Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Norm MacDonald with a Posthumous tribute for OJ.

https://youtu.be/pdZUmZFaBz8?feature=shared

[Commenter_XY]

There is a lesson here for men: Prostate cancer can literally kill you.

Gentlemen...have your prostate checked. Don't let hesitancy kill you.

[Martinned2]

And innovation continues in terms of how and what they're screening: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2425594-could-an-mri-scan-make-prostate-cancer-screening-more-accurate/

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the thing there is that MOST cases of prostate cancer are so slow growing that you'll die with them, not from them.

While on the other side is that, once it metastasizes, it goes straight to your bones, and you die an agonizing death. And that the cure effectively renders you impotent, if not immediately, eventually.

We desperately need better treatments for it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just identify as a woman.

[Frank Drackman]

good luck getting your Prostrate gland to go along

[Mr. Bumble]

It will automatically become your G spot.

[Martinned2]

It is quite common for trans women to ask to have their testicles removed, because they are concerned that they might get testicular cancer in the future and be misdiagnosed. I think that's quite sad, but ymmv.

(On the other hand, a trans woman wanting to be circumcised and finding that that's very difficult is, objectively, quite funny.)

[The Drill SGT]

The way is Go Transwoman and identify as a Lesbian.

A Twofer:
- you become a double minority
- you can guilt Leftist women into sex

[bernard11]

I've known two guys who had it, and got treated with some sort of implanted radioactive seeds.

That seemed to work well for them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unfortunately, when it comes to prostate cancer, even when the immediate results are good, the long term prognosis for function isn't great. But prostate cancer is a weird kind of cancer, it's what they call a "field" cancer; The whole prostate is in the process of becoming cancerous, rather than one isolated cell transforming.

This provides some hope that they might find a way to reverse prostate cancer, rather than just kill off your prostate.

[Reallynotbob]

Prostate cancer is literally one of the most treatable cancers. We don't "desperately need" better treatments. Screening, awareness, and a functioning public health system would do the trick.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it is very treatable if you catch it early. It's just that the side effects of the treatment are no fun at all. I guess that doesn't matter at all in your world.

[OtisAH]

You are the absolute worst. Don’t get me wrong, there are far bigger assholes here, but you? You are the worst.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm the absolute worst on account of noticing that the side effects of prostate cancer treatment are life changing, and not in a good way?

I've had prostate cancer, I've had lymphoma. The treatment for the former was a walk in the park, the treatment for the latter was 3 months of Hell without great odds of surviving.

But 10 years later, which has more negatively impacted my life? The chemo or the prostate surgery? Yeah, the surgery.

So, I'll say it again: We need better treatments for prostate cancer, treatments that don't result in sterility, impotence, and incontinence. Sorry if saying that outrages you.

[tylertusta]

I'm sorry to hear about your struggles, and I'm glad that you've beaten cancer twice.

[OtisAH]

Yes, Brett, the worst. For all sorts of reasons. And while I’ll hedge with a “good for you” if you actually have survived cancer, your word is worthless here.

[Olympiados]

This Was really helpful read more in sports Infra https://olympiados.in/

[Dr. Ed 2]

30 years later, you couldn't tell jokes like that today -- a BLM Lynch Mob would crucify you if you did. You can't even quote George Floyd's autopsy.

And let us not forget Elizabeth Woodward -- convicted of being Protestant and British in Irish Catholic Boston. She didn't kill the child, the child's skull fracture was already healing which means that the child was alive 2-3 weeks after the fracture.

[Malika the Maiz]

You seem to be misreading the history there. McDonald got into trouble "back then" for telling the jokes, got more fame for it more recently and even seemed (maybe) to actually recant afterwards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2024/04/12/norm-macdonald-fired-oj-jokes/

[Michael P]

Did you mean Louise Woodward?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's been 30 years...

[bernard11]

Yes, he does. Though why her case is relevant here I don't know.

IIRC, she was given a lengthy sentence, but it was drastically reduced (to time served?) by a different judge not long after her trial.

I watched much of the trial, and it sort of soured me on juries in cases that hinge on technical matters.

Both sides presented expert medical witnesses who argued for them. "So," I wondered, "as a layman how am I supposed to figure out which of this gang of neurologists is right?" It would be a pure guess, so I would have voted to acquit, because there was clear doubt.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Except you don't hate WASPs.

[John F. Carr]

She was charged with murder. The defense successfully objected to a request that the jury be allowed to convict of manslaughter instead. Her lawyers, like me, thought this was a straightforward manslaughter case and not a murder case. The jury convicted her of second degree murder. The mandatory sentence was 15 to life. The judge solicited a motion to reduce the conviction to manslaughter, and granted it when it was made. He then sentenced the defendant to time served.

The prosecution appealed, having a right to appeal because the judge had modified the jury's verdict. Of lasting legal significance, the Supreme Judicial Court said that that the prosecution's request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter should have been granted. Because the prosecution can not normally appeal the issue had not yet been decided. Mostly limited to the case at hand, the court held that the judge did have the right to reduce the conviction to manslaughter and by a narrower margin held that the case need not be reassigned to another judge for a harsher sentence to promote the DA's political career.

The court didn't explicitly write that last part. Martha Coakley was ambitious and wanted to appear tough on crime back when that was a winning stance.

[bernard11]

Thanks for the explanation, John.

I don't think Coakley is ever going to be famous for her good judgment.

[Malika the Maiz]

McDonald receives praise from modern MSM for his OJ takedowns (and rightfully so I'd say):

https://www.gq.com/story/only-norm-macdonald-gave-oj-simpson-what-he-deserved

[Sarcastr0]

Ed doesn’t get out much I guess, if he thinks BLM is preventing jokes about OJ today.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, George (Overdose) Floyd....

[Sarcastr0]

You: "30 years later, you couldn’t tell jokes like [jokes about OJ] today"

But yeah, the right-wing bullshit about Floyd would not be well received, because it's not humor it's just lying/delusion.

[Jumaira]

Floyd shoved a gun into a pregnant woman's stomach. Strike one. He produced illegitimate children. Strike two. He himself was the product of a single mother. Strike three. He deserved his death.

[Dr. Ed 2]

George Floyd Autopsy:
Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:

1: Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
2: Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
3: 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
4: Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
5: 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL; Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL

The last line are the psychoactive compounds of Marijuana. I believe that 4-ANPP is a Fentanyl precursor which becomes a contaminant if the Fentanyl is poorly made -- which raises the question of what else it might have been contaminated with.
And mixing drugs, particularly an opiate (Fentanyl) and a stimulant (Meth) is worse than either one individually, and I doubt that Marijuana helped much.

Fentanyl can cause hallucinations, Meth is particularly notorious for doing that -- I'm not defending officer misconduct (trust me!) but a 6' 04" 223 man who is totally psychotic can be a rather scary situation.

[Malika the Maiz]

I assume not supplying a link your doctorate is in something relevant to interpreting an autopsy?

[David Nieporent]

1) Janitors do not have any expertise in pharmacology.

2) He was not in fact "totally psychotic" and it was not in fact a "rather scary situation." We have video of the whole thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: Res ipsa loquitur

2: Why was Chovin called for backup?

3: What is your fixation with janitors?

[Malika the Maiz]

Being the "product" of a single mother is a death sentence factor?

Someone doesn't understand basic and longstanding ideas of culpability.

[Jumaira]

Yes, as men raised with no father figures tend to be worthless human beings.

[Nige]

Is that your excuse?

[Jumaira]

I was raised by two professional white parents, who were married at the time I was born.

I'm as far from the illegitimate black Floyd as you can get.

[Nige]

So you're a data point against your own assertion.

[Krayt]

4chan-level trolling

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you hit us with some of the funniest George Floyd jokes that you think are being censored today?

[santamonica811]

With Trump's first criminal case about to start in several hours, it reminds me to ask a question I've had for months, related to the Florida case. I may have asked it already...if so, I'm not remembering, and I'm certainly not remembering any responses.

One significant cause for delay was that the kept documents and files are top secret (or various versions of top secret). Everyone, on both sides, takes that as a given, and everyone that I've seen discuss this case (again, on both sides of the political spectrum) agrees that it takes months to get security clearance for Trump's lawyers, so that this lawyer(s) can review this evidence.

But I'm genuinely puzzled by this. The actual contents of these documents seems 100% irrelevant to the crimes being charged. If Trump (or anyone else) were charged with, "You released Document X, X contained troop movements in Yemen, and several US soldiers were killed or injured as a result." . . . then, absolutely, the contents of the documents would be critical evidence.

But here, unless I'm confused, Trump is instead being charged with: "[a] You improperly took classified documents and files, [b] these were clearly labeled--both on the files or envelopes or whatever--and on the documents themselves, [c] any reasonable person in Trump's position would have seen the classified documentation and recognized it, [d] he refused to return all the documents, [e] he obstructed the govt's attempts to retrieve them, and [f] he ordered others to destroy evidence, to obstruct the govt's efforts, etc.

So, why are the contents at all important? All the govt will use as evidence are redacted pages, with only the security/classification headings remaining. So, all we need is for Trump to have one lawyer with clearance, and she can--in ONE DAY--go through a jillion documents and verify that, "Yes, in Govt Exhibit 143, where the outer folder is labeled "Top Secret," the enclosed document did indeed contain a top secret document...and not Eric Trump's delicious chili recipe.

At trial, you show the jury the 8 different levels of security classifications on envelopes, and you tell the jury, "Trump have 5 of Type A, 1 of Type B, 13 of Type C, etc etc etc."

I've never done crim law in actual practice, so maybe there's a very good reason that I'm missing. Anyone with real-world experience who can explain it to me? (If I've had this question for months; I can't be the only person wondering. Except that since literally no one across the political spectrum has raised it; it's making me feel like I'm missing something really obvious . . . wouldn't be the first time in my life that that's happened.)

[Intro2Awesome]

That's not a crim law question, it's a professional responsibility question. But yes, not doing a big malpractice on the midst watched case in the world is time-consuming, and out of character for so many of his lawyers, he wanted to run the clock. Assuming stipulation to the underlying facts of every allegation legally prudent, why close the door on mooting it? Even as a long-shot.

I know nothing about crim. Was I right? If so, what did I win?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The documents are classified, not the envelopes or folders that hold them. Think the converse of the old teen trick of putting a Playboy magazine inside the cover of Boy's Life.

The folder warning that the contents thereof are classified is not itself classified, and hence possession of it not illegal.
I don't see how this would be different from drugs, which the government has to prove are actually drugs and not, say, corn starch.

Unlike the UK, we also don't have an "official secrets act" -- people who apply for security clearances have to waive their first amd rights relative to that -- except that the POTUS never has to apply which makes this whole thing a charade.

But the instant trial involves the nondisclosure agreement with the whore and why he isn't able to sue her for violating it is beyond me.

This case is going to set race relations in this country back 50-100 years. If she manages to get a conviction (which will instantly be appealed), she will instantly be referred to as "the [vile racial slur] and even if Trump *could* stop that, it wouldn't be in his interest to do so -- AND a good fraction of the Black community would also be calling her the same thing.

James is attempting to criminalize two routine practices -- nondisclosure agreements and sale of copyright rights. Large corporations (and universities) ROUTINELY pay hush money to settle things or to maintain their reputation.

[windycityattorney]

Alvin Bragg is prosecuting this case. Although he is also black so maybe your race war fantasies can still come true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For people whom race seems to matter so much, there is an amazing lack of appearance in this.

All Black Democrats prosecuting the White Republican POTUS candidate. That's a Klansman's wet dream....

If these were REAL crimes, they could find a career Republican prosecutor -- a White male -- to prosecute them for appearance sake.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ed, you don't understand how the 'optics' work in their world. It's not symmetric, it's never symmetric. A Republican white man prosecuting a Democratic black woman? Horrible. A Democratic black woman prosecuting a Republican white man? Wonderful!

The optics here are perfect: Democratic black women prosecuting a Republican white man. Short of them being lesbian illegal alien Democratic black women, I don't see how it could get better from their perspective.

[Nige]

That white resenment is sure backing up.

[Sarcastr0]

No one brought up race except you two weirdos, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically I didn't "bring up" race, Sarcastr0, I just responded to somebody who had.

This is a bit of a joke: Democrats get to be totally race obsessed, but Republicans aren't supposed to even talk about it?

[Sarcastr0]

The only ones who appear race obsessed around here are you two.

That’s the optics you chose.

[David Nieporent]

All Black Democrats prosecuting the White Republican POTUS candidate. That’s a Klansman’s wet dream….

If these were REAL crimes, they could find a career Republican prosecutor — a White male — to prosecute them for appearance sake

I won't call Dr. Ed a moron just because he is unaware that Donald Trump faces four prosecutions, and two of them are being conducted by Jack Smith.

I will call Dr. Ed a racist, though.

[jimc5499]

Occasionally I work on classified projects. If I take the manufacturer's data sheet on a component that I am using in a project and add it to the project's documentation, it becomes a "classified" document and is marked accordingly. The data sheet itself isn't classified and I am not committing a crime by having a copy of it on my desk. The marked sheet is a classified "document" because it shows that it is a component of a classified project. This is why the contents of the documents are important.
As far as Trump's case goes, nothing can be done until a determination is made on the President's authority to declassify documents. It is going to take the US Supreme Court to do that. However the Democrats have opened a can of worms. If Trump is convicted of this and Republicans regain power, I see Obama going on trial and being convicted. Think it through.

[not guilty]

"If Trump is convicted of this and Republicans regain power, I see Obama going on trial and being convicted."

Convicted under which statute(s) and based on what facts?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, jimc5499. Under which statute(s) and based on what facts?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In the Banana Republic they've created, it won't much matter...

[David Nieporent]

As far as Trump’s case goes, nothing can be done until a determination is made on the President’s authority to declassify documents.

The President's authority to declassify documents is not at issue in this case, for many reasons including the fact that Donald Trump isn't the president.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I see Obama going on trial

For what, exactly?

[Michael P]

As I recall, the law he is charged with violating relates to national defense information, not documents marked as classified. The definitions of those are not the same, and further, sometimes people mark things as classified by mistake or for improper purposes.

[Armchair]

There are several reasons.

1. As Michael points out, the actual law is national defense information, not classification.
2. Sometimes items are marked classified by mistake
3. It's the information, not the envelope. If an envelope was marked classified, but had no other information in it or on it, it would not violate the law to take it.
4. The information can potentially be "classified" information that was already released publicly in some form, so would no longer be considered classified. ie, if Trump had a copy of the Pentagon Papers or some analogous situation.

[Armchair]

There are more here. But if you're accused of a crime, it's important to have all the information of what you're accused of. Because the prosecution can make mistakes. or "mistakes".

You would never prosecute someone for murder, but then say "oh, we can't tell you the victim". Likewise, prosecuting someone for classified information, but not saying what it actually was just allows for massive abuses in the law.

[Krayt]

I would like to know what the info is. It's the difference between whether he was just tangling with opponents to screw with them, or up to something insidious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or just wants personal notes from foreign leaders.

[Michael P]

Related to #3: Classified documents are supposed to carry independent markings of their classification, minimally at the top and bottom of each page and ideally with portion marks (so that a reader has a more specific idea of the classification levels of particular information).

Cover pages and envelopes are meant to deter people from accidentally seeing classified information for which they're not cleared or (for codeword type accesses) don't have a need to know. They're not meant to be the primary indicator of classification level.

[jimc5499]

1984 I was at a Navy school learning how to be a helicopter mechanic. I shared a room with a guy who was training to be an Anti-submarine Warfare Technician. Much of his studying had to be done in an area where the classified information was stored. I think that it was Popular Mechanics that had an article on Soviet submarines. One afternoon I asked him if he knew anything about an Alfa class submarine. He about freaked out. I showed him the article and he asked me to go with him to see his Senior Chief. At that time the Navy considered the information in that article as classified information.
When Tom Clancy wrote Hunt for Red October, he was investigated to find out where he got "classified" information. He was able to show that he got it from open sources. There was a reason why Aviation Week was called Aviation Leak by those of us in the field.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It gets better -- Clancy offered to remove anything in the book that was actually classified and that was refused "because it was classified."

Back in the '70s there was a kid who wrote how to build a hydrogen bomb his junior year at Princeton -- someone classified everything in there except the title page but he got it all from open sources.

[Drewski]

You drunken idiot, that's an extremely famous case, it was a private magazine (the Progressive) and they did in fact publish in the end. The article was not classified. They lost at trial, appealed, and the DoJ capitulated because another magazine published the same information in the interim.

[Moderation4ever]

I wonder if it would have been better to have charged Trump separately on retaining document and on the classified documents. Trump is clearly in violation of the Presidential Records Act and it might have been a good idea to just charge him and use the unclassified document and then charge him separately for retaining classified documents. The first case could move quickly and the other more slowly. This of course might not be possible. I also suspect that even if you could separate the cases his defense for both cases would rest heavily on delay tactics.

[Michael P]

What specific crime would Trump be charged with in relation to alleged violations of the Presidential Records Act? As far as I know, that law states required behavior but doesn’t attach any criminal penalty, and so it would only allow a court to order compliance and then deal with refusal as contempt of court.

[Krayt]

One side wants to delay and slow things down; the other wants speedy, timely trial and prosecution so The People can see meaningful cause and effect of the justice system.

You won’t believe who thinks what! Click here!

[#FFFFFFPride]

So speedy of a trial they waited to time it with an election!

[not guilty]

Uh, speedy trial rights do not attach prior to the institution of adversarial proceedings (which usually occurs by arrest or indictment).

[David Nieporent]

So, why are the contents at all important?

Because — contrary to what MAGA asserts — Trump isn't charged with having classified documents.¹ (Which is why the "declassified with my mind" defense is flawed even if it weren't nutty.) He's charged with violating the Espionage Act, with the relevant part being:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document … relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

It's not enough to say, "It has classified markings on it."

​​
¹I will sometimes call it that for shorthand, but it's not precise.

[jimc5499]

There's a big problem with your argument David. The person who makes the final determination about what is and what isn't "National Defense Information" is the Commander in Chief or in other words the President of the United States.
There's precedent for that. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy showed pictures to the media of the Cuban missile installations. Those pictures compromised reconnaissance assets that were at the time "National Defense Information".

[David Nieporent]

There’s a big problem with your argument David. The person who makes the final determination about what is and what isn’t “National Defense Information” is the Commander in Chief or in other words the President of the United States.

No, the 'person' who makes the final determination about what is and what isn’t “National Defense Information” is the jury. Also, since Trump isn't the Commander in Chief, or the President of the United States, not clear why that would be a "big problem" even if your statement were true.

[not guilty]

"The person who makes the final determination about what is and what isn’t 'National Defense Information' is the Commander in Chief or in other words the President of the United States."

In this case the determination about what is and what isn’t "National Defense Information" as alleged in counts 1 through 32 of the indictment will be made by twelve men and women in the West Palm Beach division of the Southern District of Florida. (Subject to the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY -- and using the U2 photos showed the Soviets what our capabilities were and weren't -- I don't know how much but in theory it could have helped them hide other stuff from us.

[Don Nico]

Dear SM,
You are not confused. The actual contents of the are irrelevant to the charges. Nor is any party contesting that the documents were improperly classified.
POTUS is the primary classification in the US, not SCOTUS. Declassifying TS and SCI documents, has rules and procedures. No party contends that the documents had been marked as declassified. If document covers are included in the page count, then they are an intrinsic part of the documents.
Moreover, they are not transmittal slips.
That the docs are national defense information means that they are classified under a Presidential executive order. Again no party is contesting that the documents were improperly classified.

" information can potentially be “classified” information that was already released publicly in some form, so would no longer be considered classified. " Armchair this is simply incorrect.

"ideally with portion marks " Not necessarily true; only on some documents issued by some agencies.

Cover pages can and frequently do have classified information such as classified titles and classified codewords.

Again, SM you are not confused, Mr Trump is worse than confused.

[Armchair]

”information can potentially be “classified” information that was already released publicly in some form, so would no longer be considered classified. ”

For the purposes of prosecution, it is. Otherwise, it leads to ridiculousness. i.e, Here Don, here's a copy of the Pentagon Papers.
"The FBI - Those are classified, you're being arrested" (From any time until 2011).

[Don Nico]

We know about that Armchair. But, un sanctioned publication does nor declassify the information. Also, your mistaken claim is irrelevant in this case.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course the actual contents aren't irrelevant to the charges. Suppose the feds are lying about what they found, and the folders actually had cocktail napkins signed by world leaders, and the menus from state dinners? You're going to say THAT would be irrelevant?

They claim it's national defense information. That's a contingent fact about the actual contents, isn't it?

You seem to be tacitly assuming that federal prosecutors never lie. That is not a tenable assumption.

[Don Nico]

nonsense, Brett. the judge can easily decide tha in chambers, your frivolous objection notwithstanding

[David Nieporent]

Don is apparently unfamiliar with our constitution. Criminal defendants are entitled to have a jury decide all elements of a crime. A judge cannot determine them in secret and then tell the jury, "Trust me; the government has proven this."

[John F. Carr]

The indictment alleges that Trump

* having unauthorized possession of […]
* documents related to the national defense
* did willfully retain the documents […]
and as to count 1, the document in question was
* "dated May 3, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries" and had a classification marking "TOP SECRET//NOFORN//SPECIAL HANDLING"

That's four things to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury has to see some of the contents of the document to decide whether it was related to the national defense and whether it fairly matches the description. We can expect proof of chain of custody – is this bundle of papers with NOFORN on the cover sheet the same one that was recovered by federal agents at Mar-a-Lago? An agent could testify that he has a photographic memory and recite what he saw in Florida. As a juror I would be more impressed with the traditional method where an object is placed before me and police solemly swear that nobody could get into the evidence locker without a log entry and nothing ever goes missing.

The jury also has to be convinced that Trump can be held responsible for knowing he had this particular document and not only the 31 others he is accused of keeping.

Eight of the documents contain classified code words on the cover sheet. They are indicated as "[redacted]" in the indictment.

[Don Nico]

“The jury has to see some of the contents of the document to decide whether it was related to the national defense and whether it fairly matches the description.”
Nonsense, the jury needs to hear from a qualified principal or derivative classifier that the documents were correctly reviewed and marked.
The even the covers had to be redacted in the charge is prima facie against your "need to be impressed."

[DaveM]

I am a confirmed cynic on all of these Trump lawfare suits. I do not believe the prosecutors are bringing charges in good faith. I do not believe the trials are being conducted in good faith. I do not believe any jury will render judgment in good faith. I do not believe any of the monetary awards thus far have been reasonable and made in good faith.

This is the Democratic Party’s reward for waging political war through the courts. Congratulations.

[Sarcastr0]

Writing off one of our three branches of our government as all bad faith is, of course, nuts.

You don't even bother with evidence; it's axiomatic for you.

I’m just surprised you didn’t say Democrat Party.

[DaveM]

Sorry, you have deserved a rebuke. Not only do you not know what you're talking about in this case, you aren't even taking the time to represent other people's opinions accurately when you respond to them. Are you just skimming instead of actually reading? Please don't do that, it's annoying.

[Don Nico]

"I do not believe the prosecutors are bringing charges in good faith. "
So what? Trump broke the law; he can and is being tried.

[Martinned2]

Well, he may or may not have. But if he didn't, that's what the judge and jury are for.

[Don Nico]

I accept your correction, Martin.
He allegedly broke the law.

[DaveM]

Yes, technically prosecutors can “give me the man, and I will find you the crime”. I am saying that when they do this, they are not acting in good faith. I am also saying that when they do this, they are turning ordinary people into cynics who no longer trust anything they say or do. What a poor bargain.

[Martinned2]

I think your beef is with the legislature, not with the prosecutor. Even though A Crime a Day is only about federal crimes, it may amuse you:

https://twitter.com/CrimeADay

[DaveM]

We give prosecutors discretion because we expect them to be discreet, showing some restraint and prudence. When they join the circus parade as is being done here, they are stepping out of line. I don’t think this is an issue with the legislature. The fault is in the legal house.

Thanks for the link, I’ll take a look.

[Martinned2]

I thought the conservative talking point was that prosecutorial discretion was bad, particularly when it is used to effectively not enforce an entire legal provision?

[Drewski]

Is it more likely that every judge, every prosecutor, every clerk, and every juror (!) are acting in bad faith, or more likely that you are? Given that you don't appear to be a character in a Dan Brown novel, the answer seems obvious.

[Kazinski]

The Iranian attack on isreal is leaving the entire Middle East quaking at Iran's military might:

"a 10-year-old girl had been "severely injured by shrapnel," but said "as far as we know, there are no additional casualties."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-launches-drone-attack-toward-israel-idf-says/

I hope she fully recovers, and soon.

[Martinned2]

The Iranian attack on isreal is leaving the entire Middle East quaking at Iran’s military might

I assume that's sarcasm?

Roughly 50% of the ballistic missiles fired by Iran failed to launch or crashed before reaching their target, three U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials said that Iran launched between 115 and 130 ballistic missiles that targeted Israel. When asked for more details about those strikes, the officials acknowledged that only about half of them were intercepted successfully. The rest failed in flight and didn't reach their targets, the officials said.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-iran-strikes-live-coverage/card/many-iranian-missiles-failed-to-launch-or-crashed-before-striking-target-u-s-officials-say-TCd4YP2fiODhl1t9QDrL

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously Joe Biden needs to release more money to Iran so they can up their game.

[Martinned2]

Obviously we need to antagonise Iran as much as possible, to incentivise them to step up their game and spend more of their oil money on developing better weapons.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Neville Chamberlain.

[Martinned2]

O wow, that's a terrible analogy.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true, Chamberlain wasn't sending Hitler pallet loads of money.

[Joe_dallas]

Additionally Biden was active in freeing up sanctions

Anyone thinking the JCpoa was working under obama is willfully ignorant. Superficially, it had the appearance of "working" but not in reality not so much. All that happened during the Trump administration was Iran made a lot less effort to maintain the facade.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett - the other difference in addition to the pallets of money was that Chamberlain was dealing from a position of weakness. He did go back to England and started to begin / accelerate englands rearmament programs.

Obama on the other hand was dealing from a position strength, but choose to assist in the facilitation of terrorist funding operations

[Malika the Maiz]

Now do Russia.

[Martinned2]

Russia invaded a neighbouring country. Who do you think Iran might invade?

[Frank Drackman]

Who gives a fuck if they invade? they’ve been killing Amuricans for almost 50 years. My approach, and if Jimmuh Cartuh had followed it, he’d have been re-erected in 1980
Release the Hostages (not the ones from 1979, the ones Ham-ass is currently holding) unharmed in 24 hours or:
1: Minuteman 3 Missiles with Thermonuclear Warheads launched at Ear-Rons 20 largest cities. If they’re not released by the next 24 hours, repeat Step #1
We’re replacing the Minutemans anyway, and we’ve got 450 of them, and nobody even knows if they really work, we test them, but only launching them west over the Pacific, there’s always been a concern they might not be as accurate launched over the Pole or to the East, lets find out!

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would be sort of embarrassing for the world to know that they didn't work, if they didn't.

[jimc5499]

Take one of the OMFG class missile subs and unload it on Iran. 154 Tomahawks will do a number on their bases.

[Malika the Maiz]

I meant those who accuse others of appeasement regarding Iran often could be said to be guilty of something similar when it regards Russia.

[bernard11]

Yup.

And speaking of Chamberlain they are glad to cede territory to Putin to make him stop, for a while.

Not a lot of self-awareness there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hitler was on the cusp of power -- Putin approaching the nadar.
I can't see Putin doing any more invading. Or living much longer...

[Martinned2]

I can’t see Putin doing any more invading.

People in the Baltics (which is not the same thing as the Balkans) are not so confident. In a straight line it's 42 miles from Belarus to the Kaliningrad exclave.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.3733253,23.7515419,8.83z?entry=ttu

[bernard11]

That's reassuring, Ed.

OTOH, Putin is 71, considerably younger than our next President, and seems ambitious to restore Russia's empire.

Why on earth do you think he's going to stop with a chunk of Ukraine, once he's backed the west down there?

Oh, and if he dies this afternoon, why won't there be successors carrying on?

[Absaroka]

While I surely hope Putin goes offstage soon, I agree he may well be around long enough to cause a lot of mischief. As Brett, I think, pointed out a couple of months ago at his age he can't play too long of a game and still be Peter the Great 2.0.

"why won’t there be successors carrying on?"

That's a fascinating question. Putin is married to the war; he can't realistically say 'oopsie, bad idea, let's withdraw' and hope to stay in power. But if, say, some oligarchs get tired of the money drain and walk him off the plank, the new guy might be able to say 'boy, Putin sure screwed the pooch with that one, we're going to cut our losses' and get back to the kleptocracy stuff. Even Stalin got denounced after he was dead.

Or not; I confess I understand Russian politics even less than I understand US politics.

The worse the war is going for Russia the easier it will be for some future leader to disclaim it, so the strategy is the same for Putin here or Putin gone.

[bernard11]

I think the issue is that Russia still yearns to recover lost empire.

Why, who knows, but they had the opportunity to become a more normal country, and didn't take advantage.

None of the above is based on any expertise, and could be wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Khrushchev is a better example than Stalin -- and he was ousted for his "hare brained schemes."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why, who knows, but they had the opportunity to become a more normal country, and didn’t take advantage."

Totalitarian states deliberately destroy all power centers outside the state. This makes it VERY difficult to go back to being a normal state, because there's nobody capable of pushing back if the state starts backsliding, hell, there's nobody capable of doing things if the state doesn't do them.

[Nige]

All the public services and institutions got bought up by criminal oligarchs. All the wealth concentrated among a few, most of the rest in borderline poverty. The state was effectively taken over by private wealthy individuals. This includes Putin. There's a lesson there somewhere.

[Drewski]

Ah, victim blaming. Very progressive. I bet you think women should avoid provocative clothing and that blacks shouldn't act too "uppity" or whatever happens to them is kind of their fault.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I assume that’s sarcasm?

Nothing gets past you, does it?

[Michael P]

Joe Biden repeatedly approved the Iranian strike against Israel as long as it was "within certain limits": https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-796998

[Malika the Maiz]

The words "repeatedly" or "approved" do not seem to be in the source you linked to.

[Michael P]

I meant "reportedly" but my phone interfered. Sorry.

[Malika the Maiz]

I see, phones are bad about that. And the "approved?"

[Michael P]

"Approved" is an entirely fair summary of this:

Possible developments also came up during the meeting with Blinken, and they (the US) conveyed to Iran through us that this reaction must be within certain limits.

I'm sorry that you can't read.

[Sarcastr0]

Iran had their embassy bombed. They were gonna react.

Unless you really want war with Iran, this was as good as could be hoped for, given Israel's actions.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Iran had their embassy bombed."

Iran, well known defender of the sanctity of embassies.

[Don Nico]

Exactly, there is extensive conjecture in US media that Iran meant this to be a show rather than a damaging attack

[bernard11]

Not to mention Iran tipped everyone off, made no complaint about the US shooting down some of the drones, etc.

[Don Nico]

exactly.

[Malika the Maiz]

That doesn't seem entirely fair at all. It could well have been "we know you're going to do X but let's be clear, if you go over these lines when you do X you'll be very sorry."

The fact that the administration followed up by directing the military to shoot down drones and missiles further makes the "approved" language seem unfair. They "approved" it and then prevented it?

[Bob from Ohio]

choreographed then

[Nige]

So, according to you guys, Biden managed to influence Iran sufficently to confine their response to the embassy attack to an untlmately symbolic, if still significant, display that largely seemed to demonstrate how ineffectual they are. Meanwhile Trump just ranted and raved. Thats the *anti-Biden* view?

[Davy C]

Did you want Trump to shoot down some missiles himself? There are idiots saying he violated the Logan Act just by reposting an old anti-Iran tweet.

[bernard11]

Trump could not have done what Nige describes Biden as doing. He is incapable of it.

[Nige]

'Did you want Trump to shoot down some missiles himself?'

No. I literally just described what he did do.

[Michael P]

And what do you call the treatment of behavior that doesn't "go over these lines" in that not-very-hypothetical?

I call it approving or consenting to that behavior.

[David Nieporent]

“Approved” is an entirely fair summary of this:

It is utterly tendentious. Drawing a red line is not saying that one "approves" of things short of that red line.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're unfairly bringing the gun of logic to Michael P's fist fight of an argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, yeah, actually it does amount to permission to go up to that line.

[Nige]

Except that there’s also another line for the other side. This is standard Cold War low level dirty conflict shit. Suddenly having ethical qualms about the style of war the US has been engaged in for decades just 'cos it's Biden. Once upon a time that kind of thing was anti-American.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don't think that washes. Take this example: "You shouldn't go over there, it's petty and stupid, and that's all I'll say about that, but if you start a fight over there don't expect me to be here when you get back."

Would you say that demonstrates approval of going over there?

[Brett Bellmore]

I said "permission".

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett ignoring the fact that Iran, for domestic reasons and foreign relations reasons, couldn't do nothing. So they did what, in practical effect, was as close to nothing they could do. Sure, we oppose that and wish they wouldn't, but as has been pointed out to Brett, this is how Cold War type international relations are done. We couldn't forbid the USSR from doing certain things, but we drew red lines. They did the same. Iran has much less leverage to draw lines for us, but the only way you can exercise some amount of control over Iran is if there are things which cause war. If everything is or may result in war, then you have no effect on their decision-making and all-out war is much more likely. We don't want that.

But you know all this. It's just special rules for Biden.

[Malika the Maiz]

"I said “permission”."

Why would you say that when this is about approval?

[David Nieporent]

“I said “permission”.”

Why would you say that when this is about approval?

And Michael P added another variant, "authorized." But all variants are bullshit. The U.S. did not give "permission" for anyone to do anything. The U.S. had no authority to give permission and Iran wasn't asking for permission.

[Jumaira]

Joe Biden has no business approving anything other than how often his diaper is changed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe you could ask someone to slip that note to defendant Donald Trump in that courtroom this morning. He might appreciate someone trying to cheer him up.

[Jumaira]

Hopefully when he's elected, he commandeers the military to seek revenge. How funny would it be if a fighter jet flown by a good patriotic white American from rural Iowa fired one missile after another at all of New York's landmarks?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Former Pres. (and current serial defendant and courtroom loser) Trump seems at least as likely to die while incarcerated as he is to be reelected.

I am content.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I'm with you on that. There is no way the federal agencies are going to let Trump win.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It appears feelings of rejection, disaffectedness, and persecution afflict right-wingers in general, whether misfit law professors or malcontent blog commenters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well. if there is ENOUGH of a landslide....

[Stella Link the dog]

No matter how much Biden wins by, you dopes will still make false claims about how the election was rigged by "the federal agencies." Even if, as in 2020, there is absolutely no significant evidence.

[Jumaira]

They don't need to rig anything. You people just need to give automatic citizenship to another 10 million worthless Aztecs, Haitians, Somalis, Sudanese, and other human garbage.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yet another racist shithead gets muted.

[Don Nico]

Oh, grow up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A 10-year-old ARAB girl. Beodin, I believe.

[Michael P]

Usually spelled Bedouin, but yes: https://www.yahoo.com/news/anger-among-israeli-bedouins-girl-210058848.html

[Armchair]

Does it really matter? It's a 10 year old girl.

[Bwaaah]

A 10 year old is insufficient? (Or just a person? In retrospect, one body, of any kind, seems insufficient for any political purpose.)

[Moderation4ever]

I agree and also hope this young girl recovers. It is worth noting that the only casualty here is an Arab child from a Bedouin family in the Negev desert. Again, an innocent is the victim of war and I hope people will remember this and point the blame where it belongs on Iran.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like Iran did about as well as Israel would be able to manage without America fighting for it.

Could be a fair fight after America stops propping up Israel's right-wing belligerents.

[Drewski]

Ah, yes, a fair fight so we can determine which side is favored by God. In other news, it's 2024 and we don't usually do that any more.

[myself]

It's tragic that a civilian was hurt, but remember, Israel blew up an Iranian embassy killing a number of senior military leaders. That's not a proxy fight, that's almost by definition an act of war, that's not something you expect any country to ignore.

And Iran pulled its punches, giving ample warning to ensure that Israel would successfully defend it. And then Iran immediately stated that was the end of their response.

My worry is that Bibi has no intention of letting it go. Netanyahu is running out of excuses to keep the Gaza war going, and the moment that's done he's out of office and into jail. So he's trying to start a second war with Iran to keep him in office long enough for the public to forgive him and the Knesset to give him a get-out-of-jail-free card.

If I'm right a lot of Israeli's (and others) will be dying to keep Netanyahu a free man.

[Kazinski]

Sure the embassy act in Syria was an act of war, bit so was the Iranian planning, supplying, and financing of the Oct. Hamas attack.

[myself]

Iran was certainly supplying Hamas (as was Israel) but I'm not sure how much Iran knew about Hamas's full plan.

They may have wanted to help Hamas stir up something to disrupt the growing Israeli - Sunni partnership, but I'd need to see more evidence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Evidence of his claims will not be forthcoming.

[Bob from Ohio]

Only Jews have agency and do bad things, Muslims are always just innocent victims.

[Nige]

Israel is the only democratic country in the region! Stop holding it to higher standards than theocratic hellholes!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel is plenty theocratic.

Although maybe not for much longer.

[Drewski]

Israelis have moral agency, but Iranians are too simple and uncivilized and need guidance from the white man, you say? I don't buy it.

[Nige]

I mean, one should never ‘hand it to’ Iran, but they’ve been participants in a dirty war wth Israel for a while now and done more than their fair share of heinous shit.

[#FFFFFFPride]

If you saw this language, which party would you think it belonged to?

Equality of Rights and Responsibilities: All citizens must have the same rights and duties.

Obligation to Work: Every citizen's primary duty is to contribute both mentally and physically to society. Individual efforts should align with the collective good and benefit everyone.

War Profiteering is a Crime: Profiting from war is a betrayal of the people, and those who do so should be considered criminals and face severe penalties, including the confiscation of their profits.

Nationalization of Certain Industries: Industries critical to national interests, especially those previously part of private trusts, should be owned by the state.

Profit Sharing in Heavy Industries: Profits from major industrial sectors should be shared with the public to ensure community benefits.

Expansion of Welfare for the Elderly: Significantly increase support and services for the elderly to ensure a dignified life.

Support for Small Businesses and Middle Class: Promote policies that support the middle class and small businesses, including the public management of large retail spaces to provide affordable leasing options for small enterprises.

Reform of Education: The state must overhaul the national education system to ensure every talented and hard-working citizen can access higher education and leadership opportunities. Education should foster a strong sense of national pride and responsibility.

Public Health Initiatives: The state should enhance national health by protecting mothers and children, banning child labor, promoting physical fitness through mandatory sports programs, and supporting organizations focused on youth physical education.

Regulation of the Press: Establish laws to combat falsehoods and their dissemination in the media. Ban publications that harm the public good.

Strong Central Government: We demand a powerful central government with full authority over the entire nation and its institutions. This includes forming professional chambers to implement national laws locally. The party commits to enforcing these principles to ensure governance and order.

[Ed Grinberg]

If you hadn't phrased your question as a hypothetical, I would've assumed that you're simply quoting from the Democratic Party platform.
So, where are you quoting from?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Updated language from the 25 point party platform of the Nazis.

You should check put the Fascist Manifesto.

The Left may change brands, but they don't change their stripes.

[myself]

I'm guessing it's something like the Nazis who threw around left wing language in order to appeal to socialists (who were the new cool thing at the the time).

Of course, the Nazis were a far-right party and the higher ups had zero intention of following through with the socialist language. Which is why they had such strong support from big business, the military, and the German nobility, who would have had zero interest in the left wing parts of that platform being carried out.

And I'm guessing you're doing this because you're personally far right verging on fascism, so you want to convince people that Nazi's and fascists are actually left wing so they don't claim you and your political allies (some of who occasionally show off Nazi insignia and chant Nazi slogans) are fascist.

So am I right?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Fascist and Nazism being "far right" ranks up there with the "Southern Strategy" and " Steele Dossier" in the BlueAnon sweepstakes of fact-free Leftwing zombie tropes.

Moussilini was a very prominent Socialist before inventing Fascism. You think he went from far left to far right in an era of leftwing dominance. Or, you probably had no idea he was a prominent socialist. Of course not, a prereq of being a Leftist is being incredibly ignorant.

[myself]

So I guess I win your little "contest" after all!

Though I'll throw you back a couple points for style for misspelling Mussolini and then immediately calling leftists "incredibly ignorant".

[NOVA Lawyer]

Dunning Kruger in effect for fake pride.

Mussolini when he founded the fascist movement had developed new political ideas and opposed egalitarianism and class conflict, i.e., he was no longer a socialist. You know, people evolve politically, Ronald Reagan, the American right wing’s patron saint was an FDR supporting New Deal Democrat who actively fought right-to-work laws. Politicians sometimes change.

Fake pride is an object lesson in a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

[DaveM]

This is obviously authoritarian. My guess before you informed us was Marxist or Maoist in origin. German National Socialist seems obvious once you go back and reread certain parts more carefully ("Every citizen’s primary duty is to contribute both mentally and physically to society.")

But as to your implication that this document is close to anything related to Republican or Democratic policy in today's US, that is completely far-fetched. This document is way too specific, for one thing. Far too pointed. Today's political parties deal in abstractions and glossy, ill-defined, emotional language.

[Martinned2]

The Dutch government has sent a letter to parliament saying that it (meaning, presumably, the next government) will propose a change in the procedure for prosecuting crimes in office.

The current procedure, which dates from the 1850s, has never been used. If a (current or former) member of parliament or government minister needs to be prosecuted for crimes in office (e.g. corruption), that currently requires a government decision or a procedure in parliament leading to a parliamentary decision instructing the Procureur-General to bring the prosecution.

The Procureur-General has a lifetime appointment exactly because he is potentially involved in the prosecution of political officials. The case is heard by the supreme court in first and only instance.

The government is now proposing that the Procureur-General should be given the power to prosecute crimes in office on his own initiative, applying the same assessment framework as any other crime.

This will require an amendment to the constitution and to some regular statutes. So it will take a few years.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So who's been sheltered from prosecution under the current procedure?

[Martinned2]

No one, that we know of. The current procedure can be kicked off by five MPs, and I don't think that's ever happened either. (Remember, in the Netherlands there are more than two parties in parliament.) Then again, how would opposition MPs know?

For example, recently the Czech government announced that they had found evidence of extreme-right politicians taking Russian money. But when the Dutch parliament debated this news, neither the government nor anyone else was willing to name names, or otherwise give more information on a pending intelligence operation. So for now the extreme-right MPs are pretty safe.

https://nltimes.nl/2024/03/28/czech-officials-say-dutch-politicians-offered-cash-back-russian-propaganda

[Dr. Ed 2]

You're assuming they are guilty -- I'm not.

I can think of a dozen reasons why the Chech Government might falsely accuse Danish MPs of taking Russian money, not to mention situations similar to Rep. Eric Swalwell. The Russians have LONG been good with honey traps and (worst possible scenario) if a few of your MPs are married to Russian spies, that is something that folks of all parties want to deal with quietly as the national security matter that it is.

[Martinned2]

I am assuming nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that, even if a parliamentary investigation under the current procedure were in order, MPs wouldn't have any basis for taking the first step (a criminal complaint) because they don't know who to complain about.

[David Nieporent]

I can think of a dozen reasons why the Chech Government might falsely accuse Danish MPs of taking Russian money,

No you can't, and also the term for someone from the Netherlands is "Dutch," not "Danish."

[Michael P]

For example, recently the Czech government announced that they had found evidence of extreme-right politicians taking Russian money.

Not so long ago, information was published showing that the US president colluded with Russia. The people re-elected him anyway. Then his successor was accused, repeatedly, of colluding with Russia -- charges that were never substantiated -- based entirely on rumors, on disinformation from Russia, and on disproven claims of fact.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure if you're bragging about the dysfunction of US democracy, or whether you're making some other point.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1779529741579542854

[Michael P]

The left are still being useful idiots for Russians after more than a century. Sometimes more useful, sometimes more idiots.

[Martinned2]

Wait, who do you think is currently blocking funding to help Ukraine fight against the Russians? Or is your reference to "the left" inspired by prof. Somin's post from yesterday?

[Michael P]

That's quite a change in subject, but is the answer "the same people who effectively approved a 'minor incursion' by Russia in the first place"?

[Sarcastr0]

Absent some irrelevant tankies, the right is where all the people who are super into Putin are these days, not the left.

The VC thread on Putin showed that quite well.

[Ed Grinberg]

I remember that thread pretty well. I said I despise him.
Maybe my recollection is faulty, but I don't recall any "people who are super into Putin" from that thread (or, for that matter, any other VC or Reason thread). Could you name some commenters who, supposedly, expressed support for Putin? (Otherwise, we can assume you're just making it up.)

[David Nieporent]

That’s quite a change in subject, but is the answer “the same people who effectively approved a ‘minor incursion’ by Russia in the first place”?

There you go again, lying about what the word "approval" means.

[Michael P]

It's an honor to be accused of dishonesty by someone as accomplished as you in that field.

[Nige]

He's so accomplished you've never once caught him in a deliberate falsehood. Which according to current right-wing thinking proves he's an accomplished liar far more than actual lies told by a liar.

[Michael P]

Nige, he exposes himself all the time. There are the cases here where he has refused to admit that Joe Biden authorized Putin and the Mad Mullahs to attack their does. There's the lie below where he falsely accused me of not recognizing sarcasm because I chose to practically treat it as an honest statement. There's his bizarre fixation on Dr. Ed and janitors, which I suspect is as ill-founded as most of his positions.

You don't notice these things. That's different from him never being caught in a lie.

[Nige]

None of those are lies. Do you not know what a lie is any more?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not wanting to subsidize one corrupt government is not support for another...

[Mr. Bumble]

"power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

[Martinned2]

How are you applying Lord Acton's maxim to what I said?

[Mr. Bumble]

I am.

[Martinned2]

Yes, but to which aspect? Do you object to the politicians having absolute power to prevent their own prosecution, or to the Procureur-General having absolute power to prosecute politicians?

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the Procureur-General's power. However, I don't understand the need for the change.

[Martinned2]

I would have thought that Margrave's response sets out the basic intuition.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This is for all the commenters who said that ballot-access restrictions are simply common-sense regulations of the political process:

"On April 12, the Minnesota Secretary of State’s website finally published a sample petition for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties that is 8.5 inch by eleven inch paper. The old form was on 8.5 by fourteen inch paper, which most people can’t print from their home computers."

https://ballot-access.org/2024/04/14/minnesota-secretary-of-state-no-longer-suggest-that-petitions-must-be-on-legal-size-paper/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is about time but why the hell couldn’t people print it?
All you have to do is reset your page definition and then use bypass feed. Most HP printers allow you to pull out a slide and use the legal size paper.

Staples & WalMart both sell it....

The only printer that couldn’t do it was the old dot matrix pin feed paper and those date back to the ’80s…

[Bwaaah]

You then need a bigger clipboard for the 14" page size, or you have to futz with the papers and the clipboard when you get to the bottom of a page. And also, some of the printer bypass feed guides are so short that the pages could too easily feed through at an undesired angle. And also, bypass feeds require page-by-page manual feeding; you can't automatically print more than one page at a time.

All I'm saying is it's a small improvement that should be of no political consequence, and of interest to very few people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In most states, the Sec of State's Office still hands out hard copies to anyone who shows up in person to ask for them, which is what EVERYONE had to do 30 years ago.

And I prefer oversized clipboards anyway.

[Bwaaah]

Yours appears to be bigger than mine. I’ll admit this.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Absolutely none of that supports the (utterly false) assertion that most people can't print 8"x14" documents on their home printers.

[ducksalad]

Sure, it's not an insurmountable obstacle. Neither are the following: reducing early voting hours, requiring postage stamps on voter registration applications, slowing down the line at the polling place to make sure the line starts out on the sidewalk, etc.

They've all got the same intent: get a few people at the margins to decide to put it off for another day, and maybe never get around to it.

In this case the target is volunteer petitioners. Nice day today! But no ream of legal paper around the house, make a trip down to Walmart and then back home, spend $10 of my own money, jack around with the printer tray, meh, seems like I've done enough volunteering for today. One day worth of signatures can't make that much difference. Maybe the weather will be good tomorrow.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sure, it’s not an insurmountable obstacle.

It's trivial, in fact.

[Ed Grinberg]

You'll never guess the Secretary of State's party affiliation...

[Mr. Bumble]

"A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system "
Kind of sums up the "hush money" case.

https://nypost.com/2024/04/14/opinion/a-serial-perjurer-will-try-to-prove-an-old-misdemeanor-against-trump-in-an-embarrassment-for-the-new-york-legal-system/

[Martinned2]

I'm glad that at least part of the MSM is still impartial! /s

[Mr. Bumble]

So you think Jonathan Turley is a MAGA hack?

[Martinned2]

No, I think the New York Post is a Murdoch newspaper.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What are the implications of being a "Murdoch newspaper"?

[Malika the Maiz]

The owner of Fox?

[Malika the Maiz]

What a softball question.

[bernard11]

So you think Jonathan Turley is a MAGA hack?

When it gets him publicity.

[Jumaira]

Better than that Slavic piece of shit Jill Filipovic

[Sarcastr0]

Kind of appealing to authority here, to quote an opinion piece. And as noted below NY Post is gonna cherry pick.

[Mr. Bumble]

...as opposed to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT., WaPO?

[Nige]

If anyone quotes opinion pieces as authoritative from those, feel free to object.

[SRG2]

Do you recall the nature of the perjury?

[hobie]

This is all Deep State lawfare, Bumble. The Deep State put E Jean Carroll's pu**y around Trump's finger while he was trying to shop at Bergdorf's. Stormy put her pu**y around Trump's 'David Pecker' while he was visiting Los Angeles. Fake elector signatures submitted to Congress? Showing America's top secrets to reporters and an Australian billionaire in Bedminster? Deep State.

[Nige]

You mean, a crooked employee turns on his crooked boss? Tale as old as time.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll withhold final judgement until all the facts are in, but it's looking like Ear-Ron (HT Barry Hussein Osama) didn't take Parkinsonian Joe's advice of "Don't"

Frank

[Armchair]

How to avoid a question you'd rather not answer directly (because it would be a lie or incredibly damaging if the truth came out).

1. Act all offended that the person even asked the question.
2. Appeal to authority with items that are related to, but don't actually answer the question.
3. Refuse to even answer the question because it's "insulting".

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4560881-jean-pierre-criticizes-north-carolina-radio-host-over-offensive-biden-question/

[Martinned2]

Out of curiosity, what would you suggest that people should do with questions that are actually insulting?

[Armchair]

When it's a question of national importance to voters, that there is evidence that it is occurring? (Oh, for evidence, when a special counsel says he couldn't possible charge you because of your "poor memory")

Answer it. Preferably with the proper assessments. ie. Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8), and/or Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) assessments

Avoiding the question? Well...

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve got bad news for you about how Trump treats the press then.

[Martinned2]

I loved how Hungarian CPAC is a "no woke zone" this year, which apparently means that mainstream press cannot get accredited: https://telex.hu/english/2024/04/09/cpac-hungary-a-no-woke-zone-so-dutch-public-tv-not-welcome-either

[Dr. Ed 2]

CPAC went to the dark side a decade ago -- it's all about the money now.

Press can buy full-price admissions.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Does he spy on them, arrest them, or plan to plant child porn on their spouses computer like the FBI does?

[Nige]

Was that your story?

[Michael P]

Address the substance of the question rather than the veneer. If there's no basis for the question, point that out. In this case, there are many independent pointers that make the question a fair one.

[Bwaaah]

What would be an appropriate answer to the question, "Does Joe Biden have dementia?"

She could have answered, "No."

[David Nieporent]

She could have answered, "Well, he didn't just realize yesterday that Robert E. Lee was out of favor, so there's that."

[Nige]

It's the new 'when did you stop beating your wife.'

[Armchair]

Well, except you can just answer "No" to the question about "Does the President have Dementia"...

[Nige]

Why? You don’t care whether it’s true, it’s just a thing you repeat ad nauseum hoping to replace truth with your preferred version of reality.

Fucking Trump supporters complaining that someone didn't answer a media question right.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How to avoid a question you’d rather not answer directly (because it would be a lie or incredibly damaging if the truth came out).

What a strange framing. Do you think she’s under some kind of magical spell where she can’t say something that’s false? It’s clear that she is emphatically denying that Biden has dementia.

[Moderation4ever]

I noted this article Sunday in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, pointing out how immigrants have helped the economy by reducing inflation and achieving a soft landing. Again, showing that immigrants offer more benefits than liabilities to our country. So, let's spend less time talking about the border and instead address the issues.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a16/page_22684fe8-34df-5c90-816a-5c56986f0e05.html

[Bob from Ohio]

""My plan is to help my family that much need the money and to grow economically here," Silva said."

So she lied about the need for asylum. Don't we have enough domestic liars, is there a need to import?

[Nige]

Where’s the lie? Are people granted asylum not allowed to aspire to prosper economically in their new home? Doesn't economic prosperity help everyone?

[Martinned2]

This seems like good advice. (From the ABA antitrust spring conference.)

Antitrust lawyers who lie about discovery or misbehave in a courtroom can earn a bad reputation among judges, who "gossip with each other all the time," a California federal judge said today.

Susan Illston, a judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, said at a conference* that district judges are certainly on top of the settlement or mediation process in ongoing litigation, but they don't generally talk about that or the discovery process "unless you lie or behave badly to a magistrate judge, in which case, we do talk about it."

The judge was responding to a comment by US District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the Central District of California that there is a "misnomer" that magistrate judges and federal judges are in "some backroom" discussing confidential mediation information in a lawsuit.

Nonetheless, misconduct can create reputational risks, Illston said. "Never lie," she said. "Never, ever lie. Never mistate things, never overstate things. So, don't lie because judges do gossip about who you are."

[Martinned2]

When I was an antitrust enforcer, we would definitely rely on a version of this. Merging companies might have an incentive to get creative with the truth, but their lawyers are repeat players, and have a reputation to protect. (For the merging companies we had fines, though you can wonder whether they were high enough.)

[Ed Grinberg]

"When I was an antitrust enforcer,"
Why am I not surprised...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html

[Martinned2]

However surprised that is, it's less surprised than me seeing you link to the Gospel according to Ayn Rand.

[ducksalad]

Totally off topic: IIRC, a few weeks back you were opining with some vehemence that when civil servants have a traffic accident it’s a private affair and not a proper topic for the newspapers.

Now it’s all making sense. Dutch civil servant, right? I hope you, your family, and your car came out of the accident OK.

[Martinned2]

I have never been a civil servant in the Netherlands, other than technically during my time as an academic. But that's neither here nor there, because here in the UK they also wouldn't put your name in the newspaper for a routine traffic accident. And for serious (i.e. criminal) matters, the UK has the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which interferes with the freedom of speech much more than anyone in the Netherlands would put up with.

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/legal-system/contempt-of-court-act

[Armchair]

One more question.

Does anyone actual want Bragg's dubious criminal case against Trump succeeding? Would it be better if it failed, especially for liberals?

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think it matters whether Trump is convicted. I think it highly unlikely he will be acquitted, but a hung jury is a real possibility. What matters is that the information he sought to hide in 2016 will all be in the open in the 2024 election. The jury may not be as important as the public.

[Armchair]

You mean that he paid Stormy an NDA? (Which she broke...)

Yeah, everyone knows now. Have for some time. So?

[Commenter_XY]

It would be better for the country if there is an acquittal in the NYC case.

[Martinned2]

I know English syntax can be weird, but that's a funny way of writing "it would be better for the country if the law is followed and a correct verdict returned".

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would be better for the country if these bogus charges hadn't been brought in the first place. When NY authorities have to reassure developers that Trump is the only one who will ever be charged with that bullshyte appraisal charge, or now the state is prosecuting a FEDERAL felony which SCOTUS said AZ couldn't do.

If she gets a conviction, not only will this become racial almost instantly, but it will birth a men's rights movement that will sweep Trump into office. And why isn't Trump suing Daniels for breach of contract?

The overweight middle-aged nasty woman is an evil that has traction and that should be exploited. Remember that PACs are independent of the candidate -- that means that injunctions on the candidate don't apply to the PAC....

[Martinned2]

You sound like someone who doesn't have confidence in the Great American Jury, which protects the innocent against prosecutorial overreach since 1776!

[David Nieporent]

When NY authorities have to reassure developers that Trump is the only one who will ever be charged with that bullshyte appraisal charge,

1. The word is “bullshit.”
2. It was a lawsuit, not a prosecution, so Trump wasn’t “charged with” anything.
3. Nobody said any such thing, liar.

or now the state is prosecuting a FEDERAL felony which SCOTUS said AZ couldn’t do.

The state is prosecuting a state felony. Your stupidity knows no bounds.

If she gets a conviction, not only will this become racial almost instantly,

I’ll take “Things only a hardcore racist who thinks we need the KKK in this country would say” for $1,000, Alex.

but it will birth a men’s rights movement that will sweep Trump into office.

Who the fuck is “she”? Did Alvin Bragg transition when I wasn’t looking?

[Armchair]

The state is prosecuting a misdemeanor which only rises to a felony, if it was done to further a different crime.

Interestingly the "different crime" isn't a state crime...it's a federal crime. One which wasn't prosecuted

It's a unique "shift" in the law, using the "furthering" of crimes that the state itself doesn't have laws against, and that the person has never actually been indicted for. I wonder if they can use uncharged foreign "crimes" to further it as well? What's your view there, David.

[David Nieporent]

1) "To further" is not a sufficient summary of the law. It says, "intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

2) Note that the statute doesn't require that the person be trying to cover up his own crime; covering up any crime by anyone will do. AMI's crimes or Cohen's crimes will do, for example.

3) In fact, the prosecution has identified two potential crimes, one federal and one state, that Trump was covering up.

4) Yes, of course it can be foreign crimes too. The commission of the crime isn't an element of the offense, so it doesn't matter what the crime is.

[Armchair]

4). " Yes, of course it can be foreign crimes too"

Since homosexuality, or homosexual behavior is a crime in several foreign countries, you've essentially made a felony out of many actions which might conceal it.

....Stretch the law far enough, and everything is illegal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You wouldn't have to go that far armchair -- abortions that are legal in NY are crimes elsewhere -- hence an upstate DA could prosecute the womens' groups that bring women into NY for abortions that are illegal in their own states.

This is a very dangerous precedent....

[not guilty]

"You wouldn’t have to go that far armchair — abortions that are legal in NY are crimes elsewhere — hence an upstate DA could prosecute the womens’ groups that bring women into NY for abortions that are illegal in their own states."

Think so, Dr Ed 2? What New York statute(s) would your hypothetical upstate DA charge? Or do you also hypothesize the existence of statutes that don't in fact exist?

[David Nieporent]

You wouldn’t have to go that far armchair — abortions that are legal in NY are crimes elsewhere — hence an upstate DA could prosecute the womens’ groups that bring women into NY for abortions that are illegal in their own states.

What on earth are you talking about? What elements of New York Penal Law §§ 175.05 / 175.10 do you think your hypo satisfies?

[Bwaaah]

That wasn't a "syntax" problem, nor a comment about law.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think an acquittal is likely, look for Trump's lawyers to be working for a hung jury. The law exists and the evidence is there to support a conviction, the question is can the defense create enough doubt to get a few jurors to stop a conviction.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think acquittal is unlikely, but there's an excellent chance of his winning on appeal if convicted.

I mean, sure, trivially the law exists, but you don't convict people on the basis of a law having existed, you convict them on the basis of their having violated it. And this application of the law is pretty dubious. I mean, they couldn't even nail John Edwards on this, and that case was open and shut next to this one.

I think it's dead obvious that, if Trump HAD reported this expense as a campaign expense, they'd just have switched positions on whether it was a campaign expense, and gone after him anyway.

[bernard11]

I think it’s dead obvious that, if Trump HAD reported this expense as a campaign expense, they’d just have switched positions on whether it was a campaign expense, and gone after him anyway.

Of course you do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is long past time for the FEDERAL election commission
to give some clear guidance on this, including candidate child care expenses, family transportation expenses, and family clothing/beauty expenses.

Case in point -- Jill Biden. She's not running for anything, but she has to look attractive and be with Brandon at events and such. Child care expenses are a big thing for single mothers running for office, while maintenance of CEO image (which this NDA was) is a big thing for corporations whose CEO is running for office.

This is one of the few things that the D&R could agree needing to be clarified because whatever Trump is alleged to have paid Daniels is an amount that Jill Biden could very easily go through with salons and such over the next six months.

The campaign finance laws were written in the 1970s and society has changed since then.

[Moderation4ever]

You should write your Congressperson and ask to have the law revised.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"You should write your Congressperson and ask to have the law revised."

What has Congressman Golden ever done to you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, the NY law is a misdemeanor, but Trump is charged with a felony because the FEDERAL law is a felony. Heck, it might be a felony in New Jersey as well -- NY can only enforce NY statutes so how are they getting away with this?!?

[Longtobefree]

(D)

do try to keep up - - - -

[Noscitur a sociis]

As could have been trivially predicted, you understand it wrong.

[David Nieporent]

NY is only enforcing a NY statute, which does not care whether any federal law is a felony.

[bernard11]

Gee. Doesn't anyone want to wait for the trial itself before reaching a verdict?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gee. Does anyone honestly expect Trump to get a fair trial?

[David Nieporent]

Yes.

[Longtobefree]

Well, if both of the republicans in New York get on the jury, MAYBE a hung jury.

[Nige]

Don't we have any faith in Trump's hot charisma, winning charm and impeccable PR skills?

[Moderation4ever]

It is not just that everyone knows but that everyone is reminded. In 2016 everyone knew about Hillary Clinton's emails and yet the discovery of them on Huma Abedin computer during the campaign was a blow. The story is a rerun, but people watch reruns all the time.

Also, the case is much more than an NDA to Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels. Let's start with the fact that the former President denies the affair, will the defense keep up that line? There was no NDA, but rather a news story purchased then shelved, and the purchase price returned in an illegal manner.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, a conviction would raise interesting questions about news stories that are purchased and shelved — and the dems have more to worry about that practice being outlawed.

But if that is what this is about, Daniel's testimony would be irrelevant because it's a given she's alleging this -- and why would Trump be required to deny it?

[Moderation4ever]

Any examples you have of Democrats purchasing stories to suppress them? As for Ms. Clifford's testimony, you are correct it is an allegation and I would expect Trump's lawyers to try to discredit the testimony. It does not matter because the testimony will still be part of the trial and the jury will have to decide.

[David Nieporent]

Does anyone actual want Bragg’s dubious criminal case against Trump succeeding? Would it be better if it failed, especially for liberals?

I do not have a crystal ball and do not know how its success or failure would affect Trump or Biden politically. So I go by a simple mantra: don’t worry about it; just do the right thing and if it benefits you, great, and if it doesn’t, at least you did the right thing. Trump’s guilty, so it should succeed.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you've heard all the evidence and as a jury of one have convicted Trump?

[Bob from Ohio]

David is hypocritical on this issue. Talk about an illegal murdering a student, its all presumption of innocence. Trump, different.

[David Nieporent]

David is hypocritical on this issue. Talk about an illegal murdering a student, its all presumption of innocence. Trump, different.

There were — and AFAIK still are — no publicly known facts to inculpate the person accused of killing Riley. The facts of Trump's conduct are not just known, but virtually undisputed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Things are always different when one is a hypocrite.

Some of the facts in NY may be undisputed but the issue of whether such facts are criminal is very much disputed. Not to you, all knowing seer.

[David Nieporent]

but the issue of whether such facts are criminal is very much disputed.

Those are legal arguments, not factual ones. (Of course, there's no summary judgment in a criminal case, so the prosecution has to prove facts to the jury even if they are uncontested. But we as non-jurors don't have to wait for undisputed facts to be presented to us before evaluating them.)

[Nige]

‘Things are always different when one is a hypocrite.’

Actually no, when things are different it tends to reduce hypocrisy. Real hypocrites tend to act as if everything is exactly the same and there is no actual difference between things, so you can do exactly the same thing no matter what.

[Nige]

Yes, Trump will now go to jail because Dave Nieperont formed an opinion and voiced it.

[Armchair]

"Trump’s guilty, so it should succeed."

Based on what?

Hypothetic situation. Joe Politician buys a suit on his own dime, records it as a service in his books, doesn't think anything of it.

Is he guilty of a felony?

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand your hypothetical. What's the falsified business record in your scenario?

[Armchair]

"Records it as a service in his books"

[Armchair]

Just to make it absolutely clear, instead of putting "bought a suit" in his books he writes "for Services".

[Sarcastr0]

Nationwide, homicides dropped around a lot in those cities some of y’all like to bang in about. Including NYC.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/murder-rates-down-new-york-san-francisco-philadelphia-508b6855?st=2fkt047y43fn97i&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[Ed Grinberg]

https://vdare.com/articles/peter-brimelow-and-john-lott-talk-cancellation-and-anti-conservative-bigotry-in-america
At the end of the interview (starting at 35:55) Mr. Lott discusses his upcoming Wall Street Journal op-ed on this topic.

[Sarcastr0]

Since the start of 2023, the price of food has increased 1.2%. Average earnings have gone up 4.3%.

Inflation in groceries has been close to zero for over a year and has been negative for the past two months.

https://jabberwocking.com/food-inflation-is/

[Armchair]

"Inflation in groceries has been close to zero for over a year"

Follow real stats, not a hack
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/food-inflation-in-the-united-states/

[Sarcastr0]

Drum is using FRED. And included wages, which is kind of the actual important figure.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/tags/series?t=tool

I know you have trouble telling fact from opinion but these are facts not just a take. If you want to accuse Drum of lying, you should probably read what he said.

[Armchair]

Use real stats, and directly link to the actual information. Don't be a hack.

BLS stats are clear. 12 month food inflation is at 2.2%.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

Continue using hack information at your own peril.

[Sarcastr0]

You're using a different start date from 'start of 2023', which explains the discrepancy.

And even your number is well outstripped by average earnings.

[Armchair]

“Inflation in groceries has been close to zero for over a year”

Follow the train. Year over year is 12 month inflation. 2.2% is not “close to zero”…anymore than it’s “close to 4%”.

When you start lying about one thing, everything else needs to be looked at more carefully.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep posting slightly different stats, getting different numbers and then claiming you have found a lie.

It’s kinda funny actually.

[Armchair]

You haven't posted any real stats.

[Sarcastr0]

You are blind or dumb probably both.

[Armchair]

Just looking at 2023 as a whole, food inflation was up 5.8%

"In 2023, food prices increased by 5.8 percent. Food price growth slowed in 2023 as economy-wide inflationary pressures, supply chain issues, and wholesale food prices eased from 2022. Food-at-home prices increased by 5.0 percent, and food-away-from-home prices increased by 7.1 percent. "

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20food%20prices%20increased,prices%20increased%20by%207.1%20percent.

Don't be a hack. Use real data. Don't rely on a hack's information.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm a hack? You've come in with 3 utterly different date ranges from what Drum had, in order to call Drum and me a liar.

You're trying to make a stand on statistical integrity, but you're too dumb to do much more than Google search the wrong shit over and over again.

[Armchair]

Pick a date range. Is it 12 month? Is it since the start of 2023? Which is it?

Your math is wrong, and Drum manipulates data.

Look at the real data. Or don't. Be a hack.

[Sarcastr0]

I picked a date range in my OP. You are so bad at this!

[Armchair]

You picked 3 different ranges.

"Since the start of 2023"
"past two months."
"over a year"

Pick one.

[bernard11]

What are you talking about, Armchair? Just trolling, as usual?

Here is Sarcstro's first post on the subject:

Since the start of 2023, the price of food has increased 1.2%. Average earnings have gone up 4.3%.

And you're BS'ing that he hasn't picked a date range. And ignoring the wage increase.

You're worthless.

[Armchair]

"Since the start of 2023, the price of food has increased 1.2%"

Clearly a lie as linked to above.

In 2023 alone, "food prices increased by 5.8 percent. Food price growth slowed in 2023 as economy-wide inflationary pressures, supply chain issues, and wholesale food prices eased from 2022. Food-at-home prices increased by 5.0 percent, and food-away-from-home prices increased by 7.1 percent. ”

Food prices have not DECREASED in 2024, so there's no way they have increased by less than 5.8% since the beginning of 2023, according to this.

[Sarcastr0]

Different date range.

I already explained this to you.

You seem to assume without realizing it that inflation is monotonically increasing.

You are dumb as hell.

[Armchair]

Math is hard for you I see.

[bernard11]

From the BLS:

[In 2023] Food prices increased 2.7 percent, reflecting a 1.3-percent increase in prices for food at home and a 5.2-percent increase in prices for food away from home.

[Absaroka]

What's the relation of machine tool prices to food inflation?

[Krayt]

Or McDonald's, for that matter.

[Martinned2]

How do you think they make that food?

[Malika the Maiz]

Unfortunately for President Biden he has been President for longer than the start of 23.

[Sarcastr0]

If you are going to vote for Trump due to inflation in spring of 2023, you were going to vote for Trump well before that time too and just want an excuse.

[Michael P]

Past performance is a good predictor of future results, especially in politics.

But it's always Year Zero for Gaslight0!

[Sarcastr0]

Oh noes Biden has lost Michael P.

[Michael P]

That falsely implies that he ever had me to lose. He's losing Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, even Wisconsin. In hopes of keeping Minnesota and Michigan, he's selling out Israel to the "death to America" crowd.

[David Nieporent]

This truthfully connotes that Michael P is incapable of recognizing sarcasm.

[Michael P]

Morons like Gaslight0, Bernard and other DMN liars fall back to sarcastic snark when they can no longer defend their actual position.

[Martinned2]

Or no longer want to, given how exhausting it is to argue with partisan morons...

[Sarcastr0]

Sarcasm is not a lack of engagement, it’s a rhetorical device.

Case and point, you got wrecked twice by 7 words.

[bernard11]

Past performance is a good predictor of future results, especially in politics.

So if Trump wins we'll have another pandemic?

[Michael P]

Things the left actually believes: Donald Trump caused the COVID pandemic. Hunter Biden is not his father's influence-peddling crackhead son. Joe Biden never knew anything about Hunter's or Jim's or Frank's efforts to trade on Joe's name.

Sad.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Wow. Twice in a row.

[Nige]

The left doesn't believe the exact opposite of the dumbest shit you come out with, they just believe it's dumb shit.

[Michael P]

If the left doesn't believe those things, it should stop acting like -- and saying that -- it does.

[Nige]

Nobody on the left acts like or says they believe any of those, except the last, I suppose, but that's down to your complete reliance on increduilty that anyone could not believe it, as opposed to, y'know evidence. Hah, you actually caught me there, slipping in a completely reasonable thing to believe after two uttery stupid claims on your part.

[Malika the Maiz]

I meant if the inflation went up quite high under Biden's first two years and then eased back a bit from that high in his third that's not much to brag about.

[Martinned2]

I wonder if something happened outside the United States that might have caused inflation to go up...

[Brett Bellmore]

That just coincidentally exactly coincided with Biden taking office. Just like all the other things that went to shit in February 2021 were just coincidences.

[bernard11]

Another one of those, "Putin wouldn't have dared invade Ukraine if Trump were President," clowns.

Just how fucking stupid is that argument. What would Trump have done, especially since he and his ass-kissers are more than willing to just let Putin have Ukraine.

Just blind cultishness by Brett.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

especially since he and his ass-kissers are more than willing to just let Putin have Ukraine

Well, it's kind of weird then that Putin invaded Ukraine during the Obama administration, didn't invade during the Trump admin, but then did it again during the Biden admin. It seems like the thing to do would have been to invade when someone who would have just let him have Ukraine was in power.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, I don't know if Putin would have dared to invade Ukraine if Trump had been President in 2022. We'll never know what would have happened in that counterfactual history. Hell, we don't know if he'd have invaded Ukraine if Biden hadn't given him permission to! (What is it, anyway, with Biden giving despots permission to invade allies? It seems to be a habit with him.)

All I know is that Putin DID invade Ukraine when Biden was President, and DIDN'T when Trump was President. I understand your desire to give that zero weight, but that's unreasonable.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What is unreasonable is your insistence of giving weight to something which you cannot possibly show any evidence of having any influence on world events.

That's your schtick though - evidence-free conspiracy theories, particularly whenever you think you can place some kind of negative light on anyone left of you on the political spectrum.

[bernard11]

Look up "post hoc" sometime.

Also think about the fact that an invasion is unnecessary if you think the territory is just going to get handed over to you by your admirers.

Think about the fact that even today Trump and his lickspittles are happy to let Putin have Ukraine.

Then ask yourself whether your argument makes even a tiny bit of sense. (Clue: it doesn't. It's just you putting your spin of choice on a couple of facts.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Also think about the fact that an invasion is unnecessary if you think the territory is just going to get handed over to you by your admirers.

Uh, and who...exactly...would do that, and how would they do it?

[bernard11]

I don’t know if Putin would have dared to invade Ukraine if Trump had been President in 2022.

You think he might have refrained for fear of the Mighty Hand of Trump? What a load. What make anyone think Trump would have responded more strongly than Biden did?

Those who can only yell about the timing, and ignore all other facts, might think so, but sensible people don't

Plus, your mind-reading of Putin is ridiculous.

[Absaroka]

In fairness, there is a crazy man theory, first advanced by Nixon IIRC.

If you are an adversary dealing with someone who is nice/sane/predictable (Jimmy Carter, perhaps) that predictability means you can walk right up to the edge safely, because you can accurately predict the consequences.

When you are dealing with someone with, to phrase it nicely, a lot of potential variability in their reactions (AKA someone who is a bit crazy) you can't predict the reaction as accurately. That affects your risk calculations about how close to the edge you are willing to go.

So it's not crazy 🙂 to think that being perceived as crazy makes potential adversaries more cautious.

(there are also disadvantages to being perceived as crazy, particularly on the ally side)

(I see wiki calls it Madman Theory, going back at least to Machiavelli)

[Sarcastr0]

From the link in the OP:

“ in case you're interested, here are food and earnings since before the pandemic:

Food is up 27%. Earnings are up 30%”

[ThePublius]

Bidenflation Soars To 18.8%, Squeezing Americans

"Despite a decrease from the highs of mid-2022, many families continue to face significant inflationary pressures. Prices have increased by 18.8%, while real wages have declined by 2.5%. Average hourly earnings for all employees dropped 2.5% to $11.11 in March 2024 from $11.39 in January 2021 when Biden assumed office. According to Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, the typical U.S. household now requires $1,069 more each month (equivalent to $12,828 annually) compared to three years ago, $784 more per month compared to two years ago, and an additional $227 per month compared to last year. The Allianz Life study found 67% are more concerned about paying bills now than their financial future."

"Bidenflation and the Fed's eleven rate hikes to reduce inflation have made housing unaffordable for many people and caused displacements. According to CBRE data, the average monthly payments on a new home soared to $3,322 in the third quarter of 2023. This marks a sharp 90% increase from late 2020, when it stood at just $1,746 before Biden took office. Rising rent and the end of pandemic-era protections are contributing to the homelessness crisis."

More at the link:
https://tippinsights.com/bidenflation-soars-to-18-8-squeezing-americans/

[Sarcastr0]

Bidenflation.

Seems like a legit source.

Housing is not unaffordable due to rate hikes; it's a supply problem, to take one example of why this source sucks.

[ThePublius]

First, fallacy alert: attacking the source.

Second, housing being unaffordable is due to many factors, with mortgage rates being right up there in the top tier!

Also, not all housing is single home purchases. There are fuel costs, and also insurance costs. And, people rent apartments and houses. Why are rents increasing? Inflation.

"The fast growth of rent costs since 2020 derives from a variety of factors, including: Inflation. Higher costs across the board mean landlords pass on higher costs (such as rising wages for maintenance workers or repair costs) to renters. Higher rent costs contribute to inflation and the cycle repeats."

And this:
"As for single-family housing, rents are now 36.6% higher than pre-pandemic prices – compare that with multifamily apartment prices which have gone up 23.6% since before the pandemic. "

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/rental-market-trends#:~:text=The%20fast%20growth%20of%20rent,inflation%20and%20the%20cycle%20repeats.

I would say that you are a source that sucks! But I'm not going to....

[#FFFFFFPride]

No, according to the State, inflation hasn't caused any price increases.

Only capitalist greed. The State passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and since inflation didn't reduce, that must mean it's the people's fault and not the policy or the government.

There is only one reason a government policy fails, not enough funding. If we had funded the Inflation Reduction Act more, it could've overcame the greed of capitalism and reduced inflation.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I don’t have time for a point by point refutation if this new thesis right now.

Now you have expanded the thesis again to rent.
Though I do like pointing out that one cause of rent inflation is inflation.

[ThePublius]

"Though I do like pointing out that one cause of rent inflation is inflation."

That's not at all silly or circular. Everything costs more because of inflation. So, naturally landlords must raise rents to keep up. Fuel, electricity, maintenance work, parts, supplies, and so forth. So, yes, inflation causes rent inflation. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course, property taxes.

[David Nieporent]

Prices have increased by 18.8%, while real wages have declined by 2.5%.

Well, that's fucking dishonest. Either use real numbers or nominal numbers — but not both in comparison to each other.

[ThePublius]

I honestly don't follow you, DN. Are you saying the numbers are wrong? Or citing both together is somehow deceptive? Please explain.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know whether the data itself is correct; I didn't check. But the presentation of the data is dishonest. "Real wages" are adjusted for inflation; prices are not. It would be like citing how much something cost in Euros and comparing it to the price in Dollars, without converting.

[ThePublius]

That's a good point. But what are today's nominal wages? I took a look, and it appears that nominal wages are up about 13% since 2020, while prices are up much more. So, regardless of the distorted reporting, the case is fundamentally the same. People are losing ground.

[ThePublius]

My Bologna has a first name
It’s S-A-R and C
My bologna has a second name
It’s A-S-T-R-Oh

I love to read him every day
And if you ask me why I’l say
Because Sarcastr0 writes the very best B-O-L-O-G-N-A

[Armchair]

This is why links are important. It demonstrates his bad information.

[Sarcastr0]

You linked to different (and still quite low) inflation numbers.

You’ve failed repeatedly, but you’re too dumb to see it.

[Armchair]

And you haven't linked to ANY original sources that provide the requisite data.

Just a hack blogger, and a general page that isn't specific enough.

[#FFFFFFPride]

You're just supposed to take his word for it.

[Martinned2]

You mean apart from an hour ago, when Sarcastro linked to the St. Louis Fed database?

[Armchair]

Did you click on his link...

Here's what it reads.

"Producer Price Index by Industry: Machine Tool Manufacturing: Metal Cutting Machine Tools"

Remember...always Check Sarcastr0's links.

[Sarcastr0]

My OP had a link. With stats. And from the database I biffed the link to.

You missed that entirely it seems.

[Commenter_XY]

Inspired. 🙂

[ThePublius]

You know, this doesn't even pass the smell test. Do you shop for groceries? Do you pay rent, or pay insurance bills, or pay fuel bills, for heating or driving? Does your personal experience reflect anything like what you're reporting? I mean, who are we to believe, you, or our lying wallets?

Your comment reflects the false Dem/prog narrative that the Biden economy is great, the best economy in decades, according to the WH, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich, and their ilk. It's a lie. A big lie. They keep repeating it, hoping we will eventually believe it, but it's simply not so.

Printing billions of dollars and distributing them to millions of illegal immigrants, paying off billions in student loans (illegally, I might add), pumping billions into Ukraine - all of this devalues the dollar, hence, inflation, by definition. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, a pure matter of policy, and Biden's policies have caused it and continue to fuel it. Period.

[Martinned2]

who are we to believe, you, or our lying wallets?

I don't tend to assume that everyone in the country has the same spending habits that I do. For one thing, they don't all live in the same place as me.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, what is inflation like in the UK and your native Netherlands? Is it measured in ways similar to how it is measured in the US?

[Martinned2]

Both the UK and the Eurozone are indicating rate cuts before the US. Neither one has been running deficits of the scale of the US, though in the UK Brexit is still making lots of inflation-related issues complicated.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-15/uk-is-beating-us-on-inflation-fight-and-may-cut-rates-sooner

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"pumping billions into Ukraine"

That isn't where the money is going, dumbass.

Do any of you twats have even the slightest idea of how the defense industry works?

[ThePublius]

You're an ass. The U.S. is spending billions on the defense of Ukraine. Whether it goes directly to Ukraine, or indirectly though arms manufacturers, it's billions, nonetheless. Unless you have an alternate theory?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'll take that as a big, fat "no."

Spend an hour of your life and learn something useful about the topics you seem intent on commenting about without any knowledge of.

https://youtu.be/CqjvTKFufuk?si=t0lgvp-EVpNvOyat

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Since the start of 2023, the price of food has increased 1.2%"

My $100 grocery bill is now running $200-$250.

[Noscitur a sociis]

BULLSHYTE!!!!!

[ThePublius]

Well, he didn't specify the timeframe. But, depending on what one eats, it's not hard to believe that since Biden assumed office one's grocery bill could have doubled.

I shop at few stores - Wal-Mart first, then Shaws, to pick up things WM doesn't carry, or on the rare occasion that Shaw's has something on sale cheaper than WM. I shop price, and for meats, quality.

One interesting aspect of this is that I can reference what I've spent at both places, and for what, online. My grocery bill has increased dramatically over the last few years for essentially the same stuff. Maybe not quite double, but close!

And, my favorite gin is up 23% in the last two years. :). Tonic in the liquor store is up about 50%. (So, I don't buy it there anymore.) But, limes are cheap again! 🙂

[bernard11]

Why are you compelled to make up shit like that? Or did you take in a homeless family?

[David Nieporent]

I'd rather live in a cardboard box on a sidewalk grating than w/ Dr. Ed.

[Bwaaah]

There's a reason there's a "core" inflation rate that excludes volatile components such as food and energy.

But there you go, picking an isolated number for an isolated time period. Like a numerologist, you compare that to another isolated number/time period, and voila!...more proof that the inflation problem is a figment of the public's imagination.

[Longtobefree]

It is just a coincidence that every single person on the planet HAS to buy food and energy.
Why not take out every product, and have an inflation rate of zero?

[Life of Brian]

You must be channeling Krugman. He posted this beauty last year, where he smugly declared "the war on inflation is over" after excluding from CPI the trifling and insignificant components of 1) food, 2) shelter, 3) fuel, and 4) used cars.

[Bwaaah]

Inflation (per FRED) between January 2021 and March 2024, for all goods: 19.4%

Average hourly earnings (per FRED) for same period: 15.9%

[Kenneth Almquist]

When the pandemic hit, a whole bunch of people lost their jobs. The ones that retained their jobs were disproportionately the most valuable employees, so average wages spiked. Meanwhile, prices declined because the sudden drop in demand. It took a while for things to return to normal after than, which meant a period of prices rising faster than average wages.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1khqp

A large jump in unemployment always increases the averages wages of the people who still have jobs. What Biden has brought us is a period of wages rising faster than inflation while unemployment stays under 4%.

[Bwaaah]

“Biden […] brought us is a period of wages rising faster than inflation while unemployment stays under 4%.”

I think it’s silly to describe Biden, or any President, as having “brought us” our wage averages or inflation rates or unemployment rates. Yes, the President affects those metrics, but there are very large other forces that make the President just one non-controlling factor.

Anyway, your rosy picture is silent about the magnitude and cumulative net effect of inflation during his term: wage earners now earn around 3.5% less than they did when he started office.

Just because the problem coincides with the term of Joe Biden doesn’t mean you should bury the problem in numerological rhetoric that kind of puts the problem aside. (Extraordinarily high government borrowing puts competing pressure on interest rates that are likely to frustrate [almost non-existent] political efforts to preserve the value of a dollar.)

[Commenter_XY]

He is an inflation denier, what do you expect?

[Bwaaah]

Inflation denial, any which way. He even gets mathy about it.

[Bwaaah]

And just to do the more complete math, for all consumer goods, since Joe Biden took office in January 2021, to last month…

Inflation (per FRED) between January 2021 and March 2024: 19.4%

Average hourly earnings (per FRED) for same period: 15.9%

[Sarcastr0]

1. Start of 2023 till now is not a cherry picked time period
2. Food inflation matters.
3. The linked story graphs over the year, and it's not too volitile.
4. Core inflation is also going well - maybe don't imply it could work badly.

[Armchair]

1. Yes, it is.
2. Yes, it does.
3. Check 2022....you see the checky picking
4. Which ignores other stuff (like the cost of money)

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: Choosing to use _just_ the cost of food, and not the cost of EVERYTHING, is not cherry picking.

[Bwaaah]

And really, the cherry picking was in his choice of the time period, not the picking of a very small part of inflation. Though food prices are quite volatile in the short term, they tend to reflect inflation over the longer term just like almost all goods and services.

Sarc's lack of regard for sound and informative application of data is typical. It is evident that his conclusions almost always precede his research. (Such is his implication here that wages have kept up with inflation, even though they haven't.)

[Krayt]

Grilled turkey and cup of soup: $13.95. Beford covid, less than $10.

Many lunches less than $10 then. Now, none.

The last sub-$10 meal, pancakes, disappeared last year.

I understand the old hearty college try to defend against politicians suffering the consequences of their actions (and it wasn’t a Democrat who signed the biggest part) but give it up. This isn't some overpriced deli in NY, but flyover country.

[Kazinski]

Well having been accused of cherry picking in the past, using 2023 as a start measure of food only inflation is definitely cherrypicking (unless of course you are trying to tie it to an event that happened at the beginning of 2023, like seating a Republican Congress)

So maybe add a little context, and from a reliable site like the USDA:

Prices for food at home (FAH), or groceries, rose by 3.5 percent in 2020 and 2021. These increases outpaced the average 2.0-percent growth rate from 2000 to 2019. FAH prices then grew by 11.4 percent in 2022. Year-over-year FAH price increases peaked in August 2022, at 13.5 percent higher than in August 2021, the largest such increase since March 1979.

So even if the 1.3 is correct, it certainly misses the fact food prices are up about 15% over the last 2 years.

[Sarcastr0]

Inflation is month to month. The start of 2023 is a pretty normal measure to use; it's not an arbitrary start date.

You, on the other hand, including Covid supply line inflation, are absolutely lying with statistics.

[Kazinski]

So we should just ignore what happened before 2023? It's not a lie to include it as part of the record.

But you know what is a lie? Passing a giant pork barrel spending bill and calling it the Inflation Reduction Act.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. The "Inflation Reduction Act." They actually called it that. (It irks me every time I hear it.)

Inflation was the problem of the day. And increased government spending is their answer to _every_ problem. Put the two together, and you get a spending bill called the "Inflation Reduction Act."

It's as if the only way they can be reminded of basic economics and the effects of excessive government spending is by getting thrown out of office on the heals of their latest mess. Until then, they're the economic geniuses of the future, making age old mistakes like some fundamental mechanism of economics is no longer in effect. (The word "debt" means almost nothing to these people.)

Inflation: it's a perception problem.

[Michael P]

"Inflation is month to month", says a blessed idiot who has confused the map for the territory.

The start of 2023 was absolutely cherry-picked to exclude the terribly high inflation in 2022.

[Malika the Maiz]

What grading reformers have not understood is that high standards, rigorous grading, and student accountability are the incarnation of high expectations. Yet several of the core “equity grading” reforms—including not grading homework, allowing unlimited test retakes or assignment revisions, and prohibiting penalties for late work and cheating—weaken accountability for students. There’s ample research to supportit, but the notion that students do better academically when they face some consequences—positive and negative—is common sense. Moreover, there is not an iota of hard evidence that reforms that make grading more lenient benefit students in the long run.

https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/think-again-does-equitable-grading-benefit-students

[Martinned2]

Let me see if I got this straight: Instead of calibrating the grading standards so that more students get a failing grade, the basic idea is to make sure no one does?

[Michael P]

Yes. It's like the people pushing equitable grades think that the map actually is the territory.

Going back to the OP:

What grading reformers have not understood is that high standards, rigorous grading, and student accountability are the incarnation of high expectations.

The behavior of those advocates suggests that they do recognize that, and actively oppose having high expectations for anyone. Low expectations can't be soft bigotry if you have them for everybody!

[Martinned2]

I haven't studied in the US, but my impression is always that very few students actually get an F. Instead, the opprobrium of a failing grade already attaches to a D, except that a D doesn't come with the inconvenience of having to find some way for the student to make up their deficiency.

Am I getting this right? For reference, during my student and academia days in the Netherlands it was quite common for 20% or more of students to fail a given exam. (I.e. score below 5.5 out of 10.) That was fine, because there would be an opportunity for them to take the exam again, usually pretty quickly. And if after 2-3 attempts they still didn't pass, they could take the course again the next year. None of that was unusual, the objective was simply to get every student up to a pre-defined level of knowledge. (The flipside being that nobody was very fussed about how far above the line anyone was.)

[Michael P]

At "top" US schools now, almost 80% of grades can be As (normally 90+%): https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/11/30/faculty-report-reveals-average-yale-college-gpa-grade-distributions-by-subject/
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/04/15/trends-in-stanford-stem-department-grade-distributions/

Getting less than a B in such courses takes effort, as shown by the Stanford plot.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can achieve nobody getting a failing grade in two ways.

One way is to Just. Not. Fail. Anybody. No matter how badly they do.

The other is to do what my son's charter school does, which is to test rigorously, but as soon as a student drops into the C range on any subject, they're subjected to mandatory, intensive tutoring on that subject. That's how they had zero students flunk last year.

Just. Not. Failing. Anybody. is a lot cheaper and easier, I gather, which is why it's become so popular.

[Martinned2]

The other is to do what my son’s charter school does, which is to test rigorously, but as soon as a student drops into the C range on any subject, they’re subjected to mandatory, intensive tutoring on that subject. That’s how they had zero students flunk last year.

For college-age students, that doesn't seem like a great way to teach people to be adults. Let them sink or swim, and flunk them out of they sink.

[Michael P]

The strategy that Brett mentioned does only make sense for children subject to compulsory school, which generally does not include college.

[Martinned2]

The blog post linked by Malika referred to "students" and "academic standards", so I assumed they were talking about university students.

[Michael P]

In the US, those are neutral as to age or level of education. Other terms from the summary are strongly coded to compulsory education: "policymakers" (implying government-run schools rather than private, with more control by the state government pre-college), "teachers’ ability to manage their classrooms" (implying pre-college), and "district leaders and state education agencies" (school districts administer pre-college state schools, often aligned with county boundaries).

[Malika the Maiz]

That assumption is in error.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a charter school, which in the US pretty much by definition is restricted to K-12. Although it is associated with a college, and next year my son will start taking some college courses in 10th grade, as he's doing all honors courses, which means he'll start running out of state HS curriculum next year.

One of the perks of this charter HS is that graduating from it entitles you to 1 free year of college at the associated college, "13th grade", and between that and the courses while 9-12, many of the students end up with associate degrees without having paid any college tuition.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- be very cautious with this.
The transition to college is cushioned with freshman courses often being easier than the high school ones were. Hence those who don't have that cushion often flunk out.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no real "transition" in this case, though. He'll just be replacing HS honors classes with freshman college classes, as he exhausts the state curriculum.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"One way is to Just. Not. Fail. Anybody. No matter how badly they do."

Secret to success in academia.

[Armchair]

So, the minimum wage at Burger King in CA is now $20 an hour. Wow...

Let's put this in context. $20 an hour, full time (40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year) is $40,000 a year. That's median salary in the US. (Technically $40,480). A bottom tier, minimum wage job is...middle class? Something's off.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N

But, you say...it's CA! The cost of living is higher there! Well, yes...in parts. In other parts, not so much. Median individual income in Fresno is just $31,000... You're in "upper middle class" working minimum wage at Burger King in Fresno...

[ThePublius]

Minimum wage is wrong.
Rent control is wrong.

Both of these are 5A takings, in my opinion, despite the terrible SCOTUS decision to not hear a challenge to NYC's rent control/stabilization regulation.

[Martinned2]

Of course. All government regulation is a 5A takings. This is well known.

[ThePublius]

What is that, some odd form of Dutch sarcasm? 🙂

I didn't say that, Martinned2, and you know it! Don't take my statement and try to refute it by extending it to an extreme. That's fallacious.

Why don't you try to argue how rent control and minimum wage are not takings under 5A?

[Martinned2]

I didn’t say that, Martinned2, and you know it!

No, but whenever any kind of regulation is mentioned on the VC, odds are that someone will claim that it's a takings. And under Cedar Point Nursery, who can blame them?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-107_ihdj.pdf

[ThePublius]

Oh, so since "odds are that someone will claim that it’s a takings," you say I'm claiming every government regulation is a takings. Got it.

[Martinned2]

No, I didn’t say that you were claiming that. Wow, this sarcasm thing really seems to be doing a number on your reading comprehension.

[ThePublius]

You're full of it. Dutch troll. Why don't you go pee in your wooden shoes. Or tilt at windmills. Or jump in a canal. Or something....

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Why don’t you go pee in your wooden shoes."

What a devastating takedown!
Are you trying to compete with Mr. Bumble for most effeminate poster?

[Mr. Bumble]

Closet queen speaks then rushes back to the closet.

[Malika the Maiz]

Are tariffs that hurt my company takings? What about prohibiting me from hiring or doing business with illegal aliens?

[ThePublius]

"Are tariffs that hurt my company takings?" No.

"What about prohibiting me from hiring or doing business with illegal aliens?" No.

Next question?

[Sarcastr0]

Now you link to FRED.

I thought those numbers were lies COR hacks to use?

Anyhow sounds like the medium income in Fresno will go up. A natural experiment, if you care to follow it.

[ThePublius]

"Anyhow sounds like the medium income in Fresno will go up."

I doubt it. It's more likely hours at places that are required to pay $20/hour will be reduced, or locations will close, and more people will be unemployed or struggling with multiple jobs.

[Absaroka]

"Anyhow sounds like the medium income in Fresno will go up."

Well, gosh, let's raise it to $100 and the median wage will go way up...might affect unemployment and/or prices a bit, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Neato excluded middle.

[bernard11]

"A couple of Tylenol will make you feel better."

"Oh, then swallowing the bottle will make me feel great."

[Absaroka]

Exactly - the dose matters. Sarcastro's comment seemed to be ignoring that. But here's the kicker - can you raise the minimum to the median without causing problems? ISTM that is only going to work well in Lake Wobegone.

[Sarcastr0]

You are reading a lot into my comment I didn’t say.

[Armchair]

When I link to FRED, it's directly to the relevant area. In this case, Median wage.

When you link to FRED, In a discussion about food prices you link to...
"Producer Price Index by Industry: Machine Tool Manufacturing: Metal Cutting Machine Tools"

Don't be a hack.

[Sarcastr0]

I messed up a link. You think that was my secret plan to fool you all?

Whenever you lose you make outlandish accusations.

[ThePublius]

More on this...

This is wrong on so many levels. First, from a fundamental perspective, what gives the government the right to force a business owner to pay a particular wage level, when the labor/management economy is otherwise basically free, and subject to fundamental economic mechanisms? And, it's totally one-sided; there is no constraint on employees just quitting, moving to other jobs, and so forth.

Second, it doesn't apply to all businesses! Newsom carved out an exception for his buddy who owns the Panera chain. And the high-end restaurants that Newsom is so fond of are not subject to this at all, and still pay substantially less that $20/hour. As well as other, non-food business.

It's killing jobs, too. Every day there are stories of businesses closing, either all locations, or California locations. As one poor soul remarked "if I didn't get laid off because of the $20/hour minimum wage, I'd be making $20 per hour!" Hours are being reduced, forcing the poor to get multiple jobs, with all of the logistical and transportation difficulties associated with that. Reduced hours means that some will even lose any other benefits that full time employees receive, like health care. It's making things harder on the poor, not better!

[Sarcastr0]

what gives the government the right to force a business owner to pay a particular wage level

You don't think the labor market effects interstate commerce?

Every day there are stories of businesses closing, either all locations, or California locations
Wait on the stats for that, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

Strangely enough, the word "effects" does not appear in the commerce clause. It only gives Congress the power to regulate commerce that fits within certain criteria, not the weather, the tides, consumer choices.

[apedad]

" . . . to regulate commerce that fits within certain criteria . . . . "

I don't see that 'certain criteria.'

Can you tell me where that is written?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. Right after "to regulate commerce": "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Was that supposed to be a clever retort?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah you hate Wickard.

Wickard is still the law of the land.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the jurisprudence of the land, anyway. I know it irritates you that I refuse to confuse the Constitution and Supreme court rulings contrary to it, but I'm actually pretty good at distinguishing the two. The notion of the Supreme court being wrong about things causes me no mental difficulty at all, I find it remarkably easy to keep track of the jurisprudence of the land, and the law of the land, and which is which.

[Sarcastr0]

Area man passionate defender of what he believes Constitution to mean.

We hire people to fulfill that function on behalf of our nation, and we didn't hire you.
Legitimate authority flows from that institution, not you.

You can yell about it on the Internet, but that changes nothing.

(I got Amos' question about 'from a fundamental perspective, what gives the government the right to force a business owner to pay a particular wage level' wrong. Because this is a state law, so there are no restrictions on state's authority other than the Bill of Rights.)

[Brett Bellmore]

We hire accountants to keep the books, too, but that doesn't obligate us to pretend that embezzling is a logical contradiction.

[Sarcastr0]

Legitimate authority flows from that institution, not you.

You can yell about it on the Internet, but that changes nothing.

It does say a lot about how bad you are at dealing with disagreement.

[Josh R]

The Necessary and Proper Clause permits regulations of things which substantially affect interstate commerce.

[ThePublius]

The necessary and proper clause seems to give pols in the federal government license to regulate EVERYTHING - it's called totalitarianism. And, it's unconstitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Should probably rename it "the Convenient, and Eh, Whatever" clause. Just to be honest about it.

[Commenter_XY]

Or the FYTW clause.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You don’t think the labor market effects interstate commerce?

This is a state law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ollie's Diner affected Interstate Commerce....

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, even when Dr. Ed isn't totally wrong, he's wrong just enough to be grating on the nerves. It was Ollie's Barbecue, not Ollie's Diner.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The guy’s a virtuoso of wrongness. Little flourishes like that just can’t be taught—it’s all natural.

[Noscitur a sociis]

My point, as should have been obvious to anyone with the intellectual firepower to light a match, isn’t that a minimum wage isn’t a valid exercise of congress’s interstate commerce authority (under current precedent, it obviously is), but rather that since we’re talking about a state minimum wage law, no congressional grant of authority is necessary, making Sarcastr0’s suggestion no responsive to ThePublius’s (clearly rhetorical) question about the philosophical limits on proper government regulation.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I got that wrong.

I do think it's less of an open and shut case to regulate wages if Congress took a notion.

[ThePublius]

"Every day there are stories of businesses closing, either all locations, or California locations
Wait on the stats for that, eh?"

Ha, ha, that's funny. Don't you read the news?

[ThePublius]

What does a California law or regulation have to do with interstate commerce? Last time I checked the federal minimum wage was $7.25/hour.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

It’s killing jobs, too. Every day there are stories of businesses closing, either all locations, or California locations. As one poor soul remarked “if I didn’t get laid off because of the $20/hour minimum wage, I’d be making $20 per hour!” Hours are being reduced, forcing the poor to get multiple jobs, with all of the logistical and transportation difficulties associated with that. Reduced hours means that some will even lose any other benefits that full time employees receive, like health care. It’s making things harder on the poor, not better!

Did you know that Argentina has some of the best “worker protection” laws in the world? The only problem is — it’s really hard to find a job! Funny how that works…

[bernard11]

the labor/management economy is otherwise basically free, and subject to fundamental economic mechanisms? And, it’s totally one-sided; there is no constraint on employees just quitting, moving to other jobs, and so forth.

Oh, right. The very model of a free competitive market.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK. I start Ed's Burgers and as I have no employees (other than myself), no one's getting $20.hour. I can sell for less and even though my hours are limited, I do a bumper business.

What about my spouse -- legal co-owner and not employee. One cooking and one punching the cash register and (or using an automated register) and offering a limited menu/hours for a third less than the chains.

This would be legal, wouldn't it? And then what about a CoOp?

I can see a lot of opportunities being created by this law.

[Martinned2]

Good luck. You're welcome to sell however many burgers you and your wife can cook up.

[ThePublius]

So, why couldn't a corporation create a plethora of "brands" of restaurants, selling essentially the same thing, of course, such that each brand would fly under the radar of the California regulation? Create shell corporations, just as Joe Biden has, to establish them as independent corporations. So, McDonald's 5, McDonald's 99, Son of McDonalds, and so forth.

[Martinned2]

Or they could do something even more crazy, like organise every restaurant as a separate company, which pays some money to McDonald's corp. (They could call that a franchise fee and royalties, or something like that.)

[Brett Bellmore]

What they're actually going to do is keep automating, until you're getting your burgers from a drive through vending machine, with a truck dropping by every couple of days to restock, and some guy coming by in the wee hours to do occasional PM.

[Nige]

They were going to do that anyway, as soon as possible, if the push for AI is anything to go by. If anything we need more worker and consumer protections.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- they can't go that far because the machines will need maintenance, but automation in fast food is GOOD. You can sterilize mechanical parts, while you often can't get humans to wash their hands. Enough said?

[Martinned2]

What they’re actually going to do is keep automating

Isn't that what we want them to do? That way greater productivity lies. And it's not like the burgers are going to come out any worse.

[David Nieporent]

So, why couldn’t a corporation create a plethora of “brands” of restaurants,

You mean, besides their business model, which requires uniformity in branding?

The businesses affected already are "independent corporations." The law applies to franchisees.

[bernard11]

Armchair is, as usual, full of shit.

The median weekly earnings in the US in 2023 were $1117, well over $50K a year. In Q4 of 2023 that number was $1142.

Oh, and BLS says this:

Median weekly earnings of the nation's 120.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $1,145 in the fourth quarter of 2023 (not seasonally adjusted), the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. This was 5.5 percent higher than a year earlier, compared with a gain of 3.2 percent in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the same period.

[Armchair]

I linked to the information. I stand by what I said about median individual income.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N

[Kenneth Almquist]

You made a claim about “median salary,” not “median individual income.” Those are not the same. For example, suppose husband earns $60,000 per year while his wife stays home. The average salary in this example is $60,000 since there is only one salary. The average individual income is $30,000.

[Martinned2]

Any views on Rachel Riley's tweet about the Sydney incident? I mean, I have seen lots of takes that were definitely wildly racist, but on this one I could go either way. Her clarification probably reflects how I understood the original tweet anyway.

As a starter for 10, this is the original tweet:

For six months now, people have been out on our streets proudly calling for the ‘Intifada Revolution’. If you want to know what ‘Globalised Intifada’ looks like, see the Sydney Mall.

Five victims stabbed to death and eight transferred to hospital, including a baby, due to one man and a knife.

In the second intifada over 1,000 Israelis were murdered in restaurants, on buses and in the streets by suicide bombings, stabbings, stoning, lynching, shooting rockets. The youngest victim was just nine hours old.

“Sydney mall, multiple times over is what they’ve been proudly calling for.’

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rachel-riley-twitter-sydney-channel-4-b2528755.html

[Ed Grinberg]

I'd say the tweeter is spot-on.
(And I don't see the "wildly racist" aspect. Maybe you could explain it to me.)

[Martinned2]

I was referring to other reactions, which did make automatic assumptions about the identity of the attacker and his motivations, like this one: https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1779089461839569201

[Dr. Ed 2]

But they banned guns in 1996 so this wouldn't happen....

On another note, would they have tolerated groups chanting "Kill the Niggers"? No -- that would not be permitted, so why is it permissible to chant "Kill the Israelis"?

[Martinned2]

They banned guns, and as a result the worst mass-casualty event in Australia this decade is still better than any random Tuesday in the US.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/all-animals-are-equal--but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others

[Martinned2]

so why is it permissible to chant “Kill the Israelis”?

1. I'm not sure that it is
2. If it is, it would be because "Israeli" is a nationality, not a racial or ethnic group.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

I’m not sure that it is

On U.S. college campuses -- you bet it is!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_States_Congress_hearing_on_antisemitism

[Martinned2]

O, we were talking about the US again? I thought we'd taken a brief moment to consider a terrible tragedy in Australia.

[David Nieporent]

Remember, this man is too fastidious to use the word "bullshit." The n-word, he positively revels in saying, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I just prefer the spelling of "bullshyte" --and it allows it to be pronounced with THREE syllables.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Uh, what?

[BrotherMovesOn]

“No, I just prefer the spelling of “bullshyte” –and it allows it to be pronounced with THREE syllables.”

This is one of those moments where we are treated to a, let’s say, unfiltered version of Dr. Ed’s brain. It’s like Harry opening up Meghan’s skull and hearing his echo on that episode of South Park.

[Nige]

Bull-shite-eye?
Bull-shite-ee?

[Armchair]

Antifa member arrested for political violence, bombing a state AG's office.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/12/__trashed-2/

[Sarcastr0]

Before the explosion, Calvert put up stickers, including those promoting Antifa, including stickers reading “Support your local antifa."

Truly the sign of an organized institution.

[Michael P]

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

This concludes the second episode (today) of Gaslight0 being reminded that common knowledge is common.

[Martinned2]

So are crazy conspiracy theories.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not responsive to my comment that there is no evidence.

You seem to be into some unfalsifiable territory.

[Michael P]

You made no previous claim about the existence of evidence.

And it’s hilarious that you made that claim on the same day that a bunch of the Pantifa crowd (panties always in a bunch!) around the world followed the orders of the IRGC to stage riots and other protests.

[Sarcastr0]

‘Truly a sign’ is of course an argument to lack of evidence.

Protests now are an antifa thing? Riots are protests?

You are all over the map and doing great.

[Nige]

Perhaps you need a reminder that knowing two things doesn't make them the same thing.

[hobie]

I happen to know the exact time and the reason that all the right-wing kooks in this nation lost their minds permanently and went Q. It was 2009 and I was in Texas. My best friend of 20 years who always owned one small revolver started ordering assault rifles and 1000's of rounds of ammo through the mail. The rednecks at work were doing the same and each week would bring their latest buys to work and compare them on the table in the breakroom. The Tea Party formed with the sudden urge that the government needed to basically be dismantled. Rush Limbaugh made the shocking proclamation that the new president must not be allowed to succeed at anything. He wanted us, as a nation, to basically fail.

Why all of this all at once? What made this new president different from all previous Democrat presidents? I think you know the answer

[hobie]

And when America discovered it could promulgate its inner bigot fully and without consequence, it became a permanent feature. This group being a prime example

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd love to see LTC Allen West as President -- a legitimately Black man who grew up in Inner Atlanta (GA) during segregation. My guess is a lot of other people here would like to see this as well.

As to Hawaiians, I'd love to see Tulsi Gabbard as at least Veep.

But as to B. Hussain, he was raised by a White woman and her family and his only connection to being "Black" was an African sperm donor whom he never knew. Obama is WHITE....

[Noscitur a sociis]

a legitimately Black man

Hahaha what?

[Commenter_XY]

Just curious....What is an illegitimately black man?

[David Nieporent]

Did you ever see the movie Soul Man?

[hobie]

HaHa!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone not born here.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Born where?

[Nige]

Brett Bellmore's living room.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Rush Limbaugh made the shocking proclamation that the new president must not be allowed to succeed at anything. He wanted us, as a nation, to basically fail."

You know, Rush explained that often enough, there's not really any excuse for this take on it. He didn't want the nation to fail, and that's WHY he wanted Obama to fail. Because Obama came right out and said that he wanted a fundamental transformation of the country, and THAT is what Obama needed to fail at, if America was to survive.

He would tell people that all the time: You only want people who are trying to do the right thing to succeed. If people are trying to do something bad, you WANT them to fail, you NEED them to fail.

[hobie]

Bullshit. At the time Rush was the titular head of the Republican party and he basically ordered Mitch McConnell not to pass any bill of any kind as long as the black man was president. And that's pretty much what happened for 6 years

[#FFFFFFPride]

That's an ignorant lie. You do not control your own mind, someone else does.

[Michael P]

What made Rush "the titular head of the Republican party"? I don't remember him being Chairman or anything like that.

[Martinned2]

The fact that your parasocial relationship with the man is such that you still feel like you're on a first name basis with him after all these years pretty much speaks volumes.

[Michael P]

Is the same true of Hobie, who also called Rush by his first name in the comment I responded to?

Stop projecting, dude.

[tylertusta]

Wow. This guy has never heard about branding.

[hobie]

Then you apparently don't remember a very prominent dynamic of the times. Most of us do remember it correctly

[Dan Schiavetta]

It became known as the “Limbaugh rule”: no Republican ever criticized him without walking it back within 72 hours.

[Mr. Bumble]

Anecdotes for fun and profit.

[bernard11]

Nope. It's true.

And they did more than "walk it back." They actually called in to the show to apologize and grovel before that loudmouth lying ignoramus.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It became known as the “Limbaugh rule”"

BS. That "rule" was a variation of the Buckley Rule about electing conservatives.

[Michael P]

Huh. Does anybody on the left actually know what "titular" means?

[hobie]

I do, and I used it correctly. Remember, Liberals value the education system

[Michael P]

No, you used it absolutely incorrectly, because you pointed to a "dynamic" rather than a title.

[bernard11]

That's an idiotic excuse, Brett. Why do you swallow it?

Limbaugh moronically assumes that absolutely anything Obama wants to do is a bad idea. Really? You think so? Is that the way an intelligent person thinks?

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't "assume" it, he argued it, at great length.

[Sarcastr0]

An argument you have not really bothered to outline.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you think I have transcripts of all of Rush's shows on tap? One of my co-workers at the time was a huge Rush fan, (6'7" and 300lbs, so in more than one sense.) so I couldn't have escaped hearing him explain it if I'd wanted to.

But I found something for you anyway.

"RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. ‘Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.’ Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your ‘hope.’ My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.’ Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, ‘Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’ (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, ‘Oh, you can’t do that.’ Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody’s gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he’s doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he’s my president, he’s a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn’t have to being down with the struggle, all of that’s irrelevant to me. We’re talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, ‘I hope he fails.’ And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing."

[hobie]

And, as usual, during Obama's presidency, did the sky fall? Did Marxism reign? Death squads? Nope. He was just a black president and it scared the hell out of Bubba. Still does

[Michael P]

Where in there did Rush mention either the sky falling or death squads?

[Nige]

Oh man, you weren't around for Jade Helm? Dunno if Limbaugh went off on it, but hoo boy.

[Nige]

Absolutely foaming at the mouth, by the standards of the day. Kinda moderate for Trumpism. Would need more grooming of kids, Great Replacement, stolen election, and obviously fake evidence of corruption to pass muster these days.

'I am the last man standing'

Republicans, who started two disastrous wars, one based on faked intelligence, and helped crash the global economy, lose an election, and lose their minds. The most 'benevolent,' for lack of a better word, form the racism takes is 'he thinks he's sooo special just 'cause he's black.'

[Sarcastr0]

Haha what makes you possibly think this was a cogent argument?

[hobie]

Brett does a lot of cogent 'Squirrel!' obfuscation. But when you pin him down in the weeds...he has problems

[Brett Bellmore]

I said he didn't assume Obama wanted to do bad things, he argued it. I don't really expect you to admit that any argument you disagree with is "cogent", but I do, at least normatively, expect you to admit that somebody has actually MADE an argument.

Rush's position was that Obama was going to try to do bad things, and when somebody is trying to do bad things, you want them to fail. He didn't want the country to fail, he wanted the guy he thought was aiming to take the country down a few pegs to fail.

And I agree: I wish he'd failed at shipping the Mulahs pallet loads of cash. I wish Biden had failed at repeating the mistake.

I wish he'd failed at his effort to create a major new entitlement program, off budget, warping the health insurance market.

I wish he had failed at all the destructive things he set out to do. I wish Obama had failed, because his goal was for the US to fail.

[Sarcastr0]

Just spewing bile is not an argument.

It is telling you thought brought of that to mistake it for establishing anything other than Rush hated a pre-Presidency Obama more than he loved this country.

Say what you will about Jon Stewart, that man argues for his theses and doesn’t just urge irrational hate in his audience.

[Nige]

'at least normatively, expect you to admit that somebody has actually MADE an argument'

He literally argued nothing.

[bernard11]

I said he didn’t assume Obama wanted to do bad things, he argued it.

No. He didn't. Not in any meaningful way. He mocked, he lied, he insulted, he expressed dislike, but to regard his bloviation as any sort of serious policy disagreement is laughable.

[bernard11]

No. He didn't argue it.

He bloviated about it, and made silly sarcastic remarks, but he didn't offer substantive criticisms.

How could he? He wanted all Obama's ideas to fail. Do you think he had solid, well-reasoned arguments against everything? The guy dropped out of college after one year. How did he become so learned as to be able to do that.

No, Brett. He was a loudmouthed, dishonest, pox on American politics.

[#FFFFFFPride]

>The Tea Party formed with the sudden urge that the government needed to basically be dismantled.

This is the problem with letting the Sarcastr0's of the world control the narrative you receive. That's just pure State propaganda.

You people are so utterly ignorant and easily manipulated. You've been bathed in high-stress fear for years and now your brain is complete mush.

[Krayt]

The tea party was an insurrection against the Republicans for going along with the Democrats too much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, it was a rebellion against Bush, not Obama. It just took some time to get going, because it's hard for a party to organize against their own incumbent president.

But it's a large part of what killed Jeb's Presidential ambitions: After two President Bushes, the GOP's base were not about to risk a third, no matter what kind of rhetoric he used campaigning; The first two Bushes had sounded good on the campaign trail, too. It was what they did in office that was the problem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He was the AntiChrist?

Seriously -- I'm starting to think that...

[Ed Grinberg]

Hmmm, was there anything about this new president's policies that really upset people? Can't think of anything? Here, I'll help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santelli#%22Tea_Party%22_rant

[loki13]

Just a brief thought, since I don't regularly comment here anymore, since it's mostly Trump and conspiracies.

I fully expect it when the regular crowd immediately diverts a law post into the usual subjects. And I also expect that certain conspirators (that rhyme with Kosh Rackman) might take a completely partisan take instead of informing people of what the subject is.

But it does bother me a little when we see a post like the recent one from Halbrook (re: the emergency stay). I get that a lot of people are here to just argue about Trump and/or the deep state no matter what the subject is, but it does a real disservice when there is a post that does not provide any context to the legal issue. Specifically, a post that doesn't really analyze the issues, riles the mob, ignores how litigation is conducted, and buries the actual issues (that this is an emergency stay, pending full briefing and a hearing, which is going to occur on Wednesday).

People are going to go off the rails no matter what. But for the VC posters ... they should hold themselves to a higher standard. I mean, except the person who has taken over Calabresi's account. That's beyond parody at this point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

But for the VC posters … they should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Always great to see a first-time reader at the Volokh Conspiracy. Welcome, newbie!

[Mr. Bumble]

He's hardly a "newbie" or as we referred to them FNG.

[MoreCurious]

Rev. Kirkland was making a joke, Mr. Bumble. Since you're clearly a newbie or FNG (whatever that means) yourself, you should consider thinking before you write. Mr. Loki is an old-timer and has been contributing to these conversations for years -- actually, probably decades.

[Mr. Bumble]

FNG= fucking new guy
In certain situations the one that could get you and him killed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Rev. Kirkland was making a joke"

Objection, assumes Kirkland has a sense of humor.

[Commenter_XY]

Hope to see you here more, loki13. I always learn something.

[Both Sides]

Seconded.

[Bwaaah]

Yes to loki13’s point. (I actually thought Calabresi’s account had been compromised, which in retrospect makes me feel naïve about how deeply partisanism now runs through too many VC posts.)

[Both Sides]

FWIW, I thought the same thing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

yes to loki13, again

[not guilty]

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument as to whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which prohibits corruptly obstructing, impeding or influencing an official proceeding, is limited to acts that impair the integrity or availability of evidence for use in that proceeding. The defendant, Joseph Fischer, is urging that the scope of subsection (c)(2) is limited by the language of subsection (c)(1), such that § 1512(c)(2) applies only if a defendant takes some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.

The government's brief states that approximately 330 January 6 defendants have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/301794/20240228194101353_23-5572bsUnitedStates.pdf

[loki13]

While reading the briefs is always the best way to approach an issue, if anyone wants a much faster, and reasonably even-handed, overview of the parties' positions, this would be a decent place to start-

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/jan-6-defendant-asks-supreme-court-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the government's position is upheld, why couldn't all the protesters outside the Justices homes before the Dobbs decision was announced be prosecuted under it?

[loki13]

Well, here is a serious answer to a "Dr. Ed" not serious question.

The official proceeding would be the court proceeding. 18 USC sec. 1515(a)(1)(A).

There was no attempt to corruptly obstruct or impede the court proceeding. Moreover, to quote what has already been submitted to the Court-

Even as to hindrances, it is doubtful that Section 1512(c)(2) reaches conduct designed to have only a minimal effect on an official proceeding. As the Court long ago explained in connection with contempt of court, “[t]here may be misbehavior in the presence of a court amounting to contempt, that would not, ordinarily, be said to obstruct the administration of justice.” Congressional hearings, for example, often inspire protests, which may impose minor burdens. But the long tradition of peaceful protest—which includes robust exercise of First Amendment rights—would exclude such minor burdens from Section 1512(c)(2)’s actus reus. And petitioner provides no actual examples of courts applying the statute’s verbs to benign behavior, let alone examples that would survive an as-applied First Amendment challenge. Any court confronted with such a prosecution could address it as appropriate. This, however, is not such a case; the conduct of participating in a violent riot inside the Capitol to disrupt the joint session of Congress certifying the election results cannot be described as a minor interference or protected First Amendment activity.

Second, a defendant cannot obstruct an official proceeding in violation of Section 1512(c)(2) unless his conduct has a sufficient “relationship in time, causation, or logic” with the proceeding, such that interfering with the proceeding is the “ ‘natural and probable effect’ ” of the defendant’s conduct. This Court has repeatedly construed obstruction statutes similar to Section 1512(c) to contain such a “nexus” requirement.
(internal citations omitted).

So the long and the short of it is ... because it doesn't fall under the statute for several reasons. Now, if the protesters had stormed the houses of the Justices (or the Supreme Court) with the intent of trying to keep them from issuing Dobbs, that would be a different matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically even if you can pin the fake electors on Trump, they didn't interfere with the proceeding, because nobody was even the tiniest bit confused about which electors were the certified ones, and which were the ringers. Hence no interference.

It would be entirely different if they had somehow waylaid the official certification, and substituted a forged one. But they didn't even TRY to do anything of the sort.

Now, IF you take seriously the claim that, when Trump asked for access to Georgia election records to look for illegally cast votes, he was really requesting that Raffensperger manufacture votes for Trump, you'd at least be in the right ballpark. Just an idiot. But an idiot in the right ballpark.

[Voize]

Who said anything about fake electors obstructing proceedings?
That federal statute has been aimed at the rioters, as far as I know no electors have yet faced federal charges. They are being prosecuted under various state laws against forgery and filing false documents.

[not guilty]

"Basically even if you can pin the fake electors on Trump, they didn’t interfere with the proceeding, because nobody was even the tiniest bit confused about which electors were the certified ones, and which were the ringers. Hence no interference."

Unclear on the concept of inchoate offenses, Brett? The prosecution need not show actual interference with an official proceeding before Congress. An attempt to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede the electoral count is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), regardless of whether the attempt succeeds. And a conspiracy to do so is punishable under § 1512(k). Donald Trump is charged separately with both offenses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, yeah, I understand the argument. I just think it's bullshit. Reeking bullshit.

Look, suppose you charge me with conspiracy to poison my office mates. As a predicate act, you demonstrate that I left a jar of something next to the coffee maker, and tried to persuade people to put it in their coffee in place of cream.

Now, I agree that I don't actually have to succeed in poisoning anybody to be guilty. But, what was in the jar? Non-dairy creamer. Not poison. And everybody KNEW it was non-dairy creamer, too. I was telling people right out that I thought they should use it in place of actual dairy, for reasons that would offend a dairy farmer.

So, what is your argument here? It's that this doesn't refute the charge, I could just be really bad at poisoning people!

Your argument is literally that stupid.

Everybody KNEW that the second slates of electors were not the officially certified ones. If Congress had chosen to count them instead of the certified slates, it wouldn't have been because they were tricked into doing it, it would have been because they deliberately chose to do it.

Making an alternative available to a proceeding that they can chose to use or not is not, never can be, "interference".

[Magister]

The point of the slates of false electors was to impede counting the legitimate electoral votes followed by going back to Republican controlled state legislatures who could be pressured to give electoral votes to Trump.

A better analogy would be if you put a jar of rat poison next to the coffee machine and stuck a label on it that said "Non Dairy Creamer!"; even if enough labeling saying "Poison!" was still visible that nobody would put it in their coffee, it would still be a reasonable assertion that you were trying to poison people in your office.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the point of the slate of false electors was two fold.

1) To provide an easier option for states to, as you say, switch who they gave their EC votes to.

2) To allow Congress the opportunity to pick the wrong slate of electors during counting.

Now, IMO, neither of these was a legitimate thing to do. Both would have been transforming ministerial roles into policy making roles, an illegitimate thing to do. I've said many times now that Trump should have hung it up after the EC voted.

But none of this "impeded" diddly squat, and nobody was the slightest bit deceived about the nature of these redundant slates. No real effort was made TO deceive anybody about their nature. It was all rather pro forma, actually.

So I think the being used here is inapplicable. Trump was doing something wrong, sure, but it wasn't something that violated this law.

[Nige]

'I’ve said many times now that Trump should have hung it up after the EC voted. '

Because you have a forced and painful-to-watch faux-naive conception of who Trump is and what he does.

[not guilty]

"Trump was doing something wrong, sure, but it wasn’t something that violated this law."

Wrong, Brett. Actual obstruction of the electoral count is not an element of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) that the prosecution will need to prove. Corruptly attempting to obstruct is just as much a violation of the statute as successfully doing so.

You may not like how Congress has defined the elements of the offense, but your opinion doesn't negate the existence of such elements.

[Magister]

I fail to see where your characterization differs from mine; trying to pick different slates of electors would certainly impede counting, and you agree to the objective of sending it back to (Republican) state legislatures.

[tylertusta]

I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s oral arguments in Fischer v United States. I think we’ll see a majority of the Court in favor of reigning in the DC Circuit and the DC District Courts on how they view 1512(c), and there’s a few ways that the Court might do it.

Regarding Trump’s prosecution under 1512, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court adopts an interpretation of 1512(c) that makes maintaining those charges untenable once jurisdiction is returned to the district court. Even if the counts aren’t tossed immediately, I don’t think Smith is going to have any good options to maintain those counts and still hope to get this case to trial before November.

There’s also the question about how J6 defendants convicted under 1512(c) will have to fight to get their sentences reduced because it looks like several DC judges have telegraphed that they’ll depart upwards on sentencing on other counts that defendants are charged with.

[loki13]

"I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s oral arguments in Fischer v United States. I think we’ll see a majority of the Court in favor of reigning in the DC Circuit and the DC District Courts on how they view 1512(c), and there’s a few ways that the Court might do it."

While I am looking forward to the oral arguments as well, I do not share your certainty regarding the outcome.

Putting aside the partisan valence of the issue currently, this is one of those issues that tends to cut across ideological and jurisprudential lines. Statutory analysis and keeping to the text, or allowing legislative history. Application of different rules of construction. And the interplay of how different judges view the criminal code.

That said, the oral arguments will be informative.

[tylertusta]

Putting aside the partisan valence of the issue currently, this is one of those issues that tends to cut across ideological and jurisprudential lines. Statutory analysis and keeping to the text, or allowing legislative history. Application of different rules of construction. And the interplay of how different judges view the criminal code.

While we don't agree on the probable outcome, I agree with you on this.

That's why the Court has somewhat regularly pushed back on creative interpretations of criminal laws by overzealous prosecutors, ranging from Cuomo's aide Joseph Percoco (a Democrat) to Governor McDonnell (a Republican).

[David Nieporent]

Note that the facts underlying Trump's prosecution under 1512(c) are different than those of the J6 insurrectionists; unlike them, he is accused of taking an action with respect to a document, record, or other object. So narrowing the section with result to them would not benefit Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

"because it looks like several DC judges have telegraphed that they’ll depart upwards on sentencing on other counts that defendants are charged with."

Exhibit 25,543,221 of the corruption of our judicial system.

[tylertusta]

The DC District Court judges aren't going to be covering themselves in glory if they try this. And they probably won't succeed if they do.

Maybe this will spur the Court of Appeals to finally reconsider its precedent on handling change-of-venue motions.

[Mr. Bumble]

To date they have hardly been covering themselves with glory or even respect for the law.

[tylertusta]

I can name at least one Judge who thinks he's totally in the right by going on national television.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The DC District Court judges aren’t going to be covering themselves in glory if they try this. And they probably won’t succeed if they do."

That would be grounds for Impeachment and Impeachment hearings wouldn't be hard for the House to do.

However *can* a judge revise other sentences upward? Isn't that double jeopardy or something? SCOTUS says X wasn't a crime so you arbitrarily punish the person more for something else?

Or could SCOTUS toss the changed sentence? IF Brandon were smart (he isn't), he'd commute these sentences they day that SCOTUS tossed the law, proclaiming himself to be the bipartisan respector of the law and all. But he never would.

[tylertusta]

It's possible but very difficult for judges to increase the sentence of a criminal defendant after that defendant successfully appealed part of their conviction. Judges can only do it if the defendant had bad behavior, and then only after the original sentencing. SCOTUS has already ruled on this question in North Carolina v Pearce.

Judges can't go and say "oops, I should have sentenced you longer on count 3" after counts 1 and 2 are tossed on appeal.

But that might not stop the DC judges from trying anyways.

[not guilty]

Uh, Joseph Fischer hasn't been sentenced, nor has he been tried.

[tylertusta]

A lot of people have already been sentenced under 1512.

[not guilty]

“A lot of people have already been sentenced under 1512.”

And as to any one those people who had been sentenced for violation of § 1512 appealed and had his conviction vacated, a rebuttable presumption of vindictiveness would attach if he received a harsher sentence upon remand.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s possible but very difficult for judges to increase the sentence of a criminal defendant after that defendant successfully appealed part of their conviction.

I don’t believe anyone is talking about increasing a sentence.

[tylertusta]

I included that as a disclaimer- generally, you can’t get a higher sentence. But it is possible.

Some J6 defendants have already gotten bitten by this.

[tylertusta]

For context of Pearce:

Due process of law, then, requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial. And since the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant’s exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his first conviction, due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge

In order to assure the absence of such a motivation, we have concluded that, whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear. Those reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. And the factual data upon which the increased sentence is based must be made part of the record, so that the constitutional legitimacy of the increased sentence may be fully reviewed on appeal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

However *can* a judge revise other sentences upward? Isn’t that double jeopardy or something?

Yes.

SCOTUS says X wasn’t a crime so you arbitrarily punish the person more for something else?

No one is suggesting that any of the punishment at issue would be arbitrary.

Or could SCOTUS toss the changed sentence?

It could do, in that there’s no law of physics or anything preventing it. It’s not going to happen.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you elaborate on what you find corrupt about that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sentencing somebody on the basis of a charge that had to be dropped because the Supreme court ruled it wasn't applicable? Yeah, I think the use of uncharged and even acquitted conduct as a basis for sentencing is corrupt as hell. The fact that is has become fairly common is just an indication of how widely corrupt our judiciary are now.

[David Nieporent]

Sentencing somebody on the basis of a charge that had to be dropped because the Supreme court ruled it wasn’t applicable?

That is not what we're discussing. But again, we see Trumplaw: the idea that he should be treated better than everyone else by the criminal justice system.

The insurrectionists were convicted of violating statutes A and B. The judges said, "I think 5 years is enough for what you did. Even though I could sentence you to (e.g.) 5 years for violating B, since I'm already sentencing you to 5 years on A, there's no need to impose a long sentence for B also." But if the conviction on A is tossed, that logic no longer applies.

And, no, resentencing is not a double jeopardy violation.

[tylertusta]

But again, we see Trumplaw: the idea that he should be treated better than everyone else by the criminal justice system.

I seem to have missed where he mentioned Trump.

But if the conviction on A is tossed, that logic no longer applies.

The Judge should have sentenced him to five years each for A and B to be run concurrently.

Instead, what we have is more like this: the Judge sentences him to five years for A and three years for B (concurrent). If A gets tossed on appeal, the judge can't generally try to turn B into five years at resentencing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Presumably the judge sentenced him to five years for A, and three years for B, because he thought those were the appropriate penalties for A and B, respectively.

If A gets tossed on appeal, this doesn't alter in any way the basis for that judgement.

Rather, what you perhaps mean is that this is what the judge should have done if he intended to make having charge A thrown out moot.

But, is that a legitimate judicial purpose? I think not.

[tylertusta]

DC judges have already been trying to future-proof new sentences from a reversal in Fischer ever since SCOTUS granted cert.

[not guilty]

"Regarding Trump’s prosecution under 1512, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court adopts an interpretation of 1512(c) that makes maintaining those charges untenable once jurisdiction is returned to the district court. Even if the counts aren’t tossed immediately, I don’t think Smith is going to have any good options to maintain those counts and still hope to get this case to trial before November."

The construction of § 1512(c) urged by Mr. Fischer will not benefit Donald Trump. In dismissing that count of the indictment, the trial court ruled that § 1512(c)(2) applies only if a defendant takes some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.

Donald Trump and his confederates did take some action with respect to a document -- the creation and transmission of bogus documents falsely identifying the fake electors as having been duly elected.

[tylertusta]

The construction of § 1512(c) urged by Mr. Fischer will not benefit Donald Trump.

I don’t agree that Fischer has urged SCOTUS to limit 1512(c) in the way that you’re thinking. While Fischer’s brief focuses is on evidence spoilation, he also argues that Jan 6th’s special session isn’t a “proceeding” for the purposes of 1512(c).

In dismissing that count of the indictment, the trial court ruled that § 1512(c)(2) applies only if a defendant takes some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.

The trial court may have ruled that way, but Fischer is advocating for an even narrower interpretation of what constitutes a “proceeding” for the purposes of 1512(c). From Fischer’s merits brief:

‘Yet the D.C. Circuit held that subsection 1512(c)(2) sets forth a separate and sweeping obstruction offense disconnected from its textual and historical moorings—i.e., congressional investigations or inquiries and document or evidence impairment…’

‘It would be nonsensical for Congress to expand the definition of “proceeding” in an obstruction statute to encompass legislative functions unrelated to its power of inquiry and simultaneously create no offense pertaining to those evidence-free “proceedings.”

Will the Court go there? I think the Court has hinted that it might.

We’ll know more once the Justices start asking questions tomorrow.

[Josh R]

The question presented by SCOTUS in granting cert:

Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?

The question presented in the respondent’s brief:

Whether 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), which prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding, is limited to acts that impair the integrity or availability of evidence for use in that proceeding.

Respondent’s brief mostly focuses on whether 1512(c)(2) applies to more than acts that affect evidence integrity (which I found persuasive), while only briefly addressing whether 1512(c)(1) applies to the electoral certification on January 6. Given the question presented in the cert grant, I expect oral arguments to press respondents on the latter question.

[tylertusta]

Yup, you got it!

[Josh R]

not guilty (and respondent and the decision below) make a good point that 1515(a)(1)(B) might cover the electoral certification on Jan 6. At first blush, petitioner's argument

It would be nonsensical for Congress to expand the definition of “proceeding” in an obstruction statute to encompass legislative functions unrelated to its power of inquiry and simultaneously create no offense pertaining to those evidence-free “proceedings.”

might beg the question whether 1512(c)(2) created such an offense unrelated to evidence. That is, if petitioner loses on the question of whether 1512(c)(2) covers only evidence, does that undermine their argument that "proceedings" require evidence?

Oral arguments should be interesting, but I would not be surprised if by Tuesday night we still don't have a good idea on the outcome (nor will I be surprised if we do have a good idea)..

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1)(B), an "official proceeding" includes "a proceeding before the Congress." Mr. Fischer does argue for a strained construction of the word "proceeding" which would exclude certification by Congress of the electoral count, but no court -- including the District Court who on other grounds dismissed one count of the instant indictment -- has ever accepted that bizarre argument. See United States v. Miller, 589 F.Supp.3d 60, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2022).

[tylertusta]

You say 'bizarre' and 'no court has ruled thusly', and I say de novo.

Courts haven't looked seriously at the overbreadth problem of 1512(c) because the DOJ hasn't applied the statute this way before J6. SCOTUS certainly hasn't.

If the Court agrees with the petitioner and reverses, then this case wouldn't be the first time that the courts below all go one way only to find that SCOTUS disagrees.

Like I said, we'll see tomorrow.

[Bob from Ohio]

Lower courts approved broad uses of the bribery statute until SCOTUS said otherwise in McConnell.

[not guilty]

Overbreadth is not an issue before SCOTUS in Fischer.

Are you suggesting that the definition of "official proceeding" at 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1)(B) to include "a proceeding before the Congress" is unconstitutionally overbroad? (An argument that the Fischer brief does not make.)

[tylertusta]

Used the way that the DOJ has been using it (with 1512(c)(2)), I do.

I think that the only way that 1512(c)(2) survives is if a proceeding before Congress means only an investigative proceeding and not all proceedings.

[not guilty]

"I think that the only way that 1512(c)(2) survives is if a proceeding before Congress means only an investigative proceeding and not all proceedings."

Uh, the validity of § 1512(c)(2) has not been challenged. The interpretation of subsection (c)(2) vis-a-vis subsection (c)(1) is at issue. And the definition of "official proceeding" at § 1515(a)(1) is at issue only tangentially. As the government's brief recites at p. 30, fn.4:

Petitioner raises his contention about the meaning of “proceeding” only in service of his argument about the meaning of “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes.” He does not advance an independent argument that his alleged conduct does not satisfy Section 1512(c)(2)’s proceeding element, and such an argument would not be within the question presented in any event. Moreover, as every judge below and every court to have considered the question has agreed, the phrase “any official proceeding,” 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), readily encompasses the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021. See United States v. Gray, 652 F. Supp. 3d 112, 118-119, 121 (D.D.C. 2023) (collecting cases); J.A. 28 (majority), 73 (Katsas, J., dissenting), 155 (district court). The Constitution and the Electoral Count Act together established specific rules and procedures for that proceeding. U.S. Const. Amend. XII; 3 U.S.C. 15 (2018); see pp. 3-4, supra.

[tylertusta]

Uh, the validity of § 1512(c)(2) has not been challenged

I know.

I thought we were talking about what I thought, not what Fischer argued.

[not guilty]

Uh, no litigant raising the question, no invalidation of a (hypothetically) questionable statute.

[tylertusta]

You and I are talking about different things. Good day.

[not guilty]

I don't follow. You said, “I think that the only way that 1512(c)(2) survives is if a proceeding before Congress means only an investigative proceeding and not all proceedings.”

Do you have the faintest idea of how criminal litigation works? How do you surmise that subsection of the statute will not "survive[]" if no litigant tests its viability? Even if Congress were to repeal or amend the statute going forward, pending prosecutions would continue.

[tylertusta]

Do you have the faintest idea of how criminal litigation works?

I answered this question: 'Are you suggesting that the definition of “official proceeding” at 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1)(B) to include “a proceeding before the Congress” is unconstitutionally overbroad?'

You noted several times that the litigants didn't make the argument. While I thank you for noting this, but if you read up you'll see that I acknowledged that the litigants are not at SCOTUS at this posture.

You asked me a question about my opinion on the statute and the DOJ's interpretation of it. I answered it.

Instead of passive-aggressively trying to shoehorn my answer into a question you didn't ask- which I can only surmise is something akin to 'Do you think that the petitioners think that 1512(c)(2) is overbroad'- you could read what I wrote and reply to that.

If you want to pretend that I said things I didn't say, this is going to get very boring for me very quickly.

Yes, I do think the DOJ is using an unconstitutional interpretation of the statute. The statute is quite problematic on a number of constitutional grounds and the DOJ's ruthlessness in applying it only reinforces my opinion.

I would have liked for the petitioners to be at SCOTUS on more firm footing to attack the statute, but they're there on other grounds.

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, if and when you are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), you can make an argument that the definition of "official proceeding" at § 1515(a)(1)(b) is unconstitutionally overbroad. (You won't succeed, but that is of no moment for purposes of this discussion.)

In the meantime, your opinion as to whether § 1515(a)(1)(b) is unconstitutionally overbroad means diddly-squat. Federal courts decide issues pressed upon them by actual litigants in actual cases or controversies.

FWIW, according to the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, a statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech. "On the one hand, the threat of enforcement of an overbroad law deters people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, inhibiting the free exchange of ideas. On the other hand, invalidating a law that in some of its applications is perfectly constitutional—particularly a law directed at conduct so antisocial that it has been made criminal—has obvious harmful effects. In order to maintain an appropriate balance, [the Supreme Court has] vigorously enforced the requirement that a statute's overbreadth be substantial, not only in an absolute sense, but also relative to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 292 (2008).

Defining an "official proceeding" to include “a proceeding before the Congress” simply does not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech relative to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep. That is especially true when considered in tandem with the requirement in § 1512(c) that the accused has acted corruptly.

[tylertusta]

Tylertusta, if and when you are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), you can make an argument that the definition of “official proceeding” at § 1515(a)(1)(b) is unconstitutionally overbroad. (You won’t succeed, but that is of no moment for purposes of this discussion.)

No, I don't need to be charged with 1512 to give an opinion on it in an online comment thread.

Especially when that opinion was in response to a question you asked to begin with.

In the meantime, your opinion as to whether § 1515(a)(1)(b) is unconstitutionally overbroad means diddly-squat

Heh. The irony.

Remember, you asked me what my view of the statute is, so it's pretty stupid for you to then say that:

1) I can't have a valid opinion generally, but also:
2) Petitioners didn't raise this, so I can't have this opinion anyway.

Huh?

Defining an “official proceeding” to include “a proceeding before the Congress” simply does not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech relative to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep

You forgot to use it in conjunction with:

"Corruptly" and "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding."

And it's not just me. Some courts have had a big problem with 1512 for the same reasons that I do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" fake electors as having been duly elected."

All you would have to prove is that they THOUGHT that they WERE duly elected. That there were enough votes stolen for them to be so elected.

Decades back, money was missing out of a lot of people's checking accounts -- the Boston bank quietly apologized for that and put it back, and everyone guessed what happened when a certain mid/high level person wasn't there anymore. But what if they hadn't?

It's a defense to negotiating a worthless instrument if the money legitimately is there, even if the bank says it isn't. You'd have to prove it, but you would be entitled to do that, wouldn't you?

How is this different? There has YET TO BE an "election stolen" claim decided on the MERITS, they have all been decided on standing or other technicalities. But wouldn't Team Trump have the right to introduce evidence that they actually did win those electoral votes, and that their slate were the genuine electors?

[John F. Carr]

While they are being charged under statutes requiring criminal intent, I do not think they had reasonable grounds to believe they were duly elected at the time they signed the paperwork. If Democrats committed fraud Republicans do not automatically win. The fake electors may have been led to believe that their electoral votes would not be transmitted to Washington unless the proper state officials declared them to be duly elected. I suspect that is why charges in Georgia were limited to the people who mailed the electoral votes.

[David Nieporent]

There has YET TO BE an “election stolen” claim decided on the MERITS, they have all been decided on standing or other technicalities.

This is a lie.

But wouldn’t Team Trump have the right to introduce evidence that they actually did win those electoral votes, and that their slate were the genuine electors?

No, they would not. Your question is like saying, "The DMV examiner screwed up; I really scored high enough that I should've passed my driving test and been given a license. Therefore, when I'm charged with driving w/o a license, don't I have the right to introduce evidence that I actually did pass, and that the 'license' I photoshopped for myself is a genuine license?"

[not guilty]

"All you would have to prove is that they THOUGHT that they WERE duly elected. That there were enough votes stolen for them to be so elected."

Uh, no. In the District of Columbia proceeding, the fake electors are not themselves charged. Donald Trump is the only defendant. The indictment is replete with averments that Trump knew he had not in fact won the election and that he knew the fake elector slates to be bogus. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

For the purposes of any motion to dismiss the indictment, the facts averred in the indictment must be taken as true. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952)

[not guilty]

“But wouldn’t Team Trump have the right to introduce evidence that they actually did win those electoral votes, and that their slate were the genuine electors?”

I suppose that Team Trump could introduce such evidence before the jury at trial, if they can show that their information was known to Donald Trump at the time of his conduct alleged in the indictment. That would likely involve Trump having to testify. And it is likely that if Trump attempts to relitigate the election results, jurors will check the soles of their shoes to see if they had stepped in something foul.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

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

FOUR (4)

days without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least
NINETEEN (19)
occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 19 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 19 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, incessant 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 a timely, timeless tune.

This one -- a big-city version of that theme -- is good, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's back!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mick? Keith?

They never left.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers:

First, two weeks before the tour begins, an every-show standout.

Next, one you can hope Chuck drags off the shelf for a show near you.

Tickets should still be available for every stop along this North American tour.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, do you have any faves from Supertramp?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe I posted a couple of Supertramp tunes relatively recently.

Maybe Logical and Long Way Home, but not necessarily . . .

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

because this one and this one are also quite good . . .

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

not to mention this one or this one . . .

[Commenter_XY]

Thank you, Arthur. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing to it. I played plenty of Supertramp as a disc jockey and would expect to find several Supertramp albums in my long-dormant record collection.

[nicmart]

You’ll learn much more about rights and constitutional law watching The Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube than you will from these self-important bores.

https://youtube.com/@thecivilrightslawyer?si=DTqxIQLtha9U_cLO

[tylertusta]

I think there's value in getting different perspectives on the law, even if those perspectives are from randos on the internet who are LARPing as Democrat prosecutors from the indigo lawfare blob.

[Martinned2]

Interesting blog post, unfortunately in German (but that shouldn't be a problem these days), about the law of pardons in Germany, and the question of whether the President (and by analogy the prime ministers of the states) can be required to publish a list of the people they have pardoned. The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg had ruled that the President was entitled to decline to disclose such a list. The logic is that the pardon power is rooted in the constitution itself, and that the President, when he exercises it, is not acting as an administrative body which is subject to (administrative) FOIA law.

https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/ovg-berlin-brandenburg-6b1822-frag-den-staat-auskunftsklage-begnadigung-bundespraesident/

Note that in Germany there are only very few federal criminal offences (mainly things like terrorism offences and offences contrary to international criminal law, like genocide and war crimes). So presumably the President of Germany doesn't do a lot of pardoning. (Counsel for the President said in court that the President had pardoned 15 people between 2017 and 2022, but we don't know how many applications there have been, or for which offences these individuals had been convicted.)

[Krayt]

A pardon has legal implications, so it should be public.

[Martinned2]

I agree, although I would note that the fact of a conviction may not be public in Germany either. Obviously it doesn't make sense to disclose the fact that someone has been pardoned in circumstances when the fact of their conviction would not be public. That defeats the purpose of not making convictions public without limitation. But at a minimum some basic information about pardons should be public, like their number, the number of applications, and the criminal offences committed by those who were pardoned.

[Martinned2]

I had a look at what the Dutch do. The Dutch government publishes figures of numbers of pardon applications granted and rejected, but doesn’t seem to give information on what they were convicted of: https://www.justis.nl/producten/gratie/kwartaalcijfers-2023-gratie

[Martinned2]

In the UK the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is "extremely rare". In 2023, in response to a FOIA request, the Ministry of Justice said that no pardons had been recommended to the Queen since Alan Turing's pardon in 2013.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/list_of_royal_prerogatives_of_me/response/2229278/attach/html/5/FOI%20230111027%20RPM..pdf.html

[Brett Bellmore]

"and the criminal offences committed by those who were pardoned."

I don't know about Germany, but here in the US one of the basis of pardoning somebody is frequently the executive's belief that they are factually innocent. (A matter our Supreme court doesn't always consider worth bothering itself with.)

In such cases the pardon is on the basis that they didn't commit the offense. I think it's probably better to refer to "the criminal offense the person pardoned was convicted of", so as to avoid the assumption that everybody who receives a pardon is actually guilty.

[Martinned2]

Fair enough. I think in other countries the President (or equivalent) may well hold that belief, but would stop short of saying so out loud because criticism of the factual findings of a criminal court may offend against their country's version of separation of powers.

(Which is also why the Post Office (Horizon scandal) pardon legislation that is currently before the UK parliament does not include cases that were considered by the Court of Appeal: They're already getting criticised for usurping the position of the courts, and they definitely don't want to irritate the Court of Appeal. That said, this solution is getting them plenty of criticism too, so the Court of Appeal exception will probably be removed.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Our version of separation of powers doesn't implicate one branch criticizing another branch, just attempting to exercise that other branch's powers. Since the pardon power is explicitly given the Presidents, exercising it is never a separation of powers violation.

Now, what WOULD be a separation of powers violation, hypothetically, is if the President pardoned somebody for something, and then a judge tried to use that pardoned conduct as a basis for sentencing. Since per the pardon, they are legally precluded from being treated as guilty of it, the judge would be attempting to negate the pardon.

This isn't an issue with the President's pardon, because the whole point of it is that he's supposed to be able to negate convictions, and terminate or preclude prosecutions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now, what WOULD be a separation of powers violation, hypothetically, is if the President pardoned somebody for something, and then a judge tried to use that pardoned conduct as a basis for sentencing. Since per the pardon, they are legally precluded from being treated as guilty of it, the judge would be attempting to negate the pardon.

Hahahaha what???

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought that was fairly clear.

Say you're charged with speeding and bank robbery.

The President looks at matters, decides the claim that you robbed a bank is nonsense, and pardons you for it.

The judge then convicts you of speeding, and sentences you based on speeding and bank robbery.

I would argue that this would be a separation of powers violation, because the judge is attempting to negate the pardon.

[Martinned2]

There's a few things being mixed up there. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt: Is your claim that the judge is constitutionally required to treat the bank robber as having no previous convictions?

My impression from the Constitution Annotated is that that might have been the view of the Supreme Court once upon a time, but not in more recent cases, e.g. in Carlesi v. New York (1914) or Nixon v. United States (1993).

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-7/ALDE_00013324/

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that is my claim.

Actually, I think the whole practice of sentencing based on uncharged conduct is illegitimate, as it denies the defendant their opportunity to rebut those charges, and their presumption of innocence in regards to them.

And I think the whole practice of sentencing based on acquitted conduct is an utter obscenity; At least in the case of double jeopardy, you get a second chance to dispute the charge, in the case of sentencing based on acquitted conduct, you have already SUCCESSFULLY disputed the charge, and the judge has just decided to punish you for it anyway.

I think quite a few things about our current legal systems are remarkably offensive, actually. It's an unjust world out there, and people who work in the legal system often become quite jaded about those injustices.

[not guilty]

"Actually, I think the whole practice of sentencing based on uncharged conduct is illegitimate, as it denies the defendant their opportunity to rebut those charges, and their presumption of innocence in regards to them."

Brett, I agree with you about the use of acquitted conduct to enhance a sentence. But a federal criminal defendant does have the opportunity to be heard at the sentencing stage to rebut allegations/evidence of uncharged conduct.

[Noscitur a sociis]

although I would note that the fact of a conviction may not be public in Germany either.

Barbaric.

These developing countries in Europe are nice enough to visit (and lord knows they need our tourist dollars), but it’s sad to think that people actually have to live there.

[Martinned2]

It's called privacy. Since apparently in the US the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice, eventually you'll get around to it I'm sure.

[Michael P]

Justice involves people being responsible for their crimes, not the government forcing the public to pretend certain inconvenient facts do not exist.

[Martinned2]

Justice involves people being responsible for their crimes by being punished, e.g. by being sentenced to a prison term, a fine, community service, etc. And once they've repaid their debt to society, justice involves people being able to pick up their lives again, rather than being followed around by a past mistake for the rest of their lives.

[John F. Carr]

In the United States, a pardon is traditionally public but need not be public or even in writing. A pardon is only a fact to be proved by the traditional means of proving facts. See this recent court case: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/227188.P.pdf

A criminal claimed Trump had commuted his sentence in a phone call. The Fourth Circuit ruled that a commutation need not be written, so Trump could have done it orally. The court also ruled that Trump had not commuted his sentence in the phone call, only indicated an intention to do so.

[Martinned2]

Interesting, thanks.

[apedad]

" . . . so Trump could have done it orally."

I wonder how that would work because it would then put the burden on any former President to prove they orally pardoned someone.

Could Clinton now say, "I orally approved Sally's pardon in 1993," and that would be it (whether he actually did)?

Sally would be immediately pardoned now?

[Martinned2]

Presumably it would put the burden of proof on the person who claimed they'd been pardoned, not the president. So recording the call would probably be prudent. Or at least having someone else listen in on the call.

But yes, having the president testify that he did in fact say the magic words would do the job too, I guess.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like Trump either fucked up a pardon (what a guy!) or cruelly lied about it (he's definitely that guy).

I hope this comes up when Trump is begging for a pardon.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

You're going to go blind if you keep carrying on like that, "Coach"

[M L]

But if the fact of a pardon was ever proved by the traditional means of proving facts, that pardon would then be public right?

In other words if anyone was ever released from prison or other sentence due to a pardon, or had criminal charges dropped, etc then it would be public.

Martinned makes it sound like in Europe they are releasing people from prison and nobody knows who they are or what they were convicted of.

[Krayt]

To differentiate it from the US, where it's all public deliberately, to stop those in power from getting away with squirrely stuff saying, "Trust us!"

[Martinned2]

Martinned makes it sound like in Europe they are releasing people from prison and nobody knows who they are or what they were convicted of.

The government knows. It's not like they erase their records. And in the Netherlands there are a number of categories of jobs (e.g. teaching) that require a "statement of good behaviour" from the government, which you can only get if you haven't been convicted of a crime in the last 5-10 years. No idea what other countries do, but typically you can't just type someone's name into Google and find out whether they did crime 30 years ago.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that's the problem, Floyd George should have just gone to Holland and been a Domestic Violence/Drug Abuse Counselor!

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm. If I try to hire somebody for one of these jobs, and the government refuses to issue said statement, given that the criminal record is not a public record, how do I distinguish between this happening because you were actually convicted of something, and this happening because somebody involved in the process of issuing the letter simply has it in for you?

Is it just "trust the government" all the way down?

[Martinned2]

"Someone in government has it in for you"??? Are you nuts?

The whole thing is pretty automated, but if the relevant agency refuses to give you a statement of good behaviour even though you're entitled to one, you can go to court just like any other time when a public body doesn't comply with the law. And no sovereign immunity nonsense. If the government breaks the law and you lose out on a job as a result, you can definitely sue them for damages.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so there IS some recourse. That's good.

[Absaroka]

I dunno. Suppose a lady is contemplating marriage. Might she be legitimately interested in her suitor's entire criminal history, or lack thereof?

We have a fellow a few doors down. He seems like a nice fellow, but a few years ago he was convicted of solicitation of murder. I can see why he would like that fact to be forgotten. I also can see why other people might want to know that. I tend to favor the innocent in those cases.

[Martinned2]

Given that anything that's on the internet stays on the internet, you can't make a distinct rule for every situation. The rule has to be that a particular piece of information is public or not. Your lady will have to ask her beloved and trust the answer she gets. And if she doesn't feel like she can trust him to answer truthfully, marriage is probably not a good idea anyway.

[Absaroka]

"Your lady will have to ask her beloved and trust the answer she gets. And if she doesn’t feel like she can trust him to answer truthfully, marriage is probably not a good idea anyway."

Alternatively, we can have a norm that people who prey on other people don't get to hide that fact from future victims.

[Martinned2]

Yes, you can have that norm. That fits with the general US "Let's tar and feather them!" approach to criminal law enforcement. I guess you'll have to figure out why your recidivism numbers are so high and why poverty and crime are often multi-generational some other day...

[Commenter_XY]

Did the Court ask POTUS Trump if he had actually pardoned the perp?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Highly unlikely. The complaint likely was filed when Trump was no longer President of the United States.

[John F. Carr]

The petition for release said, in effect, "Trump said he would commute my sentence." Even if the alleged statement by Trump could be proved the sentence was not commuted by it. So no need to bring Trump into the case. If Trump had said "I hereby commute your sentence" then the issues would be different.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"POTUS Trump" is a figment of your imagination.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in case you missed it:
E Jean Carrol was in possession of an unregistered firearm. A month after becoming aware of this the police offer to take it for safe keeping.
No charges filed so far.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Quick: everyone switch sides on whether or not that’s bad!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's obviously selective prosecution, but of a law that should never be prosecuted.

[Bob from Ohio]

selective non-prosecution you mean

[Nige]

She might have won some sympathy by showing them a file labeled 'threats and harassment.'

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Quick: everyone switch sides on whether or not that’s bad!

Which side would you be switching to/from with regard to selective prosecution?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

DJT shares have declined another 17 percent today (so far).

Is pet food safe? (Asking for DJT shareholders contemplating retirement.)

That woman has Trump supporter eyes.

[Jumaira]

How long do you last when pumping teenage boys?

[Moderation4ever]

I and most other people invest in the stock market for the long haul and accept the fluctuating of the market. Still, it is never easy to look at your portfolio and see yourself several thousands or several ten of thousands down. I cannot image what it is like to be a few billion down.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

With after-hours trading, DJT tanked 20 percent today.

The dumbasses who invested in this thing deserve everything that's befallen them so far, and everything that is coming to them(perhaps even a retirement diet of Kibbles 'n Bits or crunchy, bursting-with-flavor, mouth-watering cat treats.

[Martinned2]

Nobody bought shares in DJT based on its underlying financials. It has the revenues of a mildly successful Substack newsletter, the costs of a mid-sized supermarket, and the management skill of a digital start-up in rural Minnesota. Trump and his management are already suing each other. (Because of course they are.)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-02/trump-sues-co-founders-of-truth-social-media-company-over-shares

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. I mean, I initially had some hopes for the platform when it was first announced, but when I read the TOS I gave it up as a bad joke.

I will say, though, it's lots more legitimate than any NFT.

[ThePublius]

Yes, but they are up 70% over the last 6 months. The market is along game, not a daily game.

[Stella Link the dog]

"but they are up 70% over the last 6 months"

So, a 40% decline wipes out the entire 70% gain. That might take as little as two-three days.

If you don't think that DJT still has tremendous down side, can you explain?

[Stella Link the dog]

This whole DJT thing is bizzarre. Revenue last year was about $4.1 million -- less than the average chick-fil-a store or Buc-ee's gas station/convenience store. Supposedly they have $200 million in cash but if they have a plan on how to use their cash to generate revenue, rather than just to enrich the insiders, it's not being publicized, How is it possible for such an enterprise to have a market cap between $3.5 and $4 million (depending on the minute)? I understand that this crap is being pumped up by deluded devotees of El Puerco, but still.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

$4 million in annual revenue, $58 million in annual losses, vague business plans, wildly overpaid insiders = $billions in market capitalization . . . in Trump-MAGA-QAnon world.

Carry on, clingers.

[John F. Carr]

Reminds me of the dot com bubble, except the magic words causing overvaluation are not "dot com" but "Donald Trump".

[Squirrelloid]

I hate that I have to preface this, but I'm generally supportive of Israel's right to defend itself (and have no sympathy for Hamas), but... this worries me:

https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

I will not vouch for the source. Has this been corroborated? Because this sounds like some very poor decision-making on Israel's part which could amount to war crimes. (No expertise in international law, so I'll leave the legal conclusions to someone qualified).

[Krayt]

Hey, it's 90% accurate! What's the problem?

[Squirrelloid]

'It's 90% accurate, and we'll wait for them to be at home with their families, and we'll allow up to 15-20 collateral deaths for low-value targets. What could go wrong?'

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't have a problem with this -- taking out the whole family is a very effective way of making it clear that there is a cost to even be associated with Hamas. It is a war, can I remind people of Berlin and Dresden and Hiroshima?

Do you honestly think Hamas makes distinctions like this? Did they last October? Of course not. So why should Israel.

That said, who says this isn't all a Psych Op? Are we really supposed to believe that the top levels of the IDF are so undisciplined that they would be telling this to a bunch of anti-IDF left-wingers?

Or could it be, perhaps, that they want Hamas to THINK they are doing this, even if they can't?

[Estragon]

“I don’t have a problem with this”

Wow, shocking take!

[Dr. Ed 2]

...

[David Nieporent]

972mag is Israel's version of The Nation, so it should be viewed with appropriate skepticism, but the story is certainly troubling if true.

[Commenter_XY]

As a term, 'training' sounds so clinical; the IDF 'trained' the AI system to direct drones. In reality, it was the taking of human life (in a war zone). I am quite sure UKR is seeing something similar on their battlefields as well. I vaguely recall seeing a story in Jerusalem Post about the IDF use of AI in wartime, and drone targeting was one application (nothing detailed like your link).

It is terrifying, Squirreloid. You are right to be worried.

[Mr. Bumble]

For any of you practitioners out there:
Why is Trump's presence mandatory during this current trial?

[David Nieporent]

Unlike with a civil case, where a party only has to be there if subpoenaed, a criminal defendant is required to be present at all phases of a trial.

[not guilty]

New York Criminal Procedure Law § 340.50:

1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial.

2. On motion of a defendant represented by counsel, the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial. Such an order may be made only upon the filing of a written and subscribed statement by the defendant declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense.

3. A defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks. So he must be present but can waive his right barring an objection by the people?
Gee, why would the people object?
I believe Trump has asked to be excused on Wed. to attend his son's high school graduation. Wonder how that will play out?

[#FFFFFFPride]

The judge will refuse. This isn't a real trial.

[Moderation4ever]

Sure, looks like one. Maybe you been watching too many lawyer themed TV shows. You know courtrooms are not really like in Matlock.

[#FFFFFFPride]

In a real trial, the outcome isn't preordained.

In a Democrat trial they are if you're a disfavored individual or race.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[LawTalkingGuy]

Wait. Do you really think that in a “real” criminal jury trial the judge would normally just let the defendant skip out for a personal matter? There’s no way you could be dumb enough to actually believe that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I think they would, depending on the nature of the personal matter. Your daughter getting married, a close relative's funeral? Urgent surgery? Sure, they'd probably let you be absent for a day for something like that.

I mean, they don't have a waiver provision because it's NEVER granted.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well you think wrong about a lot of stuff because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[not guilty]

The Trump trial will not occur on Wednesdays, so attending the graduation should not be a problem.

The trial court is not required to accept a waiver of the defendant’s presence, even absent an objection from the prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

The Trump trial will not occur on Wednesdays, so attending the graduation should not be a problem.

The graduation is reportedly May 17, which is not a Wednesday.

[not guilty]

Okay. I was responding to Mr. Bumble's representation that the graduation is on a Wednesday. I should have known better than to take that at face value.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What do you think would happen if literally any other defendant on the planet made that request?

[OtisAH]

This is fucking hilarious. Even on a topic you should have actual interest in you cannot get a single simple fact right. This all happened yesterday and has been written and discussed extensively. But you’re immune to that sort of information I guess.

He asked for Wednesdays to campaign because Merchan’s court is usually dark on Wednesdays. It sounded like the judge said he might up until the jury is impaneled. He asked for a day off to go to SCOTUS for his ludicrous “immunity” business. And he asked for *May 17* to attend his son’s graduation, which he would not and likely does not give a fuck about except for how it might get him out of court. Merchan said “we’ll see.” His decision will likely be colored by Turnip’s behavior between now and then. So they’d be wise to keep the doses high of whatever they’re giving him these first couple days to keep him nice and manageable.

[David Nieporent]

That's for lower-level cases, triable by information. New York Criminal Procedure Law § 260.20 is applicable here:

A defendant must be personally present during the trial of an indictment;  provided, however, that a defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.

[not guilty]

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe Trump's lawyers will advise him concerning that "out," leading to provocatively disruptive courtroom behavior followed by surprise and outrage when he learns his destination will be jail rather than a graduation, a campaign event, a golf course, or a whorehouse.

[Moderation4ever]

It is probably in Donald Trump's interest to be at the trial. Some of the trials he has skipped have gone badly for him. Not being present can send a sign of disrespect to the jury. I also think it may be easier for the jury to rule against a person they are not seeing at everyday in the courtroom. I think the problem is that Trump doesn't really have the patience to sit through a trial. I really don't remember ever seeing him sitting quietly for an extended period of time. Am I wrong on this?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He apparently was sitting quietly enough today that several accounts indicated he was asleep at the defense table.

[Moderation4ever]

Give'm a break he's 77 years old.

[not guilty]

Sleepy Donald??

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/04/15/trump-fell-asleep-in-court-twice-reporters-say/?sh=6a0839ac5688

[#FFFFFFPride]

Oh my, Judge Manchen should arrest him for doing that. That’s surely an illegal campaign contribution from his commie daughter, thereby violating a gag order.

Now, ng, there’s your goal, seek to it with your super serious legal reasoning.

lol

[not guilty]

Are you drunk, #FFFFFFPride?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Not one for Jonathan Swift, eh? I guess I was too intellectual for you.

[not guilty]

I can hardly go wrong underestimating your perspicacity, #FFFFFFPride.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Now there's a $10 word, if I've ever seen one!

[Stella Link the dog]

Jonathan Swift was both clever and funny. You are neither.

[David Nieporent]

I understand from what I've read on social media that this makes him unfit to be president and that he needs to drop out of the race immediately.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. There's a reason I was supporting DeSantis in the primaries.

Are you up for mutual de-geezerification? Maybe we can negotiate some way to drop BOTH these walking corpses.

[Estragon]

Drowsy Don!

Extremely low stamina.

It’s becoming ever clearer— to me at least— who was receiving all that Provigil that Dr Ronnie was prescribing!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Relatable. Voir dire can be a grind.

[Moderation4ever]

It might help if he had something interesting to keep his mind on during the proceedings. I suggest he work on his history of Gettysburg.

[M L]

This seems like a big deal.

https://reason.com/2024/04/14/biden-sends-u-s-forces-to-protect-israels-borders-for-the-first-time-ever/

A quick google search turns up zero mainstream media headlines reporting this information. How can this be?

[Stella Link the dog]

"A quick google search turns up zero mainstream media headlines reporting this information. "

The source for the reason article you refer to is given in the article as CNN. US planes were involved in shooting down Iranian drones and missles. This was reported widely.

[M L]

I said it’s not reported in any headlines. Buried within articles yes. But the linked Reason article is the only result focusing on the most salient fact to Americans, "Biden Sends U.S. Forces To Protect Israel's Borders for the First Time Ever."

[apedad]

"How can this be?"

Um . . . you don't know how to use Google?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Is there anything more evil than our current Federal Government?

https://twitter.com/LizaGoitein/status/1779885123363635572

It will be a glorious day for humankind when the DC Marxists/Democrats finally face justice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Un-American, disaffected, grievance-consumed, delusional wingnuts are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hey speaking of culture war casualties, did you see where the SCOTUS upheld Iowa's ban on trans'ing children?

Which, frankly, is too bad. Because only idiot Democrat parents trans their children and it's just a modern version of Planned Parenthood/Eugenics.

Which is pretty cool. PP aborts the blacks, and gender clinics sterilize Democrat children.

Works for me.

[not guilty]

"Hey speaking of culture war casualties, did you see where the SCOTUS upheld Iowa’s ban on trans’ing children?"

I am unaware of SCOTUS having ever granting cert is such a matter. What is the style of the case?

[Zarniwoop]

Oh hey, she was in my HS graduating class. Small world.

She's also way smarter than a russian-paid "white pride" troll.

[Zarniwoop]

So, Iran attack on Israel. Before we get in to the interpretations, does anyone disagree with some basic facts:
1) Iran telegraphed the attack about 2-3 days in advance
2) multiple countries, including Arab countries, were thus
a) able to, and
b) actually did
shoot down attacking missiles/drones.
3) the attack was ~99% unsuccessful ... for obvious reasons (see #1 and #2)
4) Iran pushed to their own populace that they had struck a huge blow against Israel for Israel's attack on an Iran embassy.

Anyone disagree with those points? Speak up!

[Zarniwoop]

My personal spin on this is that Iran’s attack on Israel was staged and intended to fail withut doing real damage to Israel, while permitting Iran to do two things:
1) claim they “retaliated” for the embassy attack, thus balancing the books. This is supported by Iran’s quick announcement – while missiles were still in the air – that the attack was “over”, while
2) making a (lame, but still non-zero) threat that “we could still attack you if you weren’t warned in advance”.

Seriously, for all y’all that are conspiracy theorists, this one should be a gimmee.

If Israel (maybe even informed in advance abut the missile attacks) wants to buy in to the chest-thumping “we showed them” posturing, the next action item will be a few Iranian aircraft on a runway getting hit by a missile in “retaliation” (probably something like non-flyable F-14s) so that Israel can claim they struck back.

This is how you construct a real conspiracy, chuckleheads: a small number of people involved make it believable at a global scale, so that all the big powers can say they “won”.

[grb]

Zarniwoop : “This is how you construct a real conspiracy, chuckleheads”

It doesn’t require a conspiracy. Neither Israel or Iran wants to fight a war against each other. Israel, because it needs to stay focused on an exit strategy from Gaza; Iran, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose with a direct conflict. So both sides will make a show and then step back.

The only wild card is Netanyahu. Israel doesn’t need a second front but he sure might. As someone noted above, his government is destined to fall after the fighting stops and the far right-wing elements of his coalition have to be constantly appeased.

[Nige]

It was probably intended to be a limited escalation, a show of strength and reach, but surely an incredibly dumb game to play with Netanyahu who seems to WANT escalation, and this provides the perfect excuse. He'll claim a license to do something in response, Iran will want to respond, and so on. This is the way world wars are made.

[ThePublius]

"He’ll claim a license to do something in response...."

So, you don't think Israel has a legitimate reason to retaliate?

[Sarcastr0]

This is a reaction to Israel already. Are you seeking a cycle of violence?

[Brett Bellmore]

Israel exists. Arabs attack. Israel counter-attacks... Oh, No! That's a cycle of violence, which can only be ended if Israel lets the Arabs get the last shot in!

[Nige]

Yes, you are describing a cycle of violence and the dumb rationale for keeping it going.

[Brett Bellmore]

The most successful strategy in game theory is called "Tit for Tat", not "Nothing for Tat". There's a reason for that.

[Martinned2]

Tit for tat may or may not be the most successful strategy in an infinitely repeated prisoners' dilemma, but it is definitely not "the most successful strategy in game theory".

As for the former question: https://medium.com/@metaform3d/prisoners-dilemma-revisited-bfdaa0e02c80

[Nige]

Well you get a succesful cycle of violence, yay well done.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think it's a hard sell to ask Israel not to retaliate. Having said that though, it's odd to me for Americans not to hope that happens. You want gas prices to go up?

[Nige]

'So, you don’t think Israel has a legitimate reason to retaliate?'

If the back and forth in a dirty war is legitimate - but are the rules they play by in dirty wars legitimate? Heads are exploding because of the way there are acceptable levels of retaliation for attacks that were within acceptable limits in response to attacks that were within acceptable limits, and so on. You think you can simplify this down to legitimacy?

[ThePublius]

I don't get this, Nige. First, what's a "dirty war," and how is this one a dirty war? I have no idea what you mean by that. Second, what are "acceptable limits?" And who defines that, who determines what's "acceptable?"

My view is that Israel should seek to end this war by completely destroying Hamas, or Hamas unconditionally surrendering. In doing so Israel should minimize civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible, as they have been doing. That's the only "limit" that can legitimately imposed.

The post-war period will be the most difficult, if not impossible period, with the necessary de-Hamasification of Gaza.

Note that there are 27 states in the middle east, and only one is a democracy. Guess which one. Palestinians are about 20% of Israel's population. They can vote, hold office, become judges, and so on. In Gaza, one can suffer the death penalty for selling real estate to a Jew. Compare and contrast.

[Nige]

Fucking hell, have you reverted to childhood? First of all I'm talking about Iran. You do get that Iran funds insurgents and proxies and terrorists and even sends rockets into US installations, right? And that Israel occasionally blows up Iranian stuff and assasinates Iranian people? Is calling all that a dirty war too confusing for you? As for who sets the limits, the antagonists do. Yes, it's appalling. Hello.

'My view is that Israel should seek to end this war by completely destroying Hamas,'

Oh, you appear to believe in unicorns so, yes.

The Middle East's only democracy is in the process of killing tens of thousands of people. Being a democracy isn't a license to kill. I would have thought we'd gotten over that misconception by now.

[ThePublius]

"The civilian to combatant fatality ratio in World War II lies somewhere between 3:2 and 2:1, or from 60% to 67%."

"According to the Israel Defense Forces an estimated two out of every three of these deaths were civilian casualties."

Considering the circumstances of this war, the density of the population, Hamas intentionally using civilians as shields, basing military operations in schools, hospitals, offices, and homes - Israel is doing a remarkably good job of minimizing civilian casualties.

[Nige]

You’re still talking about a different thing.

'Israel is doing a remarkably good job of minimizing civilian casualties.'

This is obscene and it should taste like shit in your mouth.

[ThePublius]

BTW, I looked up "dirty war," and got this:
"Dirty wars are offensives conducted by regimes against their dissidents, marked by the use of torture and forced disappearance of civilians." (wikipedia)

So, how does that apply here?

[Nige]

Huh, maybe it does apply to Israel's war on Gaza after all.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What bothers me is a couple of purported US allies (Qutar and Kuwait) supporting Iran. We need to reconsider our relationships with them

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That can be addressed after we reconsider our relationship with Israel.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if pursuing an isolationist America First foreign policy has consequences...

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Qatar is clearly in cahoots with us playing whatever role we need them to play to keep backchannels open. Qatar is one of the Bush/Cheney administration’s big successes because Tillerson wanted America to import their LNG. Tillerson and Bush are the two Texans that couldn’t find oil and gas under the soil in Texas!?!

[Brett Bellmore]

Kuwait was a bad mistake on our part. During the Iraq war the government of Kuwait had evacuated, and left the citizenry to their fate. We swooped in and saved them, and then handed them back over to their rulers. The citizens of Kuwait were not terribly appreciative of that.

It would have been a perfect opportunity to see if it was possible to create an actual Arab liberal democracy in the Middle East. See if liberal democracy could work in a kind of "franchise" mode.

Well, you can't expect our rulers, who don't particularly like our form of government themselves, to want it to spread.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And yet Republicans still whine about Perot stealing the 1992 election from Bush…

[Martinned2]

And nothing that happened since has made you less optimistic about the ability of the US to spread democracy across the world?

[Nige]

Apparently nothing like that happened over the course of the Cold War, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

The ability of the US to spread democracy across the world would only become an issue if our government first had a desire to spread democracy across the world.

[Nige]

Yeah, better to pretend it was deliberate rather than an abysmal failure. Except for the times they overthrew democracies and installed authoritarian leaders, I suppose.

[#FFFFFFPride]

They didn’t do that to spread democracy, they did that to protect the petro-dollar. The US government doesn't do anything for altruism. There's always some sinister, immoral, corrupt plot.

Get with the times, dude.

[Nige]

I mean, you're not wrong, for once.

[#FFFFFFPride]

This is what I don't understand Nige. You kneejerk defend the State, yet you haven't shaken your anti-establishment roots.

You f'n love these people who do this evil vile shit and any attack on them you're in here defending and deflecting as if it were your job. You worship the State. You love the people who operate the institutions. You defend them unconstitutionally spying on citizens. Yet you know they're evil vile inhuman devils.

[Nige]

I often criticise 'the state,' shock horror. I just don't take the stupid fucking lies and idiocy spouted by people like you as the truth.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to blaspheme your idols and household gods.

My bad.

[Nige]

So, my idols are truth and honesty, and my household gods are integrity and probity? I'll take it.

[apedad]

Too bad Brett is clueless about our govt’s true goals.

It’s about protecting capitalism – and especially global capitalism.

The spread of democracy – which enables stable govts which capitalism rests upon – is one of the means of ensuring the success of global capitalism.

[#FFFFFFPride]

"Stakeholder capitalism" isn't capitalism. It's rebranded international Marxism.

[Nige]

Voting is going to get rebranded as communism any day now.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing says libertarian like imperialism.

But more practically, wanting a do over on our Middle East state building adventurism and thinking this time it’d be different is some real neocon stuff.

There are lessons to be learned from our 20 years of blood and treasure and not much to show for it. You have learned none of them.

[Brett Bellmore]

If not handing rescued people back over to despots is imperialism, yay imperialism.

[Frank Drackman]

I just woke up from a Coma I went into October 6, 2023, so why is Israel attacking Gaza????? Did something happen to provoke it? A Palestinian Terrorist (redundant, I know) kill an IDF Soldier? a few Settlers?? I know with the "2 State Solution" it couldn't be anything like a massacre of thousands of Israel Civilians...

Frank

[#FFFFFFPride]

Flyers distributed at NGO in Mexico encouraging illegals to vote for President Biden

“Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in the United States. We need another four years of his term to stay open”

https://twitter.com/OversightPR/status/1780054306454167954

But don't worry guys, Sarcastr0 tells us this is a conspiracy theory for nutters and illegals don't break the law (per Election Expert Olsen)!

Just because illegals are being told to vote and are being registered to vote in a system where voter verification is nearly impossible, doesn't mean they ARE voting, you Q-Anon nutjob!

[#FFFFFFPride]

This is the organization pushing this:

>RCM bills itself as an operation which houses functions for Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which helps illegal aliens enter the United States.

Why is it always the fucking Jews? Scratch a social ill, find a Jew I always say...

[Krychek_2]

Well, here's a passage from the Jewish scriptures:

"The simple believe every word."

How is it that you are so simple as to believe such obvious and blatant nonsense as what you are peddling?

[NOVA Lawyer]

He's a Russian troll. It's his job. He probably is marginally less stupid than his comments make him appear.

[#FFFFFFPride]

People who don't love unelected bureaucrats controlling your life and endless foreign wars are Russian Trolls!

Good one.

[#FFFFFFPride]

There's an actual photo of the flyer.

Did you not know that before commenting?

[Krychek_2]

Oh, even without looking at it I'm willing to assume the flyer says what you claim it does. So do supermarket tabloids that claim Elvis sightings. The question is why you wouldn't see immediately that the claim is nonsense.

[David Nieporent]

The photo exists; I've seen it on Twitter. And it does depict what they claim. But there's nothing to evidence who wrote this flier (I mean, there's letterhead and a name printed at the bottom, but obviously if one is forging the text one can also forge the identifying marks too) or where it was found.

[#FFFFFFPride]

There's literally no amount of evidence that would convince you of this, David.

Please stop trying to contribute. We already know your beliefs and worldview is immovable by facts, evidence, reason, or argument. What the State says you believe, you believe, uncritically and wholeheartedly.

[David Nieporent]

There’s literally no amount of evidence that would convince you of this, David.

There literally is. For example, if someone involved with this organization — hopefully, the person who purportedly wrote the document — said, "Yeah, that's authentic."

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why would the claim be categorically nonsense?

[Krychek_2]

Because of all the checks in place to ensure that illegals don't vote. The claim that they are registering and voting is a right wing fiction.

Spend two minutes just thinking through the logistics of what you would have to do to register large numbers of illegal voters.

Then spend another couple of minutes thinking through who benefits from having a wide-spread and widely believed meme that illegals are voting Democrat in large numbers. Then ask yourself which is more likely: That right wing partisans are intentionally spreading falsehoods to undermine trust in our election system and stir up outrage against the Democrats, or that large numbers of illegals are actually finding ways to get past Real ID laws.

[#FFFFFFPride]

>Because of all the checks in place to ensure that illegals don’t vote.

What? What checks are you talking about? In Texas you can register same day and get a provisional ballot, then guess what? Your provisional ballots are mucked in with the rest and there’s literally zero physical difference. The provisional status is a secret only the election judge knows and is supposed to personally track.

The only federal requirement to register is having a social security number. Guess who can get one of those? Anyone on the planet.

It’s like you actually, genuinely, believe our voting system is secure with chains of custody and verification.

That’s a bunch of nonsense.

>Then spend another couple of minutes thinking through who benefits from having a wide-spread and widely believed meme that illegals are voting Democrat in large numbers.

Democrats already benefit from improper proration of House seats. Why wouldn’t they also benefit from millions of votes?

>Spend two minutes just thinking through the logistics of what you would have to do to register large numbers of illegal voters.

Nothing. Why would the NGO need to orchestrate all the way to registration instead of just giving them the impetus? Every state is different.

[David Nieporent]

Texas does not, of course, have same-day voter registration.

[grb]

Trump :

“Gettysburg. Wow. I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch. And the statement of Robert E. Lee ― who’s no longer in favor, did you ever notice that? No longer in favor ― ‘Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.’ They were fighting uphill. He said, ‘Wow, that was a big mistake.’ He lost his great general, and they were fighting. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys!’ But it was too late.”

Trump’s brain is now completely rotted-out – that much is clear. No wonder he obssessively boasts about “acing” a cognitive test that required him to identify animal shapes. After all, he watched his father sink into dementia (though in Trump’s case, he saw that as opportunity, attempting to convince a confused Fred to give him exclusive control of the family wealth. His mother got word of the attempt and intervened before Trump got the addled old man to sign the papers).

These days I rely on the “results” of Trump’s cognitive test as much as I trust his golf scores.

[David Nieporent]

There's an old Simpsons episode involving a Model UN event; Bart is assigned Libya. When asked to give his presentation, he says:

Uh-- Let's see. Uh,
the exports of Libya are numerous in amount.
One thing they export is corn.
Or, as the Indians call it, maize.
Another famous Indian was Crazy Horse.
In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts. Thank you.

Even when Trump doesn't sound senile/insane, he always sounds like the guy who didn't do the assigned reading and is making shit up to fill time. Always. If you quote the previous paragraph from Trump re: Gettysburg, that becomes even more clear:

"Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country."

In other words, in addition to being non compos mentis, he just doesn't know anything.

[ThePublius]

I think you all are misinterpreting this. Lee was a brilliant general, and actually Lincoln's first choice to command the union army, but Lee declined because he said he couldn't in good conscience lead an army against his home state of Virginia. Grant was considered a second-rate leader, but Lincoln's next choice after Lee.

What Trump quoted, and Lee said, was correct, and was perhaps the reason the North prevailed at Gettysburg.

[grb]

ThePublius : “I think you all are misinterpreting this.”

You wish. The world sees a barely coherent old man spewing out rambling gibberish. It doesn’t help that you seem almost as confused on Civil War history as your addled idol. Some points :

1. Lee was a brillant general and favorite of General Winfield Scott, who headed Lincoln’s war preparations from a desk. So far, so good.

2. Grant wasn’t in the picture then, being retired from the army. He wasn’t “Lincoln’s next choice”.

3. At that time, Grant was short of accomplishments and distrusted over drinking binges. But he proved an superb leader, impeccably level-headed in a crisis, and an exceptional general. His Vicksburg Campaign was stone-cold brillant.

4. Trump’s quote is phony. It was not the “reason the North prevailed at Gettysburg”

[ThePublius]

See "Pickett's charge," the decisive battle at Gettysburg, and an uphill offense by Lee's army.

[grb]

Uh huh. I think marching across a totally exposed field for three-quarters of a mile under whithering artillary fire was the big issue there, not a minor rise. You really, really, need a refresher course in American History.

[ThePublius]

Who said it was minor?

And after they traversed the field, they had to fight uphill.

[Absaroka]

I’ve walked the path of Pickett’s charge, and it’s a really minor rise. Maybe you’re thinking of Little Round Top?

Here's a picture from the Union side of things. That's a pretty shallow 'uphill'.

[tylertusta]

After listening to today's oral argument in Fischer, I got the sense that the Court's conservative Justices are deeply worried about the DOJ's use of 1512(c)(2) and the scope of conduct that would get swept up.

Based on arguments alone, I don't know if there are five Justices willing to reverse, but I think there are at least four solid votes to reverse (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts).

Roberts also has this tendency to pull Kavanaugh and Barrett to his positions, so if Roberts can wrangle either of them into reversal, then that's it.

[tylertusta]

Despite my thinking that the Court was hinting it might want to look at whether Jan 6th was a proceeding for the purposes of 1512(c)(2), oral arguments didn't go there.

Well, that's what I get for trying to read tea leaves.

I'm interested to see how the Court resolves the case. Smith might yet be able to keep his 1512 counts against Trump alive.

[not guilty]

I haven't listened to the oral argument, and I haven't yet read the transcript, but if SCOTUS accepts the trial court's reasoning in dismissing the indictment -- that the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is limited by the language of subsection (c)(1), such that subsection (c)(2) applies only if a defendant takes some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding -- that will not preclude the prosecution od Donald Trump under § 1512(c)(2) and 1512(k).

The fraudulent creation and transmission of documents reflecting bogus elector slates is central to the prosecution of Trump.

[grb]

Comparison:

Hillary testified for 11 hours during a Benghazi hearing.
Biden had a five-hour interview with Robert Hur.
Trump fell asleep after an hour in court.

[ThePublius]

That's pretty silly. There are plenty of videos available.

By the way, the Hur interview - Biden wandered all over the place, telling stories unrelated to the interview, making car sounds, and so on. 🙂

[ThePublius]

That should have read "there are plenty of videos available of Biden falling asleep."

[Kazinski]

Could happen to anyone. I was a (alternate) juror in a murder trial when I was in my 20's, staying awake sometimes in court was a real struggle, especially after lunch.

[ThePublius]

Agreed.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump isn't just anyone: he's a megalomaniacal asshole who has derogatory nicknames for anyone who isn't currently kneeling in front of him, such as "Sleepy Joe."

Perhaps he should take care that he stays awake.

[Nige]

‘Could happen to anyone.’

The slack cut for Trump by his supporters would drop someone down the entire length of Everest. Not that there's anything wrong with cutting the guy you support slack, but the contrast with the villification of Biden for his age is incredible.

[not guilty]

Here is an article with information about the first seven jurors seated in Donald Trump’s trial in New York.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/04/trump-trial-what-we-know-first-seven-jurors.html

One juror said that she was unaware of Trump's other criminal cases. That surprises me.

[tylertusta]

One juror said that she was unaware of Trump’s other criminal cases. That surprises me.

It's a surprise only if she's telling the truth, and I have my doubts that she is.

Potential jurors have already lied in order to try to get seated on this jury, so what's one more?

[Magister]

Compare View of the World from 9th Avenue; Washington DC is barely present, and Georgia and Florida not at all.