Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

There is an interesting paper out on inflation by IMF and Harvard types that starts out like this:

"The economy is booming, and everyone knows it - except for the American people. The “misery index” developed by Arthur Okun in the 1970s uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation and the unemployment rate as the measurement of consumers’ economic well-being. With unemployment below 4 percent and inflation trending back towards the target rate (Figure 1A), the index has declined from 9.7 percent in January 2023 to 7.0 percent in December.1 This level is well below its 40-year average, and lower than it has been any time during the 1980s."

You'd expect this paper, like so many other articles and talking heads, would explain the consumer is wrong and the economy is in incredible shape. But instead what the paper does is say the consumer is right, and explain is why consumer sentiment is in the dumps, even though misery index is historically low. They go further and come up with a model to predict consumer sentiment, and explain why the current CPI doesn't reflect the actual increase in costs to the consumer: it doesn't reflect borrowing costs.

According to the paper using their alternative measure of Inflation, similar to the way official CPI was calculated in the 80's:

"Had the CPI fully reflected higher borrowing costs, it would have peaked at 18% in November 2022 and still be around 8%."

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2024030497/true-inflation-may-have-peaked-in-late-2022-at-18-and-still-hovers-around-8

The full paper is entitled:

THE COST OF MONEY IS PART OF THE COST OF LIVING:
NEW EVIDENCE ON THE CONSUMER SENTIMENT ANOMALY

http://www.nber.org/papers/w32163

[AmosArch]

Reminds me of the times when the economy was appearing to boom under Republicans and the Dems were on the opposite side of the argument insisting that things were terrible and why we shouldn’t pay attention to the usual economic indicators.

[Kazinski]

But I really don't think the authors are trying to make a political argument here, they are trying to explain in economic terms why consumer sentiment doesn't align with well known indicators like the Misery index.

A lot of economics depends on the concept of a rational consumer, at least in aggregate, so its an important topic.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

What is not rational individually is not made so by the addition of more wrong and irrational adherents !!!

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

No,that assumes what we know is not true at all, that BLS and the Fed are not jimmying the stats but we KNOW for certain they are.

And you will say but today BLS said that they did not do it. And you believe them. It is undeniable that they have made major changesint the data for months
Increase in jobs is actually people now holding down 2 jobs
Nubmers leaving workforce are HUGE
Biden had 'recession' officially re-defined and--- get this--- won't allow the new calculation to be made public

GET READY TO LAUGH
“It’s not the definition that economists have traditionally relied on,” President Biden’s economic adviser said, making a guest appearance at a White House briefing.

But on Wednesday, resurfaced 2008 comments from Deese revealed that he used to believe that was the “technical definition” or recession.

[DaveM]

But the issue here is that when you cut out a metric from the "usual economic indicators" they're no longer usual, they're unusual, e.g., the fix is in.

[Nige]

Reminds me of a comment here that the best way to deal with this terrible inflation would be to cut wages, and I really, really want Republicans to run on that platform.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“How does one “cut wages”? Wages are determined by thousands of independent entities.

[Nige]

Don't ask me, it's not my policy proposal.

[Martinned2]

Increase income taxes?

[Nige]

I think the best thing would be to try giving more tax cuts to billionaires and see if that works.

[CountmontyC]

Import millions of illegal aliens to flood the labor market.

[Nige]

They’ve been doing that for decades, along with prison labour, entire sections of US commercial activity are dependant on an poorly-paid insecure workers. The best thing to do would be make the *legal* workforce as insecure and poorly paid as the illegal workforce.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Notice that across a sea of wages the cutting never comes out on the bottom line. Those with authority to cut do so and their share of the loot is NOT cut. anyway, this brings in an army of lawyers to decide what non-monetary changes constitute hidden wages, etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nige, what gave us this terrible inflation?

Government spending and government handouts.

[Nige]

Conservative tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, conservative over-spending on things that benefit a few.

[#FFFFFFPride]

The government spends $6T+ each year. Why can't they spend that on things that benefit people?

[Nige]

I agree. Slash the military budget, oil subsidies and law enforcement. That'll free up funds for health care, education and public transport schemes.

[Krayt]

Won't balance the budget. Hell, half of recent years voiding the entire bogeyman military won't balance it.

[Nige]

Who cares? They're not balancing it now. You asked about benfiting people.

[Frank Drackman]

more like buttfucking people

[#FFFFFFPride]

They don't have enough funds for health care, education, and public transport schemes with the $6T they already spend?

[Nige]

Of course they do. They're just not spending it on those things.

[#FFFFFFPride]

So because they have enough money, but choose not to use it wisely, you want them to raise taxes and cut defense spending?

This makes sense to you?

[Nige]

I'll settle for just cutting defense spending and reprioritising spending, thanks.

[Frank Drackman]

those hotel rooms for ill-legals add up (and you think "Lincoln Riley"s murderers pubic defender works for free? Hey! how about we get illegal alien lawyers to defend illegal alien criminals?)

Frank

[bernard11]

No.

Partly it was supply chain bottlenecks, partly spending programs that helped alleviate the economic problems created by the pandemic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. No, it was because the US printed lots of money to deal with the pandemic. Look at the US money supply over time. Graphing over 10 years is illustrative.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So the U.S. printing money caused inflation all over the world?

[Jumaira]

No. But the other central banks did the same shit.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you deny supply chain issues and spending had anything to do with it? (Other countries also spent more during the pre-inflationary period.)

Economies and aspects of them are often affected by more than one factor. It's weird TiP comes in hot basically claiming otherwise....and you seem to second that idea.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

That is because you don't know basic Economics.

Biden can 're-define' recession but even harder with wage cuts...anyone in business knows 3 things
1) you use wage cuts to cut jobs you wanted to cut but couldn't before so as to ADD to remaining wages
2)_ALL the non-monetary percs go up, and cost is not cut
3)any cuts that get through go to the customer anyway as stupid and lazy Biden said himself when talking about ShrinkFlation !!!!

Pure basic Economics.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is incoherent and not just because it isn't a response to the comment the author apparently wishes to dispute. The one thing this comment does is demonstrate you haven't any grasp of business or economics as, to the extent your comment even makes any coherent points, they are wrong.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

If that were true you would not just assert , as is your wont 🙂

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your comment is incoherent.

you use wage cuts to cut jobs you wanted to cut but couldn’t before so as to ADD to remaining wages

Wtf are you trying to say? I'm assuming "you" is an employer, but why couldn't an employer cut jobs and, though you all caps the "ADD", you seem to be saying they cut wages to somehow cut jobs (have people leave voluntarily due to low wages?) so that they can then pay the remaining employees more? Is that the weird theory you are proposing?

Even if someone did this, it is hardly the only reason employers cut wages. Sometimes, they just want to pay less or can't afford to keep paying what they are.

_ALL the non-monetary percs go up, and cost is not cut

When you use an absolute ("ALL"), you are almost guaranteed to be wrong. Are you asserting that whenever wages are cut, all the non-monetary perks (spelling...) go up? And enough to offset the wage cuts? Always? I'm sure it happened somewhere, but not always, you poor fellow who must've failed the CMA exam.

any cuts that get through go to the customer anyway as stupid and lazy Biden said himself when talking about ShrinkFlation !!!!

This is too incoherent to even try to decipher. No, wage cuts like other decreased costs don't always (or maybe even usually) get passed onto the customer. Shrinkflation has nothing to do with wage cuts.

To reiterate, you are incoherent and exhibit no knowledge of economics, basic or otherwise.

[bernard11]

I'm surprised you even know how to spell "economics."

As NOVA says, your comment is incoherent nonsense.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

As if spellling were a related skill. ????
As someone who trained for a CMA I know more than populates your dreams of competence.
Facts, baby...trot em out

[bernard11]

Fuck you and your training for a CMA. Did you even pass the exam?

Even if you did, being an accountant doesn't mean you know shit about economics, as is amply demonstrated by your comments.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

People in the know are aware that BLS has been cooking the employment books for months and economy is TANKING

[Martinned2]

Sure, and Trump actually won the last election, ivermectin is an excellent cure for Covid, and something sketchy is definitely going on in the basement of that pizza place.

[ThePublius]

BLS is constantly producing jobs data that it then later quietly revises downward. It's something like 12 of the last 13 reports that have been revised downward. So, that qualifies as cooking the books, in my opinion, and observing this has nothing to do with political affiliation.

[tylertusta]

I'd be curious to see BLS's monthly figures revision rate over the past decade or so.

It'd help if we had context.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

NO, really it woudn't. for 3 reasons
1)Why assume when you know the books are cooked that earlier on they weren't ???
2) The point at issue is that the totals and percents that Biden quotes are 'after adjustments"
3)the 3 most ilmportant factors are all against Biden and virtually no one denies it
--- today 7.2 million men have dropped out of America's workforce... Economists have not been able to pinpoint one single reason why men are leaving at such high rates and not returning.
---- THe biggest jump is not new jobs but people now holding down 2 jobs "The number of Americans working two or more jobs has reached its highest level since the pandemic’s start, new federal data show, a trend that suggests more of us are feeling inflation’s pinch.

Nearly 8.4 million people held multiple jobs in October, the Labor Department reported Friday. They represent 5.2% of the workforce, the largest share of moonlighters since January 2020.The number of Americans working two or more jobs has reached its highest level since the pandemic’s start, new federal data show, a trend that suggests more of us are feeling inflation’s pinch.

Nearly 8.4 million people held multiple jobs in October, the Labor Department reported Friday. They represent 5.2% of the workforce, the largest share of moonlighters since January 2020."
--- illegal immigration is lowering wages, taking jobs,and masking true cost of business

[tylertusta]

I don't find those reasons compelling.

If BLS is lying to us all of the time, there's no harm in looking at it because nothing we'll see is real.

If BLS is not lying all of the time, but only some of the time, then having monthly data would help reveal if BLS is making overly-optimistic initial claims for one Presidential administrations and not others.

Finally, workforce participation rates are not relevant to the BLS jobs adjustment discussion.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If BLS is lying to us all of the time, there’s no harm in looking at it because nothing we’ll see is real."

Most economic stats are just based on surveys. Its just an agreed upon fiction that we know how many jobs were added any month.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Compelling for what. If you don't dispute them you have to find them compelling unless government lying and deceit is nothing with you.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Martin breaks out in hives if he has to , you know, think. IT is undeniable that BLS has been cooking the books for months . Martin just couldn't be bothered to look and see EVEN TO MAKE HIS OWN POINT

I couild post maybe 5 major examples but start with
"The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised down by 43,000, from +333,000 to +290,000, and the change for January was revised down by 124,000, from +353,000 to +229,000. With these revisions, employment in December and January combined is 167,000 lower than previously reported."

[bernard11]

“The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised down by 43,000, from +333,000 to +290,000,

Actually, the initial estimate for December was 216,000, revised upward to 333,000, and then the final revision lowered it to 290,000.

We do not have the final figure for January yet.

[bernard11]

They don't revise the data "quietly." They publish the revisions. They are not trying to hide anything. The revisions are because they receive data after the deadline for the original monthly report. Their own website describes the initial estimates as "preliminary."

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Which shows Biden's use of the data is not legitimate...so you say but seem not to realize

[bernard11]

You're an idiot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

People born in the 1800s voting in the election was at least an issue, the response to Covid was not Western Medicine's finest hour, and Orgy Island is real.

[Martinned2]

Are you nuts? Inventing a vaccine for a new disease so quickly and rolling it out on a global scale so quickly is an unprecedented triumph for medical science. Injecting yourself with bleach, on the other hand, not so much.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

But both points are false and mask what you WON"T talk about,Biden's push to make things appear worse so he would appear better
Who was right, her or Biden?

South African doctor who discovered Omicron variant SLAMS pressure from countries to make the virus sound worse than it actually is
Dr Angelique Coetzee was one of the first scientists to discover Omicron strain
She said she's been attacked from scientists and politicians around the world
Dr Coetzee said she was told not to describe the Covid variant as 'mild'

[Nige]

Omicron wasn’t especially mild, though.

[Don Nico]

Dr. Coetzee was correct. The original Omicron was mild with a morbidity between 0.5% and 0.25% and it also able to evade detection my the immune system. Each subsequent variant of Omicron has been milder still with the morbidity of the most prevalent strains being 0.1% to 0.15% similar to H1N1 influenza.

CDC seem especially eager to down play the initial evaluate of the mild nature of Omicron and the relative ineffectiveness (~25% to 30%) of any of the available vaccines in preventing infection.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Well our lazy and dumb President was sure that OMNIcron (which he called it for the whole speech) was indeed serious

[David Nieporent]

There were no people born in the 1800s voting, moron. As has been explained to the terminally retarded multiple times, this is a data issue: when voting records were computerized and birthdates weren't available, they would enter a placeholder date.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

That is actually an example in most logic books of fallacous thinking. You name a host of unrelated things and think the 'falsity' is like a virus and the BLS must have caught it. 🙂

[Nige]

No, it’s a list of things related by their falsity, and their tendency to be shared by overlapping groups of people.

[bernard11]

No they aren't.

And you don't know anybody "in the know."

Lying POS.

[Martinned2]

Is consumer sentiment "in the dumps", or is consumer sentiment among Trump voters in the dumps?

[Kazinski]

Yes. Maybe its people that think the economy is in the dumps that decide to vote for Trump.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

If you examine the way you think of things, you will see that with you the candidate makes us blind to higher costs for housing, gas, food, energy....Is that something an intelligent person would say?

A Nobel-prize winner has the prize for utter stupidity of this type

NY Times’ Paul Krugman says ‘inflation is over’ — if you exclude food, gas and rent
By Social Links forAriel Zilber
Published Oct. 13, 2023,

[DaveM]

Yes, if you control how a problem is framed, you’ve constrained the range of possible answers. This is well-known in engineering circles. Never allow framing to go unquestioned. Who knew that consumers borrowed money?

[Martinned2]

Who knew that consumers also have savings, over which they earn interest?

[DaveM]

Was income from savings removed from the economic indicators? That’s the question you should be asking.

[Martinned2]

Which economic indicators? CPI inflation? That definitely doesn't include income from anything.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Who knew that consumers also have savings, over which they earn interest?

Given that the average U.S. household debt is over $100K, the average interest-earning savings is far less than half of that and the fact that the typical interest rates being earned on those savings is FAR less than the rates being paid on that debt I don't think your snarky quip is as clever as you think it is.

[Martinned2]

The average US consumer has one testicle.

[Commenter_XY]

Actually, less than 1. Some guys whack off their balls.

[Nige]

The real reason conservatives are terrified of trans women is because they might emasculate them statistically.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot dreams of Electric Trans-bots emasculating his Bot-balls.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Somebody though they knew the definition of 'emasculate' but didn't. That and coffee in the morning cheer me up

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And some people mutilate their children’s genitals consequent to superstition. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Ostensible adults. Mutilating newborn children. Because of silly fucking fairy tales they claim to believe to be true.

You’re not that kind of asshole, Commenter_XY . . . are you?

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend, I think you've finally said something I can agree with, I certainly didn't consent to have my foreskin whacked off on July 5, 1962, OK, I suppose I could have a "Neo-Foreskin" constructed from a skin graft, but then I'd have to deal with that funky Schmegma, remember the first foreskin I ever saw, in Med School, learning to examine dicks/balls (in the old days they had us examine actual patients) I was like WTF is this thing covering this guy's dick?
OK, guess you learned it without going to med school.

Frank

[Theendoftheleft]

Fairy tales like some god creating people equally? Ones that lead you to condemn others' condemnation of entire belief systems and groups as just being ‘bigotry’ (when it's demonstrably not the case)?

Fairy tales like all cultures being congruent and equal, and that how, without a shred of empirical evidence or skills, you believe in your competency to make a better, more inclusive, better educated America, rather than just turning it into a third world garbage dump (as all the evidence points towards presently?)

What are your kids’ names, Somin?

[Magister]

It may be that more testicles are removed to treat testicular cancer than in bottom surgery. The larger population of females in the US would reduce the average far more than either of those factors.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whereas the number of assholes remains a steady match to the total population.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

This article is more than 4 years old <=========
Danish bank launches world’s first negative interest rate mortgage
This article is more than 4 years old <===============
Jyske Bank will effectively pay borrowers 0.5% a year to take out a loan

[Sonja T]

The cost of borrowing is omitted from the CPI and therefore understates the true inflation rate

[gVOR08]

Excerpt there's no real mystery to why people feel bad about a good economy. First, "people" don't, Republicans do. Second, there are time lags before people adjust to reality. Third, FOX/GOP propaganda. Finally, the supposedly liberal MSM loves bad news as clickbait. My theory also explain why "people" believe crime is up when it's down, the subject paper doesn't.

[Kazinski]

That's not what the study says they are looking at the University Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey, which is a long-standing measure that doesn't have a political component.

Look at the actual chart there doesn't seem to be a correlation with political events.

https://data.sca.isr.umich.edu/get-chart.php?y=2024&m=1&n=1ar&d=ylch&f=pdf&k=d7a0d87e4f56b3cdb9d73cf7b748e6c132e5b574b54dda221df7a19b4a4e6d59

In fact consumer sentiment is rising now, but it is still well below levels both before the Pandemic and when Inflation took off.

And even more dispositive, they look across consumer sentiment across the major European economies, and their model of consumer sentiment predicts consumer reactions in all of those economies too, except the UK.

Are all these economies watching Fox news too? Is it Republican voters in Spain poisoning the data?

[#FFFFFFPride]

The government metrics have been twisted and subverted to always shine the best light on government policies and performance and to not match reality.

That's why the CBO is the one organization that manages to nearly perfectly predict the future behavior of massively complex economic systems.
That's why the job reports are always amazing (until they revise them later).
That's why the CPI excludes normal basic stuff like food.
That's why the Census Bureau "oopsies" and awards Blue states 5+ unlawful representatives.

They've spent decades rigging the system in their favor.

[Martinned2]

the CPI excludes normal basic stuff like food.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you not understand the difference between overall inflation and core inflation?

[Longtobefree]

We understand perfectly:
Overall inflation is what we live with.
Core inflation is a made up piece of bullshit to give cover to politicians.
As it turns out EVERYBODY uses food and energy.
Why not just take out everything and have a permanent inflation rate of zero?

[Reallynotbob]

Overall blood pressure is what we live with.
Daytime average blood pressure is a made up piece of bullshit to give cover to doctors who want to exclude nighttime periods of inactivity.
As it turns out EVERYBODY sleeps.
Why not just ignore the blood pressures during exercise, too, and have a nice moderate number all the time?

[Frank Drackman]

Blood pressure doesn’t vary appreciably during sleep or exercise. I understand you have the Science ed-jew-ma-cation of "Dr" Jill Biden, but Pressure is simply Force/Area, during sleep the Cardiac Output and Vascular Resistance is the same as at rest, so no change in pressure, with vigorous exercise, (Jerking off is about the most I do anymore) the Cardiac Output increases, but the Vascular Resistance Decreases, as blood is re-distributed to muscle (and in my case, umm, to "other" areas)
I'd draw you a diaphragm, but this is AlGores Internets,

Frank

[bernard11]

You're a moron.

[Kazinski]

Core inflation is useful for a short term measurement, because it only takes a cold snap in the winter, a refinery shutdown or some other supply shock to provide an oversized impact to food and energy. Obviously whatever CPI does over 18 - 24 months is the real measurement, rather than Core excluding energy and food, but over 1-4 months Core provides a better picture.

If you look at February's data 12 month CPI is 3.2%, while 12 month "Core" inflation is 3.8, so they are hardly using Core inflation to hide what's going on in CPI. But gas prices are definitely going up, so you can expect overall CPI to take a jump for March, and start catching up with Core inflation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That’s why the job reports are always amazing (until they revise them later).

You clearly haven't looked at the data. There are years they mostly revise down, years they mostly revise up, years it's a mix, years they are way off, years they are very close. You know, what you would expect from a random distribution. Get back with a statistical analysis over 20 years and see if it's somehow skewed. Otherwise, you're just whining over a statistical anomaly in 2023 that was in the opposite direction in 2022. Why were they faking the numbers down with upward revisions in 2022, but then juicing the numbers up with downward revisions in 2023? What possible conspiracy theory explains both the fact that 10 of 12 initial employment numbers were revised down in 2023, but 7 of 12 initial employment numbers were revised up in 2022 and 11 of 12 initial employment numbers were revised up in 2021?

You're just making up conspiracies to explain a random walk of error.

[#FFFFFFPride]

>You clearly haven’t looked at the data. There are years they mostly revise
> down, years they mostly revise up, years it’s a mix, years they are way off,
> years they are very close. You know, what you would expect from a random
> distribution.

What data are you using to conclude this? And how could you discount political motivations without overlaying the contemporary state of the political situation?

The patterns you see could be reflecting some political narrative. Further, you also aren’t considering the “impact” of the revision. E.g. a government friendly media would trumpet an upward revision, and ignore a downward revision.

Surely if the BLS was politically motivated they are aware of this.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The BLS monthly data on employment and revisions.

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm

Your comment betrays that you haven’t actually looked at the data but are just reading what someone told you to think.

And how could you discount political motivations without overlaying the contemporary state of the political situation?

Because not everyone does everything with the goal of advancing their own political agenda. If you are claiming the economists, etc., at the BLS who are compiling these numbers are making choices based on their political motivations, you bear that burden of proof and cannot just assume that (a) they don’t share your politics and (b) they will act unethically and likely unlawfully to for very, very minor political gain for “their” side.

The patterns you see could be reflecting some political narrative.

And we all could be simulations in someone's computer. Lots of things could be.

But you’re assuming, without evidence, that the patterns definitely do reflect a political narrative. It's worse than that. The "patterns" don't appear to be patterns at all, but instead appear to be random (or at least, random with, perhaps, underlying adjustments to the models that cause clustered fluctuations one way or the other, but those fluctuations don't track to administrations or any other salient political events). In other words, in some years the "patterns" fit with your initial conspiracy theory and in others the "patterns" are exactly the opposite of your political narrative.

you also aren’t considering the “impact” of the revision. E.g. a government friendly media would trumpet an upward revision, and ignore a downward revision.

This doesn’t advance your conspiracy theory at all. When they revise upward, it gets lots of press, so they intentionally underreport! BUT, when they revise downward it doesn’t get much press, so they intentionally overreport! So, what you’re saying, is there is no or very little incentive to either revise up or down because it’s the press reports that matter. Your new theory, if this is what you think, should be that they are doing their best to get the numbers right, but they are putting lots of pressure on the press to report upward revisions and lots of pressure on the press to report downward revisions.

Of course, then, we’ll probably see that both get reported at essentially the same frequency and amplitude and you’ll be back to the “cooking the books” conspiracy theory.

Surely if the BLS was politically motivated they are aware of this.

Which would imply they wouldn’t much care whether their initial estimates were too high or too low (under your theory, they politically benefit either way!) and could just focus on trying to get the estimates right. Thanks for playing.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I looked at the data while making my reply. That's why I asked where they got their conclusions from. The data definitely doesn't support their claims.

BLS argues they have to make so many monthly releases, 3, because their aggregate data is so important to businesses that businesses can't wait a few weeks for all the survey's to come in. What business needs early data that they know is incomplete every month to drive tactics? I can't think of any, and surely there isn't enough to justify 3 releases. This is for politicians.

>This doesn’t advance your conspiracy theory at all. When they revise upward, it gets lots of press, so they intentionally underreport! BUT, when they revise downward it doesn’t get much press, so they intentionally overreport!

Is that the only interpretation? How about they report the data then some politico makes a request?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I can’t think of any, and surely there isn’t enough to justify 3 releases. This is for politicians.

First, when you are trying to cobble together a conspiracy theory, you are very imaginative. So I don’t think it’s that you can’t think of any reasons, I just think you are motivated not to.

Second, those are two of the dumber sentences you’ve posted here and that’s saying quite a lot.

Is that the only interpretation?

No. But it was your interpretation.

I just restated them together to illustrate how stupid your conspiracy theory is.

[#FFFFFFPride]

That absolutely was not my interpretation. I did not say they intentionally under report so they could boost it later.

I said they deliberately boosted it later. I didn't say which was the "real data" the original or the revised.

And I literally gave you BLS's reasoning for why they report and revise so much. That came straight from their website.

I know it's hard for you to grok that a pure, gold hearted, civil servant super-citizen would put their thumb on the scales for political purposes, but hey guess what? That's the world we live in. We see it all the time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound like a disaffected anti-government crank.

On the other hand, are you concerned that Jerome Powell is maintaining high interest rates in an effort to help Republicans politically?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I literally gave you BLS’s reasoning for why they report and revise so much. That came straight from their website.

And then you came up with feverishly imagined reasons why they were lying.

So now you aren’t claiming that they intentionally report false numbers so they can revise them multiple times?

You seem to have talked yourself right out of your original conspiracy theory and now you just believe civil servants at the BLS do something nefarious for political purposes, but you aren’t sure what (underreport, overreport, just revise for shits and giggles?), but you are sure they do something and it is bad.

What a joke.

[Absaroka]

Thanks for posting that, Kaz. It presents a pretty good case.

One of the things it highlights that is too often forgotten is that people aren't equally affected: if you have a COLA'd income you care a lot less about inflation than folks who don't. If you don't carry a credit card balance then rates on card debt are irrelevant. If you pay cash for cars you don't care about auto loan rates, if you don't drive much you don't care about gas prices (at least not directly) and so on.

In the long run everyone cares - when diesel goes up, eventually so do groceries. But the right-in-front-of-your-eyes changes that drive sentiment can differ a lot between people. If you are wondering why other people see the world differently than you do, it might be because the view really is different from where they sit.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree = good case. Larry Summers did a good writeup on the same paper, making many of the same points. The cost of borrowing, which has risen very significantly, is a drag on consumer spending.

Summers also made much of the fact that an apples to apples comparison would lead to a different conclusion about how acute inflation was, post-pandemic (namely, inflation being much higher).

Depends on the COLA adjustment = if you have a COLA’d income you care a lot less about inflation than folks who don’t - but I get what you're saying, if the impact of inflation is blunted in part by a COLA, no big deal.

[Kazinski]

Larry Summers is one of the 4 authors of the paper.

But its not just cola or non cola, although that helps, its the fact that consumers depend on financing for major purchases and CPI doesn't include financing costs.

For instance you go to Toyota's website and check out the price of a new Tacoma, and while the price of the car is up, the real shock is when you see what the current finance rate is from Toyota
financing 9.8%.

A COLA based on CPI accounts for the car price inflation, but doesn't take into account the interest rate to finance it, and the huge impact to your monthly payment. There is a small component for auto leasing in CPI, which does include cost of money.

[Commenter_XY]

We agree = The cost of borrowing, which has risen very significantly, is a drag on consumer spending.

[OtisAH]

I was wondering when “The REAL economic numbers” would rear its head this campaign. Way back in 2016 was the last we saw it. And it’s as fresh a pile of horseshit as it was then. MAGA can’t resist the scent though.

[DaveM]

Bah. This is a non-response. You can do better.

[Kazinski]

Is Larry Summers MAGA?

Here is the full list of authors and affiliations:

Marijn A. Bolhuis
International Monetary Fund

Judd N. L. Cramer
Harvard University

Karl Oskar Schulz
Harvard University

Lawrence H. Summers
Harvard Kennedy School of Government

It doesn't look like the usual MAGA suspects or Fox news.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And it’s as fresh a pile of horseshit as it was then"

The paper makes an argument. This is not a counterargument.

If you don't have a counterargument, just say so.

[bernard11]

About 2/3 of consumer debt is secured by residential property. This brings up two points:

1. To the extent that consumers have fixed rate mortgages, or even floating rates that aren't resetting now, they benefit from inflation.

2. Even if they don't have that, the value of their residential property has increased substantially over the past few years, so they have enjoyed considerable income.

[The Angry Hippopotamus]

Even if they don’t have that, the value of their residential property has increased substantially over the past few years, so they have enjoyed considerable income.

That isn't income

[bernard11]

Of course it's income. What else is it, an expense?

[The Angry Hippopotamus]

That's an increase in value, not income.

The income would come if/when the property is sold for more than purchased.

[CountmontyC]

At which point capital gains comes into play.

[The Angry Hippopotamus]

Agreed, but Bernard made no mention of the owner selling and incurring capital gains.

He wrote:

Even if they don’t have that, the value of their residential property has increased substantially over the past few years, so they have enjoyed considerable income.

Suggesting that the mere increase in value was “income”.

[bernard11]

Call it what you want. It's an increase in wealth.

And by the way, suppose you win a new car in a lottery or some sort of contest. What do you think the IRS calls that?

[Bwaaah]

"Call it what you want. It’s an increase in wealth."

Call it what you want...you can't pay your bills with it without selling your house or taking on more debt.

And, no, it's not "income." (You're a fuzzy word/math guy.)

[Absaroka]

I dunno. Are we talking nominal or real wealth?

If inflation doubles the nominal value of my house, I still own 1.0 houses in real terms.

In contrast, if I have 1.0 real cars, and I win another 1.0 cars in a lottery, then I own 2.0 cars in real terms.

It's not cut and dried. If I bought a 1000 sq ft house in Palo Alto in 1960 for $100k, when similar houses in Omaha also cost $100k, then IFF I plan to retire, sell my now $3M Palo Alto house and buy the now $500k Omaha house, then sure, my wealth has increased by $2.5M. If I plan on the reverse, my wealth has decreased by $2.5M.

But generally speaking, I think real wealth is a better metric than nominal wealth. If congress passed a law tomorrow that doubled all dollar denominated values, are you suddenly twice as wealthy? Were people in Weimar Germany ultra-wealthy?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Economics - the science of telling us what is going to happen, and then explaining why it didn't.

[JasonT20]

Consumption-driven debt is foolish, and I can't think of how anyone could argue otherwise. Debt that is taken on to provide something of substantial value, on the other hand, can be seen as being invested. People also may have to take on debt for immediate needs at times.

It would seem to me, then, that if borrowing costs are a substantial part of how inflation affects people's financial well-being, then there is insufficient incentive to save and too much incentive to consume. In a segment on the morning local news show about credit cards I saw recently, the expert* being interviewed claimed that just over 50% of credit card holders actually pay their entire balance each month. They use them for the reward plans, product protection, and keep the credit lines available for emergencies otherwise. That is quite prudent.

It is the other half of people that use them to buy TVs, a night out at a restaurant, or that new pair of designer jeans that was on 'sale' that end up in trouble. Because eventually, they end up needing them to pay for groceries and utility bills, since they were living beyond their means. That is when higher interest rates really start to hurt.

But this is what happens when economic incentives from the federal government drive consumerism for several decades.

[Kazinski]

I don't think there much doubt that mortgages, auto purchases, and consumer durables like Washing machines, refrigerators, are often bought on credit, and quite often are not discretionary purchases.

The cost of financing those clearly impacts costs to the consumer and those costs are not reflected in CPI, which is the point of the paper.

[JasonT20]

Yes, that is true. But the kind of financing one can get for those types of purchases is not anything close to the interest rates on credit cards, nor is it as volatile. That same segment pointed out how typical credit card rates for people with good credit are up by about 10% compared to 10 years ago vs. ~5% for the Fed prime rate.

I was pointing out that using credit cards for everyday discretionary purchases, not for things like appliances, is what has been incentivized in the U.S. economy as compared to saving for them. Low interest rates were used as 'stimulus' so often that saving became almost a sucker's bet. Incentives to buy too much house (mortgage interest deduction on top of low interest rates), people buying more car than they need as car loans have stretched to ever longer periods, and more have made people feel like they have to be spending a lot of money in order to be 'middle class'.

The U.S. economy has had all the wrong incentives built into it for a very long time, in my opinion. But hey, stock prices have gone up tremendously along with corporate profits, so maybe everything is working exactly as it should be.

[Kazinski]

"Yes, that is true. But the kind of financing one can get for those types of purchases is not anything close to the interest rates on credit cards, nor is it as volatile."

!Maybe for auto loans, but rates for refrigerators, and appliances are typically the same as for other credit card purchases.

And I haven't seen the data, but I'm guessing rates for energy upgrades like solar cells and heat pumps is almost certainly suffocating those purchases.

[JasonT20]

Maybe for auto loans, but rates for refrigerators, and appliances are typically the same as for other credit card purchases.

I haven't bought an appliance in a while, but I know that family members have often gotten 0% interest financing if they pay it off completely within a certain time frame, like a year or two. Same with larger home repairs like replacing A/C units. The interest would be very high and retroactive if they didn't pay it off completely in the specified term, though.

[bernard11]

Consumption-driven debt is foolish,

Often, but not always. Debt allows you to shift consumption in time, which will sometimes be useful.

[JasonT20]

I should have been clearer that I am talking about truly optional consumption, like buying a new TV because it is bigger and has the most recent features when your current one works fine, and other impulse buying. Carrying a balance on a credit card indefinitely is a waste of money that could have been avoided with more discipline in spending.

I feel that things like the housing boom prior to the Great Recession ended up encouraging people to spend in a lot of ways beyond their means, and that government policy helped fuel that.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has now filed his SCOTUS brief regarding his claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf It is weak tea.

Much of the brief consists of riffing on dictum in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 166
(1803), that the acts of an officer appointed by the president “can never be examinable by the courts.” That would come as quite a surprise to President Truman, whose order for the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate the steel mills was enjoined by the courts. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

In a famed concurring opinion in Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson wrote that "When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject." Id., at 637–638. Accord: Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 525 (2008).

If a president acting in contravention of the will of Congress is at the nadir of presidential power, Congress in enacting criminal statutes is at the apogee of Congressional power.

[Z Crazy]

That makes sense.

I mean, surely the President's commander-in-chief powers doesn't extend to ordering war crimes, right?

[Michael Ejercito]

I will assume, without conceding, that ordering the commission of war crimes falls beyond the outer perimeter of Article II authority and can be criminally punished as such.

But can a President be criminally punished for war crimes committed by subordinates, on a vicarious liability standard?

Because I introduce you to the Park doctrine.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/fda-violations-and-the-park-doctrine-5408369/

Did you know… As a leader at an FDA-regulated company, you could be held criminally liable for misdemeanor FDA violations even if you did not know about the activities leading to the violation.

Now, the President is commander-in-chief. A prosecutor could prosecute a former President under Park for war crimes committed by subordinates, even if the former President had no personal knowledge of the activities leading to war crimes.

Would a President have immunity in this context? Would a recklessness standard be enough to place such an accusation outside of the outer perimeter of commander-in-chief authority.

[Riva]

And what is a "war crime"? Killing civilians in drone strikes? Sounds like a certain saucer eared ex-president should start looking for counsel.

[not guilty]

Why, Riva? You may want to peruse 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) before you answer.

[Riva]

What's really amazing to me is that you fail to comprehend that the absurdities that could result if presidents were not afforded immunity for official acts. Of course a president, even as incompetent and harmful as Obama, is entitled to immunity for his official acts. And just so you know, war crimes limitations under the US code are not governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Did you get that from some retarded woke AI search engine? Better not rely on that for anything that actually matters.

[David Nieporent]

There are no such "absurdities." Unless you think it absurd that a president be expected to not commit crimes.

[Riva]

I can see the issue is completely beyond your grasp.

[not guilty]

What federal statute(s) do you claim would apply to Barack Obama's conduct? Please cite by number.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva. You have bandied about an accusation of "war crimes"; now it's time to belly up to the buzzsaw. Identify what federal statute(s) you claim would apply to Barack Obama’s conduct, or admit that you are talking out of your ass.?

[Riva]

In addition to learning something about the US Code, you might want to read some history, start with the French Revolution if you think that only politicians you dislike will be victims in the new police state hell democrats are determined to impose.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva. Ipse dixit assertions are not statutes. As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

[Riva]

So a liberal fascist and an imbecile? Or is that redundant? The US code reference was a hint if you really think the statutory particulars of hypothetical prosecutions of big eared former presidents for war crimes for the murder of civilians is important. The Sesame Street reference is appropriate given that you’re apparently an obnoxious child, intellectually speaking.

[bernard11]

IOW, you have no answer.

I wonder what has caused this recent infestation of RW idiots like Riva.

[Riva]

Is everyone in this comment section an f’ing moron? War Crimes are defined in the US code and if murder of civilians is at issue there ain’t no 5 year statute of limitations. So you flipping retards can go on without me for another 10 or 12 comments discussing the substance and merits of war crimes charges against the One.

[not guilty]

Riva, if you don't know what statutes apply to your claim, just grow up and say so.

[not guilty]

"I mean, surely the President’s commander-in-chief powers doesn’t extend to ordering war crimes, right?"

The short answer to that question is no. Article II, § 3 of the Constitution commands that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Is a sitting president who may have ordered war crimes immune from federal criminal prosecution? That question will not be answered so long as the DOJ adheres to its present policy which holds that a sitting president is immune from prosecution. Where there is no plaintiff, there can be no lawsuit.

Is a former president who may have ordered war crimes immune from federal criminal prosecution? That is a question of first impression, in that the question has never been litigated. Nor will it be litigated in regard to the pending prosecution(s) of Donald Trump, who is not indicted for war crimes.

The question of Trump's immunity arises from the District Court's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment. For purposes of such a motion, the allegations of the indictment must be taken as true. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). The instant Court of Appeals decision, 91 F.4th 1173 (2024), considered and rejected Trump's contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as President. Trump claims that any actions he took in his role as President should be considered “official,” including all the conduct alleged in the Indictment. The Court of Appeals opined at footnote 14 that:

[I]f a President who is running for re-election acts “as office-seeker, not office-holder,” he is not immune even from civil suits. [Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1,] 4 [(D.C. Cir. 2023)] (emphasis in original). Because the President has no official role in the certification of the Electoral College vote, much of the misconduct alleged in the Indictment reasonably can be viewed as that of an office-seeker — including allegedly organizing alternative slates of electors and attempting to pressure the Vice President and Members of the Congress to accept those electors in the certification proceeding. It is thus doubtful that “all five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts.”

It is possible that SCOTUS will address the question of what averments of the indictment do or do not constitute "official acts." It is also possible that the Court will agree with the Court of Appeals that no category of conduct alleged in the indictment includes official acts and reserve the question of a former president's immunity from prosecution for official acts for a future case where the issue is squarely presented.

[Riva]

The issue is immunity for official acts and I believe you seriously misunderstand what is meant when the Court has held that a President’s official acts can never be examinable by the courts. The President cannot be enjoined to perform an official act and the courts cannot examine his motives for performing or not performing an official act. In other words, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over the president in this context. As the President Trump’s brief notes, this doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court over 2 centuries.

[David Nieporent]

Then Biden should just order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is another example.

Could Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich constitute criminal obstruction of justice?

[not guilty]

"Could Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich constitute criminal obstruction of justice?"

That pardon occurred during Clinton's tenure in office, and a pardon is unquestionably an official act. However interesting the question may be, it is wholly academic. The pardon occurred in January 2001 -- more than 23 years ago. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(a).

[Riva]

And not just unreviewable, a good reminder to people not to elect corrupt democrat trash.

[Magister]

The Rich pardon may have been requested by Israel, and perhaps advanced US interests. Every Republican administration in my lifetime has been corrupt enough to require pardons for some of its principle members, with no veneer of advancing the country's interests: Watergate, Iran-Contra, leaking CIA agent identities, and Trump's various campaign staff and advisers (with many more trying to get on the "pardon list").

[Riva]

I would say the republican pardons served the country's interests by sparing us from the political show trials democrat prosecutors are wont to pursue against political opponents. Democrat pardons serve democrat interests.

[Magister]

You would say anything that would excuse Republican corruption. But you only have one example of a questionable pardon by a Democratic president, and I gave multiple examples, from every Republican administration elected (or "elected") in my lifetime.

[Riva]

Like I said, it would be better for the country to have less, not more democrat lawfare abuses.

[Magister]

So you've got nothing but empty partisan rhetoric.

[not guilty]

Oops! I meant to say 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), not § 3161(a).

[Riva]

Maybe it was. It is also not reviewable by a court.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure how it would fit any obstruction statute to pardon someone. But certainly accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon would be criminal, even though the pardon itself would not be.

[not guilty]

George H. W. Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger in December 1992 was legal, but Bush may have had a self-serving motive to hide his complicity in the Iran-Contra scandal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Or he may not have.

[Riva]

Rather seems Biden’s opted for the lawfare version of political assassination instead. And if we must revisit this mind numbingly idiotic hypothetical, I would say you’re describing a coup, and if such a president is not immediately impeached and removed from office, a successful one. In which case, questions of constitutional immunity become academic, which is to say pointless, like the hypothetical. But nice to see you had no intelligent response to my comment.

[not guilty]

The Washington Post points out some piss poor advocacy by Donald Trump's lawyers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/21/trump-lawyers-head-scratching-legal-filings-just-keep-coming/

John Sauer was none too impressive before the Court of Appeals. I am a bit surprised that Trump didn't upgrade for his Supreme Court brief.

[Kazinski]

It doesn't look like the fat lady has sung yet in the Fani Willis saga:

"A Georgia judge enabled former President Trump to immediately appeal the recent ruling declining to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) for her romantic relationship with a top prosecutor overseeing the election interference case there.

In a brief order issued Wednesday, Judge Scott McAfee granted the certificate of immediate review requested by Trump and eight of his co-defendants in the sprawling racketeering case."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4544487-georgia-judge-trump-appeal-fani-willis-disqualification-ruling/

[not guilty]

The certificate of immediate review is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24489448/mcafee_certificateimmediatereview.pdf The order recites “unless directed otherwise by an appellate court, supersedeas shall only apply to the order being appealed. [Citations omitted.] The Court intends to continue addressing the many other unrelated pending pretrial motions, regardless of whether the petition is granted within 45 days of filing, and even if any subsequent appeal is expedited by the appellate court.”

The criteria guiding the appellate court’s consideration of whether to hear the appeal are set forth in Rule 30(b) of the Court of Appeals:

(b) Burden of Proof.
The applicant bears the burden of persuading the Court that the application should be granted. An application for leave to appeal an interlocutory order will be granted 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.

It would appear that the defendants here have a long row to hoe. Judge McAfee’s order is not dispositive of the case. Nor does it appear to be erroneous in light of Georgia precedent regarding appellate review of a trial court’s refusal to disqualify a prosecuting attorney — 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 prosecuting attorney. 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).

In light of these precedents, there is no need to establish precedent in the instant case.

[Commenter_XY]

Does lying to the Court come into play anywhere? The Smasher lied to the Court.

[not guilty]

Judge McAfee did not find that Fani Willis lied to the Court. Indeed, the judge credited her testimony, at least in part. Page 8 of the order recites, "the Court finds, based largely on the District Attorney’s testimony, that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case." https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24482993/order-03-15-2024-103516-41352718-557be37d-0c1b-4f8d-8236-37f565138b56.pdf

Compare that to the Court's findings declining to credit other witnesses. The judge found Nathan Wade's testimony included a "patently unpersuasive explanation for the inaccurate interrogatories he submitted in his pending divorce[.]" (P. 15.) At page 16, the order recites, "the Court finds itself unable to place any stock in the testimony of Terrance Bradley. His inconsistencies, demeanor, and generally non-responsive answers left far too brittle a foundation upon which to build any conclusions." Also at page 16, "In addition, while the testimony of Robin Yearti raised doubts about the State’s assertions, it ultimately lacked context and detail."

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the location data doesn't lie. But I get that the legal question is whether The Smasher smashing the hired help influenced the decision to prosecute.

[not guilty]

The location data was not admitted into evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

That is true NG, nonetheless, it exists and the content is known. Pretty clear The Smasher lied her ass off in Court. So did her secret paramour. That location data could be useful in other proceedings that I am sure will occur.

[OtisAH]

I’ll bite. What “other proceedings” that you’re sure will occur?

[not guilty]

Bar disciplinary proceedings are a possibility. Judge McAfee found essentially that Nathan Wade had falsely answered interrogatories in his divorce proceedings. Prosecution of Wade in Cobb County for perjury is a theoretical possibility -- a less likely possibility, IMO. Whether the cellphone data would be admissible in such proceedings is yet to be determined.

[OtisAH]

I was fishing for him to respond “on appeal” which is almost certainly what he means.

[Commenter_XY]

OtisAH, I actually meant disciplinary proceedings against The Smasher. And Wade. The location data will likely be used to show The Smasher and her paramour Wade lied to the Court.

Doesn't a state prosecutor have a legal duty to speak with candor to the Court?

[not guilty]

All counsel have a legal duty to speak with candor to the Court, whether testifying or acting as an advocate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Judge McAfee did not find that Fani Willis lied to the Court."

IIRC her testimony was that, although she was prohibited from receiving gifts from Wade due to his position as a contractor for her office, the receipt of vacations and stuff didn't count because she reimbursed him in cash leaving no record.

Now, when I'm making transactions that might be called into question, I make damn sure to document them, even if would wouldn't do for my own purposes. Everybody else I know does the same thing. She fact that she didn't document those transactions is strong evidence that they never happened.

Now, Judge McAffee is entitled to his opinion, but I think the rest of us know that she lied to the court.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Did Fani Willis lie to the Court?

I'm asking you objectively, and not what some campaign contributor says.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently expanded the prosecution's duty to disclose impeachment evidence in criminal cases. Some justices worried that the prosecution would be obliged to disclose every instance where a prosecution witness' testimony was not credited. A judge's failure to credit testimony could be a polite way of saying that perjury was committed. Judge McAfee did not say anybody committed perjury. He called into doubt the testimony of at least four people. If these people are prosecution witnesses in a future case, should a prosecutor disclose Judge McAfee's order?

[Kazinski]

Yes, but don't they have to accept the appeal to find that McAfee didn't abuse his discretion?

It may well be that the appeals court decides to accept the case just to reassure the public the result was reached, after all McAfee is on the ballot this year so the case is fraught with political implications both local and national. And if McAfee himself seems to be signalling he'd like them to look at the issue.

[not guilty]

"Yes, but don’t they have to accept the appeal to find that McAfee didn’t abuse his discretion?"

Uh, no. The Court of Appeals doesn't have to accept this interlocutory appeal. The granting or denial of an application for appeal is in the appellate court's discretion. Ga. Code § 5-6-34(b). That discretion is cabined here by the factors set forth in Court of Appeals Rule 30(b), which I quoted above.

[David Nieporent]

The Court of Appeals doesn’t have to accept this interlocutory appeal.

You misread what he wrote. He was asking, "Can they find that McAfee abused his discretion without first accepting the appeal?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, can they?

[David Nieporent]

No, a court cannot make findings in a case that's not before it.

[John F. Carr]

"Judge McAfee’s order is not dispositive of the case."

It is the issue, not the order, that should be dispositive. The defendants requested that the indictment be dismissed. If the judge erroneously refused to disqualify the prosecutor's office, that would be a substantial error.

Not knowing the politics of the local court system, I think the Appeals Court will not overrule the judge because so much of the order is based on credibility findings.

[not guilty]

That is a fair point about the request for dismissal, albeit a theoretical one. The request for dismissal as a remedy was and is frivolous from the get go.

[John F. Carr]

This order is a good candidate for interlocutory review.

It is separate from the merits of the case. It will certainly be brought up on appeal if the case results in convictions. A higher court will have to address it sooner or later. (It is unlikely that nobody will be convicted.)

The judge's order is not subject to harmless error analysis. The answer will not be any different after trial.

An appeal will not delay the case.

If the judge is required to make further factual findings or apply a different legal standard, he can do so while his memory is still fresh.

[not guilty]

Those are not the criteria of Rule 30(b) of the Georgia Court of Appeals, which I quoted upthread.

There is not any realistic possibility that the appellate court will find that Judge McAfee abused his discretion. To reiterate the authorities I cited above, the Court of Appeals applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to disqualify a prosecuting attorney. 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).

Judge McAfee's ruling is detailed and fact-specific. I have litigated hundreds of appeals during my career. It is well nigh impossible to get an appellate court to reverse a trial court's fact-bound ruling where abuse of discretion is the applicable standard of review. Where, as here, the order relies upon credibility determinations, an appellant's burden is insurmountable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"well nigh impossible to get an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s fact-bound ruling"

When you are the lawyer seeking reversal, sure.

[not guilty]

And you have litigated how many criminal appeals, Bob?

[Bob from Ohio]

That’s a joke, I say, that’s a joke, son.

[not guilty]

How apt that you choose to quote a cartoon chicken, Bob!

[TwelveInchPianist]

The modern left is seriously confused about gender.

[not guilty]

CNN is reporting that Fani Willis plans to ask for a trial setting in Fulton County, possibly for this summer. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/politics/fani-willis-trump-georgia-trial/index.html

That is a good thing, now that the circus is over. (An interlocutory appeal is possible, but highly unlikely.) I hope the focus will now return to the defendants' conduct and whether the State will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did what the grand jury has accused them of doing.

[Krychek_2]

Is there any claim that any other deputy Willis hired would have done anything different in prosecuting this case? Even if every fact alleged by the Defendants is true, this strikes me as a simple case of nepotism, which I don't see as disqualifying standing alone. Poor judgment, yes. Grounds to vote against her when she runs for re-election, yes. Possibly even grounds for bar discipline. But I've yet to see any evidence that it changed the manner in which the case has been prosecuted.

So if Nathan Wade has handled the case the way every other prosecutor would have handled it (or at least there's no evidence to the contrary), then where is the prejudice to the defendants?

[not guilty]

I remain puzzled that Mike Roman's motion to dismiss/disqualify kvetched that Nathan Wade's credentials were too thin to warrant assignment to a case of this magnitude. (Judge McAfee shut down that line of argument at the evidentiary hearing.)

Napoleon Bonaparte counseled, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Do the defendants believe that they are now better off with Wade out of the case? Suppose Fani Willis now brings in a more highly qualified special assistant?

[David Nieporent]

Suppose Fani Willis now brings in a more highly qualified special assistant?

How long would it take such a person to get up to speed? Delay is the friend of defendants (who are not being held awaiting trial), especially the main defendant here.

[not guilty]

We are still months away from trial (for which no date has been set). Two Special Assistants other than Nathan Wade remain, so that degree of continuity will be preserved. A mountain of evidence has been gathered by the Special Purpose Grand Jury, all of which will be available to any new counsel. Much case preparation has already been done. Had Wade remained on the case, I am skeptical that he would have been heavily involved in presentation of the case to the jury.

A decent jury trial litigator will have plenty of time in which to get up to speed here.

[John F. Carr]

It is not necessary to prove prejudice.

A randomly selected replacement prosecutor would be better for the defense than Fani Willis. That is not a reason for the judge to disqualify her. It is a reason for the defense team to work hard to get her off the case. If Trump had shot a man on Peachtree Street there would be much less to gain.

[Estragon]

NBC news is reporting that Judge McAfee delayed issuing his ruling for several days due to threats to both him and his family.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably from one of the Crips or Bloods Fanny was fucking before she met the Black Bozo the Clown (did you ever see a sadder face than poor old Nathan?)

[Drewski]

Meds, Frank, take them.

[Bob from Ohio]

8 of 15 Georgia Court of Appeals judges were appointed by GOP governors. State wide elections so the rest are likely mainly conservative, though I don't know for sure. So the home court advantage for the persecution is likely gone.

The 3 judges deciding must be unanimous or it goes to a sort of en banc.

[Kazinski]

In Trump's classified documents trial Aileen Cannon has asked attorneys to make arguments on two dueling jury instructions:

"In one, Cannon said jurors should “make a factual finding as to whether the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt” the records are personal or presidential.

In the other, Cannon proposed telling jurors “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 as categorization decision.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/19/donald-trump-classified-documents-jury-instructions/73027873007/

Anyone have an opinion on which instruction best reflects the law?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

See for yourself; it isn't a close argument.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2201

[David Nieporent]

The first accurately reflects the law of the PRA, but neither one has a damn thing to do with this case, which is about the Espionage Act — and obstruction of justice — not the PRA.

Nothing in the PRA authorizes a president to keep national defense information, refuse to return it, and then lie about it.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Except if Robert Hur says you are frail, with poor memory, and barely able to take the pressure of actually answering for your crimes.

[Nige]

Grind those sour grapes into sour wine.

[Theendoftheleft]

There goes Ingsoc, defending banana republicanism again.

Why would a principled liberal take your stance? Why wouldn't a liberal want like cases to be treated alike and the rule of law to prevail, rather than disparate treatment based on colour team allegiance?

[Nige]

‘Why would a principled liberal take your stance?’

Which stance, that the efforts to draw complete equivalences between Trump’s document brouhaha and Biden’s are cynical and dishonest, but characteristic of supporters who try to boil Trump’s trangressions down to pure abstraction in order to elide enormous factual differences with other cases and thereby claim massive unfariness?

‘Why wouldn’t a liberal want like cases to be treated alike and the rule of law to prevail,’

Alike in the sense of not pretending the actual facts of cases aren’t what determine the outcomes.

See also the Jan 6th defenders below.

[Theendoftheleft]

You know nothing about law or the cases in question. So, your claims about drawing comparisons are just more lies, Ingsoc. You're a fraud. An evil, pathologically lying, fraud with totalitarian aspirations.

Have you also noticed how most of the Jan 6 folks are not being sent away for more than a few years? Do you know why, especially given the the insurrection statute and the sentencing guidelines? JUST KIDDING: again, you know nothing about such things and don't even care to learn about them.

[Davedave]

What does Nige have to do with principles or liberalism? He's a neo-Nazi, just like the rest of you.

Watching you lot split hairs like different flavours of Marxists debating the dialectic is endlessly amusing, because you all believe exactly the same things when it really comes down to it: kill them all, especially the Jews.

[Theendoftheleft]

I’m neither a liberal nor a Nazi (neo or otherwise). Nige made a whole career pretending to be the former, however. He is squarely in the totalitarian camp, with the Marxists, when it comes to comprehensive social re-engineering projects.

If you were so worried about the Jews not getting murdered, then perhaps you ought not to have voted for people who imported millions of RELIGIOUSLY anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist folks (not just politically anti-Zionist folks) into America for the last twenty years or so. Perhaps you also ought not to have demanded a homeland for the Hebrews whilst simultaneously condemning nationalism and other forms of group preservation in others as ‘xenophobic’ or ‘ignorant’. You’d have more allies had you not been completely obnoxious hypocrites about this.

Did you vote for Bush or Gore (instead of Buchanan) in 2000? McCain or Obama (instead of the Constitution Party)? Obama or or Romney? Clinton ever? Because every one of those options, save the bracketed ones, was a vote to destroy the Jews as a group—and all other groups—in the name of crafting the New American Person (post-ethnic, post-national, post-racial, post-religious) and society.

Too bad most American Hebrews haven’t even figured that out yet. It is obnoxious to listen to them now scream about their fears and real sense of mortal danger, given how they brought it on themselves (and upon their brethren in other countries). Fuck, 80% of them will vote for Biden again, too, screaming ‘anti-Semitism!’ as the blue team continues to purge Hebrews from the party, from universities, and from other positions of power in order to prioritise those who would actually genocide them instead. They feel betrayed by the blue team ONLY because they never really paid heed to what the blue team was saying they really wanted for society.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Which to most of us means you admit the charges. Fine, I'll take it 🙂

[not guilty]

Once again, Kazinski eschews original source materials.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.407.0.pdf

The USA Today article's description of the proposed instructions is incomplete. The commentary from experienced practitioners, however, is interesting.

[Kazinski]

Actually I read the original order from Judge Cannon first, but the summary seemed reasonable, and the original I read was an image so I couldn't cut and paste.

This isn't a law review, its a comments thread. Can you point out what was misleading about the condensed version?

[not guilty]

The USA article recites that Judge Cannon's "order called for lawyers on both sides to 'engage' with two possible instructions she proposed." That is incomplete to the point that a reader could easily be misled.

The order in fact directed 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, while reserving counterarguments." [Emphasis added.] The Court was not merely inviting counsel to comment on proposed instructions (as judges routinely do). Judge Cannon affirmatively misstated the applicable law and directed counsel to "assume" such statements to be correct.

She may as well have directed counsel to submit stipulations of fact that assume that the sun rises in the west.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, but that's not the part I quoted, I quoted the meat of the two different instructions, both snippets seemed to adequately convey the gist of it.

But go ahead, get down in the weeds if you must, but it doesn't seem to help you see what's actually going on at eye level.

[Armchair]

If it was a law review, NG could accurately spell "Ninth Circuit".

[not guilty]

I am still puzzled. What does the Ninth Circuit have to do with any topic we have been discussing?

[SimonP]

This isn’t a law review, its a comments thread...

And your law degree is scribbled in crayon on the back of a piece of bark, so your evaluation of the summary's accuracy is patently suspect.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

I go with him because saying 'patently suspect' and not having an opinion is cowardly. Say what you mean

[Commenter_XY]

How long before this happens here in America?
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-knife-to-canadian-jews/

Does 1A protect shechitah?

[David Nieporent]

Does 1A protect shechitah?

Not in Canada!

As a more serious answer to your question, under the post-Smith interpretation of the 1A, it does not protect shechitah unless a proposed ban is targeted at Jews. (See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, where the city banned ritual sacrifice solely to target Santeria.)

Such a ban would likely run afoul of the RFRA if done by the federal government, and perhaps by state RFRA analogues if done at the state level, though that would have to determined on a case-by-case basis.

[Martinned2]

Such a ban would likely run afoul of the RFRA if done by the federal government

Not if it is done by statute, presumably?

[David Nieporent]

Even if it's done by statute, unless the statute says otherwise. RFRA says:

SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of this Act.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this Act.

[Commenter_XY]

Could that extend to making a mohel illegal?
No more brit milah in America?

[John F. Carr]

A judge ruled that Congress did not have the power to ban female circumcision.

[Martinned2]

That seems unlikely. (Not that a judge ruled it. US judges rule all sorts of things. But that it is right.)

[David Nieporent]

On commerce clause grounds, not first amendment grounds. And that's easily circumventable. All Congress has to do is add some findings about its effect on interstate commerce and add that as an element.

[not guilty]

Right. Like with so-called partial birth abortion, see 18 U.S.C. § 1531, the surgical instruments move in interstate commerce.

[Martinned2]

Presumably they couldn't make the specific Jewish version of circumcision illegal. But they could certainly ban circumcision in general.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. The Rabbinic version, which is פריעה, is exceptionally disgusting and statistics indicates that Rabbinic circumcision may be a contributing factor for SIDS. There is no similar statistical correlation of Biblical (Karaite, Samaritan) circumcision or Islamic circumcision with SIDS.

[Davedave]

What crazy Nazi nonsense is this? How can you be this stupid? Surely you realise that the Nazis don't actually accept Jewish people like you who spout their nonsense; on the contrary, they see cretins like you as the very worst of the Jews, being traitors to their own kind, and historically you lot were the first into the gas chambers. Your craven idiocy will not protect you.

[Theendoftheleft]

What's wrong with genital mutilation? You live in a world where liberals and progressives want gender reassignment surgeries and puberty blockers, after all. Progressives fight for this as a matter of fundamental human right. Will you deprive 1.5 billion Muslims of theirs?

At any rate, the practice is surely not as disgusting as when the Prophet raped his child bride, no? HOW ON EARTH are you going to normalise that for the Western masses? How about the consanguinity rates amongst Muslims?

[Ed Grinberg]

compare:
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2012-07-03/germany-regional-court-ruling-criminalizes-circumcision-of-young-boys/

[Commenter_XY]

Hence my question....if a court decides to do a 'balancing of rights' does Jewish ritual practice become illegal? Do we get hunted down and prosecuted for obeying religious commandments and practice (e.g. brit milah)?

[Martinned2]

Why should circumcising girls be illegal and circumcising boys legal? Again, religion doesn't mean you're exempt from generally applicable laws.

[bernard11]

Because the consequences of the two practices are very different?

[Martinned2]

There are many different forms of female genital mutilation. And they're all illegal in the US as far as I know.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

[Ridgeway]

Not just the consequences, but the practices themselves. We may call it female "circumcision," but it bears little resemblance to male circumcision.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We may call it female “circumcision,” but it bears little resemblance to male circumcision."

Not true. One strategy to mitigate the practice is to replace traditional mutilation with a ritual nick that is less intrusive than male circumcision. And it's still illegal.

[Theendoftheleft]

Secular people do this too, so the balancing of rights won't be restricted to religious ones.

More than that, the question is the constitutionality of the putative general law here. Germany has enough to handle now. It doesn't need an intifada across the country over this judgment, and so this is unlikely to hold up on appeal.

It deserves such an intifada, though, albeit one run by the natives. 🙂

[Theendoftheleft]

I CANNOT wait for the backlash from the Islamic world, including the Islamic population in Germany. The Jews are too cowardly to do anything about it. But surely the German court, in addition to forcing an ECHR decision, expects some fatwas.

🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

Smith is the likely result in such a case.

However, in the COVID cases, SCOTUS seems to have given some thought to whether a law was truly "generally applicable," or whether there were exceptions that made it not so. Like the ban on gathering in a house of worship, but not a bowling alley.

Let's say shechita is banned as cruel to animals. What other forms of animal cruelty also need to be banned? Hunting? Trapping? Raising calves in confined pens? Live-killing lobsters?

I don't have a definitive answer on this, but if it ever came to it, I can imagine lawyers making arguments like that.

[Commenter_XY]

BL...Is it something to worry about? I believe that it now is, incredibly.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hard to say. Until recently, it seemed very unlikely in the U.S. Now, not so sure.
Watch the deeply blue states like California and Colorado to try it first.
One thing that would be an impediment is that I don't see how you can ban shechita without also banning Halal slaughter, either Constitutionally or politically. And that would be very hard to do.

[Martinned2]

Why would it? To put it in US legal terms, the freedom of religion does not give religious people an opt out from generally applicable laws, like animal cruelty laws.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-european-rights-court-upholds-bans-on-halal-kosher-slaughter-in-belgium/

[ThePublius]

It's only considered cruelty by some because they have redefined cruelty over the years.

Soon we'll be required to massage cows and give them beer with their feed, and then dispatch them by lethal injection or something.

I mean, is stunning and sticking cruel? Maybe some day. Then what?

[Don Nico]

Pub..
That is a great idea for cows. It is know to produce wonderfully marbled beef.
Now the price of a steak goes to $200/lb, but what are a few dollars more to the cow.

[Nige]

Then only outlaws will stun and stick.

[Martinned2]

It’s only considered cruelty by some because they have redefined cruelty over the years.

Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

[Davedave]

Ah, the fash is back under a new name. What it has to do with anything is that the decision pointed to above was a shameful error by the courts, given that the definition was deliberately changed with the sole intent of banning religious slaughter on an evidence-free basis.

AFAIR the headline is actually wrong, and the case is still under litigation. The EU's top court ruled one way, but it will be overruled by the ECHR because it is so obviously a law aimed at making religious people from two religions leave Belgium.

[Josh R]

I did not realize until yesterday that the comments Trump made about the "J6 hostages" being patriots at his rally in Ohio last Saturday came after a recording of a charity single that Trump help make called Justice for All. It's 20 inmates convicted of J6 related crimes (the J6 choir) singing the national anthem with Trump providing a voiceover of the Pledge of Allegiance.

You would think in a rational world, the recording would be widely recognized as a sick celebration of what happened on J6. To be sure, Trump's base who believe the election was stolen from Trump is a cult beyond reason. But, the polls show there are people beyond his base willing to vote for Trump who didn't in 2020. Are they going to wake up?

[Armchair]

There are many people who feel that those who were imprisoned for their non-violent acts on January 6th represent an abuse of justice. They peacefully walked through an open door into the Capitol, stayed 15 minutes, taking nothing, turned around and left of their own accord, and were imprisoned for their actions.

How do you feel about these individuals?

[Moderation4ever]

If the capital police arrest nuns for praying in the Capital Rotunda why should J6 trespassers not be arrested?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1982/12/03/nuns-pray-in-capitol-are-arrested/b105bb54-b8ae-4fb0-8bf3-654ca18557ad/

[Armchair]

Did the Feds then prosecute the nuns, and were they convicted and incarcerated on a jail sentence of several months or longer?

[Nige]

Did they all commit the same crimes?

[Armchair]

Sigh...

Point being, simply arresting (then releasing) a peaceful protestor is actually reasonably common. Convicting and imprisoning them on a longer jail sentence is not.

[Nige]

Point being, did they commit actual crimes other than peacefully protesting, which isn't itself much of a crime, if a crime at all?

[David Nieporent]

The J6 insurrectionists were not "peaceful protesters." Even if they didn't personally engage in violence, they were part of a mob that did. And they weren't protesting anything; they were trying to overthrow the government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which government was that? The new Congress was sworn in, the SC was still in place and Donald Trump was still the President.
Maybe overturn a questionable election would be more accurate?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Overthrow the government?!?

Are you really that stupid???

[bernard11]

They were part of a plan to prevent Biden from assuming the Presidency, and to install Trump, the election results notwithstanding.

All this "peaceful tourists" shit is fucking nonsense that idiots and gullible fools like you and Armchair have chosen to believe.

It's ridiculous beyond belief. Do you have no self-respect?

[OtisAH]

Stop asking questions you already know the answers to.

[VinniUSMC]

BLM rioters were not "peaceful protesters." Even if they didn’t personally engage in violence, they were part of a mob that did. And they weren’t protesting anything; they were trying to burn and loot completely unrelated businesses.

David thinks all of the BLM protesters should be arrested and jailed? Probably not. Get that 50 cents David.

[Heedless]

If a pack of BLM rioters broke into a Target, all of them should be arrested. Even the ones who only participated in the entering and not the breaking.

The same goes for the Jan. 6 people. They knew (or damn well ought to have known) that there weren't secret bonus visiting hours. All of them are culpable.

[VinniUSMC]

Target is private property. Capitol police were letting people into a public building. Not the same.

[bernard11]

How dare you introduce common sense into the discussion?

[Armchair]

"The J6 insurrectionists were not “peaceful protesters.”
Many of them were, as the court documents make clear.

"Even if they didn’t personally engage in violence, they were part of a mob that did."
Collective guilt? Collective responsibility for others crimes? Really? Do you propose that in all situations? Or just this particular one?

[bernard11]

More trolling by Armchair.

[JasonT20]

Trolling is right. What rational person with a functioning brain would think that hundreds of people could just walk into the Capitol building while Congress was conducting business? What people that had to have walked past broken barricades and other signs of obvious chaos to enter the building thought that they were just being let in like ordinary visitors? What people went inside that had been hearing for hours others shouting about the election was stolen, Democrats were traitors, Mike Pence was a traitor for not unilaterally rejecting certified Electoral Votes, had any reason to think that they were just protesting?

I can see some of them being caught up in the moment and rush of emotions, and that caused them to not think at all about what they were really doing and the consequences. Perhaps a few might even have been deluded enough to believe that they really were "just protesting." But none of that would excuse any violations of law that they committed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Violations of the law like trespassing, blocking traffic, violating curfews, etc. often happen during protests.

It's refreshing to see people finally taking this sort of thing seriously.

[JasonT20]

Just to put it in perspective, I can't go into my county's fucking school board meetings without going through a metal detector. Only a true moron or delusional fanatic would think that going into the Capitol building that day in the manner that they did would not be breaking the law.

[not guilty]

“Many of them were, as the court documents make clear.”

Except that when I challenged you to do so, you couldn’t name a single one, Armchair. You seem to be getting your information from that noted source, Otto Yourazz.

Some — I surmise likely most — of those arrested for breaching the Capitol on January 6, 2021 were charged with minor offenses. Others were charged with much more serious offenses. The DOJ tailored its charging decisions according to the defendants’ relative culpability and the gravity of their criminal conduct.

Whether violent or not, knowingly entering and remaining in a restricted building without lawful authority is a misdemeanor offense, per18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1). Whether violent or not, willfully and knowingly parading, demonstrating, or picketing in any of the Capitol buildings is a misdemeanor offense, per 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G).

It is not only MAGA Republicans who have been charged under these statutes. Hundreds of those who protested Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination were arrested for non-violent conduct within the Capitol buildings.

[JasonT20]

Hundreds of those who protested Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination were arrested for non-violent conduct within the Capitol buildings.

What?!?! That can't possibly be true, because then it would look like the Jan. 6 rioters weren't being singled out for political persecution and are just being prosecuted like typical lawbreakers!

[SimonP]

Protesting that some of the J6ers felt no actual need to engage in violence once they entered the building unhindered is not exactly asserting their innocence.

Even if some of those chowderheads had no intention to do anything other than undertake an unauthorized, unguided tour of the Capitol building after violence had caused Congress to flee and take cover, their presence in the building was hardly innocent. At best, they were merely "peaceful" trespassers taking advantage of an historic and traumatic moment for our modern democracy. You shouldn't be defending them like they were just six year olds wandering around a restricted acrea where their parents have lost track of them, unless you want too insinuate that they really are as dumb as they appear.

[Armchair]

It's fairly unusual to actually prosecute protestors who may be technically trespassing (or technically breaking the law in some other area) in the United States and give them prison sentences. Especially if they engaged in no violent actions.

J6 represents an anomaly here.

[Bwaaah]

^yes^

Vilify little people, protestors, for the sake of rallying the Democratic base around anti-Trumpism.

Get Trump. Any way. Every way. Now.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[SimonP]

It's fairly unusual to characterize people tromping through the Capitol building after it's been emptied and locked down due to threats of violence as merely "trespassing protesters."

They deserve to be prosecuted, and anyone who believes in the American experiment would agree. There may not in all cases be evidence that they were intentionally participating in an armed "insurrection," but they were part of a crowd that was trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, as a willing participant in Trump's broader plan to overturn the election - a plan that nearly succeeded but for a few key officials' refusal to go along.

You're a traitorous scumbag, Armchair, and you're playing with a fire you won't be able to put out, when it starts to burn your own house.

[Bob from Ohio]

“trespassing protesters.”

Yet that was the charge for most. Often had a fancy name like "entering a restricted area" but still trespass.

[SimonP]

You must have deleted the portion of your comment where you provide an actual argument.

[Armchair]

Indeed. A look at the actual indictment documents, actual charges, demonstrates this. I'm amazed at how many of the cases had a police officer order the protestor to leave the Capitol...and the protestor just did so...yet charges were still brought.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm amazed at how many people get told to pull over by a cop and they comply, and get a speeding ticket anyway.

I'm amazed at how many people will trespass into someone's home and get told by the property owner to leave, and do so without a fuss, yet still get charged for trespassing.

Good lord you're a moron.

[Davedave]

Without disagreeing with the main thrust of the point you're making, US laws on trespass are indeed amazing and bizarre, so that wasn't the best example.

In the UK, if you trespass on someone's property without breaking and entering, or otherwise committing some criminal act, and leave when told to bugger off, that's the end of it. It can give rise to a civil suit, but not a criminal one. That's why we have specific laws pertaining to invasions of Parliament, and so-on,

[Super Scary]

Armchair, you'll never convince these people that we weren't inches away from the entirety of the US government being taken over by primarily unarmed boomers. Just give it up.

[SimonP]

Fuck you. By now we all know what Trump's plans were. The J6 insurrectionists were only one part of the broader scheme. We got very close to Trump laying an illegitimate claim to the presidency, and you're trying to memory-hole that.

[Jerry B.]

Is that broader scheme in the same binder as the 9/11 False flag attack proof that’s been withheld from all except a few in the know?

[SimonP]

All of this is very well documented, both in the media and in several indictments. I'm referring to Trump's fake electors scheme.

[Theendoftheleft]

You're a psychopath.

Do you ever re-read your bullshit here?

[Bwaaah]

These are the people who are wise to b.s. "conspiracy theories." The U.S. government was at the edge of being overthrown by a guy with some twist ties, another with horns on his head, and some "racists" they call Proud Boys. Nobody noticed that the "insurrectionists" failed, under their master plan, to even make a substantive demand. How imminent what *that* threat?

But yes, they did walk out without a fight. Prosecute them all! Prison time for trespassing!

These are the demands of people who couldn't care less if the thousands of rioters in 2020 who vandalized and burned and destroyed property all around the country go unpunished. (Even though they admit those people should have been prosecuted, they were silent when it was time to prosecute. "Our people meant well. Your people are despicable.")

These are the advocates of social justice, the more moral people, the one's who know what compassion really means. And listen to their message: "Suck my wind, you stupid right-wing gnat!"

[David Nieporent]

How do you feel about these individuals?

They're criminals, though of course they deserve to be punished less harshly than people who did worse. (And of course they are being punished less harshly than people who did worse.)

If a mob breaks into a Target and starts looting it, do we excuse those who entered after the doors had already been broken open because they didn't need to smash their way in? Do we say, "Oh, you didn't personally take any merchandize, so it's okay to have been part of the mob?"

[Armchair]

Note how you've changed things. You've gone from "peacefully" to something else.

I wonder if you have the same "strong sense of justice" in regards to other protestors.

[Michael P]

Yes, regardless of which specific protest we are talking about, DMN has the same strong sense that conservatives should be punished beyond the full extent of the law and leftists should be lauded in proportion to how far left they are.

When he says "of course", you can bet that the following words are deeply dishonest.

[Nige]

This just means he doesn't accept the novel legal theory that conservatives should only ever be punished for crimes other people haven't committed, thereby rendering the conservatives innocent.

[bernard11]

Are you seriously saying the J6 guys entered peacefully?

You are deranged.

[Bwaaah]

Are you seriously saying nobody prosecuted for J6 entered peacefully? What is your definition of "peacefully"?

(Please be mindful of "mainly peaceful" nationwide protests.)

[bernard11]

Among other things, "peacefully" means not as part of a mob that has broken in doors and windows and assaulted law enforcement officers trying to protect the property.

Surer, you can enter "peacefully" after someone else has done all that dirty work on your behalf, but that doesn't actually count.

If my friend breaks down the door to a house and enters, and I follow without doing more damage, I haven't entered peacefully.

(Please be mindful of “mainly peaceful” nationwide protests.)

Oh stop with this strawman. Those who broke into buildings, started fires, committed vandalism, should be appropriately punished. I suppose you can find some on the left who disagree, but not many, unlike the nearly universal approval on the right of the J6 thugs.

[Bwaaah]

Your definition of "peaceful" means not around people who are non-peaceful. That's a B.S. definition.

[David Nieporent]

Not being co-conspirators with people who are non-peaceful.

[Bwaaah]

Oh. Crank up the innuendo. "Co-conspirators." All of them, by implication (of blahblah?).

GoooOOOO law enforcement!

[Bwaaah]

Nieporent: They, all the J6 people, you know, the “co-conspirators”

They came from all around the country. They planned their assault on the Capitol Building ahead of time through through their secret MAGA network. And then they covered their tracks.

The feds have been unable to assemble electronic evidence of the widespread MAGA conspiracy. (“it’s too much work for us.”) The DOJ, do to its disinterest in J6 prosecutions, has chosen to settled for lesser crimes and spare J6 MAGAs the more sever criminal conspiracy convictions.

Nieporent knows about the GRAND MAGA CONSPIRACY. He knows why they’re all "co-conspirators".

Run, MAGA! Run! The left is onto you! They’ve got your number. They know what you’ve been up to! You’re not the only people who know conspiracies!

[David Nieporent]

A conspiracy does not require months of planning. If a bunch of people at the Steal The Election rally spontaneously said to each other, "Let's attack Congress to stop them from doing their job," that's a conspiracy.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, yes. As Trump boomed over his loudspeakers on the mall, you could see all the MAGA people huddling with each other, crafting their master plans to take the Capitol Building. Not a spontaneous riot, but a conspiracy, hatched in minutes, surreptitiously, under the light of day. (It's a shame the FBI didn't have anybody there to lean in, listen, and warn the Capitol Police.)

When they chanted, "Stop the steal," that was code for, “Let’s attack Congress to stop them from doing their job.”

Conspirators! Prison!

Cold, hard, facts, from David Nieporent.

[David Nieporent]

When they chanted, “Stop the steal,” that was code for, “Let’s attack Congress to stop them from doing their job.”

Sure, in pretty much the same way that "See you later" is "code" for "Goodbye."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bwaaah,

If you had any knowledge of this subject, you'd be aware that people knew ahead of time that Trump was going to call for a march to the Capitol.

Correct your ignorance.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/group-planned-jan-6-rally-lied-capitol-march-plans-government-report-s-rcna130343

[Bwaaah]

Jason: What, specifically, is it that you think I said that you take issue with? What is your issue?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You seemingly need to be led by the nose to every issue that came out of your own mouth. Remarkable.

"As Trump boomed over his loudspeakers on the mall, you could see all the MAGA people huddling with each other, crafting their master plans to take the Capitol Building. Not a spontaneous riot, but a conspiracy, hatched in minutes, surreptitiously, under the light of day."

It was known AHEAD OF TIME that Trump would order his useful idiots to the Capitol.

[Bwaaah]

I read your evidence. Yes, there were people planning to go to the Capitol Building, and there were uncertain indications that the President would push for a walk to the building. Nowhere is there any evidence of specificity of that plan, nor especially, a widespread plan to forcefully breach the Capitol Building.

And that passage that I wrote was facetious. Nothing you have said contradicts what I said or believe.

Hindsight seems to turn what you know now into what you believe was known then. You are filled with the certainty of hindsight that is completely absent as life actually unfolds. You don't know about any big conspiracy to storm the Capitol Building that day, even if you believe in one.

[bernard11]

It means "not in conjunction with people who entered non-peacefully." Nothing BS about it.

What does "not around" mean in your comment? If you a building being entered forcefully, and you cheer that on, and then follow the offenders in, you have not entered peacefully, IMO. And destroying property and threatening the lawful occupants make it even less peaceful, no matter whether you broke a window or not.

I don't remotely understand how any rational person can defend these thugs.

[Jerry B.]

“Among other things, “peacefully” means not as part of a mob that has broken in doors and windows and assaulted law enforcement officers trying to protect the property.”

So the BLM protesters who broke doors and windows and assaulted police officers trying to protect property, and also killed and injured innocent civilians, not to mention burning and looting stores should all be in jail for several years? Right?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes. This has been another episode of simple answers to stupid questions.

[Armchair]

Some of them did. Just through an open door. Look it up. Look at the pictures. Look at the cops simply standing aside in some cases.

[Nige]

If you just look at the pictures of people walking in, that proves stuff that happened outside those pictures never happened!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps authorities made bad calls when refraining from using more force against the criminals who attacked the Capitol, but that doesn't justify the criminals' conduct.

[Theendoftheleft]

How desperate and pathetic.

Your betters in more civilized countries don't believe you, AIDS.

Carry on clinger/Somin.

What are your kids' names?

[Dr. Ed 2]

How many BLM looters were prosecuted?

None....

[Nige]

Yes, no BLM looters were prosecuted for Jan 6th. The injustice of it.

[Estragon]

“None”

Hahaha, no

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot address looting but I saw any number of convictions for people who committed criminal acts during riots following George Floyd's death. My local newspaper carried a number of stories about the convictions.

Here is a sampling.
https://madison.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-gets-3-years-of-probation-ordered-to-pay-5-000-for-helping-tear-down/article_59785888-d837-5d62-9684-454f2f7d4024.html

https://madison.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/keeping-track-over-50-people-facing-felony-charges-in-vandalism-looting-violence-during-protests/collection_c8341750-d1e2-51d9-884b-470c95366899.html#3

https://madison.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/madison-protest-leader-arrested-for-allegedly-taking-sledgehammer-to-police-memorial/article_961c540c-d4f1-5655-bb2f-f91822925b5e.html

[Bob from Ohio]

"None…."

Just about.

10,000 were arrested but 95% were never prosecuted. Most got light sentences, those 2 lawyers in NY got 2-3 years for using molotov cocktails.

300 fed prosecutions for hundreds of riots over months with at least 25 dead versus 1000 for one afternoon with no one killed by a rioter.

[Nige]

So they arrested 95% of them without cause.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, left wing prosecutors just dropped them.

[Nige]

Which is another way of saying they were innocent, you just wish they weren't.

[David Nieporent]

Most of the J6 insurrectionists got light sentences, also.

[Bob from Ohio]

People don't get prison for misdemeanors.

[Armchair]

Except J6 protestors.

I wonder how many of these protestors will see a jail sentence for assault that occurred just yesterday. I'm guessing not a one.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13223213/kyle-rittenhouse-university-memphis-chased-offstage-blm-protestors.html

[Nige]

Is it because nobody got assaulted?

Why this obsession with claiming that people not getting charged for crimes they didn’t commit makes it unfair for J6th people to get charged for crimes they did commit?

[not guilty]

Armchair, what Tennessee or federal statute(s) do you claim the protestors at the University of Memphis violated? Please cite by number.

It seems that Kyle Rittenhouse is quite a weenie when he doesn't have his AR-15 popgun.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's possible that they violated 18 U.S.C. § 241.

[not guilty]

Violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 by heckling? I don't think so. Have you read that statute?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair. What Tennessee or federal statute(s) do you claim the protestors at the University of Memphis violated?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly heckling wouldn't violate it. But it's not clear that heckling was all that happened.

[not guilty]

TwelveInch, what right or privilege secured to Kyle Rittenhouse by the Constitution or laws of the United States was the "conspiracy" directed toward?

Rittenhouse certainly has a federal constitutional right to free expression vis-a-vis the government, which he freely exercised. The protestors did not willfully seek to have state or federal actors silence Rittenhouse.

He does not have such a right to a receptive audience of non-governmental actors. Assuming arguendo that the protestors conspired to themselves injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate Rittenhouse for his message, but did not seek to engage or employ the machinery of government do so, that conspiracy is not a § 241 violation.

While I am loath to do your homework, the only potential violation of criminal law that I see from the conduct described in the Daily Mail article is that the saxophone players or drummers may have violated Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-305(b) by making unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities, a Class C misdemeanor. That offense is presumptively probatable, so no sentence of confinement is likely. Any prosecution therefor should ordinarily be initiated by citation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-118 rather than custodial arrest.

[Nige]

'How do you feel about these individuals?'

Facts don't care about their feelings.

[not guilty]

"There are many people who feel that those who were imprisoned for their non-violent acts on January 6th represent an abuse of justice. They peacefully walked through an open door into the Capitol, stayed 15 minutes, taking nothing, turned around and left of their own accord, and were imprisoned for their actions."

Armchair, do any of these "many people" meeting the description you provide have, you know, names and docket numbers? Or are you making shit up?

[Armchair]

Interesting you think that anyone who may view that some January 6th protestors were unjustly imprisoned need a "docket number"...implying they should be put on trial as well.

[not guilty]

Where do you get that from what I said? You were talking about persons who, according to you, were "imprisoned for their actions.” Being imprisoned necessarily involves being prosecuted.

I am challenging you to give the names and docket numbers of particular January 6 defendants who in fact "peacefully walked through an open door into the Capitol, stayed 15 minutes, taking nothing, turned around and left of their own accord." If you can't do that, man up and say so.

[Armchair]

"Where do you get that from what I said?"
From parsing the English language properly.

What I said "There are many people who feel that those who were imprisoned.."
What you wrote "Armchair, do any of these “many people”...names and docket numbers"

"Many people" refers to those who have feelings about those being imprisoned. You directly quoted "Many people"...so that is who you were talking about in terms of docket numbers.

If you can't parse and understand English properly, perhaps you should stick to cutting and pasting legal links.

[Estragon]

I think you’re having trouble. He’s asking for docket numbers of people who fit this description:

“They peacefully walked through an open door into the Capitol, stayed 15 minutes, taking nothing, turned around and left of their own accord, and were imprisoned for their actions.”

This does not suggest you are also deserving of a docket number for thinking your thoughts… unless you were there too (then, maybe). Were you? You and Jimmy the Dane take a lil January field trip to DC by chance?

[Davedave]

I'm not sure why you're excusing sedition and support for treason. Of course that's a crime, and if the US had any balls, all the online commenters from the Trump cult would be off to jail.

[Bwaaah]

Gracyn Dawn Courtright - Case No. 21-cr-72 (CRC)

Sentenced to 30 days in prison followed by 12 months supervised release, community service.

She was in the Capitol Building from 2:42pm to 3:06pm. Her aggravating offenses appear to have been stepping on glass on the floor of the building, and picking up/carrying a free-standing "Members Only" sign, property of the Capitol Building, which she promptly surrendered when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer.

Let the smearing begin...

[Estragon]

What smearing? She pled guilty to theft.

You also left out $500 restitution!

[Bwaaah]

Did she steal something?

[Estragon]

Do you know what conversion means?

[Bwaaah]

I don't understand where she stole something. Here's the plea agreement.

[Estragon]

Thought experiment:

You leave the keys in your car while you dash into the piggly wiggly. Hunter Biden hops in, and drives your car 5 minutes down the road. No damage to the vehicle. He even tops it off with gas so that the fuel is the same. Cops pull him over and he immediately gets out and gives back the keys.

Theft? No charges? Something else?

[Bwaaah]

She didn't even attempt to leave the building with the "Members Only" sign. She just picked it up, carried it down the hall, and then immediately surrendered it when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer.

Theft?

[Estragon]

Do you know what conversion means?

[Bwaaah]

You said: "She pled guilty to theft."

Where?

[Estragon]

My mistake, she pled to one count, not the theft count 5 in the indictment.

[Bwaaah]

Thank you.

[Estragon]

“Theft?”

Yes, this is classic conversion

[Bwaaah]

What was “classic conversion”? (And please discuss this case, and not some hypothetical thought experiment. Please consider the Statement of Offense.)

[Estragon]

Conversion is knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over property of another person.

She was alleged to have done that in count 5, and you describe her doing that in your summary. See also 18 usc 641 (count 5) (Theft of government property)

[Estragon]

In any event— it wouldn’t be accurate to describe this lady as “taking nothing” as Armchair originally said. She took the sign! So it’s not a perfect example of what he was describing. Given the conduct described the sentence strikes me as reasonable. YMM(obvi)V

[Estragon]

Theft and conversion can differ in that theft has an element of intent. You can decide for yourself whether Ms. Grayce intended to permanently deprive before she crossed paths with the cops. One wonders if the comments she made while videotaping herself would be persuasive one way or another. Alas we’ll never know— she pled out, did her time and is presumably out— loud, proud, and ready to vote orange in November. Bless her heart.

[Bwaaah]

You gladly ignored the factual findings of the court, and instead, ran with an unproven allegation.

She moved a free-standing sign from one place in the building to another, and made no attempt to leave the building with it. You call that “theft.” (The court did not.)

30 days in prison.

I see your version of justice.

[Estragon]

“She moved a free-standing sign from one place in the building to another”

Yes, that is conversion.

[Estragon]

As you pointed out, the 30 days wasn’t for the sign.

[Bwaaah]

I see what she was convicted of in her plea agreement: Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds (18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)). She knew it was impermissible for her to be in the building. (Sounds like trespassing to me.)

She had no criminal history.

30 days in prison. What’s that for? Not for a first trespassing offense, I don’t think.

MAGA justice.

(They may talk about “making American great again,” but you guys are actually doing it!)

[Heedless]

Being part of a mob of mouth-breathing morons who broke into the Capitol during the certification of the election is generally considered an aggravating circumstance.

[Bwaaah]

I agree with that.

[Bwaaah]

Bad link there. Here's the "Statement of Offense".

[Josh R]

There were people who plead guilty or were convicted of non-violent, misdemeanor trespassing. But, they have long since been released from their short jail sentences (or home detention). They aren't part of the J6 choir.

It thus remains a mystery to why promoting Justice for All wouldn't turn off persuadable voters as much as Jan 6 turned them off on Jan 7.

[Martinned2]

Didn't Trump invent a new version of the national anthem?

[Mr. Bumble]

Anthems are invented?

[Nige]

Moses brought them all down from the mountain inscribed on some other stone tablets that he had to keep in his back pockets.

[Estragon]

It’s worse than that.

“Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages”

Not the “national anthem sung by…”

No. Rise FOR THESE PEOPLE.

Not only that— but Trump salutes a video of himself saying the pledge while wearing his MAGA hat.

There’s a message being sent here and it ain’t great.

[Estragon]

“The fascist-style martyrdom cult justifies violence, in two ways. It makes a hero of criminals, thereby making criminality exemplary. And it establishes prior innocence — we suffered first, and therefore anything we do to make others suffer will always be justified.”

https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-bloodbath-candidate

[Nige]

Didn't he call them 'martyrs?'

[Estragon]

He has explicitly referred to Ms Babbit as a martyr many times

[Bob from Ohio]

"martyr"

Easier than saying murder victim.

[Estragon]

Good luck with this line. Did you know she was unarmed?

[Estragon]

I mean, can you imagine how far you’ve lost the plot when you’re engaging in the pageantry of patriotism— standing, removing your hat, hand on heart, singing— not for a country but for Stuart Fuckin’ Rhodes of all people? LOL

[#FFFFFFPride]

Don't you people do that for BLM and Pryde Flags?

[Estragon]

Uh I don’t think so? If some people do that, I’m sure you can find an example— just post it below:

[Bob from Ohio]

"pageantry of patriotism"

What about the pageantry of religion? Kneeling in submission for instance. We saw Pelosi and a bunch of other pols kneeling in submission for George Fuckin’ Floyd of all people.

[Nige]

Saying a prayer for a guy murdered by cops is bad now?

[Estragon]

“kneeling in submission”

Curious characterization but whatever.

[Estragon]

BTW Bob, do you salute video of trump at the rallies? He’s your candidate, want to defend it on its own terms or whatabout Nancy Pelosi?

Wait, don’t respond— I already know the answer. You’re a gormless shitheel who’s voting orange! May you reap your very just eternal reward.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Libs of TikTok recently posted a video of a homosexual teacher commanding the kids pledge allegiance to the gay flag.

You've never heard of Libs of TikTok? She's hilarious and exposes the groomers.

[David Nieporent]

No, Libs of TikTok posted no such thing.

[Nige]

I'm sure she points you to some of your favourite childrens' hospitals and schools to send bomb threats to.

[JasonT20]

Contrast Trump's comments about Jan. 6 rioters being "patriots" or "hostages" with other statements he made after Jan. 6, 2021:

“I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol,” he said. “Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem..." "America is, and must always be, a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy."

"To those who engage in the acts of violence and destruction: You do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law: You will pay."

From video of Trump the White House released on Jan.7

Millions of our citizens watched on Wednesday as a mob stormed the Capitol and trashed the halls of government. As I have consistently said throughout my administration, we believe in respecting America's history and traditions, not tearing them down. We believe in the rule of law, not in violence or rioting.

- Jan. 12, comments made during a visit to the border

All Americans were horrified by the assault on our Capitol. Political violence is an attack on everything we cherish as Americans. It can never be tolerated. Now more than ever, we must unify around our shared values and rise above the partisan rancor, and forge our common destiny.

- Jan. 19 - Farewell address

These were all scripted remarks read from a teleprompter. (obviously)

You would think that Trump's followers have all of the information that they would need to realize that he doesn't care about them. He will use them however it benefits him for as long as he can. The problem is that every right-wing media figure that has any popularity and influence with them is invested in having them stay loyal to Trump so that they can exploit that to their benefit just like Trump does. So, they ignore all of the contradictions, facts, and Trump's own words that would show the MAGA followers who Trump really is.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Josh,IF you are honest , your admission about a 'cult beyond reason' means you are only addressing people who agree with you, HOW STUPID 🙂

[Nige]

People never express strong opinions to people they disagree with, well know fact, that.

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about? A cult is a perfect description of people who deny reality and choose to believe The Leader instead.

[DaveM]

Justice Jackson’s questions about whether the First Amendment unduly restricts the government’s censorship of mis-/dis-/mal-information were certainly legitimate, in the sense that they were seriously and sincerely meant and therefore deserve a serious response in return.

But I have to admit they also chilled me right to the bone. For the first time in my life, I saw a real possibility that a foundational human right already codified in our Constitution could be legally outlawed in the US.

[Commenter_XY]

I thought the entire point of 1A was precisely to hamstring the federal government from suppression of our free speech rights.

Were all my teachers in school wrong?

[Ed Grinberg]

As Prof. Bernstein put it (link):

“Law is politics,” and only politics, according to a mantra popular on the legal left, and therefore the law should not be an independent constraint to doing the right thing politically.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/19/justice-jackson-seems-to-be-charting-a-more-speech-restriction-tolerant-approach/?comments=true#comment-10490480

[Josh R]

Jackson did not say the First Amendment restricts the government's ability to censor. She, like Kavanaugh and Barrett was drawing a distinction between censorship and persuasion.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No she wasn't. Read the post linked in Ed Grinberg's comment.

[T]here may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the Internet or otherwise. I mean, … do you disagree that we would have to apply strict scrutiny and determine whether or not there is a compelling interest in how the government has tailored its regulation?"

Among many other quotes.

[Josh R]

Neither does this quote support the claim that Jackson doesn’t like the First Amendment’s restrictions on government censorship.

All she was saying was that even if the government is coercing, it can do so if it can meet its strict scrutiny standard. And, the respondent's lawyer agreed. That’s a mainstream viewpoint and not controversial.

[Bwaaah]

I think you are right that nothing she said contradicted current 1A doctrine. Indeed, as I understand it, the government can control speech under “strict scrutiny” standards.

Let’s assume that the government’s influence of social media platforms was “coercive.” Did the government meet the standard of strict scrutiny?

Normally, in 1A debates, we have a speech-restricting law or regulation whose enforcement can be challenged in court. But in this case, the government was seeking to suppress speech through an informal process. It seems to me that that informality was itself enough of a defect to fail the standard of strict scrutiny.

Alternatively, I might accept the argument that since it was merely informal influence, and it wasn’t compelled by law or regulation, then it doesn’t meet a legal standard of “coercive” and therefore isn’t government suppression of speech. I am skeptical of this inference. When the government “asks” you to do something, and you deny its request, there will be government people left wanting and having many ways to influence your thus-far-helpful response.

One of the tenets of 1A jurisprudence seems to be to avoid a priori constraints on speech. In other words, free speech is the default condition, and the burden falls upon the government to justify constraining it when it wants to do so. I am skeptical of letting the government chill speech through “informal” discussions with private actors, and the burden falling upon the private actor or public [have standing and] to prove that the government’s informal, undocumented actions weren’t in accordance with the strict scrutiny standard.

My proposal is that the government should, in informal non-published actions (i.e. non-statutory or regulatory rules) that seek to constrain speech, have to obtain a warrant from a court that certifies that the action meets the strict scrutiny standard (or whatever other standard may be applicable to the government’s proposed action that would constrain speech).

I am trying to assure the government has the ability to constrain speech coercively, informally but quickly, without presuming the government to be a trustworthy actor in preserving the speech rights of private actors (which it isn’t).

[David Nieporent]

For the record, whether she supports a robust 1A or abusive censorship or something in between, we can only determine by looking at her actual opinions. Questions at oral argument are generally a terrible way to decide where a judge stands.

[Longtobefree]

"For the first time in my life, I saw a real possibility that a foundational human right already codified in our Constitution could be legally outlawed in the US."

So you never read a single article about gun control?

[DaveM]

No, I never had the sense that owning a firearm is a foundational human right, I've always thought it was something quite specific to America. And neither have I had the sense that owning a firearm in the US was going to be outlawed. Over-regulated, certainly; outlawed, no.

[Bob from Ohio]

Self-defense is a foundational human right however.

A gun is necessary for most people to defend themselves against lethal force directed at them.

[Longtobefree]

“For the first time in my life, I saw a real possibility that a foundational human right already codified in our Constitution could be legally outlawed in the US.”

So you never read a single article about asset forfeiture?

[DaveM]

This one comes pretty darn close, doesn't it? I agree.

[SimonP]

I dunno, it's hard for me to get worked up over Jackson exploring the nuances of existing First Amendment case law as it actually exists, when we have states banning drag shows and diversity training, stripping courses of study from university curricula, threatening to throw teachers and librarians in jail for using the wrong pronouns or permitting kids to read the wrong books, and people living in red states are sharing tips on VPNs to access porn like they lived behind the Iron Curtain.

I think the pearl-clutching over Jackson's remarks is happening because COVID, as it turned out, wasn't that serious. It wasn't as fatal or contagious as originally feared; the quack remedies weren't killing people; the official recommendations were leavened with a fair amount of guesswork erring on the side of caution. If we were talking about something as fatal as, say, Ebola, and as contagious as the measles, and if the science were more well-established than it was for COVID at the time, there might be a stronger case to be made for government influence over private speech on social media platforms.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I have been vaguely following the Young Thug RICO case in Georgia. There has been a filing from one of the defendants that pointed out that even with a pared down state’s witness list (from 700 to 400) the current pace of trial would be completed sometime in 2027, having commenced after months of jury selection in Nov 2023.

This led me to wonder about something that I’ve thought about since I learned the OJ Simpson jury was sequestered for 8 1/2 months.

Do jurors have due process rights? Can a trial be so lengthy or so burdensome that it deprives them of liberty or property (juror’s typically can’t be fired, but their employers don’t necessarily have to pay them and obviously self-employed people or people who rely on commission/tips won’t be getting those).

The OJ jury spent about as much time detained as OJ himself did. A hotel is nicer conditions than a jail obviously but, their lives were completely under the control of the state for what is essentially having the bad luck of being picked.

While this Young Thug jury isn’t sequestered, asking a jury to commit to years of service, even if the trial is conducted in various sessions and not straight through, would be a huge burden on them.

And although every state is different, what would be the best mechanism for a juror to challenge their continued service?

[David Nieporent]

And although every state is different, what would be the best mechanism for a juror to challenge their continued service?

Being arrested for a felony would probably get one excused from the jury.

[Don Nico]

Sure David. Now be serious.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’d be a great assignment of error for a defendant if he’s convicted after a juror got arrested: judge dismissed juror without cause simply because of an arrest not a conviction. If he doesn’t post bond, that court could have placed a detainer on the juror and held him in custody until completion of each day and deliberations.

[Commenter_XY]

Have the Juror tell the judge (in chambers) that they cannot, in good conscience, render a just and fair verdict because they have become biased. And no amount of persuasion can change that.

Common sense would prevail, I would think. Juror dismissed, alternate comes in.

[LawTalkingGuy]

In a normal trial where something that was going to be a few days or so but went into next week or so sure that might work for one juror. But in an extreme case where we’re talking about months and years of service everyone is going to have very good and very similar reasons to be dismissed. They’ll all say it’s too burdensome they’ll be distracted and biased and unlikely to render a fair verdict. And they’d be correct. So if you release one you’d have to release them all and then declare a mistrial. If the judge doesn’t want to declare a mistrial by letting all the jurors out, they’ll keep the juror and let the defendant sort it out on appeal if he’s convicted. So what recourse does the juror have in that case?

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone have any idea as to what the longest jury trial has been?

[David Nieporent]

Overall, the longest criminal trial in U.S. history was the McMartin preschool trial, I believe, though I don't know for how much of it the jury was empaneled.

[Commenter_XY]

I see your point, LTG. They are all in it together. I think if you had multiple jurors (like 6) say they cannot be impartial and unbiased, it would be a mistrial.

Really, what other choice is there for the judge? Jail 6 jurors for contempt? I don't think that would fly, would it? That would suck for everyone, especially the defendant.

[John F. Carr]

I have read a few stories about cases where a judge thought a juror was trying to evade jury service and held the juror in contempt. A couple of judges required the person to attend trial every day.

If I had to watch the case I would blog about it. "Judge White, apparently sober, made a questionable ruling on the admissibility of the defendant's confession."

[Josh R]

Why restrict it to chambers?

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...My thought was that I would not want this juror speaking about their inability to remain impartial (for whatever reason) in open court. It is the kind of sensitive issue I would want a judge to hear, but not around the other jurors (or defendant).

[not guilty]

Prospective jurors routinely discuss in open court whether they can or cannot be impartial during voir dire. That is part of every jury trial. My experience has been that when one member of the venire admits his/her lack of impartiality, others will thereafter be more forthcoming.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I think LTG was talking about a situation where a case just dragged on and on for months. Then could a juror say, "Hey judge, I can't take this shit anymore. I can't be impartial anymore. I'll just vote to convict because I'm pissed and want this over with".

LTG raised a good question. What is a judge to do?

I understand the voir dire part, that is before the trial starts, during jury selection. You tell everyone upfront: I can't be impartial. If we ever meet NG (and that would be pretty neat), I'll tell you my interesting voir dire story when I was called for jury duty (note: I got out of service quick with a one sentence response to the judge, who asked me a direct question).

[David Nieporent]

Then could a juror say, “Hey judge, I can’t take this shit anymore. I can’t be impartial anymore. I’ll just vote to convict because I’m pissed and want this over with”.

How would that work? A juror can't just jump up in the middle of the trial and yell "guilty!" He can't "just vote to convict" until the case is actually sent to the jury.

[Commenter_XY]

David, my thought was a juror would send a note to the Judge via the bailiff, asking to meet privately. And then say they cannot be impartial, trial dragged on too long, and they'll vote to convict to end the trial regardless of their belief in guilt or innocence, etc, etc.

After that, the judge has to make a decision: Do you really want this juror, considering they just told you they cannot be impartial and will vote to convict to get it over with? would judges jail recalcitrant jurors under these circumstances?

I am actually surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen.

[David Nieporent]

You missed my point. They can't "vote to convict to get it over with." They don't get to vote, one way or the other, until the trial is over and the case gets sent to the jury. At that point, voting either to convict or acquit will get it over with at the same time.

[Commenter_XY]

I understand your timing point (I get it - must be submitted to jury). What if a juror said: I am quitting. I have to eat....take care of sick child...care for a spouse...assist an elderly parent. Could be anything, all perfectly legitimate. The defendant is hosed, unless that juror is dismissed.

The question LTG raised (I think) is what happens if a group of jurors say the same thing, on account of trial length: We quit, because [insert perfectly legit reason].

I think NG below provided the answer.

[not guilty]

A situation such as you describe is one reason that alternates are selected in addition to regular jurors. Of course, if more than one juror does that, there is the risk of having too few remaining jurors to complete the trial. There is that same risk, however, with jurors becoming ill or otherwise impaired.

I don't know if this is true elsewhere, but in my state the parties can agree to allow a jury with fewer members than began the trial to decide the case. If the requisite number of jurors cannot conclude the trial, the judge could declare a mistrial. That would raise an issue as to whether double jeopardy would bar a retrial. If the defendant consented to the mistrial, there is no bar. If the defendant did not consent, the prosecutor must demonstrate "manifest necessity" for any mistrial declared over the objection of the defendant. See e.g., Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978). A decision to permit retrial of the defendant would then be subject to an interlocutory appeal.

[Harvey Mosley]

Several years ago my wife was selected for a jury involving seven or so gang members on trial for murder. The murder happened a few blocks from where we lived so we had followed it closely in the news. She told the judge and attorneys this before she was selected for the jury but it didn't seem to matter. When the prospective jurors were told the trial was expected to take 12-14 months my wife stated (truthfully) that it was obvious they were guilty because she read in the newspaper that at least one had confessed. That finally got her dismissed from that jury.

We made a point of following that trial and after almost a year all the defendants plead guilty.

[not guilty]

Were other prospective jurors present when your wife disclosed what she read in the newspaper? If so, that information could have tainted the entire group.

[Harvey Mosley]

Yes. She said it in open court. After that she left the courtroom. We don't know what happened after that with the rest of the group.

[John F. Carr]

I read that the OJ Simpson case caused some courts to use sequestration more rarely.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That would make sense. I've only seen sequestration being used recently for capital cases and only for deliberations, not for the entire length of the trial.

[Kazinski]

I spent 3 months on jury duty once, my boss was pissed off and gave me a terrible review, and complained I didn't lie to get out of it.

[David Nieporent]

Heh. Right after I started a job at a new law firm, I got selected to serve on a jury. (Rather bizarre: a libertarian lawyer being selected for a criminal drug case. Still don't understand what the prosecution was thinking.) And my overseeing partner's reaction was similar to your boss's: how the hell could you not get out of it?

[Kazinski]

It was a change of venue murder case from an ajoining county, and I was an alternate. They took almost a month to select the jury.

A allegedly battered wife hired some Mexican farm workers to kill her husband and make sure the body was found so she could collect the life insurance. The trial I was on was one of the farmworkers who spoke no English.

[Frank Drackman]

Your average Fulton County Juror is a janitor/housekeeper for the pubic screw-els, County Government, MARTA (Mostly Africans Riding Through Atlanta) that still get their regular pay + the $30/day for jury duty, so wouldn't mind being on a jury until their retirement, they're the only peoples I've seen who seek out jury duty.

Frank

[Michael P]

https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-2

Disruptions and deplatforming has gotten much worse over the past decade, it continues to get worse, and it is overwhelmingly from the left.

[Nige]

Oh no, people succesfully protested over a handful of highly-paid, mostly trollish and extremist speakers at a handful of colleges. What a fucking crisis. Let's destroy the entire US college system!

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/19/justice-jackson-seems-to-be-charting-a-more-speech-restriction-tolerant-approach/?comments=true#comment-10490560

Again, some of us are concerned about violent mobs shutting people up. You, on the other hand...
(I'll give you one thing -- you're very consistent.)

[Nige]

I thought you were concerned about the government shutting people up. You all seem perfectly happy to defend a man who sought to effectively shut millions of voters up not to mention the mob that tried to help. You also seem happy to use goverment power to remove books from schools and libraries, to ban college courses, and to try to pass laws that make it illegal to dress a certain way or for kids to have nicknames. At the end of the day, these 'deplatforming' events are being leveraged to commit a far more ambitious programme of shutting people up.

[Michael P]

If you have more than a hundred fingers, you should probably see a doctor. That's a lot more than a "handful" for most of us.

[Nige]

DEPLATFORMED BY THE BEAST WITH ONE HUNDRED FINGERS

[Don Nico]

Cowardice at Columbia. (In today's NYT)
"What Is Antisemitism? A Columbia Task Force Would Rather Not Say. Definitions of the term are highly contested, so a group monitoring antisemitism on Columbia University’s campus has avoided picking sides."

If Jewish and Israeli students feel harassed and bullied, that should be sufficient. That is the typical campus standard concerning gender, racial and sexual harassment.

[Commenter_XY]

At Columbia (and Harvard and Yale and Cornell and Berkeley and Tufts and Dartmouth and Rutgers and MIT and others), evidently Jewish Lives Don't Matter Very Much. Antisemitism is perfectly acceptable in those places. Just look at their (in)action.

[Estragon]

I’m interested your inclusion of Dartmouth on this list, as I have some personal familiarity with this institution. I am also curious about how/from where you receive this information, assuming you are not speaking from personal knowledge (whatever happened to that dingbat zwyicki anyways?)

Just curious!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I think Zywicki is still quite busy developing a justification for the Bank of America misconduct that led to a wronged customer foreclosing on a branch office.

[Commenter_XY]

Before or after finding the swastika drawn on the lawn on campus?
Before or after the shooting of a menorah on campus?
Not impressed with Scott Brown.

[Estragon]

I mean, I am aware of these incidents. The menorah thing was in 2020. I should think that these things reflect upon the persons who did the deed(s) rather than the institution? Were the perpetrators even students?

“Antisemitism is perfectly acceptable in those places. Just look at their (in)action.”

Did the college really take no action?

[Estragon]

No specific knowledge, I’m guessing. Not criticizing, just asking. Where did you hear about it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did you enjoy Netanyahu's partisan presentation to Senate Republicans?

Do you recognize the predictable consequences of Israel making support for its right-wing belligerence a left-right divider in American politics -- and of Israel compounding that mistake by aligning with the losing side of the American culture war?

It seems inexplicable that Israel would choose right-wing tribalism over the support of America's modern, educated, inclusive, victorious mainstream, but Israelis get to make that call.

It's their funeral.

When Israel tries, however briefly, to operate without American subsidies (political, military, economic) and you are begging better Americans to reconsider their decision to avoid complicity in Israel's bigoted, violent, immoral right-wing belligerence, I will be enjoying a fine meal celebrating the end to my tax dollars supporting a bunch of superstitious, bigoted, violent, disgusting right-wing assholes.

I just hope we cut Saudi Arabia loose at the same time. Watching those guys fall would be great, too. Selfish, authoritarian, violent right-wing assholes are objectionable no matter the flavor of silly, old-timey superstition they claim as vindication.

[Theendoftheleft]

Look at the world, AIDS. Your American liberal-left isn't just in demographic freefall (death spiral, really), but also its values are consciously rejected by the entire world.

You should be more inclusive: look at world demography and shifting political power in the world. Look at what the rising powers believe and think about what they shall probably (continue to) believe going forward.

Your empire is in peril. Your time is over. There is no future for your values, including in the United States.

Bloodbath, AIDS. Bloodbath.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

If Jewish and Israeli students feel harassed and bullied, that should be sufficient. That is the typical campus standard concerning gender, racial and sexual harassment.

As I said before: “safety” for some, unpunished calls for genocide for others.
All animals are equal, but Jewish ones are less equal than others.

[Frank Drackman]

We've dealt with tougher enemies than this current mob of Succus Entericus. Eichmann thought he was safe too.

[Sonja T]

Tony Bobulinski's written statement prior to his testimony before the house congressional committee

"I want to be crystal clear: From my direct personal experience and what I have subsequently come to learn, it is clear to me that Joe Biden was “the Brand” being sold by the Biden family. His family’s foreign influence peddling operation—from China to Ukraine and elsewhere—sold out to foreign actors who were seeking to gain influence and access to Joe Biden and the United States government.

Joe Biden was more than a participant in and beneficiary of his family’s business; he was an active, aware enabler who met with business associates such as myself to further the business, despite being buffered by a complex scheme to maintain plausible deniability."

[ThePublius]

I read the entire written opening statement. It's pretty good, and quite damning.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Bobulinski-Written-Statement.pdf

[Nige]

Does that mean he presented some damning corroborating evidence?

[Joe_dallas]

Lets just ignore the financial activities, money flowing into various family member bank accounts.

[Nige]

Let us ignore that financial activity occurs, and that money often 'flows' into people's accounts as well as out of them, and just pretend the mere fact that it occurs to the Bidens is incontrovertible proof of whatever.

[OtisAH]

Dude, the president committed RICO right in front of Bobulinski! I don’t see how he recovers from that.

[Moderation4ever]

Is RICO a crime? I don't believe it is, it is a method of prosecuting a crime as an organized activity. So, what are you talking about?

[OtisAH]

Ocasio-Cortes asked Bobo what specific crimes the president committed. Bobo said “RICO” and some other arglebargle. Poor guy was very confused and got a bit worked up when she pressed him to answer the question, which of course he never did.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is RICO a crime?

Yes, of course RICO is a crime.

(I am not, to be clear, offering an opinion as to whether any member of the Biden family committed that crime. But of course it is one.)

[Ridgeway]

To be extremely generous to AOC, I dont think she meant RICO was not a crime. Rather that it is difficult if not impossible to witness someone committing RICO, because it entails multiple elements that by definition must happen separately.

[David Nieporent]

That's not "extremely generous"; that's just the plain meaning of what she was saying.

RICO is just a specialized conspiracy statute. It requires that there be predicate acts which themselves are criminal. One can't observe someone committing RICO any more than one can observe someone committing conspiracy. If someone is engaged in a criminal conspiracy, that requires a criminal object. And it's that object that one can identify and observe.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What does AOC have to do with anything? I'm responding to Moderation4ever (you know, the person I quoted?), who appears to be saying that RICO is not a crime. Which, to be clear, it is.

[David Nieporent]

What does AOC have to do with anything? I’m responding to Moderation4ever (you know, the person I quoted?), who appears to be saying that RICO is not a crime. Which, to be clear, it is.

Moderation4ever was alluding to AOC from yesterday's hearings, in which she expressly said "RICO is not a crime."

But, as noted, she was referring to the fact that she challenged Bobolinski as to what crime he was alleging Joe Biden committed, and he couldn't come up with anything beyond "RICO."

[not guilty]

RICO is not a crime; it is an acronym for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. (The name may or may not have been intended as homage to the Edward G. Robinson character in Little Caesar). The prohibited activities are listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1962.

One does not "commit RICO." One may, however, commit racketeering activity as (quite broadly) defined at § 1961(1).

[Ridgeway]

mmmm, she could have said that, but did not.

What she said was: "RICO is not a crime. It is a category .... It's a category of crimes that you are then charged under."

Like you, I think understand what she was trying to say, but what she actually said is wrong.

[Sonja T]

The transcript shows Bobulinski mentioning several crimes in addition to RICO, but getting cut off by AOC before he could finish his answer. Several other times AOC cut him off. Stating that Bobulinski could only answer "RICO " is dishonest.

OCASIO-COREZ: “Did you witness the president commit a crime? Is it your testimony today?”
BOBULINSKI: “Yes.”
OCASIO-COREZ: “And what crime? Do you — have you witnessed.”
BOBULINSKI: “How much time do I have to go through it?”
OCASIO-COREZ: “It is simple. You name the crime. Did you watch him steal something?”
BOBULINSKI: “Corruption statutes, RICO and conspiracy, FARA —”
OCASIO-COREZ: “What is it — what is — what is the crime, sir?”
BOBULINSKI: “You — you won’t —”
OCASIO-COREZ: “Specifically —”
BOBULINSKI: “You just — you keep — you asked me to answer the question. I answered the question.”
OCASIO-COREZ: “No. “
BOBULINSKI: “RICO, you’re obviously not familiar with. Corruption statutes.”
OCASIO-COREZ: “Excuse me, sir! “
BOBULINSKI: “FARA —”
OCASIO-COREZ: “Excuse me, sir! Excuse me, sir! RICO is not a crime. It is a category.”

[David Nieporent]

"Corruption" is not a statute either. FARA at least is, but what on earth is that supposed to be a reference to? At what point was Joe Biden lobbying on behalf of a foreign principal?

[Sonja T]

He mentioned several statutes that "joe Biden" violated including FARA (foreign agent registration act). The time period that he witnessed the crime wasnt mentioned and I have not researched the statute - so with that caveat, if the alleged crime occurred while JB was VP, then I dont think RAFA would be applicable.

[David Nieporent]

It's a five year statute of limitations, although there's an ongoing split of authority as to whether ending the relationship with the foreign principal ends the obligation to register.

[Frank Drackman]

No, you have to see the criminal steal something.

[Nige]

Not the RICO!

[David Nieporent]

money flowing into various family member bank accounts.

To quote an actual conservative, unlike Donald Trump: There You Go Again.

Joe Biden is not Jim Biden. Joe Biden is not Hunter Biden. Joe Biden is Joe Biden. Money going to other people is money going to other people. Show that money went to Joe Biden.

So far literally the only thing Comer has after all this time probing regarding money "flowing" to Joe Biden is a few short-term loans to family members that were paid back. Comer was so desperate that he tried to argue that $4,000 going from Hunter to Joe in three monthly installments was a smoking gun. $4,000! If you can buy a vice president or president for $4,000, the economy must be in really bad shape.

[ThePublius]

You guys really dig in, regardless of the evidence, or appearance of impropriety for which you would hang Trump.

Let me ask you this, Nige: why does Joe Biden have 20 shell corporations? How many do you have? Is this normal? What's the purpose of a shell corporation?

Much of what Bobulinski asserts is corroborated by the mountain of evidence the committee has gathered.

I know, the Democratic/liberal/progressive narrative is that "there is no evidence." That's a bunch of B.S.

Bobulinski’s testimony itself is evidence!

[Nige]

'regardless of the evidence,'

The lack of evidence, rather.

'or appearance of impropriety for which you would hang Trump.'

Considering the things you tolerated in Trump, from the money he creamed in from the Secret Service, to the Trump Hotel clearing house, to the sleaze of his son-in-law and those trademarks from China that benefitted his daughter, this is, as they say, rich.

'Let me ask you this, Nige: why does Joe Biden have 20 shell corporations? How many do you have? Is this normal? What’s the purpose of a shell corporation?'

Let me ask you how many shell corporations do business people generally have? Since you mentioned Trump, how many does he have?

'Bobulinski’s testimony itself is evidence!'

So is the testimony of the rest of Hunter Biden's business partners. Which you guys never mention at all.

[ThePublius]

I know I'll never convince you to change your view. But for others listening, shell corporations have legitimate, legal uses by corporations for start-ups, going public, or operating in more favorable tax regions. But an individual to having a shell corporation is a red flag, as they are usually used to evade taxes and obfuscate financial transactions - i.e., launder money. For an individual to have 20 shell corporations as have the Bidens - who have no recognizable product, save influence - is a double red flag! It is certainly the appearance of impropriety, and almost certainly an indication of illegal activity. Selling influence is illegal. Tax evasion is illegal.

[OtisAH]

Now all you need is evidence of money laundering, influence-peddling, and tax evasion and we can sew this whole thing up! You *do* have evidence of money laundering, influence-peddling, and tax evasion yes? Because you need to get that to Jamie Gomer licketysplit. He’s drowning up on that stage.

[Nige]

'I know I’ll never convince you to change your view.'

Not without actual evidence, no.

'But an individual to having a shell corporation is a red flag'

I think you mean, Biden having one is a red flag, because most of the evidence consists of calling anything Biden-related a 'red flag.'

'Selling influence is illegal. Tax evasion is illegal.'

Spin is not evidence.

[Joe_dallas]

‘Let me ask you this, Nige: why does Joe Biden have 20 shell corporations? How many do you have? Is this normal? What’s the purpose of a shell corporation?’

Let me ask you how many shell corporations do business people generally have? Since you mentioned Trump, how many does he have?

Nige - Good question on how many shell companies a business person has - Tell us how many businesses Joe Biden has? A guy whose only job over the last 40 years has been a senator, or VP or Pres

[Nige]

Go ahead and lay it out for me, then show me the evidence that he's doing anything unusual, let alone illegal.

[David Nieporent]

Joe Biden doesn't have 20 shell corporations. (And what do you think a shell corporation is, anyway?)

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - you ask a question which show how little you know on how the business world actually works.

Just for your basic education - The typical real estate operator will have a separate entity for each piece of real estate to own the real estate, another entity to be the GP if it is a ltd partnership and then a separate entity that is the operating company. A real estate operation comparable to the Trump hotel would have at least three entities involved and likely 4-6 entities.

[Nige]

Oh my God those are all Red Flags!

[bernard11]

Bobulinski's testimony is very poor evidence indeed.

It's mostly completely unsupported assertions.

And there is no "mountain of evidence," nor even a molehill. If there were why is the GOP abandoning its much-ballyhooed impeachment?

[David Nieporent]

They've got a bunch of evidence!… that Hunter Biden was engaged in various business deals. All of which were legal. None of which involved Joe Biden.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh man, conservatives have discovered that testimony is in fact evidence.

[Sonja T]

Law guy - did the standard of evidence change because is the Biden's?

I dont recall any court issuing an opinion that witness testimony is no longer evidence. Can you cite a Supreme court decision to that effect

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I’m making fun of them for all the times that people have testified against conservatives and they’ve loudly insisted there is NO EVIDENCE despite the testimony. Prominent examples include Christine Blasey Ford, E Jean Carroll, and witnesses of the January 6th Committee.

[Sonja T]

Law guy
dont embarrass yourself mentioning the credibility of christine Ford.

Regarding Jean Carroll, the same applies to the double standards Dems had for the clinton ladies, paula jones, et al

[LawTalkingGuy]

Was their testimony evidence or not?

[VinniUSMC]

LawTalkingGuy is a rapist. It happened 20 years ago. Maybe 21, or 22. It happened in Ohio. Wait, Georgia. At school. Or maybe at work. These 5 people witnessed it. What, they all deny witnessing it? Well, regardless, LTG definitely raped someone, somewhere, sometime.

Phew, alright boys, lock him up.

[Sonja T]

yes their testimony was evidence, In the case of Christy Ford, it simply wasnt credible, the testimony from the others was credible.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well if you said this under oath it would still be evidence. And people actually get locked up based on inconsistent and incredible witness testimony fairly regularly. Because again: testimony is evidence.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah that’s fine if you don’t consider it credible. But a lot of conservatives were/are convinced it’s not evidence.

[Nige]

'Well, regardless, LTG definitely raped someone, somewhere, sometime.'

Now say that under oath.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Let me ask you this, Nige: why does Joe Biden have 20 shell corporations?

Why do you pay attention to anything Rep. Comer and his fellow failed, flailing, partisan goobers sayclaim to be true or correct?

Other than your disaffected, delusional, gullible, partisan nature, I mean.

[David Nieporent]

You consider a deranged rant that just says "Liar liar liar" with no corroboration to be "quite damning"?

[Estragon]

Keep fuckin this chicken! Did you catch Lev Parnas too?

[SimonP]

One begins to wonder if Putin's misinformation strategy in American politics isn't to keep us divided against one another, but rather to drive those of us whose brains haven't already been turned to syphilitic mash utterly insane.

We now find ourselves debating people about Hunter Biden, even after it's been clear that one of the key pieces of evidence about him and Joe Biden's putative "corruption" was Russian spycraft, even after one of the dirty tricksters involved has testified that this whole "corruption" scandal was never real and key Republicans have always known it, even after the House Republicans who threw a tantrum to get these impeachment hearings have conceded they don't have the votes, even after Hunter has been charged on other unrelated crimes precisely because of who he is, and on and on.

Kazinski and the rest of the MAGA crew just charge on ahead. That they may be useful idiots for a Russian misinformation campaign does not cause them the slightest pause. They are not swayed by the fact that not even the politicians with something to gain from this issue feel like they can win on the issue politically any more. They've become completely dissociated from reality and still they insist on somehow debating the question.

But there's no longer any way to effectively rebut them. Everything has been made plain and clear, and they have no ground to stand on. They are inhaling fumes and declaring God's truth.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why disregard the role of the Volokh Conspirators in lathering these rubes?

[Kazinski]

Are the Russians under your bed right now?

[SimonP]

Not as of this moment, useful idiot.

[SimonP]

Cool cool. Any thoughts on Jared Kushner's deal with the Saudis, or his real estate deals happening now in the Balkans, alongside Richard Grenell, another Trump alum? Or what about recent reports that MBS bragged about receiving information about his enemies from Kushner, gleaned from American intelligence?

Hunter may have traded on his last name. That is not a crime, nor was he ever part of government. Kushner used his time in power to trade favors and lay the groundwork for a big investment deal immediately after he left office, and is apparently using the prospect of a return to power to land deals in the Balkans. Never mind Trump's pardon of his criminal father. If Hunter's activities smell, Kushner's stink to high heaven.

[DaveM]

Regarding Biden’s multitudinous family business doings, I do not expect that anyone who has been paying attention will have a change of heart, regardless of evidence or testimony. Not even if the various Bidens themselves were to testify would it change minds. People are invested in a specific outcome.

People who haven’t been paying attention — likely the majority of the country — can still be persuaded. But they aren’t paying attention, so they’re only going to get soundbites.

So that’s what we have now. A Battle Royale over soundbites.

Some libertarians in the VC find this kind of thing low brow, a sign that voters are “rationally ignorant” and therefore not to be trusted.

Not I. The fact that we’ve devolved into a battle for soundbites is a sign of healthy disregard for politics. At the end of the day, these voters will make a judgment call and cast a vote. God bless ’em. I trust their instincts.

[Nige]

'Not even if the various Bidens themselves were to testify would it change minds.'

An event as imaginary as all the rest of the evidence we're supposed to believe exists despite it not existing.

[DaveM]

As I said, people are invested. Minds are closed.

[Nige]

This is the sort of thing you keep saying when the actual evidence is non-existent.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, which is why you are unable to respond to Simon's last comment. Trump and his family are innocent, you are invested, your mind is closed.

[Moderation4ever]

Just curious is this the same Tony Bobulinski that tried to sue Cassidy Hutchinson for defaming him. One where he said she lied about him having a secret meeting with then Trump COS Mark Meadows. And then it turned out she had a picture of him at the meeting.

https://newrepublic.com/post/179260/cassidy-hutchinson-tony-bobulinski-photo-evidence

I am sure he a great witness against Joe Biden.

[Life of Brian]

One where he said she lied about him having a secret meeting with then Trump COS Mark Meadows.

I read your article, and don't see where it says Bobulinski denied meeting Meadows. Here's what he pushed back on:

As Hutchinson describes it, Bobulinski chose to wear a “ski mask” to conceal his identity while Meadows handed him a “folded sheet of paper or small envelope.”

“[Meadows] didn’t hand me a single thing,” Bobulinski insisted at the House panel.

The photo isn't at an angle that could have captured a handoff. Nor does the photo show him wearing anything resembling a ski mask -- you can see his face and he has a ball cap on. Looks like a gaiter mask, as wasn't unusual back in 2020 when this happened. Others in the shot are masked as well.

So I guess I'm missing why this photo is a big smoking gun.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The illegal alien is a thief.

Back in the '80s, when night hunting was seen as more of a tradition than a crime, the Fish & Game folk ran PSAs about how "the poacher is a thief" who was stealing deer from honest hunters.

The illegal alien is a thief stealing wages from honest Americans and should be treated as such. No more free handouts, let's treat them the way that thieves are treated in their countries -- which is quite brutal.

Or we can ship them all to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands and not let them off. Let all the leftists (not "liberals") enjoy the consequences of their policies...

[Estragon]

Won’t someone think of the poor REAL Americans— tens of thousands of them, surely— unable to take all the good, well-paying jobs with great benefits picking tomatoes in the Central Valley in august? Heck some of these jobs even come with free housing! And these plum gigs are being given to murderers from Congo instead of REAL americans! Thievery!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

If we can harvest potatoes mechanically -- and have for decades -- why can't we mechanically harvest tomatoes?

I would much rather have a sterilized machine handling my tomatoes than someone who didn't even wash his/her/its hands after using the restroom. Same thing with McDonalds -- I'd much prefer a sterile machine than someone with dirty hands making my burger.

And as to picking tomatoes in the Central valley -- but for the taxpayer-subsidized illegal labor, the tomatoes would be picked in the Pioneer Valley (and other local venues) by high school students, as they were in the past.

[Estragon]

Again, if you’re truly interested in these issues I can put you in touch with someone. I don’t think it’s necessary to respond to this argle bargle, other than to point this out:

“his/her/its”

Stay classy, douchebag

[bernard11]

If we can harvest potatoes mechanically — and have for decades — why can’t we mechanically harvest tomatoes?

I don't know. Why not ask tomato growers, or farm equipment manufacturers?

[Estragon]

So it’s wage theft— from robots?? Lol

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who do you think gets paid to build & maintain said robots?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Illegal Aliens are cheaper -- and you don't have to pay worker's comp.

[Estragon]

Do you wash your produce before eating, btw?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rinse, yes -- soak in bleach to remove all fecal contamination, no.

[CountmontyC]

There are mechanical tomato harvesters. Of course most farmers in the southwest don't purchase them because it requires a substantial initial investment. Long term it would probably save money but short term it's cheaper to pay illegal aliens substandard wages.

[Estragon]

On a serious note, I am great personal friends with a labor trafficking attorney on the east coast. If you’re truly interested in some of the actual issues at play here I’d be happy to put you in contact!

[SimonP]

You're a thief, Ed, for all of the time you steal from me with your inane drivel. Stick to mopping up vomit.

[Frank Drackman]

you're the definition of inane drivel

[David Nieporent]

The illegal alien is a thief stealing wages from honest Americans and should be treated as such.

The illegal alien is not a thief. Theft is the taking of someone else's property with the intent to deprive that person of the property. Wages that an "honest American" didn't work for and thus never earned are not said "honest American"'s property.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOs3DGD_D1o

[Mr. Bumble]

Surprised that no one has mentioned this:

Washington State Does Away with the Bar Exam for Equity

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2024/03/20/washington-state-does-away-with-the-bar-exam-for-equity-n3785107

[Ed Grinberg]

Having a bunch of unqualified lawyers around is unfortunate, but not lethal. On the other hand:
"Third-rate doctoring may kill ya and the DEI cult is pushing third-rate doctors into the [medical] profession as fast as it can." (source)

[Nige]

DEI: the new way to attack minorities. After 'woke' and 'CRT' you're burning through the euphemisms faster and faster.

[David Nieporent]

The reported reasoning is stupid, but the bar exam is not, let’s just say, optimized to screen for qualified lawyers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOs3DGD_D1o

[SimonP]

True, it is surprising that Eugene hasn't written about that. It plays to two of his favorite topics - the outrages of DEI, and the unearned merits of the status quo in legal education.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not enough trans content or racial slurs to merit his attention, maybe?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has filed suit in United States District Court in Florida against the American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., ABC News, Inc. and George Stephanopoulos for defamation. Trump complains that Stephanopoulos, while interviewing Rep. Nancy Mace, falsely asserted that Trump had been found liable for rape of E. Jean Carroll. The jury in the Carroll matter found Trump not liable for rape, but liable for sexual assault upon Ms. Carroll.

In a posttrial order in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump, U. S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan opined as to the significance of the jury verdict:

The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere. The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf Pp. 3-5 [footnotes omitted].

Perhaps Trump’s lawyer is unfamiliar with the Streisand Effect?

[not guilty]

The Trump complaint against ABC and Stephanopoulos is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.664183/gov.uscourts.flsd.664183.1.0_2.pdf

Notably, Trump failed to plead the state citizenship of himself and of each defendant. See ¶¶ 5 through 8. The complaint should accordingly be dismissed sua sponte for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

[Martinned2]

Or the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine...

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/libel-proof-plaintiff-doctrine/

[OtisAH]

That’s the thing innit? It is nearly impossible to besmirch Turnip’s reputation and name.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Perhaps Trump’s lawyer is unfamiliar with the Streisand Effect?"

You think the Carroll allegations got zero [or little press]?

[Nige]

It's true, everyone now knows he's a rapist.

[Moderation4ever]

Jean Carroll benefitted most from Trump calling attention to the rape allegation and by calling Carroll a liar. Any good PR person could have told him how to handle the allegation to deny but not bring it more attention. But Trump doesn't listen to advice because he thinks he knows it all. Trump stupidity was further demonstrated in how poorly he and his lawyers handled the case. They practically handed the judgement to Carroll.

[Nige]

Trump is a master media manipulator, as evry fule no.

[not guilty]

I question the wisdom of Donald Trump and his counsel bringing the Carroll jury's verdict -- which in fact is quite damning to Trump -- back into the public's attention span while Trump is running for office.

But then this is a lawyer who claims that the federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 without pleading the state citizenship of any party. He must be sharp as a light bulb and bright as a tack.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio...Is it defamation, though?

Because it sounds like POTUS Trump's argument is: Hey ABC Shortie, you said I was guilty of rape on national TV. I'm not. I was found guilty of sexual abuse. That is not the same thing as rape. Pay up. And apologize!

I am left wondering if the monetary penalties here are excessive enough to be an 8th amendment violation. The same is true in the Engoron case as well. One wonders.

[Estragon]

“I was found liable of sticking my stubby fingers instead of my tiny dick inside of E Jean Carroll” is a total winner. I encourage trump and the huckleberries to keep flogging this line!

[Bwaaah]

I saw a legal opinion that the 8th Amendment has always applied to punishments imposed by the government, particularly in all criminal verdicts. The Carroll awards against Trump are civil and are not government-imposed, so they would not appear to be subject to 8A application. The Engoron judgement, though civil, is awarded as payable to the State of New York, so it would seem that it could be subject to 8A applicability, although the opinion stated that 8A applicability isn't clearly established (because it's a civil judgement?).

As for whether the Engoron penalty is excessive, it certainly is of a DEVASTATING magnitude, and as a layperson, I hope it will be subject to 8A jurisprudence.

[Moderation4ever]

The purpose of punitive damages is to stop an individual or company from some action. In the case of the judgment in the Jean Carroll case the amount was $65M. A huge amount, but not enough to stop Donald Trump from continuing to defame her. So, how do his lawyers argue that the amount is excessive if the behavior has not changed?

[Bwaaah]

I did not argue that the Carroll awards are excessive, nor subject to 8A application.

[Moderation4ever]

While most people are shocked by the amount of the Trump penalty it would only be around the 40% percentile of the top 100 settlements. Judge Engoron did not give the NY AG the whole amount asked for not did he impose a lifetime business ban. An appeal court could knock it down a little, but I see that as best case. I think that is why few companies want to bond the Trump company for the appeal. I also suspect that the Trump company, not Donald Trump, could do better by negotiations with the AG's office. They might get as much relief as an appeals court will give and at less expense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What surprises me -- with all of Trump's known mob connections from his contractor days -- is that Carroll is still alive.

Ethics and rule of law went into the toilet long ago -- I am genuinely surprised that he didn't put out a contract on her...

[Nige]

Ironic that his mob pals are the ones who are too smart to risk going to jail for him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

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

TWO (2)

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 outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers likely 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,
receding right-wing fringe of
legal academia by members of
the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something delightful.

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers:

First, can you detect which Stones guitarist contributes to this one (and when)?

Next, here's one that features plenty of Stones (Wood, Jagger, Richards, Watts), some frequent friends (Keys, McLagan), and a few hangers-on (Mick Fleetwood, Dave Mason, Jim Keltner).

Enjoy!

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you really like the Stones. I enjoy them too...but.

Can you dig out some Steely Dan? The Royal Scam?

Personal favorite: Haitian Divorce

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have featured Steely Dan a number of times. I will try to remember to do it again next week.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"...Now we dolly back, now we fade to black..."

[Commenter_XY]

Yes! 🙂 That is a good solo section of that song.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The great guitarist Dean Parks played that "talk box" solo. Fantastic.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Can you dig out some Steely Dan?"

A few years back, a client asked about my music taste. I responded with the "Three Bs : Bach, Beethovan and Bob Dylan." (though a little Coltrane, Rollins & Davis doesn't hurt either).

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting combo, grb.

[Frank Drackman]

The maid, she's French, she's got no sense
She's from the Crazy Horse
And when she strips, the chauffeur flips
The footman's eyes get crossed

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

Ron Wood? As to where exactly I'm sort of stumped between several possibilities - the song to me is kaleidescopic. That the effort is for charity is icing.

But thanks for reminding me to watch Local Hero!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have a hunch with respect to Ronnie, but the Stones are too important for guesswork.

I sense Tom Morello arrives late in the eighth minute, perhaps closely following sometime bandmate Bruce Springsteen. I also might have Mark Knopfler pegged, claiming his host's privilege.

In general, though, much likely awaits revelation from the video.

I think we will learn, though, that Ronnie is more "Beast of Burden" or "Satisfaction" than "Stay With Me" in this context.

[Bwaaah]

Holy shit! Mark Knopfler’s Guitar Heroes - Going Home
I never heard that. I'm in freakin' orgasmic electric guitar heaven (and I don't know shit about how to play one of those things).

Unbelievably beautiful music. Thanks, Rev.

[rloquitur]

Queens woman arrested for changing locks on her home that squatters occupied. WTF? Anyone ever hear of the Fifth Amendment?

[Ed Grinberg]

I am an attorney, but I don't know much about this area of the law. Have the relevant laws changed recently? I don't recall hearing much about this phenomenon before. Assuming this in fact happens more frequently these days, why is that?

[rloquitur]

So-called "squatters' rights"--if i can convince a cop that I've been in a place for 30 days or if i have a bogus lease, then you gotta go to housing court to kick them out.

It's a taking. To start.

[Martinned2]

Well, whether it might be a taking is exactly what the housing court is there to sort out.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No it isn't?

[rloquitur]

What are you talking about? My property is, you know, my property. The bundle of sticks that is my property rights includes the right to exclude and the right to change the locks on my house, absent me freely giving those rights away. So no, the government doesn't have the right to force people in this situation to go to housing court.

[SimonP]

No, it's not. It's a set of rules for settling contractual disputes that can often arise in the context of renting apartments and homes.

If your landlord wants you out of your apartment before the lease is up, should they be entitled to evict you immediately, forcing you to go to court in order to regain entry for the remainder of your lease?

[Kazinski]

But she didn't lease it to anyone, she was trying to sell it.

[SimonP]

How slowly do I need to explain this to you?

The correct and just disposition of a matter as presented to us in the press may be obvious to us. That does not mean that our legal system should be designed to deliver that outcome without delay. It may be obvious to everyone that OJ Simpson is guilty. That does not mean that we should have just handed down the death penalty as soon as the public was convinced he deserved it.

It may frustrate us that this squatter is taking advantage of a system designed to prevent a different kind of abuse. But the adults in the room need to take a moment to understand that the system that is shielding her is also the system that prevents people like me (timely paying rent for an apartment) from being summarily evicted by my landlord when/if she decides to retake the apartment, regardless of whatever our lease says about her right to do so.

[Kazinski]

As they say, the police are there to protect the criminals, because eventually people will find their own justice.

‘Vigilantes’ try to evict squatters at $1M Queens house after homeowner who confronted them is arrested in tense standoff
https://nypost.com/2024/03/20/us-news/vigilantes-try-to-evict-squatters-at-1m-queens-house-after-homeowner-adele-andaloro-is-arrested/

[BrotherMovesOn]

"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder."

[rloquitur]

Dude, you are a moron. We have rights in this country. One of those rights is the right to property. If the state prevents an owner (who has not alienated the right to possession etc.) from entering the property because some squatter is there, it will need to pay "just compensation." Or the state can just get out of the way. That woman has an absolute right to enter her property. See US Const. Amdt. 5 (as applied to states thru 14th Amendment). She also has an absolute right to change the locks. See id. The arrest was unconstitutional.

As for your hypo, if a landlord wrongly dispossesses you, he can be charged with a crime etc. So you already have your protection. Taking away the property rights of homeowners is just not on the table.

[rloquitur]

And SimonP when squatting isn't treated as the serious crime that it is, these are the things you can get:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/two-squatters-sought-in-nyc-murder-of-woman-found-stuffed-in-duffle-bag/

[Nige]

If only they'd been honest renters, then that murder wouldn't have been a crime at all.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, when the rule of law breaks down, there is no law.

She should have hired a half dozen hoodlums to go kill the squatters -- it'd be cheaper than you think and then the problem would be solved...

[Krayt]

If they kept paying property taxes, then it isn't abandoned, and the idea of un-abandoning it by moving in is void.

[SimonP]

I am reading a novel right now, Chevengur, by one Andrey Platonov.

Platonov was a Russian poet and novelist attempting to write during the early years of the USSR. Like many artists living under the Stalinist regime, he struggled to conform to the mandated Soviet aesthetic, and found most of his best work suppressed. Reading Chevengur, it's not hard to see why.

Its main characters are enthusiastic but self-styled "communists." They are uneducated idiots, for the most part, seeking to bring communism into existence in the immediate aftermath of the 1917 revolution by expropriating private property of anyone deemed part of the "bourgeoisie," elevating beggars and layabouts, killing and destroying anyone and anything of real value, and spending much of their time preoccupied by RevCom meetings and parsing party circulars. They engage in terrors that the novel tosses off as mundane events, with a kind of utter conviction in the correctness of their actions that would be chilling if it weren't so comedically moronic.

These characters continually remind me of many of the MAGA commenters here.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

These characters continually remind me of many of the MAGA commenters here.

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/americas-cultural-revolution-christopher-f-rufo
The book’s author got it totally wrong! It’s Trump and his supporters who are the radical revolutionaries, “killing and destroying anyone and anything of real value”! Of course!

[SimonP]

MAGA wants to deport millions of undocumented immigrants immediately, despite the ways in which doing so would harm the American economy.

MAGA wants to ban abortion and acknowledge "fetal personhood," despite the ways in which doing so would increase maternal deaths.

MAGA wants to ban gender-affirming care and LGBT topics from public schools, despite the ways in which this interferes with the parental rights of LGBT kids, criminalizes teachers and librarians, and restricts the freedom of LGBT kids.

MAGA wants to hand power over to a guy who doesn't even pretend to have their best interests in mind, in order to pursue an agenda of "retribution" against their perceived political enemies.

Even the acronym "MAGA" conveys putting ideology over real-world effects. MAGA would rather destroy the country than abide by another four years of policies they disagree with, as they demonstrated on J6. These are the same cretins who think the Second Amendment is about giving them the power to violently overthrow the government whenever they like - like destroying the U.S. would be just a speed bump to a future where they'll continue to live in economic prosperity and personal safety, in communities substantially unchanged by the collapse of the federal government.

So don't cite some hack's book like it proves anything. The mere publication of a book designed to cater to your prejudices does not establish as fact anything it says. I can look out my window and see a city that is economically prosperous and safe, despite the best efforts of the "woke" crowd. MAGA would choke it to death, if given the chance.

[Z Crazy]

None of the above seems extreme.

Didn't brandon endorse an amendment to overturn Roe v. Wayne?

Didn;t Dick dorbin say that Roe should be overruled?

[SimonP]

None of the above seems extreme.

You might just be an extremist.

Get back to me when you learn to type.

[Z Crazy]

What's extreme is saying that removing a perfectly healthy womb and ovaries somehow affirms a girl's sex.

[Nige]

What seems extreme is being this obsessed with other peoples' medical and health problems.

[Michael Ejercito]

What is the purpose of removing a perfectly healthy womb and ovaries, then?

[Nige]

You don't know? Why are the most opinionated motherfuckers the most ignorant?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot answers his own question

[SimonP]

The focus of MAGA's moral outrage always seems to go straight to the genitals of young girls. Are you Matt Gaetz?

[Guten]

[rloquitur]

Why isn't mass deportation ok?

[Dr. Ed 2]

MAGA wants to deport millions of undocumented immigrants immediately, despite the ways in which doing so would harm the American economy.

I'd prefer machine guns, but could live with deportation.

MAGA wants to ban abortion and acknowledge “fetal personhood,” despite the ways in which doing so would increase maternal deaths.

Sucks to be a slut. No great loss....

MAGA wants to ban gender-affirming care and LGBT topics from public schools, despite the ways in which this interferes with the parental rights of LGBT kids, criminalizes teachers and librarians, and restricts the freedom of LGBT kids.

Again, I'd prefer machine guns, but ....

MAGA wants to hand power over to a guy who doesn’t even pretend to have their best interests in mind, in order to pursue an agenda of “retribution” against their perceived political enemies.

Could this retribution possibly include machine guns? PLEASE????

Look, prick, the middle will not hold indefinitely and if you keep this crap up, the above is what you will GET....

[Estragon]

“Could this retribution possibly include machine guns? PLEASE????

Look, prick, the middle will not hold indefinitely and if you keep this crap up, the above is what you will GET….”

You are such a pathetic do-nothing whiner! Why are you waiting for other people to take action??

[Estragon]

Don’t tell me you’re just another internet tough guy! Fire up that snowplow!

[#FFFFFFPride]

But communism and marxism and being an idiot is Leftist, not MAGA.

How weird that you look in a mirror and see MAGA and not the tragic horrors of your belief system. It's like out of some dystopian novel.

[SimonP]

I am not a communist, a Marxist, or really even a leftist. So I'm not reading anything about my own belief system. Being opposed to MAGA does not make me any of those things.

What's weird here is your thinking that the despotic and idiotic tendencies attributed to some fictional Soviet communists could not possibly be shared by MAGA, who are very openly seeking to re-shape American society and government to align with their own beliefs (much like the characters I've described), and who align themselves with Putin, the former KGB agent who is intentionally and methodically re-introducing into his own society the tools of Soviet repression.

The dystopia is here, but you're on the wrong side of it.

[OtisAH]

Ah, “Nuh uh, you are!” The pinnacle of “conservative” rhetoric. Always a delight.

[M L]

The characters you describe remind me of the left in the US today, quite plainly so.

[SimonP]

It's hard for me to imagine being so deluded as to believe that DEI coordinators spouting asinine things in a lecture hall are engaged in anything as deeply threatening to freedom and liberty as governors and attorneys general passing and enforcing laws to ban drag shows, shut down Planned Parenthood, drive trans kids and adults out of their state, impose accepted ideologies on school students, and on and on.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why do Democrats treat illegals so much better than citizens?

Democrats give them free rent, free meals, cash debit cards, exempt from many civil and criminal laws, free travel, bypass airport security, carry guns, etc.

Why do illegals count towards the number of Representatives a state gets?

[Ed Grinberg]

.

Why do Democrats treat illegals so much better than citizens?

Hmmm... Could this have something to do with it?
Oikophobia: Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting (James Taranto, 8/27/2010)

[DaveM]

Why is your screen name a sly reference to "white pride"? If you're indeed proud of being white, why the wink-wink nudge-nudge? That doesn't sound very proud, it sounds like you're wanting to hide it.

[SimonP]

White supremacists have figured out that they have to keep their beliefs quiet and insinuate themselves into positions of power, before they can really be open about it. I imagine WhitePride here just figured he needed a way to avoid some Reason filter when he was creating his user name.

[DaveM]

Well, I'll wait to see if he responds. I can see the name being chosen sarcastically; not everyone has the same sense of humor. But if it's serious, I guess it's another addition to the mute list.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Don't forget the real risk of the Democrats at the FBI and other government agencies terrorizing Whites that resist the State programming and narratives.

Just saying Wh*te Pr*de can trigger no-fly lists, domestic terror watch lists, and illegal FBI/CIA spying.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Only when people like you authorize official rules about race and proscribe any patriotism as racially based.
If they don't call themselves White PRide,who the hell are you to make like you can legally pin it on them,try them, prosecute and then imprison them.I know from experience that people that talk as you do are racist. Everying appears to them under color of race or nationality. even people they've never met (as often you do)

[SimonP]

I doubt that the FBI cares as much about your white-supremacist leanings, WhitePride, as they do about your truck full of fertilizer.

[Frank Drackman]

everything you post is a truck full of fertilizer

[#FFFFFFPride]

Tell that to those grannies and grampy's the FBI raided and put on their terror watchlists.

And then there's that FBI/DOD presentation that leaked where they explicitly were monitoring these things under the guise of Domestic Terrorism.

Don't forget that. Oh and also doing stuff like buying a Bible gets you on their terrorist suspect list.

[rloquitur]

Where are you on Kristin "Sun People" Clarke?

[#FFFFFFPride]

It's not sly at all. If I wanted to be sly I would've chosen something like Oscar Yeager or Andrew Macdonald.

I haven't let the neo-Marxists program me into hating myself and worshipping the Others. It's part of their strategy to create a Marxist revolution and take tyrannical power and control over everyone and everything.

[SimonP]

Is this a chatbot powered by Elon Musk's AI? It's all too perfectly deluded to be a real person.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is just the average Volokh Conspiracy fan. Old-timey bigots cranky because American progress has forced them to be guarded about their racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, xenophobia, white nationalism, Christian dominionism, Islamophobia, antisemitism. They pine for the good old days, when bigots were out, loud, and proud.

[SimonP]

"Illegals" may not all be better than all citizens. But it's a good bet they're better than you.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What does that have to do with them getting 2 years free rent and $10k cash cards?

[SimonP]

I'd give them each a pony if they'd use them to stomp you into the ground.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Calls for violence from a liberal.

Fits the pattern.

[SimonP]

I am being facetious, employing the vernacular of this space (where MAGA commenters are very fond of threatening political violence).

I am not one of those "punch a Nazi" liberals. That said, you're a racist fabulist, so you can eat a dick for all I care.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

ON your say-so, a virulent racist ????

Listen,sonny, look up the Cuban illegals from Carter's time.
Rapists, psychos, murderers,perverts GALORE

[SimonP]

Go drink your juice, gramps.

[Frank Drackman]

I got some juice you can drink

[hobie]

As I recall, Reagan praised the Marielitos. Probably one reason Florida Cubans swing republican...or whatever republican is nowadays

[Nige]

Why do you think you can create categories of people that can be treated like shit?

[#FFFFFFPride]

I dont get it. Can you explain where that is coming from?

[Nige]

As a cowardly bully, you pick on the weak. You can't get much weaker than illegals. So as a category, it's okay to treat them like shit, you just have to make up a bunch of stuff, exaggerate a bunch of other stuff and get performatively furious and outraged at any suggstion that maybe people shouldn't be treated like shit just because they're a category you decided to pick on.

[grb]

Nige : "You can’t get much weaker than illegals"

Though there's competition with the Right's obssessive hate campaign against the tiny number of people who are transexual. You could sense an almost orgasmic joy when they discovered that group to target. After all, the average Rightie used to be able to loathe Blacks, sneer at women, despise Hispanics, and hate Jews. They could do so openingly in the 50s paradise they're always so nostalgic over.

Now? Not so much. All that's left for troll freaks like #FFFFFFPride is the anonymity of the internet. But with transexuals you could see they thought they had a majority of people with them. It was like the goof old days, when targeted cruel hate could come out in the open and be ritualistically celebrated. Thus the hundreds and hundreds of anti-trans bills that appeared out of nowhere in just a couple of years.

These people are so dead inside, without morality, ethics or goodness.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

These people are so dead inside, without morality, ethics or goodness.

Perhaps, but they'll always have the Volokh Conspiracy, the Heritage Foundation, the Republican Party, and the Federalist Society.

[#FFFFFFPride]

If you're getting free rent, free money, free travel, and police that won't arrest you when you commit crimes, then I'd argue you are the farthest from weak as can be.

[hobie]

I only hire illegals because they work harder than white Americans. They don't get free shit at all. So stop making shit up. I recall when the first load of Cubans came to work in my factory they all pooled into one car. After six months they had each saved enough to get a used car. When they all showed up in their new cars that day they were smiling so broadly that you'd think they had just discovered teeth. That's the American dream, baby.

[#FFFFFFPride]

>I only hire illegals because they work harder than white Americans.

Why aren't you hiring blacks then?

Is two years free rent "free shit"?
https://www.newsweek.com/migrants-get-two-years-free-rent-new-apartments-1859556

What about being given free cash cards? Is free cash cards "free shit"?
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-nyc-migrants-credit-debit-cards-prepaid-240335300869

Stop watching MSNBC and the View. They are lying to you.

[Nige]

So all the illegals not getting any of those things *are* weak, so you won't pick on them, eh?

[M L]

Free health care too! It's getting quite nuts.

Why do they do this? A think the recent handouts have been mostly a feverish, deranged reaction to the 2016 election. But there's more to it.

I would be interested to hear from my liberal/left friends here: Do you support these policies? Whether yes or no, can you explain the thinking behind them?

[Nige]

In this I agree. It's nuts that every American citizen doesn't have access to free health care.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is no problem the modern American liberal-libertarian mainstream will not solve, thanks to the culture war.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Government free healthcare is a death sentence. Just ask the vets.

[Nige]

How can I, they're all dead of free health care.

[SimonP]

Here in New York, Adams has sought to offload some of the burden of housing the migrants by imposing increasingly tight restrictions on how long they can stay in subsidized housing. If you're a single male, you now get 30 days, after which you're forced out on the street and have to enter a lottery if you want back in.

They are offered tickets elsewhere. They don't take them. Why? Because that means starting over some other place. These people are largely focused on getting work authorizations and getting on with their lives. So where do they stay, if they can't get back into shelters?

Well, if they don't have friends or family at whose places they can crash - and if they did, they'd probably have gone there in the first place - a lot of them are sleeping on the street, in subways, or in churches. They don't have regular access to services or facilities to keep clean. They are, essentially, homeless. (Which is why the state law requiring the provision of shelter applies to them in the first place.)

That's why we provide them the benefits. Because the alternative to giving them benefits is not a problem that disappears from view, as migrants shuffle off to where they came from. It's a ballooning homeless problem, with migrants sleeping anywhere they can find. It's kids selling candy on trains instead of sitting in schools. It's informal vendors hawking wares any place they can roll out a blanket.

Providing these benefits may have the effect of drawing migrants here and incentivizing them to stay. But the migrants are here and will continue coming here no matter how tight we close the spigot. The choice isn't between migrants and no migrants. The choice is between an expensive but controlled migrant problem, and an expensive and uncontrolled migrant problem.

[rloquitur]

They can stay at your place. Or how about just sending them back? Able-bodied men should be home fixing their places.

[SimonP]

I'm not sure I want to waste my time walking through the precise mechanics of "sending them back" with a dullard who thinks the Fifth Amendment gives property owners a right to forcibly remove putative tenants from their property (and boy did you choose the wrong side on that story!).

But I'll quickly respond by just asking you: sending them back how? On what authority? Why do you creeps all think that governors and presidents can just dictate where migrants can go and stay? You're all extreme authoritarians on this issue. It's so bizarre.

Mayor Adams can't just grab any old migrant and send them anywhere. Not even Abbott and DeSantis did this - they had to rely on misleading migrants to get them onto the buses and planes they're sending elsewhere. Never mind sending them to other countries. As Mexico has signaled vis-a-vis Texas's migrant law, other countries do not have to accept anyone we send them. A Mexican citizen might have a right to re-enter Mexico, under Mexican law. But Mexico doesn't have to accept our flights or grant visas to anyone we put on the planes. The most that Adams could do - assuming that he has the authority to force migrants anywhere, which he doesn't - is send them to another part of the U.S.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Do you support these policies?

You haven't identified any policies. The post to which you refer suggests a bunch of things that aren't things. Maybe identify a specific policy that you dislike and ask about that rather than this generalized notion that anyone is treating undocumented immigrants "so much better than citizens."

You guys are getting into fart smelling territory. A fake parade of horribles and each of you trying to one up the other.

[Harvey Mosley]

The LA PD is changing their job descriptions to allow illegal aliens who are police officers to take their guns home after their shift.

California has expanded Medi-Cal (the state's version of Medicare) to cover illegal aliens of any age.

Illegal aliens pay in state tuition at state colleges; out of state US citizens pay higher tuition.
These are just a few.

[Harvey Mosley]

Too late to edit.

"Illegal aliens pay in state tuition at state colleges; out of state US citizens pay higher tuition." should be: Illegal aliens pay in state tuition at California state colleges; out of state US citizens pay higher tuition.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The LA PD is changing their job descriptions to allow illegal aliens who are police officers to take their guns home after their shift.

No, they aren't. They are allowing immigrant officers with deferred citizenship (DACA) to take their service weapons home. So they aren't actually illegal/deportable at this point at all.

Moreover, to the original point, this isn't "so much better" than U.S. citizens.

California has expanded Medi-Cal (the state’s version of Medicare) to cover illegal aliens of any age.

Is this what you mean: As of Jan. 1, 2024, adults in California ages 26 through 49 will be allowed to qualify for Medi-Cal, regardless of their immigration status.

You understand that doesn't treat immigrants "so much better" than U.S. citizens, it treats them the same in this one particular way (i.e., immigration status alone doesn't make them ineligible).

Illegal aliens pay in state tuition at state colleges; out of state US citizens pay higher tuition. (Edit below noted.)

Yes, in-state residents pay less than out of state residents. This doesn't treat immigrants "so much better than" U.S. citizens, it treats them the same for purposes of in-state tuition.

You didn't understand the assignment.

[Nige]

Sounds like they're integrating and assimilating!

[M L]

"You haven’t identified any policies."

Yah, here we go. First comes "that's not happening" and then "it's good that it is."

The commenter above listed some examples. Here's some more.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/04/24/report-illinois-taxpayers-spend-1b-giving-health-care-illegal-aliens/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/23/eleven-2020-democrats-back-health-care-illegal-immigrants/

[M L]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/22/eric-adams-spending-53m-debit-cards-migrants-nyc-kids-live-poverty/

https://www.breitbart.com/health/2024/03/15/analysis-migrants-costing-taxpayers-billions-free-uninsured-healthcare/

[NOVA Lawyer]

https://www.breitbart.com/health/2024/03/15/analysis-migrants-costing-taxpayers-billions-free-uninsured-healthcare/

From the article: While the vast majority of illegals don’t have insurance, they’re free to rack up debt with long hospital stays.

It doesn't identify a policy that allows them to wrack up the debt, but I am sure EMTALA, etc., require hospitals to treat people who show up at the ER. This is not special treatment for immigrants. You didn't understand the assignment.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/22/eric-adams-spending-53m-debit-cards-migrants-nyc-kids-live-poverty/

Here, finally, you come across a policy that is specific to migrants. An important note, it is a pilot program and, according to the AP, Brietbart lied (surprise) when it said the debit cards could be used for anything: migrants will get prepaid debit cards as part of the New York pilot program — not credit cards — with which they will only be permitted to purchase food and baby supplies at certain types of retailers. AP - Feb. 6, 2024

It's a pilot program. I don't agree migrants should get benefits related to their socioeconomic status that are not available to U.S. citizens with the same socioeconomic status. Of course, U.S. citizens have a number of other programs to qualify for food assistance other than these debit cards. According to the AP, it's also $12.52 per day, not $35.00 per day. Further, it is to take the place of non-perishable food boxes. The pilot program is to see if this is cheaper.

I get that you would like to starve the migrants. But based on all the errors in the Breitbart story, it's hard to say this is an unreasonable attempt to solve a food/nutrition issue. And it's a pilot program, to see if it works and saves money.

But at least you found something that appears to actually benefit migrants vis a vis U.S. citizens! Although, again, I suspect U.S. citizens actually have many more and better food assistance programs, so you still failed on the "so much better than" metric. I doubt, ultimately, this is a good idea, but it's not what you and Breitbart pretends it is.

[M L]

Where do citizens get to live in hotels rent-free? And get $1,000 per month in debit cards?

Regardless of whether any of this is specific to illegals, my question was whether you supported it or not?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why are you asking a question asked and answered? I said I didn't think the New York debit card plan was a good idea.

As to free hotel rooms, it's all over the place:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/d-c-phases-out-its-covid-era-hotel-housing-program-for-homeless-people

https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/news/press-releases/2024-02-14-city-baltimore-reaches-deal-acquire-two-hotels-response-housing

Here's a clearinghouse to help you find one of the many programs if you're interested: https://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/free_motel_and_hotel_vouchers.html#google_vignette

As to the debit cards, you inflated the number, according to the data I saw and quoted, $12.52 per day which doesn't get you to $1,000 per month.

Here's one example of debit cards for U.S. citizens:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility

There are others. But you know that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/04/24/report-illinois-taxpayers-spend-1b-giving-health-care-illegal-aliens/

Not a special benefit for immigrants, but merely allows people to apply and receive health benefits regardless of immigration status.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/23/eleven-2020-democrats-back-health-care-illegal-immigrants/

This refers to campaign promises by some Democrats that never became law. It also proposed treating people as people regardless of immigration status. It did not provide for special benefits for immigrants.

You also didn't understand the assignment. The original comment asked why "illegal" immigrants were being treated "so much better than citizens".

[M L]

I was asking about policies that Democrats have supported, whether implemented yet or not. You didn't actually answer whether you support any of the above or not? You didn't understand the assignment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you admit immigrants aren't being treated better than U.S. citizens, then good for you.

Free health care? To the extent it's a thing, those of us who support access to health care regardless of ability to pay think that humans deserve respect as humans. That certain basic things like being able to get treated after a car accident or heart attack or whatever regardless of ability to pay is a decent, humane, thing to do and that letting people die because they are poor when they could have been saved by, for example, emergency medical treatment is, frankly, monstrous. Not that I care about this, but it is also profoundly unchristian.

[M L]

Where do citizens get a free pass and rewarded for violating the law, like illegals do?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Now you’re just retreating to silly absurdities. Be specific if you’re serious.

And you're back to claiming undocumented/unauthorized migrants are treated better than U.S. citizens after claiming that's not what you were saying.

But, of course, you mean that most of us like to treat people as humans regardless of whether when crossing an imaginary line in the sand they had the proper documents. For you, treating fellow humans as human beings worthy of basic dignity is “rewarding them for violating the law”. No, it’s not. It’s just not being a complete asshole who dehumanizes other people.

[hobie]

New York and California may offer housing allowances. I don't know. State's prerogative. But in Texas we don't. My illegals get nothing except the salary I pay them and they do just fine on that, thank you very much.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why aren't the people who carried out the Holodomor not as reviled as the people who were accused of carrying out the Holocaust?

Is it because in one Jews were perpetrators and the other the alleged victims?

[Ed Grinberg]

Stalin was Jewish?! If so, he sure was one confused Jew...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why do you think I was claiming Stalin was Jewish with the supposition that he's solely responsible for the Holodomor?

[Michael Ejercito]

So which Jews diud commit of Holodomor?

[Nige]

Woody Allen, I bet.

[#FFFFFFPride]

The 80% of the Communist government that were Bolshevik Jews.

D'uh. Why aren't they teaching you that Communism and Marxism are Jewish ideologies?

[grb]

#FFFFFFPride : "The 80% of the Communist government that were Bolshevik Jews"

Why are bigots so fucking stupid? How come they always have to lie?

"According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total, and in the 1920s of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People's Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews"

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

[hobie]

You really showed your ass and your ignorance with this one. And it wasn't just Ukraine that the Soviets perpetuated an Holodomor on. Check out Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan histories in the Breitbart archives or wherever you learn things from

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I just read that one of BYU's basketball players is a 26-year-old, sixth-year player for his fourth college team. Then I learned a Fairfield player, also 26, is an eighth-year player, with his third team.

Some people have won multiple NBA titles and multiple NBA most valuable player awards by 26 . . . others are still playing against 17-year-olds in college.

[Frank Drackman]

and some are men who cut their dicks off and play against girls

[OtisAH]

Why did you cut yours off, piece of shit? Or was it always a nub?

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

[Nige]

Because when they heed his warnings and follow his advice, worst case scenarios are avoided? Certainly when valuable livestoc was at risk, immediate action was taken. When it was just people, there was more reluctance and opposition from some quarters.

[Michael Ejercito]

Because of what he proposed.

[Nige]

He proposed to you? How romantic.

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait until Baseball Opening day

[Paladin_44]

Perhaps the most cogent comment you've made on this blog to date. Congratulations!

[Frank Drackman]

I was being Ironic (dontcha think?) because Opening Day already happened, in South Korea.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Unless he's referring to Opening Day 2025, he is (as is customary) behind the times.

The Dodgers and Padres are 1-1. Mookie Betts has seven runs batted in.

[Frank Drackman]

First pitch at 3am Pacific? yeah, missed it.
Way to get new fans, MLB

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hard to believe the major league baseball marketing department hasn't called this guy for tips yet.

[Frank Drackman]

Like MLB's got a record of taking advice

Frank "If he's a good hitter why doesn't he hit good?"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kirkland, Betts is the reason I wear a Red Sox cap.

I sometimes have need to reassure people I meet. They might otherwise find my appearance imposing. Even an anodyne first impression is better than that.

When the Sox let Betts go, it turned the cap into a signal that whatever else you might think, no one wearing it intends to compete with you. An unwanted side-effect is it also invites an inference that I don't care if I become a bore.

Of course, when traveling through the nation's less discerning regions, I switch to my CAT DIESEL POWER cap, to fit in.

[BrotherMovesOn]

SL, but Sam Kennedy told us Betts "was never going to stay" anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop...A red sux fan? Really? Ugh, this explains a lot.

[Harvey Mosley]

"An unwanted side-effect is it also invites an inference that I don’t care if I become a bore."

Comedy gold.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NY is truly playing with fire in multiple dimensions --

[Frank Drackman]

Keep looking for any information on this "Lincoln Riley" who Parkinsonian Joe said was murdered by an "Illegal", can any Conspirators help a brother out?

Frank WPWW

[Kazinski]

Katie Porter is claiming she lost her primary to Adam Schiff because the election was rigged.

https://twitter.com/katieporteroc/status/1765513523050791023?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1765513523050791023%7Ctwgr%5E9dca7e9df834cd2088325d94344b2f1c2f76b655%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fkaren-townsend%2F2024%2F03%2F21%2Fkatie-porter-walks-back-rigged-comment-about-ca-senate-primary-kinda-n3785105

She joins such other noted election deniers such as Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Stacey Abrams, and Kari Lake.

[Michael Ejercito]

Adam Schiff is also an election denier.

[Frank Drackman]

what a match up in California, Pencil Neck Schitt vs No Neck Garvey

[SimonP]

I am sick to death of Katie Porter and her whiteboard schtick.

But she's not wrong that likely a big reason she came in third is because Schiff's campaign spent so much money boosting the Republican candidate. Garvey didn't spend much on his campaign and barely ran. It was a dirty trick. Fair game in politics, but still dirty.

[David Nieporent]

Katie Porter claimed that — although she made clear that what she was upset about was rich people criticizing her — and got blasted by liberals for using Trumpian language, and this week walked that back, admitting she shouldn't have said "rigged."

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hasn't she already committed treason against our Sacred Democracy though? You can't put the felony back in the toothpaste tube, as they say.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and they are still counting votes.

[Nige]

You can't make other people not committing felonies be the same as Trump committing felonies, except in your own head.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

ON MY MIND:

From 1948 through 2009, Amato Opera was the leading petit-grand opera in NYC, giving small performances in a small venue located next door to CBGB (!!!) on the Bowery, and helping young singers build their resumes. In 2009, Tony Amato, the founding director, died, and out of the ashes sprang Amore Opera which inherited sets, props, and costumes from Amato. Amore has been active since 2010 (with a break for the pandemic, of course) and most recently gave a terrific run of Don Giovanni. (See, for instance, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX66RC4Zahk )

Well, now, Amore is broke, and likely to be unable to pay the rent on the warehouse where all the props, sets, and costumes are stored. This will mark the demise of a very worthy institution which has jump-started numerous international vocal careers in its time.

If anyone out there in Libertarian Land has more money than you know what to do with, I suggest you try reaching out to Amore Opera. It’s easy to find, and they’d love to hear from you!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I credit the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Alicia Keys, Stevie Wonder, Pure Prairie League, Lady Gaga, Mark Knopfler, Carole King, local bar bands, thousands like them, and their fans for carrying their own weight, paying their own freight, and letting the market sift their circumstances.

The tuxedo-and-gown audience that arranges to have taxpayers prop up its entertainments (opera, symphony, ballet, etc.) should be ashamed (and wrested from the public teat).

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I think - I could be wrong, but I think - that Amore relies on private charity.

Besides, government should take a role in arranging for the people to be smart rather than stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If that is an endorsement of UCLA’s disassociation from this blog . . . good call!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Duquesne, the least-picked 11 seed, has eliminated BYU. Seven of eight brackets are already busted.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Apparently 95 percent busted by 8 p.m. on the first day.

[Michael Ejercito]

Interesting video about the Murthy case.

https://rumble.com/v4k9cpb-matt-taibbi-on-how-free-speech-turned-into-a-far-right-slogan.html

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Are Donald Trump and Marco Rubio both inhabitants of the same state? Does the actual text of the Constitution matter anymore?

[David Nieporent]

The "actual text of the constitution" does not say what people seem to think it says. It does not bar the president and vice president being from the same state.

[Harvey Mosley]

David, I've always thought that POTUS and the VP had to be different states. After reading the 12th Amendment again I see that it could be that at least one of the POTUS or VP has to be from a different state than the electors who voted for them. Is that correct?

[Michael P]

Yes. Florida's electors would need to cast their ballots for either Donald Trump and Joe Shmoe or Joe Shmoe and Marco Rubio.

The way this landslide of an electoral bloodbath is shaping up to be, it won't matter.

[santamonica811]

Nah. I think Biden will win enough of the 5-7 contested states to squeak by, but it won't be an electoral blowout like 2016 or 2024. (Biden will win the popular vote by millions, of course; but that wasn't your point.) But it's certainly possible that you'll be correct. That a slight tilt to the left or the right will push Biden or Trump to win all or most of those 7 by a few points each, and we then would end up in the range of 310+ electoral votes for either of them.

Trump as the Rapist-in-Chief. Again. The mind boggles.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, that’s correct. So what that means is that (assuming a hypothetical Trump/Rubio ticket wins Florida) Florida’s 30 electoral votes can’t all go to both Trump and Rubio. Trump could get 30 and Rubio 0, Rubio 30 and Trump 0, or anything in between. But, just to be clear, the electors who did not vote for Rubio would not be forced to vote for Harris; they would vote for a placeholder GOP candidate (from outside Florida).

If the Trump/Rubio ticket wins the electoral college by >30 votes, then it’s irrelevant; Trump gets 301 electoral votes for president, Rubio gets 271 electoral votes for vice president, some GOP rando — say, Vivek Ramaswamy — gets 30 votes for vice president, and Trump and Rubio each have a majority and are elected.

If the Trump/Rubio ticket wins a close one in the electoral college, it gets a bit trickier. Trump gets (say) 275 votes, which is a majority, so he gets elected. Now, Rubio only gets 245 votes. Harris gets 263 votes, which is more than Rubio, but still less than a majority. Since it takes an absolute majority, not mere plurality, to get elected, neither one has it and the vice presidential selection is tossed to the senate. Which is very likely to be Republican.

(Of course, if the senate happens to be Democratic-held, then they could pick Harris, leaving us with a Trump/Harris combo. Which is why there's no way Trump would pick Rubio.)

[santamonica811]

I thought that Rubio (let’s say) could run as VP, but–assuming he/Trump won--he’d have to move to a different state before the electoral college voted. (That’s based on 40-year-old memories from Jr. High Civics class, so I’m prepared to be wildly off on this.)

[David Nieporent]

I would say that you're mildly off on this, and in the same way most are. As explained above, he does not "have to move." There is just no requirement that they be from different states.

[not guilty]

"The 'actual text of the constitution' does not say what people seem to think it says. It does not bar the president and vice president being from the same state."

That is correct, but the relevant language of the Twelfth Amendment provides:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves[.]

If a party nominates candidates for President and Vice President from the same state, (especially an electoral vote heavy state such as Florida,) that risks one or the other (in all likelihood the Vice Presidential nominee) not having an electoral college majority without the votes of his home state electors.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That is why Dick Cheney “moved” to Wyoming so that he could run with Texan GWBush in 2000.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

An academic and/or legal blog would address this.

This blog, instead, endorses John Eastman (one of the stars of that article examining Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force) and offers a steady stream of transgender this - Muslim - lying women - white grievance - transgender that - lesbian - male grievance - transgender that other thing - drag queen - Black crime - transgender sorority drama content.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It would, but this is not the academic and/or legal blog it perhaps pretends to be.

I wonder if, when Kavanaugh votes against the immunity claim, they start believing Christine Blasey Ford as, from what I can tell, their credibility assessments hinge almost entirely on whether the testimony is for or against someone they like. (Compare their assessments of the credibility of E. Jean Carroll, Tara Reade, Juanita Broadrick, Christine Blasey Ford, Lev Parnas (then), Lev Parnas (now), and Tony Bobulinski.)

It's all such a joke.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Kavanaugh was involved in an insurrection and he was involved with an administration that tortured detainees in order to coerce false confessions…Democrats were dumb to even attend his hearings. No Democrat could vote for him based on information that was common knowledge thus his behavior towards Ford was irrelevant.

[NOVA Lawyer]

My point is that, despite all that, MAGA will turn on him if he crosses Dear Leader. They attempt to punish anything but blind loyalty to their cult leader.

[grb]

It’s also worth noting Kavanaugh was the most corrupt partisan hack to ever run a special counsel investigation. He spent over three years “investigating” the suicide of Vince Foster – not far from twice the length of Mueller’s inquiry. He inherited a finished & thorough five-month inquiry from Robert Fiske and added nothing except trivia in the margins. He would later gleefully admit he knew Foster killed himself all along. Special counsel investigators have a poor reputation, but only one was a fraud from beginning to end : Kavanaugh. No one else holding the position has shown such contempt for the law. He ran it like a frat boy prank.

[not guilty]

Not to mention that Kavanaugh was Kenneth Starr's main attack dog regarding the tawdry investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life.

Speaking of Starr, it is deliciously ironic that he was forced out at Baylor for his lackadaisical approach to a sex scandal.

[grb]

To be fair, Kavanaugh later made some milquetoast comments about special counsel investigations being open to abuse.

Of course many an axe murderer suddenly decides axe murder is mean & hurtful just after the bloody tool drops from his hand. It’s fascinating to see Kavanaugh squeezed himself into a bit role during another of Official Washington’s more grotesque moments: The Right’s feeding frenzy over poor braindead Terri Schiavo.

Granted, his was the smallest of parts - but it was the thought that counts. Kavanaugh showed there was no hackery where he wasn’t willing to do his hackish best. I sometimes thinks that’s why Blackman is so down on the Justice. Despite all his frantic efforts to escape South Texas College, he sees he’ll never be the unprincipled whore BK was.

[David Nieporent]

When did he "gleefully admit he knew Foster killed himself all along"?

[grb]

1. Kavanaugh said in contemporous written memos he was convinced right from the very begining Foster killed himself. Of course with Robert Fiske’s report in his hand at the start, it was a hard conclusion to evade. But this was his little secret for years.

2. And that explains his investigative “stategy”. Basically, he took any piece of conspiratorial gibberish he could glean from the Right’s gutter press and dispatched the FBI to “clear it up”. Thus a Christopher Ruddy-type might claim Foster was a Mossad agent. Kavanaugh would heroically run that Mossad rumor down – Thus lending credence to its source. That source would create new rumors. It was like one of those closed ecosystems governed by a perfect symbiotic releationships. And that's how three-plus years went by.

3. Want to challenge any of that? Well good luck and God bless. I do offer this concession before you launch into Google: The “gleeful” part was my own personal extrapolation. Given BK’s frat boy ethos, I find it probable – but it isn’t entirely supported by fact.

[David Nieporent]

2. And that explains his investigative “stategy”. Basically, he took any piece of conspiratorial gibberish he could glean from the Right’s gutter press and dispatched the FBI to “clear it up”. Thus a Christopher Ruddy-type might claim Foster was a Mossad agent. Kavanaugh would heroically run that Mossad rumor down – Thus lending credence to its source. That source would create new rumors. It was like one of those closed ecosystems governed by a perfect symbiotic releationships. And that’s how three-plus years went by.

This is sounding very MAGAish: claiming that Comey briefed Trump on the Steele dossier for the sole purpose of giving the media a hook to report on it.

[Bwaaah]

“This is sounding very MAGAish”

Yep. He seems to be pretty familiar with some brand of rabbit hole there. <sarc>I’m sure it’s all well-sourced and not riddled with speculative inferences.</sarc>

[#FFFFFFPride]

James Carville has called Biden to use his proxies for "wetworks" ops on Trump.

As Wikileaks showed with Scalia, when Democrats call for "wetworks" we can expect an assassination soon. I'm betting a Democrat in the FBI out of DC will be the triggerman because everyone knows zir will be found not guilty in the DC legal system.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Scalia was not assassinated. The only thing weird about his death was the presence of the scantily-clad underage boys.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Scalia absolutely was assassinated. The pillow over his face was the message that the Pillow Biters got him.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

No, it was to shield the Great Man's face from his servant's bowels.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Former Justice Scalia was a bigot who will be remembered much like the Court’s slavery advocates. Fondly by substandard misfits, rarely and dismissively by better Americans.

It is unfortunate he did not repent before he died.

[Michael P]

https://twitter.com/JennieSTaer/status/1770886341879885952

I've lost track, is this a week that a violent mob attacking the military counts as a martial action, or is this an "off" week?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’m perfectly fine arresting and charging the migrants who pushed past the National Guardsmen.

It is worth noting, none of them appear to have beat any of the National Guardsmen with a flag pole, did not pepper spray them, and otherwise did not assault them with weapons as happened on J6.

Similarly, it is also worth noting that they did not have as their objective stopping the peaceful transfer of power. They forced there way into a place they had no right to go. Again, I am happy for them to be prosecuted for disobeying a lawful order or whatever and any that actually pushed a National Guardsman should be charged with assault. That’s not okay.

Notably, you don’t quote anyone defending their actions or claiming they are heroes or trying to claim they did nothing wrong by showing many hours of footage when they weren’t actively assaulting officers of the law.

I guess for you, it’s only wrong to assault a police officer when an undocumented migrant does it?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Oh, and, look at this, they were arrested!

https://www.khou.com/article/news/special-reports/at-the-border/migrants-arrested-in-el-paso/285-3e80289e-2f41-4a8d-94a8-edb6e8427d63

And is anyone of consequence claiming they shouldn't have been arrested or claiming they are hostages?

[M L]

Someone above asked for info about all the Democrat handouts in recent years to illegal immigrants for health care, cash, housing, education, etc. Of course, Google heavily censors and manipulates its search results to influence public opinion and interfere in elections so you can never find things like this as easily any more. So I had to search for Breitbart, as I'm not aware of any other high volume outlet that attempts to catalogue such news comprehensively. Seems like I go there once every few months when I'm looking back to find info like this.

Anyway, I saw there's an amusing current section for "Bloodbath Hoax." Here's the headlines:

Report: Biden Administration Strategized with Democrat ‘Influencers’ Who Created ‘Bloodbath’ Hoax

Merriam-Webster Defines ‘Bloodbath’ as a ‘Major Economic Disaster’

Former CIA Officer Who Called Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinformation Pushes ‘Bloodbath’ Hoax

Chinese Auto Executive: ‘Bloodbath’ Coming for American Auto Industry

Experts, Executives, and Auto Workers Agree with Trump: China Hoping to Annihilate American Auto Industry in ‘Bloodbath’ on Joe Biden’s Watch

Dishonest Biden Administration Doubles Down on ‘Bloodbath’ Attack on Trump

[JasonT20]

Illegal immigrants are lazy and coming here to mooch off of our social services spending!

Illegal immigrants are coming here to work long hours for to take our jobs that we won't do for the low pay that businesses want to pay for them!

There is clearly quantum superposition involved in how Trump and other MAGA figures get people to believe both of these things at the same time. It's like Schrodinger's Cat for politics. Both can be true as long as you don't actually think about either of them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There is clearly quantum superposition involved in how Trump and other MAGA figures get people to believe both of these things at the same time. It’s like Schrodinger’s Cat for politics. Both can be true as long as you don’t actually think about either of them.

Well said. Extra points for the quantum physics analogy.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Do you believe the 30,000,000 illegals that Biden let flood our country all have the same motives?
Is it not possible that some are coming to mooch, after all, they are a net drain while others are coming to work illegal and send remittances back to their families?

Isn't it a fact that illegal immigrant remittances are the second largest income generator for Mexico?

These two facts align perfectly with the two claims.

[JasonT20]

Do you believe the 30,000,000 illegals that Biden let flood our country...

Damn! It's impressive that Biden was able to increase the population of the U.S. by almost 10% simply by letting illegals in!

[NOVA Lawyer]

He is innumerate and a liar. Never believe any of his numbers. Which, of course you don't, but no one should.

30 million is stupid on its face.

[#FFFFFFPride]

7.2M is just what they know about.

Do you think the actual number of illegals is 7.2M? Less than 7.2M or more than 7.2M?

[NOVA Lawyer]

7.2M is just what they know about.

It's not clear what you are talking about. Is that some number of alleged undocumented immigrants in the U.S. now or that entered the country since January 20, 2021, or what ?

The best estimate of the total number of unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S. is about 11.5 million. An increase of roughly 1.24 million since January 2021. https://cis.org/Report/Estimating-Illegal-Immigrant-Population-Using-Current-Population-Survey

All you do is pull numbers out of your ass. It's tiresome.

[Nige]

Oh no, Trump’s rambling incoherence is being used against him? So unfair.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is in the nature of “take him seriously, but not literally”, Nige. We aren’t ever to interpret anything he says in an unfavorable way, no matter what he literally says or how incoherent he is.

It’s a cult, after all. Dear Leader’s words are straight from god or something.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'll just repost this from Slate:

"Trump and Biden Should Both Be Terrified of the Third-Party Vote"

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

[Commenter_XY]

Imprisonment of Peter Navarro....Aside from the bitterness and acrimony arising out of this case, my question is how this changes the composition of future administrations. There will be many, whose expertise this country could use, who will shun public service at that level. Who needs the potential legal liability?

Lawfare is badly harming our country.

[JasonT20]

There will be many, whose expertise this country could use, who will shun public service at that level. Who needs the potential legal liability?

I think the people with actual expertise and competence in their fields won't be the least bit worried about what happened to Peter Navarro.

a) They won't go so far outside their roles and get directly involved in political campaigns. (I think Navarro's official duties were within the White House as an advisor and not a Senate-confirmed position. I don't know how that affects White House staff members' ability to participate in campaign related activities. Navarro was Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, a position created by executive order, not by law)

b) They won't be stupid enough to think that they can just ignore Congressional subpoenas without consequence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Navarro is a discredited, fringe misfit who wouldn't have gotten within 100 yards of a mainstream administration.

He then departed his established field of mediocrity (economics, trade) and misconduct (he has admitted to confected sources in his books) to get involved in pandemic management as a virus-flouting dumbass.

He then conflated public service with campaign work (not the first time he faced charges in that regard, by the way). He operated as an un-American "stolen election" conspiracy theorist from inside the White House.

He then flouted a subpoena, relying on an illusory invocation of privilege. He also stiffed the National Archives on government records, apparently because he's just a belligerent malcontent.

He then handled his criminal prosecution quite poorly.

Navarro deserves what he gets and is an unattractive outlier in several respects, yet another exhibit of Trump dysfunction.

[Nige]

'the composition of future administrations'

This seems like an odd concern, unless you mean future a Trump administration, but despite so many of his his campaign and administration staff getting into legal difficulties because of him, not to mention his lawyers and everyone indicted over Jan 6th, it doesn't seem to prevent him from finding more of them, um, best people.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I had to look him up on Wikipedia…Wikipedia doesn’t seem to like him.

But if the entry is to be believed, he really strained the doctrine of executive privilege.

On the other hand, I have my doubts about “executive privilege” anyway. I believe it was invented around 1953 or 1954 by the Eisenhower administration to resist Congressional subpoenas about alleged misconduct by federal employees. Because the committee (or subcommittee) which issued the subpoena was dominated by Joseph McCarthy, who was engaged in what many considered a witch hunt, the concept of executive privilege was accepted by a lot of people who in other contexts might have been skeptical.

After all, if a Congressional committee, duly authorized to investigate some subject under the purview of Congress, orders someone to produce information relevant to the investigation, then Congress should be entitled to the information unless the demand violates the witness’s constitutional rights (e. g., self-incrimination). This should apply double if the information the committee is authorized to gather involves the operation of the federal government or its (i. e., the people’s) employees.

As to the issue of whether a Congressional committee has an improper motive - like they don't want to investigate anything, they just want to punish the witness or make propaganda - then that should be an issue for the jury and not the judge.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Maybe it just creates the incentive to comply with lawful subpoenas. Did you consider that? Perhaps we want people who will refuse to obey lawful subpoenas to decline positions of power and influence. I mean, why wouldn't we want them to think twice about committing crimes?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Not for people like Hunter or Obama's AG. Democrats can ignore subpoena's all they wants.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter complied with the subpoena. He appeared and testified. You just don't hear much about it because he didn't say anything helpful to the GOP.

[#FFFFFFPride]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/13/hunter-biden-defies-house-subpoena/71903501007/

"'I have made mistakes': Defiant Hunter Biden lashes out at GOP and ignores subpoena"

[David Nieporent]

Hunter. Biden. Testified.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Hunter-Biden-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

[NOVA Lawyer]

Not for people like Hunter or Obama’s AG. Democrats can ignore subpoena’s all they wants.

As David points out, you live in a world of your own construction. In the real world, we don't want anyone ignoring subpoenas because they don't wanna.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Contempt_of_Congress

"The Justice Department declined to prosecute the attorney general on the contempt charge, citing the fact that President Obama had asserted executive privilege."

He decided not to prosecute himself.

[NOVA Lawyer]

How do you actually quote a statement that Obama had asserted executive privilege, this thread previously notes Trump didn't assert executive privilege with respect to Navarro, but you are still trying to make an equivalence?

If you didn't see it, see this: Mehta ruled during a pretrial hearing in late August 2023 that Navarro failed to prove Trump invoked the executive privilege that Navarro says prevented him from testifying before the Jan. 6 committee. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4542369-peter-navarro-prison-trump-jan-6-committee/

You cited the very thing that makes the two cases different.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Motte and Bailey.

I responded to this remark of yours:

“In the real world, we don’t want anyone ignoring subpoenas because they don’t wanna.”

It seems you’ve retreated to the motte.

In any case, as I explained, I don’t think “executive privilege” is in the Constitution. So you’re arguing over the boundaries of a made-up doctrine.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It seems you’ve retreated to the motte.

I responded to the racist’s complaint that Hunter Biden and AG Eric Holder were treated differently than Navarro. You chimed in saying but Obama asserted executive privilege with respect to Holder. I noted that proved my point as Navarro had no colorable claim to the privilege and, so, was just ignoring a subpoena because he didn’t want to comply.

You’re the one engaging in motte-and-bailey because now, rather than discussing differences in treatment of Democrats and Republicans, apparently, you want to argue about whether executive privilege is even a thing and whether it was properly/ethically/legally invoked in the Eric Holder case even though it unquestionably was invoked by Obama with respect to Holder. At that point, criminal charges for Holder are not appropriate at least until the executive privilege claim is litigated.

You are lame.

In any case, as I explained,

That was never the issue in this thread, you raised that in a separate thread, and, at any rate, I care far less about your opinion than that of the Supreme Court.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You went from

“In the real world, we don’t want anyone ignoring subpoenas because they don’t wanna.”

to explaining how there’s good subpoenas and bad subpoenas.

You shouldn’t have replied to whoever it was with such a broad argument.

I’m glad to see you stick up for the Supreme Court…until of course it gives a decision you disagree with.

Without the made-up “executive privilege,” then Holder, the Trump guy, and all the rest are subject to the relevant Congressional legislation:

“2 U.S. Code § 192 – Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

“Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

“(R.S. § 102; June 22, 1938, ch. 594, 52 Stat. 942.)”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

If this is unconstitutional for lack of an executive-privilege exception, please explain. And please explain about severability, which would be the logical next question.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You went from......to explaining how there’s good subpoenas and bad subpoenas

You're being intentionally obtuse. I didn't change my stance at all.

In the context of that thread, it's unreasonable to believe I asserted that anyone, anywhere should respond to any subpoena regardless of whether they have a legally valid (or even legally plausible) reason for quashing the subpoena. The way you interpret the sentence, I didn't even qualify that the subpoena had to be valid or issued by Congress, so, if you consistently apply your apparent rules of interpretation, you think that I can just write my own subpoena to Biden and he should comply. But, presumably, you are astute enough to realize that's a dumb interpretation of what I said.

That you have to pretend I made the most extreme argument possible re responses to subpoenas demonstrates what weak sauce you're serving.

I’m glad to see you stick up for the Supreme Court…until of course it gives a decision you disagree with.

That I give more weight to the Supreme Court and established precedent than to you doesn't mean I agree with every one of their rulings. Again, you try to give my statement the broadest possible meaning in order to render it absurd.

You're lame.

If this is unconstitutional for lack of an executive-privilege exception, please explain. And please explain about severability, which would be the logical next question.

The statute is not unconstitutional for lack of an executive-privilege exception, but there are circumstances where the president can refuse to comply based on constitutional separation of powers principles (i.e., it can be unconstitutional as applied in the face of a claim of executive privilege). George Washington was the first to invoke it and basically every president since has and the Supreme Court has acknowledged executive privilege is a thing of constitutional stature. You are going against all of U.S. history and the original O.G.'s understanding of his presidential powers as well as established precedent. Have at it.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/page/file/1225981/dl?inline#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20the%20Executive,not%20as%20a%20constitutional%20prerogative.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’ll have to take your word as a gentleman as to what your remarks actually meant, or were intended to mean.

But a memo from the Justice Department defending executive privilege in 1977? Hardly the most unbiased source.

Why not look at the example you yourself cited – the example of George Washington.

The House of Representatives wanted Washington to provide documents relating to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty with England. Washington refused, but not because of a so-called executive privilege.

Washington’s message to the House of Representatives does not invoke the modern doctrine of executive privilege. Washington said that the plenitude of the treaty power belonged to the President *and the Senate,* and that the House has no authority to inquire how treaties are negotiated.

It was a matter of the House on the one hand versus the Senate and the President on the other. Not Congress versus the President.

Look it up yourself:

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-30-1796-message-house-representatives-declining-submit

Who am I going to believe, you or George Washington?

[NOVA Lawyer]

But a memo from the Justice Department defending executive privilege in 1977? Hardly the most unbiased source.

It makes arguments. It doesn't matter how biased it is. You can engage with the arguments. All litigants are biased, but they make arguments and judges rule based on the law after considering those arguments. They don't just reject a brief because the litigant is biased.

Yes, George Washington's invocation of the privilege was much more limited (though you ignore other examples when he invoked the privilege) than what is being asked today.

But, at bottom, unless you are arguing that there is no such thing (which it appears you are, which is ahistorical and contrary to settled understanding for two centuries), then a plausible assertion of a privilege that was invoked by President Obama is different from an assertion of privilege that was never invoked by any president and which was specifically waived by the sitting president at the time.

Hence, Holder had a good faith basis for not complying and Congress didn't push the matter to get a ruling and force him. Navarro acted in bad faith and, so, was subject to criminal prosecution. The examples of Holder and Navarro are not at all the same. Which was the original point of this thread.

I think executive privilege should be more narrow than many want it, but almost certainly not as narrow as you think it should be. But that's not even really relevant to the topic of this thread.

Motte and bailey is your thing, though, so have at it.

[#FFFFFFPride]

'I have made mistakes': Defiant Hunter Biden lashes out at GOP and ignores subpoena

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/13/hunter-biden-defies-house-subpoena/71903501007/

GOP-led committees vote to recommend that House hold Hunter Biden in contempt

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-vote-resolutions-hold-hunter-biden-contempt-congress-rcna133206

lmao what fucking world do you live in?

[David Nieporent]

lmao what fucking world do you live in?

The one where Hunter. Biden. Testified.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Hunter-Biden-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

[not guilty]

Peter Navarro had no defense. He tried to assert that he failed to appear before Congress because of executive privilege, but he offered no proof that President Trump had asserted that privilege. Even if Trump had done so, that would not have excused Navarro's complete failure to appear and be sworn as a witness. If he honestly believed he had a privilege of some kind, he could have asserted it on a question by question basis.

Detention pending appeal following federal criminal convictions is the rule rather than the exception. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).

[#FFFFFFPride]

Trump: Mar-a-lago is worth $150M
Black Democrat AG: You're committing fraud!
Democrat Judge: You're fraud is irrefutable! Mar-a-lago is only worth $18M!
Black Democrat AG: We're gonna sell Mar-a-lago for $240M to pay back some of the illgotten games from when Trump claimed it was worth $150M.

This is happening today. Why are these people not behind bars?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You are just a racist troll.

Trump had valued Mar-a-Lago at more than $612 million.

He claimed at trial that it was really worth $1 billion or more.

The judge noted an appraiser's testimony that the property was worth between $18 million and $27 million, but didn't specifically find a value for the property. He ruled, with strong evidence, that the Trump valuation was based on selling the property such that it would be parceled off as private residences when, in fact, Trump had agreed with county officials, in exchange for a lower property valuation for tax purposes, that the property would only be used as a private club (and signed a deed to that effect).

The highest valuation I see AG James put on the property was $75 million in one statement.

In short, you just lied about everything. Nothing in your comment was factual.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Racist troll? At a white, male blog that habitually publishes vile racial slurs?

May I remind you, sir, that this is an academic, legal, (often) libertarian(ish) blog that is not one bit more bigoted than an average Federalist Society gathering!

[NOVA Lawyer]

that is not one bit more bigoted than an average Federalist Society gathering!

A high bar indeed, my friend.

[Frank Drackman]

AOC or Lara Trump?
Not talking about their politics,
which one would you fuck?

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

AOC has a horse face. Lara has a whore’s face. I would do both but dog style.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember the good old days, when Prof. Volokh argued with a straight face that the reason he censored non-conservatives at this blog was his "civility standards?"

[Commenter_XY]

Four years ago today, the world basically shut down because of Covid-19; that 15 days to slow the spread. We lost many of our rights during that time in the pandemic in the name of public safety. I did not want this Open Thread to go without mentioning that history.

[hobie]

Gawd,are you still hung up on wearing a mask? I was in Portugal at the time. Everybody followed the recommendations for the safety of others as well as themselves.It really wasn't hard to do.

[santamonica811]

Trump recently Tweeted his version of the old saw, "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" It's like Trump totally forgot his last year of his presidency, when Covid killed tens of thousands, you couldn't find a roll of toilet paper on some supermarket shelves, the stock market tanked, etc etc.

How much Trump was responsible is, of course, a perfectly fair political question. But, as I compare my sense of how safe I feel if I head out into public, my wages, my IRAs, etc etc . . . I am SO MUCH better off today than I was 4 years ago. To be honest; unless your business was selling masks, it's hard to imagine that your life was better in 2020.

Luckily for Trump; most voters have very short memories, and they may have even forgotten that he was there for the start of Covid, that his administration was at least partly responsible for the quick invention/roll-out of the vaccine (by far the most impressive thing America did during his 4 years in office), or that Trump was busy lauding China for how transparent that country was being re Covid.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lucky you.

[Commenter_XY]

The one thing I will never forgive, SM811, was the decision by NJ governor phil murphy to allow covid-19+ patients into nursing homes. A family member died the next month in a nursing home from covid-19. Alone. We could not gather to sit shiva. We could not meet in synagogue. We could not even bury our dead with a minyan at graveside. That was unforgiveable.

It is really a shame the only remedy available is term limits.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did that experience warp you into a wingnut, or were you already a clinger?

[hobie]

Like everyone else on Earth at the time, he wasn't permitted to do every single thing he wanted to do. So he's been throwing a political tantrum ever since. Poor thing

[M L]

That’s sad and terrible. Sorry.

[Nige]

You didn’t lose a single right, you just happen to belong to a political faction that has become so mired in conspiratorial thinking that they refused to accept the pandemic as real and attributed sinister motives to every single effort to deal with it.

[Bwaaah]

"You didn't lose a single right."

New Jersey Executive Orders

Get serious.

[Nige]

Does that detail all the rights you've lost?

[grb]

Let’s review recent past : Paul Manafort was deeply in debt to Ukrainian oligarches directly tied to Putin. So what was his stategy to escape this financial obligation? Accept a job as Trump’s campaign head without pay.

Which makes sense only if betrayal was planned from the start. And sure enough, Manafort began giving secret briefings to someone U.S. Intelligence listed as a Russian spy.

But Trump is so braindead stupid he’ll bring someone back who screwed him over – as long as he's convinced that owns the Libs. And it’s not the first time either:

Full-time freak Michael Flynn lied to Trump’s vice president and multiple people in his administration. Yet he was back in Trump’s circle for the most bizarre and grotesque coup plotting. Rudy Giuliani was an intregal part of the cut-outs Trump used in attempting to trade U.S. government favor to Ukrainian officials for election help. But Rudy (and his low-grade crook henchmen, Parnas and Fruman) were also busy cutting side deals as well. One of these was with an Ukrainian oligarch fed-up over U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s anti-corruption campaign. He wanted her gone and it was easily done.

They paid former Congressman Pete Sessions to write a letter to Mike Pompeo trashing her as “disloyal”, followed by Parnas & Giuliani whispering in Trump’s ear she was saying meanie things about him. Bingo! She was out.

Of course Rudy was kept in Trump’s circle even when it became clear he had manipulated his boss for a bit of money on the side. But it’s so, so very easy to manipulate Trump. All you have to do is appeal to his vanity or insecurities. And there’s no lasting penalty when Trump finally learns he was used. They just manipulate him again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/19/trump-manafort-hiring/

[Estragon]

Grb if you haven’t read emptywheel on Manafort, you should:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/18/how-josh-dawsey-downplays-paul-manaforts-ties-to-alleged-russian-spies/

[grb]

It makes the case against Manafort even stronger. And I didn't know that he actually admitted this :

(The news account) of course is silent about the other two undisputed aspects of the August 2, 2016 meeting. Kilimnik pitched Manafort on a plan to carve up Ukraine (Manafort ultimately admitted that Kilimnik did; he just claimed he didn’t buy into the plan at that point). And Manafort talked about how to get paid by his Ukrainian backers and get his debt with Oleg Deripaska relieved.

[Don Nico]

NYT: "Russia and China Veto U.S. Resolution on Gaza Cease-Fire at U.N."
Surprise! Since Mr Biden treats Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi with such utter disrespect. They f*cked him today when he tried to throw Israel under the bus.

[grb]

Don Nico : “They f*cked him today … (etc) …”

What an absurd comment. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of world affairs knows the Russians and Chinese are pushing an alliance with the “Global South” as a counterweight to U.S. power.

(Note : This term isn’t geographical. The Global South’s two largest countries – China and India – both lie entirely in the Northern Hemisphere)

So Russia & China have a vested interest in appealing to that (somewhat unwieldy) alliance on an issue where there’s so much disagreement between other countries and the U.S. Anyone who knows anything sees that – a category which leaves Don Nico out.

He’s so butthurt for his bud Putin, he makes it into a high school-style drama-queen brouhaha. Of course he has a long-running habit of turning substantive issues into facile nonsense….

[Don Nico]

"He’s so butthurt for his bud Putin, he makes it into a high school-style drama-queen brouhaha. Of course he has a long-running habit of turning substantive issues into facile nonsense….

That is the comment of an arrogant knpw nothing.
You are so clueless about the inept policy of this administration toward Russia and China, that you spew nonsense about the Global South, when it has been just those countries which have clamored for a cease fire.

Wake up buddy and answer with substance rather than your usual insults

[grb]

You’re not very good at this, are you? I’ll explain slowly:

1. The U.S. has vetoed three separate UN ceasefire resolutions that had substantial support in the Global South and Third World.

2. China/Russia vetoes a less strict U.S. resolution, saying it was an attempt to water-down the worldwide consensus on the issue.

3. You don’t think that message resonates? After the U.S. blocked all previous ceasefire votes?

Of course I anticipate a standard Don Nico response: You’ll spray everyone with spittle with a long stream of whiny invective as you criticize me for “insults”. Meanwhile, it'll be one more substance-free comment from you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

They f*cked him today when he tried to throw Israel under the bus.

Doesn't bother me. Maybe it will accelerate the process of inclining the United States to toss Israel's right-wing assholes to the wolves.

When the United States abandons Israel, let's see how Russia and China treat (what's left of, if anything) Israel.

[not guilty]

One of the more unusual amicus curiae briefs that I have run across was submitted yesterday. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/305679/20240321205032155_23-939_tsac_DavidBoyle.pdf

[David Nieporent]

I do not know why an actual practicing lawyer would publicly file something like that. If he wanted to vent, couldn't he just set up a Substack account?

[Bwaaah]

LOL. He's got some other amicus curiae briefs out there, and all the ones I saw looked like doozies. It looks like a lot of effort, and yet to a reader, seems to scream, "Next!"

[Voize]

It references two of the books in Zelazny's Amber series, so it's not all bad.

[hobie]

"Russia Adds ‘LGBT Movement’ to ‘Terrorists and Extremists’ List"

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/03/22/russia-adds-lgbt-movement-to-terrorists-and-extremists-list-a84574

This is where it leads. But, of course, you bigots knew that from the beginning. It must be exhausting living with so much hate

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

By "you bigots," do you mean the Volokh Conspirators, most of their right-wing fans . . . or both?

(Asking for a friend . . . who was banned by the Volokh Conspiracy for poking fun at conservatives a bit too deftly for the proprietor's taste.)

[NvEric]

I wait for the Monday Open Thread
What harkens future times few prepare or concern themselves with ?

Type and never look back keeps the mind free of free speech others vomit in a frothy pile of nonsense words, most of the time that is. Few will honestly engage in discussion online at "places" with few restrictions such as here. That we must "sign" up and then in is a minimal burden, but the only burden I will afford.

Legal issues and terms of usage in such derive from times past where conflicts have taken people to engage further their "needs" "wants" and "desires" with a conclusion to thrust force into their efforts either positively or not, to allay their aforementioned notions of securing their happiness in light of those opposing them into a more certain conclusion than other mere forms of arguing and engaging for which a remedy is desired to placate thoughts which have surfaced from their minds and into the realm for which others may examine those surfaced thoughts in public forums called courts of law designed to such specifications seen when one enters the sanctum presided over and by black-robed persons entrusted to adjudicate said conflicts presented for review by parties engaged in mortal verbal conflict set forth according to other prescribed rules of engagement also designed to reduce conflict and violence in order for civil discourse to proceed as planned or not whereby results obtained, hopefully, will rest the issues at hand so that civil society can then and continue to proceed along a path well suited to their combined and wanted relief from such previous ways of living to a much better, whatever that means, safer, and happier lives of all involved.