Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's initial SCOTUS brief in the DC immunity case is due on Tuesday, March 19. I wonder if he will be represented by additional or different counsel. John Sauer was unimpressive before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

SCOTUS did not grant cert on Trump's double jeopardy bullshit. Trump accordingly can't argue that impeachment and conviction in the Senate is a prerequisite to criminal prosecution -- the tack that Sauer took before the D.C. Circuit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What a relief? Was that something I should have thought to worry about?

not guilty, what odds do you give Jack Smith to get Trump tried to a verdict in DC prior to the election?

[not guilty]

Oral argument is scheduled for April 22. If the Court rules during May or June and substantially affirms the Court of Appeals, I can foresee Judge Chutkan setting the trial for about 60 days after regaining jurisdiction. Special Counsel has estimated that presentation of the government's proof in chief will take four to six weeks. I really can't anticipate who the defense witnesses, if any, will be. Donald Trump may or may not elect to testify. If he does, I surmise that will add weeks to the duration of the trial.

I can envision the case going to the jury before the November election. I don't expect to see sentencing before the election.

This time frame assumes a clean affirmation of the Court of Appeals, without the need for additional factual or legal determinations by the trial court. If SCOTUS remands and orders additional factfinding, I don't expect a verdict prior to the election.

[Mr. Bumble]

To be continued.....

[not guilty]

And what timetable do you predict, Mr. Bumble?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't do predictions, especially about the future.

[tylertusta]

Oral argument is scheduled for April 25th, not the 22nd.

setting the trial for about 60 days after regaining jurisdiction

No sooner than 88 days. Not 60.

[not guilty]

I'm sorry, my bad. The February 28 order granting cert said during the week of April 22, which does include April 25.

Judge Chutkan did once suggest that 88 days lead time may be appropriate, but that is not set in stone. Her order of December 13, 2023 recites "If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will—consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties—consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.186.0_5.pdf The Court has significant discretion regarding setting deadlines and a trial date.

[tylertusta]

I’m sorry, my bad

No worries!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is there any reason why if Judge Chutkan reduces the 88 days Trump will not immediately appeal that, and then reappeal to the Supreme Court if he loses?

As a legal layman, why shouldn't I rely not on predicted intervals derived from customary practice, and instead take notice of what has been happening? From that, why should I not conclude there is no chance of a trial unless Trump has already lost the election, and Joe Biden has succeeded in getting himself inaugurated against whatever resistance Trump attempts to muster?

Which is another way of asking, am I too pessimistic, and is there any power in the law which Jack Smith can avail himself of to get a timely trial? None, right? Or not right?

[tylertusta]

Is there any reason why if Judge Chutkan reduces the 88 days Trump will not immediately appeal that, and then reappeal to the Supreme Court if he loses?

Yes, there's a reason why he can't: it's not appealable before trial. He can raise it after the trial if he's convicted.

Immunity is one of very few things you can appeal pre-trial.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So if judge Chutkan announces post-SCOTUS decision on immunity, that jury selection begins in 21 days, all good until a post-conviction appeal if Trump loses?

My guess is that Trump would file an immediate appeal. And because Trump is Trump, SCOTUS would agree to hear it. Maybe adding some mumbling about how important it is to prevent trial testimony from prejudicing election results.

[not guilty]

"So if judge Chutkan announces post-SCOTUS decision on immunity, that jury selection begins in 21 days, all good until a post-conviction appeal if Trump loses?"

That is quite unlikely to happen. There are pretrial matters that have been held in abeyance pending Trump's present interlocutory appeal. But such an order, if it were entered, would not be immediately appealable as of right. Trump could seek a writ of mandamus, but he would not succeed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which is another way of asking, am I too pessimistic, and is there any power in the law which Jack Smith can avail himself of to get a timely trial? None, right? Or not right?
Predicted intervals derived friom customary practice are presumably timely.

For a comparison, Timothty McVeigh was indicted in August of 1995, and was convicted and sentenced to death in June of 1997.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump = McVeigh? Yikes!

[John F. Carr]

At the normal pace of a federal felony trial sentencing would be in spring of 2025. The presentence report must be complete at least 35 days before sentencing. In order to have a judgment before January 20 Judge Chutkan would need to find that the existing record is adequate and a PSR is not required. Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 (c)(1)(A)(ii), (e)(2).

[tylertusta]

If Trump loses the election, I suspect that after November 5th, Judge Chutkan will suddenly discover that there's no need to rush things in her court.

[Sarcastr0]

Which would be in good faith.

The whole idea that trial pace must not pay attention to exigencies is another new principle of fairness discovered by Trump supporters.

[tylertusta]

Exigencies my ass.

The whole idea that trials must happen before elections, that all pre-trial considerations of due process to the accused (who is still innocent!) is another new principle of fairness discovered by Trump haters.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you a blinkered moron? If an upcoming event would mean the trial will not continue, that's not something to ignore over 'fairness.'

This is not a breakneck pace; you don't even claim that. You just hand-waivingly invoke fairness as though only the standard timeline could be fair.

Nonsense.

[tylertusta]

Last I heard, prosecutions and criminal trials were supposed to be in the interest of justice, not politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Falling back on talking points does not make it sound like you're sincere in your concern.

Justice will not be served if the trial is cut short.

You know this. It is not politics to worry about the interests of justice if the trial will be cut off before it concludes.

[tylertusta]

The only thing insincere here is your insistence that Justice can only be served if candidates get put on trial before they are up for elections.

Bull. Shit.

If a candidate not named Donald Trump asked the President for a pardon, should the case get accelerated to get it to a jury before the President can decide?

If a terminally ill defendant is expected to die before the case can be brought to trial, should the judge and prosecution accelerate the timetable to bring it to a jury before he’s expected to die?

You and other lefty legal idiots are introducing hard political considerations into the judicial process. The fact Smith and DC judges are going along with the peanut gallery’s insistence on a trial before the election- and to hell with due process of the accused is an indictment of our legal professionals.

But you… you’re just a peanut.

[Sarcastr0]

The pace of a pardon request is far to fast to take into account in trial scheduling.

If an important witness were going to become unavailable at a certain date, that would be a legitimate exigency to take into account.

This is no different, your bluster aside.

[tylertusta]

The pace of a pardon request is far to fast to take into account in trial scheduling.

What if the President says, "I'll think about it, but I'm leaning towards yes."

Does that then allow Judges and prosecutors to accelerate the case?

I mean, the pardon can come down any minute, and it looks like the defendant is going to escape "justice," so why not?

If you're so concerned about putting Trump on trial so he doesn't escape "justice," then what's wrong with a November 6th start date?

Plenty of time to try (and maybe convict) him if the trial starts on November 6th. If Chutkan and Smith collaborate, I'm sure they can even complete sentencing before the inauguration.

[Commenter_XY]

You're arguing with a government bureaucrat. They excel at wasting time and being dilatory. Remember that. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

The only thing insincere here is your insistence that Justice can only be served if candidates get put on trial before they are up for elections.

You are being utterly disingenuous here. This situation is unique, in that it involves a presidential candidate, such that if Trump wins, the trial gets shut down.

We can try Bob Menendez or George Santos at any point, regardless of when elections are scheduled for. But it is only guaranteed that we can try Trump before the election.

[David Nieporent]

If a terminally ill defendant is expected to die before the case can be brought to trial, should the judge and prosecution accelerate the timetable to bring it to a jury before he’s expected to die?

That's a terrible analogy. If he's expected to die in the short term, there's no need to try him at all. If we drag out his trial and he dies, then justice hasn't been cheated, even if he would've been found guilty; he wouldn't go to prison either way.

But the election is a way for Trump to dodge punishment.

(To be clear, if you can arrange for Trump to contract a terminal illness, I will be happy to postpone his trial.)

[Nige]

'Last I heard, prosecutions and criminal trials were supposed to be in the interest of justice, not politics.'

A trial before the election serves justice, a trial after the election is a hostage to politics.

[tylertusta]

David Nieporent:

This situation is unique, in that it involves a presidential candidate, such that if Trump wins, the trial gets shut down.

Well, I named two other unique situations. Care to weigh in on those?

1- A defendant that is on the verge of potentially getting a pardon.
2- A defendant is at death’s door and will probably die before the normal trial calendar.

Do those two warrant expedited consideration in the name of “justice?”

Here's a third one, using your Menendez question:

A US Senator can join Congress and effectively nullify the charges against him. Congress can remove the prosecutor and the judge, can change the law, can change the jurisdiction that the court hears, and can even kick off a constitutional amendment further nullifying actions taken against the Senator.

Do courts get to expedite consideration of their trials on that basis?

But it is only guaranteed that we can try Trump before the election.

What exactly happens on November 5th that doesn’t allow you to put Trump on trial after that?

Please be specific. As NG likes to say, show your work.

And no, I'm not talking about moving up the case by a week or even a month. I'm talking about deliberately targeting a case so it's concluded before an election as a principle.

Nige:

A trial before the election serves justice, a trial after the election is a hostage to politics.

Hi Nige! Have a good weekend?

[Sarcastr0]

Other unique situations will by definition not be analogous to this unique situation.

You are still long on outrage short on reasoning.

[Nige]

'Hi Nige! Have a good weekend?'

A trial before the election serves justice, a trial after the election is a hostage to politics.

[tylertusta]

Other unique situations will by definition not be analogous to this unique situation.

You are still long on outrage short on reasoning.

I'm still waiting, Peanut.

You still owe me a legal principle, not platitudes. It's been a week and you haven't provided it.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/04/monday-open-thread-42/?comments=true#comment-10473564

[David Nieporent]

You and other lefty legal idiots are introducing hard political considerations into the judicial process. The fact Smith and DC judges are going along with the peanut gallery’s insistence on a trial before the election- and to hell with due process of the accused is an indictment of our legal professionals.

Absolutely nobody has said "to hell with due process." The MAGA complaint is that it might interfere with his campaign, not that he doesn't have enough time to prepare for the trial.

[tylertusta]

Absolutely nobody has said “to hell with due process.”

Absolutely. Instead, your buddies on the left will just say that Trump isn't due much process at all.

Trump is going to be at trial in New York for four days a week. Mon-Tues, and Thurs-Fri. Wednesday is a day off.

Should the Federal Government be able to haul Trump and his lawyers down to Florida for those Wednesdays for pre-trial hearings and motions while he's also in trial in New York?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This situation is unique, in that it involves a presidential candidate, such that if Trump wins, the trial gets shut down."

If people what to vote someone into office that will shut down the trial, that's their right.

If the Menendez judge were concerned that Biden would pardon Menendez after the election, would it be appropriate for him to rush the trial to get it done before the election?

[David Nieporent]

If people what to vote someone into office that will shut down the trial, that’s their right.

Non sequitur.

If the Menendez judge were concerned that Biden would pardon Menendez after the election, would it be appropriate for him to rush the trial to get it done before the election?

Terrible analogy. Biden can pardon him at any time.

[Krayt]

Making sure to convict before the election, so it can be considered by the voters, as opposed to (whatever the normal pace would be) is indeed unfairness.

The larger context is not disinterested concern for rule of law, but an unending stream of attacks against a political opponent, starting long before these events.

[Sarcastr0]

We don’t put verdicts up to a plebiscite.

Your larger context is just begging the question.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why should anything other than the normal pace of trials apply in this case?

[not guilty]

"If Trump loses the election, I suspect that after November 5th, Judge Chutkan will suddenly discover that there’s no need to rush things in her court."

I seriously doubt that. If the jury has been sworn, jeopardy will have attached. I suspect that Donald Trump will do his damnedest to provoke a mistrial and, if that effort is successful, claim that double jeopardy bars a retrial. That could give rise to another interlocutory appeal.

[tylertusta]

My statement was framed in a post-conviction, pre-sentencing setting on whether Chutkan would take time for a PSR.

Her current sense urgency would suddenly and mysteriously evaporate if Trump loses the election.

[John F. Carr]

Election day and inauguration day are the only real deadlines in this case.

"Who, by the way, remains free to this day." She found that was not cause for recusal. It still suggests she wants Trump not to be free. If I thought that Trump needed to be punished I would be trying to wrap up the case before he took office. If a conviction is in place on January 20 then it stands unless vacated by some affirmative act. It's no longer Trump vs. Justice Department. It's also Trump vs. the courts. The courts can review the legitimacy of a self-pardon. The Appeals Court can uphold a conviction despite the withdrawl of the prosecution team. It's a long shot. It's the best chance.

But it all has to be done in a procedurally correct manner.

[Commenter_XY]

Who actually has the right of a speedy trial: the person being tried, or the trial court where the trial will occur?

[David Nieporent]

The defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial. The government/public have a legal interest in a speedy trial.

[Krayt]

I expect the second part is forgotten in capital cases.

[Riva]

Jack Smith's political interests in having his show trial conviction before the election are not legitimate legal interests.

[tylertusta]

And what is the legal authority giving the government an interest in a speedy trial?

[Riva]

S. Ct and statutes but Jack here has failed to articulate any particular reasons why this matter must be rushed, leaving unsaid the obvious reason: he wants a show trial conviction before Nov.

[tylertusta]

FYI, I directed my question to David.

But if you're willing, please provide a citation.

[not guilty]

"And what is the legal authority giving the government an interest in a speedy trial?"

For starters, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 recognizes the interest of both the accused and the public (the Government's client) in a speedy trial.

The Speedy Trial Act serves not only to protect defendants, but also to vindicate the public interest in the swift administration of justice. Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, 211 (2010).

[tylertusta]

NG: And how do those square with the constitutional rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel?

Do those rights wilt away when the government seeks to achieve a political objective?

[Randal]

All prosecutions seek to achieve a political objective. Man, you guys really did just totally ignore trying to understand how the country works until after one of your loved ones got indicted.

[David Nieporent]

And what is the legal authority giving the government an interest in a speedy trial?

The Speedy Trial Act (the statute, not the constitutional provision) expressly talks about the best interests of the public in a speedy trial.

[David Nieporent]

NG: And how do those square with the constitutional rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel?

By definition, constitutional rights supersede statutory rights. But "Donald Trump would prefer to postpone his prosecution indefinitely" is not related to his due process rights. The only application of the rights you refer to would be in situations in which the defendant actually has too short of a time to prepare a defense. Even if the timing of the trial were purely political — and I reject the notion that taking into consideration the election calendar constitutes such — that would not by itself implicate his due process rights.

[not guilty]

"NG: And how do those square with the constitutional rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel?"

The courts are charged with protecting those constitutional rights as well. Both sides of a criminal prosecution have a due process right to a fundamentally fair trial. The balance in the first instance is struck by the trial judge. The Speedy Trial Act at § 3161(h)(8) permits a district court to grant a continuance and exclude the resulting delay if it makes on-the-record findings that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the public's and defendant's interests in a speedy trial.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Both sides of a criminal prosecution have a due process right to a fundamentally fair trial.

The state has due process rights?

[David Nieporent]

I can foresee Judge Chutkan setting the trial for about 60 days after regaining jurisdiction.

Chutkan has already committed to 3 months. (There were 88 days left before her scheduled trial date at the time the case was stayed.)
And I think Chutkan has suggested that she expects 3 months for trial. But — as you note — that'll depend on Trump's lawyers.

[Commenter_XY]

David...Isn't the practical interest of POTUS Trumps lawyers to string this case out forever? That is, I would expect every maneuver in the legal delay book to be deployed. If you were POTUS Trump's lawyer, wouldn't you shoot for a lengthy delay? Like forever?

[not guilty]

"Chutkan has already committed to 3 months. (There were 88 days left before her scheduled trial date at the time the case was stayed.)"

I haven't seen that in any order of the District Court. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

[Dr. Ed 2]

The same as the odds that we won't HAVE an election.

You folk are children playing with matches around spilt gasoline.

[not guilty]

History teaches that there was a presidential election held in 1864. I seriously doubt that Donald Trump's keyboard brigade and a few scattered terrorists will prevent holding an election in November.

As a logistical matter, Dr. Ed 2, what do you envision that Trump supporters could do to upend the scheduled presidential election? Please be specific.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Enough disorder would suffice.

Please be specific about consequences of playing with matches around spilt gasoline.

[not guilty]

IOW, you don't have a clue.

However strong their Walter Mitty proclivities, the keyboard warriors aren't worth a damn for creating actual destruction. There may be some isolated domestic terrorist acts, but how would that prevent holding an election?

In 1861 several state governments raised and supported armies. Who today would raise, organize, train, command, feed and pay an insurrectionary force?

[Dr. Ed 2]

“In 1861 several state governments raised and supported armies. Who today would raise, organize, train, command, feed and pay an insurrectionary force?”

The model is more 1774 than 1861 when there were organized states combating each other. This would be more like Belfast.

And you dismiss the consequences of cumulative nonchalance at your peril.

[Sarcastr0]

Accomplish little, cause lots of terror and bloodshed.

Ed's plan, folks!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not Ed's Plan, Gaslighto, it's Ed trying to teach you why the Soviet Union imploded. Cumulative nonchalance is no one caring, everyone showing up to work drunk, etc.

Yes, there is terror and bloodshed involved -- have you been paying attention to Boeing aircraft recently -- tires falling off, doors falling off, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Listen to yourself.

It's American Revolution 2. No wait, it'll be like Belfast. No wait, it's what's going on in Boeing (no causlity in evidence).

You are all over the map; the only commonality is American deaths for policies that you don't like.

Take your meds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't see common threads?

[Sarcastr0]

The common thread is you predicting death and destruction if some policies don't go your way.

As though you have an inside track to the GOP heart, and you find it to lust for liberal blood.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed is angry, and his outlet is 'predicting' his anger will be made manifest by a bunch of his countrymen.

It's not going to happen J6 was your best bet for the violent authoritarian uprising he keeps promising himself.

From now on every attempt to organize anything will be denounced as a false flag.

And Ed will live with political frustration, just like the rest of us.

[Theendoftheleft]

You already have an authoritarian government. Why would Americans need an authoritarian uprising---aside from the left's desire to impose a socialist totalitarian alternative?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ed is a scholar, writing about something he has studied and knows a bit about.

J-6 was a national demonstration of something anyone who has been near a college in the past decade already knows -- there are two sets of rules, one for the left and another for the right. And that the concept of both judicial fairness and a "jury of your peers" have gone into the toilet.

More than anything else, those three things are what caused the American Revolution. That is a fact.

[Frank Drackman]

The Authoritarian uprising will be when "45" wins on November 6th

[Don Nico]

ng,
Mr Ed does not have a clue. He never does.

[SimonP]

Eugene may, at some point, want to consider how his decision to tolerate these kinds of comments might look, after the fact, if one of VC's regular commenters were later brought up on terrorism charges.

[Theendoftheleft]

Because that reader subsequently engaged in terrorism, or because your government has been weaponized to go after political dissent and likes kangaroo courts these days and so will go after him or her based solely upon what was written?

Hard to know with you American lunatics these days.

[SimonP]

Comrade, you are hardly one to talk. Which country with degraded democratic norms do you hail from, again?

[Frank Drackman]

Isn't that what the Pre-Crime Department is for?

[Noscitur a sociis]

not guilty, what odds do you give Jack Smith to get Trump tried to a verdict in DC prior to the election?

Zero.

Anyone who gives a different answer is speaking from ignorance or wishful thinking.

[Riva]

There are strong arguments grounded in precedent and the constitution that support presidential immunity for acts within the scope of official presidential duites, notwithstanding there is no cert. on the specific question relating to double jeopardy and the impeachment clause.

[David Nieporent]

There are zero arguments grounded in precedent, history, or the constitution for former (you still can't get this right!) presidential immunity for any criminal acts of any sort.

[Riva]

We're talking about prosecution for acts performed within the scope of the president's official responsibility and in this respect, President Trump's team has alleged more than a few arguments. They have argued that the doctrine of separation of powers and the president’s unique role in our constitutional structure require immunity from criminal prosecution; that early authorities support presidential immunity from criminal prosecution; that 234 years of history and tradition support presidential immunity from prosecution; that analogous immunity doctrines support presidential immunity from criminal prosecution; and that concerns of public policy favor the president’s immunity from prosecution.

I think that's more than zero, but feel free to count them (you do know how to count, don't you?)

[not guilty]

Riva, ipse dixit assertions and begging questions don't count as legal authorities.

[Riva]

What the F? I've enumerated multiple arguments for presidential immunity in response to the above clown's assertion that there were zero arguments. Any particular one you'd like to discuss in substance?

[not guilty]

No, you haven't presented arguments at all. You have merely made authority-free assertions and stated conclusions. You haven't cited a single constitutional provision, judicial decision, statute, treatise, etc.

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

[Riva]

When I refer to the separation of power, it's a reference to the separation of powers under the constitution you f'ing moron.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There's a long way to go from "separation of powers" to a former president is immune from prosecution for criminal acts. You're going to need to connect the dots with legal authority if you're actually trying to have a discussion. Otherwise, you're admitting you really can't run with the big dogs.

[Riva]

Let’s recap since you’re just jumping into this shit show. Shithead number 1 says there are zero arguments, I list several, then said shithead 1 denies there are any separation of powers concerns because the prosecution is from the executive branch, I inform shithead 1 that the separation of powers concerns involve problems associated with judicial interference in official presidential responsibilities, that this was the basis of Nixon v Fitzgerald and that those same concerns existed here. Shithead 1 may still not understand that the judicial branch interference was at issue, perhaps believing that Fitzgerald is a branch of government. Shithead 2 just doesn’t understand that a separation of powers argument is a constitutional argument. Shithead 3 makes comments just because he’s a shithead. So in sum, I think I’ll just leave the shitheads to play with each other.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Referring to posters, particularly some of the more reasonable posters in these comments, by pejoratives doesn't help your argument.

At least one of the posters you referenced pointed out that Nixon v. Fitzgerald didn't say what you need it to say, including because it was a civil case rather than a criminal case, and, in fact, the Justice who cast the deciding vote specifically wrote that there was no immunity for criminal conduct.

So far, you haven't shown that the "separation of powers" argument in support of immunity for a former president has any support in the law, Constitution, etc..

[Riva]

Well "Nova Lawyer," it is more than obvious that the opinion in Nixon left unaddressed criminal immunity because if it had directly ruled on that we wouldn't be having these idiotic exchanges. In addition to the other arguments, the point is that the constitutional rationale underlying the grant of civil immunity in that case similarly supports extending a recognition of immunity from prosecution for official presidential responsibilities. Go ahead and pretend that there are no separation of powers concerns applicable in a federal criminal trial although separation of powers concerns regarding the judiciary in a civil trial supported recognition of immunity. Every every TDS afflicted commenter here does. Let's hope the S.Ct. is a little more thoughtful.

[David Nieporent]

Go ahead and pretend that there are no separation of powers concerns applicable in a federal criminal trial although separation of powers concerns regarding the judiciary in a civil trial supported recognition of immunity.

A civil suit is initiated by a private citizen. A federal prosecution is initiated by the executive branch — the very branch of government whose interests you are purporting to protect with this "separation of powers" nonsense. There is no comparison whatsoever.

[NOVA Lawyer]

the opinion in Nixon left unaddressed criminal immunity

The opinion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, in both the majority and dissent, argued that the principles which the majority invoked to find immunity from civil suit for official acts did not apply to criminal immunity. The majority went out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that immunity from criminal liability was very different from immunity from civil liability.

You brought up Nixon v. Fitzgerald, so it's a bit lame to say it doesn't speak to immunity from criminal charges when, in fact, the majority makes very clear that the separation of powers argument doesn't work for criminal immunity, including pointing out that, despite the separation of powers, courts could compel a president or former president to produce evidence pertinent to a criminal trial and unequivocally indicates at multiple points that a former president is not immune from criminal liability.

You can pretend the case and its reasoning don't cut against your arguments, but the case says what it says and it leaves little doubt where the Court stood on the issue at hand.

[Riva]

"Nova Lawyer," the majority opinion in Nixon in no way forecloses a recognition of immunity from prosecution and you are grossly distorting its rationale and scope if you claim it does. We're not talking about the production of documents pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. And what its dissent says? Well, who cares. Like I said, TDS is rather blinding.

[NOVA Lawyer]

the majority opinion in Nixon in no way forecloses a recognition of immunity from prosecution

Which is a long way from supporting the lame theory proposed by TDS sufferers such as yourself.

From the Fitzgerald majority:

First, it is important to remember that the context of that language [from a prior Supreme Court opinion quoted by the dissent] is a criminal prosecution.

and this:

The Court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions. See United States v. Gillock, 445 U. S. 360, 445 U. S. 371-373 (1980); cf. United State v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 418 U. S. 711-712, and n.19 (basing holding on special importance of evidence in a criminal trial and distinguishing civil actions as raising different questions not presented for decision).

And this:

When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests — as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra — the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President’s official acts, we hold it is not.

The Court wasn’t asked to decide a former president’s immunity from criminal prosecution, but in concluding former presidents do have immunity from civil damages suits (which could be initiated by any of the 350+ million people in the U.S.), the Court took pains to differentiate those cases and the institutional interests underlying immunity in those cases from criminal cases. You consistently refuse to engage with that, but simply cite the case as supposed support for your position even though the case itself expressly repudiates the interpretation you would give it.

Is it a sufficiently non-frivolous argument to avoid sanctions? Yes. Is it a new and novel interpretation never adopted by a Court, without any support in the text of the Constitution or in our history, and at odds with prior decisions of the Court which touched on, but did not decide, the question? Yes. Which is to say, it is an incredibly weak argument.

[not guilty]

Riva, I could be pedantic and point out that the phrase "separation of powers" appears nowhere in the Constitution. I won't do that, because judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution have recognized separation of powers. No such decisions, however, have addressed any immunity of a former president from criminal prosecution. (Or for that matter, any immunity of a sitting president from criminal prosecution, which is merely a DOJ policy.)

[Riva]

“NOVA Lawyer,” whatever “pains” the Court in took in Nixon to differentiate precedent, you sure haven’t. You are misreading and misapplying the Court’s language. In the quotes you offer, the Court was merely noting that the Separation of Powers doctrine does not bar all forms of jurisdiction and contrasting cases where jurisdiction was warranted and were it wasn’t. US v Nixon, one of those cases, concerned providing information in response to a criminal subpoena. None of those cases involved a criminal prosecution of the president for his official acts and none were offered to suggest that jurisdiction would exist in such a prosecution. However, the Court did recognize that “[t]he President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme” that “distinguishes him from other executive officials;” and moreover, much of the rationale in support of civil immunity applies equally if not more so in support of presidential immunity in a prosecution over the exercise of his official responsibilities. In fact when reviewing possible recourse against presidential misconduct, the Court makes no mention of potential criminal liability. Impeachment, the desire to earn reelection, concern over his place in history, but criminal liability. Nope. Nada. Nothing. So spare me your condescension and try reading the case a little more carefully.

[David Nieporent]

and moreover, much of the rationale in support of civil immunity applies equally if not more so in support of presidential immunity in a prosecution over the exercise of his official responsibilities.

None of the rationale in support of civil immunity applies equally if not more so in support of presidential immunity in a prosecution over the exercise of his official responsibilities. None. Zero. Zilch.

[Riva]

“ Courts traditionally have recognized the President's constitutional responsibilities and status as factors counseling judicial deference and restraint.”

“As is the case with prosecutors and judges for whom absolute immunity now is established-a President must concern himself with matters likely to "arouse the most intense feelings." Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S., at 554. Yet, as our decisions have recognized, it is in precisely such cases that there exists the greatest public interest in providing an official "the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with" the duties of his office. This concern is compelling where the office holder must make the most sensitive and far-reaching decisions entrusted to any official under our constitutional system.”

[David Nieporent]

“As is the case with prosecutors and judges for whom absolute immunity now is established-a President must concern himself with matters likely to “arouse the most intense feelings.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S., at 554. Yet, as our decisions have recognized, it is in precisely such cases that there exists the greatest public interest in providing an official “the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with” the duties of his office. This concern is compelling where the office holder must make the most sensitive and far-reaching decisions entrusted to any official under our constitutional system.”

Yes. That doesn't at all apply in the context of criminal activity, where we do not want people to have the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of their offices; we want officeholders, including the president, to be afraid to commit crimes. Crime is bad.

[Riva]

Show me one AUSA or judge held criminally liable for conduct not per se wrong but made criminal only because some other authority seeks to criminalize the frame of mind of the AUSA or judge in performing the act. I don’t think such a scenario ever played out. Smith is trying to criminalize the frame of mind in which President Trump conducted perfectly legal conduct within the scope of official presidential responsibilities. President Trump is not charged with violence or insurrection, nothing objectively criminal. But regardless, the quote in question only makes a loose comparison. The Court is not equating a prosecutor or judge with the presidency. A judge or AUSA is not the president. Article II, § 1 vests executive power in the President. “The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme” that “distinguishes him from other executive officials.” “Courts traditionally have recognized the President’s constitutional responsibilities and status as factors counseling judicial deference and restraint.” Hence the Separation of Powers concerns in Nixon. Your reasoning accords President Trump zero deference or restraint because, well, Trump. Not a good argument. Let’s hope the S.Ct. isn’t so biased. At least a majority of them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Show me one AUSA or judge held criminally liable for conduct not per se wrong but made criminal only because some other authority seeks to criminalize the frame of mind of the AUSA or judge in performing the act.

This gives away your game. You are just vested in the idea that this particular case is politically motivated which explains why you are looking for any excuse to give Trump a legal pass. This has nothing to do with the legal issue of immunity for a former president.

Your reasoning accords President Trump zero deference or restraint because, well, Trump.

No, our position accords a president appropriate deference for non-criminal acts, but avoids placing the president above the law. What your position of immunity from criminal action does is place the president above the law such that he may, as his counsel stated at oral argument, order Seal Team Six to assassinate his opponent and, unless 2/3 of the Senate is willing to convict, there is nothing anyone can do.

And according to Mitch McConnell's reasoning in voting against conviction in the second Trump impeachment, if he commits the act soon enough to the end of his presidency such that impeachment isn't completed prior to his leaving office, or if he resigns before being impeached so he cannot be impeached, then he cannot be held accountable at all. That's insane.

For you, though: But Trump.......

This is another way Trump is destroying all respect for institutions and the rule of law. It's so important to people like you that he not be held accountable, you're willing to elevate the president to a sort of kingship. You may think it's only for Trump, but you can't special plead. Trump is moving or attempting to move the bar for all sorts of conduct. He already has the likes of you voting for a man who promised to jail his political opponent and voting for a man who claimed an election he lost was stolen. Those two acts alone should have rendered him unelectable. Not for you MAGA types and now you want to give him immunity for criminal acts too. One hopes people come to their senses and realize electing a man of this sort can come to no good....because it has come to no good.

[Riva]

A president who has immunity pursuant to the constitution is never “above the law.” The constitution is the highest law. He is always subject to the constitution and constitutional remedies, like Congressional oversight and impeachment. The SEAL team hypothetical was posed by a, shall we say, not unbiased appellate court judge. It was not offered or adopted by President Trump’s counsel. It is a poorly defined, crazy hypothetical. Without sufficient details one couldn’t say such conduct was an official act or not. But even assuming it was indisputably a political assassination, no other circumstances justifying the action, and official, and the senate condoned the conduct by refusing to convict, well I would suggest at that point the government has effectively collapsed and we would be living in a new totalitarian regime where the likelihood of some independent prosecutor actually charging and convicting the new sitting president dictator to be laughably unrealistic. Do you think a prosecutor in Russia could bring a case against Putin. How about a Chinese prosecutor filing charges against XI? Do you think N. Korean “justice” would try a proceeding against the dear leader. The SEAL hypothetical is as demonstrably stupid and unhelpful on the issue as rants about the president being “above the law.”

[David Nieporent]

A president who has immunity pursuant to the constitution is never “above the law.” The constitution is the highest law.

This is a stupid attempt at pedantry. By your logic, if Congress passes a law that says, "It is unlawful to commit murder, except if you're Kamala Harris," then Kamala Harris isn't actually "above the law" because, after all, it's not that she's not subject to that law; it's that the law doesn't impose any requirements on her.

If Joe Biden says to her one day, "Go ahead: commit any federal crime you feel like. Don't worry; I will pardon you no matter what it is" then she isn't "above the law" because, after all, pardons are part of the law.

In the world of English-speaking people, though, the phrase "above the law" means that someone can violate laws that bind everyone else with impunity. Which is Trump's position, and yours, vis-à-vis a president.

He is always subject to the constitution and constitutional remedies, like Congressional oversight and impeachment.

No, he's not. He's not president (really! I swear! Even though you don't realize it!), so he is not subject to any of those things.

The SEAL team hypothetical was posed by a, shall we say, not unbiased appellate court judge.

No, you shouldn't say that, because it's dumb. Even if the factual assertion were correct, what difference would it make who asked the question? Trump's position is his position.

It was not offered or adopted by President Trump’s counsel.

It was indeed adopted by Trump's counsel.

It is a poorly defined, crazy hypothetical. Without sufficient details one couldn’t say such conduct was an official act or not.

Fighting the hypo is never a winning approach. And how can giving orders in one's role as commander in chief not be an official act? (Trump himself didn't try to weasel out of the question that way; he has taken the position that virtually everything a president does is an official act. Including all the stuff he did related to J6, even though that was about his campaign rather than his job — and, now, even including falsifying business records of the Trump Organization.)

But even assuming it was indisputably a political assassination, no other circumstances justifying the action, and official, and the senate condoned the conduct by refusing to convict,

The senate would not need to condone the conduct. Trump would just need to do it too late in his presidency for impeachment to happen (as with J6), or simply conceal it until his presidency was over. Under Trump's/your logic, anything the president successfully conceals is without recourse.

[Riva]

I wouldn’t say Kamala was above the law in your example, I would call the law you propose unconstitutional. And President Trump’s counsel most assuredly did not “adopt” the silly hypothetical, he simply tried to answer it. His mistake was not getting the hack judge to clarify what she was asking. I’m not “fighting” the hypothetical. Since it was mentioned a comment or two ago, I was pointing out why it was ridiculous and unhelpful. Maybe, instead of sarcasm, you should try explaining how, in that future dystopia of congressionally sanctioned presidential political assassinations, any dictator president would ever be accountable, regardless of whether immunity were recognized or not. The hypo is absurd for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.

[Sarcastr0]

Give me a numbered list of your argument. Make a literal list.

Ipse dixit is a bad habit of yours and it is all I see in the above paragraph.

[Riva]

Like I write below, you and your fellow SHs would look a less like SHs if you just acknowledged there are arguments for immunity.

[David Nieporent]

Everyone acknowledges that there are arguments for immunity. Frivolous arguments, rooted neither in text nor precedent nor history.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say there were zero arguments; I said that there were zero arguments grounded in precedent, history, or the constitution.

Which is why all you offer is vague handwaving. The closest you get is saying that no former president has been prosecuted before, but all that shows is that most presidents don't go around committing felonies. But Nixon did, and the only reason he wasn't prosecuted was a pardon, and Clinton did, and the only reason he wasn't prosecuted is because he reached an agreement with the independent counsel. Not one person suggested when Nixon was pardoned, "Hey, this was totally unnecessary, because Nixon's immune. Gerald Ford, you just severely undermined your chances of reelection for nothing."

The "Separation of powers" is the funniest. The executive branch prosecuting a former member of the executive branch does not even implicate separation of powers. Separation of powers refers to the doctrine that one branch cannot exercise powers constitutionally committed to another branch.

I know you're just parroting Trump's brief — though skipping the laughable impeachment double jeopardy argument — but that doesn't make it any less absurd. "Separation of powers means that nobody can be prosecuted for anything" is literally his argument.

[Riva]

All of the enumerated arguments are grounded in precedent, history, and the constitution. But I have to point out specifically your serious misunderstanding about the concept of the separation of powers and its application in the context of immunity here, civil and criminal. Beyond misinformed, just plain stupidly embarrassingly wrong. What do you think was the basis of immunity in Nixon v. Fitzgerald? It was rooted in separation of powers concerns. Now why was that? It was based on the concerns over judicial interference in the president's exercise of his official duties. That would be the judicial branch you monumental imbecile. Do you think there is a Fitzgerald branch of government? And the same separation of powers concerns outlined in Fitzgerald apply all the more strongly in the context of a criminal prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

….Enumerated arguments?

[not guilty]

Have you actually read Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)? Yes or no? That is a civil damages action, not a criminal prosecution.

If you have read the decision, did you overlook the opinion of the Court stating "The Court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions." 457 U.S. at 754 n.37. Chief Justice Burger, who was essential to the 5-4 ruling, specifically opined "The immunity is limited to civil damages claims." Id., at 759 (Burger, C.J., concurring).

Like the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

[Riva]

Uh yeah, it was a civil action that found immunity based on separation of powers concerns, which SH above didn't understand and apparently you don't either. Just a word of advice, f'ing morons like yourself might look less like f'ing morons if they'd just concede there are arguments for immunity in this context. But you won't being an f'ing moron.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Short on substance, long on insults. Muted.

[Riva]

Take these others with you, please.

[Krenn]

https://decivitate.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-gives-section-3
https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/16/chapters/35/subchapters/I

Turns out Washington DC's local laws actually do have a quo warranto provision on the books which hypothetically applies to US Presidents, and is hypothetically confirmed by congress.

AND prior court precedent on the subject has been raised as recently as Obama, when various private citizens tried to sue over the 'birther' allegations. Court precedent responded by making it harder for complete randos to sue under that specific law, but they did seem to admit that the law could be applied to presidents in theory...

I'm trying very hard not to get too invested in this. I'm hoping somebody else will do it for me.

[Kazinski]

No, you should definitely go all in.

[Michael P]

Good luck with that. At best you would get his VP instead. VPs are often chosen with the express purpose of being more extreme than their president, either as a sop to the base after their boss runs to the center or to discourage efforts to unseat the president.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sometimes they're chosen to represent the opposing faction in a party, as a sop to them so that they don't take take their marbles and go home. Bush the elder, for instance.

But Trump is too popular with the Republican base to have to make a choice like that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m hoping somebody else will do it for me."

Hope dies last in man.

[Riva]

Good idea. Lawfare isn’t crazy enough yet so let’s dial it up to 11.

[Krenn]

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/did-google-facebook-and-amazon-endorse

This blog post also (indirectly) raises a very interesting model for the SCOTUS cases about regulating social media viewpoint discrimination.

He kind of implies is that places like Facebook, Twitter, and Google Could be considered “common carriage” in the same style as old-english traveler’s inns.

“For centuries English common law obligated innkeepers to accommodate any well-behaved traveller, and his horses. Most states have today embodied this tradition in public accommodation statutes. In the North, these statutes generally require a restaurant, hotel or motel to accept all sober and orderly comers, regardless of race.”

By that logic, Facebook is most like a pub, a restaurant, or the common dining room of a hotel… It is not responsible for what people say in the room, it has to accept all ‘sober, orderly, (and lawful)’ customers into the room, and it can make only those rules which are clearly reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to it’s duties as a host…. such as by ejecting the disorderly, or refusing the visibly intoxicated, or by mandating that rival sports teams, rival political factions, rival army vs navy personnel, rambunctious small children, or other immiscible groups have some small amount of de minimis separation from each other.

And a law requiring Facebook to be reasonably transparent and consistent ABOUT what it considers it's duties as a 'common dining room' host to be, and how those duties were or will be carried out, would therefore make PERFECT SENSE!

I don’t know if that method of looking at things is RIGHT or not, but it does seem to be a far more useful way of starting to think about the problem than, say, comparing Facebook to a bookstore.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don’t know if that method of looking at things is RIGHT or not, but it does seem to be a far more useful way of starting to think about the problem than, say, comparing Facebook to a bookstore.

But not nearly as useful as comparing Facebook to its would-be contributors. Government is not under Constitutional obligation to maximize Joe Keyboard’s expressive capacity; it is under Constitutional obligation to let Joe Keyboard publish at pleasure whatever 1A protected expressions he chooses to publish.

Government is not Constitutionally empowered to compel Joe Keyboard to publish whatever government wants him to publish; government may not compel Joe Keyboard to publish anything it pleases him not to publish.

That 1A protected liberty of press freedom afforded to Joe Keyboard is Constitutionally afforded alike to everyone. “Everyone,” includes Facebook.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pruneyard Mall???

As an aside, what a name for a shopping mall...

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t know if that method of looking at things is RIGHT or not, but it does seem to be a far more useful way of starting to think about the problem than, say, comparing Facebook to a bookstore.

It is in fact neither of those things.

[David Nieporent]

“For centuries English common law obligated innkeepers to accommodate any well-behaved traveller, and his horses. Most states have today embodied this tradition in public accommodation statutes. In the North, these statutes generally require a restaurant, hotel or motel to accept all sober and orderly comers, regardless of race.”

That was a British thing. It was never an American thing. That's why we had to pass public accommodations laws for desegregation — because we never had that tradition.

I don’t know if that method of looking at things is RIGHT or not, but it does seem to be a far more useful way of starting to think about the problem than, say, comparing Facebook to a bookstore.

Facebook, like a bookstore — but unlike a hotel — is engaged in expressive activity. So… no.

[Krenn]

Hotels can engage in expressive activity. They can have holiday themes, or posters welcoming this or that event, or funny murals on the side of the hotel, or themed breakfasts....

And the full quote is actually talking about state-by-state regulations...

"For centuries English common law obligated innkeepers to accommodate any well-behaved traveller, and his horses. Most states have today embodied this tradition in public accommodation statutes. In the North, these statutes generally require a restaurant, hotel or motel to accept all sober and orderly comers, regardless of race. In the South, Jim Crow legislation enacted at the end of the nineteenth century until recently required the owners of public establishments to segregate their facilities."

[Mr. Bumble]

How long before the next wave of Haitian "refugees" are granted entry to the US to join other temporary asylum grantees who have never left?

[Krayt]

Maybe if your party welcomed them and said, come here and live free from dictatorship and corruption, which has left your sad country one of the prime examples of failure, like Republicans used to do and Democrats used to did not, instead of singing like Bizarro Ceasar Chavezes, applauding keeping people out to protect union guys with a little Mexican hatred, you’d have better resul…

God this is so tired. Is it worth the rhetoric? Border state Republicans are the good old days?

[Mr. Bumble]

You appear to be suffering from the loss of an hour of sleep.
"Come here and live [for] free..." is the policy of your party.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were a lot of things that happened in the 1920s that children were not told about.

[Krychek_2]

Except that "come here and live for free" is not what happens and is largely a right wing fiction. The cold, hard numbers show that the bulk of immigrants who come here work hard (often at jobs Americans don't want), contribute to the economy, have lower crime rates than native-born Americans, and send their children to college. I do not favor open borders, but overall immigration is a good thing. And that would make sense: The people who come here are the people who are sufficiently motivated to make better lives for themselves that they do what they have to do to get here.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The cold, hard numbers show that the bulk of immigrants who come here work hard (often at jobs Americans don’t want), contribute to the economy, have lower crime rates than native-born Americans, and send their children to college."
Got a source for any of that?

[Michael P]

The famous rhetorician, Otto Yurrazz.

https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigration-costs-us-billions-biden-administration-policy-impact-taxpayer-burden-1866555 reports a $150B/year net cost in public money due to illegal immigration, after a $32B credit for taxes paid by illegal immigrants.

It's dishonest to lump legal immigrants in with illegal ones because we have standards for the former -- notably, the public charge rule says we're not supposed to admit immigrants who are likely to live on the dole.

[Krychek_2]

Amazing what a ten second google search produces:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/citizenship-undocumented-immigrants-boost-u-s-economic-growth/

[Bwaaah]

Do you consider that, a progressive political action organization, to be a good source for information about this?

[Krychek_2]

Well, the good thing about it is that they've offered sources for their numbers, so if you think those numbers aren't credible, you are welcome to check them out for themselves. Which would carry far more weight than simply waving them away as a progressive political organization. So, do you in fact have a basis for disputing their numbers?

And those numbers pretty closely track to numbers others have come up with as well.

[Bwaaah]

That looks like an almost completely hypothetical model designed to present economic benefits of legalizing immigrants vs. not legalizing them. It doesn't even try to answer whether and how immigration is beneficial to U.S. citizens, or how it affects crime, or education, or community life.

It's a puff piece, somewhat fashioned like a scientific study. I don't know how you can read that and conclude, "This analysis is correct, and answers the question being raised here."

Coincidentally, I strongly favor immigration and agree with their conclusion. But I think the issue is so complex that there is no reliable way to answer the many questions and implications of immigration that are in political contention.

That article accomplishes nothing other than, "here's a citation that favors our side."

[Life of Brian]

Well, the good thing about it is that they’ve offered sources for their numbers, so if you think those numbers aren’t credible, you are welcome to check them out for themselves.

I don’t know that the numbers themselves are the controversial part, as opposed to the theories/conclusions based on the numbers. For example:

1. They argue GDP would go up if there were more immigrants here doing more work. By gum, I agree! But that’s only looking at income, not expenses. Anyone in the private sector that argued a company should hire more employees to do more work solely because its top-line revenue would go up would be laughed out of town at best.

2. They argue making illegals citizens would increase their wages and thus raise everyone’s wages. Again, duh — it’s just a variation on the bubbling up that happens from a minimum wage increase. But also similar to a minimum wage increase, eliminating the sub-minimum-wage shadow workforce everyone relies on to keep costs down will… guess what? (And at that point, you’re in exactly the same position as we were before, where the proponents argued we needed huge levels of immigration because “Americans won’t do those sorts of jobs” — and always somehow forget to add “for sub-American wages” at the end.)

[Theendoftheleft]

You have millions upon millions of illegals who you treat as neo-serfs. The blue teamers systematically violate their own preferred labour laws, health & safety laws, sexual protection laws, etc, to treat the illegal differently from American citizens.

What so-called 'sanctuary cities' in blue states actually do is lock in different rules on the ground for different people, based on citizenship, within their jurisdictions. The parallels with apartheid are interesting.

[Nige]

'you treat as neo-serfs.'

You've gone full anti-capitalist! Good for you!

[Theendoftheleft]

Not at all, Ingsoc. They should just be subect to the same legal labour rights and laws as others.

[David Nieporent]

They are.

[Nige]

If you're pro labour rights, you're a comrade!

[David Nieporent]

The one thing I believe about you is not, of course, your sincerity or independence from Putin, but the fact that you are from Europe. So the thing is that you don't even realize that your notions drawn from European experiences do not even come close to describing what American society is like. It's just projection on your part. Which is one of the many reasons you're laughed at.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Barry Hussein Osama's Martha's Vineyard welcomed them?

[Michael P]

Presumably the day after the current wave ends, however one defined "ends". They're already privileged when it comes to illegal immigration: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/31/amicus-brief-defending-legality-of-immigration-parole-program-for-migrants-fleeing-socialism-oppression-and-violence-in-four-latin-american-nations/

[Michael P]

RuPaul opened a "no censorship" online bookstore. The obvious happened.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/08/banning-books-is-never-the-answer-rupauls-no-censorship-bookstore-last-just-three-days/

[Armchair]

I read about that.

They made a big deal about not censoring any books, and having everything online.

Then they realized that "all" books meant those of views they disagreed with. And got complaints about them.

Those were quickly stripped from the site. Because "a young innocent LTGBQ could run across them, and it might be mentally traumatic".

[#FFFFFFPride]

That's a sign of strong mental health... seeing things that hurt your feelings cause you to kill yourself. Totally normal mental health and stuff.

[Nige]

That is, in fact, a part of how mental illness works for some. They experience things that cause them emotional truama, or which trigger that trauma. Being a sociopath about it isn't cool.

[#FFFFFFPride]

You're suggesting LTGBQ = mental illness?

The Science &tm; up until the activists got a hold of it, would agree.

[Nige]

Weird that you would think so, since they weren't mentioned in the comment I responded to. No, wait, it's just the usual contemptuous attitude to both mental illness and lgtbq kids.

[Nige]

Yeah, that was foolish. Do you really want to be the go-to outlet for, say, The Turner Diaries? A bookshop is curated or it's a mess.

[Armchair]

Well, if it was just an in-person bookstore, sure.

But an online bookstore, where there's no real limit to virtual shelf space? Well...

[Nige]

Yeah, sorry, that's just going to get swamped with rip-off AI shit.

[Michael P]

If someone can cast a vote under the wrong name so easily by accident, extrapolate how easy it must be to do it on purpose.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/05/politics/texas-voter-id-kim-ogg-houston

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are a finite number of good roads into New Hampshire from either Maine or Massachusetts, and each has a first town that you come to, which is often not the one closest to the border. NH has no sales tax, lower alcohol taxes, and no bottle deposit, I will admit to knowing these roads.

And I've often noticed that electoral returns in these towns vastly differ from the adjacent towns. The only rational explanation is busloads of people coming in to vote.

[NOVA Lawyer]

each has a first town that you come to, which is often not the one closest to the border.

I'm assuming you mean there are towns closer "as the crow flies", but, quite obviously, if it's the first town you come to upon entering NH, it has to be the closest to the border via road which is how 99% of people travel. Ergo, for cultural purposes (presumably the reason you raised "closest"), the first town you come to is the closest to Maine or Massachusetts.

More to the point, "often noticed" sounds like anecdotal evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Do you have a specific set of data comparing the sorts of towns you are discussing?

And does that data indicate a lot more people voting in one of those "first towns" than population of that town? Because, if busloads of people from a neighboring state are voting in a New Hampshire town, the vote totals will be wildly different from the population of the town. And no one noticed?

This all sounds like another Dr. Ed special, all fever dream and speculation.

But I applaud you for refraining from including a violent fantasy. We'll take the wins where we can get them with you, Dr. Ed.

[grb]

I crossed from Maine to New Hampshire on the Appalachian Trail and that was notable this way : Throughout the 280 miles in Maine, every town off the trail was filled exclusively with Mom&Pop grocery stores, restaurants and hardware stores. I didn't see a single chain store or fast food joint while in the state.

This absence was startling. I didn't think there was anyplace left in the U.S. without all those familar logos and neon signs. Yet right over the border in Gorham, NH, I found myself loosed upon McDonalds and Pizza Hut again! This prompted an orgy of fast food abandon....

[Dr. Ed 2]

I said "good roads" -- not roads per se. Numbered roads, state highways, and not local streets. The roads that someone not familiar with the area and driving a bus would take.

Gorham, NH is at the intersection of two -- US 2 (a major road) and NH 16, and once was a major railroad town and I believe is still the junction for White Mountain so it will have the tourist trade. An attempt was made to route the trail AWAY FROM those places hence....

[bernard11]

Bullshit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There are a finite number of good roads into New Hampshire from either Maine or Massachusetts

Are there a lot of places with an infinite number of good roads between them?

[David Nieporent]

I believe that all roads lead to Rome; does that count?

[SimonP]

Conservatives cite interdictions at the border as evidence of an open border, and votes blocked by an effective monitoring system as evidence of its insecurity.

Down is up, ignorance is strength, idiocy is contagious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon doesn't understand statistics...

[Gasman]

"If it can happen to the district attorney, it can happen to anyone."

I wonder if district attorney Ogg is always so forgiving of voter fraud by members of her household.
Almost as good as when the Secretary of the Treasury explained tax fraud as an oversight by his TurboTax soft ware. Nothing ever happened to Tim Geithner over that. But his mea culpa never was of benefit to anyone else.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Michael P have you ever served as an election judge or assistant, so you could see and understand how the process actually works? If you truly are concerned about the system, and your comments aren't just bad faith bullshit, you should do it. Then you could comment based on actually understanding the subject. And I'm sure your home precinct needs people, they all do.

[Mr. Bumble]

Things you won't see in the MSM:
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1766104102075830315
How many jobs did Joe "create"?

[Martinned2]

How many jobs did Joe “create”?

It really isn't a difficult sum. I'm not sure why you need me to do it for you. Just take the bottom line and subtract it from the top line, and you'll see how many jobs were added in 2023.

[Mr. Bumble]

See the link above and then let me know. Which are the "real" numbers?

[Martinned2]

The corrected ones. That's what "corrected" means.

[ThePublius]

The fallacy here is that Biden, or any other president, actually creates jobs. They don't. With the exception of federal jobs, the private sector creates jobs, regardless of who's in the White House, and according to the need.

Note that 11 of the last 13 jobs reports from BLS have been revised downward. That tells you all you need to know about the politicization of jobs reports from Uncle Sam.

[Nige]

Trump made a YUUUGE deal of all the jobs he created, and none of you gave the slightest pushback, even when job numbers were dropping.

[Longtobefree]

https://notthebee.com/article/here-are-some-job-stats-the-democrats-dont-want-you-to-see

[Michael P]

The statistics strongly suggest that Hamas is (badly) faking its reported casualty numbers. Among other anomalies, at most 10% of the claimed dead are adult males who are not Hamas fighters.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers

[Mr. Bumble]

Per Mr. Clemens:
Figures lie and liars figure. True then and true today.

(This also applies to my comment above on job numbers)

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, this is outright fraud — I’m a qualitative “janitor” and even I can see this.

It would be like a state having the exact same number of lightning strikes every day. No -- some days there'd be none, and some days there'd be a lot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wow -- they're right and anyone who's worked with statistics knows this, it's actually a way for an honest "janitor" to check his work.

"Most likely, the Hamas ministry settled on a daily total arbitrarily. We know this because the daily totals increase too consistently to be real. Then they assigned about 70% of the total to be women and children, splitting that amount randomly from day to day. Then they in-filled the number of men as set by the predetermined total. This explains all the data observed."

Bingo....

Also,
"There are other obvious red flags. The Gaza Health Ministry has consistently claimed that about 70% of the casualties are women or children. This total is far higher than the numbers reported in earlier conflicts with Israel. Another red flag, raised by Salo Aizenberg and written about extensively, is that if 70% of the casualties are women and children and 25% of the population is adult male, then either Israel is not successfully eliminating Hamas fighters or adult male casualty counts are extremely low. This by itself strongly suggests that the numbers are at a minimum grossly inaccurate and quite probably outright faked. Finally, on Feb. 15, Hamas admitted to losing 6,000 of its fighters, which represents more than 20% of the total number of casualties reported."

This is like the cumulative US "body count" of dead enemy combatants exceeding the population of Vietnam. At that point, there is no question that the numbers are bogus.

Taken together, Hamas is reporting not only that 70% of casualties are women and children but also that 20% are fighters. This is not possible unless Israel is somehow not killing noncombatant men, or else Hamas is claiming that almost all the men in Gaza are Hamas fighters.

[Krenn]

oh, you meant the reported (allegedly) civilian casualty numbers. For a minute, I thought you meant the reported death tolls for actual Hamas Fighters, which, as far as I know, nobody has even estimates for.

edit: huh. the article includes some loose estimates for Hamas fighter deaths, too. I hadn't seen those before.

Anyway, the total Numbers might be fictional or not. I don’t know about that. However, before Israel invaded, I stated that based on prior ugly urban battles, I expected about 2% of Gaza civilians to die, or 40,000 people, so the 30k numbers claimed so far don’t seem to be UN-reasonable.

[Michael P]

death tolls for actual Hamas Fighters, which, as far as I know, nobody has even estimates for.

The article I linked to says Israel estimates it has killed 12,000 Hamas fighters and claims that Hamas reported 6,000. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-six-week-drive-hit-hamas-rafah-scale-back-war-2024-02-19/ seems to be the source for the latter number.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The IDF number of 12,000 fighters would exceed the number of dead adult males. I suspect it is more accurate than the Hamas figure of 6,000 but I am using the latter because it shows how impossible it would be for Hamas' statistics to be right.

If the IDF could prove that 12,000 figure, even to adult males if not combatants, it would show all of the Hamas figures to be bullshyte.

[Krenn]

Keep in mind that there’s a LOT of room for things like bodies buried under rubble or deep underground in tunnels or vaporized by direct hits from large bombs.

Israel killing 12,000 adult males, but Gaza Health Ministry only managing to physically bury 6,000 adult males is not… necessarily… contradictory.

Again, not saying that I believe or disbelieve either side’s accuracy or honesty at this point, just that the starting baseline for counting dead bodies in an active war zone is pretty difficult.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" For a minute, I thought you meant the reported death tolls for actual Hamas Fighters, which, as far as I know, nobody has even estimates for."

Actually we do: n=6,000.

From above: "on Feb. 15, Hamas admitted to losing 6,000 of its fighters, which represents more than 20% of the total number of casualties reported.”

If you know the total killed and the number of fighters killed, it's simple division to get a percentage. The problem is that while we don't know n, we know that the adult male death rate is 25% of the whole. Hence only 5% are noncombatant males -- THAT does not add up.

[Krenn]

or all Hamas casualties were never recovered by the Gaza Health Ministry in the first place. In a war this crazy, diagramming WHO is telling WHICH lies to WHOM is... non-trivial.

It's also possible that at some point, Hamas's primary military wing just happened to read that the GHM, as controlled by Hamas's primary political wing, was reporting ~6,000 dead adult male bodies, and then decided to claim that all dead adult males were Hamas fighters for some reason. But allowing for time lags in communication and decision making, by the time Hamas (military) issued an 'estimate' of 'military casualties' of 6,000, the 'dead adult male' total had since grown past that.

It's a crazy war. documenting lies and dysfunction is a full time job, and we won't start to get GOOD data on WHERE the lies vs dysfunction were most concentrated until after the worst of the war is over.

[David Nieporent]

The GHM is Hamas.

[Krenn]

It's part of Hamas, sure. But In an organization that big, that secretive, and that subject to constant external espionage, things tend to... fragment... in unexpected ways.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brandon wants to build a pier in Gaza and give Hamas a million MREs a day. That's $10.4 Million a day for the existing ones, and DLA is going to have to scramble as I doubt we have more than a few million in stock. Food costs have doubled (thanks, Brandon) so we're really talking $25/$30 Million A DAY just for the existing ones.

Which are FOB in the US and have to be gotten over there. That's at least 34 shipping containers/trailer trucks A DAY and that ain't gonna be cheap.

Nor is building the pier, particularly if you replenish the supplies that the military uses, which you really ought to because it might need them in time of war.

And we are going to have people killed as our people are only going to be feet offshore, well within the range of rifle/rpg/homicide bombers. Anyone remember the Beirut Barracks?

Forget the fact that all of this is going to assist Hamas (with leftovers going to the civillians), forget that Brandon is talking about including fuel and water and FEMA trailers, forget all of that and just think about the logistics of a million MREs a day.

That we are borrowing from China to give to people who hate us.
As we stab our best ally in the region, Israel, in the back.

How do we benefit from this????

[Dr. Ed 2]

One more thing about Gaza -- what has it ever done for itself?
Other than kill Israelis, what have those people ever done?
They have lovely beaches which (unlike Hawaii) extend out from the shore. Unlike Florida, they don't get hurricanes -- it would make a lovely tourist resort for Europeans. They could do a lot with agriculture if they wanted to.

If they stopped blowing things up and stopped trying to kill Israelis, they could have a pretty decent life. But right now it's a couple million useless eaters and what did Marx say about that?

[Frank Drackman]

Ever eaten an MRE?? ("Meals Rejected by Ethiopians" we used to call them)
Within a week every poor Ham-Ass that eats one will be felled by Terminal Constipation, Petrified wood is more digestible than the Tuna with Noodles.
Maybe Parkinsonian Joe got something right (for once)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

The first MREs were called LRPs. A few were edible but C rations were much better.

[Frank Drackman]

Marines aren't happy if they aren't bitching, The MRE Beef Stew was the same Hormel sold in stores as "Dinty Moore", and manufactured at the Hormel Plant in Tucker GA. The BBQ Pork with Rice/Chicken and Rice weren't bad with enough Hot Sauce, we'd empty the Coffee packs into a can and dip our unfiltered Lucky Strikes (not included in the MRI) in them for an extra "pick me up".

Frank

[Krenn]

To be fair, if it's a really good pier, anyway can use it to deliver any kind of food. Doesn't have to be US Military delivering MRE's. Could just as easily be UNRWA-in-exile delivering bags of rice or something.

[Armchair]

Or Iran delivering rockets... Or Hamas breaking down the pier for materials to build more tunnels to torture prisoners in.

[Don Nico]

If the US Army controls it, it will not be used that way.

[Armchair]

And how long will the US Army control it?

[Don Nico]

As long as it wants to

[Armchair]

And when the US stops wanting to? Like it has with many, many other pieces of infrastructure scattered across the world, for any of a myriad of reasons?

What then?

[Sarcastr0]

It would be irresponsible not to speculate!

[David Nieporent]

It's expressly planned as a temporary construct.

[Joe_dallas]

Krenn 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
" Could just as easily be UNRWA-in-exile delivering bags of rice or something."

Krenn
do you really think using UNRWA is a good idea? UNRWA has been a willing participant with HAMAS over the last 10 or so years.

[Krenn]

Hence the "in-exile" part. As long as they have money, it has to be spent somehow. Israeli-inspected food shipments is as good an option as any.

[Joe_dallas]

Krenn - so you think is a good to partner with an organization who has been a willing participant with Hamas activities. Typical woke idiocy

[Krenn]

I think money is a fungible commodity, and as long as someone is paying for food but doesn't control the food, it doesn't really matter whose money it was originally.

[Tom for equal rights]

Looks like you are missing the part about UNRWA being a willing participant with hamas

[Martinned2]

Looks like you're missing the part about UNRWA staff being tortured into admitting collaboration with Hamas: https://www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-report-claims-some-agency-employees-admitted-hamas-ties-under-israel-coercion/

[Tom for equal rights]

martineed, GRB and Nige -
Perhaps you should read the article you cited.

[Nige]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/unrwa-report-says-israel-coerced-some-agency-employees-to-falsely-admit-hamas-links/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The whole agency? Really?

Wow.

Tell me: Will you be self-publishing this in ebook only, or will you provide paperback and hardcover too?

[grb]

Joe_dallas : “UNRWA has been a willing participant with HAMAS over the last 10 or so years”

Just after the Israelis claimed 12 UNRWA employees out of 30,000 had Hamas ties, I said it was quite possible and added I wouldn't be surprised if they found another dozen or two. Commenter_XY jumped in and predicted Israel would find hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more.

Well, here we are about six weeks later and the most recent count is up to 30 out of 30,000. Of course UNRWA says Israel has only produced evidence for some of the original twelve and no more, but we’ll let that slide. It’s enough to compare/contrast the rhetoric of someone like Joe_dallas with the numbers and the facts.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh...wrong. Over 1,000 UNRWA employees were affiliated with terror groups.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-intel-shows-10-of-unrwa-workers-in-gaza-have-ties-to-terror-groups-report/

The Wall Street Journal said Monday (this was late January) that intel Jerusalem shared with the US indicated that of the roughly 12,000 Gazan employees of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, some 1,200 have ties to either Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The report further stated that around 50% of the UN agency’s employees in Gaza have at least one close relative with ties to the terror groups.

UNRWA will be expelled.

[grb]

Well, I guess we have dueling Times of Israel accounts. Mine (later than yours) says 30-42. That’s UNRWA employees who supported Hamas (though often in ways undefined or specified by the Israelis). On the other hand, yours drifts off into the nebulous. We hear talk of “ties” and “affiliated with” and “connections”.

UNRWA operated inside a region governed by Hamas. It ran dozens of programs and scores of facilities. Want to guess how easy it is to find “connections” or “ties”? Particularly given the Israelis’ long history of loathing the organizaion. If you care to try, CXY, you can look up accounts of friction and strife between the organization and Hamas. Hell, a former UNRWA chief in Gaza, John Ging. survived two assassination attempts while there. There’s a whole other world of facts for you to review anytime you’re tired of being spoon fed such a tenuous meme.

Remember the tunnel farce? Sixty feet below an UNRWA building with no exit or connection between the two, the tunnel ran hundreds of meters under building after building but (per Israel), running under the UNRWA facility alone meant collusion. With a straight face, the Israelis insisted UNRWA must have know there was digging underway at least.

Given it was the equivilent of five stories underground, maybe not. Yet the press was treated to an elaborate dog&pony show selling this nonsense anyway.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-reveals-12-unrwa-staffers-it-says-took-part-in-oct-7-says-30-more-assisted/

[Commenter_XY]

Well, I guess we have dueling Times of Israel accounts.

This made me smile. Glad you read ToI. I met David Horowitz, shortly after ToI launched.

[David Nieporent]

Could just as easily be UNRWA-in-exile delivering bags of rice or something.

No, it can't. Israel doesn't let random people ship bags of rice to Gaza, because unrandom people have a tendency to ship weapons to Gaza. That's why it's so difficult to get aid in now: Israel has to inspect everything first.

[Martinned2]

That’s why it’s so difficult to get aid in now: Israel has to inspect everything first.

Sure, let's go with that.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza

[ThePublius]

"forget that Brandon is talking about including fuel and water and FEMA trailers,"

Can you please provide a reference for this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden told Congress he was directing the U.S. military to lead an emergency mission to set up a "temporary pier" on the Gaza coast to receive ships carrying food, water, medicine and temporary shelters.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-announce-gaza-aid-port-construction-state-union-speech-2024-03-07/

[Jerry B.]

They could just fill the FEMA trailers with food, water, and medical supplies, and loan Hamas a bulldozer or two so they could dig them into their tunnel network.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Excavator not bulldozer. And you can't move FEMA trailers with weight inside them, they're not designed for it.

BUT your point is valid.

[Commenter_XY]

It would be very difficult for the ICJ to credibly find that Israel is taking actions to advance genocide if Israel is working with the US to enable the provision of humanitarian aid to gazans, to a huge scale. It is important to consider this diplomatic aspect of the Swords of Iron war.

Whether the humanitarian aid makes it to the intended populace is another matter.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Whether the humanitarian aid makes it to the intended populace is another matter."
Well if past is prologue, it won't. All of those tunnels didn't get built with Hamas' own money.

[Nige]

They're not really though, are they? The US is. Israel is barely making a token effort, and Israeli citizens block the trucks.

[bernard11]

Food costs have doubled (thanks, Brandon)

No. They haven't.

You are lying.

[Michael P]

Today in the ongoing "not-a-" crime wave, Philly is putting cops on buses because the locals are getting restless. Don't worry, though: just Friday, Joe Biden was in the city to speak to Pennsylvania voters to send him to Congress.

https://6abc.com/amp/septa-safety-gun-violence-police-officers-philadelphia-bus-stop-shooting/14505104/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Philly is an interesting city — there are some very rich people living there, old money, who for some reason haven’t left.

OTOH, a cop on a bus, if it is the same cop on the same bus with routine frequency, is not a bad idea. He's gonna get told stuff that the cop in the cruiser never will. But I don't think that's why they are doing it...

[Sarcastr0]

Momentary anecdotes cherry picked because the stats are not getting you where you want to go.

The next trial balloon for the election. Now that trans panic and DEI and CRT and inflation have run their course.

I’m sure this will be gobbled up by the folks who live to serve whatever narrative they are told to. Remains to be seen if it has purchase with normal people.

[Michael P]

Ah, your shift started. I was wondering when we would get the daily dose of reality denial.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one saying 'crime wave' and posting, rather than genera statistics

1) One city
2) specific to bus shootings
3) with a timescale of quite recently

You're smart enough to see how a very specific uptick in very specific crimes in a very specific area is not generalizable. But you will also turn off your brain to push some stupid shit if that's what the nypost is saying.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0...Try driving a rental in the Kensington area of Philly, or the area of Philly just outside of Temple U. Try driving a Beamer, say 8-10pm on a nice warm night. Make sure the window is down so the residents can see who you are.

Let us know how that turns out for you. Car jacking is a real thing.

[Joe_dallas]

Commenter xy -Sacastro has shown by his prior comments that he is too busy living in his utopian woke bubble to deal with reality.

[SimonP]

Cops on buses evinces a crime wave how, exactly?

It's an election year. Conservative media have successfully convinced their consumers that the big cities are collapsing under uncontrolled violence, instigated by waves of migrants. Low-information voters want to see their politicians taking action against this "crime wave." Blue-state and blue-city leaders take some performative action to try to demonstrate they're taking this trumped-up "crime wave" seriously.

You can be led around by the nose if you like, Michael, or you can roll your eyes at the cynicism of the exchange and move on.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why would "Conservative media" have any significant impact on Democrats living in Philly or NY?

[SimonP]

It moves the discussion across the board, Bobby. But you wouldn't be able to appreciate that, ensconced within your own information bubble.

[Nige]

They really really shouldn't. It's about time people understood that they're bullshit.

[Jumaira]

What's bullshit is the narrative the left peddles about racism and inequality.

[Nige]

Hey, who won in 2020?

[MoreCurious]

Facts matter. Biden was not in Philadelphia last week. He was in the beautiful small college town of Swarthmore, a dozen or so miles southwest of Philadelphia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A different thought on standing -- it was something different in the 1960s in the era BC (Before Computers) but today the individual right to sue for discrimination (racial or ADA) is meaningless because you are going to destroy your future if you sue.

If you operate on the thesis that those denied legal means to address wrongs will resort to extra-legal ones, this should be of concern. We really don't have *true* White Supremacists, YET, but God help us if we ever had another "Know Nothing" movement.

[Krenn]

Destroy your future in what way? Spam? Harrasment? angry picketers? becoming un-hireable?

I seem to recall that for the first few years after Brown v Board came out, most southern school districts initially remained seggregated anyway, because nobody local dared filed lawsuits asking for DE-seggregation in accordance with Brown, on penalty of being murdered if they tried. De-seggregation of schools didn't make much progress until Congress finally passed a law to send in the Feds instead of just relying on local plaintiffs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

becoming un-hirable

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

That was around the time that excellent HBUC were called racist and inherently inferior because they were all Black-- now apply logic: NO ONE would or did say that about all white.

[Martinned2]

the individual right to sue for discrimination (racial or ADA) is meaningless because you are going to destroy your future if you sue.

It's almost as if the right to sue is meaningless in many instances unless court judgments (and other documents) are anonymised. Who'd have guessed?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That explains the dearth of lawsuits in the United States!

[Theendoftheleft]

'...but God help us if we ever had another “Know Nothing” movement'.

Who would join? The millions of illegal papists?

Look at church membership numbers of the Presbyterians, as an example. They'll be gone from this world within another generation or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_(USA)

White supremacism is just DEI for the trash of Europe.

[Kazinski]

The Hill has an article explaining how the DEI provisions in the CHIPs act is deterring any of the semiconductor manufacturers from actually completing any factories.

https://thehill.com/opinion/4517470-dei-killed-the-chips-act/

[Michael P]

This is a particularly good comparison:

Intel is also building fabs in Poland and Israel, which means it would rather risk Russian aggression and Hamas rockets over dealing with America’s DEI regime.

[Sarcastr0]

Intel has been in Poland and Israel since well before the CHIPS Act. That this kind of rhetoric is marshalled as evidence does no favors to the article.

That you think it's a good comparison says a lot about how easy it is to tell people a story they already want to hear.

[Michael P]

The US DEI regime has been in place since well before the CHIPS Act, too. I know you are proud of your double standards and hypocrisy, but you could at least try to hide it occasionally.

[Sarcastr0]

And now the linked story is well behind you, and it's time for pure speculation.

Intel's been in Israel since the 1970s.

[Tom for equal rights]

True - Intel factories have been in the US, poland and Israel since the well before the CHIPS act - the difference is that the companies have chosen to expand in poland and israel, but not in the US where expansion plans have been cancelled, in part because of DEI .

Last week sarcastro was boasting how DEI was designed to expand the available labor pool . Are DEI goals worthwhile if the demand for that supposedly larger labor pool shrinks.

[bernard11]

Why does it mean that?

Did they say that was the reason, or did the authors of the article imagine it?

Because they did a lot of imagining.

For example, they claim Samsung delayed a plant in Texas because of "frustration with DEI requirements embedded in the CHIPS Act, " which is a completely made-up reason. The very article they link to says:

"Samsung is apparently scaling back its Texas operation due to uncertain financial factors, including CHIPS Act subsidies and the global economy."

The whole Hill article is nothing but conjecture by the authors. Taking it seriously is foolish.

[Sarcastr0]

It's an opinion piece, and this seems to be the operable language:

“Opportunity and Inclusion” instructs the Department of Commerce to work with minority-owned businesses and make sure chipmakers “increase the participation of economically disadvantaged individuals in the semiconductor workforce.”

This is the kind of rhetoric you are taking as factual reporting:
the world’s best chipmakers are tired of being pawns in the CHIPS Act’s political games. They’ve quietly given up on America. Intel must know the coming grants are election-year stunts — mere statements of intent that will not be followed up.

Can you sniff out an agenda here? Kaz can't!

[Armchair]

"Tired of delays at its first fab, the company flew in 500 employees from Taiwan. This angered local workers, since the implication was that they weren’t skilled enough. With CHIPS grants at risk, TSMC caved in December, agreeing to rely on those workers and invest more in training them. A month later, it postponed its second Arizona fab."

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes an anecdote with plenty of telepathy.

Someone is managing to spend the CHIPS money, somehow.

[Michael P]

Just like Marilyn Mosby and others somehow managed to spend COVID money!

[Sarcastr0]

The article does not go so far as to accuse manufacturers of fraud.

[Armchair]

"Someone is managing to spend the CHIPS money, somehow."

Asserted Facts require evidence. Show us how.

[Sarcastr0]

2 second of Googling. To prove something everyone who was not a moron knew.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/09/fact-sheet-one-year-after-the-chips-and-science-act-biden-harris-administration-marks-historic-progress-in-bringing-semiconductor-supply-chains-home-supporting-innovation-and-protecting-national-s/

[Michael P]

What on there is actual spending or even committed funds, rather than "announced" or "opportunity"? Did you even read the thing you linked to?

[Sarcastr0]

"In the one year since CHIPS was signed into law, companies have announced over $166 billion in manufacturing in semiconductors and electronics, and at least 50 community colleges in 19 states have announced new or expanded programming to help American workers access good-paying jobs in the semiconductor industry. In total, since the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration, companies have announced over $231 billion in commitments in semiconductor and electronics investments in the United States."

You think this is just companies out of the goodness of their heart?

If you want exact numbers, you'll have to go agency by agency.
Here is some NIST info on its source selections:
https://www.nist.gov/chips/funding-updates

[Michael P]

I asked what was actually spent or committed, and you came back with a paragraph that only had "announced". I'll take that as you not actually having evidence of people "managing to spend the CHIPS money, somehow".

[Sarcastr0]

So you asked about something that the government has not done yet.

Source selection means there's going to be money committed soon.

This is not a DEI-related timeline.

[Michael P]

I asked about something you claimed was happening.

Talk is cheap, and announcements are not the same as spending.

[Armchair]

Sarcastro: "Someone is managing to spend the CHIPS money, somehow."

Also Sarcastr0 (in regards to spending the CHIPS money): "So you asked about something that the government has not done yet."

Always fun when Sarcast0 contradicts his own assertions.

[Sarcastr0]

The sources are selected. The money is as good as spent.

Your pedantry is in bad faith.

[Armchair]

"Your pedantry is in bad faith"

Umm.. No. You made a claim, then called people idiots when the facts didn't back up your claim. Then when pressed on it with links that didn't back up your claim, you reversed.

If anyone's arguing in bad faith here, it's you.

[Michael P]

Reality collided with the empty assertions of S_0 and hollow announcements. Let's see if the reality denial field is affected.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4078628-pentagon-said-to-end-plan-for-25b-intel-grant-report

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read you link, Michael?

The Pentagon has reportedly ended its plan to put forth $2.5B on a grant for semiconductor giant Intel (NASDAQ:INTC), Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the situation.

The decision now leaves the U.S. Commerce Department, which is responsible for doling out the funds from the U.S. CHIPs and Science Act

Seems like funding from the CHIPS Act will be clutch!

[Don Nico]

Wow, you really don't want to hear what you don't want to hear.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I recognize the dangers of bias and I avoid generalizing based on anecdotes and speculation, especially when it aligns with my priors

You should know better, but don't.

I do slip up - if you catch me going anecdata myself, by all means let me know.

[Michael P]

If you ever backed up your arm-waving claims, we would.

[Sarcastr0]

Which claims would you like me to explicate or back up?

[Michael P]

The one just up-thread would be a good start. The various other claims you made in this open thread would be good next steps.

Some of us provide actual data. When is the last time you linked to any source, except your wanking about timeless classic papers that are amazing for their accessibility, like the one that you couldn't tell whether it was a Sokal-style hoax?

[Sarcastr0]

You mean where I said the CHIP money is being spent and you said no because there have not actually been obligations yet?

Because that’s pedantry.

I am amused you think I don’t link to sources. It really shows how little you bother to engage with commenters if you have that kind of goldfish memory.

[Bwaaah]

You usually do junk links to junk sources so you can gratuitously say, "I did my research too!" But they're typically poorly chosen references that you obviously spent very little time examining, selected only because they had something that supports your argument. More telling is that they typically also include content that counters your argument, and you just skate on by like it's another win for Gaslight0. "There! I have sources too!"

You're so *not* data driven that it's hard to justify even arguing with you. You take pride in the fact that you admit you're wrong from time to time, as if that excuses your unwillingness to concede so many inconvenient facts that are not seriously disputed. And yet there you are, not disputing the facts, but switching to some ad hominem, ad bullshitium remarks as if you didn't just play the deaf fool.

You play the deaf fool.

[Armchair]

"For instance, chipmakers have to make sure they hire plenty of female construction workers, even though less than 10 percent of U.S. construction workers are women. They also have to ensure childcare for the female construction workers and engineers who don’t exist yet.

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty? What does that actually mean?

Childcare is not just for women workers.

And the burden of assuring childcare if there is no demand for it seems small.

You see how you swallowed a whole lot of bullshit, much of which you just speculated up yourself?

It is possible there is an implementation issue with CHIPS because NSF is being dumb with its DEI standards. This article says that over and over again, but that’s most of what it does.

[Armchair]

You know of any other jobs that "require" childcare to be provided for the workers, as a condition of the grant?

[Sarcastr0]

Whether it's a novel requirement is not part of the old goalposts. And even as a new goalpost, who the fuck cares?

Childcare is a good thing to support working families. (Not just women either!)

The article uses hand-wavy stuff like 'plenty.' Which should be a tell to you.

[Michael P]

New conditions being imposed by the CHIPS Act was a very explicit criticism in the original article. Get a refund from your straw man supplier.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the opinion piece is not a fan.

That is not a substantive fact.

[Armchair]

So..no. You don't know of any.

[Sarcastr0]

I explained why that isn’t material.

You ignored that.

[Armchair]

Ever try to set up a child care organization? Are you aware of the burden? The regulations? The need for qualified childcare workers? All that needed to be in place, according to the regulations.

A substantial regulatory and fiscal burden.

There's a reason it's extremely uncommon for a grant to require it.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's not actually that burdensome; many companies big and small already have it, and those that don't should.

You are pretty ignorant, as usual, of the federal requirements for grantees.
And that new requirements are not some shock big deal. It is in fact a very common story - new terms and conditions are a common thing - that's the biz.

You want to come out against chip companies offering health care, I guess? I'd call you a family-hating asshole but you're actually too shallow to be that kind of asshole.

You are a tool - the substance doesn't matter to you, only that you can attack Biden with it.

[Bwaaah]

Typical government initiative laden with unusual, costly rules and requirements.

Gaslight0: "Childcare is a typical and uncostly expense, and therefore doesn't qualify as another example of drag on commerce. Don't move the goalposts."

Very few employers provide child care, and almost all provide it narrowly as an enticement to recruit more highly skilled, difficult-to-attract talent.

Gaslight0 acts as if by the mere fact that people like or need something, it isn't an economic drag to require an employer to provide it. (Thanks for your business insight, Commissar.) That rule, though he doesn't admit it, can be applied to every unmet want and need imaginable. "But child care is a good thing." Another winning argument from Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah you once again are sharing an irrelevant statistic.

This is specifically about chips manufacturers, who are not going to be the same as the average employer. And who will often be quite used to working with the government.

This is actually something at least adjacent to things I do for work.

I did not say it wasn't an economic drag, I said the cost is less than Armchar said, and he ignored the benefit.

[Bwaaah]

If it makes sense to for a company to provide child care, then the company will consider that in its decision. Writing that, and all the other good social behaviors (see some definitions here) into a government program intended to drive security and economic benefits is EXPENSIVE AND BESIDE THE POINT. That stuff is all NOT about fabricating chips, and significantly compromises the enterprise with respect to performance, competitiveness, costs, flexibility, adaptability (and more).

This is a case of taking a highly technical security initiative and trying to craft it as a social program. Gaslight0 refuses to grasp the already extreme competitive demands of the semiconductor market, and thinks he can throw his "good practices" into semiconductor manufacturing like he's gussying up labor practices at the local grocery store.

Do you, Sarc, consider that to be a good strategy for building a competitive semiconductor manufacturing business?

[Brett Bellmore]

I wonder if it would be possible to create a sort of international free manufacturing center on neutral territory. A literal floating island would be the cheapest part of this sort of chip fab facility.

It's obvious you can't do that sort of thing in the US anymore; Even if you got a sane administration for a couple election cycles, nobody could trust that a nutcase administration wouldn't take power for a few years and render the investment a dead loss.

We're no longer the sort of high trust society capable of long term investment.

[Sarcastr0]

Sealand redux?

It’s obvious you can’t do that sort of thing in the US anymore
Obvious!

[Artifex]

The fundamental problem with truly neutral territory is that it is usually neutral as long as it is either irrelevant or not terribly useful to some armed power. Something as useful as a bunch of chip fabs would be nationalised by somebody or destroyed as too useful to an enemy. The law of tooth and claw says unless you have them, you won't last.

Yes, most of what made the US special is gone, but where else are you going to go ?

[Krenn]

Every once in a while, someone will propose taking an ocean liner, converting it into a long-stay hotel/business center, flagging it in a nation with sane business laws, and then parking it out past the 15-mile limit of US waters, with shuttle services offered between the liner and the nearest shore-based city.

Apparently, this is allegedly easier than dealing with USA's worker visa programs for certain high-skilled jobs, such as programming or engineering design.

With a sufficiently stable 'floating dock' type building, I guess you could try to do the same thing for chip manufacturing. it would have to be REALLY stable, though. and I'm not sure how industrial pollution would work....

[Sarcastr0]

It's in the UK, but the movie Pirate Radio is a lot of fun.

[Dr. Ed 2]

12 miles -- and as Pirate radio found out, the flag country can cede sovereignty.

[John F. Carr]

If your vessel is not registered with any country it is subject to boarding under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The Coast Guard can go into the fab looking for drugs. Fabs used to be very sensitive to something as simple as a window being opened. (That's a war story that was told to me in the 1990s. Yields plummeted and after a long investigation somebody discovered a window elsewhere in the building had been left open.)

[Don Nico]

That is not happening, Brett. The US want leading edge fabs to be in the US. That also means training a highly skilled workforce to the same level that TSMC has in Japan.

If there are real economic advantages to be in the US, the TSMC, Intel and Samsung will build there. The CHIPS act is only a teaser in this business.

[Nige]

Long term investment means taking climate change into account. Instead it's a short-term cash-grab. Corporations blaming governments when governments tie themselves in knots to appease corporations is hilarious.

[John F. Carr]

Reminds me of this recent notice from the government of Canada.
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2024/02/24/canada-announces-additional-support-ukraine

Four million dollars will be spent on "gender-inclusive demining for sustainable futures in Ukraine" including "establishing a gender and diversity working group to promote gender-transformative mine action in Ukraine."

[David Nieporent]

The Hill has an article asserting how the DEI provisions in the CHIPs act is deterring any of the semiconductor manufacturers from actually completing any factories, It doesn't explain it; it just makes it up and pretends that it's an explanation.

I think the CHIPS act was larded down with stupid progressive agenda items instead of narrowly focusing on, you know, chips. Because that's how Democrats roll. But there's nothing to substantiate the claim that "DEI" provisions are doing any such thing.

[Tom for equal rights]

Because equity is so critical, the makers of humanity’s most complex technology must rely on local labor and apprentices from all those underrepresented groups, as [the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company] discovered to its dismay.

Tired of delays at its first fab, the company flew in 500 employees from Taiwan. This angered local workers, since the implication was that they weren’t skilled enough. With CHIPS grants at risk, TSMC caved in December, agreeing to rely on those workers and invest more in training them. A month later, it postponed its second Arizona fab.

[David Nieporent]

A month later, it postponed its second Arizona fab.

Right. Did they say, "We're not doing this because of DEI requirements?" No; that's something the Hill author made up.

[Armchair]

More in anti-Jewish activities on college campuses.

Middlebury College denies registration to a Jewish group, using the logic "one Jewish student group is more than enough" while demanding a vigil for the October 7th victims be "inclusive" and include "all victims," including those in Gaza, and not use specific terms like "Jewish" victims.

https://freebeacon.com/campus/middlebury-students-tried-to-host-a-vigil-for-victims-of-oct-7-attack-administrators-told-them-to-remove-the-word-jewish/

[bernard11]

Armchair's deep concerns about antisemitism do not extend, apparently, to the nomination of Mark Robinson for governor of NC, or Trump's canoodling with Orban and other antisemites.

[Both Sides]

I'm going to live up to my username here and say that there is appalling anti-semitism (no, not just "anti-Israel" or anti-specific Jews the speaker disagrees with, but real anti-semitism) on BOTH SIDES: the political right and the political left. Folks on both sides often amplify the problem on the "other side," which I have no problem with, since all anti-semitism should be called out. But far too many folks on both sides shamefully downplay/trivialize the anti-semitism on "their side."

And while I'm not confident the following will have any effect, let me preemptively state that I will take any replies along the lines of "But anti-semitism really IS much worse on the OTHER side" as essentially supporting my point.

[Don Nico]

Sad, very sad

[Moderation4ever]

I started this weekend to prepare my tax returns and as every year before that I am struck by the how complex the forms are made. The complexity is not out of some necessity but rather the Congress's attempt to curry favor with this group or that group. Let me start early in the form with this year's rant about extra deductions. I as a person over 65 am entitled to claim an extra deduction. Now people my age are among the wealthiest Americans and so I don't see why my group needs an extra deduction. I accept that some older Americans are far less wealth, but address that in the rates and not with some extra deduction that goes to every person over 65. I have SS and Medicare; I don't need an extra deduction with is worth about $1750. Will this make the form less complicated? Yes, but only a little bit and it should only be a start.

[Commenter_XY]

Would you like an anonymous Cash App account to send that 1,750 to? 🙂

Are you a 'typical' elderly man....or the upper middle class version that has no earthly idea what people in the lowest 3 quintiles of income experience in retirement?

Growing old in America sucks. It just sucks a lot less than most of the rest of the world. I don't see elderly people in America living the high life. Mostly 'stay at home', which can be a very lonely experience.

[Moderation4ever]

I will donate the extra money to a charity. I understand that if you are poor retirement can be difficult. But the point of having a graduated income tax is to address the inequalities. To tax people according to their income levels. So, the extra deduction should not be necessary. I see it mostly as pandering by Congress.

Being old can be a lonely experience, but that should not be a feature of money. There are plenty of things people can do to be involved. Sometimes it is as simple as looking for something that gets you out an involved in the community.

[Don Nico]

Mod4,
Elderly who have more income do pay more. Except for the bulk who can use the $1750 deduction, many of the rest see their SSA check taxed at their highest marginal rate, often 39%.
So what's your beef?

[Moderation4ever]

I have problems with the treatment of SSA funds also. The government pays people social security and then taxes it also. But they only tax 85% of the money at most. Why not just payout a lower amount and have it be tax-free? People around 65 years of age pay about a 26% marginal tax rate. The most they pay on is 85% of SS money and so about a 22% on the total SS amount. So why not just pay SS recipients 78% of their current SS and have it be tax-free. Get the IRS out of any SS funds. Again, use the graduation in tax levels to address the poorest recipients.

[Commenter_XY]

Take it up with POTUS William Jefferson Clinton...

[Moderation4ever]

WJC was 24 years ago, don't you think we could revisit the problem today?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, SSA must be revisited. The program is heading toward a situation where a ~22% benefit reduction will be mandatory. Nobody wants that. I can see a combination of the following:

A raise in tax rate on the employer side
A lesser raise in tax rate on employee side
Means testing (very high income people would essentially forfeit benefit)
Changing the CPI calc to CPI-E
A donut hole where wage income is taxed up to the SSA limit (168K), from 168K - 438K, no taxation, and then re-impose the tax on incomes above 438K (that tax money paid will not be a part of the benefit calculation)
Allow for the investment of up to 50% of your SSA taxes paid into low-cost, broad market index funds; this part would also be inheritable.
Allow lower income people 'buy up; their benefit.
Increase retirement age
Lower the benefit for delaying from ~8% to ~4% annually

There are many. many options. It is not hopeless, at all.

As for returning SSA payments to being 'tax free', keep in mind that has a cost (it is not free).

[Don Nico]

" Why not just payout a lower amount and have it be tax-free?"
I agree with you. The present scheme just makes filing more complicated.
However, It might be that such a scheme hurts people with lower income worse that those with high income. That is certainly the case with those in an income range that does not require filing an 1080 of any sort.

[Moderation4ever]

First let me state that no taxing system is perfect and there will always be winners and losers. But the idea of the American income tax scheme is to be graduated with people paying a greater percentage as income increases. Under that scheme it should not be necessary to add another layer of complexity. Treat a poor old person like any other poor person. Give them a lower tax rate and take a smaller amount. Treat an older middle class like a middle class person and so on up the income scale.

[Tom for equal rights]

Don Nico's comment - "However, It might be that such a scheme hurts people with lower income worse that those with high income."

Don your comment is spot on in many situations. As recently as the mid 1990's through the early 2000's, lower income workers had an effective marginal tax bracket that often approached 100% marginal tax rate, factoring in the increase in income tax, loss of the earned income tax credit, phase out of child tax credits, phase out various welfare transfer payments, etc.

Most of those high marginal costs went away with the 2017 tax act with the huge increase in the standard deduction.

[bernard11]

I think you are much oversimplifying the taxation of SS benefits.

The fact is (from the link)

About 40% of people who get Social Security must pay federal income taxes on their benefits. This usually happens if you have other substantial income in addition to your benefits.

So your scheme would hurt the people who rely most heavily on SS benefits.

[Don Nico]

Exactly, bernard. That would have been the case for my mom and my disabled son.
I accept that I have to pay 39% p[lus state income tax.

[John F. Carr]

In my area we have old people who lived here since houses were cheap fifty years ago. Their enemy is the rich people who moved in and want to raise taxes to build golden temples to their gods.

[Moderation4ever]

It isn't always just rich people moving in. Times change and the small city you moved into 50 years ago is now much larger. Home values rise meaning you have more wealth but also pay more taxes. Madison, my city, is in the middle of such an expansion. Many long-term resident find the change disturbing, but this is what happens. Madison started as a government and education center. But the university has spawned a number of IT and biotech businesses and the city is growing rapidly. There is a need for more housing and better transportation systems. All this change is hard for the longtime residents.

[Commenter_XY]

As in, too many people in Madison and they all need to get off your lawn? 🙂

Gentrification makes everything more expensive, M4e.

[Moderation4ever]

I have no problem with Madison growing larger. It is a fact of life that things change. I am surprised at all the old liberals that went to college at the UW and just expect Madison to stay the same as when they were in college.

[Armchair]

Feel free to donate as much money as you would like to the US Treasury. They accept donations if you're feeling bad about not paying enough in taxes.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html

Oddly enough, you all never seem to take up the offer.

[Armchair]

Even more in anti-Jewish activities on college campuses.

Anti-Israel protestors shut down a Israeli professor on a UNLV Campus talking about....black holes.

Rather than cordon off and remove the protestors, the UNLV Campus decided to cancel the Israeli professor's talk. Thus allowing the Heckler's veto to work. Because the protestors apparently have a first amendment right to shut down other people's speech.

https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/03/05/unlv-failure-to-remove-pro-palestine-protestors-from-lecture-violates-policy-groups-say/

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Anti-Israel activities, not anti-Jewish. Nice try.

[Armchair]

Is Judge Tanya Chutkan in the Trump trial making "special provisions" just to try Trump?

Apparently she's told attorneys in other trials she is presiding over that she'll be out of the country in August. Unless of course, there's a Trump trial date.

I've got to wonder about the biases of a judge who is willing to make a special exception in her planned vacation schedule just to try a certain individual as fast as possible. But not anyone else.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/05/chutkan-trump-trial-date-2024-00139665#:~:text=U.S.%20District%20Judge%20Tanya%20Chutkan,unless%20Trump's%20trial%20is%20underway.

[Martinned2]

Remind me, because I'm losing track: Is Trump supposed to receive special treatment or not?

[Michael P]

It depends on who you ask. The left thinks Trump should get all the special enforcement and penalties and rules. The right wants him judged under the same legal standard as Joe Biden.

[Martinned2]

Sure sounds like special pleading to me: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/06/supreme-court-will-hear-trump-presidential-immunity-argument-april-25.html

[Armchair]

I'm sure the SCOTUS can delay it, and put it on its normal schedule instead, instead of any accelerated timing.

Maybe the SCOTUS will get to it next year.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem with that is that there is nothing that Joe Biden has done that is criminal. So, Trump is being judged under the same standards as any other person, including Joe Biden. The difference is that there is evidence of criminal behavior in Trump's action.

[Bob from Ohio]

Letting an unauthorized ghostwriter see secret documents is not "evidence of criminal behavior"?

Better tell General Petraeus he pled guilty to nothing.

[Nige]

Everyone loves to pretend that Trump wouldn't have been treated exactly the same if he hadn't tried to keep the documments instead of giving them back.

[Don Nico]

He likely would have become President if not for that

[ThePublius]

That's funny. You don't think taking money from foreign governments and companies to influence U.S. policy, via a multitude of shadow corporations, and probably not paying taxes on those funds is not criminal? And, despite the Dem/prog narrative, there's TONS of evidence supporting this!

Wow.

[Moderation4ever]

If there was tons of evidence the Republicans would be hauling it out to show the public. The reality is there is no evidence.

[ThePublius]

Maybe in your version of reality.

[Moderation4ever]

If you have evidence than take President Biden to court. As I am not seeing that happen I as assuming there is not real evidence.

[grb]

ThePublius : “Maybe in your version of reality”

In the “version of reality” found on planet Earth, the House investigation of Biden has been a non-stop comical cluster***k, with witness after witness blowing-up in Comer’s face.

Far from having “tons” of evidence, they have none. That’s why Comer was driven to claim three truck payments as the “proof” of corruption he’d been waiting for so long. Of course that claim proved just another humiliating blunder.

As for the weather of the fantasy world where ThePublius resides? It may be totally different than what we are experiencing in drab reality.

[ThePublius]

You, and your cohort anre simply wrong, and either lying or ignorant on this topic. Take a look at this from the House Oversight Committee:

https://oversight.house.gov/blog/joe-biden-met-nearly-every-foreign-associate-funneling-his-family-millions%EF%BF%BC/

[David Nieporent]

Things that link doesn't say about Joe Biden: that Joe Biden got one shred of money from any foreign source.

Things that link does say: that really gullible people like ThePublius don't know that "the Biden family" does not mean "Joe Biden." In fact, using the phrase "the Biden family" is an admission that they don't have anything about Joe Biden.

Things that link does say about Joe Biden: that he said hello to some people.

[ThePublius]

That's funny. What do you think is the product they were selling? Why would Biden, or anyone else have so many shadow corporations? Were you born yesterday?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what a "shadow corporation" is; I think the term you're intending is "shell corporations," but even if you were using the right term, you're misusing it to imply something sinister when it's actually an ordinary way of doing complex business.

Why would Biden, or anyone else have so many shadow corporations?

Joe Biden does not have any. Once again, you are pretending not to understand that people with different first names are different people, even if they have the same last name.

As for "anyone else," guess what? Trump has hundreds and hundreds of them! https://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00023864_2017.pdf

What do you think is the product they were selling?

To quote an actual conservative, unlike Donald Trump: There you go again. I say there's no evidence Joe Biden got any money, and in response you again provide no evidence Joe Biden got any money, but instead you insinuate.

Assuming you want to discount all of Hunter Biden's business and legal experience and training, Hunter Biden was selling his last name. His former partner Devon Archer testified to Congress that Hunter Biden was also selling the illusion of access.

If you want to make that out as Hunter Biden being sleazy, fine. But Hunter. Biden. Is. Not. Joe. Biden.

[MoreCurious]

TONS of evidence! Forgive me for wondering why you and your fellow travelers haven't shared any of it with us yet. Today would be fine.

[David Nieporent]

There is, in fact, zero evidence supporting it. None. Not one penny of money from any foreign government or company has been shown to have gone to Joe Biden. And there are no "shadow corporations." Of course, Joe Biden probably did not pay taxes on funds he never received, no.

[Armchair]

You sure about that? That “not one penny” of money from a foreign government or foreign company has EVER been show to have gone to Joe Biden? For any reason? Absolutely sure?

[Sarcastr0]

Wow what a good faith argument.

[MoreCurious]

Under what theory is it up to David to prove that Biden did NOT receive money from foreign governments or companies? Here's a suggestion for you and your conspiracy buddies: show us the ton of evidence that you and Publius and the others keep insisting you have, or STFU.

[Armchair]

David has made a claim. A very firm claim. One without reservations.
I asked if he was absolutely sure of that.

He has options. He can say "No, I'm not sure". And back off his original claim. Which is the logical thing to do.

Or he can double down, and say he's absolutely, positively 100% sure. And if he's right, then he's right. And if he's wrong, someone will demonstrate it. And he'll look like a fool. Won't be the first time for him.

[Sarcastr0]

What a masterstroke of argumentation, insisting that until it's disprove that there's some trivial unsubstantive exception, you win the argument.
No, you win the a shitty pedant who thinks he's in debate club trophy.

An actual discussion among grown ups doesn't pull this shit, and so no one is really giving you the time of day even as you tell DMN what he's totally gotta do.

You may actually be getting worse at arguing on the Internet over time. Like anti-learning.

[MoreCurious]

The only ones who look like fools are people like you, including a couple of idiots in Congress, who keep insisting that Biden took money from foreign interests and yet continue to refuse to show us your proof. So, once again, put up or STFU.

[Nige]

'And if he’s wrong, someone will demonstrate it. And he’ll look like a fool. Won’t be the first time...'

There speaks the weary voice of experience.

[Armchair]

Sorry, forgot option 3 for David.

He can run and hide and not respond.

[bernard11]

WTF, Armchair.

DMN made a claim, and now you insist he must repeat it or ...what?

You're not the teacher handing out assignments here. If you think he's wrong explain why - which you carefully avoid doing. Instead you make vague schoolyard taunts about looking like a fool, which you, btw, have plenty of experience with, including now.

You're a jackass.

[David Nieporent]

If he were judged under the same legal standard that MAGA uses for Joe Biden, Trump would have been sent to the gallows years ago.

[tylertusta]

Even if the Court merely affirms the holding of the DCCA panel, Chutkan will find it extremely difficult to bring this to a conclusion before November.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of problems she'll encounter:
- The FL trial
- Jury selection
- Availability of Trump's attorneys before and during the trial.
- Handling all of the other pre-trial motions that Trump has either raised or will raise

Hanging over all of this like a sword of Damocles is SCOTUS's consideration of Fischer, which might upend Smith's prosecution of Trump in DC entirely.

[not guilty]

No serious observer believes that the Florida trial will begin before the November election. I am surprised, however, that Judge Loose Cannon didn't schedule the trial to begin on August 12 as Donald Trump had proposed, not to actually begin trial on that date, but to block Judge Chutkan from setting an August or September trial date.

Fischer v. United States should afford Trump no relief. Mr. Fischer's position is that the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing or impeding an official proceeding, should be limited to acts that impair the integrity or availability of evidence for use in that proceeding. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/301794/20240228194101353_23-5572bsUnitedStates.pdf

Donald Trump is charged in D.C. with corrupt conduct in causing pretenders to transmit fraudulent slates of electors for consideration by Congress in order to obtain a benefit to which Trump was not lawfully entitled. A SCOTUS ruling in Joseph Fischer's favor will not affect the validity of the Trump indictment.

[ThePublius]

"No serious observer..."

Nor true Scotsman, I imagine.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, do you think either trial will happen this year: Judge Cannon, and Judge 'Red Diaper Baby' Chutkan?

I do not.

[not guilty]

I thought I had posted a reply to Commenter_XY here, but apparently not. Just spitballing here, but I don't expect the Florida prosecution to ever be tried before Judge Loose Cannon. I expect she will make a boneheaded pretrial ruling (perhaps dismissing some counts of the superseding indictment) as to which the Special Counsel will take an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, with a request that the Court of Appeals order that on remand the matter be reassigned to a different trial judge. Keep in mind that the appellate court has twice reversed Cannon at the investigative stage of the case.

On prior occasions where the Eleventh Circuit has reversed the same trial judge multiple times, it has remanded with an instruction that the matter be reassigned to a different trial judge. United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

In the D.C. case, unless SCOTUS remands with instructions for additional fact finding, I expect that Judge Chutkan will set the trial to begin in early September, possibly in late August.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think FL or DC happens this year because of all the oddball issues that have to be litigated. Judge 'Red Diaper Baby' in DC is going to run into schedule issues. Just the discovery alone could take many months, and that is without the gamesmanship the DOJ is doing wrt discovery in the FL case.

From a practical standpoint, how do you campaign and be a defendant in multiple federal trials? I don't see how one can do that.

Is it possible to say that the legal questions presented in these trials are a) unusual, b) complex, and c) will take time to resolve....and not sound like a raving partisan?

[bernard11]

Judge ‘Red Diaper Baby’ Chutkan

How stupid is this? Apparently the American Thinker, a RWNJ publication RWNJ discovered that her grandfather was a Marxist in Jamaica.

And you think that's disqualifying. Really???

What other crap do you read?

[Noscitur a sociis]

To answer your question, if it was sincere: it is absolutely routine and indicative of nothing improper for a judge to make special arrangements in their calendar to accommodate unusually complex, important, or otherwise difficult-to-schedule proceedings, which the Trump case undoubtedly is. (To be clear, the trial isn’t going to happen in August. But there’s nothing improper about the judge being willing to cancel her vacation to be available if it could.)

[Armchair]

It does however seem like the Trump cases are being...accelerated...faster than normal for this sort of case.

Seems there may be something amiss there, that isn't quite normal.

[OtisAH]

You walk into a party to find Dred, Armchair, Michael P, and Mr. Bumble holding court. Do you call it a night or do you go find a restaurant/bar to sit at?

[Commenter_XY]

No. You walk right over, get a drink, and mix it up a little and have fun. In the old days, in the time before time (just 30 years ago), we called that 'socializing'. You never know, you might learn something new.

[OtisAH]

That’s my fault. Shoulda been more clear my post is directed to the normal people here.

[Commenter_XY]

That's Ok...A normal person answered you. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

A reasonable thing to do among adults. Too bad OAH is such an anti-social child.

[Bwaaah]

Normal people? Like people who don't know how to have fun?

[Mr. Bumble]

Moved

[Bwaaah]

You nailed it, except for humorless people.

[Sarcastr0]

Oscar thoughts?

I didn’t see the full results yet, but I was hoping the more subtle performance in Killers of the Flower Moon would have gotten it versus the impressively unselfconscious but also THE MOST ACTING of Poor Things.

[Theendoftheleft]

The masses should wake up to the fact that the Oscars is a cheap form of marketing and propaganda, and that they should boycott it. The idea of the 'competitions' for the various categories being meritorious and fair is laughable.

Americans, and the rest of the globe, should also boycott Hollywood altogether and cease to treat uneducated actors and other entertainers as epistemic authorities. The idea that millions of Americans watch the television show 'The View' demonstrates how mindless those viewers are.

[Sarcastr0]

Theendoftheleft had fun once.

He found it awful.

[Bob from Ohio]

Glad to see the "cut out" and "naked" dress fads have gone.

Plus good stage construction to handle the best supporting actress.

[hobie]

I'm an atomic energy nerd but I found Oppenheimer completely boring. However, undeniable was Robert Downey Jr's effortless performance. What an actor

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I agree on both counts.

Maybe it’s because I know the story well but it just seemed a lot of craft not a Lon of substance.

But it was good craft.

[grb]

hobie : “I’m an atomic energy nerd but I found Oppenheimer completely boring”

The structure was a mess. I could see the later witchhunt stuff frontloaded with Trinity as the climax. And I could see the witchhunt stuff as a coda to the A-bomb test. But what we got was the Oppenheimer’s persecution in exhaustive detail, then Trinity, then just more persecution. By the last act it seemed like we were going over the same ground again and again.

There was nothing important left to reveal. Nothing we hadn't already seen or expected. Nothing to surprise or thrill. Obviously Nolan likes that kind of structure (Memento, anyone?), but it didn’t do him any favors here.

[Frank Drackman]

I think the Reverend Sandusky may be correct about his "Replacement" theory,
Parkinsonian Joe not only gets the murdered Nurse's name wrong, comes out of his Depends to apologize for calling her Murderer an "Ill-Legal" (Good thing Nancy P is really running things). Next will be Merrick the Elephant Man Garfield's Justice Department suing Laken Riley's family for defaming the Murderer's reputation, and maybe even charging her Posthumously for Hate Crimes for calling 9-11 just prior to her rape/murder

Frank

[tylertusta]

Who wants to place bets that Justice Sotomayor retires this term?

[Martinned2]

She won't. Not enough time left until the elections.

[tylertusta]

Sotomayor can do what Justice Breyer did and announce ahead of time that she'll be retiring at the end of this term.

Jackson was in limbo (confirmed but not on the bench) for nearly 3 months while waiting for Breyer to actually retire.

[David Nieporent]

She can also announce her retirement at the end of the term conditioned on a replacement being confirmed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This tellingly white, instructively
male conservative blog with a thin,
diminishing academic veneer
has operated for no more than

ELEVEN (11)

days without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

FOURTEEN (14)

occasions (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.)

This blog is exceeding its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published 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. (That link indicates a release date in 1986, but I bought the album in 1981 or 1982, sound unheard, on the recommendation of a record store operator.)

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones bits, by request:

First, a quick run through four tunes and an interview with Mike Douglas from 1964.

Next, a less rushed song (from Aftermath, 1966) that was then the longest released song (a bit past 11 minutes) in popular music.

[Paladin_44]

And here I was so sure Alice’s Restaurant predated this one. Oh well, the music goes on (but only if we take the time to enjoy it) …

[John F. Carr]

Forbes explains why people are not happy even though the government says there are lots of jobs. The topline figures that make the news are not the whole story.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2024/03/09/dont-be-fooledthe-macro-economic-picture-is-deteriorating/

In November voters are going to be thinking "am I better off than I was four years ago?" rather than "are government statistics better than they were four years ago?" A quarter of voters are going to think that. Three quarters will vote for their team whether we live in a utopia or a dystopia.

[Moderation4ever]

Four years ago people were in the middle of a pandemic, was that better?

[John F. Carr]

Depends on whether the voter thinks "1461 days ago we were out of work", "1461 days ago those DemocRATS had us under house arrest", or "the end of the 2010s was a good time".

[Moderation4ever]

Democrats had people under house arrest? Wasn't this during the Trump administration?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's clinger (not to be confused with Klingon, a relatively advanced language used by sentient beings) for 'governors and other elected officials throughout the United States imposed public health-related restrictions during a global pandemic.'

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon has scheduled an all day non-evidentiary hearing for Thursday on Donald Trump's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-32 on Unconstitutional Vagueness and Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Based on the President Records Act.

These motions are frivolous and should have been denied without a hearing. Counts 1 through 32 of the superseding indictment allege that Trump violated 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), which states in relevant part:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of . . . any document . . . relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it [shall be guilty of a crime].

Trump cavils that the phrases "unauthorized possession", "relating to the national defense", and " entitled to receive it" are unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. Any litigant, however, "who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 20 (2010), quoting Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 495 (1982). Trump had fair notice that each of these phrases apply to his conduct averred in the indictment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I noticed the scheduled hearing late last week myself. I'm sure that you are also aware that she did not schedule a hearing regarding Trump's nonsensical motion to dismiss based on "Presidential Immunity" or his argument of selective prosecution.

So what do you make of the fact she scheduled this hearing? Is this where Cannon once again demonstrates that she's on his side? What happens if she decides to actually dismiss counts 1-32?

Most importantly, when will she be removed from the case for clear prejudice?

[not guilty]

If Judge Loose Cannon dismisses any count(s) of the superseding indictment, the Government can appeal as of right to the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

I am speculating here, but I suspect that Cannon realizes she is in over her head and wants to punt the case. Granting a motion for dismissal which is certain to be reversed is one way to do that without having to engage in heavy lifting on other pretrial motions.

[Estragon]

“Loose Cannon”

Sigh… this is dumb and I wish you wouldn’t. Goes double for “bear it”

[OtisAH]

I still think she learned the wrong lesson from the last time and will continue to front for Turnip but not beyond the point a decision results in dealing with the 11th. So he probably loses here and she just keeps stretching it all out under arguably defensible decisions.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of punitive damages is to assess money forfeitures of an amount to stop a person or company from repeating unwanted or dangerous actions. Jean Carroll was awarded $65 million dollars which seems very high. But as we have seen over the weekend Donald Trump continues to make remarks that could be judges as defamatory. Is there any amount that will stop Trump’s actions? Or will he go broke first?

[JasonT20]

I read that the open mic comment was that Bibi needed a “come to Jesus moment” not that he needed to come to Jesus with a conversion connotation. For a Christian to say that about a Jew when he thought he was speaking privately shouldn’t be insulting. It is a common expression for someone making a revelation or having an epiphany and then changing their mind or ways.

[Moderation4ever]

Wrong place for this comment. See below.

[JasonT20]

Yeah, sorry. Hit the wrong reply button

[Frank Drackman]

I missed this, and it's probably a goof, because I heard it on Glenn Beck (he does get news right most of the time)

Did Parkinsonian Joe say that Net N' Yahoo needed to
"Come to Jesus"??
Jesus Christ

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I believe he did and it's just an expression. Maybe not the best but you can nitpick away on this the same as the left has done on President Biden using word "illegal".

[Frank Drackman]

"Nitpick"??
Nancy P squeezed Joe's balls and he changed his term to "Undocumented" I think even that homo Jonathan Capehart was surprised how fast and easy Joe bent over.
Good think Sleepy didn't say the Moose-lums should come to Hey-Zeus, they'd put a Fat-Twat on his haid.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Rashida Tlaib?

[Frank Drackman]

Nothing about the "Mass Stabbing" in Hawaii??
Guy with one of those "Assault Machetes" killed 3 family before taking the honorable Seppuku exit.

Frank

[#FFFFFFPride]

It's been 10 years since Medicare expansion and the data shows that in states that took it, hospitals are going bankrupt and closing. Particularly rural ones.

Something that's not happening in non-expansion states.

Why did the Federal Government get this so wrong?

[Longtobefree]

(D)

[Jonathansingletary]

You mean Medicaid expansion, and these are the top results when you search for "effects of Medicaid expansion on hospitals."

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/what-does-the-recent-literature-say-about-medicaid-expansion-economic-impacts-on-providers/#:~:text=Prior%20research%20found%20that%20Medicaid,overall%20and%20from%20specific%20services.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_issue_brief_2017_may_dranove_aca_medicaid_expansion_hospital_uncomp_care_ib.pdf

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/medicaid-expansion-cuts-hospitals-uncompensated-care-costs

I know it's not definitive, but it seems like these sources don't support your claim.

[bernard11]

This is just a lie.

Crawl back in your hole.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Here’s a summarized version of my other link:

https://mishtalk.com/economics/medicaid-expansion-was-supposed-to-pay-for-itself-instead-hospitals-are-closing/

I didn't mean to offend you, Government Worshipper.

[bernard11]

Then why do you post offensive nonsense?

If you want information on expansion and closures you might try comparing these two sites:

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/418-rural-hospitals-at-risk-of-closure-breakdown-by-state.html

What you will find is that lack of expansion is a closely related to expected closures.

[#FFFFFFPride]

My links address that relationship.

It's a simple fact that Medicaid does not cover the costs. Medicaid pays 76% of costs.

It doesn't make any sense to claim that expanding access to patients while only covering 3/4ths of their cost is a winning fiscal strategy.

Do you think it makes sense? When you do the math for yourself?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Are these types of things protected by the First Amendment? If not, why not?

Information
Misinformation
Disinformation

[Commenter_XY]

They are all protected by 1A.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree. Part of being in a democracy is the necessity to become an informed citizen. People have to spend some time checking out information they get. If you were on the street and someone handed you a handbill, you would naturally be skeptical of what it says. The same should be true when you see something on the internet.

[#FFFFFFPride]

If the government has been working with corporations and other entities to suppress speech they declare as “misinformation” or “disinformation”, what liability do they take on if they have been violating people’s constitutional 1A rights?

[Commenter_XY]

That is being litigated now in various courtrooms = ...what liability do they take on if they have been violating people’s constitutional 1A rights?

[#FFFFFFPride]

What do you think should happen to the civil servants and federal agencies who were part of this conspiracy to deprive citizens of their 1A rights?

[Commenter_XY]

Determine what laws and statutes were violated, charge them, and then try them. That is how the system is supposed to work. It is a very slow process, deliberately so.

[SRG2]

I think PFFFT! is more interested in summary "justice" judging by the tenor of his posts.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I’m more interested in seeing any accountability for the civil servants and bureaucrats who routinely undermine and violate our rights.

That’s all. Just any accountability that’s proportionate to the deed. I don't see how that's unreasonable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rat ta tap tap tap...

[Randal]

For those of you who don't know, #FFFFFF is code for 'coward.'

[#FFFFFFPride]

That's not true. lol wtf

[Randal]

Of course it’s true! You’re too much of a coward to say it out loud.

[#FFFFFFPride]

To say what out loud?

[Randal]

What it is that you’re so proud of, coward. Or are you actually just proud of knowing the alphabet all the way to F?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Well, there is only two quicker ways to get on the FBI and DHS’s domestic terror list than typing out Wh*te Pr*de on the internet, and that’s buying a bible or saying abortion is bad.

I still want to be able to fly airlines (but not if there are 2 DIE types piloting, natch) and use a bank. So I'm not sure I'm going to fall for you coaxing me into making an illegal comment.

[Randal]

Exactly. Coward.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What can I do to earn your e-Respect, anonymous internet nobody?

It's so important to me. And the world!

[Randal]

Charlie the Cowardly Racist is unlikely to command respect from anyone, ever.

It’s so important to me.

Yes, I know it's important to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be so easy to bait.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The username was an instant-mute for me.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Maybe I should've done #000000Pride or #CCCCCCPride?
Then you'd come to my parades with your little children and let me colonize your businesses and schools by having you hoist my flags and demanding fealty and loyalty?

[Randal]

Who are the greyskins?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Written as the paired hexadecimals, for HTML colors, it means 100% of Red, 100% of Green, and 100% of Blue -- i.e. White.

[Randal]

#FFFFFF's proud parents: https://gossiponthis.com/2018/03/23/kentucky-siblings-incest-derrick-lee-clarke-dnea-g-stephens-leitchfield-brother-sister-sex/

[David Nieporent]

No shit, Sherlock. We all know what "White Pride" was.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I was going to do Red, White and Blue, but that would've been even more offensive to the Liberals. I figured there were boundaries and lines and all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Holy shit. I just got it.

[#FFFFFFPride]

It's a common trope among the Liberal Narrative Creators to say things like "If we only taxed billionaires, we'd get $440B over the next 10 years, just think of all the problems the government could solve with that extra $440B?!?!"

And a whole bunch of smooth brained simpleton government worshippers start reacting with "Yes! Tax those billionaires! Only $20B would solve homelessness! ". Which is really just a few years uphill from the Neo-Marxist revolution version "Kill the Billionaires .. and White People".

The federal government is on pace to spend $6.3T this year alone, and will spend nearly $70T over the same horizon as the original claim.

Why do liberals believe that if only the government spent $70.5T instead of $70.0T over the next 10 years we'd be living in utopia?

[Moderation4ever]

While I agree that the idea of simply taxing billionaires is naive and will not address all the current problems, I would also like to point out that government in the last half century has been too focused on the wealthiest. There has been too much stock put idea of supply side economics. This over focus on the wealthiest has created resentment that takes root in extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. I suggest there is a real need to get back to basics of supply and demand economics.

[Krayt]

This stuff won't be used to balance the budget. We have structural misdesign where permanent borrowing as a fraction of GDP is institutionalized.

Tobacco settlements, Internet boom, whatever, if it temporarily balances the budget, Congress won't stand for that, and in a few years has increased borrowing to that pattern.

If you like that as policy, fine, but don't pretend this is to keep borrowing down because rich snots aren't paying their fair share, a sliding definition that is rhetorical and never intended to be satisfied.

[#FFFFFFPride]

To make matters worse, Congress has "tied it's hands" with "mandatory spending".

80% of the federal budget is "mandatory spending".

Shutdown's or not. All the bickering and theater is over the last 20%. And when there is a shutdown, the government agencies cruelly choose to harm as many citizens as possible so their political representatives relent.

[Randal]

The strawmen are out in force tonight.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What's the strawman? Robert Reich and Joe Biden have recently made claims off similar numbers.

[Randal]

If you ever find yourself starting a sentence with Why do liberals believe..., your argument has failed.

[grb]

Krayt : “This stuff won’t be used to balance the budget”

Time to take a sec and remind people how the budget was balanced in the Clinton Administration:

1. It required two deficit reduction packages – the first one non-partisan in the G.H.W Bush presidency; the second passed by Democratic votes alone in the opening months of Clinton’s first term. I note that Bush campaigned on undoing his deal in the following election.

2. It required general tax increases in both packages, not just on the rich alone.

3. It required structural budget restraints requiring offset cuts or tax hikes in response to additional spending or tax cuts.

4. It required spending cuts in both packages.

5. It required squeezing the growth of Medicare/Medicaid.

And that’s it. You can’t do it with taxes on the rich alone. You can’t do it with taxes alone. You can’t do it with spending cuts alone. Clinton also had the greatest economic expansion in recent history, but Reagan’s was almost as good and he blew-up the deficit. You can’t do it by growth alone.

Of course, GW Bush sabotaged everything that was accomplished with his massive tax cuts for the wealthy, new unfunded entitlement, and additional spending. The very first thing the GOP did with their congressional majorities was undo all the structural restraints on unfunded tax cuts/spending. But everyone know the Right is all bullshit talk on deficits. There’s no hypocrisy in the political world as massive & glaring as a wingnut talking about debt.

[Zarniwoop]

^^^ this is what rational, actual solutions look like.

Pity they're anathema to extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the government to operate as efficiently as possible then only come hat in hand when they absolutely need to?

It seems like we let them take from us as a first resort and not a last resort. What incentives do they have to operate efficiently and to minimize waste if there is no cost associated with operating with waste and largess?

Isn't it reasonable to expect it a duty of the government to be minimally effective? To operate with as little waste, fraud, or abuse as is reasonably possible?

[Sarcastr0]

Minimal government! It is so very libertarian to ask how libertarianism is not the only rational course?

No. Libertarianism is dumb. Penny wise, pound foolish.
The market is good at efficiency. Not all resources are best distributed with an eye only on efficiency. In fact most have other goals in mind as well. Hence: regulated markets.
For some, efficiency isn’t the goal at all. Like the social safety net or disaster recovery or foundational research.
Hence, general welfare government spending.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“For some, efficiency isn’t the goal at all. Like the social safety net or disaster recovery or foundational research.”

A bureaucrat saying the quiet part out loud.

Of course, you can create a social safety net efficiently or inefficiently, do disaster recovery efficiently or inefficiently, and do foundational research efficiently or inefficiently.

The government has very little incentive to do things efficiently, and I guess I’m not surprised that some in the government don’t even realize that government functions can and should be done efficiently.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, reading this comment I get the impression that Sarcastro doesn't understand what efficiency is.

Which pretty much confirms my worst fears about bureaucrats.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I said minimally effective.

Not minimal. Also, we're talking about spending efficiency.

If the government is going to to do disaster recovery, shouldn't they allocate the disaster recovery resources as wisely as possible?

Why is it tolerable for a government to raise taxes on citizens to get an extra $40B a year, when they lose that much in fraud?

Doesn't it make sense for the government to try and recover as much as they can of their own waste, fraud, and abuse before asking the citizens to make more sacrifices?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Doesn’t it make sense for the government to try and recover as much as they can of their own waste, fraud, and abuse before asking the citizens to make more sacrifices?

No. Especially when, as now, waste, fraud, and abuse makes up a tiny fraction of a fraction of the deficit.

It makes sense to create incentives for the government to operate efficiently and effectively. It does not make sense to deprive the government of the funds needed to do necessary work until all agencies are operating at peak efficiency, including because, unsurprisingly, it sometimes takes investment to actually do things efficiently.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No. Especially when, as now, waste, fraud, and abuse makes up a tiny fraction of a fraction of the deficit."

You can't possibly know that.

"It does not make sense to deprive the government of the funds needed to do necessary work until all agencies are operating at peak efficiency"

No, but the less efficiently the government operates, the more sense it makes for us to keep resources away from the government and in the private sector where they can be used efficiently.

And it absolutely makes sense to increase incentives for the government to operate efficiently, and the main way to do that as voters is by signaling that we will vote for politicians who will convince us that they will make the government operate more efficiently, instead of those who insist that they want the government to do more and to raise taxes.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You can’t possibly know that.

Even assuming that's true, the burden of demonstrating there is significant waste, fraud, and abuse would seem to be on people claiming there is so much that funds should be deprived to federal agencies because of the scope of the problem.

the less efficiently the government operates, the more sense it makes for us to keep resources away from the government

Unless, of course, the funds are needed to make the agency efficient. Say, giving the IRS sufficient funds to ensure tax payers are treated equally, that everyone pays their fair share under the law as written rather than having too few resources and agents to find and discourage tax cheats.

(Other examples you probably find more politically palatable involve ensuring government agencies have appropriate equipment, software, etc., to perform their jobs efficiently.)

instead of those who insist that they want the government to do more and to raise taxes.

This is a complete non sequitur.

Wanting the government to do more has very little to do with whether the government is operating more efficiently (other than the banal point that no program is going to be perfectly efficient so, in some sense, any new program will reduce efficiency).

Wanting to raise taxes is wholly unrelated to efficiency concerns. But you linking them exposes your priors, that you simply don't want taxes raised until some unknowable (according to you) reduction of waste, fraud, and abuse is achieved, which is to say you are on the George W. Bush program of tax cuts when things are good, tax cuts when things are bad, tax cuts when things are middling. The best that can be said for this argument is that it is a (simplistic) libertarian view.

It is entirely possible to care about efficiency and to want the government to set tax rates sufficient to pay for government programs the person supports and/or which, regardless of what the person thinks about their wisdom, the government has chosen to undertake. Your "instead" attempts to rig the game by pretending it's more responsible to underfund the government while chanting the mantra of "waste, fraud, and abuse" than to pay our bills and do what's reasonably possible to minimize waste, fraud, and abuse while achieving the objectives voters want government to achieve.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Even assuming that’s true, the burden of demonstrating there is significant waste, fraud, and abuse would seem to be on people claiming there is so much that funds should be deprived to federal agencies because of the scope of the problem."

Or the burden is on those who what to send more money to Washington to show that it will be used effectively.

"Wanting to raise taxes is wholly unrelated to efficiency concerns. "

Huh? Why would you want to raise taxes if you think the money isn't being used efficiently?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Huh? Why would you want to raise taxes if you think the money isn’t being used efficiently?

While analogies to personal finances are often pretty terrible, this should help you understand:

If you've unwisely leased a car outside your budget or run up credit card bills, you can't just refuse to pay or quit your job or not work overtime because you've realized the bad spending choice you made.

You are making arguments for why Congress should spend less. That doesn't entail, therefore, taxes should be lower than necessary to pay for what Congress is spending. In fact, if you really want to "starve the beast", you should demand that taxes be set to reasonably cover whatever Congress authorizes.

As the past 40 years, particularly under Republican presidents shows is that if you allow Congress to both increase spending and cut taxes they will. Which is another way to illustrate to you that your concern that Congress isn't spending wisely provides no justification for lower taxes.

Essentially, you are laboring under the mistaken belief that if taxes are lowered, Congress will spend less. History, particularly under Reagan, G.W. Bush, and Trump, demonstrate that is absolutely not the case. For you to still think that lower taxes entails lower (and/or more efficient) spending is an embarrassing failure of logic and historical knowledge.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Or the burden is on those who what to send more money to Washington to show that it will be used effectively.

Most of what Congress spends on are programs people want. I would agree that many can be improved and some eliminated, but they are effective in giving people what they want. If you claim the programs are so inefficient they should be starved of resources, that burden is on you.

What you and people like you have managed to convince the electorate of (or maybe you’re one of the people who swallowed the tale) is that people can have their Trump spending but also have their Trump tax cuts. It can’t all be dessert all the time.

[OtisAH]

“ ^^ this is what rational, actual solutions look like.

“Pity they’re anathema to extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.”

This is just so lazy and wrong. A bipartisan immigration reform bill that included few to no democratic priorities was just killed by MAGA. But sure “both sides.”

[Brett Bellmore]

"Time to take a sec and remind people how the budget was balanced in the Clinton Administration:"

Time to take a sec and remind people that the budget wasn't balanced in the Clinton administration; The national debt went up every single year.

They did achieve what's known as a "primary surplus", but that's just a technical term for running a deficit that's not bigger than the interest on your debts. It's still running a deficit.

And achieving it actually took a dot com boom that increased revenues at a time when Democrats and Republicans were at each others throats about impeaching Clinton, and so couldn't immediately agree on how to spend the extra loot.

[Randal]

Man, what a bag of lies you've become. None of that is true.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Which year did the national debt go down?

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/historical-debt-outstanding/historical-debt-outstanding

Can you find it?

[Randal]

All the sources I can find show a true surplus in Clinton's second term. Here's a particularly explicit one:

https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/interest-payments-will-be-a-significant-contributor-to-rising-deficits_0.jpg

It's possible some of the money went to repay Social Security rather than the debt, or something like that.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why didn't you look at the primary source? The treasury.gov fiscal data?

If there is a surplus, the debt shouldn't increase, right?

[Randal]

It depends on where the surplus goes. If it goes to shore up Social Security for example, then the debt can still increase even with a true surplus.

Think of it this way. Sometime in the 80s, they did some “creative accounting” in which they borrowed against the Social Security Trust Fund instead of borrowing by issuing actual debt. So in those years, the debt didn’t go up as much as it should have given the deficit.

That’s called intragovernmental debt and it’s generally not counted as part of the national debt since it’s just “moving money around” within the government.

So when Clinton had his surplus, he was able to pay for all of spending and all the interest on the debt with some left over, and he used the leftover to unwind some intragovernmental debt. He even borrowed a bit more on the national debt to further pay back intragovernmental loans.

Another way to think about it is that there’s really three places revenue can go: spending, interest, and savings, or cash on hand… such as the Social Security Trust Fund. If revenue exceeds spending and interest, you can put the excess into cash on hand rather than pay down your debts.

Anyway… the debt going up doesn’t mean there wasn’t a surplus. It just means the surplus was spent on something other than paying down the debt.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, categorically, the debt going up does mean exactly that there wasn't a surplus.

Look, you're just engaged in sophistry here. Per your silly definition of 'surplus', the government could run surplus after surplus and eventually end up bankrupt. It's a definition of 'surplus' that is specifically crafted to excuse perpetual borrowing.

Let's look at some numbers. In 2023, the federal government's total revenue was $4.71T. Spending was $6.13T. Interest on the federal debt was estimated to be about $1T.

If spending had been cut to 'only' $4.71T, (I say 'only' because that's still more than any year ever prior to 2019.) the budget would be in 'primary balance'. If it had been cut to $4.70T, we'd have had a 'primary surplus'.

And we'd have been going $1T deeper into debt every year!

"Primary" surpluses are total bullshit. They have no financial significance in the real world, they're just an excuse to pretend you're not running a deficit while borrowing like mad.

[Randal]

Brett, you’re dumb and stupid and tiresome. Try reading my post again and responding to its points, not just to the voices in your head. I’m not talking about primary surpluses at all.

Or look up intragovernmental debt for yourself.

Or explain the link that I provided.

[Bwaaah]

I kind of see your definition of “surplus” (and “Social Security trust fund”), and you’re of full of typical economic nonsense.

Remember: All their words are fungible. All their concepts are boundless.

You act as if you can talk your way out of your debts.

[Randal]

You act as if you don’t know how a bank account works. Have you never had a mortgage and a checking account at the same time? Hint: they don’t annihilate each other in a poof of economics. Morons.

[Randal]

Looks like I was 100% right. Not that that’s in any way surprising… it’s obvious, and furthermore I myself have had a mortgage and a checking account simultaneously, so I know from experience it’s possible.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/archive/313socsec.htm

[Bwaaah]

The U.S. national debt seems to have gone up every year since 1957, including during the Clinton years (per U.S. Treasury here). That means we ended up owing more money at the end of the year than at the beginning.

Help me with this:

   Starting debt (1999): $5,656 billion
   MINUS "surplus" (subtract): ($XXXX billion)
   PLUS other (what?): $YYYY billion
   Ending debt (2000): $5,674 billion

How much was the surplus (XXXX) you’re talking about, and what was the other (YYYY) expense that caused our debt to go up?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. You get that Social Security isn't "solvent" in any meaningful sense, right?

[Randal]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/11/monday-open-thread-43/?comments=true#comment-10482935

[grb]

Well, my response to this perennial nit remains the same : Per the definition of “balancing the budget” that existed before and after Clinton’s presidency, yes he did. I freely admit he didn’t per the special definition created for Clinton alone.

As for: “so couldn’t immediately agree on how to spend the extra loot” – that is Brett at his alternate-history weaseling worse. While the Democrats were in power, they followed the restrictions on additional spending in the deficit packages. Clinton’s impeachment was over two years before W Bush’s presidency and the Democrats followed the spending restrictions. Al Gore campaigned on following the spending restrictions.

But W Bush campaigned on Let’s-Party-Hearty with (1) massive tax cuts, (2) new entitlements, and (3) new spending. Only Brett could rewrite history in such a crude phony way!

[#FFFFFFPride]

What definition of balancing the budget are you using and what is it that you're claiming is a special definition?

Does "balancing the budget" not mean expenditures = revenues universally?

[Randal]

The commonly accepted definition of a surplus is that revenues exceed spending + interest. This is a real surplus, and Clinton achieved it. (A primary surplus is when revenues exceed spending alone. But really nobody considers that to be an actual surplus.)

The Clinton-special definition is that revenues exceed spending + interest + savings. A totally nonsensical definition, economically.

[Bwaaah]

Why did the national debt continue to climb every year, per U.S. Treasury data here?

It did get pretty close to flat line there around 1999-2000. But even then it climbed $18 billion year over year. That would be a rounding error in today's deficits.

[Randal]

Oh man you really want me to explain it again? I feel like you’re trolling me.

You seem to think it works like this:

–∆debt = revenue – spending – interest

But that’s oversimplified. Another common oversimplification you’ve probably encountered is:

∆assets = income – expenses

Really you have to combine the two, and I’m throwing in “gains” to capture growth / interest on the assets for completeness:

∆assets – ∆debt = (revenue + gains) – (spending + interest)

You have a true surplus, like Clinton did, when the right side is positive. In your simplified version, yes, debt always goes down in that case. But not in the version that accounts for assets. You could just save the surplus instead. Or even continue to borrow a bit, and convert it all into assets. Imagine a $1B surplus plus $100M in additional debt resulting in a $1.1B asset increase.

That’s what Clinton did, and it was controversial at the time. He used the surplus to shore up various internal accounts, which Reagan and Bush had been “raiding,” rather than pay down the debt.

The numbers you cited from the Treasury are only about outstanding debt. They don’t look at assets at all. It’s like if you have $2K in the bank and a $10K credit card bill. You’re only $8K in debt, although if you asked the credit card company, they’d say you’ve got $10K of debt. You could then get a thousand dollar paycheck and pay $100 in credit card interest and $400 in expenses, putting $200 of those expenses on the credit card. That leaves you with a $500 surplus but actually $700 in excess cash, which you deposit. So now you have $2.7K in the bank and a $10.2K credit bill. Your debt went up even though you had a surplus! because (2.7 – 2) – (10.2 – 10) = 0.5.

[Bwaaah]

"The numbers you cited from the Treasury are only about outstanding debt. They don’t look at assets at all."

That is correct. I don't know why you are including balance sheet accounting (i.e. assets, debt, "gains") with income statement accounting (i.e. revenue, spending, interest).

"Surplus" generally refers to income statement (a.k.a. "P & L") accounting in which you total up revenue and expenses for the period, i.e. the year. (I include interest in expenses for simplicity.)

Better than a P & L is a cashflow statement that simply reduces the accounting to cash inflows and outflows. The increasing debt numbers should pretty closely correlate with cashflow. And for practical purposes, the federal government's business is most accurately described on a cash basis (even for military equipment spending like planes).

You should not be looking for refuge in the government's balance sheet (i.e. its assets) and the changes in total asset value. The U.S. government holds very little in fungible, liquid assets (e.g. the strategic petroleum reserve). It doesn't have cash reserves. There's no "social security trust fund," neither to draw down nor to pay into. The government doesn't have substantial inventories it can draw down in the future without having to replenish them as it goes. (Though the federal reserve has substantial fungible assets, they are "off balance sheet" for the U.S. government, so they're not factored in here.) Even when the government does "infrastructure" projects, the capital improvements do not translate into future spending you won't have to do; infrastructure investment is really just maintenance and programmed spending that has a pretty steady annual run rate that has to be sustained to avoid depreciation of total asset value. There's no getting ahead of it. There's no cash reserves.

So it doesn't make a difference if the government grows its assets; they can't be used to pay its bills, nor to substantially reduce future spending. The U.S. GDP is an important factor, as that's the government's tax base and from which it grabs its vig.

I don't dispute that there can be different definitions of "surplus." But I think it's important to pick one that implies sustainability. It sounds like yours allows negative cash flow, but finds a saving grace in increased government assets. No matter how creative you get, that grace (those assets) can't be used to pay your bills. A growing economy *can* be used to pay your bills (through increased tax revenue), but not if the revenue gets invested/converted into long-term assets.

[Randal]

The U.S. government holds very little in fungible, liquid assets... It doesn’t have cash reserves.

What are you talking about? Of course they do. According to the OMB, the feds held over $6.7T at the end of fiscal 2023 in "federal government accounts." That's not even things like oil and property I assume, but liquid / cash accounts. It's really hard to run a bureaucracy hand-to-mouth. There are always accounts. You have a bank account, right? You don't just cash your paychecks at the grocery store. Neither do the feds.

And if you look at the data...

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F03%2Fhist07z1_fy2025.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

... column B is "gross debt" aka your treasury data, C is liquid assets, and D is B - C, or "debt held by the public." You can see that from 1994 to 2001, liquid assets more than doubled, and that way more than offset the increase in treasury debt, so that the net public debt decreases from $3.8T in 1997 to $3.3T in 2001. That's called a surplus under any accounting system.

I don’t know why you are including balance sheet accounting (i.e. assets, debt, “gains”) with income statement accounting (i.e. revenue, spending, interest).

Again, what? That's the whole point of the exercise. Income imbalances are what deficits and surpluses are. The deficits and surpluses -- imbalances -- then get reflected on the balance sheet as changes to total assets and liabilities aka debt. You're really trying hard to salvage your position but it's making you say ridiculous things.

Please actually address the #s if you choose to continue your salvage attempt.

[Bwaaah]

I don't believe that's $6.7T in cash. (A year of cash on hand?) I believe those are account balances in accordance with government "fund accounting" methods.

There's a reason the treasury borrows money every week. You think they don't want to let their cash $6.7T bank balance drop? LOL

As I indicated, I'm skeptical of basing views of spending, and defining surpluses, on anything other than a cash basis. You can build your views of government accounting on the theories of smarter people than me. I'm simple-minded.

(By the way: my opinion is that Clinton did a good job of managing the economy, and indeed seemed to take deficit spending seriously, unlike pretty much every other President in my lifetime.)

[Randal]

I think it's $6.7T in treasuries. Those are still liquid assets. That's what I would park my money in if I were the government. 🙂

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh ffs. Government holding its own sovereign debt or fiat currency doesn't count as assets in any meaningful sense.

[Randal]

Government holding its own sovereign debt or fiat currency doesn’t count as assets in any meaningful sense.

I agree. It also doesn't count as debt. That's my -- and OMB's -- point.

[Randal]

There’s no “social security trust fund,” neither to draw down nor to pay into.

I missed this originally but double-what?? There totally is a Social Security Trust Fund, in fact there are two. They're included in column C. They "hold" US Treasuries. (So in that sense they're also included in column B and so they cancel out, which makes sense whether you think of it as a liquid asset balancing out a debt, or as "loaning yourself money" not really counting as a debt in the first place.)

Maybe you're trying to argue in Armchair's footprints that the Social Security Trust Fund somehow doesn't count?

[Bwaaah]

What do you mean they hold US Treasuries for Social Security?

[Randal]

The trust funds run surpluses in that the amount paid in by current workers is more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries. These surpluses are invested in special U.S. government securities, which are deposited into the trust funds.

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

The trust funds appear to make up about a third to a half of the column C amount.

[Bwaaah]

You don't seem to know the difference between accounting for money and having it. Social Security, like all other expenses, is paid using current revenue and as much borrowing as needed to plug the shortfall. (Yes, through bank accounts.)

The "Social Security Trust Fund" is a political/accounting fiction. It is an unfunded liability. (You could go for that Al Gore "Lock Box".) The fact that you may see an "account" that shows the liability doesn't magically make it an asset.

Per your Wikipedia link:

The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits.

You don't seem to care if your feet touch the ground. It's enough for you to have the White House tell you your feet are touching the ground. Good luck with that.

I won't be relying on you to explain finance to me. Everything just gets murkier and murkier as you explain your accounting theories.

[Randal]

How is that any different than cash, really, except that this way they get interest?

Cash:

1. Government issues cash
2. Social security hoards it
3. It loses value due to inflation
4. Social security gives cash out to people
5. All that cash is in the money supply

Non-marketable US Treasuries:

1. Government issues treasuries
2. Social security hoards them
3. They gain value due to interest
4a. Social security redeems them for cash issued by the government
4b. Social security gives cash out to people
5. All that cash is in the money supply

The only real difference is #3. It makes no sense for federal agencies to hold cash when they can hold treasuries issued by the same government, namely itself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Randal:
"That’s called intragovernmental debt and it’s generally not counted as part of the national debt since it’s just “moving money around” within the government."

Also Randal:
"There totally is a Social Security Trust Fund..."

You get that if it doesn't count as debt, it doesn't count as an asset either, right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"1. Government issues cash
2. Social security hoards it
3. It loses value due to inflation"

Why would cash lose its value if SS is hoarding it?

[Bwaaah]

Randal: You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Remember: The definitions of all their words are fungible, and all their concepts are boundless.

[Randal]

You get that if it doesn’t count as debt, it doesn’t count as an asset either, right?

Yes, that's the whole point as I said...

So in that sense they’re also included in column B and so they cancel out, which makes sense whether you think of it as a liquid asset balancing out a debt, or as “loaning yourself money” not really counting as a debt in the first place.

Brett and to a lesser extent Bwaaah have been trying to argue that it counts as debt but not as an asset.  It can count as both or neither, it doesn't really matter as you can see from ∆assets – ∆debt... either way they cancel out.

Why would cash lose its value if SS is hoarding it?

Like... I answered that question inline.

3. It loses value due to inflation

Inflation causes cash hordes to lose their value. That's like the whole thing of inflation, you know.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The only real difference is #3. It makes no sense for federal agencies to hold cash when they can hold treasuries issued by the same government, namely itself."

How about: "The only real difference is #3. It makes no sense for federal agencies to hold cash when they can hold treasuries issued by the same government, namely itself."

[Randal]

Randal: You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

I fully agree that you really have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm not abusing any concepts. I think you just have never really thought about how money and debt work when the money and debt is issued by the same entity that's doing the accounting. You seem very used to corporate-style accounting but have never really thought about how things change in a government context.

Like Tiny Pianist said...

Government holding its own sovereign debt or fiat currency doesn’t count as assets in any meaningful sense.

[Randal]

How about: “The only real difference is #3. It makes no sense for federal agencies to hold cash when they can hold treasuries issued by the same government, namely itself.“

Yes, totally. But accounts like the Social Security Trust Fund still have to do their accounting one way or another. Non-marketable US Treasuries to the rescue.

[Bwaaah]

Just keep issuing more IOUs, and rolling over your debts, and eating up greater and greater percentages of GDP.

The government is spending more than it can take in, and shows no plausible signs or theories of addressing that.

It doesn't matter that you can describe how the government does accounting. Actually, the fact that you find that to be a rational exercise, while simple-minded accounting is unsatisfying to you, is precisely why *that* bubble must also burst some day.

Like I said: The definitions of all their words are fungible, and all their concepts are boundless.

How are your personal finances? Do you carry forward credit card debt, and if so, is the balance going down?

[Randal]

Ok now you're just ranting, seemingly off-topic. I win.

[Bwaaah]

LOL

[Bwaaah]

Just out of interest, in a paragraph at most, what is your point (other than that Bill Clinton had a "surplus")?

[Randal]

Yeah, I’m calling bullshit on Brett’s claim that Clinton didn’t really have a surplus since the national debt was still going up as reported by the Treasury. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive.

[Randal]

Good ole W. The economy's great! Tax cuts for the rich! The economy's terrible! Tax cuts for the rich!

[Brett Bellmore]

Per the definitions of surplus and deficit that the government uses for itself to lie, while prosecuting any accountants in the private sector who try the same thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Experts can suck it. Yet again Brett with the real facts. Nothing says deep understanding of everything like an overly confident engineer!

[Bwaaah]

Brett is saying what just about every accountant knows. (Go talk to one, and you’ll see.) When government officials and politicians say there’s a “surplus,” they have a definition that ignores debt, like here. It’s absolutely not tolerated under GAP in the private sector. (Note that there’s a very different definition of GAP in government accounting.)

Hear them when they use the term “Social Security Trust Fund.”

Those are just falsely appropriated words. If anybody ever offers to give you a “trust fund” like that, I suggest you decline. It has NO ASSETS, and HUGE liabilities. Why not call it “Social Security Liability”? (Why? Because there’s no lipstick on that pig.)

Remember: All their words are fungible. All their concepts are boundless.

[Sarcastr0]

The very fact that you invoke accountants and not economists shows how you're in the wrong ballpark. Sovereign debt is not individual or corporate debt, you've reached for a non-analogous debt.

Brett is accusing people of lying for using figures that have the broad consensus of the professionals for decades. Based on his non-expert opinion, and the usual grand conspiratorialism we have come to expect from him.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. I use an accountant to calculate deficits and debt, and an economist to comment about them.

Sorry, buddy. I’ve done a lot of corporate accounting, and the only time I ever saw an economist in the room was when we were trying to develop complex theories of valuation. I know the government and politicians and interest groups utilize economists extensively, but rarely for accounting, and then, only for arcane questions of revenue/expense realization or asset/liability valuation. They are much more widely used in policymaking, doing things like trying to predict the effects of hypotheticals, or helping with storytelling.

In your case, you could use an economist to explain why it’s OK that your back teeth are floating in debt. You might also entertain another economist who might theorize that you’re close to testing investor confidence and if you do, debt service costs are going to crowd out your spending plans and trigger a costly correction across the whole real economy.

But I’m just spitballing here. I don’t need any economists to calculate my P & L. And the government only needs them to explain theirs.

[Sarcastr0]

You are, as usual, ignorant and enthusiastic about it.

Economists don’t just comment on the economy. Nor are they political creatures. Perhaps the ones you see but maybe read up on the discipline.

There is a reply to you above that explains to you why you are wrong on your definition of debt. Because of national economics not being accounting.

This is not about individual opinion, this is about expert consensus.

[Randal]

Not to mention, they're wrong even by their own terms. Clinton ran a true surplus even if you were to somehow use a private sector style of accounting.

[Randal]

This answers both questions. Clinton ran a true surplus even if you exclude Social Security and even if you use accrual accounting.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

[bernard11]

And how have Republican Presidents done?

[Bwaaah]

Same debt spending. But less likely to call it a “surplus.”

[bernard11]

They did achieve what’s known as a “primary surplus”,

False. For the years 1998-2001 there was an actual surplus, not just a primary surplus. In 1999 and 2000 there was an "on-budget" surplus.

More significant, the deficit declined consistently during the Clinton Administration, only to take flight again as soon as W took charge of the budget.

[Randal]

This is all true.

What do you think is the right amount of debt to carry? It's certainly not zero. That to me is the initial question which I've never heard a really convincing analysis of. Not that I've looked that hard, but I'd be interested to know if you know of one. I don't even have that much reason to believe that the ideal debt is less than our current debt, other than it seems likely that that's where we'd end up based on political forces.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why not consider the cost of carrying the debt. How much are interest payments now?

Nearly $1T a year. They want to raise taxes on billionaires to get an extra $40B a year.

They wouldn't have do that if they weren't pay $1T a year in debt payments.

[Randal]

Yeah but that $30T sure has come in handy. It might be worth it.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Well, or politicians and their families and a bunch of foreign politicians and their families certainly agree with you. Wasn't Yasser Arafat worth like $4B when he died? And those two Hamas leaders who don't even live in Palestine anymore, aren't they billionaires? There's tons of Ukrainian government millionaires children living it up in Miami. And don't forget the CCP. Everyone loves that $30T in debt except for most American citizens who are struggling to buy food or to pay the free rent for those illegals.

I can't imagine a quicker way to wealth these days than becoming a politician.

[grb]

By now everyone can see #FFFFFFPride doesn’t give the slightest damn about deficits or debt. Running his mouth? Sure. He’s on board with that. But whenever anyone starts talking about real practical measures, he goes into deflection-mode. Instead of discussing rational steps or pragmatic measures, he’s off on loopy wack-a-loon tangents while beating a hasty retreat.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Real practical measures like “that $30T sure came in handy!”

Idiot. You sound like the Keith Olbermann of policy wonks.

[grb]

Randal : "What do you think is the right amount of debt to carry?"

To be honest, I haven't a clue. I'm more economically literate than the average right-winger but that's still a low, low bar.

[Commenter_XY]

I liked your original post on what components of a solution look like; agree with a lot of it.

Hamilton wrote about national debt. The upshot I took away: Issue enough to be able to pay it off in a year or two; not more. I seem to recall an exchange where he wrote that a national debt, if used properly, can be a blessing (or something very similar).

Hamilton and Jefferson seemed aligned on not passing one generations debt to the next generation.

[bernard11]

What about one generation's assets?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11...My impression is the Founders, by and large, were very protective of property rights. That implies to me that they'd have no problem passing assets to the next generation.

[grb]

Hamilton pushed for the federal government to assume the state’s debt left from the Revolutionary War. He insisted the whole debt be paid even though older notes were already being discounted by speculators. He promoted the creation of a national bank, to create a national currency and use as a tool against inflation.

In these thing, Hamilton (and Washington) slowly created a modern national economy. Jefferson fought them tooth & nail every inch of the way. Anything beyond his vision of a decentralized agarian economy of citizen farmers brought out the conspiracist in him. He repeatedly saw a return to monarchy in Federalist policies, venting strident warnings in the shrillest possible way.

Hamilton and Washington were right; Jefferson’s utopia of citizen farmers was an unworkable fantasy. During the earliest years of the young country, Jefferson’s input was almost entirely negative as he campaigned against every nation-building measure with bloody-minded viciousness. That said, by the time he was elected president, Federalist policies had grown stale and the party was plauged by corruption. So Jefferson accomplished tremendous good in contrast (at least in his first term – the second, less so).

So two parties are a good thing. That’s why we all hope the fever breaks and today’s GOP recovers its soul as a rational and positive force in U.S. politics.

One more reason Trump must lose….

[Commenter_XY]

grb, how much debt is appropriate for the US?

Assume annual US GDP is ~30T.
Current annual US Govt spending is ~6T.
Annual Govt revenues are ~4.5T.
Annual interest on the debt is ~1T.

You are King For A Day. It is totally up to King grb. So what level of national debt is appropriate?

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "You are King For A Day"

Well, after I organize My harem, secure scutage from My vassals in the form of land, gold and jewels, launch a dozen visionary building projects to secure My immortal name, and bring peace & prosperity to all My grateful subjects, I’m not sure how much of the day will be left. Hopefully they’ll be enough time to ban mayonnaise (I hate mayonnaise).

Besides – as I note above – I don’t know. Some debt is good. A very large amount of debt is harmless. Too much is detrimental. I have no idea where the dividing lines fall. However, I do know mayonnaise is evil…

[Randal]

Well, it's like in the Army, you know? The great Prince issues commands, founds states, vests families with fiefs... inferior people should not be employed.

[BrotherMovesOn]

grb,

Desist.

Do not think we can't find out who you are.

The American Egg Board

[Estragon]

You are King For A Day

Is that like being a dictator but only on day 1?

[Armchair]

Well, since grb won't answer, I'll answer for him.

The correct answer to the appropriate amount of debt is...less than we have now.

But seriously. The best way to look at government debt is as a % of GDP.

For all of the country's history, the government debt has been lower as a % of GDP than what it currently is. Even right after WWII. Typically, debt has been in the area of 30-60% of GDP for most of the post WWII years, up until 2008, when it exploded. So, that may be considered a reasonable range. And it was in that range for the 1930's as well. Alternatively, one might consider a debt in the ~7% to ~30% of GDP range to be desirable, as it was from ~1865 to 1930.

But with the debt where it is right now (well over 100% of GDP) there are some...uncomfortable issues. The first is the cost of interest on the debt. That starts to eat up a sizable % of the budget... The second is that there isn't really room for emergency borrowing and spending (for example, if there was a major WWII style war). Both are problematic issues.

Dropping the debt (as a % of GDP) back down to ~50% of GDP would be desirable, by just about anyone's measure. Further...perhaps. But at a minimum, down to there wouldn't be problematic, in terms of having "enough" debt. (It may be problematic getting back down to that level, but that's a different discussion).

[Randal]

The debt isn’t well over 100% of GDP. It breifly spiked over 100% in 2020, although it might be more accurate to say that GDP briefly dipped. For the last few years it’s been in the 90%s. Which is still probably too high.

[Armchair]

This site puts total US Federal Debt at 124% of GDP for 2024.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2019_2029USp_25s2li111mcny_H0f

[Randal]

Under the President’s budget, based on its own estimates, the national debt would rise to $45.1 trillion or 105.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2034, from $27.4 trillion or about 97 percent of GDP today.

It seems like there are two numbers for the debt floating around. The OMB puts it at $27.4T, and the Treasury puts it at $33.2T. It looks like the OMB number is subtracting cash on hand, which makes sense Brett.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F03%2Fhist07z1_fy2025.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're confusing "IOUs in the cookie jar" with "cash on hand".

[Randal]

Well, you're wrong, Brett. At least you've given up on floating some cockamamie reasons for why you're wrong, so there's less to read. You've devolved into a plain, no frills denier of facts, like so many of your right-wing brethren here and elsewhere.

[Armchair]

Randal,

Where you're getting confused is a little detail called the Social Security Trust Fund. Like a company can run a pension fund for its workers, the US Government can and does run Social Security as a pension fund for those who pay into it.

A company cannot claim the money in its pension fund as "on its books" for other purposes. That money is allocated to the pensioners already. If the pension fund decides to invest in bonds from the company, that's still company debt, and that still needs to be repaid to pension fund. Just like a US Treasury bond that a US Citizen buys needs to be be repaid to the US Citizen (with interest).

While it might be convenient for the US Government to consider all the US Treasuries that US Citizens hold as "not really debt," it would break all sorts of laws and regulations. The same holds true for the US Treasuries held by the US Social Security Trust fund. That all needs to be paid back, with interest.

The US Government has "borrowed" more than $4 Trillion USD from the Social Security Trust Fund, which all needs to be paid back.

[Randal]

I don't know if OMB is counting the Trust Fund or not. I'm just pointing out why there are two sets of numbers.

[Randal]

The OMB calls it "Held by Federal Government Accounts" so you know, count it or don't count it. There are two different numbers with different methods. They are what they are.

[Randal]

Hamilton (and Washington) slowly created a modern national economy. Jefferson fought them tooth & nail every inch of the way.

I too enjoyed Hamilton.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hamilton, unlike most of the founders, didn't want a limited government, he wanted a leviathan, an empire. (Albeit one that most people today would probably consider near anarchy, our government has grown so much since.) He very much saw himself as planting an acorn to get an oak tree.

Jefferson wasn't trying to build an impressive nation. He was trying to build a modest federation that would do the little that actually NEEDED doing, and otherwise leave people alone. Instead of ambition, he was trying to do what was good for the citizenry, instead.

[Martinned2]

Well, some of the citizenry anyway.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…he was trying to do what was good for the citizenry, instead….”

Oh for God’s sake! Jefferson envisioned a largely autarkic nation of yeoman farmers clustered in small rural communities. Both financial speculation and the development of urban industry were obscene to him. Jefferson’s USA would have largely turned inward, “secure” in its virtue from an unruly world.

It’s amazing how much of this country’s greatness (that you’d normally celebrate) is surpressed for this silly talking point. Jefferson’s utopia was scarcely better than some modern-day hippie’s harebrained commune: Kinda sweet and wholesome, but not very realistic in any larger sense. That someone in the Twenty-First Century is pretending Jefferson wasn’t completely wrong is damn amazing.

[Moderation4ever]

I think a simple scheme would say that going into debt for capital outlays is acceptable, but that reoccurring operational cost should be covered by incoming funds, usually taxes and fees. That would not have to be hard and fixed, and government could go into debt in recession years, but then pay the debt back in non-recession years. The biggest problem we have is that people like government services but are not paying enough taxes to support those services.

[Randal]

We make money on the debt whenever inflation is higher than the interest rate.

Interest rates have been so low for the last couple decades that it would've been criminal not to borrow. We can't leave money on the table like that.

The risk of course is of interest rates going up again. It would be very painful for Americans. Austerity. Ew, we haven't had to live like that since the '70s.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The risk of course is of interest rates going up again."

The damned near absolute certainty was the interest rates going up again. And the only people pretended not to know that were the folks who were desperate to spend more money than current revenues would support.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You forgot at least one thing, grb:

You can't do it by cutting the budget of the people responsible for collecting the revenue.

[Frank Drackman]

When does Rama-lama-ding-dong-Dan start?

[Estragon]

Wow, 540 comments and no Hunter comments. There was a lot of action this week in the trials!

It’s kind of like how the “groomer” thing has also mysteriously disappeared. Very instructive how this comment section has developed; it’s not so useful for legal insight per se— but to see the evolution of huckleberry talking points in real time is informative. See eg the “say her name” stuff over the last 2 weeks. I’m sorry to say for Drackman et al it’s already played. RIP to the poor woman.

[grb]

Estragon : “Wow, 540 comments and no Hunter comments”

Comer’s Hunter product rollout was test-marketed behind closed doors and things went poorly. I wonder now if we’ll ever see the public testimony we were promised. As long as Hunter keeps bringing up Jared Kushner’s two billion dollar sweetheart deal with the Saudi government, I doubt it.

But you’re missing the real miracle! I just did a quick search and didn’t see a single Biden dementia comment. No sneer about his age or supposed frailty. No insults over his diminished capacity. What was an relentless obsession of the Right's hive mind has simply vanished. Gone the way of the dodo......

[Michael P]

Kushner landed his big deal after his father-in-law was out of government and being persecuted.

When Hunter's dad left government, Hunter got laid off.

Slight difference there.

[Martinned2]

Kushner landed his big deal after his father-in-law was out of government

You think a moron like Jared Kushner working in the White House and being Middle East peace envoy isn't a "big deal"?

[David Nieporent]

I think it was literal — the $2 billion the Saudis invested with Kushner — and not merely a reference to being a big deal.

[grb]

Michael P : "Kushner landed his big deal ..... "

Kushner landed his big deal after the Saudi board responsible for managing the investment fund rejected his proposal as too risky and his fees too high. But the Saudi rulers, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, overruled the panel. This is exactly the sort of thing Comer has looked for against the Bidens - and failed repeatedly in the most humilating way possible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html

[Michael P]

A lot of people are still pushing back against the groomer agenda, and winning victories in policy and elections and courts. Maybe you're in too much of an echo chamber to hear about those.

[Sarcastr0]

All that winning must be why the right has pivoted to bus shootings in Philly signaling a nationwide crime wave.

[Nige]

'A lot of people are still pushing back against the groomer agenda,'

Not pushing back against child beauty pageants, so-called child influencers, the reintroduction of child labour, and child marriage. Pushing back: banning books that mention gay and black people. Also books that don't, just to be safe.

[Martinned2]

What do you mean "reintroduction" of child labour?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/04/us-should-end-child-labor-agriculture

[Nige]

Reintroduction of MORE child labour.

[mydisplayname]

The US Arafat Airlift is going quite nicely: food and supplies are now flowing freely into Palestine.

Every loyal American surely says that it would be terrible if ben Gurion Airport suffered the same fate as the Arafat Monument: it was certainly an accident when the Arafat Monument was destroyed by the Israeli "Defense" force and it would be an equally terrible accident if ben Gurion Airport was completely and utterly destroyed. Terrible, terrible, terrible, indeed. As terrible as the destruction of

[The Margrave of Azilia]

...of the end of your sentence?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the Colorado courts thought the J6 committee record was trustworthy.

Exclusive: Liz Cheney, January 6 Committee Suppressed Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Push For National Guard

“Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.

He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.”

Oh, and while we’re at it? No, Trump didn’t lunge for that steering wheel, either.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows."

And yet the transcript isn't provided...

[David Nieporent]

The transcript was released. Problem is that it doesn't say what they're claiming, nor does it contradict the J6 report, nor is any of this news. The right wing faux-media ecosystem has this weird habit of taking something that was reported weeks, months, or years ago, spinning it falsely and calling it "breaking news."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

My point is that he should be reading primary sources.

His 'news' source claims to have the transcript, but doesn't provide it, and instead tells him exactly what his idiot-brain wants to hear. Naturally that doesn't provoke any question in his mind as to why the transcript they claim to have was not linked to.

[Bwaaah]

See page 78 here. Ornato:

I do recall a conversation, I believe, it was with Mr. Meadows and the mayor, Mayor Bowser. I remember he had — he was on the phone with her, and we — I had walked in for something, and I was there, and he was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed. Because I think it was the concern of anti and pro groups clashing is what I recall. And not anywhere near the Capitol, this was just out on the mall area or at the event; and wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen. And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, the President wants to make sure that you have enough. You know, he is willing to ask for 10,000. I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control and those types of thing not in the law enforcement capacity at the time. And then that’s the only thing I recall with that number 10,000 National Guard guardsmen.

[David Nieporent]

I know what the reference is to. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on the Capitol, as Ornato himself says, and it does not say that Trump actually gave any order of any sort, and, again, this is not news. We already knew that Bowser — who of course didn't know what Trump was planning — said she only needed a few hundred guardsman to help with traffic control and that Trump had asked his aides about whether they had enough law enforcement to protect his own people from the imaginary antifa menace.

[Bwaaah]

I’ve learned to in no way rely on your interpretations of any data. Your chosen positions routinely drive the very biased and incomplete interpretations you present, and reveal you to be anything but a good faith intermediary of information.

[Sarcastr0]

Refuge in pure ad hominem, eh?

Pathetic.

[Bwaaah]

Cavanaugh said: “Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital”

Nierporent responded: “The transcript was released. Problem is that it doesn’t say what they’re claiming”

I looked for the transcript to see if Nierporent was correct. Here’s the testimony from the transcript:

“And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, the President wants to make sure that you have enough.”

(The fuller context that I provided is above for you to consider.)

I determined, based on reading the transcript, that Nierporent’s dismissal of the transcript as not supporting the statement in question here was very misleading.

I did not dispute the facts by saying, “Nieporent is wrong because he’s Nierporent.” My argument is not “ad hominem.” My argument is based on preponderance of the evidence I’ve presented here, and that’s consistent with my prior observations of how he interprets evidence.

You can judge for yourself by looking at what I’ve presented. There’s no need for ad hominem implications (as you try to employ here).

[David Nieporent]

Where in the transcript do you see Donald Trump (a) "pushing for" anything; and more specifically, pushing for (b) 10,000 troops to protect the Capitol?

(I love the MAGA narrative that the president of the United States was powerless in the face of mild objection from the mayor of Washington D.C.)

[Bwaaah]

Says Nierporent (in my paraphrasing): The testimony says nothing, because it doesn’t say how hard Trump “pushed,” or what exact part of the “Capitol” he was trying to help defend.

Others might read the transcript and think that it indicates that Trump genuinely offered, through his Chief of Staff, as many as 10,000 National Guard troops for Washington DC police to use for any security concerns they may have had.

Some people, probably many, would interpret that as significantly supporting the hypothetical assertion here, if not exactly.

All I’m saying is that there are different political perspectives in considering the arguments here, and your evaluation of primary source material can not be trusted to be reliably elucidating for anybody who is interested in a full airing of the facts regardless of viewpoint.

That you bring up your facetious “I love MAGA…” thing here is as telling as it is unhelpful, especially since it suggests you think my beliefs substantially comport with that faction, which they do not.

Do you not see the slant of your take here?

[David Nieporent]

Says Nierporent (in my paraphrasing): The testimony says nothing, because it doesn’t say how hard Trump “pushed,” or what exact part of the “Capitol” he was trying to help defend.

Incorrect. It doesn't say he was "pushing" at all. You yourself posted the relevant text:

I do recall a conversation, I believe, it was with Mr. Meadows and the mayor, Mayor Bowser. I remember he had — he was on the phone with her, and we — I had walked in for something, and I was there, and he was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed. Because I think it was the concern of anti and pro groups clashing is what I recall. And not anywhere near the Capitol, this was just out on the mall area or at the event; and wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen. And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, the President wants to make sure that you have enough. You know, he is willing to ask for 10,000. I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control and those types of thing not in the law enforcement capacity at the time. And then that’s the only thing I recall with that number 10,000 National Guard guardsmen.

"The president wants to know if you have enough. He's willing to ask for 10,000" is about as far from "pushing" as one can get. This whole discourse is silly because Trump had no need to "push for" anything at all; he's CinC. If he wanted 10,000 NG troops to provide security, he could just say, "I'm ordering 10,000 NG troops to provide security."

And there is no "part of" the Capitol at issue. Read it again: "not anywhere near the Capitol, this was just out on the mall area or at the event."

Again: this was widely reported three years ago: Trump talked to his aides and asked whether they had enough security to protect his people, and whether the NG was needed. At no point did he give any order for 10,000 NG to do anything at all, let alone to protect the capitol from his rioting supporters. Not even on J6 itself when his aides, family members, and political allies were begging him to do so.

[David Nieporent]

Also, I'm not losing any sleep over it, but if you're going to make a big deal about reading carefully, could you spell my name correctly? Or at least consistently? It's right there on the page.

[Bwaaah]

I will be more careful with your name.

I don’t appreciate your lengthy reiteration of your perspective, which I already acknowledged. What you failed to acknowledge, my only material point, is that there are competing perspectives that you categorically eschew in your presentations of primary material. (It's as if the debate was over long ago, and there's only one side left.)

Is it that you don’t wish to comment on that, or that you don’t think so, or anything?

[Bwaaah]

And by the way...the idea that there's any logistical sense in the President "ordering 10,000 NG troops to provide security” when he has no established mechanism for civilian policing command and control is absurd. Who, precisely, would he order to do what?

"Go out there, men, and hold the fort!"

All the President can practically and reasonably do, aside from ordering blocks cleared and people shot summarily, is to offer resources to established local policing authorities such as the U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. Metro PD. There's no legitimate practical way to deploy large numbers of troops as peacekeepers in the United States except through the command and control of state and local policing authorities.

If you envision how such a Presidential order would have worked, please do tell. Again: who tells whom to do what?

You are only proving that Donald Trump didn't do what you propose in an amateurish hypothetical. Now disprove a fact of what Donald Trump actually said:

“Well, I offered them [Rep. Nancy Pelosi and District Mayor Muriel E. Bowser] National Guard. I said, we will give you soldiers. We will give you National Guard. We will give you whatever you want. … I offered them 10,000 soldiers. I said it could be 10,000. It could be more. But I offered them specifically 10,000 soldiers.”

The Washington Post called that statement, "False." Ornato's testimony, which was not released until now, suggests otherwise.

I don't see any of Ornato's testimony having been "widely reported three years ago," nor at all until now. Trump has been saying for years that he offered troops, and there having been no evidence to the contrary, the media has been saying, "That's FALSE."

But yes, David, at no time did he order 10,000 troops into the Capitol building. I find your claim to be TRUE. You are no less a bastion of truth-telling than you imply.

[Michael P]

It's also interesting how thoroughly Hutchinson revised her testimony after a cozy, top-secret session with just Liz Cheney and one other conspirator present.

And notable, but sadly not unexpected, that the J6 Committee transferred so many Congressional records to the Executive branch to keep them out of the hands of honest members of Congress.

[Moderation4ever]

Ms. Cassidy Hutchison revised her testimony after she got new lawyers. She got new lawyers when she released that her old lawyers were not as interested in protecting her as they were in protecting the former President.

[Michael P]

That's why she misidentified an SUV as the presidential limo, and forgot about a laundry list of weapons she heard about in the crowd?

Man, you're gullible.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed. Using Hutchinson's changed testimony as evidence in favor of Trump is chutzpah. Trump-paid lawyers advised her to conceal the truth from the committee by saying she didn't remember anything. She did. Then she got new representation and provided updated testimony.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "honest members of Congress," but if there is, it certainly describes nobody in the GOP. The handful of reasonable ones were forced out by Trump forces.

[Michael P]

Yawn. Mega yawn. MAGA yawn.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Careful now. That's about the limit of your rebuttal skills, and some people around here would be sad if you were to stroke out from such a strain.

[Michael P]

No wonder Slow Joe's handlers did not want him to name his predecessor in the SOTU address. He thinks that was John McCain.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1767253806004228215

[tylertusta]

I'm looking forward to Hur's testimony today. It's about time that Democrats got a taste of that Mueller Medicine.

Pretty bitter, ain't it?

[David Nieporent]

Not quite sure I understand this comment. Regardless of what one thinks of the Mueller investigation/report, I think there's pretty widespread agreement that his testimony was a complete dud.

[tylertusta]

I think you're relying too much on your memory of Robert Mueller's performance during his Congressional testimony.

I suspect that part of why you view his testimony the way you did was because how much Mueller's testimony was hyped up before he went before Congress.

However, Mueller's investigation, report, and subsequent testimony damaged Trump politically, and it was very successful at that. I don't think even you would disagree with that statement.

I am pleased that Democrats find themselves on the receiving end for a change.

[Nige]

Oh, you haven't been enjoying the endless unveiling of irrefutable proof against Hunter Biden by Comey et al? Why would you expect this to be any different?

[tylertusta]

Hi Nige!

Are you enjoying the warmer weather?

[Nige]

I refer you to my previous comment.

[tylertusta]

It's finally feeling like spring here. Went into the backyard and played with the dog a little bit today.

Not sure what I'm going to do with my rose bushes. They're infected with rose rosette, but I don't think I'll be staying at the house much longer, so it might not be worth digging them out.

[Nige]

Op cit

[grb]

David Nieporent : “there’s pretty widespread agreement that his testimony was a complete dud”

Mueller’s very dry testimony was interesting when you step back and look at the historical context:

On 24 July 2019, he testified there was insufficent evidence to charge anyone over collusion with a foreign government to affect a U.S. election. It was widely seen as the unofficial end to Mueller’s inquiry.

On 25 July 2019, Trump tried to extort collusion with a foreign government to affect a U.S. election. This came after almost two years of rooting thru Ukraine looking for Biden dirt and repeatedly offering U.S. government favor for Trump’s personal gain. Of course this time there was a phone transcript, but just a few weeks earlier Trump offered to trade a U.S.-Ukraine presidential summit for a public announcement of a Ukrainian Biden “investigation”. That was the meeting where Bolton stormed out, saying, “he wasn’t going to be part of any drug deal”.

But – hey – that’s just the way of the lifelong criminal. Trump walks out of the courthouse scot-free on one day, he’s already deep into a new scam the next…

[JasonT20]

I was wondering if I missed a post from Eugene about the recent en banc 9th Circuit ruling against a native tribe's religious freedom claim. To summarize: Congress and the Obama administration in 2014 approved a land transfer to a mining company to develop a large copper reserve in Arizona. The mine would completely destroy a site where Apache have gathered for generations to worship. The 6-5 decision rejected the claim by the Apache and the majority ruled that the mine would not impose a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise, because the federal government wouldn't be forcing them to stop worshiping their deities.

I wonder how those judges would have ruled had the copper been found on federal land under a site revered by Christians.

[M L]

Seems like it would be more of a property issue than a first amendment issue.

[David Nieporent]

It was public lands, not tribal lands.

[M L]

Right. So what real property interest do they have in the land? The first amendment can create a right to use government property or prevent it from being conveyed?

[JasonT20]

I didn't look up and read the decision, but the summaries I've found (like the one I linked) talk about how the Apache tribe that filed the suit had been using that site for ceremonies for a long time. (It was Apache land before the U.S. forced them off of it at some point in the 1800s, I presume.) So their interest in the land is to be able to continue using it for their religious ceremonies.

Also, remember how often private religious groups demand public space for their religious displays whenever the government creates a 'public forum' for them. I think that their argument might be that since the government allowed them to use the land for so long for religious rights, that they can't just take that away now without a "compelling government interest" as required by the RFRA.

[David Nieporent]

The first amendment can create a right to use government property or prevent it from being conveyed?

1) Evidently not!
2) This was primarily a RFRA/RLUIPA case, not a 1A case, though they did raise a free exercise claim. They also brought a claim to pursuant to a 19th century treaty.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Congress and the Obama administration in 2014 approved a land transfer to a mining company to develop a large copper reserve in Arizona."

Et tu, Obama?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hur: About those classified documents in your basement, garage, UPenn, U of Delaware, your personal office, etc..

Biden: My corvette go VROOM VROOM

That's the top Democrat folks.

[#FFFFFFPride]

How many times do you think Joe did that finger horse thing while he was being interviewed about his classified document crimes?

[M L]

People above discussing the "groomer thing"

Seems to be alive and well:

"Pete Buttigieg's husband is on tape telling young children to pledge allegiance to the LGBTQ flag

I feel like there's a word for this"
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1767251208970940879

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Note that the word "allegiance" isn't in that clip whatsoever.

You also have no idea who those kids are, but don't let that stop your idiotic speculation...

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah you can see why tendentious nonsense like this did got shitcanned by the right for another try at the law and order well.

Some of the shittier among us can’t stay out of the shitcan though. Even if everyone else has moved on.

[Nige]

Yes. Reaching.

[tylertusta]

Still waiting on Judge McAfee's ruling, though it's expected by Friday.

McAfee said that he made his decision before a challenger was announced to run against him for election.

McAfee's statements in an interview last week interview aligns with his statements during the hearings where he said that he was able to make a decision without needing to reopen the proof.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/scott-mcafee-interview-fani-willis-trump/index.html

Whether or not Fani Willis gets DQ'd will likely depend on the standard that he chooses.

[tylertusta]

More from national media on the upcoming ruling:

McAfee’s decision on whether to disqualify Willis could hinge on how he weighs the evidence.

Fulton County prosecutors want the judge to consider whether an actual conflict of interest arose from Willis and Wade’s relationship, while defense attorneys say the appearance of a conflict is enough to kick them off the case.

“The entire outcome is pretty much contingent on what standard of disqualification he applies,” Kreis said.

“[The defense] has come up quite short of proving or demonstrating that Fani Willis received a considerable kickback, or anything of that nature, from the prosecution, so if the standard is an actual conflict, I think they have a pretty uphill battle,” he continued. “But if the standard is an appearance of a conflict or an appearance of impropriety — I think it’s possible that the defense has muddied things up enough.”

During the state’s closing arguments earlier this month, McAfee pushed back on prosecutors’ contention that an actual conflict must be proven, citing several cases that he said “seem to exclusively rely on the appearance of impropriety.”

The exchange could indicate the judge is looking at a broader method to examine the evidence.

Looks like I’m not the only one who noticed how McAfee handled things during the hearings.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4527043-georgia-judge-rule-fani-willis-disqualification-what-we-know/

[tylertusta]

Also, Judge McAfee has quashed several counts of the Georgia indictments for Trump's RICO case.

The prosecution may go back to the grand jury to get new indictments.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24478979-trump-order-on-defendants-special-demurrers

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, this could cause delay, but is hardly fatal; all he's doing is requiring more specificity in the indictment, not saying that the underlying charged conduct wasn't illegal or anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

He could hardly say that the underlying conduct wasn't illegal if the charges didn't specify what exactly it was.

[tylertusta]

Assuming Fani Willis isn't DQ'd, getting another indictment would prevent the case from going to trial before November.

I'm not familiar enough with the dismissed counts to know how important they were to the success of the other remaining ones, but there might be some difficulties there as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not enthusiastic about this: " Defendants have not provided any authority requiring that the particulars of an overt act be alleged or subjecting overt acts to the standards of general or special demurrers. The Defendants’ challenge of these overt acts is therefore denied."

How is the defense supposed to prove that an overt act didn't happen if the prosecution doesn't have to say what it was?

[David Nieporent]

How is the defense supposed to prove that an overt act didn’t happen if the prosecution doesn’t have to say what it was?

Setting aside that the defense doesn't have to prove anything in a criminal case, of course the prosecution has to say what it was. Otherwise the jury couldn't consider it.

[Brett Bellmore]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/08/arts/design/balfour-declaration-portrait-slashed.html

You knew they wouldn't be content with messing up protective covers and frames, that they'd escalate to destroying the artwork itself.

[tylertusta]

It was only a matter of time.

[Krenn]

hmmm?

[Krenn]

As I’ve said before, based on past ugly urban battles, the ‘starting estimate’ would be that by the time Israel ‘finishes’ the war, about 40,000 civilians will have died. plus however many actual hamas fighters are killed in addition to that.

But until the situation is secure enough for a well-paid statistical survey to go in and start doing a randomized audit of marked graves, we really don’t know WHAT the correct numbers are, or HOW far off the Gaza Health Ministry might be.

For all we know, there are actually significantly MORE dead than the GHM is reporting, and they’re just following a crude quota system about which sorts of people get buried and reported as dead FIRST.

[Frank Drackman]

On 7 October 2023, 1,139 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 764 civilians, were killed, and 248 persons taken hostage during the initial attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip

[Commenter_XY]

Define 'reliable', QA. We could say the current numbers are very reliable....but very wrong. It is Hamas doing the reporting. They don't exactly have a enviable track record for accuracy.

I don't think we will ever know with certainty how many innocent women and children died. Too many.

[Michael P]

QA thinks voting should be as error-prone as fast food orders, possibly because poll workers with one job are just like teenagers who have to operate an entire restaurant. Noted.

[Frank Drackman]

Watsa Matter? No "Church's Fried Chicken" near?

[Michael P]

More than two have been reported on, only two are linked from that specific story. https://whyy.org/articles/fatal-shooting-philadelphia-septa-bus/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/06/shooting-philadelphia-bus-seven-people-injured

[Armchair]

"The need to include all groups—in a vigil mourning the losses of one—was selective and short-lived. Less than a month later, Doucet’s office approved a "Vigil for Palestine," hosted by the Muslim Students Association, that began with an Islamic prayer and featured remarks from the school’s vice president of equity and inclusion, Khuram Hussain, who did not attend the Jewish vigil."

I guess they didn't get the same "suggestions".

[Theendoftheleft]

Do you think your spin here was convincing?

[Bob from Ohio]

"suggestions "

Nice event you are planning, Pity if it can't happen.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I tend to discount this kind of partisan red meat pretty heavily, but if that’s the best defense you could muster it probably is pretty bad.

[#FFFFFFPride]

"behaving badly" = "not towing the State narrative, not expressing the State morals and values, having illegal thoughts"

[Krenn]

But you also have local bars and ‘village’ inns, which have their primary business as selling food, drink, and the opportunity for community discussion at the end of the day, specifically to villagers who already live locally. The 1777 constitution of Vermont was written in a tavern.

in theory, as long as they were paying customers and not taking up table space badly needed by other waiting customers, kicking them out for “writing a constitution inside the tavern” might have been illegal… which, again, is an… interesting… way to start thinking about large-scale social media…

[Stephen Lathrop]

Inkeepers operating centuries ago under English common law are distinguishable from social media platforms operating in America with First Amendment rights. Nothing about the comparison elucidates in the slightest a US case decided by the Supreme Court in 2024.

[Michael P]

You don't rc, but that's not news.

https://cis.org/Law/USCIS-Creates-New-Illegal-Alien-Work-Permit-Program
https://www.fairus.org/biden-immigration-border-policy/biden-administration-announces-5-year-work-permits-asylum

[Theendoftheleft]

Or America has an ulterior agenda.

A new canal planned nearby in Israel, maybe?

The war as a pretext for a larger plan to attack Yemen and Iran on behalf of its Sunni oil masters (in order to ensure they keep the energy supply keeps going to the West and not to China)?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The rest of the world is free to build a wharf and hand supplies ashore.

[Theendoftheleft]

'Let's win hearts and minds', says someone whose country has just spent years upending regimes across the middle east.

Let's win hearts and minds in Afghanistan by pulling out abruptly, too!

It's like you're self-trolling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't fuck crazy, it's contagious.

[Theendoftheleft]

Oh, you definitely have elections. You showed the world how they work in 2020 as well. (Perhaps the UN needs to come in to supervise your next one?)

Elections with offices being alternated between different colour team members, however, does not equate to power moving if those offices and officeholders are not the real wielders of power. Regardless, when your government engages in the regulation of thought and speech, and undertakes a comprehensive social re-engineering project (to make a new America, with a new inclusive American attitude), it's hard to deny the fact of its authoritarianism.

Have you seen the recent protests across Europe, with people complaining that they live in American puppet regimes? Or do you just watch and read the American MSM, which doesn't show you those sorts of things?

[Frank Drackman]

Big Surprise N-words committing crimes against Non-N-words.
And if you’re a Homo, insult my Horror-cost surviving Mom, who worked in the Burn Unit at BAMC, and me, who’ve anesthetized thousands of indigent Haitians/Central Amuricans (a few of them actually in their home countries) and even did a few A-rabs on my trip to Israel last year.

Frank “My Anesthetic Recommendations? I suggest you get Anesthesia, otherwise it’s really going to hurt when they saw through your Sternum”

[Sarcastr0]

And again, the timescale.

You can tell the propagandists from the truth seekers by if they pick a reasonable timescale.

[Theendoftheleft]

That didn’t work, Queenie.

You have, in all your blue cities, two different labour laws for two different classes of people, based on citizenship.

Sitting in prison isn’t slavery. But being paid below the legally required wage threshold is akin to it. Treating a whole class of people thus because of their legal status can (but needn’t) be connected to racism as well.

[grb]

Theendoftheleft : "Have you seen the recent protests across Europe, with people complaining that they live in American puppet regimes?"

Two Points :

1. Did these protests occur in the fantasy countries neighboring your fantasy overseas home? As a lying troll, do you need to diagram out all the elements of your story to keep them straight from one day's invention to the next?

2. Besides that, just grow up. There are always protests in Europe, (as you'd expect). They sometimes have an anti-American edge (likewise). It's been that way all my sixty-plus years. But given you're a whiny little kid rage-posting in your mommy's basement, it must all seem new to you. As an adult, let me assure you it's not.

[Theendoftheleft]

So, your point 1 says they didn't happen and point 2 admits they happened but so what.

And you think I'm the one who needs to grow up? Aside from your view being asinine, you can't even be logically consistent within a short comment.

[Theendoftheleft]

The only thing globally embarrassing to YOU, Queenie.

[Nige]

'Have you seen the recent protests across Europe, with people complaining that they live in American puppet regimes?'

Europeans didn't see them either.

[David Nieporent]

Regardless, when your government engages in the regulation of thought and speech,

You are confusing the U.S. with whatever European hellhole you're pretending to be from.

[Theendoftheleft]

The View has not been shown in Kendom since its successful overthrow of the childless, gender-apartheid-imposing, totalitarian matriarchy that was the Barbieland regime.

[not guilty]

That's true. She could wait to see who wins the presidential election and quickly retire if Biden is defeated. Schumer and Senate Democrats could confirm a successor with the same kind of haste that McConnell did with Amy Coney Bear It.

[Bwaaah]

https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-increases-employment-authorization-document-validity-period-for-certain-categories#:~:text=We%20are%20updating%20guidance%20in,refugees%2C%20paroled%20as%20refugees%2C%20and

[Bwaaah]

That's bureaucrat-speak for whoever they want. If you should become interested in actually finding out, try to do so. (Democratic political-speak always covers the pig with lipstick.)

[Bwaaah]

Per this policy alert, it seems to apply to:

those admitted as refugees
those granted asylum
those granted withholding of deportation or removal
those with pending applications for asylum or withholding of removal
those with pending applications for adjustment of status under INA 245
those with pending applications for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal
those paroled as refugees

Don't worry, bro...just like in your head, there are no limiting principles here, bro.

[Bwaaah]

Why don't you try to answer a question for a change? And do it like you really want the right answer. (Oops. I just realized why you don't try to answer questions.)

[ThePublius]

"Amy Coney Bear It"

What high school do you go to? Ha, ha. So childish.

[Martinned2]

Schumer and Senate Democrats could confirm a successor with the same kind of haste that McConnell did with Amy Coney [Barrett ].

1. I doubt it
2. If I was Sotomayor, I wouldn't see any reason to risk it.

[Frank Drackman]

N-words gonna N-word.
You asked for a reliable number of women and children killed, and I gave you one.

[ThePublius]

You're giving Hamas and the Ministry of Health not only the benefit of the doubt, but saying they may be underestimating deaths? Holy cow.

[Don Nico]

Rather than simple denialism, why not providing statistical evidence to the contrary.
Readers would find that much more convincing.

[Bwaaah]

“You can tell the propagandists from the truth seekers by if they pick a reasonable timescale.”

Yes. Like you only compare crime this year to last year, and ignore the big jump in crime that happened in 2020 that puts crime in the cities at around a 15 year high. (It’s only gone back down by a little, and nowhere near pre-pandemic levels.)

Even though you’re not really interested, here’s a link to NYPD crime stats through the Wayback Machine so you can check the truth of this in NYC. Most major cities in the U.S. are showing similar trends.

Note that FBI crime stats are very incomplete, have changed their reporting rules over the years, and are an unreliable source according to the FBI itself. There’s a helpful Vera Institute of Justice explanation of FBI crime data here.

[Bwaaah]

And FYI...
See the 2023 numbers here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240101142930/https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-us-city.pdf

and the earliest data from 2017 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171218152756/http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-us-city.pdf

Ignore the percentage changes reported...if you compare the actuals in those two reports, you'll see that the percentage changes reported don't jibe with the actual data.

[Bwaaah]

Here are the data, 2023 vs 2016 (as far back as I can go with that data source). (Take a good look at felony assault and auto theft.)

Murder
2016: 318
2023: 386
Rape
2016: 1367
2023: 1455
Robbery:
2016: 14605
2023: 16902
Felony assault
2016: 19829
2023: 27849
Burglary
2016: 12260
2023: 13758
Grand Larceny
2016: 41822
2023: 50526
Grand Larceny - Auto
2016: 6058
2023: 15802

[Bob from Ohio]

Middle school.

Least its better than how he refers to Thomas.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think he has a secret crush and would like her to bare it.

[Theendoftheleft]

How is it all bad faith? It’s true. Your labeling it ‘bad faith’ is in bad faith.

Whatsoever you imagine your politics to be, or what you want people to think your politics are, how can self-described blue teamers possibly justify this to themselves or others? Regardless, how can you talk about equity and inclusion crap all day long but treat your illegals thus?

[Bob from Ohio]

The actresses still showed plenty of skin, but the whore look was out.

[Theendoftheleft]

Do I have to Kensplain everything for you?

[MoreCurious]

She needs to go back to acting school. She's a liar and a phony and in one speech managed to turn herself into a national joke.

[Zarniwoop]

but the "most predictable SNL cold open ever" was amazeballs. Scarlett Johansson nailed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCfLpuLdF8Q

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Britt skates by the question faster than Apolo Ohno."

By "skates by" you mean answers? Because she did answer the question quickly. Unlike Biden, who lied about Border Patrol agents whipping migrants.

[Krayt]

Do we have examples more of this selfless behavior (though it implicitely admits to the political nature everyone denies) or more examples of not retiring due to ego?

[Bwaaah]

I presume you don't consider FAIR to be a good source, just like this one isn't. And though you don't say so, we seem to agree on this

[Commenter_XY]

See why I told Sarcastr0 to go get a rental and drive around on a warm night with the window down? Check out that Grand Larceny - Auto increase.

Sarcastr0 would be car-jacked in a Philadelphia minute. They'd beat the shit out of him, too, while they took his car.

[Sarcastr0]

We've talked before about how NYC is a special case, and no one is quite sure why.

You pivoted from some shit about busses in Philly to NYC crime states. One cherry to another.

And while it won't change the trend in this case, pro tip: if you want good stats, per capita them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's what the mistake WAS and how MISSION CRITICAL the mistake was. Now giving you food with food poisoning would be the same as giving an ineligible voter a ballot. And did they?

[Sarcastr0]

I could, of course, provide you stats on city crime rates.

But I also don't need to; the burden is not on me.

It's not denialism to point out cherry picking anecdotes to show a 'crime wave' proves nothing except that the writer has an agenda.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you switched from 'crime' to 'crime in cities' to 'NYC' right there.

Actually, not weird at all. You came in here generalizing without sufficient foundation, and you've never changed.

[Bwaaah]

He wouldn't consider his personal experience to be material. It would be "anecdotal."

Are you going to believe your eyes, or the stories of good times being told by the politicians in power?

If Trump gets elected, the next day, we'll be flooded with stories all over again about "open season on Black and LGBTQ+ people." There's only one kind of crime they're interested in...the one they made up..."hate crime". All the rest are right-wing confabulations.

Coincidentally, I looked at Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's website the other day. Check out his dashboard. He measures his performance not in reduction of crime, but in reduction of arrests, prosecutions and sentences. (Oh, and *only* "hate" crimes.) Crime going up? Who cares? This prosecutor's highest priority is to not prosecute.

[Nige]

Look at the mess Gaza is in. It's an undercount.

[Krenn]

If it makes you feel better, they could just as easily be BOTH undercounting real bodies, AND lying about the results of their 'actual' count at the same time.

[Bwaaah]

Show me Philadelphia, or Chicago, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, or Washington D.C., or Atlanta, or St. Louis, or Houston. (I'm just picking some big ones without knowing particulars.)

It's hard to find good historical data. Local governments like to change their reporting methods when the data doesn't go their way, so comparisons are difficult. NYPD seems to have consistent crime data reporting for many years now.

But you are somehow able to generalize that crime is down without presenting any of your own basis. Are you relying on FBI's UCR which they disclaim for its incompleteness and ongoing methodology changes? On what basis do you say that crime is down (other than in the past year over the prior year)?

Fortunately, the stories people like you tell can't counter the experiences people have.

[Nige]

If you add words that weren't there, it becomes very threatening.

[#FFFFFFPride]

https://thefga.org/research/medicaid-expansion-is-closing-hospitals/

I’m sure you’ll be able to find oodles of sources that claim just the opposite and since those confirm your bias, you can go ahead and spare us the reactionary Government Worshipper tropes and other assorted nonsense.

[Krayt]

"We'll pull your lawsuit-exemption liquor licenses unless you kick them out."

There, now they are aligned across the centuries.

[Bwaaah]

I focus more on the b.s. of the left than the right. They're both pretty glaring. How about you?

[Bwaaah]

I'm a Democrat. But people like you, who seem to advocate for the left, talk more than anybody else these days. (The fringes always talked the most; the internet gave them a megaphone.)

With help from people like you, and Gaslighto, and the Reverend, I learned that I'm just a stupid piece of shit. So even though I'm still a Democrat, I caucus (virtually) with other stupid pieces of shit, because hey, birds of a feather, right?

Who knows? The next President of the United States might be a stupid piece of shit too. (It's all about denigration and raw power now, like you play it, bro.)

[Nige]

'(It’s all about denigration and raw power now, like you play it, bro.)'

Uh, good things the other guy doesn't go in for denigration and raw power, I suppose...

[Bwaaah]

No. He does. Dick: meet dick. Game on!

[Nige]

Who does the current president denigrate and when has he ever made a play for raw power to match Trump's?

[Theendoftheleft]

You merely asserted as much. You explained nothing and plugged in extra crap. I said nothing about deportations; I explained your disparate treatment of them.

Own it.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Well bless your heart.

[Bwaaah]

NIBRS. Same problems.

[Bwaaah]

Here's a map of states showing compliance with NIBRS reporting requirements. NONE of the higher population states (in light blue) are in full compliance yet.

Unsurprisingly, they provide reporting of national and state crime stats without even disclosing what percent of the nation or state's population is covered in their stats. It's a half-bullshit machine, just like you (and Gaslighto, who uses these almost useless numbers).

But, yeah Queenie, nah-nah na-nah-nah.

[David Nieporent]

Where would they be towing it?

[David Nieporent]

You have, in all your blue cities, two different labour laws for two different classes of people, based on citizenship.

(See, you spell labor wrong; that at least does reek of Europeanness.) This is, of course, wrong.

But being paid below the legally required wage threshold is akin to it.

Very like a whale.

[David Nieporent]

When he says the only rational explanation for something must be X you can be confident that the thing he's trying to explain is false.

[David Nieporent]

No, no, changing an election outcome by .0001% is totally more significant than killing a customer.

[Bwaaah]

*YOU* can't.

[Bwaaah]

I can. Because the answer, any answer, doesn’t implicitly contradict some narrative I need to maintain.

You can’t. It would contradict the non-substantive narrative that you have an effective strategy to combat crime, which you don’t.

“It’s a mental health problem,” and “It’s an incarceration problem,” and “It’s a policing problem,” aren’t strategies. They’re laments.

You don’t have a mental health solution, or an incarceration solution, or a policing solution. Whattaya got for crime, Queenie, other than a snarky comment?

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah I've never see someone so driven by a need to push a narrative as you.

2 narratives really - white victimhood and that there's a crime waive in American cities as we speak.

[Bwaaah]

So that’s all you got? What if crime really was a problem? You got a strategy?

[Bwaaah]

And where the hell did you come up with "crime wave" and "white victimhood?" I say crime is up very significantly from before 2020, and you call that "a crime wave?" You can't even acknowledge that it's up in most big cities, and yet, that's a "crime wave" for you?

And that "white victimhood" stuff? Who are you talking about? Who is a victim of whom over what? Is everybody a victim to you? And what's up with the "white people" thing? I don't think I've ever seriously considered "white victimhood" here (and very little anyplace else).

I'm talking about my estimate that serious crime in big U.S. cities is up roughly 20-30% over 2019, and you interpret that as some race-baiting game? Ditch the rote analysis, get serious about what's going on, and engage the material.

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen - the report involves several companies producing intel chips,
not referring the to the Intel corporation

[Bob from Ohio]

"Suggestions" from those with power over you are not "suggestions".

[Bwaaah]

Philly isn't an anomaly. New York isn't an anomaly. D.C. isn't an anomaly. San Francisco isn't an anomaly. Seattle isn't an anomaly. Chicago isn't an anomaly.

Even if you do live under a rock, you have internet. WTF?

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

It actually prove everything , and statistically , if you show that among the worst cities there is a political connection. You can deny cause and effect but you would look foolish

LAWNEWS
27 of Top 30 Crime-Ridden Cities Run by Democrats
Samantha Aschieris

[bernard11]

Your link is bullshit - just a spray of selective numbers with no analysis of any sort.

It does not support its claims.

[hobie]

Heh. You're quoting another Republican think tank devoted to ending social services. Try again

[hobie]

The latest redneck pejorative. Is there nothing they won't soil?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Medicaid covers 76% of the costs of care.

Does expanding your coverage of patients of a pool with a baked in 25% loss per patient increase your fiscal health or decrease your fiscal health?

Can you reason that out for yourself?

[Bwaaah]

Got any actual crime data that goes back more than three years? Care to show it?

[Nige]

If you add inverted commas that also weren't there, it's really threatening.

[grb]

Nash or Hamlet?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You've lost the thread. The analogy was to the government restricting who innkeepers could refuse to serve. Now you've flipped to the demonstrably false theory that government here was pressuring companies from serving certain customers. And that's not even what the conspiracy theory is. Which is all to say, you've devolved into incoherence. You should maybe check your political outrage. It's interfering with your critical thinking.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, because there is a 1A right to a liquor license?

Why is it so hard for right-wingers to understand that the problem they have getting social media platforms to do what they want is that social media platforms get 1A protection?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

What do you have against "the whore look?"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has she answered anything truthfully yet?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Her answers are more truthful than Biden's comments about migrants being strapped.

[David Nieporent]

I was going for Hamlet.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

LAWNEWS
27 of Top 30 Crime-Ridden Cities Run by Democrats
Samantha Aschieris

[Michael P]

Deny reality harder, Gaslight0.

[VinniUSMC]

If Queenie could read, it wouldn't be Queenie.

[Sarcastr0]

What is your specific issue?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, there are such persons -- quite wealthy.