Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

During last week’s oral argument before SCOTUS by the Special Counsel, the following colloquy occurred at pages 69-70 of the transcript:

[By Michael Dreeben] What Petitioner is asking for is a broad blanket statement immunity that would protect the president, a former president, from any criminal exposure absent impeachment and conviction, which has never happened in our history.

And we submit that is not necessary in order to assure that the president can perform all of the important tasks that the Constitution reposes in him.

JUSTICE THOMAS: Over — in the not so distant past, the presidents or certain presidents have engaged in various activity,coups or operations like Operation Mongoose when I was a teenager, and yet there were no prosecutions.

MR. DREEBEN: Yeah.

JUSTICE THOMAS: Why? If you — if what you’re saying is right, it would seem that that would have been ripe for criminal prosecution of someone.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf

Think about that. After John F. Kennedy left office, his corpse was not prosecuted for Operation Mongoose. Ergo, Donald Trump is now absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

Who knew?

[Kazinski]

Well according to legal doctrine if it was illegal anyone who followed the orders was also liable for prosecution, and even less of a legal justification than the president.

Probably a better example would be Johnson ordering the hit on JFK, I saw a whole movie about that once.

[not guilty]

Whoosh!!

Kazinski, suppose you were a DOJ functionary who somehow persuaded a federal grand jury to indict former President Kennedy. (Disregard here that the holdover Attorney General in the Johnson administration was a fellow named Robert Kennedy. If there were any lawful way to prosecute, Prick Nixon and John Mitchell's DOJ would have been on that like a duck on a junebug.)

What would you do to effect personal jurisdiction by bringing John Kennedy before the court?

[Kazinski]

Nixon indicting Kennedy for killing commies?

Not on your life.

Never ever happen, things were different back then, and it's a shame that things have changed.

And yes, I do blame Trump at least as much Hillary and Joe.

But if I had to put my finger on when things really started changing for the worse it would be the October Surprise investigation against Bush 1, but the Clinton impeachment didn't help, and after Bush v Gore (which it's impossible to blame either side for) it's been snowballing.

[not guilty]

If he could, Prick Nixon would have indicted him merely for being a Kennedy.

And you conspicuously avoided my question about the district court's personal jurisdiction.

[Kazinski]

It didn't interest me, I was sleepy.

[Drewski]

Today I will teach you how to sound a little less dumb when talking about law. If you want to refer to a particular doctrine, name it. Otherwise, say what you want to say. Leading with "according to legal doctrine" manages to sound pompous while being an obvious bluff.

That said, what legal doctrine? The Nuremberg Principles, which apply to international law but not domestic? Or some other one I'm not familiar with? Because I'm quite sure that following orders is a valid defense to many crimes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Eisenhower and Johnson come to immediate mind....

Do you not remember the Church Commission?

[not guilty]

Same problem, Dr. Ed 2. The Church Committee convened in 1975. Dwight Eisenhower died in 1969. Lyndon Johnson died in 1973.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Think about that. After John F. Kennedy left office, his corpse was not prosecuted for Operation Mongoose. Ergo, Donald Trump is now absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

Who knew?"

Fucking lame, even for you.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, that isn't my reasoning; it is Justice Clarence Toady's.

[Michael P]

Doubly sleazy, even for you.

"No prosecutions" was clearly plural, because multiple people in the Kennedy administration would have been subject to them -- if there was not some sort of official immunity in play.

[not guilty]

“'No prosecutions' was clearly plural, because multiple people in the Kennedy administration would have been subject to them — if there was not some sort of official immunity in play."

Doofus, the question presented here, framed by SCOTUS itself, is "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office." Immunity of any other official is not in any way germane to that question.

Justice Toady was suggesting that, because a dead man was not criminally prosecuted while the justice was a teenager, Donald Trump should not be prosecuted now. That is ghoulish, as well as shameless.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure that's a productive nit to pick. The question Justice Thomas raised (funny how the notoriously quiet Justice has started getting all chatty in oral arguments) is whether the president could have been prosecuted over something like Operation Mongoose. If you like, you can assume he forgot that it was Kennedy, or that he forgot Kennedy died 2.5 years later. But that doesn't make it an unreasonable question to raise.

(The answer is, as far as I'm concerned, that the Bay of Pigs invasion violated international law, but was probably not a crime under US law.)

[not guilty]

"If you like, you can assume he forgot that it was Kennedy, or that he forgot Kennedy died 2.5 years later."

Yeah, right. As if it is mere happenstance that Thomas didn't cite Nixon's obstruction of justice following the Watergate burglary or Reagan's Iran-Contra imbroglio as examples of crimes committed by presidents that could or should have been prosecuted.

[Michael P]

You sure are working hard to excuse your banana-republic criminal persecutions.

[Nige]

You sure are working hard to make Trump a King.

[Martinned2]

Kings also have to follow the law.

[Nige]

That's just the Deep State sabotaging them.

[Martinned2]

I haven't listened to the oral argument or read the transcript, but one might argue that the Bay of Pigs is a better hypo because it's neither domestic (like Watergate) nor otherwise clearly illegal (like Iran-Contra). By 20th century US standards, Bay of Pigs is much more of a traditional foreign policy adventure, and therefore something that a Justice who doesn't care much for constraints on the presidency would want to go unreviewed in court.

[Malika the Maiz]

"funny how the notoriously quiet Justice has started getting all chatty in oral arguments"

I think the nature of the oral arguments changed during Covid.

[David Nieporent]

The question Justice Thomas raised (funny how the notoriously quiet Justice has started getting all chatty in oral arguments)

Thomas hasn't been quiet in years. This talking point was dumb back when he wasn't active in oral argument, and now that he is (because the format of oral argument has changed dramatically) it's even dumber.

[mulched]

NG has a certain, shall we say, kind of animus against the Justice.

I am heartened to see that he has selected a new nickname.

[mulched]

Royal animus, rural animus, radial animus, something like that.

[Sarcastr0]

That was Martinned2 going on old info that Thomas was quiet during oral argument.

The nickname thing remains empty and juvenile IMO.

[David Nieporent]

NG has a certain, shall we say, kind of animus against the Justice.

He does, and I think the namecalling is stupid and juvenile — this goes whether it's Donald Drumpf or Demonrats or Rethuglicans or Clarence Toady or whatever they're calling KBJ — but I was responding to Martinned, not NG.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas was historically silent during oral argument prior to the Court suspending in person appearance of counsel for argument as a result of Covid. Thomas participated in the remote arguments more frequently, and since in person arguments resumed in 2021, Thomas customarily asks the first question of each advocate.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/09/justices-tweak-format-of-in-person-oral-arguments-to-allow-time-for-taking-turns/

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush/Cheney should be prosecuted for torturing detainees in order to elicit false confessions tying Saddam to 9/11. I honestly believe Democrats screwed up the issue on purpose by making it about intelligence gathering because the truth is so awful that they didn’t want to deal with the fallout.

[not guilty]

Prior to Donald Trump's Bizarro World claim of absolute immunity to criminal prosecution for former presidents, the working assumption was that a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process, but not after leaving office. See, DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion October 16, 2000.
https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline

Former presidents have been investigated during their terms of office in contemplation of criminal prosecution after they left office. In 1974 President Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon, prior to Nixon being charged, for any crimes against the United States that Nixon may have committed while in office from 1969 to 1974. The issuance of a presidential pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance of the pardon represents a confession of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 94 (1915). If a former president were immune from prosecution, Ford's issuance and Nixon's acceptance of the pardon would have been idle ceremony.

Likewise, President Bill Clinton in the closing days of his administration negotiated an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Kenneth Starr's successor) to preclude criminal prosecution of Clinton after he left office. If a former president were immune from prosecution, no such agreement would have been necessary.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I do worry about the long term consequences, at a structural level (meaning, the balance between executive, legislative, judicial branches). My concern is pragmatic. This case has the potential to disrupt that balance, and that would be a very bad thing for the country.

In your view, what is the narrowest legal decision a CJ Roberts would shoot for? My reading of CJ Roberts is that his tendency is to distill the actual legal issue decided by SCOTUS to the smallest possible issue, and get consensus.

Where do you draw the line when an act has both public and private motivations? Justice Barrett alluded to this.

I will be listening to the oral argument over the holiday. I like to read the transcript with the audio (at 1.5 speed); instead of 2.5 hours, it should be roughly 100 minutes. There is something to hearing the argument that you lose with just reading the transcript.

The (legal) issues here are tremendous.

[not guilty]

"In your view, what is the narrowest legal decision a CJ Roberts would shoot for?"

Michael Dreeben is a first rate Supreme Court litigator, with more than 100 oral arguments under his belt on behalf of both Republican and Democratic administrations. Mindful of who his audience is, he took a position that I think will assuage any concerns that the Chief Justice may have about the D.C. Circuit's wholesale rejection of absolute immunity for former presidents under all circumstances. At page 69 of the transcript Dreeben said:

The president, as the head of the Article II branch, can assert as-applied Article II objections to criminal laws that interfere with an exclusive power possessed by the president or that prevent the president from accomplishing his constitutionally assigned functions.

Dreeben agreed with Justice Gorsuch (pp. 84-85) that there are some core functions of the executive that a president conduct that Congress cannot criminalize. The examples he gave included things like the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments. These are things that the Constitution specifically allocates to the president. (Pp. 86-87.)

I predict that Chief Justice Roberts will be careful to craft a position which will satisfy five justices, and he will assign the majority opinion to himself. Which five justices those will be is anybody's guess.

[Josh R]

Will Trump's Jan 6 trial go ahead, be stopped, or placed in limbo while lower courts wrestle with how to apply the decision?

[not guilty]

If immunity from prosecution is the question before the district court, an interlocutory appeal to the D.C. Circuit will be available as of right to Donald Trump from any order denying immunity. If the Court of Appeals again denies immunity, Trump can seek review by certiorari from SCOTUS, which is discretionary.

The jury trial will not commence until the issue of immunity is resolved.

[Josh R]

Will SCOTUS resolve the immunity question as applied to this case, leaving no question for the district court to answer? And if so, which way will they rule?

[bernard11]

They will rule, as Alito says, that immunity from prosecution for a failed coup attempt is necessary to deter future coup attempts.

Probably one of the stupidest things a Justice has ever said, but hey, he has to try something.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think he's been charged with attempting a coup, so where's that coming from?

[Nige]

Probably from when he attempted a coup.

[M L]

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aBdDQjz_700bwp.webp

[bernard11]

Where? From Alito's mouth: (start on P.110 of the transcript).

JUSTICE ALITO: ......I'm sure you would agree with me that a stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is --is the incumbent.
MR. DREEBEN: Of course.
JUSTICE ALITO: All right. Now, if a --an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?
And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail.
MR. DREEBEN: So I think it's exactly the opposite, Justice Alito.

[Estragon]

We can’t prosecute for a attempted coup because someone might try a coup is comically circular but about what I expect from Alito at thjs point

[not guilty]

No one knows at this point, except that the justices may have reached a tentative determination of the outcome in conference last Friday.

I don't anticipate SCOTUS affirming the Court of Appeals reasoning in toto. The only other way to resolve the case without a remand to the lower courts is to rule wholesale in Trump's favor that he is immune from prosecution here -- a result which I think is just as unlikely.

FWIW, neither advocate before SCOTUS took an absolutist position. Counsel for Trump acknowledged that a former president can be prosecuted for private conduct occurring during his term of office. The Office of Special Counsel allowed that there is a small core of exclusive official acts that Congress cannot criminalize.

I would anticipate a remand with some instructions to the lower courts concerning how to distinguish between official acts and private conduct.

[tylertusta]

The issuance of a presidential pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance of the pardon represents a confession of guilt. Burdick v. United States

Except for the part about it being dicta.

You will not find a Supreme Court today that is willing to accept that part of Burdick as a precedent.

[Drewski]

I agree - every circuit to visit the issue has chosen to ignore the Burdick dictum when analyzing Heck defenses and collateral consequences of conviction. It was a stillborn doctrine that's long since been buried.

[tylertusta]

Yet like Holmes' "Can't cry 'fire' in a crowded theater" it's bandied about like it explains something true and meaningful in a legal sense by people who should know better.

[Zarniwoop]

agreed, especially when it's bandied about by by folks that don't stop to think about real-life examples of people who are exonerated by DNA evidence, then pardoned.

No sane person thinks that by accepting the pardon, they thus "admit guilt" in the reputational sense at issue in the Burdick dicta ... much less in a legal sense of "I admit committing each of the elements of the crime charged". Particularly in Ford's pardon of Nixon: what elements of what crime would Nixon even have been admitting?

[tylertusta]

Agreed.

If pardons conveyed guilt, then even if someone was pardoned for a crime they were innocent of, a crafty prosecutor or plaintiff could still use the pardon as evidence of that guilt in further criminal and civil actions.

That dog don't hunt.

[David Nieporent]

what elements of what crime would Nixon even have been admitting?

All of all of them?

[Armchair]

NG misses the point with "or the like".

Thomas here is using an example from the past that would be more easily answered without partisan overtones. But his point is clear.

The clearest example are the Obama-ordered drone assassinations of US Civilians. No trial. No due process. No imminent threat. No "it was an accident". By any standard, this would be considered murder, or conspiracy to commit murder. If a different US Civilian had done the same thing, those would be the charges.

Was the victim a "bad guy"? Sure. But simply being a "bad guy" does not give the US license to murder him without due process.

So, under what rationale does Obama have any real defense?

[Martinned2]

rationale does Obama have any real defense?

The rationale that he, as commander in chief, can order the armed forces to shoot at other armed forces that are engaged in active combat against the United States and its allies?

If a different US Civilian had done the same thing

The President acting in his capacity of commander in chief is exactly one of those situations when the comparison to other US civilians is not right. The question is whether an(other) member of the armed forces would have been charged if they had shot at the enemy. And the answer is clearly no.

[Armchair]

"can order the armed forces to shoot at other armed forces that are engaged in active combat "

According to what rationale? Did the victim have a gun or weapons in his hands? (No). Where there any US troops in the area (No). Was there any "active combat" in the area? (No).

Let's stretch this for a second. Can Joe Biden order a drone to assassinate Donald Trump, because Joe defines Trump as an active combatant against the United States? Why or why not? What would change items to allow this?

[hobie]

As noscitur a sociis cleverly pointed out last week here, Trump's counsel basically argued for the idea that Biden could order the assassination of Trump without any legal consequence. So all these juvenile whatabouts of Obama ring false if all you hillbillies want Trump to get off scott free

[Armchair]

" Trump’s counsel basically argued for the idea that Biden could order the assassination of Trump without any legal consequence. "

Yep. There may be political consequences, but that essentially was the argument.

Now, why exactly can Obama (or Biden) order the assassination of al-Awlaki but not Trump? What are the legal limitations between the two? If any?

[Martinned2]

If and when Trump takes up arms against the United States, the president can absolutely order the armed forces to shoot at him. But he wasn't even willing to take up arms against the Vietnamese, so I doubt that's a scenario we'll have to worry about.

[Nige]

Trump could have ordered his own assassination on Jan 6th.

[Armchair]

Many people argue Trump did "take up arms" or at least "lead" the January 6th protests. And that would be justification enough.

[Martinned2]

Not after 6 January it wouldn't be.

[Martinned2]

Can Joe Biden order a drone to assassinate Donald Trump, because Joe defines Trump as an active combatant against the United States? Why or why not? What would change items to allow this?

I answered this exact question at the bottom of the previous Open Thread. The question isn't whether the president can order the army to shoot at enemy combatants (he can), but how much freedom he has to decide who is and isn't an enemy combatant (too much).

To quickly pick up the other questions you raised: You didn't mention a specific drone strike, but in general it's not necessary for an enemy soldier to have a weapon in their hand or be anywhere near US soldiers to make them a fair game. But they do have to be on the battlefield, yes. So you don't get to, say, blow up an enemy general in downtown Damascus. But shooting General Yamamoto out of the sky was already borderline, because "the battlefield" is not a very clearly defined concept.

[Armchair]

al-Awlaki wasn't on the battlefield, unless you VERY broadly define it.

[Martinned2]

Yemen in 2011 was plausibly a battlefield.

[Armchair]

Only under the broadest possible definition.

In 2011, Yemen hadn't yet started its civil war. The US embassy was still open. True, there were the Arab Spring protests, but al-Awlaki wasn't anywhere close to them, instead driving through the desert and stopping for breakfast when he was assassinated.

By that logic, in 2020 during the BLM protests, the United States was a "battlefield" and an assassination on US soil would have been justified, even if it was in a peaceful area like Nantucket.

[Martinned2]

In 2011 Yemen was in the middle of an "uprising", which preceded its current civil war. Certainly more than "protests". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_revolution

As for whether the US is currently a battlefield, let's leave that question for the next time we discuss the marvels of the 2nd amendment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you don’t get to, say, blow up an enemy general in downtown Damascus. But shooting General Yamamoto out of the sky was already borderline, because “the battlefield” is not a very clearly defined concept.

What?

If Country A and Country B are in a declared war, they can kill each other's generals (and admirals) wherever they find them. There isn't some weird limitation to "the battlefield". The killing of Admiral Yamamoto, a killing of the commander of enemy forces who was going to inspect the troops, was fully justified.

This seems plainly obvious to me. But there are, of course, more detailed arguments for why such killings are well within the laws of war. See https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/heller-yamamoto-precedent

Also https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llmlp/75615419_12-1989/75615419_12-1989.pdf

Israel killing an Iranian general in Damascus is different because the two countries aren't formally at war. It is controversial (at minimum) precisely because it is an act of war, by which I mean both "an act of war" as a term of art and an act that is only (or at least typically only) permissible in war.

But in a declared war, high-ranking officers are fair game in any place, at any time.

[not guilty]

“The clearest example are the Obama-ordered drone assassinations of US Civilians. No trial. No due process. No imminent threat. No ‘it was an accident’. By any standard, this would be considered murder, or conspiracy to commit murder. If a different US Civilian had done the same thing, those would be the charges.”

Armchair, have you read the oral argument transcript? Michael Dreeben specifically addressed that at page 150 in response to a question from Justice Kavanaugh:

So the — the Office of Legal Counsel looked at this very carefully and determined that, number one, the federal murder statute does apply to the executive branch. The president wasn’t personally carrying out the strike, but the aiding and abetting laws are broad, and it determined that a public authority exception that’s built into statutes and that applied particularly to the murder statute, because it talks about unlawful killing, did not apply to the drone strike.

Confirmation bias is a real thing. I am as subject to it as anyone. But intellectual dishonesty in service of partisanship is beyond the pale. (That is why I routinely cite applicable legal authorities and/or link to original source materials, so that a reader can check my work in real time.)

[Michael P]

Shorter Dreeben, channeling Nixon: "When the President Obama does it, that means it's legal."

[not guilty]

Michael P, under what federal statute(s) do you posit that former President Obama would be subject to criminal prosecution regarding drone strikes? Please identify such statute(s) by number or, in the alternative, admit that you are unable to do so.

[Armchair]

I already gave you the statue, months ago.

Stop asking for information you're already aware of.

[not guilty]

Armchair, my question was of Michael P. He and you may or may not have the same statute(s) in mind.

But in any event, please refresh my memory.

And once more, have you read the oral argument transcript or not?

[Armchair]

Stop asking for information you’re already aware of. Don’t be a tedious troll.

If you need your memory "refreshed" then search the comments. Do your own homework.

[not guilty]

My memory is not flawless. But what's the matter, Armchair? Can you not again find whatever some internet rando cited somewhere?

And once more, have you read the oral argument transcript or not?

[Armchair]

"My memory is not flawless."

Then. Do. Your. Own. Homework.

[Michael P]

Please excuse him. He doesn't know how to be anything but a tedious troll.

[not guilty]

Michael P, if you don't have any idea what federal statute(s) you posit for your hypothetical comparison of Barack Obama to Prick Nixon, man up and say so.

[not guilty]

No one need excuse me, Michael P. I routinely challenge those who propound ipse dixit assertions from who knows where to apply some actual legal analysis. How is that a bad thing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey boys, play nice.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P,

lol, he already said he’s not aware of it. Clearly you aren’t either or you’d not be a dick and cite it.

[Kazinski]

Was it Goresuch that posed the the Obama drone strike hypothetical in oral.arguments this week?

Why don't you ask him?

[not guilty]

Justice Gorsuch included an offhand reference to drone strikes at page 46 in a question of Donald Trump's counsel. Justice Kavanaugh directly asked the Special Counsel's office about President Obama's drone strikes at page 150.

[Armchair]

The OLC saying "it's OK" doesn't actually make it OK. The OLC is not a Court of the United States.

If there's a "public authority exception that's built into statues," (but I suppose you have text of it actually being written in), then what statues is it built into? All of them? Just some of them? Which ones?

[not guilty]

"The OLC saying 'it’s OK' doesn’t actually make it OK. The OLC is not a Court of the United States."

I agree with that. That's why I asked for citation to one or more specific statutes, in order to parse them myself. Acting on advice of legal counsel can often negate or rebut a culpable mental state.

Those of us who know how to parse statutes understand that.

[Armchair]

"So the — the Office of Legal Counsel looked at this very carefully and determined that, number one, the federal murder statute does apply to the executive branch"

If you bring up a statue, it's your own homework to actually cite it.

If you can't, it's because you're a failure.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Dude, it's statute. Not statue. As you only type the latter, it's clear you don't understand that which kind of fits with the quality of your arguments.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/heller-yamamoto-precedent

[Armchair]

Typo police to the rescue. Last recourse of those with bad arguments.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You wrote it statue multiple times and never wrote statute. Whatever that is, it's not a typo.

No, I provided argument and you failed to engage with the actual arguments.

[David Nieporent]

The OLC saying “it’s OK” doesn’t actually make it OK. The OLC is not a Court of the United States.

That is true. (And note that immunity for a sitting president comes from the OLC, not a court.) But a defendant can use an advice of counsel defense, and OLC saying that a proposed strike is lawful would be integral to that.

It's moot, because, again: presidents want the freedom to use the military overseas. Which means future presidents will not prosecute past presidents for that use, unless the use isn't even colorably legitimate. You don't see Biden trying to prosecute Trump for assassinating Soleimani, do you?

[Armchair]

Soleimani was not a US Citizen or national, nor on US soil, thus not subject to US Code Chapter 51. As such, the US would not have jurisdiction to prosecute such a law. But if you think a different statue would apply, please mention it.

al-Awlaki was a US Citizen. Murder would be covered under US Code 1119, (or US code 1117 for conspiracy to commit such a murder).

Trump may realistically bring such a prosecution. It either eliminates a political rival, or gives him legal cover for when he leaves office. Either way, he wins.

[David Nieporent]

18 U.S.C. § 112 makes it a crime for an American to kill an internationally protected person anywhere. (Indeed, it gives the U.S. jurisdiction to prosecute even non-Americans for such an offense, if those non-Americans are later found in the U.S.)

[Armchair]

And how exactly is Soleimani an "internally protected person"?

[David Nieporent]

Did you look up the statutory definition?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Al-Aulaqi v. Obama:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1758537122087571034&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36

While these are civil actions that tried to prevent the targeting or, in the latter case, sought compensation for the killing, some of the principles discussed are quite relevant, including this bit:

Here, Congress and the Executive acted in concert, pursuant to their Constitutional authorities to provide for national defense and to regulate the military. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; id. art. II, § 2. The need to hesitate before implying a Bivens claim is particularly clear. See Lebron, 670 F.3d at 549. Congress enacted the AUMF, authorizing the Executive to use necessary and appropriate military force against al-Qa’ida and affiliated forces.
34.

It is the Executive’s position that AQAP is affiliated with al-Qa’ida. Further, the AUMF does not contain geographical limits. See Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718, 720-21 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (AUMF authorized detention of individual arrested in Bosnia and turned over to U.S. custody so long as individual was part of al-Qa’ida); Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1103, 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (AUMF authorized detention of person arrested in Pakistan and transferred to U.S. custody).30 Thus, the fact that Anwar Al-Aulaqi was targeted in Yemen does not undermine the AUMF as the source of authority for the use of force against him.

Further, the record is replete with evidence that Anwar Al-Aulaqi was an AQAP leader. He was intimately involved in planning the Christmas Day bombing. See United States v. Abdulmutallab, Crim. No. 10-CR-20005-1 (E.D. Mich.), Sentencing Mem. at 12-14; id., Tr. of Plea Hr’g (Oct. 12, 2011); see also 75 Fed. Reg. 43,233-01. In a May 2010 interview posted online, he called for “jihad against America,” praised the actions of his “students” Christmas Day bomber Mr. Abdulmutallab and Fort Hood shooter Maj. Hasan, and asked others to follow. See Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d at 10; Clapper Decl. ¶ 16. In July 2010, he wrote an article for the AQAP publication Inspire, advocating assassinations, bombings, and other attacks against Western targets. Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d at 21.

[Armchair]

This is pretty extreme logic to consider.

As long as the Executive branch decides you're a member of a group "affiliated" with Al Queda, they can kill you any time, any place, no need for due process, period? No challenges, no legal proceedings, nothing...

If Joe Biden decides that "MAGA" is a group "affiliated" with Al Queda, he can kill Donald Trump under that logic. And there's nothing Trump or anyone in the legal system can do to oppose that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

As long as the Executive branch decides you’re a member of a group “affiliated” with Al Queda, they can kill you any time, any place, no need for due process, period? No challenges, no legal proceedings, nothing…

You're ignoring that I cited to actual legal proceedings challenging the targeting prior to the actual targeting.

You're ignoring that there were multiple other legal protections put in place, to include consultation with Congress, to ensure this wasn't just the President saying this guy should be killed.

You're ignoring that the justification wasn't only that he was affiliated with Al Qaeda, but that he also personally participated in planning terrorist attacks that had happened and was personally involved in planning future attacks.

You're ignoring plenty of other arguments included in the cites I provided because you are relying solely on a jingle and not an actual legal argument. There are legitimate arguments to raise and make, but you aren't doing that. You are ignoring the counterarguments and then extrapolating to hypotheticals which would not be permitted under the arguments supporting the legality of the Al-Aulaqi killing. It's not a good faith effort to actual examine the issue.

No serious person can dispute that there necessarily are edge cases between what is legal permitted when protecting national security and what crosses the line. But you aren't a serious person, so you pretend that, if the Al-Aulaqi killing was legal and justified, then all killings of U.S. citizens (at least on foreign soil) would be permitted if the president ordered it. But that isn't a good faith engagement with that incident as precedent.

It is different than the hypothetical which, in the Supreme Court, was proposed as permissible by the ex-president's legal counsel, specifically, that he could order someone shot on Fifth Avenue and he would have no criminal liability unless he was first impeached and then convicted by the Senate. Pretending there is no difference is the sign of empty partisanship.

If Joe Biden decides that “MAGA” is a group “affiliated” with Al Queda, he can kill Donald Trump under that logic.

It bears repeating that this hypothetical bears no relationship to the Al-Aulaqi killing other than you are invoking Al Qaeda. That you pretend it does shows the lack of depth of your thought. No, under the Al-Aulaqi precedent, that would not be allowed. Much more is required that being a member of a group affiliated with a terrorist group. You're either pretending not to understand that (i.e. arguing in bad faith) or, well, you have other attributes which make engaging in conversation with you pointless. I actually think it's the former, but that doesn't speak well of you.

[Nige]

You genuinely think the US can kill anyone it wants so long as they aren't American.

[Armchair]

No, I think US law extends to US soil and US Nationals.

I think if Jean (a French national) kills Marie (a German national) on Italian soil, the US doesn't have jurisdiction.

[tylertusta]

...because it talks about unlawful killing, did not apply to the drone strike

I'd be curious about seeing that guidance. To my knowledge, that has never been released publicly.

Because it could be that the OLC has itself fallen into a tautological trap that the current Court will not abide.

[not guilty]

I haven't read it yet, but I think the memorandum is reproduced here, beginning at page 67:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1202849-u-s-drone-memo#document/p80/a164188

[tylertusta]

Thanks for the link.

I've been looking through it, and I have to say that I'm surprised that the OLC relies so heavily on the clear statement rule.

It's a shame that it wasn't part of the record and could be debated, because it would have definitely made the argument a little spicier.

[not guilty]

The memorandum (as redacted) is appended to a Second Circuit opinion, so I would think it could be judicially noticed.

Michael Dreeben did discuss the public authority defense or exception to liability at some length during the argument. That is distinct from Trump’s claim of immunity, in that the availability of the defense or exception is not determined prior to trial. If evidence of the defense is adduced, and if the prosecution does not prove the inapplicability of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury should acquit.

[tylertusta]

Michael Dreeben did discuss the public authority defense or exception to liability at some length during the argument

True, but he also argues against a clear statement rule, something that his answer to the drone hypothetical relies on.

He wants it both ways.

[not guilty]

I don't see the clear statement rule as being terribly significant in the O.L.C. memo. So far as Mr. Dreeben's SCOTUS argument, a few ctrl-f searches show that he did not juxtapose the clear statement rule and his response to Justice Kavanaugh's question about the drone strikes (which, being based on an actual occurrence, was not a hypothetical).

In any event, Dreeben was talking about public authority as a defense or exception to criminal liability, which is distinct from any claim of immunity. A public authority claim goes to guilt/innocence at trial, not to immunity from prosecution prior to trial. Dreeben argues that Barack Obama's ordering the drone strike does not violate the criminal law in the first instance.

At this stage of the litigation, Team Trump is not claiming that his conduct as averred in the indictment does not violate the charged statutes -- Trump claims that even if he did what he is accused of, and even if that conduct violates the criminal law, he still can't be prosecuted criminally unless he has first been impeached and convicted.

[tylertusta]

According to the memo, the OLC considers the rule as the basis of the public authority justification as criminal prohibition can bound executive authority generally if Congress enacts a statute that limits it. See Page 72.

Regarding last week’s oral arguments, Dreeben spent quite some time educating Justice Jackson on the rule as it was painfully clear that she wasn’t prepared for this to come up.

Dreeben and Jackson’s discussion starts on the bottom of page 165 of the transcript, but the pertinent section starts on page 167 where Dreeben argues against the clear statement rule all the way through to page 169.

Dreeben is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this: Obama can’t be prosecuted because the murder statute doesn’t expressly limit the executive, thus the public authority exception would apply.

Meanwhile, Trump can be prosecuted because Presidents are actually subject to all criminal laws.

And it doesn't matter that Dreeben is asking for the Court to let Trump raise it as an affirmative defense at trial instead of a pre-trial immunity, because Dreeben argued previously that prosecutors would never conduct such a prosecution against Obama anyways!

It's an "I know it when I see it" standard that has the conservative Justices so flustered.

[Harvey Mosley]

Are Office of Legal Counsel determinations legally binding? Or is it just an opinion? If they are binding how does that work? As far as I know (and I could very well be wrong) the office is part of the executive branch. Wouldn't that create separation of powers issues?

On another note, I appreciate your engagement.

[Sarcastr0]

The norm is the President is bound to follow their opinions.
As to the independence, maybe there's a declaration against interest sort of feeling there.

Less sure on whether OLC can shield as well as bind. Certainly there is some political cover. Judicial I'd guess a case by case basis.

[not guilty]

The Office of Legal Counsel is part of the Department of Justice. Its determinations are not legally binding on the judiciary, but the underlying legal analysis may be persuasive.

[David Nieporent]

OLC rulings are legally binding on the executive branch only, and only to the extent that the president wants it that way.

[tylertusta]

I believe I said last week that you were not going to enjoy oral arguments.

Based on your responses, I was correct.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Based on your responses, I was correct."

Yes, that is why he is being obtuse about the Thomas question. Implying Thomas does not remember JKF being killed when it was just a hypo assuming JKF was not killed and then prosecuted.

Plus, he can never resist his chance to fly his racist flag.

[not guilty]

Those who venerate Clarence Thomas are quick to cavil that whoever criticizes their hero must ipso facto be a racist. I understand the red herring -- it is a handy (and lazy) substitute for defending the Great Man on the merits.

When Antonin Scalia pointedly distinguished his jurisprudence from that of Thomas by saying, "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," was Scalia simply being racist? https://www.npr.org/2008/04/28/89986017/justice-scalia-the-great-dissenter-opens-up

[Bob from Ohio]

No he was not, just rude, but you are. You've repeatedly showed it.

[not guilty]

Refusing to genuflect to Clarence Thomas =/= racism. The man is a dirty scoundrel, and he has always been a rank opportunist. A Jefferson Davis Hogg in blackface.

[mulched]

Well, that didn’t take too long to pop out again. I thought he had it under control.

Fucking racist.

[not guilty]

See what I mean? Crying "racist" is much easier than defending Clarence Thomas on the merits. The epithet is intended to shut down discussion.

Yes, I have considerable animus toward Justice Thomas. But antipathy toward a single black person does not translate to racism. See, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

[SRG2]

Perhaps Thomas is going to argue in his dissent that it is history and tradition not to prosecute ex-presidents, which suggests therefore that they're immune.

[Sonja T]

In the classified document case from Mar-go the following is being reported "

More from unredacted motions in FLA--this is from an unsealed transcript of witness interview.

FBI agent says GSA was holding large quantity of Trump's boxes in VA and then ordered his team to come get them.

[Riva]

Yeah, you're a sharp one. Who could ever accuse Jack Smith of abusing his prerogatives as a prosecutor? Not like he has a history of that or anything And not like any state officials would actually campaign on prosecuting a political rival. And a federal judge would never make on the record comments displaying personal animus against a defendant being tried before her. And an administration would never act behind the scenes to prosecute a rival presidential candidate.

[Libertatem]

Way to be wholly uncharitable. How about Iran-Contra? Was Reagan prosecuted? The question is a good one and isn't limited to Kennedy (President Bush and the Iraq war...President Obama and extrajudicial killings via drone strikes).

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

JFK's corpse looked better than Trump looks now.

[Mr. Bumble]

With half of his head gone he looked more like Biden.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Speaking of half a head gone…Ashtray Babbitt’s badass Marine husband had a spare wife just in case something happened to Ashtray. And the spare is a little hottie!!

[Nige]

You guys sure love to say things like 'Trump was beaten by a revived zombie.'

[Frank Drackman]

The remains of JFK's brain had more functioning Neurons than Parkinsonian Joe's does now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What strikes ,e is how much the discussion has become about the poor innocent members of Hamas and their plight -- and not WHY they are in the situation they now are.

People forget that Israel dragged all the Jews out of Gaza a decade or so ago -- gave Gaza to Hamas with a promise to behave, which they immediately broke. I'm serious here -- I think the world would be a better place if Israel went in there and *did* kill everyone.

It's what the Romans would have done, it's what the Russians would have done, and I don't think there are human beings there anymore. Humanity can only exist within a humane culture and all that exists there is a culture of death. So send them home to Allah.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The big takeaway from an American perspective is Republicans that wanted to stay in Afghanistan are nutz! Just as Palestinians harbored Hamas Afghanis harbored AQ. And Israel doesn’t owe an obligation to improve the lives women and children of Gaza and America never had any obligation to improve the lives of people in Afghanistan! Bushism is not as evil as Nazism or communism but it is dumber!

[Martinned2]

I’m serious here — I think the world would be a better place if Israel went in there and *did* kill everyone.

That's what worries us, that you're actually serious about this.

[Frank Drackman]

We are, and we'll listen to what you say after your family gets massacred by Ham-Ass Terrorists

[Malika the Maiz]

You're an Israeli and you are admitting your goal is genocide?

[Frank Drackman]

Dummy says what?

[Malika the Maiz]

"I think the world would be a better place if Israel went in there and *did* kill everyone."

"That’s what worries us, that you’re actually serious about this."

And you replied "We are, and we’ll listen to what you say after your family gets massacred by Ham-Ass Terrorists"

[Frank Drackman]

I had a Cassette Recorder that used to do that.

[Drewski]

You understand that you're arguing with a schizophrenic man living on disability in Alabama who spends all day online pretending he is a wealthy doctor and military hero.

[Frank Drackman]

You are? Living in Alabama? Please, I haven’t lived there since graduating Med Screwel, something about a door hitting me in the ass…..

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

But you supported nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Malika the Maiz]

"all that exists there is a culture of death."

Says the guy who says kill them all. Killed irony while you were at it?

[JasonT20]

all that exists there is a culture of death

I hear this so often as an excuse for what is happening in Gaza that I can only assume that it is a frequent talking point on Fox, Newsmax, and the like.

I hear similar arguments for why God would kill all of the innocents (including children, even babies) along with the wicked with a global flood, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, the first born of all of Egypt, etc. It starts to make sense why some people are so quick to assume that Palestinians in Gaza are too far gone to save when you think about that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Israel gave Palestinians everything they wanted when Israel withdrew from Gaza—at that point it became obvious that Hamas was not interested in improving the lives of Palestinians and only focused on killing Jews.

[JasonT20]

It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Hamas isn't all 2 million or so people living in Gaza. Yes, war can't be fought in urban areas without large numbers of civilian deaths. But the "all that exists there is a culture of death" is basically condemning all the people of Gaza as being murderous bastards, and then saying that killing them all is the only solution. It's just rationalizing their own hatred or at least lack of thought.

To continue with the biblical angle, surely an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity would find a way to deal with wicked people without killing everyone around those doing evil along with them. A reasonable conclusion is that the people writing those stories couldn't think of a way to do it, so they had God doing what they thought was the only solution. Has human morality not evolved since the Bronze Age, that we still think that the only way to deal with evil people controlling an area is to go all scorched earth on that area? It's certainly the simple solution, but it is not a moral one.

Besides, while Hamas gained control of Gaza, the Palestinian people wanted more than just to have Israeli forces leave Gaza. They wanted a chance to grow their economy, but Israel and Egypt quickly isolated Gaza when Hamas took over. It has been extremely poor and dependent on whatever aid gets through Israeli and Egyptian controls, plus whatever they smuggle through tunnels along with the weapons and parts for missiles. And that doesn't even get into Israeli policies in the West Bank.

The Palestinian people have never gotten close to everything they wanted for themselves.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Humanity can only exist within a humane culture and all that exists there is a culture of death.

Why, I hear they support running over protesters with snowplows, machinegunning immigrants, and raping and murdering prostitutes!

[bernard11]

It’s what the Romans would have done,

The Romans:

"They make a desert, and call it peace."

I don’t think there are human beings there anymore. Humanity can only exist within a humane culture and all that exists there is a culture of death.

You know this how? Have you been there, spoken with Gazans? Do you think you could find ten righteous men there? If not, why not?

Who the fuck do you think you are, to condemn hundreds of thousands - men, women, children - to death based on your own ignorant opinions?

Bloodthirsty fool.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Dred Scott was correctly decided! America was founded as a white supremacist nation! Anyone that has a problem with Dred Scott is attempting to whitewash history because it concerned one individual in a nation in which millions were enslaved and thousands more had no rights even before Dred Scott!!

No justice!

No peace!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's about time: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/pro-israeli-pro-palestinian-demonstrations-clash-at-ucla/5363030/

Jesus would have taken a baseball bat...

[Frank Drackman]

Things if Hey-Zeuss didn't say them he should have,
but at least Daniel Craig did,
"Don't Fuck with the Jews"

[bernard11]

I'm not a Christian, so maybe you know more about Jesus than I do, but that doesn't actually comport with my understanding of Jesus' teachings.

Do you have a cite?

[Kazinski]

I was looking at immigration statistics and wasn't surprised to see that currently legal immigration, which is mostly capped by congressionally set quotas is pretty steady at about 1 immigrant visas (green cards https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45938) a year, while in 2023 3.2 million aliens (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters) were encountered at the border (in 2020 it was about 825k), and that doesn't include those crossing unimpeded.

Is the Biden administration doing it on purpose (yes), or are the just incompetent (also quite believable, but not the most likely).

I wonder if anyone has any rational case of why we.should allow about 4x as much illegal immigration as legal immigration?
So just

[Dr. Ed 2]

Shoot them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Stop playing the fool.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Stop playing the fool.

Given his history I'm inclined to believe he's not playing.

[Frank Drackman]

For a "Dr" of "Ed" you sure don't speak like one,
"Shoot Them"?? the Immigrants? Legal? Ill-Legal? the Biden Administration?

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course he's doing it deliberately. Illegal immigration went up the instant he took office, an obvious product of policy changes. If he hadn't intended it, when he saw the result he'd have reverted the policy to what worked, or found some other policy that worked.

But he didn't. His administration took the materials already purchased for building the wall, and sold them for a few pennies on the dollar as scrap, as fast as they could, just to make sure they wouldn't be available if some court ordered them to resume construction. He's been spending money having the border patrol tearing down barbed wire to clear the way for illegals. Spending federal money to actually HELP the illegals disappear into the interior of the country. Fighting in court to prevent border states from doing what he refuses to.

This isn't incompetence, it's deliberate. You can debate why he wants utterly unprecedented levels of illegal immigration, but anybody who asserts that it isn't deliberate just makes a joke of themselves.

When he's gone? We'll need another Operation Wetback just to convince the world that we actually have borders!

[Malika the Maiz]

It's much more likely that Biden's base criticized Trump's border policies and so Biden reversed them and he has trouble politically reverting back to them because his base would find it to be "inhumane."

[Sarcastr0]

You're really committed to the conspiracy theory.

1. No policy will have an instant impact
2. If you need to use the word obvious, that's a flag.
3. Biden has no control over the behavior of Mexicans
4. 'If he didn't like the number he can't control going up he'd have gone back to inhuman cruelty' is an incredible take
5. The wall was a symbol of shitty nationalism, but it didn't really effect migrant behavior.
6. The Admin sold surplus wall materials for pennies on the dollar as fast as they could? You have no idea what as fast as they could means, you're just making up what you're sure has to be true.
7. Just because you have dehumanized those crossing the border does not mean everyone else thinks a barbed wire barrier is not monstrous. 'to clear the way for illegals' has zero support. More telepathy because you are really committed to this story.
8. The transportation stuff is about asylum's seekers; you are conflating these different sets because they're all the same to you. Because on this issue you're a wild paranoid bigot.
9. Border states don't get to have their own immigration policy, even if you like it. You're so outcome oriented you hate the supremacy clause now and pretend it's about rule of law.

You're just lying to yourself over and over again. It's a helluva show.

[Brett Bellmore]

You really are full of shit, you know that? The data doesn't lie, Biden took office and illegal immigration shot up dramatically.

January 2021: 78, 414 Southern border encounters.
February : 101,099
March: 173,277

That's right, a month after he took office, illegal immigration had more than doubled. Just one freaking month. The BEST number since Biden took over is worse than the WORST number while Trump was in office. Since Biden took office the total number of illegal aliens in the country has DOUBLED. And he hasn't even been in office a full 4 years yet!

You're just desperate to pretend that wasn't a deliberate policy choice. But nobody is stupid enough to believe that.

That's why the latest poll from Harris shows majority support for mass deportations. Your boy Biden accomplished that, Sarcastr0.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Every single point he made was accurate, and your ability to refute them amounted to saying "nuh-uh!"

You're the least-qualified person around here to be telling anyone that they are full of shit. Your thought process starts at conspiracy theory and ends with the dumbest possible rationale.

[Sonja T]

The data cited by Bellmore substantiates his points and basically refutes the leftist talking points.

The Biden administration's announcement pre inaguration that they would reverse Trumps border policy was for all intents and purposes and open invitation to cross the border.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Nothing to do with winter, apparently.)

[Kazinski]

He didn’t actually say anything, but I’m glad I was far enough away to avoid the spittle.

At best he's making the case for Biden being incompetent rather than purposely flouting the law.
Immigration is the biggest reason Biden's disapproval numbers are so high:
Specific issue-related concerns account for the largest share of Biden critics’ explanations for disapproving of his job performance. Immigration is the most top of mind, at 19%. The next highest is his handling of the economy (9%), followed by inflation (5%).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/610322/immigration-leads-reasons-biden-detractors-disapprove.aspx

[Malika the Maiz]

The explanation I offered fits with the facts as well, if not better, than your 'it's deliberate' theory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your explanation still has it as a result of policy changes, while Sarcastr0 is stuck on "It's just a coincidence!".

[Sarcastr0]

Your causality is *impossible* because of the instant reaction.

The timeline lines up more with the Admin changing, not even any specific policy. So like Trump with his performative cruelty leaving office.

Your time traveling hive mind Latinos are impossible.

[Malika the Maiz]

Isn't it possible that migrants, whose livelihoods depend on this, kept up as best they can about the election and anticipated a favorable shift in policy upon administration change?

[Sarcastr0]

That is almost certainly what happened, albeit a bit less specific than specific policy changes, versus just Trump being so over the top hostile and Biden not being that, and policies generally flowing from that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, why would anyone pay attention to what the incoming administration said they were going to do?

[Sarcastr0]

What did they say? Be specific.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29K1X0/

Factbox: U.S. president-elect Biden pledged to change immigration. (Reuters) – U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has promised a quick and dramatic reversal of the restrictive immigration policies put in place by his predecessor President Donald Trump. While Biden pledged to undo many of Trump’s policies starting the first day he takes office on Jan. 20, the layers of reforms will take much longer to implement.

Quite a few announcements prior to inaugaration.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/biden-agenda/immigration/

[Sarcastr0]

"Immigration
President Biden will reform our long-broken and chaotic immigration system. President Biden’s strategy is centered on the basic premise that our country is safer, stronger, and more prosperous with a fair and orderly immigration system that welcomes immigrants, keeps families together, and allows people across the country—both newly arrived immigrants and people who have lived here for generations—to more fully contribute to our country. "

Yes, what an obvious and dastardly plot to encourage illegals.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden announced well in advance that he was changing the policies. So the moment he took office they were ready to sprint across the border.

You're just grasping at straws to deny that he did it deliberately.

[Sarcastr0]

So what you are left with Biden saying he won’t be as awful to illegals as Trump and now that’s a big deliberate attempt to do a Great Replacement rather than just be a non hateful human.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, they're not legally entitled to be here. And they knew they weren't entitled to be here when they decided to come here anyway.

So, I'm fine with being awful to them, if by "awful" you mean kicking them out again.

[Sarcastr0]

Look, you can have a preferred policy. We all do. That's normal.

Saying that the government not instantiating your preferred policy is acting illegitimately and has some grand evil design...That's not normal.

Though yeah, your normal policy is dehumanizing and immoral, so there is that as well. These people are the VICTIMS of the system we have set up, not evildoers.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think living outside the US is dehumanizing. And it's not immoral to deport people present in the country illegally.

Again, these are people who have no legal right to be here, knew they had no legal right to be here, and came anyway. They're not the victims, they're the perpetrators.

[Nige]

That doesn't mean you can strip them of human rights, and there's no excuse for trying to turn them into some sort of dangerous underclass trying to supplant citizens just to rile up xenophobic hate.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump went well beyond simply 'sending them home.'

Because of course logistics is not magic, and where they come from is sometimes unclear, and family seperation etc. etc.

But you do not care about them as people at all, so why would you think about such details?

[Joe_dallas]

Bottom line - The illegal immigration surged almost immediately post Trump administration because they knew the enforcement was going to be eased.

Not hard to figure - provided you look at it objectively.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That doesn’t mean you can strip them of human rights, "

Look, I don't care to pretend that not getting deported is a human right possessed by people illegally in a country. So get over it.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, that's what I've posted. Brett, OTOH is saying a great deal more than that:
"You can debate why he wants utterly unprecedented levels of illegal immigration, but anybody who asserts that it isn’t deliberate just makes a joke of themselves."

And don't let him pretend he's just going to poof them back to their country of origin, as if our issue is the mere deportation and not the other horrors Trump pulled.
"When he’s gone? We’ll need another Operation Wetback just to convince the world that we actually have borders!"

Operation Wetback, of course, was racist (and not just via it's name - it deported Latino residents just 'cause.), and replete with rights-violations.

Brett defends a strawman of *his own position* always the sign of someone who is on the moral up-and-up.

[bernard11]

So, I’m fine with being awful to them, if by “awful” you mean kicking them out again.

Why do you hate these people? It's like they personally did you some terrible harm by crossing the border illegally.

This is just your usual mindless formalism. "They are here illegally, so anything we do to them is just fine." Do you think about these things, the practicalities? Are you another homicidal lunatic, like your ally Dr. Ed, who sees nothing wrong with just shooting them?

Do you think they are "vermin," who are "poisoning our blood" like your god.

How exactly do you propose to "kick them out?" You can't just pull a switch, you know. And I suspect that even you might admit , under extreme duress, that there are a fair number we really shouldn't be kicking out.

As usual, you take a complex, difficult, problem and reduce it to a few grossly and stupidly oversimplified ideas.

[Nige]

'The illegal immigration surged almost immediately post Trump administration because they knew the enforcement was going to be eased.'

So you either think it's worth violating peoples' human rights to reduce immigration, or you remember there was a pandemic going on around then.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So you either think it’s worth violating peoples’ human rights to reduce immigration, "

Or maybe we just think that, contra Somin, there's no right for non-citizens to enter the country, so we're not violating anybody's rights if we stop them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why do you hate these people? It’s like they personally did you some terrible harm by crossing the border illegally."

I don't have to hate an intruder to kick them out. It's enough that they've taken something, presence in this country, that they're in no way entitled to.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, you pretend this is just moving people. And then you endorse Trumps dehumanizing and cruel policies.

And then you endorse Operation Wetback.

Oh and the barbed wire is some good shit so far as you are concerned.

You into kicking over water caches in the desert too?

Nothing about the businesses that pay illegals though.

Quit pretending you think these are humans, if you are into methods like these.

You cannot care about human rights and want what you want to happen to those people. Which, again, is far more and far worse than just removal.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Again, you pretend this is just moving people.”

Again, you pretend this isn’t just moving people.

Look, you have this weird notion that, if somebody wants a law you disapprove of enforced, this somehow establishes that they don’t think the person breaking the law is human. I honestly don’t know where the hell you’re getting that from, but it keeps cropping up. Illegal immigrants are absolutely human, and I want their human asses deported.

“And then you endorse Trumps dehumanizing and cruel policies.”

Which “dehumanizing and cruel policies”? Keeping in mind that I flatly refuse to agree that it’s “cruel” to not let everybody in the world enter the US at will? What exactly are you going on about? Trump putting children in cages while Obama was President?

And barbed wire? I’ve got news for you: Barbed wire doesn’t jump out and attack people. It doesn’t chase them down. It doesn’t get up at night to swim across the Rio Grande and mug people in Mexico. It just sits where it is, not at all incidentally where the illegal immigrants AREN’T supposed to be, and KNOW they aren’t supposed to be.

So, if somebody perversely insists on throwing themselves on the barbed wire in a location where it’s illegal for them to be, and they know that? That’s on them. What’s next, you’ll complain about concrete walls because somebody who insists on head butting them might get a concussion?

“Nothing about the businesses that pay illegals though.”

What, you demand that every comment be encyclopedic? Here’s my proposal for businesses that pay illegals: Establish a bounty on exposing them, a substantial one that gets taken out of the business’ assets, that is payable in your home country. And make using E-Verify an absolute defense.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ll just leave your revealing post for others to read.

Jesus Christ.

[Brett Bellmore]

Revealing nothing more than that I want a law enforced that you don't like, and that you're insanely insisting that enforcing laws you don't like is inhuman. There's absolutely nothing more going on here, than your insisting that laws you don't like can't be enforced.

[Sarcastr0]

Some of my issues with your post:
-You ignore the child separation policy
-You at length blame the victim for barbed wire deaths, effectively endorsing lethal force – why not go machine guns if you warn people well enough?
-You want to instantiate vigilantes. When has that *ever* ended well?
-You call illegals criminals when the violation is not a felony.

Can’t imagine why anyone would find you inhumane.

[Brett Bellmore]

"-You ignore the child separation policy"

Guess what happens if you get arrested and thrown in jail, and you have a kid. Shockingly, they don't get put in the jail cell with you. Were you unaware of that, maybe? Trump WANTED to house the kids with their parents, a court prohibited it!

"-You at length blame the victim for barbed wire deaths, effectively endorsing lethal force – why not go machine guns if you warn people well enough?"

Yes, if you warn people well enough, machine guns are fine, too. Or land mines, for that matter. I don't think they're necessary to stop illegal immigration, but if it turned out that nothing short of a mine field with periodic machine gun nests was capable of preventing people from illegally entering our country? I'd be down with it.

You? You want to treat illegal immigrants like they have no agency, like they're not responsible for anything they decide to do. And you have the nerve to claim *I* treat them like they're not human? Human beings are responsible for their own choices! It's animals that aren't responsible for what they decide to do.

Your moral reasoning is literally inverted!

[Sarcastr0]

You argue cruelty is necessary when it’s really not.

There is no logistical train you can’t keep families together.

And there is no excuse for just not keeping good track of who you separated from whom like the Trump DHS did.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I argue that it's NOT cruelty that my local electric substation has barbed wire on top of its fence, because nobody is being forced to try to climb over that fence.

Your fundamental mistake here is treating illegal immigration as a given, like those people are just water flowing down hill, not conscious beings making their own choices, and subject to living with the predictable consequences of those choices.

Because you accord the illegal immigrants no agency, if any harm befalls them in their efforts to enter the country, you can only attribute that harm to the people you ARE willing to admit have agency, us.

I'm not the one dehumanizing them, you are. I'm treating them as intelligent beings capable of making their own decisions, and thus responsible for the consequences of those decisions. You're treating them like mindless animals that can never be responsible for those consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, this omni-assumption of the risk logic puts you right with Ed and machine guns.

Those illegals are choosing to go into the kill-zone; they were warned, it's not your fault!

Your logic has no limiting factor to distinguish it from the above.

It's bad!

[Brett Bellmore]

You're deliberately eliding a crucial point: They have no RIGHT to be in the 'kill zone'. They KNOW they have no right to be in the 'kill zone'. They are in fact not stumbling into the 'kill zone', they are expending great effort to deliberately enter it.

This is the morally central element of the situation, and you are absolutely determined to ignore it, because I guess it's irrelevant if you treat the illegal aliens as lacking agency.

It's like blaming the electric company for copper thieves getting cut up on the barbed wire around the substation, and ignore that they were thieves voluntarily deciding to try to climb the fence. Because, the poor dears, it's not like you can expect people to not climb barbed wire fences in order to steal copper, after all!

Have the decency to stop treating them like mindless animals, Sarcastr0. To be human is to make your own choices, and live with the consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I don't use rights analysis as a shield when talking about people dying for being in a place you don't want them to be with zero neccessity to escalate to legal force.

Base humanity includes the right to life, even if they make a dumb decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you DO think the electric company is at fault if a copper thief cuts themselves up on the barbed wire around a sub station.

In your world, this is all cops could do.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, the barbed wire is not a naturally occurring hazard.
If you put a trap on the copper you've got culpability.

See the Spring Gun cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, you just confirmed it.

Barbed wire isn't a trap, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Man-made hazard then.

In America, you aren’t allowed to do that. Because we hold life a lot more highly than you do.

Not just illegals, you also like lethal force to discourage thievery IIRC, because money is time in your life.

So yeah, your being into some lethal force and blaming the dead guy because they did a crime is well in keeping with your basically pre-enlightenment morality.

Because the enlightenment is when we realized values other than money and the life after this one.

[Bwaaah]

Holy crap. I have a mentally ill brother who, under duress of argument, comes to absurd conclusions like that.

Good job, Brett. Astounding how you can just follow him to his logical conclusion, and it's *that* stupid.

And he's still standing with his head up, like he's not naked and foolish...like he's still got his clothes on.

Astounding.

[Sarcastr0]

Way to just stamp your feet and deny Bwaaah.

Brett wants to do something that has long been illegal in the US - set up a lethal hazard to prevent trespass.

Yes, trespass is illegal, and you are allowed to take action. But there are limits. Barbed wire is outside of those limits, having potential to be maiming or deadly. Brett is on the other side of that long-solved discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

[Bwaaah]

You imply that that case, Katko v Briney, settles your assertion that barbed wire, as a defensive measure, is somehow contrary to law. (And to good reason.)

All I see is an idiot doubling down.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don't think it's coincidence but there's no conclusive proof it's deliberate. I think Biden was trying to appear more 'humane' and now has trouble with his base walking back from that. I doubt he wanted what happened, it's hurting him politically and that's likely all he cares about.

[David Nieporent]

You’re just desperate to pretend that wasn’t a deliberate policy choice. But nobody is stupid enough to believe that.

It wasn't a deliberate policy choice; it wasn't an accidental policy choice. It wasn't a policy choice at all. It was a change in behavior by migrants.

[Sarcastr0]

Apparently not being Trump is a policy choice.

[Sonja T]

Gee - what do you think precipitated that change in behavior by the migrants ?

[bernard11]

The data doesn’t lie, Biden took office and illegal immigration shot up dramatically.

If you knew anything about data you'd know this was BS.

The data neither lies nor explains causes. If you want to claim it does it's up to you to prove it.

Waving numbers around is bullshit.

[Balisane]

Biden could easily control the border and the behavior of Mexicans if he wanted. An order to the military to shoot any smelly brown trash crossing the border would be legal and sensible. As would detaining illegal crossers without bail and no access to lawyers or anyone else.

We could easily fix this problem, but you Democrats don't want to because these bipeds will be permanent Democrats in a few years.

[not guilty]

"Biden could easily control the border and the behavior of Mexicans if he wanted. An order to the military to shoot any smelly brown trash crossing the border would be legal and sensible."

Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud.

Isn't it peculiar that no one talks about increasing border security with Canada, where the folks on the other side are, you know, white?

[Balisane]

Because whites coming into the country aren’t an economic and cultural burden. Others are.

[Sarcastr0]

if anyone has any rational case of why we should allow about 4x as much illegal immigration as legal immigration?

Because our law if a tangled, shitty mess, and the GOP again and again is the roadblock to fixing it because yelling about it is good politics and compromise is not.

But also our businesses love them some cheap illegal labor. It's an engine in our agricultural economy. I don't love importing a peasant class like that myself, but until the GOP is less about performative cruelty and refusing compromise that's where we are.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because I think it's good policy, and when I think it's good policy to violate laws, we should violate them."

[Sarcastr0]

It’s been explained to you countless times that there is discretion in enforcement baked into the INA.
You have no excuse to still be this ignorant.

And you use your ignorance of the law to fuel an insistence that the only legitimate policy is performative cruelty.
It'd be dumb if it's a Hard Men Making Hard Decisions take, but this appears to be an easy and fun decision for you.

It’s awful. You're just awful.

[Armchair]

There's a difference between "discretion" and just deciding "Nah, I don't like this law. Not enforcing it".

[Sarcastr0]

Well, first, the law is getting enforced. USCIS isn’t just all on vacation. Just the most delusional shit to think otherwise.

Second, discretion is as specified in the enabling statute. In the case of INA, it’s extraordinarily broad. However, as a statute, the discretion it grants generally ends at Congressional action, including appropriation and authorization. Congress says ‘here is money you gotta spend it on a wall’ the President can make decisions about when and where and how, but needs to move towards building a wall.

Though third, fights between Congress and the President on all sorts of things including likely discretion vs. faithfully execute might come up against the Political Question doctrine. I’m not a fan of it’s breadth myself, but that is the current lay of the legal land.

Finally, what is clear is that Trump's dehumanizing cruelty towards immigrants is not mandated by the INA.

[Sonja T]

Get real - its not being enforced.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying something doesn’t make it so, Sonja. Do you have any information? Evidence? Authority?

[loki13]

Do you want an honest answer to your question?

The problem, like so many, is that we don't actually have people trying to find workable, long-term solutions. Instead, it's all just people sabotaging each other for partisan gain.

The issues with the immigration law as it is are pretty well-known. It is far too easy for extended family (not just immediate, parent/children) to immigrate, and too hard for others. Businesses need workers (both skilled at the high end, and, um ... let's just say undocumented at the low end) and there is no easy way to get them. Crossing is so hard that when economic migrants come in, they don't risk leaving again. And so on.

If we did a complete re-vamp of the system from the ground up and made it responsive to our needs and make sense, that would be a start. Then, we could have an expanded guest worker program at both the high- and low-end. Finally, we could really ensure that employers are complying with an improved e-verify program, and go after EMPLOYERS who are using undocumented workers.

In short- increase the legal immigration, but have it make sense. Vastly increase the guest worker program. And hit the demand side of undocumented workers by enforcing compliance on employers.

That would be a start, but it would require people to be looking at solutions. Start with something like that, and then tweak as needed.

[ducksalad]

A few things could be added.

We need *much faster* (like 50 times faster) decisions when someone shows up at a port of entry with a plausible case that they deserve entry under asylum or some other provision of the law. That requires temporarily appointing a huge number, like 10X, of hearing officers to clear the backlog.

Right now, the surge in marginal or outright spurious asylum claims is largely because people have heard you get to stay months or years, with freedom of travel, until your case comes up. During that time you can hope for some other path to legality, or disappear into the gray economy.

Once word got out that making an asylum claim gets you maybe 96 hours in a civilized but not luxurious holding area, followed by a hearing that rejects most cases and deportation, the claims would go way down, and we wouldn't need the temp hearing officers.

The idea of going after employers could work for large companies. But I'm not going to ask the lawn guy, the barber, the plumber, or the babysitter for papers, get an employer ID, and ask permission from the feds every time I want my hair or grass cut. A large fraction of low-end immigrants work in the cash gig economy or in small, informal businesses run by themselves or by family members that have legal status.

[Brett Bellmore]

The simplest element we could add is "remain in Mexico", or more generally, "remain somewhere else": You don't get to enter the country until AFTER your asylum claim has been adjudicated, and if you enter before then? It's no longer necessary to conduct an inquiry, your application is automatically rejected.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit conflating asylum seekers with illegals.

To hear you tell it, 100% of illegals claim asylum. Which is just more you making things up to simplify your world and validate your awful dehumanizing hostility.

[Brett Bellmore]

"To hear you tell it, 100% of illegals claim asylum. "

At this point, damned near 100% of illegals who get caught claim asylum. They're being coached to claim asylum! As Ducksalad mentions, making an asylum claim, with the current administration's policies, pretty much guarantees that you'll be released into the interior of the country on your own recognizance, with a hearing years from now if ever.

[ducksalad]

Well, there are some issues with your solution too. The main one is the assumption that some other country (e.g. Mexico) will gladly do what you aren’t willing for the US to do.

Let’s turn it around:
1. We find some guy in the US. Or he shows up at a seaport or airport.
2. He claims asylum.
3. Us: “We’re sending you to Mexico!”
4. Mexico: “No, we’re not taking him. He needs to apply to us for asylum, and wait in the US while it gets processed.“

[Sarcastr0]

damned near 100% of illegals who get caught claim asylum
Have you any source for this other than 'it stands to reason?'

[Drewski]

Of course these numbers are complete ass pulls. Hell, a third of migrants who qualify to apply for asylum defensively (that is, to avoid deportation after getting caught) don't actually apply. They interview with an officer who finds they meet the credible fear standard, then they don't apply and get deported.

[ducksalad]

A couple other problems with "apply for asylum from outside" rule:

1. The people most genuinely in need of asylum are the ones least able to comply with a rule to stay home and politely show up at a US consulate while the local secret police watch the entrance. If the consulate's even still open.

2. If the proposed rule is stay in the first safe-ish place you get into, is that (a) the first safe-ish place you get into legally, or (b) the first safe-ish place you get into physically?

If you pick (a) then you're faced with the fact that many, probably most, asylum seekers aren't in Mexico legally either.

If you pick (b) then you're faced with people arriving by sea, by air, or just being here with no record of where they came from.

I still think the best way to handle it is to make *much* faster decisions. Not just on asylum but on all applications to enter the US. It's better for everybody: us, the ones turned away, and the ones admitted.

[Brett Bellmore]

I want fast decisions. I'm suggesting a rule that makes most of the decisions almost instant: "If you enter the country illegally, the answer is "No."

[Sarcastr0]

Since we told a lot of them to do just that in order to apply, this seems pretty fucked up, Brett.

[David Nieporent]

That rule does not comport with U.S. law or our treaty obligations.

[David Nieporent]

The idea of going after employers could work for large companies. But I’m not going to ask the lawn guy, the barber, the plumber, or the babysitter for papers, get an employer ID, and ask permission from the feds every time I want my hair or grass cut.

You're not required to. The law requires employers, not people who use the services of independent contractors, to check for employment eligibility. (To be sure, if you know that someone isn't allowed to work, you still can't hire him to mow your lawn.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Crossing is so hard that...

...over 7 million individuals have managed to do it since Biden took office.

[Armchair]

"The problem, like so many, is that we don’t actually have people trying to find workable, long-term solutions. Instead, it’s all just people sabotaging each other for partisan gain."

-We did in 1986. Then, we got an amnesty. The "enforcement" part of the deal seems to have been ignored.

"The issues with the immigration law as it is are pretty well-known. It is far too easy for extended family (not just immediate, parent/children) to immigrate,"

That's a more interesting question. Is a skills-based approach more desirable than a family-based approach? Perhaps in the short term, yes. Industries get the necessary employees.

In the long term...well...that's a different question. Arguably, the family-based approach offers better, faster integration, with a better support network. It also avoids the industry tendency to "need" foreign workers, when really the industry just wants to push down native wages.

[Sarcastr0]

This is you, being part of the problem. 1986 was not almost 40 years ago, but your party had Congress plenty of times after and never moved.

And yet you blame the Dems. And use that to insist on no change that is not 100% a GOP win. Which given the disorder in your own house, isn't even a cognizable concept right now.

We have multiple visa-to-residency programs to address both skills and family-based approaches. Though we are still sorely lacking in our technical workforce (hence why so many students working on our research are here on J-1 which is an exchange visa and has no path to residency). We gotta raise that cap, for skills based if nothing else.

[Armchair]

The GOP has never had a fillibuster proof majority in Congress since 1986 that would be necessary for actual enforcement. Thus a deal was needed with Democrats.

Democrats have never been willing to have actual enforcement of the law, without provisions that they could ignore through “discretion” or other means.

You love your "discretion" so much.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t need a filibuster proof majority to put something in the table.
You are excusing a lot. Or, rather blaming the Dems as though only they have agency.

Discretion is what the law says. Period. There is no like or not like when describing legal reality.
You think differently, which is why you are regularly repeatedly ignorant even after something has been explained to you.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: My favorite passage from the original novel Pinocchio by C. Collodi). It happens after Pinocchio learns that he has been robbed of four gold pieces by the Fox and the Cat:

In desperation, he ran to the city and went straight to the courthouse to report the robbery to the magistrate. The Judge was [...] a large Gorilla venerable with age. A flowing white beard covered his chest and he wore gold-rimmed spectacles from which the glasses had dropped out. The reason for wearing these, he said, was that his eyes had been weakened by the work of many years.

Pinocchio, standing before him, told his pitiful tale, word by word. He gave the names and the descriptions of the robbers and begged for justice.

The Judge listened to him with great patience. A kind look shone in his eyes. He became very much interested in the story; he felt moved; he almost wept. When the Marionette had no more to say, the Judge put out his hand and rang a bell.

At the sound, two large Mastiffs appeared, dressed in Carabineers’ uniforms.

Then the magistrate, pointing to Pinocchio, said in a very solemn voice:

“This poor simpleton has been robbed of four gold pieces. Take him, therefore, and throw him into prison.” The Marionette, on hearing this sentence passed upon him, was thoroughly stunned. He tried to protest, but the two officers clapped their paws on his mouth and hustled him away to jail.

There he had to remain for four long, weary months. And if it had not been for a very lucky chance, he probably would have had to stay there longer. For, my dear children, you must know that it happened just then that the young emperor who ruled over the City of Simple Simons had gained a great victory over his enemy, and in celebration thereof, he had ordered illuminations, fireworks, shows of all kinds, and, best of all, the opening of all prison doors.

“If the others go, I go, too,” said Pinocchio to the Jailer.

“Not you,” answered the Jailer. “You are one of those—”

“I beg your pardon,” interrupted Pinocchio, “I, too, am a thief.”

“In that case you also are free,” said the Jailer. Taking off his cap, he bowed low and opened the door of the prison, and Pinocchio ran out and away, with never a look backward.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure I really understand, what did the judge think Pinocchio did? Stop an assault on the Subway?

The rest of it of course makes sense.

[Michael P]

It's a parable about the Simple Simons who run big cities and leftist states: who they imprison and who they free. The old gorilla with lensless eyeglasses that he thinks help him see is like the White House Resident.

[Nige]

No, it's about how for some people, the worst of crimes is to be poor.

[Kazinski]

I seldom hold grudges but I found out Martinned has been holding out on us. I would expect at least a scornful mention of a super hot super conservative Dutch babe, but nothing (nada in the original Dutch).

I'm sure he knows who Eva Vlaardingerbroek is, so I'm not going to accept any excuses. But here she is (speaking in flawless English, as the Dutch do) at the Hungarian CPAC conference. The video is much better than the transcript, but all post some quotes below.

https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar/status/1784264775574188371?s=19
Let's take Amsterdam, the capital. Amsterdam currently consists of 56 per cent migrants. The Hague, 58 per cent migrants.

Rotterdam, almost 60 per cent migrants. And, of course, most of these immigrants come from non-Christian, non-Western, African and Middle Eastern countries. Conclusion, the Dutch population is already outnumbered in the majority of our cities.

But let's look onwards. London, 54 per cent migrants [97% white in 1960]. Again, conclusion, native population outnumbered.

Brussels, colour me shocked, 70 per cent migrants. Conclusion, native population majorly outnumbered. And other Europeans will, of course, follow suit soon if they haven't already."

"That's why we need to outright reject the lie that nationalism causes war. It's not nationalism or national sovereignty that causes war. It's expansionism.

And where in Europe do we find that nowadays? In one place and one place only, Brussels."

"When the foundation of your institution is rotten, and that is the case in Brussels, you can rebuild the house on top of it all you want, but it's still going to crumble. So the only answer is the Tower of Babel needs to be destroyed. Ladies and gentlemen, we are the daughters and sons of the greatest nations on earth.

And we need to ask ourselves, what has happened to us? Where do we come from? And more importantly, where are we going? Our elites have declared a war on us, and now it is time for us to put on the full armor of God, fight back, and win. Thank you so much."

Now I have to say I would reject much of what she says in an American context, since we have always been much more diverse than Europe within the borders of the 50 states, and we absorbed those more diverse populations as we grew, and allowed more in.

But we need to be making our own decisions as a democracy, not allowing corrupt officials allowing illegal immigration as they see fit, ignoring the laws and limits set by Congress.

And I just like to watch Eva talk anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, she is pretty good looking.

[Bwaaah]

I was concerned that that would not be the first point...that I would have to look myself in the mirror and admit, with shame, that I'm a toad.

I admit, shamelessly, that I'm a toad.

What did she say?

[Martinned2]

I’m sure he knows who Eva Vlaardingerbroek is

I was sure you did too. She's been plastered all over US conservative TV. (I don't think they let her on Dutch TV. The only reason we know who she is, is because people went: "Hey, check out this crazy lady who just went on Tucker Carlson's show!")

[Kazinski]

Well I actually don't watch any conservative US TV, so I guess that's why I missed her, but she's definitely not crazy. She may not be completely right, but she isn't wrong.

"But they don't let her on Dutch TV". Yep, too many people would agree with her.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, a lot of people don't understand that the US is pretty much the last bastion of freedom of speech in the West, political censorship under various pretexts is endemic elsewhere.

[Martinned2]

Sure, and you're much better off because of it. /s

But seriously, do you think TV channels have some kind of obligation to let any extreme-right lunatic on their airwaves, either in the US or elsewhere?

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd think that after TWO, count 'em, TWO World wars fought on your own territory, you'd have caught on by now: The goal isn't to make everything as nice as possible, it's to deny despots the tools they need to take over and make things as BAD as possible!

If you can censor for good, you can censor for evil. Do you not get that? You think you're going to be able to guarantee this horrifically dangerous power remains forever in the hands of good people? Are you really that confident it's in the hands of good people even now?

[Martinned2]

The goal is [...] to deny despots the tools they need to take over and make things as BAD as possible!

How is that working out for you?

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

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty good, actually.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your censorship really did a dandy job of preventing this, didn't it?

But you seem right on top of suppressing the political opposition.

[Martinned2]

Wait, you think anyone in the Netherlands is censoring Eritreans? Because all the late night talkshows would have been lining up to discuss Eritrean politics, except the government won't let them?

[Brett Bellmore]

Thought we were talking about censorship in Europe, not just the Netherlands.

[Martinned2]

@Brett: Sure, who in Europe is censoring the Eritreans? The only one censoring Eritreans is the government of Eritrea. But that's not the cause of violence outside the borders of Eritrea.

[Nige]

As usual, not putting far right extremists on television is censorship. Freedeom of speech is letting far right extrtemistrs, and only far right extremists on every possble medium at all times.

[Kazinski]

Well I certainly don't think TV channels have an obligation to keep her off, which is really the question.

[Martinned2]

Neither do Dutch TV channels, not even on public television. Dutch public television involved multiple broadcasters per channel, each of which is a private law charitable organisation with members. The broadcasters have a lot of freedom to broadcast what they like.

(I think there are quotas for how much of their content has to be news, etc., and they can't broadcast things that go beyond certain standards on misinformation, decency, etc. but that's about it.)

Which reminds me, one of those broadcasters represents the extreme right, and they did used to have her on from time to time. But they don't have very many members, so they don't have very much broadcasting time.

Here she is discussing Covid vaccine conspiracy theories. (As in: defending them.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrjG2rr6UmQ

[Sarcastr0]

US is pretty much the last bastion of freedom of speech in the West

I like our 1A, but this kind of jingoism is silly.

[Bwaaah]

Brett: The U.S. has the most open culture of expression in the world.

Sarc: That's racist.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don't think jingoism is necessarily racism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it "jingoism" if you say your country is best on some metric where they actually ARE the best?

Anyway, looking up "jingoism", it doesn't appear that just thinking your country is best in some regard actually qualifies, regardless of whether or not you're right about it. "Jingoism" is specifically belligerent patriotism.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm absolutely fine with saying America is the best when it comes to speech. I might even agree.

You didn't say that. You said: "US is pretty much the last bastion of freedom of speech in the West."

That bit of melodramatic twaddle is where I get the jingoism from.

[Malika the Maiz]

That's neither here nor there regarding the question I posed. It may or not be jingoism, but what I replied to was that it isn't likely to be racist.

[Nige]

'Is it “jingoism” if you say your country is best on some metric where they actually ARE the best?'

Where you think you are the best. There's lots of people with political views that don't get on US TV. In that way they're exactly the same as what Martinned described.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because SarcastrO is a douche.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what I said, Bwaaah. Do better.

[Bwaaah]

Wouldn't want to be loose with language.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a habit of projecting some liberal who lives in your head onto other commenters.

[Nige]

You seem pretty desperate to be loose with language.

[Martinned2]

Well I actually don’t watch any conservative US TV

Sure you don't.

She may not be completely right, but she isn’t wrong.

The only time she isn't wrong is when she's spouting some kind of racist ideology. (Which is not a factual claim and therefore by definition not wrong.) She can't even quote the bible correctly.

“But they don’t let her on Dutch TV”. Yep, too many people would agree with her.

I would be the first to agree that Dutch TV is garbage. But they do still have some kind of standards. It's bad enough that they let the radical right on TV, but Vlaardingerbroek is to the right of anyone currently represented in the Dutch parliament, and that's saying something.

[Kazinski]

If you know much about American TV then you know most purely ideological channels are on cable TV (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) and more and more people, including me don't think cable is worth the expense. Of course Tucker is on X, but I don't watch much video content on X and if I do its most likely sports highlights.

I don't miss most of it with the exception of Gutfield.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that's what I meant by "conservative US TV": Fox, Newsmax, OANN, etc.

(Not Twitter, but the first time Vlaardingerbroek came on Tucker he was still on Fox. Nowadays she doesn't bother with him and his Twitter channel anymore.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you should be aware, then, that an awful lot of Americans simply don't watch cable TV news. Fox, for instance, has the biggest viewership of any cable news network, but that's in a fractured market, their percentage isn't all that impressive. Cable News Ratings 2023: Fox News Dominates, But MSNBC Is Only Major Network With Year-Over-Year Audience Growth

But dominating means that their most watched show doesn't clear 3 million viewers, in a country of over 300 million people.

[Martinned2]

Must be a coincidence then that you all parrot the same talking points.

[Kazinski]

I'd like some examples so I can sue them for plagiarism.

I notice some of the Supreme Court justices are stealing my stuff too and its been showing up in oral arguments.

[Brett Bellmore]

“The only time she isn’t wrong is when she’s spouting some kind of racist ideology.”

I’m pretty sure the following are factual claims:

“Amsterdam currently consists of 56 per cent migrants.

The Hague, 58 per cent migrants.

Rotterdam, almost 60 per cent migrants.

London, 54 per cent migrants.

Brussels, colour me shocked, 70 per cent migrants.”

So, um, which of them is wrong? I’m seriously asking here, because if you can establish that these are actually lies, you’ve made your case against her. If they’re not, then you just don’t like her shining a light on this stuff.

Edit timer is running, but, from Wikipedia:

"At the 2011 census, 36.7% of London's population was foreign born (including 24.5% born outside of Europe)"

But, of course, that was 13 years ago. What's it look like today?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, according to the 2021 census, London is 40.7% foreign born. Yeah, sounds like she's probably full of it, unless there's something dubious going on with the numbers. Maybe she's accurate if you count children of migrants as "migrants", too. Certainly on track to be accurate in another decade...

I'd like to see the basis for her numbers.

[Kazinski]

Probably looking at ethnicity rather than birth.

This source is much closer based on that definition:
"London is significantly more diverse than England as a whole. 46% of Londoners are Black and Minority Ethnic, compared to 14% of England as a whole. West London has the highest proportion (53%) of its population that are Black and Minority Ethnic, followed by East London (50%)."

https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/geography-population/

A lot of countries look at migrants differently, doesn't matter how many generations a Korean family has been in Japan, they still aren't considered Japanese.

[jb]

Yes, I guess if your definition of "migrant" is just pure racism, then she might be on to something.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If your definition of "migrant" is just pure racism, the Volokh Conspiracy is the blog for you!

[Frank Drackman]

You're the one revolting everyone with your talk of "Replacement", Coach

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many extreme racial slurs do you expect the Volokh Conspiracy to publish this years? Forty-four? Fifty-five? Sixty-six? Seventy-seven?

(Remember that Prof. Volokh will be relocating from mainstream academia to a right-wing mouthpiece shop shortly, and may feel a bit freer to let his true self emerge (rather than worry about another smack from the dean))?

Here's a head start. The current rate this year would generate an annual total approximating 67. And that's not counting every racial slur separately; it's how many post-and-comment exchanges contain at least one racial slur. There would be too many to count readily if every racial slur at this blog were counted separately. Also, uses of racial slurs in class, at Federalist Society gathering, or in private discussions among Volokh Conspirators don't count, either.

Let's hear the forecasts: How many times will the Volokh Conspiracy publish vile racial slurs this year?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nobody wants to talk about the frequency at which this blog publishes racial slurs or the everyday nature of the Volokh Conspiracy's steady stream of bigoted content of various flavors.

Especially not the right-wing law professors who operate this white, male, movement conservative, bigot-hugging blog.

#Cowards
#Bigots
#CultureWarCasualties

[bernard11]

So someone born in London is an immigrant if they have the wrong color skin?

Is that your definition?

Are African-Americans, many of whose ancestors have lived in the US longer than most white people's ancestors, migrants also?

A lot of countries look at migrants differently, doesn’t matter how many generations a Korean family has been in Japan, they still aren’t considered Japanese.

Pretty stupid. Good thing we don't do that, else you might be considered Polish (Russian?) rather than American.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm pretty sure he's saying that's Vlaardingerbroek's definition.

[bernard11]

Then maybe he shouldn't be paying much attention to whatever she says, since she's clearly a racist and a liar.

And you shouldn't either but that's hopeless.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She's a racist and a liar . . . but she's a right-wing bigot and apparently good-looking, so she's a dream girl for the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience.

[Brett Bellmore]

What? I never heard of her before, I will shortly completely forget about her. I was just curious to see how her factual assertions stood up, and her numbers are clearly wrong.

Not wildly wrong, she's right that most of those cities have majority immigrant populations, but wrong enough that she's clearly not concerned with being accurate. Or rather, she's not so much concerned about immigration status as she is with ethnicity. And I'm not terribly concerned about the pseudo-racial aspect of ethnicity. The interesting cuisines are actually a plus.

There IS a problem here, that multiple governments seem determined to, as has been said, "elect a new people", regardless of what their current people want. A lot of countries in Europe are going to, in cultural terms, cease to exist. There will remain places on maps with quaint names, but that's about all that will remain of them a century from now, because their own governing classes decided to destroy them, for reasons history probably won't even bother remembering.

Now, maybe that would be a good thing, if the cultures that replace what was there were going to be superior. But they're importing an awful lot of people from societies that are rather dysfunctional, (Which is why those people wanted to leave home in the first place!) and they are almost inevitably going to be bringing that dysfunction with them. And they're coming in way too fast to be assimilated.

And that, I think, is a bad thing. Not because I care what the people look like. Because I think a lot of societies that used to work fairly well are going to end up being broken.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

But they’re importing an awful lot of people from societies that are rather dysfunctional,

What a dumb comment.

In America, bright flight benefits the communities that "import" the smart, ambitious young people who flee our shambling backwaters at high school graduation in search of legitimate education, opportunity, modernity, and reason. That is part of how and why our successful, educated, modern urban and suburban communities become stronger while our rural and southern stretches continue to deteriorate.

[bernard11]

and they are almost inevitably going to be bringing that dysfunction with them.

No. Why would they? That makes no sense. Ever heard of selection bias?

I mean, they'll bring cuisine, which you seem to approve of, and things like music and arts, which you probably hate but is a net positive despite that.

[bernard11]

Brett suddenly crawfishing away from his previously expressed admiration.

[Kazinski]

Well I did say:
"Now I have to say I would reject much of what she says in an American context, since we have always been much more diverse than Europe within the borders of the 50 states, and we absorbed those more diverse populations as we grew, and allowed more in."

But I will go on to say what she says makes perfect sense from the viewpoints of ethnically and linguistically homogenous populations, like the Dutch, Swedish, Japanese, Khmer, Magyar, etc. across the world, that are distinct even from neighboring countries.

[bernard11]

what she says makes perfect sense from the viewpoints of ethnically and linguistically homogenous populations, like the Dutch, Swedish, Japanese, Khmer, Magyar, etc. across the world, that are distinct even from neighboring countries.

How does it make sense? Especially given that a lot of it is lies.

[Kazinski]

It might be exaggerations, but its not lies. Watch this graphic of London's population change since 1960, and try to tell me what she is saying is baseless.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_ethnic_demographics_from_1961_to_2021.gif

Sure it makes sense, if you are Dutch you want to preserve Dutch culture, which does get diluted or lost when migration overwhelms it, especially in large cities like Amsterdam which were formally the bastions of their culture.

Its just a fact.

Its no secret Japan has long been very insular and doesn't allow much migration because they don't want to pollute Japanese cultural and racial purity, and they aren't embarrassed to say so.

Budapest which where Eva spoke has a unique language the closes relative is Finnish, they don't want to allow mass migration of other culture, and Brussels is trying impose it from without.

Does Hungary have the same right of self determination as the Japanese? Do the Dutch, or the Poles have a right to preserve their national character and independence?

Do the Ukrainians?

[Nige]

What you are describing, culturally, is 'stagnation' not preservation, so no, it is not a fact, it's a Great Replacement variation. People with too much money moving in wreck cultures and communities. People just getting by moving in invigorate them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember that most of the losers still sympathize with the southern bigots who wanted to preserve southern culture -- the ignorance, the bigotry, the superstition, the other bigotry, the unearned privilege, etc.

[myself]

"Sure it makes sense, if you are Dutch you want to preserve Dutch culture, which does get diluted or lost when migration overwhelms it, especially in large cities like Amsterdam which were formally the bastions of their culture."

Immigrants tend to assimilate into the host culture pretty well. And it seems like this kind of worry really only shows up when the ethnicity is different. If it really was a cultural concern one would expect more worries about mass media, because I expect Hollywood dilutes Dutch culture more than any brown skinned immigrant.

Does Hungary have the same right of self determination as the Japanese? Do the Dutch, or the Poles have a right to preserve their national character and independence?

Do the Ukrainians?

Don't compare this to the attempted Russian genocide of Ukraine.

[Sarcastr0]

Cultural preservation has been the new cry of the white supremacist in Europe for about a decade or so.

As has been noted, immigrants usually integrate just fine. And if you want you can institute cultural programs like Finland and Iceland do. So it's all fearmongering.

And if you scratch the nativist-seeming attitude and you find white supremacy. See: how the Danish right wing tried to ruin hygge.

[bernard11]

Budapest which where Eva spoke has a unique language the closes relative is Finnish, they don’t want to allow mass migration of other culture,

Nobody is going to stop them from speaking Hungarian, at least not some immigrants. What might is media and entertainment from other other places.Hungarians aren't going to start talking Swahili. English is a different story.

[myself]

A few years back I was visiting London and happened by a far-right protest. I watched the protest as I chatted with a British guy who was also standing there watching. One of the women protesting came up to chat and asked my new friend (who had brown skin) where he was from.

He answered some city near London but of course that wasn't what she was interested in, she wanted to know where *he* was originally from.

And yes, we all knew she was wondering about the country of his ancestors, but in her mind even though he was born in greater London he was still an immigrant from that country.

And of course, she repeatedly insisted she wasn't racist (though we never actually accused her of such). Nor did she seem to care if I was a tourist or immigrant from North America, the fact I was white probably made me British enough for her.

[Martinned2]

So, um, which of them is wrong?

All of them. She's counting basically anyone whose ancestor(s) moved to the Netherlands after the time of Adam and Eve as an immigrant, which is not a use of the word immigrant that any native speaker of English (or Dutch) is familiar with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I'll concede that she's at the very least exaggerating, which isn't good when you're spouting numbers.

Amsterdam actually IS majority immigrant,, only about 44% non-immigrant.

The Hague, 43% non-immigrant.

Rotterdam, 46% non-immigrant.

Brussells, kinda obscure, they don't collect data the way the others do, but maybe minority non-immigrant?

So, her exact numbers are wrong, and she's got London backwards, but she's not totally off her rocker: A lot of those cities are majority immigrant.

[Martinned2]

Wait until you spot how she gets creative about the distinction between "immigrants", "born abroad", "foreign descent", and "Muslims are taking over our country"

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already conceded that she's a bit creative with her numbers, and that's not good.

But she actually has a point: You can only allow so much immigration if you want your country to survive as more than a name on a map. They're obviously bringing in people a LOT faster than they can be assimilated. Despite public opinion being against it.

Well, political censorship and government adopting policies the population oppose do tend to go together.

[bernard11]

I’ve already conceded that she’s a bit creative with her numbers, and that’s not good.

"Bit creative," my ass. IOW, she's a liar. And you're a fan. Unsurprising.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She probably figures her fans resemble Trump fans -- half-educated bigots who don't read much and, if they do, prefer fan fiction and superstition to reason and the reality-based world.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, she lost me when she started using inaccurate numbers. I hate that, and particularly when you don't NEED inaccurate numbers to make your point.

I will maintain she's easy on the eyes, though.

[Martinned2]

I will maintain she’s easy on the eyes, though.

You're in luck. She will date anyone who's to the right of Mussolini.

[Nige]

'and particularly when you don’t NEED inaccurate numbers to make your point.'

When you're talking to people who don't value accuracy you can say what you like, as with the entirety of the modern right.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any numbers on ex pats living in the UK?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Plus in Europe I suppose you have to be careful about EU vs. non-EU immigrants. In the US we don't think of people who move from Illinois to Iowa as immigrants, and I would imagine the EU makes a similar distinction for similar reasons.

[Martinned2]

100%. These people will take statistics that include immigrants from France or Poland to support screeds about Muslims taking over the country.

That said, the extent that anti-immigrant sentiment includes objections against immigrants from elsewhere in Europe varies a lot, in ways that aren't well understood.

[jb]

Might be more helpful to look at relatively recent migration trends than what happened 75 years ago:

https://nltimes.nl/2024/04/19/number-recent-immigrants-amsterdam-doubled-ten-years-italy-uk-us

Definitely a trend towards more immigration (maybe not surprising given relatively more global mobility), but also the countries these immigrants are coming from are places like Italy, the UK and the US.

[Martinned2]

The Dutch government spent a lot of time and effort persuading the other EU governments to move the headquarters of the EU Medicines Agency to Amsterdam after Brexit. (It was originally in London.)

[Kazinski]

Her conclusion isn't wrong:
"“That’s why we need to outright reject the lie that nationalism causes war. It’s not nationalism or national sovereignty that causes war. It’s expansionism.

And where in Europe do we find that nowadays? In one place and one place only, Brussels.”

[bernard11]

Her conclusion isn’t wrong:

How is it not wrong? She is conflating military expansionism with immigration.

Are we on the verge of war with Mexico, or Guatemala? Was the German expansionism of the 1930's and 40's caused by immigration, or by imperial ambition and racism - exactly the kind that describes other people as inferior? I don't think a lot of Poles were migrating to Germany, causing social problems, etc.

She's full of shit.

[David Nieporent]

Are we on the verge of war with Mexico, or Guatemala?

Texas is!

[Sarcastr0]

I hear North Korea is super nationalist not not very into expansion these days.

Truly the ideal state.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, she's not wrong about expansionism? Take another look at the figures for London—where folks from India get counted by her as expansionists. Seems to me that's more a result of British expansionism than Indian expansionism.

There is a bunch more of that colonial blow-back stuff running all through her numbers.

[Nige]

I'm not sure that there's been a war or conflict that hasnt involved nationalism, nor a terrorist or insurgency movement.

[Martinned2]

.

[David Nieporent]

But let’s look onwards. London, 54 per cent migrants [97% white in 1960]. Again, conclusion, native population outnumbered.

Note that racists conflate white and natives.

[NvEric]

History repeats itself ? Maybe in some ways events seem to be alike to others, but not exactly, nor even close, but maybe if looked at from a distance.

Counting on others for support in doing the more involved and risky actions required to preserve and maintain certain standards people become accustomed to over time is where some say this nation is at this year. Certainly much is happening which brings less than desired results to the vast bulk of Americans no matter their political views. Fear registers discord. Uncertainty fuels the fear along with lack of instinctual and intellectual depth to buffer many from being happy or otherwise content. Such is it today. I personally feel for each and everyone. I hope all find what they seek without too much distress to each and more so to those you may not like.

We are in this together and remaining bonded is in each's best interest. Mutual thoughts, beneficial behaviors supply all with necessary essence. The goal is in our lives to be reached. A quest to fulfill destiny we have all been allowed to have. Please don't waste life in fools missions of hatefulness.

[Kazinski]

"History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.”

-Mark Twain (reputedly)

[Frank Drackman]

"Everybody Funny, now You Funny too"
- John Lee Hooker

[loki13]

Wistery?

[Bwaaah]

I liked that. It matches, in many ways, my own sentiments.

"Please don’t waste life in fools missions of hatefulness."

[Martinned2]

Today's non-US news is that the Prime Minister of Spain has decided not to resign. If you're feeling funny, you'd go for some version of "PM resigns from resigning", but the more accurate headline is that he only said last week that he would consider whether he wanted to resign, and he's now decided that he doesn't.

https://www.politico.eu/article/pedro-sanchez-stays-prime-minister-spain/

(For completeness, the First Minister of Scotland is still on his way out.)

[Martinned2]

Humza Yousaf has now confirmed that he has resigned: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/apr/29/humza-yousaf-scotland-first-minister-latest-news-updates-politics-live

[Kazinski]

Milei in Argentina is ruining the reputation of liberatarians: while all of them sound like flakes, at least one isn't.

BUENOS AIRES, April 23 (Reuters) - Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei is revving up his attack on the country's deep fiscal deficit, doubling down on "chainsaw" spending cuts and "blender" austerity that squeezes purchasing power - and he hopes brings down rampant inflation.
The embattled country, facing drained central bank reserves and annual inflation nearing 300%, posted a third straight monthly fiscal surplus in March, a reflection of Milei's laser focus on cost-cutting since taking office in mid-December.

Markets nonetheless have celebrated. Bonds have risen near 60 cents on the dollar from lows near 20 cents in the last year, while the country risk index is at its lowest since 2020. The feeble peso has gained some strength and reserves recovered."

https://www.reuters.com/markets/argentinas-milei-revs-up-chainsaw-blender-fiscal-deficit-attack-2024-04-23/

There is a lot of pain to go with the good news, but economic activity driven by the type of government spending that drives 300% annual inflation just can't continue, Argentina has the resources and people to be prosperous again, but it first needs to build confidence in its own people and international Investors that its stable enough to start investing again.

[Bwaaah]

Let us end this near-term pain of austerity, and reclaim the long-term misery of our profligate debt.

Let us live beyond our means, and shun those who say it can't be so.

[Michael P]

In defense of colonialism, Caribbean edition: https://cpsi.media/p/colonialism-and-progress-fb9

[Sarcastr0]

Even ignoring the deaths of people, culture, and resources, no one who puts freedom as an inherent good can favor colonialism.

[Michael P]

The evidence outlined at that link says otherwise, with gay rights -- in the specific form of abolishing anti-sodomy laws -- as a particular example.

[Malika the Maiz]

Forcing the way to freedom?

[Nige]

A few liberal gestures while bulldozing cultures and stripping resources?

[Kazinski]

"What you are describing, culturally, is ‘stagnation’ not preservation"

[Nige]

So you're of the 'immigration is genocide' party.

[Sarcastr0]

Forcing people into adopting your culture of freedom is kind of missing the point; and will have some real trouble sticking along for long among those you're oppressing into tolerance.

I do like our modern liberal enlightenment democratic culture a lot. But being so hubristic you're the best that you try and force everyone
to be just like you is a great way to have everything, including your own culture, slip through your fingers.

[Michael P]

Oh, so by "freedom as an inherent good" you meant "freedom to be a repressive banana republic".

No surprise there, I suppose.

[Nige]

Being a colonial outpost generally just means the suppression and corruption are way more efficent.

[Sarcastr0]

Nige makes an excellent historical point, if you look at actually colonized country.

But also it is a contradiction to force people into freedom.
One must choose to be free.

You are practically and philosophically know nothing about freedom.

Huh. You endorsed populist authoritarianism again. Keeps happening to you, almost as though you cry freedom but just want your enemies to be bound and not protected.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" no one who puts freedom as an inherent good can favor colonialism."

Why not? What does one have to do with the other?

[Malika the Maiz]

Colonialism is forcibly ruling others?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think you’re referring to government. And as we know, government can either enhance freedom or decrease it, depending on the nature of the government.

[Malika the Maiz]

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, but what does that have to do with colonialism? Non-colonial governments don't necessarily derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and colonial governments don't necessarily not derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

[Nige]

If you’re a colony, you’re not free. As I recall, it was a bit of a big deal in the US once upon a time.

[Nige]

No, colonialism, an action or series of actions *by* governments.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Government, colonialist or otherwise, is forcibly ruling others. Favoring freedom as an inherent good doesn't mean you have to oppose government.

[Nige]

What? Either we can discuss colonialism, or any other policy, or they can all be dismissed with a thought-ending and trite declaration that 'government is ruling.' Which is it?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, the discussion began with an assertion that no one who supported freedom could favor colonialism. I asked why that was. The response was, "Colonialism is ruling others by force."

I pointed out that that claim applied to all governments.

Meanwhile, no one has been able to support the original claim.

[Nige]

You are literally agreeing with the original claim you're just extending the idea of 'ruling by force' to every single form of government ever, which, as they say, proves too much. Clearly you're not actually interested in how and why colonialism is bad, just in handwaving it away as business as usual for 'government.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You are literally agreeing with the original claim you’re just extending the idea of ‘ruling by force’ to every single form of government ever"

No, I'm not agreeing with the original claim. And "ruling by force" is literally the definition of government.

It's clear that you guys can't support the claim that colonialism is antithetical to freedom with anything other then assertions and ipse-dixit.

[Michael P]

The most shocking thing about those mass graves discovered recently in Gaza is that Israel must have desecrated the mass graves dug by Hamas in the same place just to bury the same number of bodies there.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/media-hoax-no-israel-did-not-dig-mass-grave-at-gazas-nasser-hospital/

[Kazinski]

I'll wait until Human Rights Watch condemns Israel, then I'll know.for sure it was Hamas.

[Michael P]

In this case, I'll accept that the Hamas videos showing them burying these people and talking about the burials are authentic, given that there is independent corroborating evidence.

[Frank Drackman]

PT Barnum had a saying about guys like you

[Michael P]

Do you seriously think that when Hamas recorded and published videos of Hamas burying people in these mass graves, and Hamas made a big deal about having buried people in those mass graves, and other evidence says that yes, Hamas buried people in those mass graves, that Hamas was not the group who buried people in those mass graves?

[Frank Drackman]

First of all, it's Ham-Ass, who aren't really known for supporting, Truth, Justice, and the Amurican Way (HT C. Kent/S-Man) and maybe they wouldn't be burying people in mass graves if "Some People didn't do Something" (with apologies to Representative Mullah Ilhan Omar, I'm liking her quotes more every day) on October 7. Like when "Some People Did Something" on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, you don't just get to cry Uncle and everything stops.

Frank

[Michael P]

I've been explicit in my last two comments that I only credit Hamas's earlier statements in this case because there is independent corroboration. After all, Hamas has more recently accused Israel of creating the mass graves in question -- so Hamas was lying at least one of those times.

Maybe you should just go read the link and decide whether you've missed a point here.

[Nige]

I think the crucial question might be who created enough dead bodies to require mass graves.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ham Ass by starting a war.

[Nige]

Right, so, the IDF.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Academic bad boy Stanley Fish is now talking like someone's no-nonsense grandpa:

"If this account of what institutions of higher learning appropriately do—they don’t do everything, they do the academic thing—is accepted, a conclusion (no doubt counterintuitive to many) immediately follows: colleges and universities have no obligation to foster or even allow political protests on campus. Indeed, it is quite the reverse, for if the overriding and defining imperative is to ensure the flourishing of the academic enterprise—classes being taught, research being conducted, procedures being followed—administrators have a positive duty to remove any impediments to that flourishing, including tent encampments, sit-ins, obstacles to exits and entries, building occupations, forcing the cancellation of classes and a host of other things now occurring.

"...You don’t get to speak in a university setting just because you have a mouth and an opinion; you get to speak in a university because your peers have judged you capable of participating in the conversation, a judgement that follows a period of training (graduate school and the earning of a Ph.D.), apprenticeship in the trade, and performances (articles, books, juried awards) that mark you as someone worth listening to.

"...Removing obstacles to the functioning of the academic process (even by calling in the police) is not something they should apologize for, but something that follows from the office they hold...."

https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/a-note-to-university-administrators

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Interesting that Fish -- who recently enlisted in Florida Republicans' academic purges and eagerly associates with separatist, unaccredited wingnut institutions -- advanced this ostensible point about worth in academia in a publication dedicated to and founded upon childish superstition, silly fairy tales, and absolute fucking nonsense.

Competent adults neither advance nor accept supernatural arguments in reasoned debate among adults, particularly in contexts involving education and public affairs.

Disaffected clingers, though, can't get enough of them.

[Martinned2]

One disadvantage of a proportionate representation system, as we've been reminded this week, is that it gives politicians an incentive to run for offices they have no intention of accepting. For example, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni has announced that she is going to be her party's lead candidate for the European Parliament elections in June.

https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2024/04/28/news/giorgia_meloni_candidata_elezioni_europee_voto-422755312/?ref=RHLF-BG-P3-S1-T1

[Drewski]

I'm ranking "LOL, no" as the second-best response to a frivolous legal demand, behind the "stupid letters" letter. Are there even any other good contenders?

[Martinned2]

For people who hadn't seen that story: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2024/04/lol-no.html

[Krayt]

There's something humorous about a company profiting off outrage statements against the US, relying on capitalism and freedom of speech.

[Martinned2]

It's revealing that you think a T-shirt, say, that says "F*CK the LAPD" is a statement against the US. Protesting against how the US government, the government of a state, or whichever bit of public authority, uses it's power is a profoundly patriotic thing to do. It requires optimism about the ability of the US to fix itself. The unpatriotic thing to do is to shrug, spout off on the internet, move to another country, vote for Trump, etc.

[M L]

Um, this one hit a little close to home . . . . hmph

"Now, this lawyer can take credit for the most important step in any legal document: carefully defining any and all abbreviations that may be used in the rest of the document even if there is no chance whatsoever that even the dumbest reader might misunderstand. For example, he has clarified that any use of the term “IMG” should thereinafter be interpreted to mean the immediately aforementioned “IMG Worldwide, LLC,” even though no other “IMG” entity is mentioned; and, similarly, that “LAPF” will henceforth mean the previously fully named “Los Angeles Police Foundation.” Definitely begin every document with this implied suggestion that your reader is a complete and utter dolt. They absolutely love that."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed.

I wonder how many people, who are now aware of this particular letter, are aware of how it differs from what are likely hundreds of thousands of similar letter issued by IP protection mills every year?

This one was made public by (let me guess) someone who thinks it makes him look educated and clever. Ah, yes. LinkedIn reveals a guy (sorry, Dr.) who's like a hundred years old and has less than two years of practical experience as a lawyer. I shit you not.

[Martinned2]

Interesting question on political dynamics: Politicians crossing the aisle to the other main party.

In the UK Dan Poulter, a former health minister (i.e. undersecretary) has just switched from the Tories to Labour. Which is noteworthy, but slightly less so given that he wasn't running for re-election anyway. He's the second Tory to have done that this parliament, following Christian Wakeford in 2022. (Lee Anderson switching to the former UKIP is less interesting to me, because that doesn't have the same political implications.)

In the US there is some precedent for politicians leaving their party and sitting as an independent. (E.g. Kyrsten Sinema) But I'm trying to think of US precedents for a straight switch across the aisle. Fortunately we always have Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_who_switched_parties

So there's Arlen Specter in 2009, and that's it for this century. (At least as far as the Senate is concerned.)

I wonder if such switches are meaningfully less frequent in the US (or whether the difference is just a fluke) and, if so, what that says about US and UK politics.

[Martinned2]

For completeness, here is the list for the House of Representatives, where we have four straight switches this century. Given the relative size of the US Congress and the UK Parliament, I'm not convinced any difference is statistically significant. (But it might be. Depending on how much I want to procrastinate today, I might find out.)

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

[Armchair]

Try not limiting yourself to just Senators.

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

[Martinned2]

I didn't, but if you stick more than one link in a comment at the same time it gets eaten by the spam filter.

[Michael P]

In my experience, the limit is two links per comment.

[Martinned2]

Here is the equivalent UK list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_British_politicians_who_have_changed_party_affiliation

[Armchair]

So, there's a few things.

1. There are more Parliament members in the UK, than Representatives in the US.

2. Perhaps more importantly, there are more (major) parties in the UK than there are in the US. There are very few labor-conservative shifts (or visa versa) in the UK. You have a lot more intermediate shifts. This is related to point 3.

3. The parties in US work a little differently, in that the caucus system makes it VERY desirable to be in a major party. Not being in (or at least consistently caucusing with) a major party limits committee assignments, political power, as of getting on election ballots and more. Now, if the US was a bit more like the UK, you'd have several of the minor caucuses/groups within the major parties (The Freedom Caucus, Blue Dog Democrats, the Squad), all likely become their own parties. But because doing so would be very detrimental politically, they don't.

[Martinned2]

Let's see:

1. Agreed. I already mentioned it.

2. I was only talking about Tory/Labour switches. Just like in the US there are only two major parties in the UK. No other party will hold 10 Downing Street for decades to come.

3. I don't think that's right. In the UK candidates are selected by local party members, with some control by the party head office. The local party members tend to be much more extreme than the average voter. So there is no benefit to crossing the floor in terms of appealing to moderate primary voters. And in the general election, the presence of smaller parties means that the largest party often ends up with twice as many votes as the other major party even in constituencies that aren't very extreme in total. Like Wellingborough in February:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Wellingborough_by-election

[Armchair]

So, I think you misunderstand.

1. Take a look at who chairs the various committees in the UK's parliament. Then do the same for the US. You'll note, sometimes you find opposition parties chairing up committees in the UK's parliament. That doesn't happen in the US. The chair is ALWAYS the majority party.

--As a minor party member in the US, unless you're caucusing with a major party, you'll NEVER be chair of a committee...no matter how senior you are. In fact, you may never get to even be on the committee you want.

2. In terms of elections, it's actually worse. Part of it is "ballot access." For example, in the State of Illinois, in order to even have your name appear on the Ballot, you need 5,000 - 10,000 signatures...if you run as a Democrat or Republican. But if you run as an independent or certain other minor parties, you now need 25,000 signatures. Is it any surprise people run as a Democrat or Republican?

[SRG2]

Re: “Crossing the floor” as it is termed in Britain.

The legendary lawyer Sir Hartley Shawcross was latterly predicted to switch parties, earning him the nickname, “Sir Shortly Floorcross”.

[Martinned2]

Churchill crossed the floor twice, back when it was still Tories vs. Liberals.

[Armchair]

Bidenflation returns...

Went out and got a fast food breakfast at McDonalds for the first time in a while. And wow. $10. For two sausage burritos, a hash brown, and an OJ. Wow. That same meal was $5 like 5 years ago. Wow.

Now, I hear the objections starting already. "oh, this is just an anecdote". "Oh, you should be eating healthier anyway." "Oh, you should eat elsewhere instead."

But that really misses the point. These type of anecdotes are what really emotionally drive inflation home for people. They see a 5% increase in the price of gas, and they shrug. But a 100% increase in the price of a meal? And they go "what?!" It's a simple luxury for many working class people, and suddenly it's starts to get out of reach. And that drives their anger.

[Martinned2]

I agree that some price increases matter more to people than others, but I'd like to see your work on people caring more about a 100% price increase for breakfast at McDonald's than a 5% increase in the price of petrol.

[Michael P]

Seasonal variations in gasoline prices are normally a lot more than 5%, at least in the US. The 14 or so variants required during summer are more expensive to create than the winter blends, so people are used to seeing prices go up each spring.

[Armchair]

As Michael writes, gasoline prices in the US are typically pretty variable. A 5% rise is nothing to be concerned about.

As for the emotional response, ever hear the story about a frog and a boiling pot of water?

[ThePublius]

I don't get that.

Gas ("petrol," to you, Dutchman) prices are up in the U.S. about 50% since 2020. Who's talking about 5% increases, or seasonal variations?

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m

Fast food, slow food, basic food - meat, produce, dairy, cereal (rice, corn, etc.) are all WAY UP since 2020. Don't you people shop?

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/APU0000703111?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true

[Martinned2]

Who’s talking about 5% increases, or seasonal variations?

Armchair

[Michael P]

You were the one who posited a 5% increase, when the actual increase is more like 50%. The rest of us merely pointed out that a 5% increase would essentially be lost in the noise — and that doesn’t happen with the larger, actual increase in prices.

[Martinned2]

I was not. Read above.

[Armchair]

You did mention 5%. I put it as an example.

Yes, people consider a 100% rise in fast food more emotionally significant than a 5% rise in gas prices.

But, actual rises in gas prices can be much larger.

[Martinned2]

actual rises in gas prices can be much larger.

Sure, who is arguing with you?

[David Nieporent]

Fast food, slow food, basic food – meat, produce, dairy, cereal (rice, corn, etc.) are all WAY UP since 2020. Don’t you people shop?

Wages are also up a lot. Don't you people work?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm mostly surprised by how cheap food is. A Costco card and working synapses seem to address most food cost issues.

[Armchair]

Prices are up by more than wages have increased since 2020.

[Sarcastr0]

Since Covid, eh? What a great time-period to choose.

Do I gotta post this again:
https://jabberwocking.com/charts-of-the-day-wages-have-beaten-inflation-over-the-past-year/

[Summary: Every measure of wages has risen more than inflation since 2019.

Over just the past year (July 2022-July 2023): Once again, wages have outpaced inflation. The poor (light blue) and blue-collar workers (green) have done the best. But everyone has made gains]

Bottom line: You can cherry pick all you want. If you run the FRED series starting right before supply chain issues popped up in 2020, or some other specific choice, it might show something slightly different. But the most obvious and natural measures both show the same thing: worker income has beaten inflation consistently.

[Frank Drackman]

In San Fran Sissy-Co (sorry “Reverend” for Bid-ness, not Pleasure)
and in California you gotta get the In N Out (Love the In N Out) Burger.
2 Single Cheeseburgers, Fries, Diet Coke (Yes, “Diet” I got this 5’8″ 140lb sexy bod to maintain, and normal BP, Cholesterol, and No Heart Problems (yet))
$14.92
I let the guy at the window keep the change, maybe he can invest it in EV’s
Regular Unleaded, $5.34 gallon, in 2019 it was about 1/2 that
OK AlGores Internets tells me it was $3.72/gal in 2019, so 2/3
doing the math, homminahomminahommina works out
to about 10% increase a year, and I know, "45" was POTUS in 2019, trying to remember, didn't "something happen" (HT Mullah Ilhan Omar) in 2020?

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Is this free verse or are paragraphs now part of a liberal conspiracy?

[Bwaaah]

As you try to precisely discern contemporary political tides, be sure to stay laser focused on the pronouncements of Frank Drackman, and especially, his subtext. All that you're looking for is in there.

Frank speaks for everybody, and reflects us all.

You have an astute eye.

[bernard11]

So you're comparing CA gas prices, the highest in the country, with what - the national average in 2019?

That makes no sense.

[Bwaaah]

Except if you’re trying to answer the question, “How do Democrat policies affect the cost of living, as in energy costs?” Indeed, California has the highest gasoline prices in the country.

(That’s not because of what?)
(But it does have the best climate change in the country, perhaps the world.)

[bernard11]

Except we weren't trying to answer that, so it's really not relevant to Drackman's foolishness.

But suppose we do go down that road and ask, "How do Democratic policies affect personal income?"

Here are some figures worth noticing:

See anything interesting?

1 District of Columbia 100,909
2 Massachusetts 87,812
3 Connecticut 87,447
4 New Jersey 80,724
5 California 80,423
6 Washington 79,659
7 New York 79,581
8 Colorado 78,918
9 Wyoming 77,837
10 New Hampshire 77,260

42 Georgia 58,581
43 Oklahoma 58,499
44 Louisiana 57,100
45 South Carolina 56,123
46 New Mexico 54,428
47 Arkansas 54,347
48 Kentucky 54,326
49 Alabama 53,175
50 West Virginia 52,585
51 Mississippi 48,110

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm almost like the District of Colored People has something there that pays well, I mean if you consider $100,000 a year “paid well”

Frank

[Bwaaah]

It's da tops da gub'ment...pays as much as theys can take.

Fills one with envy, don't it? No? Not at all?

His data is like contemporary left-warped pseudo-scientific studies that numerologically prove success awaits us in the designs of a den of shysters.

[bernard11]

I could have predicted that there would be zero response to these stats except for some racist shit about DC.

These dishonest assholes are ready to bitch about how bad Democratic government is because of high prices in blue states, but won't say shit about the incomes in those states.

Still, even I didn't think it would be as blatant as this crap from Drackman and bwaaah.

[Bwaaah]

OK. OP says inflation is taking a significant toll on consumers, not just in numbers, but emotionally. He cites his experience at McDonald's (which coincidentally echoes my own experience).

You responded with "per capita personal income by state," as if that's responsive to the point about inflation. It's not.

But let's play your theory. Democrat policies are improving the economic lives of a typical consumer. You assert that your "per capita personal income by state" supports that theory. Explain to me how your data shows that, i.e. how per capita personal income, by state, reveals how successful Democrats have been at improving the lives of consumers (over the term of the Biden administration).

I'm listening.

[bernard11]

I'm not the one making claims.

I'm simply following your logic.

You want to blame Democrats for one undesirable economic situation - high prices in states they control, or CA, at least. Of course you provide no support other than just the price data itself.

So why aren't Democrats responsible for high incomes in states they control? You don't want to admit it, and demand all sorts of explanations you don't provide for your claims.

You want to claim that it's obvious, I guess, that higher prices hurt consumers, but demand proof that higher incomes help them.

It's dishonest bullshit. And no, you're not listening. You're spewing crap.

[Bwaaah]

You made a claim. It’s your logic, not mine. You treated me like an idiot for not grasping your argument. And now I’m asking you to explain your argument. And all you have is some half-baked, “I said you said [blah blah blah].”

Inflation is real. IT’S IN ALL STATES. It devalues people’s assets and income. They see that and feel that. That’s not really disputable. (Not that you wouldn't try.)

What could Democrats do? The “Inflation Reduction Act,” an $800 billion new, discretionary spending program. That’s another $800 billion the government doesn’t have, that it prints and adds to our federal debt, as a way to fight inflation.

Public: “Our money is losing its value.”
Democrats: “Let’s print another $800 billion dollars and say it’s an inflation reduction program.”

How’s that working out?
Graph of real weekly earnings

Democrats planning an economy. “Let the citizens eat climate change programs and semiconductor manufacturing facilities.” Way to engineer a recovery, Mr. Democrat. You’re really in tune with the struggles of the American people.

BRILLIANT!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Special kinda dude goes to a McDonalds, sees the prices, and blames Biden.

Go find a hobby.

[Armchair]

"Special kinda dude"

Someone who actually thinks about consequences. A wise man once wrote "There's ain't no such thing as a free lunch." You have Biden just "forgive" a few billion dollars worth of student loans, that isn't free. That comes from somewhere. And if is isn't new taxes covering it, it's loans and/or inflation.

That inflation shows up in other items...like the cost of meal at McDonalds. Now, can you make a direct line between Biden giving out free student loans, and Joe Sixpack being unable to afford his McDonalds meal anymore? No. But you make enough decisions that have high deficits, enough "Free" giveaways , then it shows up everywhere else and has consqeuences.

[Sarcastr0]

No, dude. This isn't about political policy, this is about you.

You hadn't been to McD's for a while, you went there and didn't like the prices and blamed Biden.

As for your student loan thing, inflation is a lagging indicator. By like a year or more. So you're ignorant and have your entire life poisoned by partisanship.

Does Dark Brandon tell you things when you try and get to sleep?

[Frank Drackman]

Guessing you're the one who couldn't tell the Ham-Burglar from a Turd-Burglar, I go to Mickey D's regularly, the Quarter Pounder they don't cook till you order it is one of the best values in Fast-Foodery (better than In N Out's to be honest) and even the plain regular Burgers aren't bad for what they are (ya gotta get the "Plain" so few people order them you have a good chance of getting one right off the grill) and the Fries? the Fries?
Still delicious even without the Beef Tallow.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Fond memories of the days when a plain burger was 15 cents and the fries 12 cents.

[bernard11]

At the Krystal. But you had to eat four or five of them to have a meal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As for your student loan thing, inflation is a lagging indicator. By like a year or more."

So when stuff at McDonalds costs more in a year from now, it's be Biden's fault, but not until then?

[Armchair]

As for your student loan thing, inflation is a lagging indicator.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2022/12/22/when-will-you-receive-student-loan-forgiveness-timelines-for-4-programs/

For those who have trouble reading like Sarcastr0...the date on that is 2022.

[Sarcastr0]

That spending did not occur in 2022.

Are you arguing from inflationary expectations now? Because that's some vapor to build your case on.

[grb]

Armchair : "Someone who actually thinks about consequences"

For the record, I'm a realist. I recognize presidents are judged by economic news - good or bad - whether the credit or censor is warranted. That's just the way of the American electorate. However, I can note the obvious to people who pretend not to see:

1. Inflation was a worldwide phenomena after the pandemic
2. The U.S. inflation record was better than almost all other major economies.

For the record......

[Mr. Bumble]

"2. The U.S. inflation record was better than almost all other major economies. "

Got a source for that? Also, how are the other economies doing now vs the US?

[bernard11]

how are the other economies doing now vs the US?

Here you go.

Just look at the graphs if you don't want to read the whole thing for fear it will upset you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"1. Inflation was a worldwide phenomena after the pandemic"

The increase in the supply of US currency was not a worldwide phenomenon.

[Malika the Maiz]

I'm not sure how this is an answer, if the US increased it's currency supply and other countries did not but inflation was nonetheless worldwide, it's hard to blame this on the increase, no?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Other countries did increase their own currency supply, hence the widespread inflation. But the fact that other countries also chose to pursue inflationary policies doesn't meant that the US inflation wasn't caused by US policy.

Now, maybe you could argue that printing loads of money was necessary to handle the pandemic, but that's not what people are arguing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it wasn't necessary. The pandemic was used as an excuse to do a lot of really, really stupid things.

In retrospect, the only thing that was done in response to the pandemic that did even a little good was accelerating vaccine development, and vaccinating senior citizens and people with serious comorbidities. Every single other thing they did was at best a wash, usually destructive.

[ThePublius]

Yes, but the vaccine didn't work, and actually caused great harm to many people. I mean, despite being vaccinated and boosted people still got covid. Isn't that the definition of a vaccine that didn't work? So, all of that money and effort, and law and regulation, and shutting down schools and businesses, and so forth, was not just useless, but caused great harm to the people and economy.

[Malika the Maiz]

"despite being vaccinated and boosted people still got covid. Isn’t that the definition of a vaccine that didn’t work?"

Well, no. Did they get Covid at a lesser rate and to a lesser degree? Everyone knows the old 'flu vaccine' wasn't 100%, did it not 'work?'

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually the vaccine did work just fine, but like any other medical treatment, you have the balance the risk vs the benefit.

If you were elderly and frail? A juvenile diabetic? Absolutely worth it, and it's not even close. All the benefit came from people getting vaccinated who were either elderly, had serious comorbidities such that it wouldn't take much to bring them down, or both.

If you were a healthy adult, neither a child nor elderly? Not suffering from some preexisting condition that put you at risk? It was a wash; There was some benefit, but roughly comparable to the risk, so why bother?

If you were a healthy child? You were at so little risk from Covid that the risk from the shot was greater, and shouldn't get it. And they urged you be vaccinated anyway!

I should note here that there was a change in recommended vaccination protocol, not long prior to Covid, and unrelated, that probably increased the risks: They dropped the step where you'd pull back on the plunger and see if you drew blood. If you did you were in a vein or artery, and had to relocate.

When you inject a vaccine that's INTENDED to cause local inflammation, (It's part of the vaccination process.) and accidentally dump it into the blood stream, you still get local inflammation... distributed through the lining of the circulatory system! Most of the side effects were probably due to accidental injection into the blood stream.

But that part of the protocol made things more complicated, and modern medicine is losing its sophistication these days, dropping procedures that have perfectly good reasons behind them, just to make things easier...

[Brett Bellmore]

Vaccines in general do not PREVENT infection, except for a short period after you get them. What they do is enable your immune system to recognize and respond to the infection much more rapidly, on account of having already been exposed to it before, so that the infection gets beaten back before you're symptomatic.

This looks like preventing infections entirely, unless suddenly society is routinely using sensitive tests to detect infections in asymptomatic people, in which case you suddenly see what's really going on, and people who didn't understand vaccination to begin with think, "Hey, this doesn't work!".

[Nige]

'There was some benefit, but roughly comparable to the risk, so why bother'

To stop the hospitals getting overwhelmed with covid patients. You're rewriting history.

'And they urged you be vaccinated anyway!'

It's almost like reducing spread was an end in and of itself.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither getting previously infected nor vaccinated prevented you from getting Covid, but neither were their effects completely coterminous.
(see e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?)

And even at this later date, with a ton of info from a number of countries, the risks of the vaccine continue to be too small to have any weight in decision-making.

[David Nieporent]

The vaccine did work, and actually caused no harm to any people. (Well, I'm sure someone, somewhere got in a car accident on the way to get vaccinated.)

[ThePublius]

"The vaccine did work, and actually caused no harm to any people. (Well, I’m sure someone, somewhere got in a car accident on the way to get vaccinated.)"

Wrong. "AstraZeneca acknowledges its covid vaccine can lead to rare blood clot side effects;...."

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/astrazeneca-acknowledges-covid-vaccine-can-lead-to-rare-side-effect-tss-in-court-heres-what-we-know/articleshow/109702543.cms?from=mdr

[David Nieporent]

Wrong. “AstraZeneca acknowledges its covid vaccine can lead to rare blood clot side effects;….”

So your proof that "the vaccine … actually caused great harm to many people" is to discuss a vaccine never even offered in the United States and say, "Well, it could have side effects," like every substance down to aspirin?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The vaccine did work, and actually caused no harm to any people."

At least one person died from the vaccine.

"The coroner said: 'Lisa died due to complications of an AstraZeneca Covid vaccination.'"

[bernard11]

Well, it wasn’t necessary.

So says Master Economist Bellmore, full of shit as usual.

Actually, it was very helpful and accomplished a lot. Of course you have some Mellonesque scheme about it.

The only thing really stupid here is your pretensions.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already linked to a statistical study that demonstrated that all of it had no effect on death rates, except one thing: The vaccination rate for people aged 65 and higher. All the lock downs, all the masking, all the sanitation theater? The vaccinations for people not at high risk? Did bupkis, except for crashing the economy.

For that matter, I've linked to the study that demonstrated that the idea that Covid was worse than influenza was due to an easily identifiable error, confusing case and infection rates.

I'm not rejecting the science, but I'm sick and tired of the sciencism.

[bernard11]

Brett,

The comment I was responding to was the one about the inflation and presumably the pandemic-related spending.

TiP wrote:

maybe you could argue that printing loads of money was necessary to handle the pandemic, but that’s not what people are arguing.

To which you responded, almost immediately:

Well, it wasn’t necessary. The pandemic was used as an excuse to do a lot of really, really stupid things.

So I assumed, as anyone would, that you were referring to economic policy, not the vaccine.

Crawfishing, or just unclear?

[Malika the Maiz]

No, I've already said what I'm arguing: "if the US increased it’s currency supply and other countries did not but inflation was nonetheless worldwide, it’s hard to blame this on the increase, no?"

If Z happened to many X whether they did Y or not it's hard to conclude Y caused the Z.

[Martinned2]

increase their own currency supply, hence the widespread inflation.

Assuming you are talking about money supply, no expert has believed in a strong relationship between the money supply and inflation for decades. (And for the average lay person the 2010s surely crushed any such belief.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that's what happens to a profession that mostly relies on government funding: It eventually evolves away from understandings that make the government look bad.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that is definitely what happened. Those pesky economists famously never criticising government intervention.

[Sarcastr0]

If only economists were as smart and independent as Brett.

Your pridefulness across so many domains continues to amaze, Brett.
You don't just have an opinion, you think all the experts that disagree with you are either willfully blind or covering up the truth!

[Nige]

Watch this switch back to 'people funded by the government who make the government look bad are disloyal deep state obstructionists' on a dime.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Assuming you are talking about money supply..."

I recently looked up a chart graphing US m0, so I was referring to currency supply, but you are correct that banks increased other forms of money as well.

"no expert has believed in a strong relationship between the money supply and inflation for decades."

Well, I don't know if the folks at the fed are experts, or how recently they updated their web site, but here's what they have to say:

Inflation is caused when the money supply in an economy grows at faster rate than the economy’s ability to produce goods and services.

Sounds pretty much like what happened during the pandemic. And the US increased its money supply.

[Martinned2]

M0 isn't relevant to anything if you're talking about inflation. It's literally just the notes and coins in circulation.

Sounds pretty much like what happened during the pandemic. And the US increased its money supply.

As per the chart I linked before, the US also more than doubled its money supply in the 10 years before the pandemic. Did you see any inflation then?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"M0 isn’t relevant to anything if you’re talking about inflation. It’s literally just the notes and coins in circulation."

It's a component of the money supply.

"As per the chart I linked before, the US also more than doubled its money supply in the 10 years before the pandemic. Did you see any inflation then?"

Yes, not a lot, because there was also rising productivity. And as your chart shows, they jacked it up by 40% in the two years following the start of the pandemic, when the pandemic was killing productivity. It takes some real motivated reasoning to scratch your head wondering what's causing inflation in those circumstances.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch, given the pandemic unemployment crisis, why do you think increasing current currency supply did anything damaging? How do you know it did not just offset loss of wages? What permutations and complexities does your analysis account for?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What happens when you "offset loss of wages" without offsetting loss of productivity?

[Stephen Lathrop]

People don't get fired en masse, from jobs which survive to re-employ them post-pandemic? And there is no massive depression following permanent destruction of a significant fraction of all businesses? That seems to be what did happen.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, but what does that have to do with prices? And what happens when people are earning wages, and looking to spend them, but not producing anything?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Special kinda dude goes to a McDonalds, sees the prices, and blames Biden."

You get that buying stuff at McDonalds, and other consumption, is how we pay for government, right? So if you want the government to spend more, stuff at McDonalds will cost more, and it will be your fault.

[John F. Carr]

Not too far from me people went to the town Post Office, saw it was closed for the workers' lunch break, and blamed Trump. This was during the Biden administration.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you use the app to mobile order? You can save a significant amount of money that way. I think fast food restaurants are charging non-app users (and those not willing to use the value menus) more but those using the apps or value menus are probably spending even less money.

[Frank Drackman]

No (and I’m not a Luddite, I just saw the drive-through, and before I could do anything an Androgynous chick with a ring through her nose was taking my order) Paid what the price was on the sign, and no, you losers, I didn’t let the guy keep 2 cents, I paid with a $20, because that’s who I am, which is a 25% tip (I know, I should have Pay Palled him, because the extra $$$ just went to the store)and ordering fast food on Aps to save a few Sheckels is who you are,

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

OK, part of the price is San-Fran-Sissy-Co's nearly 9% Sales Tax (State/Local total), funny that for such a "Progressive" State they don't have a Progressive Sales Tax, Elon pays the same as Joe Shit the Rag-man.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

What would a "Progressive Sales Tax" look like?

Also, it seems the tax on a McDonald's meal would be higher in Indianapolis than in San Francisco.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/meals-taxes-major-us-cities-0/

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure the various Departments of Revenue could figure it out, they certainly do with the Income tax.
Indianapolis cheaper to live in than San Fran Sissy Co? who'd a thunk it?!!!!

[ThePublius]

I use the apps. I often save money, when I have a fast food craving. But, honestly, many of the "deals" and offers are buy one, get one. I live along, and I don't need two Big Macs or two breakfast sandwiches, and so on. I wish the deal would just be half price.

When there is such a deal, and no other deal that appeals to me, I'll take the two for one and either just throw one away, or if I'm in a more charitable mood, drive downtown and give it to a homeless or street person.

[Malika the Maiz]

I hate that BYGO.

[Moderation4ever]

I am in my late 60s and have seen prices go up throughout my lifetime. If we had some great jump in prices I would understand concerns, but I think we are just seeing prices rise and that they will then plateau. It has happened many times in my life, it is a market correction. As for fast food, they are paying more for ingredients, but they are also paying more for employees which are in shorter supply. Allowing more immigrants to work could help reduce labor costs.

[Armchair]

" Allowing more immigrants to work could help reduce labor costs."

And cut wages for Americans?

[Malika the Maiz]

If immigrants cut wages and Trump is going to cut immigrants what is that going to do to wages and then the inflation you are concerned about?

[Armchair]

So, your answer to inflation is to cut wages for low income Americans? Richy Rich Americans get to keep their high wages?

Not a fan.

[Moderation4ever]

Low wage Americans? Next trip to McDs you should go inside and take a look at the kitchen staff.

[Armchair]

Plenty of Americans work at McDonalds around me.

[Nige]

So: look at the prices
look at the wages
look at the profits
Wonder where the problem is.

[Malika the Maiz]

You didn't answer the question. You're mad about inflation (understandable!). At the same time, you're mad that immigrants are lowering wages for Americans. But inflation is to a large degree a function of wages. You're in a bit of a pickle here, no?

[ThePublius]

"But inflation is to a large degree a function of wages."

I'd like to hear an explanation of that!

Inflation is, to a large, dominant degree, a function of monetary policy, primarily the money supply. As money, i.e., fiat currency, is a function of government monetary policy, so is inflation. Change my mind.

[Malika the Maiz]

Higher wages means the producer has to charge higher prices to get profits.

You've not heard of this?

[ThePublius]

Or reduce his labor costs, as is happening in California. (By "producer" I assume you mean the proprietor of an establishment, or owner of a factory.)

None of this stuff happens in a vacuum, or in isolation. Politicians seem to think in "all other things being equal" terms. But all things are not equal. Everything is connected.

I stand by my statement that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and is therefore not largely a function of wages; wages are not the independent variable here.

[Martinned2]

Of course wages are not an independent variable. Every variable depends on every other variable. It's what we economists call "equilibrium".

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Martinned2:
Like the price of energy.?
After one whole week of holding steady gas prices are once again rising.

[Martinned2]

Inflation is, to a large, dominant degree, a function of monetary policy, primarily the money supply. As money, i.e., fiat currency, is a function of government monetary policy, so is inflation. Change my mind.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

[Armchair]

Ah, so your solution is as follows.

1. Borrow/print lots of money for deficit spending to give away to your rich constituents.
2. Make up for the resulting inflation by cutting the wages of poor Americans.

Sound right?

[Armchair]

Or...or...get this.

We eliminate the tax breaks for Richy Rich. Like All those EV subsidies. Which will end up costing more an a trillion dollars.

https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/analysis-democrats-green-energy-subsidies-costing-taxpayers-1-2-trillion-three-times-original-price-tag/

[Sarcastr0]

1. You need to quit posting single-party press releases for truth without checking them. This press release cites a WSJ opinion piece that starts: "The Inflation Reduction Act may go down as one of the greatest confidence tricks on taxpayers in history." That in turn links to a Goldman Sacks study that I at least cannot seem to find.
But the study is itself a projection, right? So for now it's just which set of assumptions do you want to go with. No need to light your hair on fire. Unless you're a tool, of course.

2. We're getting something for our investments. Just because you are a global warming skeptic doesn't mean our government should be. Subsidies harness the market's innovation engine; it's not riskless if you can get some demand going there is no better bang for your buck.

[Sarcastr0]

What is the faux class-conflict claptrap? Government spending programs are not all going to rich constituents. Unless you want to maybe cut the Pentagon budget.

That the party that argues blacks are a client race of the Dems, this attempt to outflank from the left is just shameless.

[Moderation4ever]

Between cutting the supply of workers for restaurants, construction, elder care, and agriculture and then adding a 10% tariff to imports, I suspect we will be seeing a lot of inflation in a second Trump administration. On the upside, the last three Republican administration have ended in recession and that may bring prices down.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have no doubt that, if Congress backs Trump up, things will suck for a while. If you spend beyond your means, and that's what deficit spending is, eventually you have to spend some time spending below your means. Either because you chose to, or because you reach the end of your borrowing capacity and crash.

Living below your means sucks. Anybody who's gotten in a hole and had to dig their way back out knows that.

We're on a binge. But binges END, and the longer you keep them up, the worse the end is.

But I have no doubt the usual suspects will try to pretend that the suffering has nothing to do with all the deficit spending that preceded it, because they'll be eager to resume deficit spending as soon as trying won't get them lynched.

[Martinned2]

If you spend beyond your means, and that’s what deficit spending is

If that’s what deficit spending is, what is the left hand side here?

<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/thmb/bV5TS41IO74LPI1fABwcSLWZUR8=/750×0/filters:no_upscale()&quot; ugchttps://www.investopedia.com/thmb/bV5TS41IO74LPI1fABwcSLWZUR8=/750×0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/np-0042e6e599e2412f9abec1f5b2c78322.png

[Martinned2]

Ugh, I meant the 2nd chart in this blog post: https://www.investopedia.com/what-traders-missed-about-amazon-amzn-over-the-years-5196781

[Brett Bellmore]

Guessing, I think you mean to imply that, because Amazon was running at a loss while building market share, so that it could eventually reap monopoly profits, there's not actually anything wrong with running up the credit card to live high off the hog, even though the trip to Disneyland you borrowed to take does nothing to increase your future revenues.

IOW, I'm guessing you're pretending borrowing to invest in future income, and borrowing to live beyond your means, are the same thing. But didn't want to come out and baldly state that and sound like a fool.

[Martinned2]

No, what I meant to say was that borrowing to invest is OK when the government does it just like it's OK when a private company does it. And if you're worried about sounding like a fool, you may want to start by not saying or implying that the government has a "credit card" just like a private individual does.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I'll agree that borrowing to invest in something that has a greater return than the interest on the debt you incure is a sensible thing to do, and governments are, in principle, capable of doing that, just as it happens in the private sector.

In principle.

Surely you're not going to claim that's what most of our current deficit goes to! That's ludicrous! It's not investment, it's just ordinary day to day expenses. If it was investment, revenues would be rising faster than the cost of servicing the debt!

We are literally borrowing just to pay interest on the debt at this point!

You can't just say that because in theory borrowing could be sensible to do, that the actual borrowing that's taking place must be sensible!

[Sarcastr0]

Debt is something that needs to be managed; can be tricky if it gets too high.

By contrast, austerity kills economies.

See: Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, the UK...tons of countries under the IMF failing to grow.

Even Germany, who is terrified of inflation for very good reasons, is into an austerity very very different than the knee-jerk radicalism of the ignorant right.

Hayek's economic humility is something I respect a great deal (unlike many of you who are cocksure you know how to solve inflation). But Keynes's theory, reductionist though it may be, has been shown to be correct many times over at this point.

Oh, austerity also kills people: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-hurt-but-austerity-kills

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, the question is who enforces fiscal discipline, our elected representatives, or the free market?

My point: It will not matter. The free market will impose fiscal discipline if the politicians will not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have no doubt that, if Congress backs Trump up, things will suck for a while. If you spend beyond your means, and that’s what deficit spending is, eventually you have to spend some time spending below your means. Either because you chose to, or because you reach the end of your borrowing capacity and crash.

Why in the world would you expect Trump to advocate for austerity-type spending cuts?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose because,

1) He attempted budget cuts his first year in office, until Congress responded to his proposed budget with veto proof bipartisan spending increases, instead.

But mainly because,

2) At this point, Democrats characterize one penny short of the amount THEY want to spend as insane austerity.

[bernard11]

No mention of his tax cuts, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize Jennifer Yellin posted here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only transitory.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Allowing more immigrants to work could help reduce labor costs."

Only if we allow them to work at lower rates.

[ThePublius]

"Let them work at lower rates" - not really. As the labor market is an auction, in a way, increasing the supply of labor will reduce wages. It's called elasticity, and prevails except when government regulation messes with it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, that's my point.

[ThePublius]

Ack

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, nowhere in the discussion was the impact to investment portfolios during this time. The typical 60/40 portfolio continues to suffer (coincident with POTUS Biden and inflation spike); and this will be devastating to early retirees. The real (not nominal) losses were substantial, and the losses on the bond side were historic.

There are many aspects of elevated inflation that are not immediately apparent - not just fast food. Early retirees (early, meaning within first 15 years of retirement) had better look at their portfolio withdrawal rates.

The answer to high human labor cost is automation.

[bernard11]

Um. You want to take a look at stock market returns? Yes, there's been a dip lately, but the S&P 500 is up over 5% YTD.

[ThePublius]

6.17%. Yea. Last 12 months 21%, and over the last 4 years, March to March, 115%.

Better than most investment analyst.

[Commenter_XY]

Bernard11, the typical 60/40 portfolio had real losses on the order of 25% since 12/31/21. Those portfolios have not yet recovered to the point they were on 12/31/2021. We're past 2.5 years now.

My point on withdrawal rates is one to take to heart.

[apedad]

(From yesterday's item about Texas.)

Dr. Ed 2

”. . . to the extent that they didn’t have a permit, there seemed to have been no “clear, published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria” (to quote the Texas statute) justifying any denial of a permit.”

I can not believe that a law professor can not see the distinction between being denied a permit (or license) and not bothering to get one…

~~~~~~~~

That would be a good point Dr. Ed 2 EXCEPT there is NOT a permit process.

Per Texas law, protesters are automatically permitted to protest:

(c) An institution of higher education shall:

. . .

(2) permit any person to engage in expressive activities in those areas of the institution's campus freely, as long as the person's conduct:

(A) is not unlawful; and
(B) does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the institution.

[Longtobefree]

2B, or not 2B?

[apedad]

.

[kramartini]

Has anyone considered the question of whether or not the records in the Trump NY criminal case are actually business records?

Per N.Y. Penal Law § 175.00:
"'Business record' means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity."

Note the last few words: "for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity".

Each of the records specified in each of the 34 counts in the indictment refers to a check drawn on Trump's personal checking account (or his alter ego revocable trust), an entry in the general ledger of Donald J. Trump (or his alter ego revocable trust), or to a "record of Donald J. Trump" (or his alter ego revocable trust). These are thus personal records of Donald Trump, and not business records of the Trump Organization.

Although the records are kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, they do not reflect the "condition or activity" of the Trump Organization, but rather the private affairs of the boss, and thus fall outside of the relevant statutory definition of "business records". If none of the records are business records, they cannot be falsified business records.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[Longtobefree]

Yeah.
The same thoughts as all along, this is a political trial, not a criminal one.
(and the fascists have taken over)

[Bwaaah]

They're not called "fascists." They're called good people, because they always speak in a civil tone.

"We ask that everybody remain respectful of our criminal justice system."

[kramartini]

Ted Bundy was often charming and civil. So was Hermann Goring.

[loki13]

I am going to make a serious reply to this.

As people like to say, "If you steal $500 from a bodega, you go to jail. If you steal $500 million from investors, you get into a civil lawsuit."

The line that separates "white collar" crime from, um, crime crime is not always easy to police. More often than not, LEO doesn't like to take it on because it's hard to prosecute, takes a lot of resources, the Defendants have a lot of money (and can afford the best attorneys), and (you will hear this a lot) ... "It's a civil matter."

If you were familiar with Trump before he became President, you knew that he was (in)famous for his ... issues. Go on and look at the history of lawsuits and various issues that he and his organizations have been embroiled in. Thousands (and I do mean THOUSANDS) of lawsuits. Some of which alleged criminal activity, as in, "could be charged as a crime."

I think that there are interesting issues that are raised by all of this that have nothing to do with Trump, but I doubt that it will be actually discussed. However, I do find it somewhat amazing that people are so keen to defend some of this activity as okay in the sense that "other rich people usually get away with it." I think that this is a statement that should be examined more closely.

In other words, the old statement is that, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." But its more that the law forbids that of rich and poor alike, but doesn't forbid the rich from violating rich-people laws, unless it becomes a really big issue.

[Bwaaah]

"But its more that the law forbids that of rich and poor alike, but doesn’t forbid the rich from violating rich-people laws, unless it becomes a really big issue."

This is an interesting point, and I think that's a thing there...a weakness in law enforcement in that arena: rich people violating rich-people laws.

Maybe the difference there is that we are talking about losses in violation of law that are essentially financial in nature, and in consideration of the high costs of litigation, prosecution can too easily become a case of throwing good money after bad?

Maybe real recovery rates, even when prosecuted, are slim in such cases?

[jb]

Here's my thoughts:

1) Either you're right and Trump's lawyers are idiots who failed to notice that the charges against their client actually don't even apply, or
2) They're not idiots so you're probably wrong about your understanding of the law or the facts of the case.

[loki13]

But it would be IRRESPONSIBLE not to speculate, right?

😉

[kramartini]

Two possibilities:
1. The Emperor has no clothes. Smart people sometimes overlook the obvious.
2. Since this is a sufficiency of evidence issue, it won't be raised until after the evidence is introduced.

[loki13]

The checks (and the Trust was not his "alter ego," but was created for the campaign to hold the Trump Organization assets after he was elected) were processed through the Trump Organization, and the payment records (which the TO had) were the falsified records.

The theory of the case is that Trump caused the TO's records to be falsified to conceal his activities, by listing them as payments for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement.

[kramartini]

Counts 8 through 34 do not involve the revocable trust. They involve personal records of Donald J. Trump. These are not TO records under the relevant legal standard.
And your theory does not make revocable trust transactions business records of the TO any more than it would if you or I set up a revocable trust to hold Microsoft stock make trust transactions business records of Microsoft.

[loki13]

Well, I am guessing you are now an expert on this!

Except, everything you just wrote is not true.

The arrangement was that Cohen would send a false invoice on a monthly invoice to TO pursuant to a retainer agreement. The TO CFO approved the payment, and send the it to the TO accounts payable department with instructions to put it in legal expenses, pursuant to a retainer agreement. This was entered into the TO ledger. The TO recorded these invoices as expenses paid. The TO then made the check (for the trust). The individual checks were sent to the TO and attached to the invoices and entered into the TO system, including the check stubs.

In addition, the payments in the TO system mischaracterized the payments and amounts in order to avoid tax implications.

In other words, the TO's business records were falsified. Good?

[loki13]

Finally, since you are talking about the indictment, let's look at what the indictment actually specified. We can just use the first count.

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

As you can see, the definition of business records is "kept or maintained by an enterprise" and the business records in question (as alleged in the indictment) were "kept and maintained by the Trump Organization."

This has been another in a series of overly-long and unnecessary explanations.

(Again, I have previously outlined what I think are some serious issues if there is a conviction and an appeal, but I have found that there is a lack of seriousness in the comments on this issue, so I have chosen not to discuss that further.)

[Michael P]

Congratulations on totally ignoring the whole "for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity" condition that kramartini emphasized?

[loki13]

I am going to assume you are not that stupid, and let you figure it out on your own.

[Michael P]

I am going to assume you have some clever explanation that this blog simply is too small to contain, rather than a theory that would criminalize every bank in existence that scans a check bearing a misleading "memo" line because, shucks, that reflects the activity of processing that check.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha what? You think a bank’s information about check activity in its customers account aren’t part of the bank’s business records?

[kramartini]

Finally, someone who gets it.

It took over a year of following the case for me to figure this out, and it took reading the pattern jury instructions for it to click.

[Josh R]

I haven't seen your other comments. Do you agree with me that because the underlying crime is election fraud/interference, this application of the statute criminalizes run-of-the-mill hardball politics (I'm shocked! Shocked to find a candidate paid hush money to cover up sex with a hooker because he felt it would hurt his electoral prospects)?

[Commenter_XY]

This was hilarious = I’m shocked! Shocked to find a candidate paid hush money to cover up sex with a hooker because he felt it would hurt his electoral prospects. -- also very true.

[Nige]

What's shocking that when he gets caught doing it, the Party Of Family Values didn't just say 'meh' they said 'what a guy!'

[loki13]

I think that the two biggest issues on appeal are, in no particular order, the statute of limitations issue (which the judge previously dealt with, but I remain ... skeptical that it will not become an issue again on appeal), and the "another crime" issue.

It will be interesting to see what the jury instructions are.

[kramartini]

Here are are the pattern jury instructions:
https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf
It was from reading this that I realized that none of the records are business records.

[loki13]

Those are the pattern jury instructions. The actual jury instructions in this case are what will be interesting.

From what I understand, the Prosecution has stated in the opening (over objection?) that the "another crime" was election interference.

This brings up a lot of interesting and related issues that would be relevant on appeal.

But do you know what isn't interesting? Trying to argue that business records aren't business records. Seriously, you need to educate yourself. The "business records" AREN'T THE CHECKS. I can't explain it any more than has already been done.

[kramartini]

For counts 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, and 34, the checks are the alleged falsified business records. Did you not read the entire indictment?
https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

[loki13]

I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

The checks are not the business records. The recordation of the account checks and stubs are the business records. But only some of them.

It also includes, as I already wrote, the false invoices. The entries into the ledger. And for the specific payments re: the trust, additional issues for each payment.

This has all been laid out. As I keep writing, there are serious issues worthy of discussion. The reason people here aren't discussion them with you (or others) is because of this- unserious discussions that business records aren't, in fact, business records.

[kramartini]

Notice that the check is the alleged business record in Count 10:

TENTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated June 19, 2017, bearing check number 002740, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

And it is a personal check of DJT, not a TO business check.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, but it "clicked"...

[Josh R]

Even if election interference passes legal muster on appeal, it's still improper in my view to criminalize run-of-the-mill hardball politics.

[kramartini]

You are incorrect about the definition of business records. Not all records kept “kept or maintained by an enterprise” are business records.
What happened here (at least for counts 8 to 34) is that the TO received a bill from Michael Cohen which the CFO determined was not related to the business of the TO. The CFO marked it as a personal record of DJT. The CFO had the record entered in DJT's personal ledger. Finally, a check to pay the bill was issued from DJT's personal checking account and then mailed. None of these are related to the "condition or activity" of the TO. (As for counts 1 to 7, I believe this argument also applies, since my understanding of the revocable trust is that it contains DJT's personal assets, and is akin to a personal checking account.)
It is as if you or I had our personal credit card statements mailed to our office, wrote and mailed checks the old-fashioned way at the office, stored the records in an office filing cabinet, and recorded the bill and payments on an office computer. These records would not be business records even if an employee actually did the paperwork and computer entry.

[loki13]

None of what you wrote is accurate or correct.

But hey, you do you! I am sure that you are an expert in the law.

Or criminal law.

Or New York criminal law.

And not just making up stuff based on your feels. Anyway, for anyone who is actually curious, the facts are out there (and publicly available) and you can look at the case law construing same.

Y'all have a good day now.

[kramartini]

Try putting "the facts are out there (and publicly available) and you can look at the case law" in a legal brief and see how far that gets you. LOL!

[loki13]

Try putting "I am ignoring the actual facts, including what is in the information, in order to try and say that business records, as defined by statute, are not business records."

And that this has somehow managed to escape the prosecutors (who have prosecuted this charge before), the defense attorneys, and the numerous people who have gone through these issues before.

There are issues, including but not limited to the ones I've listed above, and other ones (including the small issue of proving that Trump, himself, had the necessary intent).

But the reason no one who is, you know, actually serious and knowledgeable discusses issue like this here is ... well, res ipsa.

Bye!

[kramartini]

Learn to read a statute. And maybe learn a little accounting. Then come back and correct yourself.

[kramartini]

It appears that the expenses were booked to DJT's personal legal expenses, not to TO legal expenses.

Look at counts 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, and 33.

[not guilty]

"Has anyone considered the question of whether or not the records in the Trump NY criminal case are actually business records?"

There are twelve men and women in Manhattan who likely will be considering that question, among others, in a few weeks.

[kramartini]

This shouldn't even get to the jury. There should be a directed verdict of "not guilty" due to lack of evidence, namely, the lack of any business records.

[not guilty]

I am sure that the defense will move for judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case in chief. Such a motion is hardly ever granted.

[kramartini]

But should it be granted? Directed verdicts are reserved for cases like this one where there is a complete lack of evidence as to one of the elements, namely, the lack of a single business record.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You still think you're the only one to understand this case.

Quite an impressive record. Another "stable genius", perhaps?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, the case with POTUS Trump is completely (D)ifferent. It just is. 🙂

[Nige]

Trump as we know, can do no w(R)ong.

[Michael P]

Trump continues to beat Biden in the polls: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/28/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-matchup/

Related: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4598088-its-time-to-retire-the-laziest-cliche-in-election-polling/

[Longtobefree]

I must refer you to the polls of 2016 and 2020.
Polls mean nothing anymore, because a great many of the people on the individual freedom end of the spectrum no longer talk to pollsters.

[Michael P]

Which of the candidates are those voters more (or most, for the polls including third parties) likely to vote for? Trump's support was significantly undercounted in both of those years, and there's no reason yet to think his support is being overcounted this year.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump underperformed with Republicans in 2020 and there no reason to think that will change in 2024. Do you think all those Nicki Halley voters are going to fall in line in November? Some will but some will not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Politico: Pollsters: ‘Impossible’ to say why 2020 polls were wrong

"According to the report, national polls of the presidential race conducted in the final two weeks of the election were off by an average of 4.5 percentage points, while the state polls were off by just over 5 points. Most of the error was in one direction: Looking at the vote margin, the national polls were too favorable to now-President Joe Biden by 3.9 points, and the state polls were 4.3 points too favorable for Biden.

Most of the error came from underestimating Trump’s support, as opposed to overestimating Biden’s. Comparing the final election results to the poll numbers for each candidate, Trump’s support was understated by a whopping 3.3 points on average, while Biden’s was overstated by a point — turning what looked like a solid Biden lead into a closer, if still decisive, race.

It wasn’t just a Trump effect, either. The polls of Senate and governor’s races were off by an even greater margin: 6 points on average.

“Within the same state, polling error was often larger in senatorial contests than the presidential contest,” the AAPOR report reads. “Whether the candidates were running for president, senator, or governor, poll margins overall suggested that Democratic candidates would do better and Republican candidates would do worse relative to the final certified vote.”"

Again, Trump, and the Republicans, over-performed the polls in 2020, it's just that they were polling really badly. If he over-performs the current polls by the same margin, the result would be a landslide election.

[SRG2]

And yet Trump followers insist that Trump won the 2020 election finding it impossible to believe that more people voted for Biden.

[Malika the Maiz]

Many pollsters have a bad habit of polling the national popular vote. In an EC system this is silly. Biden won the national popular vote by 4.5 percent, but it's largely irrelevant to who won the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, it's the EC vote that matters. Not that Trump is apparently in the lead right now for the popular vote.

538 started analyzing the EC just a few days ago. Currently Trump is in the lead in ALL the swing states, though by a small enough margin in some that Biden doesn't look totally doomed.

Per Real Clear Politics, Trump leads in 219 EC votes worth of states, Biden in 215 EC votes worth of states, with 104 EC votes up for grabs. But if you assign them according to whoever is in the lead at the moment, it would be 312-226.

So, it's not actually looking that bad for Trump at the moment, but, of course, the election isn't tomorrow.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump outperformed the polls in both 2016 and 2020, the difference is that his polls were worse in 2020. They're actually better today than when he beat Hillary, though.

Too early before the election to read much into it, though, and the Democrats have an awful lot of power to interfere with his campaigning, what with the legal assault on him.

The thing is, they've made this a do or die election; If they fail to take him out, they've pretty much given him both motive and a mandate to be their worst nightmare. And they KNOW that.

So, expect it to get really ugly as the election approaches.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Too early before the election to read much into it, though”

Yep. As someone whose heart has been broken by early poll numbers in the past, that is definitely true. After all, the campaigning has barely begun. Yet per the numbers I’ve seeing, it looks like Trump has already peaked. I guess we’ll see going forward. Three more points:

1. With the above “interfere with his campaigning”, I see Brett already has excuse in hand if Trump loses. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have a replay of ’20. Trump and the MAGA base will claim the election was stolen; Brett will dutifully trott along on their tail clutching said excuse to his busom. The only difference? It will be this “interfering” thing as opposed to his pandemic election procedures shtick.

2. Yes, Democrats are very much against returning a sleazy huckster buffoon to the White House, particularly after he tried to steal an election he lost. Go figure. But Brett misjudges the source of real desperation. If Trump loses, he faces a jury of his peers for all recent crimes. And he KNOWS that.

3. Given this forum’s Righties blessed Trump’s attempt to deny the people’s vote, God alone knows what they’d excuse in Brett’s “worst nightmare” scenario. But – hey – yoke yourself to a shameless lifelong criminal and its impossible to keep-up civic, moral or ethical standards. Thus MAGA-world and the cesspool they now call home. Apparently they've gotten used to the stench.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yet per the numbers I’ve seeing, it looks like Trump has already peaked."

That's something you can really only say in retrospect; When you arrive at the peak, you don't know it's the peak until it goes down again.

"1. With the above “interfere with his campaigning”, I see Brett" notices that they're trying to lock the opposing candidate in a courtroom when he'd normally be out campaigning.

"2. Yes, Democrats are very much against" the other party winning. Period. They'll always have excuses why it's about something more than them just being the other party.

"3. Given this forum’s Righties blessed Trump’s attempt to deny the people’s vote, "

I don't know how many times I'm expected to say, "He should have stopped contesting the election when the EC voted."

[Nige]

1. Vote for a criminal, get criminal trials. Vote for a serial litigant, get a guy who ends up in court a lot.

2. Yeah, having watched the guy and his supporters trying to overturn an election Democrats won is an 'excuse' for something or other.

3. We know what he did, and we know what he is. There's a version in your head that doesn't exist but you still act puzzled when he fails to conform to it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good article by Louis Menand in today’s New Yorker

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/06/academic-freedom-under-fire

[John F. Carr]

There are two issues mixed up in there:

1. What are you allowed to say on campus?

2. What are you allowed to do on campus?

If students and professors want one of Israel and Palestine to exterminate the other, that is academic freedom. If students want to camp out in a courtyard, that is conduct.

[Dan Schiavetta]

When I was a freshman the administration let us occupy the administration building during a weekend of protest. It was wise of them to do that. It took the wind out of our sails.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In a previous thread I mentioned something I call, "collaborative news gathering," and said it was a distinctive feature useful to help identify institutional publishers. In response to a question from Absaroka, I promised to discuss it a bit more today, in an expanded context.

Collaborative news gathering is a force multiplier for journalistic investigations, which would otherwise be hampered by lack of legal tools like subpoena power, sworn oaths, and contempt citations. Compared to a government prosecutor, a journalistic investigator goes naked into the world. It is a wonder that any private journalistic investigators succeed.

Collaborative news gathering is the process by which journalistic investigators become empowered. It is pretty much the only means by which anyone learns anything about government which bureaucrats and office holders would have preferred to keep secret.

The collaboration referred to is not merely collaboration among journalistic investigators and/or editors themselves. It is the collaboration of an entire institution which creates the empowerment. And even that broader description does not fully encompass the full collaborative extent of the method. Seen in its broadest context, collaborative news gathering, practiced by journalistic institutions, but extended outward from them into the community at large, can be understood as a metaphor for civic well-being itself.

News gathering institutions induce by their own collaborative practices further collaborations throughout society. Those even extend, especially and critically, among the ranks of government figures. Policy makers in government well understand the power of the nation's major news gathering institutions to mobilize audiences. Those are audiences which can influence opinion and divert the paths of politics. Government figures try to take advantage of that, to push policies they prefer, to advance their careers, to hamper their opponents, and sometimes to assuage their guilty consciences. To do any of that, all they have to do is phone privately a journalistic investigator whose influence they have learned to respect, and start collaborating.

That same dynamic even applies outside government. Once a journalistic institution has mobilized an audience including members who have come to rely on the institution, and trust its information, some members of that audience will inevitably become aware of facts and events that many others would want to learn about. Those too become part of the larger collaboration, by providing tips and insights to the news gatherers, who collaborate to vet those leads, and publish the ones which prove accurate and newsworthy.

Why does it work that way? For insight, consider separately the cases of a Joe Keyboard-style internet commenter, and an investigative reporter employed by a long-historied journalistic institution, such as the NYT or the Wall Street Journal.

Like the investigative reporter, Joe Keyboard also wants to discover news stories and publish them. But why would anyone in government take a personal career risk, or a legal risk, to deliver insider secrets to Joe? If Joe is put under court pressure to reveal a source, he probably has much to gain, and nothing to lose, by cooperating with a prosecutor who seeks to punish the source.

With the institutionally-supported investigative reporter the case is the opposite. The investigative reporter can lose his career for doing what circumstances incentivize Joe to do. Also, Joe can expect to spend only whatever meager personal resources he may command to defend himself legally. The investigative reporter may be backed legally by the lawyers and treasury of a major business organization. From the point of view of a government insider, Joe is a high-risk engagement to be avoided; the institutionally supported collaborative news gatherer is a comparatively secure asset the insider is free to use at his own discretion.

Considerations of risk aside, Joe will typically have little or no following anyway, and thus look to a government insider like a poor candidate to influence the public, or pressure a government rival. The investigative reporter speaks to a mass audience which the publisher has long curated to enrich it with people of wealth and public influence. Independent institutions routinely measure the effectiveness of that audience curation. They publish descriptive data to convenience the advertisers who value it. Savvy government insiders understand all of that.

The investigative reporter for the NYT or the Wall Street Journal is thus a far better choice for a government insider looking to make public secret information, either because his conscience supposes the public needs the info, or because his personal guile seeks an outlet to encourage some privately preferred outcome.

Lest anyone think that is speculation in need of proof, consider the case of renowned journalistic investigator Seymour Hersh. Among a great many other accomplishments, Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre scandal. Hersh recounts in his autobiography how even his prestigious reputation and unexcelled contact network served him little when he tried to make a go of doing journalistic investigations as a freelance. Hersh relates that even though his contacts remained so good that high ranking national security officials sometimes called him to find out what was going on in their own departments, his sources for stories dried up without institutional backing. When he went back to practicing collaborative news gathering for recognized journalistic institutions, his powers were restored.

Three classic sources of persuasive power were counted as Logos the power of reason, Pathos appeals to emotion, and Ethos a power of reputational influence. Collaborative news gathering is arguably a better tool than any other to make those powers themselves collaborate.

Ethos, the last of them, is overwhelmingly on the side of collaborative institutional news gathering. It has long empowered private investigators armed with little else to circumvent or face down government power. It is unwise to seek to diminish the power of such a rare and valuable tool to buttress resistance against government coercion.

Unfortunately, fans of the Joe Keyboard approach too often grow jealous of the influence collaborative methods afford. Instead of recognizing the benefits the collaborative approach delivers to them personally, by delivering information they could never have learned in any other way, the Joe Keyboards complain that others who collaborate enjoy too much influence and power. Instead of organizing to take advantage of that influence and power themselves, they seek to ally with government leaders to hamper and suppress the others who collaborate. The Joe Keyboard types paradoxically hope to raise themselves above others, by tearing down the others, even though the others they attack support and assist the Joe Keyboards.

Some of those government leaders are all too happy to make common cause with the Joe Keyboards, and attack collaborative news gathering and institutional journalism together. Ostensible private champions of expressive freedom, including some who publish and comment on this blog, also do that.

To thus empower government at the expense of private institutions is a dangerous political road to travel. Collaborative news gathering, practiced by private publishing institutions, has thus become a figurative canary in a coal mine. It is a practice which measures by its ability to survive against increasingly toxic opposition how long this nation's civil liberties may continue. Those who oppose the practices of collaborative news gathering, and private institutional publishing, are unwise. When they do that they undermine their own store of information useful to protect themselves against government coercion.

[Commenter_XY]

So to summarize, what you really want is lathrop's version of Pravda. Good luck with that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, sure. If you think my version of Pravda is the same as the founders’ version of Pravda . . . or could there be a problem with that somewhere?

Why do you fear institutional news gathering?

Without it, how much do you think your neighbors would know about what is going on in government? Do you think the information content of internet posts by Joe Keyboard types would be better or worse if there was no institutional press?

[ThePublius]

Trump was set up by the Biden administration:

"This week in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed a trove of new documents that Jack Smith fought to keep hidden. And you'll soon find out why. Among the documents unsealed were extensive exhibits, motions, and other filings shedding light on the intricate web of communication between the Biden White House and the National Archives and Records Administration in the lead-up to Trump's indictment.

"Investigative journalist Julie Kelly found something interesting in the documents that could change everything. The first things is testimony from an FBI agent who testified that the General Services Association (GSA) had been in possession of Trump's boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump's team to come get them."

More at the link:
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/04/28/new-bombshell-evidence-emerges-was-trump-set-up-in-classified-docs-saga-n4928572

[Moderation4ever]

How do you set someone up when you ask them to return documents and they refuse? If this was a set up why not just give the boxes back when asked?

[Brett Bellmore]

That actually does sound like a setup, because the raid came while they were still in negotiations over what had to be returned, and what Trump was entitled to keep.

If the Biden administration is responsible for those documents being in Trump's possession in the first place, it does put their decision to go nuclear in retrieving them in a different light.

[Malika the Maiz]

How would the Biden administration be responsible for those documents being in Trump’s possession in the first place? They went back in time and made him take them?

[ThePublius]

You didn't read the article.

[SRG2]

IIRC the raid happened after Trump's lawyer had, under instructions, signed a letter indicating that all documents had been returned.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has that member of Trump Legal: Elite Strike Force been disbarred yet?

(Who would be the first Volokh Conspirator to tearfully call for leniency when un-American loser John Eastman is headed toward prison?)

[Nige]

Yeah if the Biden administration snuck into Mar A lago and left boxes of documents and loose documents all over the place without Trump or his staff noticing it, well, wow, quite the feat.

'still in negotiations'

I think you mean while Trump was lying about the documents, which he suddenly noticed had magically appeared in his bathroom.

[David Nieporent]

That actually does sound like a setup, because the raid came while they were still in negotiations over what had to be returned, and what Trump was entitled to keep.

100% false. The negotiations had gone on for a year and a half, and Trump had ultimately refused to comply with a subpoena and lied about it. And that was only for documents that Trump indisputably had no right to.

And he was charged only with crimes relating to the latter set of documents — not to everything he took with him and was refusing to return.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's remarkable that there are people dumb enough to read 'sources' such as this and think they're being told the truth.

You're a very special boy.

[Mr. Bumble]

So says someone who didn't read anything.
The source was the filings released not the report of that fact.

[ThePublius]

You didn't read the article.

[Malika the Maiz]

Cite us the relevant passage(s)?

[ThePublius]

Read the article. It’s not long or difficult.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I did read the article.

For various reasons ranging from "the article doesn't say that" to "it most certainly doesn't prove anything you think it does," you're an idiot.

GSA had some boxes. Trump had some boxes. THEY MUST BE THE SAME!

If they were the same, GSA must've known what was in them!

If they did know, they must've known Trump would refuse to return them.

They must've then also known that he would lie in response to a subpoena.

They must also have known he would obstruct their retrieval.

Trump was setup!
You're a fucking moron, Pube.

[jb]

Other than speculation from some person on Twitter, there doesn't seem to be any indication these boxes are the ones that contained classified materials. None of the testimony cited creates that linkage, certainly.

[David Nieporent]

But, to reiterate: it. doesn't. matter. Trump is not charged with taking the documents; he's charged with refusing to return them. So how he got them doesn't matter. Nobody forced him to hide the documents and lie about it.

[Sarcastr0]

the General Services Association (GSA) had been in possession of Trump’s boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump’s team to come get them.

Yes, Trump was ordering these docs on the order of the Administration!

He didn't tell anyone about that, of course, and he moved the docs and lied a lot because he's just such a scamp.

The human agility to turn the dial on critical thinking down below zero continues to impress.

[ThePublius]

You didn't read the article.

[Sarcastr0]

No I read your excerpt. Did you excerpt badly?

[ThePublius]

Maybe so. Read the article. It's not long or difficult.

[jb]

Indeed it is short, and it contains nothing to support the notion that these boxes were the ones that he got indicted for refusing to give back. (It does quote Julie Kelly saying "Apparently these are the boxes that ended up containing papers with 'classified markings.'" but Kelly presents nothing from the transcripts to support this claim.)

[Sarcastr0]

OK read it.

Of course, it’s crap.

While this may not prove the Biden administration set up Trump in the classified documents case, considering the way the Biden administration has abused the legal system against Trump, no one can confidently say they wouldn’t.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

THIS BULLSHIT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RED FLAG, PUBLIUS.

[ThePublius]

We shall see, won't we?

[Drewski]

Weird that the only outlet reporting this is famous for publishing false news stories.

[ThePublius]

That's not so, google it.

[David Nieporent]

Julie Kelly is an “investigative journalist” in much the way that Michael Vick was a dog fancier. And she didn’t “find” anything interesting. Her m.o. is to wait until a court document is released and then breathlessly report something that is utterly routine as if it represented a scandal — often characterizing ordinary legal events as if they were dramatic Hollywood scenes. (For example, when the DC Circuit ruled that under the applicable statute, J6 defendants couldn’t be sentenced to both probation and jail time, she described this quotidian resolution of a question of statutory interpretation as the court “reprimanding” the district court judges and prosecutors.)

And just to address the point directly, nothing in these documents shows that Trump was "set up by" anyone or that Smith or the Biden admin did anything wrong in the documents case.

[Commenter_XY]

The Courts will sort this out...eventually. There are so many different novel legal issues with this case, it will take a while to litigate it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Really? This seems like the one case that really doesn’t raise any legal issues that are remotely novel or even particularly interesting. (To be sure, it raises the novel factual issue of a former president committing such a stupid crime in such an obvious way, but the legal issue seems pretty straightforward.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with a diminishing academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for our vestigial bigots
as modern America passes them by —
has operated for no more than

EIGHT (8)

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

TWENTY-TWO (22)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 22 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 22 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

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

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.
These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, white nationalist,
Palestinian-hating, transphobic,
white supremacist, Islamophobic,
racist, Christian dominionist, 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 and ugly
thinking, here is something
hopeful and seasonal.

These two are good, too.

Enjoy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones report:

The spring tour has sprung!

First, an unexpected early setlister (from Exile on Main Street).

Next, another surprise -- as unwrapped in Houston, from Some Girls.

A third surprise -- just one song from Keith (and it wasn't forgetfulness, as demonstrated by Ronnie's preshow artwork), but I can't link it because this site limits links to two.

Buy those tickets now!

[Moderation4ever]

I don't know about the 2024 concert. The link you gave had a pretty weak voiced Mick Jager on Beast of Burden. I saw another clip, same concert, I think, doing Gimme Shelter and the female singer sounded very good and again Mick sounding weak. I hate to see anyone push too far and maybe another concert tour was not the best idea.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most of those early fan videos are amateur audience recordings (handheld mobile phones in the middle of a crowd). What level of sound quality would you expect?

The better recordings customarily emerge after a few weeks and support a better assessment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apparently New York has a little-known law where if you are pulled over by a cop, you can call the chief of police, inform him that you are not a threat, and then you can drive home and handle the traffic stop there.

“Less than half a mile from my neighborhood, I noticed a Webster Police car behind me. Once I realized that the intention of the car was to pull me over, I called the Webster Police Chief to inform him that I was not a threat and that I would speak to the Officer at my house down the street. ”

But fortunately the story has a happy ending. The DA will be taking ethics training, so we don’t have to worry that she will abuse her power in the future. All’s well that ends well, I guess.

[Martinned2]

What if you are pulled over for a suspected DUI?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Facepalm.jpg

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course everyone has the chief of police's phone number on speed dial.

[apedad]

You didn’t read the article.

(Apparently that's this week's theme.)

TiP was being facetious because it was the local DA (who would have the police chief's #), who was pulled over.

[ducksalad]

In Texas, failing to pull over is called “Evading Arrest in a Motor Vehicle”. It is a third degree felony that carries a 10 year maximum sentence. I know someone currently indicted for it. No prior record, no high speed chase, no injuries, no collision. The bail was set at $15000 (no personal recognizance, 100% cash/cashier’s check required) and the best they can possibly hope for is several years’ closely supervised probation.

[Malika the Maiz]

So, a question. A lot of the commenters here who lean right seem to be very much for the use of all necessary government force regarding these student protestors. Often, the idea I see expressed is something like "they're breaking the law, this isn't a thing to negotiate" and sometimes there's a bit of "who do they think they are?"*

At the same time some of the same commenters say regarding Trump's trials something like "what he did was not great, but it's wrong to drop the legal hammer on him.*"

Is there a tension there?

* I'll stipulate that perhaps I'm reading these inaccurately. If so, I'd appreciate explanatory elaboration.

[Krychek_2]

Keep in mind that Trump is not arguing that what he did isn't criminal. Rather, he's arguing that he has the right to commit criminal acts if he chooses. And that should scare the bejesus out of anyone contemplating the possibility of him being returned to power.

To answer your question, no, there is no tension. Trump is a cult of personality. The standard, therefore, is the dear leader himself, and not whether his conduct is otherwise defensible.

[Jacob Grimes]

You’re dealing with two different crimes in different contexts and times.

One involves a mob of people, some of which are on camera being obnoxious and unruly, usually committing something easily understood like trespassing against a clearly identified victim (property owners), and it’s happening at colleges all over the country.

The other involves somewhat arcane campaign finance laws with no obvious victim and two willing parties, and it happened once years ago.

Tension exists with “the law is the law is the law” types but most of them would probably reconsider if they were ever charged with or cited for violating ever conceivable technical infraction of every law or ordinance.

[Malika the Maiz]

I was referring to the Jan. 6 prosecution.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You were using standard English. That confuses some of the regulars.

[Bwaaah]

Regarding protestors: School rules should apply on school property. (And it is my personal opinion that with respect to speech/expression, schools should try to avoid being more restrictive than the First Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence is instructive here, if only marginally applicable.)

You stop people from breaking school rules by enforcing school rules. The “peaceful” protestors would probably have to go away at night, they wouldn’t be able to use sound amplifiers (e.g. bullhorns), and they wouldn’t be permitted to impede passersby. Yes, use necessary force…no more…no less (or you don’t really have rules; you have favored rulebreakers). Unfortunately, many protestors will make forceful arrest be the only option for obtaining their compliance with school rules. Such is the behavior of people who flout widely shared conventions. (I have a fantasy in which I say this to you with a bullhorn right in your face, but I would never.)

Regarding Presidential candidates: You take back your boxes.

Trump’s behavior is offensive and reprehensible. But I wouldn’t dare criminalize offensive, reprehensible behavior…not in the citizenry…and not in politics. (You don't want to see how my "political allies" would gladly run with that opportunity, just like yours do.)

[Sarcastr0]

Rules are generally not made to be enforced 100%. Obviously some are, but it is telling how many people have decided suddenly this rule must be enforced with zero tolerance regarding these protesters.

That I see happening is the law has been protecting and not binding these people, and the right really really wants to switch this group to the binding and not protecting set.
Mostly for being presumptive early liberals.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, and like typical early presumptive liberals, these students trashed their 'occupation zone' at Columbia, subsequently elected to occupy a building, and then toss in a little property damage on the side. So someone else cleans the mess they made and pays for the damage they did.

Presumptive early liberals. You are so right.

[Nige]

Seems odd to see you mad at a little (alleged) property damage, all things considered.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember what he wants to happen to the citizens of Gaza; this isn't really about having consistent standards for him.

[Commenter_XY]

The people of gaza should live their lives in peace; free of Hamas and their endemic corruption. Israel will help them in that aspect.

[Bwaaah]

Apparently, laws do not apply to just causes.

Wait. I mean certain laws, and certain causes.

Not sure which ones? Consult the Oracle of SarcNige, which seems to have the inside track on unpublished, current, elite interpretation of law (and its appropriate nullification).

These guys actually talk about “the law” like that means something under their vision of jurisprudence. It’s all just a morality play to them, and MAGA (read: “people like you, and now including Zionists”) are immoral and undeserving of the protections of law.

The Good People are in control now, and all of laws are malleable to their ends.

Remember: the definitions of all their words are fungible, and all their concepts are boundless.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord did you never go to college? My college had a 'not beer' machine. I guess we all shoulda gotten arrested!

Thanks for the accusation of bad faith, but your telepathy is once again mixing up opinion and fact.
You know, like you do for crime stats.

[Nige]

'Yes, use necessary force…no more…no less'

The idea that the college might think the students not getting hurt more important than a few rules seems alien to you guys.

'Trump’s behavior is offensive and reprehensible'

Putting up some tents vs trying to steal an election. Priorities, people!

[Ed Grinberg]

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

With regard to "these student protestors," they've been getting away with things that others have been severely punished for.
With regard to Trump, various Democrats (including some current office-holders) have done things a lot worse -- with no prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

Right wing ipse dixit keeps on rolling.

Does VDARE or some other white nationalist have an opinion you want to share?

[tylertusta]

One colloquy I wanted to highlight from last Thursday’s oral arguments over Presidential immunity was the very last exchange between Roberts and Dreeben.

Unlike others who think that Dreeben assuaged Roberts’ fears about political prosecutions, I don’t agree with that interpretation. Instead, what I heard was Roberts and Dreeben talking past each other.

During oral argument, Roberts asked Dreeben to defend the panel’s reasoning. To his credit, Dreeben didn’t try to defend the indefensible. Dreeben was trying to keep the result, so he deflected. Despite that, Roberts kept bringing the conversation back to the panel’s rationale.

Finally, Roberts asked Dreeben whether the case should be sent back to the DC Circuit for a do-over. Dreeben deflected again, and for the rest of the oral argument, the Chief Justice did not ask further questions of him.

What’s clear here is that Roberts is pissed off about how the DC Circuit handled the case. Probably very pissed. I now suspect that it was Roberts himself who gave the backhanded slap to the DC Circuit in the grant of cert.

Roberts’ suggestion to send the case back to the DC Circuit is an interesting one, and I’m getting distinct Caetano vibes.

If Roberts gets his way, the Court might issue a short decision vacating the panel decision and to remand “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” The Court might accompany the decision with an order that directs the DCCA to not expedite consideration along with an order that stays the issuance of the mandate to the district court until SCOTUS disposes of the inevitable cert petition.

This would mean that the DC Circuit gets a do-over and SCOTUS ducks from having to issue a ruling that finds that Presidential immunity exists. The DCCA would not have the opportunity to manipulate the briefing schedule and would thus not be under political incentive to once again rush into an ill-considered decision.

I think that had the DC Circuit issued a more measured and better-written decision, and had the panel not tried to kneecap Trump by manipulating the issuance of the mandate, Roberts might be more amenable to a ruling that favors the Special Counsel. But the panel didn’t do that and wrote a flawed opinion that practically begged for SCOTUS to step in to fix it.

[not guilty]

If there is a remand to either the Court of Appeals or the District Court, I surmise that it will be with some guidance as to how to distinguish between a president’s official conduct and his non-official conduct. Otherwise, (as I wrote last Thursday,) in that the gravamen of the D.C. indictment is Trump’s allegedly criminal efforts to remain in office after the expiration of his term on January 20, 2021, controlling D.C. Circuit precedent dictates that Trump’s seeking to remain in office is not official conduct. As the Court of Appeals opined in Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023):

[W]hen a sitting President acts in his capacity as a candidate for re-election, he acts as office-seeker, not office-holder. The presidency itself has no institutional interest in who will occupy the office next. Campaigning to attain that office thus is not an official function of the office. Rather, an incumbent President’s interests in winning re-election have the same purely private character as those of his challengers—i.e., “substantial personal interests as a candidate” to attain (or retain) the office. Trump Mot. to Intervene 24. Accordingly, a President acts in a private, unofficial capacity when engaged in re-election campaign activity.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A3464AEB2C1CB89985258A7800537E73/$file/22-5069-2029472.pdf (slip op. p. 29, italics in original.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems as if the Ham-ass (HT Dr. Frank) president of Columbia,
Minnie Minoucher, has finally grown a pair:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13362463/Columbia-University-President-Minouche-Shafik-begs-protesters-disperse-Palestine.html

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble...Do you think that Minouche rhymes with douche?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Mr. Bumble is a retired GED graduate with resentments.
He has never contributed anything to this legal blog.

[Mr. Bumble]

…says the “practitioner” whose only contribution is sniping.

[Don Nico]

Giving in to extortion at Brown:
"If the encampment 'is peacefully brought to an end within the next few days and is not replaced with any other encampments or unauthorized protest activity,' the “Corporation of Brown University will invite five students representing the current encampment activity and a small group of faculty members to speak with a similarly sized group of Corporation members about their arguments for divestment.”

The New England Mafia could not do any better

[Dan Schiavetta]

A wise proposal from the administration.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, really wise. The "wise" response from the pro-Israeli student would be to set up their own encampment, screwing up the deal.

And after the discussion happens, why shouldn't the next group of people who want to present their arguments to the Corporation expect the some treatment when they set up their encampment?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem like a "no negotiation" guy.

When Israel is found to have violated international law, and it is determined that Israel is acting in a manner that makes it ineligible for American military assistance under U.S. law, should America stop all assistance to Israel immediately?

No more money? No more weapons? No more interception of projectiles? No more intelligence? No more cover at the United Nations? No more intelligence?

Or do you perceive an exception to your "throw the book at 'em" approach for superstition-addled, war-criming, bigoted, right-wing assholes such as Netanhayu, Ben-Gvir, and their despicable ilk?

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, what is there to negotiate? Meaning, what student demands can realistically be met? None.

Practically speaking, can Columbia order a ceasefire? Nope.
Can they fulfill Hamas' mission of killing every Jew on the planet? Nope.
Can they magically divest of Israeli investments? Nope, not really. Why? Thousands of American companies derive revenue from Israel.
What about amnesty 'for the children' (who are legal adults, btw)? No, I don't think so. Their behavior disqualifies them for amnesty.

In order for peace to occur, Israel must utterly defeat Hamas, and be seen throughout the arab world as defeating Hamas. That is an existential battle, Hamas has sworn to kill every Jew on the planet.

And btw Arthur, immediately after killing me, Hamas will do you next. They won't hesitate to toss you off a rooftop for apostasy. What is there, realistically, to negotiate? 🙂

[Nige]

So worried about killing, while supporting the killing of tens of thousands.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Divestment could easily -- and eventually likely will -- occur.

The divestment would not and should not be the absolutist version ('nothing to do with Israel'), but Columbia already has divestment policies and practices concerning several issues that seem similar. Tailoring the policy 'avoid investment in companies that arm or enable those that engage in war crimes, including Israel's current government and armed forces' seems a natural resolution.

What is there to negotiate? An end to Israel's unlawful, disgusting, lethal, selfish, bigoted right-wing belligerence. If those negotiations do not succeed soon, the United States should strenuously avoid complicity in Israel's murderous conduct.

[Commenter_XY]

You still get tossed off the rooftop, Arthur. You don't get it, do you?

[Sarcastr0]

What does extortion mean to you these days?

[Don Nico]

It means what it has always meant.

[Don Nico]

"The university said students face suspension if they remain, and it will not divest from Israel"
Let's see if Colombia has the cojones to do what it says.

[Sarcastr0]

Still not seeing the extortion re: these encampments.

[Don Nico]

No, you wouldn't.
How about give in to our demands or we stay here to disrupt your commencement.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Sarcastr0]

For the extortion under your framing to be operating, schools would need to be divesting from Israel, not trying to figure out how to deal with the encampments.

And that's not even in the conversation.

So take your high-handed accusation of willful blindness and come back with less sophistry in response to my putting you to the question.

[Don Nico]

You are willfully blind. When the schools don't give in to extortion, it doesn't make the student actions any less than extortion.
You have put no question to me. And since you have steadily refised to answer the simple "What would you do,
I feel no obligation to answer any question of yours.
You call that sophistry? I call you hypocritical in that charge.

[Sarcastr0]

You have now failed three times on the simple looking test of what you mean by extortion.

The first was your bare appeal to incredulity. I asked for more detail. You insulted me, and then tried.

But you failed a second time. You talked about divestment. Which schools are not even contemplating as a reaction to these encampments.

Now you’re saying you won’t answer because I’m not going to lay out a solution to this crisis. Seems a pretty ridiculous ask to define what you mean by a word. That's strike 3.

Seems to me that extortion is dramatic, but not on point. And you’re smart enough to begin to see that. But you’ve insulted me too much to just back down now.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's extortion in the sense that the students threatening to continue to make things difficult for the school by occupying buildings and denying students access to spaces in order to extract concessions from the school.

It's not like the students are offering anything of value in exchange for their demands.

And it's not behavior that you want to reward because students will have other demands.
And it's not behavior that you want to reward, because

[Don Nico]

My goodness. Bravo, Columbia did it and Pres. Minouche Shafik acknowledged in a statement on Monday that many Jewish students and other students have “found the atmosphere intolerable in recent weeks.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe those snowflakes were studying in the drama department.

It is fascinating to observe roundly bigoted right-wingers finally latch onto a group of (ostensible) targets for whom they express (ostensible) sympathy.

Blacks, gays, women, transgender persons, immigrants, etc. would be jealous if they couldn't see through this partisan bullshit.

Carry on, bigoted clingers.

[Balisane]

No one is sympathetic to blacks, gays, women or immigrants because they're merely given everything with no accountability.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No one who operates or is a fan of the Volokh Conspiracy, sure.

But there is more to the world than a white, male, bigot-ridden blog . . . and that world is passing right-wing bigots by at a rapid clip. It's the American way!

[John F. Carr]

Earlier this month a Texas appeals court ruled that Ken Paxton could be disciplined for making false claims of fraud in a lawsuit over the 2020 election. Because Paxton was and is a state official he argued separation of powers protects him. The panel split 2-1 along partisan lines. The case may be further appealed to the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Another take on the criminal immunity question. Looks like SCOTUS has created an interval where the law on that question is destined to remain uncertain pending resolution of the case. And resolution of the case is unlikely until after the election.

Imagine the scene at a pre-election debate between Biden and Trump, broadcast from DC. Biden produces a pistol and shoots Trump dead on national TV. Rival Secret Service details massacre each other throughout the auditorium. Biden survives, and claims criminal immunity.

Biden might get impeached, but not removed. Either way, he apparently loses the election, but insists he won. A Justice Department run under the administration of Trump’s chosen VP prosecutes Biden.

Under what interpretation of law does former President Biden get tried? The one advocated by Trump’s lawyer as already in force, under which Biden deserves acquittal? The one said by the special prosecutor to have prevailed prior to the case, under which Biden deserves conviction? The one which eventually gets announced by SCOTUS, sometime long after the shooting, but said in the decision to have applied all along? Or does the Court simply announce the shooting is a non-justiciable political question.

Biden argues no one can hold him responsible, because it is impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt what the law even was at the time of the shooting. He also points to evidence previously announced that he is a kindly old gent with impaired mental capacity.

Has SCOTUS allowed too much scope for legal chaos? Doesn’t the nation really need to know prior to the election what the rules are for presidential criminal liability? Is it really too much to ask that the Court resolve the case now?

[ducksalad]

A few comments:

1. Thanks for the amusing scenario. I'd pay to watch a movie based on this plot.

2. One hole in the plot is that, if Secret Service are anything like other law enforcement, their first loyalty is to each other rather than their "client". They aren't going to massacre each other.

3. You do realize, when you say Biden doesn't know whether he's allowed to shoot Trump unless the Supremes tell him, you're effectively saying it's a genuinely difficult question. Do you really think that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad, I think what the Supremes are going to tell us all is a genuinely difficult question.

Had the Court wanted to do it, it could have relied on the Cases and Controversies Clause, noted that the law pertaining to this case had already been fully considered, and decided to begin a trial on the facts months ago, by rejecting the case for cert, while reserving any unexpected issues of law which came up for a post-trial appeal. Instead the Court gratuitously ordered expansion of the scope of the case to encompass irrelevant considerations of law, plus unlimited blather, in the midst of an ongoing constitutional crisis. That was unwise. Based on experience, I do not expect their wisdom to improve any time soon.

[David Nieporent]

Had the Court wanted to do it, it could have relied on the Cases and Controversies Clause, noted that the law pertaining to this case had already been fully considered, and decided to begin a trial on the facts months ago,

Yeah, that's not how any of this works.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Let me be sure I understand you, Nieporent, or you understand me. You are saying that after the case was reviewed by the DC Circuit, the Supreme Court could not have looked at their decision, concluded the DC Circuit decision dealt adequately with all the issues of law needing consideration prior to a trial before the District Court for this particular case, and denied cert? Because that is not how this works? What do I misunderstand? I am a legal layman, so please just fill me in.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing you just said has anything to do with the "Cases and Controversies Clause," and no, the Supreme Court can't say, "We'll decide whether the president is immune later," because immunity is a pre-trial doctrine. No, the Supreme Court did not "expand the scope of the case," and presidential immunity cannot remotely be described as "irrelevant" to whether the president can be prosecuted. SCOTUS could have simply denied cert, yes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, here is the Trump Case as presented, according to the Court:

The QUESTIONS PRESENTED are:
I. Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts, i.e., those performed within the “‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982) (quoting Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959)).
II. Whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7, and principles of double jeopardy foreclose the criminal prosecution of a President who has been impeached and acquitted by the U.S. Senate for the same and/or closely related conduct that underlies the criminal charges.

And here is the grant of certiorari:

The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Note that to answer the, “QUESTIONS PRESENTED” summary, arguments necessary to resolve the case would deal only with two issues; first, consideration of, “Nixon v. Fitzgerald,” a case about immunity from civil liability, and, second, the cockamamie assertion about double jeopardy arising from impeachment. Nothing else is listed as presented. Trump’s lawyers relied on that, and a ridiculous assertion that Nixon v. Fitzgerald conferred criminal immunity. It was transparently a play for delay, filed by a legal team which had no expectation at all that argument could prevail. That is how a host of legal experts analyzed it at the time, including Neal Katyal, Michael Luttig, and Andrew Weissmann.

Note that in the grant of certiorari, the question is “limited,” (“limited” ha, ha, ha) to everything under the sun. On the advice of legal analyst Neal Katyal, I concluded that was the Court on its own initiative decreeing a major expansion to the scope of the case.

You say the contrary, so now I have to decide who to believe. How do you compare your own Supreme Court experience to Katyal’s?

More generally, do you think the Cases and Controversies Clause has any application at all to the commonplace practice of the Court to announce in its cert grants, “limitations,” on the scope of arguments for cases—even when those, “limitations,” extend to facts and legal questions beyond those necessary to resolve the case in question? To me, that looks like the Court going for policy overreach, while pretending to limit itself—or in this instance, going for policy overreach and partisan overreach together.

Presumably you think otherwise. Why?

[David Nieporent]

Note that to answer the, “QUESTIONS PRESENTED” summary, arguments necessary to resolve the case would deal only with two issues; first, consideration of, “Nixon v. Fitzgerald,” a case about immunity from civil liability,

You completely misread the (proposed) QP. It wasn't relying on Fitzgerald for anything other than the definition of "official acts."

Note that in the grant of certiorari, the question is “limited,” (“limited” ha, ha, ha) to everything under the sun.

No, it's not. It excludes the argument presented in proposed QP #2: whether double jeopardy prevents a prosecution for acquitted conduct. It would also, e.g., exclude an argument that Smith was improperly appointed, or any of the 50 other pieces of spaghetti Trump's lawyers have thrown at the wall.

More generally, do you think the Cases and Controversies Clause has any application at all to the commonplace practice of the Court to announce in its cert grants, “limitations,” on the scope of arguments for cases—even when those, “limitations,” extend to facts and legal questions beyond those necessary to resolve the case in question? To me, that looks like the Court going for policy overreach, while pretending to limit itself—or in this instance, going for policy overreach and partisan overreach together.

Presumably you think otherwise. Why?

Because you have not accurately described what the court does, in the abstract and in this case. Former presidential immunity vel non is squarely presented here. The court hasn't "expanded" anything.

[tylertusta]

Has SCOTUS allowed too much scope for legal chaos? … Is it really too much to ask that the Court resolve the case now?

I don’t see how the Court has expanded the scope when that was always the scope of what Trump has been asking for all along. Both Chutkan and the DC panel ruled on Presidential immunity generally in addition to ruling on Trump specifically.

Then when the Supreme Court picks up and tries to tackle the same issue that was decided below, it’s suddenly too broad of a question?

In actuality, this kind of talk is sour grapes from the anti-Trump media ecosystem who are trying to rationalize what is happening at the Supreme Court.

I saw similar comments from the MSW podcast (including everyone’s favorite disgraced former FBI liar Andrew McCabe), where they attempt to cast this issue as a narrow question focused just on Trump yet they don’t seem to grasp that the courts are in the business of building precedent and not just a Bad Man rule.

The problem is that it isn’t. You can’t get to Trump’s circumstance without tackling the underlying legal theory and answering some very basic questions, like if Presidential immunity exists at all to know if any former President can raise it. When Chutkan and the DC Circuit panel tried to tackle that, they f’d it up so badly that it required the Supreme Court to step in and fix their mess.

Doesn’t the nation really need to know prior to the election what the rules are for presidential criminal liability?

Isn’t that what the Supreme Court is trying to do here? The Court is expected to rule no later than the end of June.

[not guilty]

"The Court is expected to rule no later than the end of June."

That is indeed the expectation, but I would not be too surprised if this Court puts the matter over for reargument during the next term, perhaps with a direction for additional briefing, a la Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

[tylertusta]

I don't agree that it would be unsurprising- I would be very surprised if the Court held it over for reargument.

What other question and briefing would the Court require?

At least with Citizens United they discovered mid oral argument that the question was much bigger than was originally briefed. But here? I don't see how the Court can get much bigger than what it asked for.

[not guilty]

The purpose of reargument would be delay for the sake of delay itself. A request for additional briefing would be a fig leaf, but I can envision such a request for briefing on what constitutes core executive functions under Article II.

[tylertusta]

Yeah, I'm going to put that in the "unlikely" bucket along with a flat affirmation of the DC panel decision.

If the Court is going to punt, it's going to vacate the panel decision, hand the panel a three page decision explaining the logical flaws in the below opinion, and tell it to try again.

[David Nieporent]

I disagree with tylertusta on substance — I think the Circuit Court's opinion resolved these issues perfectly, with no flaws — but I agree with him that it's incredibly unlikely that SCOTUS would do something like reargument.

[tylertusta]

The opinion below was so badly reasoned that Dreeben refused to defend it in front of SCOTUS, and that was a decision that he won. Dreeben found himself trying to defend the outcome but on different grounds than the court below used.

I didn’t count a single Justice who expressed support for the theory that Presidents have no immunity whatsoever, nor did I see any Justice willing to support the theory that only sitting Presidents have immunity, but not former Presidents.

That’s not a hallmark of a flawless opinion that resolved the issue “perfectly.” That’s a strong sign that the panel rushed without thinking about what they were doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, there's precisely zip, zero, nada textual basis for Presidents having any immunity at all. Which in principle ought to settle the matter.

On the other hand, it's blindingly obvious that the former norm against using sketchy charges to tie opposition politicians up in court is dead. So we can safely predict that, unless the Court invents some sort of immunity anyway, Presidents are going to be tied up in court on stupid charges while in office, and hounded endlessly after their term ends.

And it's only a matter of time before some ambitious state prosecutor notices that Congressional immunity is actually pretty limited, that it expressly does NOT extend to felonies and breaches of the peace. And starts bringing felony charges against members of Congress of the opposing party to keep them from doing their job.

[tylertusta]

"Immunity" is a doctrine derived from the separation of powers as described in Marbury v Madison.

(I'm using quotes to describe "immunity" because we're using it as a shorthand to describe a logical result from the doctrine.).

"Immunity" stems from Congress being unable to use laws to regulate the conduct of the President past a certain point. It also applies to the Judiciary as they are asked to judge whether someone has broken those laws.

If "immunity" doesn't exist for Presidents at all in the Constitution, then Marbury was probably wrong as well.

By denying the President had any "immunity" for exercising even enumerated powers under Article II, the DC panel opened pandora's box. According to the panel, Congress can pass laws that prohibits the President from exercising those powers.

For example, Congress can pass a criminal statute that makes it a felony to veto or refuse to sign legislation. Congress can pass a law that prohibits the President from giving orders to the military, or from making a recess appointment, or from giving a pardon.

Every party agrees that Presidents should be able to do those things, and every party agrees that's where "immunity" comes from. Every Justice agreed that Presidents should be able to do the things that the Constitution says they should do.

The only ones who didn't think that Presidents were "immune" under those circumstances was the DC panel and Tanya Chutkan.

And now SCOTUS has to clean up their mess.

On a final note, Congresscritters aren't "immune" either under the Speech and Debate Clause, but we call it "immunity" because it's the logical result and it's easier to discuss without having to whip out the court cases and draw a map to where we get to a word called "immunity."

[DWB]

Remember all those debates we had pointing out the the Nazis were in fact left wing and you dems whined, cried and shouted bloody murder?

Seeing lefties all over the country and world proving us right should be energizing.

But knowing the bloody history and bodycount of your evil ideology, it's too sobering.

[Sarcastr0]

The right trying to push a screwed up definition of Nazi that includes a lot of Jews, so they can call the left Nazis?

We all saw that coming.

[DWB]

OK, Nazi

[Sarcastr0]

Oh my stars and garters what an outrage.

[DWB]

Mr. Soros ... is that you????

[Frank Drackman]

If you had more than a Pubic Screw-el Ed-Jew-ma-cation you’d know that Nazi was an acronym for National SOCIALIST Party
As frigging Lefty as you can get (and as a Southpaw I know Lefties)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

In German....

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I hear they speak German in Germany

[Nige]

Peaceful student anti-war demonstrations with Jewish people over-represented prove what now?

[DWB]

“Liberating” property that is not yours is an act of VIOLENCE.

[DWB]

Stopping a person from traveling where they want to go and have a right to go is VIOLENCE.

[Sarcastr0]

Posting as badly as you do is VIOLENCE

[Nige]

They haven't 'liberated' anything, they are staging a protest on it. A protest non-violently preventing someone from going to where they want to go is 99% of the time an INCONVENIENCE.

[DWB]

The right to travel is a basic human right you evil putz, trespassing is not.

[Nige]

Ooh, found an open borders advocate!

[DWB]

You missed the trespassing part...

[Nige]

It's a human right! How dare you impede people's right to travel!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These right-wing hayseeds will switch directions on compliance with rules when the arrest warrants for Netanyahu are issued, or when the United States government determines that Israel's atrocities render Israel ineligible for American military assistance.

[DWB]

No one is surprised to see the rev on the same side as the people like those who harassed Ruby Bridges -- very on brand.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're not a fan of the people responsible for compliance with American war crimes statutes?

You belong in a hermit shack next to Kazinski, muttering about conspiracy theories and anti-government kookery.

[Michael P]

Of course Nige thinks Jewish people are over-represented on campus.

Believe him when he tells you what he is: an antisemite troll.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you deny you are a bigot, Michael P? A worthless, right-wing bigot?

[Frank Drackman]

So when did you stop molesting boys, "Coach"??

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You, Mr. Drackman, are the defender and audience Prof. Volokh deserves.

And the reason he will be departing mainstream academia next month.

[Frank Drackman]

Does he know?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I think he got the message. Along with some numbers for moving companies.

Do you figure UCLA will conduct a public celebration . . . or will the celebrations be private?

[Frank Drackman]

Might need Orkin to get rid of the Ham-Ass Infestation first.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course everyone could see overrepresented was not normative but descriptive - making a comparison to the baseline population frequency.
[I do not know if it's true, however].

Weak, and really shows you for what you are.

[Nige]

Statistically, there are proportionately more of them involved in the protests you utter miserable twerp.

As stark an example as ever there was: there is fundamentally no discernible difference between being stupid and being bad-faith.

[Michael P]

No, there are a bunch of people (badly) role-playing Jews at the protests. https://instapundit.com/644356/

And you fell for it because of confirmation bias.

[Sarcastr0]

Your link does not say anything about the number of Jews involved.

Jews have a wide variety of views about Israel and Palestine among other things. Doesn’t make them right, but it does mean broad accusations of antisemitism won’t play.

[Michael P]

Yes, he assumed readers can put two and two together, like how few Jews are involved in a project that prints Hebrew words left-to-right, or where almost none of the "Jews" know common Jewish hymns.

When you find yourself defending the Jonathan Afflecks of college campuses, it's a good time to reflect on the road that brought you to where you are.

[Sarcastr0]

If he could have made that conclusion, he would have. He didn’t because he can’t based on one anecdote. (And one that may just be less observant Jews getting it wrong)

You, though, have never let reality stand in your way when you want to believe.

You’re trying to purge the Jews of those you find conceptually difficult to deal with. Quit telling Jews how to Jew correctly – it’s antisemetic, chief!

[Michael P]

Good grief, chief, at least learn how to count to two.

[Nige]

Ah yes, they're not 'real' Jews. This coming from people who throw 'anti-semitism' around like confetti.

[ThePublius]

I'm having trouble understanding this. Are you saying that the protests at the colleges are peaceful, or mostly peaceful, are legitimate and acceptable, and include a significant proportion of Jewish students?

[Nige]

They're peaceful, and they include lots of Jews. The degree to which they are 'legitimate' depends on your desire to suppress them. Their anti-war aims are very accpetable.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. That's delusional. They are violent (can you say "flagpole to the eye?"); hammers to windows, blocking people from passing, and so on? See what happened at Columbia this morning. They include virtually zero Jews, except for counter-protesters.

It's one thing to make one's voice heard. It's entirely another to prevent others from speaking, to threaten violence (from the river to the sea, intifada, etc.), to prevent others using parts of the campus, taking maintenance workers hostage, and more.

[Michael P]

Property crimes go up after progressive prosecutors take over.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9133.12666

[Sarcastr0]

I expect that's the most likely result in the short term, and the methodology looks fine to me (a bit forced on the quantification but that is the style at the moment)

Also: the prosecutors have been framing their argument in fairness terms; it is not ridiculous that some jurisdictions have goals broader than just property crime go down 7%.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And anyway, corporations can always hire private security, and the affluent can move into gated communities (with private security). That should bring down property crimes against the people who count. The poor and middle class can then enjoy the fruits of fairness all by themselves.

/sarc

[Brett Bellmore]

Based on broken windows theory, if it's the result in the short term, in the long term it's only getting worse.

[Sarcastr0]

Social science theories are generally not predictive. Broken Windows is no different. You can’t engineer this.
It’s also not well established.

I mean look at you, I say other people might have different properties and you try very hard to predict their values are bad and they will suffer.
That’s not how values work, quit being an asshole.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll freely grant that social science is an oxymoron. But the fact that something has a negative result in the short run is generally, barring some actual basis for thinking otherwise, evidence that it will have a negative result in the long run, too.

So, what's your theory for why ceasing to prosecute property crimes will only drive up property crimes in the short run? I can see a few possible mechanisms, actually. A rise in vigilantism. People with property fleeing the no-enforcement zone. Nothing good, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible. On a thread about a social science study, which you are taking for truth, you come against social science.

Your inconsistence problem is getting worse.

Social science is sometimes predictive but largely descriptive. That's still science.

something has a negative result in the short run is generally, barring some actual basis for thinking otherwise, evidence that it will have a negative result in the long run, too.
No, you narrow-minded engineer. There is no Newton's First Law of social impact.

what’s your theory for why ceasing to prosecute property crimes will only drive up property crimes in the short run?
Tons of possibilities. People will be more vigilante in reaction. Or prosecutors will learn to exercise their discretion in a way to lessen the impact. Or the municipality will pay for street lights.

Any one of hundreds of things because society is not a static system.

Telling your assumptions are all about humans being violent and shitty. Conservativism has a fallen view of humans when pushed.

[Sarcastr0]

I also want to note your general scope here.

In response to the idea that people might have social goals that differ a bit from your own, you embrace social science (which you do not believe in), and make a number of assumptions unsupported by it in order to argue these people are signing up for eventual dystopia.

People can differ from you and you can just live and let live, not insist they're wrong and will suffer.
This is part and parcel with 'anyone who disagrees with my take on the law is actually just lying about it.'

You have near zero tolerance for there being a variety of reasonable opinions in this world.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In response to the idea that people might have social goals that differ a bit from your own, "

My, what an anodyne description of prosecutors deciding to make committing property crimes de facto legal by ceasing prosecution. "different social goals".

[Sarcastr0]

Wrong villain here - this wasn't amount the prosecutors anymore.
I said that people might be OK with a bit of property crime if it means a society they see as more fare.

Your response to that was that those people are probably going to suffer, or do some vigilante justice.

You should be able to deal with slightly different values in more mature way.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I said that people might be OK with a bit of property crime if it means a society they see as more fare."

Yeah, which people are OK with it? The people being robbed? Probably not. The people deciding that it's OK to rob them, I guess.

It's going to matter if some people are robbed, not if other people are robbed. That's exactly an equal protection violation.

I think the mature way to deal with this slightly different value is to remove the damn prosecutor from the office, and replace them with somebody who actually wants to do their job. What's fair is Not. Robbing. People.

[Sarcastr0]

People who may support these prosecutors even if the effect the study indicates is seen.

Wow you can’t even understand that there could be a difference in values, can you?

Other people will make the decision about these prosecutors. Not you. They may agree with you, they may not. Realize that’s okay.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's not actually a lot of evidence of the general public supporting these prosecutors once they expose themselves by implementing the policy changes.

But, you know what? If the general public were OK with stores being robbed and the criminals being let go instead of being prosecuted?

I'd still think it was objectionable.

[Sarcastr0]

Stores gonna get robbed no matter what Brett. 7% is not guaranteed either. It’s one element of risk nothing more.

One can support multiple values at once and make tradeoffs.

You can’t allow anyone to think different from you even within a narrow range.

That is baseline illiberal.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are so damn casual about other people being crime victims it makes me want to puke. Really, it does.

[apedad]

Sarcastro's casualness certaintly doesn't even come close the "Oh welp" attitude you and the gunnuts take after mass/school shootings.

[Nige]

Or indeed the deaths from covid.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not casual about mass shootings; I want the justice system to come down on the perpetrators like a ton of bricks.

I just want the consequences for crimes to be directed at the guilty, not the innocent...

[Nige]

And the kids and the teachers. They should also bear the consequences. They must be guilty of something, I suppose.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not casual, I'm positing other sets of values than your own. I've explicitly said that I'm not sure where I personally come down.

You find it *reprehensible* that I suggest the possibility of other people with slightly different views of property and fairness than you.
To the point of projeting views I do not have.

You are incredibly narrow minded.

[Michael P]

I care much less about "their argument" -- which is meant to get them elected -- than about measurable results. What actual positive outcomes can they point to? Or do they claim that we need to have faith "in the long term" and keep at their project of letting criminals run wild until after these prosecutors retire?

[Sarcastr0]

-7% increase isn’t running wild.
-Criminal justice reformers, probably to include these prosecutors, argue fairness is an inherent value – the positive outcome is baked in.

I do think our criminal justice system is badly in need of reform. I'm not sure where I come down on this particular method, I at least acknowledge the legitimacy of that opinion.

[Michael P]

Ah, argument by non-falsifiability: your policies are inherently good, in unmeasurable ways, so we shouldn't expect observable outcomes!

For your "longer term" argument, I will point out that this study cut off in 2020, so it has excluded the bulk of instances of criminals being released to run wild.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure there are metrics for fairness one could look at. But that's not what you're concerned about at all.

Which is fine! I may disagree, but I get where you're coming from. (Though gotta say your take on untamable criminals could use some nuance)

Have you ever just agreed to disagree in your entire life?

[Nige]

Cons: The legal system is irretrievably broken and fascist (because it prosecuted Trump and the Jan 6th crowd.)

Also cons: The legal system isn't fascist enough (because it's supposed to protect property at any cost)!

[Ed Grinberg]

I can't tell whether you're dishonest ... or just a moron.
- Yes, prosecuting (or just beating up / killing) political opponents is fascist.
- No, prosecuting real crimes is not "fascism."

[Sarcastr0]

Do you even see that your two positions here are contradictory?

[Michael P]

The only contradiction is in your imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

Let me walk you through it like you're a child.

Hypothetical: someone running for office has committed a real crime. They are prosecuted by a member of the opposing party

You then have
A. Prosecuting them would be fascist, because they are a political opponent.
B. Prosecuting them would not be fascist, because they did a real crime.

Self-contradictory.

[Bwaaah]

The only contradiction is in your imagination.

[Michael P]

Yes. One classic form of government corruption is prosecuting the political machine's enemies for the slightest offenses while choosing not to prosecute the machine's allies for even egregious crimes.

[Nige]

Well you have that to look forward to if Trump wins.

[Frank Drackman]

"if"?

[Nige]

Demanding special treatment from the law is fascism. 'You have to ignore our crimes! Because they're related to politics!'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I wouldn't go that far.

Conservatives demand special treatment (privilege for superstition, affirmative action for right-wing law professors, immunity for insurrectionists and their lawyers, other privilege for superstition, special treatment of armed protesters at state capitols, safe spaces for bigots, special treatment for Bundy-style protestors, even more privilege for superstition) but I am confident not all right-wingers are fascists. Some are just gullible, poorly educated, garden variety bigots who can't handle the modern world.

[ThePublius]

O.K., now do progressives.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Wait minute, why are we dismissing Dr. Ed's solutions so out of hand?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't understand populism.

And Dr. Ed's real solution is to simply not reauthorize the Higher Ed Act. Stop funding higher education, let it all implode.

[Martinned2]

Let the states pay for it. No idea why higher education is federally funded.

[Sarcastr0]

States largely do. Ed’s budget is not large state by state. State outstrips federal by a factor of about 4.

Ed doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[Michael P]

State and local money has not been 4 times federal money since the early 1990s: https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2017/ec-201705-trends-in-revenues-at-us-colleges-and-universities-1987-2013 (see Figure 1)

State and local funds are almost zero for private schools (whether for- or non-profit), and now they're only 50% higher than federal funds even for public schools: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud/postsecondary-institution-revenue

Sarcastr0 doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.

[Sarcastr0]

Read Ed’s comment maybe. "not reauthorize the Higher Ed Act. Stop funding higher education, let it all implode."

The first bit will not cause the second bit.

[Michael P]

How does the saying go? "No new goalposts"?

This was one of those rare times that you made an assertion of objective fact, and you were very wrong. Own up to it.

[Sarcastr0]

Your source counts all federal spending including grants and contracts, not just from Department of Ed.

My comment said Ed, not federal.

Quick back of the envelope:
-State K-12 expenditures in 2023 (Googled so the sourcing is not ideal, but seems ballpark): $794.7 billion [https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics.]
-Department of Education 2023 budget: $79.6 billion for fiscal year 2023

Ed’s budget covers both K-12 and IHE, so the state spending is definitely more if you include IHE.

How embarrassing for you.

[Sarcastr0]

I wasn’t wrong at all.

Think of this the next time you plan to baselessly accuse me of lying.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"And Dr. Ed’s real solution is to simply not reauthorize the Higher Ed Act. Stop funding higher education, let it all implode."

You're like the ape magistrate in Planet of the Apes.

[Balisane]

Watch the video of a Palestinian thug hammering the glass at Columbia and locking the door. If this was a right wing protest, he would have been shot already, just like Biden had his goons shoot Ashli Babbitt. And yes, I realize that Biden hadn't been inaugurated yet, but the cop was clearly doing Biden's bidding.

[loki13]

This is why we can't have actual discourse here. Let's see what's wrong with this comment.

"Watch the video of a Palestinian thug hammering the glass at Columbia and locking the door."

Ignoring the use of thug, which, okay, that's your call, there is no evidence that the individual is Palestinian, and it's exceptionally unlikely that the protester was Palestinian. If you had written, "Pro-Palestinian Protester" that would have been accurate.

"If this was a right wing protest, he would have been shot already"

The counter-factual hypotheticals are never productive, but there are a lot of protests, both left- and right-wing that don't involve people getting shot.

"just like Biden had his goons shoot Ashli Babbitt."

Biden and his goons didn't shoot Ashli Babbitt. In addition, she was shot by a member of the US Capitol Police. You might want to educate yourself on the structure of that body.

"And yes, I realize that Biden hadn’t been inaugurated yet, but the cop was clearly doing Biden’s bidding."

The cause can't fail, only reality can. Right?

[Balisane]

The cop was a black, and blacks are 95% likely to be Democrats, so he was clearly doing Biden's bidding. And Merrick Garfinkel declined to prosecute him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I invite all of the toadies who criticize me for mentioning this blog's incessant bigotry to line up alphabetically and kiss my ass.

After that, we can watch the culture war progress together. I'll bring the popcorn for the culture war's winners and tissues for the conservatives.

[not guilty]

"The cop was a black, and blacks are 95% likely to be Democrats, so he was clearly doing Biden’s bidding. And Merrick Garfinkel declined to prosecute him."

^Poe’s Law?^

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I admit that I am missing out on some killer material by greyboxing certain people...

But did he really suggest that "Biden's goons" shot Ashli Babbitt? Biden's goons how? Biden, the former VP and then-private citizen holding no government office, had armed "goons" lurking within the Capitol and doing his bidding on January 6, 2021? When Trump was (obviously) still the President?

Tell me again what "TDS" means...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The people who vandalized and occupied that building should be arrested and prosecuted.

People who figure Biden's goons shot dumbass insurrectionist Ashlii Babbitt should be recognized as the core of the Volokh Conspiracy's target audience.

[loki13]

"The people who vandalized and occupied that building should be arrested and prosecuted."

Yep. If you truly have the courage of your convictions, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences.

They want to break the law and make news? Well, then they get to enjoy some time at Rikers.

Might be eye-opening. Once you go beyond peaceful protest, stuff happens, man.

[Frank Drackman]

Arthur, your CTE is showing, put some product on those Neurofibrillary Tangles!
It was one goon who murdered an unarmed Ashlii Babbitt, who if her name was Ashanti Washington, and if her murderer was Bubba Hayseed, you'd be tripping all over your Elephantitic Scrotum to put in the Electric Chair...

Frank

[Estragon]

“unarmed Ashlii Babbitt”

That is false

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, right, she had a pocket knife. In her pocket, of course. Not brandishing it where the cop could see it, just in her pocket.

But in your world, having a 2 1/2" pocket knife, in your pocket, is being 'armed'. You are beyond parody.

[Nige]

Could have been worse. Could have been armed with a swimming pool.

[Brett Bellmore]

She wasn't an amputee, I'll give him that.

[Estragon]

It’s not accurate. Make any excuses you like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Police report

“1. Recovered Ms. Babbitt’s assorted clothing:
2. Recovered a “Para Force” folding knife in Ms. Babbitt’s pants pocket;
3. Recovered one coral colored !Phone inside a clear case”

Or is your complaint that I only gave the length of the blade edge?

[Estragon]

My complaint is that saying she was unarmed was false.

Why is it so critical to the myth built up around this poor woman that this particular falsehood be included? I have commented before on the concept of “prior innocence”

[Brett Bellmore]

And my point is that only an idiot considers having a small pocket knife in your pocket as being "armed".

I have not a lot of sympathy for Babbitt; I'd have expected to be shot in her place, which is one of the many reasons you'd never find me in her place. "Suicide by cop" is my verdict, even if the cop was a bit trigger happy.

But only an ass would claim somebody was 'armed" on the basis of having a small pocket knife in their pocket. That's stretching the definition of 'armed" beyond any reasonable boundary.

[Estragon]

Whatever Brett. Two inch blade can do plenty of damage. Can you take it on an airplane? Into a courthouse?

Why is it so important to the myth of this woman— openly and repeatedly referred to as a “martyr” at the rallies— that she be referred to as unarmed when that wasn’t the case?

Do you know what “Horst Wessel Lied” is about? I mean what the actual lyrics describe.

[David Nieporent]

Whatever Brett. Two inch blade can do plenty of damage. Can you take it on an airplane? Into a courthouse?

Security theater.

I'm inclined to agree with Brett on this. Cops keep their "shot unarmed people" stats low by simply declaring that anything one has is a weapon. "He was carrying a spoon! He could've poked me with it! He was armed!"

What Babbitt was 'armed' with was not a tiny blade in her pocket, but a mob at her back. That's where the danger she posed came from.

[Brett Bellmore]

A ring of keys can do plenty of damage, women are even taught how to use them to do that damage in self defense classes, but you'd hardly claim that somebody was armed because they had their car keys in their pocket. Pocket knives are tools, not weapons.

"Can you take it on an airplane? Into a courthouse?"

If your argument is that the government has gone insane, I'm scarcely going to contradict you, but a 2 inch pocket knife sitting in your pocket is still not being "armed".

Why is it so important to YOUR myth of this woman that she have been "armed", when the pocket knife played no role whatsoever in the day's events? Does having a pocket knife that the cop was unaware of and that she never used somehow make the shooting reasonable? Or turn her into a vicious terrorist?

A cop pointed a gun at her, told her to halt, she continued towards him, and got her stupid prize for playing a stupid game. That's the bottom line here, to which the pocket knife contributes nothing.

[Estragon]

Here’s a picture.

https://twitter.com/JeffSharlet/status/1635732280667766786

[Estragon]

I agree it cannot be the justification for her being shot by the cops. I am not talking about what happened that day.

I am talking about the people mythologizing this woman now, today, three years later.

You didn’t answer my question about young Horst.

David: look at the picture. It’s not a spoon FFS.

[Balisane]

>>A cop pointed a gun at her, told her to halt, she continued >>towards him, and got her stupid prize for playing a stupid game. >>That’s the bottom line here, to which the pocket knife contributes >>nothing.

But when white cops shoot blacks for the same thing, like the gentle giant or whatever that thug in St. Louis was called, the left goes insane.

[David Nieporent]

David: look at the picture. It’s not a spoon FFS.

First, that's not a 2-inch blade, so I was misled a bit by earlier comments. Second, I wasn't saying that even a 2-inch blade was as harmless as a spoon; I was saying that the word "armed" is overused. Third, I don't think it really changes the underlying analysis here since (as Brett said) it played no role in the attack or the shooting. Obviously if she had it out that would be very different.

[Estragon]

I agree with your broader points but they are not really relevant to what I was saying. The woman was armed— that is an objective fact. Why is it so important to obscure that fact three years down the road?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Here’s a picture."

Which I linked to above. (But your copy is in color...) I commented that it was about 2 1/2" counting just the sharp part of the blade, which is actually on the small side compared to most of the pocket knives I've had.

The objective fact is that she had a pocket knife in her pocket. That she was "armed" is a rather hyperbolic characterization of that.

And can you really say that I'm "mythologizing" her? I think she was at best an idiot.

[Estragon]

You may not be mythologizing her, but it is happening at the rallies. Or do you want to dispute that objective fact as well?

What about Horst?

[Brett Bellmore]

"You may not be mythologizing her, but it is happening at the rallies. Or do you want to dispute that objective fact as well?"

Hasn't happened at any of the rallies *I* attended. But the last rally *I* attended was a DeSantis rally last year.

"What about Horst?"

I don't follow German music, I'm more into K-Pop. My first reaction was, "Who the heck is Horst Wessel, and what did he lie about?"

So, what's the relevance to anything going on here? I'm clueless.

[Estragon]

Lol Brett. *I* wasn’t present in the delivery room so *I* can’t say with any certainty if the baby was born in Honolulu.

It’s happening. Don’t make me pull up clips.

You should look up the lyrics and a little history of young Horst sometime. You might find some interesting parallels. Probably not, but I’ve been wrong before.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, give me a break.

So, like I said, my first reaction was, “Who the heck is Horst Wessel, and what did he lie about?”

My second reaction, on finding the Wikipedia page, was "What kind of lunatic expects random Americans to be familiar with a Nazi song?" You do realize that WWII was, like, 80 years ago, right? And I don't think this song was used on Hogan's Heroes, so why in hell would you expect me to be familiar with it?

My third reaction was, "He isn't really trying to analogize Trump supporters to Nazis, is he? Of course he is. Everybody knows they go around roughing people up and threatening Jews. Oh, wait, that's the left..."

[Estragon]

Haha, ok, Brett. Maybe you learned something along the way at least.

[Brett Bellmore]

Something totally useless to know, but, sure.

[Estragon]

Not a fan of history?

I liken this situation to Horst wessel because of the obvious similarities between the myths built up around both of them, not to draw any substantive link between todays right and nazis’ political positions. (Frankly, arguing about whether it’s the very fine people in Charlottesville or undergrads at UT Austin who are the REAL nazis strikes me as rather pointless, especially with someone who would draw that equivalency to begin with)

Young activists, innocent and pure, struck down not by some foreign foe but by subversives within. And as I pointed out here before, a critical part of this martyrdom mindset is the concept of prior innocence— we were wronged first so anything we do in response is justified. You see that attitude a lot, both here in the comments and from Donald himself.

What interests me is the sausage making of propaganda. It’s important to listen to the stories that these people are telling themselves, because if, God forbid, these people get into power it’s the story they’re going to be expecting us to accept, too.

[Bwaaah]

Did somebody say “UNARMED ASHLII BABBITT?” It’s called “ARMED ASHLII BABBITT.”

And to think I go with my wife to buy meat from her ARMED BUTCHER.

Your argument about her being armed is so beside the point. And your voice, about everything, is so churlishly condescending like a dancing brat.

But yes…you are right about something there. If I carry a pocket knife and reveal that to nobody, I am walking around "ARMED." (Biggest woop ever.)

[Estragon]

Good comment— needs more argle bargle and insults to avoid engaging with the point I’m making. Why does this particular canard get included, over and over again?

You seem like the kind of person who goes to a rock concert and yells “down in front!@

[Bwaaah]

OMG! No! How many ARMED people are there at a rock concert? And lots of them carry little INCENDIARY DEVICES in their pockets. Bunch of freakin’ potential ARSONISTS if you ask me.

I think you’re trying to downplay REAL threats here.

[Estragon]

Perfect— no notes. Carry on!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Not Ashlii Babbitt. Not anymore

Right-wingers should take notes on that one. Your betters are not likely to be so lenient or magnanimous toward culture war roadkill going forward.

[Balisane]

In a better time, if a black killed a white, he'd be swinging from a tree. That was an effective strategy for keeping them in line.

[Estragon]

Yawn. You need some new material.

Do you work somewhere with an HR department? Try that one out next time you’re in the break room at work.

[Balisane]

No. I work for myself.

[Estragon]

Maybe you should try getting out more

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The bigotry is never more than an inch below the surface of the Volokh Conspiracy . . . and this blog publishes bigoted content every day of every week of every month of every year. Because right-wing bigotry -- many flavors -- is much of the point of the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Frank Drackman]

Funnier when you told it about Emmett Till

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It wasn't a big knife, but it was almost certainly illegal for her to have in her possession in the place she was shot.

The insistence that she was "unarmed" is weird, but not altogether surprising. If they don't like the facts, they come up with alternative ones. Perfectly logical.

[Balisane]

The cop who shot her sounds like he had a 5th grade education, but when you consider his race, that isn't a huge surprise.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigotry and the Volokh Conspiracy go together like the Federalist Society and failure in the culture war.

Is any Volokh Conspirator ever going to get around to saying anything about the ceaseless stream of multifaceted right-wing bigotry published at this blog? How many years of conservative bigotry -- gay-bashing, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, transphobia, white nationalism, antisemitism, Christian dominionism, Islamophobia, white supremacy, etc. -- would be enough for you guys?

Or would you like to say something but don't, because Leonard Leo forbids it? Maybe Trump got your tongue?

Paltry, partisan, cowardly hypocrites. With tenure. Well, not for long, in some cases.

[not guilty]

Judge Juan Merchan has reportedly found Donald Trump in criminal contempt for nine violations of a gag order imposed in his Manhattan criminal case. The judge fined Trump $1,000 for each such violation. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/30/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/trump-held-in-contempt-00155109

At the time of each of these criminal contempts, Trump was on pretrial release in three other criminal proceedings. In the federal proceedings, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(A) requires as a condition of pretrial release that the person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release.

“Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.” Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). The New York judgments of contempt constitute grounds for revoking his release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b), which states in relevant part:

To the extent practicable, a person charged with violating the condition of release that such person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release, shall be brought before the judicial officer who ordered the release and whose order is alleged to have been violated. The judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation and detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer—
(1) finds that there is—
(A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release; or
(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other condition of release; and
(2) finds that—
(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community; or
(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.

As a matter of law, the criminal contempt judgments in New York represent far more than probable cause -- each is necessarily based on a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That satisfies § 3148(b)(1)(A). The only real question is whether Trump is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release going forward, per § 3148(b)(2)(B).

If I were Jack Smith, I would wait to see whether Trump commits another contumacious act even after having been found in criminal contempt. As William Shakespeare observed, "what's past is prologue." The Tempest, Act 1, Scene 2.

[Balisane]

Merchan was probably a member of FARC.

[John F. Carr]

Quoting AP:

The judge lamented that he was limited by law to fining Trump a maximum of $1,000 per violation, writing that while such an amount “may suffice in most instances to protect the dignity of the judicial system, to compel respect for its mandates and to punish the offender for disobeying a court order, it unfortunately will not achieve the desired result in those instances” where a person held in contempt “can easily afford such a fine.”
Merchan wrote that in such instances, it would be preferable if he could impose “a fine more commensurate with the wealth” of the person being fined. “Because this Court is not cloaked with such discretion, it must therefore consider whether in some instances, jail may be a necessary punishment,” the judge concluded.

AP also reports Trump is using the order for fundraising:

“Democrat judge just ruled against me,” reads the subject line of a Tuesday morning email blast, which shares the news that, “A Democrat judge JUST HELD ME IN CONTEMPT OF COURT!”
“THEY WANT TO SILENCE ME!” the message continues, asking supporters to “STAND WITH TRUMP” by contributing money.

I think he'll come out ahead financially.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps the money he grifts from disaffected losers will provide solace as his fat ass sits in a cell.

[Kenneth Almquist]

One of the issues raised on appeal in the Harvey Weinstein is the use of Molineux witnesses. These were three witnesses who described their interactions with Weinstein--interactions that were not charged as crimes in the indictment--to help establish that Weinstein was aware that the victims had not consented in incidents that were listed in the indictment. The Court ruled 4/3 in favor of Weinstein, but I think the dissent had the better argument:

Although the majority finds it “inconceivable” that the jury could believe the complaining witness and still find that defendant reasonably believed she consented..., that is the precise argument defendant made to the jury and it is the argument the People had to rebut.

Indeed, a footnote quotes from the defense closing argument to the jury:

Even if you believe every word she says about what happened in that hotel room, it does not rise to the level of a rape.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2024/24.html

[not guilty]

It seems Hunter Biden is threatening to sue Fox News and others on a variety of legal theories. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24625310/240423-geragos-gugar.pdf

What with Hunter being quite the scoundrel himself, this should be interesting.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Fox News has pulled “The Trial of Hunter Biden,” so there may be no lawsuit.

[NvEric]

Clearly there is a state of war within the United States of America. Started well before Trump took office against the Citizens of said country/nation by actors already within, and soon to be without, said government. This war continues into its 16th year. Civil War II against peaceful citizens who value freedom, truth, honesty, country, and God.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your god is a paltry, illusory thing. You are a bigoted right-wing stain on modern, improving, educated America. And the Volokh Conspiracy is the blog for you.

[David Nieporent]

Civil War II against peaceful citizens who value freedom, truth, honesty, country, and God.

Uh huh. And yet they picked as their avatar someone who doesn't value freedom, truth, honesty, country, or God.