Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind, other than the open thread being late today?

Comments

[Absaroka]

"What's on your mind, other than the open thread being late today?"

That one Thursday open thread is enough? 🙂

(there seems to be two of them today...)

[Mr. Bumble]

One for Dems and one for Repubs.

[Magister]

And one for anyone else; the same one, in all cases.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's been Thursday here for more than half a day...

[Mr. Bumble]

Picky, picky, picky.

[Bwaaah]

There was no way he/she/they/Bubba was going to be included in even the frivolous remarks of The Right.

[Sarcastr0]

One of my D&D Group requested a game with a Space Galleon.
Another wants us to adapt the urban heist campaign Dragon Heist to Pathfinder.

I’m going to try and adapt Dragon Heist to some kind of space pirate situation and from D&D 5e to Starfinder.

Should occupy some weekend mornings with some very nerdy times. Right now working on mechanics for running and improving a space pirate ship.

Dunno if it will equal my Pathfinder conversion of Curse of Strahd in my esteem but it's worth a try!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Be sure to wear your +2 Helm of Nerdiness.

[Jonathansingletary]

Before you go colliding worlds and such, please do an analysis on the possibility for wormholes, portals to hellscape dimensions, and rifts in the space-time continuum.

[Sarcastr0]

I will be including at least on ‘Roadside Picnic’ type hellish area.

Wormholes…now that's an idea…

[Jonathansingletary]

Listen I have things to do today. I can’t be fighting demon armies while you tinker, blithely unaware, with your space pirate ship…

[Jonathansingletary]

Though a Hellish Roadside Picnic sounds nice.

[Nelson]

Just don't bring a mayo-based potato salad.

[Riva]

This explains a lot.

[Sarcastr0]

We all have our hobbies.
I went to a STEM school, it was either this or Warhammer 40K.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why not both?

[Sarcastr0]

40K novels are a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine.

The cocaine so much in evidence in that universe; it's hilarious.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Gaming as a hobby attracts people from all over the political spectrum. Best Advanced Dungeons and Dragons DM I ever played with was an Evangelical Christian paleoconservative. Great DM and great player. He's the one who took our college group through the Desert of Desolation trilogy of modules.

I mostly play historical miniatures and boardgames now, but play with a large group of people from a variety of backgrounds but who all love history and historical gaming.

[Sarcastr0]

Our group is largely conservative. It has an Orthodox Priest, and for some years had an Evangelical Deacon.

I'm the lefty of the group; we just don't talk (real world) politics. Works fine.

[theobromophile]

So will there be a Volokh Conspiracy reader D&D group?

[Ridgeway]

There are definitely a bunch of trolls already. Do they have to be NPCs?

I would wager that if met in person, the rest of the commentariat would provide a motley group of dwarves, pixies, halflings, orcs, goblins and maybe even a human or 2. Gonna make a wild guess and say that average CHA < 5. STR and DEX not much better.

[theobromophile]

... I married a Volokh reader, whom I met through another Volokh commenter, and we had several other commenters at our wedding. I promise, no trolls, orca, goblins, pixies, halflings, dwarves (in fact, we are all tall), or the like in attendance. Volokh Reader Toddler is handsome and charming.

[Ridgeway]

Black swan event 🙂

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, since there is a Toddler that means a woman was a reader here!

[theobromophile]

Is a reader here. I'm not a guy!

[Bob from Ohio]

Sorry, I did not realize A Reader was a handle, not just a description.

"I’m not a guy!"

That makes two "not a guy" here as far as I know. Cindy makes comments sometimes.

[theobromophile]

You said "means a woman was a reader here." I am a reader here, so it's "is a reader," not "was a reader."

[Commenter_XY]

Well, Mazel Tov! I hope you are happily married. Neat way to meet.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Such a group would be the textbook definition of "Rules Lawyers".

[Brett Bellmore]

Check out The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolf. It’s it one of those galleons in it, in a very well thought out fantasy universe.

Plus, the books are good.

[Sarcastr0]

I read the trilogy. Trippy stuff, but yes well grounded because it all hung together.

[GreenLanternCorps]

"Curse of Strahd"

A good friend ran "Ravenloft" back when it first came out when I was in college. Good times.

Best campaign I was ever in was the Desert of Desolation series. October 1984 to April of 1985.

[Sarcastr0]

The player characters have to traverse a sea of glass using skate-ships, and then go through the Crystal Prism and the Mobius Tower to get to the final crypt

Now that is some good 80s D&D.

[Darth Buckeye]

All D&D fans should watch the Netflix series DELICIOUS IN DUNGEON. A team of adventurers need to stage a quick raid into a dungeon to save a colleague who was eaten by a red dragon...they need to kill the dragon and revive the colleague before the dragon digests them. Since they are short of funds, they decide to go without buying rations and eat what they kill in the dungeon.
Hilarious! Absolutely hilarious!

[GreenLanternCorps]

Obviously the DM had the party roll a 20 sider for preparation before the series started, and they rolled a natural one…

[Joe_dallas]

Transgender outcomes - Another study showing less than optimal outcomes

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000001971.20

[Sarcastr0]

1. This is a single paper, so consider accordingly until replicated/a longitudinal study
2. This is specifically about psychological emergencies. That's hardly the only metric to consider. You know, if you ever actually talked to a trans person or actually cared about them as anything other than a outgroup to attack.
3. Joe's take is rather less nuanced than the actual authors: Patients undergoing GAS with a history of prior psychiatric emergences or feminizing transition are at higher risk and should be counseled appropriately.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Maybe they should've done these longitudinal studies before they started transing kids?

[Nelson]

What do you believe the children to adults ratio is for transitions?

Also, what do you think the ratio of social.to hormonal to surgical transitions?

[#FFFFFFPride]

"What do you believe the children to adults ratio is for transitions?"

I’m not sure the relevance, if you’re trying to make a point, just make it.

"Also, what do you think the ratio of social.to hormonal to surgical transitions?"

Relevance?

[Nelson]

"I’m not sure the relevance, if you’re trying to make a point, just make it."

You’re the ine talking about "transing" kids. Why do you think this is a "kid" issue, since the vast majority of cases involve adults?

"Relevance"

Since both social and hormonal transitioning are easily reversible with no long-term side effects, you seem to be trying to insinuate something that isn't true about adolescent transitioning, specifically that it is an irreversible, surgical procedure. Which it almost never is.

Basically, I'm asking what you believe (since indications are that it's a false belief common among anti-trans people) and why you believe it.

You are being intentionally vague, about both how common "transing" is in non-adults as well as what "transing" in children entails.

[Nige]

Nobody 'transes' kids.

[Riva]

And meanwhile, the descent into madness continues with the Canadian Supreme Court noting in a ruling that it was "problematic" to refer to the victim of sexual assault as a woman, favoring “person with a vagina.” Almost makes Justice Jackson look competent.

[Martinned2]

I'll grant you, the word "problematic" does appear in the judgment. But as a general rule, it's probably better to actually cite the judgment you've got big opinions about, so that the rest of us can see for ourselves whether you're just making a fuss out of nothing.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc7/2024scc7.html

[Riva]

I'm not your secretary smart ass.

[Martinned2]

I can either assume that you're a liar by default, or you can let me decide for each comment separately. Your choice. So far you haven't given me a reason to treat you any differently than as a blanket liar.

[Riva]

From the case:
"Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty that they felt penile‑vaginal penetration, a trial judge must be entitled to conclude that they are unlikely to be mistaken. While the choice of the trial judge to use the words “a woman” may have been unfortunate and engendered confusion..."

Any more smart ass comments?

[Martinned2]

Yes. I read the judgment before I commented. It doesn't say what you said it did. "Unfortunate" is not the same as "problematic".

[Riva]

The insanity exuded by that language is apparent and the use of “unfortunate” and “engendering confusion” over the use of “woman” are sufficiently damning. I guess you did have another smart ass comment in you.

[Martinned2]

While you were busy being outraged, did you happen to spot what the judgment is actually about?

To save you (and others) more reading, it's about the rule against ungrounded common‑sense assumptions. The specific assumption they were arguing about in the section you referred to was the trial judge's conclusion "that it was unlikely that a woman would be mistaken about the feeling of penile‑vaginal penetration".

Given that we're talking about assumptions drawn from "common sense" that don't require further evidence, it seems understandable that the Supreme Court of Canada would have preferred it if the trial judge had been a bit more precise about what he was assuming. Because, yes, trans women and trans men exist.

That is lightyears away from your facile outrage.

[Riva]

Men and women exist, some men and women engage in the trans fetish. They’re still men and women. And not outraged, saddened at the corruption of language and law, and somewhat amused too.

[Riva]

But you can take solace that, at least in Canada, biological realities will be ignored and no court will just assume that only women have vaginas

[Davy C]

I would assume that a trans woman would *also* be unlikely to be mistaken about whether someone had vaginally penetrated them.

[David Nieporent]

"Trans woman" and "trans men" are gender identities, not sexes. And it seems pretty obvious that the judge was talking about sex.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The trans fetish at this blog is almost entirely, if not without exception, engaged in by men. Just not enough women at this white, male, on-the-spectrum, conservative blog to permit anything else.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva, read the whole case and you will see the confusion is not about gender at all:

A functional and contextual reading of this passage of the trial reasons demonstrates that the impugned line was not an assumption or inappropriate “speculation”, as the Court of Appeal characterized it, but rather a response to the defence theory advanced in closing submissions: that the complainant, though sincere, was mistaken about the physical sensation of penile‑vaginal penetration due to her intoxication and panic after she awoke, which caused her to assume the worst.

That's the confusion engendered - about the type of judicial notice being taken.

Did you actually even click on the case, or did you just slam it in from whatever fevers swamps you read?

[Riva]

Uh huh, still not getting why "woman" is confusing and unfortunate and "person with a vagina" is to be preferred. No one in the case was trans deranged and the victim is consistently referred to as "she."

[Sarcastr0]

It looks a lot like the issue with 'a woman' is not the 'woman' but the 'a,'

[Riva]

What? A "person with a vagina" is to be preferred over a "woman"? Nope not getting it. Could you explain it to me in non-crazy terms?

[Sarcastr0]

"While the choice of the trial judge to use the words “a woman” may have been unfortunate and engendered confusion, in context, it is clear the judge was reasoning that it was extremely unlikely that the complainant would be mistaken about the feeling of penile‑vaginal penetration because people generally, even if intoxicated, are not mistaken about that sensation. In other words, the judge’s conclusion was grounded in his assessment of the complainant’s testimony. The Court of Appeal erred in finding otherwise."

Again, the issue causing confusion does not seem to be the use of the word 'woman.'

[Riva]

You're still not explaining the use of "a person with a vagina"

[Sarcastr0]

I don't need to.

You've been proven to have the case utterly wrong already.

[Riva]

The issue I raised was the trans-deranged corruption of language, not the nuances of the underlying legal issues. "Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty that they felt penile‑vaginal penetration, a trial judge must be entitled to conclude that they are unlikely to be mistaken" instead of “Where a woman testifies credibly and with certainty... "

[Sarcastr0]

trans-deranged corruption of language

You, not long ago: "the descent into madness continues with the Canadian Supreme Court noting in a ruling that it was “problematic” to refer to the victim of sexual assault as a woman, favoring “person with a vagina.”

That is dead wrong.

How about the your own wingnut-deranged corruption of reading comprehension?

[Riva]

I guess I only wrote that because that’s the court did prefer “a person with a vagina” instead of “woman” because they said “person with a vagina” instead of “woman.” Trans-deranged and, from what I’ve read before, suffering from TDS. You need a time out.

[David Nieporent]

It was stupid and pointless virtue signaling by the judge who wrote that, but it's hardly a "descent into madness."

Even if you believe the transgender notion that gender identity subsumes sex, there's no need to bring it up here. There are people with birth defects¹ born without limbs. There are others who lose limbs in accident or war. That doesn't mean that it's "unfortunate" if someone says, "When a person puts his hands on someone it's assault" because after all some infinitesimal number of people don't have hands.

But there's also no need to get hysterical about someone saying that.
​
​
¹I'm sure that's not the woke term.

[Martinned2]

The number of trans people is hardly "infinitesimal".

[Riva]

Maybe not in the Biden regime but in the real world? yup.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hardly “infinitesimal”"

Agreed, “infinitesimal” implies more than zero.

[Riva]

I don't think my writing reflected hysteria but you're welcome to your view.

[Sarcastr0]

"trans-deranged corruption of language"

[Riva]

That's not hysterical. That's an accurate description.

[Sarcastr0]

lol

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem to share Prof. Volokh’s trans fetish . . . or, at least, to enjoy it the hell out of it.

Carry on, clingers.

[Nige]

I'm not sure trans people having mental health problems isn't an outcome of an entire section of society engaging in an horrific hate campaign against them, doing its utmost to deny them access to health care and treating them as objects of derision and contempt.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or the DSM-IV was right, they are nuts.

[Nige]

Certainly that how people who hate them for no discernible reason would prefer they were classed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is a reason. The haters are right-wing bigots, often deluded by superstition and shackled by ignorance.

[not guilty]

The increase in hatred displayed toward trans people by the pecker checkers correlates with a decline in societal approval of overt gay/lesbian bashing. I surmise that the latter became less acceptable when gays and lesbians became more visible, and more of the haters realized they were hurting someone dear to them.

The hatemongers decided that transgender folks filled their need for a minority to look down on quite nicely. They are less numerous and less politically engaged than gays and lesbians, and probably less likely to out themselves.

[bernard11]

We have no idea from the data presented whether the outcomes are optimal or not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why am I supposed to be more concerned about TikTok algorithms than Facebook algorithms?

[David Bremer]

Because one is owned by a rival country that is currently building up its military and has stated that it wants to invade and take over a neighboring country that is allied with ours.

If Zuckerberg orders an aircraft carrier, let me know.

[Nige]

1. You think Zuckerberg cares who he sells the data to?
2. You think tik-tok data is militarily significant?

[David Nieporent]

I think there are two reasons people are more concerned about Tiktok than Facebook:

1) Tiktok is perceived as being controlled by the unfriendly Chinese government. Facebook, whatever one thinks of Zuckerberg, is not.
2) Tiktok is used by impressionable youths, while nobody under the age of 50 uses Facebook.

That having been said, many of the people hysterical about Tiktok are also hysterical about Facebook.

[David Nieporent]

(First person to say, "Nuh uh; I know a 40-year old who uses Facebook" gets smacked with a rolled up copy of YouTube-if-it-were-a-newspaper.)

[Commenter_XY]

Nuh uh...I know a 30-year old who uses Facebook. 🙂

[VinniUSMC]

Ok boomer. You're entirely wrong about Facebook, whether you have a rolled up YouTube or not.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/02/5-facts-about-how-americans-use-facebook-two-decades-after-its-launch/

[David Nieporent]

We Gen Xers can't even get insulted properly!

[VinniUSMC]

Well, I don't have any Gen X insults prepared. So, instead, I'm just going to say, you were wrong, neener neener.

[Estragon]

It’s a dumb quibble but the OG users of Facebook (assuming they’re still around) would be early 40s now.

[Nige]

It's ridiculous because this isn't going to deny anyone acess to peoples' data, whereas general data protection measures that also applied to Facebook etc would acheive exactly the outcome they're after.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nige, when I hope to make a point by implication, it's reassuring to know you are around to pick up on it. Thank you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don't analogize Facebook to a foreign government, even to make the point that it isn't one. I think of Facebook as an inconvenient state-like organization, of the sort so often featured in Bond movies.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/leaked-files-expose-influential-transgender-healthcare-group-pushed-pseudoscientific-sex

worth reading -

[Jonathansingletary]

You’re like, obsessed, with transgender people.

[Joe_dallas]

only obsession is to provide care that provides the opportunity which allows those afflicted to return to a normal life vs those that claim to be pro-trans that believe in permanently destroying any chance returning to a normal life along with creating extensive post surgery long term medical issues.

Which side are you on ?
providing care to allow the opportunity for a normal life
or permanently destroying the persons life and destroying any chance of returning to normal?

[Krychek_2]

Those two extremist positions are not the only alternatives.

[Jonathansingletary]

See? Obsessed! Can’t let it go.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't provide care, and your false dichotomy doesn't involve you or your life at all, so in reality you're just an asshole squeezing out your agenda.

[Joe_dallas]

I am fully on board with providing the necessary care.

Just opposed to providing care to causes long term damage - and pointing out that the current fad treatment causes that permanent long term damage.

[Nige]

It's not a fad, it's been the treatment since the middle of the 20th century. If it were as awful as you claim, you know who'd say so? Trans people.

[hobie]

Joe, you just don't like the results (negative or positive) or the people involved. And, frankly, it's none of your business. Like Jonathan said...you're obsessed

[Tom for equal rights]

Hobie and johnathan -

is accusing a person of obsession or hating trans your only defense of a dubious medical treatment?
Can you defend the treatment based on high quality studies
Do you really think removing vital organs are going to create positive long term outcomes.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not sure you know what the word vital means.

[Nige]

Why would you want to deny trans people health care if you didn't hate them, and why would you hate them except through dumb obsession?

[David Nieporent]

Come on, this is dumb question begging. Do you want to ban conversion therapy for gay people? (Or at least gay minors?) I'm betting you do. Why would you want to deny gay people health care if you didn't hate them?

[Nige]

HOW DARE YOU.

[Kazinski]

The thing is I can't think of any other area of medicine where there is such a disconnect between benefits of measured outcomes, cost, side effects, and ongoing quality of life.

If the medical profession was following longstanding medical standards we wouldn't be having this debate.

[Nige]

I can't think of any area of medicine where a group of laypeople have generated mountains of disinformation and bullshit designed to undermine the health care of a particular group.

[Jonathansingletary]

Oh, I can think of another area of medicine just like that 😉

[Nige]

Fair point.

[Nige]

People who hate trans people trying to control trans peoples' access to health care is a terrible idea.

[David Bremer]

We don't kink shame here.

[Jonathansingletary]

Unless that’s your kink…

[Riva]

The trans cultists seem to be the ones obsessed with indoctrinating children.

[Jonathansingletary]

Obsezzzzed! You can’t help yourself.

[hobie]

Isn't he though?!

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a footnote:
"Consider a 2010 U.S. government national security science paper, “Research Directions in Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations” which is a fanciful way of announcing electronic “brain surveillance” to discern thoughts and intentions. The then OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) became somewhat notorious for asserting a right to public “cognitive infiltration.” On December 13, 2016, Congress and White House enacted “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” laws. (130 STAT. 1076 1079)."

Orwellian......

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D101-PURL-gpo129292/pdf/GOVPUB-D101-PURL-gpo129292.pdf

Here's the paper.

Here is a quote:
" Potential indicators of adversarial intent include
posture, posture rigidity, heartbeat waveform, heart rate, breath rate (volume approximation, patterns, anomalies), wheezing, coughing, gasping, blood pressure trends (waveform shape and
transit time), pulse-wave velocity (beat-by-beat approximation of blood pressure), movement (fidgeting, remaining still, shaking, shivering, having spasms), body stiffness, muscle tension,
resonant frequency of body movement, voice stress analysis, voice onset timing, gastrointestinal distress, bowel sounds, reluctance to engage socially (distance from others, response to attempts
to engage verbally), observation tendencies of subject (eye-glancing, head turning, situational awareness), people whose actions are coordinated or who are actively avoiding each other,
exposure to bomb-making materials/chemicals, hyperthermia from stress (generally expressed in the face, palms of the hands, and soles of the feet), gait as indicators of stiffness (stress) or
carrying a load or wearing protective clothing, breath biochemistry, and microbiology"

In other words, it is not 'brain surveillance.'

Wherever you got this, they made some shit up.

[David Nieporent]

Needless to say, he’s also lying about the law he references, which is about creating systems to track conditions like multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.

He’s likely just not smart enough to realize that “surveillance” in medicine does not mean the same thing as “surveillance” in law enforcement or the like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look, shithead, try reading the abstract, where they tell you what they want to do: “…bridge the scientific gap between
observations from physical sensor networks at 3–50 m on the one hand and determination of covert tactical adversarial intent of individuals with deception and in extensive clutter on the other”

That sound like “creating systems to track conditions like multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease” to you?!?

[David Nieporent]

That sound like “creating systems to track conditions like multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease” to you?!?

The abstract is about the study, moron. I was referring to this, from you, which you called "Orwellian": "On December 13, 2016, Congress and White House enacted “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” laws. (130 STAT. 1076 1079).”

That law is indeed about creating systems to track conditions like multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Try reading the abstract:

"14. ABSTRACT
The goal of this report is to design a first-order road map for modeling research to bridge the scientific gap between
observations from physical sensor networks at 3–50 m on the one hand and determination of covert tactical adversarial intent of
individuals with deception and in extensive clutter on the other. The research needs to integrate components from kinesiology,
neurophysiology, psychology, cognitive science, sociocultural anthropology, and information science. Research and
development (R&D) issues that need to be considered include metrics for cognitive phenomena and how well detection systems
work, data sets, determining whether actors can provide sufficient verisimilitude to create data sets, and relevant sensing
technologies and information fusion techniques. Successful procedures may need to include actively (but unobtrusively)
perturbing the situation in order to elicit specific responses. Comprehensive Department of Defense, Department of Homeland
Security, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, and Federal R&D programs are required to promote rapid progress.
The Federal Government should fund R&D programs with the objective of producing a theoretically founded design of a
prototype system for remote detection of covert tactical adversarial intent of individuals in asymmetric operations within 5
years and a working operational system within 10 years."

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah this doesn’t say anything about brain surveillance.

And the paper, which I read, makes it clear you are wrong.

[JasonT20]

Trump said there were "radicals" who would "kill the baby" adding "under Roe v. Wade they had the right to kill the baby after birth, I mean literally after birth in some case."

This was in a Hannity interview a couple weeks ago. Why do right wing media let their candidates and supporters get away with such blatant lies that Trump would repeat this anti abortion talking point for five years? It seems to have started after then Gov Youngkin’s answer to a question about third trimester abortion. An answer that was often distorted if not paraphrased inaccurately to imply support for infanticide.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Gov Youngkin’s answer"

It was Northam's answer.

[JasonT20]

Sorry, wrong Virginia governor

[Brett Bellmore]

Where's the lie? There are such radicals.

All movements have their radical extremists. The pro 'choice' movement relies on moderates who only support early or medically necessary abortions for its foot soldiers, but the leadership includes some people Singer might blanch at.

Why did you suppose NY's new abortion law got rid of all procedures intended to prevent killing a baby who inconveniently survives an attempted abortion?

[not guilty]

"Why did you suppose NY’s new abortion law got rid of all procedures intended to prevent killing a baby who inconveniently survives an attempted abortion?"

I haven't read the statutes in question, but could that be because killing a baby who survives an attempted abortion is covered by preexisting homicide statutes?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, it is. But the fact remains that they had a law in place requiring that post viability abortions be witnessed by a third party, to assure any survivors got care. And they repealed it.

If an abortion survivor is quietly suffocated, and there are no witnesses except the perpetrators, did it really happen? Not so far as the law is concerned.

[JasonT20]

Right, because there are so many doctors that would do such a thing, that we better have a medically unnecessary witness around to intrude on the patient during what will already be a terrible and traumatic experience of losing a pregnancy that she wanted, but that is now both doomed and threatening her safety. Or do you really think that post viable elective abortions happen regularly? I wonder if they happen at all.

[JasonT20]

Also, is that the only thing changed in the law? How do you know that it was a change made?

[Nige]

'There are such radicals.'

Only if acknowledging that a pregnancy can enter into the sort of crisis that requires a termination at a late stage is 'radical.' The again by this equation 'let them both die' is 'pro-life.'

[JasonT20]

The lie is that killing an infant after birth is ever legal in any state. And also a lie is that there are any significant pro choice advocates that want it to be legal.

[Riva]

Yeah, all this outrage for nothing, I mean, Northam only endorsed infanticide. who could possibly be shocked by that?

[JasonT20]

If you actually listen or read everything he said along with the question he was answering, you would know that he did not endorse infanticide in any way.

[Riva]

Deciding after birth whether a baby should live or not sure sounds like he had infanticide on the mind to me.

[JasonT20]

Perhaps you can look up the actual quote and context and prove that you know what it is instead of the anti-abortion talking point.

[Frank Drackman]

Flash on Fox News,
"Senator Tuberville Hosting Round Table on Women's Sports"
With Tommy the T, Riley Gaines, Laura Loomer, this may be the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together, with the possible exception of when Nick Saban dines alone

Frank

[theobromophile]

Loomer is a nut job, but Tuberville and Gaines are both smart people. Gaines was even the Southeastern Conference Women's Swimming and Diving Scholar-Athlete of the Year and graduated summa cum laude. I think she was admitted to dental school but deferred to do her work on women's sports.

[Frank Drackman]

I wasn't being sarcastic (for a change)

[Bwaaah]

"the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together, with the possible exception of when Nick Saban dines alone"

LOL

[David Nieporent]

Is there a different Tuberville than the guy who was hit on the head so many times at his sport that the only thing he was qualified to do was run for office? Because that guy is like the dumbest in the Senate, and that's saying a lot.

[Estragon]

He’s definitely the no-poems-on-ships guy

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The consensus among senators seems to be that Cruz and Paul are the most disliked senators, Tuberville is the dumbest, and Sinema the strangest senator.

Those assessments address current senators. From a broader perspective, William Scott might make Tuberville seem average.

[Frank Drackman]

What's the consensus about the (Very Wrong) Rev. Jerry L. Sandusky?

[bernard11]

Tuberville is a moron.

I'm not much familiar with Gaines, but I did see in Wikipedia that "By January 2023, she.....appeared in campaign advertisements for former US Senate candidate Herschel Walker, and spoken at a Donald Trump rally."

Not a mark of intelligence.

[Bob from Ohio]

She has a cause and gets support from the GOP. So she supports her supporters. Seems pretty smart actually.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Drawling, superstitious, backwater dumbass.

[Frank Drackman]

She's in Dental School. What Social "Science" (Pre-Law counts) did you major in?

[Josh R]

So far, RKF Jr. has been denied secret service protection. If the decision makers are Jets fans looking for pocket protection, he should pick Aaron Rodgers as his running mate.

[Krychek_2]

Aaron Rodgers is reportedly on RFK's short list for vice president. Rodgers also says he plans to continue to play football. So, would he get secret service protection on the field? Would the secret service tackle anyone who tried to tackle him? Would his teammates have to pass through a metal detector to get into the locker room? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Martinned2]

Why would either Rodgers or RFK jr. get secret service protection?

[mse326]

Presidential candidates get Secret Service protection so RFK doesn't happen again. I'm assuming there is a certain level of support or something that needs to be obtained first, but that is why he might get it in the future

[Estragon]

See 18 USC 3056(a)(7)

The objective threshold seems pretty far off for a guy at ayahuasca retreats in Costa Rica

[Martinned2]

In what universe is RFK jr. a "major presidential candidate"?

[Frank Drackman]

This one

[ducksalad]

Which universe? His supporters'.

I've read that the definition is polling 20% for an independent and 15% for someone in a major party primary. However, that's set by a committee of R+D politicians and can be changed.

[Martinned2]

He is about as likely to be elected as I am. Let’s not pretend he’s a serious candidate.

[Riva]

That's not the standard for determining if his circumstance merit protection. He has received threats and the SS has determined that he is at an "elevated risk for adverse attention." No, I'm not giving you links.

[Martinned2]

If you're not giving me links, I'm left with little alternative but to assume you made that criterion up. It doesn't even look like you've given me enough that I might google it.

[Riva]

Ok, wallow in ignorance, that’s your prerogative, you seem to like it. And, as for your dependence on "Google", given the way you reason, I'm not surprised that your research skills are also lacking.

[Brett Bellmore]

The official standards.

It's all well and good until criterion #4, which clarifies that it's really just intended to protect Democrats and Republicans; You have to show a lot more support as a third party or independent candidate to get any protection.

[jb]

#6 provides room for third party candidates, but it's admittedly pretty weird that you only need 15% of a major party primary average to get protection, but need 20% of a general election average to get protection.

Kennedy is currently as 12.1% in the RCP average. Seems to me pretty unlikely he'd get to 20%, but also doesn't seem totally impossible, especially if both of the major candidates ran into some (even more) significant headwinds.

[ducksalad]

Martinned2, both Barack Obama and George W Bush are constitutionally barred from ever being president. They are literally no more likely to become president than you. And yet they get Secret Service protection.

SS protection isn’t (or shouldn’t be) intended as an honor, official affirmation of seriousness, blessing of legitimacy, etc. The criteria are aligned (or should be) to the likelihood of a politically motivated assassination.

Having said that, RFK’s case is marginal and he’s being whiny. He’s about in the position Gary Johnson was in 2016. BTW, I think the polling criteria back then used to be lower, it’s possible they raised it specifically because of candidates like GJ and RSK.

[Martinned2]

both Barack Obama and George W Bush are constitutionally barred from ever being president. They are literally no more likely to become president than you. And yet they get Secret Service protection.

Yes, because of a different subsection of 18 USC 3056, 18 USC 3056(3).

Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons: (...)
(3)Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.
(4)Children of a former President who are under 16 years of age.

[Kazinski]

He's top 3 with about 13%, I think most countries that would make him a major candidate, why not here?

[Nelson]

In what universe does RFK have 13% support? Even Rasmussen wouldn't publish such nonsense.

[Kazinski]

Well maybe that's an outlier, on the RCP average its 9%, which is still major.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/michigan/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy-vs-west-vs-stein

[jb]

It's actually 12.4% nationwide:

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024#!

Much higher than recent third party candidates.

[Frank Drackman]

This one

[Martinned2]

He’s top 3 with about 13%, I think most countries that would make him a major candidate, why not here?

Not in any country with a two-party system it wouldn't. For example, in the UK the Reform Party is currently polling at 12%, but they will probably end up with 0 or 1 MPs.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The law you quoted doesn’t mention an objective threshold. It says the Secret Service protects major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. As to what that means:

“As used in this paragraph, the term 'major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates' means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee. The Committee shall not be subject to chapter 10 of title 5 [whatever those are].”

What a coincidence – leaning on the advice of Democrats and Republicans as to which third-party challengers qualify as major candidates.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I saw.

In the US there is no general obligation for the police to protect anyone who is in danger. And since RFK jr. isn't a major presidential candidate by any sensible criterion, he is in the same position as any other random citizen.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"no general obligation for the police to protect anyone who is in danger"

Sure, it's my understanding that the courts dismiss suits from people harmed by criminals after the cops failed to provide protection.

Maybe there's an argument against Secret Service protection for *any* Presidential candidate. But Congress established the principle that *some* Presidential candidates should be protected. The remaining question is *which* candidates should be protected, and on that issue, the federal executive has to take advice from a committee dominated by duopoly politicians. And then there's the issue of the objectivity of the federal executive itself.

I would have more confidence in Estragon's "objective threshold" if that threshold were being measured by objective people.

[Martinned2]

That seems more like a theoretical concern. As a practical matter, for the foreseeable future a "major" candidate will always be a major party nominee, or someone who will likely be a major party nominee.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you're so confident that objective standards would rule out Secret Service protection for 3rd party and independent candidates, would you be willing that these objective standards be set and enforced by objective people?

[Krychek_2]

Only if you first tell us how you are defining "objective people". Is it your assumption that Democrats and Republicans are inherently not objective?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’ll tell you what my definition *isn’t*.

Duopoly politicians chosen because of their duopoly-politician status to decide which 3rd-party and independent challengers are worthy of protection = *not* objective.

In the context of Secret Service protection, perhaps the head of the Secret Service should decide? This is just a tentative suggestion, of course, I’m open to better ideas.

"Is it your assumption that Democrats and Republicans are inherently not objective?"

I'm afraid you aren't very good at stating someone else's position. Or at least you slipped on this occasion.

[Krychek_2]

Asking "Is it your assumption that . . " is not stating someone else's position. It's asking a question about what assumptions lie behind your position. And the fact that you chose not to answer the question speaks volumes.

I would be fine with the director of the secret service making the call, although since he is a political appointee, I'm not sure that really gets the "duopoly" out of it; it merely takes it back a level. As a precaution, though, the "duopoly" is likely to err on the side of granting protection just because of the mess that would result if RFK were to actually be assassinated. The reason the Constitution Party and the libertarians and the socialist workers aren't given protection is that they are complete non-entities and from a cost/benefit standpoint it's just not worth it.

And in practice, "duopoly" politicians act against partisan interest all the time, as evidenced by Republican election officials in Georgia and Arizona certifying their states for Biden. There's no reason they can't make an objective determination as to who needs protection and who doesn't.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, I specifically disagree with the “assumption that Democrats and Republicans are inherently not objective”. I hope that’s clear enough for you.

Are you aware of what a rhetorical question is? And how you can make an assertion in the form of a question?

And of course I don't believe that every member of a political party agrees with every other member, or even with the party leadership.

Having gotten your rhetorical clutter out of the way, allow me to speculate that the truly fringe candidates don't have a whole bunch of people wanting to kill them. In other words, the greater the prominence, the greater the risk of assassination, so I think it likely that one is a fairly good proxy for the other.

With this in mind, if we assume the Secret Service's job is to protect Presidential candidates at all, then they should focus on those who are the most in danger of assassination, which would generally mean the duopoly candidates and those candidates who threaten to upset the duoplist applecart.

Only the craziest would-be assassin sits up a night brooding about the threat of the Florida Pirate Party.

So for the most part, the Secret Service can give its protection to the candidates most at risk, with the assurance that the candidates so protected would also be the ones who may actually make a difference in the election - even as a "spoiler."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is it your opinion that if a party has internal squabbles, the politicians who squabble with each other are inherently impartial in disputes involving other parties?

[Krychek_2]

Practice tip: don’t try to be rhetorically witty unless you actually are rhetorically witty.

It’s my opinion that human nature makes it dangerous to claim that groups of people inherently tend to do anything in particular. In any group you’ll have some who do the right thing and some who don’t. So no.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't need to be witty to deal with the likes of you.

[Martinned2]

Of course. Just have the Secretary of Homeland Security decide.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Based solely on degree of threat, not the legal standard of whether some duopoly committee thinks they're major Presidential candidates.

[Estragon]

Whether or not the candidate has been so designated is indeed objective.

DHS has non-binding criteria to assist the Secretary in making a determination— some of those are based on polling numbers.

That said, it is plausible to me that DHS Secretary could say that Mr. Kennedy needs protection given his family’s unique history while also denying it to someone like Cornel West (is he still running?) regardless of low polling.

The conservative enthusiasm for an RFK candidacy in these parts is somewhat puzzling to me but that’s for another day

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For myself, the fact that they'd treat RFK, Jr. this way bodes ill for how they'll treat (say) the Constitution Party, which is more in line with my beliefs.

If they do this in the green wood, what will they do in the dry?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I see I may have used the Biblical citation in a different sense than it was meant in the Bible, but then, Lincoln took similar liberties with another passage.

[Estragon]

Strikes me as a cart before the horse concern, but ok

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, the "objective standards" are deliberately arranged so that they're designed and enforced by duopolist politicians.

Test your ideas by having RFK Jr.'s status decided by objective standards - that is, by standards which are written and ruled on by objective people.

[Estragon]

Again. No objection to him being provided protection. But maybe he should focus on finding enough people who like his policies and want to vote for him first, before we start talking about SS protection. That also goes for the constitution party candidates

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What would be an objective standard for who (if anyone) should get Secret Service protection?

I don't think the statutory standard you cited is objective - for the reasons I've discussed.

[bernard11]

What would be an objective standard for who (if anyone) should get Secret Service protection?

Someone who has some sort of reasonable chance of being elected.

We don't protect candidates because they are cool people. We protect them because:

1. They are likely targets for assassination attempts. Politics stirs emotions, and things can get dicey.
2. Assassination of a major candidate would be wildly disruptive of our political system.

Sure, it would be terrible if RFK, Jr. got assassinated, but it wouldn't greatly disrupt the election.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'll just save time and copy something I said above:

'...allow me to speculate that the truly fringe candidates don’t have a whole bunch of people wanting to kill them. In other words, the greater the prominence, the greater the risk of assassination, so I think it likely that one is a fairly good proxy for the other.

'With this in mind, if we assume the Secret Service’s job is to protect Presidential candidates at all, then they should focus on those who are the most in danger of assassination, which would generally mean the duopoly candidates and those candidates who threaten to upset the duoplist applecart.

'Only the craziest would-be assassin sits up a night brooding about the threat of the Florida Pirate Party.

'So for the most part, the Secret Service can give its protection to the candidates most at risk, with the assurance that the candidates so protected would also be the ones who may actually make a difference in the election – even as a “spoiler.”'

[Absaroka]

Here is a base renaming I can get behind.

The story is both heroic and tragic.

[Paladin_44]

Amen!

[Sarcastr0]

"Johnson killed four Germans and wounded another 10 to 20 more
...
Johnson had prevented the Germans from overrunning the French line."

Goddamn.

Army did not do well by him and his injuries after the war, I see.

[Absaroka]

Didn't do all that well by him during the war either. And the army hadn't changed much by WWII, either, but fortunately smelled the coffee relatively shortly thereafter.

(Johnson is also an interesting contrast with the prior namee, whose wiki page notes "He is remembered for his bitter disagreements with his immediate superior, the likewise-controversial General Braxton Bragg of the Army of Tennessee, and for his general lack of success in combat.")

[Estragon]

Blown apart in gruesome fashion by a cannonball on top of Pine Mt. In Georgia.

[SRG2]

It's not too difficult to speculate why he was denied recognition by the US army at the time.

[ThePublius]

Cop encounter cam.

Can anyone recommend a dash cam that also will record the driver's side window area, so that police stops will be recorded? I've been searching but can't find one that seems explicitly designed for this purpose.

Also, I want to install some cameras at my front door, and in the foyer of my house for police encounters as well. But I don't want an internet connected camera, I want local storage that is automatically pushed to my cloud storage.

Thanks.

[Commenter_XY]

EuFy might have your security camera needs, with local storage. I don't push to cloud, though.

[ThePublius]

Thanks, I'll take a look. I assume it's local storage?

I want to push to the cloud in case rogue cops decide to confiscate cameras and/or memory cards on the spot. Same with the dash cam.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, up to 16TB storage. You can expand storage.

I went another direction, distributed computing (files are uploaded immediately to another location several hundred miles away; a one way ticket).

[ThePublius]

Oh, nice. So, you own the other location?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes

[VinniUSMC]

That just means they'll have a second "door-breaking" party.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe. They have to find it, first. 🙂

[Krayt]

Is there an app that will instantly start recording phone cam, stream up, and not allow deletion without password? And be robust so if stream is cut sudddnly, it saves what’s there instead of choking?

Take this design out of the hands of programmers who would insert popups and passwords and whatnot right at the moment you need none of that. Just touch the icon, it’s going. Heck record both sides' cams, reduce issues even more.

[Commenter_XY]

Does the app exist...probably. Do I know of one? I do not.

[ducksalad]

Innocent people do not need such equipment, citizen.

[ThePublius]

That's funny. Check youtube for all of the videos of police trampling people's rights.

Here's an example:

https://youtu.be/ymUzhRagSjY?si=orJ4-jVdT3FvGq9G

[ThePublius]

Or, perhaps you were being sarcastic? Hard to tell online sometimes.

[Bwaaah]

(thanks for reminding me to pull back from the ledge)

[SRG2]

I assumed sarcasm

[ducksalad]

Yeah, I normally address people as “citizen”.

Personally, for serious storage I only believe in hardware backup under my sole control and capable of being air-gapped. First thing out of a box with a new computer, I delete OneDrive and disable every single linkey-syncey-joiney feature in Windows.

[VinniUSMC]

What sort of wacky shit are you into that you're asking for security cameras specifically for police encounters, which for most people are exceedingly rare? Drug dealer? Whistle blower? Police Captain's wife's side piece? Fire fighter whose prank war with the local PD has gone too far? What, no, I haven't watched too much Tacoma FD, why do you ask?

[ThePublius]

Nothing. Just want to be prepared. I've had police encounters that went sideways - like a door knock that was the wrong address and the cop was quite insistent on entering, 'though I denied him. And a speeding stop that began with the state trooper absolutely screaming at me. So, I'd like to record any encounters. One never knows when they will knock on the door, or pull you over.

I'm in a higher crime neighborhood than my previous neighborhood, and with a city sidewalk right outside. People drive much less "courteously" here, too, so the dash cam might come in handy for that, too. I was T-boned last August, and fortunately for me the person who hit me admitted fault on the spot. But that could have become difficult. A dash cam would have shown that I had the green light. And so on....

[VinniUSMC]

I understand. I’m in the western “greater Detroit area”, which has, of late, gone extra south. (Accidents, shootings, carjackings, etc). I bought a regular dash-cam to install in my new car after pulling a double roly-poly last year when my tire blew out on my old car. Standard 2 camera front/rear setup. Haven’t needed it yet. *knock on wood*

A quick Googling led me to this site: https://www.security.org/security-cameras/no-wifi/

It’s a decent starting point for the home side of things.

For the car, look into 3D or 3-channel systems. Probably looking for things marketed toward taxi/uber/etc drivers.

[VinniUSMC]

For instance: https://www.thedashcamstore.com/viofo-a139-pro-3ch-bundle-4k-front-inside-and-rear-dash-cam-w-gps-wifi/

[SRG2]

If ThePublius is African-American, he would find encounters with police far more common than the average white citizen.

[ThePublius]

WTF? Why introduce the race aspect into this?

[SRG2]

This is what VinniUSMC wrote: "police encounters, which for most people are exceedingly rare?"

Such encounters are not exceedingly rare for black male motorists. Hence one explanation for your wishing to film such encounters is that you're African-American. Should I have assumed ab initio that you were white?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black

[ThePublius]

Everyone should be concerned about police encounters, regardless of their race.

[SRG2]

True, but the risk that such encounters occur is higher if you're black.

[ThePublius]

Yea, so what? That is immaterial if I get stopped. Some people, Jeez, don't make any sense. It's not a binary thing. It's not like I'm never going to be stopped, or have a cop knock on my door just because I'm not black, and therefore I shouldn't bother being prepared.

And your comment is off topic, and drags race, unnecessarily, into this discussion.

The topic is "suggestions for a dash cam and front door cam."

[SRG2]

The topic is “suggestions for a dash cam and front door cam.”

Then why did you not get annoyed by VinnieUSMC's comments - to which my posts were a response? And I note that his initial response was far more immoderate than mine.

[Frank Drackman]

If ThePublius is Male, he would find encounters with police far more common than the average female. I think that's because males commit crimes far more often than females. Dittos with African-Americans.

[Life of Brian]

For home, I landed on a Reolink unit that immediately stores to a local memory card, and every x minutes FTPs the most recent footage to a local server which in turn periodically mirrors to cloud storage. It's been up for a few months now and seems to be stable. I left mine connected to the outside world because I wanted to be able to access it remotely in real time, but you can shut that off and keep it strictly local.

[not guilty]

Judge Scott McAfee has dismissed six counts of the Fulton County indictment against various defendants. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24478988/trump_specialdemurrers_31324.pdf As I see it, the State has three options. The prosecution can:

a) seek a superseding indictment including the details which were omitted from the instant indictment;
b) seek leave of court for an interlocutory appeal of Judge McAfee's order; or
c) proceed to trial on the remaining counts of the indictment.

Option (c) makes the most sense to me. Options (a) or (b) would prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. The same evidence is admissible regardless of whether the dismissed counts are tried or not. The conduct underlying each count is pled as overt acts in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy. Evidence of Donald Trump's conversation with Brad Raffensperger is admissible on the false statement counts 29 and 39, which have not been dismissed.

The timing of the order of dismissal strongly suggests that Judge McAfee will deny all relief requested in the defense motions to dismiss or disqualify the District Attorney's office. If the judge were inclined to dismiss the indictment entirely, then a piecemeal order of dismissal makes no sense.

Paragraph 3 of footnote 8 states:

Alternatively, the State may request a certificate of immediate review pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-7-2 which the Court would likely grant due to the lack of precedential authority. See State v. Outen, 289 Ga. 579, 581 (2011) (finding dismissal of less than all counts of indictment not a final order for purposes of State’s automatic right to appeal).

That presupposes that Fani Willis will be the one to decide whether to seek certification under § 5-7-2, which must be made within ten days of entry of the order appealed from. Once such certification has been granted, the appealing party has ten days to seek review in the Court of Appeals. O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(b); Ga.Ct.App.R. 30(a). If Fani Willis is disqualified, her successor will not be in place in time to comply with these deadlines for seeking interlocutory review.

[tylertusta]

There’s another option: filing a new indictment on the quashed counts as a separate matter.

Edit: Though this is probably the most unlikely of paths due to potential double jeopardy concerns.

[not guilty]

No. Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn or, in a bench trial, when the first witness is sworn. Jeopardy has not attached here.

Filing a new indictment on the quashed counts as a separate matter is theoretically possible, but why would the State want to do that? The penalty for criminal solicitation of a felony is minor (1-3 years), and any evidence offered to prove that offense is also admissible at a trial of the remaining counts.

There is a point of diminishing returns. OTOH, the State could offer some remaining defendants a plea to that minor felony offense as part of an agreed disposition if they agree to cooperate.

[tylertusta]

In Georgia, it's called procedural double jeopardy. See Ga § 16-1-7.

https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/chapter-1-general-provisions/section-16-1-7-multiple-prosecutions-for-same-conduct

Anyways, Fani Willis seems to believe that section doesn't apply in RICO cases, so she might take a stab at it.

Filing a new indictment on the quashed counts as a separate matter is theoretically possible, but why would the State want to do that?

Depends on how pissed off Fani Willis is.

Based on her testimony, I'd say she's very pissed off.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, lawyers have been accused of deviousness from time to time, or legal gamesmanship. Fani The Smasher is not dumb....failing to specify a crime in the indictment? No way. Is some of this legal gamesmanship? What do you think?

If the goal is to have the trial during the election, then 'c' is the option.

[not guilty]

I doubt that this is gamesmanship. Occam's razor suggests it was oversight by the drafter of the indictment.

[tylertusta]

Or Hanlon's Razor: it was incompetence, not malice.

[Commenter_XY]

You ever do something like that = oversight on a big case

[John F. Carr]

The indictment has to explain why the Speaker of the House (Georgia) would be violating his oath if he called a special session. Is it a violation of oath to call a special session to consider a bill or resolution that exceeds the legislature's authority? That is unconstitutional in some other way? If, before Roe was overturned, I had asked a Georgia lawmaker to vote for an abortion ban, would I have solicited a violation of oath?

(From the judge's order: "Count Five alleges that Defendant Trump solicited the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives to violate his oath of office on December 7, 2020, by requesting or importuning him to call a special session to unlawfully appoint presidential electors;")

[Kazinski]

Problem with dropping it is because its a RICO case based on a pattern of criminal activity then cutting back that pattern weakens the case.

Plus there was never much chance of McAfee dropping the charges completely, its about disqualifying Willis and having a less partisan, less personally motivated prosecutor take over the case and independently evaluate it.

[not guilty]

The conduct alleged in each of the dismissed counts is also alleged as an overt act in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy. So the same evidence will be admissible at trial whether the dismissed counts are charged as independent crimes or not.

For the reasons I identified upthread, the timing of this order likely indicates that Judge McAfee is going to deny any and all relief requested in the defendants' gossip-based motions to dismiss/disqualify the DA.

[not guilty]

It seems that my prediction that Judge McAfee would deny all relief requested in the defense motions to dismiss or disqualify the District Attorney’s office was not correct. The court denied the defense motions insofar as they sought dismissal of the indictment or disqualification of the District Attorney’s office in its entirety, but ruled that the District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5, or alternatively, Special Assistant District Attorney Nathan Wade can withdraw from further participation in the case. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24482993/order-03-15-2024-103516-41352718-557be37d-0c1b-4f8d-8236-37f565138b56.pdf

[Martinned2]

Here's a court judgment that should make the heads explode of some of the commenters here:

Trans woman gets 25 years for lese-majeste
Sentence halved from 50 years for 18 posts made on Twitter

A transgender woman has been sentenced to a total of 25 years in prison for royal defamation and related computer crimes, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR).

The Southern Bangkok Criminal Court handed down the ruling on Thursday in the case against a 26-year-old defendant identified only as “Maggie”.

The convictions stemmed from 18 messages about the royal institution posted on Twitter between December 2022 and October 2023, the lawyers said.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2758718/trans-woman-gets-25-years-for-lese-majeste

[ducksalad]

Not feeling any increase in cranial pressure.

Seems to be some truth in the adage that conservatives understand liberals’ motivations more than the other way around. What internal contradiction do you imagine conservatives would feel here? Do you think they believe that trans people should be imprisoned or get enhanced sentences because of it?

[Bwaaah]

He said TRANS.

(You're no fun.)

[Commenter_XY]

Wait...I think I feel something...but....it went away. Sigh.

Nope, no head explosion. Thinking about that Royal Crispy whatever, though. 🙂

[Bwaaah]

CHICKEN??? Did somebody hint at CHICKEN???!!!

(I still got Chick-fil-A in my near future)

[Commenter_XY]

Just gonna tell you...Nobody beats Chick-Fil-A.

HOWEVER! I will say that Bojangles has a better chicken biscuit. The biscuit from Bojangles is superior to C-F-A. Not even that close.

Biscuitville is a very close second to Bojangles on the 'biscuit scale'.

[Bwaaah]

Now you're killing me. We got no Bojangles around here. That's gotta go on my bucket list for the Carolinas. (I'm headed right now to South Florida for a couple of days, and I'd have to get all the way up to Ocala to scratch that itch. You're so killing me.)

[SRG2]

the adage that conservatives understand liberals’ motivations more than the other way around.

It’s not an adage. It’s the idea that as conservatives are sensitive to more of the moral foundations than liberals they undestand all the liberals' sensitivities, but the opposite will not be true.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

I have come to doubt that argument because it assumes that liberals are neutral or agnostic about those moral foundations to which conservatives are sensitive while liberals are apparently insensitive, It is possible that liberals – generalising – are actively against some elements of the conservative foundations, and that would make conservatives understand liberals no better than vice versa.

[ducksalad]

Just to be clear, while I believe the adage/idea/theory, I don’t think it’s that conservatives are inherently more intelligent, or sensitive, or anything like that.

It’s much simpler than that: in school, most of us were required to sit patiently and listen while the liberal POV was explained to us by teachers who believed it themselves. And if it was a decent, albeit liberal teacher, she/he was making a sincere and reasonable effort to be convincing.

I think that’s less true for conservative beliefs, which were likely explained (if at all) by a teacher who disagreed.

[bernard11]

in school, most of us were required to sit patiently and listen while the liberal POV was explained to us by teachers who believed it themselves.

It was rather the opposite for me.

[Absaroka]

I think you and I went to school quite a while ago 🙂

[Bob from Ohio]

Its because conservatives get exposed to lib views on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, WaPo, NYT etc. while libs can easily ignore conservative media. Not some wacky theory.

[SRG2]

Because as we know, conservatives are forced to watch all those stations and go to all those websites. I wonder when Bob from Ohio discovers the "change channel" button.

[David Nieporent]

I do think that used to be true. But with FNC and its even more extreme brethren among the cable channels, as well as the online conservative ecosystem, I don't think conservatives do get exposed to liberal views, other than when conservative outlets quote (or misquote) them to mock them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was never true.

[Bwaaah]

She should have done that here in the U.S. If she had, we wouldn't even be hearing about it. It'd be just another angry Twitter feed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We need to call out all those commenters who (a) support the Thai monarchy, (b) want prison sentences for the monarchy's critics and (c) want in particular to enhance the sentences if the critic is "trans."

Can you give me a list of the commenters who believe such things?

[Martinned2]

There is no shortage here of commenters who want trans people to suffer. They are typically pretty pragmatic about the source of the suffering.

[Nige]

It was never likely to provoke anything but mild indifference.

[Heedless]

On the other hand, I find myself agreeing with you about something, which may make my head explode.

[Martinned2]

*pretence of indifference.

[Bwaaah]

Here is what Donald Trump actually said he did:

“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.” But Secret Service agent Anthony Ornato’s recently released testimony supports Trump’s statement. Here’s his testimony (page 78 here):

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.

Notice in the Washington Post (and around here) the bait and switch from the left: instead of disproving what Trump actually said he actually did, they’ve substituted a fabricated hypothetical:

&nbps; “President Trump never ordered troops to protect the Capitol Building.”

That hypothetical is true. But that’s not the fact in question, and it’s even an absurd hypothetical.

There’s no practical or political sense in the President “ordering” 10,000 National Guard troops to provide security when he has no established mechanism for command and control of civilian policing. Ask yourself this: who, precisely, would the President order to do what?

Absurd hypothetical: “I am Donald Trump, and on this day of our national vote certification, I hereby order 10,000 troops to take control of the Capitol Building.”

All the President can practically and reasonably do, aside from ordering city 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 somebody has a practical, politically tolerable vision of how such a Presidential order would have worked, please do tell. Again: who tells whom to do what?

The left does not disprove what Trump said or did; it disproves its made-up hypothetical statement.

Trump has been saying for years that he offered troops for security without limitations. There having been no evidence to contradict that, the media has been saying, “That’s FALSE.” And the Democrats and then news media conveniently went silent, as they often do, when faced with the contradictory evidence of Agent Ornato’s testimony. (They call all of this “another right-wing conspiracy”.)

But yes, dear fact checkers, your statement is TRUE that “Donald Trump did not order 10,000 troops into the Capitol building.”

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The DC National Guard reports directly to the President.

https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/

[Bwaaah]

Yes. You didn’t describe an order, and how it would be enforced. You ignore the detailed realities of civilian policing (as the left typically does).

"Go in there men, and take the Capitol!"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You offered as fact a series of opinions about how it isn't possible for the President to make any kind of order, without a single piece of evidence to support your authoritative declarations on the matter.

The National Guard does not have to coordinate anything with any local police. If they are ordered to secure a facility, they can do so without the aid of civilian police, because the military is trained in such matters.

As I am not a commanding officer of any military service or soldiers, I will not be providing you with the demands you've put forth of describing in detail a specific order and the ROEs within it.

The fact you demand such indicates that you aren't here with any kind of good faith.

Typical.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. You confidently opine that the President could "order" National Guard troops, and yet provide no plausible scenario. All you can say is that he has the power to do so, as if that alone was the question.

You say "the military is trained in such matters." What matters? Do you mean securing the Capitol Building, or do you mean, all matters like that and such and whatever? Why do you think that?

It is you, and the left, that purports to know something about how policing is done, but provides no plausible description of how that would work. Even having the most powerful military in the world doesn't answer how you actually implement a peaceful solution in a particular real-life situation. Haven't you noticed?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You continue to ask for explicit details that nobody here is going to provide, while not providing any evidence of your confident assertions whatsoever. Hypocrite much?

As to how I know the military is trained in securing facilities: Because that's how you win wars, fool. You take ground, and you secure it. It's quite literally the primary job of the infantry.

Are you going to ask about Rules of Engagement next, or are you going to pretend that the military doesn't have experience with those either?

Nothing requires the solution to be anything other than 'peaceful.' It would be the 'protesters' making the situation violent if they decided to press the issue despite overwhelming troop presence.

Please, continue with your bad faith arguments and demands of others for that which you won't provide for your own arguments.

[Bwaaah]

"As to how I know the military is trained in securing facilities: Because that’s how you win wars, fool. You take ground, and you secure it. It’s quite literally the primary job of the infantry."

Yes. Winning wars. Infantry. The Capitol Building.

You don't see my point. But you do make it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

We've made progress.

Now look up "Rules of Engagement."

You've made a number of claims without a single piece of supporting evidence. Should I presume at this point that you have no intention of ever providing any?

[Bwaaah]

Kazinski nailed a good source. Here's the DOD Inspector General's report about DOD's role in January 6. All the President and the White House could do with respect to security was exactly what they did: check in advance with policing agencies and let them know they would support any requests for support, as they did.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Both of you should probably actually read your sources.

You're wrong as a matter of common sense, military capability, and the law.

Try starting at page 11, and make sure to take note of the top of page 12. Then re-visit your original claims about what the President could have done if he hadn't been so pleased with the carnage he'd hoped for.

[Bwaaah]

I read the pages you point to here. What is the specific assertion you are making now, and what specific part(s) of those pages support your assertion. And also please indicate what claim I made that this disproves.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

JFC do you have to be lead by the nose?

In rare cases, Federal forces also may respond directly to civil disturbances. The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law authorize the President to employ military forces to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence in a specific civil jurisdiction under specific circumstances. The Insurrection Act allows the President to use Title 10 forces to enforce Federal laws when rebellion against U.S. authority makes it impracticable to enforce U.S. law by ordinary means.17 Additional information on the Insurrection Act is located in Appendix A.

DoD policy allows Federal military commanders to exercise “emergency authority” under extraordinary circumstances to prevent significant loss of life, prevent wanton destruction of property, restore governmental function, restore public order, protect Federal property, and protect Federal functions. Federal military commanders do not need a request for assistance from civil authorities to respond, and may perform tasks such as dispersing unauthorized assemblages, patrolling disturbed areas, maintaining essential transportation and communications systems, setting up roadblocks, and cordoning off areas. Emergency authority is only available when (1) local authorities are unable to control large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances, and (2) it is impossible to communicate through the military chain of command to obtain presidential authorization for the DoD to conduct CDO.

"There’s no practical or political sense in the President “ordering” 10,000 National Guard troops to provide security when he has no established mechanism for command and control of civilian policing. Ask yourself this: who, precisely, would the President order to do what?"

He absolutely could have ordered the DCNG to regain control of and protect the Capitol building and our Congress from the insurrection he had instigated.

You keep trying to say it wasn't "practical" for various reasons that amount to nothing more than opinion, when it was in fact his duty to have done so.

Instead he gleefully sat in front of the TV for hours watching what he'd set in motion and hoping it would work.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. He could have ordered the National Guard to "take back the Capitol Building."

Would you add the word, "now" to that order, or would you allow them time to come up with an actual plan (which would take much longer than it took for the acting authorities to clear the scene)?

Like I said, if all you want to do is summarily kill people, then sure, Jason, when you're President, you can give the order to just "Take back the Capitol Building now!"

If you think that's a meaningful plan, or you don't understand how many uncertainties or dangers or problems there are in fulfilling an order like that, then you're a dumbass.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

DoD policy allows it. Insurrection Act allows it. It was his duty to protect Congress, and in the end, the NG was ordered to the scene by Miller, because Trump wasn't interested in upholding his Oath of Office.

It's like you've never heard of Military Police, or Rules of Engagement, and believe the only thing the NG can do is shoot people. You also clearly underestimate (or disregard entirely) their ability to come up with an action plan on the fly for what amounts to a very limited operation of regaining control of a single building.

The ignorance of such a position is fucking astonishing.

Remind me: How many people did the NG end up shooting that day? What expertise are you relying on to claim any other method of deployment would have resulted in just 'summarily killing people?' Oh, right - your ass.

You might want to count how many fingers are pointing back in your direction with your accusation of me being a dumbass.

[Bwaaah]

"You also clearly underestimate (or disregard entirely) their ability to come up with an action plan on the fly for what amounts to a very limited operation of regaining control of a single building."

Local police (with National Guard support) cleared the scene, with _very_ limited casualties, in about four hours. You propose that USCP and MPD should have stood down while the National Guard took command and control of the situation, in order to drive a better outcome?

You would have preferred a U.S. military assault on the Capitol Building, a large complex building occupied with friendly people and combatants, with an objective of minimizing damage and casualties?

How much time do you think you would have saved, and how much damage/casualties do you think would you have avoided with your improved tactical strategy?

Can you give me an example of such a policing action in history, with thousands of civilians and unknown combatants in and around a building complex, that was executed that swiftly without significant casualties?

I believe you greatly underestimate the complexity of the operation when you don't know the facility or the occupants, and greatly overestimate the ability of any police force, military or otherwise, to execute such a peacekeeping operation "on the fly."

[Bwaaah]

How much were you going to improve what outcome(s)? And your firm confidence is based on what example in history?

[ducksalad]

I think we all (including yourself) know how you'd have spun it if Trump *had* ordered troops to seize and secure the capital.

[Bwaaah]

It's only now that I realize how difficult it is to come up with a scenario that isn't preposterous. Indeed, the people who intimate (but don't really say) that he should have ordered in troops would be the very people who would be EXTREMELY skeptical of any such measure. I have little doubt that House Speaker Pelosi considered the option and understood how problematic it really was, in real life.

[Nige]

'the people who intimate (but don’t really say)'

A sure sign you're arguing in good faith, there.

[ThePublius]

POTUS was deferring to Pelosi, who was responsible for Capital security.

[Bwaaah]

And I don’t doubt that she too understood how difficult it would be to deploy National Guard troops in and around the Capitol Building on that day (or on any day). But she, like the President, would rely on the command and control of the Capitol Police, and would avoid “ordering” them to do anything.

All our elected officials can do is support the people who do the job of implementing security, or plausibly, tell “them” to “stand down.” (Doing nothing is easy. Doing something right is hard.)

[David Nieporent]

Every word of that is a lie.

[Kazinski]

Its clear from both the Pentagon IG report and the 3 page after action summary that Trump authorized an unspecified number of troops, and Capitol Hill authorities rejected the offer in the week before the riot.

Its also clear that Pentagon officials had all the authority they needed from the President to deploy more troops, and the delay was due to bureaucracy, and getting the lawyers to sign off on the deployment, which was complicated by their refusal to authorize troops earlier in the week.

The fact that their are lawyers in the room with pilots in the middle of drone strikes its not surprising lawyers would have to sign off on deploying troops and make sure the Posse Comititus act is not being violated.

Here is what the Actual Pentagon After Action report said:
Sunday, January 3, 2021
• DoD confirms with U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) that there is no request for DoD support.
• A/SD meets with select Cabinet Members to discuss DoD support to law enforcement agencies and potential requirements for DoD support.
• A/SD and CJCS meet with the President. President concurs in activation of the DCNG to support law enforcement.

And on Jan 6th:
1334: SECARMY phone call with Mayor Bowser in which Mayor Bowser communicates
request for unspecified number of additional forces.
1349: Commanding General, DCNG, Walker phone call with USCP Chief Sund. Chief Sund communicates request for immediate assistance.
1422: SECARMY phone call with D.C. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Dr. Rodriguez, and MPD leadership to discuss the current situation and to request additional DCNG support.
1430: A/SD, CJCS, and SECARMY meet to discuss USCP and Mayor Bowser’s requests.
1500: A/SD determines all available forces of the DCNG are required to reinforce MPD and USCP positions to support efforts to reestablish security of the Capitol complex.
1500: SECARMY directs DCNG to prepare available Guardsmen to move from the armory to the Capitol complex, while seeking formal approval from A/SD for deployment. DCNG prepares to move 150 personnel to support USCP, pending A/SD’s approval.
1504: A/SD, with advice from CJCS, DoD GC, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB), SECARMY, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, provides verbal approval of the full activation of DCNG (1100 total) in support of the MPD. Immediately upon A/SD approval, Secretary McCarthy directs DCNG to initiate movement and full mobilization. In response, DCNG redeployed all soldiers from positions at Metro stations and all available non-support and non-C2 personnel to support MPD. DCNG begins full mobilization.
1519: SECARMY phone call with Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi about the nature of Mayor Bowser’s request. SECARMY explains A/SD already approved full DCNG mobilization.
1526: SECARMY phone call with Mayor Bowser and MPD police chief relays there was no denial of their request, and conveys A/SD approval of the activation of full DCNG.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for filling that in. I'll check it out. _That_ sounds like the way real life unfolds. For those who may think that was foot-dragging, that's a huge bureaucracy, including
the U.S. military, mobilizing in under two hours. And it still doesn't answer precisely what any Guardsmen is supposed to do. That's up to MPD and USCP.

[M L]

The whole thing was obviously carefully planned and anticipated. They wanted and needed this event to happen, that’s why Nancy Pelosi declined 10,000 troops. That’s why there were many provocateurs and FBI ‘informants’ at work there. That’s why a group of officers started firing rubber bullets and pepper spray canisters at people that were just standing there peacefully not doing anything including some elderly women.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bruce Hayden, is that you?

That's two open threads in a row that you've spouted bald-faced lies. Your parents should have done a better job raising you.

[Sarcastr0]

Off the deep end!

[Estragon]

Jimmy the Dane is that you? I kinda thought he might be in jail…

[Commenter_XY]

Who is 'they'? = They wanted and needed this event to happen, that’s why Nancy Pelosi declined 10,000 troops.

[bernard11]

What a fucking liar you are.

Who the hell "wanted and needed this event to happen?" Besides Trump, I mean.

And if he was so keen to prevent it why did he sit on his fat ass for hours watching on TV rather than call for the insurrectionists to withdraw?

This whole line of discussion is deranged.

[bernard11]

"If Trump said it it must be true," says Bwaaah. Sure.

[Bwaaah]

Nope. It's when it was corroborated, by a Secret Service agent, that I considered it seriously (not that I simply dismissed it as "untrue" before). Don't worry. Your position is probably unfalsifiable.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

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.

[SRG2]

One wonders how reliable Ornato is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Ornato

Ornato was scheduled to be interviewed by Department of Homeland Security investigators on August 31, 2022 regarding January 6th activities. To avoid doing so, Ornato retired from the Secret Service on August 29, 2022

[David Nieporent]

It’s when it was corroborated, by a Secret Service agent,

Ornato was not a Secret Service agent. Well, he was at one time, but not then and not at any time relevant to events. He was a political appointee of Trump's at the time.

[Bwaaah]

I stand corrected. He appears to have been the White House ”Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations” at the time pertaining to his testimony.

[bernard11]

The Secret Service agent in question is a complete Trump toady. He is no more to be believed than Trump.

[David Nieporent]

That hypothetical is true. But that’s not the fact in question, and it’s even an absurd hypothetical.

It's absolutely in question. When he pretended he offered troops to Pelosi, do you think that he meant that he was offering troops to Pelosi for traffic duty elsewhere in Washington DC? Or do you think he meant to imply he offered troops to Pelosi to protect the Capitol?

And do you think that he meant that he offered to put Nancy Pelosi in charge of active troops, or that he meant that he offered to order them to protect the Capitol?

[Bwaaah]

The President and the White House, starting days ahead, offered unlimited authorization of support to all security agencies in whatever they thought they needed up to and including January 6. There were no secrets.

(See DOD IG's report for a good detailed breakdown of how this unfolded. Hat tip to Kazinski.)

"Do you think that he meant that he offered to put Nancy Pelosi in charge of active troops, or that he meant...."

This is the nonsense about Donald's troops and Nancy's troops; Donald's orders and Nancy's orders.

Technically, I presume the President can "order" any U.S. military person to do anything. And technically, I presume the Speaker of the House holds strong sway with the Capitol Police. But practically, in reality, POLITICIANS DON'T TELL THE POLICE HOW TO PROVIDE SECURITY (except when they tell them to *not* provide security). They share their security concerns with policing agencies, and then say, in effect, "How can we help?" Help means promptly authorizing any resource requests from the policing agencies.

I see no indications that anything other than that happened here.

You want to know the biggest B.S. conspiracy theory in America today? All the stories and beliefs that there were people who knew what was actually going to happen on January 6. Did the President hope for an insurrection? Quite possibly, and in my opinion, likely. Did he or anybody have a tactical plan for one? Nope. Not at any practical level of detail. All they had planned was a rally, and probably hope it would somehow move to the Capitol. They all winged it, every step of the way.

I understand that the President encouraged the resistance of the protestors to the election process. But there was no indication of a tactical ground plan. There was nobody in charge. The rally turned into a march to the Capitol, and the march to the Capitol turned into a riot in the Capitol Building. Nobody, on the morning of January 6, could tell you that would happen as it did. (Remember the "insurrectionists'" demands? Whoops. They didn't have any. LOL)

20/20 hindsight is just that: hindsight. Reality unfolded chaotically that day, despite the grand conspiracy theories that suggest it was the result of specific plans. And though policing agencies were caught off guard, that wasn't for lack of support from the White House.

[Magister]

While I doubt Trump was capable of much realistic planning, there are convicted seditious conspirators, and various Trump allies like Chesebro and Eastman and Clark were capable of planning. If Trump did no more than "who will rid me of this troublesome election result?" in advance, that's something, but he advanced people who clearly were planning to carry that out. Things like the policy change on deployment of DC National Guard only a few days earlier might have been inadvertent or misguided, but such claims might just be the Defense Department's attempt at covering its ass.

Even Trump's family and close advisors were telling him to do something to stop it while the attack was happening, and he didn't; no quibbling over the extent of planning can cover that up.

[Kazinski]

Trump asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense if they had a plan for September 6th, they told him "We have a plan, and we have it handled"

Mark Milley was CJCS at the time and hardly a Trump fan. And the record shows he left the planning of the response to any disruptions to the professionals, which is exactly what he should have done.

[Magister]

Sure, and nothing happened on September 6th. Win!

Milley's judgment was not always good, such as his participation in the Lafayette Square photo opportunity. But he did push for planning about January 6th, even if he underestimated how crazy Trump was.

During an interagency rehearsal of the vote to certify the election in the days leading up to Jan. 6, then-Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist predicted that the greatest threat that day would be “a direct assault on the Capitol,” Milley said.

“I only remember it in hindsight because he was almost like clairvoyant,” Milley said. “He nailed it. He pegged that one. Incredible.”

The exercise was conducted at Milley’s insistence, and involved laying out the entire city on the gym of Conmy Hall, in Fort Myer, Virginia. The Secret Service, which officials tapped to be the lead federal agency for the day, videotaped the rehearsal.

How often are there interagency rehearsals of electoral vote counting?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Trump operation concealed, repeatedly and intentionally, its plan to send the mob to the Capitol. It lied to law enforcement representatives about this in writing.

Other that that, though . . . great comment, clinger!

[dwb68]

Unironically, Twitter (whose demise is greatly exaggerated), wouldnt put up ad ad because "profanity." The ad has "asshole" which is barely profanity these days. Because literally the most profane billionaire in the world who promotes free speech has bots who think this violates community standards. Meawhile, the ad is fine of facebook, instagram, and amazon.

[Jumaira]

The new South Carolina gun law is an embarrassment for a supposedly "conservative" state. While it eliminates the permit requirement to carry concealed, it imposes a list of "prohibited places" that would make New York or California blush. Numbers 8-11 are particularly egregious.

Section 16-23-20. (A) It is unlawful, whether or not the person has a concealed weapon permit, for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law into a:

(1) law enforcement, correctional, or detention facility;
(2) courthouse or courtroom;
(3) polling place on election days;
(4) office of or business meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district;
(5) school or college athletic event not related to firearms;
(6) daycare facility or preschool facility;
(7) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;
(8) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body;
(9) hospital, medical clinic, doctor's office, or any other facility where medical services or procedures are performed, unless expressly authorized by the appropriate entity;
(10) residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession of the residence or dwelling place, as appropriate; or
(11) place clearly marked with a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon on the premises in compliance with Section 23-31-235. A person who violates a provision of this item, whether the violation is wilful or not, only may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620 and must not be charged with or penalized for a violation of this subsection.; or
(12) publicly owned building, other than a courthouse, whether owned by the State, a county, a municipality, or another political subdivision, where court is held and during the time that court is in session.

[Martinned2]

Yes, clearly everyone who wants to should be able to carry a concealed fire arm in a courtroom! Anything else would be madness!

[Dr. Ed 2]

An armed society is a very polite society...

[Martinned2]

Yes, Somalia is famously very polite.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Somalia's gun ownership rate is 10% of the US's.

Maybe that's their problem.

[Frank Drackman]

Somalia's problem is Somalians

[Martinned2]

Yes, the problem of Somalia is definitely that they don't have enough guns.

[bernard11]

This is a really stupid slogan.

[Bob from Ohio]

He did not say all the list was bad.

[mse326]

How are 8-11 particularly egregious? It is simply saying those property owners have the right to ban firearms on their property and a violation of it is a crime rather than just a civil wrong. It's basically a gun trespass law.

[ducksalad]

Incorrect. It’s a state imposed default ban on all churches, residences, and medical facilities. Property owners have to opt in by jumping through some hoops like posting signs or training their staff to yell “Welcome to Hardee’s!!! You may bring in a gun!!!” everytime the door opens.

I’d be fine with it if it was reversed to an opt out: property owners have to post a sign or have their staff yell “Welcome to Hardee’s!!! Please leave any guns outside!!!” each time someone walks in.

But as it is, the state has declared every person’s house a gun free zone unless they formally declare it otherwise. It would be interesting if the SC police charged some guy for having a gun in his own home, because he hadn’t “expressly” given himself permision. Parallels to Trump not expressly changing the classification on documents he wanted to take home.

[David Nieporent]

But as it is, the state has declared every person’s house a gun free zone unless they formally declare it otherwise. It would be interesting if the SC police charged some guy for having a gun in his own home, because he hadn’t “expressly” given himself permision. Parallels to Trump not expressly changing the classification on documents he wanted to take home.

If you bring a gun into someone's home without asking permission, you are an asshole. Or a cop. (But I repeat myself.) If the person says, "Sure; I don't mind," then there's no problem. What on earth are you complaining about?
"Express permission" does not require any formal process.

[Bwaaah]

False. There's a difference between a "right to ban firearms on [our] property," which we already had, and a state-imposed presumption that you have banned firearms on your property.

It's as if you can't tell the difference between a right and a state action.

[David Nieporent]

Is there a practical difference? If you enter private property while carrying, either (a) nobody notices, in which case there's no legal issue; or (b) the property owner notices, and doesn't object, in which case there's not going to be a legal issue; or (c) the property owner notices, and does object, in which case the presumption was accurate!

[Absaroka]

That logic equally applies if the legislature made it a crime to carry a cell phone onto private property that wasn't explicitly signed 'Cell phones OK'.

Why would anyone object to that? It only inconveniences cell phone nuts who need their facebook fix constantly available. They should just get a life and leave the phone at home.

[Jumaira]

As Bob noted, I didn't say the whole list was bad. As a matter of policy, I don't think gun free zones are reasonable unless the place is secure (meaning limited points of access and metal detectors). If a government doesn't deem a place important enough to provide that, it shouldn't be a "gun free zone" as criminals and robbers will not follow those rules.

Given that, my opinion is that 1, 2, 7 and 12 are legitimate. 4 may be, depending on the circumstances.

The others are not.

As Ducksalad and Bwaaah pointed out, the issue is that they create a default rule that guns are prohibited, and they attach a criminal penalty to a trespass that would not exist in any other circumstance.

I have no issue charging someone with trespass because they don't leave when asked to. But there shouldn't be an enhanced penalty because you didn't leave and were carrying a gun versus you didn't leave and you weren't wearing a shirt.

Also, the state should not take it upon itself to attach a criminal penalty to a private person's (or business') rules, when that private person isn't even aware the rule has been broken.

For example, if a business owner posts a rule that you can't come in with no shirt, he will see right away and can ask you to leave for violating it. But let's say he posts a rule about not wearing pink underwear. He'd have no idea what you were wearing, and thus couldn't ask you to leave based on something he doesn't know about. The state is basically criminalizing his preferences for guns, and ONLY for guns.

I expected better from South Carolina Republicans.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gun nuts deserve everything better Americans are going to impose on them.

[Frank Drackman]

again with the "Bettors"! only thing you're "Bettor" at than me is buggering boys.

[Jumaira]

He buggers girls too likely. Pedophiles usually aren't that picky.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It looks like the commercial real estate market is going to crash.

Some of it possibly could be converted to residential, but the two things that come to immediate mind are electricity and water/sewer capacity, not to mention ventilation.

The big burner on an electric stove is 2,100 watts (I just replaced one) and memory is that the oven is 4,500 watts. You already have HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, & Air Conditioning) but not individual controls and residential use (showers & cooking) puts 7 pounds of water vapor in the air per person, per day. That's nearly a gallon -- if you don't remove it, you'll have mold.

You are going to need a lot more water and a lot bigger sewer pipes to dispose of it. Could be fun...

https://thehill.com/business/4526847-wall-street-braces-for-commercial-real-estate-timebomb/

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "...but the two things that come to immediate mind are electricity and water/sewer capacity, not to mention ventilation.."

Two Points:

1. This is depressingly more likely than most of Nostradamus Ed's many apocalyptic predictions.

2. Changes and/or upgrades to MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) are easily done. More to point, the commercial space ideal is open floorplates. This means large interior areas are windowless once you get beyond a few feet off the building perimeter. Many commercial-to-residential conversions are forced to cut light wells thru the space or carve open areas towards the building's center perpendicular to its peremeter - all to get more windows for each residential unit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

". Changes and/or upgrades to MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) are easily done"

Back in the '70s & '80s the Town of Burlington (MA) learned the hard way that isn't always true. A community which had farmed eastern (garbage-fed) pork, with undeveloped farmland all along Route 128 rapidly developed with first a major shopping mall (which spawned adjacent Big Box stores, and then all kinds of high-tech industries which then boomed. What had been a 4-lane "highway to nowhere" (circling Boston) became a clogged 8 lane road often compared to the LA freeway.

By the mid 1980s, Burlington had sewerage problems. Big time and throughout all of town because no one had anticipated the cumulative impact of all the development.

What Nostradamus Ed is thinking about is the CUMULATIVE demand on electric, water, sewerage, and maybe steam.

GRB is right about windows -- for example, Massachusetts 105CMR410.430 (A) requires that windows equal at least 8% of floor space.

[Absaroka]

"What Nostradamus Ed is thinking about is the CUMULATIVE demand on electric, water, sewerage, and maybe steam."

Do people typically consume more electric, water, sewerage, or steam when they live in converted offices than purpose built condos or whatever?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Residential use consumes more -- my stove is currently consuming ~6000 watts -- an office worker won't.

[Absaroka]

I'm talking about the "CUMULATIVE" use you brought up. For example, as a first order guess, I'd expect that the amount of sewage depends on the population, not whether they live in single family houses or condos retrofitted into office buildings. Similarly, I'd expect the same for electricity.

If your point is merely that if you retrofit condos in ex-retail space you'll need to hire electricians, plumbers (carpet installers, painters, drywallers, ...) to do the retrofit, fine. But you seemed to be implying aggregate demand would change, and I'm not getting why you would think that.

[grb]

A read a story about some of Trump's greatest hits in geographic ignorance. Here's a few:

1. In a meeting with leaders from the Baltic states, Trump thought he was talking to people from the Balkans. As he lectured the presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia on the breakup Yugoslavia, they sat there totally confused. And then it dawned on them—Balkans, Baltics … Buffoon.

2. At a rally, Trump said he was building a “beautiful border wall” between “Colorado and Mexico”. The state does not share a border with Mexico.

3. On the other hand, Trump told the Indian prime minister he didn't share a border with China. India has a 2,520 mile border with the country.

4. In an interview on Fox Business Network, Trump said the US had just bombed Iraq in an airstrike. The strike was on Iran.

5. Trump was clueless about the distinction between England and the UK. He thiought England had changed its name.

6. He told hundreds of journalists he'd just spoken with the leader of North Korea. In fact, he had been speaking with the president of South Korea.

7. Trump believed Belgium was a city, not country.

8. White House aides had to explain, on a “constant basis,” why Trump couldn't call, say, the Prime Minister of Japan when it’s 4pm in Washington. The concept of time zones was new to him every time.

9. The countries of Nepal and Bhutan confused him; Trump thought they were part of India. In a meeting he kept asking his aides: ‘What is this stuff inbetween and these other countries?’ He insisted on pronouncing Nepal as "Nipple". In a speech before African leaders, he kept calling Namibia as “Nambia.”

10. During an official banquet at Tokyo in November 2017, an awestruck Trump confessed : “I never knew we had so many countries.”

Please remember these all occured back before Trump's brain completely decayed to mush. The story also recounted how aides con't stop him from calling random world leaders to just "shoot the shit". French President Macron was often victimized by this bit of rude ignorance on his part. “He wanted to talk to him constantly. . . . Macron would be like: ‘Hey, what are we talking about?’ These are very busy people. You don’t just call to check in,” the official said.

[Bob from Ohio]

Did he recall the name of a fax machine? Make car sound noises during a deposition? Recall the cheering in first year torts class? Forget the year his son died or when he was VP?

[David Nieporent]

Some of those I've seen documented. But some of them seem fake. I am quite sure that Trump, who does do development deals around the world, understands time zones, for instance. "I never knew we had so many countries" seems more like joking. And I'm not buying that "Nepal and Bhutan confused him." He's plenty dumb and ignorant, but some of these are reminiscent of when people made up fake Dan Quayleisms like "I didn't study Latin so I couldn't talk to people in latin America."

[Moderation4ever]

I don't see Trump as dumb as I see him as lazy and sloppy, and I think this is reflected when speaking about other countries. His recent statement about people coming here speaking languages no one has ever heard reflects this sloppy attitude. It doesn't take much to see the silliness of the statement, but he simply throws it out. Making the statement reflects his lazy and sloppy way of doing things.

[David Nieporent]

I see him as lazy, sloppy, and dumb.

[bernard11]

Add "ignorant" to that.

[VinniUSMC]

grb, is it that hard to provide a link to the story that "A read"? I wonder how many of these are things that came from an "anonymous source close to the president."

[#FFFFFFPride]

If there is a wall along New Mexico and Arizona and Texas, does there exist a big beautiful wall between Mexico and Colorado?

[Commenter_XY]

So....any Irish here? I see St Patrick's Day is coming this weekend, and of course, Commenter_XY will be in the kitchen this weekend. I will be cooking for just 4-5 people. Think very traditional fare.

Does anyone have a really good, and unusual champ recipe? Yes, I could go traditional, and dice scallions to mix in with Irish grass fed, grass finished butter. I want something with some pizzazz.

And....whiskey recommendations? Recipe recommendations?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe Fr. Theobald Mathew can help with your whisky choices:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Mathew

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I don't think so. He seemed to live in the 'No Fun Zone'. I don't live there. At all.

[Nige]

I think he lived in the zone of seeing the damage wrought on poor families by alcoholism. Which admittedly is very much a no-fun zone.

[ThePublius]

Oh, thanks for reminding me! I'll take my corned beef out of the freezer now.

I have my Irish citizenship, which I acquired in 2018, through my mother and grandfather. But, I've only been there once.

[Commenter_XY]

RE: SC Hur and the decision not to prosecute POTUS Biden

Q: How does a prosecutor determine if someone is fit to stand trial?

Read report excerpts, and summaries of Hur's testimony. He laid out how he made his decision concisely (which I appreciated). But for the lawyers out there (and prosecutors) -- how do you decide 'not' to try? What's the decision criteria?

[David Nieporent]

1) "Do I think he's guilty?"
2) "Do I think I could secure a conviction?"
3) "Would there be any political benefit to or blowback against me if I prosecuted?"

[Commenter_XY]

So Hur concluded: Yes, no, and definitely?

Is it always that straightforward?

[jb]

No, Hur said in front of Congress that he had decided that not all elements of the crime were present and that in particular he didn't think there was evidence of intent.

[David Nieporent]

I should've added

4) Is this worth the resources it will take?

[Estragon]

[Voize]

I'll let you decide whether you believe they follow it, but sections 9-27.200 through 9-27.260 of the DoJ Justice Manual is the guidance provided to prosecutors on this question.

[M L]

"Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled last month that Musk must sit for the deposition with the agency. However, Beeler referred the issue to a district judge several days later, after Musk questioned the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction."
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4532029-sec-accuses-musk-of-distorting-scope-of-investigation-into-twitter-purchase/

Anyone know or can find out what this "jurisdiction" issue was about?

[Moderation4ever]

March 12 will be remembered as Trump's own "Night of the Long Knives" in his quest to purge the Republicans of anyone not sufficiently loyal. All this leads me to wonder if the Republican party will rebuild after Trump or fade away. History tells us of a number of political parties in the US, but I have only really known Republicans and Democrats. Will that change?

[Bob from Ohio]

They fired some staffers! Oh the humanity!

No one will recall this next week except for the ex-employees.

[Moderation4ever]

As I have noted before, authoritarians first start with enemies, followed closely by attacks on those loyal. The goal is to create a fearful and super loyal group of backers. Just look at the history of authoritarian movements. Many of the most loyal ended up being purged and terminated.

[Bob from Ohio]

New management fires employees. Literally Hitler!

[Commenter_XY]

To 'Clean House' would probably blow their minds.

[Nige]

Don't be silly. Installing personal loyalists is standard autocratic behaviour.

[ThePublius]

Ni, it's not, it's common behavior in politics and business. Think the president's cabinet, his staff, AG, and on and on.

[Nige]

At scale, it's autocratic.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Pretty sure down ballot campaign staff in swing districts/states will recall this as it becomes quickly apparent that their national committee is useless because it’s run by grifters, incompetents, and cranks who only are interested in electing/helping Trump financially and are tripling down on the same 2020 denialism that cost them in 2022.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be a change from the usual run of grifters, incompetents and cranks intent on making sure the voting base have no real say in what the party gets done.

[Nige]

The voting base WANT him to deny the 2020 result, and if he loses, do the same thing again in 2024!

[LawTalkingGuy]

And they’re going to do it if he wins too.

Every good result for Dems is going to be called fraudulent.

[David Nieporent]

Right; it's important to remember that Trump has actually argued he won 50 states in 2020 — not just red states + swing states.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He claimed he only lost the popular vote/California because of 3 million “illegal votes”

And don’t forget that McCrory claimed that Roy cooper won NC by fraud.

Let’s say Trump wins, Biden concedes but Kari Lake loses. You think he’s not going to use the same legal and pressure tactics to make sure the senate seats her and not Gallego or whoever? Especially with the federal government on his side?

[#FFFFFFPride]

The winner of Arizona is whomever the Democrat vote counters in Maricopa county says is the winner.

Which probably won't be Kari.

[#FFFFFFPride]

It's funny, they make this same argument when a Republican president tries to replace all the AG-USA's. They crank up the "My Sacred Democracies" up to 11.

Not a peep for this standard procedure when a Democrat president follows a Republican one.

[not guilty]

It is traditional for an incoming president to replace all United States Attorneys, no matter which party. Joe Biden made an exception for the Trumpp-appointed U. S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, so as not to disrupt the investigation of Hunter Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, Obama fired the Dean crew in the DNC and replaced with his people when he became President.

It's less the act, and more what it's in service of.

[Sarcastr0]

In a victory for the extremist wing of the Republican Party, it looks like Donald Trump’s hand-picked leadership team at the Republican National Committee has officially scrapped the GOP’s plan to encourage early voting this election cycle. Instead, the party is taking steps to prioritize legal challenges to voting systems ahead of November.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/main-in-voting-bank-your-vote-republicans-rcna143291

For fuck's sake.

[Bob from Ohio]

Joy Reid. Reliable!

[Moderation4ever]

Sounds like planning for a repeat of 2020. Trump will lose and will challenge the election again. I doubt that the results will be different than in 2020. This time he will even not hold the bully pulpit he had in 2020.

[Frank Drackman]

He'll gain a few EV's purely from the reapportionment after the 2020 census. That might be enough.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Can’t wait for the Kacsmaryk injunction of Michigan’s elections systems.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A under-discussed aspect of 2020/Jan 6 accountability is the failure of courts and disciplinary counsel in disciplining and sanctioning Trump’s post-2020 legal team. I think the only prominent sanctions order is the Michigan one. And with the exception of Rudy’s interim suspension I believe they all have licenses. Sydney Powell and John Eastman still have active law licenses somehow.

Also a failure of SCOTUS to sanction Ken Paxton and other AGs filing the truly psychotic original action trying to throw out other state’s votes. They all should have been fined and referred for discipline.

[Brett Bellmore]

Early voting and electronic voting are terrible, terrible ideas, but since there's essentially zero chance of fixing THAT mess ahead of the election, they really need to learn to deal with it.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't see these methods of voting as terrible because no one has shown any problem with the methods. The only complaint people raise is that their candidate did not win.

[LawTalkingGuy]

How is early voting a terrible idea? We live in a country with like 200,000,000 registered voters who need to vote in local, state, and federal elections. Expecting that all to be done in a 10 hour window on a Tuesday is ridiculous. There are only two reasons someone would want to do that:

1. They are a genuinely stupid person who doesn’t understand large numbers or logistics or that a lot people don’t have 9-5 white collar jobs where they can just go vote without a problem.

2. They are an incredibly dishonest person who understands the logistical issues but doesn’t actually want people to vote because more participation is bad for their ideological commitments.

Which group are you in?

[Brett Bellmore]

Early voting is a terrible idea for several reasons.

1) It results in people voting without access to late breaking news. Ideally we want all the voters to at least potentially have access to as much information about the candidates as possible, even if most of them don't bother to use that access.

2) It takes place without the full range of security measures such as election observers.

3) It complicates guaranteeing chain of custody of ballots.

So, make election day a national holiday, and allow 1 solitary day of early voting for essential workers only.

Look, I know it's not happening. Stretching out voting over as much as a month, abolishing every security measure in the name of convenience, these are the sorts of entropic trends that are basically impossible to reverse short of some utter disaster.

But that doesn't mean I have to shut up about how terrible an idea it is.

[David Nieporent]

#1 isn't a serious reason. 100% of the population votes without paying attention to all the information out there, and 90% don't care, because their votes are locked in anyway (mostly based on party, of course). It might be an argument to convince someone not to vote early, but it's not an argument not to allow it.

#2 and #3 are just different ways of saying the same thing, and both point to purely hypothetical concerns, which nobody thought was meaningful until Democrats were perceived to benefit in 2020. Note that these are also only arguments about mail-in voting, not early voting.

Similarly, there's an actual argument, which you fail to raise, that only applies to mail-in, not early, voting: it vitiates the secret ballot.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Number 1 is also silly because time is linear and events or information after the election that could or would have influenced voting behavior had it been known before. There’s no perfect time to vote for someone. There just has to be a deadline.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You don’t have to shut up. It just makes you either stupid or dishonest to keep going on about it like you do.

But based on your post I’m gonna say you’re more in the dishonest category and you just don’t want people to vote.

[#FFFFFFPride]

DC needs a real oppositional party.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

'Trump’s own “Night of the Long Knives”'

I just found that even Mike Godwin himself has broken Godwin's Law when it comes to Trump. So, score one for the Trump-is-Hitler idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/godwins-law-trump-hitler-comparisons/

[Nige]

If it ain't the xenophobic nationalism, it's the attacks on a vulerable minority, if it isn't the attemot to disenfranchise millions of voters and hang on to power in 2020, it's the promise to build loads of concentration camps if he wins. Not 'literally' Hitler, but maybe a guy who kept Hitler's speeches by his bed for night-time reading.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I can tell you what's Hitler - like: going over the top (like Hitler in WWI, get it?).

In all seriousness, Trump is bad enough, without the Hitler stuff.

Of course, Biden is bad enough, too, but where is the political space in this comment section to say they're both bad?

[Nige]

'but where is the political space in this comment section to say they’re both bad?'

Are you kidding? 'They're both the same' is the PRINCIPLED right-wing/self-declared-centrist defence of Trump. Generally the people who stress that they think both are equally evil are the same people who will go on to claim that Trump should be above the law. Not sure what Biden's done to match what Trump did in 2020 and which he continues to do and will almost certainly do again if it comes to that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thank you for confirming my point.

(and I *didn’t* say ‘They’re both the same’ – to paraphrase Tolstoy in a different context, they’re each bad in their own way.)

[Nige]

Thanks for confirming mine.

'they’re each bad in their own way'

The question stands.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There's one point on which I'm curious:

"Generally the people who stress that they think both are equally evil are the same people who will go on to claim that Trump should be above the law."

Do you include me in your "generally"? If not, why did you bring it up, and if so, would you be kind enough to furnish examples of where I said Trump should be above the law?

[Bwaaah]

He’s not talking to you. He never talks to any “you.” He talks to them, and as he does so, he talks about them, as if you were one of them.

There are only two types of people in the world, in his thinking, and if you’re not on his side (as if there is such a thing), then you’re on their side (an equally stupid mythical class).

It’s not just annoying. He thinks of himself as being thoughtful about people, and yet, as you can see, people only exist as stereotypical chess pieces in his political brain. You’re not even a person to him. You’re a thing; a stereotype. That’s what people are in his world: stereotypes.

You’re a MAGA. That’s his thing. (There are a bunch of people around here with that thing going on.)

[Nige]

Look at you seeting with resentment, building straw men to get mad at.

[Nige]

'Do you include me in your “generally”? If not, why did you bring it up,'

Can't remember if you do or not - you could clarify yourself by telling us whether the prosecution of Trump is a political persecution or not - and it was in direct response to the quote I included above the comment so I don't know what the great mystery is.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, I suppose it's easier to argue against what you say a commenter "really believes" than to argue against what he actually said.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And I notice that you shifted from the Bailey (it's totally not a political
prosecution) to the Motte (Trump isn't above the law)

The law guaranteed impartial juries - I look to impartial juries to clarify what's going on with Trump.

[Nige]

I haven't said a single word about what you do or do not really believe. Unlike the other fella above in his comment about me. I made a generalised response to what seemed to me to be a generalised comment. You still haven't felt moved to clarify. You also avoided my question about Biden.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I haven’t said a single word about what you do or do not really believe."

You're forfeiting your credibility. For my daring to say Biden was as bad as Trump (in his own way) you mentioned that people who think like me hold Trump to be above the law. A McCarthyite insinuation for which you admit you have no evidence.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Nige]

Aren't we hypersensitive. It was a general observation; all you had to do was say, well that's me! Or not me! Or it's complicated! Or avoid it! The way you've avoided justifiying your Biden/Trump equivalence on the question of Trump's behaviour after the 2020 election!

'McCarthyite'

This is sad.

Don't piss on your own leg and tell me I'm pissing on your leg.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Urine quite a bind, making insinuations you admit you can't prove.

I said that Biden and Trump were each bad *in their own way,* not that Biden resisted Biden's victory in the 2020 elections.

Piss up a rope.

[Nige]

No, you said that later, the comment I replied to and which seems to have sent you into a weird high dudgeon was that they were 'both bad.' And you still haven't clarified what Biden's 'own way' of being bad is equivalent to Trump's post election behaviour.

What insinuations?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"No, you said that later"

And fuck you once more for that new insinuation that I changed my story. You changed *your* story, as in your motte-and-bailey conflation of "Trump is above the law" with "Trump faces political prosecution."

“What insinuations?”

The warm summer shower on my leg continues!

The insinuation that I considered Trump above the law, numbnuts.

If you think Biden is a pure knight sans peur and sans rapproche, you’re welcome to your opinion. You live in a wonderful world where Biden’s relatives are energy experts entitling them to well-paying jobs, where Biden is a top-notch steward of the economy and foreign policy, etc.

[Nige]

'And fuck you once more for that new insinuation that I changed my story'

Jesus you are a primadonna. I responded to one phrasing, not to the slightly different other phrasing, that's all, that's it. You can scroll up and check.

'If you think Biden is a pure knight sans peur and sans rapproche, you’re welcome to your opinion.'

Oooooh now who's wholeheartedly attributing things that weren't said to the other? 'I've been having a strop because of a perceived 'insinuation,' here have a big man full of straw.' You really don't want to answer that particular question, do you?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I did, dillweed. You'll put out your own gaslight from all the pissing you're doing.

[Nige]

Nope. You most certainly did not, not the one about which of 'Biden’s ‘own way’ of being bad is equivalent to Trump’s post election behaviour.' Just say you don't want to answer. Or you don't have an answer. It's fine.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/225450/IRT-10227.html?cc=100&msclkid=850bfc884a1b15d00a43997c3e46c6e2

[Nige]

Oh my God, you're from Narnia?

[Nige]

'The insinuation that I considered Trump above the law, numbnuts'

Fucking hell if you felt that stung by any implication in my comment all you had to do was say 'actually I myself do not consider Trump above the law' not engage in a stroppy rigmarole.

Those are two sides of the argument, they are conflated in that sense, again your umbrage is weird.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Cet animal est très méchant,
Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

[Nige]

Y'know if you didn't want to engage in what passes round here for grown-up converstion, you could have just not replied.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“what passes round here for grown-up converstion”

A telling phrase. If you’re one of the grownups, the average grownup age here is around 5.

[Nige]

You got furious at an 'insinuation' that you called 'McCarthyite,' all because you had a sudden allergy to being specific about stuff. A five year old would know better.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You said,

"Generally the people who stress that they think both are equally evil are the same people who will go on to claim that Trump should be above the law."

Either you weren't referring to me, in which case you were knowingly making a false insinuation, or you were referring to me, in which case you were lying.

[Nige]

No, it's just a remark about how 'I think they're both bad but Trump is definitely being politically persecuted' has become a cliche at this point. I'm astonished at how hilariously offensive you found it, and how you decided to be so hugely offended about it at length rather than either discuss or ignore the observation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’re doing that motte and bailey thing again, even after I called you on it.

The question is whether I think Trump is above the law. Prove it. Shit or get off the pot, dickweed.

The fact is, you simply can’t conceive of anyone being equally disgusted with both candidates. So you assume that anyone who utters a word of criticism against your boyfriend Biden is part of a MAGA “other,” to paraphrase a different commenter.

No evidence asked or given.

With every word you spew in defense of your favorite duopoly candidate, you buttress the case for independent and third-party candidates.

[Nige]

Well, no, if it's your position, you should be able to make the case, in both cases, your 'motte and bailey' thing and your 'they're both bad' thing. You have just had a tantrum over a fairly innocuous comment by my that you took as an outrageous insinuation, now you want me to make your arguments for you? I'm not sure why you're so extremely reluctant to do so, or, if you don't want to, to just walk away.

[Nige]

Can you point me to a third part or independant candidate with a chance of winning?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Fuck You, You Lying Duopolist Hack party.

[Bwaaah]

Nige: It's not enough to employ language and syntax. There must be reason and meaning too.

You have no clothes.

[Nige]

MoZ: I apreciate you;ve managed to bring it round to your pet peeve, but it;s still avoidance.

Bwaaah - you devoted how many paragraphs above to a attacking a straw man? It's up to you to put clothes on your own scarecrow.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

nige,

Avoid *this,* you wanker:

.|..

[Nige]

This is honestly amazing. Are you ashamed of your opinons? Have you no faith in your own arguments?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As far as I can make out, you think I’m avoiding the question of Biden’s badness because I haven’t given *enough* examples which make him equivalent to the Holocaust-level events of Jan. 6. /sarc

“OMG, how could you possibly say that Tweedledee is as bad as Tweedledum”?

You haven't explained why you thought fit to throw in the comment about Trump not being above the law, much why you used motte and bailey tactics on that issue.

I suppose, to your Manichean worldview, it’s not enough to vote for someone other than Trump, it’s necessary to vote for Biden or else you’re a traitor to the duopoly and your folie-a-deux between the Tweedledee party and the Tweedledum party.

[Davy C]

Mentioning Hitler isn't breaking Godwin's law, it's following it.

[Bwaaah]

I saw that Mike Godwin resorted to that. It was a reminder that even people who produce great things are still, plainly, people. This one was an unusual disappointment for me. It seems as if Mike Godwin doesn't really quite get Godwin's Law, or more to the point, he doesn't quite see in himself the weakness evidenced in the behavior described by Godwin's Law.

[Nige]

Godwinsplainer.

[Brett Bellmore]

" It seems as if Mike Godwin doesn’t really quite get Godwin’s Law"

Sheesh. Godwin originated an observation that, as any internet conversation grows longer, the odds of a reference to Nazis converges on 1. Well, sure. At it grows longer, the odds of ANYTHING with a non-zero probability converges on 1, so that's a trivial result.

It also, trivially, does NOT imply that the reference is unwarranted.

I don't know, perhaps you're one of those people who mistakenly attribute to Godwin the notion that making a Nazi comparison automatically loses you the argument? A notion Godwin himself explicitly rejects?

[Bwaaah]

I do see it, in almost all cases, as being a lazy and disproportionate comparison that adds no meaningful information to an argument. Maybe Mao or Stalin make the grade, but, in general, Godwin's law points to the pattern of degradation in online conversation toward exaggerated characterization, ultimately resulting in likening *any* would-be villain(s) to *the worst person/people in history*.

The behavior pattern described in Godwin's Law is, with few exceptions, stupid to me.

[David Nieporent]

The reason people reach for Nazi comparisons specifically is not just that Hitler was among the worst in all of human history, but that (a) he is well-nigh universally agreed to be irredeemably evil; and (b) he's well known.

If people used Mao, or even Stalin, instead, you'd get people derailing the discussion by saying, "Well, actually he did some good things."

[Absaroka]

Buuuut ...Volkswagens? Autobahns?

He's also recent. The Mongols or Romans also did some not so nice things, but I think they (reasonably to some degree) get grandfathered with 'everyone did the same back then'. Gustavus Adolphus and Napoleon[1] get the same benefit.

[1]Which megalomaniacs of the last few hundred years tried to conquer Britain, Russia, Egypt, ... and one of them didn't even invade Spain!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump did seven years in what FDR did his second/third year -- much as Roosevelt purged the Jacksonian Democrats, Trump is finally purging the RINOs.

This is a good thing,...

[#FFFFFFPride]

Can you claim you're the party that supports Democracy while also believing there should be Federal agencies with lawmaking powers that are "protected from politics" by being isolated and made independent from Congress?

[Sarcastr0]

Their lawmaking power is granted by Congress, and reviewable by Congress.
Their staff are approved by the executive.

As the PTO Not yet going rogue shows, there are more powers than the power of the purse.

Not that you MAGA people care about democracy anyhow.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hey remember when the head of the Executive branch tried to remove the head of the CPFB?

You're not being honest. These agencies are designed to be insulated from politics. Hence the self-funding or the 5 year terms for agency heads.

And is every person at the agency approved by the incoming President?

[Sarcastr0]

You are conflating politics with democracy.

Seems bad.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Can you explain your comment? I don't get it.

Democracy, generally, means power is invested in the people.

Politically insulated agencies making laws have power that isn't invested in the people. But in those insulated agencies.

[Sarcastr0]

I explained how they are still accountable to elected officials.

And democracy is not some simplistic power to the people. You are describing populism. But cloaking it as democracy. Because democracy is a good word, and you are a simpleton.

Reductive majoritarianism is something the Founders were quite concerned about. Fucking fascists, eh?

[#FFFFFFPride]

"I explained how they are still accountable to elected officials."

You asserted as much which I already rebutted. It's a nonsense claim in any realistic, meaningful sense.

"And democracy is not some simplistic power to the people. You are describing populism. But cloaking it as democracy. Because democracy is a good word, and you are a simpleton."

I used the f'n definition of small 'd' democracy. Why am I not surprised a government civil servant and Democrat doesn't know what "democracy" means.

"Reductive majoritarianism is something the Founders were quite concerned about. Fucking fascists, eh?"

I'm sure they felt reductive majoritarianism was right below their list of concerns. Just below "Strawman"...

Hey, you forgot to whine about my tone and express how concerned you were that I was expressing unapproved views.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, he’s demanding personal sovereignty, not talking about populism. Populists may be cranky, but they are only sometimes cranks. Personal sovereignty guys? They are always cranks.

Well, almost always. Kings by divine right might or might not be cranks.

[Moderation4ever]

Basic US civics, agencies cannot make laws. Only Congress can make laws. Agencies enforce laws and carry out laws that Congress have made. Agencies do this by regulations. Regulations are not laws. Learn the difference. It also good to understand that there are strict processes for creating regulations and public input is a big part of the process. The fact is that people rarely participate in the regulation process instead preferring to complaining about the regulation after enacted.

[#FFFFFFPride]

You're making a distinction without a difference. An agency's regulations have the force of law. Congress gives broad grants of power and then tells the agencies to develop the details.

That's lawmaking. Congress didn't say your insurance must cover homosexual party drugs like PReP. HHS did.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“homosexual party drugs like PReP“

Have you considered not being a freak and being a normal person instead?

[#FFFFFFPride]

The point of PReP is to enable HIV infected homosexuals to engage in sodomy without wearing protection.

The nominal price tag of PReP is $1700/month.

Think about this for a second. Why do homosexuals not want to wear a condom? Because it decreases sensation and pleasure. Why is increased pleasure for someone’s personal sexual acts a burden on the rest of us? Congress didn’t mandate homosexual sexual pleasure to be a social burden.

P.S.
Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation – “Let’s be honest: It’s [Truvada] a party drug.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

Like I said: have you considered not being a freak and instead being a normal person who isn't obsessed with gay sex and mad that there is a drug that helps prevent the spread of HIV?

I mean there is no non-freak reason for a human being to actually care about this. Literally no amount of your life should be spent thinking of how bad it is that insurance covers a drug designed to prevent a disease if you're normal person. Let alone litigate it like Jonathan Mitchell.

[#FFFFFFPride]

My insurance premiums covering shit I don’t need or want is a “freak reason”?

” Literally no amount of your life should be spent thinking of how bad it is that insurance covers a drug designed to prevent a disease if you’re normal person.”

What do you think about when you write that $2100 a month check to the insurance company? How well spent that money is? How glad you are you’re paying for someone else’s $1700/month sexual pleasure drugs? How many other things you didn't want to spend that $2100 a month on?

Who the f* do you think you are trying to tell me what to think about things I’m forced to spend money on? What an arrogant jerk.

[Sarcastr0]

You do think a lot about gay sex, but needs more rampant members.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Can you show your work? Like what led you to that conclusion?

Because I used one example, an absolute absurdity, to demonstrate why having unaccountable civil servants lawmaking is a bad thing?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Because you picked that example lol. So many good examples for conservatives about regulatory overreach in so many sectors and yet you still picked that one lol.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Who the f* do you think you are trying to tell me what to think about things I’m forced to spend money on?”

Well for one thing I’m not telling you what to think. I’m telling you that you’re a fucking weirdo for thinking the way you do.

Also I’m someone who doesn’t want HIV to spread and understands how insurance actually works and that coverage for a preventive drug is an infinitesimal part of my premium. And that prevention is cheaper than treating HIV/AIDS.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hello "Well for one thing I’m not telling you what to think." I would like to introduce you to:

"Literally no amount of your life should be spent thinking of how bad it is"

"Also I’m someone who doesn’t want HIV to spread and understands how insurance actually works and that coverage for a preventive drug is an infinitesimal part of my premium."

How do you think insurance works? I think insurance works as a way to indemnify myself against risk. How do you think it works?

" And that prevention is cheaper than treating HIV/AIDS."
Cheaper than a condom?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cheaper than not treating AIDS?

Insurance doesn't pay for all treatments.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Literally no amount of your life should be spent thinking of how bad it is.”

Yeah that’s good advice. You should follow it unless you want to be a fucking weirdo.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I love how you're trying to normalize being so pro-homo that you're likely to catch gay bowel syndrome.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cheaper than a condom?

Maybe. You would have to ask the actuaries.

Remember that the expense you care about, the one which affects your insurance bill, is the expense to treat HIV/AIDS. If insurance companies discover that paying for preventive AIDS drugs results in fewer AIDS treatment claims than anything they can do by promoting condoms, then the former may help your insurance premium more than the latter.

The result would depend on net balances delivered by both programs. That means the reckoning is very much NOT just the relative costs of the two approaches. Remember that you and your insurance company have a shared financial interest in getting that reckoning right.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"I love how you’re trying to normalize being so pro-homo that you’re likely to catch gay bowel syndrome."

Say this sentence to a group of people at work and then get back to me about normalcy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, Lathrop, when I lucked into a simultaneous case of prostate cancer and lymphoma, and my doctor prescribed viagra, not so I could have fun, but just to minimize nerve damage during the treatment, the insurance didn't cover it.

And that was chicken feed compared to this stuff.

It's perfectly reasonable to complain about insurance companies being forced to pay for gay party drugs that are only 'preventative' if you assume the user is leading a stupidly risky lifestyle. While at the same time they're free to not pay for dirt cheap drugs to prevent major loss of biological functions if heterosexuals also get some fun out of them.

I figure that if the government is fine with the insurance company saying to me, "Sucks to be you. Just get used to your junk being totally numb.", they can at least tell the gays to wear the damn condom.

[Moderation4ever]

Looking at the available information it appears that PReP has met the standards to be consider a reliable preventive medication for exposure to HIV. The ACA passed by Congress in 2010 mandates coverage for preventive medical procedures and medications. So again, Congress passed the law and HHS is merely administering the laws as it is required to do.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Funnily enough, Federal agencies doing notice and comment rule-making actually have to consider and respond to public input. In some ways they are much more accountable and accessible to the public compared to Congress where you never have to explain a vote or the Courts…where you never have to explain anything either and your explanations aren’t subject to scrutiny by anyone except other like-minded people.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, hello, Professor Vermeule!

[Sarcastr0]

That post isn’t Catholic theocracy by another name so not sure what you mean here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He's a big fan of the administrative state. In fact, so is that fellow-theocrat, Cass Sunstein, and they tag-teamed to write a book in defense of the administrative state (Law and Leviathan, 2020).

As for Catholic theocracy, the administrative state represents Vermeule's route to that goal. Since he doesn't think he could get such a scheme adopted through electoral methods. What does that tell you about the anti-republican (small r) tendencies of the administrative state?

[Sarcastr0]

So this is a ‘you know who else loved dogs? Hitler!’ Kinda post.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So this is another "Vermeule is Hitler; the administrative state is a dog" kind of post?

[Sarcastr0]

You think that’s what I said?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you can make stuff up, so can I.

[Sarcastr0]

Except you used the exact logic I accused you of.

Someone said the administrative state is fine, actually, and you invoked Vermeule. Who is not known primarily for his championing of the administrative state.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

His administratiive-state advocacy has fused with his theocracy; he wants to use the one to achieve the other.

Illustrating that anyone who captures the administrative state has a good chance of imposing the regime of his choice on the country, regardless of representative government.

And he’s a top administrative-law specialist, recognized as such, eg. by his coauthor Sunstein.

So it's not an issue of wearing pants, which just about anyone can do (and which more people ought to do).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[comment moved]

[#FFFFFFPride]

I love how 90% of your comments are bitching about people's tone and not contributing.

It's like you got nothing to add. Which makes sense. That's generally the kind of people who seek the safety of a government job.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sarcastro is simply going around asking questions. He's sort of a Suck-rates.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah know one knows what I think!

Yes most of my posts are reacting to other peoples posts. You make bad posts so yeah you wouldn’t like that.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hey, would you mind publishing your rubric for evaluating people's posts?

Be sure to scrub the CIA/State/Soros logos from it before posting it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nothing. It tells me that one clown who is good at admin law has some kooky ideas.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What does that tell you about the anti-republican (small r) tendencies of the administrative state?

Margrave, it tells me people begin with impaired credibility who suppose, “Leviathan,” used in political context is reference to the administrative state.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sunstein, too?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Anyone.

Note that I limit myself to the pedantic but useful point that it can only cause confusion to link the notion of the administrative state to, Leviathan, which took no note of any such then-non-existent concept.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But note that it was Vermeule/Sunstein and/or his publishers who made the link.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What power do the people have if an independent agency makes a rule that they don't want?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Vote for a new President who can replace members (happens all the time at the NLRB).
Lobby Congress to overturn the rule or change the law.
Litigate.

[#FFFFFFPride]

NLRB board members are on five year cycles. There are only 3 ways to replace a member.
1.) The term expires.
2.) They resign.
3.) Removal for "neglect of duty or malfeasance.. but no other cause".

And suggesting "The People" can lobby an institute that ignores public will 90%+ of the time and has a 90%+ incumbency rate is both naive, and laughable.

And litigate what? They violated some procedural rule? Doesn't that whole Chevron deference thing give benefit of any doubt to the agency?

None of those seem functionally democratic.

[Moderation4ever]

Agencies have procedures that include public participation. Often requiring public meeting and comment periods. All of the information on hearings and comments are published. You can simply go to http://www.regulations.gov to find out about new rules, meeting on the rules and the public comment period. Get involved and submit your comments on new rules.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In fairness, Moderation4ever, you ought to mention the common outcome that even substantive comments offered against agency-preferred policies will routinely get dismissed without any address of the substance. Agencies consider themselves required to take note of comments, and prove that they have done that. They do not consider themselves bound to address comments with related replies.

To get those, you have to sue—and good luck on standing. For stark terror on a judicial bench, there is probably nothing to top a Federal judge confronted with a demand that the FAA prove its technically challenged assertions affecting aircraft operations. Standing denied.

[Moderation4ever]

You are entirely correct that the great majority of comments will be recorded and ignored. Comments from interested parties that have the power to sue will get the most attention. It is also likely that the same interested parties that could sue were brought into the rule making process early on to get their buy-in before the rule was proposed. It is also worth noting that many rule making processes start out as a result of a lawsuits. This is especially true in environmental rules. Environmental rules are often proposed and enacted after an environmental advocacy group has sued or threaten to sue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

#FFFFFFPride, try to frame your questions the way you intend them. Your concern was, what power do I have if an independent agency makes a rule that I don't want? But inexplicably, you put, "the people," in as a substitute for, "I."

The jointly sovereign People enjoy absolute, unappealable power. They can decree whatever preferences it pleases them to experiment with. No power of government can stop them. So your question, with, "the people," put into it becomes incoherent.

It is unwise to posit personal sovereignty. People will rightly call you a crank if you keep doing it, however unintentionally.

[Stephen Lathrop]

LawTalkingGuy, is notice and comment rule-making administratively different than notice and comment response to draft environmental impact statements? I have experience with the latter, and did not conclude substantive comments got substantive responses. Indeed, substantive expert comments got the same summary publication of notice-taking, but zero substantive response, that all the other comments got.

[Drewski]

Yes, absolutely.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

<For a time, I sensed Prof. Volokh might be crabby enough about the biweekly quantification of his blog's bigotry that he had scuttled the open threads.)

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This tellingly white, purposefully
male conservative blog with a scant,
receding academic veneer has
operated for no more than

FOURTEEN (14)

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. (Some well-qualified observers have opined that this is the "perfect" song.)

This one is good, too, featuring a deft Wrecking Crew.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones tunes, by request:

First, an unheralded song from Bridges to Babylon that Keith seemed to like to play (albeit rarely) during concerts.

Next, another from that Bridge, featuring Ronnie Wood to the point at which I sense Keith may not have contributed a lick to this one.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Good Vibrations is a great tune, although whenever I hear it now I relive the terrifying scene from Vanilla Sky.
Oh well.

[John F. Carr]

Was General Ripper right? A long-paused trial resumed recently to decide whether the EPA is required to ban fluoridation of drinking water under the Toxic Substances Control Act. People can sue the EPA to force a ban on toxic substances if they cause an "unreasonable risk" to health. Under the TCPA the EPA is not allowed to consider benefits of fluoridation. If, as alleged, fluoridated water harms fetal brain development, the EPA must ban it.

If fluoridation were not a borderline religious issue I would trust the EPA's expertise. But the battle has long been portrayed as the high priests of science against the ignorant mob. The executive branch would be afraid to admit a mistake.

There is some uncertainty about dose dependence. Almost any chemical, including water and oxygen, is toxic if the dose is high enough. Judging by the press coverage, it is likely that most public water systems are below the concentration that has detectable adverse effects.

Last year a town water manager in New England got in trouble for adding half the standard amount of fluoride. That is illegal. The law requires either the full prescribed amount or none at all. He might have been right after all.

https://www.science.org/content/article/does-fluoride-drinking-water-lower-iq-question-looms-large-court-battle

When I was a kid we had well water and fluoride pills.

[Sarcastr0]

Big if.

[Don Nico]

Meaning what? It has been a quasi religious issue since the Kennedy Adminsitration

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gotta love regulations....

[Kazinski]

Inflation came in hotter than expected this week for both consumer prices and wholesale inflation. It looks like the chances of a rate cut this year have almost completely evaporated.

In light of that should Biden pull his budget and resubmit an austerity budget to try to reduce inflationary pressures?

And while fiscally a tax increase shouldn't be ruled out, I can't think of anything more likely than to condemn us to a decade of stagflation than increasing corporate taxes from 21 to 28%.

[Commenter_XY]

This is year 4 of elevated inflation. Inflation is sticky. Getting rid of inflation is sort of like trying to flick that snot off your fingernail. It just sticks around as you really try to get rid of it. We are not out of the woods yet.

I feel very badly for seniors on fixed incomes, and the 401K investor class with a typical 60/40 portfolio (who have yet to recover, in real terms, their losses from 2022).

Nothing is going to happen in an election year, which to me increases the odds of stagflation. Jamie Dimon spoke about this risk. We absolutely do not want stagflation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't worry, no less than the Sec of Treasury insisted inflation was transitory.

[Kazinski]

I think the current gridlock in Congress is more likely to help since there won't be any bipartisan porkulus bills.

I'd favor a down payment 1% increase in SS taxes, and double the income ceiling for contributions, phasing it in over 5 years.

[Commenter_XY]

The only thing the Fed should be doing is absolutely hammering down inflation via monetary policy; lowering inflation will help the people with the least amount of money the most.

It is not a sure thing that rates will go lower this year. Rates can go even higher if inflation does not start trending back downward soon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe take a page from of all places, Argentina?

[Commenter_XY]

Remember, they are only occasionally libertarian here. 🙂

[Bob from Ohio]

"Inflation came in hotter than expected this week for both consumer prices and wholesale inflation."

Weird, I was assured here that inflation was transitory.

[Sarcastr0]

I notice the utter lack of numbers in your post.

Also you appear to have exactly one data point.

[ThePublius]

Sarastr0, you deny, deflect, and doubt everything that doesn't align with your preferred narrative. It's tiring.

"LATEST NUMBERSRSS
Consumer Price Index (CPI): +0.4%in Feb 2024"

The above from BLS:

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Is that satisfactory?

[Sarcastr0]

Points to how this is thus far nothing.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What criteria are you using to judge it’s nothing?

[Armchair]

Perhaps the total picture will help.

Biden's current year over year inflation rate is 5.7%. The worse since Carter. The "single data point" at 0.4% in a month doesn't help him...

https://www.investopedia.com/us-inflation-rate-by-president-8546447

[Sarcastr0]

You are, as usual, cherry picking your stats.

What is the actual current inflation rate, Armchair? You aren’t posting it because you don’t want to upset your usual 'gotta punch left' pattern.

[Armchair]

Make up your mind Sarcastr0....

ThePublius posted the current inflation rate, for the last month. 0.4%. Per month.
I posted the overall inflation rate, over the entire presidency. Year over year.

If you've got to narrowly pick what you want to pick....then you're the one cherry picking.

[Sarcastr0]

No, he posted a delta.

Google 'current inflation rate.'

[Don Nico]

You're in denial. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please post the monthly rate for the late 12 months. Then we can see how those cherries taste.

[Sarcastr0]

The current inflation rate is on the order of 3%

[Bwaaah]

Why not strip off another digit of precision and bring it down to a nice round 0%?

[Absaroka]

Here you go.

Dropping from the spike, but still the highest in a dozenish years.

Not really grokking why this month's number is cherry picking. The last 12 months are 6.0, 5.0, 4.9, 4.0, 3.0, 3.2, 3.7, 3.7, 3.2, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, 3.1, 3.2.

[Sarcastr0]

This looks like bad inflation to you?

Kaz shared a single lone data point for a reason.

You aren’t quite as clever as he is.

[Absaroka]

Good, bad, high, low, whatever. It's higher than some years and lower than some.

I'm trying to understand the accusation of cherry picking you are making.

If a set of numbers is 1,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,10 and someone picks the 1 or 10 as representative, that's cherry picking. How is picking the current number, which isn't that out of line with the rest of the year an example of cherry picking? Are you accusing him of under reporting because the current month is on the low side for the year?

[Kazinski]

What was the reason I posted a “single lone data point”?

I thought it was because it came out this week, and was the latest data point. And it indicated, as part of the recent trend that progress on reducing inflation has stalled.

And actually it was two data points, CPI and PPI, and PPI which is an indicator of future inflation was worse.
Why don’t you tell me the real reason?

[Kazinski]

Well honestly I don't really expect a even a.minimum of economic knowledge of ability to check stats here because there are so many progressives.

But, anyone who has any interest can easily find the latest stats because Wall Street waits breathlessly for the latest figures from the previous month around the middle of this month. CPI came out Wednesday, PPI came out today.

CPI for the month was above the expected and increased .04 percent from the previous month, but that number by itself is meaningless. What matters is the trend from the previous few months and of course the trends.from the last two or three years.

If you don't understand the numbers, and don't feel competent to educate yourself, and look up the data yourself, then feel free to skip the discussion.

[bernard11]

And while fiscally a tax increase shouldn’t be ruled out, I can’t think of anything more likely than to condemn us to a decade of stagflation than increasing corporate taxes from 21 to 28%.

Think harder.

[Kazinski]

Give me a break Bernard, I am already thinking as hard as I can.

But of course my thinking goes that the last big bout of stagflation was the oil price shock of the 70's, which simultaneously caused businesses across the country to not only raise prices, but cut back at the same time because they couldn't recoup all the oil price increase from consumers, who also had to cut back their spending.

[#FFFFFFPride]

If a Federal agency is found to be acting in direct violation to it's chartered mission, who has standing to hold them accountable?

E.g.,
There are things starting to come out of the CIA's involvement in J6. That's supposedly illegal. If this is true, who has the power to hold them to account?

[Sarcastr0]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

You are both ignorant and buying conspiracies.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Woah, good rebuttal. Congress found the CIA doing a bunch of illegal shit and then Gerald Ford laid the hammer down by issuing an EO banning them from engaging in political assassinations. He even made it air tight by saying “non employee of the United States”!!

That’s some accountability! Good link Sacrastr0! You really showed me that if the CIA violates the law they’re gonna get their feet held to the fire!!

No offense, but you're pretty dumb. You must be like a GS-15 or something being that dumb, lol

[#FFFFFFPride]

no employee*

[Sarcastr0]

You sure are leaning hard on the rhetoric on this one.

The CIA's behavior does seem to have been checked by the Church Committee. And their secret budget was after that under better Congressional oversight.

You can jump to 'it's all underground now' unfalsifiable conspiracy theorizing, but you can't do so and have an actual argument. Not that such has stopped you before.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Meanwhile, you can just assert that the CIA has been behaving for the past 50 years.

And then, and I love this, you just think you can dictate the terms of the argument by your whim

[David Nieporent]

There are no "things" "starting to come out." nor is what has come out "supposedly illegal." This is just retard MAGA talking point of the day.

A FOIA request revealed a text message from January 6 that said "FC I has two CIA Bomb Techs with us — EEO [redacted] in route."

That's what has "come out." There were pipe bombs found, and ATF was being assisted in responding to it by two CIA bomb techs.

(Also, someone was apparently listing the assets they had available to respond, and texted, "7 NGA dog teams, 2 ATF, and several CIA dog teams on standby" Which is even less significant, since being "on standby" isn't even an action.)

[#FFFFFFPride]

Two CIA agents were conducting operations inside the USA?

[Sarcastr0]

Doesn't seem like they were conducting an operation at all.

Certainly not 'involvement in J6.'

[David Nieporent]

No. Defusing a bomb is not "conducting operations." The CIA cannot spy on people in the U.S. or undertake covert actions in the U.S. But it can, of course, do stuff in the U.S. — go to Langley (hint: in Virginia) and you'll see thousands of CIA employees doing stuff. (Well, you won't be allowed in, so you won't see that. But they are there. It's not "illegal" for them to be there, doing their jobs.)

[#FFFFFFPride]

Do you think they had CIA bomb techs to diffuse the bombs since it was the CIA that deployed them to begin with?

And that most definitely is conducting operations. They aren't supposed to collect any information on US citizens. Bomb planters or not.

The fact that you aren't the least bit skeptical as to why with all the resources in DC, it was the CIA with bomb teams and not the ooodles and oodles of other agencies.

But then again, you people have been trained not to be skeptical of what the government does.

[Nige]

'Skepticism' is not the same thing as jumping to conclusions or treating wild speculation as fact.

[David Nieporent]

What do you mean "and not the … other agencies"? Why on earth do you think other agencies weren't also there? J6 would've been an all hands on deck situation.

They weren't "collecting information" on anyone; they were trying to make sure that things didn't blow up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More on the Karen Read Scandal:
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/03/14/state-police-investigating-detective-in-karen-read-murder-case/?p1=hp_secondary

The FBI might actually be the good guys in this one...

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon in Florida has denied without prejudice Donald Trump's motion to dismiss counts 1 through 32 of the indictment, whereby Trump claims that 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness as applied to him. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.402.0.pdf The two page order is remarkably bereft of legal analysis.

[David Nieporent]

…or grammar.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Although the Motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the Court ultimately determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged, along with at least some disputed factual issues as raised in the Motion. For that reason, rather than prematurely decide now whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial glosses, the Court elects to deny the Motion without prejudice, to be raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.”

This is a Humphrey Appleby speech. Read it in Nigel Hawthorne’s voice. It’s uncanny,

Which is weirdly a compliment to her. We might not be dealing with a hack who is a dim bulb. But a hack who is actually good at manipulation and obfuscation in pursuit of power.

[Stephen Lathrop]

the Court ultimately determines,

The very, ominous, opposite of what the Court did.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Without prejudice eh?

So she's just waiting to dismiss it at a later date once jeopardy has attached and she can sabotage the trial on his behalf...

[Armchair]

Bonus question for the "liberals" here.

In terms of the more modern Democratic Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy), where does Biden rank for you? Above Obama? Above Clinton? Just above Carter? Or last?

[Sarcastr0]

Using the metric of efficacy for the goals I care about, I’d say

Johnson
Clinton
Biden
Obama
Carter
Kennedy

Though I’m less lefty than some on here. And I’m go back and forth about where to rank Johnson.

[Armchair]

Wow. JFK under Carter....

[Sarcastr0]

What is Kennedy's big policy push?

[Armchair]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 comes to mind….

Yes, Kennedy died before it passed, but it was proposed by Kennedy in 1963. If you’re asking for a policy push…

There's more of course.

[Kazinski]

Don't forget Kennedy's 1964 tax cut which cut the top rate from 91% to 70%, which he also proposed before he was assassinated.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's also famous for his executive order on affirmative action, which mandated affirmative action to avoid any sort of racial preferences. Which Johnson, of course, 'implemented' by imposing a system of quotas and preferences.

[Frank Drackman]

Apollo Program

[Moderation4ever]

Worth remembering that Carter passed more deregulation than any modern President.

[Sarcastr0]

I read a book on Carter’s as a lesson on what not to do for policymakers.
His issues was partially that he had a bad relationship with the Dems in Congress who got kinda petty about it, but also that he decided to push like 6 grand agendas simultaneously. After all, a well staffed administration can surely multitask, right?

His lesson is why Presidents don’t do that anymore.

[Kazinski]

Carter definitely deserves more credit for that, trucking, airlines, telecommunications, microbrewing, all massively deregulated under Carter.

I voted for Jimmy twice as many times as I did for Reagan.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I wouldn’t put Clinton so high. Also I think Obama is being underrated by lefties/liberals these days. He’s definitely got a complicated legacy from that perspective, but Stimulus/ACA/Dodd Frank/JCPOA/New START aren’t nothing. Also he was not a fan of Bibi before it was cool.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you could be right.
ACA was good, but also a missed opportunity IMO.
JCPOA was killed by GOP political game-playing. That sucks, but it still means it doesn't count for efficacy, IMO.
I don't know enough to know if Dodd-Frank was good.

But you do point to more stuff than I initially thought of.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh add DACA and DADT repeal. DACA is actually remarkably long-lived despite being an exec action.

Judging JCPOA is interesting. It couldn’t withstand the GOP desire to kill it which as you correctly point out is a ding against Obama’s efficacy.

But he (well Kerry and Moniz) managed to get an Iranian deal signed by Russia China UK France Germany and the EU while locking out Israel/Sunni nations out of the process. And Iran actually complied. That’s pretty impressive.

[#FFFFFFPride]

A judge ruled that President Trump couldn't unwind it.

Which is pretty amazing that one President can issue an executive order that binds a future President. Trump Law!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0, you may overlook how strongly many of JFK's advisors pushed in the wrong direction during the Cuban missile crisis. It took independence of mind, and steadfast courage, to get the nation through that. Never mind to come out with a foreign policy triumph that began the process to unravel the Soviet Union.

Had you lived in DC at the time, you would have felt the unprecedented all-consuming focus communicated by thousands of defense-related staffers ignoring family to work past midnight day-after-day. Nothing like it ever happened, before or since.

The nation was fortunate indeed that JFK proved a match for that challenge. No one could predict with confidence that any other political figure in the nation's history could have done it.

As the master of the most acute crisis in the nation's history, bar none, Kennedy deserves to be right at the top of at least that short list mentioned above. If we had a way to remake Mt. Rushmore in a more politically correct context, the figures I would put on it would be Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and JFK—all of them masters of existential crisis for the nation. Who else does anyone suppose belongs in that company, and why?

[Moderation4ever]

I would tend to agree and put Biden and Obama ahead of Clinton. Biden and Obama both came in during pretty serious fiscal crisis and both successfully addressed the problem and restarted the economy. Both have legislative successes, but Biden has had a shorter working period. I think the fact that Biden had to start from cold whereas President Bush was very helpful in getting President Obama up to speed before his inauguration. So edge to Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, the Trump Covid Vaccine had nothing to do with the "Improved" Biden Economy (Yes, re-opening the Nation's Economy will help the Nation's Economy)

Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

Biden also had smaller legislative margins than Obama. Although Obama had a lot of actual conservative Democrats to deal with in both the House and Senate, not just Machinema and a few moderates in the House. Dems were actually pretty cohesive on a lot of Biden’s major legislative policies.

[Armchair]

Gotta say, I'm amazed by the liberals so far.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you are.

[Armchair]

I mean, dropping Kennedy at the bottom of the list. Putting Biden over Obama.
Very surprising. Very much at odds with the professionals, and how they rank presidents.

Johnson at the top one can make an argument for.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ranking Democratic Presidents, I'd put Carter at the top of the list. I didn't like him at the time, but I didn't yet appreciate just how bad Democratic Presidents could be.

[Armchair]

I mean if I was going to rank them...

1. Kennedy
2. Clinton
3. Johnson
4. Obama
5. Biden
6. Carter

Kennedy:
-A short presidency, with some hiccups at the beginning, but really nice in terms of foreign affairs (Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Cuban missile crisis), boosted the US Space program, and really underappreciated how much he helped civil rights.

Clinton
-Had certain personal foibles, but managed to be a good president in terms with Congress, compromise, economic growth, and more. Had the benefit of the Cold War peace dividend, but kept the military engagements relatively small, pulling out when needed (Somalia).

Johnson: Continued Kennedy's progress in Civil Rights...also greatly expanded Vietnam. Mixed blessings there.

Obama: Came in with so much promise....a Nobel Peace Prize on promise alone. Fell flat, laggy economic growth, couldn't cooperate with Congress, greatly expanded Afghanistan. And his comments in the 2012 Presidential Election (”Obama said. “And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”) " Woefully incorrect.

Perhaps Obama's greatest indication of failing? Truly great presidents have coat tails...they're 2 term presidents (if they live), and they pass the president onto their chosen successor. Obama managed to pass on his Presidency to Donald Trump.

5. Biden: At least he's not Carter. But high inflation, low economic growth, a disaster in foreign policy

6. Carter: There's a reason he was a 1 term president.

[Brett Bellmore]

1: Kennedy: A drug addicted cheating husband who is remembered fondly because someone blew out his brains before he had time to screw up big time.

2: Clinton: A serial cheater who was also into sexual assault. But most of the corruption was his wife’s.

3: Johnson: Replaced a principled effort to abolish racial discrimination with racial quotas, AND his ‘war on poverty’ destroyed the black family.

4: Obama: Studied the Constitution the way a pest exterminator does entomology.

5: Biden: An angry old man determined to use up the last of the nation’borrowing power before he leaves office.

6: Carter: Mostly harmless, but did at least roll back regulations a bit, which the left will never forgive.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not a liberal/Dem, but my rankings would be rather different. Kennedy is probably the most overrated president in history. If he hadn't been shot, he'd have dropped significantly in the historian rankings. (At one point I'd have said Woodrow Wilson, but I think his stock has dropped.) Judging them based solely on their presidencies, not their entire lives or their characters:

1. Clinton
2. Johnson is very tough. On the one hand, civil rights. On the other, Vietnam.
3. Biden - though it's of course hard to get perspective this early, and this could change if he gets another term.
4. Obama - dignified, scandal free, intelligent. But also, he focused all of his efforts on Obamacare and the Iran agreement, and not only were both bad, but they basically monopolized his time so that he didn't do other stuff he could've been doing.
5. Carter - History's greatest monster. On the plus side of his ledger is the deregulation. On the minus, his foreign policy was a disaster and, well, leadership matters in the presidency.
6. Kennedy - Really did very little on civil rights, got us into Vietnam,

[Brett Bellmore]

"4. Obama – dignified, scandal free, intelligent"

I'm not going to argue that he wasn't intelligent; The presidency isn't an office you stumble into. And dignified? When he wasn't raving about bringing a gun to a knife fight, sure.

But scandal free? In your dreams.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There were a number of crises he dealt with and there were Congressional investigations, but those went nowhere. Allegations don't make an actual scandal, at least not in the sense I think it was being used (else, every presidency has had scandals). Was anyone convicted of anything?

David Patraeus, Director the CIA.

Under Trump:

Michael Flynn, NSA (pardoned by Trump)
Steve Bannon, White House Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President (pardoned by Trump)
Honorable Mention: Paul Manafort, chairman of Trump presidential campaign (pardoned by Trump).

And, of course, Trump himself was twice impeached with Republican votes to convict in both cases, though not enough.

Under G.W. Bush, 8 individuals, including Scooter Libby, whose sentence was commuted by Bush and he was pardoned by, you guessed it, Trump.

Clinton obviously had scandals, as did Reagan, as did Nixon. Among two-term presidencies, Obama's is easily the most scandal free in the past 60 years (and more scandal free than most, if not all, one-term presidencies in that same period).

[Brett Bellmore]

"else, every presidency has had scandals"

Pretty much every presidency DOES have scandals, I'm laughing at the notion that Obama was an exception to that rule.

The other rule that he wasn't an exception to, is that the President's co-partisans generally refuse to admit that the scandals actually were scandals. But if that were the test for scandals, Trump had none, either.

[Nige]

'But if that were the test for scandals'

It's not, though, is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, which is why Obama DID have scandals. Things happened under his administration that were seriously ugly, and often illegal. Operation Choke Point, for instance. There's no making THAT look good, the range of lawful businesses attacked under that program were diverse enough that almost anybody would find something to be outraged at.

And so did Trump. Every modern President has had scandals; The office had evolved in a direction that positively encourages lawlessness.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The issue was whether Obama had scandals (not his administration generally). Unlike with, frankly, most presidents, Obama was not shown to have been involved in anything touching him or his inner circle.

Yes, Operation Chokepoint was bad and, given the publicity, Obama certainly was aware and could have shut that down. So I am not saying he doesn’t have any responsibility, but that’s in that nature of bad policy rather than engaging in illegal conduct. (Or someone close to him engaging in illegal conduct either at his direction or in furtherance of his own interests, as with most presidents.)

So, yes, of course every administration has some scandals. But, in terms of Obama personally, he and his inner circle were extraordinarily untouched by actual or even credibly alleged illegality. Carter is the only other president of the past 60 years to even arguably have fewer scandals directly touching on their administration.

But Operation Chokepoint was a seriously misguided policy and you are right that Obama bears responsibility for allowing it to continue (assuming he didn’t okay it in the first place) well after it was known. Either people are doing something illegal or the government should leave them and their banking alone.

[David Nieporent]

The very first thing in that list of purported scandals is Benghazi. Which kind of proves the point: no scandals. The GOP spent roughly 8 decades "investigating" Benghazi in an attempt to prove — well, I don't even know what they thought they were going to prove — and found absolutely zilch.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This. When the biggest scandals they can come up with is a nothing burger on the scale of Benghazi, you know they don't have anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Chronicle of Higher Ed is worried about a Trump victory.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/if-trump-wins

Be scared, be very scared because reform is coming.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Even more worrisome, Republican politicians have recently shown their skill at calling attention to campus problems that resonate strongly with the public."

Maybe they should try fixing such problems themselves, BEFORE the public has to resort to electing a Trump to do it for them? Nah, can't do that: They think the only problem is the public.

[Frank Drackman]

Has anyone told UCLA Head Foo-Bawl Coach Lincoln Riley that he wasn't murdered by an Ill-legal, oops! I mean "Undocumented" Alien?

Frank

[tylertusta]

Judge McAfee spoke to a reporter. Decision for the DQ motion "should" be announced tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/PhilHollowayEsq/status/1768449142999957652

[Brett Bellmore]

Destruction of evidence AND a dead whistleblower. If this doesn’t end with several people in Boeing management doing hard time, there is no justice.

Boeing Whistleblower is Dead and Video Evidence Destroyed

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But remember - Kerr's advocacy of vicims' rights is simply a populist ploy to exploit irrational resentment! /sarc

[The Margrave of Azilia]

#ThisIsWhatSomeCommenersActuallyBelieve

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Cassell, not Kerr

[tylertusta]

McAfee rules:

Appearance of impropriety is the standard. However, McAfee gives Willis the opportunity to either remove her office from the case or to boot Wade to cure the appearance of impropriety.

I think we know which option Fani Willis will take.

Link to order:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24482771-order-on-motion-to-disqualify

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wade was left alone with Prosecutor Fani
He behavior was so uncanny
"Heap big woman, you made a bad boy out of me"

[tylertusta]

I'm left wondering, was hiring her boyfriend worth it for Willis?

While Fani is probably going to remain on the case, this process has got to have hurt her politically.

[Brett Bellmore]

If she nails Trump on even one count, all will be forgiven.

[tylertusta]

She's up for reelection this November, so the voters might kick her out before any conviction can happen.

[David Nieporent]

Appearance of impropriety is the standard.

I don't think that's a very precise summary. He rules that actual conflict of interest is the standard for disqualification. (And he found it wasn't met.) Appearance of impropriety is an applicable standard, but a lesser one that calls for a lesser remedy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It will be interesting which is more important to her: Personally nailing Trump, or a nice gig for her boy friend. I'm guessing the former.

[tylertusta]

I'm sure Willis has sufficient local connections to put Wade in a comfortable private practice somewhere.

Then again, any new prospective employer make take issue with his billing practices.

[David Nieporent]

That's stupid even on its own terms. There is no more "nice gig for her boyfriend." Either she and Wade are off the case, or Wade is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough. He's lost the gig regardless.

[tylertusta]

Not quite as stupid as you'd think.

McAfee opined that perhaps if Willis is disqualified the rest of the Fulton County Office (and presumably still including Wade) can continue on the case.

[David Nieporent]

McAfee opined that perhaps if Willis is disqualified the rest of the Fulton County Office (and presumably still including Wade) can continue on the case.

Nope. Here's what he wrote:

The Court therefore concludes that the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options. The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment. See O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5. Alternatively, SADA Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.

Also, it's moot, because Wade tendered his resignation a short while ago.

[tylertusta]

Nope. Here’s what he wrote:

Here's what I was referring to, starting on page 14 of today's ruling (emphasis mine):

Nor would the finding of an appearance of impropriety on the part of the District Attorney herself, in contrast to an actual conflict, necessarily result in the disqualification of the entire Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. The district attorney in McLaughlin was “absolutely disqualified” due to a personal interest in the prosecution. McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 614 (2014). As a result, assistant district attorneys appointed by the district attorney lacked any authority to proceed. Id. at 613. McLaughlin did not address an appearance standard and made a point to limit the total disqualification to instances of “absolute disqualification.” When the appearance of a conflict exists, only the affected prosecutor, be they elected or appointed, is affected. Head, 253 Ga. App. at 758 (“the individual prosecutor who has the conflict [based on at least the appearance of impropriety] may be disqualified from participation in the case, but not all the other prosecutors who work with him”); Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 694 (1987) distinguishing Davenport, 157 Ga. App. 704, an appearance of impropriety case, by noting that the district attorney’s disqualification did not require disqualification of the entire office).

[not guilty]

"McAfee opined that perhaps if Willis is disqualified the rest of the Fulton County Office (and presumably still including Wade) can continue on the case."

No. That is not at all what Judge McAfee ordered. No "perhaps" about it.

[tylertusta]

I did not say ordered. I said opined.

Starting on page 14 of today's ruling (emphasis mine):

Nor would the finding of an appearance of impropriety on the part of the District Attorney herself, in contrast to an actual conflict, necessarily result in the disqualification of the entire Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. The district attorney in McLaughlin was “absolutely disqualified” due to a personal interest in the prosecution. McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 614 (2014). As a result, assistant district attorneys appointed by the district attorney lacked any authority to proceed. Id. at 613. McLaughlin did not address an appearance standard and made a point to limit the total disqualification to instances of “absolute disqualification.” When the appearance of a conflict exists, only the affected prosecutor, be they elected or appointed, is affected. Head, 253 Ga. App. at 758 (“the individual prosecutor who has the conflict [based on at least the appearance of impropriety] may be disqualified from participation in the case, but not all the other prosecutors who work with him”); Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 694 (1987) distinguishing Davenport, 157 Ga. App. 704, an appearance of impropriety case, by noting that the district attorney’s disqualification did not require disqualification of the entire office).

[not guilty]

You wrote upthread, "McAfee opined that perhaps if Willis is disqualified the rest of the Fulton County Office (and presumably still including Wade) can continue on the case."

Judge McAfee simply did not say that. The language you quote from page 14 of the order makes no reference to either Fani Willis or Nathan Wade. The balance of the opinion makes it clear that Nathan Wade cannot participate further in this prosecution under any circumstances.

[tylertusta]

So when Judge McAfee says “the District Attorney herself” and the “Fulton County District Attorney’s Office,” he is not referring to Fani Willis?

Huh?

[NOVA Lawyer]

No. He was setting forth the legal standard. I mean, yes, in some sense, he was saying the law would not necessarily require disqualifying the Fulton County DA's office even if DA Willis was disqualified, but he was merely summarizing the law, not opining on anything particular to this case.

He explicitly held that, although the legal standard doesn't necessarily mandate disqualification of the entire DA's office every time a DA is disqualified for the appearance of conflict, in this case, either SADA Wade had to go or DA Willis and the entire Fulton County District Attorney's Office had to go.

You seem to have mistaken a summary of the law as the Judge understands it for a statement about this particular case.

And, let's recall, you were responding to this: There is no more “nice gig for her boyfriend.” Either she and Wade are off the case, or Wade is.

Which was entirely true, so your dispute of that statement was entirely misguided.

[not guilty]

Point well taken, but nothing there contemplated that Nathan Wade could continue participating in the prosecution under any circumstances.

[tylertusta]

NG: but nothing there contemplated that Nathan Wade could continue participating in the prosecution under any circumstances.

I said presumably. Based on that section, if Wade somehow stayed on the case and Willis withdrew, perhaps Willis could have stayed on the case.

Of course, that’s not one of the options given to Willis by McAfee.

But what McAfee is actually doing here is laying the groundwork that should the Georgia court of appeals find that Fani Willis needs to go after all, the rest of her office can stay on the case.

NL: but he was merely summarizing the law, not opining on anything particular to this case.

It’s a case of first impression where a DA meets the lower standard of “appearance of impropriety” while not meeting the standards of actual or forensic misconduct.

However, I don’t agree with McAfee that the DA can remain on the case. I think that under the Georgia Constitution, if Willis goes, her office has to go.

[tylertusta]

Correction: if Wade somehow stayed on the case and Willis withdrew, perhaps Willis's office could have stayed on the case.

Caught it after the edit window lapsed.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It’s a case of first impression where a DA meets the lower standard of “appearance of impropriety” while not meeting the standards of actual or forensic misconduct.

But the cases do contain a lot of language, which McAfee quoted, explicitly saying (if in dicta) that the disqualification of a prosecutor or DA doesn't mean their entire office has to be disqualified. And that seems right.

However, I don’t agree with McAfee that the DA can remain on the case. I think that under the Georgia Constitution, if Willis goes, her office has to go.

I assume here you also meant to say the DA's entire office rather than just the DA. What part of the Georgia Constitution are you thinking of when you say you "think that under the Georgia Constitution, if Willis goes her office has to go"? And didn't McAfee cite at least one case specifically stating that disqualification of a DA doesn't disqualify her whole office?

From Judge McAfee's order:

Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 694 (1987) (distinguishing Davenport, 157 Ga. App. 704, an appearance of impropriety case, by noting that the district attorney’s disqualification did not require disqualification of the entire office).

[tylertusta]

Yes, it wasn't very precise on my part; I was on my way into a meeting when I wrote the comment, so excuse my brevity. McAfee evaluated under several standards but DQ'd under the appearance of impropriety.

I'll take this time to point out that several individuals in these threads insisted (quite vehemently, I might add) that the appearance standard was incorrect and that McAfee would not use that standard, despite indications quite early on in this process that he would do just that.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I too received copious lawyersplaining starting months back on why this would all blow over because there was no actual conflict as required by Georgia Black Letter Law™ -- in no small part from our good friend Mr. Guilty.

Other than Nieporent's "whee, found a typo!" distraction, the current silence is rather deafening.

[tylertusta]

The silence is indeed deafening.

In regards to our good friend Mr. Guilty, I suspect he was too distracted by Ms. Merchant's bra size to see this coming.

I for one am enjoying my well-earned victory laps. I welcome you to enjoy them with me.

[David Nieporent]

Also, I don't speak for Mr. NG, but while I think it's fair to point out that he didn't get it right, it's a cheap shot to criticize him for not posting here in a short window after the decision was released. We all have other things to do in our lives (except perhaps Dr. Ed), and there are many reasons why there might be "silence" other than the one you insinuate.

[tylertusta]

Given the abuse our friend Mr. Guilty has been quick to heap on many here in the comment sections and the way he’s conducted himself generally, especially with his remarks on Ms Merchant’s bust size and whom she is sleeping with, your concern has been noted but ultimately found to be unpersuasive.

[Life of Brian]

Huh -- where were you a day or two ago when someone was talking trash about Jimmy the Dane being locked up because he hadn't posted in a while?

While your point about most of us having lives is fair and correct at a high level, here I'm perfectly content to measure "short window" somewhat differently for someone with such an established practice of camping out here, staying up until the wee hours to be the first to post in the open threads with his latest TDS screed, etc. The disappearing acts generally seem to coincide with not good news like this.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it wasn’t very precise on my part; I was on my way into a meeting when I wrote the comment, so excuse my brevity. McAfee evaluated under several standards but DQ’d under the appearance of impropriety.

No; you missed my point — as did Life of Brian. I was not questioning a “typo.” The point I was making is that he didn’t disqualify her. He said that standard applied, but that it was insufficient to DQ her.

[tylertusta]

Like it or not, someone is getting disqualified.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But not DA Willis.

[Life of Brian]

Nah, I didn't miss it at all. You're raising a pedantic quibble that she wasn't actually disqualified, when the upshot of the ruling is that the status quo that all the apologists assured me was peachy keen cannot indeed go forward. Willis simply gets to choose whether she goes or Wade goes.

[Brett Bellmore]

She was given a choice of either DQing herself, or removing her boyfriend from the case. That’s a lot more DQish than he seems to want to acknowledge.

[Life of Brian]

And what strikes me as a particularly ingenious part of the ruling is that it really puts Willis in a no-win situation: if she drops Wade like a hot potato, all her assurances of how absolutely critical he was to the success of the prosecution, why his rate was perfectly reasonable and necessary even though it was ~3x the comp for a DA, 2/3 more than she paid for consulting services by one of the acknowledged top experts on Georgia RICO law, etc., are going to start ringing very hollow, and likely lead to more uncomfortable questions right as she ramps up her reelection campaign. And trying to beat those optics by stepping aside herself and trying to leave Wade in place doesn't play well either: the prosecution will grind to a halt in the short term, and even if another DA picks it up, it's extremely unlikely they'll let the Wade gravy train continue.

[not guilty]

Now that this distraction is out of the way, the State should move to set a jury trial date. I suspect that more defendants will now seek plea agreements, so a single jury trial may be doable.

Donald Trump is currently set for trial in federal court in Florida for May 20, but no one expects that case to be tried on that date. A Fulton County trial setting in early July should work.

[Life of Brian]

Now that this distraction is out of the way

Weak sauce indeed, but if you're going to doggedly double down and pretend this is the outcome you predicted, I guess the safest course is to say as little as possible and start working on your next too-clever theory.

the State should move to set a jury trial date

Surely it will take some time for them to regroup chart a course to victory in the absence of their uber-critical, pricey muse. Oh, he didn't really matter a hill of beans after all?

[not guilty]

I have acknowledged upthread that this is not the exact outcome that I predicted. It does, however, remove an impediment to proceeding to trial.

A huge amount of investigation and, I surmise, case preparation has already been done. As Charles De Gaulle famously observed, the graveyards are full of indispensable men. And Nathan Wade hardly rises to that level.

[not guilty]

“McAfee evaluated under several standards but DQ’d [sic] under the appearance of impropriety.”

Wrong. Judge McAfee didn’t disqualify anyone. He presented Fani Willis with two alternatives. The operative language appears at page 17 of the order:

There has not been a showing that the Defendants’ due process rights have been violated or that the issues involved prejudiced the Defendants in any way. Nor is disqualification of a constitutional officer necessary when a less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available. The Court therefore concludes that the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options. The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment. See O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5. Alternatively, SADA Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.

Judge McAfee opined at page 13, “Unlike an actual conflict, the finding of an appearance of impropriety does not automatically demand disqualification” and that “disqualification due to an appearance of impropriety should rarely occur where there is no danger that the actual trial of the case will be tainted.”

Don’t be too hasty is taking any “victory laps.”

Now the proceedings can move on to determining whether the State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants committed the crimes they are accused of.

[tylertusta]

Wrong. Judge McAfee didn’t disqualify anyone.

When a judge points at a prosecuting office and says that either one prosecutor leaves the case (Option A) or the other does (Option B), I'd call that a disqualification.

Furthermore, there are two other things that support my position that this was actually a disqualification and not just merely an invitation by McAfee for Willis to save face.

The first additional reason: imagine what would have happened if the appearance of impropriety wasn't cured. Suppose if Wade stayed on and Willis refused to withdraw her office (ignore contempt for now). If the impropriety isn't curable, then Fani Willis is booted.

The other reason is much more straightforward: This involved motions to disqualify and dismiss the case. McAfee granted in part.

Can you please tell us which part of the defense’s motion was granted?

Don’t be too hasty is taking any “victory laps.”

I'm feeling pretty good about it. I might take a couple more.

[not guilty]

Judge McAfee’s conclusion at pages 22-23 states:

Whether this case ends in convictions, acquittals, or something in between, the result should be one that instills confidence in the process. A reasonable observer unburdened by partisan blinders should believe the law was impartially applied, that those accused of crimes had a fair opportunity to present their defenses, and that any verdict was based on our criminal justice system’s best efforts at ascertaining the truth. Any distractions that detract from these goals, if remedial under the law, should be proportionally addressed. After consideration of the record established on these motions, the Court finds the allegations and evidence legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest. However, the appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled as previously outlined before the prosecution can proceed. The Defendants’ motions are therefore granted in part and denied in part.

The specific remedy imposed here is not one that any defendant’s motion requested. The principal relief that was sought — dismissal of the indictment or disqualification of the District Attorney’s office — was denied. I doubt that any defense counsel is now turning backflips over Nathan Wade’s withdrawal. It remains to be seen whether Ms. Willis will contract with outside counsel or not.

[tylertusta]

At worst it's partial.

The defense DQ'ing part of the prosecution team is still a DQ regardless of whether the defense gets additional prosecutors kicked out.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The defense got nothing they wanted in the order. That's not a partial win. They took the L.

You can take whatever victory laps you want, but DA Willis was not disqualified. McAfee did find that the appearance of impropriety can result in disqualification in a small subset of situations.

[David Nieporent]

The defense got nothing they wanted in the order. That’s not a partial win. They took the L.

Yes; that's the bottom line. The defense wanted dismissal of the charges, which was always delusional; that was not the prescribed remedy even for an actual conflict of interest. And of course they didn't get it.

As a second best, they wanted the Fulton County DA's office disqualified, which would likely have de facto, if not de jure, ended the prosecution. They did not get that either.

All they ended up getting, despite their motion nominally being granted, was kicking Wade off the case. And since the underlying premise of their position was that Wade was underqualified anyway, it's not even clear that it helps them, though I suppose it might cause a small delay in bringing the case to trial.

[tylertusta]

The thing I don't understand is why you insist on calling this a L for me when you don't even know why I'm having a victory lap.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Who said you took the L? Who doesn't know why you are having a victory lap?

I said the defense took the L. They didn't get anything they wanted (other than press coverage muddying up the DA, but legally, nada).

All I ever took issue with was you said McAfee had decided the appearance of impropriety standard applies in a particular clip and he said then he was going to hear more argument on the issue, so I said I don't think it's accurate to say he decided yet that an appearance of impropriety was enough to disqualify.

NG cited briefs and case law indicating it wasn't enough. I said his argument sounded more convincing than yours based on one statement in the clip where Judge McAfee said it looked pretty clearly like an appearance of impropriety could be enough. (And I stand by citations to cases is more convincing than one quote from the bench setting the terms of the hearing.)

Judge McAfee went on to conclude that an appearance of impropriety could, in very limited circumstances, be enough (you were right that's what he concluded, to the extent predicting what he decide the law said was at issue), but he found the appearance of impropriety in this case did not warrant dismissal of the charges or disqualification of DA Willis (which, to he extent you thought if he found an appearance of impropriety, Willis would be gone, you were wrong).

But, to repeat, I'm not claiming you took the L. And it's kind of weird you think so.

[tylertusta]

If this was only a situation where I was merely right after reading tea leaves, I wouldn’t do much more than pat myself on the back. After all, it was just an educated guess on my part.

No, the reason why I’m having a victory lap is because of how you and our friend Mr. Guilty have conducted yourselves in these comment sections in regards to the motion. By that I mean calling others liars, misrepresenting others’ statements, generally being pugnacious, and in the specific case of Mr Guilty, making comments unbecoming of his former profession.

Who said you took the L?

I misread what you wrote. My apologies.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Apology accepted.

[tylertusta]

That's all?

[not guilty]

No. Judge McAfee in his order offered Ms. Willis two options. Mr. Wade elected to withdraw, such that the order never ripened into disqualification of anyone. Defense counsel went to the judicial well with a ten gallon bucket and returned with a teacup of water.

As I said elsewhere on this thread, I doubt that defense counsel is doing backfilps in celebration of Judge McAfee's ruling.

[tylertusta]

Based on what the Georgia lawyers I’ve been talking to are saying, they’re calling it a DQ.

While I appreciate your input, I’ll go with what the experts are saying.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Nor is disqualification of a constitutional officer necessary when a less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available.

McAfee said in his order it wasn't a disqualification.

[tylertusta]

Disqualification of a constitutional officer.

Wade isn't a constitutional officer. Therefore, DQ'ing him is less drastic from a Georgia constitutional perspective.

[tylertusta]

From today’s order:

However, an odor of mendacity remains. The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court. Such an expectation would mean an end to the efficient disposition of criminal and civil proceedings. Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.

Ouch.

[tylertusta]

More bad news for the prosecution on how badly they conducted this matter, especially with the church speech made by DA Willis. McAfee is inviting a motion to gag the prosecution from public comments:

Providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into. The time may well have arrived for an order preventing the State from mentioning the case in any public forum to prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity, but that is not the motion presently before the Court.

Anyone else ever hear of a state being gagged from making public comments in a criminal trial?

[not guilty]

"Anyone else ever hear of a state being gagged from making public comments in a criminal trial?"

Uh, yes. Gag orders in criminal cases ordinarily bind counsel for both the prosecution and the defense.

[tylertusta]

Then allow me to rephrase:

Is it common for defense counsel to seek a motion to gag the state from publicly commenting on a case?

[not guilty]

No, that is not common. And no such order was sought by defense counsel here.

[tylertusta]

Are you doing OK? You usually don't have misses like this.

[not guilty]

Yes, I am doing okay. Thank you for your concern. I didn't comment earlier today because I slept late. That is one of the perks of being retired.

[tylertusta]

Nathan Wade is out.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/nathan-wade-resigns-trump-georgia-case-following-judges-ruling/MZV2BLXKW5GCBM6WLMMKILS67U/

[Life of Brian]

Ha -- so they chose path 1 in my now-suddenly-stale post above. Apparently they didn't have much of a problem at all sorting out how to cope without his sage insights and steady hand on the tiller.

And I love the super-formal letter to his squeeze. Just as phony and tone-deaf as most of the rest of this fiasco.

Wonder if he submits 8.0 hours for today?

[tylertusta]

8.0 hours of client meetings

[Life of Brian]

A deep dive for any previously unexplored nuggets.

[Voize]

Now for a break from the usual rehash of topics...

A security research paper from Microsoft that explains why e-mail and robocall phone scams so often seem ludicrous and make you wonder "Who would ever fall for this?"

The answer lies in realizing that these scams operate in two phases. In phase one the scammer sends out the initial pitches, some first fraction of which result in initial responses. That begins the second phase, where they engage with the responders and convince some second fraction of them to send the scammers money.

The thing is that the first step is incredibly cheap, they can send a million emails or automated phone calls at very little cost. The second step though is not cheap, it requires people and time and accounts for the bulk of the scammer's cost of operation. For the scam to succeed financially the scammer needs to make that second fraction high, which they can do by sacrificing the first fraction. They deliberately construct the initial pitch so that only really gullible people will respond to it, and make more total initial pitches rather than engaging with less viable targets.

This explanation leads to the conclusion that the usual advice security experts give the public, to ignore the initial pitch and not respond, is actually counterproductive if you are interested in driving the scammers out of business. A better strategy would be to respond and lead them on for a while, increasing their costs and causing their business model to fail. I try to do my part.

[Brett Bellmore]

Be a nice use of LLM's, adding a "String them along as long as possible." button to your email service.

Though just charging a nominal sum for emails, refunded if they're not labeled 'spam' by the recipient, would accomplish the same thing.

[Voize]

Sure, if you could convince email providers (operating in Pakistan?) to impose that charge they have no interest in imposing, and a way for them to discover whether the mail was "labeled spam" by the recipient, but unfortunately neither of those are doable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, glad that finally got cleared up. I feel sorry for her, but at least the girls she got in a fight with don't have to go through life knowing they killed somebody.

Owasso student Nex Benedict's death ruled as a suicide

[Nige]

Not sure the family are convinced, but I think bullying somone until they commit suicide should haunt a person's life only slightly less than actually killing them.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at the suicide statistics for 'transgenders', (And not just in the US, either.) even the ones who move to where nobody knows them and manage to 'pass', it's possible not much bullying was needed. We're not talking about people who are mentally healthy to begin with.

That said, I have little sympathy for bullies, having been a victim of them myself at that age.

[Nige]

How do you know how much bullying transgender kids receive? By all accounts Nex Benedict was bullied for years. By all accounts there's a lot of bullying in that school. Even if you're correct, that's just bullies picking on people who are vulnerable.

[Brett Bellmore]

But I have no personal knowledge of the nature of the bullying. Was it physical? Verbal? Was it mostly just other students' refusing to humor her? I simply don't know.

"Even if you’re correct, that’s just bullies picking on people who are vulnerable."

Depending on the nature of the 'bullying', sure. I'm still glad that's all they have on their consciences, not beating somebody to death.

[Nige]

'I simply don’t know.'

But you're definitely leaning towards downplaying it, right?

'Depending on the nature of the ‘bullying’, sure.'

Well we now for a fact violence was involved. Bullying a trans kid into suicide: they're so fragile it could happen to anyone!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we know that at the end there was violence. Admittedly, she initiated that last conflict, by throwing water on them, but they certainly wrongfully escalated from there.

[Nige]

What makes you think throwing the water was the start of the incident?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because it was in the police report, Nige.

"According to Nex, the girls had made fun of the way Nex and their friends were laughing. In response, Nex threw water on the girls from a plastic water bottle, Nex told the officer. Then, they say, the girls “came at me.” Nex continues: “They grabbed onto my hair, I grabbed onto them. I threw one them into a paper towel dispenser. Then they got my legs out from under me, got me on the ground, and started beating the shit out of me. And then my friends tried to jump in and help, and I’m not sure, I blacked out.”"

She started the fight herself.

[NOVA Lawyer]

How admirable that you show so much concern for the bullies! It’s so great that, even though they didn’t think or act any differently in the case of either Nex dying due to blunt force trauma or due to suicide, you feel so much better about how guilty they are and should feel.

It is a true thing about human nature that humans do feel less guilty if nothing bad happens despite their evil intent and/or bad actions, but the morality of their conduct (and hence moral culpability) doesn’t really change based on the outcome.

A drunk driver who smashes into another car or house or, even, one who doesn’t but say runs a stop sign or red light, has equal moral culpability as the drunk driver who does the same thing, but kills someone. Moral agency doesn’t depend on factors beyond your control. You aren’t evil because you’re unlucky or good because you are lucky. If morality means anything, it has to do with intent and actions, not realized consequences.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, the objective facts are that they were making fun of her. So she attacked THEM. According to her own account of what happened!

I come from a generation where "bullying" generally involved being sucker punched coming around a corner, not people failing to humor your eccentricities. I don't know that she was EVER subject to anything I'd call "bullying". Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't.

In the immediate instance, she was the aggressor. And, evidently, not just that last fight, either.

Friends remember Nex Benedict, Oklahoma student who died after school fight, as ‘fiery kid’

"“They were always someone who was never afraid to be who they are,” Ally said. “It was like wherever they went, you were going to accept them, and if you didn’t, that was your problem, and they were going to make it your problem. They were very confrontational.”"

You know what? If this kid weren't confused about her gender, and insisting on using the wrong pronouns, she'd probably be identified as the the bully in the picture.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Look, the objective facts are that they were making fun of her. So she attacked THEM. According to her own account of what happened!

No. Don't misrepresent your link and their words.

According to Nex, the girls had made fun of the way Nex and their friends were laughing. In response, Nex threw water on the girls from a plastic water bottle, Nex told the officer. Then, they say, the girls “came at me.” Nex continues: “They grabbed onto my hair, I grabbed onto them. I threw one them into a paper towel dispenser. Then they got my legs out from under me, got me on the ground, and started beating the shit out of me. And then my friends tried to jump in and help, and I’m not sure, I blacked out.”

The first to engage in actual violence, according to Nex, is the girls who beat Nex up. Self-defense doesn't include beating the shit out of someone who throws water on you. But, yes, throwing water on someone is a good way to get in a fight. But making fun of someone who, according to the mother's account, has been the subject of repeated bullying, is a good way to get water thrown on you.

Self-defense requires proportionality. Nex committed an assault by throwing water, but that doesn't give carte blanche to the victim of that assault and her friends to beat the water thrower.

Funny how, according to Nex, Nex and friends were minding their business when the other girls started hassling them. And you call Nex the aggressor based on "objective facts."

Set your anti-LGBTQ prejudices aside and realize no one acted ideally in the situation, but it is definitely not true that Nex would be identified as the bully. Bullies don't get made fun of and throw water in response and then get beat up. Bullies are often, and really typically, groups of people who initiate antagonistic encounters, basically dare the other person to respond, and then beat the shit out of them if they do. The girls who beat Nex were the bullies.

[ReaderY]

The Fulton County District Attorney should accept the court’s judgment, publicly apologize for her extremely poor judgment, get Mr. Wade off the case, stop criticising the court or the defense attorneys over the issue, promise to make amends, and move on with the case and with her life.

[tylertusta]

I agree, she should do that.

Based on how she's conducted herself in the past three and a half months, I doubt she will.

She's a lot like Donald Trump in that regard.

[Voize]

No, her spouse wasn't at home with a newborn at the time.

[tylertusta]

Nice, but I try not to imagine Fani Willis doing that.

[Frank Drackman]

If the supposedly impotent Nathan Wade were to sexually assault a woman, could he also be charged with "Assault with a Dead Weapon?"

Frank