Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Judge Scott McAfee now has Nathan Wade's head on a pike. The nine week red herring in Fulton County has now been resolved.

I hope that the State promptly moves for a jury trial setting to begin this summer. A criminal trial is sometimes said to be a search for truth, but that is incorrect. It is instead a test of the government's evidence. Perhaps this case can now return to what should have been its focus all along: whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the various defendants in fact did what they are accused of.

[NvEric]

Head on a pike ? Nonsense !
Resolved ? Nonsense !
Prosecution prove ? Nonsense !

[David Nieporent]

The bot is malfunctioning.

[Mr. Bumble]

The pompous ass is pontificating.

[David Nieporent]

Stalker's gotta stalk.

[Mr. Bumble]

Delusional pompous ass.

[David Nieporent]

Is it time for a restraining order?

[Kazinski]

So NG, as a defense attorney what would your next move be if the judge issued an opinion lamenting about the “odor of mendacity” of the District Attorney, states that she could face discipline from the bar, the county, and several state entities, and in addition invites the defense to submit a motion to gag the District Attorney for the duration of the trial?

[not guilty]

This case is going to trial before a jury. If I were a defense attorney representing one of the less culpable defendants in Fulton County, I would explore a non-trial agreed disposition. The State will likely want to try fewer defendants than presently remain, so that one jury trial including all remaining defendants will be feasible. Those defendants who seek plea agreements sooner will likely get more favorable treatment than those who hold out.

If I were representing Donald Trump or any of the other, more culpable defendants, I would prepare for trial and encourage my client to keep his mouth shut in the meantime.

That having been said, I suspect that your question was merely rhetorical. But a defense lawyer's duty is to get the best possible outcome for his client under the unique facts and circumstances of the case. The Georgia fake electors who reached deals with the prosecution prior to indictment are now much better off than the ones who did not.

[Commenter_XY]

Who will actually try the case for the state, NG? The Smasher herself?

[not guilty]

I suspect that DA Willis will be in the courtroom for parts of the trial, but will leave the examination of witnesses to assistants. The trial is likely to last for months, and she has an office to run. I have no idea whether she will seek to contract with another special assistant to serve as a field general.

[Kazinski]

If she's smart she will stay out of the courtroom because coming and going she'll be getting questions.from the press, and she won't be able to help herself from commenting.

The judge already put her on notice about her comments, and potential effects on the jury pool.

If I were a defense lawyer, I'd appeal his ruling and request a stay. I don't think its any secret that Trump.wants to delay the trial at least until after.the.election, I think even without Willis's disqualification he has plenty of traction for further delays.

[Drewski]

Appeal what? AFAIK McAffee's decision on the prosecution can't be appealed as an interloculatory matter. You have to wait for a final judgment to appeal that sort of thing.

[David Nieporent]

And they can't possibly show any prejudice from the Wade-Willis fiasco, so no post-trial appeal has even the remotest chance of success. (Indeed, about the only even remotely viable theory would be about Willis's public whining about racism, claiming that the pretrial publicity denied them a fair trial, but that isn't going to work. That's what voir dire is for.)

[Kazinski]

Did Newsweek get it wrong?

"Both sides of the case have until March 25 to appeal McAfee's ruling. Under state law, either party would have to first ask McAfee permission to appeal his ruling, and the judge would have to respond in the next 10 days."

https://www.newsweek.com/fani-willis-trump-georgia-case-appeal-1880175

[not guilty]

Yes, Newsweek got it wrong where it states that both sides of the case have until March 25 to appeal McAfee's ruling. If Judge McAfee certifies that the order is appropriate for interlocutory review, that certification must issue within ten days of the decision. An aggrieved party would need to seek certification in time for the judge to rule within that ten day window. Moreover, the District Attorney has already complied with the order by accepting Nathan Wade's resignation.

There is no substitute for original source materials.

[Kazinski]

So Joyce Vance got it wrong?

She was Obama’s US Attorney for Northern Alabama, so I assume she’s competent.

And you seem to agree with her that they have ten days to ask McAfee for permission to appeal.

Vance goes on:
“Under Georgia law, it’s up to the trial judge to issue a certificate of appealability (‘COA’) within 10 days of his ruling for either party to take it to the court of appeals. And then, the court of appeals would also have to agree to hear the case before an interlocutory appeal would take place. So we’ll watch carefully this week for the parties to request a COA and for Judge McAfee’s ruling. Although not an indication for certain, he dropped a footnote in his opinion dismissing six counts in the indictment last week saying he’d issue a COA if the DA wanted to appeal. He didn’t do so when he decided the disqualification motion, so there are at least a few tea leaves to be read here.”

[not guilty]

"And you seem to agree with her that they have ten days to ask McAfee for permission to appeal."

No, I didn't say that. If Judge McAfee does not certify the order as being appropriate for interlocutory review within ten days, there is no further review prior to trial. The request necessarily precedes the certification. (It is theoretically possible that a party could request certification on the morning of the tenth day and the order be certified on that afternoon, but that would be a huge risk to take.)

And Joyce Vance didn't get anything wrong. Nothing she said is inconsistent with what I have written on this comment thread.

[Kazinski]

Well you and Vance will have to agree to disagree.

My money is on Sadow filing a motion with McAfee to request permission to appeal before the 10 day window is up.

And you'd think Sadow might also be able to read the statute for himself since he already said he will appeal the ruling.

Sure its up.to McAfee to green light it, but after his "odor of mendacity" and "unprofessional" shots, I think there is a reasonable chance.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well you and Vance will have to agree to disagree.

What do you think Vance and NG disagree about?

You simply misframed or misinterpreted Vance's statement. NG pointed out why what Vance said and he said were perfectly consistent, which they are, and now you continue suggesting there's a difference?

Your prediction, likely correct, is that the defense will likely file a request for a COA well before the ten days is up to give McAfee time to grant it, if he is so inclined. I doubt he will grant any such request.

But to the point, they don't have ten (10) days to appeal. That's a dramatic simplification of the process which results in a misstatement of the actual procedure. They have 10 days (less really) to request the right to appeal. My understanding and Vance's and NG's is that the grant of the COA has to occur within 10 days of the order, the 10-day time limit is not the time limit to request the COA. Then, if the COA is granted, they have 10 days to actually appeal.

And you’d think Sadow might also be able to read the statute for himself since he already said he will appeal the ruling.

Again, simplifying a somewhat complex procedure for pubic consumption. When does a defense attorney ever do that?

Sure its up.to McAfee to green light it, but after his “odor of mendacity” and “unprofessional” shots, I think there is a reasonable chance.

No. I don't think so. Those comments actually cut against granting the COA. He was pointing out there are appropriate avenues for this, but disqualification or dismissal of the charges is not appropriate. And an appeal is an uphill battle given the law he cited and, even more so, given his findings of fact. I think it's highly unlikely he grants a COA.

[not guilty]

"My understanding and Vance’s and NG’s is that the grant of the COA has to occur within 10 days of the order, the 10-day time limit is not the time limit to request the COA. Then, if the COA is granted, they have 10 days to actually appeal."

That is mostly correct. If the trial court certifies the order as appropriate for interlocutory appeal, an application for interlocutory appeal shall be filed in the Court of Appeals within 10 days of the entry of the trial court's order granting the certificate for immediate review. Ga. Ct. App. 30(a). Such application for leave to appeal an interlocutory order will be granted in the discretion of the appellate court only when it appears from the documents submitted that:

(1) The issue to be decided appears to be dispositive of the case; or
(2) The order appears erroneous and will probably cause a substantial error at trial or will adversely affect the rights of the appealing party until entry of final judgment, in which case the appeal will be expedited; or
(3) The establishment of precedent is desirable.

Ga. Code § 5-6-34(b); Ga. Ct. App. 30(b).

If the interlocutory application is granted, the appellant must file a notice of appeal in the trial court within ten days of the date of the order granting the application. Ga. Ct. App. 30(k).

[Kazinski]

I guess i’m confused when NG says “Yes, Newsweek got it wrong”, when I am quoting Joyce Vance’s comments in Newsweek. And everything I quoted was Vance’s words.

Now you say Vance is right, but I “misframed” Vance by quoting her directly without any additional commentary?

She’s right, but I’m wrong when I quote her is a very creative argument.

[NOVA Lawyer]

She’s right, but I’m wrong when I quote her is a very creative argument.

You’re not wrong when you quote her. You’re wrong when you summarize the quote as suggesting she agrees with Newsweek. She didn’t.

You are wrong when you suggest Vance disagrees with NG. In fact, what she said and what he said were the same and neither said what Newsweek said.

Ergo, despite quoting Vance, you clearly didn’t understand what she said. She did not agree with Newsweek. She did agree with NG.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thanks, NG. I’m not going to look it up, I do forget whether they would file the Notice of Appeal with or after the application to the Court of Appeals for interlocutory appeal. But, in any event, there is no appeal as of right and there is March 25 deadline for the parties to appeal the McAfee order.

For Kazinski from Newsweek:

Both sides of the case have until March 25 to appeal McAfee’s ruling.This is wrong. In fact, McAfee has until March 25 to issue the certificate of appealability.] Under state law, either party would have to first ask McAfee permission to appeal his ruling, and the judge would have to respond in the next 10 days. [This is wrong. The judge has to issue the COA within 10 days of the order, which is to say, by March 25. It has nothing to do with when or if the parties request the COA.]”

The Newsweek summary was wrong. Vance’s summary was not. Yours was not.

If Kazinski reads all three and thinks Newsweek and Vance are in agreement, he misread either Newsweek or Vance.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And, Kazinski, compare this quote of Vance's to the Newsweek quote you provided and then I copied with bolded comments above:

Under Georgia law, it’s up to the trial judge to issue a certificate of appealability (‘COA’) within 10 days of his ruling for either party to take it to the court of appeals.

Notice how Vance does not say the the parties have 10 days to appeal or even 10 days to request a COA, but instead says the trial judge has to issue a COA within 10 days of his ruling. Because that's how it is, as NG explained.

[not guilty]

“I guess i’m confused when NG says ‘Yes, Newsweek got it wrong’”, when I am quoting Joyce Vance’s comments in Newsweek. And everything I quoted was Vance’s words.”

No, Kazinski, you lie when you say “And everything I quoted was Vance’s words.” You quoted from Newsweek:

“Both sides of the case have until March 25 to appeal McAfee’s ruling. Under state law, either party would have to first ask McAfee permission to appeal his ruling, and the judge would have to respond in the next 10 days.”

Those words appear in Newsweek, but they are not the words of Joyce Vance. The Vance quotations in Newsweek are as follows:

“An attempt at appealing is almost certain to follow. Trump’s lawyer Steve Sadow has promised to, and it’s possible that the DA’s office might seek to as well. The question is whether the Georgia courts will permit an unusual interlocutory appeal—one that occurs before trial—or consign this issue to post-trial motions if there is a conviction.”

“Under Georgia law, it’s up to the trial judge to issue a certificate of appealability (‘COA’) within 10 days of his ruling for either party to take it to the court of appeals. And then, the court of appeals would also have to agree to hear the case before an interlocutory appeal would take place. So we’ll watch carefully this week for the parties to request a COA and for Judge McAfee’s ruling. Although not an indication for certain, he dropped a footnote in his opinion dismissing six counts in the indictment last week saying he’d issue a COA if the DA wanted to appeal. He didn’t do so when he decided the disqualification motion, so there are at least a few tea leaves to be read here.”

https://www.newsweek.com/fani-willis-trump-georgia-case-appeal-1880175

You are disregarding the late Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!!

[not guilty]

Kazinski, what authority do you posit authorizes an interlocutory appeal of Judge McAfee's ruling by defense counsel here? The ruling is not appealable as of right under Ga. Code §§ 5-6-34 or 5-6-35. An interlocutory appeal under § 5-6-34(b) requires the trial court to certify within ten days of entry thereof that the order, decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that immediate review should be had. The appellate court in its discretion may permit an appeal to be taken from the order, if application is made thereto within ten days after such certificate is granted. See also Ga. Ct. App. 30.

The criteria for granting interlocutory review are set forth in Georgia Supreme Court Rule 31:

(1) The issue to be decided appears to be dispositive of the case;
(2) The order appears erroneous and will probably cause a substantial error at trial; or
(3) The establishment of a precedent is desirable.

The instant order from Judge McAfee is not dispositive of the case. There is no realistic possibility that the judge has committed reversible error. The Court of Appeals applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to disqualify a prosecutor. Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 791, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga.Ct.App. 2005); Head v. State, 253 Ga. App. 757, 758. 560 S.E.2d 536 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard applies to rulings on motion to disqualify). "Such an exercise of discretion is based on the trial court's findings of fact which we must sustain if there is any evidence to support them." Whitworth, at 791; Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 310,816 S.E.2d 151 (Ga.Ct.App. 2018). There is no need here for any further precedent to be established, in that ample precedents already exist.

Donald Trump will no doubt seek certification for interlocutory review, but such application will be idle ceremony.

[Mr. Bumble]

To be continued....

[Bob from Ohio]

ng also said no one would be disqualified. Thought Anderson would win. That the S/C would not take the immunity case.

[not guilty]

Bob from Ohio, have you read Judge McAfee's order? He in fact disqualified no one. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24482993/order-03-15-2024-103516-41352718-557be37d-0c1b-4f8d-8236-37f565138b56.pdf

The penultimate paragraph of the order states at page 17:

Ultimately, dismissal of the indictment is not the appropriate remedy to adequately dissipate the financial cloud of impropriety and potential untruthfulness found here. See Olsen v. State, 302 Ga. 288, 294 (2017) (“Dismissal of an indictment is an extreme sanction, used only sparingly as a remedy for unlawful government conduct.”) (quoting State v. Lampl, 296 Ga. 892, 896 (2015)). 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.

Verbs matter. Judge McAfee expressly declined to order disqualification of the District Attorney because "a less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available."

[Bob from Ohio]

"He in fact disqualified no one."

LOL Is Bradley working on the case?

He just let the DA choose who was disqualified.

Reality matters.

[David Nieporent]

You mean Wade, not Bradley.

[not guilty]

Bob, you conspicuously tap danced around whether you had read Judge McAfee’s order. Why am I unsurprised?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bob,

You can argue that McAfee's order has the same practical effect as if he had disqualified Wade, but he didn't actually disqualify Wade any more than he disqualified DA Willis.

The practical effect is what it is, but McAfee did not disqualify Wade. Pursuant to his order, Wade could still be working the case. Which means he wasn't disqualified. DA Willis is still on the case, consistent with his order, so she wasn't disqualified. McAfee ordered that they couldn't both work on the case, but didn't disqualify either of them.

As NG says, verbs matter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You mean Wade, not Bradley."

Yes, sorry.

[Bob from Ohio]

"McAfee ordered that they couldn’t both work on the case, but didn’t disqualify either of them."

Form over substance. Wade was on the case, he was forced out by the judge.

[David Nieporent]

The practical effect is what it is, but McAfee did not disqualify Wade. Pursuant to his order, Wade could still be working the case. Which means he wasn’t disqualified. DA Willis is still on the case, consistent with his order, so she wasn’t disqualified. McAfee ordered that they couldn’t both work on the case, but didn’t disqualify either of them.

I think Bob is more right than NG here. No, pursuant to his order, Wade could not still be working the case.

He gave the prosecution a choice between dumping Wade, in which case Wade would be off the case but the Fulton County DA's office could stay on the case, or the Fulton County DA's office could step aside entirely, in which case Wade would also be off the case.

If you want to hang your hat on the theoretical possibility that the Fulton County DA's office could step aside, the Council could appoint an entirely different DA's office to take over, and then that DA's office could inexplicably decide to hire someone whose only qualification for the job was dating Fani Willis… well, that seems like a bit of a stretch.

[Drewski]

Wow. Are you suggesting that events take place over time, in which we travel forward, unsure of what's ahead of us? Deep stuff.

[David Nieporent]

Trump and his co-defendants have today asked McAfee to certify it for appellate review.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24485285/trump-joint-motion-for-certificate-of-immediate-review.pdf

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. The motion is of course directed to the trial court, but it conspicuously omits any discussion of the criteria which Georgia appellate courts apply in determining whether to grant interlocutory review, as reflected in Rule 30(b) of the Court of Appeals and Rule 31 of the Supreme Court. Why am I unsurprised?

The motion seems to be merely a dilatory (and fundraising) tactic.

[tylertusta]

Judge McAfee has granted certification.

I don’t think its a dilatory tactic. Sure, I’m sure it would be a nice benefit if it worked, but the real goal here is obvious: to kick Fani Willis and her team out and bring in a new prosecutor who might decide that the case isn’t worth pursuing.

Besides, McAfee said he'll continue to proceed with pre-trial matters anyways.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which trial? The one involving the Bigot King of Un-American Clingers? Or the one(s) involving the Gullible, Bigoted, Superstitious Henchmen?

[Commenter_XY]

There is the NYC trial that was just delayed another month. The DOJ was slow to produce documents. Next month could be busy. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why would District Attorney Willis be involved in a New York trial, or any trial outside Georgia? That’s especially nonsensical flailing even when advanced by a gullible, bigoted rube.

Carry on, clinger. Try to find some solace in Prof. Volokh’s use of a racial slur today.

[John F. Carr]

The judge's recent order should be read as a suggestion that Fani Willis not participate in court proceedings. The case will go better for the prosecution if the judge trusts the prosecutor.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe she should hire the best, most experienced, most accomplished prosecutor in the United States, if not four or five of them. Watching Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force try to keep up (flail) would be great sport and better entertainment. Plus, it would promote a just result.

[Drewski]

As much as I enjoy seeing Trump sweat and hope he gets his just desserts, spending that kind of money to secure a conviction for that sort of crime would actually be political misconduct. He shouldn't get special treatment - in his favor or otherwise.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He should get the same treatment a highly placed organized crime figure would receive.

Would you be content if one or two of the nation's best prosecutors worked pro bono on this prosecution?

[Drewski]

"Would you be content if one or two of the nation’s best prosecutors worked pro bono on this prosecution?"

Yes, 100%, assuming there's a mechanism to do so. I'd even be fine if they worked at the standard rate for local assistant prosecutors. But spending tens of millions to fly in four or five top-tier attorneys for the prosecution would be a bit beyond the pale.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would you consider it unreasonable if a prosecution spends as much on the prosecution as the defendant(s) spend on the defense?

[tylertusta]

Yeah, I got the sense as well. Fani Willis's "odor of mendacity" is not welcome in his courtroom.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, I am curious about Judge McAfee's dismissal of the oath breaking charges. Dismissal as a matter of law seems to me to be distinguishable in cases of oath breaking vs. cases of ordinary criminal conduct.

Why isn't a prosecutor entitled to assume a person who swears an an oath does so with full knowledge of the obligations undertaken—and thus ought to be presumed as a matter of law prepared to defend against every legally cognizable charge alleging the oath was broken? Seems like the only questions left open for trial on a charge of oath breaking ought to concern whether specific conduct occurred in violation of the oath. Ought such questions be decided as matters of fact during a trial, not as matters of law before a trial?

Judge McAfee seems to have assumed that defendants might not be knowledgeable of the obligations they swore to uphold. If that were so, would it not amount to a presumption defendants had indeed broken the oath, by reckless disregard for its terms? If so, why would that not make dismissal of the charges on those grounds actually paradoxical?

More generally, Judge McAfee's presumption seems to derogate the very idea of an enforceable oath taken in full knowledge of obligations it imposes. Are you aware of any previous case law which might address legal obligations to swear an oath imposes? Seems like modern practice with regard to oaths has become more casual than history seems to show it to have been previously.

The Constitution's specific reliance on oaths suggests a strong presumption in favor of their validity and enforceability. I see no such presumption in Judge McAfee's decision.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there be any abridgment of a defendant's right to appeal on a basis that specific conduct alleged to amount to oath breaking was instead innocent, if the specific terms of the oath did not as a matter of law preclude that conduct. The oath should be read to cover only what it covers, and a judge should be the final arbiter to determine what that coverage requires. But I do not think it reasonable to insist that such an appeal can properly be sustained prior to a trial to establish the facts of the conduct.

If you have any comments, or corrections for mis-impressions I may have with regard to the law, I would be grateful to have them.

[not guilty]

The defendants in this case are not accused of violating their own oaths of office; they were accused of soliciting other officials to violate those officials' oaths.

The gravamen of Judge McAfee's ruling, as I understand it, is that six counts of the indictment alleged solicitation of an official to commit a felony offense, but declined to specify what particular crime the defendants are alleged to have solicited. "As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited." https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24478988/trump_specialdemurrers_31324.pdf p. 6.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was always crazy that they thought they could charge conspiracy to solicit a felony without stating what the felony supposedly was.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Okay, thanks for that. Makes more sense that way than the way I misunderstood the charges.

I remain interested in oath breaking issues for more general reasons, but I get that it does not apply here.

[Bored Lawyer]

"If I were representing Donald Trump or any of the other, more culpable defendants, I would prepare for trial and encourage my client to keep his mouth shut in the meantime."

Excuse me for a moment.

BWAAAAAHAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAA

Okay, proceed.

[not guilty]

I was asked what I would do in that situation. I didn't suggest that my advice would actually be followed.

[Bored Lawyer]

I didn't say you suggested anything. I just thought your comment was hilariously funny.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would get ready for the rioting because if *I* can't figure out what it is that Trump allegedly did, Bubba definitely ain't going to be able, and we are going to have race riots of a type we haven't seen in a century.

Be scared, be very scared because the middle is ceasing to hold.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, what you plan to do yourself in the event that Donald Trump is convicted of a crime? What violent action(s) will you take if and when that happens?

[Jumaira]

Hopefully, if Trump is elected, he goes nuclear on all of his enemies. How funny would it to be if he ordered the military to kidnap Willis, James, Jared Polis, and all other prominent Democrats and had them executed?

[windycityattorney]

It would be hilarious! Just imagine. Summary executions with no due process. No sixth amendment rights. No eighth amendment rights. We could all collectively use the constitution as toilet paper as Trump as promised us he will do! Hurr Durrrrrrrrrr

Please donate all your money to Trump's re-election fund. Get a second job and donate all that as well. Sell your car and donate to Trump to prove your fealty to the fuhrer. Do you want Biden to win?

[Jumaira]

The founders didn't intend for due process to apply to degenerates like the people I mentioned.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Dr. Ed 2. What you plan to do yourself in the event that Donald Trump is convicted of a crime?

Anything other than yapping and yammering in online comment threads?

[Estragon]

Yawn. You need some new material

[not guilty]

No one is covered in glory here. IMO Judge McAfee reached the correct result, but he tolerated his courtroom being turned into a circus in the process. I hope that some of the attorneys involved face professional disciplinary sanctions. A few observations from what appears to be undisputed from the evidentiary hearing.

Nathan Wade lied in his interrogatory responses in his divorce case regarding his personal relationship with Fani Willis. That was in his capacity as a litigant rather than as an advocate, but Rule 3.4(b)(1) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall not falsify evidence. This would also appear to violate Rule 8.4(a)(8), providing that it violates the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that relates to the lawyer's fitness to practice law or reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, where the lawyer has admitted in judicio, the commission of such act.

The wellspring of the Defendant Mike Roman's initial motion was improper communications between Mr. Wade' former counsel Terrance Bradley and Ashleigh Merchant. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/16/fani-willis-misconduct-accusations-ashleigh-merchant/ This reflects improper and unethical conduct by both Mr. Bradley and Ms. Merchant.

Rule 1.6(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional conduct states:

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

Rule 1.6(c) explicitly provides that the duty of confidentiality shall continue after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated. Mr. Bradley's gossiping with Ms. Merchant about his former client Mr. Wade palpably violates Rule 1.6.

Rule 8.4(a)(1) provides that it shall be a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to violate or knowingly attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another. [Emphasis added.] Ms. Merchant assisted or induced Mr. Bradley to breach his duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6(a) and (c).

Mr. Roman's motion to dismiss/disqualify falsely accused Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade of having violated federal criminal law by committing theft of honest services by a public official. The authorities set forth by Ms. Merchant in support of that accusation failed to disclose that the Supreme Court had rejected her legal theory in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 409-411 (2010). This failure violates a lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal under Rule 3.3(a)(1) and (3), which provide that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal, nor fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.

Other ethical questions, including whether attorney witnesses testified falsely before Judge McAfee, depend on the resolution of testimonial conflicts as to disputed facts, but the examples I have listed above do not.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to add that you think Ms. Merchant got breast augmentation surgery.

[Frank Drackman]

They're real, and they're spectacular.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you contend or hope the anesthesia or pain from such surgery would excuse professional misconduct?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wait...you're saying that there's stuff a public official can do which *doesn't* come under the rubric of honest services theft?

I that that was a magic law against all bad behavior by public officials. /sarc

[Armchair]

"IMO Judge McAfee reached the correct result,"

That's not what you argued before. Before you argued something along the lines that there was absolutely no conflict of interest in any sense, and that this complaint should just be dismissed, period.

[not guilty]

"That’s not what you argued before. Before you argued something along the lines that there was absolutely no conflict of interest in any sense, and that this complaint should just be dismissed, period."

That was before I saw Judge McAfee's reasoning as reflected in his order. He found no actual conflict of interest, no violation of due process, and absolutely no prejudice to any movant. He expressly declined to order "disqualification of a constitutional officer [as being] necessary when a less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available." (P. 17.) These findings are unassailable, and the ruling is no victory for defense counsel.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

[MoreCurious]

When I was a young lawyer, many years ago, a senior partner quoted in an appellate brief a couple of sentences from the first chapter of Bleak House -- with a proper citation, of course. One of the judges on the argument panel noted his amused approval of the reference to Jarndyce.

[BrotherMovesOn]

In the criminal courts. I see TV mini-series.

[Kazinski]

On Thursday's open thread I made a comment about February's inflation numbers, I merely mentioned that both Consumer (CPI) and Producer (PPI) inflation was higher than expected. Sarcastro complained I was referencing just a single data point, which I didn't quite understand because CPI, and PPI are two data points, and I didn't even post the actual figures. So to clear up up any confusion I'll post the numbers from table A in the February BLS report, released 3/12 for both CPI and CPI minus food and energy (Core) and then on the last line the 12 month annual rate :
Month CPI - Core
Aug .5 - .3
Sep. .4 - .2
Oct. .1 - .3
Nov .2 - .2
Dec. .2 - .3
Jan .3 - .4
Feb .4 - .4
Ann. 3.2 - 3.8

So a couple of things jump out at me about these numbers, and Oct numbers looked pretty good, and actually Sep-Dec. looked good in aggregate: 2.7-3% annual inflation, but the last two months look like inflation is trending up again, especially when the February PPI number came in at .6%. The Core inflation is the most useful number for short term trends because we do know food and Energy jump around a little, and the 3.8% annual inflation increase for that number shows that Core inflation is in much worse shape than CPI, and the Fed, isn't going to have any room for rate cuts until they make further progress, and PPI is an indicator of future inflation. And note that the decision to only show the numbers back to August is BLS's decision, they only go back to August in Table A of their report.

And least I be accused of not providing enough context here are the 12 month annual inflation (Jan-Dec) numbers since the last year of the Obama Administration:
2016 2.1

2017 2.1
2018 1.9
2019 2.3
2020 1.4

2021 7.0
2022 6.5
2023 3.4

I hope this provides enough context to repeat to support my point that maybe it would be helpful for Biden to withdraw his budget proposal and to submit a more austere budget to give the Fed a little support.

[NvEric]

Good job on the details, something I'd have done when younger.
To add real-life occurrences,
... food up 20%-30%,
... gasoline up 80%-90%,
... insurance up 30%
Little bits are added here and there by opportunists.
Seeing others doing the same, why not join in ?

Besides an increase in the money supply, there's the naked greed of far too many using the excuse of money supply. Fear drives many to an irrational action of panic which turns into bare-naked greed. It does not matter what is used as the token for time spent doing something, inflation occurs even with GOLD and SILVER. One drives out the other - see
J. Laurence Laughlin, The History of Bimetallism in the United States [1885]
oll.libertyfund.org

[Kazinski]

"there’s the naked greed of far too many"

Everybody is greedy, including consumers looking for the best price, and, competitors trying to.steal business.

That's what makes the whole thing work, until the government gets involved.

[ThePublius]

Agreed. Two points about that. Many liberals, most notably Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, blame high prices on corporate greed. The question one must consider is, why weren't they greedy when Trump was in office? Why did they suddenly become greedy?

Also, your point about greed it good. See Ayn Rands short book "The Virtue of Selfishness."

[Nige]

Are you under the impression they just started saying this just now?

People who are greedy keep telling us it's good. (Some of these are allegedly Christians, for whom it is a sin.) As wealth gets ever more concentrated in the hands of a smaller percentage of people, we are explained that this is good, actually.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wish food was ONLY up 20%-30% -- my grocery bill has TRIPLED.

[David Nieporent]

No, it hasn't.

[Kazinski]

How do you know what he eats?

Maybe it's caviar.

[David Nieporent]

Has the price of caviar tripled? Or are you implying he used to eat canned tuna, and then this year started eating caviar instead?

[David Nieporent]

Either way, I'm going to go with the "serial fabricator is serially fabricating" conclusion from Occam's Razor.

[Absaroka]

So has mine! Since 1986. If you are talking about recently, what the heck are you buying?

[bernard11]

Did you decide to feed the whole neighborhood?

Or did you switch from a vegan diet to steak and lobster every night?

[Armchair]

Vegan isn't exactly cheap...

[Martinned2]

So basically what you're telling us is that inflation is 3%, down from more than double that when Trump left office?

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice spin. Trump left office in Jan. 2021, not Dec. 2021.

[Michael P]

To illustrate: https://www.bls.gov/charts/producer-price-index/final-demand-12-month-percent-change.htm

PPI shot up like a rocket after Biden took office.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your chart actually shows inflation was shooting up well before Biden took office. The trend started while Trump was in office and had already reached 4.1% by March 2021. Are you suggesting that surge in inflation was due to a Biden policy which had an immediate impact or, more reasonably, do you acknowledge that COVID related factors and Trump's unprecedented spending played a major role in the increased inflation? In fact, what you see is inflation coming down during the Biden years, for anyone who understands the U.S. and global economies are big ships that don't turn on a dime.

Starting the clock on January 21, 2021, is simple-minded in every sense.

[Michael P]

Inflation returned to normal at the end of Trump's term. Or perhaps markets were pricing in the impact of Biden getting elected even before he took office -- he threatened, and carried out, a slew of expensive and unproductive executive orders in his first days in office.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Or perhaps markets were pricing in the impact of Biden getting elected even before he took office.

That's not how inflation works.

he threatened, and carried out, a slew of expensive and unproductive executive orders in his first days in office

Also not how inflation worked from 2020 to 2023. Are you suggesting Biden's policies increased inflation in the UK? Or did their PM just coincidentally issue the equivalent of executive orders at very nearly the same time?

Starting the who's-responsible-for-inflation clock on January 21, 2021, is simple-minded in every sense.

[Kazinski]

That's more than spin, its a cyclotron.

Inflation averaged 1.925% over Trumps four years, and 5.63% over Biden's first 3 years. I even helpfully put a line break to accentuate the break in terms.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if something big happened during Trump's final year in office that caused inflation to be higher in subsequent years.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like Dems stealing an election to put two of the most incompetent people in politics into office?

[Martinned2]

No, that is not a thing that happened.

[Frank Drackman]

Just like 9-11 didn't happen? Thanks Representative Omar!

[Drewski]

Ah, see, your problem is that you think all possible events happened, or none did. In fact, some events (such as 9/11) did occur, while others (such as Democrats stealing the 2020 election) did not.

[David Nieporent]

You're just saying that because of the facts.

[Krayt]

The $6 trillion bigborrow was signed into law by Trump.

It was a wonderful, bipartisan effort, by that noted arch conservative Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Assuming arguendo that that happened, why would that have resulted in inflation during Trump’s final year in office?

[Jumaira]

Inflation returning to 2% doesn't mean deflation, like most people think in the public.

We need deflation to undo the last 3 years of Bidenomics. Biden sucks the fat cock of Satan.

[Kazinski]

Deflation to get back to the same price levels of 2020 would just make things worse, and not really possible. For instance California's minimum wage in 2020, was 12.00, now its 16, good luck rolling that back.

Then look at people who bought houses and cars since then and are making payments. Are their wages going to be rolled back by their employers?

[bernard11]

Right.

Deflation is a disaster.

[Michael P]

I am shocked, shocked, that S_0 posted a nitpicky and unsourced criticism that turned out to be wrong.

[Kazinski]

I just interpreted it as a cry for help, so I did what I could to try.

I think he's been listening to Joe and Karine explain how there hasn't really been any inflation, and its mostly just smaller bags of potato chips anyway, so I see where the confusion comes from.

[Bwaaah]

You’re cherry-picking the numbers. And you’re moving the goalposts. And that’s a strawman.

(just getting ahead of this for Sarc)

(good post)

[Kazinski]

As a companion post to the inflation comment above, I saw this report from Zillow this week about what inflation since 2020 has done to home affordability:

"Home shoppers today need to make more than $106,000 to comfortably afford a home. That is 80% more than in January 2020"

"In 2020, a household earning $59,000 annually could comfortably afford the monthly mortgage on a typical U.S. home, spending no more than 30% of its income with a 10% down payment. That was below the U.S. median income of about $66,000, meaning more than half of American households had the financial means to afford homeownership.

Now, the roughly $106,500 needed to comfortably afford the mortgage payment on a typical home is well above what a typical U.S. household earns each year, estimated at about $81,000. "

https://www.zillow.com/research/buyers-income-needed-33755/

That's what the actual impact of inflation is on typical households.

And you can't blame what has happened to housing affordability on "corporate greed", for the most part homeowners and the market set housing prices, and as we have seen, the Fed mostly determines mortgage interest rates.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, so you’re saying that despite market realities to the contrary, Biden’s policies have somehow delivered a home equity bonanza to home owners? And that if Biden follows your advice to help the Fed force down interest rates, home prices will surge again. And in response, new homeowners can reap a second bonanza by refinancing, if they were smart enough to have bought while high interest rates held down home prices. And that’s politically bad for Biden?

It’s pretty cool for homeowners, whether new homeowners or otherwise, who seem more likely to be swing voters than the renters are. All the renters get to celebrate is real wage gains, especially noticeable in the volatile* energy sector.

But admittedly, the renters get screwed by landlords—who will pass along to their tenants exactly nothing from their Biden-delivered riches. Do you recommend rent control, to help everyone get a share of the Biden real estate jackpot?

Or do you maybe think convoluted reasoning about real estate markets invites silly generalizations about politics?

*If you don't say, "volatile," before you say, "energy sector," you aren't a serious person.

[Kazinski]

You are getting way ahead of yourself Stephon. Mortgage interest rates are still very close to their peaks, and inflation hasn’t declined enough to lower rates and we probably will not get a rate cut until fall at the earliest.

Then rates will have to drop about 1-5 – 2%, to make refinancing worthwhile for people who bought at the peak, which isn’t that many. Average cost to refinance is 4-5k, nobody is going to do that to save just 100$ a month.

Existing home sales are near 10 year lows because people who have a 3% mortgage want to keep it, when rates are > 6.5%. I don’t see a big recovery in housing sales until rates drop at least 2%, which I think will be 2-3 years best case scenario.

Yeah and I think home ownership is a good deal in the long run, but boy it can be difficult to swing for the first time.

[John F. Carr]

In parts of the Boston metro area a family of three with $100,000 income qualifies for "affordable" housing. It's probably worse in Silicon Valley.

[Krayt]

I have been informed by people on this site that inflation is no big deal because your investments exceed it.

So FU, family of 3 in Boston.

[Kazinski]

At the bottom of the article they list the markets where a family needs at least 200k of income to afford a median priced home in that market:

San Jose ($454,296)
San Francisco ($339,864)
Los Angeles ($279,250)
San Diego ($273,613)
Seattle ($213,984)
New York City metro area ($213,615)
Boston ($205,253)

[NvEric]

From Matt Tibbi:
https://www.racket.news/p/the-dumbest-cover-story-ever
to the source of the trouble:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trans-rights-biological-sex-gender-judith-butler.html

brings up an amendment:

"The right to reproductive integrity, based on conditions at birth, shall not be altered, abridged, nor abolished by any intentional procedures until one reaches the age of eighteen (18) years old and then consents thus over a five (5) year period until the age of twenty-three (23) years old. "

[hobie]

Would 'abstinence education' apply? Seems like it would alter natural reproductivity.

[Nige]

'reproductive integrity'

Jumping Jesus.

[Martinned2]

So what can we infer from the fact that Putin gave himself 87.3% of the vote? Is he insecure about his support, or is it just a random number that he pulled out of a hat?

[Frank Drackman]

That his erection wasn't as rigged as the DemoKKKrat primary

[David Nieporent]

The latter. Less secure-in-power authoritarians who are running for re-election try to make their victories plausible. Their goal is to channel the opposition into electoral politics by creating the illusion that they can be successfully beaten peacefully.

But authoritarians who control all the levers of power frequently don't bother with that. They want to let their opposition know that there's no hope. So they deliberately create huge margins of victory, where everyone knows they're lying and they know that everyone knows they're lying, to send the message that they just don't care and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

[Martinned2]

As far as I can tell, less secure-in-power authoritarians rig their elections by killing their opponents, locking them up, or otherwise preventing them from running. Which is why they tend to have higher vote shares. Secure-in-power authoritarians let a bit of opposition onto the ballot, and end up winning 60/40 or something like that.

E.g. Putin:
- 2024: 87%
- 2018: 78%
- 2012: 64%
- 2008 (Medvedev): 71%
- 2004: 72%
- 2000: 53%

[Kazinski]

Well he is up 9 points fro. 2024, so I guess "wag the dog" works.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You seem to think these are real numbers. lol

[M L]

Is there any data or way to know what percentage of Russians do support Putin, or might really vote for him versus the alternatives if they had free and fair elections?

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that there is essentially no independent media left in Russia. So Putin might genuinely have as much support as some of those results suggest, but primarily because people don't have access to the information that would make him unpopular.

[Absaroka]

Indeed. I read an article a few months into the war where a reporter looked up obits of KIA soldiers and traveled to some Russian village for a funeral. The reporter asked about support for the war, and the general opinion was the war was essential self defense against the Ukrainian aggressors. Then the reporter asked where they got their news - and the official TV channel(s) were the only source - no internet, no other media.

This is what people don't get about freedom of speech - without freedom of speech, you can't have a functioning democracy. If you only get the party line, you will only vote the way the party wants.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree, we have no data, including these purported election results, to know what percentage of Russians do support Putin. Glad we can agree on something.

[Kazinski]

Now where did I say that?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well he is up 9 points fro. 2024, so I guess “wag the dog” works.

He's only "up 9 points" if any of the numbers are real.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

or is it just a random number that he pulled out of a hat?

Maybe he got it from the same place you got your claim that the current rate of inflation in the U.S. is less than half of what it was when Trump left office.

[Martinned2]

It was hilarious to see all the Great Replacement Theory people have a breakdown on social media this weekend because Vaughan Gething was elected as First Minister of Wales. That means that the Prime/First Ministers of the UK, Wales, and Scotland are now BAME. (And the First Minister of Northern Ireland is a Catholic woman.)

[John F. Carr]

The voters are expected to fix that problem later this year.

[Martinned2]

Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London and also BAME, looks like he will be re-elected in a landslide, and the devolved legislatures won't have elections again until 2025 and 2026. It's just Sunak who is going to lose his job. But then, the way things are going, he might lose his job tomorrow.

[bernard11]

They may change it, but why is it a problem?

[Jumaira]

Because the God of Israel never intended the races to mix.

[VinniUSMC]

What religious text are you getting your drugs from?

[Jumaira]

Deuteronomy 7 1 3

[Krayt]

War rally propaganda from 2500+ years ago?

[Bob from Ohio]

"have a breakdown"

"breakdown"? It proves their point!

I find it hard to believe that many people care about Wales. I have already forgotten Gioffins and I just read his name.

[Martinned2]

“breakdown”? It proves their point!

I think you're letting your racism show.

[Bob from Ohio]

Impossible, I’m not racist.

I don't subscribe to the theory, but having all your leaders non-Anglo-Saxon would be supporting evidence if one did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remind me again -- what was the problem with White minority rule in South Africa?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I guarantee it isn't wherever you think you're going with this.

[Michael P]

Have we decried that latest Jewish conspiracy since October 7th, spy cows?

https://www.jns.org/israel-trained-cattle-to-spy-says-pa-daily/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When did the Jewish space laser conspiracy subside among clingers?

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah yes, the tu quoque argument. Another bit of empty rhetoric from RAK.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That clinger described something as the "latest Jewish conspiracy." I questioned that assertion.

Carry on, bigots.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, the REAL conspiracy was that the Corrupt State of California would not let PG&E fail, and hence PG&E didn’t have to spend the money maintaining its lines the way it should have.

I think she was being sarcastic — that the fires weren’t being lit by PG&E negligence, but instead by something else.

And once it became accepted that it was PG&E's fault, the need for the absurdum ended.

[Bored Lawyer]

The cows are members of the Moosad. 😉

[Bwaaah]

That's udderly absurd.

[Bored Lawyer]

So you intend to milk this for all it's worth?

[Bwaaah]

What's your beef?

[Jonathansingletary]

I cud've done without all these puns.

[Commenter_XY]

Y'all got creamed.

[Jonathansingletary]

Come on, man, you're butter than this.

[Bwaaah]

That's bull. Pure bull.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You wouldn't steer us wrong on that, would you?

[santamonica811]

Geez...we all apparently refuse to be cowed by this topic. (At least, that's what I herd around the water cooler.)

[Bwaaah]

I hope somebody can get to the meat of it.

[bernard11]

Rarely happens.

[Bwaaah]

Well done, Bernard11.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, back in the 1950s, the CIA did once try this with a cat -- which promptly got run over by a cab.

The part about the wild boars is hilarious -- they aren't going to go destroy Israeli crops as well?

[Martinned2]

The bill that will quash the convictions of almost everyone who was convicted for theft etc. when they were working at the UK Post Office using the faulty Horizon system has now been introduced in Parliament: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3694

As far as I can see, the only controversial thing about it is that it doesn't cover people whose conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. But it's also interesting to see how difficult they think it will be to notify all the people covered by this bill, hence the caveats in cl. 4 of the bill. You would hope that, in a civilised country, it would be easier to check the records and know who is covered.

[Kazinski]

Did the Dutch government make everything right with the 26,000 parents that were victimized in the child care benefits scandal?

That would be pretty impressive record keeping.

[Martinned2]

They're working on it. But in a shocking development that absolutely nobody could have seen coming, people are starting to get worried that some of the compensation might go to people who aren't entitled to it. So I'm fully expecting the whole cycle to start again.

By the way, the Horizon scandal also has a compensation scheme, but it's wildly narrow and basically won't actually make anyone whole. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3526

[Michael P]

This was an interesting article about maps purporting to show Jewish vs Palestinian control of land within Israel's current borders: https://www.thetower.org/article/the-mendacious-maps-of-palestinian-loss/

[Martinned2]

Your map of "Israel's current borders" seems to include occupied land which, per Israeli law and government policy, is not part of Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

The territories are disputed. I'd rather Israel be the custodian of the land. We've already seen the dismal results of Hamas' municipal administration in gaza. Terrible! Why would the PA be any better? The answer is, they won't be, and the PA are every bit as Judeocidal (and fiscally corrupt) as Hamas.

So, Israel must win the war and utterly defeat Hamas, and be seen to do so. Then, peace becomes possible. Rafah is next.

[Martinned2]

O, I agree. A one-state solution is better than an indefinite occupation. But that doesn't change the fact that the maps in the blog post that Michael P linked to don't show Israel's borders. (And don't claim to, I think.)

[Michael P]

What do you propose as a more accurate term? A word invented two millennia ago to discriminate against Jews by naming the region after what was even then a long-extinct group?

[bernard11]

I’d rather Israel be the custodian of the land.

Under your scheme what would be the status of the Palestinians living there?

[Commenter_XY]

Future emigrants.

[bernard11]

So you favor ethnic cleansing?

[Frank Drackman]

They will be (part of Israel)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If there is an Israel to be part of, perhaps. It seems sketchy to predict that Israel will survive loss of American support, at least in its current, objectionable form.

[Dr. Ed 2]

JEWS FOR TRUMP!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The price Israel is to pay for aligning with Trump and other right-wing write-offs seems destined to be severe. That Israelis would want to hitch their future to the losing side of the American culture war (or make support for Israel's right-wing belligerence a left-right divider in American politics to any degree) seems inexplicable, but they get to make that call.

It's their funeral.

[Ed Grinberg]

If they know what's good for them... (Which, sadly, many of them don't.)

[Frank Drackman]

They will be (part of Israel)

[grb]

Frank Drackman : They will be (part of Israel)

Then the Palestinians become new Israeli citizens, right?

See, Frank, you may be too lackbrain stupid to understand this, but the Israelis aren't. They know they can't just take the land because they won't absorb the people living on it. Their "stategy" has been to slowly steal the land, pretend they aren't doing so, and hope the issue somehow magically goes away.

And that's not much of a plan, is it?

[ThePublius]

"Their “stategy” has been to slowly steal the land, pretend they aren’t doing so, and hope the issue somehow magically goes away."

Yea, in your wacky imagination, I guess. How about just stamping out a force that's dedicated to killing you? And is not shy about admitting it, teaching it, indoctrinating their children into it?

[grb]

ThePublius : How about just stamping out a force that’s dedicated to killing you?

1. The major Israeli effort stealing Palestinian land has been in the West Bank, where the token toothless PA has cooperated with Israeli security for decades now. That’s only bought them more settlements and more suffocating Israeli control. Of course you don’t know that because you live in a fact-free world.

2. The force the Israelis are fighting is Hamas – an organization the Israeli government nurtured & supported behind the scenes as a go-to boogeyman excuse to preclude negotiations and a second state. Hamas was so useful as permenent bar against any Palestinian state that their “minor threat” against Israel was discounted. That’s why Israeli Security regularly escorted Qatar officials to the Gaza border carrying millions in cash. And that was the deeply cynical policy the Netanyahu government followed right up to the 07Oct terrorist attacks.

Of course you don’t know that because you live in a fact-free world.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is displacing, stealing from, injuring, or killing Palestinians in the West Bank -- mostly because of superstition and right-wing delusion among indolent, gullible, violent, obsolete Israeli assholes -- relevant to your view of Israeli self-defense?

[Michael P]

This was an interesting article about the intentionally prejudiced and dangerous ways the FAA tried to DIE: https://open.substack.com/pub/tracingwoodgrains/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-a-quick-overview

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting, but still, talk about denial!

“But this is not a fundamentally partisan issue.”

And the degree of Pete Buttigieg worship is embarrassing.

There’s a basic failure to recognize that what happened was not a mistake or accident. It was instead the product of an ideology, (And thus very partisan indeed.) that systematically prioritized ‘racial justice’ over things actually working.

And, of course, 'racial justice' over actual justice. But that goes without saying once you hyphenated it.

[Kazinski]

--

[Martinned2]

It looks like Ofcom, the British media (and other things) regulator, is finally acting against GB News.

A series of Ofcom investigations today concluded that five programmes on GB news featuring politicians acting as news presenters broke broadcasting due impartiality rules.

Under the Broadcasting Code, news, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. Additionally, a politician cannot be a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter unless, exceptionally, there is editorial justification.

In line with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have editorial freedom to offer audiences a wide range of programme formats, including using politicians to present current affairs or other non-news programmes. Politicians may also appear in broadcast news content as an interviewee or any other type of guest.

Individual programmes can also feature a mix of news and non-news content and move between the two genres. If, however, a licensee chooses to use a politician as a presenter in a programme containing both news and current affairs content, it must take steps to ensure they do not act as a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter in that programme.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/politicians-acting-as-news-presenters-on-gb-news-broke-broadcasting-rules

[Kazinski]

Of course they are, because there is no freedom of speech in the UK.

But don't think I'm unappreciative, the UK, EU, and Canada have done more to preserve free speech in the US over the last 4 years, than almost any American, except possibly Elon.

[Martinned2]

Get back to me when you're allowed to swear on US (network) TV.

As for Elon Musk, that man is a joke in many respects, including his version of free speech, which basically seems to consist of deleting everything off Twitter that he doesn't agree with.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can say the word "damn."
When Nixon did (on tape) it had to be beeped.

[Martinned2]

Wow... Applause...

[Joe_dallas]

prior to musk/X - most every leftist was on board with twitters censorship

[Martinned2]

What does that have to do with Elon Musk being a pathetic excuse for a libertarian?

[Joe_dallas]

Just pointing out the double standard of the left (and martinned2's double standard)

No reason for you to confirm your double standard since it is already well known

[Nige]

What double standard? Before Musk, the left criticised the number of Nazis on the site. After Musk, the left criticise the (growing) number of Nazis on the site. Seems consistent.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like the Antifa and punching people; You don't punch/censor people because they're Nazis, you claim people are Nazis because you want to punch/censor them.

[Nige]

Though I realise that the right now requires all information to be utterly devalued and impossible to verify, you can actually verify whether the person in question is a Nazi or not.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige changed the subject instead of addressing the censorship by twitter prior to Musk

[Nige]

Joe tries to change the subject away from twitter under musk.

[Martinned2]

Apart from the stupid swearing thing, there is of course also this: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#POLITICAL

[Bob from Ohio]

Even you cannot argue that UK has more freedom of speech than the US.
Get back to me when the US sends someone to jail for a non-threat social media post.

[Martinned2]

A millionaire approaches an attractive young woman in a bar and asks if she would be willing to spend the weekend with him at the country’s most expensive and luxurious hotel, waited on hand and foot and receiving a million pounds to sleep with him. The girl considers that it’s worth it for a million pounds, and agrees. The millionaire then suggests that they immediately sneak into the men’s toilet for quick sex for £5. She is shocked and insulted, and says “That’s disgusting! What kind of girl do you think I am?” He replies “We’ve already decided that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

Everyone does speech restrictions. The only difference is that in the US they do it to protect the innocent evangelicals from having to hear naughty words, and in the UK they do it to protect the democratic process.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bob from Ohio]

You could at least quote Churchill to Lady Astor.

"UK they do it to protect the democratic process"

"Autistic girl screams and cries as police arrest her after comment about officer looking like a lesbian
By Hannah Grossman, Fox News
Published Aug. 11, 2023, 12:10 a.m. ET"

Much protecting. Much democracy.

[Martinned2]

What does that have to do with the GB News story that I started this sub-thread with? Just because I support some regulation of speech, doesn't mean I support any and all speech restrictions that some government somewhere might invent.

[Bob from Ohio]

It was a response to "UK they do it to protect the democratic process". Reading problems today?

[Martinned2]

Was it? Would you care to explain what "someone gets arrested for insulting a police officer" has to do with speech restrictions to protect the democratic process?

[Bob from Ohio]

It doesn't, that is the point. You stated rational is bogus.

You said that UK restricted free speech to protect democracy. I pointed out an instance [among many] where speech was restricted that had nothing to do with protecting democracy.

[Joe_dallas]

martinned2 - "Everyone does speech restrictions. The only difference is that in the US they do it to protect the innocent evangelicals from having to hear naughty words, and in the UK they do it to protect the democratic process."

Mart - you are just confirming the inane leftist belief that free speech is a threat to democracy.

[Queen almathea]

You're begging the question, which is, what's included in free speech? Some say obscene words, some say hate speech.

[Joe_dallas]

Queen - As usual - you stray off topic to raise a non relevant comment. The discussion dealt with the censorship of factually correct statements for partisan purposes.

[Martinned2]

Wait, who mentioned anything about factual correctness either way?

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 - The censorship of factually correct information is the very heart of Murphy v Missouri, ie the suppression of factually accurate information that conflicts with the "government viewpoint"

[Nige]

Oh I dunno, everyone's trying to pretend there aren't serious long-term effects from covid that completely contradict the claims by the Barrington Bunch about the superiority of acquired immunity via infection, but they're becoming harder and harder to ignore. Also, the vaccine turned out to be completely safe.

[bernard11]

Not only did you get the name wrong - it's Murthy - but you got the heart of the case wrong.

It's about whether the right can manufacture one more horror story and get SCOTUS to buy it. Looks like it didn't work this time.

[Martinned2]

Free speech can be a threat to democracy, certainly. For that you have to look no further than the steady decline in US democracy in recent decades, as (rich) people have switched from talking to shouting.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 " as (rich) people have switched from talking to shouting."

At the same time - that subgroup of white rich over the last 20 or so years is now very liberal and is a solid democrat voting bloc

[Drewski]

You guys got rid of criminal blasphemy laws finally in (checks notes) 2021 (albeit a little earlier in England). Good job! Get back to me with the smug when you've had free expression for at least a generation.

[Martinned2]

Dude, where do you think you guys got the idea of free speech from? Bringing up laws that haven't been enforced since some time when Victoria was Queen, and that were only repealed now because that's when someone realised they were still on the books doesn't change that.

[Bob from Ohio]

The UK has given up the idea.

[Kazinski]

You might want to look it up, the Zenger trial widely established freedom of the press in the US in 1734, while the pillory was still used to punish sedition and subordination in England until the 1830's. Of course the Zenger trial was jury nullification, because there was no English tradition of freedom of press. The only reference to freedom of speech you will find in the 1689 Declaration of Right is for speeches in Parliament, certainly not for the common man.

"For political offences, such as libel and sedition, further punishment could be inflicted as one’s ears could be nailed to the pillory instead of being locked in by the neck and arms. Afterward the ear was cut off leaving it on the pillory."

https://wshc.org.uk/blog/item/the-pillory-as-punishment.html

That's one reason

[Nige]

A right wing government is indeed cracking down on free speech and civil rights in the UK. But this Ofcom thing is hilariously toothless towards the right-wing government-supporting news channel.

[Krayt]

Weird, in the US the only rule is equal time for candidates, and that’s broadcast media only (under the theory of limited frequencies). Several times broadcasters run, and they have to quit their shows. IIRC, Howard Stern toyed with it, and wisely declined and remained with the ongoing giant paycheck.

[Martinned2]

Having a politician host his own news show on TV does create a slight problem from an equal time perspective...

(It's also a great way to funnel money to politicians. GB News has a viewership in the order of 50,000 on a good day, and yet inexplicably pays certain politicians six-figure salaries to occasionally turn up and host something.)

[Nige]

That kind of overpaid sinecure kept Boris Johnson afloat for years.

[John F. Carr]

In the 1980s some TV stations decided "equal time" rules made it unwise to run old movies with Ronald Reagan during campaign season.

[Frank Drackman]

Saw "Bedtime for Bonzo" at an outdoor Showing at Auburn University in 1981, a group of the few "Woke" around back then showed up to yell at the Screen (this was when The Rocky Horror Picture Show was still a big deal, yes, Reverend, even in Alabama (Especially in Alabama)
They got bored and left pretty early on
"Bonzo" wasn't a bad movie.

Frank "Dammit Janet"

[Armchair]

Had an interesting conversation about the Feds and their new Rural Health Care program.

Basically, the issue is this. Rural hospitals are under increasing fiscal pressure, and increasingly closing. The reason this is problematic, is it often means there's no emergency room or hospital for several hours once such hospital closes. And if there's no ER for several hours in a direction, that's going to have effects on health outcomes.

So, the Feds decided to come up with a program called the "Rural Emergency Hospital". A rural hospital (presumably in fiscal distress) could apply to switch to to such a designation, and the hospital would get a modest 5% increase in Medicare reimbursements, and a modest lump sum ($3 million) per year. But as a condition of such a program, the hospital would need to give up all its hospital beds. All patients requiring stays of more that 24 hours would need to be transferred elsewhere (hours away).

Now, uptake of the programs by Rural hospitals has been modest, at best. Most don't want to give up their hospital beds...with good reason. Once those beds go, they don't come back. And they represent a revenue stream and a benefit for their communities. Who wants to travel several hours to a hospital that may or may not have extra beds if one needs observation for, say, pneumonia. Seems an odd idea. Why not just...reimburse the rural hospitals more.

So, then I got down into the numbers. Turns out Medicare reimburses hospitals and medical providers at vastly different rates, depending on their location. For the exact same procedure, Medicare may reimburse an urban hospital or medical center in California at a rate more than 33% higher than an identical procedure in a rural Kansas hospital. Is it any surprise that many rural hospitals are having issues when Medicare pays them so much less for the same procedure than an urban CA hospital?

Ironically, this plan to shut down beds in rural hospitals (and have the patients transferred to urban hospitals) may end up costing the federal government far more money, because of the difference in reimbursement rates. Would be be so hard to just give the rural hospitals a modest increase in their reimbursement rates, to help cover the costs?

It unfortunately seems to lead to a cycle, where the expensive urban hospitals survive, because they have higher reimbursement rates (and can offer higher pay to their doctors and nurses), while due to the low reimbursement rates in rural hospitals, they can't, and struggle to find employees.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare/health-safety-standards/guidance-for-laws-regulations/hospitals/rural-emergency-hospitals

[Kazinski]

Maybe they think urban hospitals are better for treating White Rural Rage syndrome.

But it probably exacerbates it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’m not sure subsidizing economically inadequate, uneducated, bigoted communities is a good idea (it might promote development of more of them, for example), but if the facilities were required to offer abortions I might find it in my heart to be willing to extend some charity in this context.

[Drewski]

You do realize you're a monster, right? "Rural people don't deserve healthcare because some of them disagree with me politically" is not the statement of a good person.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy's fans are suddenly (and selectively) enamored of redistribution; government healthcare; picking winners and losers; taxation; and big government!

[Krayt]

It also assumes government-as-candy dispenser is the only thing people should care about, when voting, because those handing out candy, seeking power, say so.

Still, one should not vote for Trump as his candy amounts to handing over swaths of Eurpope to tyrants holding fraudulent elections. Odd he isn’t concerned with that oversees; indeed, he seems to praise strong men.

If the Democrats really cheated on such a scale, Biden should be his hero for doing what it takes, as strong men do, to achieve power.

[Armchair]

Take a look at Ocilla, Georgia...

[Absaroka]

I get wanting to have emergency rooms not more than N hours away, but why does supporting that require shutting down the inpatient beds?

[Brett Bellmore]

They're working towards a solution to the real problem, as they see it: All those rubes perversely insisting on not living in cities.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rubes? You mean the parasites begging for government handouts funded by successful communities?

[Absaroka]

Yabbut, when Joe from NYC takes the family on a vacation to Yellowstone, I'd still think he likes to be within the golden hour of an emergency room along the way.

[bernard11]

There couldn't possibly be other reasons, at least not in Brett's conspiracy-addled brain.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The concept is "feeder hospital" -- think MASH on TV -- they provided immediate care and either returned the treated soldier to his unit or evacuated him to a hospital in (I believe) Japan.

[Krayt]

Yes but beds are profitable (apparently) and thus would ease the problem.

This just seems like the rearing of the ugly head of the command and control economy: this here town ain't big enough for the both of us!

And a reward for city hospitals (perhaps rightly) jealous of extra money for rural.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The command and control economy that clingers expect to position health care facilities in can't-keep-up communities that can't support them?

[bernard11]

Yes but beds are profitable (apparently) and thus would ease the problem.

Yes, they are. Which might be one reason for the rule. After all, the wellbeing of the patient should matter more than the profitability of the hospital. So maybe - I have no idea - the idea is to be sure that the patient gets to the place where the best treatment is available, rather than being kept in a less-well equipped hospital in the interests of profitability.

[Voize]

Rural hospitals have been struggling for years due to inability to retain staff, low utilization rates, and higher operating costs. This program gives them an option to continue to operate without having to provide inpatient services, rather than shutting down entirely.
There are several Medicare and Medicaid programs supporting rural medicine, Rural Emergency Hospitals are just the latest addition to the list.

[Absaroka]

But this isn't a hospital saying 'we can't make it financially, we're stopping inpatient care and going e-room only' It's a program mandating they stop inpatient care.

If we want to subsidize emergency rooms because golden hour, blah blah, fine. I'm trying to understand why forcing the elimination of multi-day care helps the desired objective of having e-rooms withing a reasonable distance.

[Voize]

That may be what the Armchair Hospital Administrator told you, but if you look to the sources you'll find it isn't so.

Medicare has certification requirements for hospitals relating to the quality and breadth of care they provide, but rural hospitals often struggle to meet the requirements. This program provides an alternate certification path for rural hospitals that still allows them to receive Medicare reimbursements even though they don't meet the full service criteria. It is an option, not a mandate.

[Absaroka]

Could you provide a pointer to the sources you are referencing?

Armchair's link seems to say what he says it does, and it is a cms.gov link, which seems like it would be authoritative.

[Voize]

Armchair's link will do, I find nothing in it that suggests existing hospitals are required to convert to REHs. They are told what they need to do if they want to convert, but aren't being ordered to convert.

Are you reacting to the exclusion of inpatient care, is that the "mandatory" aspect that bothers you? There's another classification, the Critical Access Hospital, that's allowed to have up to 25 inpatient beds but has to be isolated (a minimum distance from another facility). An REH is even smaller, with no inpatient beds but no minimum distance requirement. In both cases the size limits exist to target the programs to the struggling smaller rural services that really need them, not the Mayo Clinic or even the 120-bed St. John's Health in Jackson, WY that don't.

[Absaroka]

Right, they aren't required to convert.

The logic I don't get is this: Podunk General Hospital is the only hospital in a big area. It provides an emergency room (yay!) and also inpatient services (also yay!). We want that emergency room to stay open so when our Yellowstone traveler wraps his car around a moose he doesn't have a 4 hour ride to the nearest ER. So we decide to subsidize the ER, I get that. But why add the requirement that they can't also do inpatient? For all I know, that's paying for itself. How does that make society better off?

[Armchair]

Exactly. Add on that, due to Medicare reimbursement rates, and locality adjustments the same room in Podunk General Hospital that might cost $400 a night, instead costs $600 in big urban center.

[Voize]

Because the program's purpose isn't to subsidize every hospital in the country.
A small facility that is losing money and threatens to close can stay open as an REH and the locals still have emergency services instead of none.
Your Podunk General sounds like it might qualify as a CAH, and be helped to provide both emergency and inpatient services.
But St. John's Health is much bigger and financially secure, and doesn't qualify for any special treatment.
If you don't like that criteria for deciding which hospitals to subsidize, how would you prefer to do it?

[Absaroka]

If you want distributed ER's that aren't otherwise viable, subsidize them, but don't forbid the attached inpatient beds.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against any particular subsidy. Reasonable people might want to subsidize rural ER's for various reasons, or not. Reasonable people might want to subsidize rural hospitals for various reasons, or not.

What I'm not getting is why offer a subsidy to rural ERs if and only if they stop doing >24 hr inpatient care.

[Armchair]

But why make it a "requirement" to get rid of the beds? It makes little sense. Just give them the 5% Medicare boost and payment.

I mean, if you get an MRI done in Berkeley, Medicare will reimburse the hospital $300. Do the same exact MRI in Mississippi, the hospital only gets $200.

Is it any wonder that the rural hospitals are struggling, when the rich urban hospitals are paid so much more for the exact same procedure?

[bernard11]

No difference in the hospitals' costs, of course, Armchair assumes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A prudent business is willing to spend more for a hotel room or breakfast in New York City or Chicago than it is in Mississippi or West Virginia. Some hayseeds either do not understand that prudent judgment or wish to rant against it like toddlers.

[Armchair]

There is a difference. But is it THAT big a difference?

The hospital in Berkeley isn't closing. The rural hospital is. Maybe the difference in reimbursement rates is the problem.

50% more...that's pretty incredible. The hospital supplies don't differ by 50%.

[bernard11]

Not a question of bandaids.

Salaries are much higher. RN's in CA earn about twice what they do in MS.

CA hospitals likely provide better care in part because they are better equipped - more costs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at your morbidity and mortality.

The problem with small hospitals is that they are not seeing the same things often enough to get good at dealing with them -- so much so that the actual cost of care becomes greater because of complications.

That said, look at the racial makeup of the rural communities versus the urban ones and tell me that race isn't part of this...

[Brett Bellmore]

"The problem with small hospitals is that they are not seeing the same things often enough to get good at dealing with them — so much so that the actual cost of care becomes greater because of complications."

Yeah, our small rural hospital misdiagnosed my father's first heart attack as a gall bladder attack, a mistake a hospital that had an on staff cardiologist likely wouldn't have made. So he didn't get the treatment that might have prevented his next, much worse, attack.

But I think that's the sort of thing remote consulting could deal with, without getting rid of the beds.

[Absaroka]

Indeed. Every time any of us get the sniffles we have the choice between the convenience of just visiting our local GP, or booking a flight to the Mayo clinic. I think patients are capable of deciding whether the convenience of local treatment outweighs the potential benefit of seeing a distant specialist for their particular case. The government doesn't need to be making the decision for them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A vote for refraining from subsidizing hospitals that are economically shambling?

[bernard11]

All patients requiring stays of more that 24 hours would need to be transferred elsewhere (hours away).

False. The hospitals must have an average stay under 24 hours, and can get a waiver if they go over for some good reason.

[Armchair]

Tell it to Traci Harper...

https://fortune.com/2024/03/16/what-is-rural-emergency-hospital-must-close-beds/

[bernard11]

I don’t know who Traci Harper is.

From CMS:

What services do REHs provide?

When an eligible facility converts to an REH, it’s allowed to provide:

Emergency department services
Observation care and
Additional outpatient medical and health services if elected by the REH, that do not exceed an annual per patient average length of stay of 24 hours

Also:

Is there a limit on the length of stay for patients at REHs?

Since Rural Emergency Hospitals are intended to provide outpatient care, REHs cannot exceed an annual average length of stay of 24 hours per patient. The length of stay begins at the time of registration, check-in, or triage of the patient, whichever occurs first, and ends upon discharge from the REH.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) acknowledges that patients in need of inpatient psychiatric or rehabilitation services may need to remain at an REH for observation for several days or weeks if an inpatient bed is not immediately available. However, CMS noted in the July 2022 proposed rule that it does not anticipate that this circumstance will happen frequently enough to impact the annual average length of stay. In the November 2022 final rule, CMS stated that REHs are expected to maintain documentation on attempts to transfer patients and other reasons for extended lengths of patient stays. CMS will review and consider this information if the average annual patient length of stay exceeds 24 hours.

[Armchair]

"I don’t know who Traci Harper is."

That's just deliberate ignorance, since the link is right below. If you close your eyes and ears, there's no harm.

[bernard11]

OK. I read the business about Harper.

So what? As I suspected it was one case where someone - maybe - had a problem with the policy as it was inaccurately described by Fortune.

In fact, it's not even clear there was a problem. But you want to dodge the fact that you lied by bringing up this BS. I shouldn't have wasted my time.

[Michael P]

Foreign policy "victory", Obama's third term style: https://twitter.com/omriceren/status/1769374728853061931

[Martinned2]

Letting military juntas overthrow democratic governments is a bad thing. Who knew?

[Michael P]

"Letting" that happen? As opposed to sending in the Marines?

[Bob from Ohio]

Now the junta will still be in power and those US troops can't fulfill their mission.

[Armchair]

"“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico,” Trump said during an Ohio rally. “[China thinks] that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border.”

“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars — if I get elected,” the former president continued. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath.”"

Liberals pounce "Trump says if he doesn't get elected it's going to be a bloodbath!" Leave out entire context.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's you who left out context. You didn't even accurately quote what he said, let alone providing the "context," which is Trump promoting violence and civil war for nine years now.

[VinniUSMC]

50 cents for David.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Before or after the 100 percent tariff?

[Armchair]

You've gotten more trollish lately, with less in the way of actual solid arguments or links.

[Martinned2]

Context like the trade agreement that Trump himself negotiated with Mexico?

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement

[Estragon]

“I don’t know if you call them ‘people,’ in some cases,” [Trump] said. “They’re not people, in my opinion.”

Hey Armchair can you provide the missing context here as well? It’s from the same rally.

[Moderation4ever]

Let set aside the violent rhetoric for a minute. The talk of a Mexico car plant seems to be just talk and Trump, unless he refuses to leave in 2029, will likely not even be President when the factories come one line. Assuming the plant are even built. I remember at least one factory Trump promised for Wisconsin that was never built. Providing economic opportunities in Mexico lessens pressure on people to migrate to the US. Lastly as Trump doesn't much care about unions or workers, his promises seem more directed to the higher executives of the US auto industry.

[Krayt]

Companies wanting to build somewhere don’t need incentives, as with lands hostile to business, lousy with politicians screaming how evil they are, and how evil their product is, and their fuel, and how they are gonna wreck them vote for me yay I won it’s kickback time to back down a little from that.

Look! My spouse or I is having a Gregory House investment savant moment!

[Drewski]

I think you're having a "too much cocaine" moment.

[jb]

So the Chinese are opening factories in Mexico because of how hostile the Chinese government is to Chinese car companies?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Liberals pounce"

You'd think all their hair would have burned off after 9 years of "hair on fire" hysteria.

[Bwaaah]

They've been calm until now. But did you hear what [Blahblah] said yesterday? It's outrageous!!!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. And this type of dishonest reporting by the media only helps Trump.

[David Nieporent]

What type of dishonest reporting? Are you claiming that Trump didn't promise a bloodbath if he lost?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm claiming, as you know perfectly well, that many reports omitted context what would strengthen the inference that Trump was referring to a metaphorical economic bloodbath and not a literal bloodbath.

[David Nieporent]

You would need boatloads of anabolic steroids to strengthen that inference enough to make it plausible. What you mean is that the reports quoted him, and didn't falsely claim that he said "bloodbath in the auto industry."

The "context" is the years of him promising literal bloodbaths. The words were quoted accurately.

[VinniUSMC]

50 cents for David.

[Bwaaah]

5 cents more from me. Brings it to 55. (When you're right, you're right.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, when I first saw the reports, I assumed he had said something much stupider than what he actually said. Then when I saw the comments in context and saw that they were susceptible to interpretation, I realized yet again that you can't take media reports about what Trump says or does at face value.

That's how the dishonest reporting helps Trump. What he says and does is bad enough, but when people can't trust the media to honestly convey what he says, people discount any claims that he did anything wrong.

[bernard11]

The only "economic bloodbath" in view is the one that would be caused by a 100% tariff on imported cars.

Only a moron with no understanding at all of basic economics would advocate such a thing. Of course Armchair, TIP, and others will soon explain why it's a great idea to have a huge increase in car prices for no reason at all except Trump's ignorance and incompetence.

[VinniUSMC]

Either way, it would not be a literal bloodbath.

[Nige]

He does like to promise that as well, though.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. Let's not forget the literal bloodbath he was talking about.

hyperbole noun
hy·​per·​bo·​le hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē

 : extravagant exaggeration (such as "mile-high ice-cream cones")

(cite: merriam-webster.com)

[Nige]

Live by the hyperbole etc. Or the claimed hyperbole, anyway.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They don't get to be Trump fans with sound judgment, laudable character, prudent conduct, adequate education, strong accomplishments, or a strong connection to the reality-based world.

[Josh R]

The full quote:

We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected,” Trump said. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars. They’re building massive factories.

It's a typical Trump improvised word salad. I agree it's likely not a prediction or a call to violence, but one thing is clear: his comments were not just about selling cars ("That will be the least of it."). Who knows what else he was referring to (he probably doesn't know).

[Josh R]

On the other hand, the media isn't focusing on Trump's worst words which excuse (and perhaps literally call for pardoning) political violence. Over the PA, this announcement was played ahead of the playing of the Star Spangled Banner:

Please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6 hostages.

Directly after that, Trump said:

And you see the spirit from the hostages, and that's what they are, hostages. They've been treated terribly and very unfairly, and you know that, and everybody knows that. And we are going to be working on that, as soon as the first day we get into office, we are going to save our country, we are going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots, and are."

[David Nieporent]

To quote Prof. Kerr:

Trump may be the first major-party Presidential candidate to put crime at the top of his agenda—not fighting crime, but *celebrating* crime.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They don't get to be Trump fans with good citizenship; adequate education; a respect for science, reason, and law; good character; sound judgment; or admiration of modern America.

[M L]

"Bloodbath" is commonly used to refer to bad economic results.

[M L]

Or political results too:
https://twitter.com/DefiantLs/status/1769582088309641464
https://twitter.com/DefiantLs/status/1769609883899367540

[Nige]

Hey, live by the babbling incoherent demagoguery, die by the babbling incoherent demagoguery.

[santamonica811]

I don't get why more people don't understand this simple point. If Pence or Rubio or Cruz used the term bloodbath in an opaque way; it wouldn't be even a one-day story. Because we'd all say to ourselves, "Hmmm. This guy doesn't have a history of using violent rhetoric. Given that; we'll of course given him the benefit of the doubt."

Trump originally ran with campaign rallies, where he said (and I'm paraphrasing), "That guy in the audience is heckling me. Get him out of here, and feel free to do it roughly. Oh, and if you commit the felonies of battery and/or assault on him, I promise to fully cover your legal fees."

That's just one of his hundred "violence is either great, or is, at least, pretty damn good" comments. Who would be so fucking stupid as to give THAT guy the same benefit of the doubt, when he makes potentially the 101st pro-violence comment? Only the most moronic pro-Trump TDS sufferer would do that. Here at the VC; the idiot wing is over-represented, I grant you. But still, you're in a small minority.

Trump has made his bed. Excuse us for letting him now sleep in it.

[Nige]

He's expressed the hope that cops bump peoples' heads when putting them in cop cars and wants shoplifters shot on sight and threatened civil war multiple times in relation to his legal difficulties.

[Armchair]

"I don’t get why more people don’t understand this simple point. "

It's "Trump is different, so it's OK" type thinking.

[Nige]

Yes, stuff abut Trump is specific to Trump. You really have a hard time with this concept.

[M L]

What's your point again?

"Bloodbath" is routinely used to refer to bad economic results - even by financial commentators on these very same networks, that are now lying through their teeth pretending not to understand this.

To me this is just another story about the media doing propaganda. Which is to say a really unremarkable story. It's far down on a long list of deliberate brazen lies like "Trump called Nazis fine people" and countless others.

[windycityattorney]

Well I think he was referring to the charlotesville or wherever tiki torch/white lives matter/kkk rally. And he did in fact say, there are fine people on both sides, did he not?

Add to the list of questionable comments or backhanded dog whistles to racist white nationalists. Stand back and stand by! Whatever the fuck 'stand by' means in this context? The guy is either a complete idiot or oblivious. And his supporters will endlessly carry water for him when this bullshit gets called out. Calling the imprisoned Jan 6 rioters patriots is an interesting definition of patriotism. Does anybody ask him to explain and would his explanation be anything other than "they were standing up for me and protesting the stolen election" which makes them "patriotic?" People serving time for beating cops with their own shields are super patriots now in the GOP. The party of law and order I see.

[M L]

If you are still buying into that obvious lie then it's because you just don't care about facts or the truth, so I can't help you.

[bernard11]

Which a 100% tariff on cars would produce.

[Mr. Bumble]

Up for oral argument today: Murthy v. Missouri.

[Martinned2]

Where would Big Tech be if it didn't have the states of Missouri and Louisiana to go to bat for it?

[Joe_dallas]

Mr. Bumble 36 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Up for oral argument today: Murthy v. Missouri."

The Government's position is basically free speech is a threat to democracy

[Martinned2]

It isn't, but it can be.

[bernard11]

The government's position is that it is not a 1A violation to try to influence the media.

This is another complaint full of lies that emerged from the Fifth Circuit swamp, and it does seem that SCOTUS is going to slap it down.

[Joe_dallas]

In its current story on administration negotiations with Iran that date back to January, the New York Times reports:

"Two Iranian officials, one with the foreign ministry, said that Iran had maintained in the talks that it did not control the activity of the militia [targeting Americans], particularly the Houthis, but that it could use its influence on them to ensure that all attacks would come to a halt if a cease-fire were reached in Gaza — but not before."

Curious how many pallets of cash might be involved

[Martinned2]

Given the cost for the global economy of not being able to use the Suez canal, and the absence of any other way to get the Houthi's to stop shooting at ships, it would be a bargain at twice the price.

[Tom for equal rights]

Rewarding a terrorist sponsoring state such as Iran as the Obama administration did certainly proved to be a long term solution to stopping the sponsorship of terrorism - Not!

[Martinned2]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How is this good? Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated.

[Martinned2]

Are you somehow under the impression that the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists? The US negotiates with terrorists all the time. (As does Israel, famously.) Only keyboard warriors on the internet can cling to ideological purity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(As does Israel, famously.)"

Maybe they should stop, it seems to encourage more terrorism.

[Martinned2]

So far it doesn't look like their alternative approach is doing wonders for them.

[Joe_dallas]

What is not working is the pallets of cash going to Iran to continue funding terrorism

[TwelveInchPianist]

" (As does Israel, famously.) Only keyboard warriors on the internet can cling to ideological purity."

Yeah, they released over 1000 prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, resulting in the 10/7 raid with Hamas dragging hundreds of hostages back over the border, openly wondering what kinds of concessions they were going to get for them.

It's not ideological purity, it's good economics.

[Brett Bellmore]

"
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!""

[Martinned2]

Sure, go ahead, send soldiers to Yemen and see what that gets you.

[Absaroka]

Well, Europe paid off the Barbary Pirates for, I think, hundreds of years, so there is precedent for your position. OTOH, the world eventually got tired of that and now tends to support freedom of the seas, so there is also precedent for not tolerating piracy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hopefully it won't end up with archologists a thousand years from now finding more dollars in Yemen than the US.

[Bob from Ohio]

"send soldiers to Yemen"

B-52s exist.

[John F. Carr]

An armed force backed by Iran may be able to shoot down B-52s. Smart weapons are too expensive. Boots on the ground could clear the coast, at least.

[Joe_dallas]

Just pointing to the idiocy of the woke leftist view of the world

How insanely idiotic the left’s policy toward a country that funds Hamas, Hezboulah, Houthis, etc.

[Joe_dallas]

Now you also have the political left with guys like shumer , biden, etc trying to stop israel from destroying hamas.

[Nige]

I think it's the children that are starving to death that they're worried about.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fans of superstitious, immoral, violent, bigoted, right-wing belligerence are unmoved by starvation of children . . . unless those children are white, rural, and claimed to be religious by substandard parents.

[Martinned2]

How has bombing Yemen been working for the Saudis so far?

[Bob from Ohio]

Do the Saudis have our capacities?

[Martinned2]

Close enough. What they lack in capacities they make up for in money and lack of scruples.

[Nige]

Until the Dane become inseperable from the natives. It's corrupt as hell, but it's better than dying, and it isn't as if getting murdered and burnt out and robbed on a regular basis wasn't ruinously expensive, and, sure, the Dane might lose interest and you'd get rid of them when you're all dead and/or utterly impoverished and living on caves. Like this is corrupt as hell but it's better than killing lots of people. (If it works, obvs.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

It'll work until the Houthis want more money, so they decide they need to make a deal to stop shooting at ships again. Or somebody else in a position to do something disruptive.

You saw how quickly the "Free Brittney Griner" movement morphed into the "Free Evan Gershkovich" movement, right?

[Nige]

Yes, that's often the way it works, and will continue to work unless other solutions are found. It's why destabilising entire regions with massive military operations is such a terrible idea. The Houthis have found an effective piece of leverage. You could bomb the region and see if that make things better, or you could try to find ways to stabilise it, which is far more in everyone's interests, except, obviously, Iran's, which is in itself an argument for finding some sort of way to stability.

[Bwaaah]

That's a good one, Brett. I've not seen it before.

For anybody who my wonder, it's called "Dane-Geld" by Rudyard Kipling (published 1911). Full version:

Dane-Geld
(AD 980-1016)

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"and the absence of any other way to get the Houthi’s to stop shooting at ships"

Why would the Houthi's stop shooting at ships?

[Tom for equal rights]

Martinned2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"... and the absence of any other way to get the Houthi’s to stop shooting at ships,..."

Absence of a another way ? Seriously - there is a multitude of more effective methods. Appeasement is the worst choice.

[Martinned2]

Feel free to name another approach that the US might take.

[Brett Bellmore]

Killing them every time they shoot at a ship?

[Nige]

If it were that easy, it'd have probably happened by now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not sure that closing the Suez canal is a bad thing -- it is hurting trade between Europe and China. Which would help trade with other places, such as the US.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's not how it works. One of the hallmarks of Trumpian ideology is the failure to understand that trade isn't zero sum.

[bernard11]

I’m not sure that closing the Suez canal is a bad thing

I'm not surprised that your stupidity extends to not being sure about that.

[John F. Carr]

Some good headlines of the past week came from a guilty plea in a plot to create giant sheep. The defendant was not convicted of a mad scientist scheme. He was convicted of failing to declare semen from “Marco Polo” sheep on customs paperwork, and of putting “ordinary sheep” instead of “genetic experiment” on interstate shipping paperwork. The mad scientist scheme was merely a violation of state law. It is (who knew?) illegal to breed sheep from Kyrgyzstan with native sheep in the state of Montana.

The guidelines sentence is 30-37 months.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/montana-man-pleads-guilty-federal-wildlife-trafficking-charges-part-yearslong-effort-create

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68225269/united-states-v-schubarth/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Most of this stuff is illegal. How do you think we got killer bees and gypsy moths???

[Bwaaah]

Weren't they gonna take over the world like thirty years ago? Didn't they chase after a fruit-picker in Texas? Ahhhh! AHHHHHH!!!!

[Nige]

It's fine so long as you don't consider the effects on native bee populations which, y'know, are a crucial part of keeping everyone fed and alive.

[Nige]

Ed is, like the blue moon, right for once. Invasive species wreak havoc.

[John F. Carr]

Time published a response to the Tablet article calling the death count in Gaza a hoax:

https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/

You have to look at the bias of each source. The official death counts are relayed by Al Jazeera reporting on "Israel's war on Gaza". Tablet reports on "Hamas’ War on Israel." Time did not overtly choose sides. I don't know whose reporting is least wrong.

[Moderation4ever]

The basic facts are that a large number of Palestinians have died, and I am not sure how important the absolute number is really is to most people. The are large number of people, most innocents that are caught in the middle and that should be of concern to all people. While Israel's initial invasion into Gaza seemed within reason, its tactics are now appearing less reasonable. It seems that Israel at this point could shift to more limited and more targeted attacks and allow the people in Gaza some relief. The current tactics seem less designed to destroy Hamas and more designed to keep the focus off the Netanyahu government failure on Oct 7, 2023.

[Bob from Ohio]

Describe these bad "tactics" and what "limited" ones can work?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'd rather focus on suggestions for a meal to celebrate the approaching termination of America's subsidization (military, economic, political) of Israel's superstitious, bigoted, violent, immoral, right-wing assholes . . . I'm thinking shrimp cocktail to start, followed by a sharp cheddar cheeseburger and, for desert, candied bacon. To drink: Regular, old-timey, cold Coca-Cola.

Anyone have other ideas?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Arthur, after a hard day of virtue signaling, treats himself to a little antisemitism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't like right-wing belligerence in general. Much as I do not accept that superstition improves bigotry or transforms bigotry into anything other than bigotry, I also don't think much of superstition-based assertions, arguments, violence, etc., regardless of the flavor of superstition a particular group of gullible religious kooks embrace.

I consider the Saudis no better than the Israelis in the context of right-wing belligerence, obsolete thinking, and wrongful conduct. I hope we cut the Saudis loose, too.

Do you consider Sen. Schumer antisemitic, too, you bigoted right-wing write-off?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Neutron Bombs!!!

[John F. Carr]

Neutron bombs don't kill Hamas soldiers hiding in tunnels.

[Bwaaah]

Neutron bombs in tunnels!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Moderation :

+1

[ThePublius]

"most innocents that are caught in the middle and that should be of concern to all people"
Innocents. Bullshit. About 70% of the Gazan population supports Hamas, and applauds the Oct. 7 massacre.

"The current tactics seem less designed to destroy Hamas and more designed to keep the focus off the Netanyahu government failure on Oct 7, 2023."

So, you are among those who blame this atrocity on Netanyahu? How about blaming the people who actually did it! It's like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

[Martinned2]

About 70% of the Gazan population supports Hamas, and applauds the Oct. 7 massacre.

And that justifies killing civilians indiscriminately how?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many Israelis support right-wing superstition, bigotry, and violence? Why would most Americans wish to support a bunch of right-wing assholes anywhere else when they don't approve of it in America?

[Moderation4ever]

I never blamed the terrorism on Oct.7 on Benjamin Netanyahu, the terrorism was all Hamas. But;

Netanyahu's government was funding Hamas through back door channels.
Netanyahu's government was warned and was still caught off guard.
Netanyahu's government was slow to response and help those attacked.

Netanyahu doesn't want election until the war is over so the longer the shooting war the longer he goes without explaining his governments failure.

[santamonica811]

We don't yet know most of the details about what he knew in the (year-long???) lead-up to the terrorist attacks. So, I'm not gonna pass judgement on that point yet.
But...the fact that it took hours and hours and hours and hours to send meaningful help to the area? In a tiny country the size of Israel? Where so much of the population is or has served in the military? The first and most likely explanation is always "incompetence over malice." But here??? How is such a huge delay even possible?

One thing I know for sure: There is a zero chance of a full and unbiased investigation as long as Netanyahu is still in power. That's reason enough for me to support something I almost never endorse--speeded-up elections.

[Nige]

Isn't it amazing how you can justify mass slaughter when you really want to?

'So, you are among those who blame this atrocity on Netanyahu?'

The guy who promised to keep Israel safe may have responsibility for a massive security failure? After what happened with W Bush I can see how that might confuse you.

[Drewski]

"most innocents that are caught in the middle "

I see you're still sourcing your information from Hamas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you going to cry when better Americans terminate American support of Israel’s right-wing jerks?

(I'll be enjoying shrimp cocktail, a cheeseburger, candied bacon, and a Coke.)

[Estragon]

Donald Trump is considering hiring a convicted money launderer and former business partner to at least one known Russian asset for his re-election campaign— possibly in a fundraising role! I see no issues here.

[Moderation4ever]

Donald Trump will have to lay out a lot of money in bonds for appeals. Most Americans know better than to loan Trump money. Therefore, Paul Manfort's connection to wealthy Russian businessmen will likely help in secure the bonds necessary for Trumps appeals to go forward. It all makes a lot of sense.

[Bob from Ohio]

Manafort was only prosecuted as a Trump proxy. Unjust prosecutions don't deserve respect.

[Estragon]

I mean he admitted to it, but whatever. We all realize you’re a deplorable unreachable at this point.

[Bob from Ohio]

He "admitted" it to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison.

[Estragon]

The rest of his life? Are you under the impression a money laundering conviction typically carries that kind of sentence?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6183591/united-states-v-manafort/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm under the impression that he was born in 1949 so a very long sentence is a de facto death sentence.

[Estragon]

Won’t somebody think of poor Paul Manafort?

[Bob from Ohio]

I do like lovable rogues.

I hope Santos gets pardoned too!

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is a great example of the right-wing belief that a criminal is a type of person who exists and not something one becomes when they engage in conduct that violates criminal statutes. Santos is a sociopathic fraudster who stole puppies. But because he isn't in the criminal class, he gets praise from you regardless of his conduct.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This is a great example of the right-wing belief that a criminal is a type of person who exists and not something one becomes when they engage in conduct that violates criminal statutes."

They're both, at the same time. Trivially, from a legal standpoint, one becomes a "criminal" when one engages in conduct that violates criminal statutes. Whether it's rape, murder, or failing to pay sales tax on a bag of chips you bought in a neighboring state with a lower tax rate than your own.

But as a matter of a long established finding in criminology, the sort of people who commit crimes that generate victims, (As distinct from malum prohibitum crimes.) are a distinct group of people, they're not average people. The population statistics for the commission of most crimes are very bimodal: You've got the great mass of people who simply never commit crimes of violence or steal, then you've got a small segment of the population who do things things over and over and over. And the latter we refer to as "criminals".

[Nige]

And Trump's hiring as many of them as he can!

[Estragon]

I hear he’s running again. I encourage you to donate early and often!

You people really do get the heroes you deserve

[LawTalkingGuy]

You thought a 292 year sentence for a 21 year old for burglaries that netted $5000 was "justice." Yet here you are spilling crocodile tears for a guy who laundered millions of what his own daughter described as "blood money" from advising a foreign authoritarian government. So forgive me if I don't think you are credible when it comes to sentencing issues.

[Bob from Ohio]

"burglaries"

People die during burglaries. Violent crime deserves harsh sentences.

Not filing out a form correctly does not.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"People die during burglaries."

Did you fail criminal law? Burglary doesn't have a force element, dumbass.

[Bob from Ohio]

RC Section 2911.12 | Burglary.
"(A) No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall do any of the following: "
(2) Trespass in an occupied structure or in a separately secured or separately occupied portion of an occupied structure that is a permanent or temporary habitation of any person when any person other than an accomplice of the offender is present or likely to be present, with purpose to commit in the habitation any criminal offense;"

So "force" can be an element but more fundamentally, entering an residential building means people are vulnerable to being attacked or even, wait for it, killed.

[Jumaira]

Yo dumb fuck, all burglaries have the risk of violence, as the burglar is never 100% sure that no one is present inside or that no one will return to the building during the burglary.

That piece of shit committed 22 burglaries. You clearly have never been burglarized if you think that it's a trivial offense.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don't think its a trivial offense. Where did I say that. I don't think a string of burglaries justifes a 292 year sentence, especially at the age of 21. Murderers and rapists get far less time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Manafort often lobbied on behalf of foreign leaders such as former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, former dictator of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos, former dictator of Zaire Mobutu Sese Seko, and Angolan guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi."

Hmmmmmm seems like this guy enabled more violence than that burglar in Arizona did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"292 year sentence"

Good news! He is likely going to leave prison 230-250 years early.

"Murderers and rapists get far less time."

They shouldn't.

[Michael Ejercito]

Hmmmmmm seems like this guy enabled more violence than that burglar in Arizona did.
How so?

[LawTalkingGuy]

How does lobbying on behalf of notoriously brutal dictators enable violence? Is that seriously your question?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Manafort betrayed his nation. He should have died in prison.

Maybe the Department of Justice will get another shot at him. Put a few creative young lawyers from top law schools on it!

[Michael Ejercito]

That is quite a claim.

do you have any proof?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A guilty plea with respect to conspiracy against the United States in the context of cuddling with our enemies and money laundering involving the same enemies.

[not guilty]

Why do you put scare quotes around the word admitted? By operation of law a plea of guilty admits the essential elements of the charged offense:

That a guilty plea is a grave and solemn act to be accepted only with care and discernment has long been recognized. Central to the plea and the foundation for entering judgment against the defendant is the defendant's admission in open court that he committed the acts charged in the indictment.

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). Such a plea of guilty is not invalid even where it is entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty. Id., at 755.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whatever. Everyone knows that people admit things to avoid longer sentences, sometimes truthfully and sometimes not.

[Nige]

Like burglars?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Have you ever done the scare quotes for literally any other criminal defendant?

[santamonica811]

Yes, he's done it for Trump as well. (But your underlying point is, obviously spot-on.)

[SRG2]

Bob believes in the modified Nixon Rule: if the president or his followers do it, it's not illegal.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Unjust prosecutions don’t deserve respect."

You think the Scottsboro Boys case was wrongly decided.

[Bob from Ohio]

Liar.

I specifically said that while there is no 6th amendment right to a FREE lawyer I was "ok" with it because of the lack of any due process in the Jim Crow South.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You said, and I quote, "I can live with it." Not that it was correct. You said "I can live with it." People only say "I can live with it" when they think a decision is wrong, but that they don't care too much about it in the long run.

And this was after me forcing you to answer after you went on and on about how Gideon was wrong (which is also a knock against your ability to see what is just and unjust in the realm of criminal law).

Even here you can't admit it was correctly decided. Just that you're "ok" with it. "Ok." That's all you can muster.

So I'm not a liar. You just can't own your own ghoulishness.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, you are a liar. I accepted the decision. That is not thinking it was "wrongly decided".

It was the correct decision because of the state of the law in the South at the time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you accepted the decision and thought it was correct why did you say “I can live with it?”

[Bob from Ohio]

When a justice says "I concur in judgment only", what does that mean?

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s not what you said. Just own it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I can live with that is a phrase that means that one finds something acceptable, that one can agree on a certain solution to a problem. The implication is that the answer or solution is not perfect, but nonetheless, acceptable." Grammarist

Not sure why using an idiom makes you so mad..

[LawTalkingGuy]

The fact that you an only "live with" juvenile detainees facing capital charges having access to counsel should make any member of the legal profession mad. Your grudging "acceptance" of important civil liberties brings disgrace upon the bar. That's what makes me mad. Not your feeble attempts to absolve yourself of your clear disdain for justice and fairness in legal proceedings.

[Bob from Ohio]

"should make any member of the legal profession mad."

Anybody else here mad at me over this?

Really mad, like 3-5 years later still really mad.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That's right. One should hold grudges and continue to be mad at lawyers who disgrace the legal profession. I won't be mad if and when you resign your bar membership and your odious views no longer bring disgrace to us.

[Estragon]

I don’t know that I’m mad, but I think you’re a gormless shitheel cunt— does that count?

“Decent people can elect not to make negative comments on obit posts” has to still be your greatest hit to date

[Bwaaah]

LawTalkingGuy: “One should hold grudges and continue to be mad at lawyers who disgrace the legal profession.”

All because he expressed acceptance of a decision, but not for your preferred reason? You find that expression “a disgrace to the legal profession?” You declare that as a member of the bar?

Are you serious? (Was there some prior action that I don’t know about? Was there more than an expression of an opinion?)

[LawTalkingGuy]

The context is Bob thinks Gideon v. Wainwright was wrongly decided. Which is itself a disgraceful position for a lawyer to have. And here’s why:

A lawyer believing that a criminal trial is somehow still “fair” if a defendant doesn’t have an attorney simply because he can’t afford one suggests a few things about that lawyer:

1. They are genuinely incompetent and don’t realize how even complex criminal cases can be and that a lawyer for the state vs a person who not only doesn’t have a legal education but might not have much education at all is incredibly mismatched. Such incompetence while not per se disgraceful is a black mark on the profession. Incompetence and a fundamental failure to understand the nature of legal proceedings reflects poorly on us.

2. They do understand how unfair it is, but think that’s a good thing. While Bob is clearly not the brightest lawyer in the world, he does understand how complex criminal trials can be and understands that it’s actually not fair to have defendants go unrepresented simply because they’re poor. But he thinks this is okay and that such a trial would satisfy due process. This is disgraceful. It shows an utter disregard for the ideals of the profession and fundamental fairness. Someone who doesn’t even believe in fundamental fairness in criminal proceedings likely doesn’t behave appropriately in their own work when the stakes are closer to home. You think someone who believes that uncounseled criminal trials are fair is going to behave fairly in your case? Absolutely not. Lawyers who disdain fairness and rights tend to be bad lawyers who cause trouble for everyone.

Which brings us to Scottsboro: after being challenged on how bad it is he hates Gideon I challenged him on Powell v. Alabama, where a lot of the language from Gideon comes from. He didn’t say it was correctly decided. Or that it was a major civil liberties victory. He grudgingly said “I can live with it.” Not being able to happily embrace a case where the Supreme Court ensured due process for juvenile capital defendants in the Jim Crow South is shameful and brings the profession into disrepute.

His views reflect poorly on us all and I doubt he actually voices them in professional settings because it would be so embarrassing to say out loud.

[Estragon]

“His views reflect poorly on us all and I doubt he actually voices them in professional settings because it would be so embarrassing to say out loud.”

I guarantee you that is the case and I would just like to second this comment

[Bwaaah]

I can imagine reasons other than #1 and #2. And also, this isn't a professional setting. If your theory is correct that he wouldn't voice those opinions in a professional setting, then that could indicate awareness of the difference between professional conduct and contrary expression in an informal forum. It could also be indicative of an inclination toward professional behavior.

Must a member of the bar act as an officer of the court in all forums? Is there no non-professional aspect of the public life of an attorney? If not, that's a shame. Many people (including doctors, for instance) leave work at work. It seems a tad audacious to assert the mantle of the bar even in a highly partisan, unmoderated online discussion such as here.

Sounds less like a professional problem than an authority problem, and Bob isn't the one with the authority problem.

Hrumph hrumph.

[Don Nico]

'People only say "I can live with it” when they think a decision is wrong'
Not exactly, that often comes up in negotiations. it does connote that they would not have made that decision (or that they are neutral) but that they can support it.

[VinniUSMC]

LTG doesn't know what a simple phrase like "I can live with it" means. One can only imagine the trouble LTG might have with more complex things.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, the thing is I understand exactly what it means: it means he isn't happy with a result, because he can only live with it. He isn't happy about the Scottsboro case and would decide differently if given the chance. That's shameful for a lawyer. And its shameful for anyone to pretend he means anything else by it.

[bernard11]

Of course there is a 6th Amendment right to a free lawyer. Don't be a jackass.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This tellingly white and male, bigot-
hugging conservative blog with a
thin, receding academic veneer
has operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

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

FIFTEEN (15)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 15 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 15 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, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
dwindling 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 beautiful.

This one is good, too.

(If you liked that second one, point your Google-compatible device toward the new recording of Mark Knopfler's Local Hero, which is similar, with guitars rather than voices. This site doesn't permit three links, so far as I am aware. And, if I recall correctly, that first one came from Quincy Jones' favorite group. The world can rhyme, with rhythm and harmony -- ideally, that's the way of the world.)

I'll probably feature the Guitar Heroes Local Hero recording -- Jeff Beck, James Burton, Ry Cooder, Steve Cropper, David Gilmour, Buddy Guy, Albert Lee, Brian May, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Townsend, Joe Walsh, Ron Wood, and that's not the half of it, with a rhythm section of Sting, Ringo, and Zak Starkey -- next time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers:

First, Mick Taylor's championship race car and the Richards-Wyman-Watts locomotive become one, the type of machine Start Me Up envisions.

Next, Mick (the one whose fingers do the talking) produces a portrait (on Keith's baby chords canvas) that proves country music doesn't have to suck.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Last week's Star Star live (Belgium73?) was stellar.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If there has been a guitarist better than Mick Taylor I have not heard the evidence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is interesting: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/03/17/melrose-fire-chief-on-leave-amid-investigation/?p1=hp_featurestack

The city's Board of Health won't deal with the city's rat-infested fire stations (that are being used for human habitation) and then there is this. There is a lot of corruption in that city, has been for a long time -- the last mayor jumped off the sinking ship and became a town manager elsewhere (just before a major tax increase).

At least in Massachusetts, Fire Departments have as much authority as Police Departments, without any of the oversight -- and power corrupts....

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This article gives some attention to the grave menace which RFK Jr. posts to the Dems, but it also suggests that *both* major candidates may have to worry about third parties.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/rfk-jr-third-party-cornel-west-jill-stein.html

[Nige]

Why would the anti-vaxxer be a threat to *Dems.*

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ask the author of the article, I’m just the messenger. Do you think I agree with everything people write in Slate?

[Nige]

I’m sorry if a question prompted by your preface to the article you posted makes you mad.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, just annoyed.

Eventually, to avoid confusion, half of my posts will be "/sarc" tags, even for the obvious sarcasm.

[Nige]

Well all righty then.

[John F. Carr]

I want to see Cornel West debate Trump and Biden.

[Krychek_2]

Doesn't matter why they left for Egypt; the point is they were gone for 500 years. You seriously expect that after 500 years the land they left behind is still theirs?

And while I agree that invasion is probably more accurate, that goes back to your original claim that the Palestinians were invaders. Well, so were the Jews.

[Frank Drackman]

"Tell me what you wanting with the white man's world"
Guess the Singer/Song
Frank "Follow the Yellow Brick Road"

[#FFFFFFPride]

There are about 1600 billionaires in the world. Just over 250 of them are Jewish.

Isn't it anti-semitic for the Left to attack the billionaire class with as much hatred and vitriol as they do?

What does disparate impact theory tell us about the systemic bias that grants a single race/religion this much out-of-proportion Billionaire Privilege?

[Nige]

Can you walk through the logic there of why attacking billionaires as a class, only a minority of whom are Jewish, is anti-semitic, I'm not quite getting it.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Criticizing anything about the Jews is anti-semitic, Nige.
Just like criticizing anything about the Blacks is racist or criticizing anything about the Transes is transphobic, or criticizing anything about the Homo's is homophobic.

[Nige]

If you can’t criticise a black person without being racist, you’re just a racist. If you can’t tell the difference, you’re *really* racist. But it’s nice to see you admit the cyncism and opportunism behind your fake accusations of anti-semitism.

[#FFFFFFPride]

How do you get a hardcore Lefty to lick the boots of a billionaire?

Scroll up a few comments. lmao

[Nige]

You're a hardcore lefty?

[#FFFFFFPride]

No, which is why I don't attack billionaires as a class.

[Nige]

So you just lick their boots.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Not attacking a class of people is the same as licking their boots!

[Nige]

According to you, criticising them is boot-licking, so it's kinda lost all meaning.

[#FFFFFFPride]

There's a candid video of Michael Rappaport discussing on the phone his terms of payment for his public statements.

It goes along the lines of:
"When I say 'Zionist', pay me."
"When I say 'Jew', pay me. Just like always."
..
"If I say 'Fuck Palestine' on camera, oh you'll pay me more?"

I wonder whose paying him? State Department?

[Nige]

Comments seem screwed - has someone been, um, moderated?

[Nige]

I mean, I posted this at *the bottom* of the current comments, so...

[Brett Bellmore]

Nesting seems screwed up at the moment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[What's going on? I tried to put this at the *end* of the comments.]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[WTF, it keeps putting my comments in the middle.]

[Nige]

It's a political allegory.

[M L]

Presidential candidate Donald Trump is stirring controversy again with his remarks on illegal immigration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA

[Theendoftheleft]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/man-claiming-hezbollah-bomb-maker-stopped-texas-border-new-york-rcna143879

1. This is entirely Ilya Somin’s fault. Champions of open borders are now clearly champions of subverting the United States and of assisting national security threats to it. They should be disbarred.

2. A terrorist crosses the border to commit terrorism. American MSM still calls him a ‘migrant’. If Osama Bin Laden had crossed the border to commit jihad, would he have been an ‘undocumented worker’?

[Nige]

It's a weird thing to claim to be.

They'd call him a zombie.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Meh, Trump rolled out the red carpet for an Iraqi Muslim intent on assassinating Bush…pretty weird.

[#FFFFFFPride]

At today's oral arguments Kenjati was lamenting how the 1st Amendment was hamstringing the government.

Is there a greater threat to human freedom and flourishing then the modern liberal?

[#FFFFFFPride]

I wonder how many of the Blue Anons around here fell for the bloodbath hoax?

[David Nieporent]

Like the other things Trump said and did that justly got him in trouble, it was not in fact a hoax.

[#FFFFFFPride]

lol there's the first one!

lmao

[SRG2]

Amongst today's certs denied was 23-279 GRIFFIN, COUY V. NEW MEXICO, ET AL

Griffin was a Jan 6 rioter, who was fired from his state post under NM's constitution prohibiting insurrectionists. He was not convicted of insurrection.

While as is well known, refusal to hear a case has limited-to-no precedential value, it's worth noting that this denial is consistent with the recent SC decision in Trump v Anderson limiting states; DQs to state offices, and none of the justices were even minded to consider whether an insurrection conviction was necessary. The denial is certainly evidence for the proposition that it isn't.

[Moderation4ever]

Donald Trump says he cannot post the bond to appeal the recent fraud decision. Apparently, no company will post that much money even with property as collateral. I find that hard to believe. Wondering the following?

- is this a stunt and Trump will come up with the money when he has to?
- do companies not trust Trump even when they are holding liens on his property?
- Is Trump holding back on the properties that people would be most interested in having as trust for the bond?

My best guess is that companies see little chance the appeal will succeed and fear getting stiffed by Trump when he losses.

[David Nieporent]

1) You may just be guilty of inartful phrasing, but lots of people do misunderstand this, so I figure I should clarify: there is no "bond to appeal." It costs $65 to appeal. The bond is entirely optional, and simply acts to stay collection during the pendency of the appeal.

2) I don't find it hard to believe that bond companies aren't willing to put up almost $500 million with illiquid assets (which are likely leveraged already) as the only surety.

[Moderation4ever]

First thanks for the clarification on whether a bond is needed to appeal. Regarding your second point, I believe that Trump has properties that are not leveraged. I wonder if he is reluctant to use those unleveraged properties as collateral? I assume Mar a Logo is one he might wish to keep.

[bernard11]

I wonder if he is reluctant to use those unleveraged properties as collateral?

Me too.

Leaving bonding companies aside I wonder why he can't simply mortgage one or more of his properties to get the money he needs. Could it be they are not worth what he claims, or that his equity is too small, or that they are already mortgaged to the hilt?

I'd like to see the judge ask those questions.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think what you're looking at is a facet of the restored Operation Choke Point, or some allied program. Nobody wants to lend him the money, it doesn't matter if he's good for it, because lending him the money will have consequences for the lender. Not formal consequences, of course, but still consequences.

They're moving along with the process of impoverishing him, and nobody is allowed to aid him in resisting it.

[David Nieporent]

It's a day ending in 'y'. Brett must be inventing a conspiracy.

[bernard11]

Oh bullshit, Brett. Why do you pull this shit out of your ass?

The reason he hasn't gotten a mortgage could be any of:

1. Banks don't want to deal with him because he will do anything to avoid paying - remember when he claimed a recession was a natural disaster?

2. They don't want to deal with him because they fear he will file for bankruptcy, wildly complicating the matter.

3. He doesn't want it known how little equity he has in the properties, or what they are actually worth per an honest appraisal.

4. Other potential shenanigans.

[Brett Bellmore]

We KNOW that Project Choke point existed. It was admitted. Back in 2017 the DoJ admitted what it had been doing, and officially promised to stop it.

The problem is that there are all sorts of indications that Project Choke Point was quietly revived by the Biden administration. Such as the fact that Biden, on taking office, halted a rule entering the Federal Register that would have officially prohibited such activities.

So, is Trump a risky borrower? In terms of paying off the loan, no, not really. He's got plenty of assets to cover it, so long as he's not forced to sell them off on a deliberately accelerated timeframe designed to make sure he only gets pennies on the dollar.

In terms of reputational risk? Yeah, he does carry that sort of "risk". But "reputational risk" is regulatorese for "Nice bank you've got here, be a shame if anything happened to it." It just means, "If you take this client, we, the regulators, will think worse of you, and you REALLY want us to like you."

That's all it is, a way of saying the regulators won't like you if you serve that particular legal client.

And that does appear to be what's going on here.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In terms of paying off the loan, no, not really.

Are you dim? He has stiffed many, many creditors.

As just one example:

The German bank loaned a cumulative total of around $2.5 billion to Trump projects over the past two decades, and the bank continued writing him nine-figure checks even after he defaulted on a $640 million obligation and sued the bank, blaming it for his failure to pay back the debt.

He is a risky (and litigious) borrower. You pretending otherwise says a lot about you.

[#FFFFFFPride]

The Marxist judge forbade any bank that registered in NY from doing business with him.

How many banks do you think are left?

Democrats are sickening vile fascists.

[not guilty]

"The Marxist judge forbade any bank that registered in NY from doing business with him."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[David Nieporent]

Well, Engoron isn't Marxist, so that's a lie. It is true that part of Engoron's ruling was that Trump couldn't get loans from NY financial institutions. But that provision was stayed, so in fact Trump can get loans from them. It's just that he's a terrible risk.

[Moderation4ever]

How many banks want to do business with him even before the fraud lawsuit. The loans in the suit were primarily if not all with the Deutsche Bank.

[Commenter_XY]

The reply function is broken. Replies will not indent.

[Krayt]

Trump cannot secure funding for $464 million in settlement.

As a jackass who shouldn't be in the business of harrassing others through the law, that's his fault.

However, when looking at patterns of government abuse, this also represents the tyrant king expropriating a problematic nobleman's estate.

Congratulations! You successfully expropriated his estate for the purpose of hampering a political opponent.

You all stink.

[Krayt]

"But..."

Was there some part of "you" you didn't understand? None of this would be happening but for political opposition.

Had he not run, this wouldn't have happened. Your lying crocodile tears for her would be off elsewhere.

Stop lying, liars.

[Nige]

If he hadn’t done the crime, he wouldn’t have to do the time. Or financial equivalent.

(It's weird, though. People normally celebrate when a crooked politician gets some comeuppance. With Trump it's seen as tantamount to a shocking and unfair breach of some unwritten rule somewhere.)

[bernard11]

when looking at patterns of government abuse, this also represents the tyrant king expropriating a problematic nobleman’s estate.

Huh?? It's private companies, like Chubb and big banks, that are refusing to provide the bond or loan.

Unless you are a Bellmore-level conspiracy theorist it's not the government.

[Armchair]

And in other news, a District Court Judge has dismissed charges against a group of rioters accused of breaking the anti-riot act, due to selective prosecution. The DoJ was prosecuting cases against those with right wing beliefs, while those with left wing beliefs (but near identical actions) were not being prosecuted under the same law. Under the selective prosecution doctrine, it was found that the political stance of the agitator was the factor that appeared to indicate who the DoJ brought charges against.

The 9th Circuit, unsurprisingly, quickly reversed the district court judge. Can't be having right wing protestors go free.

This may be going up to the SCOTUS. The entire selective prosecution bit is coming to a head.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/19-50189/19-50189-2021-03-04.html

[not guilty]

Why do you link to a three year old Ninth Circuit decision that has nothing to do with selective prosecution?

The District Court's February 21, 2024 order is here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-c-d-cal-sou-div/115856212.html

I am unaware of anyone not named Yick Wo who has ultimately obtained relief from a criminal charge or conviction based upon a claim of selective prosecution.

[bernard11]

Why do you link to a three year old Ninth Circuit decision that has nothing to do with selective prosecution?

Because he's a troll and a liar.

[Armchair]

Mistakes happen. Accidentally linking to the wrong case (with the same name) is not an unreasonable mistake to make from time to time.

[not guilty]

IOW you linked to a decision that you hadn't read. Even then, the "(9th Cir. 2021)" and the boldface, all caps "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRSUIT" should have given you a clue.

[Armchair]

1. I apologized for the mistake. I had read the link you posted, but looked for a more authoritative cite.
2. You're a jerk if you can't take a reasonable apology for a reasonable mistake.
3. Who apparently didn't learn the rule about glass houses. Mr. "NINTH CIRSUIT"

[not guilty]

The Ninth Circuit has ordered confinement of the neo-Nazi lead defendant pending consideration of the government's appeal of the District Court's dismissal of the indictment. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/02/california-courts-neo-nazi-robert-rundo

[Armchair]

Notably, you didn't find the actual court order. Apologies, that was what I was trying to find.

[not guilty]

When I commented last night I had found the government’s order seeking a stay from the Ninth Circuit, but not the order of confinement. I have since found the February 22 order temporarily staying the District Court’s order of immediate release. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24480548/9th-circuit-feb-22-rundo-order.pdf

I linked upthread to the District Court’s February 21, 2024 order dismissing the indictment.

[Armchair]

Apologies, linked to the wrong US v Rundo Case by accident.

You didn't appear to have an issue finding the correct one.

[Zarniwoop]

Oh look, more prison time for Trumpists:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Monday refused to delay prison time for Peter Navarro, a former senior aide to President Donald Trump, as he appeals his conviction for refusing to testify before Congress about his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In a one-paragraph order, Roberts, who oversees emergency requests from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said he saw no basis to disagree with an appeals court ruling last week that Navarro must serve time while his appeal is underway.

[insert sad trombone noise]

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon has issued an off the wall order directing Donald Trump and the Special Counsel to each file proposed jury instructions limited to the essential elements of the offenses charged in Counts 1 through 32 of the Superseding Indictment, along with proposed verdict forms for those counts. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.407.0.pdf This order states:

With respect to the proposed language pertinent to the issue of “unauthorized possession” specifically, the parties must engage with the following competing scenarios and offer alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct
formulation of the law to be issued to the jury, while reserving counterarguments.

(a) In a prosecution of a former president for allegedly retaining documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), a jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his/her personal possession at the end of his/her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act (PRA). [Footnote omitted.]
(b) A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.

This order is just plain batshit crazy. I fully expect the Special Counsel to promptly seek a Writ of Mandamus in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, with a request that the appellate court order reassignment to a different trial judge upon remand. Three conditions must be satisfied before such writ may issue:

(1) The party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires;
(2) The petitioner must satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable"; and
(3) If the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-381 (2004); Kerr v. United States District Court for Northern District of California, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).

The Eleventh Circuit has twice reversed Judge Cannon during the investigative stage of this case. In cases where that Court of Appeals has reversed the same trial judge multiple times in the same case, it has ordered that on remand the matter be reassigned to a different District Court. See United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 577 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

[windycityattorney]

I don't understand how paragraph (b) is in fact a correct interpretation of the law? And I don't see how (b) isn't in effect, accepting Trump's motion to dismiss argument on the PRA, so why not just grant that motion and have that issue sent to the appellate court? Instead of this, which if (b) goes to a jury... essentially would ensure non appealable not guilty verdicts for Trump?

This is bonkers town. As I thought the PRA somewhat clearly defines the types of documents primarily upon their source. So, for example, a document prepared by the dept of defense for a presidential briefing would be a presidential record. And no amount of Presidential decision making (or transporting it to Mar a Lago when he left office) can turn it into a personal record? Since by definition that documents purpose/intent was to help the President carry out his presidential duties during his term in office. Compared to say... Trump's own sharpie marks on a blank piece of paper about nuking hurricanes or something?

[not guilty]

"I don’t understand how paragraph (b) is in fact a correct interpretation of the law? And I don’t see how (b) isn’t in effect, accepting Trump’s motion to dismiss argument on the PRA, so why not just grant that motion and have that issue sent to the appellate court? Instead of this, which if (b) goes to a jury… essentially would ensure non appealable not guilty verdicts for Trump?"

Any order granting Donald Trump's motion to dismiss would be appealable as of right prior to trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. I surmise that the judge is seeking to deny the Special Counsel the opportunity for an interlocutory appeal. That is why I anticipate that the government will seek a writ of mandamus from the Eleventh Circuit.

[David Nieporent]

I do not see how one can seek a writ of mandamus to overturn an order to submit proposed jury instructions months before the trial. What relief would one even be seeking? Not to have to submit proposed jury instructions?

[not guilty]

The subject order directs that "the parties must engage with the following competing scenarios and offer alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law to be issued to the jury" and thereupon recites an incorrect formulation of the law.

If the District Court instructs the jury according to what she wrongly claims the law to be, and Donald Trump is accordingly acquitted, appellate review of the erroneous instruction will not occur, so the government has no other adequate means to attain relief from the erroneous premise of the order. "Adequate" here is the key term.

A writ of mandamus may be used "to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction[.]" Kerr v. United States District Court for Northern District of California, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). "[E]xceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial `usurpation of power' will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy." Ibid., quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967). "[I]ssuance of the writ is in large part a matter of discretion with the court to which the petition is addressed." Kerr, at 403.

The District Court here is signaling her intention to instruct the jury in an unlawful manner, which is designed and intended to frustrate appellate review. The relief requested would be an order from the Court of Appeals precluding the District Court from instructing the jury in that unlawful manner.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but that's absurdly premature. The court has not adopted that instruction, and no jury is being instructed for months.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's not absurdly premature. The Court of Appeals may not go for it, but I agree with NG that it appears Judge Cannon is signaling she will instruct the jury according to paragraph (b) and that is wrong. And, this isn't my area, but I believe NG is right, if she does after the jury is sworn, any acquittal based on those jury instructions will basically be unappealable. Therefore, it will be too late once a jury is actually instructed.

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon is manipulating the docket in a brazen attempt to avoid issuing any interlocutory order which the Special Counsel can appeal as of right under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. She has ordered counsel for the parties to submit proposed jury instructions “that assume[] each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law to be issued to the jury” when such formulations of the law are manifestly incorrect.

Suppose a district court ordered counsel to submit proposed jury instructions which assume that the sun rises in the west. Would mandamus relief from the appellate court then be unavailable?

[Bwaaah]

I think Gaslight0’s landlord gave him a rent increase due to inflation.

Gaslight0 fought back. “But Mom…inflation is going down so you should be reducing my rent, not increasing it.”

She changed the wifi password on the router. He’s hosed. His mom won’t tell him the new password until he admits he has “a cost of living.”

He told her, “only an economist can make such an authoritative statement. And anyway, you moved the goalposts with that password change. So you’re not even in the argument anymore.”)

He spent today trying to figure how to put up a GoFundMe without an internet connection. It didn’t go well. There’s a donation cup set out on the back stoop of the house if anybody is interested in helping out. “No donation is too small,” he said. “It’s not about the money. My mom’s a jerk.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Supreme court had a sudden change of mind!

Supreme Court allows Texas’ stiff anti-illegal immigration law to take effect

"The Supreme Court allowed Texas’ new law creating state penalties for illegal immigration to go into effect after erasing a hold the justices had placed.

The law is being feverishly contested in a federal appeals court, but the appeals judges have said Texas can enforce the provisions in the meantime. The Supreme Court had placed a brief stay on the decision but lifted the hold on Tuesday.

Three justices dissented, saying they would have kept the hold in place and warning that allowing Texas to enforce its own version of immigration laws is a recipe for upheaval."

“The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos, when the only court to consider the law concluded that it is likely unconstitutional,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The Texas law creates a misdemeanor state penalty for those who sneak across the border, and a felony penalty for those who sneak in after previously being deported. Both those provisions mirror federal law."

[Brett Bellmore]

Breaking news: The Supreme court abruptly changed its mind about the Texas border enforcement law. It can now go into effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I see that the Supreme court's stay of that Texas immigration enforcement law didn't last long. Maybe 24 hours?

It seems Alito didn't have a majority backing him up.

[tylertusta]

With McAfee's issuance of a Certificate of Immediate Reviw, Trump and eight other co-defendants have ten days with which to file an appeal with the COA. The COA in turn has 45 days to take the case.

It's unclear whether McAfee will be able to continue pre-trial proceedings if the COA takes the appeal, since in GA the COA takes jurisdiction away from the trial court much like in Federal Court.

Trump now has the burden of convincing the COA to take up the appeal.

[Michael P]

Are those applications on- or off-label? Do those treatments you mention cause permanent sterility and inability to orgasm? Are they pitched as life-saving interventions when the evidence does not support those claims? Are they prescribed based almost entirely on subjective feelings, and has the rate of those diagnoses increased enormously in the past decade or two? Do the advocates of those treatments play a motte-and-bailey game where they want to make the treatments available widely based on those subjective feelings, but only defend them based on objectively diagnosable syndromes that occur in a small fraction of those who exhibit the subjective feelings?

What "elective surgeries for kids" do you think are commonly available?

[Frank Drackman]

Was Emmet Till "Gender Affirmed" when his (DemoKKKrat) Murderers cut off his balls before murdering him?? Who knew the Klan was so progressive!

[Frank Drackman]

Thats what you do when you win wars. Let me know when we give California, Arizona, New May-He-Co and Tejas back.

[Michael P]

What are you going on about this time? Are you arguing that the maps should show Cyprus too?

[Frank Drackman]

Male Genital Mutilation for one.

[Michael P]

So, you don’t have an actual suggestion, but you do want to signal your ignorance and your hatred of Jews.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, target audience, and ideological allies, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your employers and colleagues (and most of your students, although not the fledgling bigots of your school’s Federalist Society chapter) hope you follow Prof. Volokh’s example and depart campus.

When Prof. Volokh used that racial slur this morning, he spoke for you, whether you wish to acknowledge your complicity it or not. Wear it with pride. You might as well court the adoration of the clingers, because better Americans already recognize and disdain your cowardice, hypocrisy, and disgusting right-wing thinking.

[Michael P]

As usual, you have nothing but insults and certainly no answers to important questions that you yourself raised.

[hobie]

Insults?

[grb]

Michael P: “What are you going on about this time? Are you arguing that the maps should show Cyprus too?”

OK : Cyprus.

Turkey invaded, seized land, and international disapprobation has been unable to dislodge them. This happens all the time in history, but there’s a difference here you’re oblivious to : The Cypriots living in the area Turkey took have all been given citizenship in the new Turkish-Cyprus government. Turkey didn’t steal the land and leave the people living on it permanently stateless.

Israel could honestly admit they are incorporating the West Bank into Israel and give the people who have always lived there Israeli citizenship. Or they could give-up trying to steal the West Bank and let the Palestinians have a state of their own. But instead they refuse to chose. Their government policy for decades has been a crude obvious lie. They pretend they aren’t slowly taking Palestinian land. They pretend they aren’t ruling. They pretend they aren’t the dictionary definition of apartheid rule. And that rule has been enforced by ever-more brutal & ugly oppression of the millions of people they keep stateless. Each year the pretense gets more absurd even their oppression grows more suffocationg.

That’s a problem Israel must face for its future….

[Bob from Ohio]

Arabs are "settler-colonists" since they invaded from Arabia, Jews are just reclaiming the land they were cleansed from by the Romans.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FAFSA applications are down 38% from high school seniors which indicates that Kirkland's wish may be coming true.

https://www.highereddive.com/news/fafsa-submissions-down-high-school-seniors/709686/

[Martinned2]

.

[bernard11]

And what about the Canaanites? Are they entitled to reclaim the land from Israel?

[Krychek_2]

This was a duplicate comment.

[Krychek_2]

If the Bible is to be believed, the Jews were invaders too, albeit from Sinai rather than Arabia. And after an absence of many centuries, I’m not sure they are still able to reclaim; is there a national-level equivalent to the concept of adverse possession?

I have far more sympathy for Israel than I do for the Palestinians. But the idea that because some people held that land 2,000 years ago their descendants are entitled to it for all time is just ludicrous. If that’s the case, then the United States needs to give the Indians their land back.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Jews were invaders too"

Abraham peacefully migrated, he was the first Jew.

[Drewski]

You obviously know nothing of Israel's recent history. They didn't just waltz in and claim it: The sovereign at the time, the United Kingdom, returned it to us. If the US returned land to Indians, by your standards they'd have no claim to it because so much time has passed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or the Palestinians could stop trying to kill Israelis, and after a while Israel would be willing to risk their having a genuine independent state. Sure, it wouldn't happen instantly, they've got a long. murderous track record to live down, but in the mean while they could devote their energies to improving their own situation, instead of accumulating arms for the next genocidal attack, so the wait wouldn't be wasted or all that unpleasant.

[Don Nico]

"Or they could give-up trying to steal the West Bank" and give it back to Kingdom of Jordan from whence they took it.

What? Jordan does not want it back? But why?

[Krychek_2]

Joshua sure didn't.

And Abraham, and Jacob, voluntarily left for Egypt.

And Abraham peacefully migrated in the same sense that we currently have a peaceful migration at our Southern border.

Bob, give it up. Your whole line of argument is just ridiculous.

[bernard11]

Abraham peacefully migrated, he was the first Jew.

And what does that have to with the arrival of the freed slaves from Egypt, who most definitely were invaders?

[Krychek_2]

Brett, that's why I said I have more sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians. Had the Palestinians been willing to accept a Jewish state from the beginning Gaza would today probably be prosperous and happy.

That said, though, the idea that the Jews are entitled to Israel as a matter of right because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago is just silly.

[Jonathan Affleck]

If the racial supremacist Zionist colonial settlers returned the homes, property, villages, and country that they stole from the native Palestinian population, most of the conflict would be solved.

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

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

In January 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference, Weizmann “The Zionist objective was gradually to make Palestine as Jewish as England was English.”[2] This goal is predicated on destruction of Palestinian group (genocide by today's legal definition). In 1919, genocide was a sovereign right.

Notes

1. This claim is arrant nonsense. Rabbinic Judaism is a Babylonian religion that has little connection to Palestine. After the maniac Bar Kochba and depraved Tannaim like Rabbi Akiva completely discredited Judaism by persecuting the Judean peasantry during the moronic rebellion against Rome, the Judean peasantry rapidly abandoned Biblical Judaism and converted to Christianity. Later the descendants of the peasantry converted substantially to Islam and became modern Palestinians. The Roman Expulsion can be considered a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts practice. Vicious bloodthirsty racial supremacist Zionist colonial settler invaders, interlopers, thieves, and impostors have been committing genocide against the true descendants of Greco-Roman Judeans on the basis of a fairy tale.

2. Wikipedia, Chaim Weizmann, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Weizmann#Political_career. Accessed on Jan 23, 2024.

[Bob from Ohio]

"voluntarily left "

Famine

"peacefully migrated in the same sense that we currently have a peaceful migration at our Southern border."

An invasion then.

[Krychek_2]

For some reason my comments are ending up in the wrong place. So here goes again:

Doesn’t matter why they left for Egypt; the point is they were gone for 500 years. You seriously expect that after 500 years the land they left behind is still theirs?

And while I agree that invasion is probably more accurate, that goes back to your original claim that the Palestinians were invaders. Well, so were the Jews.

[Jumaira]

They're not entitled to Israel because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago. They're entitled to it because might equals right, and they currently have it and are able to keep it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That said, though, the idea that the Jews are entitled to Israel as a matter of right because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago is just silly."

I think it's more a matter of them, at this point, already being there, and at least they're not making a mess of it.

[Moderation4ever]

I am reading now about the history of Israel and it is interesting that there were a small number of Jews originally in Palestine and they were generally tolerated by the larger Arab population. What the local Arabs did not want was the immigration of European Jews into the area. All this is pretty consistent with human nature and the resistance of established populations to immigrants.

[Brett Bellmore]

My understanding was that they lost their tolerance for the presence of Jews among them about the time they started paling around with the Nazis; The Middle East is one area of the world where "de-Nazification" never really got implemented at any scale.

[SRG2]

But the immigrant Jews were not "occupying Arab land". They were living on Ottoman-sovereignty land legally acquired and which they could legally settle.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think Nazis had anything to do with the Arab population not liking an influx of European Jews. The immigration started well before the formation of the Nazi party was formed and even before WWI. I think this was basic xenophobia.

[bernard11]

That's not accurate, Brett.

Arab antisemitism was certainly made worse by association with the Nazis, but it well preceded that. There were pogroms in the 19th century, for example.

The history is complex, since there were times and places where Jews rose to prominence, and others where they suffered persecution. I think it was Bernard Lewis who wrote something like(paraphrasing), "The situation of Jews in the Arab world was never as good as it was at its best in Christendom, and was never as bad as its worst in Christendom."

[SRG2]

From the dawn of Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
600–900 men of [the Jewish tribe of] Banu Qurayza were executed. The women and children were distributed as slaves, with some being transported to Najd to be sold. The proceeds were then utilized to purchase weapons and horses for the Muslims

[SRG2]

(not placing posts correctly)

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I know Arab antisemitism preceded the Nazis. My point WAS that association with the Nazis, (And that de-Nazification largely skipped over the Middle East.) made it a lot worse.

" “The situation of Jews in the Arab world was never as good as it was at its best in Christendom, and was never as bad as its worst in Christendom.”"

I think it's been a while since that latter was true, though. Through most of the Middle East, outside Israel, the genocide of Jews is all but complete, and they're finishing up now with the Christians.

[Commenter_XY]

That critical fact gets lost in the discussion, I have found. It is true.

[Jews] were living on Ottoman-sovereignty land legally acquired and which they could [and did] legally settle.

This was in response to SRG2 point above about Ottoman period. He is right.

[Moderation4ever]

While the Jews were living and settling on land controlled by the Ottoman Empire, the official Ottoman policy was to prohibit Jewish immigration from Europe. The fact is the Ottoman policy was poorly enforced and I suspect that the right amount of money could influence local official tasked with enforcing the immigration policy.

[Moderation4ever]

Again, Brett the British themselves were very opposed to Jewish immigration into Palestine. The British very much wanted to keep the Arabs leaders happy to continue to have access to the regions oil reserves. Antisemitism in the Middle East has for the most part been little different than antisemitism throughout the world. That maybe changed now but up through WWII and the formation of Israel it was pretty much the same. I would still say that Arab resistance to Jewish immigration into Palestine was more xenophobia than antisemitism.

[bernard11]

It's not just the Holocaust, Brett.

The situation of Jews in much of Europe was bad before anyone had heard of Hitler. Check out, for example, Polish and Russian antisemitism. It's no accident that many Jews became revolutionaries in Russia, or that the Nazis enjoyed massive success in their extermination program in Poland.

Check out Austria too, while you're at it. And don't overlook the Vatican - the center of what I think is your faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, it was "bad" for some value of bad. My point was simply that the Nazis made the situation much worse, everywhere they had influence, and, unlike most places, little was done in the Middle East to undo that influence. We never de-Nazified that region of the world, and it shows.

So, while the genocide in Europe stopped at the end of WWII, it continued in the Middle East, albeit at a reduced clip. And is now essentially complete everywhere in the Middle East outside Israel. The Arabs finished up with the Jews, and today are busy genociding the remaining Christians.

My neighbors back in Michigan were Jordanian Christians who had fled the genocide there. Christians have gone from 20% of Jordan in the 30's, to about 2% today. Jews went from a significant presence to ZERO.

So at this point you can't even say things are bad for Jews in most Arab countries; There are scarcely any Jews left for things to be bad for!

[Nige]

‘So, while the genocide in Europe stopped at the end of WWII, it continued in the Middle East, albeit at a reduced clip.’

Feels like it peaked, rather than stopped. You’re trying to mix up ME anti-semitism with European anti-semitism, but only European anti-semitism murdered 6 million Jews. To say events in the ME are nerely a continuation of that is nonsensical. The ME has its own mostly independant history of inter-tribal and inter-religious rivalries, as far as I can tell making it the dumping ground for European guilt, a carpet for sweeping an inconvenient ethnicity under, and a staging ground for US fundamentalist Christian’s hoped-for Final Battle, has only made things worse.

[SRG2]

The ME has its own mostly independant history of inter-tribal and inter-religious rivalries, as far as I can tell

And 1500 years of anti-semitism as well, which was not merely one of many intertribal or inter-religious rivalries.

[Nige]

Yes, it's definitely a special case and there's something profoundly different there, though 1500 year-old inter-tribe-and-religious grudges aren't unheard of.