Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[NvEric]

Trump is being falsely accused of crimes which are not crimes.

[neurodoc]

You needn't bother to say "IANAL," since that is screamingly self-evident. Nonetheless, you are free to believe that Trump has been indicted for crimes that are in your ignorant view "not crimes," and you will be welcome to cry on his behalf if 12 good citizens find him guilty of the crimes he has been charged with.

Watch MSNBC and their impressive line-up of legal talent will explain it to you, if you can understand it.

(Why do you bother to come here to make a fool of yourself? Why not hang with the other fools who read and comment on Legal Insurrection?)

[Kazinski]

We will see what happens in the end.

But I for one am happy to see the circus continue, and Trump's poll numbers ratcheting up with every hour MSNBC devotes to him.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You complained about MAGA "Republicans" being called 'extremists':

You support a guy who admires dictators, hates anyone and anything who isn’t loyal exclusively to himself, is a racist, a rapist, a misogynist, believes himself to be above any law, and speaks using rhetoric last heard in the 1940s by a German with a ridiculous moustache.

By your own words and actions, you’re part of America’s Nazi party, fuckhead. Not a single one of you has anything approaching a moral compass. You are absolutely extremists, and you’re all a threat to our nation’s security and system of governance.

[Kazinski]

Yes, well as much as I wanted the GOP to provide an alternative, they failed me.

The Democrats have also failed to provide me an acceptable alternative to Trump too, which was also their responsibility.

But as CNN points out:
Looking back, 55% of all Americans now say they see Trump’s presidency as a success, while 44% see it as a failure. In a January 2021 poll taken just before Trump left office and days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, 55% considered his time as president a failure.

Assessing Biden’s time in office so far, 61% say his presidency thus far has been a failure, while 39% say it’s been a success. That’s narrowly worse than the 57% who called the first year of his administration a failure in January 2022, with 41% calling it a success.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/28/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-matchup/index.html

So think about that for a second, even right in the days after 1/6, still at the height of Covid hysteria Trump’s success/failure rating was higher than Biden’s is now.

So I’m left choosing between a miserable success, and a miserable failure.

Deep in in the crosstabs of the CNN polling yo can see that double disapprovers (they disaprove of both Biden and Trump) are 20% of the electorate. In 2020 they broke for Biden, now they are breaking heavily for Trump.

The Dems screwed up, you didn’t give them a viable choice. (While I am a double disapprover, I will admit it would be a heavy lift for any Dem to get my vote, but I did prefer Haley, DeSantis, Scott, Cruz, Cotton to Trump in the primaries).

If that makes me a Nazi fuckhead along with 51% of my fellow Americans, so be it. Same with my Wife who will be voting for the first time in Nov.(she’s not registered GOP or dem so she didn’t vote in the Primaries), she grew up in Post Pol Pot Phnom Penh, so I’ll probably have to explain what a Nazi fuckhead is, but the Buddhist Pagoda near her mothers house has got Swastikas all over around the eaves, so maybe not.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"So I’m left choosing between a miserable success, and a miserable failure."

In other words, you have no agency and no moral compass because you only do what polls suggest others might do?

I stand by my assessment of you and your fellow cultists.

[Kazinski]

I am left with the choices on the ballot, and Trump, flaws and all is competent and believes in the free market.

[santamonica811]

Kaz,
How many women would Trump have to rape and/or sexually assault/molest for him to lose your support?

We know that the answer is not "one." And, if you accept that some or most or all of the Republican women, the Democrat women, the Independent women, and the entirely non-political women, who have accused him for decades, were not lying; then I assume that your answer is, also, not "two" or "three" or "nineteen" or whatever.

So, what is your number? What number would it have to reach, for you to say, "I dislike Biden as a candidate a bit more than Trump. But Trump is SO AWFUL . . . SUCH A MONSTER . . . I'll go with the lesser of two evils? I'll go for the man who doesn't cheat on all his wives, who doesn't sexually fantasize about his own daughter, who didn't discriminate for decades against black tenants, who didn't defraud thousands of students at his sham university. Even though I *really* dislike this other guy's policy positions. Because I have daughters, or sisters, or a wife, or female friends. And I have to look them in the eye and explain why I will or will not support a rapist and liar and evildoer when he runs for an elective office."

(Now, if you're a political pragmatist, I absolutely accept that you might say, "The number of credible accusers is irrelevant. I don't expect my candidates to be good people. Or even non-monsters. I care about keeping taxes low for the filthy rich. I care about border security. I care about keeping strong gun rights. I care about denying women control over their reproductive rights. I care about a far-right, conservative, Supreme Court. And I'll vote for anyone who gets me there." I can wrap my head around that kind of cynical realism--it's what I expect a vast number of Trump supporters *really* are thinking, when they go into the election booths come November.)

[Commenter_XY]

Political pragmatist, or political realist?

Seriously SM811, aside from the Pope, can you point to very many country leaders of the G20 who aren't messed up, morally? They are all human, and they all have serious flaws. Consider, they did not get to where they are by being 'choirboys' or 'choirgirls'; these people did many morally questionable things to get the office, and all have made very morally questionable decisions as leaders.

I don't want a choirboy as POTUS. It never works out right.

[Nige]

The paean to pragmatism is rolled out a lot by Trump voters who resent being judged harshly for being Trump voters.

[Kazinski]

I don't resent being judged harshly for being a Trump voter, I revel in it. I don't crave your approval, I crave your disapproval.

Do you actually think people drive around with giant Let's go Brandon flags because they are ashamed of being Trump voters? I don't have a LGB flag, but I'm not hiding my support either.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Very few of them got where they are by raping women, bankrupting companies, and engaging in lawfare against smaller businesses to avoid paying them what he promised.

The man is an amoral narcissist who doesn't care about the country or anything outside of himself. I can't understand why anyone thinks that will work out well for the country in the end. In fact, it's so ridiculous a notion, I don't believe anyone of any intelligence actually believes that.

[Nige]

'I don’t resent being judged harshly for being a Trump voter,'

Of course you don't. You have time and time again trumpeted evidence of Biden's incontrovertible corruption that turns out to be not so much flimsy as non-existent. You are cut from exactly the same cloth.

[Drewski]

" I don’t crave your approval, I crave your disapproval."

Gosh, an admirer of serial killers is actually a narcissistic troll? What a shocking development.

[Armchair]

"We know that the answer is not “one.”"

I don't know that. I am unaware of a single criminal conviction against Trump for any of those supposed crimes.

But perhaps you should ask why you support Biden, despite similar accusations being made against him.

[Sonja T]

santamonica811 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Kaz,
How many women would Trump have to rape and/or sexually assault/molest for him to lose your support?

Santamonica - What was your position with Clinton?

[Mr. Bumble]

On his knees?

[Nige]

Are you making your answer contingent on his attitude to someone who hasn't been president for decades?

[Sonja T]

Nige 8 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Are you making your answer contingent on his attitude to someone who hasn’t been president for decades?"

Just pointing out the typical double standard of leftists.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It seems more like you're pointing out that you're an idiot who can't (or won't) defend his own ethical failings.

[Kazinski]

I prefer moron to idiot.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Did you get that opinion from a poll somewhere too, Kaz?

[Nige]

'Just pointing out the typical double standard of leftists.'

You haven't pointed out anything.

[Kazinski]

It would take more credible allegations than Jean Carroll's.

And a conviction, or even something a prosecutor thought they could take to trial shouldn't be too much to ask.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How many women would Trump have to rape and/or sexually assault/molest for him to lose your support?"

How many women would Biden have to rape in order for you to support Trump?

Nina Burleigh had it right during the Clinton era:

I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.

No one is going to take a political position that they think will be largely harmful to the country even if the president would avoid those positions has done some pretty bad things.

That's why people weren't that upset when Clinton perjured himself on national TV.

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton lied on national TV. But perjury doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[Nige]

You’re cleverly conflating rape with consensual sex. Or not so cleverly. As to that, it’s the family values conservatives who condemned Clinton’s affair who are now supporting a man who had a story about his affair with a porn star spiked by a supportive media publication.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Bill Clinton lied on national TV. But perjury doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means."

A recording of his grand jury testimony was played on national TV.

[EllaWilson]

Agree

[apedad]

" . . . Trump, flaws and all is competent and believes in the free market."

" . . . Trump (who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars, was sued by dozens of contractors, and has six bankruptcies), flaws and all is competent and believes in the free market."

FTFY

There's a reason capital markets have to be regulated and it's because of cheats and losers like Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don't forget Trump's tariffs; Section 232 protectionism (which required Trump to declare that Europe constituted a national security threat); massively increased farm subsidies; the Trans Pacific Partnership withdrawal; Korean steel quotas; "origin" requirements for automobiles; and the like.

Trump fans can't stop advancing dumb assertions -- and not just the ones holed up in off-the-grid hermit shacks with their mail-order brides and Ted Kaczynski shrines.

[Moderation4ever]

Could you explain why you think Trump believes in a free market? He issued tariffs and business subsidies during his Presidency. Ran up this country's debt. I think your suggestion that Trump is free market is absurd. As for competent, he inherited a good economy from President Obama and ended his own Presidency in a recession.

[Kazinski]

He's not perfect, there are very few Milei's out there.

But Joe Biden and the Democrats have nothing but scorn for the free market, and consumer choice.

What's the current timeline for outlawing the internal combustion engine? Less than 10 years?

How dare they?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We are producing record amounts of oil and gas and exporting record amounts of LNG. Biden gets a little credit for this because of his leadership on Ukraine which involved weaning Europe off of Russian natural gas.

[David Nieporent]

What’s the current timeline for outlawing the internal combustion engine? Less than 10 years?

Who wants to outlaw the import of electric cars?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ban the import from China. You oppose?
Actually just hit them with 100% tariff.

[Nige]

'What’s the current timeline for outlawing the internal combustion engine?'

So, the party who not only refuse to respond to the threat of climate change, the party that denies its reality is the party for you.

We should be so lucky ten years.

[David Nieporent]

Ban the import from China. You oppose?

Of course I oppose. Trade is good. Restricting trade is bad. And certainly not pro-free market, which was the topic of this exchange!

[Kazinski]

I'm all for low tarrifs and free trade, but I'm also against slave labor. China's forced labor camps alone are enough to justify punitive tarrifs.

But let's be honest, without government mandates on EVs the market wouldn't be big enough to interest the Chinese EV makers.

Biden and California et al are using government diktats to manufacture a market for Chinese EV makers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“I’m a big believer in tariffs,” Trump said Monday [March 11th, 2024]

Trump has proposed a baseline 10% tariff on all U.S. imports and a levy of 60% or higher on Chinese goods.

“That would be a massive escalation in import taxes and have some really negative ramifications,” York said.

For example, a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that 2018 U.S. tariffs cost the typical household $419 per year.

The 10% tariff would raise taxes on U.S. consumers by more than $300 billion a year and could cause “retaliatory tax increases on U.S. exports from international trade partners,” according to the Tax Foundation.

Trump is not for free markets. He has said call him "Tariff man" and wants to reintroduce and amplify the feckless, counterproductive, and politically motivated tariffs he adopted his first go round.

[Nige]

‘but I’m also against slave labor.’

If you were that worried about slave labour you wouldn’t even start with China, though for sure it would be on the list.

But free market Republicans gave us a global crash in 2007, Obama/Biden fixed it. Biden's similarly handing the recovery from a global pandemic and not doing too badly.

[hobie]

Like Obama before him, Biden inherited a crappy Republican economy and turned it around. Like Bush before him, Trump inherited a resurgent Democrat economy and took credit. Or, rather, you guys give Trump credit for a economy he did nothing to produce. Or do you honestly believe that four years of no legislative achievements, and incessant bitching about being mistreated by everyone somehow made the economy you prefer to remember?

[David Nieporent]

I am left with the choices on the ballot, and Trump, flaws and all is competent and believes in the free market.

Trump is not competent and absolutely 1,000% does not believe in the free market. He hates markets.

[Nige]

'is competent and believes in the free market.'

Are you a child?

[bernard11]

Trump, flaws and all is competent and believes in the free market.

Neither of these is true.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Trump...is competent and believes in the free market."

Are you for real?

Even his defenders noted that his presidency was far less successful than it could have been precisely because he is incompetent.

The free market? You surely understand by this point that he does not, in fact, admire the free market. It's Putin's vast wealth more than his authoritarian impulses that Trump admires. He sees the latter as a way to get the former. And Putin didn't get that through the free market. Trump doesn't know much, but he knows that. And you're a fool if you think he wouldn't take any chance to cash in the office of the Presidency for billions. Jared Kushner didn't get the Saudi deal by accident, I hope you understand. And have you forgotten about all the goodies to farmers, the tariffs, pressuring the Federal Reserve, etc., etc. He's only for the free market if it works for him. He's quite happy to "manage" the economy for his own personal benefit when and if he can.

Trump as competent is a joke.

Tump as defender of free markets is dangerous. If you're going to support him, for God's sake don't pick that reason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Consider President Trump diagnosed with only a few months to live. He has lost friends. He has driven away supporters; Trump without a future full of goodies and protection for his acolytes is worthless to them. They hope to escape the taint of association before Trump's death forecloses any chance to do it.

Trump has nothing left but golf, if he can manage it. The adulation is over. His family can't stand being around him. What brief interval of life remains to him promises only suffering. All he has left is an uncompleted retribution to-do list, and a nuclear button.

[Commenter_XY]

That's Ok, many at VC stand by the assessment that you're a Hama loving POS. It evens out. 😉

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh no, VC's proudly-genocidal Jew (and MAGA Nazi) thinks that I support Hamas because I don't support his desire to ethnically cleanse Palestine to make room for more Israelis.

You aren't one to talk down to anyone about morality, with the lone exception possibly being Dr. Ed, and even then it's a narrow margin.

Considering your explicit support of ethnic cleansing in light of Jewish history over the last 100 years, I'd say you're actually the worst person on these boards.

You might as well be manning a tower at Auschwitz.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ethnic cleansing in the Middle East?
How many Jews are left in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, UAE, Egypt .....

[Brett Bellmore]

Not much fewer than the number of Christians, actually; The Muslim genocide of Jews was never limited to Jews, it was actually aimed at everybody who wasn't a Muslim, and sometimes, who wasn't a member of the local sect.

That's something a lot of antisemites don't quite get about Hamas: If they're not Muslims, they're on the target list. At best they might be further down it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Reply to Brett:
See formerly 50% Christian Lebanon.

[Brett Bellmore]

My neighbors back in Michigan were Christian refugees from Jordon.

[Nige]

‘Not much fewer than the number of Christians, actually’

Oldest surviving Christian community on the world is in Gaza. Wonder how they’re doing.

'That’s something a lot of antisemites don’t quite get about Hamas:'

On the contrary, lots of anti-semites think that makes them perfect for the Final Battle.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Oldest surviving Christian community on the world is in Gaza. Wonder how they’re doing."

The oldest surviving Christian community in the world WAS in Gaza. They're practically gone, thanks to the Palestinian Muslims. Under a thousand as of last year's census, and it wasn't the Israelis who accomplished that.

[Nige]

'thanks to the Palestinian Muslims.'

It's not the Palestinian Muslims bombing them to extinction.

[Kazinski]

I knew a Bahai woman from Iran, they got it much worse than the Jews because they are considered apostates.

[Commenter_XY]

I explicitly support Israel hunting down every avowed Hamas member on the planet, and killing them. America can help. Hamas members have sworn an oath to kill every Jew alive. They have repeatedly re-affirmed this, post Simchat Torah pogrom. I believe them when they say it.

Hence, I see no moral issue killing Judeocidal terrorists who have announced (and sworn to) their intention to kill me.

As for the gazans not affiliated with Hamas, in the immediate term, I would say that if you value your life, obey the directives of the IDF. Time to leave Rafah, battle is imminent.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

First, you bigoted clinger, Israeli killed Gazans -- including children -- who followed IDF directives (by bombing the areas declared "safe"). How many dead Palestinian children will it take to satisfy your superstition-fueled, right-wing bloodlust?

Next, do you have the courage to try to defend Israel's conduct in the West Bank?

Are you equally outraged by the sworn, bigoted belligerence expressed by the Ben Gvir-Smotrich wing of the Netanyahu government?

When Israel falls, guys like you and Netanyahu will be responsible.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, it is unfortunate that civilians are killed in war. I wish there were a magical 'Hamas Hammer' that would just knock out Hamas members. It does not exist.

I don't really have serious reservations with Israel's prosecution of their war, or their conduct in Judea and Samaria. I look at what the US, Russia and China do in prosecuting wars and it doesn't particularly faze me.

My chief complaint is that Israel needs to kill many more Hamas members faster, and utterly defeat them. And the entire arab world must see Hamas as defeated. Otherwise, there will be no possibility of an enduring peace.

I am only bigoted toward Judeocidal terrorists (Hamas) and the human animals who support them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Israel's conduct in the West Bank -- terrorizing civilians for years for the purpose of stealing land and enforcing some silly, superstition-driven claims of entitlement -- doesn't bother you, you should expect your position (and Israel's) to alienate most of the world.

[Nige]

Trust the IDF, who have only killed thousands and thousands of your children.

[bernard11]

I don’t really have serious reservations with Israel’s ... conduct in Judea and Samaria.

Really? Why not? It's inexcusable, and has been for a long time. I suppose next you'll be telling us what a hero Baruch Goldstein was.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, Goldstein was a murderer, and is dead.

You might not like the situation in Judea and Samaria, and I might not like it either. But I don't have a problem with Israel's conduct. It is a damned sight better than whatever the PA or Hamas do.

[bernard11]

I don’t have a problem with Israel’s conduct. It is a damned sight better than whatever the PA or Hamas do.

This is now your moral standard?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, Israel lives in a tough neighborhood. You are imposing a western based moral ideology and framework to this problem, which to me suggests you are not culturally competent (to borrow DEI-speak). Therefore, because of your cultural incompetency, your opinion here is meaningless, irrelevant, and can be completely ignored.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Israel lives in a tough neighborhood.

That's why it is worthwhile to consider (1) offering every Israeli the opportunity to emigrate to the United States, where it will be easier and cheaper to safeguard them, before ending aid to Israel and (2) enabling Israeli statehood, which would disincline people to fuck with Israel but also eliminate much of what makes Israel so objectionable to so many people.

Before rejecting those proposals, people who (claim to) support Israel should consider what is to become of Israel after Americans stop providing military, economic, and political subsidies to Israel's right-wing religious kooks and war-crimers.

[Nige]

'You are imposing a western based moral ideology and framework to this problem,'

On the contrary, the relevant western moral ideology is the one that justifies the slaughter of thousands for no real military aims and only long-term instability.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If that makes me a Nazi fuckhead along with 51% of my fellow Americans, so be it."

The middle has ceased to hold.

Bush "43" is a decent Christian man who gave us John Roberts.
Trump is morally flawed (and then some) but look at who he gave us as SCOTUS Justices.

And that is why I would want Trump as my President and Bush as Deacon of my Church.

[Lee Moore]

Going to the mattresses to give us Kavanaugh was hardly a master move.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush is the one who stood strong with Kavanaugh after Trump wanted to pull his nomination.

[Kazinski]

What's telling is they had to go to mattresses to install a moderate with an unblemished record.

I'll take it.

[bernard11]

So I’m left choosing between a miserable success, and a miserable failure.

No you're not. Not at all.

What you can do is look at the actual evidence and decide for yourself who's a success and a failure, rather than relying on a poll of about 1200 people, lots of whom seem to be uncommonly stupid.

[Kazinski]

Who said I was paying attention to polls in picking my candidate? I'm not going to waste my vote on a 2%er who has no chance, so that is relative, but I'm an opinion leader, not a follower.

[Sonja T]

Jason Cavanaugh 9 hours ago
Flag Comment

By your own words and actions, you’re part of America’s Nazi party, fuckhead. Not a single one of you has anything approaching a moral compass. You are absolutely extremists, and you’re all a threat to our nation’s security and system of governance.

Jason - Any reason you cant respond with some basic decorum and maturity?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Try reading the paragraph in front of it, and you'll have your answer to as to why I choose hostility towards America's enemies.

"You support a guy who admires dictators, hates anyone and anything who isn’t loyal exclusively to himself, is a racist, a rapist, a misogynist, believes himself to be above any law, and speaks using rhetoric last heard in the 1940s by a German with a ridiculous moustache."

Such people do not deserve kindness or respect.

[Sonja T]

Jason - you would have a valid point - except the vast majority of Nazi type behavior over the last 10-20 is coming almost exclusively from the left.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So aside from your unsourced partisan bullshit and ignoring the majority of what I wrote, you have an issue with reading comprehension?

"and speaks using rhetoric last heard in the 1940s by a German with a ridiculous moustache"

Allow me to remind you of how immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country.'

[bernard11]

You are full of shit, Sonjia. You are doing nothing but spreading lies.

Is Robert Bowers a leftist? Nick Fuentes? “Space lasers” Greene? Paul Gosar? Were the organizers of the Charlottesville rally leftists?

Is CPAC, where Nazis roamed the halls freely, a left-wing organization?

Are the white supremacists and Christian nationalists on the left?

Like it or not, the racist murderers and would-be murderers in this country are predominantly on the right.

They are not. So just STFU with your stupid repetition of RW lies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Of the many things wrong with CPAC, nazis roaming the halls is not one.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed doesn't think there's anything wrong with Nazis roaming the halls.

[Nige]

Ah yes, the memorably anti-war Nazis.

[Lee Moore]

I have a bet with Josh R that Trump will lose. And I’m giving him 3-1 odds.

I’m confident that the Dems GOTV operation will pull Joe over the line.

But since this is a legal blog and the two candidates are both a million years old, I’d like to be reminded of what happens if one of them dies at various stages of the proceedings. I have a feeling that “when” can make a yuuge difference.

So death on :

(a) 12 October
(b) post election day but pre meeting of Electors
(c) post Electors casting votes but pre Congress counting votes
(d) 19 January

I have a feeling there’s a precedent for at least one of these, though I think it was the loser that died. Maybe a VP.

[santamonica811]

I think the answers to all for is: "Whomever was the VP for the [now] corpse. (A) is the interesting one for me, as it's the only reasonable excuse against early voting that I've seen.

The closer you get to the election, of course, the more people will have voted already. I'm assuming that a vote for (let's say) Dead Trump would still be counted, and if DT still beat Biden, then Pence (or whomever, of course) would get the Electoral College votes as a practical matter...although I don't think there would be a Constitutional bar against them voting for a different Republican.

In real life, I'm 99.99% sure that if a candidate died at this late stage, his opponent would easily win the election, as there would never been enough time to gin up support for someone new . . . certainly not in the swing state, where plenty of people would have already cast their votes for a non-viable candidate.

I gotta admit, since both parties have thought it wise to select candidates who are really old (and where one is grossly and morbidly obsese), there's a non-zero chance that we will be faced with this prospect. Or, one of them will have a stroke, which would probably have the same practical effect as a fatal event. I still think this happening is quite unlikely. But it ain't zero.

[Lee Moore]

I agree, dying after early voting or mail in voting has started would seem to be a bad move.

[David Nieporent]

I regard dying at any time as kind of a bad move.

[Commenter_XY]

Same here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Won't matter when Joe Black comes calling.

[Michael P]

(a) and (b) probably both mean whomever the electors name. At least in Virginia, the Presidential general election is over "electors for ___" rather than the candidates themselves.

I agree with sm811 that the other two would be the VP chosen by electors, although I think technically Congress could go sideways for (c).

[David Nieporent]

I have a feeling there’s a precedent for at least one of these, though I think it was the loser that died. Maybe a VP.

Horace Greeley in 1872 was crushed by Grant, but he also died between the election and the EC meeting.

[Lee Moore]

Thank you. Googling Mr Greeley led me to this write up (which may or may not be correct) :

https://people.howstuffworks.com/what-happens-presidential-candidate-dies.htm

Which answers my questions thus :

(a) 12 October

Party free to nominate replacement. Though no doubt lots of potential difficulties with differing state laws, whether ballots have been printed, mail ballots and so on

(b) post election day but pre meeting of Electors

Again seems Party is free to offer a replacement, though Electors not necessarily bound to obey. State laws may be relevant. I can envisage complications if the Party wants to promote the VP candidate, as then they need to refill that spot too.

(c) post Electors casting votes but pre Congress counting votes

This is the fun one. First question is, is the person with the most EVs the President-Elect by now ? If so, go to (d) and the 20th Amendment controls. But if not, there’s fun.

Greeley died before the Electors voted and most of his switched to different candidates. But 3 Electors stuck with the dead Greeley. Congress decided come electoral count day that it could not count EVs for a dead candidate.

Hence the precedent is that if you die after the Electors have voted for you, Congress will not count those votes.

Congress of course might change its mind and count them. Or they might decide that the President-Elect becomes such as soon as the Electors vote on counting day – 17 December 2024 this time round. (This seems obviously wrong to me based on the role provided for Congress in counting votes, but if Congress says different then it’s hard to see that SCOTUS would overrule them.)

So the legal tip to candidates would seem to be – if you’re going to die, do it before December 17 2024, or after January 6 2025. It might be a mistake to die in between. Especially if the other side controls Congress.

(d) 19 January

No problem, 20th Amendment makes it clear VP steps in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 2000, Mel Carnahan defeated incumbent Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) even though he'd died 38 days earlier in a plane crash. There were (are) procedures for dead US Senators, which vary from state to state, and his wife was appointed until a 2002 special election. (Ashcroft became 43's AG.)

IMHO, the dead guy wins and then the 25th Amendment kicks in, with the VP becoming President. In all of these situations...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lee Moore is thinking of William Henry Harrison who caught pneumonia at his inauguration and died a month later -- VP Tyler took over.

[Lee Moore]

No I was thinking of Horace Greeley as Mr Nieporent was kind enough to remind me.

[bernard11]

Which has zip to do with Lee's question, since Harrison and Tyler had already been sworn in and there was no issue about the succession.

[David Nieporent]

Nit: there was one issue: whether Tyler became president or just acting president. But, as you say, it had zip to do with Lee's question.

[M L]

“I’m confident that the Dems GOTV operation will pull Joe over the line.”

Me too. I don’t think the Republican party is anywhere close to getting their heads out of their rear ends, as necessary to set up similar GOTV operations, and legal teams to fight Democrat cheating. Just my sense from the outside. Instead the insiders continue to burn hundreds of millions of dollars just enjoying their sinecures and sometimes actively opposing their own candidate.

[Nige]

'and legal teams to fight Democrat cheating.'

They're focused too much on finding creative ways to disenfranchise people.

[Riva]

I guess a layman can be excused for failing to appreciate what “other crime” in NY transforms a dead misdemeanor into a felony since the indictment fails to specify and the prosecution to date has not deigned to inform the defendant. And “Watch MSNBC and their impressive line-up of legal talent”? I have to admit that’s funny.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: no "other crime" transforms a misdemeanor into a felony; no "other crime" need have been committed. It's Trump's intent that transforms it into a felony.

And the prosecution of course has informed the defendant. Why on earth do you think otherwise, besides that you get all your information from non-news sources like Julie Kelly? It's almost like all of this has been discussed repeatedly in the comments section here, and you're just playing stupid.

[Riva]

Intent? Intent to do what? Intent to write a comment displaying ignorance of the law and infantile bias against a defendant? Is this something you heard from the brilliant MSNBC talking heads? And no, the prosecution hasn’t informed the defendant of the felony allegedly committed. With the cooperation of a statutorily conflicted judge, they just intend to parade witnesses and evidence in a gross political attempt to embarrass the leading candidate against Biden, and in their wildest little dreams, imprison their opponent. That’s why Biden and other corrupt democrat parties orchestrated this offense against the law and constitution. It’s generally called lawfare.

[David Nieporent]

Intent to write a comment displaying ignorance of the law and infantile bias against a defendant?

Nope. Read the statute.

And no, the prosecution hasn’t informed the defendant of the felony allegedly committed.

Once more: there need be no felony committed. But the prosecution has indeed informed the defendant of its legal theory. You're just lying/repeating talking points that you heard elsewhere without having any fucking clue of the actual facts. Read the filings in the case.

[Riva]

They fail to allege or prove ANY felony that would revive a dead misdemeanor. In fact, they even fail to prove a misdemeanor. This is an affront to the federal and state constitution. So, in a nutshell, you are full of shit.

[David Nieporent]

They do not need to allege or prove a felony. They do not even need to prove a misdemeanor. They need to prove that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal a crime of any sort by any person.

[Riva]

OK, let’s play your f’ing stupid police state game. What other crime? Even if it can be anything, there has to be a crime. The f’ing pricks can just leave that to the imaginiation of a jury as blindingly biased and stupid as you? Welcome to Biden’s amerika.

[David Nieporent]

OK, let’s play your f’ing stupid police state game. What other crime? Even if it can be anything, there has to be a crime.

No, there does not have to be a crime. Once again: intent, not actual crime.

But the prosecution has identified — yes, to Trump's lawyers — three possibilities. A violation of New York Election Law § 17-152, violations of Federal Election Campaign Act, and violations of tax law. (Actually, the prosecution identified a fourth theory as well, but Merchan ruled that one out.) Merchan has ruled that the prosecution cannot argued any different theory to the jury.

Because you don't know anything about the case and just repeat what you hear on MAGA social media, you are unaware that in fact all of this has already been litigated, and claims that Trump's lawyers weren't informed are simply false.

[Riva]

What the f is "intent" without a crime? In places with constitutional due process, this would be called "not a crime."

[Riva]

And "But the prosecution has identified — yes, to Trump’s lawyers — three possibilities"? No, I believe democrat talking heads on MSNBC have "identified three possibilities." But even assuming the prosecution did, that's a constitutionally permissible application of the law? To jail President Trump for the rest of his natural life, or anyone one, that's all due process requires?
But the joke is you loathsome scunges don't really care. You want a conviction. That it's lawless, unconstitutional and will eventually be reversed doesn't really matter to you. You're beneath contempt.

[David Nieporent]

What the f is “intent” without a crime? In places with constitutional due process, this would be called “not a crime.”

Once again: the crime is falsifying business records. That's the crime.
A manner of committing that crime is doing so with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal a crime.

[David Nieporent]

No, I believe democrat talking heads on MSNBC have “identified three possibilities.”

Sure, but that's because you're a [censored] who does no research of any sort and thinks that repeating something Julie Kelly said makes you a legal analyst, even though she knows less about law than Judge Reinhold does. This was litigated. There was motion practice. All of this was addressed by the lawyers for both sides and Merchan in pretrial filings.

But even assuming the prosecution did, that’s a constitutionally permissible application of the law? To jail President Trump for the rest of his natural life, or anyone one, that’s all due process requires?

Due process requires a trial, unanimous jury verdict, right to assistance of counsel, presumption of innocence, proof of all the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, that sort of stuff. Not sure what else you're thinking of. Hundreds of thousands of people get far harsher sentences for far less, and that doesn't seem to bother you, probably because they're disproportionately black.

Also, 175.10 is a Class E felony, penalty 1-5 years. That's not likely "the rest of Trump's natural life." (There are multiple charges, of course, but the presumption would be that they run concurrently.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You wanna next up excuse the special prosecutor tampering with the evidence and lying to the court about it?

[David Nieporent]

I want to deny that any such thing ever happened. This is a Julie Kelly special, with "special" being used in the sense of "special education."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol they admitted it themselves, bootlicker.

[David Nieporent]

No, they did not admit either "tampering with" the evidence or "lying" about it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants' review of the boxes,”

“There are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans,”

Evidence tampering.

“The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court,”

Lying about it.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2024-05/gov.uscourts.flsd_.648653.522.0.pdf

[David Nieporent]

Evidence tampering.

In what way is that "evidence tampering"? What is the order of documents in a box even supposed to be evidence of?

Lying about it.

"inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood" Lying requires knowledge of falsehood.

[John Rohan]

They staged the evidence, and the photo they released to the public, and admitted it.

[David Nieporent]

Either you're talking about something innocuous, or they did not "admit it."

[Riva]

That hack Smith has admitted to it but feel free to deny to your little heart’s content Dave.

[David Nieporent]

Of course he did not "admit" either "tampering with" evidence or "lying." He "admitted" that some of the documents within the boxes may be in a different order, which is not fucking "tampering with" anything even if deliberate, which there's no evidence it was. You're too stupid to know what "tampering" means. And a statement is only a "lie" if the person knew it was false when it was said.

[Riva]

Gaslight all you want you clown. The record in the permanently suspended trial speaks for itself.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed it does.

And it is not, of course, "permanently suspended," whatever that oxymoron is supposed to mean. This is just more of you getting your information from MAGA twitter and repeating talking points you don't understand. That the trial date had to be adjourned — the case wasn't going to trial in two weeks — was undeniable. That she didn't set a new trial date at this time is not "suspending" anything.

[Riva]

You can substitute “indefinitely” for permanently if it bothers you so much you gaslighting POS.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. Still false. Nothing was "suspended."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Misinformed religious bigot lies about what, now?

Your short time on these boards has been nothing but lies. It says a lot about you, and even more about your parents.

[bernard11]

Even the name is a lie, though he probably has a picture somewhere to "prove" it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Watch MSNBC and their impressive line-up

LOL!

[Sonja T]

neurodoc 4 hours ago
"Watch MSNBC and their impressive line-up of legal talent "

Is that supposed to be a joke?

[Mr. Bumble]

If not it should be.

[Sonja T]

Kinda like claiming NPR is an unbiased centrist news organization

[John Rohan]

Several lawyers here on Volokh have said these are non-crimes. Ditto for famed attorney Alan Dershowitz:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-eviscerates-alvin-bragg-potential-trump-indictment-never-seen-weaker-case

[M L]

"Watch MSNBC and their impressive line-up of legal talent"

Bwahaha! Good satire.

[Moderation4ever]

I suggest you rephrase that comment because it makes no sense. Either Trump is accused of crimes he did not commit or his actions were not crimes. If he is accused of crimes then the question is he innocent because obviously there is law on the books he is accused of violating. A lot of talk has been about the use of the current statues to prosecute Trump and would it be used in another case. But the Trump case is unique in that few other people would be in a position to violate the law. Few people have a group of people to manipulate the media like Trump had in place. People who could stop detrimental stories and gin up stories about his opponents. Few other people have the financial resources to pay out of pocket for these services. In asking the question is Trump being singled out you have to ask if others would be in a position to even commit such actions.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Few people have a group of people to manipulate the media like Trump had in place. People who could stop detrimental stories and gin up stories about his opponents."

You realize you've basically described every Democratic Presidential candidate in the last 20 years, right?

[Moderation4ever]

Campaigns, for candidates of any party, will always have people to push and to slow stories, but I think what we are seeing in the NY is different. We are seeing people capture and pay for stories to then not report them on one side and fabricate stories on the other. I don't think you can really point to anything like that. Take for example "swift boating" which took the fact that John Kerry did serve and later criticized the Vietnam War. This was a real story manipulated to Kerry's disadvantage. This is different than making up a story that Ted Cruz's father was a part of the Kennedy assassination.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reid's lie about Romney's taxes.
The Steele Dossier.
Suppression of the entirely real Hunter laptop story.

Most of the media have had the Democrats' back going back decades, these days they don't even feel ashamed enough about it to pretend otherwise.

[Moderation4ever]

Remind me again of when during the 2016 the Steele Dossier came to the public's attention. To my recollection it was Trump who made existence of Steele Dossier public after the election. No one captured and killed the Hunter laptop story it just never sold with the pubic.

[John Rohan]

By their OWN ADMISSION in front of Congress, social media sites spiked the Hunter laptop story.

[Nige]

The story, or Hunter Biden's dick pics?

[David Nieporent]

Weird how every single person who claims the story was suppressed knows all about it. (Though they know lots of things that aren't so…)

[Brett Bellmore]

Nice catch-22 you've set up: The only stories we're allowed to notice were being suppressed are the ones where the suppression was 100% successful, so that we wouldn't know about them. You've just defined suppressed stories out of existence as far as a topic for discussion is concerned.

We never said the suppression was 100% effective. But it didn't need to be, to accomplish its goal: Shielding enough Biden voters from the news that he'd make it across the finish line before they found out.

[bernard11]

Like I said, partisan cultist.

You have a picture in your head of the "true" laptop story - derived from ridiculous sources like OAN and whatnot - and any media outlet that doesn't report it that way is, therefore, in your mind, "suppressing" it.

Think about it. Your definition of "suppressing" is "not reporting what I, Brett Bellmore, believe to be the facts."

[Nige]

'The only stories we’re allowed to notice were being suppressed are the ones where the suppression was 100% successful'

Whereas you want to notice stories where the suppression wasn't even attempted.

[Moderation4ever]

Not a Catch-22. As I noted most campaigns have staff to push stories and to slow stories. That not what happened in the NY case. Stories were captured and killed, or stories were made up. Big difference between what typically happen and what happen in the Trump case.

[mulched]

For some campaigns, their story-suppression staff includes employees at Google, Twitter and Facebook.

[Nige]

You've internalised this shit so completely you actually believe it.

[bernard11]

Brett,

If you had just left the word "Democratic" (thanks for not saying "Democrat," btw, seriously) out of that sentence you might have something to talk about.

But by including it you reveal yourself to be a pure partisan, who thinks only Democrats ever do anything wrong.

[NvEric]

Cool ...
https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Parizer-et-al.-v.-Am.-Muslims-for-Palestine-E.D.-Va.-Complaint.pdf

[NvEric]

I'm all for Non-Violent Struggle and encourage others to learn of its power ---> https://www.aeinstein.org
With this type of action employed by Citizens wanting a peaceful and productive society where equality means something, where the power of Citizens is effective against the constant encroachment by the Administrative State / American Empire, then please learn these tactics and strategies to amplify your voice. You have already been shown some of these ways of resisting, protesting, and conveying alternate notions of Citizenship by others through the years. It is a tool for preserving life while engaging with force, but not with the violence as seen going on around the country.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You didn't write that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WOW...

If they can prove this, wow....

"Defendants encouraged their members to exert political pressure on American institutions and politicians, in service of Hamas’s goals. The chaotic images emerging from American campuses are the intended result of Defendants’ endeavors.

68. In short, Defendants act as Hamas’s public relations division and recruit domestic foot soldiers not only to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda but also to foment violence, chaos, and fear across the United States to intimidate citizens and coerce change in American policy. This is all in support Hamas’s short and long-term goals for its international terrorist activities.

[Kazinski]

We’ve had a lot of debates about how accurate poll numbers are now 6 months before the election. But I noticed a feature on Realclearpolitics.com which is interesting, not that it settles that debate. On the Battleground states polls, where data is available, they show the RCP average for that state on today’s date in 2020.

2024 Poll Spread. – 2020 5/5 poll. – 2020 result
all 50 RCP Poll Average Trump +1.3 – Biden +5.5 – Biden +4.5

Battlegrounds
Wisconsin Trump +1.8 – Biden +2.7 – Biden +0.6
Arizona Trump +5.0 – Biden + 5.3 – Biden +0.4
Georgia Trump +3.8 – N/A – Biden +0.3
Michigan Trump +1.2 – Biden +5.3 – Biden +2.8
Pennsylvania Trump +1.0 – Biden +4.5 – Biden +1.2
North Carolina Trump +5.4 – Trump +0.3 – Trump +1.3
Nevada Trump +4.5 – N/A – Biden +2.4

So just to reiterate the three sets of numbers are:
2024 spread now – Spread today’s date 2020 – and Nov. 2020 actuals.

What stands out to me is:
1. Biden’s May 2020 Nationally turned out extremely close to his Nov. election result
2. Biden under performed his May 2020 battleground polling significantly by about 3-4 points, in the states that had data, but still took 4 of the 5 states that had 2020 data.
3. Trump is way way ahead of where he was in 2020 in the battleground states, ahead in all 7, and even further ahead in relation to his 2020 polling, which he outperformed.

[DaveM]

Very interesting. I try very hard to ignore all nationwide polling when it comes to elections, since those are almost always irrelevant. But it is interesting to note the differences between polling results and actual outcomes.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio: Polls are trash (especially this far out from election)

He is right.

IMO, the election will come down to GA, WI and AZ.

[santamonica811]

XY,
I'm curious. Why GA and WI? Why not Mich and Penn? I'm not as sanguine as Dems are about those two last states. I can easily imagine things tipping one way or the other in the final few weeks, and either DT or JB winning all 5 states by 0.5-to-2.0 percentage points. Yet another electoral "blowout," but the battleground states basically a coin flip.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, all politics is local. The votes were close in 16, and 20. There is nothing magical. Each of those states have local issues that will decide how it goes (i.e. AZ-border, GA-'the case', WI - new WISC making waves....and some other uniquely local issues).

I do not think (at this stage) that POTUS Trump will be re-elected, and given the political polarization in the US, it is easy to envision someone trying to 'off him' before he takes the oath (if he were re-elected). POTUS Trump's Veepstakes is crucial. We already know VP Harris is utterly incompetent and useless.

This election makes me queasy; like Kaz, I say we have truly atrocious choices. Policy-wise (economy, foreign policy), it is a no-brainer. But Octogenarians? Really? That is the best the two parties can produce? There will be no healing after this election, only more bitterness and acrimony. I am not sure how we break that cycle. The Libertarian Party has yet to choose their candidate (who I may wind up voting for, if not a total numbnuts).

BTW, both men (POTUS Trump, POTUS Biden) are moral reprobates.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your mention of the LP is kind of appropriate. I jumped ship from them not because I'd given up on the ideology, but because the accumulation of third party hostile campaign regulations and changes to things like election coverage and debate organization had rendered 3rd parties non-viable, and I didn't enjoy wasting my time on a no-hope party.

IMO, a major factor in the deterioration of the major parties IS the defenses they've mounted against 3rd parties since the 70's: They no longer have to fear being displaced if they become too unpopular, they've foreclosed that option. So instead of competing to be liked by the voters, they compete to be thought less awful than the other.

And they've both been caught in a downward spiral. I think it will continue until things get so bad the firewall against 3rd parties finally breaks down.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, there really aren't two parties in DC, just two labels. Agree the downward spiral will continue, absent an external event that galvanizes the country as one.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are at least 1 1/2 parties anyway, at this point. The Uniparty phenomenon is mostly restricted to the party establishment, the rank and file still have real disagreements.

[Nige]

'Brett, there really aren’t two parties in DC, just two labels'

If that were true, one party would not be trying to ban abortion and promising to round up millons of people and put them in camps.

[bernard11]

there really aren’t two parties in DC, just two labels.

You mean the R's and D's agree on:

Abortion
Taxes
Ukraine
Environmental issues
Voting rights and election procedures
Immigration policy, and whether illegal immigrants are "vermin."
ACA and health care in general
...

[Commenter_XY]

All I needed to see was the section 702 renewal, and that re-affirmed for me the umpteenth time, they (the parties) are alike.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY, if you are right on that, expect the Ds to pound those states on the abortion issue, and win all 3.

To me, PA and MI look like tougher nuts for the Ds. Especially MI. I can also imagine GA slipping away from the Ds as a result of election skulduggery. Seems like Trump has more skulduggery-friendly apparatus in place there than elsewhere in the battlegrounds.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You mean:

Fulton County,
Milwaukee County,
and
Maricopa County.

Where Democrats count ballots in secret and without accountability.

[Kazinski]

Yep, and I should mention that currently polls are using registered voters, not a likely voter model, and we don't know which of the Battleground states RFKjr is going to be on the ballot for, So far its NV, MI, and NC. Michigan could be important.

But still every Battleground state Biden had a lead in the polls for in May 2020 he took, and the one state Trump had a lead in, he took.

And Trump did better in the general election by at least one point, nationally, and in ALL 5 states we had data for May of 2020.

The polling data isn't deciding anything, but its not meaningless.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The polling data isn’t deciding anything, but its not meaningless.

Really? What’s it mean? Really.

Maybe it’s a leading indicator to predict campaign behavior practiced with an eye to invalidate the polls, or to vindicate them. So it predicts that campaigning will happen. I bet they’re right!

[Kazinski]

Saw an interesting BBC interview with Milei about an hour ago. Of course the BBC isn’t going to be kind to a libertarian introducing shock austerity therapy to an economy, the worst case would be if it were successful, in their eyes.

But one amusing thing when the interviewer brought up Milei’s Falklands policy, long term it should be transferred to Argentina, but he accepts Britain controls it now. But where the interviewers head looked like it was about to explode was when Milei said about Thatcher:
Asked if he still admired her, “President Milei said: “Criticising someone because of their nationality or race is very intellectually precarious. I have heard lots of speeches by Margaret Thatcher. She was brilliant. So what’s the problem?”

Its safe to say the Argentina and the UK are the two countries with the most Thatcher haters on the globe, and probably the highest percentage of any institution are in the BBC, second only to the Argentine Navy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce43zv3qln9o

[Lee Moore]

I like the Argentine joke that there’s only one Argentine who’s still a Peronist, but he lives in Rome.

[mulched]

Nice! I hadn't heard that one.

[Lee Moore]

I noticed some speculation about Trump picking Rubio as his running mate, and related chatter about the 12th Amendment and how one of them would have to change residency.

Leaving aside the merits of such a selection , it seems to me that there’s an easy fix.

12A says Electors can’t vote for an P and a VP who are inhabitants of the same state as themselves. Thus Florida appointed Electors, who are inhabitants of Florida can’t vote for Trump (Florida inhabitant) and Rubio (Florida inhabitant)

But there seems to be no rule ( that I can see ) that requires an Elector to be an inhabitant of the state that appoints him an Elector. Thus rather than either Trump or Rubio having to change residency (or strictly inhabitancy), they can just name as their Florida slate of Electors, a bunch of South Carolina inhabitants.

Of course there might be something in Florida law saying that Florida Electors have to be Florida inhabitants, but the federal constitution doesn’t seem to require it.

Any views ? (Just for fun as it ain’t gonna happen.)

[Kazinski]

Of the 4 names bandied on the purported short list, I'd prefer Tim Scott. But Scott and Rubio are both solid guys, not exactly Mike Pence clones, but i think they are capable of standing up to Trump the way Pence did.

But Rubio is an immigration dove, which probably wouldn't work anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I don't think there's much chance Trump is going to pick Rubio. Trump seems pretty determined to actually go hard core on fighting illegal immigration, why pick somebody who'd be opposed to that? And why risk losing Florida's EC votes if some goofy trick doesn't work?

I could see Gabbard, if he wants to go out on a limb. But probably he doesn't.

[Kazinski]

Gabbard who endorsed Bernie in 2016?

I like her because she is an independent thinker, but it would be hard to vote for her.

[Brett Bellmore]

I hardly agree with her on everything, but I've actually seen her change her mind in reaction to evidence, which is not something to be dismissed in a politician. If the VP is going to be somebody I have serious disagreements with, I'd rather it be somebody who's actually reasoning about things, rather than a mindless ideologue.

In 2016 Trump was the interloper, and had to pick somebody whose Republican credentials were absolutely indisputable as VP in order to keep the party establishment from openly rebelling. That's not a factor this time around, so it's not entirely out of the question for him to do something like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Given who Biden tried to foist on us as comptroller of the currency, I'm not sure Bernie was actually any worse in practice. Just less stealthy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Give us a break. You’re going to vote for Trump and whoever he picks without a second of hesitation. Which is fine if that’s what you’ve got to do, but don’t act like this is you’re reaching deep down to search your conscience like you’re rendering the judgment of Solomon.

[Commenter_XY]

Who in the Veepstakes is capable of being POTUS? That is the job criteria.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who really bases their vote on who is the VP candidate?
"81" million people vote for Kamala?

[Commenter_XY]

The only people whose names I have heard that could credibly step up and do the job: Gabbard, Haley (and Haley has more experience). Maybe 1 or 2 others.

I don't include Tim Scott in that mix, Rubio is very 'iffy'.

[David Nieporent]

Even setting aside her personal characteristics, what about Gabbard's biography suggests that she could credibly step up and do the job? (I assume "the job" you refer to here is president, not vice president, since an untrained squirrel can do that job.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

LTC in the US Army.

[David Nieporent]

Which aspect of the president's job do you think that qualifies her for? I mean, if this were the movie Air Force One and she were fighting terrorists who had taken over the plane, sure. But other than that?

[Mr. Bumble]

What makes you think giving Willie Brown BJs qualifies Kamala to be Pres?

[Commenter_XY]

Correct, POTUS. Gabbard has fed/state legislative experience. She knows how that process actually works. She is painfully aware of the DC players. Has 20+ years in military. Mostly, I think she would be good in a crisis, and would do a much better job keeping us out of war. Seems well grounded, and not too full of herself.

Haley has more direct experience for the Presidency.

Either one is a quantum leap past VP Harris.

[Dr. Ed 2]

LTC means ability to tell Trump he is wrong, and about to do something stupid.

[not guilty]

"Who really bases their vote on who is the VP candidate?"

Sarah Palin cost John McCain votes in 2008. (For good reason, I might add.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you really believe Palin cost McCain that election?
Was Ryan a better candidate in 2012?
Did Joe Biden help Obama win?

[not guilty]

I did not say that Palin cost McCain that election. In response to the question, "Who really bases their vote on who is the VP candidate?", I observed that Palin cost McCain votes in that election.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fair enough. Maybe maybe not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Palin was good for Saturday Night Live and Tina Fey, bad for John McCain and her family.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Actually Tina Fey believes playing Palin on SNL cost 30 Rock millions of viewers. Remember that is when NBC’s viewership collapsed and they started doing all kinds of crazy things with Leno just trying to have cheap content that might attract eyeballs??

[Brett Bellmore]

John McCain cost John McCain votes in 2008. I mean, suspending his own campaign? What serious candidate does that? Heck, just BEING John McCain probably cost him enough Republican votes to guarantee he'd lose the election!

Once he realized he was going to lose, he shit on his own VP candidate to avoid accidentally advancing the prospects of somebody from a different wing of the party. Classic McCain.

[Frank Drackman]

I like the Repubiclown Candidates who don't suspend their campaigns

[Sarcastr0]

Another conspiracy from Brett.
Dude, we don't live in a political thriller.

Suspending his campaign was a stunt gone wrong. Palin was supposed to shake things up - and she did until her own ego and lack of national stage experience caused her downfall.

There wasn't a GOP civil war; GOP had fallen in line like they always have since Ford/Reagan.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

A Republican was never going to win that election. That’s why Hillary wanted to go to the convention because whoever got the Democratic nomination was definitely going to president. The Democratic Establishment to its credit gave it to Obama…so don’t ever say they’ve never done anything for you because they prevented a Hillary presidency!

[bernard11]

John McCain cost John McCain votes in 2008. I mean, suspending his own campaign?

I agree that was dumb. As was picking Palin.

Picking a VP candidate is one of the most important decisions the nominee has to make once he's nominated. And McCain utterly blew it.

Was he ever going to win? I don't know. Maybe. Remember, the man enjoyed enormous personal popularity. He had a lock on the "serious, responsible, experienced, non-radical" lane. But he couldn't translate that into a win.

[myself]

He had a lock on the “serious, responsible, experienced, non-radical” lane.

Until he nominated Palin.

But I agree he'd probably have lost anyway.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

McCain might have been in the wrong party, at least one that had changed to become the wrong party for him. He was a bad fit with a party that likes people who didn't get captured, OK, and thought that America's World War II soldiers who were too stupid to ask "what was in it from them?" The party that prefers Major Bone Spurs to Captain John McCain.

[EllaWilson]

2020 Democratic National Convention
Pledged delegates by candidate

Joe Biden 2,716
Bernie Sanders 1,112
Kamala Harris 0

[SimonP]

Tim fucking Scott??

Kamala is embarrassing and unlikeable, but Scott is a pathetic bootlicker who responds to Trump's insults by asking for more. The man faked a relationship with a woman in order to dispel "gay" rumors.

I find it kind of hilarious that you think both he, and Rubio, who have made very clear that they are sycophantic cucks for Trump, are "solid guys."

Man, it's incredible to me that MAGA, the party of the gender binary and football, can't seem to line themselves up behind any kind of man. Trump is a small-dicked real estate con man that has to pay for sex. Scott is a closet case. Rubio tucks his dick so far up his ass he might as well be Kitara Ravache. MTG is better at being a man than any of the people you describe as "solid guys." So pathetic.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Certainly sounds like someone is working through some issues.

(Hint: it’s not the MAGA guys!)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm surprised you want to drag the professor's trans fetish into this.

Did he do something to anger you?

[SimonP]

Me? No, I'm just capable of evaluating MAGA according to its own putative standards.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I have so much respect to Tim for tapping that ass with his penis!! Always go for unwed mothers…because they are a sure thing!!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Kitara Ravache

is back by the way . . . $350 or so a pop, as I recall.

[Stella Link the dog]

NTTAWWT

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People who want to spend $350 on a fabulously personalized ten-second Cameo from Kitara Ravache have rights, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

By the way, because I keep hearing conservative males complain that women don't want to date bigots, I think I found just the right girl for George Santos.

[bernard11]

i think they are capable of standing up to Trump the way Pence did.

Rubio can no more stand up to Trump than a strand of spaghetti can stand up to a pot of boiling water.

[myself]

but i think they are capable of standing up to Trump the way Pence did.

Which probably disqualifies them in Trump's eyes.

Trump is looking for three things:
1) Loyalty
2) Content to play second fiddle
3) Is otherwise good on TV

I really predict he'll nominate a woman. When he chooses men he prefers someone a bit clownish (Cohen, Nunes, etc) as opposed to the women. I think it's because strong competent men make him feel like his authority is challenged in a way that competent women don't.

So by going with a women he can choose a stronger candidate (plus, he knows he has a weakness with women voters).

[hobie]

Is that the Trumpers election-stealing scheme for this cycle? Why not give sedition another try? It almost worked. You just gotta work out some of the kinks

[Michael P]

From https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13383089/Columbia-University-protest-leader-son-millionaire-Brooklyn.html:

The carriage house, on the other hand, has 18 inch high ceilings with a loft area, skylights, electric heat for a kitchen and bath

It sounds perfect for holding an 11" tall recreation of Stonehenge!

[hobie]

Is this some oblique reference to Halloween III?

[Michael P]

This Is Spinal Tap, actually, but I misremembered the height of that model. It was also 18 inches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh1Va_mYWI

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s to scale.

[Michael P]

For perspective on claims of ethnic cleaning or genocide, per Wikipedia, there are more Arabs in Israel (2 million) than there are Jews in the world outside of Israel, the US and Canada (about 1.8 million: 15.7 – 7.2 – 6.3 – 0.4 million).

I saw this originally with "Jews in Europe" as the second half of the comparison, which would mean subtracting Australia, some fraction of the Russian number, and perhaps the UK, plus some small numbers from the tail of the distribution.

[Frank Drackman]

Israeli A-rabs also exempt from mandatory Military Service

[Malika the Maiz]

I don't think anyone is accusing Israel of ethnic cleaning (sic) or genocide against "Arabs" are they?

[Mr. Bumble]

See Jason Cavanaugh above.

[Malika the Maiz]

He mentions ethnic cleansing of Palestine, not "Arabs."

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just who are these "Palestinians" if not Arab?

[Malika the Maiz]

This is like saying you can't commit ethnic cleansing of Mohawks along the St. Lawrence because they're really just "Native Americans" and there's plenty of Native Americans.

[Bwaaah]

Good thing you keep your lists straight. Wouldn't want to misappropriate an individual, would we?

The more I hear the sharpening of the list-keeping pencils, the more I feel like a fated Jew.

[Nige]

This is just bizarre. We’ve gone from ‘people who notice racism are the real racists’ to ‘people who notice genocide are the real genocides.’ But even if 'lists' are too terrifying for you to contemplate, 'the people currently living in a particular geographical area who are being killed ny the tens of thousands' doesn't seem like too difficult a concept to grasp.

[Michael P]

Broadly, "Palestinian" means an Arab from the region between the Jordan River (conceptually extended from the Sea of Galilee north to the Lebanese border) and the Mediterranean Sea. From the first Wikipedia page I linked:

The majority of these Arab citizens identify themselves as Arab or Palestinian by nationality and as Israeli by citizenship.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For the sake of a thought experiment, assume something stupid but possible: that SCOTUS will buy Trump's argument that pre-election meddling by the President is immune from criminal prosecution, because Trump's official duties included safeguarding the election. And assume Trump continues to insist that whether he will consent to a peaceful transition of power depends on Trump's judgment of whether or not the election results were fair.

Would that justify Biden locking Trump up during the last few months of the election, pending Biden's judgment of whether or not the election results were fair? And would SCOTUS then have to reject Trump's habeas petition, based on its own previous ruling?

If SCOTUS did ignore its previous ruling, and ordered Trump discharged, could Biden cite the law of the land, as decided by SCOTUS, and lock up justices who voted to discharge Trump, as part of a conspiracy to prevent a peaceful transition of power?

I am not interested in speculations about what that would do to the voting results. Just answers to legal questions which might come up if Trump continues to reject a peaceful transition, and SCOTUS goes along with it, and Biden says, "Me too."

To make the speculation marginally less stupid, assume not namby-pamby President Biden, but instead President Lincoln.

It would also be reassuring to assume some other SCOTUS, but alas.

[tylertusta]

If SCOTUS rules that Presidents have immunity for official acts, then all that means is that a prosecutor can't go after Biden unless Biden is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

As for the rest of your hypotheticals, Biden and his ilk will try whatever they think they think can get away with.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My bet is that Biden will not imprison Trump pending the outcome of the election. What odds will you give?

Also? When someone invites you to be silly in public, you don't have to do it.

[tylertusta]

When someone invites you to be silly in public, you don’t have to do it.

The. Fucking. Irony.

[Stephen Lathrop]

On that standard, a trout on the hook is a victim of irony.

[bernard11]

Biden and his ilk will try whatever they think they think can get away with.

The insanity and blindness of MAGA World never cease to amaze.

[tylertusta]

The hypocrisy and hatred of the left never cease to amaze.

[Z Crazy]

Whining about a stolen election would have to be illegal first.

I fail to see how whining about a stolen election is illegal, while I can see that murder is most definitely a crime.

[ReaderY]

I think whether conduct was sufficiently private or sufficiently official can’t always be determined without looking at all the circumstances, i.e. seeing the evidence.

I think Justice Barrett’s colloquey at oral argument establishes that enough conduct is now indisputably private (after Trump’s attorney’s rather surprising concessions) that this case can go to trial, with the trial judge, the jury, or the Supreme Court possibly later throwing out some counts after the evidence has come in.

[tylertusta]

I don't see five votes in favor of allowing this to go to trial with mere jury instructions.

Which means that even Trump's concessions will be litigated and then appealed prior to trial.

[not guilty]

"I think whether conduct was sufficiently private or sufficiently official can’t always be determined without looking at all the circumstances, i.e. seeing the evidence."

For purposes of a pretrial motion to dismiss, the allegations of the indictment must be taken as true. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). On a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence or after the close of all the evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a), the trial court could evaluate whether the former president's conduct was official or private in light of the trial evidence.

[tylertusta]

I think it’s highly unlikely that the Court will allow this to go to trial before determining which acts are private and which are public. After all, immunity is about not having to stand trial in the first place.

What’s more likely to happen is that the trial court will have to hold evidentiary hearings prior to trial where the trial court will have to determine which facts as laid out in the indictment constitutes public and which are private. Trump would be allowed to present evidence to Chutkan so she can make such a determination.

And after she does that, her decision will be appealed. Her factual determinations will be reviewed on the clear error standard, but her rulings on the law will be on a de novo standard.

[not guilty]

Immunity is indeed about not having to stand trial in the first place, but that is true only when entitlement to immunity can be determined as a matter of law based on undisputed facts. See, Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995). A factual dispute will preclude interlocutory review. Id., at 313-315.

[tylertusta]

That's a civil case.

What's your authority that a factual dispute on criminal immunity precludes interlocutory review?

[Drewski]

Even if the Court gave Presidents blanket immunity to all criminal law, it doesn't follow that they'd have to reject habeas petitions. Those look at whether the detention is illegal, not whether anyone is liable for it. The courts could issue mandamus to lower officials to effect release if anyone balked and, if necessary, hold them in contempt. There's no reason the petition need get to SCOTUS, so jailing Justices would not have an effect.

[loki13]

I just read an article on slate (which reminded me of something I heard not that long ago on NPR's This American Life, well, at least their podcast). Yeah, I know, most of the people here are already getting ready to type, "Librul Media Sourcez!!!!"

Anyway, both stories were about the state of the Michigan GOP. Long story short ... not so great for the state apparatus (or, if you're a true believer, awesome?). There's been a long-running discussion about the power and control of "elites" or "gatekeepers" in party politics. I think that a lot of the power can be pernicious. But at the same time, it does serve one useful function- to help focus the energy, and keep the absolute craziest elements of a party from taking over the agenda.

I was thinking about this as I read this, because this can be the issue of a populist movement that unites behind a leader, but has a lot of conspiracy-tinged elements (and I am being kind) in its core. The overall "goal" (fealty to the populist leader) is unquestioned, but the internal disputes- people complaining about fifth columns, false flag operations, issues of what the movement is really for (and who it is for), and overall chaos is always present.

It's a great way to stir up emotions, but it's a difficult way to govern.

[Commenter_XY]

The MI GOP just had a meltdown in MI. I read about that. I thought it was healthy, ultimately, but definitely not good timing.

TBH loki13, I would like the major parties to go back to their smoke filled rooms and pick their candidates at their convention. It sure would spare us a lot of grief (and money).

[loki13]

I don't want a complete return to the smoke-filled rooms, but I think that you have to give some authority to, um, authorities.

People talk about the founders a lot. Well, the founders didn't like pure democracy for a reason. It's hard to have reasoned debate and discourse when all opinions, no matter how crazy or ill-informed, share the same billing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think that’s why they limited civic engagement to adult White males? To keep the crazy and ill-informed out of the decision making?

Looking around today, and maybe they had good cause. Not too many 3rd World Shitholes led by White males and by “3rd World Shitholes”, I mean countries like South Africa and cities like San Francisco.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think that’s why they limited civic engagement to adult White males?

They did no such thing.

[Ed Grinberg]

???
If they hadn't, 15th and 19th amendments would not have been necessary.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in the constitution limits voting to adult white males. And indeed free blacks, and even women were allowed to vote at times and places before the 15th and 19th amendments (assuming they met property requirements).

[Brett Bellmore]

I was born in Michigan, and lived there most of my life. I can't recall a time when the MI GOP wasn't having a meltdown.

[Bwaaah]

“Gatekeeper,” “old guard,” “party elites,” …. pejorative terms to denote people who have been around too long to fall for the transient bullshit of the day. That’s the language of the advocates for immediate change, sometimes affectionately call “revolution,” more aptly the idiot philosophy of Burn It Down.

Donald Trump is unmatched in his infantile use of language to stoke bigotry and muddy whatever clarity there may be. (Can he really run with Little Marco?) But at least that’s just the language of one trash-talking guy, rather than an established liberal order that abides by only strictly defined terms like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” (supported by academic research).

I’m kind of with C_XY on this…the smoke-filled rooms (now smoke-free by regulation), by being free from cameras, tend to yield decisions intended to be beneficial as opposed to decisions intended to look good in the day’s storytelling.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're pejorative terms for people who have entrenched themselves, and maintain control regardless of what their own voters want.

Pro-gun activists in Michigan back in the early 90's used to complain that the GOP platform was lousy on the 2nd amendment. We were told, "Well, if you don't like that, run for precinct delegate, and at the convention you can change it."

So Mike Sessa organized a bunch of pro-gunners to do exactly that, and a lot of them won. They show up at the GOP state convention in '94, and what happens?

The establishment pushes through a vote to seat their opponents, who lost those elections or hadn't even bothered running, and then calls in the police to expel the winners, who are declared to be trespassing in the convention. That's what happened.

Party "establishment" is pejorative for a reason.

[Bwaaah]

Fair enough. The "establishment" can be keepers of interests that are contrary to their voting constituents' preferences. They can also be keepers of ideological interests that also may be contrary to constituent preferences.

I don't subscribe to a belief that popular interests are necessarily our best interests. I am strongly inclined, however, to accede to those popular interests because, hey, whom am I? What should ultimately be the right way, according to whom?

But I have these stick-in-the-mud principled biases about things like limiting government power (= limiting government growth = limiting government spending), fostering the natural dynamics of markets/prices/capitalism, avoiding inhibition of individual development (as well-expressed through the U.S. Bill of Rights").

I am not a Republican. I am a strong believer in economic conservatism, which probably manifests most simply as a people and a government preferring self-restraint over imposition upon others. If the Republican "establishment" can't sustain that restrained position, then I don't need the brilliant vision of Genius R when I already have the brilliant vision Genius D. (I'm really sick of geniuses, and their stockpiles of "solutions".)

[Commenter_XY]

It would be funny AF (or the height of hilarity) to show up at the major party conventions with signs saying: Bring back smoke filled rooms again!

[Bwaaah]

"Smoke filled rooms" would be about as popular as a seasoned statesman.

I'm getting too old for this stuff. They can have whatever they want as long as they leave me out of it. (But they don't want to leave me out of it.)

[Kazinski]

I think state parties only have a big impact on state and local elections because people are much less familiar with local candidates. For President, and Senate and to a lesser degree the House, it's easier to know who's running and what they stand for.

And for the record, the conservative news media has been paying at least some attention to the chaos in the Michigan GOP.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm looking forward to hearing ng and other TDS'ers handwave away Smiths' evidence tampering and court lying, OR the fact that the alleged criminal documents were pushed onto Trump by the National Archives six months after he left office and after that Archives guy had been coordinating with the DOJ.

[Commenter_XY]

I am not sure how the order of the documents in a box is legally relevant. Dershowitz thought this was important, but I would love to hear from an actual trial litigator....

Does the order of the documents stored in a box mean anything, legally?

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure ng will be opining on the matter soon enough.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We can already predict his answer.

No need to get his opinion.

[ThePublius]

The most important part of that could be that the DoJ lied in court about it previously.

[Mr. Bumble]

From the filing:
3 The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court. See, e.g., 4/12/24 Hearing Tr. at 65 (Government responding to the Court’s question of whether the boxes were “in their original, intact form as seized” by stating “[t]hey are, with one exception; and that is that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents”).

Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 522 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 1 of 13

[Michael P]

What's the import of that in the larger case?

I struggle to see how this, by itself, prejudices Donald Trump. If his argument is that the classified documents don't contain "national defense information" *and* this means the court cannot review those documents to assess the claim, that would be a problem, but is that the current state of things?

[Brett Bellmore]

The import of it is that once you catch the prosecution lying about anything in the case, you can no longer defend believing them about anything else without independent evidence.

[Michael P]

Isn't the whole point of a trial to present independent evidence about the facts underlying each side's theory of the case?

[not guilty]

“The import of it is that once you catch the prosecution lying about anything in the case, you can no longer defend believing them about anything else without independent evidence.”

No one has “[caught] the prosecution lying about anything in the case,” Brett. A lie is a false statement, knowingly made with intent to deceive. The Special Counsel self-reported at footnote 3:

The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court. See, e.g., 4/12/24 Hearing Tr. at 65 (Government responding to the Court’s question of whether the boxes were “in their original, intact form as seized” by stating “[t]hey are, with one exception; and that is that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents”).

If counsel (incorrectly) understood that statement to be accurate, it is not a lie.

[Mr. Bumble]

“Self admitted”. Funny.

After it was called out.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wait till you hear about some of the stuff Trump’s lawyers said!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's awesome Brett.

Now explain why you continue to believe Trump about...anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

The simple answer is, I don't really trust him about much. But I think it's in his own interest as he understands it to carry through on a lot of this stuff, because he wants people to think well of him, and for better or worse, that's already off the table for the left.

So the only people he can earn the respect of at this point are the right, and he desperately wants that respect. And he will act accordingly.

I actually think that we kind of dodged a bullet with Trump, that he was perfectly prepared to try governing from the center, if the Democrats hadn't burned all their bridges to him by the time he took office.

But you did burn those bridges, didn't you. Your mistake.

[Nige]

'But you did burn those bridges, didn’t you.'

Can't burn what wasn't there.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Dershowitz thought this was important, but I would love to hear from an actual trial litigator…."

Are you under the impression that Dershowitz doesn't have experience in that area?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He's under the impression that Dershowitz gave him an answer he doesn't like and he needs someone else to give him a cognitive out so he can dismiss this issue.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think Dershowitz has tried any cases. He’s an appellate guy.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, you are right. Dershowitz is an accomplished litigator. I stand corrected (with apologies to The Dersh).

What's the legal significance of document order in the MAL boxes?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose the importance is that, once you've established the prosecution has lied to the court about one thing, why are you confident they haven't lied to the court about something else, too?

It was a bad sign to begin with when the feds went ballistic over the proposed special master. This just underscores what a bad sign it was.

[loki13]

"It was a bad sign to begin with when the feds went ballistic over the proposed special master. This just underscores what a bad sign it was."

No. That wasn't the reason. The reason that the feds "went ballistic" over the special master (and other issues) is because Judge Cannon's various rulings had no relation to, um, the law.

When you get smacked down so hard by an 11th Cir. panel with Judge Pryor on it, you know you've gone way off the rails.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Didn’t Jack Smith get smacked 9-0 by SCOTUS on his last big political prosecution?

Lemme guess, only Judge Cannon is forever smeared by a “smackdown”, and not noble Jack Smith The Good.

[David Nieporent]

Didn’t Jack Smith get smacked 9-0 by SCOTUS on his last big political prosecution?

No.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States

Was there another one after this?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes.

[Kazinski]

SCOTUS didn't overturn Smith's conviction of Bob McDonnell 9-0?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/06/17/smr-mcdonnell-on-being-prosecuted-by-jack-smith.cnn

[David Nieporent]

Correct, it did not.

[David Nieporent]

That's even setting aside the weird personalizing of it, as if the decision that was overturned was Smith's, rather than a trial judge's and the 4th Circuit's. (Note that Smith was not on the SCOTUS briefs and did not participate in oral argument, either.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Screw whether the law required it, is there any good reason for the feds to have objected to it? No, there was not. They could have just rolled their eyes and been all, “Yeah, yeah, whatever.”, but instead they treated it as an emergency. In an ultra-high profile case where it was absolutely critical that everything be visibly on the up and up!

It’s like the FBI using written notes of interviews, instead of voice recorders. OK, maybe voice recorders aren’t legally mandated, but that doesn’t change the obvious fact that they don’t use recorders because it’s harder to lie about what actually got said, and everybody knows it.

There are all sorts of things the feds do as a matter of routine that are objectively indefensible.

[loki13]

"Screw whether the law required it, is there any good reason for the feds to have objected to it? No, there was not."

When you start with the premise, "Screw whether the law required it," you end up in interesting places.

There's already been a lot of discussion on this. But you can just read the 11th Cir. opinion, which is about as harsh as an appellate decision can be (in judicially temperate language).

The short version is, no, appellate courts are not fond of lower courts saying, "Screw the law, Ima do what I want to."

[Bwaaah]

"Screw whether the law required it, is there any good reason..."

I always thought law was a good enough reason, if not a righteous one. Not that I'd abide by a patently unconstitutional or obviously harmful law, but this doesn't look like that.

"There are all sorts of things the feds do as a matter of routine that are objectively indefensible."

Following the rule of law shouldn't be considered one of them. (Your example of written FBI interview records, rather than recorded, is however a very good example of indefensible behavior that finds no support in law.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The law did not obligate them to object to the special master, even if it permitted them to.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Good grief you're a fucking moron Brett.

It was Aileen Cannon who desecrated the law with her ruling. The DOJ had an obligation to object to it and seek judicial remedy in order to protect the law (and the rest of us).

You'll make any excuse as long as it defends Trump somehow, no matter how stupid it makes you look.

[Bwaaah]

I just want to say that there was nothing in your response that would lead me to believe "you’re a fucking moron." (With friends like Jason Cavanaugh, I don't need enemies.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Screw whether the law required it, is there any good reason for the feds to have objected to it? No, there was not."

Brett believes that Judicial rulings which clearly violate the law should just be allowed to stand. Because Trump, or some other bullshit.

The consequence of such an asinine point of view, among others, is that would prevent precedents from being set to clearly reinforce the actual law, instead of what a biased, incompetent Judge decided to do to help her political goals. There's a good reason Cannon was bitch-slapped by the 11th.

You're welcome to your own criteria of who's a moron and who isn't. Brett's met mine a thousand times over throughout the years. This is yet one more example.

[bernard11]

Brett imagines he knows a lot about shit he's utterly ignorant of, and then twists that ignorance around to make it come out pro-Trump, and prove his conspiracy theories, no matter what.

[David Nieporent]

Are you under the impression that Dershowitz doesn’t have experience in that area?

Dershowitz has undertaken some very high profile appellate work, but I don’t know that he has ever tried a significant case.

He worked on OJ's case, and since OJ was acquitted that obviously wasn’t appellate work, but he was more of a consultant; I don't think he actually was doing any trial work.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is there any new reporting of facts on this since Philip Bump's analysis argued it was less than accurate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/30/trump-documents-case-rumor-false/

[loki13]

The truth doesn't matter.

All that matters is that someone reports the BS, and that it can get circulated (and re-circulated) endlessly.

And then, people can either buy the lie, or they can be agnostic and just say ... "Well, when there's smoke, there's fire, AMIRITE!!!!" And move on the next bogus claim.

[not guilty]

Here is the filing in which the Special Counsel acknowledged that there are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans and that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.522.0.pdf

I don't see how it is significant unless counsel knowingly misled the Court.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and when would counsel admit that that knowingly misled the Court?

[Mr. Bumble]

3 The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court. See, e.g., 4/12/24 Hearing Tr. at 65 (Government responding to the Court’s question of whether the boxes were “in their original, intact form as seized” by stating “[t]hey are, with one exception; and that is that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents”).

Just another oopsie from Smilin' Jack Smith?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What part of that are you interpreting as an admission that the knowingly did anything?

[David Nieporent]

I don’t see how it is significant unless counsel knowingly misled the Court.

Even if counsel did, how is the order of documents within a box material to any of the counts of the indictment?

[not guilty]

"Even if counsel did, how is the order of documents within a box material to any of the counts of the indictment?"

It is not material to the merits of the prosecution's case against Trump, but counsel knowingly misleading the Court is a serious matter independently of the merits.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed. Why would counsel even bother to knowingly mislead the court about something which was not material to the case?

[John F. Carr]

If the jury hears testimony about chain of custody any discrepancy is an excuse for a pro-Trump juror to decide he was framed.

[David Nieporent]

That’s… possible, I guess, if Trump can get Brett on his jury. But what about this discussion do you think implicates chain of custody?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I don't know how document order in a box affects the underlying charge of merely possessing classified info. That's the actual charge, right...that POTUS Trump unlawfully possessed classified documents.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Once again, it is not.

[Commenter_XY]

It was good to read the back and forth on the question, it made clear what the legal question was. I suppose there are a number of people wondering whether it matters or not = removal of classified docs from box, insertion of placeholder sheets into box, reordering docs, and inaccurate submissions to the Court.

You say No. The Dersh says maybe. Brett says possibly. I am trying to figure out how one (docs not in order, placeholders) affects the other (possession of classified info). I am not seeing it, but that doesn't mean there isn't. So I asked.

[bernard11]

You say No. The Dersh says maybe. Brett says possibly.

You want to rank those three in terms of expertise in this matter?

[Commenter_XY]

The Dersh says maybe. You say No. Brett says possibly.

[not guilty]

The gravamen of the charges under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) is that Donald Trump had unauthorized possession of national defense related documents and willfully retained and failed to deliver them to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive them.

The order of the documents in the box is immaterial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Absolutely agree. The only relevance here is what this says about how far the prosecution can be trusted.

[ducksalad]

Slightly off topic, but you’re comment caused me to go read that section.

As you’ve explained many times, what Biden and Pence was different, because the retention wasn’t done “willfully”. Or at least the willfulness is less blatantly obvious.

But why aren’t Biden and Pence liable under section (f) right below, that makes the following a criminal offense: “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.”

It appears that negligent and willful are both punishable. And it looks like all the clauses in Section 793 are of equal seriousness as far as maximum sentence goes.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty silly to pretend it wasn't willful in both cases. It's also irrelevant, as you note, because they were under an affirmative obligation to make sure it didn't happen.

But the idea that it wasn't willful is laughable. Hur recounts Biden sharing classified stuff with his biographer. LONG before the Trump mess.

Violating this law was endemic in DC. Non-enforcement was so prevalent that people in their positions didn't even think of it as applying to them. So then Biden's DOJ goes after Trump, and people all over DC suddenly go "Oh, shit!" and start burning papers.

[Commenter_XY]

SC Hur did in fact find that POTUS Biden willfully retained classified documents, did so as VP, and would not be prosecuted for it because of cognitive challenges associated with prosecuting the crime.

[Nige]

No, he found that there was no criminal offence. The cognitive challenge bit was just some red meat to you guys.

[not guilty]

"But why aren’t Biden and Pence liable under section (f) right below, that makes the following a criminal offense: 'through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.'”

What acts or omissions by Joe Biden or Mike Pence (not those of others) do you posit as evincing gross negligence? And in Biden's case, any removal of documents while he was vice-president would have occurred no later than January 2017; any removal of documents while he was a senator would have occurred no later than January 2009. Prosecution would be barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(a).

[Brett Bellmore]

The retention itself was a crime, you want to forget that?

[not guilty]

No, Brett, not under § 793(f), which ducksalad was asking about.

As for § 793(e), willful retention plus failure to deliver documents to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive them is required.

Actually parsing a criminal statute is important.

[ducksalad]

Brett didn't say it was a violation of 793. He said that retention itself is a crime. Does this one cover it:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

leaving aside statute of limitations.

[not guilty]

Actually, 18 U.S.C. § 1924(a) does not require retention; it requires knowing removal without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

If documents were removed with authority and then retained beyond the duration of the authority to remove, that does not violate the statute.

Every verb matters.

[David Nieporent]

One problem is that in order to prosecute for that they need to prove how the classified info ended up there. Who removed the documents?

[ducksalad]

Taking Pence’s case first, is there a legal definition of “gross”? Obviously having the documents at all while not office is negligent at some level, unless someone put them into his possession without his knowledge.

On Biden, the time limit for prosecution has passed, so I’ll rephrase the question. This time it’s not a legal question, it’s a policy question:

The discussion so far, it seems to me, is:

Q1: “Why didn’t you go after Joe Biden?”
A1: “Because it wasn’t willful.”
Q2: “But the law also punishes negligence.”
A2: “Because of the statute of limitations”
Q2: “Why did the statute of limitations pass”
A2: “Because we didn’t go after him.”
Q3: “Why didn’t you go after him?”
A3: “See our answer to Q1”

I understand that you’re the lawyer and perhaps in law those answers are satisfactory. It doesn’t satisfy people who see a case of selective prosecution.

I fully understand that in real life, people who commit crimes and then defy law enforcement get treated much more harshly than people who cooperate, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

To me the “selective” part is the NARA extending – to some politicians – the professional courtesy of not going to law until after the statute of limitations has passed. And of course, if they don’t go to law, there will be no defiance of law enforcement.

[David Nieporent]

1) You have two sets of Q2/A2s.
2) The answer to your second Q2 is "Because we didn't know about it."
3) "Selective prosecution" would require that they did the same things but were treated differently. But that's not the case. That a statute may criminalize both gross negligence and willfulness does not mean that gross negligence and willfulness are the same thing.
4) Prosecutors have to decide what's worth prosecuting. As Comey explained way back in 2016, negligent handling of classified documents is essentially always dealt with administratively. (Termination of employment, revocation of clearances, etc.) It's prosecution-worthy when there's something more than that, like doing it for pecuniary gain, obstruction of justice, etc. That's present in Trump's case but not in Pence's or Biden's. You yourself acknowledge that, so I'm not sure what your gripe is.
5) Remember that they tried for a year and a half to get Trump to voluntarily return government documents. He only gave some back. Then they tried issuing a subpoena requiring him to return the classified ones. He only returned some, and lied about it, and tried to cover it up. It was only when they found out that last bit that they escalated it to a criminal case.

[ducksalad]

Gripe? I'd find it amusing to see Trump go to jail.

"The answer to your second Q2 is 'Because we didn’t know about it.'"

If you're talking about prosecutors, OK, they knew when it got to them. If you're talking the National Archives, I'm suggesting that maybe they didn't know about Biden's papers because they didn't make any effort to know about them. Granted, he was VP, and maybe a lower priority both practically and legally.

[Nige]

No, it happened when he was a Senator, didn't it? Doubt the National Archives have the wherewithal to track the entire Senate if it's even in their remit.

[not guilty]

A decent definition of "gross negligence" is here:

Gross negligence is a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence representing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Falling between intent to do wrongful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as willful, wanton, and reckless conduct affecting the life or property or another.

Gross negligence is considered more harmful than ordinary negligence because it implies a thoughtless disregard of the consequences and the failure to use even slight care to avoid harming the life or property of another. As such, someone who is found liable for gross negligence can be responsible for higher damages than ordinary negligence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gross_negligence

And for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), Mike Pence would be culpable only for his own acts or omissions, not those of someone else, unless he aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced or procured the other's acts or omissions. 18 U..S.C. § 2(a).

[not guilty]

"I understand that you’re the lawyer and perhaps in law those answers are satisfactory. It doesn’t satisfy people who see a case of selective prosecution."

There is no indication that the Department of Justice became aware of Joe Biden's possession of the documents prior to Biden self-reporting that he had them. A failure to prosecute offenders because of a lack of knowledge of their prior offenses does not deny equal protection. Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962).

[David Nieporent]

None of that ever happened. Not to mention that — I'll repeat this again for the slow-witted — Trump is not charged with taking documents with him. So even if the "six months" story were true, which it isn't, it would be irrelevant. Trump is charged with refusing to return documents when asked for them, and then lying and covering it up.

[Moderation4ever]

While much of the focus on electric vehicles is on cars, I am wondering if people notice there seems to be a real burst in two-wheel electric transportation. I frequently see people on electric scooters ranging from board types you stand on to sitting scooters. The big jump is in electrical bicycles which may in some areas out number non-electric bicycles. I have also noticed that the people using the electrical bicycles are not pedaling much, which means there are running on the throttle. The big difference is that while cars cost 10s of thousands of dollars you can get into a two-wheel electric for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. Interesting question is will the two-wheel electrics pave the way for greater acceptance of electric cars?

[ThePublius]

Interesting observation and question. I think not, though. The infrastructure to charge the electric bikes and scooters exists; one's home electrical outlets. You can bring these things upstairs in any multiple dwelling unit.

That said, it's not necessarily a good idea, as the battery packs can spontaneously combust. And as more are purchased, we'll see more fires and deaths. Some municipalities, NYC notably, are regulating and restricting this already:

"You may keep or charge bicycles with electric assist (e-bikes) and electric scooters (e-scooters) that may be operated legally on New York City streets or in public areas, as such vehicles or devices are described in state or local law, or the battery of such a vehicle or device. It is a violation of your lease to charge more than one e-bike, e-scooter, or its battery at a time in a NYCHA apartment; to charge an e-bike, e-scooter, or its battery without a person 18 years old or older present and awake in the apartment for the entire time the device or battery is charging; to charge an e-bike, e-scooter, or its battery in any manner other than plugging the charger directly into an electrical wall outlet; to keep or charge any lithium-ion battery that has been assembled, refurbished, or reconditioned in a way prohibited by local law; to charge any lithium-ion battery within five feet of a radiator or any other direct heat source; to charge any lithium-ion battery next to an apartment entrance door or any other place that could prevent escape in the event of a fire; or to charge an e-bike, e-scooter, or its battery in a common area unless such area is specifically designated as a charging area by NYCHA. "
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nycha/residents/micromobility.page#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20violation%20of%20your%20lease%20to%20charge%20more,charge%20an%20e%2Dbike%2C%20e

[Bwaaah]

Another benefit of NYC government housing: strict bicycle charging prohibitions.

The government, for the People.

[santamonica811]

I'm confused. I would have thought that even the most hands-off Libertarian would support government regulation in this area: fire safety, and esp fire safety in large buildings where an overnight fire could kill dozens or hundreds of innocent tenants who live in other units in the same building.

It seems like a great thing to have the government issue safety regulations, and it was odd to see you whining about it.

[Bwaaah]

It makes one wonder how all the non-NYCHA housing occupants manage to handle their e-bikes without government regulations to spell it out for them. Do you think of those as unfortunately endangered people as a result of their lack of regulation?

Question: What are the chances that the people who are prone to creating fire hazards in buildings are the same people who read and abide by arcane government regulations? (Those regulations should be as successful as rules of conduct at universities.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Mopeds and scooters have been around for ages though.

I ditched my Tesla and I'll never go back to an electric car again. It's just an easier way for the SDG tyrants to eventually control you, which we know that slippery slope isn't the fallacy kind, but the reality kind.

[Moderation4ever]

You are unique. While EV owner reversion back to ICE is high about 50%, that is not the case for Tesla owners. Telsa enjoys high brand loyalty, with the exception of you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I got $72k cash for a 4 year old Tesla S P100D with 70k+ miles. I don't have to explain anything to you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How much did you pay for it?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

~$108k

[ducksalad]

“Interesting question is will the two-wheel electrics pave the way for greater acceptance of electric cars?”

Probably not more than bicycles pave the way for cars powered by manual labor. Many people own both a bike and a car but they’re for different purposes.

What it would take to get me to replace my hybrid with a pure electric:
(1. Rechargeable in 10 minutes with a range of 100 miles, OR
2. Rechargeable in 30 minutes with a range of 200 miles, OR
3. Rechargeable overnight with a range of 800 miles.)
AND
Cost comparable to the competition.

[santamonica811]

Funny. When my friends and I were discussing electric cars and what specs we'd need to switch; we came up with almost identical numbers. (our 750 vs your 800 for overnight charging). I'm guessing that this is in the ballpark for what many (most?) consumers will need to see before we'll even entertain a switch.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Does our disintegrating quality of life, reduced social cohesion, and shorter life expectancies demonstrate the abject failure of our governing class?

I know the governing class believes they exist to enrichen themselves and force people to do what they want, but that's not why citizens grant government special status.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the idea of a disintegrating quality of life is absurd. People quality of life today is far superior to what we have had through the ages. Problem is people cannot see the forest for the trees. They see only the limitations and not opportunities. No government or governing class is holding people back, they do that themselves.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's a matter of your point of reference.

Our quality of life is quite stunning if you compare it to 1500BC.
Our quality of life is disintegrating if you compare it to 2019AD.

>No government or governing class is holding people back, they do that themselves.

You don't think the government policies have contributed to any of our social or health crises? That they're just innocent bystanders in the river of civilian life?

[Moderation4ever]

Our quality of life is better when referenced to either 1500BC or 2019AD. Maybe you have dementia and forget what 2019 was like.

People like you always see others as the source of problems. It the government, it's businesses, it's this class of people or that class causing problems. The fact is there is only one person in the entire world that can change your life and you see that person every morning in the mirror.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you tell that to black people or gays or trannies?

Or only us Whites?

[Moderation4ever]

I tell it to people complaining and right now that is you.

[Nige]

Black people gays and trans people stand up for themselves and try to change things to make their lives better all the time. What they don't have is your inchoate sense of grinding resentment and inadequacy which you blame on everyone but yourself.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just what was 2019 like for you?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He's probably a government leech and misses his $5000/mo COVID bonuses.

[ducksalad]

Seriously, Mod, what’s gotten much better since 2019?

I’m not claiming it’s disintegrating like Jesus is, but IIRC in 2019 things had settled in Syria, while Ukraine and Gaza hadn’t started yet. Food was cheaper. We didn’t have US states dividing the citizenry into “essential persons” vs “non-essential persons”. Most people (not counting the far-seeing people that hang out here) still trusted that the CDC was either trustworthy or at least not intentionally lying. Fewer people openly believed the justice system was being used as a political weapon, and fewer people openly applauded it being used as such.

Fewer people were so dissatisfied with their relationship to society that they felt the need to drastically modify their own bodies and declare new personal identities. More people thought things were good enough that having and raising kids seemed attractive.

And, we're all four years closer to mental deterioration, being put into a nursing home, and dying in dirty diapers while unable to figure out the TV remote.

What’ve you got on your side?

[Moderation4ever]

The world was relatively peaceful in 2019 because there was a worldwide pandemic that had the attention of most countries. Our country had a poor response to the pandemic because we had an incompetent President. We heard about infrastructure but never saw anything done. The economy was tanking again from incompetent leadership. You cannot go back to 2019 but we could the same incompetent President in power, and he can screw up new things. Mark the tape, if Trump is reelected, we have a recession before his term ends. On the upside a recession will bring down prices.

[ducksalad]

My recollection is that the COVID didn’t attract widespread attention until very late in 2019, and I’m not buying that ISIS was defeated because they got distracted by it, or that Hamas or Putin (or even Israel) were holding off because of it.

May I suggest that your happiness is overly dependent with whether your preferred party is in office? It’s been 30 years since a person or party I voted for won a major election, and even then only because ballot access rules forced me to. Life would be awfully bleak if I cared too much about it.

[Davy C]

>My recollection is that the COVID didn’t attract widespread attention until very late in 2019,

A Reuters article says: "The U.S. CDC said it first learned of a 'cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia' of unexplained origin in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31." Very late, indeed. And if you try to say, "well, the US was just slow," Wikipedia puts the first symptoms of patient zero at December 1, and he wasn't hospitalized until December 8. This *clearly* wasn't the reason 2019 was peaceful, unless we're going into tinfoil hat territory and saying that world leaders knew this was going to happen before anyone got sick.

Moderation4ever also says the economy was tanking. Well, let's see. Unemployment in November 2019 was at a 50 year low. GDP was up 4.1% in 2019. Median income (adjusted for inflation) was the highest it's been since the government started tracking it in 1967. The poverty rate was down for the fifth straight year. I'm sure someone might find some measure or other that was negative, but it certainly wasn't tanking.

The most generous way to interpret Moderation4ever's statements is that he's confusing 2019 with 2020. Because otherwise he's just lying.

[bernard11]

if Trump is reelected, we have a recession before his term ends. On the upside a recession will bring down prices.

And wages, too, not to mention making mortgages more expensive.

We also get a 100% tariff on imported cars, not to mention a host of other idiotic policies.

[Commenter_XY]

This is nice for Gen Y....but for you Boomers, scooters are a problem. You don't have the agility you once did, and that raises accident risk. The problem is you think like a 50-year old, but have 75-year old reflexes. Never a good mix.

Boomers and up....stick to the Shoeleather Express. We don't mind going around you. 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

This was a reply to M4e above

[Frank Drackman]

you don't have such great reflexes either.

[ThePublius]

That's a good point. I have ridden motorcycles most of my life, and the geometry, in particular, the steering head geometry, is very carefully worked out. I have a stand-up electric scooter, and the steering head geometry is downright dangerous! One can almost never let go with one hand and expect to survive. You also have to be very careful of the road condition, as the wheels are so small, and vehicle so unstable.

That is probably not the case for the electric bikes.

[Commenter_XY]

I am looking into the Street Strider (an elliptical trainer on wheels) to start getting around my town. I figure I can get 15 years out of it before retiring it (due to age, less agility, less mental acuity, etc). For me, it is all about fitness (and then, high gas prices, lol) and longevity.

[Bwaaah]

I've been watching in NYC for years as more and more people buy electric scooters. But they are as unstable and dangerous as you say, and it doesn't take long for the first mishap to occur. (Few people wear protective equipment.) That explains why more and more people are giving up on their electric scooters, and as a result, the overall usage of scooters hasn't been increasing here in NYC despite whatever advantages may be perceived.

[kramartini]

Boomers complain about scooters the way their parents complained about skateboards...

[Malika the Maiz]

A new study of air pollution in U.S. homes reveals how much gas and propane stoves increase people’s exposure to nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant linked to childhood asthma. Even in bedrooms far from kitchens, concentrations frequently exceed health limits while stoves are on and for hours after burners and ovens are turned off.

https://news.stanford.edu/2024/05/03/people-gas-propane-stoves-breathe-unhealthy-nitrogen-dioxide/

[ThePublius]

I'll bet that study was funded by the same lobby that's trying to eliminate gas stoves. 🙂

[Michael P]

What was the baseline, and what is the recommended indoor limit? Note that what they so dramatically compared to was "the nitrogen dioxide exposure level that the World Health Organization recognizes as unsafe in outdoor air." (Emphasis added.)

[Malika the Maiz]

The academic article it is reporting on can be found here:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adm8680

[Mr. Bumble]

If any of this is true then restaurants, where gas fired burners and ovens are running constantly, ought to be downright deadly.

[Drewski]

Restaurant kitchens have powered ventilation, because kitchen fires in restaurants are bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Effects of Cooking on Residential Indoor Air Quality: A Critical Review of the Literature with an Emphasis on the Use of Natural Gas Appliances

The bottom line: Almost all the effect appears to be actually due to products released by the food you're cooking, not by the heat source. Cooking with ANY heat source indoors is bad for health if the ventilation is inadequate, but it can be especially bad depending on the sort of food you're cooking, and the temperatures involved.

Something that would hardly come as a shock to anybody who cooks.

[Moderation4ever]

I see far too many modern homes being built with range hoods that are not vent outside the house. These are recirculating hoods which are not good for most cooking and downright bad if you are using gas.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, that settles it. Change your screen name to Karen or Kevin.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, those seriously suck, though paradoxically in the sense that they don't actually suck...

See, if they went on a jihad against recirculating range hoods, they'd actually have the science on their side. But then they'd be dealing with a real problem and improving people's lives, rather than using an exaggerated and mostly mis-attributed problem as an excuse to degrade their lives. And the latter is their actual agenda.

Our current house had a glass top electric when we bought it, and we're too cheap to replace it while it still works, but I hate the thing. On a gas stove the heat spreads out across the bottom of the pan regardless of size, on this thing only the area directly above the 'burner' heats, the rest of the pan is too cool for proper cooking.

But at least the exhaust hood really exhausts.

[Moderation4ever]

Designing kitchen space focuses on two major ideas. First the work triangle formed by the stove, refrigerator and sink. The second is that the sink is in front of a window so mom can watch the children as she does dishes. But if the sink is on an outside wall the stove and range are likely on an inside wall where ducting the range hood is difficult. It would probably help if we rethought some of the design basics.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so bad if it's a single floor house, though; You just go up through the roof.

[bernard11]

using an exaggerated and mostly mis-attributed problem as an excuse to degrade their lives. And the latter is their actual agenda.

Classic Bellmore.

1. "They" are wrong as a technical matter.
2. This is not due to innocent error, or honest disagreement.
3. Instead, it is due to a conscious plot to make people's lives worse.
4. OTOH, those who agree with Brett - the National Restaurant Association - are pure of heart and motive and technically highly skilled and knowledgeable.

Unbelievable.

[Don Nico]

"those seriously suck, though paradoxically in the sense that they don’t actually suck…"
Cute!

[Z Crazy]

So don't use a gas stove if you have a problem with the nitorgen dixoide.

[Moderation4ever]

That the point the study gives consumers information for their choice.

[Bob from Ohio]

Libs start to ban gas stoves, study says gas stoves bad.

Purely a coincidence.

[Nige]

It's almost like libs are usually right about this shit and your default cynicism and sneer is good for absolutely nothing.

[Commenter_XY]

It was entirely coincidental. Pinkly swear it! 🙂

[Bwaaah]

Now contemplate the undeniable presence, and now "proven" "toxicity" of so-called "microplastics."

Better start stockpiling sandwich bags. These people are out to save us all.

[Nige]

Man, if sarcasm was the same as science or even facts, you'd have this nailed.

[Kazinski]

Yet the World Health Org and UN says that 4 million deaths can be avoided globally by switching to gas for cooking.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health

I bought a new house Dec of 2022, and gas appliances were an important plus in the house I bought.

And I run my cabin almost exclusively on propane: generator, refrigerator, hot water, although I do use solar for lighting, wifi, and phone charging.

[Nige]

It's *less* of an indoor pollutant than open fires, kerosene stoves and coal, that doesn't mean it don't pollute.

[Bwaaah]

Nige-bot determines you're bad, but not as bad as you could be.

I don't think it could ever be any other way.

Why not die? You would reduce your footprint; be less bad.

[Nige]

Bwaaah has a bweeeh in his bwooohnnet.

[Don Nico]

cooking with gas is better for your health then cooking over burning dung.

[Commenter_XY]

Today is Yom Hashoah. For my fellow Tribe Members, let me borrow one phrase we are all familiar with: Shamor v’zachor (observe and remember).

Now more so than ever, we must remember: Never again.

[ThePublius]

Bibi yesterday:

"Eighty years ago in the Holocaust the Jewish people were totally defenseless against those who sought our destruction. No nation came to our aid.

Today, we confront again confront enemies bent on our destruction. I say to the leaders of the world: No amount of pressure, no decision by any international forum will stop Israel from defending itself.

As the prime minister of Israel – the one and only Jewish state – I pledge here today from Jerusalem, on this Holocaust Remembrance Day: If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. But we know we are not alone because countless decent people around the world support our just cause. And I say to you: We will defeat our genocidal enemies. Never Again is now."

[Ed Grinberg]

"countless decent people around the world support our just cause."
Meanwhile, on Ivy League campuses...

from a 2022 article:
Today, [the Ivy League and their near competitors] are utterly bankrupt — not financially, of course. No, in a good old greedy capitalist sense, they are filthy, stinking rich. It is only in an intellectual and moral sense that they are bankrupt. They are, all of them, totally in thrall to what we have come to call “woke” ideology, which has poisoned the well of their intellectual pretensions by subordinating the life of the mind to identity politics.
All the old liberal virtues — disinterested inquiry, due process, colorblind justice, advance according to merit, not some extraneous racial, ethnic, or sexual quota — all that has been rebranded as the invidious patent of reactionary and therefore impermissible vice. In sum, the educational establishment in its highest reaches is today a cesspool, contaminating the society it had been, at great expense, created to nurture.
...cauldron of iniquity...

[Nige]

'They are, all of them, totally in thrall to what we have come to call “woke” ideology'

Exactly the same as the tired and jaded old 'PC' schtick because you're, how would you express it, 'intellectually shit.'

The kids really are learning things and being exposed to new ideas - THEY MUST BE CRUSHED!

And forced to listen to Ann Coulter!

[Nige]

'Never Again is now'

'And we are killing thousands of innocent children to commemorate Remembrance Day, the way the people murdered in the Holocaust would have wanted.'

[hobie]

Why are you bringing up Jan 6th?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jews are indestructible. Isn’t that obvious by now?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Some might say like cockroaches.

I wouldn't, but some might.

[Frank Drackman]

Roaches are indestructible? The ones I step on certainly aren't

[Armchair]

California's new minimum wage job for fast food to cost 10,000 jobs.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14919

Meanwhile:
"Newsom received more criticism in the media when it was reported that a restaurant he partially owns near Lake Tahoe posted a job listing for a table busser at $16 an hour. With a $37 pasta dish and a $67 steak dinner on the menu, the restaurant doesn’t qualify as fast food, so it is not required to pay the $20 minimum wage."

So, Newsom gets lots of young workers fired...while simultaneously not having the workers at the business he owns gets $20 an hour...

[Malika the Maiz]

How much ownership is this partial ownership? It may not be his choice alone (though it's interesting indeed that the law doesn't apply to 'high end' eateries).

[Sarcastr0]

The article is very careful not to posit causality. You….not so careful.

Neither here nor there but I also think it was written by AI; it’s got that repetitive empty tone where the rhetoric isn’t quite right.

[ThePublius]

There are other sources, easily found via google.

"Last September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 1287 into law, which includes a $20 per hour minimum wage for fast-food workers and a fast-food regulatory council which has the authority to raise the industry’s minimum wage annually. But between last fall and January, California fast-food restaurants cut about 9,500 jobs, representing a 1.3 percent change from September 2023. Total private employment in California declined just 0.2 percent during the same period, which makes it tempting to conclude that many of those lost fast-food jobs resulted from the higher labor costs employers would need to pay.
More fast-food job losses are coming as the new minimum wage took effect earlier this month. This includes losses at Pizza Hut and Round Table Pizza which are in the process of firing nearly 1,300 delivery drivers. El Pollo Loco and Jack in the Box announced that they will speed up the use of robotics, including robots that make salsa and cook fried foods."

https://www.hoover.org/research/california-loses-nearly-10000-fast-food-jobs-after-20-minimum-wage-signed-last-fall#:~:text=Articles-,California%20Loses%20Nearly%2010%2C000%20Fast%2DFood%20Jobs%20After,Minimum%20Wage%20Signed%20Last%20Fall

It's a fact that California fast food restaurants have reduced employment, raised prices, and are investing in robotics.

It's also a fact that Newsom exempted all other employers from the minimum wage increase, including "elite" restaurants, and also cut out an exception for the business of a friend, Panera.

So, while you might not hear the fast food companies attributing the job cuts to the wage increase, for p.r. reasons, the handwriting is on the wall, no?

[Frank Drackman]

They don't call him Calvin Loathsome for nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You posted the same article.

2. Do you know the difference between correlation and causation? "Tempting to conclude" is pointedly not concluding.

3. Investing in automation is a no-brainer and almost certainly not caused by wage changes

4. Private employment in CA seems to have been on this trend well before Fall 2023. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SMS06000000500000001

[ThePublius]

O.K., try this, from Forbes:

California’s New Minimum Wage Law Will Bring Higher Pay To Fast-Food Workers, Along With Unintended Job Losses

Of course I know the difference between correlation and causality! Do you know how to argue without being insulting? I think not.

Some things are obvious. Look at the statements of large fast food operators in California. Look at the acceleration in investment in robotics, the firing of directly employed delivery drivers, and on and on. What will it take to convince you that the 25% increase in minimum wage for fast food workers has something to do with this? Holy cow.

[Sarcastr0]

Although the bump in pay is intended to help improve the standard of living for more than half a million fast-food workers, there may be unintended consequences that could do more harm to these employees, including restaurant closures, job cuts, reduced hours and increased deployment of automation to bring down expenses.

Read what you link.

It is undeniable that raising minimum wage will increase unemployment. The magnitude of that effect is very hard to establish.
That's why no one is saying what you think they are - they are being careful. You see something as 'obvious.'

[ThePublius]

Because some things are, indeed, obvious.

Plus, when a business owner tells you he's closing down due to it, or reducing employment due to it, or investing in robotics due to it, you should believe him!

[ThePublius]

The Aftermath of the $20 Minimum Wage Increase in California

Layoffs: Some franchisees, like Pizza Hut and Round Table Pizza, are laying off workers, leading to job losses.

Reduced Hours and Hiring: Others opt to cut employee hours and halt hiring to save costs, which impacts workers like Marcus Walberg and Brian Hom.

Cutting Staff Benefits: Franchisees like Walberg eliminate benefits like paid time off due to cost constraints.

Order Kiosks: Automation like order kiosks and AI-operated drive-thrus are being introduced by franchisees like Mendelsohn to reduce labor expenses.

Operational Cuts: Measures such as reducing energy consumption and postponing investments, as mentioned by Kris Stuebner and Scott Rodrick, are being considered.

[tylertusta]

Clearly the answer is to hike up wages even more!

What could possibly go wrong?

[Sarcastr0]

That would be thinking economics was easy just on the other side.

[tylertusta]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Peanut.

[Sarcastr0]

Well if Synergyconsultants.com thinks so...

You're just Googling to find supportive opinions now. A sure sign you have decided what the truth is first, and are looking for sources based on that.

[bernard11]

It is undeniable that raising minimum wage will increase unemployment. The magnitude of that effect is very hard to establish.

Not undeniable.

[Martinned2]

It is undeniable that raising minimum wage will increase unemployment.

Is it?

That will often be the case, but studies often show that for some groups (or other subsets), or in some circumstances, employment will go up. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12663/w12663.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Fair, I should have added an ‘enough’ to make it ‘raising the minimum wage enough will increase unemployment.’

[ThePublius]

Let me sum up Sarcastr0’s position:

‘The 25% increase in minimum wage for fast food workers in California has had no effect on employment rates in that industry, is not responsible for any job loss in that industry, at all, and has had no effect on the rate of adoption of robotics.

It happened without effect on anything except more money for those working for minimum wage in that sector. It’s a good thing with no ill effects.’

Is that it?

[Sarcastr0]

1. Minimum wage increases to effect unemployment
2. No one knows how much or how lagging the effect is
3. CA had increasing unemployment in this area already so any effect is going to be very hard to disentangle from existing trends
4. Robots were coming, and given the time it takes to make such an infrastructure expenditure, almost certainly unrelated to wage increase.

Economics is hard. Read you Hayek – he cuts both ways.

[Commenter_XY]

re #1,,,,it is also who is affected; you are hurting the people who need the money the most (e.g. single Moms, P/T Moms looking for extra cash for family stuff, workers without degrees, etc) when you raise the minimum wage. Government bureaucrats aren't affected, so they do not see.

Your position is succinctly summed up as: let them eat cake, since I don't know how many I screwed with bad economic policy.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Note that you're both arguing with someone who, if I read the responses to him correctly, recently asserted that the National Guard was deployed at Kent State (Ohio) in 1970 by Ronald Reagan, who was then Governor of California.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and that would be because SarcastrO is the definition of a douche.

Douche

someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

[Sarcastr0]

So it looks like you have me blocked, but are kinda piecing together what the replies to me said and making some assumptions based on that.

Lazy, petty, and wrong is no way to go through life.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great Kibitz!

Classic Sarcraptro.

[Commenter_XY]

Wuz....Sarcastr0's argumentation is 'good enough for government work'. What do you expect? Actual thought? 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No more than I expect basic honesty.

[Sarcastr0]

So far just blocked people and strawmen in response to this.

Says something, eh?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, you're woke and you're a snowflake.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and a douche grande.

[Armchair]

Or in other words for Sarcastr0

1. Because it's impossible to run the control experiment in the real world, where Newsom didn't sign such a bill.
2. You can't "prove" anything. It's all just correlation. Because the control experiment is functionally impossible.
3. Ha. Ha.
4. (I won't hold myself to this standard).

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Armchair, this is correct - economics is very hard.

You think it's easy, and aligns with your priors.

Surprise surprise.

[Armchair]

The "you can't prove anything because you can't run the control" is a very weak argument that essentially gives up at economics.

[Sarcastr0]

Disaggregating a single cause and effect in macroecon is indeed very hard if not impossible.

We certainly don’t know the causality here.

As the reporting knows, with its ‘it is tempting to conclude’ non conclusion.

All you have is an appeal to incredulity and strawmanning because you clearly don’t know much about economics.

[Martinned2]

Because it’s impossible to run the control experiment in the real world, where Newsom didn’t sign such a bill.

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

[Don Nico]

Already two years ago, wage structure in Sweden had led to a marked increase in robotics over human works. At some level it is inevitable.

[Nige]

I would say they're because corporations making massive profits want to make more profits by providing shittier services through understaffing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Classic Kibitz.

Nice contribution Sacrastr0.

[tylertusta]

And Democrats still wonder why Republicans consistently poll better with the public on the economy.

[Martinned2]

Because Republicans tell people what they want to hear?

[tylertusta]

It helps that what people want to hear is also the truth: that Democrats are incapable of understanding basic economics.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ok, so I spent a little bit of “me time” on the Lord’s Day watching the Aussie degenerates at YeahMad on Youtube.

They’re a bunch of young comedians and they do a repertoire of comedy routines & games. Often involving drinking, and the jokes tend to be off-color and crude. Pretty funny stuff.

This one I thought was particularly funny and I wanted to share.
“They say 9 out 10 people suffer from diarrhea…”
“I guess I’m number 10, since I find it quite enjoyable.”

That’s quality stuff right there.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is "Transformative Social Emotional Learning" appropriate for government schools to be practicing on civilian children?
e.g.
From California's Department of Education:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/se/index.asp

>These guidance tools, developed for voluntary use, aim to build on and respond to the call from California’s diverse stakeholders to embed equity-focused Transformative Social and Emotional Learning (T-SEL) in every learning and teaching context across the education system.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/se/tselcompetencies.asp

>Transformative SEL was introduced as a way to integrate an explicit equity and social justice lens into the conceptualization and implementation of social and emotional learning (SEL). As Jagers, Rivas-Drake, and Williams (2019) explain, it is a form of SEL aimed at interrupting the reproduction of inequitable educational environments by attending to issues of identity, agency, belonging, and related issues such as power, privilege, prejudice, discrimination, social justice, empowerment, and self-determination.

Are California government schools institutions of learning, or institutions of Marxist activist training?

[Ed Grinberg]

"Are California government schools institutions of learning, or institutions of Marxist activist training?"
Fair point.
Here are Minnesota Democrats, denouncing a conservative school-board member (source):

“It [the conservative school-board member’s speech] attacks equity training & instruction, insists that acknowledging students’ pronouns is ‘grooming them to participate in the LGBT lifestyle’ and even calls social emotional learning (teaching students about kindness) an infringement on parents rights and a waste of money,” the DFL said.

from a 2018 book titled Get Out Now: Why You Should Pull Your Child from Public School Before It's Too Late:

• ...the shift away from teaching the fundamentals, requiring memorization, and insisting on accuracy in basic math and reading...
• [Schools increasingly] divert[...] resources, time, and attention away from education and...usurp parental and familial responsibility towards the emotional development of children. (They call it “social-emotional learning.”)
• To see the problem, let’s examine the five “core competencies” of social-emotional learning ... : ... 3. Social awareness: “The ability to take perspective of and empathize with others, including those from diverse backgrounds and cultures.”

[ReaderY]

One of the shocks that may come to a modern in reading George Orwell’s Merrqessay was his description of the Jewish quarter.

“When you go through the Jewish quarters you gather some idea of what the medieval ghettos were probably like…many of the streets are a good deal less than 6 feet wide, the houses are completely windowless, and sore-eyed children cluster everywhere in unbelievable numbers, like clouds of flies. Down the street there is generally running a little river of urine.”

“None of these people, I suppose, works less than 12 hours a day, and everyone looks on a cigarette as a more or less impossible luxury.”

Orwell went on to say that the Jews are among the town’s poorest, doing more menial jobs than others; for example, not being able to own land, agriculture was out. Yet they were subject to special taxes Muslim citizens did not have to pay, taxes that inevitably made them poorer.

Orwell reported that they heard opinions like this everywhere he went:

“yes, MON VIEUX, they took my job away from me and gave it to a Jew. The Jews! they’re the real rulers of this country, uou know. They’ve got all the money. They control all the banks, finance!”

“But, I said, “isn’t it a fact that the average Jew is a laborer working for about a penny an hour?”

“Ah! That’sonly for show. They’re all money-lenders really. They’re cunning, the Jews!”

Marakech was hardly an outlier. The Jews of Yemen were required to remove dung from the streets. In Jerusalem under Ottoman rule, a traveler reported 6-year-old kids teaching 4-year-olds to throw stones at elderly Jews; the Jews dared not make a complaint about a Muslim and simply had to take it.

This context is absolutely essential to understanding the motives of the descendants of people who grew up throwing stones at passing Jews for fun, and who had forbidden Jews from owning land.

Comparing the situation of Jews in Israel to that of recently freed Negro slaves is “crazy” only to people who are wholly ignorant of the history of both, whose worldview is warped by exactly the kind of thinking Orwell reported as being a common street view of Jews. The comparson is entirely relevant. It is relevant that Southern redeemers not only repeatedly accused the Yankees of stealing their land and giving it to the Negros, they made some of the very claims being made here with the same anger

It is highly relevant that prior to the Tulsa Massacre (Tulsa Liberation to Intersectional Hamas Supporters), propaganda and rumors circulated claiming these rich Negroes only got their land and money by stealing it from poor white folk. If people who are supposed to have nothing by the accepted social order have things, it’s very easy to believe they stole them.

Jews under the British Mandate paid for their land with good money. Immigration increased demand and inflated land prices. But that may have only increased the rumors that they must have stolen it. After all, those rumors had already been circulating when Jews were still largely landless per Muslim law.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Except the fact is reality has Jews way overrepresented in positions of power, influence, and wealth.

[Frank Drackman]

you left out talent and good looks

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Correct. I was trying to be as accurate as possible.

No one loves ginormous hooked noses and evil eyes.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Dang, I was trying to be accurate but still managed to leave out “beady”.

My bad. Dear Gentle Reader, will you forgive me?

[Ed Grinberg]

upthread:
Moderation4ever (replying to JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes): ... People like you always see others as the source of problems. It the government, it’s businesses, it’s this class of people or that class causing problems. The fact is there is only one person in the entire world that can change your life and you see that person every morning in the mirror.
JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes: Do you tell that to black people or gays or trannies? Or only us Whites?

JHBHBE, don't you see that, by your logic (see your above comment re: "Jews [are] way overrepresented in positions of power, influence, and wealth"), "Whites" -- who're still the majority of the population, and are still "overrepresented in positions of power, influence, and wealth" -- deserve whatever discrimination / maltreatment is meted out to them?!
You may want to rethink that logic (before you find yourself being dispossessed, "deported," "concentrated," etc.)...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That’s not my argument at all. Maybe I misunderstood ReaderY’s point, but it seems to me he was suggesting that these claims of Jews in control was a myth (as revealed by the Jewish ghettos).

What I was refuting was that implication. I wasn’t trying to argue that by virtue of them having so much disproportionate privilege they deserve harsh treatment. That’s a Marxist argument (ironically, therefore a Jewish argument). And since I'm not a Democrat, I don't make Marxist arguments.

[ThePublius]

Most people either don't know, or choose not to know or recognize, that Jews are still treated this way in Gaza. It is illegal to sell land to a Jew on Gaza, punishable by death, while life in prison is more common.

"A Ramallah court has sentenced a Palestinian man to life in prison with hard labour after he was found guilty of selling land in the Old City of Jerusalem to Israeli Jews."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/31/palestinian-sentenced-to-life-for-selling-land-to-israelis

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why would a Palestinian sell to a Jew when the Jew can just come take it?

[ThePublius]

You're an idiot. Or a troll.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9q9PDBsDe8

Watch with your own eyes.

https://globalvoices.org/2021/05/14/israeli-settlers-aggressive-takeover-of-palestinian-homes-in-jerusalem-is-part-of-a-decades-long-struggle/

How on Earth do you not know this?

[ReaderY]

Let’s look at my analogy to Reconstruction. They clearly weren’t saints. There absolutely were corrupt officials. Some people were incompetent. Some people were out for revenge. Some of the things the Redeemers said really were true.

But the mistake the Redeemers and the Dunning School historians made was to present these cases as normative, as inevitable consequences of taking political power away from white people where it belongs and allowing black people to have power. Every time a court believed the black witnesses over the white or denied a white land claim in favor of the black was presented as an out-and-out act of theft. The officials out for revenge were presented as normative. Etc.

I’m suggesting the situation here is similar. There are some bad actors, as there were under Reconstruction. But these facts no more suggest that Zionists are complete strangers to the area planted by foreign forces or that they all go around stealing land than was true of virtually identical claims the Southern Redeemers made about the Yankee occupation forces and “negro rule.” The Southern Redeemer accounts of occupation and being subject to foreign Negro rule were greatly biased by anti-black prejudice (an a priori belief black people are naturally savages fit only to be their serfs and naturally violent people), combined with an exaggerated sense of grievance and victimhood.

The same is true here.

[ReaderY]

Because the claims that Jews just come take land are just as bigoted bullshit as the claims that Negros were just coming to Tulsa and taking land and money and getting rich by robbing poor white folks. That’s why.

Yes, there are cases when public domain land had been squatted on for 70+ years by people who had fled there during the ‘48 war and their decendents, and perhaps the courts would have been more just recognizing English adverse possession principles rather than following old Ottoman records-based land law. There are cases where Jewish squatters are occupying land with valid claims and the courts are being slow to evict them. And Palestinians obviously resent the policy of taking the houses of people convicted of terrorism crimes.

But the reason Palestinians accept money from Jews is that except in outlier cases blown out of all proportion and falsely presented as normative, Jews who want to own land have to buy it, and, as is the case everywhere else, they sometimes pay good enough money that the owners want to sell.

Just as the falsely-accused Negros living in Tulsa’s “black wall street” did.

[Nige]

'Because the claims that Jews just come take land are just as bigoted bullshit'

I'm sure they are, when applied to Jews, but not to much to Israeli settlers on the West Bank.

[ReaderY]

I take it you skipped past the “outlier cases blown out of proportion and falsely presented as normative.” Plus the normative cases where Arabs settled on land they didn’t have record title to and the record holders sold it, i.e. my comment about Ottoman having records-based land title rules. The Ottoman rules are not favorable to claimants without record title, even if they can establish prolonged occupancy.

There’s quite a bit of difference between applying pre-existing (pre-State of Israel) land rules that tend to favor absentee landowners over peasants, and theft, genocide, etc.

[Nige]

“outlier cases blown out of proportion and falsely presented as normative.”

It's pretty normal on the West Bank.

[ReaderY]

According to the freedom fighters, it was pretty normal in Tulsa, too, and throughout the South during Reconstruction and its horrible illegal occupation.

Why rely on the freedom fighters for your information for one but not the other?

[hobie]

Jews killed Jesus. A Jewish woman killed Mohammed. Soros. Space lasers. The liberal elite. Nationalist kooks have blamed the Jews for everything out of convenience. The bigots here are no different

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol haven't you read the Bible? The Jews did kill Jesus.

lol wtf, you didn't know that?

[hobie]

You expect a rational person to believe that book? I suppose the Koran is correct as well?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, technically I think it was Roman soldiers, but at the direction of some Jews. Hardly all of them.

[Moderation4ever]

Some of the gospel writers, Luke in particular, were partial to the Romans and think they were trying to lay the killing off on the Jews.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol

[David Nieporent]

I assume you mean the unauthorized sequel to the Bible, rather than the Bible. But it of course says — while telling different versions of the story — that the Romans killed Jesus.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How many times each day do you curse Christians? Isn't it 3x a day in your religion?

Do you use the '+' sign or do you forbid it because it looks like a cross as in many Jewish schools?

[ReaderY]

Look, standard Christian liturgy doesn’t exactly make nice regarding heathens and infidels. Nor Islamic liturgy. Just about every religion does this sort of thing, at least the traditional ones. People have managed to deal with it without making it into a big political thing. You don’t want people coming into your church trying to shame you for what yiu say there, you might want to stay out of everybody else’s and not worry too much about what they’re saying.

It’s an essential point, without which a civilized society is impossible, and one I’ve been hammering on since I arrived here. People don’t have to drop claims to being right to get a society where they can live with the wrong people in peace.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's 1980 Iran and ReaderY comes along as says "don't worry Jews, all religions have not-so-nice beliefs about others, don't shame the Mullah's, stay out of their business, you nosey busybodies! Keep the peace!"

[ReaderY]

Unfortunately for your argument, this is the United States. And needs to stay that way.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's a stupid response.

[Frank Drackman]

and if you believe in your Zombie God, that was the whole point of His coming to Earth.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I thought the whole point was to get the Jews to stop sacrificing animals and goy children?

Maybe that's why they hate Jesus so much? They'll never stop doing those things.

[Nige]

If so, since He died for our sins, they did us a favour. You know who really killed Jesus? God did. Take it up with Him.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>"Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel and the United States to counteract Yasser Arafat.”

https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1711251748092846421

Is that just not par for the course? It's like all the evil in today's world was created by the Israel and it's Jew Colony, the United States.

[Z Crazy]

It's like how Stalin backed Hitler.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a scant, receding academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots
— has operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

days without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least
TWENTY-SIX (26)
occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 26 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 26 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

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

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
disrespected right-wing fringe of
legal academia by members of
the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's ugly and stale thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This one is good, too.

How are those two related? The answer will be revealed, enjoyably, in Cleveland (Friday, September 13).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones moments:

First, aptly loose strummer, with one of the Dopsies on windbox, from the New Orleans show.

Next, a rousing drop-in with an old mate (and a current one).

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I have to tell you that I have enjoyed many Stones tunes in my time. Maybe it is time to fast forward a couple decades from the 60's to the 80's. 🙂 Let me ask you this question (as you are an audiophile): For the 80's, what band stands out to you as worthy of mention in your weekly post?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe I have offered Green Day (was that the '80s?), the Police, Van Halen (probably 80s?), the Cars, Queen (maybe '80s?), the Pretenders, Dire Straits, and others. No harm in dipping into those wells again. Some Springsteen, U2, Whitney Houston, or Prince also wouldn't hurt.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, talk to me more about The Cars. Enjoyed their music a lot. What Cars songs stand out to you, and why.

Reading Ocasek's lyrics, one cannot help but wonder how much of a misogynist he was.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I saw the Cars in Texas during 1982. I might have been in the front row (arena show).

Elliott Easton was a deft guitarist (and a lefty), evoking George Harrison and Tommy Tedesco (all the magic and lyricism in eight bars or fewer). I watched him most of the night.

Ric Ocasek did not appear to be having fun.

It was the first time I observed (at least, first time I recognized) a band using a drum machine on stage. Despite that, if I recall correctly, a drummer was being moved about the stage elaborately on some strange contraption that resembled a spider or a spaceship.

I will try to remember to include some more Cars in a coming installment.

[Commenter_XY]

That must've been neat = front row seat.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have been fortunate in that regard.

Stones (so close I could read Jagger's teleprompter from the side, which was quite entertaining).

Springsteen (front and center at small club show for charity, inches from the Boss).

The Who (watching blood drip from Pete's fingers).

Southside Johnny (who still owes me a song from that night, 35 years ago).

Stones again (caught a pick for a client's daughter).

Green Day (hit by foam from the bunny's beer).

Springsteen again (first row center behind stage, by request, so I could watch Mighty Max).

Noel Gallagher (wasn't much interested, but my son was a huge Oasis fan -- and the opening act's drummer walked to the front of the stage to give me a pair of drumsticks).

Stones again (drove four hours on a whim to make that show, parked on someone's lawn right next to the stadium, and just made it to the seat a few minutes before Jumpin' Jack Flash opened the show).

I also sat in the last row of the Carrier Dome for a Springsteen show, maybe the farthest seat from Bruce in what might have been the largest stadium in the United States, my head against the roof -- back when I was young, poor, and unconnected -- and enjoyed it immensely. He played Santa Claus is Coming to Town . . . in January! I also saw the most inauspiciously commenced version, from the second or third row.

I was close enough at another show to notice that Bruce's fretting fingers were acting in unintended ways just before Bruce stopped mid-song to inform everyone he had taken too many painkillers (bad back evident as walked from the car to the stage door). Instead of playing, for a few minutes, he told a fascinating story about how there are only a few songs in the world and that the music business consists of repackaging those songs in different keys to have new material that can be sold. He named several pairs of songs -- Darlington County/Cadillac Ranch was one -- punctuated by "same song . . . same fucking song." He explained:
"I take song I liked, then write something and trick you into thinking it's a new song so you'll buy another album." He then said he would try to resume playing ("but with a whole different perspective on the world, thanks to Ativan") but would change the setlist on the fly because he had revealed his secret and "as you now know, I already played that one."

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...Arthur, I had no idea you were such an audiophile. May I ask you a personal question? I am not being facetious, or anything.

Music (and the spoken word) is important to you. To what do you attribute this? What personal experience shaped your attitude of music's importance in your life? What internal satisfaction do you derive from listening to music?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When I was young, education, sports, and music were the most important things to me, occupying the roles that for some involve family, religion, and other hobbies.

Education was, I recognized at an early age, the path toward something better than my shitty circumstances in an ignorant, shambling, bigoted, depressing town. I liked school. It was interesting. They couldn't hit you unless there was (what seemed to be at the time) a good reason. There was lunch and sometimes snacks. The teachers were mostly great. The library charged nothing.

Sports showed me something greater than my circumstances. I played Strat-o-Matic baseball most days, conducting leagues, keeping statistics, dreaming of heroes and heroics, learning strategy and management, discovering glory and heartbreak. Beyond Strat-o-Matic, we played in the streets, on parking lots, at the Little League field. Strikeout, infielder-outfielder, pickup games, Little League. I listened to games with a small radio underneath my pillow until I fell asleep or the battery died. I was a play-by-play announcer for a cable television system -- high school basketball, football, wrestling -- beginning in 10th grade. My first job in professional journalism was sportswriter (football, basketball, one hockey game).

Music was another method of transcending my circumstances. My parents didn't like it, so I figured it must be worthwhile. I bought a small cassette recorder with paper route money and recorded songs from the radio (usually missing the first few seconds). At first it was whatever was on the radio. My first favorite band was the Beach Boys. Then Three Dog Night. Then I started at a college radio station, news, sports, and music. I caught the Stones-Who-Springsteen bug and was quite lucky, because all are still performing 50 years later. I liked the sounds (although learning to play sometimes diminished the magic) and often the lyrics. I learned plenty about life from lyrics. At one point I was probably spending one-third of my income on music (records, stereo equipment, tickets). I started to play (bass guitar, guitar, drums) late in college, thanks to a fraternity brother who loaned an instrument, and had bands (playing for money, but not much) for nearly 40 years.

Sports, education, and music were my path to a better life. Thanks to them, I got out of that crappy town and never returned. (Most of my elementary school classmates never made it out, and paid dearly for that.) I pay more in taxes every month, even after slowing my pace recently, than my parents ever earned in a year. I have had many wonderful experiences. I have financial security and a great family. I blame, in large part, sports, education, and music.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...that is something else, Arthur. Thanks for sharing that.

[Bwaaah]

Wow. One could be led to believe you're human, Rev.

lol

Fascinating. And genuinely humanizing. Good on you, Rev. Thanks for sharing.

[Bwaaah]

Rev: Why do you present yourself with the voice that you do here in VC discussions? Please set aside the unique and more considered comments you make (with some regularity, as you did here). I'm referring to your more boiler plate, castigating comments. What is the relevance/meaning to you of that piece of your voice?

I'm going to go out on a limb, in consideration of what you wrote above, and speculate that the "angry" remarks you make here are of little-to-no significance to you in your life; what appears to me as anger could be, I suspect, no more than minor annoyance within the greater scope of life. That's just a guess. I'm interested in your take.

[hobie]

The current abortion map appears to be a recreation of the South with the exception of the Northwest militia states. Apart from gerrymandering and school boards, the South can no longer legislatively subjugate the niggers, so they've switched to women and gays

[John Rohan]

Since a disproportionate number of aborted babies are black, then actual racists would more likely be the ones supporting abortion.

[Nige]

Why would they support black women gaining access to health care?

[John F. Carr]

Arkansas will erect a statue of Johnny Cash at the U.S. Capitol to replace obscure state historical figures who weren't woke. Not that Cash was woke, but at least people have heard of him. The political message will be provided by a statue of Daisy Bates. I didn't recognize her name. Her work, Little Rock school integration, is well known.

Not for the first time I wish I could build a museum of discarded statues of forgotten or disavowed historical figures.

[Commenter_XY]

A historical 'Island of misfit statues'. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

What are the statues being replaced? Doesn't that matter?

Also what the fuck is a 'historical statue.' Seems like a naked attempt to conflate actual history with a statue, which is many things but not actually history.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Also what the fuck is a ‘historical statue.’ Seems like a naked attempt to conflate actual history with a statue, which is many things but not actually history.

Maybe you should stop using the phrase if you don’t like it? You’re the only one in these comments who has.

John F. Care said, “statues of … historical figures” which seems pretty self-explanatory?

[Sarcastr0]

Humbug.

[Moderation4ever]

Nothing stopping you from building the museum. In fact, many people have suggested that some of these statues belong in a museum, just that they do not belong in the public square. You could explain the history of the statue and how it was erected years after the actual Civil War with the purpose to show the state or community's support for segregation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've frequently suggested that the canceled statues be shipped to Stone Mountain, which would be glad to maintain a display of them. But the people canceling them aren't so much determined to be spared their sight, as to keep anybody from seeing them.

[John F. Carr]

My lack of wealth is stopping me. And I need more connections. I can't call Ukraine and say "Hey Vlad, can I have those old Russian-Ukrainian friendship statues?" He wouldn't even take my call.

Beyond that, I would need to find a jurisdiction that values freedom of expression. Somebody is going to try to vandalize Stalin or Jackson. I need a police chief, prosecutor, and county commissioners who understand that no matter how evil the person, the statue is an innocent victim. It would also be nice if police would disperse the gang of Hitler worshippers or Putin protesters at closing time.

[Commenter_XY]

What is stopping you is physical space and applicable zoning regulations (along with the delivery charges associated with delivering statues weighing several tons). 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Not for the first time I wish I could build a museum of discarded statues of forgotten or disavowed historical figures.

A Bigot Hall of Fame Museum?

With racist and misogynists wings, surely. Maybe a gay-bashing section? Something for the antisemites and Islamophobes? Can't forget the xenophobes (successive waves of those losers, so that will consume plenty of space). The target audience would insist on a special place for the Confederacy. Also, pre-'70s Democrats and post-'70s Republicans.

Harlan Crow would be a likely candidate for named sponsor.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The discarded statutes are of

Uriah Rose - one of the founders of the American Bar Association, and later president of that organization. He founded what later became the Rose Law Firm. He supported white supremacy. He worked as a private lawyer all his life except for a short term as a judge and state historian in Confederate Arkansas.

James Paul Clarke - he is described this way by Wikipedia: "Clarke blended positions of the budding Populist movement, such as free silver and railroad regulation, with white supremacy and his gifted skills as an orator to popularity and electoral success."

[BrianL.]

I recently saw the Civil War movie. I've heard people say that the President is supposed to be Trump. The President is only in the movie for a few minutes and he does not look, talk or act like Trump. So for people who've actually seen the movie and think the President is supposed to be Trump, please tell me what in the movie makes you think that.

[not guilty]

The Washington Post reports that a Texas man is threatening litigation in regard to his former sexual partner's having traveled to Colorado to obtain a lawful abortion. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/05/03/texas-abortion-investigations/ (The court filing is under seal, so I am unable to link to the filing itself.)

[ReaderY]

The person may win. His parental status gives him enough connection to it to give him standing rather straightforwardly, so he would satisfy both US and Texas standing standards. Since she undoubtedly engaged in conduct in Texas to initiate it, Due Process minimum contacts and other jurisdictional requirements are satisfied for Texas courts to have jurisdiction. And Dobbs eliminated what would previously have been a very straightforward defense.

Interesting question whether, after Dobbs, pseudonymity is warranted. Under previous doctrine, “privacy” for substantive-rights purposes had been more or less conflated with “privacy” for pseudonymity purposes. It is by no means clear whether after Dobbs that conflation still makes sense.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like a case for the man . . . the "genius" . . . the superstition-addled bigot, Mr. Mitchell.

[Commenter_XY]

You mean the lawyer who argued the case and won? And then argued the Trump case at SCOTUS and won?

That Jonathan Mitchell? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He's arguing before a stacked Court (let's see how he fares after enlargement generates a Court whose majority resembles modern America rather than a John Birch meeting from the '60s), but old-timey bigots and gullible believers in fairy tales get to argue, too.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm sorry Arthur, did you just allude to a SCOTUS enlargement? Now Arthur, do I need to summon Sandra (formerly OBL), your nemesis friend, to remind you about a certain prediction you made back in March of 2021? 🙂

Be gracious. Jonathan Mitchell got the job done. He is effective.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You know who else was effective?

If right-wingers think the American mainstream is going to let an obsolete, rigged Supreme Court frustrate progress for the long term, they probably also believe in a Rapture, the Easter Bunny, trickle-down economics, Santa Claus, bamboo ballots, and QAnon.

[Z Crazy]

Did anyone read that letter from the editors of the Colombia University Law Review, asking to cancel exams because of the protests.

I know why these protests would make some students feel unsafe. But if your a lawyer, you have to confront other people's ideas, stand for your clients.

Why would these students want to advertise the buthurt they feel over other students protesting Israel?

[David Nieporent]

Your understanding of the facts is wrong. (Something you hear quite a lot.) They're not saying that they're upset about the protests. They're upset about the university's response to the protests.

[ThePublius]

They are saying both.

[loki13]

I mean, when I was a college student, I wanted to get my exams cancelled for health reasons, too!

I had stress-induced narcolepsy. Just thinking about studying for those exams made me very sleepy.

[Commenter_XY]

The cure is Red Bull + Vodka, or a bong hit to just go to sleep and stop thinking about it.

[hobie]

Gov Noem made the rounds Sunday and on CBS said Joe Biden's dog should be shot as well. But something else she said could be much more problematic for republicans.

"And I would say, about Republicans criticizing me, these are the same Republicans have criticized me during COVID. They’ve criticized me when I have made other decisions in South Dakota to protect my state. And my state today is extremely happy and thriving. We’re doing well."

So things in SD are actually fine in the American carnage Biden economy? SD is already Great Again? Ouch. Bit off message, Noem. The truth is a bitch when spoken. Stick to shooting animals

[Frank Drackman]

If she'd killed an unborn baby human she'd be a hero. Who here hasn't shot an unruly Dog? OK, usually full grown ones, but sometimes that's the only (umm, "Final") Solution.

Frank "That Barbara Woodhouse is full of shit"

[Brett Bellmore]

Joe Biden's dog WOULD be shot most places. You might be able to get away with keeping a dog that's only bit one person, but a repeat offender? Not generally.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

STATES BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 jurisdictions ranked)

COLLEGE DEGREE
South Dakota 34

ADVANCED DEGREE
South Dakota 43

Or, as the governor claims, "thriving."

[Frank Drackman]

South Dakota has one demographic characteristic that makes up for any downsides. And no State Income Tax.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Post-elastic jaws?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What do you call a priest that went to law school?
Father-in-law.

What did it say across the front of Moses’ wife’s apron?
The Hostess with the Moses

What did Adam say on his favorite holiday?
It’s Christmas, Eve.

What did God give to Moses to cure his headaches?
Two tablets.

What do you call a sleepwalking nun?
A roamin’ Catholic

lmao

h/t @yeahmad

[Frank Drackman]

How do you keep black children from jumping on the bed?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has been held in criminal contempt for the tenth time in New York. Judge Merchan acquitted him on three charges and found him guilty on one. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/DOcontempt_5-6-24FINAL.pdf

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lock him up?

[not guilty]

The criminal contempt judgments could furnish a predicate for revoking Donald Trump's pretrial release in the other prosecutions.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

[not guilty]

If I were Jack Smith, I would wait to see whether Donald Trump offends again after having been sanctioned. If so, I would move under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b) for Judge Chutkan to revoke Trump’s pretrial release. (Judge Loose Cannon is hopelessly in the tank for Trump.) The statute provides in relevant part that:

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.

The court in New York has found beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump has committed a criminal offense while on 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). § 3148(b)(1)(A) is accordingly satisfied.

If Trump offends again after having been sanctioned in New York, that would be strong evidence under § 3148(b)(2)(B) that Trump is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hope dies last.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep Dreaming, Shitball (HT C. Eastwood, "Heartbreak Ridge" 1986 Warner)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I can safely assure you that Cannon will not do anything about it, regardless of what Trump says or does.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You can't say Cannon will do nothing.

She might try for a reacharound.

[John F. Carr]

He was convicted of violating the gag order

By virtue of an interview defendant gave on April 22,2024, at approximately 6:00 P.M. to a program called the News No Noise, which is broadcast on a network called Real Just America's Voice. Among othet things, Defendant stated "You know [the judge is] rushing the trial like crazy. Nobody's ever seen a thing go like this. That jury was picked so fast – 95% democrats. The area's mostly all democrat. You think of it as a – just a purely democrat area. It's a very unfair situation that I can tell you."

The prohibited act was "making public statements about the jury and how it was selected."

[Dr. Ed 2]

I assume this is appealable -- how is that not protected speech?

[not guilty]

The criminal contempt order is appealable. But not on the grounds that the gag order violates the First Amendment. See, Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967).

Trump can separately appeal the gag order on First Amendment grounds, but he cannot challenge the constitutional validity of the order by disobeying it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yawn.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, do you think Judge Merchan imprisons POTUS Trump?

[not guilty]

Not for the most recent violation. Judge Merchan, however, did opine that "because this is now the tenth time that this Court has found Defendant in criminal contempt, spanning three separate motions, it is apparent that monetary fines have not, and will not, suffice to deter Defendant from violating this Court's lawful orders." The order further recites, "Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration[.]" https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/DOcontempt_5-6-24FINAL.pdf

If Trump offends again, I think confinement in jail is likely.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow = If Trump offends again, I think confinement in jail is likely.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Wow?

Any other defendant would have already been imprisoned.

[Brett Bellmore]

Any other defendant wouldn't have been a defendant in the first place. Which doesn't change the fact that Trump's own mouth is at times his worst enemy.

[Krayt]

This is as good a description as I've heard.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's a surefire way to ensure Trump gets the most legal votes in this upcoming election.

He won't win, but he'll get the most legal votes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe the judge will sentence Trump to a nice term of incarceration for criminal contempt after the trial . . . perhaps preventing him from attending the Republican convention. He could call in, though, using one of those lines that periodically declares 'this call is originating from the ________ County jail."

[Frank Drackman]

My concept for a "Dr. Baruch Goldstein Kosher Deli/Shooting Range" is sounding better every day

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Using Kosher dills as targets?

[ThePublius]

How do you think they get the holes in those bagels?

[TwelveInchPianist]

According to Politico, the protesters are funded by backers of President Biden:

The donors include some of the biggest names in Democratic circles: Soros, Rockefeller and Pritzker, according to a POLITICO analysis.

Another crazy conspiracy theory turn out to be true.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Leftist philanthropists supporting leftist causes is a conspiracy theory? Well, I never!

[TwelveInchPianist]

I've been reliably informed that it is.

[Nige]

There's nothing so ordinary and straightforward that the lizard-brains on the right can't turn into a conspiracy theory.

[Ed Grinberg]

In one of his post-10/7/23 columns, Bret Stephens said that their embrace of Hamas "put[s] a growing fraction of the progressive left objectively on the side of some of the worst people on earth — and in radical contradiction with their self-professed values." I guess we can now say the same thing regarding "the biggest names in Democratic circles."

[Commenter_XY]

Like Chuck Schumer. Schumer is some shomer, more like a shanda truthfully.

[Nige]

Did they prove that Soros bought all the tents?

[apedad]

‘Massive fraud’: Auditing firm for Trump Media hit with charges, lifetime ban by SEC

The SEC made the announcement about the firm, BF Borgers CPA, and its owner, Benjamin Borgers, on May 3. The agency said both company and owner engaged in “deliberate and systemic” compliance failures with the SEC’s public oversight rules for more than 1,500 individual filings from January 2021 through June 2023.

BF Borgers has agreed to pay $12 million in civil penalty; Borgers agreed to pay $2 million. The company and individual are now both suspended permanently from providing accounting services.

According to reporting from CNBC, Borgers was hired by Trump Media during the period of fraud outlined in the SEC allegations.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/massive-fraud-auditing-firm-for-trump-media-hit-with-charges-lifetime-ban-by-sec/

#ETTD

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

C'mon, now. There is no reason to believe that was why Trump Media appointed BFB.

They were just the only firm which would return their calls.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

More institutional abuse against 1776 patriots.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There might have been 1776 of those assholes available for such abuse at one point, but hundreds of them are currently in prison, where they belong.

[David Nieporent]

No; the headline is clickbait. Nothing in the article supports the claim you made.

Two of the organizers supporting the protests at Columbia University and on other campuses are Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow. Both are supported by the Tides Foundation, which is seeded by Democratic megadonor George Soros

So, in other words, at some point Soros gave money to Tides. And at some point Tides has supported JVP and INN. And JVP and INN have supported the protests.

David Rockefeller Jr., who sits on the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. In 2022, the fund gave $300,000 to the Tides Foundation; according to nonprofit tax forms, Tides has given nearly $500,000 over the past five years to Jewish Voice for Peace, which explicitly describes itself as anti-Zionist.

So, in other words, the Rockefeller fund gave money to Tides a couple of years ago — i.e., before these protests. And Tides has given money to JVP in the past.

Several other groups involved in pro-Palestinian protests are backed by a foundation funded by Susan and Nick Pritzker,

A foundation to which the Pritzkers have given money has given money at some point in time to some unspecified groups involved in protests.

I have no love for Tides, let alone JVP. But "I gave money to X, and then a year or two later X gave money to Y" does not mean "I funded Y."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But “I gave money to X, and then a year or two later X gave money to Y” does not mean “I funded Y.”"

It doesn't? Why not? Isn't that how funding works?

[Brett Bellmore]

At some point. Whoo, really vague.

So your whole argument rests on the fact these guys know how to use pass throughs to obscure things.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And in any event, some people on these threads were claiming that it was crazy to think that the protestors were being funded at all.

They were just a bunch of students setting up tents, remember?

[Nige]

Nobody said it was crazy to claim they were being funded at all. You always love to elide the actual claims people were arguing against. Also, to ignore the funding behind and organsers of the counter-protesters.

Also, I believe a correction on the story has been issued.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody said it was crazy to claim they were being funded at all.

Well, I said it was silly to think the protests were being funded, and nothing in that Politico story changes my view on that point. (And, again, my reasoning is that these protests don't require funding.) It says nothing about funding the protests. It just says that groups supporting the protests had gotten money at times in the past.

[Nige]

Well a billonaire giving thousands directly to counter-protesters and a fundamentalist Christian preachers directly organising counter-protests aren't notable outside agitating and funding, but organisations involved in the protests getting overall funding from branches of offshoots of foundations is basically Soros buying all the tents and Crime Manuals.

[Brett Bellmore]

Activist Groups Trained Students for Months Before Campus Protests

But that was free, of course, nobody had to pay for it.

[Nige]

They prepared. Foresight and planning are basically forms of corruption to the right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they are when it's preparation to commit a crime.

[Nige]

Criminalising protest? Of course you are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now there's some flying goalposts, as Sarcastro would say.

[Nige]

What else is this pearl-clutching about, then?

[bernard11]

Isn't this the same bullshit Adler was complaining about?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Donald Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief was ignored by senior military leadership on January 6, 2021, claims the chief legal advisor for D.C. National Guard on that day.

...
>He claims that Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, and then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, were plotting to disobey any orders handed down by Trump because they ‘unreasonably’ assumed the then-president was going to break the law and try to use the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) to stop certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

...
>But Matthews says that senior military leadership essentially stripped the president of his authority as commander-in-chief by preemptively planning to go against orders because they didn’t like the optics of uniformed soldiers at the Capitol.

How is that not a coup? Or mutiny? Or treason? Why isn't China Milley in Ft. Leavenworth?

[SRG2]

Planning to go against unlawful orders isn't a coup.

[David Nieporent]

How is that not a coup? Or mutiny? Or treason? Why isn’t China Milley in Ft. Leavenworth?

Well,
(a) because the claim is ludicrous, for two reasons: (1) because it's coming out years after the fact; and (2) because the chief legal advisor for the DC National Guard is unlikely to have any insight into the thinking of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States; and
(b) even if it were accurate, "preemptive planning" is not a crime. Nothing in that silliness asserts that they actually disobeyed any orders; and
(c) also, failing to obey an order is not a coup or treason, though it could be mutiny.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Take your first point and apply it to the 50 year old rape accusation against Trump by that rape fetishist broad.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Milley/China stuff is hilarious—WTF was Milley supposed to say to his Chinese counterpart?? If the missiles are fired I won’t warn you?? Of course Milley would say whatever he needs to say to calm the situation!!

[kramartini]

Finally, we have a witness who can testify about alleged business records.

I am travelling today, so I have not gotten the details, but did Jeffrey McConney say that the Cohen payments were booked as Trump Org business legal expenses or DJT personal legal expenses?

The whole trial depends on the answer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the corp has an interest in the reputation of the individual.

EG Wynn Casino in Everett, MA

[Roger S]

Why? Couldn't it be a falsified record either way?

[Bored Lawyer]

If it's Trump's personal account, then what is false about it? If that is the case, then Trump paid hush money from his own pocket, and had his henchman, err, attorney do it for him.
And as I pointed out yesterday, under Buckley v. Valeo, Trump may spend as much as he wishes on his campaign.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump did not pay Stormy Daniels, nor did he furnish his own money for Michael Cohen to pay her. Cohen borrowed the money on a home equity line of credit, so it was not Trump spending money on his own campaign as Buckley v. Valeo would permit.

[Bored Lawyer]

You keep saying that, and I am not persuaded. It is commonplace that attorneys spend money on their clients' behalf and then bill them for it. When my firm files a suit on behalf of the client, we pay the court filing fee, and then the client reimburses us. It shows up on the bills as an out-of-pocket cost.
If the understanding was that Cohen would pay and Trump would reimburse him, then it's Trump's expenditure. I don't see why that arrangement, if that is what it was, falls outside the holding of Buckley. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Cohen did not expect to be paid back.
That Cohen had to borrow the money from his HELOC is meaningless, same as when I use our firm credit card to pay a filing fee.
Where I do think there is an issue is how it was characterized on the books -- as a personal expenditure by Trump, or a business expense. If the latter, then we are getting into tax fraud. Which I understand is an alternative theory of the prosecution.

[not guilty]

"If the understanding was that Cohen would pay and Trump would reimburse him, then it’s Trump’s expenditure. I don’t see why that arrangement, if that is what it was, falls outside the holding of Buckley."

The portion of the statutes defining "contribution" to a campaign upheld in Buckley also includes a loan. 424 U.S. 1, 145 (1976). Accordingly, a loan made by an individual to the campaign is subject to the same limitation as a gift made by such individual.

[Roger S]

Sure, but Trump's free speech right to spend money on his reputation is not limited to running for office.

[David Nieporent]

There is no such general "free speech right to spend money on [one's] reputation." Of course, one can use speech to bolster one's reputation, and there is a free speech right to spend money on speech. But there's no free speech right to spend money on non-speech things just because it would bolster one's reputation.

For instance, "My reputation would be better if I got a puppy [and didn't shoot it], so therefore I have a free speech right to buy a puppy" just isn't a thing.

And "My reputation would be better if Stormy Daniels didn't tell anyone about our affair, so therefore I have a free speech right to pay her not to speak about our affair" is similarly not a thing.

[Roger S]

By that reasoning, it cannot be a campaign expense. Trump has a free speech right to spend money on his campaign, but if that cannot include hush money, then paying hush money cannot be a campaign expense.

[David Nieporent]

then what is false about it?

Was it reimbursement for monies paid to Stormy Daniels? Yes. Was it recorded as reimbursement for monies paid to Stormy Daniels? No. The bill was recorded as a retainer for each specific month for which a bill was sent, (i.e., "retainer for March 2017"), and the payment was recorded as "payment for services rendered for March 2017.")

[Bored Lawyer]

The latter is true. Cohen rendered him a "service" by making the payoff. Sleazy, yes, but not literally false.

[loki13]

No, It was, quite literally, false.

1. There was no retainer. You can't pay for a retainer agreement when there isn't a retainer agreement.

2. These weren't legal services. You say this is like paying court costs? No. It's not. This was the payment of a lump sum for the rights to a story. Funneled through separate entities.

3. Finally, the payments were made to appear in separate months, as if the services were done over time. Instead of, you know, being the repayment to Cohen of a single lump sum that was not, in fact, for legal services.

Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

(Again, paying hush money isn't a crime. But this wasn't even an NDA. This wasn't a settlement. This was the payment for the rights to a story, funneled through separate legal entities, paid by Cohen, that Trump was then reimbursing Cohen for.)

[Roger S]

No agreement? My meager legal training tells me that there is always an agreement when money changes hands. It might be an oral agreement, but it is an agreement.

Cohen was selling himself as a fixer lawyer. Apparently that is what they do. You pay them some money, and they fix your legal problems. Maybe you think that is a scummy part of the legal profession, but it seems like a legal service to me.

I don't know why the money was spread out. There could be several explanations. Not sure what would be illegal about any of them.

[Nige]

'It might be an oral agreement, but it is an agreement.'

Worth the paper it's printed on.

[loki13]

"My meager legal training "

You don't say.....

I could bother explaining this further, except I already know it won't help.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hamas announces it has accepted an Egyptian-Qatari cease-fire proposal

Is Hamas in a war with Egypt and Quatar? I thought they were in a war with Israel.

Oh, well. At least there's going to be a cease fire in the under-reported fronts of this war, if not the main one.

[Moderation4ever]

Don't be silly. Ceasefires are often if not always brokered by third parties. The rule of thumb is that combatants don't talk to each other, they talk to third parties.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, but is there any evidence the 'brokers' here actually talked to Israel, too?

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas accepted an Egyptian proposal that was not presented to Israel. It is taquiya, designed to avert the looming destruction. It won't work. Israel will move on Rafah.

Yahwa Sinwar, you are a dead man walking. It won't be long.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Soon enough, we will get to see how Israel fares without American skirts to hide behind. Some might say it won't be long . . . twice.

[ThePublius]

Today, in an "oh, shit" moment, Hamas has agreed to the terms of the cease fire brokered by Egypt and Qatar.

I don't think Bibi and the IDF should stop or slow what they said they will do. I'd say "too late! No more bets!"

[Nige]

Get your war on, Bibi.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The goal is to have campus Hamas protesters force Israel to accept it.

[Ed Grinberg]

Funny.

[Nige]

Or the thousands of protesters on the streets of Israel.

[ThePublius]

The protesters are protesting Bibi's in ability to secure the release of the hostages. Isn't it interesting how no one is protesting Hamas' attack of Oct. 7th, and taking and holding and probably murdering a large number of the hostages?

It's like idiots protesting Eisenhower's inability to secure the release of the inmates of the Nazi death camps, while he was busy trying to do just that by winning the war.

[Nige]

'Isn’t it interesting how no one is protesting Hamas’ attack of Oct. 7th, and taking and holding and probably murdering a large number of the hostages?'

Isn't killing thousands of innocent people and laying waste to millions of dollars worth of private property the kind of protest you can get behind? Or are a bunch if tents and scuffles with counter-protesters so much worse? Then again, why would Israelis hold street protests against Oct 7th? Are you an idiot?

'It’s like idiots'

The Israelis who think Netanyahu is fucking up and doesn't give a shit about the hostages are the idiots?

[ThePublius]

Why don't you call on Hamas to release the hostages? Why don't you condemn Hamas? Probably because you're yet another Hamas sympathizing anti-semite.

Hamas could have ended this long ago by surrendering and releasing all of the hostages. I suspect they can't do the latter, as most of those hostages have probably been murdered.

[Nige]

I'm not thousands of Israelis protesting in Israel, you should ask them. They're all Hamas-sympathizing anti-semites, of course.

Why don't you condemn the killing of thousands and thousands of innocent people? Why do you support the killing of thousands and thousands of innocent people? The IDF can stop killing thousands of men women and children any time they want. They even killed a few of the hostages.

[Commenter_XY]

You don't need to worry. Israel will not stop. Hamas will be utterly defeated.

[Nige]

Which justifies genocide.

[ThePublius]

It's not genocide to fight a war defending yourself against a terrorist organization that professes genocide of Jews as part of its written charter! Holy cow.

Are you a Hamas supporter?

[Nige]

No, it's not. But what the IDF are doing could well turn into genocide. Even if it falls short, it's a dark stain on humanity.

'Are you a Hamas supporter?'

No, unlike you I don't support the killing of innocent men women and children.

[ThePublius]

I don't support the killing of innocents, and I lament that civilians die during wars - and always have. Israel has done an admirable job of minimizing civilian casualties. The numbers coming from the Palestinian Ministry of Health are bullshit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Except for deliberately bombing journalists, shooting women and children, using air strikes against food convoys and medical transport, and prolific use of unguided 2,000lb munitions without regard to collateral damage or kill radius.

Yeah, Israel is to be commended for their remarkable efforts. Your disbelief of the evidence does not change its veracity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Israel has done an admirable job of minimizing civilian casualties.

That's a profoundly stupid and silly statement, even from a half-educated, bigoted, right-wing clown.

[Nige]

'I lament that civilians die during wars'

Crocodile tears.

'The numbers coming from the Palestinian Ministry of Health are bullshit.'

The actual numbers will be way higher. They are currently so overstretched and without resources they no longer have the ability to properly count the dead.

[Michael P]

That, or it will turn out that Hamas was always inflating their numbers: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/02/gaza-health-ministry-cannot-provide-names-for-more-than-10000-it-says-have-died/

[Nige]

They can't provide names for the thousands and thousands of bodies they're dealing with in the middle of a war zone? Fucking hell.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When Israel falls -- the cost of being right-wing assholes who can't operate without someone else's skirts to hide behind -- I won't say "told you so."

I'll be too busy enjoying a very good beer, celebrating the end of my country's complicity in war-criming by right-wing religious kooks.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I just want to thank cognitively challenged Genocide Joe POTUS Biden for his material support of Israel. You should take your policy objection to him, and to Majority Leader Schumer. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You'll be whimpering a different tune when and if Pres. Biden decides to reward Israel's misconduct and lack of gratitude by cutting Israel off (or imposing severe conditions on additional assistance).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And Israel will stop when the United States stops subsidizing right-wing war criminals fueled by superstition, delusion, and greed.

Play stupid right-wing games, win stupid right-wing prizes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who's President currently?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A guy with a longstanding (old-timey) affinity for Israel that has not yet been overcome by Israel's right-wing misconduct.

[ThePublius]

I think we should de-criminalize many auto-related violations. For example, an expired registration can happen by mistake, and shouldn't result in the seizing of the vehicle, as happened to a friend of mine in Massachusetts, on the Friday before Memorial Day. There's not 'violation' other than an administrative one, no harm done to anyone. Why seize the vehicle?

I also think we should allow people who've lost their licenses, or never had one, to avail themselves of motorized transportation like scooters. Amazingly, you don't need a license to operate an e-bike, but an e-scooter, one of those stand-up scooters, requires a license!

What say you?

[Davy C]

What exactly is the legal distinction between a bike and a scooter?

[ThePublius]

That's a good question. In Massachusetts the regulations are fuzzy and unfair, in my view. For example:

e-bikes:
"CLASS 1: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph, with an electric motor of 750 watts or less.
CLASS 2: Bicycle equipped with a throttle-actuated motor that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph, with an electric motor of 750 watts or less."

motorized scooters:
"'Motorized scooter'', any 2 wheeled tandem or 3 wheeled device, that has handlebars, designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, powered by an electric or gas powered motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion. The definition of ''motorized scooter'' shall not include a motorcycle, electric bicycle or motorized bicycle or a 3 wheeled motorized wheelchair."

I suspect it's because there's a pretty effective bicycle lobby, and none for e-scooters.

So, for e-bikes, no license required. For motorized scooters, even stand-on electric scooters you need a license or permit, a regulation that in my experience is generally ignored.

It gets worse. For the stand-on e-scooter one needs a license, they must have brake lights and directional indicators, you must wear a helmet, and you can't operate it between sunset and sunrise!

[Michael P]

What do you see as fuzzy or unfair about the rules? Something's a e-bike if it has an electric motor of 750 W or less power and it also stops providing assistance at 20 mph. Higher power or higher speed kicks the vehicle into a more regulated category. One might quibble over whether those are the perfect thresholds, but they seem at least roughly defensible to me.

[ThePublius]

Well, why do ebikes not require helmets or licenses and one is allowed to operate them 24/7? Not require brake lights or directional signals? Note e-scooters are also prohibited from operation beyond 20mph.

E-scooters are not higher powered than e-bikes! Are you kidding? Have you ever seen one, or ridden one? (I have one.)

[Estragon]

We’ve reached a curious point in our history when a potential VP pick for one of the major parties sees her stock go UP after bragging in her memoir about murdering her 14-month old dog in a gravel pit. And suggesting she’d murder someone else’s dog too, given the chance!

This seemed shocking to me at first but one glance at these message boards reveal a pretty callous attitude towards the life of other humans— let alone dogs!— amongst a lot of commenters here so perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising. After all, these are the same people who show up at political rallies and laugh at the idea of a 70+ year old man being assaulted with a hammer by a stranger in the entryway of his own home like it’s some Jeff Foxxworthy stand up routine. In fact I predict some defenses of this conduct will appear below.

In a way it’s kind of like a demented sociological experiment— will MAGAs love of their pets or their love of horrifying/owning libs win out? I know how I would bet…

And, no, Kristi, you can’t watch my dog. Or my goat.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The bigger problem for Gov. Hayseed seems to be that she lied about a meeting with North Korea's leader, then responded to a challenge by doubling down on lies, stupidity, and lack of character.

That she looks like something dragged from behind a truck stop for a few dollars -- cheap and ample makeup, trailer park hair, backwater church clothes, vacant stare -- doesn't help her presentation when she bats her eyelashes awkwardly and says repeatedly "I have met with many world leaders" in response to the question "Did you meet with Kim Jong Un, as you described at length in your book before the publisher announced it would remove that account from the book, or did you not?"

[Estragon]

Every time a bell rings, another MAGA grift circuit star gets his wings! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the newest victim of out-of-control wokeism: James “JP” Staples!

https://time.com/6974979/university-of-mississippi-protest-racist-monkey-gesture-fraternity/

Coming soon to a CPAC near you! (Or is that the one that’s been infiltrated by gays? Ed, can you chime in here?)

He should call Rittenhouse for career advice. Fortunately no actual humans or 14-month-old puppies were killed this time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That guy was auditioning for a Federalist Society internship, a Volokh Conspiracy guest-blogger spot, or a Ho-Alito Supreme Court clerkship combo.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I like how that guy becomes a star, but not the fat black chick with the sign that said "Murder all Whites".

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: I’m enjoying an excellent criminal procedural about a judge in China at the time of the Tang dynasty. It’s called “Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee” (or “Dee Goong An”), translated into English by Robert Gulik, from a Chinese novel written in the 19th Century. Gulik then went on to write his own fiction about Judge Dee.

In Tang-dynasty China, a judge did more than preside over trials; he was also an investigator, prosecutor, and defense lawyer, charged with administering true justice within this mostly non-adversarial context. Judges were allowed to question the accused, and witnesses, under torture, but, if a torture-victim died under questioning, the judge risked being fired from his position and blacklisted from any future position in government. Also, if an accused whom the judge had had tortured turned out to be innocent, the judge faced severe sanctions.

So, no adversarial defense lawyers, but no qualified immunity either.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486233375/reasonmagazinea-20/

[NvEric]

There is the odious character of "judge" Juan Merchan in his quest to silence defendant, Donald Trump. He is likewise wrong in his unconstitutional 'gag' order. While he claims it's lawful, he must seriously reconsider that position, for Nuremburg style courts may be in the future to address the current degeneracy of our judicial system.

He is free to come after me anytime, personally, one-on-one to debate the law.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How much would you pay?

[Michael P]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/05/oink-oink-piggy-piggy-we-will-make-your-lives-shitty-pro-hamas-protestors-taunting-nypd/

It's like these mobs WANT Trump to be re-elected.

[Nige]

'Taunting' the NYPD. Outrage on behalf of the NYPD! By the brave anti-statist civil libertarians who are horrified at the idea of the cops not getting the deference they demand.

[Armchair]

This just in. More miscues in the DoJ's classified documents case.

First we had the mysterious pallet shipped. Now we have evidence mishandling admitted by the DoJ. Whoops.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/06/filings-jack-smith-tampered-with-evidence-in-get-trump-classified-documents-case/

"Yeah" says the FBI... "We replaced some of the supposedly classified documents with placeholder sheets. But not we can't be sure which placeholder sheets go with which documents. Whoops"

(Quotes are for effect, not actual quotes from the FBI)
(Yes, I have to write this, or else our resident paralegals will have a conniption)

[ThePublius]

So, the FBI has tainted the evidence. I would say, then, no case.

[Nige]

I expect plenty of performative outrage and horror when this turns out to be bollocks.

[ThePublius]

Nige, the DoJ admitted that the docs were scrambled. What more do you require?

[Nige]

Actual evidence of evidence tampering. Some documents in the wrong order, which is what they admitted to, not to evidence tampering, doesn't seem sufficent.

[ThePublius]

No, it’s not just the wrong order, they lost the correlation of placeholders to actual classified docs.

Did you read the root of this thread?

"“Yeah” says the FBI… “We replaced some of the supposedly classified documents with placeholder sheets. But not we can’t be sure which placeholder sheets go with which documents. Whoops”"

[Nige]

I'm still waiting for the evidence tampering in any of this.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's it. That's the tampering. You literally read it five times.

[David Nieporent]

I guess this is today's phrase on the MAGA word of the day calendar, like "election interference." It doesn't have to have a factual basis or even make any sense; it just has to be a word that one can repeat over and over.

When police raid a drug dealer's house and then lay out the drugs, guns, and money that they confiscated on a table for the ensuing press conference, is that "evidence tampering"? Do you think they're required to leave those materials in the same place where they found them, in the same order? (And if you're going to double down on stupidity by claiming that it is, do you think that doing so is — or has ever been — a basis for the drug dealer to win a motion to dismiss?)

[Riva]

When you grow up, please don’t become a defense attorney. Now if you want to be a police state hack for loathsome things like Smith, you’re on the right track.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You aren't bright enough to figure this out on your own, so let me give you a free piece of advice:

Read the fucking primary sources. Don't read what The Federalist has to lie about it, read the actual goddamn court documents.

Your understanding (shockingly!) is incomplete, because you're a partisan clown who doesn't realize when he's been lied to by an utterly unreliable 'news' source, because you're eager to believe anything that fits your political viewpoint.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't sugar-coat it, Jason.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Actual lawyers have already discussed this topic earlier in the thread.

Unsurprisingly, they do not agree with your kneejerk partisan stupidity.

Fun fact: A great way to determine that the 'news source' you read is full of shit is when they use charged language like "tampered with" and fail to prove anything even remotely close to it with the article.

[ThePublius]

Is the verb "tampered" what you have difficulty with? How about mishandled, scrambled, screwed up? All of which is true, and all of which taints the evidence. Especially in documentation cases, chain of custody is key!

Notice, again, a lib/prog must resort to personal insults to bolster his case.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/06/monday-open-thread-52/?comments=true#comment-10550585

I am neither a liberal nor a progressive. You're just a fucking moron who doesn't have the first clue on how to parse information and check sources. Stupid people deserve to be reminded of their stupidity when they have big mouths and try to spread big lies.

Read the court documents. Show everyone here that you're actually capable of some kind of progress.

[Nige]

What has been tainted by any of this? Also, an error is not the same thing as tampering, though I see you trying very hard to pretend it is.

[David Nieporent]

1) No, not mishandled, scrambled, or screwed up. The evidence is all intact. The documents, not their order in the boxes, are what constitute evidence. Nothing has been tainted.
2) Chain of custody goes to weight, not admissibility.
3) None of this has anything to do with the concept of chain of custody in the first place; you're just using more terms you don't understand.

[Estragon]

You know who else scrambled boxes of docs? Robert Hur:

“When FBI agents repackaged the contents of the ripped garage box into a new box on December 21, 2022, it appears the order of a few of the materials changed slightly.”

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you think that’s why the DOJ is insurrecting against Congress and ignoring their lawful demands to see the original investigative materials?

[Estragon]

“Insurrecting”

Haven’t heard that one before

[ThePublius]

"Speaking to reporters, Trump said they asked him "a simple question" and that he would "like to give [an answer], but I can't talk about it because this judge is giving me a gag order and says you'll go to jail if you violate it."

"And frankly, you know what? Our Constitution is much more important than jail. It's not even close. I'll do that sacrifice any day," Trump said."

(from Fox News)

You must admit, even if you hate Trump, he has principles.

"When principle is involved, be deaf to expediency."

-Commodore Matthew Maury, 1849

[Nige]

'You must admit, even if you hate Trump, he has principles.'

He boasted about getting Colin Kaepernick fired for taking the knee during the anthem. If you think he has principles you're an utter fool. He talked himself into that gag order.

[ThePublius]

The gag order is clearly election interference.

[Nige]

The gag order has nothing to do with the election. The political status of a defendant should be irrelevant to whether a judge thinks a gag order is or is not appropriate.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The gag order has nothing to do with the election. He can talk about policy issues all day long. Maybe you should read the fucking thing before opining on it.

Who am I kidding, that would require you to not be a complete partisan dipshit.

"He has principles" LOL. His only principle is whatever benefits himself the most.

[Sarcastr0]

You must admit, even if you hate Trump, he has principles.

No, he has rubes.

Gag orders are constitutional; Trump is just throwing a tantrum and you're lapping it up.

[Estragon]

“Our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close.”

Publius: what a principled guy!

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”

[ThePublius]

A question for the lawyers here:
What is the legal principle that would allow a prosecutor to elevate misdemeanors beyond the statute of limitations to current felony status if they are purported to support a felony, and allow the defendant to be charged with the misdemeanors as if they are a felony, without charging him with the underlying felony?

Because that's what's going on in NYC, as far as I can tell.

[Sarcastr0]

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

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's a stupid response.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To be fair, it was a stupid question.

Stupid, in the sense that it has been discussed numerous times in these very digital pages, and the answers provided were clearly not understood any of those numerous times, so asking the same question again is rather unlikely to result in a different answer.

(On the other hoof, if The Pubster wasn't the one asking the question any of those times, I suppose he gets a pass.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, if I know that Sarcastr0 has committed a felony, and I commit a misdemeanor in order to conceal his felony, under this law Sarcastr0's felony elevates my misdemeanor to a felony itself, though I was not a participant in his felony.

And that's not really irrational, because we don't want people knowingly criminally concealing crimes, even if they aren't their own crimes.

But this does require proving the original predicate felony actually happened. (As well as that you KNEW it happened!)

But the state did not have to prove that Cohen's supposed campaign finance violations actually happened. Neither did the feds.

They had Cohen dead to rights on tax charges that could have put him in prison for 35 years. In return for pleading guilty to campaign finance charges that Bragg is using as the predicate, they let him off with 3 years of home confinement, and only partial restitution.

Essentially they bought his confession to an offense that would implicate Trump by going easy on him for all the things that they COULD have proven in court.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: a secondary offense having been committed is not an element of the offense with which Trump is charged. The element that converts a 175.5 misdemeanor to a 175.10 felony is Trump's intent. Not proof that another crime was committed.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's damned hard to prove somebody's intent to conceal a crime which wasn't actually a crime, Nieporent.

The feds didn't have to prove Cohen's actions a crime, because they bought his guilty plea by going easy on him on the tax charges.

[loki13]

Just throwing this out there. Instead of making assertions that are quickly, and easily, refuted, and then (instead of acknowleding it), you simply continue on with more assertions... maybe just pay attention and listen? If you want to learn, and engage, and make good points, instead of whatever it is you are doing, Brett?

You started by BOLDING that they had to prove both the predicate felony actually happened, and the intent. As DMN pointed out, you don't actually have to prove the secondary offense- just the intent to commit it.

But then read what you just wrote- you talk about intent to commit a crime that, you claim, isn't a crime. But then turn around and complain that the crime (that isn't a crime) wasn't proven, because someone already pled guilty to it.

....Now, I know you think you made a bold statement there. And you did. But I recommend you read that again, and think about it. Just a little.

(And I will go back to my original point I have made in a few threads- the reason there isn't much good conversation about the actual legal issues in the case in these threads is because the people who know anything about the law are tired from shooting down all the HAWT BAD TAEKS that are in every thread. See also, "But what if business records ... WAIT FOR IT ... aren't business records!").

[David Nieporent]

See also, “But what if business records … WAIT FOR IT … aren’t business records!”).

The thing is, it's not that this isn't at least a colorable argument. The thing is, the person who's proffering it is pretending that it's his own brilliant insight that nobody else has thought of that's going to blow the case out of the water. When actually Trump's lawyers already made a pretrial motion on that basis and lost.

[loki13]

I agree with you, although I don't accept that the fact that Trump's attorneys have made an argument that was lost necessarily makes it a colorable argument because it was once made by an attorney.

Just, you know, based on what I have observed over time.

[David Nieporent]

Are you impugning the competence of Trump's legal counsel? Because, if you are… fair enough.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Such a beautiful, and brutal self-burn.

It's a shame that you probably don't even get it, and sure as shit won't learn anything from it.

[Riva]

Intent to do what exactly? Watch tv? Eat a hamburger? have a beer? How about commit a felony? You know, the thing they don’t want to name. Very exciting show trial. Keep us guessing until the end what the crime is.

[Estragon]

“Eat a hamburger?”

That’s only a crime if you’re in Florida and it was grown in a lab

[David Nieporent]

Intent to commit a felony would meet the element, but the statute does not require that one intend such.

[Michael P]

The Free Press interviews a modern-day hero: https://www.thefp.com/p/exclusive-columbia-custodian-trapped

We don’t expect to go to work and get swarmed by an angry mob with rope and duct tape and masks and gloves.

Why does the Bottomless Mimosa Intifada hate working stiffs?

[ThePublius]

"Shrimp and grits."

That was Kamala's response to a question from a reporter about Hamas.

I suspect that "shrimp and grits" will become some sort of meme, meaning I don't want to or can't answer the question - can't, because I'm not in the loop, and a generally ignorant figurehead.

[loki13]

Or, you know, she was talking about her lunch order, and not responding to a question.

And you should really question where you get your news.... Because all of these hot issues you are bringing to us straight from your feed are telling us a lot ... about you.

[ThePublius]

You think what she said was a rationale response to the question she was asked? Or maybe, she heard "what are you having for lunch" instead of "what do you think about Hamas?"

You're an ass.

[Voize]

Well, yes. She was leaving a restaurant carrying a takeout order. You don't have to look very hard to find a report that isn't so ... selective ... with the context.

[Michael P]

So you're saying that the media has so little regard for her that they regularly lead with questions like "what's in your lunch bag?" rather than anything to do with her job as Vice President, and she mistook "Madam Vice President, Hamas says it accepted--" for that kind of question?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, that is not what he is saying.

Your inability to form reasonable conclusions is laughable.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

In bombshell testimony yesterday the Trump Organization comptroller said that it was him alone that decided to classify the expenses as "legal expenses".

Why isn't the case being dismissed?

[Martinned2]

Because the prosecution hasn't finished presenting its case yet.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You mean to "mis-classify"? (By the way, if the drop-down menu of the bookkeeping software you're using doesn't have an accurate classification for a particular expense, you have to choose a "general" classification or use different software--you don't just get a pass from compliance with your legal obligations because your software wasn't sophisticated enough for your business activities.)

Shockingly (I am personally maga-shocked about this), you failed to mention the other testimony of the day, in which we learned that the identification of the expenses as "retainer" had not been the sole decision of the Trump Organization comptroller.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So now the theory is Trump feloniously tricked his comptroller into committing election interference by a magic incantation of "retainer".

Nice one, lol

[loki13]

If someone tells you that a periodic payment is because of a retainer agreement, then it would be a legal expense.

Do you know why? Because that actually is a "magic incantation." A retainer agreement means something- it is the agreement between an attorney and a client for the payment of legal services!

I KNOW!

And so if you are saying that these are payments due to a retainer agreement, then it would be for legal services. But there was no retainer agreement, and these payments weren't because of a retainer agreement.

[Martinned2]

News from Friday (we had a bank holiday yesterday, so only saw it now):

Denmark relaxes 50-year-old abortion law

Denmark is easing its abortion law for the first time in 50 years to allow women to terminate their pregnancies up to the 18th week.

The government announced Friday it has reached an agreement with four other parties — the Socialist People’s Party, the Red–Green Alliance, the Danish Social Liberal Party and The Alternative — to raise the abortion limit from the current 12 weeks.

The new rules will also allow 15 to 17-year-olds to have an abortion without parental consent and will replace the five regional abortion consultations with a new national abortion board, to avoid local differences.

It is a testimony to the continuing US soft power that the Dobbs judgment has inspired so much abortion legislation in Europe, from France's constitutional amendment to this law.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I was disappointed last night to hear Neal Katyal opine on MSNBC that the Florida documents case cannot after Judge Cannon’s open-ended proclamation of delay expect to get a hearing before the election. Katyal explained that protection of legitimacy considerations at the Justice Department discouraged trying to get another judge on the case.

That was a reversal of earlier Katyal remarks, which had suggested the prosecution could try for an appellate order to put a new judge on the case, if for no good legal reason Cannon continued to delay. She has now done that.

Reading between the lines, I think that may mean word came down from AG Garland not to go for Cannon’s removal. If so, that strikes me as a mistake, one which will cost the Justice Department legitimacy, not enhance it.

What is out of control now is not the Justice Department—except insofar as it has proved unenergetic and laggardly under Garland’s too-cautious direction. What is out of control now is a corruptly partisan judicial branch—a problem which requires confrontation and publicity, not meek complicity.

The Constitutional interest in a before-the-election timely trial for Trump’s alleged crimes ought to override any consideration to deliver due process more solicitous than any other criminal defendant could expect. That over-solicitude for Trump has already been delivered in quantities that ought to have exhausted the entire supply, leaving a schedule stripped bare for action.

[David Nieporent]

1) The DOJ trying to remove Cannon would (a) waste far more time; and (b) be utterly futile. Nothing she has done so far would legally justify such removal.

2) In the span of a short time on the VC you have managed to argue both that politics should decide when the trial happens and that it's "corrupt" for the judge to take politics into account.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Nieporent. I have argued that there is a Constitutional interest in a before-the-election trial for Trump. You can see that argument above, in so many words.

Cannon, whether through incompetence, or through legally illegitimate partisanship, has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and requires impeachment and removal from office.

What has happened has been obstruction of the jointly sovereign People's exercise of their constitutive power. Cannon's oath of office forbids her to permit that to happen. So too with the Supreme Court justices, who ought to be next in line for review, if what they finally do proves comparably obstructive of the People's exercise of their sovereign power.

If friends of Cannon, or of due process, or even legal hegemony think otherwise, the best thing they could do is back swift action to get Judge Cannon off the Trump case, and get some other judge in who will try it to a conclusion well before the election.

Perhaps it is not too late to avoid turning this into a Constitutional crisis. Failure to admit a crisis exists cannot be the way to avoid it.

[tylertusta]

I think there’s a lot of caterwauling over an “indefinite” delay of the trial. Even terms like “open-ended” imply more than what is actually going on. Cannon could have have set a date for next year, or for next quarter, but she'd just have to change it again. She didn’t set a date because there’s a lot of work to be done, especially since several of the motions in the case are going to be pretty demanding in terms of workload.

Had Cannon postponed the case and then didn’t do any work on it, then I can see an appeals court issuing mandamus. Appeals courts have done that in the past. But here? Cannon has expeditiously scheduled hearings to consider the motions before her and also promised to set a date after those are handled.

An appeals court is going to be very leery about stepping in here. What’s the 11th Circuit going to do? Tell Cannon to not duly consider the motions before her and just skip to trial?

If anything, those who are cheerleaders for the Trump criminal cases should be a little grateful that she is deliberately not trying to block the fall calendar for the other cases. If the Georgia Court of Appeals somehow quickly handles Trump’s appeal and sends the case back down, or if somehow SCOTUS rules in favor of the government in Fischer or Trump’s immunity case, then Judge Chutkan will have a clear calendar to blithely charge ahead into a trial later this year.

[David Nieporent]

An appeals court is going to be very leery about stepping in here. What’s the 11th Circuit going to do? Tell Cannon to not duly consider the motions before her and just skip to trial?

A cynic, which I of course am not, might be inclined to suggest that this was strategic on her part. If she had set a trial date, and it was unreasonable, there would be something that could be taken to the 11th Circuit. But by not setting any trial date, she essentially made it unappealable.¹ That having been said:

I think there’s a lot of caterwauling over an “indefinite” delay of the trial. Even terms like “open-ended” imply more than what is actually going on. Cannon could have have set a date for next year, or for next quarter, but she’d just have to change it again.

I basically agree with this. The "caterwauling" serves the purposes of all sides; Trumpkins get to triumphantly shout that Cannon is stopping this horrible miscarriage of justice, and normal people get to catastrophize the idea that Cannon is preventing the pursuit of justice. But calling the decision not to set a trial date "indefinitely postponing" it is spin; it could've just as easily been described as "temporarily postponing it" if that served the interests of the speakers better.

¹Obviously it's not appealable either way; I'm using that as shorthand that includes mandamus.

[tylertusta]

Judges have an enormous amount of discretion in setting trial dates.

Even if Cannon set a trial date for 2025, that probably wouldn’t be appealable by the prosecution. So long as she can articulate a reason why the trial is being scheduled more than six months from now, then there’s nothing anybody except Trump can do.

Things that can delay a case:
– Available trial dates on that judge’s calendar (Judges will have more than one case on their docket)
– Available trial dates for the defendant (Trump is required to be in attendance in his criminal trials, so no one can ask him to go on trial in another case at the same time)
– Scheduling for defense attorneys, who have may have other clients they are also representing
– Allowing for adequate time to prepare for trial

And those are just the procedural issues. When you include things like resolving pre-trial motions to dismiss or getting discovery, that will drag things out even longer.

However, I do find this to be deliciously ironic: SCO Smith has already been trying to manipulate the FL case’s calendar, both to push it to trial prematurely and then later to deliberately delay discovery with the objective to push back on trial dates he didn’t want.

This current episode is mostly the result of the latter: Smith has only recently fulfilled his discovery obligations, and even then arguably hasn’t even done that. Smith wanted a delay, and he got it, just probably not the delay he meant to get.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Smith may have erred by locating this litigation in a former Confederate state rather than the District of Columbia.

What may be occurring is that Trump will play a hand of all-in with severe prejudice. If he becomes president again he could strange the prosecution. If he does not, he could die in prison, getting no courtesies or leniency from anyone.

I'll root for "die in prison."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent:

The task should be to afford Trump due process by narrowing the scope of the case to require minimal process. Thus:

1. Did Trump have any documents, even one, containing national defense information he was not entitled to possess?

2. When asked, did Trump lie about having such documents?

3. Did Trump attempt to move such documents, hide them from investigators, or evade attempts to discover them?

4. What is the law?

5. What happens to other defendants who do likewise?

6. Let a jury decide whether Trump broke the law.

Boil it down; get it done. It can be a simple case if a judge makes it simpler by denying attempts to complicate it gratuitously, to create delays.

7. Let the people see the evidence, either way.

In this case, to get that done before the election is more important, and a more urgent Constitutional requirement, than anything else the judicial system has power to address.

To work to that priority, it will be okay to allow mistakes to be corrected on appeal, after the verdict, like always.

[tylertusta]

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

I'm very happy that people like you are not running our judicial system.

[tylertusta]

The GA Court of Appeals has granted Trump & Co's appeal over Fani Willis's disqualification.

It's safe to say that a trial will not be happening this year.

[tylertusta]

It looks like Judge McAfee will be able to take a summer vacation after all. He should take some time and go on a cruise with his family.

I think Fani Willis can recommend some good ones.

[Stephen Lathrop]

tylertusta, you are unwise to celebrate prospects which will not deliver outcomes until months later.

No one can predict what will happen even 6 months hence. All parties are playing with dynamite. It would be wiser for everyone to imagine future circumstances favorable to those they think of as opponents, and urge current choices and policies to moderate those outcomes.

Please be especially cautious about consequentialist arguments which rely on hypotheses about future outcomes. That one, I wish could be hung above the judge's head in every courtroom in the land.

[tylertusta]

What outcome have I celebrated?

This case isn't going to trial in 2024. A simple look at the calendar will tell you that.

If Judge McAfee doesn't have any other cases in front of him, it's going to be a long wait before he can touch this case in any meaningful way. Perhaps he should take a long vacation, potentially to completely random locations like Napa Valley, Belize, or perhaps a cruise to tour Alaska.

Perhaps Nathan Wade can provide travel tips (just don't ask him about his billing practices).