Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

It’s back!
Better late than never.

[Frank Drackman]

That's what She said!

[Sonja T]

https://freebeacon.com/israel/revitalized-palestinian-authority-boasts-of-rewarding-attacks-on-israel-with-biden-funds/

Revitalized' Palestinian Authority Boasts of Rewarding Attacks on Israel With Biden Funds

Marcus noted that U.S. funding of the PA security services—reinstated by Biden after being nixed by former president Donald Trump—helped pay not only for the grant but also for arming and training the intelligence agents who carried out the attacks for which their families were rewarded. In the past few years, PA security forces were behind dozens of attacks on Israelis, mostly soldiers but also a number civilians.

"Now, the United States is saying, ‘Send Palestinian security services into Gaza,’" Marcus said. "That's not going to lead to peace, it's going to lead to right back to the situation on Oct. 6."

[Martinned2]

Lots of people boast about lots of things.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2024/01/18/trump-boasts-about-acing-hard-cognitive-test-heres-whats-on-those-tests/

Is there any reason to believe that this boast is truthful?

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you saying Trump didn't ace it?

Anyway, it IS the PA, after all: If you give them money, they spend it on terrorism. Everybody knows that, and that includes Biden.

He's just kind of casual with Israeli lives.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The question I have is when will American (non-observant) Jews realize that "Kill the Jews" means kill them too -- just like it did the last time...

[Ed Grinberg]

Indeed.
It’s difficult to explain in non-psychiatric terms Jews who’ll vote for Biden in November. It is not quite on par with these guys, but it’s pretty damn close:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

[Frank Drackman]

Same reasons the Knee-Grows vote for the party who enslaved them, habit.

[David Nieporent]

It's not at all difficult to explain Jews who will vote for Biden in November. First of all, anyone who is voting in November is American. Americans should vote first and foremost based on American interests. Since Trump is a sociopathic treasonweasel who hates the United States, nobody who cares about the U.S. could vote for him.

Second, even if one put personal interests above national ones, Trump would be a terrible choice; he doesn't like or care about Jews, or Israel. It doesn't even work on a transactional level; Trump has no loyalty towards anyone, no matter what they've done for him in the past. (Ask Jeff Sessions.)

[Balisane]

No, the reason Jews will vote for Biden is that they care more about abortion than anything else.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Jews are the demographic always talking about abortion.

What a weird dude you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they and the Satanists are the only religions I know of where people are claiming in court that the religion mandates it. But, of course, every religion has it's nutcases insisting that their personal obsession is mandated by the religion.

[Nige]

'It’s difficult to explain in non-psychiatric terms Jews'

You're anti-semites who scream about anti-semitism because you support a war. It was never about supporting Jews, it was about supporting a war.

[Davedave]

So, just like your kind, except you can leave out the word 'about' in the first sentence.

Watching Nazis fight amongst themselves is endlessly amusing.

[Nige]

My kind go by what people say, you make stuff up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've been dealing with Hamas for 31 years now, they are a threat to us. 100+ arrests at Columbia today -- how many were born here?

[Ed Grinberg]

"He’s just kind of casual with Israeli lives."
That's bad enough in itself. I'd say he's also pretty casual with Americans' lives. (As long as that sweet sweet Chinese $$$ keeps rolling in...)

[Stella Link the dog]

"Are you saying Trump didn’t ace it?"

Seems to me that the claim is that we have no way of knowing if Trump aced such a test or not. We don't even have any reliable information about whether or not Trump took such a test. You get information at least as reliable from a magic 8-ball as you do from Trump.

Suppose that one might say that if Trump claimed to have aced such a test that it is more likely that he did not as whenever Trump makes a claim about his personal accomplishments he is most likely lying.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Seems to me that the claim is that we have no way of knowing if Trump aced such a test or not."

Technically true, in the same sense that, while Biden publicly refuses to take such a test, we have no way of knowing that he didn't take one and fail it...

[Sonja T]

martin - What does that have to do with Biden funding the PA - or Obama and Biden funding Iran.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's saying "look, a squirrel"

[Martinned2]

No, I'm saying that it is inherent in the concept of "boasting" that boasts aren't always truthful. The word itself implies a degree of skepticism about the speaker. No one ever refers to themselves as having boasted about anything.

[Bob from Ohio]

The headline calls it boasting, not the terrorist PA.

[Martinned2]

Yes, I know. Hence my question: Is there any reason to believe these statements?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, I’m saying that it is inherent in the concept of “boasting” that boasts aren’t always truthful.

"aren't always truthful" is not a synonym for "not likely to be truthful". In assessing that likelihood one must consider the source, their motives, past behavior, etc. Here, the source is Hamas, they're motivated to kill Jews with an end goal of destroying Israel and they have a long and consistent track record of trying to do exactly that. Given that, do you consider it more or less likely that they are in fact using at least some of the funds provided them by the current Administration to pay for terrorist/anti-Israel activities (remembering that cash is the most fungible of all assets)?

[Brett Bellmore]

"they’re motivated to kill Jews with an end goal of destroying Israel"

That's a common and relatively anodyne mistake. Their end goal is killing every non-Muslim on the face of the Earth. Jews in Israel are just first on the list.

Hamas Commander Reveals Ambitions Amid Ongoing Conflict

Sure, it's hilariously ambitious, but I'd advise taking them seriously anyway.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I would have no problem wiping Iran and Palestine off the face of the earth…so long as not one American soldier died. But a soldier also couldn’t die from blowback. So the reason we don’t do that is because the blowback from China and Russia wouldn’t be worth it because Iran and Hamas don’t pose a threat to the American homeland. Trump/Biden have the right idea—reduce our footprint until it’s very small which reduces the size of the target.

[Krayt]

I rather enjoy Pax Americana on the high seas. Keep the trade routes open.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That is power projection and I’ve always supported that and enforcing no fly zones. Trump’s last SecDef said it best…once the Army started setting up a FOB in Afghanistan he knew his job was done and the mission creep started…and that was early 2002. But keep in mind we are energy dominant and so really China should take over patrolling the energy trade routes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FOR AMERICAN FLAGGED SHIPS!!!
You want the US Navy protecting you, pay US taxes...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That’s a common and relatively anodyne mistake.

It's not a mistake at all. “they’re motivated to kill Jews with an end goal of destroying Israel” is in no way contradicted by "Their end goal is killing every non-Muslim on the face of the Earth. Jews in Israel are just first on the list." I'm referring to the end goal of their attacks on Jews in Israel.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know what an "end goal" is, don't you? If you plan to start killing people in NY, and continue until the whole country is depopulated, killing people in NY is not an "end goal", it's a step along the way.

This matters because some idiots stupidly think Hamas would go away if Israel did, or that they're safe from Hamas on account of not living in Israel, or not being a Jew. No, they'd just move on to the next target.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You do know what an “end goal” is, don’t you? If you plan to start killing people in NY, and continue until the whole country is depopulated, killing people in NY is not an “end goal”, it’s a step along the way.

You do know the difference between the end goal of a step and the end goal of an over all effort is, don't you? Take a software development project, for example. The end goal of the project as a whole might be to deliver an application that meets agreed upon specifications. But you divide that project up into individual units of works referred to as "tasks", with each task having it's own deliverable...or end goal...that contributes to the project.

This matters because some idiots stupidly think...

There are millions of idiots in the world, with a near-infinite number of stupid things that they think. That doesn't make what I said incorrect.

[David Nieporent]

Is there any reason to believe that this boast is truthful?

Not sure why you're questioning whether the boast is truthful, rather than whether the headline is. Read the article; it doesn't support the claim.

[Drewski]

It's funny because you exclusively rely on, believe, and defend Hamas's casualty reports, narratives, and accusations - even long after third parties have debunked them. But now when they admit to bad behavior - the sort of statement against interest that is more likely to be truthful than the self-serving statements you normally accept - you become skeptical?

[Martinned2]

I have never once relied on anyone's casualty reports, narratives, or accusations. If you read my comments, instead of relying on your vague memory of them or ideas about what "people like me" probably said/did, you'll find that I care relatively little about whether any particular event is a war crime (etc), and more about educating my American friends about what would and would not be a war crime.

For example, I have repeatedly explained that intentionally shooting at a human shield is probably a war crime. Whether Hamas actually uses human shields and whether the IDF actually shoots at them interests me less. This is a legal blog, and a fairly obvious point about intentionally shooting at civilians already seems to be very difficult to get across.

[Drewski]

Oct 9, 2023, you defended claims that Hamas's attack on Israel was justified by suggesting Israel has a policy of deliberately targeting civilians.

On the same day in another article, you claim that Israel was illegally targeting civilian infrastructure, an accusation Hamas had recently made. Turns out it wasn't true.

On Oct 23, 2023, you link to an HRW article that explicitly uses Hamas's casualty numbers and accuses Israel of war crimes based exclusively on Hamas's characterization of events. Ironically, you did so to prove that HRW was not biased against Israel because it acknowledges that Hamas committed war crimes.

That's three in a two-week span without checking open threads. You're basically left-wing Brett, spitting out bullshit then denying it because Reason makes it difficult to search for old comments. But I've had you flagged in my mind ever since you tried to defend Hamas's murder-rape spree, and everything you've written since then is viewed through that lens.

[Martinned2]

you did so to prove that HRW was not biased against Israel because it acknowledges that Hamas committed war crimes.

Yes. I didn't link to that article to argue that the facts, as alleged, actually happened. In the future, maybe you should read your own comment again before pressing Submit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The PA has committed to expanding the "pay for slay" annual budget by tens of millions of dollars to cover Palestinians who were killed or captured while carrying out Oct. 7 atrocities and the resulting war."

That makes the families unlawful combatants, and hence legitimizes what Israel is allegedly doing -- targeting the families along with the individual Hamas members.

And it prevents Brandon from saying much about it.

[Martinned2]

That makes the families unlawful combatants

It doesn't make them combatants, and it sure as hell doesn't make them unlawful combatants, whatever that means.

[John F. Carr]

In American culture this talk about unlawful combatants grew out of 9/11 and its aftermath. The Geneva Conventions require soldiers to wear distinctive insignia and carry arms openly. People who don't do that do not have the rights of prisoners of war. My recollection is the term "unlawful combatant" is not itself part of international law. It is a description of those who are combatants but are not protected by the relevant Conventions. This status was important to some Americans when the Guantanamo detention facility was opened.

[Martinned2]

"Unlawful combatants" is kind of like "illegal immigrants". In both cases the fact that the person broke the law is turned into a status, which then (politically) justifies all sorts of drastic action.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, the appearance of having broken the law carries the chance of triggering "drastic action" that's more commonly referred to as "law enforcement."

And "scare quotes" don't add new perspective to that.

[Martinned2]

GITMO isn't law enforcement

[Dr. Ed 2]

An "unlawful combatant" is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

And the rules of law would apply here.

[Martinned2]

The Geneva Conventions apply to all combatants, including combatants who themselves violate the Geneva Conventions.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Those are more guidelines…I actually supported torture until I realized Bush/Cheney were using it for false confessions. Democrats really dropped the ball on the torture investigation focusing on information when Americans aren’t going to care about torturing a lawful detainee to get information about a future attack…only AQ didn’t have any future attacks planned and so the torture was used to elicit false confessions tying Saddam to 9/11 which is obviously unAmerican and should have resulted in impeachment and removal of Bush/Cheney…and Hastert was a pedo.

[Frank Drackman]

Unless you served please stop commenting on the Geneva Convention(I know it's "Conventions" but only non-hackers who didn't serve use the plural form

[Stella Link the dog]

"Unless you served please stop"

So says the REMF.

[Frank Drackman]

I was a Doc with a Marine Corpse Infantry Battalion, at the Front of the Front, Bee-Otch

[Stella Link the dog]

Why should anyone believe you? You've demonstrated numerous times that you are a mentally defective fraudster.

[Drewski]

Gee, you used to be a flight surgeon in the Army. What an amazing career, only slightly marred by being fictional.

[Stella Link the dog]

A general rule about random knobs on the internet claiming some sort of heroic military service -- they are almost always lying.

As they say, on the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog.

[John F. Carr]

The Third Geneva Convention (prisoners of war) does not protect all combatants. Members of regular militaries are protected. So are a few other defined groups. The most relevant protected group where Al Qaeda and Hamas are concerned is

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Civilians who spontaneously take up arms in defense must follow the last two until they organize themselves.

The expression "unlawful combatant" as used in post-2001 American politics means approximately the same as "not entitled to POW status".

[Brett Bellmore]

So, based on b and d they're not covered.

[John F. Carr]

They do not get the protections granted to prisoners of war. However, if they surrender or become incapable of fighting they are protected from "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

[Frank Drackman]

Unless you served please stop commenting on the Geneva Convention(I know it's "Conventions" but only non-hackers who didn't serve use the plural form)

[David Nieporent]

That makes the families unlawful combatants,

How fucking stupid is Dr. Ed? It doesn't make them combatants at all, let alone "unlawful" ones. But, then, he still thinks that there were Vietnamese combatants at My Lai, so…

[Artifex]

"he still thinks that there were Vietnamese combatants at My Lai, so…"

As does Wikipedia and several other accounts including a letter by District Chief, Son Tinh complaining that the American forces were massacring civilians in addition to the VC. Shall I conclude you are using your pedant superpowers to simply redefine “Vietnamese combatants at My Lai” or are you simply ignorant of the actual material ?

[Absaroka]

Are you referring to this wiki article? If so, could you point out where it says there were Viet combatants? It's a long article, and I didn't read all of it, but this doesn't indicate enemy troops being present:

"William Thomas Allison, a professor of Military History at Georgia Southern University, wrote, "By midmorning, members of Charlie Company had killed hundreds of civilians and raped or assaulted countless women and young girls. They encountered no enemy fire and found no weapons in My Lai itself".[49]

By the time the killings stopped, Charlie Company had suffered one casualty – a soldier who had intentionally shot himself in the foot to avoid participating in the massacre – and just three enemy weapons were confiscated."

[Artifex]

"I didn’t read all of it, but this doesn’t indicate enemy troops being present ..."

So you probably read it about as well as Nieporent . It states:

Confirming their suspicions, the gunships engaged several armed enemies in the vicinity of Mỹ Lai, killing four; later, one weapon was retrieved from the site.

This is where my question about the form the pedantry was taking arose from. Is DNP dishonestly playing the game that since the VC were in the vicinity of My Lai they weren't really in My Lai, or is the game being played that 4 is such a small number that it is really zero ? In any event', before the massacre really got going there were combatants present though they were trying to bug out as fast as possible and no, this does not excuse US troops.

Also, I suspect four is the official US number, the Vietnamese number looks different. Son Tinh notes:

While the VC were withdrawing from the hamlet, 48 VC and more than 52 guerillas and self defense soldiers were wounded by helicopter gun ships.

... and before we get into some conspiracy theory, this is from the guy formally complaining about the Americans killing civilians and not seeking to put them in a good light.

[Absaroka]

Thanks. I had seen that part. 'in the vicinity' and 'at' aren't quite the same thing. After all, few places in South Vietnam didn't have some VC 'in the vicinity'. The question would seem to be whether that distance was small enough to be a factor in triggering the massacre. I don't know so won't comment further.

However, if Ed was using that as justification for the massacre et al, it doesn't matter it the US troops were under heavy fire. No amount of incoming justifies, for example, gang rapes.

[Artifex]

"The question would seem to be whether that distance was small enough to be a factor in triggering the massacre. I don’t know so won’t comment further."

If you actually read the source material instead of just the wiki, it is much more clear. My point is simply that if you are going to be a snarky asshole like Nieporent and bitch about the many sins of Dr Ed, it might behove you to actually understand something about the subject you are ranting about and be a tad bit more honest.

"No amount of incoming justifies, for example, gang rapes."

I couldn't agree more.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"No amount of incoming justifies, for example, gang rapes"

A favorite tactic of Hamas....

And how many gang rapes (or rapes per se) were there that day at Mi Lai? I heard one attempted with the soldier ordered to stop, and that the concern was the mass murder, but I wasn't there...

But my point is what does it mean to be a "combatant" (I'll leave out the "lawful" part) in a 21st Century terrorist war? What are the implications of the families getting the "pay to slay" awards?

They are at least providing aid & comfort to a combatant....

[Brett Bellmore]

If a US soldier dies in combat, their survivors get benefits, do they not? Does that make a soldier's wife or child a combatant?

Of course it's a problem that Biden has been sending pallet loads of money to Hamas, that Hamas uses to fund its operations, including paying out death benefits to the families of dead terrorists. It's a BIG problem that Biden is obsessed with borrowing money to send to our enemies!

But they're still not made into combatants by getting death benefits.

[Absaroka]

"And how many gang rapes (or rapes per se) were there that day at Mi Lai?"

From the previously linked article: "According to the Peers Commission Investigation, the U.S. government allocated commission for inquiry into the incident, concluded at least 20 Vietnamese women and girls were raped during the Mỹ Lai massacre. Since there had been little research over the case other than that of the Peers Commission, which solely accounts the cases with explicit rapes signs like torn cloth and nudity, the actual number of rapes are not easy to estimate. According to the reports, the rape victims ranged between the ages of 10 – 45, with nine being under 18. The sexual assaults included gang rapes and sexual torture.[51]

No U.S. serviceman was charged with rape. According to an eyewitness, as reported by Seymour Hersh in his book on the massacre, a woman was raped after her children were killed by the U.S. soldiers. Another Vietnamese villager also noticed soldiers rape a 13-year-old girl."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Columbia is having the guts to do what UMass won't -- they are actually arresting their Hamas activists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFsT53r24oE

Let the little darlings spend the weekend out on Riker's Island and then deport them.

[Martinned2]

Interesting case in England today, where the Solicitor General (yes, his name is Courts) is trying to prosecute someone for standing outside court with a sign that read "Jurors you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience".

Note that the Solicitor General considers that that is not accurate, but that the case does not rest on that. He argues that, even if it was an accurate statement of the law, it would still be unlawful because it is an attempt to influence the jury, and therefore criminal contempt of court.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/what-can-you-tell-jurors

[Brett Bellmore]

Penn and Mead would like a word with the SG.

The SG is wrong, of course, but both in the US and England the guys in the room with law licenses really hate letting the jury know their rights, and WILL punish anybody who tells them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not going to pretend to speak authoritatively about England, but in the federal system in the U.S. and every state I’m familiar with p, jurors are required to follow the law, including the requirement to convict a criminal defendant if the evidence proves all of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (and doesn’t establish a defense). To make the system work, we don’t generally allow consequences to be imposed if they don’t follow the law—but that the fact that they’re virtually guaranteed to get away with ignoring their duty makes it all the more important that they take it seriously.

and WILL punish anybody who tells them.

You may want to look at those cases I mention.

[Brett Bellmore]

"To make the system work, we don’t generally allow consequences to be imposed if they don’t follow the law"

It's not a choice. The Supreme court itself has admitted that jurors can't be punished for it. And there's not much question that jury nullification was a component of the right to trial by jury as originally guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Jury nullification is kind of the POINT of having juries. But it's another of our traditional rights that got in the way of the Union after the Civil war; Southern juries kept nullifying, so good bye jury nullification.

Reconstruction and the Transformation of Jury Nullification

The question is whether such a fundamental element of trial by jury can really be abolished without an explicit constitutional amendment saying it's being abolished.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In the only jury trial before scotus in history, jurors were instructed that they could judge the law as well as the facts if they chose.

[Nelson]

"Southern juries kept nullifying, so good bye jury nullification."

So proof that jury nullification literally lets people get away with murder isn't a valid argument that jury nullification is a bad thing?

If that doesn't prove jury nullification destroys the rule of law and allows a single juror to substitute their personal biases for the law, then nothing will.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Lots of things literally let people get away with murder. Prosecutorial discretion, the exclusionary rule, double jeopardy, etc. that doesn’t make them bad things.

[Brett Bellmore]

Jury nullification destroys the rule of law just as much as prosecutorial discretion and executive pardons do. And no more than they do.

[Martinned2]

Prosecutors answer to their superiors. Jurors answer to no one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So?

[Martinned2]

So jury nullification and prosecutorial discretion are not the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

Jurors ARE the people, they ARE who's supposed to be answered to.

Jury trials had essentially two purposes:

1) Your peers would likely bring to the trial some local knowledge of the situation, that would be useful in deciding the case.

Lawyers have systematically gutted that element, of course, making jurors into the proverbial mushrooms. "Kept in the dark and fed bullshit".

2) They bring to the courtroom the public's values, to prevent prosecutions that offend the public's sense of what ought to be a crime.

Lawyers have also systematically gutted that element, too, by lying to the jury about their legal rights.

What's been going on here is that the lawyers in the legal system have been working hard to transform a jury system into as close to a non-jury system as they can feasibly achieve, because they're offended by the idea that anybody who isn't a lawyer exercises any power in a courtroom.

[Martinned2]

Jurors are "people", but they are not "the people". So no, they are not in charge of what the law is or should be.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, jurors are a supposedly representative sample of "the people".

And, yes, in a democracy they ARE supposed to be in charge of what the law is or should be. Juries are one expression of that, elections another.

The fact that modern governments are working hard to roll that back doesn't mean that isn't why we had jury trials in the first place.

[Martinned2]

Here is how Joshua Rozenberg summarised the Solicitor General's view:

He says jurors have a power to acquit a defendant regardless of a judge’s directions — but they have no such right. They cannot be ordered to convict and they cannot be punished for acquitting on conscientious grounds. But they have a legal duty to apply the law as defined by the judge to the facts as they find them and to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence.

I hope that on this blog we don't have to spend time on the distinction between a duty, a power, and a right.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The SG, and judges, are entitled to their opinions. But if the issue isn’t justiciable, why do their opinions matter?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, who says that jurors don’t have that right, and who has the authority to decide what the rights and duties of the jurors are?

[Martinned2]

The judge does. We'll hear his (initial) view on Monday.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The judge gets to decide whether or not this guy has a right to tell jurors that they have a right to acquit based on their conscience.

But judges don't have the authority to decide whether or not jurors who exercise that right are really exercising a power in violation of their duty. If they did, they'd be able to stop it. As I said above, the scope of a juror's duties is not justiciable.

It's like me saying that judges have the power to rule in ways that I don't like, but they are violating their duty when they rule in ways that I think are clearly against the constitution. I can say it all I want, but I can't do anything about it.

[Absaroka]

Question: IIUC, juries can decide the facts as they like; if they say 'we believe the defendant when he says 'a bird must have dropped the suitcase of drugs into my car trunk', that's the end of it.

Is it also true that the jury can give a press conference and say 'sure, he was running drugs, and his bird story is preposterous, but we disagree with drug laws and so we acquitted'? Does the acquittal stand? Are there consequences for the jury?

Juries don't have complete freedom - I'm pretty sure they could be punished for taking a bribe, for example. What are the boundaries of punishable jury misconduct?

(FWIW, I'm more interested in 'is' than 'ought' here)

[Martinned2]

Well, the judge can order that this lady (!) be locked up, and the grounds for doing so may or may not include that her summary of the law was incorrect. If that's not a legally binding decision on the scope of a juror's duties, I don't know what is. I guess you can have an Act of Parliament if you like.

By the way, if it interests you, the OG English precedent is apparently Bushel's Case (1670), holding:

it does not appear by this retorn that the jurors acquitted the prisoners corruptly, or that the evidence against them was manifest to the jurors, Bract. 288. Flet. b. 336, n. 9. It is the duty of a Judge to examine the jury, and of a juror to answer, and if he will not answer, or shall give a verdict contrary to their answer, in either case he is finable, Bract. 289, and he said that in this all the Judges except one were unanimous. He put this difference between the oath of a witness and that of a juror. The witness swears more generally on his senses, the juror by collection and inference, by the act and force of his understanding. He agreed The Earl of Northumberland's case, 5 H, 4, whereof mention is made in Coke, Juriadict. cap. Parl. p. 23, that a retorn in general that he was committed for treason was admitted, on this reason, that in causes capital, the prisoner may demand his trial, which ought not to be denied, and then the particular fact ought to be put in the indictment; otherwise it is where the party is only to be remanded. As to the second part of the retorn, quia dederunt veredictum contra direct' Cur' in materia legis, he said that this is wholly insensible, for no jury can be charged in matter of law; and if this retorn should be good, there will be no use of a jury. The direction of the Judge in civil pleas ought to be hypothetiek, if the fact be found such, then for the plaintiff or defendant, but never positive or coercive, nor is the jury finable

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/1670/J1.html

But then, this is before defendants were entitled to counsel (if I remember correctly), so who knows?

[Absaroka]

"Well, the judge can order that this lady (!) be locked up"

To be clear, she wasn't on a jury; she is charged with jury tampering. There are similar cases in the US, with mixed outcomes. Googling 'FIJA' ought to find some.

I'm curious, though, about consequences for the jurors themselves.

[Martinned2]

No one is proposing any action with respect to the jurors, as far as I know. I think it isn't even clear whether she was trying to influence the jurors in a particular case, or whether that matters for these contempt proceedings.

It is possible that she was there because of this trial, but I don't think anyone has confirmed that yet: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/24/insulate-britain-activists-trauma-climate-court-trials

[Martinned2]

Because they are learned in the law?

[SRG2]

both in the US and England the guys in the room with law licenses really hate letting the jury know their rights, and WILL punish anybody who tells them.

Nope. The best-example is the Ponting trial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting

In cases of official secrets and obscenity, defence barristers have been known to suggest to juries that a conviction would be wrong, regardless of the government's position and the law.

The British government has tried to fix the law to prevent a repeat, but I think it will still be the case that a jury would flatly ignore the law if they thought that the true purpose of the trial was to punish someone for disclosing government malfeasance.

[Martinned2]

I guess we'll find out if/when Julian Assange comes to the US.

[Davedave]

ROFL. No, Martin, it's only you and your fash friends who love Assange.

[Frank Drackman]

Naw, I like (not love, there's a difference) him too. There'd still be Amuricans getting killed in Ear-Rock and Off-Gone-E- Stan (instead of Syria and Egypt) if it wasn't for him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I guess we’ll find out if/when Julian Assange comes to the US."

How many Americans know who this guy is? 1 in 100?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably, he needs to start dating Taylor Swift

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wouldn't he have to register as a sex offender?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I strongly suspect a plea deal will make that experiment impossible.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ah that’s our Brett. Confidently thinking he knows more about English law than the Solicitor General of England and Wales by linking to “constitution.org” a site about the US Constitution.

[Nelson]

Oh, the humanity!

[Noscitur a sociis]

For a look at how American courts address this, cf. Turney v. State., 936 P.3d 533 (Alaska 1997) with People v. Iannicelli, 449 P.3d 387 (Colo. 2019).

[LawTalkingGuy]

The UK has given other great examples of nominative determinism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge

[Martinned2]

And Sir John Laws, the judge who decided the Metric Martyrs case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Laws_(judge)

[hobie]

Life in an all black Cleveland ghetto is like a paradise. Evictions are constant. Today the gangsters across the street got booted and all their crap thrown on the lawn. Basically it's like weekly garage sales where everything is free and the owners are long gone. Got me a nice $400 offset pit smoker. Now I can show these yankees how we do things in Texas.

[Ridgeway]

Things I learned in a hobo jungle, are things they never taught me in a class room...

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Cleveland has two seasons—winter and road repair season. Do you have off street parking?? I was going to buy a cheap house in Chicago thinking if I had off street parking and bars on my windows (and smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors) I could live anywhere.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why does anyone try to sneak across the border?

[hobie]

The houses here are mansions and they're cheap as chips. You just have to get past the notion that it's full of black people. No discernible crime here that I can see. Just people living their lives

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I have never lived around only white people. I find people like talking about NFL and cars and car trouble and so you have something in common with everyone. Chicago has Michelin starred restaurants and you can buy $150k craftsman on the Southside near University of Chicago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in the 70's my dad did a stint as a realtor, during an auto union strike. I used to look at his card catalogue of houses.

Always amazed me that there were houses in Detroit I could afford on my allowance. Well, I didn't know about "back taxes" at the time, but still, damn, they were cheap!

[Krychek_2]

Regarding claims by Trump supporters that the Democrats are engaging in selective-prosecution lawfare:

During the OJ Simpson murder trial, two things were simultaneously true: The police really were racist, and OJ Simpson really did commit two murders. There is no conflict between those two statements.

Likewise, with the Trump trials, two things are simultaneously true: The Democrats are using the legal system to try to keep Trump out of the White House, and Trump really did do most of the stuff he's accused of. No conflict between those two statements either.

[tylertusta]

I think you’re missing something:

1. The Democrats are using the legal system to try to keep Trump out of the White House.
2. Trump really did do most of the stuff he’s accused of.
3. Most (arguably all) of what Trump did weren’t even crimes to begin with.
4. See 1.

[Moderation4ever]

How about selective interpretation of the law. Its a crime if other do it but not a crime if Trump does it.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm pretty sure most of this stuff isn't a crime no matter who does it. The possible exception being the national security documents case.

[hobie]

Coordinating the dissemination of false documents to Congress to nullify the legitimate votes of millions is kinda a thing, Brett. I wouldn’t like it if my vote got erased

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already addressed that in a previous comment thread.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I’ve already addressed that in a previous comment thread."

effetely

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t like conspiracy laws.

That doesn’t make them not laws.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, even unjust laws are "laws", but that's no reason to pretend they aren't unjust.

[Sarcastr0]

So most of the stuff is crimes, then.

[Kleppe]

"It's a crime if others do it but not a crime if Trump does it"

Nobody has ever been charged for what Trump is being charged with in NYC. The charges rest on at least 3* entirely novel legal theories. You don't get to make this go away by just shrugging and mumbling some shit about "nobody is above the law," Everybody can see what this is.

[windycityattorney]

Categorically not true. Thousands of people have been charged with falsifying business records in New York. I know you won't like the source but I just came across this earlier and if there is something wrong about the data... I am open to correction about it.

Now it is true that what is unique is that most people charged with this don't falsify records because it would hurt their presidential campaign but that is just because a very small minority of people run for president. The charge itself, falsifying business records, happens a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/opinion/donald-trump-trial-prison.html

[Brett Bellmore]

"falsify records because it would hurt their presidential campaign"

Elsewhere on this very site Sullum is mocking this notion. Why?

Because the alleged falsification occurred after the election was already over. So, how would not having done it have hurt his Presidential campaign?

[David Nieporent]

Nobody has ever been charged for what Trump is being charged with in NYC.

Untrue. Falsifying business records is a very common charge in NY.

[Riva]

Yeah, everyday Bragg takes an alleged misdemeanor where the statute of limitations has expired, and bootstraps it into a felony (34 times with some cut and paste) by alleging a federal campaign law violation that was not found to exist by the SDNY, the FEC and is completely unsupported by the federal case law. Very common in NY. Also common is judges with statutory conflicts of interest violations to oversee trials. And even more is top former DOJ officials from the Biden regime making a career move to work as prosecutors in the Manhattan DA’s office. You are completely, oh what is the technical term…full of shit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So your position is that Trump may have done the crimes, but they were just misdemeanours, which don't count?

[Riva]

That's what you got from my pointing out the above shithead was full of shit when claiming that this corrupt Biden orchestrated nonsense is not just a common everyday occurrence in NY? You're more of shithead than the shithead I originally answered.

[David Nieporent]

Biden orchestrated nonsense

Speaking of shitheads, are you completely incapable of telling the truth about anything? Or is that only in the political realm?

[Riva]

You might want look into Michael Colangelo. Are you completely incapable of telling the truth about anything? And I don't know why you're so angry. You've got your banana republic political prosecution, with an all but guaranteed outcome at the trial court level with a conflicted judge and biased jury. Due process, justice? Who gives an F when soon you'll have that campaign selling point to be repeated until the end of time by the media, convicted felon Donald Trump, regardless that this abuse of process is eventually overturned. To call you clowns shitheads is frankly not good enough and an insult to shitheads.

[David Nieporent]

You might want look into Michael Colangelo.

Like tens of thousands of other people, Matthew — not Michael — Colangelo used to work for the DOJ. He does not work there anymore, and thus has nothing to do with Joe Biden.

[Riva]

Yeah, typical career path for a former top DOJ official. Just another day. Nothing to see here. Doesn't the lying obfuscation ever stop with you guys? Apparently it doesn't.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The fact that SDNY prosecuted those campaign finance violations and obtained a guilty plea might, just possibly, call into question your assertion that SDNY determined that those campaign finance violations did not exist.

[Riva]

But the didn't prosecute President Trump. If the facts supported a prosecution, they would have fallen over themselves to indict. They didn't because the facts here don't support any federal criminal charges.

[David Nieporent]

The fact that Biden didn't prosecute Trump proves that Biden is out to get Trump!

[Riva]

They let that fat Soros slug Bragg handle that, with some assistance from former DOJ official Colangelo, because the federal charge was too absurd even for the corrupt DOJ. And they had the unconstitutionally appointed “special counsel” and GA crap too. Cheer up. You’ve got the banana republic of your dreams. My only consolation, if you scum succeed, is that you’ll get to live in a third world shithole.

[not guilty]

"Yeah, everyday Bragg takes an alleged misdemeanor where the statute of limitations has expired, and bootstraps it into a felony (34 times with some cut and paste) by alleging a federal campaign law violation that was not found to exist by the SDNY, the FEC and is completely unsupported by the federal case law."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Riva? The statute of limitations was tolled when Donald Trump moved to Florida in 2018. The felony statute charged here is New York Penal Law § 175.10 (2022), which provides:

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

Actual commission of the intended other crime is not an element of the offense; the mere intent to do so, or to aid or conceal suffices to elevate the misdemeanor offense to a felony.

The other crime need not have been committed by the § 175.10 defendant himself, so long as the defendant intended to aid or conceal another's commission thereof. And Michael Cohen did commit a campaign finance violation, as evidenced by his 2018 guilty plea. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax

[Riva]

WTF? Cohen? The perjuring wonder Cohen? President Trump is somehow guilty of a crime he didn't commit because that shithead perjurer Cohen plead guilty to something. If you're a lawyer, you should be disbarred.

[not guilty]

I actually didn't say that Donald Trump is guilty because Michael Cohen pled guilty to a federal campaign finance violation. I said, in response to your false assertion that "a federal campaign law violation . . . was not found to exist by the SDNY", that Michael Cohen's guilty plea is evidence that Cohen did commit a campaign finance violation. Granted, that evidence is not conclusive as to Trump, but the acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment thereupon represents a finding by a federal judge of the Southern District of New York that a federal campaign law violation was indeed found to exist by the SDNY. Your assertion to the contrary is a flat out lie.

The thrust of my comment upthread is that you are full of shit in describing what is charged in the New York prosecution. You lied about the statute of limitations. You lied about the elements of the state offense. And you lied about whether the SDNY found a federal campaign law violation.

[Frank Drackman]

Thou Doth Protest-eth too much-eth, Fag-eth

[David Nieporent]

Granted, that evidence is not conclusive as to Trump,

I just want to point out that the crime being covered up under 175.10 need not be by the person who violated 175.10. They need not prove that Trump committed any violation of campaign finance law. If Michael Cohen did, and if Trump falsified business records to help cover that up, then Trump violated 175.10.

[not guilty]

"I just want to point out that the crime being covered up under 175.10 need not be by the person who violated 175.10. They need not prove that Trump committed any violation of campaign finance law. If Michael Cohen did, and if Trump falsified business records to help cover that up, then Trump violated 175.10."

Yes, I understand and agree with that. I meant that Cohen's plea does not have the effect of collateral estoppel as to Trump, who was not a party to the Cohen litigation. Cohen's plea is evidence of Cohen's having committed a federal campaign finance violation. If Trump falsified business records intending to aid or conceal Cohen's commission of that federal offense, then Trump is culpable for the state felony.

[Riva]

And I would like to point out that you are all TDS deranged morons. Cohen pled guilty to five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a bank, one count of causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution. WTF does that have to do with anything that fat slob Bragg and his Biden crony (again that would be Michael Colangelo) have alleged against President Trump? TDS, combined with just glaring f'ing stupidity, and sprinkled with an apparent vicarious enjoyment of communist style police state trials.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Liar" is a bit strong; he seems to have a similar relationship to the truth as his hero, Donald Trump.

Trump is evidently mentally incapable of differentiating fact from fiction, which effectively excuses him from "lying". It also disqualifies him from holding any position of adult responsibility, but that's another issue.

[Riva]

you don't read as Obviously Not Spam to me. Are you sure you have the right alias?

[Riva]

To clarify further for the TDS deranged, budding fascist left, to allege that President Trump conspired with Cohen to violate federal election contribution limits (which the fat slob Bragg has zero jurisdiction over anyway) is to allege that President Trump made an "illegal" campaign contribution to himself after the election. The only violation would be at best failure to make an FEC report. What is that? A fine? But it isn't even that. Good thing there is a corrupt slob DA, conflicted judge and biased jury, otherwise they'd be laughed out of court.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Nobody has ever been charged for what Trump is being charged with in NYC.

That's quite the unqualified declaration from an uninformed, unqualified blowhard -- and precisely the level of legal analysis veteran readers of the Volokh Conspiracy have come to expect at this "academic" "legal" "libertarian" blog.

[Kazinski]

It certainly is true in the NY trial. Can you point to any other similar prosecution?

When it takes years of research to even find charges that are merely farfetched then that clearly is an improper prosecution. Especially when the prosecutor ran for election on platform of finding something, anything to charge Trump with.

Now the other prosecutions in DC and Florida and Atlanta may not be on such shaky legal ground, but the NY charges are beyond any justification.

[not guilty]

"When it takes years of research to even find charges that are merely farfetched then that clearly is an improper prosecution."

No, Kazinski, as a matter of constitutional law, the burden of showing selective prosecution is on the proponent of the claim. A presumption of regularity supports prosecutorial decisions and, "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996), quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926). In the ordinary case, "so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion." Ibid., quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).

[Kazinski]

I didn't say Bragg couldn't get away with it under NY law, but what I stated are the facts:

It did take years of research and a novel legal theory to find something to charge Trump with.

Bragg did campaign on finding something, anything to prosecute Trump with.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How about if you specifically use the word "clearly" in your allegation?

Surely, that counts as "clear evidence"...

[Kazinski]

It's clear to me, but may not be clear under the law. And I won't be the first to observe that "If the law supposed that, then the law is a ass."

[Noscitur a sociis]

What things is Trump accused of doing that aren’t (weren’t?) crimes?

[Krychek_2]

I'd like to hear the answer to that too.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, paying his lawyer for obtaining an NDA, and recording it as a legal expense, for starters.

[Sonja T]

That would be a legal expense. The only issue is whether it is a business legal expense or a personal legal expense which would affect the tax deductibility of the expense. Yet he is not being charged with any income tax issues and the statute of limitations has expired. While the statute of limitations never starts for tax fraud for federal purpose, (and I presume NY has a similar provision for NY statute of limitations). Since that issue is not being pursued, its a good indication that they dont have a case for the disallowance of what would be considered a personal expense. Just further indication, that the case is exceedingly weak.

[windycityattorney]

He didn't pay a lawyer for an NDA. Otherwise he would have simply transferred money to Cohen to put in his lawyer/client trust account and then Cohen would have paid stormy from that same account and billed Trump for the hours to draft the NDA and negotiate it/execute it. Cohen paid Stormy from his own money. Trump paid Cohen 300k to pay Stormy 130k through a fake shell company to hide it.

Get the facts right. Because in a case like this, those factual details matter. As it shows intent to conceal/hide the payment.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It does suggest that the participants thought what they were doing was illegal, but the prosecution still has to prove that it was illegal.

[David Nieporent]

That is, as typical for you, not an accurate description. Again: he's being charged with recording a payment to Stormy Daniels as a legal expense.

If I hand my lawyer $500 and say "Give this to Brett for me," that's not a legal expense just because I handed it to my lawyer rather than handing it to you directly.

[Sonja T]

DM
The character of the expense remains the same. Paying the expense to a 3rd party who then pays the final recipient doesnt change the character of the expense.

[David Nieporent]

The character of the expense remains the same. Paying the expense to a 3rd party who then pays the final recipient doesnt change the character of the expense.

Yes; that was literally my point. Since the actual payee was Stormy Daniels, it does not become a legal expense simply because the money was given to Cohen first.

[Riva]

Is he really Dave? That is the felony being charged? 34 of them actually. Some bullshit misdeamor whose limitations has expired? Like I said before. You are full of shit.

[Armchair]

Technically, that's not an accurate description.

For most of the charges, the actual document in question is a check stub with the phrase "retainer for (date1 to date2)." Not even "legal services" for most of the charges, but merely "retainer".

It's an extremely attenuated charge, because in addition to the money associated with the NDA, there was the legal work of the NDA itself and the negotiations for it.

Let's give you an example using something else. You hire a contractor to refurbish your bathroom. As part of that, the contractor uses some of the money you pay him to pay for the materials for the refurbishment, in addition to the work he does on the refurbishment." You work out a monthly installment plan for the work, and on the check write "For work refurbishing the bathroom."

Under this very stretched legal definition, you've committed fraud. Because "some" of the money was actually used for materials to refurbish the bathroom and not the work itself.

In the Trump case, Trump paid his lawyer to handle the NDA as a "one stop shop" where the lawyer would handle everything...the fees for the NDA and the legal expenses for the NDA itself. Like a contractor would buy the materials AND do the work on the bathroom, then handled the payments on a recurring basis...like an installment plan.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ummm... How much "legal work" do you imagine is involved in drafting an NDA?

Sorry! Rhetorical question.

Okay, I'll try again. What do you think a "retainer" paid to a lawyer is for? Foot massages?

[Armchair]

"How much “legal work” do you imagine is involved in drafting an NDA"
And buying rights to a story. And negotiating back and forth. It's a non-trivial amount. Cohen charged $50,000 in addition to the $130,000 for the NDA itself. Is that really different from a contractor who charges $130,000 for materials and $50,000 for his own labor?

"What do you think a “retainer” paid to a lawyer is for"
Keeping them around if you need them. Doesn't need to be for legal services, technically speaking.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You habitually write profoundly stupid things, Mr. Bellmore.

Have you considered enrolling at South Texas College of Law Houston and joining the federal law clerks' clinger division?

[not guilty]

Actually, Brett would be unable to hack it at any law school. He seems congenitally incapable of accepting the existence of any law that conflicts with his preconceptions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have, thank goodness, never attended a law class at Regent, Liberty, Ave Maria, or Brigham Young, but I would expect to observe that Mr. Bellmore would fit right in at any of those schools. Notre Dame wouldn't be far behind on that list.

And I can think of a number of federal judges who would eagerly court Mr. Bellmore as a clerk. The bigots and superstition-addled culture war casualties.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, I'm congenitally incapable of approving of any law that conflicts with my preconceptions. I'm tragically aware that they exist, damn them. Their existence doesn't obligate me to approve of them.

[Sarcastr0]

You learn about a lot of bad laws in law school.

But you, when you don't approve of a law, you can't seem to act like it is the law and deal with the actual state of the law in the real world.

Not only that, anyone who disagree with you about the law isn't a reasonable person who differs, or an unreasonable person who differs, but a villain who actually agrees with you but is lying about it.

And, finally, people who are in your political opposition cannot act professionally or objectively in your eye; they are all pure partisan actors.

Each of these three is a fundamental issue if you want to practice law. Most people don't have any of these inabilities, much less all three.

[SRG2]

Easy.

18 U.S.C. § 1519

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, unless that person be Donald John Trump, in which case this section shall not apply.

[John Rohan]

Trump isn't being charged under that law. The case is in NY.

And it requires intent to defraud. Kind of hard to defraud Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels when they all knew what the payments were for. At worst, the only person "defrauded" was Trump's wife, because he was trying to keep the payment from her. But as a spouse, she shares assets with Trump. If she divorced, she could bring that up though.

[SRG2]

Nor did I say he was. Noscitur asked a general question, not restricted to NY law, on a thread about prosecuting Trump in general.

[Riva]

Maybe you should randomly quote other federal criminal statutes? It makes you look so informed.

[SRG2]

It wasn't random. It was from one of the statutes under which Trump was charged in Florida - a charge which his supporters seem to think isn't criminal when he does it.

[Riva]

We don't think the law doesn't exist. We think the unconstitutionally appointed hack Smith is full of shit.

[not guilty]

Riva, I am still trying to figure out whether you are actually as stupid as your comments suggest or whether your commentary is a clever parody of MAGA supporters, worthy of Poe's Law.

[SRG2]

Do you think that Trump broke the law? I am not asking about the constitutionality of Smith prosecuting the case.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you should randomly quote other federal criminal statutes? It makes you look so informed.

Whereas literally nothing you say makes you look informed.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Uh the whole thing he was fined half a billion dollars for.

The "illegal campaign contribution".

Saying "I didn't rape that woman". That cost him $75M.

Tell the SOS your election was fraudulent and you want all lawful votes found and counted.

[SRG2]

PFFFFT, he was not fined half a billion dollars - because he was not fined at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, technically they called the fine 'disgorging illegal profits' or some such nonsense. A distinction without a difference.

[SRG2]

A distinction without a difference.

Nope. Come on, Brett, you're not an idiot like PFFFFT. If a fraudster has to return the proceeds of his fraud - and no more - that's not a fine, right?

[Balisane]

The fraud that not of the alleged victims believe occurred?

[SRG2]

The category of bankers who will admit in public that they were defrauded is, unsurprisingly, small. But my point applies to fraudsters in general, not in this specific instance. If you swindle someone out of $1mm and later have to return that million, is that return a fine? Nope.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but, critically, he didn’t swindle anybody out of a half billion dollars. He maybe “swindled” them into giving him a slightly lower rate of interest, if you ignore that they didn’t actually rely on the representations in question.

So, if I overstate the value of a house I’m buying, to get a better rate on my mortgage by claiming it’s a lower percentage of the value of the house, and then flip the house and pay off the mortgage in full, how much would I normally have to disgorge?

The entire selling price of the house? Or the difference in the interest paid?

Bragg is going for the former, but only the latter is plausibly a result of the ‘swindle’.

[Sarcastr0]

He maybe “swindled” them into giving him a slightly lower rate of interest

That’s a lot of money, Brett.

they didn’t actually rely on the representations in question
That is absolutely not established. In fact, in order to get there, you need the judge to be in on the conspiracy.

[SRG2]

Brett: I suspect that Engoron did not believe the bankers, and IMO he was right not to do so. I have enough experience on Wall Street to think it quite likely that the bankers did rely on his representation and possibly an oral commitment or two but would subsequently deny it - even under oath - because they would not want to admit that they circumvented their own P&Ps.

[David Nieporent]

Brett: I suspect that Engoron did not believe the bankers, and IMO he was right not to do so. I have enough experience on Wall Street to think it quite likely that the bankers did rely on his representation and possibly an oral commitment or two but would subsequently deny it – even under oath – because they would not want to admit that they circumvented their own P&Ps.

1) Reliance is not an element of Executive Law § 63(12).
2) Contrary to MAGA myth, the bank did not testify that it did not rely on his representations, nor did it testify that it was so happy with the outcome that it would do business with Trump again.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That’s a lot of money, Brett."

Yeah, but not half a billion "lot of money".

[loki13]

Brett, since you view it as incorrect, why don't you go through the actual opinion and point out where the numbers are incorrect.

Obviously, it might be hard for you to review all the witness testimony. So I will assist and provide you with the pinpoint cites where it is summarized (numbers are approximate)-
p. 82- $162 million (joint and several liability on DT and entities)
P. 83- $126 million (joint and several liability on DT and entities)
p. 83- $4 million (Eric Trump)
p. 83- $4 million (DT jr.)
p. 84- $60 million ((joint and several liability on DT and entities)
p. 84- $1 million (Allen Weisselberg)
p. 84-5- prejudgment interest (not listed in order, but totals to $100 million).

Total for DT- ~453 million with interest.

So, what calculations are incorrect given the findings? Not that you think that this is all wrong and witch hunt, but given the factual findings under the law, why is this an incorrect figure?

[Riva]

Everything in the NY disgrace, the GA disgrace and everything alleged by the unconstitutionally appointed "special counsel." And on top of that we have gross violations of due process in all of the above kangaroo proceedings. But I guess if one likes communist style police state prosecutions against the political rivals of the regime in power, it's all good.

[SRG2]

"Trump can do no wrong" is not a bedrock of US constitutional jurisprudence.

[Riva]

I would say political prosecutions are not a bedrock of US constitutional jurisprudence. I would say the same if a republican president were targeting his democrat rival, nothwithstanding that I despise the democrat agenda. Try to show a modicum of integrity.

[SRG2]

Try to show a modicum of integrity.

Tu quoque.

[Riva]

I'm not the one cheering on the communist style polilitcal prosecutions.

[SRG2]

There is a difference between a political prosecution and the prosecution of a politician.

Do you think Trump has committed any crimes in any of the cases where he's currently under indictment?

[Riva]

No, and there would be no prosecution of any other person in similar circumstances, let alone any other presidential candidate. Do you think that reptile Biden committed any crimes in secreting away classified info? In his "business" dealings that made him and his bag man son millions? What was Biden's business again?

[SRG2]

Oh, then you're just aTrump fanboi.

Are you aware of any distinction between Biden's retention of classified documents and Trump's?

[Riva]

Yes, President Trump was, wait for it, the President. Biden was just a crooked senator and later a crooked vice-President. And you failed to answer my questions, although I answered yours. Speaks volumes about you. Do you think that reptile Biden committed any crimes in secreting away classified info? In his “business” dealings that made him and his bag man son millions? What was Biden’s business again?

[Frank Drackman]

All of the bullshit they're charging him with.

[hobie]

Of course Trump AND his allies broke all them laws. We all saw it on television. There's also lots of documents proving it too. What I still don't understand is why Trump is so appealing to Bubba. An effeminate NY conman should be the natural enemy of the American Redneck. But...here we are

[Krychek_2]

Because Trump hates the same people Bubba hates. It really is that simple.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it's because Trump supports Bubba's causes.

[hobie]

Well, then elect Stewart Rhodes or Rittenhouse. I'm sure they hate the same things but are not entirely crazy and morally bankrupt. Hell, there's tons of Rednecks walking the streets that hate as many things as the average wingnut does. Choose one of them

[Dr. Ed 2]

But Trump actually fights....

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, he doesn’t. He didn’t fight in Vietnam and he doesn’t fight now; he’s a coward. He just talks big. Not apologizing is not the same thing as "fighting."

[Riva]

Vietnam? WTF does that have to do with anything, apart from the fact that President Trump’s administration worked hard to help veterans some of whom were likely Vietnam war vets.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh no! Are you resurrecting Trump's moldy old lie to have helped veterans by passing a law passed in 2014, during the Obama Administration?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/08/politics/trump-veterans-choice-paula-reid/index.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Major Bone Spurs?

A fighter?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Frank Drackman]

Get Jerry Sandusky asking somebody what's wrong with them.

[apedad]

Scorecard

Krychek_2: 1
Dr. Ed 2: 0

[Bob from Ohio]

Angel Hernandez, is that you?

[apedad]

HA!

Side note; I was at a Pats game a few years ago in Met Life Stadium against the Jets. There were quite a few jokers walking around in Aaron Hernandez shirts.

[Stella Link the dog]

Won't find many Angel Hernandez shirts at an MLB game. One thing about Angel, he seems to fuck up without bias.

[Frank Drackman]

He didn't say (the Late) Aaron Hernandez, dumbass, he's talking about the Ophthalmologically challenged MLB Umpire.

[Riva]

He "broke all them laws"? Hard to know how to respond to such a cogent argument? What one of them laws was violated in NY exactly? Still kind of fuzzy on that.

[Frank Drackman]

He called Haiti a Shithole Country, and (The Late) Rep John Lewis's a District a Shithole District, which was extremely insensitive and hateful to actual Shitholes.

[David Nieporent]

Penal law 175.10.

[Riva]

Nope. Notwithstanding the former Biden DOJ hack’s assertions (that would be Michael Colangelo), there is no federal criminal law violation to resurrect a dead alleged misdemeanor (34 times no less). Now, I’m not saying you salivating police state loving clowns won’t win at some level given the conflicted judge, fat loathsome DA and his Biden crony packing a jury full of deranged TDS losers. Just saying its a gross perversion of justice. I think you clowns know it also but you just like the republic ending lawfare because it helps your preferred candidate. Loathsome clowns.

[David Nieporent]

otwithstanding the former Biden DOJ hack’s assertions (that would be Michael Colangelo), there is no federal criminal law violation to resurrect a dead alleged misdemeanor (34 times no less).

Even if that were true, which it isn't, you understand that there are other laws whose violations Trump was covering up, like NYEL § 17-152, right?

[Riva]

NYEL § 17-152 governs alleged illegal contributions to a presidential campaign? So much for the FEC.

[David Nieporent]

NYEL § 17-152 governs alleged illegal contributions to a presidential campaign?

No.

[Ed Grinberg]

Was Hillary Clinton prosecuted? No.
Was Joe Biden prosecuted? No.
But Trump is being prosecuted (and how!).
Trump supporters' claims that Democrats are engaging in selective-prosecution lawfare are absolutely true. (Not that you care, apparently.)

[SRG2]

You know, there are alternative explanations for why Hillary and Biden were not prosecuted.

[John Rohan]

Yes, the special prosecutor didn't recommend charging Biden because he didn't consider him mentally fit for trial.

[Nige]

So the double standard is that Trump's mentally unfit for trial?

[Kleppe]

No, the standard is Trump was POTUS during the relevant times. Biden was a Senator and/or VPOTUS. It isn't apples and apples.

[Nige]

Actually I'm pretty sure the standard is whether there was an actual crime to be charged with.

[David Nieporent]

With respect to the documents case — which seems to be what this mini-thread is about — Trump was not charged with anything he did while he was president, so it's not really clear what you mean.

[Riva]

Well Biden is the corrupt police state reptile conducting the prosecutions so I don't think he's going to target himself, especially when he legitimately violated the law.

[Nige]

A guy voting for the fraudster/rapist has thoughts on the law.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon (man!) Nige-Bot, William Juffuhsun Clinton's been out of the Oval Orifice for 23 years.

[Krychek_2]

Frank, there's no need for you to pretend to be stupid when you really are stupid.

[SRG2]

And who says "Biden is the corrupt police state reptile" so no bias there....

[Krychek_2]

And furthermore, Biden isn't conducting the prosecutions. Career prosecutors are.

[Bob from Ohio]

He ordered them and his AG hired the prosecutor.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which means all prosecutions are "political"...

[Sarcastr0]

He didn’t order anything, Bob.

This is just the same Clinton Death List right wing conspiracy brain up for another round of partisan delusion.

[Riva]

Don't quite understand, I'm not voting for Biden, to whose accomplishments you could add traitor; and serial kid sniffer; and I understand from certain diaries that he liked to do certain things with his daughter.

[Nige]

You could add those things, but you're voting for the rapist/fraudster, so frankly you'll say anything.

[Riva]

Biden doesn't like to sniff kids? A whole lotta tv footage says otherwise. Ashley's diary is fake? No not really. As for whether the big guy is a traitor, well, I guess I'll let his "business" arrangements with various foreign powers, for which he used Hunter as his bag man for at least 10%, speak for themselves. His abuse of his power by prosecuting his political rival isn't exactly patriotic either

[Nige]

When you have to rely on that many lies to justify yourself voting for a rapist, maybe you're just a lying rapist-enabler.

[David Nieporent]

Ashley’s diary is fake? No not really.

Ashley's diary does not contain the thing you pretend it does, and even the thing you pretend it does not say what you pretend it says.

As for whether the big guy is a traitor, well, I guess I’ll let his “business” arrangements with various foreign powers, for which he used Hunter as his bag man for at least 10%, speak for themselves.

They say, "Riva is a really really pathetic troll who doesn't know what he's talking about and lies about everything." Still nobody has found one penny of money from any "foreign power" (or anyone else Hunter did business with) going to Joe Biden.

[Riva]

So the big guy never got his 10%? And the diary is testament to the perversity of that kid sniffing crook. A real record. Unlike the Hillary/DNC fabricated lie about a pee tape. The gaslighting never stops. What a repulsive lot the left is.

[Nige]

Wasn't it a Republican who actually released the pee tape info?

[Riva]

you'd have to ask Hillary and the lawfirm she used to hide her involvement in the fraud. They're called Perkins Coie, I'm sure you can find their contact info.

[David Nieporent]

So the big guy never got his 10%?

Even if "the big guy" referred to Joe Biden, and even if someone asking a question about whether the Big Guy was going to get 10% actually constituted a statement that the Big Guy was going to get 10%, he could not have "got his 10%" because the deal that this email referred to never actually happened.

And the diary is testament to the perversity of that kid sniffing crook.

There is one person in this race who not only admitted sexually assaulting people, but was found liable for having done so; it was not Joe Biden.

You're of course lying about the diary, referring to a made up page that wasn't in the diary and that doesn't say what you pretend it says.

Unlike the Hillary/DNC fabricated lie about a pee tape.

There was no pee tape, but there were stories about a pee tape, and they didn't come from Hillary, but from the Russians.

[Riva]

There is one person in this race whose own daughter has written of the perverse conduct of her crooked kid sniffing snake of a father. There is one person in this race who has been referred to as the big guy who skims 10% off whatever scam the Biden family business conducts. Remind me, what exactly is that “business “? And still trying to defend the Russian collusion fraud? One of the most corrupt, dirtiest campaign trick in history? Maybe you want to defend the Charlottesville lie. Pathetic.

[David Nieporent]

There is one person in this race whose own daughter has written of the perverse conduct of her crooked kid sniffing snake of a father.

No, she didn't. Again, the thing you think is in the diary isn't in the diary (and doesn't even say what you think it says.)

There is one person in this race who has been referred to as the big guy who skims 10% off whatever scam the Biden family business conducts.

Nobody ever referred to Joe Biden that way, that never happened, and unlike the Trumps, nobody ever called Hunter Biden's business ventures scams.

[Riva]

Wow. That's an impressive amount of gaslighting. For those unfamiliar with the expression, Dave is misrepresenting reality. In other words, f'ing lying. So your protestations of not being a leftist hack don't exactly have credibility. And let me know what the Biden family business is. I'm sure curious how the big guy made his millions.

[David Nieporent]

And let me know what the Biden family business is.

There isn't any such thing as the "Biden family business."

I’m sure curious how the big guy made his millions.

See, I don't think you are; I don't think that's a good faith question at all. I think you mean to falsely insinuate that he got money from Hunter Biden's business dealings, even though we know he didn't. Most of Joe Biden's personal wealth is just the houses he owns, but he has earned several million more over the years (and there have been a lot of years!) from book deals, speaking fees, and of course a decent salary as a senator and vice president.

[Riva]

Funny thing you should mention book deals. Would this be the book for which Biden disclosed his illegal stash of classified docs to his ghost writer who then deleted audio recordings of his discussions with the kid sniffer? But, in sum, you can’t or won’t respond to the question of how the Big Guy gets his 10% or the nature of the “Biden” business (that would be the one requiring the spider’s web of LLCs and the active involvement of his coke head bagman son) and try to turn the question back on me. And you have no reticence in touting a non-existent pee tape while denying a real diary that real gov’t agents went after with real zeal to protect that serial kid sniffing crook. What a repulsive, lying bunch you are. But as I’ve said, no need to be upset you’ve got your banana republic police state trial, a conflicted judge, and a biased jury. You must be almost giddy.

[David Nieporent]

But, in sum, you can’t or won’t respond to the question of how the Big Guy gets his 10%

I'll use small words: there is no evidence that Joe Biden got 10% of any business dealing of Hunter Biden's. There's no evidence that Joe Biden got $10, or 10¢, from any business dealings of Hunter Biden's.

or the nature of the “Biden” business

I don't know what "the 'Biden' business" refers to. Hunter Biden was involved in many different things over the years, though the things that the GOP seem to be focusing on were his involvement in a lot of private equity deals.

And you have no reticence in touting a non-existent pee tape

Seriously, you need mental help. You read things that nobody said, and you can't read things that people actually do so. Name one time when I ever "touted" a "pee tape."

while denying a real diary

Still have that reading comprehension problem of yours. I am not "denying" a diary. I am denying that the thing you think was in the diary actually was. The people that bought the stolen diary eventually posted it. The thing that you're referring to wasn't in there. Someone else posted that thing. But also, that thing doesn't say what you think it said.

[Riva]

You suggest the pee tape fraud promoted by paid Hillary/DNC ops via their sleaze law firm may in fact be real. That’s touting enough for me. The diary sections in question are disputed not none existent, despite your gaslighting. And there’s a shitload of document evidence of the big guy and the 10%, backed up by witnesses. And to address the book matter you yourself raised, the evidence of Biden’s criminal handling of classified information is beyond dispute, and so is his kid sniffing. So F off you lying hack.

[David Nieporent]

You suggest the pee tape fraud promoted by paid Hillary/DNC ops via their sleaze law firm may in fact be real.

Still illiterate after all these years. I suggest no such thing. In fact, I said — in this very Thursday Open Thread — "There was no pee tape." The only thing I "suggested" was real were the rumors of a pee tape. That is, Christopher Steele — not Hillary, not the DNC, and not Perkins Coie — accurately reported that rumors existed.

And there’s a shitload of document evidence of the big guy and the 10%, backed up by witnesses.

There is no documentary evidence or witnesses. None. Zero. Zilch. Not one document or person shows a single penny flowing to Joe Biden from Hunter's business deals.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

A prosecutor pressured Clinton to cut a deal based on the threat of prosecution…Clinton certainly believed a prosecution was possible once he was out of office.

[not guilty]

Multiple presidents prior to Donald Trump were investigated for criminal activity by specially appointed independent prosecutors. Prick Nixon had Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski. Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush had Lawrence Walsh. Bill Clinton had Kenneth Starr and Robert Ray. None suggested that he was immune from prosecution after leaving office.

[David Nieporent]

And Ford sacrificed his reelection chances by pardoning Nixon — an odd thing to do if Nixon was immune.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Actually what cost Ford was supporting civil rights legislation…that’s why the South voted for Carter after voting upwards 80% for Nixon. Watergate doesn’t bother me…but civil rights legislation do…how ‘bout you!

Unless you think Mississippi voted for Nixon with 78% of the vote and then Ford pardoning him pissed them off and so they voted for Carter with 50%??

[Bored Lawyer]

I generally agree with you. Except OJ committed murder, which is a crime by any standard. Some of what Trump is accused of doing, like the case on trial in NY, is penny ante at best and would not be prosecuted if he were a different politician.
(The insurrection and documents case are more serious and more real, IMO. The Georgia case I used to think is real, and it may still be, but the DA inflated it with RICO far beyond what it justified, again for political reasons to sweep in multiple actors.)

[John F. Carr]

A white guy who sliced up two people like Simpson (allegedly) did would also be charged. Maybe the cops wouldn't have searched White Guy's property without a warrant. Murder is not a crime that is routinely overlooked. About half of murders result in criminal charges and it's evidentiary problems rather than lack of motivation that makes the rate so low.

Of the charges against Trump, only the Florida case looks like business as usual.

(I know we don't have to say allegedly when talking about crimes committed by a dead man. Habit.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't the civil conviction permit dropping the "alleged"?

And while neither victim died, there is the Jason Vassal charade:
https://dailycollegian.com/2008/09/a-new-look-at-justice-for-jason/

[Riva]

What's a civil conviction?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Krychek,

You believe it's categorically impossible for an NGO to hand out bulletins to illegals telling them to vote for Biden. You think it's categorically impossible because logistically you argue it's too big of a challenge... to hand out flyers to illegals urging them to vote for Biden.

You speculate (paraphrase) "just think for a minute about how challenging it would be to drive millions of illegals to register to vote!". As if campaigns haven't been doing GOTV efforts or registration drives for generations, and don't know how to do these things at scale.

But even that speculation is a strawman, since the NGO was handing out flyings and not registering illegals to vote.

So not only did you create a strawman to knockdown, you created a stupid strawman that doesn't even make sense if you think about it for 1 second.

I don't think you're really qualified to be analyzing political topics.

[Nige]

'You believe it’s categorically impossible for an NGO to hand out bulletins to illegals telling them to vote for Biden.'

The standard of evidence for most of your claims is, at best, that they are not 'categorically impossible.'

[Krychek_2]

I actually don't believe it's categorically impossible, just that it's highly unlikely that the specific claims we were discussing actually happened.

[#FFFFFFPride]

The claim was a Jewish NGO was posting bulletins urging illegals to vote for Biden.

To which you responded that it was categorically impossible.

Then, good ol Nieporent chimes in with "yes there really are these bulletins saying these things but they are probably a hoax!"

lol

[Krychek_2]

"Just think for a minute about how challenging it would be" (accepting your paraphrase) does not equal it's categorically impossible.

[#FFFFFFPride]

You: "How is it that you are so simple as to believe such obvious and blatant nonsense as what you are peddling?"

Also you: ".. The question is why you wouldn’t see immediately that the claim is nonsense."

me: "Why would the claim be categorically nonsense?"

You: "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."

Now that you've had a chance to review your words, was my characterization of them right?

I said you claimed it's categorically impossible. I also said you rebutted with a strawman of my argument (a really stupid one too).

[Krychek_2]

No your characterization is not accurate. I neither said categorically impossible or anything that could reasonably be interpreted as categorically impossible.

[David Nieporent]

The Democrats are using the legal system to try to keep Trump out of the White House,

No. "The Democrats" aren't doing anything. Some Democrats may be.

[Krychek_2]

The Democrats who are bringing the prosecutions are.

[not guilty]

Do you have evidence of Jack Smith's political party affiliation, if any?

[Bob from Ohio]

He's been hired by Manhattan DA, Clinton Justice Department, Obama Justice Department and Biden Justice Department.

[not guilty]

Smith was also hired by the Trump Justice Department in 2017 to serve as an acting United States Attorney. Do you have evidence of his political party affiliation, if any?

[Bob from Ohio]

He was just a holdover, somebody had to be Acting USA.

I gave you evidence of a history of being hired by only Democrats.

[not guilty]

IOW you are talking through your ass based on rank speculation.

[SRG2]

He also has a history of going after politicians of both parties - two o the most high profile being John Edwards and Sheldon Silver.

[Bob from Ohio]

Unless every single Democrat is doing something, you can't use common usage.

1 GOPer voted against condemning Iran today so you can't say GOP supported the resolution I guess.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krychek_2, it's one thing to prove the cops are racist. It's another thing—and a thing a hell of a lot more relevant to reasonable doubt—to prove the cops brought blood from OJ's arm to the crime scene. In that case, except for the cops, what source of evidence did a jury have to rely on to convict? After you catch a cop trying to frame OJ by faking powerful forensic evidence, how can anyone avoid reasonable doubt about everything else the cops alleged?

I think it was defensible to conclude it was highly likely OJ committed the murders. I do not think it was possible to convict him without ignoring reasonable doubt, once the video tape and testimony proved a cop had brought OJ's blood to the scene.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...for 10 whole minutes, in a still-sealed envelope.

It's not only Trumpers who believe what they want to believe, apparently.

(The jurors, Steve.)

[Armchair]

I think you have a bit of a mistaken concept of what selective prosecution is, and why it's problematic, and why it's different from the OJ case.

The OJ case was about murder. Murder is...not selectively prosecuted. A police/DA organization typically will put a high priority on arresting and charging for murder, no matter the individual. Because it is the crime that is important.

Selective Prosecution is different. It's basically looking at the person, and finding a crime to charge them for, rather than looking at the crime, then finding who did it. It's a problem, because it allows the government to persecute certain people it doesn't like for actions that other people (which the government does like) go unpunished. The whole "equal under the law" concept is essentially thrown out.

The Trump case in NY is a good example of this. The DA was elected on the promise that he would "pursue Trump." The charges against Trump are extremely weak, attenuated, old, novel...and if it wasn't Trump, never would have been pursued. The only reason the case is going forward is because it's Trump. If it was anyone else and an ADA said "Oh, we can prosecute this guy for false business records because he wrote "retainer" on a check instead of "for NDA"...it would be thrown out as a waste of time.

[David Nieporent]

That is not in fact what selective prosecution is.

Also, your "because he wrote retainer instead of for NDA," as if it were like inadvertently writing the previous year on a check in January, is disingenuous. This wasn't accidental; it was part of a deliberate scheme to cover up what he was doing.

[Bwaaah]

Who among us lives such a life that they can’t be plausibly charged with violation of some law? (Consider all the potential gotchas, including the likelihood that you couldn’t possibly know all of them.)

We are witnessing the use of prosecutorial discretion, by partisans, to attack a political candidate for garden-variety douchebaggery.

My father was a garden-variety douchebag. (I won’t enumerate the ugly ways.) But he was also an engaged father, he paid his bills, he employed dozens of people who all regarded him highly, and he never beat the crap out of any of his [known] children.

When I look at my predicament and how it comes to be, I can’t help but feel a deep, deep sense of gratitude for my douchebag father. His impact, much more than anybody else’s, is plainly visible in my life.

As I watch those partisans destroy Donald Trump, I know they’d destroyed my douchebag father quite similarly if he got in their way. Fortunately, my douchebag father has been dead for a few years. So for me, this just feels like partisans, Democrats, cussing out my dead father, wishing people like him never existed.

It’s hard to express how wrong I think they are to wish that. Setting me aside, there are so many other people who benefited from my douchebag father, who, like me, wouldn’t be able to make sense of wishing that he never was.

You take the good with the bad, no? No? Just the good? Seriously? Somebody’s that good? No more room in the world for people like my douchebag father? Not good enough for our world anymore?

That’s unfortunate. There was so much more had in the world from my douchebag father than just his douchebaggery.

[Krychek_2]

Probably the greatest scam Trump ever pulled off was convincing his base that he's doing it for them.

Yes, everyone, Trump included, is more complex than just being a douchebag. But he's not on trial for being a douchebag. He's on trial because he broke the law.

[Bwaaah]

I despise Donald Trump.

For me, it was seeing hateful people all across the country trying to punish everybody who didn’t show fealty to their new race/sex-based political edifice, and watching Democrats silently look down at their feet while the punishments were successfully meted out (and continue to be meted out to this day).

It was watching the New York Times punish its well-regarded science reporter, Donald McNeil, in 2021 for having used a word in the context of an academic discussion about that word. As Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet declared, “We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” (Really? Since when?)

Thousands of nameless people around the country have been forced out of their jobs for offending new leftist orthodoxies. Democrats continue to stand silently as the punishment committees they allowed to be installed in governments and corporations continue to operate under a sick definition of “inclusion.”

Donald Trump didn’t convince me he’s for me. Democrats convinced me they’ll be silent as punishments get meted out to anybody who would dare to offend their dumb-ass theories like “racial disparities are primarily the result of ‘white supremacy’ and ‘systemic racism’.” Democrats convinced me that they’ll stand by while people like my father, and better others, get punished. They will. They do.

[Krychek_2]

But that has always been the case in the United States; whichever side is in power has always gone on the attack against people with opposing views. In fact, for most of our history, it was the right punishing the left for their views.

During World War I, people went to prison for speaking out against the war. Members of the communist party were jailed. During the Cold War, teachers were required to sign loyalty oaths as a condition of employment. During the civil rights era, white southerners formed organized boycotts of businesses that supported civil rights. Colleges and universities refused to allow gay student groups. When someone started a gay rights organization in Chicago in the 1920s, the police violently shut it down. Emma Goldman's speeches were routinely shut down by the police, sometimes violently.

I don't like it either; I support free speech for everybody. But what you are describing is nothing new. Historically, it could even be described as conservatives being given what they spent most of our history giving out.

[Bwaaah]

The U.S. left historically, VOCALLY, supported not just a right to free expression, but protection of free expression. It did not stand silently as people were being openly punished for minor speech "offenses." You acting like nothing has changed is an example of rationalization of a new malignant silence from the moderate left.

The far right, including for example the Moral Majority in the 1980s, has long been comfortable with these overt punishments of expressions and beliefs. The contemporary far left now plays that role today, and Democrats, moderate Democrats, stand silent to it, only quietly agreeing that it's wrong.

Thousands of people being punished isn't a big problem. But tens of millions of people self-censoring their political expression because of fear of serious retaliation is a big problem. And all you got is "nothing changed."

[Krychek_2]

While I agree with you that some on the left are no longer supportive of free speech -- I gave up my long term ACLU membership specifically for that reason -- there are also people on the left who are just as horrified at suppression of free speech as you are.

[loki13]

Bwaah,

FWIW, I agree with you and your concern about the rising tide of people on "the left" and, especially, those in a younger generation, who no longer truly value free expression as a good in and of itself. I think it is important that we begin to stress and inculcate those values again.

That said, I also think you aren't paying significant attention to the many efforts on the right to also suppress free speech- but rather than social pressure and norms, they are using the levers of government power.

As a general rule, people are always in favor of free speech when it comes to the speech that they like, and love to find exceptions when it comes to the speech that they hate. The important thing is to have people understand that the protection is not for the speech that you know is good and awesome and true, but the speech that offends, provokes, and shocks ... YOU.

[Bwaaah]

I agree, fully.

[Nige]

‘The Democrats stand idly by when some racist gets criticised for being racist.’

Honestly, you’d think the right didn’t target everybody they hate for harassment, villification and as many horrible consequences as they can force onto them using every bad-faith excuse or cause or lie they can scrape up. And they hate a lot of people. And you have a point, people don't stand up to them anywhere near enough.

[Nige]

'Thousands of nameless people around the country have been forced out of their jobs for offending new leftist orthodoxies'

Nameless, but surely real!

'Democrats convinced me that they’ll stand by while people like my father, and better others, get punished.'

'Can't say racist shit without pushback.'

[David Nieporent]

That’s unfortunate. There was so much more had in the world from my douchebag father than just his douchebaggery.

That was very poetic. I don't know you or your father or what he might have done. I do know what Donald Trump is, and there's nothing more from him than his sociopathy. He has no redeeming human qualities.

[Bwaaah]

"He has no redeeming human qualities."

If I believed in a god, and you were that god, I could imagine that being a fully qualified statement. But I don't, and you're not, and that's just another example of the all-knowing, self-righteous, nasty overreach that characterizes contemporary Democratic rhetoric.

[Krychek_2]

You don't have to be God to have a pretty good sense of Donald Trump's character at this point; it's not like he's keeping anything secret.

[Nige]

For a start I don't think David's a Democrat. But it's good to know that Democrats, and anyone who doesn't like Trump, are not allowed to hold strong opinions about things without being castigated for it. Trump says a dozen worse things every day, you hate him, you're going to vote for him, and you're going to claim the moral high ground while doing so, becase other people have strong opinions.

[David Nieporent]

I am not a Democrat. And people are judged by how they act, not secret thoughts that only they know about.

[Nige]

'Democrats, cussing out my dead father, wishing people like him never existed.'

Nobody likes douchebags, therefore I'm going to vote for Donald Trump? Your reasoning gets more tenuous every time you try to lay it out.

Seriously, what the fuck are you trying to say? Nobody, let alone Democrats, has said a single word about your father, RIP. You're having imagined conversations where Joe Biden cusses out your father and says he wished he never existed?

[grb]

On the sleazy huckster front:

1. Trump’s campaign sent out a letter this week asking down-ballot candidates for 5% of the proceeds when they use his name during fundraising. Has this kind of shakedown happened in U.S. politics before? I bet all those little candidates know his history of spiteful revenge. They’ll pay off for protection, like any grocer would when the Mob comes around.

2. Truth Social continues its long descent towards collapse. But Trump is already moving towards an early cash-out that will leave all his supporters with an even more worthless asset. He really holds all you MAGA chumps in total contempt.

3. The Stormy charge was always held as the most dubious by commentators across the ideological spectrum – an offense more typically handled by fines rather than criminal charges. But read-up on the details and reeks of Trumpian sleaze.

Which causes one to shake his head in wonder. Trump is a lifelong criminal without the slightest moral or ethical standards. Yet his MAGA supporters still lick his shoe leather spotless like abject dogs. Even more bizarre, they've spent years fruitlessly trying to come up with a single example of Biden corruption to assauge their guilty conscience. Wouldn’t it be easier for MAGA-world to pick an actual human being to worship?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Political parties routinely "tax" fundraising in a variety of ways and all Trump is doing is acting like a political party, which he essentially *is* at this point.

The lawyer no one is talking about is Roy Cohn. I think Trump is more a victim of Cohn than anything else...

[Martinned2]

which he essentially *is* at this point

Le parti, c'est moi!

[hobie]

HaHa!

[Martinned2]

The main extreme-right party in the Netherlands literally only has one member. That's one way to do it...

[santamonica811]

I feel like "main" party and "only has one member" are in tension with each other. 🙂

[Martinned2]

That party got more votes than any other in the elections last November. So yeah, it's currently by far the biggest party on the extreme right, electorally.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "I think Trump is more a victim of Cohn than anything else…"

Given he's spent his entire life trying to victimize others, it's hard to see Trump as victim. But if I do, I pick Fred as the cause. He's the reason Trump is such an empty soul & broken human being.

Which is ironic. When his father first showed signs of dementia, Trump saw opportunity. He tried to get the confused old man to sign papers giving him (Trump) absolute control of the family fortune. Trump's mother heard about the plan and intervened to stop the attempt, but it was clearly an example of Trump following Fred's teaching to their logical conclusion.

[SimonP]

Trump's steadfast supporters like that he's a sleazy fuck. And that includes both the MAGA idiots that populate the comments here as well as the conniving kleptocrats that are funding his campaign.

Consider evangelicals: Did they not get exactly what they wanted out of Trump? We now have a hyper-conservative Supreme Court that got rid of Roe and is finding all kinds of ways to carve out special rights for religious people into constitutional and statutory law. Would they have gotten that with a Republican who respects institutions and views the presidency as being above nominating a woefully under-qualified justice to be confirmed while people are voting on whether to re-elect him? Imagine a President Romney in 2020. He might not have nominated anyone for Ginsburg's spot, out of respect for her legacy and the will of the American people. Evangelicals, and Trump, didn't give a shit.

The same goes with all of this grift. MAGA just want someone to fuck things up. Hurt the liberal, coastal elite. Hurt the upwardly-mobile LGBTs and those woke universities. The liberal elite likes institutions and order, so tear that all up. Let's have the DOJ target our political enemies, let's have the Fed fuck with the economy, let's impose tariffs and devalue our currency, show those libs that their million-dollar bank accounts won't mean shit when inflation hits astronomical levels. Trump's a moron who can't see his own dick, but unlike all of those Republicans who rely on the status quo to continue their own schemes, he'll tear up everything before he sees how it affects him.

The kleptocrats, meanwhile, are planning to make out like bandits. They see how the MAGA idiots respond to stimuli and so are pushing all the right buttons. They say, "Give up on democracy!" and MAGA says, "Yeah, why not!"

[Bob from Ohio]

"million-dollar bank accounts won’t mean shit when inflation hits astronomical levels" and "kleptocrats, meanwhile, are planning to make out like bandits"

astronomical inflation is known to be astronomically good to kleptocrats

Where did you get your econ degree?

[grb]

SimonP : "Trump’s steadfast supporters like that he’s a sleazy fuck"

Two points :

1. I think that's partly because Trump is what many supporters imagine a rich person is like. They don't realize what a sleazy outlier he is even among the wealthy. For others, he's how they dream they'd behave with money : Treating every restraint, ethical restriction, or adult obligation with brat child contempt.

And that colors their thought. For instance, I've spent a few score hours of my architectural career calculating building square footage for real estate developers. It's a very serious task with ultra-precise rules & clients take the numbers extremely seriously. That's how it is in the real world. But many a MAGA chump believes the average (rich person) developer regularly lies about this basic data by a factor of 3X or 4X. You can tell them that isn't the case - that Trump is freakish even in his criminality - but they simply refuse to hear.

2. As fot MAGA-types just wanting someone to fuck things up: Spot on. Trump's popularity is directly tied to his entertainment value. Basically, all of right-wing-world is one massive entertainment conglomerate these days - generating faux-outrage and cartoon spectacle the equal of any pro-wrestling match. And like a WWE event, the fact its all fake doesn't matter at all. In fact, it's much easier for a MAGA-ite to scream himself red-faced hoarse over something completely phony, like CRT in the schools or the national threat of transexuals.

Trump's specialty? Theatrically wiping his fat lard ass on ever political, civic, and cultural institution that comes within reach. Every time he does so, the MAGA crowd hoots in glee while slapping their knee.

[David Nieporent]

Trump’s popularity is directly tied to his entertainment value. Basically, all of right-wing-world is one massive entertainment conglomerate these days – generating faux-outrage and cartoon spectacle the equal of any pro-wrestling match. And like a WWE event, the fact its all fake doesn’t matter at all.

I would add to that, that they actually think entertainment value is substantive. The sheer number of MAGA people who think that Trump's holding big rallies and Biden's not doing so in 2020 proved that Trump must have won is insane. How could Biden have won when he wasn't out putting on shows? How could he have won when there were so many Trump yard signs and T-shirts and baseball caps out there? How could he have won when he was so boring?

[John Rohan]

So Trump is a "lifelong criminal" yet it's just a TOTAL coincidence that all these civil and criminal trials started after he declared he was running a second time for President?

[Martinned2]

You mean, other than the two impeachment trials while he was president, and a lifetime of being sued left & right before that?

[Bob from Ohio]

Are impeachments and civil suits now crimes?

[Martinned2]

No, but the question referred to "all these civil and criminal trials".

[Noscitur a sociis]

all these civil and criminal trials

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

a lifetime of being sued left & right before that

All this time on a law blog and you still don't comprehend the difference between civil and criminal law?

[Noscitur a sociis]

all these civil and criminal trials

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So Trump is a “lifelong criminal”

[Nige]

From housing discrimination to the charity foundation to hiring illegals to Trump University... yes?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm trying to remember, how did those Impeachment trials turn out?

[David Nieporent]

Also, he bribed his way out of other criminal situations, but it became much harder to do that once he became a politician.

[Bob from Ohio]

More presumption of innocence from Mr. Libertarian.

You know this how?

[Sarcastr0]

You hate due process so maybe shut up.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He was charged before he announced his intention to run for President a second time in order to try and avoid the consequences of his behavior for as long as possible.

Don't peddle your bullshit here.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Actually, he declared in November 2022 (unusually early for a normal candidate) and wasn't charged until March 2023 (the NY case).

However, he probably did declare early at least in part to make it more difficult for anyone to prosecute him.

[Kleppe]

"Trump is a lifelong criminal without the slightest moral or ethical standards."

You can't read Trump's (or anyone else's) mind.

"they’ve spent years fruitlessly trying to come up with a single example of Biden corruption to assauge their guilty conscience"

See above, Why is all leftist whining just bullshit mind-reading?

[Nige]

Why would we need to read his mind? Is your excuse for voting for a moral vacuum like Trump your lack of mind-reading abilities? As opposed to the things he says and does?

I kind of agree with your last statement. The constant trumpeting of fake evidence against Biden has nothing to do with conscience.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to read Trump's mind, you bigoted dope.

Just examine his record (conduct, statements, litigation, judgments).

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year is required to hold an educational program about the U.S. Constitution for its students on September 17 (if it falls on a weekend; it should be held in the previous or next week)."
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/constitutionday.html

Attn Con Law Professors -- this applies to law schools too....

[apedad]

You didn't comment whether this is a good idea or not.

I'm leaning towards you think this is OK - and FTR I think it's good.

The link provides tools and info developed by 3rd parties and DOES NOT direct the schools to use them, and leaves it up to the schools to develop their own curriculum.

[Bored Lawyer]

Cleaning for Passover. Part of that requires cleaning the oven thoroughly.
Self-cleaning ovens used to do the job real well. My mother and mother-in-law used theirs with little effort. Repeatedly.
But now ovens have a digital panel that gets burnt out if you use self-clean. Happened to us a few years ago, and the repair guy told us to never use self-clean, for that reason. So we went back to cleaning by hand, and then turning up the oven to 550. A lot more laborious.
Frustrating that advances also cause degradation of function. Wish the manufacturers would make ovens that you can actually use the self-clean cycle without burning them out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Also, the oven light bulbs you can get these days are pretty lousy, will frequently not survive the self-clean. I guess it's due to the effort to make them more efficient; Wouldn't want the bulb wasting electricity dumping any excess heat into my electric oven, would we?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the standard 40 watt incandescent oven bulb is no more efficient than it ever was -- it is just cost savings on thinner glass, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, thinning the filament increased their efficiency a bit, while substantially reducing their lives. But the failure mode I've typically seen in oven bulbs is failure of the adhesive on the base. I think maybe they're not making the 'oven' bulbs to a different spec than regular service bulbs anymore.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They're also making them in China instead of Pennsylvania or Kentucky.

[ducksalad]

Cleaning the oven: hours of dirty work scrubbing, bent over so your back hurts, nasty chemical cleaners, never going to get it perfect.

Better method: buy a new oven, 15 minutes of clean work with a screwdriver to install it. Stash the old one in your neighbor’s garage. After the 8 days or whatever are over, return the new one to Lowe’s for a full refund and swap the old one back in.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't understand that, but it sounds like something that would be considered genius in West Virginia, Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, or Mississippi.

[Frank Drackman]

You're just jealous you're stuck giving "Favors" to other prisoners to get to use their Hotplate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every comment from this guy is one more step on Prof. Volokh's journey out of mainstream academia and into the wonderful world of being a mouthpiece for hire on the wrong side of history.

[Mr. Bumble]

To BL:
Welcome to the future where gizmos abound most of which are useless.
In fairness though most controls have been digital for decades and even mechanical control were subject to failure from the high heat of self cleaning; it all depends on how often you use it.
FWIW manufactures recommend cleaning spills etc. after every use (at least the heavy gunk) and removing as much as possible before self cleaning. Also, by turning the oven to 550 you are doing the same as self clean (550 is about as high as most residential ovens can achieve) just not engaging the door lock and preset time feature.
Just had to purchase a new oven and it has a steam clean option.
You pour a cup of water into a recess into the oven bottom and activate the feature which runs for 30 minutes. Not really a self clean but it does loosen and allow for removal of lighter gunk.

[Brett Bellmore]

My oven can be set to as high as 550 for regular use, but according to the specs, it goes up to nearly 900 degrees during the self-cleaning cycle.

Which explains why the grime doesn't turn to ash during normal use, I suspect. Probably also explains why the oven light doesn't survive it...

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So can you bake a pizza on self cleaning mode??

[jb]

Jeffrey Steingarten wrote a piece about trying to make pizza at home in which he tried exactly this. The pizza got locked inside the oven, though, and did not survive the experiment. The whole thing is a great read:

https://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php?topic=790.0

[santamonica811]

Thanks for the link. Well worth reading, for those of us who strive towards the goal of making "real" pizza at home.

The last year or three has shown a flood of home pizza ovens, which are capable of reaching well over 750 F. Outdoors ones (running off of gas or wood), and these can get to 900. But now, there are even electric ones, which can be used inside, and can get to 800.

I bought a Piezano, and it gets to 792, both on the cooking surface and in the air above the cooking pie. Cost was $100 at Walmart. If not for concerns about getting too fat, I'd be using it at least once a week. But once every few months is the compromise I've made with myself and my waistline.

America may suck in some ways. The world may suck in many more ways. And we may all hate each other in the Trump (and post-Trump?) era(s). But as our march towards pizza perfection continues; I have to acknowledge, "Hey, life is not too bad." [It's hard to be too pessimistic, when munching a home-made pie, with blistered crust and beautifully-melted buffalo mozzarella.]

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That piece appears to be from 2005 and he made a big deal about his infrared thermometer which now costs around $15. So he must have been at the forefront of the real pizza at home movement. My parents’ neighbor got one of those indoor pizza ovens around 2016 and they had a pizza party…and it kept flipping the breaker and so they never got to cook the pizza.

[Dr. Ed 2]

900 degrees?!? WOW....

Common THHN wire, most wire nuts and such are only rated to 194 degrees. TGGT wire is rated for 482 degrees and I don't think there is anything above that.

Now the wiring is outside the oven, which has a little bit of insulation, but I don't think you're going to keep the wires that go to your stovetop burners below 482. Remember that there is no neutral with 240 volts -- both wires have 120 volts to the frame of the stove (which is grounded). And I'd worry about how hot the outside of the stove is getting -- the ignition temperature of wood is 572-752°F (300-400°C).

I'm not surprised it cooks the electronics -- I'm more surprised it doesn't start a fire...

[Absaroka]

Very first hit: "usually between 800º to 875ºF"

Second hit: "upward of 800ºF"

Third hit: "between 800 and 1,000 degrees Fahrenhei"

Fourth hit: "GE’s self-cleaning ovens operate at around 880 degrees, though exact temperatures vary by manufacturer"

Just FYI, my home made heat treat oven uses copper wire to supply a calrod burner element and gets over 2000 degrees F.

[Voize]

The wire used in the oven will more resemble this stuff than what you wire a house with.

[Krayt]

UL listings and Consumer Reports, how little we knew ye.

[SRG2]

I assume you have no weasels near you.
https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Pesachim.1.2?ven=The_Mishna_with_Obadiah_Bartenura_by_Rabbi_Shraga_Silverstein&lang=bi
We do not fear that a weasel might have carried (chametz) from house to house and from place to place. For if so — from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city — there is no end to the thing!

[SimonP]

I seem to recall Republicans recently scheduling some time to address appliance issues in Congress. Perhaps they could do something about this?

[#FFFFFFPride]

The Republicans never do anything but posture and play the dupe. There is no opposition party. It's one. The FBI/CIA/Pentagon party.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush Republicans to be precise—that’s the group that attempted to coup against Trump.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Well those guys, and the FBI and CIA and the Obama/Biden political operatives.

Did you hear the latest? That Eric Carmellia guy that supposedly whistleblew on Trump and Ukraine, was actually working with Biden and Burisma back in the day. lol unreal.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Not really, Trump did exactly what he said Trump did and he was doing his job by being on the call…so he didn’t do anything unethical or underhanded. Once Trump released the transcript the whistleblower was irrelevant anyway. Trump is an unethical clown and he deserved to get impeached The only thing that makes me angry is that nobody blew the whistle on Bush/Cheney because they were doing things much worse than what Trump did…and Trump assassinated a little American girl in his first week as president!!!

[Frank Drackman]

Talk about your "First World" Problems

[Bored Lawyer]

It's not a tragedy. But GE sold me a $ 2000 wall oven. Would be nice if all the features worked without ruining it. Especially those features that worked well for my parents' generation two and three decades ago.

[Michael P]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/18/protests-disruption-traffic/

Lots of libertarians argue that rather than taking a right-wing tough-on-crime tack, we should have smaller but more certain punishments for crime. This is powerful evidence that such an approach has systemic failure modes, and that punishments need to be broadly proportionate to the harm of the crime.

[ducksalad]

The problem with viewing punishments as “payment” for the crime is that it’s essentially saying crime is legitimate if you are willing to pay the price, like buying something at the store. I particularly dislike the old saying “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. Wrong. Don’t do the crime, period.

I’d say the approach should be small punishment for first offenses, may be even just a warning, but steep escalation if that doesn’t stop you. By the third time on the same type of offense, you’ve proven that you can’t or won’t stop, and the sentence is indefinite incarceration until we’re convinced something has changed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or we bring out the snowplows. If you REALLY want to stand in the middle of the road...

[Frank Drackman]

Ted Bundy hasn't killed anyone since 1989, hasn't even been arrested for falsifying business records or Insur-erection.

Frank

[M L]

Do folks on this libertarian site support the FISA reauthorization for warrantless spying on Americans?

https://reason.com/2024/04/12/democrats-tank-fisa-warrant-requirement/

"This is a sad day for America," said Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.). "The Speaker doesn't always vote in the House, but he was the tie breaker today. He voted against warrants."

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I don't.

[M L]

I wonder if the lefties here do? I want to hear them stand up for it.

[Nige]

Haha the 'lefties' on here remember back in the day when it was introduced and we were told by the 'righties' it was absolutely necessary to keep America safe.

[M L]

Exactly, and so if the left is against it and now the right has come to their senses as well, such that the American people generally oppose it, why have our supposed "representatives" just gone the other direction? Many such issues.

[Nige]

You didn’t come to your senses, you voted for a sleazebag who hired a sleazebag who got caught by it and now suddenly it's unfair and bad. Hoist, petard, etc. Nobody has to support FISA to get the irony.

[M L]

Don’t involve me in this. I wasn’t even alive in 1978.

Why are you avoiding my questions and trying to change the topic?

Are you saying you were against it before, but now you're OK with it because it's used to hoist sleazebags?

[Nige]

I'm talking about when Bush authorised all that warrantless surveillance post 9/11 and it was the most important thing in the world that this be allowed to go on, which is the last time it was a major issue.

[M L]

Ok, well I was in high school then but regardless I've never been in support of warrantless surveillance or the "Patriot Act" and so on.

How about you? Were you against it before, but now you support it because it's used to hoist sleazebags?

Any thoughts on why our "representatives" routinely do things that the American people disagree with, and would disagree with even more strongly if they were more than dimly aware?

[Nige]

Oh you missed out on the good times when a few of us here were the ones pushing back agains pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act, pro-torture etc etc. I think it's safe to say I'm still against those things. So at the time, despite vocal opposition, they did them anyway, because Patriotism! As for FISA today I have no idea what most Americans think, and wouldn't venture to guess.

[Bwaaah]

Notice how he doesn't answer? Nige doesn't have an absolute position on anything; he's a bot, and the "right wing" is the center of his meaningless anti-existence.

[Nige]

Hang on, am I an intolerant extremist who doesn't brook dissent or a bot with no absolute position on anything? Or just whichever of those suits your needs at any given time?

[jb]

I'm opposed to it. It was a bad idea when it was first passed and it's a bad idea now; it's a shame that they managed to find the votes to reauthorize without a requirement for a warrant.

[ducksalad]

Almost everyone here is against it.

Unfortunately, they’re just not *enough* against it to deny their vote to the political parties that keep renewing it.

[Frank Drackman]

The Tuskegee Experiment was reauthorized numerous times as well.

Frank "We're from the Government and we're here to make sure your Tertiary Syphillis isn't treated"

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You realize they need a warrant to gather the information in the first place, right?

[M L]

Is anyone angry about having more than $300 billion stolen from them through the government COVID response fiasco, i.e. the most appalling spending spree of public coffers in history? Or do you just shrug your shoulders at this?

https://reason.com/2024/04/17/covid-stimulus-money-lined-the-pockets-of-scammers-and-fueled-inflation/

“The total amount of fraud across all UI [unemployment insurance] programs (including the new emergency programs) during the COVID-19 pandemic was likely between $100 billion and $135 billion…,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated in September 2023.

That was after the Small Business Administration’s Inspector General found more than $200 billion stolen from the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). ..

“The full extent of fraud associated with the COVID-19 relief funds will never be known with certainty,” the GAO conceded in a report last November.

It’s nice the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task clawed back $1.4 billion. But that’s chump change in the context of massive handouts of money.

[John F. Carr]

America has wasted trillions in the past four years. The $300 million is a small part of that.

I am glad the statute of limitations for COVID fraud was extended. There is a slight chance more money will be recovered or more people will go to prison. Most of the thieves and their money are probably out of reach overseas.

[M L]

Ahem. That was 300 billion – with a “B” !

But it was always foreseeable that this would happen. Government, especially the federal government, never spends a dime without excessive waste, fraud, and abuse. The real outrage is that the federal government took trillions of dollars by force from the American people, completely unnecessarily, and spent it on “COVID” in ways that foreseeably enriched not only these fraudsters, but also the politicians themselves and their donors (fraudsters and also politicians and their donors - is that redundant?), including the pharmaceutical companies, govt contractors, all manner of big business and others, generally all of the wealthiest interests at the expense of others through inflation and further centralization of the economy and entrenchment of the crony capitalist environment.

[hobie]

It would be interesting to know if any of the rich, white, welfare-hating professionals on this blog took any of the money. I didn't get a cent because I was living in Portugal at the time

[M L]

Yes, business owners took PPP money and all that, whatever they could. "So they gave us back some of what they took?" is how they viewed it.

[Nelson]

So fraud is a good thing? Interesting take on it.

[M L]

Um . . . what? You think taking a PPP loan is fraud?

[Frank Drackman]

Do I give back my VA Disability pay for the broken toe I got playing Touch Foo-bawl in Kuwait? nope

[Bob from Ohio]

Anyone following the saga of the new NPR president? Her tweets and speeches are the beau ideal of the AWFL. Very funny.

[Frank Drackman]

She's sort of hot, although since it's National Pubic Radio I'm not completely convinced she's a Chick.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-npr-ceos-social-media-posts-show-progressive-views-support-clinton-biden

Maher...wrote on X in May 2020 that while "looting is counterproductive," it was "hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people's ancestors as private property."

So, looting is not so bad. OK. What about home invasions? Assault? Rape? Murder? After all, these people* are oppressed!
* (or at least their ancestors)
You can see how someone like this would have no problem cheering the 10/7 Hamas attack on Israel.

[John F. Carr]

From the "wag the dog" department.

Hamas may soon get its wish of a broader Middle East war. The October 7 attacks did not immediately provoke a regional war. They led to escalation of the low level fighting along the northern border of Israel. That led to an Israeli strike on an Iranian facility. That led to a showy but not all that effective strike by Iran on Israel. The parties could have stopped there, having beat their chests to assert dominance without a serious fight. But Netanyahu is in a politically precarious position. A strike on Iran proper would show he is tough and distract from the war in Gaza. The war in Gaza is not going well for Israel. It's not going well for Gazans either. War is not a zero sum game. It can be a negative sum game.

A blogger estimates Israel and its allies spent a billion dollars shooting down Iranian objects. America, at least, is institutionally incapable of developing weapons systems suitable for a sustained war.

[Frank Drackman]

Another Military Comment from someone who closest they got to serving was watching “Gomer Pyle” reurns. A Billion Dollars? Sure it isn’t Two Billion? or a Hundred Billion? Pull it out of your Ass like you did with your first number. “A Blogger”?? At Least “45” says “People are Saying” when he fabulizes

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"blogger estimates Israel and its allies spent a billion dollars shooting down Iranian objects"

Dumb people write dumb things. That's 3 million or more per shoot down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The newest version of the Patriot Missile cost $4.1 M each.

[Bob from Ohio]

"each of the Tamir missiles that the Iron Dome uses to intercept them costs between $20,000-$100,000, according to a report by the Air & Space Forces Magazine."

Cannon fire from aircraft was used against drones as well.

Blogger probably assumed that the Arrow system was used in every shoot down which is not remotely true.

[John F. Carr]

Iron Dome is short range defense. The incoming attack was first engaged over Jordan.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you been to Israel? Everything's "Short Range"

[John F. Carr]

The blogger is Tom Cooper, who is well informed on matters of military aviation, based on reporting by Bloomberg which notes that multiple missiles are fired at each target. Former IDF official Reem Aminoach, also in a position to make good estimates, had the same figure.

Soldiers tend to shoot off all the ammunition they can and worry about the consequences later.

[Frank Drackman]

You know that from your extensive combat experience?

[SRG2]

Kavanaugh on the left of the Court?

In Muldrow v St. Louis – the discrimination case – he wrote:

As I see it and as the D. C. Circuit saw it, the issue here is not complicated. Suppose that an employer says to an employee in the Columbus office: “We are transferring you to the Cincinnati office because you are black. But your compensation will not change.” Does that violate Title VII? Of course it does. To begin with, the employer has treated the employee differently because of race. To be sure, the fact that a transfer may not involve a change in compensation can affect the amount of any damages, as Muldrow’s attorney acknowledged. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 41–42. But a transfer changes the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Therefore, a discriminatory transfer violates the statute.

This is broader than the three liberal judges’ opinion.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush dragged Kavanaugh across the finish line…Trump wanted to pull his nomination.

[jb]

Also seems correct, though? Seems weird to focus on political valence rather than engaging the argument.

[SRG2]

Not weird - the argument is correct, but it is unusual and hence noteworthy for a justice identified with one side of the court being not only aligned with the other side, but actually going further than anyone on the other side has done.

Without knowing the justice, if you were given Kavanaugh's opinion and asked to guess whose it was, you'd immediately have guessed either Sotomayor or Jackson.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What ever became of this?
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/25/court-preliminary-enjoins-new-yorks-limits-on-unauthorized-practice-of-law/?itm_source=parsely-api

[Noscitur a sociis]

New York filed an interlocutory appeal: it looks like arguments should be heard in May.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Thanks -- it's an interesting case.

[apedad]

It's funny/sad that Hunter Biden is trying to use some of the same arguments that Trump is trying to use.

He has also argued unsuccessfully that (special counsel David) Weiss was unlawfully appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and unlawfully funded, arguments that Donald Trump’s defense has embraced in the Mar-a-Lago case.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/hunter-biden-bashes-special-counsel-for-unlawfully-and-illogically-pushing-towards-trial/

Hunter made this mess and is going to pay.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hunter is not going to pay shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hunter made this mess and is going to be pardoned

Corrected it for you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't think Joe will pardon Hunter (if he's convicted). It's not like he would be doing hard time anyway.

[Nige]

Of course he won’t. Bet he pardons Trump, though, if prison is ever on the cards.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump would absolutely hate that, wouldn't he!

[Absaroka]

If Trump is elected, though, I presume he would pardon Hunter, because he views politically motivated prosecutions as a bad thing.

I agree that Joe won't, because he believes the lawbreakers need to be punished, even if their prosecution may have been politically motivated.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump has no "views"; he sees only opportunities.

[Frank Drackman]

Well he should, Cocaine is Expensive (so I'm told)

[ReaderY]

One of the salient features of a number of commenters on this blog, notably but not limited to a certain Rev. who officiates in the Ministry of Costco, is a breezy self-confidence in being on the right side of history. We hear it pretty frequently.

This breezy confidence mostly originates in a 19th century concept started by Hegel. While Hegel’s concept was a sort of watered-down theism, Marx and others posited the existence of a science of history by which one can ascertain the direction history is going. Picking on our Rev. to provide a signature example for a moment, since our Rev. eschews theism in all its forms, presumably he bases his confidence on some sort of scientific or quasi-scientific conception.

But the idea that history can become anything like an exact science took quite a beating in the 20th century. Karl Popper in particular claimed that human history is in many respects unpredictable. We can potentially predict natural effects like climate change. But we can’t predict what kinds of ideologies, mores, or leaders our descendants will be working with. Moreover, extrapolations from the past to the future cannot be tested. Theories that fit past facts won’t necessarily predict the future.

In general the scientific community has gradually adapted the Popperian formulation, becoming increasingly aware of the limits of predictability. Even in a field like solar astronomy, which one might think as exact as they come, we can’t predict planet orbits with much reliability millions of years out because all kinds of small and unpredictable perturbations cause effects that tend to increase with time and eventually throw calculations ignoring them out. Weather becomes unpredictable much more rapidly. But even planets are subject to butterfly effects, albeit on astronomical time scales.

Thus where does our Rev’s confidence in being on the “right” side of history come from? I would suggest that if he is honest with himself, he would admit that it is essentially theological in character, however much the good Rev. doth protest his atheism. The good Rev. can’t abide a completely chaotic, unpredictable universe. So he posits, as a matter of faith, a certain order built into the structure of the universe, by which good and right, as he sees good and right, will eventually prevail.

If the good Rev. would be willing to admit that he himself does this, he might be less condescending towards others.

[apedad]

"Thus where does our Rev’s confidence in being on the “right” side of history come from?"

Maybe reading a history book?

You know, the anti-slavery thing.
The women voting thing.
Civil Rights Act thing.
Establishing environmental protections.
Establishing a world forum (UN).

And let's be clear - being on the right side of history DOES NOT mean things are perfect.

But those things listed above certainly do point to being on the right side of history.

Or are you against women and blacks voting?

[ducksalad]

This is not convincing.

During the time period you chose, someone else could have just as easily listed a dozen or more awful and pointless wars, three attempts at genocide that unfortunately met quite a few of their goals, etc.

You cherry pick a list of things that – after the fact, and with a lot of social conditioning – most all of us think are good, and then assume without much evidence that a Reverend Kirkland born in 1850 or 1920 would have been on the right side of them. Based on this nonsense assumption, we should believe that today’s Reverend Kirkland is right?

I think history won’t be kind to some of the Rev’s preferences. For example, his belief that less educated people deserve constant humiliation, or his enthusiasm for imprisoning political opponents.

[apedad]

You know there are people CURRENTLY pushing for (and against):

Same sex marriage
LGBTQ civil rights
Pro choice
Gun control

Those aren't 'after the fact' issues.

It's happening now and happily will also - eventually - be accepted by society (except for the Dr. Ed 2s).

So, on the right side (again? still?).

[ThePublius]

Your knowledge of the history, especially the recent history of gun control is deeply flawed.

Since 20th century, and especially in the last 16+ years, gun rights have been recognized, and more states have constitutional carry than ever before. It's going in the opposite direction of what you suggest, and rightly so.

LGBTQ... rights are already here.
Same sex marriage is already here.
How can people be 'pushing for' these things, except perhaps pointlessly so?

And "pro-choice," a.k.a. pro-abortion, anti-life, etc.; seems to me that the left is losing ground on this, especially since Dobbs.

So, what are you talking about?

[apedad]

Nice snap-shot in time you got there.

But we're talking about history and historical trends over long periods.

As I mentioned people are pushing against those things - and they WILL be eventually on the wrong side of history.

[Bob from Ohio]

"historical trends over long periods"

In 1978 many Iranian women walked around in standard western dress without head scarfs and without getting beat by morality police. Iran was allied with the US and friendly with Israel.

By 1948, the Soviet Union ruled half of Europe and had just helped Reds take over China and half of Korea.

History changes on a dime and has no side.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, really courageous to be against Slavery, for Women Voting, so what took Barry Hussein Osama so long to come out (see what I did there?) in support of SSM?? Pretty Bad when it takes Parkinsonian Joe to get you to see the light. Funny that's it the "Progressives" who have enabled the killing of over 600,000 unborn Black babies since 1973.

Frank

[Nige]

'During the time period you chose, someone else could have just as easily listed a dozen or more awful and pointless wars, three attempts at genocide that unfortunately met quite a few of their goals, etc.'

You see, and I'm not sure why this is difficult, those things would be the *wrong* side of history, the bad side, the very worst.

[ReaderY]

How do you know that history is somehow moving in the direction of these things happening less frequently? It might well be moving in the direction of these things happening mote often. The 20th century people could be seen as pioneers, way ahead of their time, but going in the direction history in fact eventually moved in.

The fact you don’t like these things isn’t evidence they are somehow going against the tide of history. It just doesn’t justify your or the Rev.’s certainty that they are about to become obsolete.

[Nige]

'How do you know that history is somehow moving in the direction of these things happening less frequently?'

I don't. I just know that those are the good things, the way we want to go, and the other things are bad, and we'd prefer they didn't happen.

'The fact you don’t like these things isn’t evidence they are somehow going against the tide of history.'

It's like you're having a complete short-circuit at the possibility that some people might have hopes for the future. How fucking dare they.

[ReaderY]

But then history has nothing to do with it.

Why mention history then? Why does the Rev. call people “clingers” and use language implying confidence their views will soon be dead and forgotten if there’s no actual belief this will happen? Is it just an epithet? Does it work like sports cheers, to boost ones own side’s moral?People regularly shout that their team will kick the other team’s ass even when they have no clue how the game will actually go.

[Nige]

Well that's the Rev, that's between you and him. But the belief, or the sense, that history moves forward to better things and backwards to bad things isn't as hard to grasp as you're making it out to be.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Establishing a world forum (UN)."

Not something to brag about.

Republicans got rid of slavery as well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans got rid of slavery, then switched to being the party of bigots.

I guess part of that is less than disgusting . . .

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm against women voting --- I think votes should be cast by FAMILIES (not individuals) and I don't think that public employees or those on public assistance should vote.

[SRG2]

"Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic troll!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

“Thus where does our Rev’s confidence in being on the “right” side of history come from?”

Maybe reading a history book?

Bingo!

[Nige]

Next you'll be telling us hope and history don't actually rhyme.

[Nelson]

History always moves away from the cultural positions of the past. Especially those that try to impose a rigid cultural or moral code on the larger population.

Ultimately, the “conservative” position will always be on the “wrong side” of history because the only constant in society is change.

That’s not to say that it is incorrect or inferior. History is rife with examples of overreach and correction. But the broad trend of history always moves away from the positions of the past. In the Constitution, they called it a “more perfect union”, because they knew that there was no way to create a perfect union. It had to allow for change.

[Mr. Bumble]

How is that jury selection in NY going?
Two jurors dismissed.

[Moderation4ever]

May have to push that Monday opening arguments back.

[Frank Drackman]

Falling faster than Iranian Drones!

[David Nieporent]

How is that jury selection in NY going?
Two jurors dismissed.

And? Obviously it's going to take longer to seat a jury in a case involving a former president of the United States than an armed robbery of a bodega. But there's nothing crazy going on here; it's been a few days. That they got as many as they did seated as quickly as they did is impressive.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously, you are easily impressed.

[Bob from Ohio]

One of the dismissed jurors had been arrested for ripping down GOP posters, per the news. Maybe it would be more impressive if they caught obvious rejects before seating them.

Judge is in too much hurry for his scalp.

[not guilty]

"Maybe it would be more impressive if they caught obvious rejects before seating them."

The issue with that venireman came to light when the prosecution told the judge prosecutors conducted research that potentially calls into question the veracity of a number of juror No. 4’s responses to the questionnaire. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/18/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/juror-identity-00153014

I don't know how far in advance of trial that the attorneys were provided the names of the prospective jurors. If a venireman withholds relevant information during voir dire, it can be difficult to detect such inaccuracies.

[Bob from Ohio]

The judge is rushing the selection, not giving the defense enough time to look at stuff including social media.

It doesn't matter, its a kangaroo court, but Judge Dredd could at least pretend to be fair.

[SRG2]

How long do you think it takes to look up someone on social media? Do you have to send registered letters to X, FaceBook, Instagram, and wait for replies, or is there a somewhat faster method?

[Krayt]

I think they said he had the same name as someone who ripped down posters, not necessarily proven it was him, which was apparently good enough?

[jb]

So your idea of a kangaroo court is one in which the prosecution disqualifies a juror who might be biased in their favor?

[Nelson]

Stop ruining his persecution narrative with things like facts and logic. It's not fair.

[David Nieporent]

I know that Kirkland always accuses him of being a paper pusher, but Bob from Ohio is supposedly a lawyer. I would think even a non-litigator would know that the judge isn't rushing jury selection at all here.

I remember my first jury trial, the judge picked a jury in 23 minutes. Now that was rushing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One can be a downscale paper-pusher and a lawyer . . . particularly in backwater Ohio.

How many of the best people from your law school class chose to practice in backwater Ohio (or backwater anywhere)?

(I am familiar with a few lawyers who started at strong firms before, for varying reasons and with varying level of choice, moving to a small town and becoming the local general practitioner (with a sign that describes a dozen or more areas of practice) or district attorney. One of my law professors recommended that to us, telling us that being a big fish in a small pond could be very rewarding. But, in general, people with skill, credentials, resources, and smarts -- especially lawyers -- do not wind up in can't-keep-up backwaters, at least not until they retire.)

[M L]

The people being called "crazy" for thinking that the government will do more and more oppressive things . . . are usually proved right.

https://reason.com/2024/04/18/this-tax-week-remember-that-the-federal-income-tax-is-relatively-new/

The very first Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, introduced in 1913 after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, was remarkably straightforward compared to what we know today. It was only four pages long, including instructions, and the top tax rate was 7 percent on incomes above $500,000, which is over $15 million in today's dollars. Some people were horrified by a 7 percent tax and warned that it could put us on a slippery slope to higher rates—maybe even above 10 percent (!)—imposed on a vast majority of people. They were called crazy for fearing such a thing.

[Krayt]

Since the government gets reports of all your income, interest, whatever, they should give you the option of just signing a computer-generated return.

[Sarcastr0]

So oppressed by...having to pay more taxes than in 1913.

What a joke.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, having to give a big chunk of your income to somebody else to avoid being locked up or shot is oppressing. And, way to miss the point, which is that the people who worried it would get worse were right.

[Sarcastr0]

There is more to life, to the social contract, and to morality than maximizing how much money you personally can spend.

You have a very pinched idea of political morality.

You and lost causer ML keep it simple and childlike.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I think it's nice, in some ways, that the Volokh Conspiracy provides a place at which right-wing misfits and malcontents can huddle for warmth as they seethe against modernity, inclusiveness, and reason while awaiting replacement.

[M L]

“The people being called “crazy” for thinking that the government will do more and more ______________ things . . . are usually proved right.”

What word do you think I should have used here? I did have a bit of trouble coming up with the right word.

To essentially describe increasingly bigger government and increasing government control and taxes. Set aside that you love those things. Or that you disagree with the statement. What’s a word someone who doesn’t love those things might use, which would be more acceptable in Sarcastro’s view?

Some ideas: Heavy-handed; onerous; encroaching; meddlesome; controlling; totalitarian; despotic; rapacious; confiscatory . . . brutal? The list could go on obviously but what do you think.

And then I suppose for someone who loves those things, what’s the word? Benevolent? Charitable? Progressive?

[ThePublius]

Yesterday Joe Biden commented on the salary of 1st round draft pick for the WNBA, Caitlin Clark. His statement:

"Women in sports continue to push new boundaries and inspire us all, but right now we're seeing that even if you're the best, women are not paid their fair share. It’s time that we give our daughters the same opportunities as our sons and ensure women are paid what they deserve.”

What does this mean? It means nothing. It’s meaningless fomentation of class/gender warfare, virtue signaling, and pandering.

Neither he, nor anyone else on the left who comes at this issue, and others, with the “fair share” comment offers a solution for this, save increased taxation or redistribution of wealth.

Basketball, and other sports, are entertainment. WNBA is a business. The reason “our daughters” don’t get paid more is that no one is really interested in women’s basketball. If they filled the stands, if there was more competition for the best players, well, then, they’d obviously get more money!

What would the solution be? Take money from NBA players or NBA teams to augment salaries for WNBA players? (But, wait: the NBA provides the WNBA with an annual endowment of over $15 million. This financial support helps cover various operating costs for WNBA teams, including facilities, travel, marketing, and administration.)

No solutions, just complaining and virtue signaling. You know who’s not complaining about Caitlin Clark’s salary? Caitlin Clark.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Clark will make more than most NBA players in endorsements. The funny one is the USWNT and the World Cup—they want to steal money from brown foreigners by getting access to the World Cup pot which is $400 million! It’s brazen and typical ugly American stuff. So the world without America creates this great sporting event in the World Cup…and then a bunch of Karens from America start complaining and try to ruin it…now the rest of the world gets to witness what we have to deal with. 😉

[ThePublius]

If Bud Light was smart they'd get Caitlin Clarke onto a Bud Light can....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure the old-timey conservative bigots would like that? Please explain.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bigots should support equal pay for the USWNT because it’s stealing from brown foreigners…liberals should oppose it because it’s just more entitled white American BS.

[Frank Drackman]

You're the only old-timey one here, "Coach"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What does this mean? It means nothing. It’s meaningless fomentation of class/gender warfare, virtue signaling, and pandering.

Exactly this. The only people complaining because WNBA players’ salaries are not on a par with NBA players’ salaries are:

1) Those too stupid to grasp the blindingly obvious rational business reasons for the disparity (most notably, the > 1 order of magnitude disparity between the two organizations’ annual revenues, and the fact that the WNBA has NEVER turned a profit, and still relies on NBA subsidization for its continued existence).

2) Those dishonestly parroting a narrative in order to pander to those in group #1.

3) WNBA players themselves, who may or may not be members of group #1.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Endorsements—based on the number of girls that play the sport which is why that is where the money is at. Basically Nike and Gatorade and the NBA should have developed the WNBA and there shouldn’t be a draft they should model it after professional sports teams of the 1920s. Btw, I watch women’s college basketball and softball but professional sports are sort of dumb in general.

[Bob from Ohio]

Is this 1 or 2?

"Ro Khanna@RoKhanna
One doesn't need to watch WNBA games to speak about pay fairness. Clark will bring new fans and likely juice WNBA ratings. She should be compensated for the expected ratings increase she will bring. NBA players like Bird, Jordan, Johnson did the same. Isn't this basic economics?"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Dr J didn’t originally play in the NBA and Jim Kelly didn’t originally play in the NFL and the craziest sport is tennis which didn’t pay players in the Grand Slams until the late 1960s iirc.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Is this 1 or 2?

That particular example sounds like a member of group #1.

One doesn’t need to watch WNBA games to speak about pay fairness.

That’s just childishly meaningless nonsense.

Clark will bring new fans and likely juice WNBA ratings. She should be compensated for the expected ratings increase she will bring.

First off, her real future impact on WNBA revenue remains to be seen. I do think it extremely likely that she will spark more interest, at least in the short-term, but I don’t think anyone can predict how much more interest or for how long it will last. Clark is indeed a women’s basketball phenom that has captured a lot of public attention for her stellar college performance, but I’m not convinced that her current notoriety is enough on its own to overcome the fundamental reasons for viewer disinterest in the long run. At the end of the day she’s just one player in a league that will still be, on the whole, not nearly as interesting to fans as the men’s game is. And even if her starting compensation was higher due to expectations that she would cause a corresponding increase in revenue (but still not profitability) then the complaint would be that all the other women players are still making less than the men.

NBA players like Bird, Jordan, Johnson did the same.

Bird, Jordan and Johnson were drafted into a league that was already immensely profitable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bird, Jordan and Johnson were drafted into a league that was already immensely profitable."

Kinda. Before Bird and Magic NBA finals were on tape delay. So profitable but not hugely profitable.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Kinda. Before Bird and Magic NBA finals were on tape delay. So profitable but not hugely profitable.

What does that have to do with overall profitability of the NBA in 1979 (Bird's first contract year)? I'm having difficulty locating reliable specifics on NBA revenues/profits for 1978 (and earlier), but I do know that total revenue for the '82-'83 season was $118 million (~$460 million in today's inflation-adjusted $s), and that the Lakers sold for $20 million in 1979 ($78 million in today's $s)...for one team. That certainly suggests that things were pretty good for the NBA even then.

And even if we disagree on the meaning of "hugely" we can at least agree that the NBA has been profitable at some level, which is something that the NBA-subsidized WNBA still has yet to achieve.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes as I said, "So profitable but not hugely profitable."

"$78 million in today’s $s"

69% of the Mavs just sold for 69% of $3.8 billion valuation per reports. It would be 5 billion for the Lakers, at least.

That is hugely profitable.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Magic and Bird made the NBA what it is today…nobody cared about the NBA before them. And professional sports teams aren’t profitable—revenue covers expenses and no profits come from operations. The value of the franchise is profitable but they don’t make a profit. How do we know this?? The Green Bay Packers don’t have an owner and so ostensibly the profits are given to charity…and so a company worth $5 billion gives out around a million dollars a year in charity which is pathetic.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

OK, so jettison the word "hugely" and we still have "profitable"....which the WNBA is still quite a ways from being at all, let alone as profitable as the NBA was even back then.

[Frank Drackman]

Before the 3-point shot was introduced in 1979-1980, NBA games were unwatchable (OK, I watched alot of Lakers and "NBA on CBS" Sunday Mornings) Basic Laker play was to get the ball to Kareem in the post so he could shoot his sky-hook, occasionally get it out to Gail Goodrich on the wing, and there was this awful "3 chances to make 2" rule, as if there weren't too many shots from the Charity Stripe already, only watched the Lakers games for Chick Hearn, and for the "Red on Roundball" segments on the CBS games

Frank

[Longtobefree]

"It’s time that we give our daughters the same opportunities as our sons "

I don't recall anyone saying she couldn't try out for an NBA team.
She has the same opportunity, just not the same ability.

(besides, the NBA is racist, they don't hire the proper proportion of white guys)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

She has the same opportunity, just not the same ability.

Which brings to mind one of the other idiotic things I've heard said. Namely, that Clark breaking Pete Maravich's NCAA Div I scoring record shows that women have become just as good at the game as men. The obvious problem with that being that she broke his record by playing against other women, while he set that record playing against other men. It's the same braindead reasoning that causes top female boxers (and those in other fighting sports) who dominate the other women in their divisions to start boasting that they can take on...and defeat...their male counterparts, only to embarrass themselves by being taken down in exhibition matches by low-ranked male amateurs, including inexperienced teenagers in some cases.

[not guilty]

Not to mention that Pete Maravich accumulated his point total during a three year span, (freshmen were not then allowed to play,) before the three point basket, and before the introduction of the shot clock in college basketball.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, obviously. This is traditional Democrat policy, always (in recent memory) has been and probably always will be. It's the kind of feel-goody nonsense that brings in donor money and the soccer mom vote--even if none of it ever becomes law.

The Democrats haven't changed. What has changed is that there used to be a sane alternative in the Republican party who would make sensible legal, economic and moral arguments against such nonsense, but sadly they've all been hunted down and killed by Trump's increasingly emboldened Magiscists (figuratively, thus far).

It's their fault we have Biden, and it will be their fault if he's re-elected. I don't blame Biden for being Biden.

[jb]

This is satire, but also... pretty true:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C56TaEJOc8S/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

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

ZERO (0)

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

TWENTY-ONE (21)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 21 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 21 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
pace of 2023, when the
Volokh Conspiracy published
racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.
This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
legal academia by members of
the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale, ugly right-wing thinking, hereis something worthwhile.

They'll be touring soon, with these guys opening (no Bun E., alas).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers:

The tour is soon to begin!

Here is a reasonable accounting of what to expect, at least during the early shows.

From the new album, four or five of these:
Angry (almost surely)
Sweet Sound of Heaven (same)
Whole Wide World (very likely)
Mess It Up (maybe)
Bite My Head Off (rehearsed)
Depending on You (rehearsed)
Live by the Sword (rehearsed)

The warhorses (every night):
Start Me Up
Tumbling Dice
Sympathy for the Devil
Street Fighting Man
Jumping Jack Flash
Honky Tonk Women
Midnight Rambler

The roughly strewn chestnuts:
Get Off Of My Cloud
Out of Time
She's a Rainbow
Like a Rolling Stone
Beast of Burden
Emotional Rescue
Fool to Cry
Shattered
Wild Horses
Dead Flowers

Keith (two per show):
Tell Me Straight
Little T&A
Happy
Before They Make Me Run

The first leg of the tour includes Houston, Phoenix, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Seattle. Ticket prices seem to be dropping a bit. Enjoy the shows!

[Frank Drackman]

No "Under my Thumb"? "Brown Sugar"? "Some Girls" OK, now in your "Racial Slur" Count please be sure to credit these to Mick and the boys
"....Black girls just wanna get fucked all night, I just don't have that much jam
Chinese girls are so gentle, they're really such a tease..."

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brown Sugar and Paint It Black should be part of the warhorse list.

Under My Thumb is being rehearsed earnestly. But not, I am sad to report, the '80s-style guitar-driven version. (First song I played onstage and was paid for.)

Here's another from that show, I believe.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Gold Coast slave ship bound for cotton fields
Sold in the market down in New Orleans
Scarred old slaver knows he's doin' all right
Hear him whip the women just around midnight"

[grb]

Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland : “The tour is soon to begin!”

On the other hand, Bob Dylan’s Never Ending Tour has never stopped. I can always be thankful for being an impossibly close spectator for both a Dylan concert and Sonny Rollins’ set. Throw in a couple of John Prine concerts and Die Zauberflöte at the old Berlin Opera House and matters can hardly be beat.

(Dylan singing Pamina’s aria “Ach, ich fühl’s” while Rollins wails in the background might do’t)

[Ridgeway]

Did you forget Satisfaction, or do they really never play that any more?

How about Under My Thumb? It is not exactly au courant, but when has that ever stopped the Stones?

[Mr. Bumble]

Dickie Betts has passed away and yet Kieth Richards is still with us.
Go figure.

[SRG2]

Given that Keef has always been around, perhaps you should rephrase as "we're still with Keith Richards".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was working mainly from the recent rehearsal setlists. They might figure they don't need to do much work for Satisfaction this time around?

Under My Thumb has been played frequently this week.

[ThePublius]

I have a friend who's the polar opposite of my politically, and in many cases, philosophically. He espouses that Trump is perhaps senile, demented, or otherwise feeble, while maintaining that Biden is not any of these things. I think it's fairly obvious that the opposite is so. I know many here will disagree, but there it is.

Compare, for example, Trumps appearance at the bodega in NY to Biden's feeble tottering, mumbling, fumbling presence.

Yesterday Biden told this incredible (literally) story of his grandpa Ambrose Finnegan, who while flying a single engine plane in combat over New Guinea was shot down, and that his body was never recovered, as there were cannibals there ("for real"), and that pieces of the wreckage were found at the crash site. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Army, it was a twin engine plane, there was a crew and Finnegan was a passenger, the plan suffered loss of both engines and crashed into the sea. One crewman was rescued, all others and Finnegan perished.

Yesterday he also cautioned Israel to not move on Haifa. Ha, ha. Haifa is an Israeli city! (I think me meant Rafah.) Oh, and in the telling of the Finnegan story he confused D-Day and Pearl Harbor.

This guy is gone. He's at the point of dementia where he's conflating movies he's seen or books he's read with his own reality, or perhaps just embellishing stories to boost his self esteem. He reminds me of Grampa Simpson. "We used to tie an onion to our belt, which was the fashion at the time...." Sad.

Why doesn't the so-called mainstream media call him out on this, fact check him, etc.? If it was Trump who told these tall tales....

Why aren't Dr. Jill, et.al., charged with elder abuse?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden has been the best president since Clinton…and by design he’s a weak president because he trusts his Cabinet secretaries to do the heavy lifting. I think Obama was an above average president but I just can’t get over him keeping Gates and escalating Afghanistan even though he handed Trump a manageable situation. (Gates was an awful DefSec and he’s the guy that recommended Tillerson to Trump) Trump supporters have a very unrealistic view of what the president can do and also they are way too tribal and so they don’t realize their enemy isn’t Democrats but Bush Republicans.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Shockingly, it would seem you missed Trump's history lesson on Gettysburg from the other day. It was right up there with the airports in the Revolutionary War.

[SRG2]

One of the sillier recent trends is supporters of one candidate insisting that the other candidate has cognitive issues but theirs is 100%.

[Krayt]

Octogenarians, gentlemen. Octogenarians.

Sweet for grandmas. Not so for people with fingers on stuff.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

We shouldn't have to choose between two feeble, elderly men for arguably one of the most important jobs in the world. But we do, and, frankly, choosing the one who isn't a dangerous, narcissistic asshole isn't that difficult a decision.

[Frank Drackman]

you're right, why I'm voting for "45"

[Estragon]

“If it was Trump who told these tall tales….”

Simple question:

Do you believe Trump shot 68 to win the men’s club championship at Bedminster last year?

[Frank Drackman]

Could happen, I mean, Parkinsonian Joe was recruited to play Foo-Bawl at the Naval Academy

[Estragon]

I didn’t ask if it was metaphysically possible. I asked whether he believed it. I ask you the same…

[apedad]

Let's see . . . what's going on in Tennessippi!

14-year-old looked ‘like she had seen a demon’ after shooting her mom in the face and inviting friend over to show off victim’s body, investigator testifies

(The suspect Carly) Gregg shot (her mother, Ashley) Smylie at their Brandon home on Ashton Way before she attempted to murder her stepfather, Heath Smylie, by ambushing him when he got home.

(Gregg also) invited a friend over to show off the victim’s body by claiming there was an “emergency . . . .”

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/14-year-old-charged-with-murdering-mom-now-accused-of-showing-body-to-a-friend/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What should we expect when all of the smart, ambitious young people flee at high school graduation, never to return?

[Kazinski]

The judge seems to be awfully unsympathetic to an orphan that's just lost her mother:
"The Tuesday hearing ended with the judge refusing to lower Gregg’s $1 million bond, considering her a “special danger to others.”

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

ON MY MIND: Akebono, the great rikishi, RIP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crFxgpVeqhY&t=78s

[SRG2]

Yup. Premature oshidashi 🙁

[Kazinski]

They should award the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize to Ronald Reagan for his vision in starting the Star Wars program which avoided a major war between Israel and Iran this week. According to CNN:

"Most of the more than 300 Iranian munitions, the majority of which are believed to have been launched from inside of Iran’s territory during a five-hour attack, were intercepted before they got to Israel, more than 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) from their launch points.

Israel’s military said Sunday that “99%” of projectiles fired by Iran were intercepted by Israel and its partners, with only “a small number” of ballistic missiles reaching Israel.

In total, around 170 drones, more than 30 cruise missiles and more than 120 ballistic missiles were launched at Israel by Iran overnight Saturday, the military said."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/14/middleeast/israel-air-missile-defense-iran-attack-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

I can't think of any other world leader who has done for more for peace in 2024 than what Reagan's vision did just a few days ago.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One might wonder whether Iran wanted and expected those projectiles to be intercepted . . .

[Dr. Ed 2]

When the other half either didn't get off the ground or crashed?

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get a piece prize for starting a broad base of fundamental research programs.

Too many intervening causes.

I can’t think of any other world leader who has done for more for peace in 2024 than what Reagan’s vision did just a few days ago.
That is a deeply odd perspective.

[Don Nico]

Not to mention that a peraon has to be alive to get a Nobel Prize.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes. Also that.

[grb]

Don Nico : "Not to mention that a peraon has to be alive to get a Nobel Prize"

A point regularly made when the subject of Rosalind Franklin comes up.

(the discovery of DNA's structure being a subject that fascinates me. The way Ms Franklin was/wasn't treated poorly a subset of the topic)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know whether the battling greyboxers have pointed this out above, but the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously.

So, that's not gonna happen. (Is your googlestick broke?)

[Kazinski]

Clinton I think locked up the "Piece Prize" at least for presidential recipients.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The Nobel Peace Prize is misleadingly named. The terms of Nobel's will say that it should be awarded to the most significant work promoting "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

"Standing armies" is interpreted today to include automated weapons-systems -- any military force which can be activated by a leader issuing a single order. This includes any missile-defense system which responds without a "go" order.

So no, "Star-Wars" doesn't merit a Nobel Peace prize according to the terms of the will.

(This is also why Borlaug got one for building new international coalitions to deploy his dense-fruiting grain-strains, and why Al Gore got one for promoting international cooperation on greenhouse-gas reduction. "Fraternity among nations".)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Possibly of interest.
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/04/17/why-law-school-should-be-an-undergraduate-program/

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why did CA $20B+ plus Super Democrat plan to solve homelessness not work?

[loki13]

I covered this in another thread, but given it has popped up again, a basic refresher in a few of the actual facts regarding the criminal trial in NY regarding Trump. If you are saying other things (such as the payment was for an NDA), you are showing that you don't know what you're talking about, and ignoring publicly available information.

1. This isn't a crime that is never charged. This is a crime that has been charged quite a lot previously.

2. This wasn't blackmail. Trump paid money to a publisher to reimburse them for the rights to an article to kill it (the assignment of those rights), because he didn’t want a porn star talking about the fact that he was slept with her. Another woman too, but we can ignore that (everyone else does). In other words, the people thought they were being paid to publish the story, and instead the story was not published. But more simply- AMI (the publisher) was a willing accomplice of Trump. They were the ones that specifically went out to get the “rights” to the story to kill it, and were paid by Trump (Cohen) in order to do it, buying the rights, and then selling (assigning) the rights to a Trump company. In other words, Trump wasn’t blackmailed. AMI reached out and negotiated the rights to the story with the women. The women in question weren’t asking for silence, they thought that they were selling the rights to a story that would be published.

3. But Trump didn’t pay for the rights. Cohen paid the for the rights (not an NDA). Through a shell corporation. In order to avoid the news coming out before the election. This was an illegal payment for which Cohen has already served time in prison.

4. After the election, Trump then reimbursed Cohen with a number of checks over time, each stating they were for “legal services” for a specific time period in 2017 under a retainer agreement. Not as a lump sum settlement at one time, or for the rights to a story. And there was no retainer agreement. Oh, and the checks were processed through (you knew this was coming) the Trump organization. So Trump he didn’t pay an attorney to get rid of a claim (either for the work or as a settlement). The lawyer set up a shell company to get the rights to kill a story, and then Trump, later, falsified business records by claiming that these payments were for “legal expenses” over a period of time for a retainer agreement … not to purchase the rights of a story (in order that it not be published).

Whether you think this is, or isn't, a "big deal" is up to you, but try and get the basic facts right first. Please.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Speaking of getting basic facts right. In NY, "falsifying business records" in the first degree requires the concealment of another crime.

Weird you left that part out. That's pretty important, no?

[loki13]

I assumed that was already self-evident.

But both Cohen and AMI already admitted to violating (federal) election law. And that's the concealment of another crime. They would show both state and federal election law.

[Kazinski]

Of course the Cohen's "admission" was part of a plea bargain with Mueller's special prosecutor squad. Cohen never would have pled guilty to that offense on its own because a conviction was well nigh impossible. They had Cohen dead to rights on a taxi medallions fraud that had nothing to do with Trump, but they were desperate to charge Cohen for anything that had some connection with Trump, even though they knew it was bogus.

Some speculated the next step would be to charge Trump for the same offense, but of course they knew they'd never get a conviction because it isn't a real crime.

And Mueller's team knew it, this is the only mention of the matter in the entire report under referrals:
"2. Michael Cohen During the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s Office uncovered evidence of potential wire fraud and FECA violations pertaining to Michael Cohen. That evidence was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the FBI’s New York Field Office."

[Riva]

WTF? Let me say that again WTF. It can't be said enough to TDS deranged psuedo-lawyers yet again gaslighting. Cohen pled guilty to five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a bank, one count of causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution. That has nothing the F to do with the crap shit nonsense that fat Soros slob Bragg and his Biden assistant (that would be Michael Colangelo) have brought against President Trump. You know less than shit about the facts and law. In fact so ignorant you might want to take a stab at being the Manhattan DA.

[loki13]

I appreciate your comments, and your commitment to your cause, and the fact that you do not appreciate how incredibly funny what you just wrote was.

That said, facts are what they are. I tried to make sure I laid out the operative facts, and if you actually read what I wrote, you might notice that. It is always helpful to read! Start with the premise that you need to understand the facts before you come to your position.

[Riva]

To say President Trump conspired with Cohen to commit a federal elections campaign violation is to claim that President Trump made an “illegal” campaign contribution to himself after the election. Is that the factual and legal scenario you’re touting. Not saying it won’t work with a corrupted slob like Bragg and the conflicted judge and biased jury. But, as a matter of of law, it’s shit. No matter how many paragraphs you write. And in the future some advice, less is more.

[loki13]

Well, you don’t seem to actually understand what the operative law is. Again, as I have repeatedly stated, you can either educate yourself on publicly available primary documents, or you can simply decide what your position is and use overheated rhetoric to show your ignorance.

Integrity always has a price, but I recommend not selling it so cheaply. ????

[Riva]

So just to get this straight. The operative law, according to you, criminalizes alleged excessive presidential campaign contributions made by the candidate himself? After the election? That would be federal law by the way, you know, federal law that fat slob Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce. Not much integrity is in this full of shit premise. Integrity always has a price, but I recommend not selling it so cheaply.

[loki13]

No, let's try this again. The operative law is the falsification of business records. You get that, right? It's ... you know, it's in the indictment. You can look it up.

It requires an intent to commit another crime and aid in its concealment and commission. It doesn't require that it is a state crime.

Moreover, both AMI and Cohen have already admitted to the relevant facts in pleas. (I assume you are a careful read and understood what I actually wrote earlier).

As I have previously written, this would be a violation of state and federal election law. Again, I personally think that this is the type of thing that rich people normally get away with (and poor people aren't even doing), but it is what it is.

Now, given your colorful rhetoric and seeming inability to communicate in a pleasant manner, I'll assume that you will either moderate your tone with me, or I will enjoy your absence. Take care!

[Riva]

Yes, let's try this again you gaslighting hack. The "operative" law doesn't impose felony liability for an alleged, dead book keeping violation. That felony status was created by the fat Soros backed slob Bragg with the input of his Biden assistant Colangelo. F'ing disgrace. As is the conflicted judge and biased jury. But, be of good cheer, you'll get the political prosecution and conviction you want. How could you fail in this rigged farce? But stop pretending this f'ing BS has any legitimacy.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, let’s try this again you gaslighting hack.

Riva, like his orange god, is decompensating before our eyes.

The “operative” law doesn’t impose felony liability for an alleged, dead book keeping violation.

It does, if done with the requisite intent.

[loki13]

Looks like Riva couldn’t help themselves. But I knew that based on their prior comments.

Life is too short, etc. Bye!

[David Nieporent]

We're not talking about conspiracy. Trump need not have "conspired with" Cohen for Trump to be guilty of violating 175.10.

[not guilty]

"To say President Trump conspired with Cohen to commit a federal elections campaign violation is to claim that President Trump made an 'illegal' campaign contribution to himself after the election. Is that the factual and legal scenario you’re touting."

That is wrong on several levels. Have you read New York Penal Law § 175.10, Riva? https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-k/article-175/175-10/ The actus reus of the statute is falsifying business records. (Conspiracy is not an element.) The mens rea which distinguishes the lesser offense of falsifying business records in the second degree is the offender's intent to defraud which includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

The other crime need not have actually occurred, just as the intended concealment need not have actually occurred. The other crime need not have been committed by the same actor who is charged under § 175.10. If Donald Trump falsified business records, intending to conceal a crime committed by Michael Cohen or anyone else, Trump committed a felony in violation of § 175.10.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, when the law is on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. And when neither is on your side, insult the physical appearance of the prosecutor, with a dollop of antisemitism just for fun.

[Riva]

Says the hypocritical jackass throwing out baseless garbage accusations of anti-Semitism. Pathetic projection from the vile anti-Semitic left. The truth is you don't really think arguing that President Trump conspired with Cohen to commit a federal elections campaign violation by making an “illegal” excessive campaign contribution to himself after the election is a valid argument. you don't really give a shit as long as your side can get a conviction. That it's a gross abuse of process really doesn't factor into it. Looks like you repulsive budding fascists will get with you want. Be careful jackass Once you buy a police state it's yours to keep.

[David Nieporent]

As Loki tried to explain to you — but you weren't smart enough to understand because you haven't yet read something in the Federalist or whatever that you can parrot contrary talking points from — this prosecution does not in any way involve the argument that Trump "conspired with Cohen to commit a federal elections campaign violation."

As for your faux outrage, if you don't want to be called an antisemite, maybe stop posting antisemitic claims about how the rich Jew banker is secretly controlling this.

Also, I'm not on the left.

[Riva]

Keep up the BS gaslighting all you want. It's quite amusing (and just plain fucking stupid) how you hypocrites love to regurgitate anti-Jewish stereotypes. Pointing out that Bragg is a fat Soros backed slob is neither a lie, nor anti-Semitic. It’s quite true. He is fat, a slob, and Soros backed. I’m frankly surprised you didn’t call me a racist, after all the fat slob Bragg is black. F’ing asinine (that would be you I’m referring to but probably also describes that fat, Soros backed slob Bragg). And neither you or “Loki” get to define the issue and the relevant facts. There is no predicate federal campaign elections violation (even if Bragg could enforce it, which he can’t) committed by President Trump that can be used to bootstrap a dead state misdemeanor into 34 felonies. You’re welcome to twist the law and facts to suit your TDS fantasies. Bragg (the fat, Soros backed slob) and his Biden crony (that would be Matt Colangelo) certainly are. And, like I said, you’re covered in the NY cesspool with a conflicted judge and biased jury. So cheer up. you’ve got the banana republic police state trial of your dreams.

[Riva]

And not a leftist my ass. A Biden supporting, TDS inflicted clown who casts asinine racist insults on opponents. If you’re not a leftist democrat you’re doing a good impression.

[David Nieporent]

I am not "Biden supporting." Because I am patriotic and a decent human being, I am a NeverTrumper. Since the only plausible alternative to Trump is Biden, I have no choice but to hope Biden wins. (Because I live in very blue NJ, I will thankfully not have to vote for Biden myself, though.)

I don't know what "racist insults" you think I have cast. (Do you think it's "racist" to call someone an antisemite?)

[Riva]

You are a sad little liar, aren’t you? The truth does hurt. Don’t worry you can respond with more asinine racist bullshit. Bullshit is basically all you do.

[Riva]

And just so you know little leftist, the next time you want to insult someone, the definition of “anti-Semite” is not anyone who opposes the Soros agenda and the piece of shit local prosecutors he backs. Like the fat, slob Bragg. Yeah, I know, just like the meritless Trump case, you leftist hacks understand that but can’t resist the insult. Just more projection from the real supporters of racism/anti-Semitism.

[not guilty]

"In NY, 'falsifying business records' in the first degree requires the concealment of another crime."

Uh, no. It requires intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Neither actual commission nor actual concealment of the intended other crime is an element of the offense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Intellectual property is property that can be bought and sold, the women DIDN"T HAVE TO sell exclusive rights to it -- they could have had a press conference if they wanted to.

If I wanted to sell my story about Planet UMass, I could -- and UMass could then buy it and own it -- and sue me if I told it to anyone else. And why Trump isn't suing Daniels is beyond me.

There are all kinds of (legal) corporate games one can play. I know one person who sets up a separate LLC for every rental property he buys, another who sets up shell companies for reasons I can't understand and probably wouldn't want to even if I could.

Cohen was a duly licensed lawyer at the time -- unless Trump *knew* he was violating the law (if, in fact, he actually was), he was taking the advice of counsel and if the legal profession is going to exist, courts have to hold harmless those following the advice of an incompetent or corrupt lawyer.

What the hell happened to lawyer/client confidentiality here? Cohen did something criminal so now he gets to drag Trump into it?

And as to payments, Cohen sent bills which Trump paid. So?!?
The statute of frauds does not mention lawyer retainer contracts, so it could have been a verbal contract.

AT MOST, Trump is guilt of not properly supervising his lawyer, so we are now supposed to hire a second lawyer to supervise the first? And then who supervises the second one?!?

[loki13]

That's just ... wow.

Look, the facts are what they are. As I said, you can either say it's a big deal, or no big deal. As I stated in the other thread-

Personally, I think that this is the kind of thing that Trump (and others) almost always get away with, and likely would not result in charges like this. Whether that’s a feature or a bug of the system is your call. You can analogize it to Hunter Biden’s case- notoriety and political pressure can result in prosecutors choosing to pursue a criminal action instead of just resolving it easily.

But the rest of this is just noise. There is no doubt that he structured this (aka, falsified records) in order to avoid exposure before the election- which is pretty much falsifying business records in order to conceal a crime. Maybe a somewhat de minimis crime in the grand scheme of things rich people will do, but still.

[Armchair]

" You can analogize it to Hunter Biden’s case"

No, you can't. Hunter's case would almost automatically have resulted in tax fraud charges based on the information at hand. As it is, Hunter got away with stealing hundreds of thousands in tax dollars from the US government.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter (eventually) paid the taxes during the investigation. The vast majority of instances of failures to pay taxes are handled civilly, with fines, penalties, and of course collection of back taxes. It's almost never prosecuted criminally unless there's a larger criminal scheme. Or unless the defendant is notorious and the prosecutor wants to send a message.

[SRG2]

What the hell happened to lawyer/client confidentiality here? Cohen did something criminal so now he gets to drag Trump into it?

When it's not necessary to say IANAL at the end of a post...BTW on whose behalf did Cohen do something criminal?

[Armchair]

1. It's generally not charged in this context.

2. Trump didn't pay anyone. Cohen supposedly paid them.

4. The checks did not each say "legal services." Many merely said "retainer" for "(date 1 to date 2)"

5. "And there was no retainer agreement."

How are we to actually know this? Perhaps there wasn't in writing. Perhaps it was just a verbal agreement. There certainly was an agreement of some sort to pay Cohen. A retainer doesn't merely need to be for legal services.

If you want to get your facts right, get them actually right

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm seriously beginning to doubt you're an armchair, either.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He's not a lawyer. He might an armchair, or a potted plant, or a Republican.

[jb]

For #1, in what context? Of a politician who is trying to pay to hide a story using their business to cover the expenses?

Are you under the impression that this fact pattern happens so often that we can have a discussion about what "generally" happens?

[Armchair]

For the context, in regards to the NY law, there is almost always a second crime of some sort charged in addition to the false business records. Especially with the felony upcharge.

In this case...there is not.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, isn't Bragg claiming that it wasn't necessary to actually identify the predicate federal felony?

"Bragg elevated each of the charges to felonies by arguing that they were committed to hide or further another crime — which, in an unusual move, he did not charge. He said he wasn't required to specify that crime, but added that it might have been a violation of state or federal election law."

I really don't see how you can claim to have specified the charges the defense needs to rebut adequately without identifying the supposed crime.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Reagan's vision? Reagan's stock in trade was provably hallucinatory, in almost every relevant respect. Reagan knew neither history, the circumstances of his own present, policy, technology, nor, of course, any more about the future than anyone else.

Regan's fans have ever since continued as enthusiasts for linking up to present happenstance whatever they remember of Reagan's hallucinations, and calling that vision. It's all imagined hindsight about imaginary foresight.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Reagan did not know what he was saying and did not know what he was doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, this whole business of claiming that Presidents of the opposing party are just lurching around at random on account of having the IQ of a flatworm is getting kind of old.

[Martinned2]

I was going to say that maybe if American political parties stopped nominating octogenarians this wouldn't be an issue, but then I remembered George W. Bush.

[David Nieporent]

You know, this whole business of claiming that Presidents of the opposing party are just lurching around at random on account of having the IQ of a flatworm is getting kind of old.

I guess we need not go back through the VC archives to assure ourselves that you've never called Biden senile or suffering from dementia.

[Armchair]

Just some thoughts on the Trump trial.

1. More than 50% of potential jurors were dismissed because they felt they couldn't be unbiased. Wow. Maybe move the trial to a less biased district?

2. The judge has violated Judicial ethics rules, and donated to Trump's direct opponent (Biden) in the election. And his daughter works for a consulting firm for Democrats raising millions in donations for them. Seems like the "appearance of a conflict of interest".

3. The DA explicitly ran on the promise of pursuing Trump.... Can we say "selective prosecution"?

[Balisane]

The trial should have been moved to somewhere in America like Genesee or Wyoming County.

[Sarcastr0]

It is already somewhere in America though.

This kind of attempted balkanizing America will fail, and is a sign of terminal politics brain.

[Estragon]

What’s attempted about it? It’s happening!

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/greenville-real-estate-conservatives.html

Anecdotally I can also say this is happening in Idaho

[Sarcastr0]

I know the trend. It is not the present case, nor is it sustainable if both parties seek to remain electorally relevant.

[jb]

Do you think there's a jurisdiction somewhere in this country where more then 50% of potential jurors would be able to be unbiased in this trial? Many people have strong opinions about Trump, both for and against, all over.

[Armchair]

Albany perhaps? Rochester? A district where the DA wasn't specifically elected on a promise to "pursue" this individual?

[Nelson]

"Wow. Maybe move the trial to a less biased district?"

You're projecting. Biased doesn't only mean "biased against".

"Seems like the “appearance of a conflict of interest”."

So having political beliefs that differ from someone on trial is s conflict of interest, in your world? So Clarence Thomas, whose wife is deeply entwined with Trump's "stolen election" farce, should recuse himself from any case involving Trump or Biden? Because that's what your so-broad-it's-meaningless standard would require.

"Can we say “selective prosecution”?"

If by "selective prosecution" you mean "prosecuting someone a grand jury has indicted for something that's against the law", then yes. Otherwise, no.

[not guilty]

Has anyone not named Yick Wo gotten final relief from a criminal prosecution or conviction based on a claim of selective prosecution?

If so, I'm not aware of it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

1) They seated a jury. Why are you bitching it should be moved?

2) Show proof of your accusations. (You're full of shit here, as usual.) It is not a violation of ethics rules to donate to a political campaign. It was also in July of 2020. It's also extremely common. It also was $15.

Cry more, JFC.

[Moderation4ever]

Starting yesterday it look grim for finding a jury quickly, but the judge got it done.

Question for the litigators, were Trumps lawyers too quick in using their 10 peremptory challenges? Did they box themselves in leaving the more difficult task of striking potential jurors for cause?

[David Nieporent]

1. More than 50% of potential jurors were dismissed because they felt they couldn’t be unbiased. Wow. Maybe move the trial to a less biased district?

Literally not how it works. "Districts" aren't relevant; jurors are. If they can find 12 jurors (plus alternates) who can be unbiased, that's all that's required.

(Consider, too, that many people do not want to spend weeks of their life on this case; a substantial number of the people who said they couldn't be unbiased may have been simply aiming to get out of serving.)

2. The judge has violated Judicial ethics rules, and donated to Trump’s direct opponent (Biden) in the election.

He donated $15 to Biden in 2020.

And his daughter works for a consulting firm for Democrats raising millions in donations for them. Seems like the “appearance of a conflict of interest”.

What is the conflict of interest that "appears" from this? Does she get paid more if Trump is convicted?

3. The DA explicitly ran on the promise of pursuing Trump…. Can we say “selective prosecution”?

Evidently you can say it. Over and over. Without knowing what it means. Hint: that's not it. Selective prosecution would be if you found instances of other people doing the exact same thing as Trump but Bragg declining to prosecute all of them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If they can find 12 jurors (plus alternates) who can be unbiased, that’s all that’s required."

If half your potential jurors have to be rejected for bias, and you catch some of them actively attempting to conceal that bias, the logical conclusion is that a significant fraction of the ones you didn't reject for bias were just a bit more successful at concealing it.

I'm not sure that logical conclusion actually has any legal implications as our justice system is currently designed, but that doesn't make the conclusion go away, it just means that there's nothing the rules dictate be done about it.

As political polarization increases in this country, (And the last time it was this bad was in the lead up to the Civil war.) it becomes increasingly difficult to assemble unbiased juries in cases that have political implications. And when you can jurisdiction shop to bring charges in locations where the jury pool is highly skewed, it becomes that much worse.

So, the perception that Trump can't get a fair trial? It's perfectly rational, even if you don't like it. He probably CAN'T get a fair trial in any heavily Democratic jurisdiction. In DC, where he only got about 5% of the vote? Assembling an unbiased jury would be totally hopeless. Biden might not be able to get a fair trial in Wyoming, if it came to that.

I think at some point, if this polarization continues, and we hold together as a country anyway somehow, we'll need to address that. At least DC is a easy to fix case, since it's not a state, Congress could legally order that DC juries be assembled from the entire country instead of just DC.

[David Nieporent]

If half your potential jurors have to be rejected for bias, and you catch some of them actively attempting to conceal that bias, the logical conclusion is that a significant fraction of the ones you didn’t reject for bias were just a bit more successful at concealing it.

That is not in fact "the" logical conclusion. It is a possible conclusion, if (a) one doesn't understand jury selection; and (b) one is conspiratorial minded and thinks that one's political opponents are always engaged in bad faith activity. A more logical conclusion is that they've eliminated the people who are biased.

The people who were eliminated were people who told the court they didn't think they could fairly judge the case, not people who were caught trying to conceal their biases.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, technically, it seems the judge has refused to boot the jurors who were discovered to be lying to get onto the jury. I guess I was over optimistic about how reasonable the judge would be.

[David Nieporent]

What on earth are you talking about here? What jurors lied to get onto the jury, and which of those did the judge "refuse to boot"?

[not guilty]

Twelve jurors and one alternate have now been seated to try Donald Trump in Manhattan. Five more alternates still need to be selected. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/18/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/what-we-know-about-the-jury-00153194

Proof should begin on Monday.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If they’re unafraid of threats and intimidation they’re probably already in a mood to acquit.

[Estragon]

Phish from the sphere in about 2 hours!!! Very excited

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You can’t handle that on strong acid…be careful, bro.

[Estragon]

I’m couch touring this run, not to worry

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bellmore linked to a study that said Covid death rates decline in states with older populations when you adjust for age…duuuuuuuuuuuuh.

[apedad]

‘Kraken’ lawyer Sidney Powell wins unanimous dismissal of ethics case over ‘scattershot’ and incompetent disciplinary effort by State Bar of Texas over 2020 election lawsuits

“By its own admission, the Bar misidentified or failed to include multiple exhibits it claims to have relied on in its Second Amended Response,” the opinion by the Fifth District Court of Appeals reads. “But the deficiencies go far beyond mislabeling exhibits.”

As it turned out, however, bar authorities could not prove their case because they relied on a poorly-constructed record. And when they later tried to amend their case, those efforts fell just as flat.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/kraken-lawyer-sidney-powell-wins-unanimous-dismissal-of-ethics-case-over-scattershot-and-incompetent-disciplinary-effort-by-state-bar-of-texas-over-2020-election-lawsuits/

This reminds me of a line from one of the Pink Panther films.

"That's one crazy chief inspector talking about another crazy chief inspector."

[loki13]

Wow. That's hilarious.

Bar complaint fails because the Bar failed to properly reference its own exhibits in the complaint in its response (or amended response), causing a summary judgment loss.

To translate-
Bar failed at ethics complaint over Sidney Powell's frivolous filings and bogus evidence, because Bar incompetently ignored basic procedural requirements and failed to cite to its own exhibits, thereby not providing evidence.

Something, something, ARISTOCRATS!

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess that sort of thing happens when you think the other guys are self-evidently guilty: You get lazy about actually bothering to prove it.

[loki13]

Well, I might make comments about the bar disciplinary process in general, and my (limited) perspective on the Texas disciplinary process specifically, but I am sadly unsurprised by the incompetence.

In other words, I don't think it was a Powell thing.

(And no, this isn't some sort of "other guys" thing. I know you're hung up on the issue, but the filings and assertions made by Powell were worthy of discipline. As a general rule, ethics violations are not well-policed*, and when policed, often result in very light sanctions.)

*The exceptions are, of course, trust fund violations and felonies.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I know you’re hung up on the issue, but the filings and assertions made by Powell were worthy of discipline."

I'm actually not interested in contesting that. Trump accumulated a lot of scammers while contesting the election. It's embarrassing, it would probably be more embarrassing if I actually liked Trump, rather than having viewed him as the lesser of the two evils capable of winning.

There were some real issues about how that election was conducted in some of the states, in terms of ad hoc changes to election procedures which only the legislature was actually entitled to make. It is, just barely, possible that Trump would have won an election that was conducted entirely by the book. It's somewhat more likely he would have won if a number of things, such as platform censorship, and Zuckerberg's paying elections officials in Democratic areas to run GOTV drives, hadn't happened, but those might have been seriously dubious, but weren't so unambiguously illegal.

But you'd never be able to prove it, and even if you could there was no remedy the courts could supply. That was something he needed to beat back in court BEFORE the election, and for the most part the courts either refused such challenges or approved the changes, only to have them struck down on appeal after it was too late.

So, as I've said before, I understand Trump feeling that he was robbed, but he really should have stopped contesting things once the EC voted. And man, did he ever listen to anybody who was willing to tell him there was something he could do about it!

[apedad]

Trump would have easily won if he had shown one ounce of empathy during COVID.

He just had to say we're in a tough situation and we have to come together to fight this but no he has ZERO empathy for the entire rest of the world (including his own family).

He played the clown - because he is a clown - and that's the only thing he knows.

[David Nieporent]

If Trump could show empathy he wouldn't be Trump. Really, the only emotion he seems capable of honestly expressing is anger.

[Nige]

'So, as I’ve said before, I understand Trump feeling that he was robbed,'

He was lying from the start, so maybe you do.

[Michael P]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4599703-george-conway-trump-doesnt-have-complete-ability-to-control-himself-in-courtroom/

Conservative attorney George Conway said Wednesday he does not think former President Trump has a “complete ability” to control his behavior inside a courtroom.

Judging from photographic evidence, George Conway does not have even marginal ability to control his behavior inside a buffet restaurant.

[apedad]

So fat-shaming is OK but not redneck-shaming.

Got it.

[loki13]

Eh, I think you're close, but not quite.

Any shaming of "our side" is wrong. Any shaming of "their side" is fine.

The only exception is when you are making a point the "their side" is being hypocritical.

(This works for our values of "our side" and "their side" btw.)

[loki13]

"(This works for our values of “our side” and “their side” btw.)"

Should be ALL values. Stupid broken editing function. Should pay more attention when I'm writing.

[Martinned2]

I guess not all MLs think alike...

The specific case of M.L. v. Poland was brought by a woman who became pregnant in 2020. At about 14 weeks of pregnancy, the foetus was diagnosed with trisomy 21, a genetic disorder which is also known as Down’s syndrome. As the applicant qualified for a legal abortion at the time, she was given a hospital appointment for 28 January 2021 (§§18-21). However, her appointment was cancelled following the publication of the CC’s judgment on 27 January 2021. Consequently, the applicant could no longer obtain a legal abortion in Poland and was therefore forced to travel abroad to terminate her pregnancy (§§22-24).

The applicant alleged that this distressing situation violated her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). She also invoked Article 6 (right to a fair trial), claiming that the abortion restriction resulted from an unlawfully composed bench of the CC (§73). The Court decided to examine her application only under Articles 3 and 8.
(...)
Emphasising that the entire Convention is based on the rule of law principle, the Court stressed that any infringement upon Article 8 must originate from a “lawful” entity in order to ensure the legitimacy needed in a democratic society (§167). In this regard, the Court referred to an earlier Polish case from 2021, where it found that the composition of the Polish CC violated the Convention due to the improper election of three constitutional judges (see Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland, §§189-190). In 2015, the Polish President had refused to swear in three judges who had been duly elected by the Sejm (the lower house of Parliament in Poland) of the previous term, which led the new Sejm to irregularly elect three replacements. As this seriously undermined the legitimacy of the CC’s bench, the Court did not consider the decision of 22 October 2020 to have been taken by a body meeting the rule of law requirement (§174). Furthermore, the applicant in M.L. v. Poland was deprived of adequate safeguards against arbitrariness, since the CC’s ruling interrupted the abortion procedure which she was eligible for and had already been initiated. The Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 was not “in accordance with the law”, resulting in a violation of her right to private life (§§175-176).

https://strasbourgobservers.com/2024/04/19/m-l-v-poland-potential-to-liberalise-womens-abortion-rights/

[M L]

Is that a reference to me? I'm honored.

[loki13]

As an addendum to the comments above-

Once you understand the actual facts of the NY Criminal case against Trump, it is easier to discuss the legal issues. But if people are just blathering talking points and slinging insults, that's unlikely to happen.

FWIW, I have previously stated that while the facts are what they are (and fairly damning), this just isn't a very good case. It has serious issues from a legal standpoint- the misdemeanor/felony distinction (NYPL 175.05/175.10) and the statute of limitations issue just to start. While it isn't a meritless case (look at the facts!) it is certainly the type of case that would not normally be pursued. IMO. And even if there is a conviction, there will be avenues of appeal.

In other words, it's a case where the facts (especially as Trump will be unlikely to testify, and thus cannot rely on defenses like assistance of counsel) are very strong, but there are real inherent legal weaknesses. Would be nice if people could get their facts straight and discuss the legal issues at some point!

(No, I am not holding my breath.)

[M L]

I haven't been keeping up with it. Is this one of the guys that campaigned on "lock him up" ?

[Martinned2]

No, it's this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxKJ6JgD2qg