborate fantasy scenarios where the hero needs to mis-gender someone or say a racial slur is incredibly deranged behavior. And yet it is a popular thing to do among the online right. The online right which has an alarming amount of influence over American politics. The left really needs to start pathologizing these people in much more stark terms.

[Michael P]

Why do you think it's so important to persecute people for disagreeing with you and for pointing out that major corporations have phenomenally stupid biases in your favor?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Pathologizing right wing behavior as part of some kind of anti-social personality traits/disorder isn’t “persecution.” It’s simply describing them in the same way that conservatives have (incorrectly) described liberals for decades. It’s not persecution to have your delusions criticized and labeled as such by others.

The fact that you think it is persecution kind of demonstrates my point: the right is full of pathologies that need to be highlighted and communicated to the public.

[Bwaaah]

"Pathologizing right wing behavior"

You think pathologizing a population under a label that is used to classify half the the people in the U.S. is helpful? You think it's helpful to characterize half a country's citizens as sick and repugnant?

Poisonous partisan politics. At the end of this year, both sides will be pointing at the other like it was the other guy who delivered us there.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"You think it’s helpful to characterize half a country’s citizens as sick and repugnant?"

A few things:

First, if you really believed this was a bad thing you would be a Democrat. This has been the Republicans thing for ages. Have you ever listened to a Donald Trump speech for instance? Or any Republican talking about American cities? Calling everyone they disagree with pedophiles and groomers? Complaining about decorum and helpfulness is the classic conservative bully move: They dish but can't take and get all whiny and concern-trolly when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Second, its not half. It's not even close to half. What it is is a very vocal and connected minority of people who have undue influence over American political life. Pointing out their antisocial traits, disorders, and delusions to the general public IS helpful for everyone.

[Bwaaah]

That which you call “pathologizing” is vilification of one’s political opposition, phrased in the style of the science of psychology. And yes, Donald Trump and many of his adherents do that vilification, full of excessive and misrepresentative characterizations of their political opponents, quite as you describe. That level of exaggeration and misrepresentation is poisonous to political discourse.

And now, Democrats stand up to compete in the info wars with their own brand of over-the-top counter-vilification. The only difference is that in the Democrats’ case, “it’s really true.” You know…how Republicans are engaged in a war against women, want gays to go back in the closet, despise minorities, and will easily cede Democracy for an authoritarian ruler like Donald Trump.

And though you are quite correct that much of the political right does not want anything like that, partisan rhetoric makes no such distinction in its vitriol; partisans know only two camps in the world, and the other one is scum. So, for example, the mere fact that I express significant disagreements with Democratic policies means I am treated 100% like Righty. The particulars of my differences are irrelevant to 90+% of partisans.

I hope you got to see the contempt in the voice of the President of the United States on Thursday evening. He was speaking, quite clearly, about the other guys. In partisan speak, that’s the other half the country.

You, the left, despite all your protests and proselytizing, didn’t learn shit about hate. Your early twenty-first century lessons could never admit the role of love and its essential importance everywhere including in politics. It used to be called, in some sense, MAGNANIMITY. Maybe, more sheepishly, let bygones be bygones? Tolerance? (Anything?)

It takes two to play even a dirty game. Enjoy your 2024. (The Rev. Arthur Kirkland stands at your wing.)

[Nige]

'The only difference is that in the Democrats’ case, “it’s really true.”'

I guess that does actually matter to some people.

'Your early twenty-first century lessons could never admit the role of love and its essential importance everywhere including in politics. It used to be called, in some sense, MAGNANIMITY.'

Do you honestly think you're somehow unique or even contrarian in lecturing to the Democrats to be nicer to poor wee Trump supporters, who want to vote back in the man who tried to steal the last election and invalidate every single Democrat vote? Who still insists he won, a claim of such casual and indifferent contempt for every single person who voted for Biden? Whose supporters are apparently children with no volition who need to be patronised and coddled? It's a fucking cliche.

[Nige]

That's what you get for trolling a dumb algorithmic text generator.

[dwb68]

The Tik Tok influencer propaganda has gotten thick. I didn't realize it was a coordinated campaign on social media, until I saw a 30 second commercial about how TikTok saves farming which is totally ridiculous.

It's hard for me to give a f*** about richinfluencers losing their ability to sell merch using silly dance videos.

If tik tok goes away some other company will step in to fill the void.

[Armchair]

So...what do we do about the Houthis?

It's hard to imagine, but they are doing serious damage to the state of international commerce. Recently one of their missiles killed 3 innocent sailors in the Gulf of Aden (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490695). This is after a major commercial ship was sunk by their efforts.

At this point, the risk is such that it's hard to imagine a commercial shipping company willingly going through the Suez Canal. That adds enormous costs (by going around Africa), not to mention an ungodly amount of Greenhouse gas emissions (it increases levels given off by a ship by up to 70%). (FYI, international shipping accounts for 2% of all CO2 emissions.)

So what should be done?

[Michael P]

I understand the Biden/EU plan is to airdrop supplies to them: food, medical supplies for their fighters, rocket-building supplies and other humanitarian aid. Then write a strongly worded letter asking them if they've considered eating bugs instead of vertebrate meat, and reinforce that with tots and pears.

[dwb68]

unfortunately the Putin loving Tucker Carlson watching Maga Republicans will probably do the same

[Frank Drackman]

Tucker hasn't been on TV for months moron.

[SimonP]

Dude posts videos on Twitter now, moron.

[Bwaaah]

Uh oh. Truth coming out? Drackman really does live under a rock?

Oh wait! He said “TV.” Yeah, Frank. Tucker’s gone. But what if this whole “streaming video” thing catches on?

[Frank Drackman]

I have enough of a life I use Youtube like Algore intended, to watch young girls try on, I mean, replays of 70's MLB games

[Bwaaah]

LOL. I didn't think you could come this far and still miss it. (You're probably not a fan of LOLs.) But yes...and baseball.

[Krayt]

"Soylent Green is bugs! You're eating bugs! Soylent Green is bugs!"

[SimonP]

A ceasefire in Gaza would go a long way towards lowering temperatures across the region.

[ThePublius]

A cease fire would benefit no one but Hamas. It will allow them to regroup, resupply, plan war tactics and strategy, and so on. A hostage/prisoner swap will augment their ranks.

[SimonP]

A cease fire would benefit no one but Hamas.

It would also enable innocent Gazans, who are starving, homeless, and without adequate medical care, to receive the aid they desperately need. It would also enable the release of the remaining hostages, start rebuilding international support for Israel in its fight against Hamas, and release pressure on Biden to take more aggressive action against Israel to get them to practice greater restraint – such as by withholding military support or withdrawing UN cover.

But, sure, don’t think about it for yourself. Run with the insipid talking point. Lord knows it’s been tailored for your easy, brainless parroting.

[ThePublius]

That's baloney. The "deal" that's on the table only releases 40 hostages, in return for 400 prisoners. Not the "remaining hostages." 'Though perhaps only 40 remain alive? Who knows.

Putting pressure on the populace, cruel as it may sound, is a legitimate tactic in war. And I doubt many of the Gazans, save the children, are "innocent." It seems most are Hamas supporters or sympathizers, and, indeed, many are actually Hamas combatants.

As I have said before, Hamas can end this war today by surrendering, which would result in the release of all remaining (alive) hostages, and a flow of aid for Gazans.

Let me ask you - why doesn't any other Middle East country want these people?

[SimonP]

That’s baloney. The “deal” that’s on the table only releases 40 hostages, in return for 400 prisoners. Not the “remaining hostages.” ‘Though perhaps only 40 remain alive? Who knows.

Well, you're not going to get all of them if you don't start getting some of them.

Putting pressure on the populace, cruel as it may sound, is a legitimate tactic in war.

No, it's a war crime.

And I doubt many of the Gazans, save the children, are “innocent.” It seems most are Hamas supporters or sympathizers, and, indeed, many are actually Hamas combatants.

Well, that makes it easy then!

Never mind that you're blithely indifferent to killing at least ten thousand concededly "innocent" children, while Israel is taking a victory lap over some bloody underwear.

As I have said before, Hamas can end this war today by surrendering, which would result in the release of all remaining (alive) hostages, and a flow of aid for Gazans.

It's a bit like saying that Israel can end the war today by just not bombing Gaza any more, isn't it?

Let me ask you – why doesn’t any other Middle East country want these people?

It's for the same reason that no European country has long tolerated migrant flows from Syria, Ukraine, or any other country under this kind of pressure. Haiti is on our doorstep and in total collapse. Do you want to provide millions of Haitians a safe refuge in America?

There are around 2 million Palestinians in Gaza. The autocratic governments in the region are not interested in the taking on the serious disruption of admitting hundreds of thousands of migrants - poor, unemployed, homeless. In some countries - like Egypt - such a disruption could well trigger a regime collapse.

It's not really hard to understand. Not sure why you're having such a hard time figuring it out yourself.

[Krayt]

Oh we understand why places like Egypt don't want them, as you mention. Not to mention they've been the gypsies of the Middle East for a century before this, harrassed, kicked out, and so on.

There is nothing noble in defending the autocrat positions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The children are NOT innocent -- they can tell people where the IDF are and can carry messages.

[LawTalkingGuy]

One of American liberalism's biggest failures has been to not pathologize the right-wing until very recently. And even now its weak sauce. Conservatives have been very successful at characterizing liberals as having mental disorders. But the amount of right-wingers with anti-social traits and obvious personality disorders is incredible. They'll literally just be like: "lets kill children" and not see anything inherently wrong about that. And then these people choose a man who is nothing but a collection of disordered anti-social traits and pathologies as their champion.

An entire movement dedicated to "law and order" with the personality profile of Timothy McVeigh. Make it make sense.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Israel: Give us our hostages, and we will keep many of your hostages, and then after a few weeks, we’ll start killing your people again with US bombs.

Hamas: No, we want lasting peace and our basic human rights.

Israel: No.

Media: Hamas rejects yet another ceasefire deal!

[Sarcastr0]

I used to think that.

At this point, it's hard to argue that the non-Hamas citizens of Gaza could probably use the time to do surviving things.

[EscherEnigma]

C'mon.

Those ambulance drivers and EMTs? Hamas.
That 9 year old shot in the head by a sniper? Hamas.
Those universities? Hamas.
Those reporters? Hamas.
Those people waiting for food? Hamas.
Those UN observers? Hamas.
West Bank? Hamas.
Those people online shocked at videos of Israeli bulldozers literally crushing people alive? Hamas.

We've all been assured many times over the past few months that everyone that Israel has killed in Gaza, and everyone objecting to it elsewhere, is Hamas. You going to say Israel is lying? If so, it's because you're Hamas.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And they are Hamas.

[Ed Grinberg]

Great! Israelis must tolerate more Hamas raids into their territory (with no retaliation)! Of course that's the right response to some assholes attacking ships hundreds of miles away! Your logic is impeccable!

[SimonP]

Great! Israelis must tolerate more Hamas raids into their territory (with no retaliation)!

Ed, the term I used was “ceasefire.” That has implications for Hamas, too.

Of course that’s the right response to some assholes attacking ships hundreds of miles away! Your logic is impeccable!

The Houthis are citing the Gaza conflict as the reason for attacking ships in the strait. So, yes, logically speaking, defusing the conflict should help to get the Houthis to back off.

I realize that multilateral geopolitics in an area as complex as the Middle East is going to be beyond the ken of most VC MAGA-heads, but:

The Houthis are a terrorist organization in Yemen, who have seized control over a chunk of its territory. After waging a civil war against the Saudi-backed government, and triggering a humanitarian crisis, they are currently abiding by a ceasefire with Saudi Arabia that is at risk if we take more direct action against them. At the same time, American attacks against the Houthis are unlikely to meaningfully inhibit their ability to engage in attacks, while making them seem stronger to their local constituencies (as capable of bringing the global economy to heel and going head-to-head with the Americans). They are supported by Iran, but not under Iran’s direct control, which we can see from the fact that some Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria have backed off of attacking American targets in the region, while the Houthis have not backed off their own actions. Their attacks on shipping traffic has implications for the global economy, but primarily for Europe and countries like China (who benefits from trade through the Suez canal) and Egypt (who derive revenue from traffic through the Suez canal, and have been suffering from an economic hit due to the war in Gaza).

Attacking the Houthis more aggressively may re-open the civil war and attacks against Saudi Arabia, without meaningfully degrading their ability to attack shipping traffic. Attacking Iran would similarly be counterproductive, because that would escalate and broaden the war while failing to do much to control what the Houthis are doing. At the same time multiple parties throughout the region, not all of them aligned with Israel, want the Houthis to stop their attacks and want at least a temporary pause to the fighting in Gaza.

A ceasefire is the obvious play here.

[Bob from Ohio]

They have tasted power, they will just use the next excuse to keep doing it.

[SimonP]

Maybe so. I believe their incentives may lead them to withhold fire, if a ceasefire is reached now, but those same incentive may lead them to re-engage in order to achieve some further ends in the future.

What should be done about the Houthis, then?

[Bob from Ohio]

B-52 strikes. 70,000 pounds of bombs is maximum payload.

Repeatedly, no warning like we do now. Target where the leadership lives.

[SimonP]

More war, then. I thought MAGA was opposed to getting involved in foreign conflicts?

Are we the world's policeman again?

[Krayt]

Even old TJ sent US ships to keep the sea trade open, and the US was far from dominant, barely even a player at that point.

[SimonP]

So?

[Commenter_XY]

Attacking American flagged ships is an act of war. The US must respond when American ships are attacked. Our response, to date, has been ineffective. The Houthis have thusfar managed to defeat the US Navy, as they continue to sink ships near Yemen.

I thought Afghanistan was bad....

[Nige]

Then let's do everything possible to repeat the whole thing!

[SimonP]

We're not bound to escalate every attack into an international war, CXY.

I suppose we could do what Trump did in Afghanistan, which was cut a deal with the terrorists, plan an abrupt retreat, and let the region collapse into chaos, leaving the mess for the next president.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I say we take out the grid square -- the square kilometer -- of wherever any rocket is launched from in Yemen.

Carpet-bomb, napalm, everything.

Either the attacks will end or there will be a whole lot less in Yemen than there is now.

Conversely, why should we care if Chinese goods cost more in Europe? It makes US exports more affordable over there...

[SimonP]

Sure. It’s helpful that so many of you MAGA types are volunteering that you actually like forceful military responses, notwithstanding all of your rhetoric about how Trump didn’t start any during his term.

It ends up making for a bit of a confusing pitch, though – vote Trump because he’s strong and avoids international conflicts! Vote against Biden because he’s weak and avoids international conflicts! Also, bomb Iran!

[Frank Drackman]

The Ceasefire will start when the last Ham-ass terrorist is killed.

[dwb68]

When Russia and Iran stop arming and supporting muslim fundamentalists that want to stone women and kill jews, there will be a ceasefire.

[Armchair]

So....Because Israel retaliated after Hamas killed over a thousand innocent Israeli citizens...

The Houthis (based in Yemen) decided a logical response was to fire a missile at a ship owned by Liberia, flagged in Barbados, and operated by a Greek company. Killing two Filipino and one Vietnamese citizens. And demand that they will keep killing, until Israel stops retaliating against Hamas?

Umm...

What next? Can George Bush steal your car because Russia invaded Ukraine?

[Ed Grinberg]

Thomas Jefferson would know what to do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NUKE EM….

The world has functioned best with an American President (Reagan, Trump) seen crazy enough to maybe just do it — and no one wanting to find out.

Of course these are not AMERICAN flagged ships being attacked — maybe we should let it be known that if anyone fires on an American flagged ship, we will take out the grid square. We will level the square mile that the rockets came from. That the American President is THAT crazy.

0f course, Egypt has got to be hurting with the lost Suez Canal tolls. It's not a rich country to begin with...

[Bob from Ohio]

B-52 strikes. 70,000 pounds of bombs is maximum payload.

Repeatedly, no warning like we do now. Target where the leadership lives

[Frank Drackman]

That would be Terror-Ann and Riyadh

[EscherEnigma]

Unless they attack American ships, then I don't see a reason for the US Navy to get involved.

The US military does not (or at least, should not) exist to secure international trade interests. At the very least, we shouldn't be securing ships that aren't registered to American ports. If a Filipino ship is hit, then that sounds like something for the Philippines to care about.

If they hit an American ship? Well, that's how the US was pulled into World War I.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the Louisiana was a British ship with Americans aboard.
Also some explosives which is what actually sunk her -- the torpedo set them off.

[Longtobefree]

You need a better spell checker - - - - - - - -

[BrotherMovesOn]

EscherEnigma, if you read Peter Zeihan's The End of the World is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization, you will be in for a surprise. The US Navy is critical, and has been critical to global sea trade since WWII (or the collapse of the USSR, if you prefer). The abdication of this role, (to his mind a frightening but real possibility) will be catastrophic to global order.

[David Nieporent]

The US navy's primary purpose is to secure international trade interests.

[Armchair]

Really? It's "primary purpose"?

Not "Defend the United States" but "Secure international trade routes"?

[David Nieporent]

I probably should've phrased it as "primary function" rather than "primary purpose." Its primary purpose is to protect American interests. The primary way in which it carries this out is to secure international trade routes.

[BrotherMovesOn]

^

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Loose lips sink ships!

Thanks David, now the usual suspects will be convinced that the USN has been commandeered into the service of globalist trade organizations...or the WHO (that's always a popular choice).

[Armchair]

I suppose that gets onto a point that is slightly irritating to me.

Why aren't ships flagged in the United States? Why are they all flagged in the Bahamas, or Panama, or Liberia? Well, there's the obvious (and less obvious reason). The obvious reason is because it's expensive, as US flagged ships would need to pay US taxes. The less obvious reason is because US-Flagged ships would need to obey US labor codes.

But, those taxes go to pay for things...like the whole US Navy. Which is what protects the ships. Liberia's navy isn't out there protecting these ships. Liberia barely has a navy. It's the US Navy (and a few other countries, like India, the UK, France, etc. But you get the point.)

Maybe...the US navy should just protect US flagged ships. And if you're not a US flagged vessel, well... best of luck against the pirates on your own. Or perhaps the US navy, if it needs to intervene with a non-US flagged vessel to save it, well...perhaps a bill is appropriate for services rendered. It's better than having your ship seized and sunk by pirates.

Just a thought.

[BrotherMovesOn]

So your thought is to just roll the dice on a possible catastrophic outcome because -
Fuck y'all! USA! USA! USA! Seems reasonable.
"I'm sorry Sir, but we can't accept a return of the jacket because of spite."

[David Nieporent]

Trumpkins view everything through a transactional lens. They think the world is zero sum, and therefore if we do something without getting something specifically in return then we're losing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Armchair -- New Hampshire is doing that to the idiots who get lost in the White Mountains.

[Commenter_XY]

It would appear the US Navy has been defeated by the Houthis. Attacks (successful) on shipping continue.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"It would appear the US Navy has been defeated by the Houthis."

I can only suspect you are being facetious here, hard to tell, based on previous.

[Commenter_XY]

BMO...Attacks continue on shipping. Including American flagged ships. Has the US Navy accomplished the mission? They have not.

Thusfar, the US Navy has been defeated by a bunch of desert Houthi yahoos carting around leftover missiles from God knows where. I am not happy as an American to admit that a bunch of yahoos tied up the Navy, but there it is. Davey Jones is surely turning over in his locker. 🙂

The Navy haven't stopped the Houthis. The Houthis continue to attack shipping with abandon. Hell, now the Houthi try to divert entire airplanes.

Some is facetious (it is true); most is not.

[BrotherMovesOn]

As far as I know the USN has never been defeated, and certainly has not been defeated by Houthis now. That's why I suspected facetiousness. Apparently you'll need a Dr. Ed level action for the USN to save face. Or something.
You do realize Dr. Ed is mentally unwell, right?

[Commenter_XY]

The stated mission of the USN (from DefSec) is to stop the Houthis from attacking shipping. How long ago was that? Months ago. And what is still occurring? Attacks on shipping.

Maybe in your world, you call failure to achieve stated mission goals a victory. Meanwhile, out here in the real world, when you have a mission with a goal, and then fail to do it...well, it is not victory.

You don't like the term 'defeated'. Ok, do you prefer 'thwarted'? Same thing, functionally.

[Nige]

I'm thinking that anything that would work would be things you would hate, so they should stick with bombings that kill lots of people but somehow fail to prevent a single attack.

[Frank Drackman]

Her name is Lanken Riley, murdered/raped by one of Parkinsonian Joe's "Dreamers".
Unless it was in one of his frequent incoherent mumblings I haven't heard him say her name, and he hasn't had the common decency to call her family like he did with that Criminal drug addict/domestic abuser Floyd George.
I know Lanken's family won't be there, but I wonder which NBA player wrongly arrested by race-ist Black Cops he'll have as an honored guest this year.
Or will it be John Lewis's Corpse? You know, because of "Bloody Sunday" Ever been to Selma? every weekend's "Bloody"

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These bigots are the fans, defenders, ideological allies, and target audience of the right-wing law professors who operate this white, male, conservative blog. Does the Volokh Conspiracy generate racists, gay-bashers, misogynists, immigrant-haters, transphobes, antisemites, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, Islamophobes, white nationalists, and more racists . . . or does it merely attract them?

[Frank Drackman]

Knew that'd distract you from the porn Jerry, I can read you like Tom Brady used to read Penn States shitty defenses. Remember November 13, 1999? Happy Valley wasn't so Happy that day

Frank "Brady with another completion....".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thank you for your service, Frank Drackman. You are part of the reason Prof. Volokh is headed north from a mainstream institution that deserved better to a right-wing mouthpiece operation that is a far better fit from everyone's perspective.

[Frank Drackman]

Brady just scored again

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't like Penn State -- which awards degrees in ice creaming -- or Tom Brady, who was good, lucky, and a cheater.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Listeria.

20%-30% fatal -- in 2024 -- and rather nasty.

Just one reason why you want the people making your dairy products to have a degree in "ice creaming."

[Ed Grinberg]

I wonder: come November, will more people vote based on a common-sense desire to put a stop to Biden administration's outrageous, lawless behavior at our southern border, or based on a desire to avoid being called a "bigot" by the likes of Rev. Kirkland?
As I said before (regarding a comment by one of the other resident leftists): to a leftist, exhibiting concern for one’s life, liberty, and property is being “shitty” — lacking in “solidarity.”

[Bwaaah]

I’m waiting for the day when, for a person on the left, being called a “bigot” isn’t a fate worse than death. Ironically, being a bigot isn’t a problem for them. It seems to be all about looking like a good person.

[Nige]

So, you're calling 'the left' bigots, and, somehow, the left finds the strength to carry on.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If by "carry on" you mean kick the bigoted shit out of conservatives in the culture war for a half-century . . . good point!

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend Jerry Sandusky Ladies and Gentlemens, convicted Sex Offender and admitted Shit Kicker

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm waiting for the day when you lot stop calling everyone who deigns to disagree with you a "leftist", "socialist" or "Marxist".

However, it's such a lazy, self-owning attempted insult it's hard to be truly offended by it.

[Bwaaah]

You mistake me for being Righty. I don’t think I’ve ever used the term “leftist,” and tend to reserve the terms “socialist” and “Marxist” for people who declare themselves as such.

“it’s such a lazy, self-owning attempted insult it’s hard to be truly offended by it.”

Apparently, it’s quite easy.

[David Nieporent]

Right-wing opposition to immigration has nothing to do with "concern for one's life, liberty, and property."

[OtisAH]

Her name is “Laken” Riley, piece of shit. If you’re going to pretend to give a shit about someone in order to score internet points you should at a minimum get that person’s name right.

Speaking of, do you even remember the name of the last white woman you tried this with, piece of shit?

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, looks like I really stepped on your hemorrhoid with that post, sorry if your side has a Willie history Horton of Willie letting Willie Rape-ists Horton and Willie Murderers Horton out Willie of Horton Jail to Willie Rape and Horton murder.
And hey, it's early, I'm on the Left Coast (funny how the further you get from Seattle/Portland the less Crime/Blacks there are) It's like how Parkinsonian Joe confused the Presidents of May-He-Co and Egypt (in his defense, they do look similar)

Frank

Frank

[OtisAH]

Meh, don’t worry about it. You’re a piece of shit. Nothing matters to a piece of shit.

[ThePublius]

Can you please cut it out?

"We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic."

[OtisAH]

Hilarious. Piss off.

[SimonP]

MOOOOOMMMM!!!

[Bwaaah]

LOL

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO....that was pretty funny.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why did you object to the response to a racist comment, rather than to the racist comment, you bigoted piece of right-wing culture war roadkill?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You advocate for ethnic cleansing and think you're one to police the comments section?

LOL.

[Michael P]

So, what are your thoughts on Joe Biden calling her Lincoln Riley?

[Magister]

The accused killer is not a Dreamer; those are undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children and grew up as Americans.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep telling yourself that

[Frank Drackman]

Statement by President Joe Biden on the First Anniversary of George Floyd’s Murder
Today, in the Oval Office, I met with George Floyd’s family.
Although it has been one year since their beloved brother and father was murdered, for the family – for any family experiencing a profound loss – the first year can still feel like they got the news a few seconds ago. And they’ve had to relive that pain and grief each and every time those horrific 9 minutes and 29 seconds have been replayed.
Yet the Floyd family has shown extraordinary courage, especially his young daughter Gianna, who I met again today. The day before her father’s funeral a year ago, Jill and I met the family and she told me, “Daddy changed the world.”

He has.

Almost 4 years since he assumed room temperature (Floyd, not Joe)
wonder how many more women he would have brutalized since then.

Frank

[Michael P]

Deploying the National Guard to manage increased rime in your subway system? That's just another day ending in 'y' for a blue city. But I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to tell us that there's not actually an ongoing crime, only GOP disinformation.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/national-guard-deployed-new-york-city-subway-crime/story?id=107846576

[Frank Drackman]

Just wait until one of the Guardsmen actually shoots somebody.

[SimonP]

It’s empty security theater, and you know it. Every New Yorker knows it.

Here’s how it works. You go into the subway. If you get tapped, you go over to a table where some police officers are standing around. You open your bag, they look inside, then you enter the system. If you don’t want to get searched, you turn around and exit the system.

National Guard adds nothing but scary-looking guys in camo holding large guns.

The crime that actually happens is not happening there, but within the system. So this is just ostensibly about stopping weapons from entering the system. It does nothing to stop you from being actually attacked.

New Yorkers may be freaked out over some recent, high-profile attacks, but we don’t need the National Guard to address it. We have an overstaffed NYPD full of incompetent crooks who don’t want to do a god damn thing that requires actual work or policing. Putting officers in the system and getting the crazy and homeless people out would go a long way towards making New Yorkers feel safer and more comfortable on the subways. But they’re not doing that.

I’m not sure the crime levels required this degree of non-response, either. But there’s certainly a feeling of insecurity that New Yorkers want to have addressed. Really, this is just an extension of the anti-crime sentiment that got Adams elected in the first place. People in NYC aren’t anti-policing. They want the police to keep their neighborhoods safe. But you look at what the NYPD actually does, and it’s nothing but ineffectual incompetence. They’re part of the problem.

[Kazinski]

When it comes down to it its the voters that are the problem.

Hochul, Adams, James, Bragg. When the voters decide they've had enough it will get fixed, but until then enjoy what you voted for.

Same in Chicago.

[Frank Drackman]

You'd think Hochul would be embarrassed that she's only Governor because of Cuomo's Penis.

[SimonP]

She has since won re-election, though she had the benefit of running against a MAGA sycophant.

[Frank Drackman]

She wouldn't have had the chance to stand for re-erection if it wasn't for Cuomo's Penis

[SimonP]

Ted, it may surprise you that the villains you've listed are all across the map politically and in terms of competence. I will assume for a moment that you are simply ignorant of the local nuances, and not actually a moron.

Hochul is a corrupt, upstate Democrat of the Cuomo mold. She is not "progressive." Her politics lean left but are aimed at the upstate coalition of NYC suburbs and smaller cities, and more Albany-focused than NYC.

Adams is a corrupt former cop. He was the least "progressive" of all of the Democratic mayoral candidates, in his primary, and won primarily due to his anti-crime pitch to minority communities in the outer boroughs. They - as it turns out - were far less "anti-cop" than the media you consume no doubt gives you the impression of. Since entering office, he has been plagued by corruption scandals, including appointing unqualified friends to important governmental posts, mismanaging the NYPD and corrections systems, and now ongoing federal investigations into campaign contributions and his screwy relationship with Turkey. In style he's a lot like Trump - pretends that only he can solve everything, presents himself as some kind of messianic figure, engages in corruption at every opportunity, exudes total incompetence.

Bragg got himself elected as Manhattan DA on a progressive agenda, but then got into office and did a quick pivot to just warming the seat. He's been accused of presiding over "lawlessness," but this generally overlooks how a criminal justice system works. Cops undercharge crimes in order to make convictions easier to secure, prosecutors try to process cases quickly and will downgrade charges to get quick plea agreements, judges are focused on the cases in front of them and not with an eye on how it plays on right-wing media.

James is pretty much the only one among them all who ran on a progressive, motivated agenda, and has sought to execute on that agenda. Really the only reason you mention her is that she's attracted attention for going after Trump, for engaging in years-long fraudulent practices in New York. In that respect, voters are absolutely getting what we voted for.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

the villains you’ve listed [i.e., Hochul, Adams, James, Bragg] are all across the map politically

???
I'm pretty sure every single one of them is a Democrat. But hey, if New Yorkers like that sort of thing, let them enjoy it, "good and hard."

[SimonP]

I would like to believe that at least some people are capable of understanding that there's more to politics than just the (D) or the (R). If you're not one of them, that's fine.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd argue in NY there is less to politics than just D and R.

[Bwaaah]

Democrats say it's "more than just D and R" in New York, which is an ironic way to describe a place that's pretty much nothing but D.

Note: All their words are fungible, and all their concepts are boundless.

[SimonP]

For what it's worth, New York has had Republican and independent mayors and governors within recent memory. And the point I'm making is that, in New York, while "Democrats" are in a lot of the important positions, they're not all of the same ilk.

The Democratic candidates for mayor in the most recent election included both the former Republican cop who eventually won, a competent bureaucrat, an inexperienced leftist, an inexperienced and incompetent leftist, a techbro, and someone who I think got caught up in a sex scandal. The Republican was a crazy cat guy.

Republicans can definitely win here, given the... quality... of what we get on the left. We were very eager to send BdB packing. Unfortunately the corrupt cop turned out to be worse. Another Bloomberg would be embraced.

[Sarcastr0]

NY is a place that's pretty much nothing but D?!

That's the sound of someone who lives in NYC and is not paying attention.

[OtisAH]

That or the sound of someone who’s never stepped foot outside of Possum Holler.

[ThePublius]

I think what's happening in the subway is a result of general lawlessness in NYC. The subway gives the lawless an opportunity to corner their victims, as folks are enclosed in a subway car, or on a platform, in the system in general. It's not going to generally get better until the entire city gets better. And the whole 'defund the police,' no cash bail, refusal to prosecute many crimes environment brought on by the progs/libs/dems and Soros money is in large part what precipitated and maintain this.

I lived there and rode the subways. It was scary in the 70's, especially around the time school let out, and high school thugs rode and wrecked havoc. I would stay late at school to ride home during rush hour, which was safer due to the crowds.

It's a culture problem, these criminals come from a culture bereft of an appreciation of the rights of others or the rule of law. It will take decades to fix, but it will only be fixed if people really want to fix it.

To those NYC citizens who vote Dem and liberal and progressive - you're getting what you voted for, and I have no pity for you.

[SimonP]

I think what’s happening in the subway is a result of general lawlessness in NYC.

There is no "general lawlessness" in NYC. The recent subway attacks are an isolated problem. There are statistics on this, Pube.

And the whole ‘defund the police,’ no cash bail, refusal to prosecute many crimes environment brought on by the progs/libs/dems and Soros money is in large part what precipitated and maintain this.

Did you write this so as to signal that you're huffing paint?

To those NYC citizens who vote Dem and liberal and progressive – you’re getting what you voted for, and I have no pity for you.

Yes, NYC voted for a cop mayor, and are getting some kind of washed-out copy of Giuliani security theater. They are getting exactly what they voted for. Hopefully we can primary Adams out and put in a competent administrator next time.

Honestly, Pube - update your misinformation talking points. This empty repetition of FoxNews chyrons from a couple of years ago just marks you as the disaffected, declining, overweight, white male retiree that you must be.

[ThePublius]

Yes, there is general lawlessness in NYC. It's gotten a lot worse under Adams. What about the shoplifting, the marauding moped gangs, and so on?

And the fact that you resort to personal attacks is an indication that you have no cogent rebuttal to what I have written.

You're honestly arguing there's no lawlessness when the gov. calls in the National Guard? Holy cow. And how is subway crime "an isolated problem?"

"13.1%. That’s how much crime on the transit system has increased, as of March 3, compared to the same time period last year in New York City, according to NYPD data. There have been 388 incidents from Jan. 1 to March 3 this year—the majority of which have been grand larceny and felony assault—compared to 343 last year. The majority of last year’s crimes through early March were grand larceny and robbery, according to the data."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/03/06/nycs-subway-violence-heres-what-caused-a-new-national-guard-crackdown/?sh=5520af327eca

[SimonP]

Pube, I am calling you names because your comments are little more than argle-bargle. I'm not going to spend a bunch of time rebutting talking points that weren't true when they were first downloaded into your addled ditto-brain, and they certainly aren't any more true now, a couple of years later.

Subway crime has seen a recent spike. Crime rates across the city do not reflect the same trend. That's what I mean, by saying that it's an "isolated" problem.

[Heedless]

I live in New York City, and I ride on the subway seven or eight times a week.

Every time I use the system I am confronted in the cars by panhandlers, homeless people sleeping on the subway seats, and the stench of urine in every stairwell.

Once a month I am in a subway car with a decompensating drug addict or person with schizophrenia who does something genuinely scary enough for me to move to another car at the next stop.

None of this was true 10 years ago.

I will agree with you that the major criminal incidents are pretty isolated and rare, but the overall level of square and permissiveness toward antisocial behavior is utterly unacceptable.

[SimonP]

Feel free to choke a few of them out, then.

You’re trying to provide a counterpoint, but you’re just confirming what I’ve said. You don’t even describe crime within the subway system. Just people who need housing and services. It is true that those people shouldn’t be in the subways, and we need to look at what it is about our support systems that are driving them there. (Common policies used by people like Adams to control the shelters, like curfews, strict rules about drug use, time limits, and the like, are a big part of why some people choose to live on the street, when they have actual alternatives.)

I would absolutely be in favor of forcibly – and humanely – removing these people from the subway system and getting them into the shelters or institutions where they actually need to be. Unfortunately, we can’t count on our NYPD to do anything but rough them up in the process, or on Adams to do anything other than toss them back out on the street.

[Sarcastr0]

Cherry picking statistics will not support a more generalized thesis.

You also are calling stuff lawless for I think dramatic purposes, because 13% does not really mean laws are gone.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Whatever, it totally does not support what you are saying. You can't reduce the fear and actions of a huge populace by pointing to '13%" You sound like Paul Krugman, let me quote a recent reaction to his using statistics as you do

NY Times’ Paul Krugman says ‘inflation is over’ — if you exclude food, gas and rent
By Social Links forAriel Zilber
Published Oct. 13, 2023

[Frank Drackman]

Whatever happened to that Marine who killed one of the subway miscreants?

[SimonP]

Charged with second-degree manslaughter, slated for trial in the fall. Seems about right.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, that’ll teach people not to interfere when they see crime in progress!

Comments like this one by SimonP plainly demonstrate how anti-human, anti-life “progressive” (i.e., leftist) ideology is.

[SimonP]

What was the "crime in progress"?

Neely was having an episode that was making people feel unsafe. Penny attempted to subdue Neely by putting him in a chokehold, resulting in his death.

So, yes - I don't think you should be able to just decide for yourself to put someone in a chokehold, if you think that they're being too unruly. If you do that and kill someone, you should answer for it, and second degree manslaughter seems to match the circumstances.

The difference between you and me, Ed, is that while you refuse to acknowledge Neely's humanity, I acknowledge both. I acknowledge that lethal force may sometimes be necessary to protect others from serious harm. I acknowledge that wasn't the case here, and that when people make misjudgments about the use of lethal force, they are capable of, and deserve, accountability. Part of respecting humanity means respecting that they bear responsibility for their decisions and actions.

[Frank Drackman]

Most I'd have charged him with might be littering for not throwing that piece of shit in a dumpster.

[Life of Brian]

People in NYC aren’t anti-policing. They want the police to keep their neighborhoods safe. But you look at what the NYPD actually does, and it’s nothing but ineffectual incompetence. They’re part of the problem.

What, in your estimation, allowed NYPD to rather consistently reign in their "ineffectual incompetence" for over a decade, and why did it suddenly and coincidentally come roaring back with a vengeance over the past couple of years at the same time as the anti-policing movement?

NYPD's 7-major-felony stats are here and speak for themselves, particularly felony assault and grand larceny which are up ~30% and ~20% respectively from their general levels in the 20-teens.

[SimonP]

When you beg the question, you can reach the desired conclusion easily!

Did it occur to you that I would say something like, "trends in crime track socioeconomic conditions and not NYPD performance, which has remained just about the same throughout the period in question"?

[Life of Brian]

Not really, since I wasn't aware that socioeconomic conditions in NYC had such a dramatic step function in the last couple of years. What more specifically should I have guessed you were thinking?

[SimonP]

If you're not familiar with what's going on in NYC, why are you bothering to opine on crime rates here?

[Bwaaah]

"We have an overstaffed NYPD full of incompetent crooks who don’t want to do a god damn thing that requires actual work or policing."

You can't do able policing when you're one camera shot away from a career-ending impropriety. What makes mere impropriety career-ending? The evening news, but most especially, a city council that has the same disdain for policing that you do.

Too many cops? It takes at least four to make an arrest now, preferably six, because the highest priority is to not hurt the perp while he/she resists. And for what? To see the perp walk free that same day because of "criminal justice reform" that doesn't even permit pre-trial detention on an alleged first offense (nor many subsequent offenses).

Democrat bullshit in 2020 had repercussions to this day. They, like you, still don't admit that elected officials withdrew their support of policing, and are still too scared of "racism" to reinstate their support. Blame the cops? Call them "incompetent"?

[SimonP]

Ah, yes, the classic "the police don't do their jobs because you hurt their feelings!" excuse, a favorite of the PBA.

[Bwaaah]

Is there anything I said that you wish to dispute?

[Sarcastr0]

It takes at least four to make an arrest now, preferably six, because the highest priority is to not hurt the perp while he/she resists

You got a source for this?

Also 'when he/she resists' is a bit overdetermined, no?

[SimonP]

Is there anything to properly "dispute" in your comment? It's just a lot of fantasy, as far as I can tell. Am I supposed to spend all afternoon fact-checking a series of lies, just for you to come back and say, "nuh-uh!," lest I risk being labeled as incapable of doing so?

You fuckwits seriously think that all you have to do is assert things you've pulled out of your ass, and the rest of us are obliged either to refute it or concede it. Nah. I don't need to prove that you're stupid and wrong. You can be stupid and wrong without any input from me.

[EscherEnigma]

You can’t do able policing when you’re one camera shot away from a career-ending impropriety.

Seeing as cops can kill unarmed people who aren't committing any crime and keep their jobs, I'm not sure this fear is reasonable.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You can rely on a homophobia and racism as justification for handing a literal injured child to Jeffrey Dahmer and then retire with the thanks of the Department after serving a stint as union president.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

But how are you sure? By cameras ??? Think through what you said.

[Nige]

'Too many cops? It takes at least four to make an arrest now, preferably six, because the highest priority is to not hurt the perp while he/she resists'

No, it takes that many because there are so many overpaid comes hanging around bored out of their minds that they all flock to any chance of fucking someone up.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Nige will undoubtedly grow up when a homeless man tries to kill him and cops step in.

[Nige]

More likely the cops will try to kill me and a homeless man will step in.

[David Nieporent]

To see the perp walk free that same day because of “criminal justice reform” that doesn’t even permit pre-trial detention on an alleged first offense (nor many subsequent offenses).

Literally the only person MAGA think “innocent until proven guilty” applies to is Donald Trump. (And of course for him, they think "innocent even when proven guilty.")

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

But David even if he is guilty he is innocent until proven guilty. I have 20-year olds in my classes that talk your sht.

[Commenter_XY]

SimonP, do you currently ride the NYC subway system? As in, how many times in the last 30 days have you ridden on the NYC subway?

I hop the ACE line occasionally (5x last 30 days), and it is no party. I don't wear my Kippah. It smells like piss and shit. Homeless sleep in the cars. Aggressive hucksters hawk their wares. Mentally ill people scream and carry on. There are sick people everywhere. Assault is common. Even the cops get beat up now (unreal to me...NYC cops getting a beatdown?! WTF?!).

If there were no problem, why would a Team D governor send the National Guard to a city run by Team D? Don't tell me that it is (D)ifferent.

[Bwaaah]

When my wife comes home, I often ask, "How was the subway ride?" She'll think for a moment, and then say 50% of the time, with a sound of surprise in her voice, "It was OK today!" The other 50% of the time, there's a story. It's the shit car, or the stinky person car, or homeless people splayed across the seats. Those are the passive cases, and she just quickly changes cars when she sees one of those. But then the doors close and you hope mentally ill person [living episode to episode] isn't on board, because if he/she is, anything is possible.

In the past 40 years, our state has gotten rid of most of the mental health beds. In the past 12 years, it has cut the jail/prison population in half. Yet, we don't have substantially better treatments for serious chronic mental illness now than we did 40 years ago.

So they're here, on and beneath our streets, in our stores, everywhere they can be. And there's nothing we can do about that that *works* AND leaves Democrats feeling good about how they treat people. So there's nothing we can do about that.

SEND IN THE NATIONAL GUARD!!! (I don't think that will change anything.)

[Nige]

Why send in the ntional guard? The entire problem you describe is a catastrophic failure in mental health services.

[Nige]

Also, divert some of the budget for the cops and put it into, y'know, cleaning, maintenance and upkeep.

[Bwaaah]

Yes...add more of what you call "mental health services," and ignore the fact that we don't have effective treatment for severe mental illness.

Spend on, boundless warrior. Spend on.

[Don Nico]

It's arguably worse than that. Given all the "tolerance" preached for non-mainstream behaviors, mental illness is as stigmatized today as it was 50 years ago. plus there are at best 80% fewer bed in hospitals that will take patients with mental health emergencies.

[Sarcastr0]

there are at best 80% fewer bed in hospitals that will take patients with mental health emergencies

Are you referring to the Reagan Administration’s push against involuntary incarceration?
I’m not sure I disagree with getting rid of that sometimes horrific policy, but don’t pretend this was a bleeding heart thing.

I don't think preaching tolerance is the cause of our mental health issues these days.
Heck, I'm not sure if they're really worse or just better understood and admitted than the self-medication of past generations.

[Nige]

The fuck are you on about? If a person is suffering from mental health problems so severe that they cannot be treated that person should not be out and about unsupervised. Most mental health problems ARE treatable. Tell you what add a billion more to the police budget for them doing nothing, that'll solve it without, um, spending on, boundless warrior, spending on.

[SimonP]

I hop the ACE line occasionally (5x last 30 days)…

An experienced rider, then! I don’t take the subway to work, and even I ride the subway (and I live along the ACE) more often than you do.

I’m not saying it isn’t gross down there, or that homeless people aren’t a common enough sight. All very true, and I wouldn’t object to cleaning things up. But that’s not the question in dispute. The question is whether there is a general lawlessness in NYC, or whether there’s a spike of attacks happening within the system.

In a sense, your comments just affirm that the National Guard stunt is empty security theater. Because you’ve associated the two in your mind – the homeless/crazy problem, and the bag checks. But obviously the National Guard aren’t going to do anything about screaming mentally ill people on the cars, and there’s really only so much even patrolling NYPD officers could do about it (if they wanted to). They can’t be everywhere at once to intercept every unpleasant experience before it escalates into something truly dangerous.

By all means – everyone in NYC wants the subway to be a safe and pleasant experience. Even better if we could clean it. But FoxNews pundits talking over news reel and “do something” stunts like sending in the military are not part of the solution. Like we keep seeing, Hochul/Adams are not up to the task of addressing a systemic issue with thoughtful understanding. We just have to be thankful that it’s not Zeldin/Silwa, who would add only an overlay of state violence.

[SRG2]

National Guard to manage increased rime in your subway system?

English teachers in NYC will celebrate this.

It is an ancient guardsman
And he stoppeth one of three
“By thy dark gray cap and 38
Now wherefore stopp’st thou me?”

[Magister]

I laughed; excellent!

Now, if only this were on my bingo card.

[Nige]

They're in orders of magnitide more danger from vehicular traffic above ground than from anything on the subway, except perhaps the cops and now the NG.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Honestly, they're probably better off with e Guard NG . More professional, rules of engagement are actually enforced (especially in a domestic setting,) there is a culture of loyalty to civilian authorities unlike police officers/unions. And the civilian authorities are highly centralized (either state government or federal) and aren't subject to wildly varying local politics and corruption.

"Militarization of the police" is rightly criticized for how police have been given military equipment which they use unnecessarily and for creating the idea of the "warrior cop" who see themselves at war with their own communities.

But, American policing would probably benefit from having the kind of structure and professionalism the US military has.

[BrianL.]

I recently watched the documentary Bobi Wine: The People's President. I lot of people throw around "banana republic" when talking about Trump's legal issues. If you want to see how a real banana republic handles a Presidential election, watch the documentary. It's currently streaming on Disney+.

[bernard11]

Who's for Mark Robinson?

[Frank Drackman]

Not Charles Barkley, who's lived in Arizona too long. He tries punching a black guy in most of Amurica he'll be the "Late" Charles Barkley

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Weirdly, there is another Mark Robinson who ran for Lt. Governor in North Carolina as a Democrat at the same time. Crazy.

I almost never give money to political campaigns, but as a resident of NC I will be giving a fair amount of money to Josh Stein to help him defeat Robinson, who is an unbelievably horrid human being. Completely unshocking that he received Trump's endorsement.

[Kazinski]

The voters of North Carolina, well about half of them at least. The 2 polls that looked at a head to head matchup in Feb before the primaries both had it as 1 point Robinson lead.

I first became aware of him a few years ago when he went viral for a rant at a city council meeting over gun control. Its pretty amazing thats turned into a run for Governor.

I also happen to agree with most of his positions.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do you agree with him that transgender women should be arrested for using women's bathrooms? Do you agree that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest, and that victims of sexual assault deserve what happened to them under Darwin's "survival of the fittest?" Do you agree with him that all homosexuality is filth? Do you agree with him that "all LGBTQ people are maggots and flies?" Do you agree that 'Black Panther' was "...trash only created to pull the shekels out of schvartze pockets?" Do you agree with him that Michelle Obama is a transgender woman and that she "emanates the stench of human waste?" Do you agree with his position that the Holocaust is "hogwash" and that Jewish bankers are one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse?

[John F. Carr]

A German man who got over 200 shots of eight variants of the COVID vaccine has not died suddenly or gotten microchips stuck in his capillaries. A paper in Lancet concludes

In summary, our case report shows that SARS-CoV-2 hypervaccination did not lead to adverse events and increased the quantity of spike-specific antibodies and T cells without having a strong positive or negative effect on the intrinsic quality of adaptive immune responses. While we found no signs of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in HIM to date, it cannot be clarified whether this is causally related to the hypervaccination regimen. Importantly, we do not endorse hypervaccination as a strategy to enhance adaptive immunity.

[Zarniwoop]

But his 5G signal is AWESOME!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Especially after Operation Jade Helm, the thwarting of the Demoncrats at Comet Ping Pong Pizza, and the Republicans' takedown of those Jewish space lasers.

[Commenter_XY]

This German man sounds like he needs a psych evaluation. He is one dumb SOB (out of 8B people on this planet).

[hobie]

Reblican state lawmakers of Alabama explain their support of the pro-IVF law that passed:

"“I don’t want to define life — that’s too important to me, to my faith,” Ms. [Rep Terri] Collins, who previously led the push in the House to ban abortion in 2019"

In 2019 she said "“I believe [a fetus] is a child,”"

Hmmm...

"“I’m for I.V.F. — it’s just the treatment of embryos and how we handle that, and I feel like we need more time to process,” said State Senator Dan Roberts, one of two Republicans who abstained from a committee vote on Tuesday. He asked, “Does that embryo have a soul or not have a soul?”"

In 2022 "I believe...life begins at conception."

Hmmm...

[grb]

They knew the issue existed when the anti-abortion measure passed. In 2019 when the bill was being debated, its sponsor, Republican state Senator Clyde Chambliss, said this: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

You see, this has never been about biology in any form. It’s a mental/judgemental process that runs something like this: An embryo aquires Holy Babyhood status when some irresponsible woman gets herself pregnant and is so selfish she wants to end the pregnancy. That’s always been the core of the anti-abortion movement.

Returning to 2019, Chambliss was pressed on whether the law allows abortions for victims of incest. He responded: “Yes, until she knows she’s pregnant.” This could be written-off as a mistatement, but he said the same thing multiple times. Apparently, he meant this : Women or girls who are the victim of rape or incest have the option of day-after contraceptives, but only if they are unaware of the Holy Gift in their uterus. Once they are, that option closes and State control takes over. No more womanly selfishness is then permitted.

They are such sickos, the anti-abortion crowd.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This tellingly white and male
conservative blog with a thin
and diminishing academic veneer
has operated for no more than

EIGHT (8)

days 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 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 14 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs,
as its management seems to
like.)

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,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, antisemitic, racist, and
other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding 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. (One of the best drum intros you will encounter, contributed by the underappreciated Gary Malaber, if I recall correctly.)

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones picks, by special request:

I would have provided Honky Tonk Women and Get Off Of My Cloud for the drum intros, but someone ask for some Aftermath.

This album was a great stride for the Stones in several ways -- and was distinguished by differing UK and US versons.

This one led for the Brits (sort of -- this is an outtake).

This one was first in the states.

Neither tune appeared on the album in the other country. The Stones had so much inventory they had a remarkable list of songs that weren't originally album tracks -- Jumping Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, Poison Ivy, Fortune Teller, 19th Nervous Breakdown -- but instead were released as singles.

[Frank Drackman]

You'll go blind if you keep responding to yourself like that

[BrotherMovesOn]

Also a time of the increased use of many different musical instruments by Brian Jones.
(Maybe spread a little too thin, but, hindsight)

[EscherEnigma]

Normally Volokh is pretty keen on FIRE lawsuits, especially when they get up to the SCOTUS.

Have I missed his commentary on the West Texas A&M case currently seeking SCOTUS relief?

[SimonP]

No, but he's keen on the grievance-pumping Speech First cases.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He knows his audience. And why not? He cultivated this collection.

Or maybe he is the audience?

[John F. Carr]

He posted about the case when it was filed.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/26/fire-sues-west-texas-am-over-its-blocking-of-student-groups-drag-show/

The petition to the Supreme Court was docketed only yesterday.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a820.html

In my opinion this case is not important enough to warrant emergency relief by the Supreme Court. If the Fifth Circuit rules for the school then the Supreme Court should take the case and reverse.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hamas Fan Club hits Tufts.
https://www.boston.com/news/schools/2024/03/06/antisemitism-islamophobia-alleged-at-fiery-tufts-senate-meeting/?p1=hp_featurestack

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Robert Card, an Army reservist who shot and killed 18 people in Maine last year, had significant evidence of traumatic brain injuries, according to a brain tissue analysis by researchers from Boston University that was released Wednesday.

There was degeneration in the nerve fibers that allow for communication between different areas of the brain, inflammation and small blood vessel injury, according to Dr. Ann McKee of Boston University’s Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) Center. The analysis was released by Card’s family."

https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/03/07/evidence-traumatic-brain-injury-shooter-killed-18-deadliest-shooting-maine-history/?p1=hp_featurestack

Strikes me as the Army was trying to avoid paying disability.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Pittman has ordered the Minority Business Development Agency to stop discriminating on the basis of race. I had a little WTF moment before I understood I was reading about Mark "two t's please" Pittman and not about the much more liberal Robert "just one t" Pitman, also a federal District Court judge in Texas.

[Bob from Ohio]

Barak Ravid @BarakRavid
1h
"BREAKING: Biden will announce at his “State of the Union” speech that he ordered the U.S. military to conduct an “emergency mission” to establish a temporary port in Gaza that would open up a maritime route for humanitarian assistance from Cyprus, U.S. officials said."

Sending US troops into an active war zone as sitting ducks. Insanity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your lack of humanity and disgusting partisanship are persistent and profound.

Fortunately, your preferences are destined to continue to be rejected by better Americans in the glorious modern American culture war.

[ThePublius]

Biden aiding and abetting Hamas. If I were Netanyahu I'd tell them to not do it, or there will be consequences.

[LawTalkingGuy]

At a certain point I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether you have some kind of starvation fetish.

[ThePublius]

It's a war, after all! How crazy is it for the US to give aid, including military aid, to Israel, and to simultaneously give aid to Israel's enemy in a war?

Do you really think Hamas won't intercept and control that aid, and use it to their military advantage? Do you think the poor, starving Gazans are at the top of the list for aid distribution?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just because its a war doesn't mean we don't have moral obligations to our fellow humans. Starving people to death is morally wrong. The fact that you and others don't see it that way says more about your pathologies than anything else.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You are endorsing a policy of starving civilians to make sure no food goes to the enemy.
That's a war crime, if not ethnic cleansing.

2. In this case, the areas where civilians have been herded to are all under Israeli control, so your blithe assumption that Hamas will intercept all humanitarian supplies may need a bit more thought.

[ThePublius]

"2. In this case, the areas where civilians have been herded to are all under Israeli control, so your blithe assumption that Hamas will intercept all humanitarian supplies may need a bit more thought."

Sure, if that's the case, let's do it. If we can be sure that Hamas isn't being resupplied I'm in favor of feeding the people. But one still must be careful; recall (perhaps you're too young?) that in Vietnam it was difficult to tell the civilians from the combatants at times, and many US lives were lost as a result. Not all Hamas combatants wear uniforms with insignia, etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not all Hamas combatants wear uniforms with insignia"

Understatement. None do except in propaganda videos.

[Bob from Ohio]

If the enemy steals food supplies before it gets to civilians, then deliveries can be blocked.

We have numerous videos of Hamas gunmen stealing aid trucks.

You are becoming like the Arab activists on twitter, yelling "WAR CRIMES" based on nothing.

[ThePublius]

"1. You are endorsing a policy of starving civilians to make sure no food goes to the enemy. That’s a war crime, if not ethnic cleansing."

I have a problem with that argument. Not giving food to the populace of the enemy is not starving anyone. It's Hamas and the Palestinian Authority who are starving them. Do you think the Hamas leaders and fighters are starving? Is the US starving them by not providing food? The UK? Germany? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan?

[Sarcastr0]

Not giving food
This is *preventing food* that others have offered.

Do you think the Hamas leaders and fighters are starving?
I sure do!!

And you should too, or else you're advocating for a policy that does not hurt Hamas, only civilians...

[OtisAH]

“It’s a war” says the useless, lying ghoul about a conflict in which he has absolutely no stake whatsoever.

[Frank Drackman]

USS Liberty part 2?

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was my first thought...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope Netanyahu does just that.

It's about time for better Americans to stop subsidizing Israel's low-grade, immoral, right-wing assholes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There will be,

It will get blown up, the only question will be who did it.

The war powers act would apply to this, wouldn't it?

[OtisAH]

I suppose the IDF or Mossad will be the top candidates there. If so, presumably you will celebrate it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm more asking which Palestinian faction did it -- it's not just Hamas there.

[OtisAH]

Oh c’mon Dred, of course you meant that. You’re an idiot. So naturally your thoughts on “who blew up the only lifeline to the Palestinians” would be “the Palestinians” and not the nation currently trying to kill them all.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think we are sending troops to gaza. The plan sounds like a temporary offshore dock to unload supplies. Then bring it ashore with smaller boats, manned by IDF.

It would surprise the hell out of me to put US troops into gaza.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good, but I wouldn't call it a port then.

[Longtobefree]

IF true:

Remember the USS Liberty !

[hobie]

Yes. People seem to forget that over the decades Israel has proven time and again to be a passive enemy of the United States. I used to wonder if we would ever tolerate a Russian equivalent of AIPAC buying American politician's votes for a hostile power. But now I no longer have to imagine it. I present to you the GQP

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Thankfully, no Justice wrote to give any credence to the absurd arguments that the President isn’t an “officer of the United States” or that the presidency isn’t an office “under the United States.” Perhaps, then, those arguments will be re-consigned to the obscure corners of implausible scholarship from whence they came."

Prof. Marty Lederman at Balkinization Blog

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ouch!

[hobie]

School staff in elementary school deploy pepper gel on 5th graders fighting

https://www.fox13memphis.com/education/several-parents-speak-out-after-pepper-gel-used-on-students-by-deputy-during-fight/article_9ec5917c-db6c-11ee-b9d6-ff52599aef0d.html

Ah yes, teachers need weapons. Their not human/fallible therefore won't deploy them on the kids

[Ed Grinberg]

Don't some cops carry Tasers (in addition to guns)? Couldn't teachers do the same?

[hobie]

I'm cool with tasers

[David Nieporent]

Tasers are dangerous weapons.

[OtisAH]

It’s why we now call them “less lethal” and not “non-lethal.”

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: What's wrong with Sarah Zhang, science journalist for The Atlantic??? She writes a longish article about how the three-drug combination trikafta has changed the outlook for patients who have cystic fibrosis, the (uncommon) genetic disease which makes the patient's mucous thick and sticky rather than slick and lubricating like normal mucous. This causes plugs in the lungs, poor digestion, horrible infections, and early (very early) death. But she (Zhang) doesn't mention that because CF is a recessive disorder, the mutations which cause it can be easily detected (without even needing to draw blood!), and the illness avoided, by using IVF rather than natural reproduction, and screening the zygotes (less than 16 cells) genes.

One of the particular families she described knew that both parents had the mutation (so one in four of their children would have the disease) but chose to impose the risk onto their kids, by engaging in natural conception rather than IVF. That is a very foolish choice! But leaving that question aside, for her to write about the illness without mentioning this amounts (IMHO) to journalistic malpractice.

I expect better from The Atlantic.

[Davy C]

I suppose the illness is technically avoided if you preemptively kill anyone who has it while they're zygotes.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

It is avoided by refusing the ARDUOUS, DANGEROUS SERVICE of gestating and birthing the ones who have the disease when they are zygotes, and by granting the SPECIAL PRIVILEGE of being sheltered and sustained by the insides of YOUR body, to those whom YOU prefer. This is sometimes called “body-self-ownership”, or, more simply, ” non-slavery”, or, even more simply, “freedom”.

If you cannot manage to stay alive except by directly accessing the inside of MY body, then you better hope I will be favorably disposed toward you, or, you better develop some independence, right quick. (And you can tell your predecessor Mr. Robert McFall I said so.)

[Nige]

No sure I'm 100% with you there. If you're talking abou treating the disease, 'your parents should never have had you' seems both insensitive and of limited practicality.

[OtisAH]

What relevance does that family’s story have to an article about a treatment that benefits people with cystic fibrosis?

“Trikafta is a treatment that shows real positive gains for people with cystic fibrosis. But there’s this family with parents who both have CF but dared to have children anyway!”

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Good catch, Intelligent Toad.

[Mr. Bumble]

State of the Onion tonight. Will resting all day in the White House basement on a bed of Scranton soil and multiple infusions of virgin blood allow allow Slo Joe to make it through the speech without at least one fuck-up?
Will Speaker Mike Johnson wear a white suit and dramatically tear up his copy of the speech?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he and Mitch the Turtle will pull a Jefferson/Adams and croak together.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “…make it through the speech without at least one fuck-up?”

Well, he won’t confuse Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi (like Trump). His brain isn’t so rotted-out he could accuse Trump of threatening to start World War II (as Trump did with Biden). He’ll be able to get thru more than two sentences with going all mush-mouthed and created nonsensical words (Trump can’t). He’s incapable of confusing Trump with W Bush, whereas DJT repeatedly mixes up Biden and Obama. Hell, that brain-damage tic got so frequent and embarrassing, Trump had to start pretending he was doing on purpose.

Most of all, he’ll speak rationally and coherently. Trump could never do that, even when he still had half a functioning brain. The real question is whether Trump will prove too cowardly to show for the presidential debates. The plus-minus 33% mental capacity he has left won’t show to advantage in that format. He’ll lose badly, just like he did previously.

The other loser? The right’s Biden Dementia shtick. That won’t survive the debates either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Willful blindness is incurable. Go clean your stolen coffee cup.

[grb]

Well, we’ll see in the presidential debates, won’t we? Providing Trump doesn’t pull a coward’s flit, we’ll have both candidates side by side and be able to tell who still has a functioning brain.

Despite all your bullshit, I’m betting you’re worried. Trump lost last time and he’ll lose this time. And your Biden Dementia comedy routine will be left in tatters.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The 2020 dementia thing was such an own goal of the right. They got high on their own supply and talked themselves into believing Biden was going to be a vegetable. Turns out he was capable of discussing Kierkegaard at town halls and showed up to the debates like a regular old guy.

Then Trump came out looking like a deranged asshole who was obsessed with Biden's son rather than anything useful. And the right-wing response was to make fun of Biden for loving and supporting his kid with addiction. Which also backfired.

They have learned nothing from this experience whatsoever as Bumble demonstrates so ably.

[Mr. Bumble]

To you and grb, let's just get through tonight and see how he makes out, but remember the words of the Anointed One: Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up" and of course there is this: "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says of Vice President Joe Biden...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Like I said you’ve learned nothing from the experience of 2020: you’re supposed to lower expectations for your candidate and raise them for the other guy.

[grb]

LawTalkingGuy : "...you’re supposed to lower expectations for your candidate and raise them for the other guy"

As opposed to wildly overselling your B.S. and then everybody seeing it exposed. That's what happened last time. The Bumbles around then were running around saying Biden was catatonic. The day after the debate everyone realized it was all a lie.

Kinda funny how our Bumble is repeating that same dumb mistake. He must know it can't survive any contact with reality.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right! It wasn’t even just that he was slipping and old and slow or out of it. They literally thought he was basically dead and couldn’t talk. Brett was a huge believer in this idiocy. When I linked him a town hall of Biden talking about fucking KIERKEGAARD of all things he was still like: NUH UH!

Not only was he not a vegetable he was able to talk extemporaneously about 19th century Christian existentialism. Trump probably couldn’t even do that at any point in his entire life.

[Estragon]

You’ve hit upon something I’ve been thinking about:

“And the right-wing response was to make fun of Biden for loving and supporting his kid with addiction. Which also backfired”

I think this is really at the core of all the complaints about the “laptop” “suppression”… it’s not that the laptop was suppressed as such, it’s just that the huckleberries feel cheated out of what they assumed would be a bigger/more negative reaction to the airing of Hunter’s dirty laundry.

At first, it wasn’t this baroque web of supposedly suspect financial transactions, fake loans, Chinese companies, etc etc.

The original interest was purile— what the huckleberries had out on blast was Hunters dick pics and shots of him obviously fucked up— not the Comer bank records bullshit we see today.

Instead, the American people— in their boundless wisdom and grace— saw a father doing his best to lovingly care for a son struggling with addiction. A son who by all appearances is turning/has turned his life around. That’s humanizing, provided you have one single shred of empathy.

How many of the 150M people who voted last time around know a close friend or family member who has struggled with addiction? I’m betting quite a few.

And so of course it was incomprehensible to the right-wing edgelords who pass for MAGA intellectuals these days that voters wouldn’t abandon Biden on this basis (“it was the government suppression and the TWITTER FILES PROVE IT”) … because these trumpist edgelords have zero empathy. It literally does not compute.

In closing I will repeat what I said the other day:

If any of you hucklers are still taking anything from “the laptop” at face value in 6 months after abbe lowell’s suppression motions and the JPMI lawsuit, I will compliment you on your commitment to the bit. From an evidentiary perspective, it’s fucked 6 ways from Sunday and I predict not going to be admitted.

[Estragon]

“because these trumpist edgelords have zero empathy”

And if you have doubts about that, I invite the reader to take a gander at the pro-starvation comments in this very post!

[ThePublius]

O.K., bet your own money on a checkers match between Trump and Biden. On whom do you bet to win? Or, between Biden and a checker-playing chicken?

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Biden is in better physical and mental condition than Trump.

[Nige]

Or 'Obama' as Trump calls him.

[santamonica811]

Physical condition? I'd agree with you. Although Trump is massively overweight and is morbidly obese; he has a lot of energy for a man his age.
Mental condition? Nope. Trump, when off teleprompters, often sounds like a stroke victim. Slurring of words, confusing Biden with Obama, confusing Haley with Pelosi. Starting a sentence, and then trailing off into gibberish or sometimes trailing off into nothing. Bizarre facial tics and expressions.

I think Biden would beat a chicken in a game of checkers. Not sure if Trump would beat a doorknob, or any other inanimate object. Probably would, on his good days.

[Estragon]

“he has a lot of energy”

Did you look at what Ronnie Jackson was prescribing when he was working in the White House?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Again you have learned nothing from 2020. They’re both the same guy but four years older. Biden is still a skinny old guy who eats healthy and has too many senior moments. Trump is still an incredibly fat and angry man (who is only three years younger than Biden) with a terrible diet who rambles incoherently. I am convinced that backers of Trump who appear to be literate have never actually listened and looked at him during one of his rally speeches or read things that he has put on Truth social.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

It’s absolutely ridiculous to say that Biden is in better physical and mental condition than Trump.

Yeah. One is a fit bicyclist. The other is a flabby, sedentary, undisciplined obese man who avoids walking like it was a dinner check or time with his children.

Do you recognize that you are a disaffected, contrarian, delusional, bigoted, obsolete culture war loser, Publius, or do you lack self-awareness?

[Mr. Bumble]

When was the last time you saw Biden riding a bike? The man can barely walk. Looks like Tim Conway's old man from Carol Burnett.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.delawareonline.com/picture-gallery/news/local/2023/08/03/president-biden-bike-ride/12313550002/#:~:text=President%20Joe%20Biden%2C%20currently%20on,Thursday%2C%20August%203%2C%202023.&text=Delaware%20News%20Journal-,President%20Joe%20Biden%2C%20currently%20on%20vacation%20in%20Rehoboth%20Beach%2C%20rides,Thursday%2C%20August%203%2C%202023.

Summer 23.

Trump can’t.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When was the last time his belly fat didn’t prevent Trump from seeing his tiny pecker?

[Frank Drackman]

you tell us Coach, you're the expert on looking at peckers

[David Nieporent]

Biden is very clearly in better physical and mental condition than Trump. Of course, the homeless guy on the subway yelling about the CIA putting microchips in his underwear is in better mental condition than Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

and you, apparently.

[Sarcastr0]

^
That's bait.

[mydisplayname]

Good work: https://reason.com/2024/03/07/the-truth-about-rural-rage/

[Jonathan Affleck]

I cannot believe the inhumanity and depravity of the supporters of the baby killer nation.

I have a 30 year old friend that is Palestinian.

When I meet her for a coffee, I keep thinking that if she were a child in Gaza, she would be starving to death, and I could not do anything the help. I start weeping, and she tries to take care of me!

A group, which has been subjected to genocide at the hands of a first set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Nazis), can later themselves form a second set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Zionists) just as evil as the first set of genocide perpetrators.

The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.

Israel: Give us our hostages, and we will keep many of your hostages, and then after a few weeks, we'll start killing your people again with US bombs.

Hamas: No, we want lasting peace and our basic human rights.

Israel: No.

Media: Hamas rejects yet another ceasefire deal!

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

Hamas is the good guy.

Israel is the monster and just like the Nazi nation.

[ThePublius]

You are truly deranged. Didn't you see the UN report on Hamas raping Israeli women, and even raping Israeli women's corpses? You think you can be neighbors with these people?

Hamas is the good guy? Holy cow.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I read the UN report. ThePublius either did not read it or in his depraved support for mass murder genocide, he did not care that Patten saw no evidence of rape or of other sexual violence except for fabrications of the Israeli government.

Patten did see evidence of the mass slaughter, which the Zionist military committed pursuant to the Hannibal Directive. Either Patten did not understand the evidence, or she lied about the evidence.

Testimony came only from Israeli government propagandists. Patten is a longtime Sunak ally and both are desperate to deflect accusations of conspiracy in mass murder genocide by lying about al-Aqsa Flood.

ThePublius provides evidence of his total inhumanity.

[ThePublius]

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. envoy focusing on sexual violence in conflict said in a new report Monday that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe Hamas committed rape, “sexualized torture,” and other cruel and inhumane treatment of women during its surprise attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7.

There are also “reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing,” said Pramila Patten, who visited Israel and the West Bank from Jan. 29 to Feb. 14 with a nine-member technical team."

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-rape-oct7-hamas-gaza-fe1a35767a63666fe4dc1c97e397177e

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We can disregard this report because the UN is notoriously pro-Israel. /sarc

[Nige]

(Not a counterpoint, just in the interests of getting a fuller picture.)

Israel abused Gaza war detainees, UN report alleges

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68514816

[LawTalkingGuy]

A good rule of thumb is to never take a denialist position with regard to widespread physical abuse/sexual violence committed by any side in any conflict.

At best a disciplined and professional occupying force looking to have good relations with the civilian population will try to reduce the occurrence and make sure that perpetrators are brought to justice. That’s the best case scenario.

But if the participants are a militant terrorist group vs a relatively undisciplined conscript army reporting to extremists, operating in what is essentially a centuries-long ethnic conflict, it’s inevitable that there is going to be widespread abuse and sexual violence perpetrated.

[Nige]

Sadly I don't think the IDF detaining people without trial and with abuses is anything new, nor are severe sentences for relatively minor acts of protest.

[Frank Drackman]

Jonathan Ass-lick was there raping the Israeli men's corpses.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

If Hamas is the good guy, they can end the fighting any time, by saying two words (sincerely).

("We surrender." Obviously.)

[Jonathan Affleck]

Israel: Give us our hostages, and we will keep many of your hostages, and then after a few weeks, we’ll start killing your people again with US bombs.

Hamas: No, we want lasting peace and our basic human rights.

Israel: No.

Media: Hamas rejects yet another ceasefire deal!

[VinniUSMC]

I have a 30 year old friend that is Palestinian. … When I meet her for a coffee, I keep thinking that if she were a child in Gaza, she would be starving to death, and I could not do anything the help. I start weeping, and she tries to take care of me!

I’ll take “Things that never happened” for 500, Alex.

Affleck, you're a sick, deranged, evil Nazi piece of shit.

[Jonathan Affleck]

A colonial settler or supporter of the genocidal Zionist state tends to lose the ability to think rationally.

Can a reasonable person believe that Hamas both committed a horrible mass slaughter and also took hostages for negotiations?

Zionist colonial settlers have been lying about Palestinians since Ottoman Times. If there had been rapes, mass murder, and baby-beheading, there would have been no need to lie about them.

The Zionist leadership concocted lies to cover for the genocide, which the Israeli government decided to perpetrate because of the collapse of Golani Brigade.

The Zionist military implemented the Hannibal Directive and committed mass slaughter. The Zionist government blamed the mass slaughter on Hamas in order to legitimize and to justify mass murder genocide against Palestinians. The Zionist lies meet the definition of the international and US federal crime of genocide incitement. On Oct 16, 1946 the Nuremberg International Tribunal hanged Julius Streicher for the same sort of genocide incitement.

The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

Native Resistance during WWII — Native Resistance Today

During WW2 we Americans considered the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fought or killed racial supremacist genocidal Nazi invaders in occupied Europe.

Today we Americans must consider the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fights or kills racial supremacist genocidal Zionist invaders in stolen Palestine.

The Zionist mentality is completely congruent to the Nazi mentality, and the US Zionist movement commits heinous crimes according to the US federal code while the baby killer nation has for 75 years been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.

[VinniUSMC]

Hey Affleck, did you make sure to have Misek review this for you first? Fuck off Nazi scum.

[Frank Drackman]

"Jonathan Affleck Must Die"
don't call the thought police, that's obviously a Nom de Plume, don't see why peoples don't use their real names, like I do.
Would make a good movie, like "John Tucker Must Die" (2006 20th Century Fox) Could that movie even get made today with all of the woke bullshit?
Or even "Munich"?
Of course the Israeli Ath-uh-letes deserved what they got...
and Anne Frank? just an Occupying Zionist

Frank

[ReaderY]

Like the Weimar Constitution that was destroyed in 1933, the United States Constitution is not a perfect constitution. It does not provide perfect liberty, justice, democracy, or any other value that has been associated with it. It is in many ways a patchwork constitution, a constitution of compromise, a muddling through. Far from being an ideal marriage for compatriots destined for each other, it is more than a shacking up arrangement for incompatible people thrown together by happenstance.

Its framers compromised on everything. They compromised on liberty. They compromised on justice. They initially compromised on slavery. And they compromised on democracy, initially providing for only a single branch of Congress to be democratically elected, later expanding it to both branches.

How to select the President was perhaps the quintessential compromise of our patchwork constitution. It was a last-minute deal, a deal that perhaps never made perfect sense to anybody. Those who wanted more democracy and those who feared it compromise, allocating a pool of electors to each state according to a formula which was itself a compromise, and allowing each state to decide for itself how to select them as it chose. States whose leaders wanted democracy involve the citizenry directly; states whose leaders didn’t could shut them out completely. Each state could do as it chose. They could compromise if they wanted.

In the last speech to a free Reichstag before the Enabling Act of 1933, German Social Democratic leader Otto Wels closed with this remark:

“The Weimar Constitution is not a socialist constitution. But we stand by the principles enshrined in it, the principles of a state based on the rule of law, of equal rights, of social justice…No Enabling Act gives you the power to destroy ideas that are eternal and indestructible.”

The United States Constitution is no more a democratic constitution than the Weimar constitution was a socialist one. But I too stand by it. Each one of its compromises is an imperfection, sometimes a glaring one . And yet its very ability to bring incompatible people to compromise and live together in peace is far more its glory than any single ideal. Its very messiness is its grace. It is through its cracks that its light shine forth.

The Constitution assigned each state the power to determine how presidential electors get selected. Though the Supreme Court has eviscerated that power as thoroughly as the Enabling Act eviscerated the Reichstag’s, has turned states into mere rubber stamps for the Justices’ vision of the national will as thoroughly as the Enabling Act turned the Reichstag into a rubber stamp for Hitler’s, I nonetheless continue to stand by the original constitution’s vision of a patchwork of incompatible state systems, each with its own idea about how to select a President.

The Justices’ rationale for overthrowing the Framers’ design strike me as far more resembling Hitler’s vision of government than anything American. National unity, they say, requires a single uniform system. Textual states’ rights and powers must be supressed, they say, because of the chaos that could ensue if every one of the 50 states was allowed to have their own opinion about what constitutes a qualification to be President. Federal offices, they say, must be dealt with in a uniform manner, and damn what the framers said about the role of the states.

Whatever the fundamental nature of our constitution may be, uniformity is not its essence. Pluralism, not uniformity, lies at the heart of our constitution. Tolerating the chaos and disunity that inevitably comes when people disagree, when different units of our patchwork government check and balance and contradict each other, is far more the American way than fearing it.

It is totalitarian leaders, not pluralistic, partialistic leaders, who need to fear the chaos and disorder that comes with disagreement, with different government bodies each following different policies. Leaders of a pluralistic, partialistic government need to learn to live with it.

The federal interest lies not in uniformity, but in federalism. The federal interest lies in respecting the diversity of views and policies that is a quintessential feature of the American system.

Electors appointed by each state in the manner directed by its legislature, each a different way, may not be the best way. It is certainly not a very democratic way. It is certainly very much a muddle of a compromise way. But it is the American way, the constitutional way. And I stand by it.

We could amend the constitution to provide for a different way. But it is not for the Supreme Court to overthrow it. Especially not a Supreme Court that fears the chaos, nonuniformity, and disunity that comes with pluralism and compromise. Pluralism and compromise are in fact the American way. The chaos, nonuniformity, and disunity that comes with them are quintessentially American. They are not bugs in the constitution to be fixed. They are features to be proud of and live by.

[Frank Drackman]

TLDR much?

[hobie]

20 minutes and Joe is about to make his speech. He either bombs or he kills. Do you want to see your president succeed or fail?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’d love to see President Biden succeed in doing exactly what he promised the country he would do: faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If he achieves this while giving his speech, more power to him – or should I say, less power, because if he upholds the Constitution he will stop claiming to have powers which were not constitutionally entrusted to him.

[hobie]

Honestly, I hope he bombs. We need someone else. Wish the Republicans could say the same thing

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think he already bombed...Syria.

[Moderation4ever]

The hope for someone else ended with Nikki Halley suspending her campaign. Nikki could have beaten President Biden and that would have had the Democratic thinking of a replacement. Biden beat Trump in 2020 and I believe 2024 will be a repeat.

[OtisAH]

Sorry that didn’t work out for you. Guess you’re stuck with an amazingly effective incumbent president and a lunatic whose running to, in order, a) stay out of prison, b) enrich himself, and c) spend the rest of his life as president.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is Trump more likely to die in prison or return to the White House.

If he loses the November election, his legal jeopardies could avalanche quickly -- and support for him among people who matter could capsize. The guideline sentences for even a couple of convictions should exceed his life expectancy.

To benefit the Secret Service, courts and corrections officials might enable Trump to construct a private prison of sorts -- severely limited movement, communications, and visitors, etc. -- rather than send him into a standard prison. That would be special treatment for a guy who deserves no leniency but perhaps appropriate.

[Moderation4ever]

d) all of the above.

[Michael P]

Oh, he's ready to kill. Who is he bombing first?

Apparently he's given up on all the other swing states except Michigan, and he thinks Dearborn is enough to swing the entire state's EC votes.

[Jerry B.]

Looks like lots of arguments about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin today.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden is 20 minutes into his speech and he’s doing pretty well. An aggressive speech with lots of standing ovations from Democrats. Only one misstatement so far — I don’t remember any violence during the pandemic. He’s more coherent than Trump but that goes without saying.

He also reminded the January 6 denialists in Congress that on that day in that very chamber they were whisked away by security, in danger of their lives.

Of the Supreme Court, Thomas and Alito aren’t attending (no surprise) but also I don’t see Barrett.

[Michael P]

I don’t remember any violence during the pandemic.

The summer of 2020 called and would like its police precincts, courthouses, and other government buildings back.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One courthouse was torched. And one (unmanned) police station. Another was briefly taken over. Mostly it was graffiti and broken windows. Not pandemic related which is what Biden seemed to be talking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing big, just a couple billion in property damage, happens every year, just doesn't usually get that much coverage, amiright?

[Mr. Bumble]

Protest-related damages cost about $2 billion, according to estimate

Damages caused by the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests were estimated to cost $2 billion, a number that could "still go higher," according to a February 2021 report published on the World Economic Forum's website.

The report was authored by the head of Property Claim Services, which has tracked protest-related insurance claims for decades. The group found that 2020 protests cost more than any other period of unrest in American history, as the average cost of demonstrations since 1950 has been about $90 million annually.

Other cost estimates support Property Claim Services' $2 billion figure.

[Nige]

Add it to the costs of dysfunctional policing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fucktard.

[Nige]

There's more of that personal invective you dislike so much.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Which gaffe? I noticed that Biden garbled HBCU. The speech was more partisan than is fitting for a SOTU speech. The speech was episodic and did not have the unifying theme that makes a better SOTU speech. Biden lied about the issue of abortion and incited genocide against Palestinians. I noticed that Biden’s EBR (Eye Blink Rate) kept going up during the speech. I suspect a new anti-dementia cocktail -- perhaps consisting of lecanemab + steroids -- that was wearing off toward the end of the speech.

[Estragon]

Could be. I’m still curious who Ronnie Jackson was giving the fenny and ket to

[OtisAH]

Older republicans with no game. And Matt Gaetz.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What makes you think it was just the Republicans?

[OtisAH]

Who else do you think was populating the White House in the Turnip administration?

[mydisplayname]

The Illya Somin Re-elect Donald Trump Fund has grown by 200% tonight. Donate now and make Illya Somin the largest contributor to Donald Trump!

[OtisAH]

“We now have $3!”

[Josh R]

SOTU: a campaign rally that was inappropriate for the venue. But, likely a political winner in that 1) he appeared mentally great and 2) he needed to attack Trump. He is also good at spontaneously engaging the hecklers (which also helps with the mental questions).

[Estragon]

So the initial talking point is that the SOTU was too partisan?? LOLOLOL. You huckleberry snowflakes are gonna be howling over the summer once dark Brandon and the campaign ads get rolled out. Hot take: we are well below the high water mark for MAGA and the tide is going out.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The right-wing idiots around here won't have anything to say about MTG violating decorum by wearing Trump campaign attire, or the fact that she cannot behave herself and once again needed someone to slap some manners into her.

[LawTalkingGuy]

At Trump's last State of the Union he gave a Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh. A man whose only contribution to society was being a partisan asshole on the radio. But yeah, Biden was too partisan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Limbaugh wrote some moderately-accurate US history books that children actually read and that's a win on two levels -- the second being able to write books that children will actually read (about ANYTHING).

I say "moderately accurate" because Paul Revere got captured -- it was others who got the warning to Lexington & Concord. And the British were going out to confiscate illegal arms including a brass cannon in Concord -- imagine what that could have done up on Bunker Hill....

[LawTalkingGuy]

This response is hilarious. You can’t think of a good thing Rush did other than “writing” a moderately accurate children’s book. LMAO.

[grb]

Not a good night for the Biden-Dementia-Propagandists™

And it's only gonna get worse!
Didn't work in '20; won't work in '24.

[Estragon]

Joe from Scranton still scrapping! The look he gave MTG on the way in was absolute, pure, double-refined GOLD

[Dan Schiavetta]

Also he was obviously having a great time.

[Frank Drackman]

and pathognomonic for Parkinsonian Dementia

[tylertusta]

He must have napped all day, and will probably take Friday off.

I can give a three hour speech with that kind of rest.

[Mr. Bumble]

He always takes Friday off.

[Nige]

Hmm. Nope, and nope.

https://factba.se/biden/calendar/

[OtisAH]

No, you couldn’t.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I can’t wait until they quadruple down in 2028: Gavin Newsom has dementia!

[Brett Bellmore]

So, is there any enemy of civilization Biden DOESN'T want to send aid to? Hamas, check. Iran, check.

Maybe North Korea? Has anybody check to see if he's sneaking them aid?

[Michael P]

John Kerry clearly laid out the one condition for Russia to be welcomed into the fold: make empty promises about carbon emission targets.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Biden incited genocide during the SOTU speech when he called al-Aqsa Flood the worst attack on the “Jewish people” since the Holocaust

1. because he implicitly equates the bloodthirsty murderous members of the genocide-perpetrating conglomeration of baby killer nation to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and
2. because he also equates Hamas, which is an honorable and heroic native resistance group, to the invaders, interlopers, thieves, and genocide perpetrators of the Zionist movement.

Bellmore commits even worse genocide incitement than Biden.

When Brett Bellmore claims Biden aids an enemy of civilization by sending aid to Hamas, he implicitly equates the civilian population of Gaza to Hamas. This equation of civilians to Hamas is also genocide incitement that is worse than Biden’s genocide incitement because Bellmore enters the realm of the most extreme Nazi genocide incitement.

A colonial settler or supporter of the baby killer nation loses the ability to think rationally.

Can a reasonable person believe that Hamas both committed a horrible mass slaughter and also took hostages for negotiations? If the goal of Hamas were genocide, why would Hamas take any hostages? Why didn’t Hamas slaughter any Zionist colonial setter that it encountered?

Zionist colonial settlers have been lying about Palestinians since Ottoman Times. If there had been rapes, mass murder, and baby-beheading, there would have been no need to lie about them.

The Zionist leadership concocted lies to cover for the mass murder genocide, which the Israeli government decided to perpetrate because of the collapse of Golani Brigade.

The Zionist military implemented the Hannibal Directive and committed mass slaughter. The Zionist government blamed the mass slaughter on Hamas in order to legitimize and to justify mass murder genocide against Palestinians. The Zionist lies (as well as Biden’s lies) meet the definition of the international and US federal crime of genocide incitement. On Oct 16, 1946 the Nuremberg International Tribunal hanged Julius Streicher for the same sort of genocide incitement.

The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

Native Resistance during WWII — Native Resistance Today

During WW2 we Americans considered the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fought or killed racial supremacist genocidal Nazi invaders in occupied Europe.

Today we Americans must consider the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fights or kills racial supremacist genocidal Zionist invaders in stolen Palestine.

The Zionist mentality is completely congruent to the Nazi mentality, and the US Zionist movement commits heinous crimes according to the US federal code while the baby killer nation has for 75 years been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.

A group, which has been subjected to genocide at the hands of a first set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Nazis), can later themselves form a second set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Zionists) just as evil as the first set of genocide perpetrators.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't you have a village to be an Idiot in?

[Jonathan Affleck]

When a propagandist for the baby killer nation has no rational response to the facts or to the truth, he resorts to an attack ad hominem.

[Frank Drackman]

Internet Tough guy. Guess beats ending up in a shallow grave.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My rational response would be to NUKE GAZA -- and Mecca too.

Or drop pork offal & fat on Mecca. A couple of C-5's worth, dropped from 10,000 feet. It would go EVERYWHERE....

[LawTalkingGuy]

Saying you want commit crimes on par with the holocaust doesn’t make you a rational person. It makes you a psychopath.

[Estragon]

“My rational response would be… [to] drop pork offal & fat on Mecca”

So very rational.

Can someone take a peek at this guy’s tenant file?

[grb]

People who criticize the Israeli government in this forum inevitably are accused of anti-Semitism. It is both a deeply cynical tactic & reflexive spasm, like the doctor hitting your knee with that little hammer. But here’s some of the red flags I see :

1. Criticizing the “Jews” for Israeli actions. This is obvious. The Jews are not deciding government policy, Netanyahu’s coalition is.

2. Likewise, harassment of Jewish groups or supporters of Israel here, often with little or no attempt to find or address any specific policy difference of substance.

3. All talk of “From the river to the sea” is ugly and offensive, whether coming from dumbass college kids or Israeli cabinet officials. Its operative premise is millions of Jews or Palestinians, will magically disappear as people with citizen’s rights. Perhaps someone can claim this refers to a One State Solution, but who takes that seriously? History has shown neither the Israelis or Palestinians can be trusted to honor the basic human rights of their foes.

4. Incessant use of “Zionist” or “Zionism”. The terms are compleely extraneous to any analysis of Israel’s actions or policies, whether you see them as mistaken or correct. At this point it is clearly an invective and/or dogwhistle.

5. Likewise, obssessive focus on Israel’s founding. It’s not that this isn’t relevant because it is, but the history we get from both sides rarely rises above cartoon-level. You can read a wide variety of historical accounts that are wildly “pro” this way or that, and there is inevitably some true in them all. But the extremes of both sides are always wrong, and that’s what we almost always hear.

6. Faux-sainthood for the Palestinians : The overall record of Palestinian leadership has been abysmal, with cowardice, willful blindness, corruption, miscalculation, and pointless violence at every turn. Few peoples have been so consistantly failed by the leadership as the Palestinians. Twice Israeli governments were willing to negotiate on the requirements necessary to the Palestinians for peace, and each time the Palestinians were too blind to seize the chance. Needless to say, the 07Oct attacks were not “native resistance”. They were terrorist violence raised to a military-action scale. As an organization, Hamas is repulsive.

7. Speaking of repulsive, use of Nazi policies or actions to criticize the Israel is just toxic trolling. Calling the Israelis Nazis is raw bigotry.

Notably off my list is one of standard go-to moves of Israel’s supporters : Claiming any criticism of its government is “unfair” because it “singles Israel out”. This deflective tactic is hopelessly corrupt. The most recent example I’ve seen was a NYT column saying the revulsive over Gaza civilian casualties was unwarrnted, using the Battle of Mosul as a contrast. But the very numbers the columnist used for Mosul showed the deaths caused by the U.S. military were a small fraction of those by the Israelis and spread out over a longer time. The columnist didn’t care. He had an excuse and was sticking with it.

[Sarcastr0]

Cartoonish demonization is a poor reaction to not having your dementia wishes fulfilled.

[Jonathan Affleck]

As I pointed out above, elements of Biden's SOTU were vile and almost certainly constituted criminal genocide incitement, but Bellmore's comment is not merely cartoonish demonization because in his comment above Bellmore commits even more extreme genocide incitement that Biden did in the SOTU.

[David Nieporent]

Your understanding of the word "incitement" is even poorer than your understanding of the words, "Zionism," "genocide," and "common carrier."

[Jonathan Affleck]

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.

In 18 U.S. Code § 1091 (c), incitement may have a special meaning.

To understand how incitement might apply in a civil genocide litigation pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute, one refers to the trial and conviction of Julius Streicher by the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal as well as more recent international genocide cases.

Has David Nieporent read the transcript of the Streicher case? Martin McMahon and I spent much time in analyzing this case.

Has David Nieporent read the transcript of the trial of Julius Streicher before the 1946 Nuremberg International Tribunal?

[David Nieporent]

Your understanding of the word “incitement” is even poorer than your understanding of the words, “Zionism,” “genocide,” and “common carrier.”

[OtisAH]

Yes, you “pointed that out.” And have repeated it. It didn’t get any better though.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Hamas is a native resistance movement that has no similarity to the Nazi movement.

A Zionist is not a Jew but is post Judaism because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

The Zionist military seems pursuant to the Hannibal Directive to have perpetrated practically all the slaughter of civilians on October 7th. The Zionist government blamed this slaughter on Hamas to legitimize mass murder genocide against Palestinians — obvious genocide incitement.

Biden shows true depravity of mind when he asserts that Hamas committed the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. The Jewish people is not a concept of Jewish religion any more than the Christian people is a concept of Christian religion. The Jewish people of Zionism is congruent to the Aryan race of Nazism. The English of the preceding sentence is inaccurate. In Yiddish, German, and Modern Israeli Hebrew, the same word would be used for “people” and for “race”.

[David Nieporent]

The Jewish people is not a concept of Jewish religion any more than the Christian people is a concept of Christian religion

It's not clear what this is intended to mean in English, but Jews are a people, not a religion like Christianity.

[OtisAH]

Gotta love Brett picking North Korea, the nation whose despot and “love letters” Turnip cherishes, as the country to really drive his “point” home.

[Michael P]

Snopes has stopped even pretending to be anything other than blatant propagandists.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/times-square-kiss-ban/

The memo banning the photo in question was proposed, drafted, reviewed, approved, and distributed. Then some face-saving bureaucrat claimed it was "sent in error", so Snopes claims it is "false" that the photo was banned.

[David Nieporent]

Was it ever banned?

[Michael P]

Yes, between the time the memo went out until the memo was disavowed.

[Bwaaah]

Correct. That time period will hereinafter be referred to as “never.”

Remember: All their words are fungible, and all their concepts are boundless.

[Nige]

Pointing out that the words you use are incorrect and, well, lies, is not making words 'fungible.'

[OtisAH]

The rest of your rightwing loser buddies declared Snopes to be BIAS in 2016 when literally every stupid thing they believed kept being labeled “stupid” because it was all stupid. Where tf you been?

[ThePublius]

This one's simple. The phot was banned, literally. Five days later the ban was rescinded. Snopes says it wasn't banned. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[Sarcastr0]

In order to be mad at Snopes, you are taking an overly formalistic definition of ban, that requires no one actually change their behavior.

That is not to say it doesn't show some behind the scenes dunderheadedness, but you are working hard to add drama that is not factually supported.

Think about if this were under the Trump admin, how you'd treat it.

[Michael P]

There’s literally direction in the memo to “ensure that these photographs are promptly removed”, even before exploring replacement photos.

Are you getting paid to be clown yourself like that?

[Sarcastr0]

You literally don't know what if anything happened regarding this memo going out.

[Bwaaah]

So you didn’t even read the Snopes article? You didn’t see that the VA confirmed that the memo was sent out?

The policy went into effect, and then, as sometimes happens to nasty DEI initiatives like this, it was seen in the light of day by people who can’t be punished for challenging social justice.

OOPS. “That was an error,” said the VA. (Because we know how deputy secretaries of major U.S. government bureaucracies just shoot out policies from the hip without consulting authorities.)

[Sarcastr0]

I read the Snopes article, and nothing establishes that "The policy went into effect, and then, as sometimes happens to nasty DEI initiatives like this, it was seen in the light of day by people who can’t be punished for challenging social justice."

This is a story you tell yourself because you work very hard to feel persecuted.

[Bwaaah]

An official memorandum from an authorized superior is sent out ordering “photographs depicting the ‘V-J Day in Time Square’ should be removed from all VHJ facilities. […] Please ensure these photographs are promptly removed”.

How long after that memo goes out do you think that order goes into effect? (Try to act like this is real life and yet you aren’t an idiot.)

[M L]

Snopes has been a joke for decades. I remember reading it as a kid in the 90s or 2000s and, while it had good and useful content, already the laughable political bias/propaganda was showing up.

[OtisAH]

The only thing laughable in this or any other exchange you’re involved in is you.

[Voize]

proposed, drafted, reviewed, approved, and distributed

Any evidence of that, versus a mid-level executive overstepping? Any big organization I have worked has had no shortage of people who fire around memos claiming authority they wish they had. Here the Assistant Undersecretary is, I believe, the boss of the directors who received the memo so they probably assumed it was valid and may have begun acting on it.

[Michael P]

The memo was signed by one person and referred questions to someone in a different area. Which of those steps do you think got skipped, and did the memo get rescinded before it got posted to Xitter?

[Sarcastr0]

Look at all the work you're doing to be mad. Speculating, burden switching, hidebound formalism...

Why so sweaty?

[Voize]

I think this Assistant Undersecretary drafted a memo and sent it to her subordinates. I agree they may well have begun implementing it before they found out it was not VA policy.

[Sarcastr0]

'may well have begun implementing' is vastly more couched than these folks are slamming into the comments.

[ThePublius]

"If there were a way to establish which people among the Gazans are actually innocent – whether that number is tiny or substantial – and to help them out, that would be fine. But there is no such way. Unfortunately, Gazans decided to elect a group of terrorists as their government, and to cheer and support (and even join in some cases) those terrorists as they perpetrated acts of barbaric horror on Israelis. That has resulted in a war, and in war the aggressors suffer. At least, that’s the way it used to be. But world opinion has mobilized around helping these aggressors, and that’s what Biden is doing."

https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/03/07/tonights-state-of-the-union-address-biden-to-supply-hamas/

[Jonathan Affleck]

We assume Gazans are innocent until proven guilty. An election in 2006 followed by a military takeover has no bearing in 2023-2024.

We don't consider all Germans to be guilty for crimes of Nazis even though Germans elected Hitler in 1932. One German Jewish group openly supported the Nazi party in 1932, and the Zionist movement effectively collaborated with the Nazi government from 1933 through Kristallnacht. While the Zionist movement is probably a proximate cause of the Holocaust, we don't attribute culpability or liability for the Holocaust to all Jews.

Genocide is not a legitimate or legal response to any act that Hamas is alleged to have committed.

A Zionist propagandist for the baby killer nation or for the mass murder genocide, which the baby killer nation commits, thinks exactly as a Nazi thinks.

The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews during the Holocaust.

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

Native Resistance during WWII — Native Resistance Today

During WW2 we Americans considered the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fought or killed racial supremacist genocidal Nazi invaders in occupied Europe.

Today we Americans must consider the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fights or kills racial supremacist genocidal Zionist invaders in stolen Palestine.

The Zionist mentality is completely congruent to the Nazi mentality, and the US Zionist movement commits heinous crimes according to the US federal code while the baby killer nation has for 75 years been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.

A group, which has been subjected to genocide at the hands of a first set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Nazis), can later themselves form a second set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Zionists) just as evil as the first set of genocide perpetrators.

[ThePublius]

It's curious that you say what you do, as it's not the Israelis who have Mein Kampf translated into Arabic and distributed in schools, or who teach geography to children with Israel absent from the map. Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and, yes, Gazans, are the genocidal Nazis here - quite literally, historically, too. So save that Israelis as genocidal Nazis B.S. for your own kind.

[Frank Drackman]

10th grade History Teacher/Baseball Coach made us read Mein Kampf, and he wasn't a Nazi unless they let in Orthodox Jews, as we had to read Anne Frank's Diary also, that whole "Know your Enemy"/"March a mile in your Enemy's Jump Boots". Of course this was when California Pubic Screw-els still had Reagan's Photo in the Principal's Orifice. Only difference between the Nazi's and Mullah Omar/Rashit-a Slap-a-Jap is that the Nazis were more disciplined.

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Gazans, are the genocidal Nazis here

And there we have it.
Above you said you were fine with getting relief supplies to these people if the risk of their being suborned was low.

Seems you've worked yourself up to the point you no longer think that, and have justified killing them all, because they're all Nazis.

Kinda fucked up, dude.

[Frank Drackman]

Kinda stupid dude.

[ThePublius]

No, it's hyperbole. I don't think all Gazans are Nazis, and I never said all Gazans or even all Nazis should be killed. But I think a large percentage, a majority, of Gazans adhere to the "wipe Israel off the map" doctrine. Do you think that's not so? I not, then why do they teach school with no Israel on the map, and distribute Mein Kampf in Arabic? (Both of which are indisputable facts.)

[Frank Drackman]

What strategy? Tell me what the strategy is. I'll tell you if it's working. See, that right there is the problem. Because they they have a strategy. They're gathering right now in Raqqa by the tens of thousands. Hidden in the civilian population. Cleaning their weapons. And they know exactly why they're there. Why is that? They call it the end times. What do you think the beheadings are about? The crucifixions in Deir Hafer? The revival of slavery? You think they make this sh*t up? It's all in the book. Their f***ing book. The only book they ever read. They read it all the time. They never stop. They're there for one reason and one reason only. To die for the caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That's their strategy. And it's been that way since the seventh century. So, do you really think that a few special forces teams are gonna put a dent in that?

[ThePublius]

Are you talking to me?

[grb]

ThePublius : "then why do they teach school with no Israel on the map, and distribute Mein Kampf in Arabic?"

1. As to the first point, Netanyahu recently gave a speech at the UN that wiped the West Bank and Gaza off the map he held up for everyone to see. So what? I would find that hard to use as justification for any kind of civilian butchery.

2. As for Mein Kampf, I'm interested in hearing your facts. Yes, it's translated into Arabic - and every other major language in the world. When I do an internet search of "Gaza" and Hitler's book, I find a couple of stories about copies found in a "child's bedroom" and at a "terrorist's home". There may be more there - I'm not claiming I know otherwise - but it looks supiciously like the UNRWA agitprop. After weeks of hysterical invective, we're still at 30 employess out of plus-minus 40,000 accused of "Hamas ties" with no evidence produced on most of them.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-brandishes-map-of-israel-that-includes-west-bank-and-gaza-at-un-speech/

[ThePublius]

So what? So, "from the river to the sea" is just some good natured ribbing, I suppose?

Anti-Semitism in Palestinian School Textbooks

I mean, how do you deal with a neighbor who's philosophy is your total annihilation?

[Nige]

Annihilating them, or trying to, isn't actually going to do much good, and it's just going to make you guilty of genocide.

[Nige]

And hey, all the countries in Europe went from murdering millions of each others' citizens to peaceful union in a few decades. The idea that current enmity and hatred rules out peace forever is stupid, and the resulting violence is a self-fulfilling policy and self-reinforcing cycle.

[grb]

ThePublius : "So what? So, “from the river to the sea” is just some good natured ribbing, I suppose?"

As noted in an earlier comment above, I find “from the river to the sea”to be toxic and offensive, whether said by Israeli cabinet officials, found in the Likud Party plaform, chanted by dim college kids, or promoted by Hamas textbooks. In all cases, it suggests millions of Jews or Palestinians magically vanish as people with full citizen's rights. That bothers me in all cases. You seemed to be selective in your indignation, otherwise you'd criticize Israel's policy too.

Also, Mein Kampf as "distrbuted"? I'm still skeptical on that.

[Jonathan Affleck]

When a Palestinian wants to be free from the river to the sea, the desire hardly differs from the pre-Civil War abolitionist desire for blacks to be free in all states and territories of the United States.

The idea horrifies a Zionist colonial settler

1. because according to Zionism a subhuman Palestinian was supposed to vanish when a racially superior white European appeared and

2. because Zionist colonial settlers are afraid they will have to return all the property they stole and share the natural resources of stolen Palestine with Palestinians.

A Zionist is like my crooked Uncle Nat, who believes that God commands a Jew never to return anything stolen fair and square from a gentile.

US white racists have been and still are horrified by the thought of living on terms of mutual respect and equality with US non-whites. A Zionist is another type of racial supremacist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

But I think a large percentage, a majority, of Gazans adhere to the “wipe Israel off the map” doctrine.

By that standard, fuck Israel too.

How many Israelis support the barbaric, violent, unlawful conduct of settlers; support the unlawful occupation of (and theft of) land based on silly superstition and bigotry; and vote for immoral, belligerent, right-wing assholes?

There are no clean hands in this. The United States should stop helping any side among the superstition-addled, old-timey losers in the relevant region.

[Jonathan Affleck]

A Zionist, who incites mass murder genocide against Palestinians, hopes that a white sees a reference to Mein Kampf, shuts off his brain, and gives the State of Israel a pass to slaughter unarmed Palestinian men, women, and children.

This sort of Zionist mass murder genocide incitement has lost effectiveness as memories of WW2 fade.

I have lived and worked in the occupied Palestinian territory including Gaza. I never saw a copy of Mein Kampf either in German, in English, or in Arabic. The book is stylistically difficult in German, harder to read in English, and impossible to read in read in Arabic. I have never met a Palestinian that has read Mein Kampf.

Not only is most of the politics in Mein Kampf incomprehensible today, but most Palestinians want a child to grow up to be a doctor. The child has no time to waste on a book as turgid as Mein Kampf.

[Jonathan Affleck]

If I remember correctly, the Nazi government translated Mein Kampf into Arabic, and a Jewish or half-Jewish woman did most of the work of translation. I believe she died in a death camp.

Palestinians and other Arabic speakers have never had much interest in Mein Kampf.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are right about the Jews supporting Hitler in the 1933 election -- but you neglect to mention WHY -- the Stalinists were worse...

[Jonathan Affleck]

Germany had no Stalinist party in 1932.

Verband Nationaldeutscher Juden was a right-wing nationalist Jewish association. In 1932 the Nazi party avoided antisemitism and ran on a right-wing nationalist platform. The VndJ believed the Nazi Party was abandoning antisemitism to become a non-extremist right-wing party.

[Nige]

'Unfortunately, Gazans decided to elect a group of terrorists as their government'

With help from Netanyahu.

If you go looking for reasons to justify the mass killing of, what is it now, thirty thousand people, most of them women and children, and almost certainly an undercount, you will find them. The question is what prompted you to go fucking looking in the first place.

[ThePublius]

You guys complain about the civilian casualties, but you don't provide any answers. What should Israel do? Roll over and die? How can they defeat Hamas otherwise? Maybe you can somehow advise Israel, and Netanyahu, on how to defeat Hamas without causing any hardship to the civilian population. I personally don't think it's possible.

[Nige]

Oh I'm sorry, am I complaining about civilian casualties? Is it harshing your war-buzz?

I wouldn't advise Netanyahu, because they're right where Netanyahu wanted them to be, and he's invested in prolonging the war and even escalating it to avoid elections and accountability. So, first step: get rid of Netanyahu and his mob of hardline freaks.

If you really wanted to, you could set two goals: justice, and peace. Bringing the people responsible for the attack to justice, and laying foundations for an onginig long-term peace process which, if even partially succesful succesful, could ultimately ensure no more attacks like Oct 7th. That would be hard, though. Too hard for people who love things going boom and childrens' limbs flying everywhere.

[ThePublius]

So, an unserious response. But let's suppose it was sincere.

1. How do you bring people to justice? What would be the process to identify, and I imagine, hold, try, and imprison or execute those responsible?

2. What's the peace process? I imagine it would require the de-Hamasification of Gaza. Is that possible or practical?

Finally, why doesn't Hamas just surrender? That would end all of this death and destruction right now, wouldn't it?

[Nige]

Of course it's unserious, it doesn't involve killing thirty thousand people, how could it be serious? We all know from what happened after 9/11 that only killing lots of people is serious, and nothing else.

What you could do is get the smartest, most experienced people you can find in all the relevant fields and professions and lock them in a room and tell them you want two things, justice and peace, and they must be acheived without killing any children. If *you* can't imagine anything other than killing fifteen thousand children as a way forward, that's on you.

Hamas won't surrender for the same reason Netanyahu will keep blowing up children.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's unserious because you simply don't want to admit that the problem here is that the Palestinians elected a genocidal government. And that there's no making peace with genocides who think they'll end up in paradise even if they die, so long as they were trying to kill Jews, but end up in Hell if they honestly make peace with them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The last election was in 2006, Brett. Gaza is also an extremely young territory. Lot of children and people who weren’t eligible to vote in 2006. You’re basically saying it’s okay to kill kids if their parents voted badly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know that, after they elected the genocidal government, it canceled any further elections. That's par for the course when you elect monsters.

The bottom line is that the NAZIS were sane and rational compared to Hamas.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So you’re saying that because the authoritarian government cancelled further elections, it’s okay to kill all the kids there. Do I have that right?

And in taking this position both the Nazis and you are supposedly the rational ones.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “The bottom line is that the NAZIS were sane and rational compared to Hamas”

I don’t have any desire to start ranking monsters. The Nazis vs various Communist regimes is a bad enough example. You can give it a shot, but all the exercise will do is roil your stomach.

That said, your comment above is morally obtuse and plain old bat-shit crazy.

[Nige]

A Trump supporter has thoughts about what happens when you elect monsters who don't respect elections.

[Nige]

And you don't want to admit that the hardline militaristic maintain-the-low-level-conflict approach has contributed to the current state of events. It's clearly an abject catastrophic failure, and escalating it is only ever going to make things worse. People who support this are not serious about anything except killing people.

[Jonathan Affleck]

As much as Biden and Zionists lie, by US legal standards there was nothing at all criminal about the heroic attack on the Gaza Envelope.

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

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

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

The kibbutzim of the Gaza Envelope are military bases
1. that are intended to make irreversible the never-ending genocide, which started in Dec 1947, and
2. that have been been camouflaged with civilians that have the role of human shields.

A native resistance movement like Hamas is fully justified in attacking such military bases. The civilian residents of such military bases are not protected noncombatants.

Hamas broke out of Gaza to seize Zionist colonial settlers so that they could be traded for kidnapped Palestinians and for a cessation of attacks on Palestinian religious sites. The US federal code defines such hostage taking for exchange to be a legitimate non-criminal act during a war. See 18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes.

When Zionist forces understood the actions of Hamas fighters, the Zionist military perpetrated unspeakably heinous and random slaughter in accord with the Hannibal Directive.

Zionist military seems to have caused practically all civilian casualties and deaths during Oct 7. Then the Zionist government concocted the accusations against Hamas of baby-beheading, mass slaughter, and rape for the purpose of genocide incitement.

The incompetent but depraved, murderous, and genocidal Golani Brigade collapsed.

In response, the Zionist regime has revenged itself on the Palestinian population by destroying Gaza just as Nazi forces destroyed Warsaw.

Even though genocide is not a legal or legitimate response to any act, the Zionist regime has achieved the grand slam of crimes of genocide:
• mass murder genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIa),
• physical and psychological maiming genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIb),
• toxic conditions genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIc),
• birth prevention genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IId), and
• child-kidnapping genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIe, mostly in the West Bank).

[Jonathan Affleck]

Israel: Give us our hostages, and we will keep many of your hostages, and then after a few weeks, we’ll start killing your people again with US bombs.

Hamas: No, we want lasting peace and our basic human rights.

Israel: No.

Media: Hamas rejects yet another ceasefire deal!

[Frank Drackman]

Mess with the Bull, get the (Ram) Horns
Next will be the "Stop! it's Ram-a-long-a-ding-dong-Dan!"
I'm almost wanting the Ham-ass to get a few good meals.
Will make their intestines much better for greasing the treads
of Israeli Tanks (HT G.S. Patton)

Frank

[grb]

ThePublius : “You guys complain about the civilian casualties, but you don’t provide any answers.”

Are you even remotely serious? Israel has dropped hundreds of 2000lb dumb bombs into densely populated city areas, each one with a kill radius stretching to 1000ft. The civilian deaths in Gaza approaches or surpasses that seen in the recent bloodiest carnage of Chechnya or Putin’s & Assad in Syria’s Civil War. Here’s a quote from the AP :

“The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history. In just over two months, researchers say the offensive has wreaked more destruction than the razing of Syria’s Aleppo between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine’s Mariupol or, proportionally, the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II. It has killed more civilians than the U.S.-led coalition did in its three-year campaign against the Islamic State group. The Israeli military has said little about what kinds of bombs and artillery it is using in Gaza. But from blast fragments found on-site and analyses of strike footage, experts are confident that the vast majority of bombs dropped on the besieged enclave are U.S.-made. They say the weapons include 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) “bunker-busters” that have killed hundreds in densely populated areas.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-bombs-destruction-death-toll-scope-419488c511f83c85baea22458472a796

This is by Israeli choice. They chose to fight in a way guarenteed to butcher civilians by the tens of thousands. As bad as that is alone, it’s even more disturbing when Netanyahu is publicly talking about negotiations with Congo over the mass transfer of Palestinians to Africa.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel is creating a new generation of people who understandably and justly hate Israelis. It didn't start in Gaza -- the West Bank has been a flaming shitstorm of Israeli immorality and lawlessness for some time, for starters -- but Israel has created another half-century of risk and pain for itself.

How it will manage that risk without American support is difficult to envision.

[Frank Drackman]

Will somebody please tell Parkinsonian Joe that Lincoln Riley is alive and well and coaching the USC Trojans.

[Frank Drackman]

Was the Gold Star Father Bum-Rushed from "The People's House" last night a "MAGA Insurrectionist"? Way to stay classy DemoKKKrats. Every single Repubiclown member should have walked out at that point. Did anyone notice John Roberts scratching his face with his middle finger? And how many ways can Parkinsonian Joe mispronounce "Predecessor"? lets see, " my Prejudice-ma-kisser, my Pledg-rear-licker, if anyone's gonna do any Pre-deceasing my money's on the Corpse speaking last night

Frank

[Voize]

The UK High Court of King's Bench has ordered Donald Trump to pay the legal fees incurred by Orbis Business Intelligence, a firm founded by Christopher Steele, after Trump's lawsuit was dismissed for having been filed after the applicable six-year limitation period.
Trump owes £300,000 now and the balance (perhaps another 300,000) when determined. Since he owns properties in the UK this isn't something he can ignore.

[Nige]

For someone who made a career out of being a vexatious litigant, he really is shit at it.

[Paladin_44]

There go the golf courses! Maybe the R & A can return the Open to Turnberry sometime soon!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't worry! The RNC will pay for it, now.

[Nige]

If he wins the election, the American people will pay for it!

[ThePublius]

I'm serious. I want to hear what Nige, grb, Sarcasttr0, and others say is the solution to the problem of civilian death, pain, suffering and hunger is in Gaza. What should Israel do?

The answer can't be just "cease fire." It has to include "what's next." How does this thing get wrapped up, and peaceful coexistence established? Is coexistence even possible?

But, it's fine to just stridently criticize myself and others on this situation, but you have not a leg to stand on if you don't offer an alternative, a serious, credible alternative.

I don't expect any serious, credible replies, but I'm open to hearing.

[Nige]

Here's what they should do: whatever it takes to make peace. Because that's the only way to really prevent another Oct 7th.

I remember after 9/11 - yeah, I keep getting 9/11 deja vu - when warmongers demanded to know what else they could do, what else could be done, other than invade other countries and kill lots of people? Well the first thing they could have done was: not invade foreign countries and kill lots of people. The world would have been infinitely better off. Same with Gaza. Instead of bombing Gaza and killing thirty thousand plus people and injuring countless others, they could have not done that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I’m curious: Are you assuming this will magically cause Hamas to abandon its genocidal ambitions? Or do you just not care if they go on slaughtering Jews?

It’s got to be one or the other. Or both, I suppose.

[Nige]

Well, first of all, there's only one side currently involved in active slaughtering on a large scale, the job is in persuading *them* to stop. Second, I expect Hamas, or whatever replaces Hamas to be more committed than ever to slaughtering Jews after this current slaughter runs out of people to slaughter.

But a peace process usually involves people terrifyingly committed to slaughtering each other being either persuaded to stop, and/or sidelined and isolated, and/or locked up. It's so hard for you to get your little brain wrapped round this concept, I know.

[David Nieporent]

Here’s what they should do: whatever it takes to make peace.

Thank you, Neville Chamberlain. But Hamas isn't interested in "making peace."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, note the outcome of WW II. By what historical means would you demonstrate Chamberlain's appeasement policy did not effectually pave the way for what actually did happen? Only a wildly undisciplined historical counter-factual, with incredibly numerous and intricate moving parts, could purport to prove otherwise.

What, "would have," happened with a more aggressive early response to Hitler is simply unknowable. You must learn to live with that, or suffer the usual consequences events visit upon practitioners of illogic and presumptive thinking.

The Chamberlain history lesson on appeasement has been irresponsibly over-taught, and carelessly over-learned. Historical analysis is not so simple, and not at all amenable to develop single-factor explanations reliably applicable to long-subsequent policy decisions.

[Absaroka]

I'm kind of interested in WWII history.

Can you share which historians think appeasement was a wise policy?

[Jonathan Affleck]

Czechoslovakia never made sense. It doesn't exist today.

Chamberlain assessed that opposition to the division of Poland between Germany and the USSR was not worth a new World War and the approximately 80 million deaths that a World War would have caused.

If Chamberlain had found an alternative, the Holocaust might not have taken place, and my father's family, which lived in Ukraine, might have survived and not have been murdered in the Holocaust.

In contrast, Churchill was a bloodthirsty incompetent that never encountered a conflict in which he did not find a reason to waste a tremendous number of lives.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The whole point is that there was no alternative to be found. Hitler was always going to take whatever was given to him, and go to war to take the rest.

[Absaroka]

The argument is that, for example, had France invaded Germany in 1936 when Hitler offered them a casus belli by reoccupying the Rhineland, they would have won, and with Hitler exiled to Saint Helena there wouldn't have been a WWII in Europe (and perhaps not in the Pacific; adding a Royal Navy not distracted by a European war to the USN might have deterred the Japanese).

The German army of 1936 wasn't the German army of 1940; they had barely started rearmament.

[grb]

ThePublius : “…the solution to the problem of civilian death, pain, suffering and hunger is in Gaza. What should Israel do?”

Fight a war with strategic war objectives alone. Not revenge. Not terrorizing the civilian population. Not prompting the “voluntary” mass migration of Palestinians to Congo (see Times of Israel story a few comments above)

And not flailing around in Gaza with no real aim – killing hundreds of civilians each week – until Netanyahu figures out some way to hold on to personal power. What’s preventing a ceasefire isn’t some achievable objective left to do by the IDF – killing “every last Hamas member” is a fairy tale no child could believe. The major block to a ceasefire is Netanyahu’s coalition will collapse soon after the fighting ends. All those dead women & children is a damn heavy price to buy the Israeli leader a few months of time.

Particularly when the outcome won't change.

[Jonathan Affleck]

For 75 years, the baby killer nation has been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.

Because the international community banned genocide on Dec 11, 1946 and made this ban jus cogens, international criminal law and US federal statutory law permits only one solution.

1. The IDF must be completely obliterated.

2. The baby killer nation must be abolished as a cannibal nation would be abolished.

3. Every Zionist on the planet must be removed to a detention camp to await trial and almost certain conviction for crimes of genocide.

4. All assets of every Zionist individual and every Zionist organization must be seized to compensate the victims of Zionism.

5. Every Zionist must die penniless and impoverished.

Only in this way can the human race be healed of the disease of Zionism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: Jail all Hamas supporters in the US.
2: Confiscate all their assets.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Jail all Hamas supporters (etc)"

That’s some deeply stupid & crudely bigoted trolling.

In other words, it's Dr. Ed 2 & a day ending in "Y"....

[grb]

Jonathan Affleck : "Only in this way can the human race be healed of disease of Zionism"

That's some deeply stupid & crudely bigoted trolling. I'm begining to suspect you're an Israeli supporter playacting. It's hard to see otherwise why you'd humilate and disgrace your "side" so often.

[Jonathan Affleck]

I am on the side of law.

Zionism has murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a monster.

I am Jewish even if Zionism has murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

Zionists are maggots that consume the corpse of Judaism.

Anti-genocide law internationally and within the USA is straightforward but unforgiving as it should be.

I describe the minimum that is necessary:
1. to provide Judaism with a decent burial,
2. to give credibility to the international anti-genocide legal regime, and
3. to redeem international law.

[Jonathan Affleck]

grb has neither empathy nor sympathy for Palestinians.

I worked among Palestinians since the 90s. I feel the wound that Palestinians have suffered for the last 75 years, and I understand why my grandfather, who was an important N. African Jewish scholar and posek, considered deciding that European Ashkenazim were not Jewish.

The cruelty of Zionism is beyond belief.

Palestinians have loved their land since they practiced Biblical Judaism almost 2000 years ago, but arrogant and racist Ashkenazim, who have no connection to Palestine beyond fairy tales, decided in 1881 they had the right to dispossess Palestinians, to drive Palestinians out, and to steal Palestine.

When I arrived in Israel in November 1993, just moving around in the country was already a nightmare for Palestinians, and it has only gotten worse. Zionists have made life for Palestinians a living hell for the last 75 years.

Palestinians are an 80-90% peasant agrarian population. They are rooted in their land. Rabbinic Jews constitute a financial commercial population and move easily from one locality to another. Even Jewish Berbers in N. Africa were mostly small shopkeepers and itinerant peddlers. For a Jewish merchant or peddler moving from Mogador to Djerba was no big deal. When Zionist invaders drove Palestinians from their homes and villages, a peasant felt as if he had lost an arm or a leg.

A white racist exhausts his sympathy and empathy on murderous bloodthirsty racist invaders and calls me a troll because I am a Jew that feels the pain of Palestinians.

I realized by 1998 that Palestinians would commit suicide in preference to abandonment of their country.

The real troll or monster is a white racist that refuses to see the unpardonable crime that Zionist invaders have committed in Palestine.

[grb]

Great! I go from being accused of rabid anti-Semitism to a “white racist” supporting “murderous bloodthirsty racist invaders”. There are so many buffoonish clowns in this forum.

As for you being a “Jew that feels the pain of Palestinians”, who knows? You’re clearly a posturing troll and they always lie. Nothing you say can be trusted.

[Jonathan Affleck]

OK. There are too many people in this forum that are guilty of both side-ism even if they are not sympathetic to Zionist lies.

Look up what Folke Bernadotte wrote about the Nakba. He could have been writing about the Gaza Holocaust.

If someone believes

(a) that there are two valid sides one Zionist and one Palestinian and

(b)that we should worry about treating Zionists fairly

he should have believed

(a) that there were two valid sides one Nazi and one Jewish and

(b)that we should have worry about treating Nazis fairly

As far as I can tell, I am the only person in this forum

(a) that speaks Modern Israeli Hebrew and

(b) that has every studied in a yeshiva, mesivta, or kollel.

[SimonP]

Pube, there have been countless instances, throughout the world, where an ongoing military conflict between a state and a terrorist/insurgent group is defused and managed into an ongoing - if not always comfortable - peace.

Hint: many of these instances do not begin with a total surrender by the terrorist/insurgent group.

It begins with confidence- and trust-building steps, like temporary humanitarian pauses and ceasefires. A six-week ceasefire, where some or all of the hostages are released, and where humanitarian aid gets in, gives both sides the opportunity to demonstrate that they're interested in an abiding, peaceful situation. The goal is then to extend that peace, once that confidence has begun to be established.

Hamas is not being a good faith actor at this point, but neither is Israel. Hamas is demanding, at the outset, a full withdrawal of Israel from Gaza. Israel is demanding the complete destruction of Hamas and an indefinite military occupation afterwards. That's not going to work, not as an initial condition for ceasing hostilities. But what might actually work is a phased hostage release and corridors for the delivery of humanitarian aid that aren't shot up by Israeli soldiers.

Long-term, Israel will need to learn to live with Hamas, and Netanyahu needs to adapt his politics to that end result. Because that's how you end these kinds of conflicts. Sinn Fein, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, FARC, the PKK, etc. You take militant organizations and channel their grievances into politics, by way of these kinds of trust-building exercises.

There is no alternative, short of annihilation. Because annihilation is, in fact, Israel's ultimate goal in Gaza, they are unwilling to start down the path towards peace with the kinds of trust- and confidence-building steps that are required, which in turn means that Hamas has no reason to moderate their own approach. Hamas knows they're not going to win. They are prepared to make themselves martyrs. Israel is prepared to make them martyrs, as well as 2 million other Palestinians in Gaza.

[Estragon]

It’s almost as if nobody had to watch the battle of Algiers in high school. Was that just me?

[Jonathan Affleck]

The USA did not destroy Iran and murder 10s of thousands in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

[grb]

The U.S. fought two wars in response to 9-11, though the connection to the second war (Iraq) and the terrorist attack was tenuous at best. In both conflicts, large numbers of the other side died including civilians. It is a question of war strategy/tactics and, beyond that, a matter of degree. Some people have compared the Israeli war in Gaza with the U.S. in Iraq, but that comparison fails at all levels. particularily in terms of raw numbers.

The Israeli war in Gaza is much more justified than ours in Iraq. That’s not the question. It’s how they’re fighting which is objectionable.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The mere existence of the Zionist state vitiates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law because the Zionist state was founded by a mass murder genocide crueler than the Gaza Holocaust after the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens.

From the standpoint of international law, the Zionist state does not differ from a cannibal state and only has the right to surrender for criminal trial.

[grb]

SimonP : “It begins with confidence- and trust-building steps…”

Israel has only three choices for its long-term future :

1. Continued apartheid rule over millions of stateless Palestinians, with the fig-leaf of justifications and excuses growing more absurd year by year. There will be steady decay of Israel’s standing in the world, with the effect gradually reaching into the U.S. There will be more terrorism and wars to no end. There will ever more sufficating oppression against the Palestinian people. There will be the toxic effect inside Israel itself, as the fact it’s a human rights violator and stealing land from stateless people becomes more difficult to ignore. It’s a dead end road.

2. One State with two peoples, but no one trusts either side to protect the rights of its foe.

3. Two States.

And that’s it. Most Israeli supporters refuse to even look at the country’s long-term options. They put fingers in ears & make loud noises when the subject comes up. And two states won’t be easy. Both leadership of both peoples are currently blind to anything but their own short-term political power.

But with new leaders concerned about real options, it would begin precisely as SimonP describes : Small measures to create trust, each building on the last.

Israel recently denied the charge of apartheid in an international tribunal. Their denial was notable in depending on supposed ongoing negotiations over the standing and borders of the Palestinians. That’s a total lie, of course. Right now the Israelis are slowly stealing the West Bank and have no intention of giving the people living there any citizenship rights. For decades the Israeli government has done everything possible to sabotage any talks, including their back-door support of Hamas itself. Does anyone think they can keep up this lie indefinately without a corrosive effect both internationally & inside Israel itself? Ultimately they have to make a decision and plan for that choice.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The principles of jus cogens do not allow any settlement that legalizes the results of genocide. The Zionist state can only be abolished. Such a result might be an inconvenience for the Zionist colonial settlers, but no one should care because Zionists have put Palestinians through hell for approximately the last 140 years.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Hint: many of these instances do not begin with a total surrender by the terrorist/insurgent group."

And none of these instances involved terrorist groups whose goal was genocide. They were all groups which had some goal apart from the killing.

Here, Hamas' goal IS the killing, nothing else. And worse, religiously mandated killing. As far as Hamas is concerned, honestly making peace with Israel would damn them.

This is one of those cases where annihilation IS the answer.

[Nige]

But Hamas are in power largely because of outside support, including Israel's. Are you telling me that a group like that can't be cut off from support and funding using intelligence, diplomacy, sanctions, and support directed to other more moderate groups? You dont even have to stop going after them with sexy secret special forces shit, not to mention international law enforcement. They can be hounded into obscurity or extinction while everyone else gets on with building peace.

[SimonP]

And none of these instances involved terrorist groups whose goal was genocide.

Brett, when you say things like this, you clearly signal your total lack of sophistication and understanding of the issues. You're just saying, here, "I take my talking points and I run with them without really thinking about it."

The rhetoric of the Middle East is incendiary and extremist, but it rarely tracks facts on the ground. Iran has called us the "Great Satan" for decades, yet it wasn't so long ago that they sat down with the U.S. to negotiate a halt to their nuclear weapon development programs. The Houthis are also making grand claims about the ambitions behind attacking shipping traffic in the Red Sea. The Hamas charter, and some other promises to perpetuate further attacks like October 7, are just rhetoric, akin to Netanyahu's own promises to destroy Hamas - an end his advisors know is not militarily achievable.

If Hamas's goal were genocide, they would have gone about it an entirely different way. They would not have organized a limited strike across the border, which turned out as successful as it did only due to Netanyahu's own incompetence in managing Israel's national security, and that would foreseeably trigger a massive attack in response, if they had any kind of plan or strategy to kill the rest of the Jews in Israel.

In order to understand the geopolitics of the Middle East, you have to approach the public statements with a very big grain of salt, and not take offense at rhetoric that is intended to shore up constituencies and aggravate enemies. All of these players have more realistic and rational motives in mind. And if you want to make progress in the region, you have to play to those motives, not to the antagonizing rhetoric they use to play the media game.

Honestly, Brett. You're just an easy mark.

[Jonathan Affleck]

A colonial settler or supporter of the baby killer nation loses the ability to think rationally.

Can a reasonable person believe that Hamas both committed a horrible mass slaughter and also took hostages for negotiations? If the goal of Hamas were genocide, why would Hamas take any hostages?

Why didn’t Hamas slaughter any Zionist colonial setter that it encountered?

Zionist colonial settlers have been lying about Palestinians since Ottoman Times. If there had been rapes, mass murder, and baby-beheading, there would have been no need to lie about them.

The Zionist leadership concocted lies to cover for the mass murder genocide, which the Israeli government decided to perpetrate because of the collapse of Golani Brigade.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The Zionist military implemented the Hannibal Directive and committed indiscriminate mass slaughter of everyone. The Zionist government blamed the mass slaughter on Hamas in order to legitimize and to justify mass murder genocide against Palestinians. The Zionist lies meet the definition of the international and US federal crime of genocide incitement. On Oct 16, 1946 the Nuremberg International Tribunal hanged Julius Streicher for the same sort of genocide incitement.

The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “This is one of those cases where annihilation IS the answer”

Here’s a big hint for you, Brett : If Israel really thought the same as you, they wouldn’t have spent years subtly promoting & supporting Hamas. They wouldn’t have considered Hamas a useful counterweight against the Palestinian Authority, which has cooperated with Israeli security in the West Bank for over twenty years, They wouldn’t have escorted couriers from Qatar carrying millions in cash to the Gaza border.

So all you believe is a sham. You’ve been conned yet again. Israel never considered Hamas any kind of existential threat, they just liked selling that to folk like you as an excuse not to negotiate with the Palestinians. Unlike your breathless hysterical rhetoric, the Israelis thought Hamas a minor insignificant flyspeck as a threat and tremendously useful as a boogeyman. That’s why they’ve propped them up all these years.

[Stephen Lathrop]

This is one of those cases where annihilation IS the answer.

Bellmore, your tendency toward extreme thinking is acting up.

If what you say is true, Israel is in a pickle it can't get out of. The U.S. will not under any circumstances continue as a supporter of a nation openly committed to genocide. Withdrawal of American military support for Israel would likely doom that nation. But if it would not, what possible reason would the U.S. have not to disconnect, and avoid the wrath of the world?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

This is one of those cases where annihilation IS the answer.

Much like the American culture war.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the liberal-libertarian mainstream should exhibit no leniency toward clingers.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Trust begins with the reconveyance of all homes, property, and villages to the Palestinian families from which they were stolen and with the return of Palestinians to their homeland.

It is impossible for Palestinians to live on terms of mutual respect and equality with the colonial settlers

(1) if the colonial settlers don’t respect Palestinian human and property rights and

(2) if the colonial settlers don’t renounce Zionism completely.

Zionism is an ideology of genocide, and every assertion of Zionism is a lie.

[ThePublius]

I'm pleasantly surprised at the good, sincere responses to this. FWIW, I think with Hamas and Israel we have a scorpion and frog (respectively) situation here. We'll see.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Inapplicable fable. Try the Sermon on the Mount. The baby killer nation and Zionists are wolves in sheep's clothing. The baby killer nation commits mass murder genocide against Palestinians while Zionists commit the most outrageous fraud in history against gentiles.

[Brett Bellmore]

A peace process normally involves people terrifyingly willing to slaughter each other in pursuit of some other goal. When one of the parties’ goals IS to slaughter the other or die trying, there really isn’t any basis for negotiations.

I get the impression that you’re simply, categorically, unwilling to/incapable of accepting what Hamas keeps telling everybody: They are dedicated to genocide. It’s not a tactic, it’s their GOAL. Literally their goal is to kill as many Jews as they can, or die trying and go to paradise as a reward.

They don’t even limit it to Israel, that’s just first on their list.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-hamas-official-calls-on-members-of-palestinian-diaspora-to-kill-jews/

Sorry, misplaced reply to Nige.

[Brett Bellmore]

But it serves as a reply to SimonP, too.

[SimonP]

Doubling down on your stupidity and ignorance is not a "reply."

[Bwaaah]

Yes it is...to your endless unwillingness to accept Hamas for its own stated goals.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

His main argument is that their own stated goals aren't necessarily their real goals. That may or may not be right, but you aren't responding to it when you simply state that he is unwilling to "accept Hamas for its own stated goals." That's his point. Prove him wrong, if you can.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a strawman.
No one on this open thread has much nice to say about Hamas.

Some on the left do. One comments here, even (Teefa).
But not on this thread.

[Mr. Bumble]

Talk about a strawman.

[Sarcastr0]

I get the impression that you’re simply, categorically, unwilling to/incapable of accepting what Hamas keeps telling everybody: They are dedicated to genocide.

This is a strawman.

You're really intellectually lazy, but still like to comment.

[Bwaaah]

[Bwaaah]

You’re right! Nobody said anything nice about Hamas!

Great point! You win!

[OtisAH]

So, regardless of the top items on their wishlists, Hamas lacks the personnel and resources to actually commit genocide against Israel. They can kill Jews, yes. But 1600 is the most in a single attack by far. To contrast, somewhere north of 1200 Israelis total died in the first and second infitadas. And Oct. 7 is not likely to repeat itself any time soon.

Otoh, Israel is entirely capable of committing genocide against the Palestinians, as we see in real time, and are more and more publicly expressing desire to do so.

So maybe shut the fuck up.

[tylertusta]

Turning a blind eye to the threat that Hamas poses is probably the dumbest take I've seen here. And given what others have posted about the Hamas-Israel conflict already, that's saying a lot.

[Jonathan Affleck]

How does Hamas pose a threat to the USA? Hamas wants the reconveyance of a Palestinian home, property, and a village to a Palestinian family from whom they were stolen. Hamas wants the return of Palestinians to their country. Not only are these desires are completely just, but the USA is obligated by treaty and by US Federal Code to support Palestinians in achieving these desires.

When a supporter of the baby killer nation claims that Hamas poses a threat, he lies and tries to con the USA into wasting its resources in the support of genocide, in support of war crimes, and in support of crimes against humanity.

[tylertusta]

Nah, I was wrong. The above comment is the dumbest take I've seen here.

Hamas is a bunch of murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves. Like pirates, terrorists like Hamas are the enemy of mankind. Nothing good comes from them, only death and misery.

Weep for the Palestinian people all you want, but the death and misery wrought in the region is a direct consequence of them getting into bed with a bunch of murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Hamas consists of victims of Zionist invaders.

Their parents and grandparents were driven from their homes and villages from Dec 1947 through 1949 in a mass murder genocide as brutal and murderous as the Gaza Holocaust.

The Zionist state usually murdered one or both parents of a Hamas leader or a Hamas fighter.

According to Zionism, a Palestinian native is a subhuman placeholder that was supposed to yield his place and vanish when a superior white European Zionist appeared to claim it.

Zionism is a racial supremacist genocidal ideology that belongs to the same class to which Nazism or cannibalism belongs.

Zionist invaders have been murdering, robbing, robbing, and kidnapping Palestinians since Ottoman times until the present day because Palestinians committed the crime of not vanishing when "superior" white Europeans showed up.

How are Palestinians supposed to deal with people as monstrously evil as Zionist colonial settlers and invaders?

When Nazis invaded Poland, some of my relatives joined the Armia Ludowa (People's Army). They undertook more or less the same actions that Hamas undertakes. Why is Hamas evil while my father's relatives were heroes?

Is it only a crime when white Europeans (Nazis) commit mass murder genocide against white Europeans (Europeans), but it's perfectly acceptable when white European Jews commit mass murder genocide against darker non-European Palestinians?

Tylertusta's logic of justifying mass murder genocide against Palestinians of Gaza is the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.

The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.

To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals (metaphorically) laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the State of Israel is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.

Native Resistance during WWII — Native Resistance Today

During WW2 we Americans considered the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fought or killed racial supremacist genocidal Nazi invaders in occupied Europe.

Today we Americans must consider the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fights or kills racial supremacist genocidal Zionist invaders in stolen Palestine.

The Zionist mentality is completely congruent to the Nazi mentality, and the US Zionist movement commits heinous crimes according to the US federal code while the baby killer nation has for 75 years been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.

[tylertusta]

I never thought I'd see an apologist for mass murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves try to allow his buddies to go on murdering, raping, kidnapping, and thieving. Here we are.

I enjoy every word of your screeching.

Please, go on.

[Bwaaah]

As one Palestinian said, "With friends like 'Affleck', we definitely do not need enemies."

[Jonathan Affleck]

A genocide-inciting racist found one Hamas official that used hyperbole about the 80-90% of Jews that believe they have the right to dispossess Palestinians, to commit genocide against Palestinians, and to steal Palestine from Palestine — all on the basis of the mindlessly stupid fairy tale that alleges Rabbinic Jews are descendants of Greco-Roman Judeans that are actually ancestors of modern Palestinians.

Guess what! Over half of the members of the Knesset say such things about Palestinians, but that’s okay because Jews were the victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Here’s something that should be obvious.

A group, which has been subjected to genocide at the hands of a first set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Nazis), can later themselves form a second set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Zionists) just as evil as the first set of genocide perpetrators.

Zionists tell Palestinians that a Jew is a Zionist and that a Zionist is a Jew. How can I fault a Palestinian if he believes Zionist lies? Most whites believe Zionist lies. Neither a typical Palestinian nor a typical white American is a Jewish studies scholar. In addition, a Palestinian learns from the media that a US politician like Biden grovels to an hyperwealthy Jewish Zionist oligarch like Saban for campaign contributions.

Nevertheless, I was hardly the only Jew that worked in Gaza or among Palestinians. I was treated with such love and kindness that I was almost embarrassed.

The IDF has murdered at least 40 of my Gazan friends and their children.

Guess why I want the IDF to be completely obliterated as international law of genocide requires.

[Nige]

And that's all non-responsive to what I said.

[ThePublius]

Hamas intercepts food aid, sells it in black market for ten times its value. There's no lack of food in Gaza, Hamas is causing the starvation, for monetary and political reasons.

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2024/03/09/report-hamas-starves-palestinians-by-stealing-food-selling-on-black-market/

[ThePublius]

Another link:

https://twitter.com/imshin/status/1733517680718549197?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1733517680718549197%7Ctwgr%5E299d97774da9831543eec2a6e7f2911b9c961bca%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fmiddle-east%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2Freport-hamas-starves-palestinians-by-stealing-food-selling-on-black-market%2F

[NvEric]

"Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf announced that he has launched an investigation into the handling of the Michigan 2020 election, implicating Dominion Voting Systems officials, Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Attorney General Dana Nessel, computer scientist J. Alex Halderman, and others in potential misconduct. "