Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

On Truth Social and in fundraising appeals, Donald Trump has been kvetching about the execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Trump claims that he was just “shown Reports that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mara-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE." He cavils that the government “WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME,” was “just itching to do the unthinkable,” and was “locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.” He further claimed that, “[s]hockingly, . . . Crooked Joe Biden's Department of InJustice authorized the use of ‘deadly force’ in their Illegal, UnConstitutional, and Un-American RAID of Mar-a-Lago, and that would include against our Great Secret Service, who they thought might be ‘in the line of fire.’” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.581.1_1.pdf

In fact, the FBI chose a date for execution of the search warrant during Mar-a-Lago’s offseason when neither Trump nor his family would be in Florida. The Operations Form also included a section — standard in every case — entitled “POLICY STATEMENT USE OF DEADLY FORCE (7/19/2022).” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.566.3.pdf (Page 10 of Exhibit 3 to Trump's motion to suppress.) Contrary to Trump's bitching and moaning, that document recited "Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person." The instructions actually circumscribed the agents' (lawful) use of deadly force by curtailing and limiting the circumstances under which resort to lethal force is authorized.

Donald Trump is shameless.

[santamonica811]

I'll play Devil's Advocate and argue for Trump in this case.
1. Of course, he understands that his claim is utter bullshit.
2. He also understands that his true believers are (to put it frankly) raving morons. (To be distinguished from the also-large group of supporters who loathe him, but would vote for Hitler if it meant lower taxes, getting conservative judges/Justices, keeping illegal immigrants out, etc).
3. Therefore, Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about insulting the intelligence of normal people. Yes, they (ie, we) will mock him and his dishonesty. But we were never his target audience. He's aiming this after the Fox News viewers; the Truth Social consumers; the people who will send in their hard-earned money to pay for his legal expenses.

Given his massive success in convincing the mentally challenged; I think he would actually be stupid to NOT be doing things like this. Do you think any Fox News reporters would ever confront him (or his mouthpieces) about lies like this? No, I didn't think so.

I think Trump will be elected in Nov. I am a white lawyer who earns a good living, who has most of my money in real estate and in my retirement accounts, and I live in a really nice part of the nicest part of LA city proper. I'm gonna do just fine under Trump 2.0. The country will go to shit, of course. But (knock on wood) not irrevocably. And, hey, I own a good chunk of land in New Zealand along with a local buddy down there. Not the worst place in the world to retire to. [We'll call that Option B.]

[Mr. Bumble]

" I’m gonna do just fine under Trump 2.0."
How did you do under Trump 1.0?

[Roger S]

Most did better under Trump than Biden.

[jb]

It's probably not fair to blame Trump for the effects of the pandemic, but considering that GDP grew at about 1% during his term, total jobs decreased and unemployment increased, and crime spiked massively, it seems objectively wrong to say Americans did better under his administration.

[Roger S]

Black crime did spike after the death of George Floyd. Not sure what Trump could have done. Biden did not do anything about it either.

[Nige]

Trump didn't even try. All he did try was to make antifa into a terrifying boogeyman.

[jb]

Crime has gone way down under Biden after the massive Trump crime wave.

[Drewski]

White-collar crime rose drastically during the Trump administration due to him deprioritizing enforcement. In fact, the Trump administration reached a historic, record low in prosecuting financial crimes.

[Nige]

Trump is never to blame.

[nicmart]

Trump appointed all but one member of the Fed board that wildly inflated the currency, leading to the subsequent inflation that gets blamed on Biden because people don't understand inflation. Biden would have nominated roughly the same people, of course, but Trump isn't getting the blame he deserves. And he substantially increased the national debt. And he didn't reduce regulations, he only reduced the rate of increase in federal regulations.

[OtisAH]

“It’s probably not fair to blame Trump for the effects of the pandemic…”

Why not? Is this “Trumpnesia” or do you believe the Turnip administration did everything they possibly could? And if the latter, is *that* Trumpnesia or just delusion?

[Mr. Bumble]

Several responses (but none from santamonica811), but none that addressed the question posed.

[santamonica811]

1. To be fair to me; I was sleeping for most of this time. 🙂
2. I did fantastic under Obama. Very well under Trump. And even better under Obama. Most of my money is tied up in real estate and the stock market. Since 2008 (with the usual expected ups and downs, that we know to just ride out), it's been excellent for me.

The reason I give extra credit to Biden (and no one else does, apparently) is because all the financial analysts I heard--across the political spectrum--were predicted a financial meltdown. A recession, at best. An actual depression, at worst. And Biden somehow managed to avoid this.

Presidents (governors, mayors, etc) never get credit for this...for the bad things avoided. But I think they should. If we lived in a small town, and the mayor or fire chief required each of us to spend thousands of dollars fixing our roofs, clearing out brush from around the house; we'd all bitterly remember having to spend $3,000 each to do this. But we'd never credit this decision for avoiding a catastrophic wildfire (which would have cost us each $500,000).

This phenomenon is not unique to Biden, of course. Politicians forever have been lamenting and whining about this. But I'm gonna give him some credit...even if I'm alone in the wilderness on this issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks. Just to be clear, I was not badgering you for a lack of response, only noting the responses from others (and with no detail).

Also, no need to apologize for finding something better to do (even a nap).

Finally, I don't begrudge anyone for doing well (as long as it's legal) but I don't think the majority of Americans are in a similar situation and generally did better under Trump.

[santamonica811]

🙂

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not sure he always understands when he is spouting bullshit. Yes, part of his shtick is his use of bullshit as a device to befuddle his opponents, but another part is his derangement, or mental "instability" (as he once unintentionally revealed how he views it). As a result, I think he probably believes some of his own bullshit.

None of which excuses anyone who knows this voting for him, of course.

[ReaderY]

I think Trump’s use of bullshit closely follows Harry Frankfurt’s definition in his short book On Bullshit. According to Professor Frankfurt, the essential distinction between lying and bullshit is that the liar is concerned about the truth of the statements, whereas the bullshitter has no such concern. Whether they are true or not simply doesn’t matter. What matters is solely the effect they will produce on the intended audience. The purpose of bullshit is to manipulate the listener into doing the thing the bullshitter wants the listener to do.

So why should it matter to Trump whether the utterances are “true” or not any more than it matters to the Pavlovian behaviorist whether the rewards or shocks given are “true” or not? Rewards and shocks aren’t given for their truth value. They are given to get the subject to perform the desired act. Same here.

So why should it matter to us? Truth simply has nothing to do with it. To think that truth matters, has any relevance, is to completely fail to grasp what’s going on.

We are dealing with someone who treats people like the stockherder treats cattle. Does the stockhearder who assures the cattle that everything will be fine as they are entereing the slaughterhouse care about being “truthful” to the cattle? Does “truth” have anything to do with it? Of course not. The idea that there is some sort of ethical obligation to be “truthful” to the cattle one is herding to slaughter is completely nonsensical. The stockherder is simply seeking to keep the cattle calm because that’s in the stockherder’s interests. And the actual words don’t even matter, only the general tone and valence of the utterances. Same here. Exactly tbe same.

Trump is a very skilled human cattle herder. And he takes advantage of the fact that the more intellectual people are, the less aware they are that humans, like other animals, have innate instincts tending to make them trust and follow a skilled herder who knows how to connect to their herd instincts, instincts which have little or nothing to do with the intellect. Indeed, the more intellectual one is, the more one thinks ones conscious intellect is all of the self, the less self-aware one is of ones real make-up, anx hence the more vulnerable one may be to such people.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why should it matter to us? It's because most of his supporters have not read Frankfurt. They don't all know he's lying to them in every "Truth" he sends. Perhaps, one day, they will.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, Trump is a bullshitter. Almost everybody knows that. But his skill is not as a “human cattle herder,” any more than voters are like cows who just arbitrarily follow an arbitrarily chosen leader without reason.

There are two teams here, Republican and Democrat. They represent different sets of priorities that evolve over time, following the evolving interests of voters as parsed through the two-team system of vote-getting. Voters tend to choose whichever party’s priorities most comport with their selfish interests (rightly or wrongly perceived). It’s mostly a team-choosing game, not a character-choosing game.

Only a minority of the people who will vote for Trump have significant affection for his political “insights.” I confess to having recently developed (in the past 6 month) a sliver of affection for Trump, but only for him standing so independently and energetically in the face of extraordinarily powerful, hateful opposition. There’s a lot of raw individual gumption there, and some of us appreciate that even though it can be ugly in other ways. (The would-be “dictator” for some is just an underdog for many, and many people like underdogs.)

The cruel joke, the way in which you delude yourself, is in thinking that Trump voters are voting for Trump, and not against Democrat policy priorities and political culture. I voted for Joe Biden in 2020. and after watching the Democratic identitarian race war that especially focused on the vilification of formal policing while implementing language/culture policing at all levels of society, I resolved by 2021: I will vote for a door knob before I’ll vote for the Democratic Party. Trump may be worse than a door knob, but that still doesn’t answer the depths of my concern over contemporary Democratic ideology.

Trump instantly offended me with his proposition, “Make America great again.” It presumed that America wasn’t already great, which was/is false. AMERICA IS A GREAT AND EVER-IMPROVING COUNTRY, AND HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME. But even more cynical and wrong than Trump’s presumption that American isn’t great is the newly found Democratic wisdom that IT NEVER WAS.

I’m not dead yet. But there’s no future for me in the self-hating, punishing morality of contemporary Democratic ideology. So I’m going with team R, but only because they’re not THAT.

[Nige]

But you’re voting for the guy who has not accepted that he lost the election and tried to fraudulently overturn the election because, why? Black people stood up to police violence and accountability, things that are complained about here day and day out, but which suddenly become trivial when it’s black people.

Oh, and you can’t say the n-word no more.

‘extraordinarily powerful, hateful opposition’

It’s like all the things Trump and his supporters say and do every single day just don’t exist.

[Bwaaah]

"It’s like all the things Trump and his supporters say and do every single day just don’t exist."

You *finally* said *something* that indicates you actually understood something I said. I have little to no interest in what is said by either Trump or his supporters. I don't even classify people as Trump-supporters or non-Trump supporters.

I doubt that you can sincerely grasp this, but in your remark is evidence of a glimmer of possibility.

[Nige]

You say this yet 75% of the resentment you claim is driving you to vote for Trump is Democrats saying mean things. Obviously you do you, but that is whacked.

[Bwaaah]

And why *would* anybody pay much mind to what Trump says? All the way back in grade school, I was taught to ignore trash-talking bullshitters. By early adulthood, I became convinced that was useful guidance.

Sure, there are some meaningful indicators in what he says there, but which parts, why, for how long? You can try to sift through that stuff. But I ain't got time for that.

[bernard11]

And why *would* anybody pay much mind to what Trump says?

Because it's everywhere, and terrible, and ignorant, and even if he's bullshitting an awful lot of people don't knew that, and think, incredibly, that he is truthful. So then they expect that, force their Senators and Reps to endorse it all, and then it is in danger of being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A lot of idiots think the election was stolen - still do - and we see what that leads to, and might again if he loses in November.

[Nige]

You’re voting for the guy, but you don’t care what he says or what his supporters want, and the upside of all this appears to be that you have no idea what he will actually do if he regains office. Bearing in mind that he tried to fraudulently overturn an election he lost and which he and his supporters still claim he won. Cool, cool.

[NvEric]

And, the comments above are likewise bullshit as is every other comment disparaging Trump, even though Trump lacks political savvy to sound intelligent.

[Frank Drackman]

So go already, before you get murdered like that Soap Actor(did anyone realize they still make “Soap Operas”?) I do envy you getting to live in LaLa land, where even a shanty full of Illegals goes for a million Somalians

Frank

[loki13]

"2. He also understands that his true believers are (to put it frankly) raving morons."

That's it.

Look, read any of these threads and you'll see the same people making the exact same factually wrong claims. Trump says it, it gets amplified, and people keep repeating it because it's fed to them.

Doesn't matter how many times you provide facts, because they don't matter. To quote the X Files, they want to believe. And they'll just keep mouthing the same lies over and over again.

[David Nieporent]

Doesn’t matter how many times you provide facts, because they don’t matter. To quote the X Files, they want to believe. And they’ll just keep mouthing the same lies over and over again.

The thing is, past Republicans have always inveigled against the liberal media. They sincerely believed that, and I think they were largely correct. But this was also about 'working the refs.' Trump's insight was to realize that any refs were bad for someone who doesn't care about anything, and so his strategy was to eliminate them, call the game himself, and that his acolytes would be fine with that, and would treat what he said as more authoritative than what any ref would ever have said.

[Kleppe]

"He also understands that his true believers are (to put it frankly) raving morons"

I hope Dems keep "basket of deplorables" in their playlist forever. Their disdain for the very people they pretend to be advocates for is refreshingly honest.

[Sarcastr0]

Your distain for Dems is broad and open. Dunno why you think tone policing would be a good idea.

[santamonica811]

1. Well, I’m a Republican, so we can start there.
2. I made a point of separating Trump supporters into 2 camps: The pragmatists (ie, “We want conservative judges and we want lower taxes.”), and the true believers. In the first camp are a large number of really smart people. I personally think they are making a dumb decision to support Trump, but I can see the intellectual argument(s) for doing so.

But…the true believers. I’m perfectly fine with my decision to label them as morons. Or mentally retarded, or delusional, or what-have-you. I think all of the above are absolutely accurate.

Listen, when you have the chance, to one of the faithful idiots try to explain and defend the Florida case. Can you imagine trying to defend
a. Accidentally or intentionally taking documents that don’t belong to you.
b. When asked politely by the govt for return of the documents (consequence-free!!!), refuse and ignore. Then, give some of them back, and deliberately lie about possession of the others. Then obstruct full compliance with a subpoena. Then, engage in a conspiracy to hide documents and to destroy evidence.
…???

You would never do anything as dumb as try to defend or justify all that crap, because (we all presume) you are not mentally retarded, or delusional, or a raving moron. But, I promise you; there are people out there who ARE absolutely as stupid as that. I think I’m doing God’s work by calling that shit behavior out, and I think it’s morally wrong for any/all of us to pretend that lying and dissembling about Trump’s corruption is not an objectively stupid (at best) or corrupt (at worst) behavior.

You’re welcome, America.

[Nobel Committee: You can mail me my Peace Prize via the Volokh Conspiracy.]

[Nige]

Trump says worse about people who don't vote for him every day. His supporters will accuse liberals of being literal child groomers at the drop of a hat. You're still reacing back to something said two elections ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" that would include against our Great Secret Service,"

It says that -- INSTEAD OF how they would avoid a "good guy firefight."

Trump didn't write this...

[Frank Drackman]

Love how the Secret Service(I’d expect a “Secret” service to be a little more “Secret”) are supposed to be these great gunfighters when they’re just glorified bodyguards(and unlike private security like Celebrities have, SS(appropriate) agents have to pass the Affirmative Action Bullshit which is why they’ve had trouble lately with sophisticated security measures, like the locks on the White House door,

Frank

[DaveM]

You are missing the point, I'm afraid. You and your fellow travellers keep trying to speak as if a "raid" was no big deal, just standard procedure. That itself is hotly contested. Now raise the stakes: a "raid", but agents look through residents' private underwear drawers -- a " panty raid"! No big deal, right? Happens all the time to former First Ladies. Now raise the stakes even higher: a "panty raid" but with "lethal force", guns at the ready! Oh, no big deal, happens all the time, just more SOP.

And I could go even further: a raid for documents the government already had in its posession; a raid for documents where the government brings its own top secret folders and stages a photo op, like a drug bust; and a raid where the ransacked evidence isn't even kept in its original order.

I say all thes things not to defend Trump, but to point out the obvious: the government was going for a PR coup, and they failed. You trying to justify their failure and incompetence by pretending this was all just normal procedure just makes their bad look even worse.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your comment is the dumbest shit I’ve ever read in my lifetime.

Helmet-wearing, drooling stupidity. JFC.

[NvEric]

You are the dipshit for you propose nothing !

[Frank Drackman]

Try reading your own material, it’s even dumber and shittier

[David Nieporent]

1) It was a search, not a "raid."
2) While searching a former president's residence is obviously unique, the manner in which the search was conducted was SOP.
3) When law enforcement conduct a search, they look any place that the evidence they're looking for might be found. Again, SOP. Drug dealers cannot escape criminal liability by putting their cocaine in their wives' dressers. They look in drawers, closets, etc. SOP.
4) Yes, law enforcement always carry guns when on duty. SOP.
5) Whether the government had copies of these documents in its possession — a claim you have fabricated — is irrelevant, since the threat comes from the fact that Trump had these documents and was refusing to return them.
6) Yes, a photo op, like a drug bust. Is there some reason that you think Donald Trump should be treated any differently than any other suspect?
7) Evidence is never kept in original order. As you say, "a photo op, like a drug bust." They don't keep the drugs, cash, and guns seized in the places where those were found; they document where those were found and then put them in evidence boxes.

[Michael P]

When you send armed agents with authorization to use deadly force, that's a "raid".

But then again, you're also one of the ones who insisted that there was no evidence of Hunter Biden's guilt on Hunter Biden's laptop, a claim which has since been refuted by Joe Biden's DOJ.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So all search warrants are executed in "raids"? Okay, I guess.

[not guilty]

A law enforcement officer's authority to use deadly force under certain circumstances, while executing a search warrant or otherwise, does not depend on an FBI Operations Form. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, an officer may constitutionally use deadly force when the officer:

(1) has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others or that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm; (2) reasonably believes that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent escape; and (3) has given some warning about the possible use of deadly force, if feasible.

Perez v. Suszczynski, 809 F.3d 1213, 1218-1219 (11th Cir. 2016) (denying qualified immunity to police officer who fatally shot a compliant and non-resisting subject in the back).

[Nige]

'there was no evidence of Hunter Biden’s guilt'

What other people are supposed to have insisted on constantly shifts like sand. What evidence of what guilt?

[jb]

I have to admit that I'm surprised that the provenance of the laptop is strong enough that Weiss is planning on using evidence from it, but it sounds like it is.

Having said that, they're using it to establish that he was addicted to drugs at the time he acquired the gun, not any of the crazy schemes that the right wing commentariat has been arguing that it proves. Since I don't think anyone on the left has been arguing that Hunter was not addicted to drugs at the time, the laptop is not actually proving anything in dispute.

[Nige]

Some of the emails, pictures and videos HAVE been confirmed as his, so that makes sense.

[Mr. Bumble]

Some?

[Nige]

You hadn't heard? How shattering for you.

[David Nieporent]

I have to admit that I’m surprised that the provenance of the laptop is strong enough that Weiss is planning on using evidence from it, but it sounds like it is.

Two points to keep in mind:

1) People keep talking about the laptop in gross, but that's not the way it works. There could be (and I'm not saying there are) both genuine and inauthentic documents on there. If they found something incriminating on the device, and then subsequently authenticated it, the possibility that other documents on there are forgeries wouldn't matter.

2) The laptop itself that's in the FBI's possession is an entirely different animal than the thing floating around the Internet, first reported on by the NY Post, purporting to be a copy of the laptop.

[bernard11]

Questions:

Is Weiss now committed to introducing the laptop, or could this be some sort of bluff or, more realistically, a matter of keeping options open, so he can use it or not, depending on how things go?

[not guilty]

Whether Weiss introduces the laptop is not up to Weiss; it is up to the judge to rule on admissibility if and when the prosecution attempts to lay a foundation. I haven't followed the matter too closely, but I would be quite surprised if such a foundation for admission of the device in its entirety could be laid.

[bernard11]

Thanks, NG, but I meant to ask whether Weiss now has to introduce the laptop (assuming it's admissible) or whether he could still decide it was a bad idea to do so, and not bother with it.

IOW, does he retain the option, or not?

[not guilty]

Weiss doesn't have to seek to introduce any particular item of evidence, and I doubt that he could introduce the laptop as a whole in any event.

He can always decide not to offer any particular piece of evidence.

[David Nieporent]

He's never going to be able to introduce the laptop as a whole. Whether he can introduce specific documents (including photos) from it is a separate question, up to the judge. But, no, he's not "committed to" doing so. If a lawyer promises a jury that he will produce certain evidence, he's (as a practical, not legal matter) committed to doing so. But that hasn't happened yet.

[nicmart]

In the lingo of prohibitionists, "addicted to" means "was using." If you get busted for possession once for a drug you never used, you will often be diverted to an "addiction" propaganda cult to deprogram you rather than doing time. Addiction is perhaps THE essential pillar of the drug war, and belief in the addiction myth cuts across all ideologies, including the libertarian one.

[David Nieporent]

When you send armed agents with authorization to use deadly force, that’s a “raid”.

So every search warrant ever conducted is a "raid"? Every person on the planet is authorized to use deadly force in self-defense. Why do you think FBI agents would be uniquely forbidden to do so, in any context?

But then again, you’re also one of the ones who insisted that there was no evidence of Hunter Biden’s guilt on Hunter Biden’s laptop, a claim which has since been refuted by Joe Biden’s DOJ.

Setting aside your standards of proof, you're lying. I never said anything about information about Hunter Biden on the laptop; I was pretty sure that some of the info about his tax deficiencies came from documents there. I said there was no evidence of Joe Biden's guilt on the laptop. Which there, of course, is not.

[Roger S]

Yes, there is reason to treat Trump different from other suspect. He is an ex-President. At worst, he kept some extra copies of document, and there is a civil disagreement about the Presidential records act.

It is relevant that the government has copies of the documents. DaveM did not fabricate this. The indictment essentially admits it. Trump is not accused of having anything that the governments needs. If Trump were going to do bad things with the documents, he could have done while President. There is no reason to bother with the issue now, except for the Biden administration to harass and intimidate Trump.

[Nige]

The rules, you see, and the law, are not supposed to apply to Trump.

[Roger S]

Every other President has been allowed to keep copies of documents. And none have been the target of spiteful prosecutions. These prosecutions serve no point except to interfere with his campaign.

[Nige]

None of them did what Trump did. Not a single one. None of it even had to happen, except Trump's an idiot who thnks rules and laws shouldn't apply to him. He brought the whole thing on himself.

[Roger S]

How do you know? They all left with boxes of documents. Only Trump was raided by armed federal agents.

[Nige]

We mostly know because Trump got caught doing it, and nobody else did, and retroactive efforts to imply they did the same have all been really, really dumb.

[Commenter_XY]

You 'mostly know'? What...Is that like a mostly peaceful riot, lol?

Nige, you do not know.

It does not excuse obstreperous behavior on the part of POTUS Trump.

[NOVA Lawyer]

We know, to the extent we know anyone didn't do something, because Trump did either lie to his attorneys or had them lie on the subpoena for documents. We know he continually claimed it was his right to have them which no other president has done. We know that he lied about having documents and then was found to have had them and there is evidence that he intentionally moved them around to avoid having them found.

The burden is on you to show that any other president failed to work with the federal government in good faith to resolve what documents belonged to whom and that one of them knowingly lied about having government documents which the government (at minimum) asserted they owned and Trump did not.

This is just idiocy to claim everyone else did the same thing. Show me anyone else claiming they own the documents and the government can go shove it. When the government, in the face of the petulance, then insisted on the documents, show many any other president who, instead of handling it with attorneys making legal arguments based on actual facts, instead hid documents and lied to the government about having them.

No other president did what Trump did. Full stop.

[bernard11]

Are you in the cult, or not, XY?

Who do you find convincing, Roger S, or Nova Lawyer and DMN?

[Nige]

'You ‘mostly know’?'

It means: 'these are amongst the larger reasons why we know.' We also know because absolutely no-one has shown otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Ignore the actual law based on some functionalist handwaiving, and let us not forget Trump is different - because an ex-President should be treated as a monarch.

You really are very bad at being an American.

[jb]

Wait, so your theory about the Espionage Act and classified documents in general, is that it's not about protecting the confidentiality of the documents but whether or not the government still has it's own copy or not?

Because if so, that is honestly the dumbest understanding of the dispute that I've ever heard.

[Roger S]

No, someone could commit espionage with copies of documents. I just want to clarify what the case is about. The charge against Trump is that he retained documents. Not that he stole them, or gave them to the Russians or anyone else, or withheld information. He just retained some extra copies.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, he retained extra copies that did not belong to him, refused to give them back, lied that he had given them back, and then hid them some more and either lied to his attorneys or had his attorneys lie, but in either case a false affidavit asserted they'd all been returned when Trump knew they hadn't been.

If you want to clarify what the case is about, you can't leave out the lying and intentional hiding of documents. Just pretending it's about retaining "some extra copies" is so stupid its dishonest.

[not guilty]

"I just want to clarify what the case is about. The charge against Trump is that he retained documents. Not that he stole them, or gave them to the Russians or anyone else, or withheld information. He just retained some extra copies."

Roger S, you are a liar and the truth ain't in you. Thirty-two of the charges against Donald Trump in Florida are willful retention of documents containing national defense information under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). One charge is conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k). One charge is corruptly causing or inducing another to withhold a record or document from an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A) and 2. One charge is corruptly concealing a document or record under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1) and 2. One charge is concealing a document in a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 2. One charge is scheming to conceal material facts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(1) and 2. One charge is false statements and representations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2) and 2. One charge is altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing an object under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(B) and 2. One charge is corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing a document, record or other object 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1) and 2.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.85.0_3.pdf

[not guilty]

"It is relevant that the government has copies of the documents. DaveM did not fabricate this. The indictment essentially admits it. Trump is not accused of having anything that the governments needs. If Trump were going to do bad things with the documents, he could have done while President. There is no reason to bother with the issue now, except for the Biden administration to harass and intimidate Trump."

Roger S, have you even read the federal criminal statutes that Donald Trump is accused of violating? Yes or no?

[Mr. Bumble]

“Roger S, have you even read the federal criminal statutes that Donald Trump is accused of violating? Yes or no?”

Have they finished searching them yet? I’m sure they missed something that applies to Trump and only Trump.

Guess he should've presented as a doddering old fool and he would've been home free.

[Roger S]

I read all the indictments. There are no crimes. In NY, he is accused of falsifying a record to conceal a crime, but no witness even testified that any record was false or any crime was intended or committed. The DC case is supposedly about an insurrection, but he is not charged with that. The FL case is about retaining some copies of White House documents. The Atlanta case is about the DA finding a boyfriend. They are all just political attempts to keep him from running for President.

[not guilty]

Have you read the statutes that Donald Trump is charged with violating, Roger S?

[Roger S]

Yes. Mostly laws that are never been applied to anyone else. Maybe the KKK Act was applied to the KKK. The Enron law, the misdemeanor false record law, etc. All garbage. The Espionage Act was applied to spies, but not to someone like Trump.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is the worst, most clueless summary of the charges against Trump I have yet read. The Florida case is not about "retaining some copies of White House documents", for example. Not even close. You have to pretend so to avoid talking about all the lying about having and hiding of said documents which is the problem, not the original retaining of the documents.

[David Nieporent]

have you even read the federal criminal statutes that Donald Trump is accused of violating? Yes or no?

Any thoughts as to why Smith charged 793(e) but not 793(d)? ISTM that — depending on the details — Trump might be guilty of violating either one.

[not guilty]

Section 793(d) applies when the accused is in lawful possession of documents or information relating to the national defense; 793(e) applies when the accused is unlawfully in possession thereof. Both could conceivably apply to the same document or information, but at different times.

I suspect that Donald Trump's personal culpability is more easily proven with regard to the time that he was unlawfully in possession of the documents than the earlier time (begore leaving office) when he was lawfully in possession.

[David Nieporent]

I recognize the textual differences between the two sections; I'm just not sure why Smith decided that (d) didn't apply. We all agree that Trump was at one point in lawful possession of these documents (i.e., up through 11:59:59 a.m. on 1/20/21). and the actus reus for (d) is refusing to return them when asked, while the actus reus for (e) is simply failing to turn them over. It just seems to me that giving a jury the option of convicting under (d) would circumvent some of Trump's potential arguments.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, there is reason to treat Trump different from other suspect. He is an ex-President.

So fucking what? It's not a title of nobility. He used to be the president. Now he's just a regular citizen. He is entitled to no different treatment than any other person in the United States.

At worst, he kept some extra copies of document, and there is a civil disagreement about the Presidential records act.

Again, the notion that these are "extra copies" is something you made up, and this has literally nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. He is charged with violating the Espionage Act, stealing national defense information and lying about it.

It is relevant that the government has copies of the documents. DaveM did not fabricate this.

He did, but it's also irrelevant. It doesn't become less of a threat to national security if he kept a copy rather than the original. "I can keep this information about our Iran attack plans because you still have a copy of those plans" is not a thing.

The indictment essentially admits it. Trump is not accused of having anything that the governments needs.

This is utterly false; nothing in the indictment "admits" any such thing, and "having anything the government needs" is not an element of the offense, so of course it's not included in the indictment.

If Trump were going to do bad things with the documents, he could have done while President.

"Okay, you found 50 kilos of heroin in my basement, but you can't charge me with possession with intent to distribute because if I wanted to distribute it I could have done so already."

[bernard11]

It is relevant that the government has copies of the documents.

It is completely fucking irrelevant, and the argument you and DaveM are making is moronic beyond belief.

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that the documents were top-secret designs for new and overwhelming types of weaponry. Then why would it absolve Trump that the government also had these documents?

It wouldn’t. Not at all. But according to you two, and whatever idiot you got that “argument” from, it would be perfectly OK for Trump to have copies in his bathroom or wherever – no risk to national security at all.

Amazing. The documents are not important because of their physical nature, like the Hope Diamond or something. They are important because of the information they contain, and it’s the information you want kept secret, not floating around Mar-A-Lago.

Boy, you people are stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Stupidity. Bigotry. Superstition.

The clingers’ holy trinity.

[Frank Drackman]

And you're their Patron Saint, "Saint Revolting"

[bernard11]

I say all thes things not to defend Trump,

Of course you're saying them to defend Trump. On top of being an ignorant fool you're a liar.

None of your criticisms have an iota of validity, but of course you don't care. You're a Trump cultist eager to see the country destroyed, as long as Trump is President. Like 99% of Trump supporters.

[Commenter_XY]

Now they are 'cultists'. How long before they are not even human, and whose life has no value?

[bernard11]

XY,

In my mind a large majority of Trump fans are cultists. Certainly many of those who comment here are.

I could give you a long list of why I think so, but it comes down to lies, ignorance, outright dishonesty, excusing the inexcusable.

Tell me, how can anyone who is not a cultist, and pays attention, support Trump's behavior wrt the 2020 election? How can they offer up the kind of defenses of Trump's behavior and criminality they do? Read that stuff. It is deranged.

No. I don't want them eliminated or put in camps or anything of the like. Those are Trump's strategies, let's note, not his opponents'.

I don't even think they are vermin. Or "enemies of the people." I do think they threaten to do great damage to this country, as do all Trump voters, and all your games with (D) won't change my mind.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The only one claiming others aren't human are Trump and his cultists. It's rich of you to pretend to be worried about where others are going when Donald "I call them vermin" Trump is already there and has been for some time.

So dishonest. I truly don't believe you're stupid enough to believe what you say or stupid enough to believe anyone but Trump voters will believe what you say. You're just joining the circle jerk of stupidity.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

NOVA, you need to be careful with your words here. (I say that sarcastically.)

Trump waffles between calling people he doesn't like "vermin" and invoking quotes from Hitler about poisoning the blood of our country, all the way to calling them "human scum" like he did today in celebration of Memorial Day.

You know, like a real leader does.

One end of that scale is technically still 'human.'

[NOVA Lawyer]

You make a great point. He only often veers into calling his political opponents subhuman, the other times it's just innocent phrasing like "human scum". I understand why Commenter_XY and other Trump apologists have no problem with this but are worried about what some Democrat might say in the future.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any good recipes for a bacon cheeseburger, _XY? Thanks in advance.

[Nige]

Look at you, bringing your own cattle cars in the hope someone will say 'oooh good idea!"

[Frank Drackman]

Take it easy on your Berry Aneurysm (you don't have a Berry Aneurysm? nobody knows they have a Berry Aneurysm until they rupture, you know what makes them rupture? sudden rises in Blood Pressure) wait until "45" isn't convicted until you lose your temper, and I already know what the argument will shift to,
"But he wasn't Acquitted!!!!!!"

Frank

[Nige]

'but to point out the obvious: the government was going for a PR coup, and they failed'

There was absolutely no publicity around it at all. But ok.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They didn't need an armed raid to begin with.

They can eat shit for getting blowback for being corrupt, election interfering, democracy shattering shitbags.

[not guilty]

Like virtually all law enforcement officers, FBI agents always carry firearms while on duty, whether executing a search warrant or not. Why should the agents have disarmed in this instance?

Donald Trump is not entitled to special treatment because he is Donald Trump. As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has written:

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations.

Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689, 701 (11th Cir. 2022). The same principle applies to the issuance and execution of the search warrant itself.

[Harvey Mosley]

Every law enforcement action is ultimately carried out with the threat of deadly force. It doesn't matter if it is Trump, Martha Stewart, or the homeless guy panhandling in a restricted area.

[David Nieporent]

Right. But — just to reiterate — they expressly timed the search for when Trump would be out of state, so there was no chance they'd have to use force on him.

[Frank Drackman]

You've never heard of Body Doubles? maybe the Secret Service just wanted potential assassins to think he was out of town, Jeezus, how a pea-brain like you ever got into Law School, much less grad-jew-ma-cate, I think the Revolting Reverend may be right for a change.

Frank

[Krayt]

All politicians are shameless

Ftfy

The one trait all politicians share is the ability to lie convincingly. No hemming or hawing. This is because they do not actually care what you think about them. They have some kind of psycopathy-lite, and thus don't feel embarrassed when caught.

[Nige]

If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t bother lying, for one thing. Trump lies because he’s absolutely committed to making sure the people who adore him keep on adoring him.

[OtisAH]

Why is it no thread on the alleged assassination attempt, and Turnip’s near escape from death, ever mentions the fact that the Supreme Court is currently considering Turnip’s argument that a president is allowed to assassinate political rivals? Seems relevant.

And I’m not going to bother refuting that’s what happened here. I’m gonna accept that Joe Biden ordered the assassination of Turnip but the fbi screwed it up. And l’ll take Turnip’s argument that Biden’s political rival is a unique threat to our national security and say that assassination is not only within Biden’s authority, but he risks impeachment if he *doesn’t* have Turnip assassinated. It’s no different than, say, if somebody ignored warnings about Bin Laden before 9/11 and allowed that to happen.

[Commenter_XY]

Today is Memorial Day (former Decoration Day). For all too many in America, it is a day of remembrance and sadness, remembering loved ones fallen in battle. Later today, I will attend our town Memorial Day ceremony and annual parade (yes, my town still has a parade) and think of young friends, long gone now. They are not forgotten, and their sacrifice must not have been in vain.

May the souls of our departed be bound up in the bond of eternal life, and may their memory be as a blessing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As it was said and written a century ago, “for those who lie asleep.”

And let us remember one other thing here -- someone who was 18 years old in the Fall of 1950 (when the Korean War started) is 92 years old today. That truly is a "forgotten war" -- "forgotten" because it was so incredibly unpopular at the time, much more than Vietnam, it just didn't last that long -- Stalin died in 1953 and Eisenhower ended what Truman had started.

The war was initially fought by WW-II veterans who were in the Guard and Reserve and they were *pissed* -- they thought that they were done with war and were really, really pissed about having to go fight another one. It didn't help that we initially were quite incompetent, sending soldiers in (in June) with summer clothing and not being able to get winter clothing to them six months later -- Korea having two seasons, really hot and really cold...

To anyone who knows anything about the ocean, the Incheon landing was a miracle because they've got 30 foot tides there which meant they had less than three hours to get the landing craft and associated ships ashore -- and back out before all the water drained out of the bay, leaving the ships helplessly stuck on dry mudflats to be shot at.

It wasn't defended like Omaha Beach had been -- the Commies didn't think that a landing there could be done -- and looking objectively at the facts, they were technically right.

Seventy years later, what had been an agrarian south has now become an industrial powerhouse while the north starves. A CCP member once told me that they are feeding the North Koreans, sending trainloads of grain to them, except that the DPRK was stealing the Chinese trains. So now they load the grain into old boxcars and push them across the bridge, keeping the engines on the Chinese side.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It is reprehensible to omit honor for youthful, idealistic sacrifice, suffered in the hopes of perpetuating the nation, and the liberty it stands for.

My son at an early age toured the national Capitol, and happened upon Robert E. Lee, still on his pedestal at that time. “What’s he doing here?” my son asked.

The question took me by surprise. My son was five-years old. I did my best to explain to him what I said in my first sentence above. He found my effort confusing.

So that sentiment to honor sacrifice must not be confused with chauvinistic twaddle. Whether my friends and relatives who sacrificed in wars—and in opposition to wars—have died in vain, is a matter decided not by sentiment, but by history. Taking this nation’s wars together, it could not be plainer that a great many of those personal sacrifices were not only suffered in vain, but for terrible purposes those doing the sacrificing may not have shared.

[Frank Drackman]

So your sons an idiot, sounds congenital

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He left off "...and then everyone around him stood up and clapped."

[Bwaaah]

Amen.

[loki13]

Good post, XY.

Many of my extended family have served in the military, and I am close friends with many military families (I am in proximity to a military base).

I know that many of us just enjoy this as a three-day weekend, but try and give a thought to those who sacrificed to defend our freedoms.

[hobie]

Well said. Most likely Trump's least favorite holiday, though. Can he bring himself to honor the suckers and losers who got captured or killed?

[Nige]

'Happy Memorial Day to all including the human scum...'

[Mr. Bumble]

Couldn't have stopped after "well said"?

[Bwaaah]

Nope. When it comes to military people, they always begin with, “Thank you for your service.” They hide their feeling that a military person is just a misguided tool, and save that for a later discussion among friends (or as referred by one here, “betters”).

Trump’s ugly descriptions of military service reflect, at least in part, what many on the left feel. (Fewer on the right.)

[Mr. Bumble]

“In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump’s alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members “losers” and “suckers.” While it was certainly possible that he said those things, Snopes was unable to independently verify the claim.”

But you be you.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting. I believed the statement had been confirmed by John Kelly, per remarks he made as reported by CNN. I consider Kelly to be a credible person. But I now see that he didn't really confirm the allegation, and simply commented about it as if it were a given. Your Snopes citation details their findings.

The widespread reports that Kelly "confirmed" Atlantic's report appear to have been overreach. Kelly did not confirm Atlantic's report. But neither did he retract his comments about it.

I pull back on that characterization of Trump. It does appear to be based on unconfirmed anonymous remarks.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Kelly appears to have believed that the remarks were true. That wouldn't qualify as "confirming" them, if he had no first hand knowledge. However, the AP claimed that others have confirmed them: "A senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018 cemetery comments."

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-top-news-politics-b823f2c285641a4a09a96a0b195636ed

Trump's problem is that such remarks are exactly the kind of things he would have said, and they are consistent with his other comments about McCain, Bush and other former military members. I think it is, therefore, more likely than not that he did say those things.

[Bwaaah]

I agree, and appreciate the prudence of your comment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Trump’s ugly descriptions of military service reflect, at least in part, what many on the left feel. (Fewer on the right.)

Weird how only the leader of the party on the right is the one that says stuff like that. Maybe you're fantasy doesn't track reality in any meaningful sense. And, in any case, why would a person choose after the 2020 election (which you claim) to vote for the guy who, in addition to everything else, holds those we honor this Memorial Day in contempt?

(And no, Bwaah, your supposed post-2020 conversion makes no sense. If you were upset about racial issues, you wouldn't have voted for Biden. Nothing happened post-2020 (when you say you voted for Biden) that was worse than what happened prior to the 2020 election. You're either lying about who you supported in 2020 or you're lying about why you say you'll change your vote.)

[Bwaaah]

Well, you got me, NOVA. I am unable to reconcile my position with the facts of my life as you present them. You must know something about me that I don’t.

But you may want to look back at the legislation/regulations passed in 2021, at Federal and New York State levels, that actually explicitly imposed racial/ethnic/groupist preferences like nothing in my lifetime. Democrats across the country endorsed DEFUND THE VILLAINOUS POLICE narratives while ushering in city prosecutors who touted BIPOC perpetrators of crime as un-responsible victims of SYSTEMIC RACISM while boasting about reductions in arrests, reductions in prosecutions, and reductions in incarceration, while SILENTLY WATCHING CRIME rise in cities across the country.

Universities and corporations removed their masks and revealed that they had given up on affirmative action (which I had quietly endorsed my whole life), and had gone to FULL-BLOWN RACIAL QUOTAS, contrary to prior Supreme Court guidance. For that, they engendered widespread Democratic contempt for the Court that is now a feature of modern Democratic ideology. Good-bye SAT scores…they’re RACIST. MERIT IS WRONG, they said LOUDLY. Hire the BIPOCs, any way necessary, and let individual performance (of BIPOCs) be damned. Oh…and "ASIANS" DON’T COUNT. No more equal opportunity…it’s about EQUAL OUTCOMES…”EQUITY”, they called it. Remember EQUITY?

I could go on. But I won’t. Your job is to tell me all that didn’t happen, and that Democrats didn’t endorse it. Your job is to tell me it’s not still going on, and that I’m evidently a WHITE SUPREMECIST. Good luck, NOVA. I must be the white trash turd you intimate, like all the “MAGAs,” the disgusting 50% of the country like me that is now morally unqualified to be considered with any more than righteous contempt.

Oh…and cue NigeCastr0 to point out my snowflake victimhood, as if I ever imagined myself to be a victim. I am not a victim, and I vote. It’s just politics, buddy, and me and you are on the same bus here, like it or not.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're weird capitalization pretty much confirms you've been a Trump apologist all along.

You also give up the game with this:

they engendered widespread Democratic contempt for the Court that is now a feature of modern Democratic ideology

This is like Commenter_XY being concerned that calling Trump apologists cultists is very, very worrisome, while ignoring that Trump calls people vermin and human scum and refers to his political opponents as poisoning the blood of America, you know, stuff straight out of the Unified Third Reich.

If being worried about attacking the legitimacy of the courts is a voting issue for you, Trump is very clearly not your man.

It's simply unrealistic that you were for affirmative action, but won't vote for Biden because some universities used what you refer to as quotas. That doesn't make sense. Claiming that is why you are switching your vote is not believable unless you are just leaning into having no reasoning abilities whatsoever.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These assholes are just write-offs, NOVA. Worthless. Deplorable.

[Nige]

This is fucking bizarre. Straw-manning like a scarecrow factory.

‘Oh…and cue NigeCastr0 to point out my snowflake victimhood,’

You are all over the shop. We’ve seen some muddled thinking from Dr Ed, but this might, as it were, trump even him. You say you pay no attention to what Trump amd his supporters say yet you not only parrot it back, you do so with PASSION and OUTRAGE.

[Magister]

Sorry, true connoisseurs know that Dr. Ed 2 is in another league for entertainment value.

The statement "affirmative action (which I had quietly endorsed my whole life)" is just common right-wing dissembling. It is more often "I was a life long Democrat* voter until [meaningless procedural vote in obscure committee]". Around here it's usually "I hate Trump and would never vote for him, except for the last two elections and the next election, but that's your fault."

* [sic]

[Nige]

Trump only says what the people who disagree with him the most actually think. Y'know, this sums up a lot of the magical thinking involved in Trump-voting.

[hobie]

Adding the rest gave me more pleasure, though

[Dr. Ed 2]

In the Metro Boston area, the hatred by those of Irish Catholic ancestry of those of British Puritan ancestry is worse than anyone's hatred of the Jews, and the discrimination over the past 70 years or so has been far worse as well.

I do not say this lightly, it is triggered by yesterday's discussion of antisemitism, and while the IRA's weaponry may have come from Liberia it's money came from Metro Boston. "The troubles" was a century of carnage that was only settled when a bunch of Catholic American Police Chiefs went over there and hammered out the Good Friday Accords.

On a personal level, late one evening a few years back, I was listening to a couple of Jewish friends explain the antisemitism they had experienced growing up and realized that while I didn't have a name for it, I realized that I'd experienced the EXACT SAME THINGS directed at me because I was Protestant...

So what's the difference?

[David Nieporent]

So what’s the difference?

The fact that your claims are fabricated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you still beating your wife?

[Frank Drackman]

I can think of at least 6 million

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to the Armenians? The Cambodians?
Heck, Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler when you include the Holdomor.

The only thing truly unique with the Holocaust was that the Nazis kept good records of who they murdered, while others didn't.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No single race has more mass murders attributed to them than the Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

No single race has more mass murders attributed to them than the Jews.

Nice passive voice antisemitism. Great work.

I hear this means you're on the far left now.

[Harvey Mosley]

Wow. I can't believe I hadn't muted that douchebag before now. (JHBHBE, not Sarcastr0.)

[Nige]

The lizard people? Thought they were ahead on points.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot was still unassembled Silicon Wafers in Sept 1972, I, OTOH was a fully sentient, some would say prodigal 10 year old, and remember Jim McKay’s “they’re all gone” like it was yesterday, then the fucking Olympics just went one like nothing happened

Frank

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Eugene,

You are not the Government. It’s actually ok to ban sick fucks like him and nobody here will shed a tear.

Might I recommend you do so all the way down to the IP.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Volokh knows how to ban and censor the people he dislikes. Liberals. Mainstreamers. Libertarians. He enjoys imposing censorship. Said he’ll do it again.

[Absaroka]

“Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler when you include the Holdomor.”

(citation needed)

The usual numbers are 6M Jews killed in the Holocaust, and 3 to 4M Ukrainians killed in the Holodomor (and not all of those were Jewish).

The numbers for both are approximate, but those seem like the best current estimates. If you want to use other numbers you should show your work.

[Brett Bellmore]

He said, when you "include" the Holodomor, not when you "limit" it to the Holodomor. Stalin killed a he'll of a lot of Jews outside Ukraine.

[bernard11]

just to be clear, Brett, do you have, you know, numbers, reliable data? Or are you just defending Ed for tribal solidarity?

[Absaroka]

Fair enough; Stalin killed a lot of people. But the claim was 'more Jews than Hitler', not 'a lot of people'. Until fairly soon before Stalin died the Soviets were fairly equal opportunity killers.

I asked Ed to show his work because ... his claims occasionally prove to be a wee bit off. Remember "Cormorants eat 70 pounds of fish a day"?

[bernard11]

Brett,

You would do your own credibility a lot of good if you left Ed to his ravings.

[hobie]

Wow.

[bernard11]

I hate to break this to you, Ed, but the reason you didn't get into Harvard (or wherever you wanted to go) had nothing to do with being a Protestant, and everything to with not being very bright.

The Archbishop didn't put in a call to the university to make sure you were rejected.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the bigots in the 7th Grade teacher's room did it on their own.

[Nige]

Jaysus.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Oaths of office; election denial; fake electors; attacks on the judicial system; refusal to support a peaceful transition of power; and ensuing violent attacks on the U.S. Government. Those are all topics both retrospective and prospective, which current sworn office holders have forced the nation to consider anew.

My question today is about Joe Biden's oath of office. It is this question: whether in the future Biden can best honor his own oath by standing on the sidelines and hoping for the best, or whether he is required to take forceful action in the face of sedition or treason?

I insist Biden should act now, to warn sworn office holders of all parties—throughout both the state and national governments—that his Justice Department will not stand idle in the face of attempts to block a peaceful transfer of power, to foment violent insurrection, or to participate in treasonable conduct which results in a violent attack on government.

Biden should emphasize that he himself will step down peacefully and promptly if he loses the next election. He should insist his oath-sworn opponents pledge publicly to do likewise. He should point out the jeopardy of oath breaking which opposition to a peaceful transfer implies.

Biden should emphasize that his warning is not meant to interfere with free speech, or to cow political opposition. He should make plain that he distinguishes between citizens who not having sworn oaths remain at liberty to speak as they please, and sworn office holders who have undertaken to exclude from their advocacy all attempts to undermine the Constitution, or to challenge the joint popular sovereignty of the American People.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You really want a shooting civil war that badly???

[NvEric]

Excuse me, Biden has criminalized half of the country's voters with his inflammatory words and, specifically said the election was a fraud -
"We have assembled the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of the United States"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You can't be this stupid, Eric.

[David Nieporent]

Objection; assumes facts very very much not in evidence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I normally don't reply in that way, but I have repeatedly debunked this particular idiotic claim Eric has repeatedly made. So far as I know he has never acknowledged my effort one way or the other, so it remains possible that he is just incredibly gullible and has never seen any of my responses, but I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about that (but if he hasn't seen them, he won't be offended by my insult!)

[Frank Drackman]

The shootings going to start when Sleepy wont leave 1600

[Kazinski]

Its becoming clear the Democrats lawfare strategy trying to keep Trump from getting reelected in the courts rather than the campaign trail is failing.

And the Dems not having a viable candidate to campaign with, the path to victory based on current polling and attributing to Trump only the states he is up at least 3 points gives him 268 electoral votes. So Biden has a very narrow path to 269 electoral votes taking all 3 states where Trump is ahead, but by less than 3% (WI +0.1, MI +1.1, PA +2.3).

That leaves Nebraska’s 2nd district which could provide the 270th vote (which looks to be Biden’s ceiling). There has been only one poll done this year on NE2, which Trump took in 2016, and Biden took in 2020, so its definitely in play. That poll taken by the Independent (progressive) Senate campaign of Dan Osbourn in April shows Trump up by 3%.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nebraska/2/

That would give Trump 269 even if he loses the 3 states he is currently leading but by less than 3 points.

269-269 takes it to the House, where the current delegation count is 26-22-2, and its almost impossible for any delegations to flip from GOP to Dem (all delegations where the GOP is up by only one are deep red single seat states).

All in all its shaping up to being very unlikely that Biden will have any path to victory on election day, so its easy to see the reasons for Biden and Lathrops increasing desperation.

[Josh R]

The betting markets have the odds at 5-4 in favor of Trump. There are two reasons Biden can win: 1) today is not election day and 2) Biden is within 1 polling error of winning if the election were held today, whcih happens in his favor about 30% of the time.

[Commenter_XY]

Polls are trash, this far out. 😉

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, what have I written to make you suppose I am desperate?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If there is anything a guy with a mail order bride understands, it’s desperation.

Right, Kazinski?

[TwelveInchPianist]

A Biden judicial nominee sent a male serial child rapist to a women’s prison. Ted Cruz questions her.

[not guilty]

Do you have a link to the judicial order that Senator Cruz was reading excerpts from? The follow up questioning in the YouTube clip indicates that there is likely much more there than Cruz's tantrum would indicate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You can find it as easily as I can, but sure:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.511268/gov.uscourts.nysd.511268.74.0.pdf

She also has an order floating around ordering journalists to turn over emails related to Ashley Biden's diary, which might explain her nomination.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. I haven't read the order yet, but I suspect that Ted Cruz was using excerpts like a drunk uses lampposts -- for support rather than for illumination.

[Frank Drackman]

What’s to excerpt? Judge is sending a Male Rape-ist to a Women’s Prison, oh, except for the time he’ll need to be in the Prison Hospital recovering from his Tax Payer paid “Sexual Reassignment Surgery” (Typical Government Waste, I’m sure a Prisoner at the Men’s prison could do the job)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

We condemn the behaviors of male rapists, and support the sexual aspirations of transgender male rapists. The reason for this is obvious to many.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ok. You can give us your perspective as an MRA.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Male" here is a "transgender woman."

The opinion (link below) cites the Bureau of Prison guidelines, which include "current gender expression" as a criterion to weigh in placement decisions.

The opinion discusses the prisoner's gender history using "she" pronouns. The crimes she was convicted of also are noted. She was convicted of molestation of a boy and a girl.

The judge also discusses her treatment in prison including a guard "squeezed her breasts." She was also raped in prison.

The manual also discusses gender transition and surgery. Also, "nine transgender women in BOP custody participating in
residential SOMP (in men’s facilities)."

The person is a convicted rapist of children. If the order is carried out, she is not being sent to a preteen/teen detainment center. She would be sent to an adult prison.

This is just a few bits from the first twenty pages of the opinion, the last paragraph a general aside.

There have been multiple trans cases over the years now, by various judges appointed by various presidents.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The BOP denied his transfer, and the judge overruled them.

"The person is a convicted rapist of children. If the order is carried out, she is not being sent to a preteen/teen detainment center. She would be sent to an adult prison."

Huh? He raped a 9 year old boy and a 17 year old girl. And upon release he was sent back to prison for possession of images of adults violently raping children.

Are you suggesting that he wouldn't be interested in women in an adult prison because they're too old for him? Seriously? The Donald Trump defense?

He's a fully intact male and a serial predator.

Sometimes I'm shocked at the degree to which elite feminists loath powerless women.

[Nige]

Are you saying that criminals should be segregated by whether they are prone to commit crimes on men or on women?

Personally I’m shocked by people who spend so much of their time ignoring the massive rates of sexual violence rampant in prisons suddenly caring passionately when a trans woman is invloved.

Actully Im not shocked at all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, I'm saying that prisoners should be segregated by sex. Especially prisoners who are prone to rape women.

[Nige]

And women who rape women? And men who rape men?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is there a part of "segregated by sex" that's unclear.

And in any event, US prisons are generally segregated by sex. Except that this rapist dude gets a pass.

[Nige]

She's going to prison, that's suddenly a pass?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-Bot, like Surpreme Judge Ka-Grungy-Jackson-Brown isn’t a Biologist

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My comment was not a comprehensive analysis of the ruling.

It took a few bits to show the complexity, including that the BOP using trans issue as something weighed in the process.

The opinion explains this is not a “dude,” but a “transgender woman.” Her breasts were fondled in the male prison. She was raped. Such details are notable to weigh the result.

You cited she was a convicted “child rapist.” So, when weighing the risk of where to place her, yes, it would be relevant that over and over and over again her crimes involved children.

She wasn’t going to be placed with children. That would be dumb for a child rapist of both sexes. OTOH, placing a transgender woman in a woman’s prison would be more logical.

From experience, I don’t think Cruz would be a good judge of the proper balancing here.

[Harvey Mosley]

Of course women are safe. He only raped a very young boy and a 17-year-old girl. What makes you think he would even conceive of raping an 18-year-old woman? That's completely different. /s

[Commenter_XY]

Should have put him with the dudes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The opinion explains this is not a “dude,” but a “transgender woman.” Her breasts were fondled in the male prison. She was raped. Such details are notable to weigh the result."

You're quibbling over semantics. He's a dude under some definitions of 'dude'. And we don't know what happened to him in male prison, because he's not credible.

[Nige]

You think it's not credible that a trans woman who raped children would be subjected to rape in prison?

[Roger S]

So the women are safe because he mainly rapes children?

[Nige]

Funny how all the prison rape 'jokes' disappear when it's a trans woman threatening all those suddenly innocent and helpless other prisoners.

[Roger S]

Yes, people are more interested in protecting women from rape, than men from rape. Or that was the case before the transgender movement.

[Nige]

So, what are the figures for sexual violence in womens' prisons like, then?

[Roger S]

I don't know, but I think the rate of male inmates raping female inmates is going way up.

[Nige]

I expect your ignorance will allow you to continue to claim this.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, because He’s got an Organ (for now)with the (real) women who go to Prison, that may take care of itself

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

Completely hypothetical hypocrisy rears its ugly head again!

[Kazinski]

I just finished watching Trumps historic speech to the libertarian convention.

Yes he got a lot of boos, but it wasn’t near what I expected from listening to press accounts. They actually let him speak, he was never interupted to the point the audience couldn’t hear him (or at least the video feed couldn’t record him) got quite a few cheers too.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?535695-1/president-trump-speaks-libertarian-party-convention

I watched the cspan feed so I could make sure it wasn’t altered one way or another for partisan points.

Now I know there are going to be people disagreeing with me and claiming he was pretty much booed out of the building. I didn’t notice any more pauses for audience reactions even as long as normal pauses for cheers in front of friendlier audiences.

So if you disagree with my take please point out the timestamp on the video where that happened so I can review it and eat crow. But without citing the timestamp, well I’m going to assume you are watching either a short clip which doesn’t show context or a different feed which might have been altered.

Just to be clear I’m not claiming it was a overwhelmingly friendly audience, after all they were libertarians, but they certainly were well enough behaved to hear out his whole speech, and there were quite a few parts they liked.

By the way I heard Biden was invited to address the libertarian convention too, but I couldn't find a link to his speech, does anyone have a link?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not sure if this is all part of the general dis-ingenuousness of your post (perfectly encapsulated by your last sentence), but who are all these "people disagreeing with me", "claiming he was pretty much booed out of the building"?

I'm surprised he got booed at all, frankly, given the recent Mises (aka Alt-right) takeover of the Libertarian Party.

[Kazinski]

This is pretty typical of the accounts I saw before I watched the whole speech:

"WASHINGTON — Insults were hurled at former President Donald Trump when he took to the stage Saturday night to address the Libertarian National Convention.

The crowd’s hostility to the former president was especially pronounced when Trump directly solicited their votes. Each time Trump asked attendees at the Washington Hilton for their votes or the party’s nomination, he was met with loud boos."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-commute-silk-road-website-operator-ross-ulbrichts-life-prison-se-rcna154082

However if you scroll down far enough they do say:
"But there were moments when Trump received cheers, like when he touted his record of starting no news wars and his administration’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, which Biden later rejoined. Trump was also cheered when he called for pardoning Jan. 6 defendants."

All in all the account was much more negative than my impression watching the whole speech.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lol, so not anyone who actually posts here.

"People disagreeing with me" actually refers to NBC news...

[Drewski]

NBC doesn't even disagree with him. He just doesn't like the vibes of the story.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

That Kazinski posted that as evidence of his claims is stupid. NBC News, as Kazinski admits ("they do say") reported what Kazinski says people disagree with him about. It's an admission people didn't disagree with him or, rather, he didn't agree with the mainstream news stories.

[David Nieporent]

I watched the entire thing in real time on a right wing YouTube channel, so no it wasn't short clips or an altered feed. He was not booed so much that he couldn't finish, no. But he was booed repeatedly and vociferously, as he whined, begged, and then insulted the audience.

(Spoiler alert: they did not nominate him, as he had begged. He got 6 votes out of roughly 800. Stormy Daniels got 1. RFK got 19.) And the favored candidate of the MAGA Mises Caucus which has taken over the leadership of the LP lost also.

[Bwaaah]

I watched his whole speech, solely to assess the accuracy of widespread insinuation/reporting that the “boos” dominated. They did not.

There was a mix of reactions, positive and negative. They varied according to the specifics of what Trump was saying at the moment. Most media reports of the event were typical anti-Trump tripe.

I agree with your characterization.

[Nige]

They should have praised Trump for some bits of his speech not getting booed, obviously, that would only be fair.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They have directional microphones that will pick up a speaker over background.

[Sarcastr0]

Every one of the Trump supporters (Bwaaah included despite his denials) here think it went well, providing excuses from
'it was mixed cheers and boos' to
'they didn't boo all the time' to
'I blame the microphones.'
I fully expect a 'They were saying Boo-urns' in there shortly.

Everyone else thinks it went badly.

Notable, eh?

[Bwaaah]

Quotes are used to denote what other people say. They are not to denote what you wish people had said in order to make your argument work.

You are a semantic cheat.

And you are a douche.

[Sarcastr0]

I use single quotes to denote paraphrases for rhetorical purpose. This is a pretty normal construction, I think.

Are you claiming the paraphrases are innacurate?
‘it was mixed cheers and boos’ – Kaz’s OP, and endorsed by you.
‘they didn’t boo all the time’ – Kaz, in his followup.
‘I blame the microphones.’ – Ed

I'd add, 'Telling the libertarians to vote for him or be irrelevant was a great hit despite the boos, if you know libertarians.' - also Kaz. Also endorsed by you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is a pretty normal construction, I think."

You think wrong.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not familiar with it, either. I would say that it is problematic when people use "" marks for paraphrased words; using a different punctuation mark for this at least attempts to address the problem, but I'm not sure it resolves it. (Or I'm just not au fait with the latest trends in English grammar.)

[Sarcastr0]

I've not gotten complaints before, so either this was clear from context or the construction was something folks generally pick up on.

TiP has seen been on here for a while, but if he's only just now learning of this, I am pleased now he knows and will no longer misunderstand my comments.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I support the effort! I just don't think it will be obvious to everyone why you're doing it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nice flying goalposts, from "This is a pretty normal construction..." to "I’ve not gotten complaints before..."

As you surely know, in standard English quotes denote that you are not paraphrasing, but quoting someone verbatim.

Many people would be concerned that if they use a construction to mean the opposite of what it usually means, they might mislead people. But I'm not surprised that you are unencumbered by such concerns.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He's trying to differentiate using single quotes and double quotes for different purposes.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. They’re not quotes. They’re “quotes.”

And people didn’t say those things. They “said those things.”

I wasn’t mislead, because I actually checked to see if they were real comments. I didn’t know about [his] single-quote convention. It looks like a low-life propagandist tactic for distorting facts instead of presenting them. Such is Sarc’s way.

On the day god was handing out "credibility," Sarc was out searching for ‘credibility.’

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Bernstein deliberately misquoted Sarcastro a few days ago, and I didn't see any of you complaining about it.

He even used real quotation marks!

Hypocrites.

[Sarcastr0]

As ONS notes, you're conflating single quotes and double quotes.

But more importantly, were you fooled? Was Bwaah fooled? It's pretty evident I wasn't making any effort to make my paraphrases looks like actual quotes.

[Nige]

Quick start a whiny argument about how you don't like the way he presents his parahrases! Also a fratboy insult! Which is odd for someone who spends so much time complaining about how peple insult him for daring to disagree with them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Remember your whining about the complexity of the topics on the blog, when you commented, "Why do all the comments use so many big words and discuss things I can't understand? Also, I pooped my pants."

[Nige]

Your response really encapsulates the kind of thinking you engage in all the time. Also, the weird need you have to argue about trivial topics other than the one you initiated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Also, the weird need you have to argue about trivial topics other than the one you initiated."

Pot kettle much?

[Nige]

QED

[Bwaaah]

1) get yourself a mirror
2) use it

[Nige]

The great quotes/paraphrase flamewar continues!

[Mr. Bumble]

From Instapundit:

"BBC led with “Donald Trump was booed repeatedly during an appearance at the Libertarian Party’s national convention on Saturday as he asked members for their support,” because that was the news.

The Biden campaign tweeted, “A seething and unpopular Trump lashes out and belittles the audience as they boo him.”

There’s your left-wing media spin.

Angela Elise McArdle, chairwoman of the Libertarian National Committee, tweeted back, “You didn’t even show up. You have zero credibility.”

There’s your story."

[Nige]

Libertarians! Tweeting abut credibility! Oh my!

[jb]

Are you saying he wasn't booed repeatedly? (And the booing is a significant story; it's not uncommon to give a political speech and have people cheer you. It's much less common to give one and get repeatedly booed.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's especially uncommon for Trump to get booed at a political rally. That must have been jarring.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, I remember all the times these same commenters were complaining about how unfair it was that people talked about how people didn't clap for Jeb Bush and then he asked them to clap. That was so unfair! It was just like 5 seconds out of a much longer speech. And all they talked about was the not clapping.

Do you Trump supporters even listen to yourselves? Is no point too stupid to make in his defense?

[Kazinski]

What was a significant story is to have the nominee of one political party give a speech to the nominating convention of another political party.

A lot of boos were not unexpected, especially because the invitation was so controversial among the liberatarians, and it was done unilaterally by the party chair without a vote.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Angela McArdle is as big a phony "libertarian" misfit as Volokh is.

I would expect Volokh Conspiracy fans to be McArdle fans -- disaffected, irrelevant, pathetic culture war casualties, unable to handle all of this damned modernity, progress, and normal human interaction -- and vice versa.

[Kazinski]

Well that's why I linked to the whole speech, and said tell me which parts were particularly bad.

We don't have to rely on 3rd party accounts here because we can see what they saw.

So why don't you cite the parts of the speech that contradict me?

[Bwaaah]

^THAT^

[Kazinski]

Well predictably a day later not a single example with a timestamp showing where I got it wrong.

I'm not like NG, dishing out assignments with deadlines. But I am certainly entitled to draw my own conclusions based on my own observations and the lack of any counter examples.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Now I know there are going to be people disagreeing with me and claiming he was pretty much booed out of the building. I didn’t notice any more pauses for audience reactions even as long as normal pauses for cheers in front of friendlier audiences.

So if you disagree with my take please point out the timestamp on the video where that happened so I can review it and eat crow. But without citing the timestamp, well I’m going to assume you are watching either a short clip which doesn’t show context or a different feed which might have been altered."

You seem rather disappointed that no one picked up and ran with your straw man. Nobody's going to provide an example (with or without a timestamp) of it, probably because nobody here is "claiming he was pretty much booed out of the building". Huh.

[Bwaaah]

Give it up. Kazinski accurately characterized the response to the speech as mixed, while most media outlets characterized it as a negative.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, that's right. He's not talking about anyone here, in this forum, claiming that Trump was "pretty much booed out of the building".

He's remarking here, in this forum, about "most media outlets", and expecting them to respond here, in this forum.

[Bwaaah]

Google News search for "trump libertarian convention"

Google news search seems to reinforce my delusions. You must have a more representative source.

[Nige]

If Biden had turned up and gotten booed and responded by insulting his audience we'd never hear the end of it. When Trump does it it's a minor triumph.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, here is why it matters: POTUS Trump showed up.

Do you think POTUS Biden will give a speech in the South Bronx? LMFAO. Uh, no. POTUS Trump showed up. Do you think POTUS Biden would talk to the Team L convention? Nope. POTUS Trump showed up and hustled for votes. Did POTUS Biden show up in Palestine....East Palestine, OH that is. No, not for months. POTUS Trump was there within days, with water and supplies; he showed up.

I don't have a crystal ball, and I cannot predict the future. But if POTUS Trump wins re-election, it will be in large part because he showed up. POTUS Biden did not.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not sure if it's just ignorance, or some combination of that and obstinance, but there is only one POTUS, and it is not Trump, Obama, or anyone other than Biden currently.

Are you too intellectually bankrupt, or just too lazy to type either "President" or FPOTUS?

[Nige]

He showed up and he got booed. Haw-haw.

'POTUS Biden did not.'

Ex president Trump turned up to make himself the story, as usual.

[Kazinski]

One of Trumps most resonant lines from his speech was telling the libertarians they could vote for him or continue to lose and keep their usual 3% of the vote.

That seemed to be music to the Libertarian delegates ears, they nominated Chase Oliver who is described by the article on the main page as a libertarian legend:
“Chase Oliver, another presidential hopeful, is an L.P. legend for having consigned the Republicans to a minority in the U.S. Senate in 2022, when he received over 2 percent of the vote in a Georgia Senate race.”

Say what you will about Trump, he knows how to read his audience.

I did note that they didn’t allow Trump on the convention ballot, he should have insisted as a condition for speaking to the convention. Although I will acknowledge RFKjr wasn’t on the ballot either and he might have had a better chance of winning the nomination than Trump.

[David Nieporent]

I did note that they didn’t allow Trump on the convention ballot, he should have insisted as a condition for speaking to the convention. Although I will acknowledge RFKjr wasn’t on the ballot either and he might have had a better chance of winning the nomination than Trump.

You note incorrectly in both cases. Trump wasn't on the ballot because he didn't submit signatures to get on the ballot, not because they "didn't allow" him on the ballot. RFK, in contrast, was in fact on the ballot.

[Kazinski]

Thanks for the update, I just read the article on the front page.

But still the Libertarians did select their absolute best candidate to represent the Libertarian party: the man who got 2% of the vote in a Georgia Senate election.

You can't get more libertarian than that.

[Frank Drackman]

Since I vote in Jaw Jaw and occasionally actually spend the night there I know who this Chase Chucklehead is, he’s a “Pro-gun Gay Environmentalist who’s 2% got Herschel Walker (we call him #34) into a runoff with Black Moose-lum Supremercist Rafael(he calls himself “Ted”) Warlock. Perfect Idiotic candidate for Idiots

[Mr. Bumble]

...and to get the nomination he defeated "none of the above".
Quite the candidate.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Politico summarizes the process:

"Oliver — who is aligned with a more traditionalist faction of the Libertarian Party, the Classical Liberal Caucus — clinched the nomination after almost 8 hours and seven rounds of voting. He defeated a more hard-line Mises Caucus candidate by less than 1 percent in the penultimate round of voting, before delegates were asked to choose between Oliver and no candidate."

[jb]

Presumably the idea is that you need to get an absolute majority vote at some point and "no candidate" is an option in each round, so in the penultimate round there were still enough "no candidate" votes to prevent either of the other two from getting 50%.

But Mr. Bumble is not one to bother with such facts or nuance if there's something bad to be said about someone who was mean to Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Thanks for the update"

That wasn't an update. It was an evisceration of your falsehoods.

You seem to struggle with normal interpersonal exchanges.

Is that why you chose to live in an off-the-grid hermit shack and glorify Ted Kaczynski with your screen name, clinger?

[Stephen Lathrop]

One of Trumps most resonant lines from his speech was telling the libertarians they could vote for him or continue to lose and keep their usual 3% of the vote.

Is that what your Trump sycophancy here is, "Resonance?"

[Kazinski]

Maybe I should be clearer, what I meant was that line resonated with his audience at the Liberatarian convention giving them a clear path forward to the irrelevance Liberatarian’s crave.

You have to admit he nailed it.

[Voize]

He nailed his own inability to comprehend people who aren't willing to abandon their principles for power.

[Kazinski]

And Libertarians are the absolute archetypes of those who would never compromise their principles for power.

If fact if they ever came close enough to power where it might become a tangible possibility, I suspect they would come up with even more principles they couldn't compromise to ensure they wouldn't get power.

And for the record I agree with most of what's in there platform, but its not a blueprint for governance:

https://www.lp.org/platform/

[Voize]

You say Trump's audience was absolutely uncompromising, all I know is they were uncompromising enough to resist being corrupted by him.

[Kazinski]

Incorruptible by reality too.

I have nothing but admiration.

Ich bin ein Liberatarian.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did you feel the same way when you spotted your current wife in that mail order bride catalog?

How much does a hook-up like that cost, anyway?

[loki13]

Weirdly, for most principled people (and I consider actual libertarians, however misguided, principled) ... being insulted is not a winning strategy.

While Trump has managed to successfully bully and insult a lot of people, it actually doesn't work on everyone.

[Kazinski]

It was give and take between two antagonists that were both fully capable of expressing themselves.

If the audience was orderly and respectful it would have been out of bounds.

Do you really think the Libertarians took it personally?

I also fully support the right of the Libertarians that booed to express themselves, they kept it within bounds and didn't try to cancel the speech.

I wouldn't have supported a similar reaction to Biden for two reasons:
He is currently President.
He is too aged and infirm for such a response.

[David Nieporent]

Do you really think the Libertarians took it personally?

I don't think that they went home and cried about it behind closed doors, a la Sotomayor. But I think they took it personally in the sense of, "Yeah, you just proved why we'd never vote for you."

[NOVA Lawyer]

If the audience was orderly and respectful it would have been out of bounds.

Wait. Are you admitting the audience was not orderly and respectful?

This Kazinski needs to talk to this Kazinski:

they certainly were well enough behaved to hear out his whole speech, and there were quite a few parts they liked

I mean, yeah, they aren't directly contradictory. But complaining that the press reported that the audience booed Trump and was generally disrespectful is news (especially when it is to the extent that you claim it justified Trump insulting them). You pretending that they should have focused on the cheers is ridiculous. Jeb maybe got some claps during that famous speech of his, but the story was obviously the time he didn't get claps and begged for them.

[Kazinski]

Now what even a little bit contradictory about that they were both rowdy and disrespectful, and kept it enough in bounds that he could complete a 40 minute speech to its full conclusion with no more that a few fairly normal pauses for audience reaction?

He has to pause his usual speeches longer for positive audience reaction than he had to pause his Liberatarian Convention speech for boos.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Now what even a little bit contradictory about that they were both rowdy and disrespectful, and kept it enough in bounds that he could complete a 40 minute speech to its full conclusion with no more that a few fairly normal pauses for audience reaction?

As I said, nothing directly contradictory. However, you whined about how, in fact, some unspecified set of people were wrong to focus on the disrespectful booing, focusing on the part where they were "well enough behaved". But, then, when you wanted to justify Trump's insults to his audience, then you pointed out how the audience was decidedly not "orderly and respectful" and, so, deserved the insults.

It's pretty significant when an audience is so disorderly and disrespectful to a former president that the president is justified in insulting the audience. (Which, in fact, is not a thing, it's just a lame attempt by you to justify, yet again, indefensible Trump behavior. No other president, at least in modern times, has engaged in such insulting behavior even to hostile audiences or individuals.)

In other words, your defense of Trump does contradict your criticism of the news coverage (or whoever you were criticizing). Again, boos directed a president during a speech are more man bites dog, whereas claps or cheers are dog bits man. And, to reiterate, you claim the audience was so disrespectful, they deserved for a former President of the United States to lower himself and cast aspersions on the audience. I disagree that booing him was enough to warrant a (former) president insulting the populace he serves (served), but accepting your interpretation as correct, that is quite a newsworthy thing to point out.

But the gist: It's pathetic to see you whine about the press accurately reporting (as you later noted) the boos directed towards the former president.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe I should be clearer, what I meant was that line resonated with his audience at the Liberatarian convention giving them a clear path forward to the irrelevance Liberatarian’s crave.

It's hard to see how voting for the least libertarian president since we stopped electing slaveowners could possibly be a path to libertarian relevance.

[Kazinski]

Slave owners were hardly libertarians

And really Dave I respect you too much to assign you the futile task of identifying any prominent Republicans that were ever slaveholders.

[Sarcastr0]

the least libertarian president since we stopped electing slaveowners

Read this.
Try your comment again.

[Kazinski]

Ok. Franklin Roosevelt was our least Liberatarian President.

He ended our Liberatarian Federal government.

[David Nieporent]

Slave owners were hardly libertarians

Um, yes, that's what I said. Re-read what I wrote. I was saying that by definition, slaveowners were the least libertarian presidents. So Trump is the least libertarian president we've had in the post-slaveholder era.

[Bwaaah]

"Is that what your Trump sycophancy here is, “Resonance?”

1) "Resonant" referred to the sound of the audience, where it seemed to reflect the strongest response (pro or con) to the particulars of what Trump was saying.

2) That part of Trump's message was among the most "resonant" lines, including a couple of others where he said, in effect, that the closest they could come to "winning" was by voting for a viable candidate whose interests most aligned with theirs.

3) Kazinski's comment history indicates that he is not a Trump "sycophant," although for almost all anti-Trump people, any person who fails to express anti-Trump sentiments is quite wrongly described as being a Trump sycophant. That's a you issue, not a Kazinski issue.

[David Nieporent]

Kazinski’s comment history indicates that he is not a Trump “sycophant,”

Kazinski does not seem to be pro-Trump. But he is certainly at least anti-anti-Trump, and in the voting booth there's no functional difference.

[Sarcastr0]

Even on this website, it's splitting hairs to distinguish between between apologist to sycophant.

[Sarcastr0]

on this website = as to posting on this website.

[Kazinski]

I don't apologize for Trump, I say its sad he's the best of our choices on the ballot.

Which is at least a lot more honest than 'Joe Biden is the kindest, bravest, warmest, least senile, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.'

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump has the worst personal character of anyone who ever held the presidency. He baits supporters by teasing fascist memes. Trump tried to pull off a coup. Trump commits blatant sexual assaults on women, and brags about it. Trump cannot ever testify under oath about anything, in any forum, because every lawyer who ever represented him has been convinced he would commit perjury every time—and the lawyers do not differ on that point from most of Trump's loyalists. Trump is under indictment for felonies in 4 jurisdictions. And you think that makes him, "the best of our choices on the ballot?"

Sorry Kazinski, that's sycophancy on steroids. You could choose instead to back a far right conservative with good character, like Liz Cheney. You would never do that, because you think she was disloyal to Trump. Sycophancy. Trump has not even been nominated yet, and you refer to him as, "the nominee of one political party." Sycophancy.

Cheney, at least, has not been a Trump sycophant. She is a principled conservative. She is what a conservative non-sycophant looks like. You look nothing like Liz Cheney.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are talking to a guy who lives in his backwoods, off-the-grid hermit shack. A spectrum-shackled misanthrope with a mail order bride, a Trump hankering, and a Ted Kaczynski-inspired screen name. A conservative, Volokh-class write-off.

[Frank Drackman]

All that and he's not 1/100 as Revolting as you, Revolting. And he's supposed to change his name because of one guy? So Barak Hussein Osama should have changed his name to Kwaisi Jamal Ali?? like he'd have been erected with a name like that. Knew a Surgeon named Charles Manson, you don't think he got some pressure to change it? "Hill Street Blues" even had a plot line about this great Stand Up Comedian, guaranteed to make the big time, until they found out his name was "Vic Hitler" and he wouldn't change it.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

First, that misfit chose his screen name. Acknowledged the Kaczynski link. Much like the Alitos chose those un-American flags, although the Alitos didn't have enough courage to acknowledge much of anything that neighbors had not photographed and newspapers hadn't discovered.

Second, nobody asked Kazinski to change that screen name. To the contrary, it suits him in particular and this blog in general.

Other that that, though (and the random-cap illiteracy) -- great comment, clinger!

[Kazinski]

Actually Woodrow Wilson was the most morally repugnant President at least since 1900.

He segregated the Federal civil service and got rid of every Black federal employee in white collar jobs. Leaving only that a menial position like gardeners, cooks, and custodians available for blacks to gain federal employment.

Our most progressive President.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and whose ego driven desire to create the League of Nations (which the US never joined) led us into WWI planting the seeds for a second world war twenty years later.

[Michael P]

Truth:

1) Israel finds the bodies of hostages in UN buildings.

2) UN's top courts orders Israel to stop looking and go home.

That's where we are.

(The building where hostages' bodies were found last week was built last year.)

[ThePublius]

And this:
“An UNRWA worker kidnapped my son. A social worker employed by a so-called humanitarian organization under the umbrella of the UN….

A man who dragged my son’s body on the ground and then snatched him as if he was a prize to Gaza.”

https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/1794827064274456616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1794827064274456616%7Ctwgr%5Ec4a28e0bf78ae8ceb3cb9077925ff5ae26b2cce5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F650007%2F

[Frank Drackman]

It’s the United Colored Nations of Benneton, what do you expect?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And you think the ICJ just does what the UN leadership tells it to do?

Interesting.

[Michael P]

You cannot rebut the actual facts, and must therefore construct a straw man to argue against.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You ordered two distinct events using "1)" and "2)"; if I have mistakenly inferred you were implying a connection between the two events (rather than to illustrate, for example, a temporal relationship), perhaps I owe you an apology.

I don't know if your "1)" is true or not (I haven't searched).
Your "2)" is clearly false.

[Michael P]

An organization's leadership seldom needs to issue specific direction in cases where organizational incentives are clear.

The UN seems to agree with me that "2)" is a fair description: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/05/1150196 . I have no idea on what basis you think it "is clearly false".

As for 1), see https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/390457 .

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's a court of law. Unless proven otherwise, I do not just assume a court is corrupt. But you do. Do you have any particular reason for believing that this court is corrupt, or do you view all courts of law as corrupt?

In the only relevant part, the court's order states that Israel must "...immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part".

From which you got, "stop looking [for hostages] and go home"...

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf

[Harvey Mosley]

How do you propose they keep looking for hostages in hostile territory without a military offensive?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're not seriously suggesting that the purpose of the order was to stop Israel looking for hostages rather than to stop an offensive that, in the court's view, was threatening to "inflict upon the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that would bring about its physical destruction in whole and in part"?

It was dishonest to characterize that order as "order[ing] Israel to stop looking and go home."

[Bwaaah]

How do you propose they keep looking for hostages in hostile territory without a military offensive?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you really need help reading English?

Was it the commas?

[Bwaaah]

Please copy and paste NOVA's answer to this question:

How do you propose they keep looking for hostages in hostile territory without a military offensive?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not "without a military offensive"; the order said, without conducting "a military offensive...which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part".

[Bwaaah]

Thank you. I missed that as being a strategy for looking for hostages.

I don't see how there's any viable way to proceed, under your concurring guidance, without bringing about destruction to Gazans, "in part."

Do you believe I'm wrong? Are there magic stealth suits?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bwaah,

Are you seriously dumb enough to not understand this conversation?

Michael P said: “UN’s top courts orders Israel to stop looking and go home.”

The court did not, in fact, order Israel to stop looking for the hostages. It ordered Israel not to commit genocide.

Now, if Israel feels it can only look for the hostages by committing genocide, then a secondary effect of the court order is that Israel will stop looking for the hostages. However, it is dishonest to say that the court ordered Israel to stop looking for hostages. It didn’t say that explicitly, nor is there any reasonable basis to conclude that was the aim of the order.

Michael P is not dumb enough to think otherwise, so he was just being dishonest. You have convinced me that you just may be dumb enough not to understand the difference between secondary effects of a court order and what a court is ordering a party to do.

Consider a court that orders a mother not to take her child out of the country without the father’s consent. The father doesn’t consent. The mother complains that the court ordered her not to celebrate her daughter’s birthday. Is she being honest?

You, apparently, think that she is being honest if the mother decides that the only appropriate way to celebrate her daughter’s birthday is with a trip to Paris. You’d be a moron.

So, are you that moron or are you capable of grasping the point?

[Bwaaah]

Yes, NOVA. If you posit that your argument here is a genuine one, then I am a moron. Lesson learned.

Toodles.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I am a moron

I’m glad you admit it. Though the fact has not been in dispute, as this ENTIRE* open thread demonstrates it BEYOND* doubt.

*Weird use of allcaps in honor of one of the dumbest comments these comment sections have seen.

[Commenter_XY]

MP, it is actually unclear what the ICJ order compels. I don't think the decision legally compels Israel to do anything other than report progress back to the ICJ.

[Michael P]

From https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/05/the-nonprofit-industrial-complex-and-the-corruption-of-the-american-city/:

Following Westbrook’s fall from grace, a San Francisco Standard investigation discovered that the city had paid tens of millions of dollars to nonprofits that were ineligible for government funding: $25 million went to charities that were either delinquent or suspended and another $65 million went to nonprofits that were later declared ineligible. At the time of the Standard’s investigation, San Francisco had another $300 million of future contractual obligations to NGOs it was not legally allowed to fund.

Interesting stories there, but I do have to question the perceptiveness of someone who claims modern-day progressivism is really "an extremist libertarian movement" just because it "destroys the ability of the government to function". A better explanation for the examples that follow that claim is that progressives exhibit one of the common failures of socialist governments: extreme graft coupled with realizations of the economic calculation problem.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'd never heard of the San Francisco Standard. Turns out, that's because it didn't exist until 2021, when it was founded by billionaire venture capitalist and philanthropist, Michael Moritz. Interesting dude.

[Michael P]

You cannot rebut the actual facts, and must therefore wave your arms in the direction of an ad hominem argument.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're reading a lot into "interesting dude". I wasn't commenting on the veracity of the San Francisco Standard's article at all. (Moritz has apparently contributed to Never Trump causes, if you're not aware.) I just found it interesting that he's set up a seemingly contrarian media outlet in San Francisco. I'm also curious who his audience might be--I always felt I was in an extreme minority there and I left ages ago!

[Mr. Bumble]

So you never heard of it and it's only existed since 2021. What's the point?

[Mr. Bumble]

Crunch time in Judge Juan Merchan's three ring courtroom this week. Closing arguments and then:
Directed verdict of acquittal? (Merchan doesn't have the balls to do the right thing)
Jury verdict of guilty? (Democrats hope and prayer)
Jury verdict of acquittal? (Not very likely in this venue)
Hung jury? (Well it only takes one holdout)

...to be continued.

[Frank Drackman]

Watch out for exploding Liberal Heads when 45’s not convicted

[Bwaaah]

One very humorous moment for me (and my teenage son) was the day after election day 2016 when Trump had been declared the winner. (I didn't vote for him.) A dark morose pall washed across the residents of NYC, as if a beloved one had just died. There was nothing but long faces and an eerie silence on the sidewalks, even though people were present in normal numbers. My son and I cracked up laughing after we passed groups of mourners, but we generally hid our joviality from their view as it would have been considered to be disrespectful. They were DEAD SERIOUS about the depth of their loss.

I regretted that Trump had been elected President. But it was so much fun to see so many sanctimonious dweebs sulking...a silver lining for me behind their own dark cloud.

[santamonica811]

The funniest part of his election was that his incompetence helped contribute to the deaths of half a million Americans from Covid. You and your family must still be laughing so hard about that that you wet your collective pants.

[Frank Drackman]

I wouldn't blame Sleepy Joe for that, he stopped wearing a mask, but they didn't help anyway. So how come the Covid-19 vaccine "Updates" aren't free anymore? Last time I tried to get one you'd have thought I was asking if they had Green Cheese.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

In politics, I distinguish between long faces and dead bodies. I am also not drawn to false certainties about viral dynamics. And I don’t find it helpful to dehumanize a person just to create a “political win” over an inconsequential remark.

No, I don’t laugh about people dying. Not even my enemies.

[jb]

Hung jury seems most likely to me without really having seen the argument really laid out by the prosecution. Acquittal probably slightly more likely than guilty.

But ask again after closing arguments--it will be interesting to see how the prosecution can pull all of the pieces together and/or where the defense is going to try to poke holes at it. Seems like the biggest hurdles is going to be tying the falsified records to the other crime definitively

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump will be convicted of something the by unbiased NYC jury.

[Frank Drackman]

of being awesome maybe, don’t think that’s a crime.

[bernard11]

It's interesting to me how Cultist Bumble, along with other members, sets the stage so he can't be wrong.

Trump acquitted? That just proves the whole case was a sham from the beginning.

Trump convicted? That just proves the jury was hopelessly biased and he never had a chance, just like the cultists claimed all along.

It is not possible, apparently, in Bumble's world, that Trump could actually be guilty as charged.

Looks like the very essence of a cult to me.

[Kazinski]

Well they would have to present some evidence that Trump was guilty first.

Here you have a fraudulent business records case where the prosecution witness says he coded the business record on his own without direction or input from Trump, and not only that, at the time the business record was coded Trump was President and had turned over control of the Trump organization to two of his sons.

Trump never even saw the invoice his controller used to code the journal entry.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe they should have a trial, so the prosecution could "present some evidence"?

[bernard11]

I didn't know you were on the jury, Kazinski.

Know all about it from watching OAN? Is that it

[Riva]

And as some clowns here try to defend an armed raid on the secret service protected home of President Trump as just “standard procedure,” the conflicted clown hack judge is doing his best to insure the fat slob Bragg gets his jury conviction, on what, well, the jury can pick and choose what it wants apparently, let’s not force that fat slob to actually observe constitutional due process. There wouldn’t be this banana republic farce in the first place if the fat slob and conflicted judge followed the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the trial is in Manhattan, home of NYC's Chinatown, the jury instructions will be in Chinese menu format with choices from column A and B to get to a guilty verdict.

[Frank Drackman]

And the jury instructions will be “Slanted”

[Jerry B.]

The "slippery slopes"?

[Bwaaah]

I'm not comfortable with your angle on this.

[Commenter_XY]

The judge will have to nip on the lawyers proposed bad instructions.

[Bwaaah]

Just so's the laughter doesn't end in stony silence after your freewheeling attempt at extending the humor, and at the risk of going down in flames with you, I'm going to put a chink in the armor here and say, "That's not funny."

[Commenter_XY]

Guess my comment went by the wayguside

[Sarcastr0]

1. This is standard boilerplate language
2. The FBI had given the Secret Service a heads up
3. Trump was known to be away at the time.

You fucked up. You trusted Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Also, does "Cry me a Riva" not realize that the documents case and the New York case are different things?

[Riva]

Did I strain you to your TDS limits by bringing up 2 examples of the Democrats' obnoxious weaponization of the legal process? Actually, there are more examples but that's apparently beyond your tiny little neo-fascist democrat mind to comprehend.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I get it. It's all part of the same conspiracy to you, so why distinguish between them?

[Riva]

You're an f'ing imbecile. There was nothing standard about this raid, which is why that puke Smith tried to keep the details hidden.

[Sarcastr0]

Refute nothing. Just ipse dixit pound the table.

This is how everyone can tell you have nothing to rebut with, but must nevertheless deny, even with no evidence.

[Riva]

Yeah an armed raid on the secret service protected residence of a former president is an everyday event, so common that Smith didn’t want to bore the public with minor details. Is there no bottom to your f’ing stupidity?

[Sarcastr0]

1. This is standard boilerplate language
2. The FBI had given the Secret Service a heads up
3. Trump was known to be away at the time.

[Riva]

I guess we haven't reached your stupid bottom yet. This was not a standard situation. This is the secret service protected residence of a former president. The secret service needed more than a "heads up" whatever the f that means. Smith's goons should have never have been armed. This was a disgrace. Like the whole case is a disgrace from the inappropriate use of a DC grand jury to Smith's mishandling of evidence. Not to mention the perversion of the underlying statutes. But it's not your fault. You simply lack the mental capacity to understand. I don't blame MSNBC entirely. I'm sure much is due to your own inherent limitations.

[Sarcastr0]

The secret service bit was addressed in #2 ("We made sure we interacted with the Secret Service to make sure we could get into Mar-a-Lago with no issues."), so this was a pretty standard situation. No reason to get rid of the boilerplate.

This wasn't a disgrace, you just work very hard to live in a perpetual state of partisan outrage regardless of the actual facts or law.

You simply lack the mental capacity to understand.
Classy.

[Riva]

Yeah, I guess the obnoxious republic ending lawfare does outrage me. And if polls are any indication it looks like the rest of the country is outraged too.

[Sarcastr0]

You're so outraged than even when led to why it's not lawfare step by step it's like you never actually read any of it.

[David Nieporent]

I guess "secret service protected residence of a former president" is the talking point of the day. It's an utterly meaningless and irrelevant combination of words, which explains why Riva feels the need to repeat it. He's not smart enough to come up with his own ideas or explain them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I thought we'd all understood--at least after the Pelosi/DePape incident--that the Secret Service only protects certain persons, not premises when those persons are not present. Guess not!

[David Nieporent]

You’re an f’ing imbecile. There was nothing standard about this raid, which is why that puke Smith tried to keep the details hidden.

1) There was no raid.
2) It was entirely standard.
3) No details (other than the names of the people involved) were kept hidden.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What bureaucrat doesn't mention coordination with the USSS?
Don't they usually ask for a liaison officer to be present?

[Sarcastr0]

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-06-07-ti-of-steven-dantuono-redacted.pdf

"It wasn't even a show of force, right, because we were all in agreement. We didn't do a show of force, right. I was adamant about that, and that was something that we agreed on, right, the FBI agreed on, right. No raid jackets, no blazed FBI. We interact.
We made sure we interacted with the Secret Service to make sure we could get into Mar-a-Lago with no issues. We're not banging down any doors. We weren't bringing any like FBI vehicles, everything that was reported about helicopters and a hundred people descending on, like a Die Hard movie, was completely untrue, right.
That is not how we played it"

[Dr. Ed 2]

I still remember the picture of the young USSS guy with the Uzi, and he didn't look like he know exactly what was going on, nor that he wouldn't be needing to use said Uzi.

You *really* want your guys charging an Uzi?

If for no other reason, you bend over backward to play nicely with other ARMED Federal Agencies....

[Frank Drackman]

That was the Reagan assassination attempt (and how Hinkley is a free man and wasn’t executed….) and if He’d used a 38 or 45 Reagan would be another Garfield, and Mon-dull would probably have beaten Bush in 84
Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Really? From all the carefully articulated outrage about this, I'd assumed they'd descended upon Mar-a-Lago like the ATF did on Mount Carmel...

[Sarcastr0]

Trump posted about it.

These are the types to fall in line.

[David Nieporent]

You can tell that someone has legal expertise when the only thing he knows to say is that the prosecutor is fat!

[EllaWilson]

Ashely Biden confirmed that her father, Joe Biden, repeatedly sexually molested her in the shower.

I cannot support any father that sexually molests his daughter.

[not guilty]

"Ashely Biden confirmed that her father, Joe Biden, repeatedly sexually molested her in the shower."

Supporting facts? Link(s) to original source materials reflecting such confirmation?

[Frank Drackman]

I believe the Woman

[ThePublius]

Well, the diary is confirmed as real, it's only a matter of believing Ashley or not, believing what she wrote to herself in a diary she assumed was private.

That's pretty damning. I take diary entries as I do deathbed declarations.

It's not hard to believe Joe did this, either.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I can't see Frank's post, but where in the diaries does "repeatedly sexually molested her" appear?

[ThePublius]

Define 'molestation.' Is forcing yourself into the shower, naked, with your naked teenage daughter molestation? You can bet your ass that if it was Trump the answer would be yes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not sure if you're answering for "EllaWilson", or what, but "repeated sexual molestation" has an actual meaning in the US legal context. If you mean something else, say that.

I'm not sure what to make of the diaries. But I am quite sure I wouldn't be bringing up Donald "I'd sure shag her" Trump as some sort of contrast to Biden's alleged impropriety with his daughter.

[ThePublius]

I think it's pretty clear what I asked. Is forcing yourself, naked, into a shower with your naked teenage daughter molestation? Well?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know what to make of the diaries, so I will reserve judgement.

But just to be clear, you think [implied] nudity is equivalent to sexual molestation? Because what I recall from the one time I did look into the alleged diary was that it contained no allegations of "sexual molestation" by Joe Biden whatsoever. Nor was there any allegation of "force". You and the OP appear to have added those false details for some reason (which is not hard to guess).

[Roger S]

You are right, Biden did not molest her. Something caused her to have a lot of psychiatric problems, and we do not know exactly what.

There is plenty of video showing Biden behaving in a creepy manner with little girls, but it is not molestation.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s all he did? Doesn’t every father do that? I thought it was something actually bad like letting them get a tattoo

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

A tattoo that says "Daddy's Girl"?

[David Nieporent]

Define ‘molestation.’ Is forcing yourself into the shower, naked, with your naked teenage daughter molestation?

Where did you get the supposed facts that Joe Biden "forced himself into the shower" "naked" with a "teenage daughter"?

You can bet your ass that if it was Trump the answer would be yes.

Trump himself confessed to sexual assault, and yet you refuse to believe him.

[santamonica811]

confessed...bragged about

po-Tay-to...po-Tah-to

[David Nieporent]

Well, the diary is confirmed as real, it’s only a matter of believing Ashley or not, believing what she wrote to herself in a diary she assumed was private.

1. Once again, MAGA is doing this thing where they make a claim about a specific fact, and then when called on it claim that some other document is genuine, and therefore this specific fact must be true. (We saw that with the Hunter laptop, and with this diary). Assuming that the diary is confirmed as real, that does not mean that any random thing that you have no evidence was actually in this diary is real.

2. You're mistaken or lying about what she supposedly wrote in this diary. If the thing you're talking about is genuine, which has not in fact been confirmed, it does not say that Joe Biden molested her. It does not say that he did anything to her. It does not say that she was underage. All of this is stuff MAGA has made up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Along those lines, there was one popular meme (which MAGAs probably still believe) which claimed that the diary contained the following:

"“I’m so afraid of him coming in the shower with me that I’ve waited until late at night to take a shower.”

- Ashley Biden, diary pages 67-68"

That was not in the diary; it was disinformation manufactured by someone with deep malice in their heart.

[David Nieporent]

Right. Also, calling it a "diary" is a bit misleading; I think "journal" would be better. Assuming the less salacious version is genuine, it does not represent contemporaneous recordings of events; rather, it represents her thoughts two to three decades later. It expressly says that she can't remember specifics.

[Commenter_XY]

Since you asked.

https://archive.org/details/ashley-biden-diary_202112/Ashley_Biden_Diary_Original_10_15_2021/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The URL says "Ashley Biden" in it, so the content must be real!

[Kazinski]

Don't beclown yourself, Ashley Biden confirmed it was her diary, and it was in her handwriting in a letter to the judge who sentenced the woman who "stole" it and sold it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/732032194/Ashley-Biden-Letter-to-Judge

Here's Yahoo News UK fact check:
"Claim:

A diary authored by U.S. President Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley Biden, describes showers taken with her father when she was a child as "probably not appropriate."

Rating: True"

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-posts-claim-contents-181600349.html

[Sarcastr0]

The OP: “ Ashely Biden confirmed that her father, Joe Biden, repeatedly sexually molested her in the shower.”

Are you posting in support of that?

Also what is your yahoo uk link?

Read the whole thing maybe.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims

“ Repeatedly, I hear others grossly misinterpret my once-private writings and lob false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love.”

Don’t be this kind of heedless partisan asshole.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Shockingly, you completely missed the point.

[Sarcastr0]

Muted.

[Mr. Bumble]

So douchey

[Frank Drackman]

When the Muter gets muted does he make any noise! Have to admit I love “muting” Hillary Rodman whenever her wicked witch cackle is played

[Estragon]

“You remind me of my daughter”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There's more where that came from.

[bernard11]

Another country heard from.

Don't be afraid, "Ella." you can use the same name, whatever it is, you've used before. The liberals here, at least, aren't going to run you over with a snow plow.

Just don't piss Dr. Ed off and you'll be fine.

[David Nieporent]

Ashely Biden confirmed that her father, Joe Biden, repeatedly sexually molested her in the shower.

Ashley Biden did not confirm anything, let alone that her father ever molested her at any point in any location. Every word of this is a lie.

[Martinned2]

While I enjoy my bank holiday, I'll leave you with this blog post on EJIL:Talk, which summarises the objections that various states have made to the prosecutor's decision to seek an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, and why these objections are wrong: https://www.ejiltalk.org/state-objections-to-the-icc-prosecutors-request-for-arrest-warrants-in-the-palestine-investigation/

[ThePublius]

The ICC is a joke, just as the UN is a joke. The objections are not wrong, they are legit!

[Bored Lawyer]

Since you mentioned it, here is the dissenting opinion by the judge on the ICJ. Her name is Julia Sebutinde, she is the VP of the court and from Uganda. It's a masterpiece. Someone really understands the situation.
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204092

The opinion also highlights what a one-sided farce the ICJ has become. It's politics, not law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cutting to the chase:

2. Once again, South Africa has invited the Court to micromanage the conduct of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Such hostilities are exclusively governed by the laws of war (international humanitarian law) and international human rights law, areas where the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case.

[Voize]

Since you mentioned it

What Martin mentioned was the prosecutor's request to the ICC for arrest warrants, not the ICJ order against Israel requested by South Africa. The ICC and ICJ are different courts with different jurisdictions.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, Times of Israel did a great background article on Judge Sebutinde awhile back. She dissented with former Chief Justice Barak in the original decision. My main takeaway from the article was that she pursued justice in Uganda that was absolutely correct to do, and did so with genuine zeal, but made some influential people very uncomfortable. And rather than wax her in Uganda, they 'promoted' her to the ICJ.

Interesting background, I thought. Worth looking into.

[Martinned2]

The most recent ICJ measures are actually really interesting, because it turns out there is intentional ambiguity. (Which is reflected in the concurrences and dissents.)

The exact wording of the measure in question is:

Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

I read this last week as "stop shooting at Rafah", but it is also defensible to read this as "stop shooting at Rafah if/when doing so violates international law". And that's how Israel chose to interpret it. As far as I've seen, the typical conclusion from outside commentators is that this is an intentional ambiguity, in order to get 13 votes for the measures, and that that's not an ideal way for a court to do business.

[Martinned2]

Here is a blog post looking at this specific point: https://verfassungsblog.de/consensus-at-what-cost/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You mean you didn't read it as "stop looking for hostages"?

[Davedave]

What it actually says, to people who aren't stooging for Iran, is 'go ahead, Israel, you're in the clear'. But you have to lie to spread neo-Nazi propaganda...

[ThePublius]

Buttigieg defends Biden’s EV strategy after question on how only 8 federal charging stations have been built

This is indeed laughable. Two years and $7.5B budgeted, and they have 7 or 8 charging stations built. And the commitment is 500,000 charging stations by 2030.

Do some simple math. That's 83.3 thousand stations per year for the next six years. That's 228 stations per day, if they deployed them seven days a week, no days off, no holidays.

Just consider the manufacture of these charging stations. Who is building them? Who has the capacity to build this many, and to distribute them? Are factories being built, workers hired and trained?

Where are the crews that will deploy these? Are they being hired and trained now?

Where are the electrical utilities on this? What's the status of the grid, and the generating capacity?

Note that the entire production of combat and support aircraft for WWII in the U.S. was just shy of 300,000 aircraft. And those could be flown away after building, no need to install a huge infrastructure to support them, and then individually install them anywhere. Does that help put this in perspective?

One would need a war effort level of investment and dedication to even come close to what this administration so glibly states as its goal.

So:
1. It's not going to happen;
2. the money will disappear.

It's total B.S.

[Jerry B.]

And the Big Guy will get his 10%.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Bwaaah]

"Big Guy" => Joe Biden

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see any money going to Biden.

[ThePublius]

Ah, that's the reason for the 20+ shell corporations. No one "sees" any money going to Biden. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Is there evidence of the above program sending money to any of those corporations?

[Nige]

Ie there is, actually, no evidence of money going towards Biden in this manner.

[bernard11]

The fact that you don't see it just shows how clever and well-worked- out this plot is.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Generally, Congress passes a law, and the Executive Branch is responsible for implementing it. Your criticism appears to be that it hasn't been implemented fast enough. (Unless you actually oppose the law, in which case this is just political point-scoring for you?)

How long was it expected to take to build the infrastructure and install the chargers? Is it behind schedule or on schedule?

[ThePublius]

You appear to be deliberately obtuse. I'm not asserting it's not fast enough, I'm just contrasting THEIR timeline with THEIR progress, and extrapolating that they won't even come close. Hence, B.S.

Clear?

[Sarcastr0]

Government program is executing too slow is not a scandal unless you have something more.

It does not appear you do.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Whose timeline? If Congress passes a law with an unrealistic timeline, is it the Executive Branch's fault if that timeline is not met?

I don't know if Buttigieg is doing a good job or not, but until I hear anything about wrongdoing, I don't much care. If there's been waste and/or corruption, I'm sure we'll hear about it in due course (probably after the House finishes investigating the "Biden Crime FamilyTM" in November).

[Davy C]

Did Congress pass this spontaneously, with no input from the President?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Great question. But, you might want to direct it at someone else.

[ThePublius]

"How long was it expected to take to build the infrastructure and install the chargers? Is it behind schedule or on schedule?"

You tell me. In two years they've installed 7 or 8. There's six years left to install another 499,992 or 3. At this rate it will be the year 127024 to complete. Or, they will have to step up installations from about 4 per year to 83,333 per year - right now. 228 per day, 7 days a week, no holidays. The longer they wait, the more per year they will have to install.

So, are they behind schedule, or on schedule? Duh! How can you ask such a stupid question?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I can only surmise that no one has ever entrusted you to lead an infrastructure project--or even to be anywhere near one. Your comments are utterly facile.

[Kazinski]

Well i do have experience with managing large infrastructure projects. But this actually is not a large infrastructure project, its 500,000 small infrastructure projects. They haven't released the schedule so its impossible to see if they have a plan to ramp up the deployment of charging stations.

But I will ask, if they contracted the building of charging stations to Elon Musk, do you think he'd only be in single digits by now? (Tesla has 6000 worldwide, 2000 in the US now).

[David Nieporent]

But I will ask, if they contracted the building of charging stations to Elon Musk, do you think he’d only be in single digits by now?

Since he recently just fired his entire charging-building team, probably.

As for your experience, is your experience that progress on a manufacturing project is linear? For instance, I'm an attorney. When I'm writing a brief, I typically start by reviewing the file to gather the relevant facts and evidence, and then I research the law and outline what I want to argue. Only then do I start writing. Do you think that if you count the number of pages I've written in the first 5 hours of the project (very possibly zero) and extrapolate out, you will come up with a reasonable calculation for how long it will take me to generate a 25-page brief?

[Kazinski]

Fired his charging team 6000 charging stations in, and after just about every other EV maker threw up their hands and said, forget our own charging standards, we need to use Tesla's, because ours not only won't be better, but we can't build enough of them fast enough to reach critical mass.

I don't think he's giving up on the charging business, he probably was just dissatisfied with the suits in the headquarters, and tinkering around the edges wasn't working.

Actually my experience is infrastructure projects for a major utility. And to be clear I didn't manage the infrastructure projects, I was on the IT team that implemented and supported the software that the utility used to manage their infrastructure projects, and the interface to the accounting systems to track the costs and compile the estimates for budgeting.

But you learn a lot about a field when you gather requirements and support users that do the actual work, especially when you need to tell them occasionally 'we can't support that, we need to figure out a different way to meet that requirement that we can support'.

But it was a government operated water system for a large metropolitan area, so it has one thing in common with the charging stations project: very little of the work is done by the government, they hire construction companies to do the design and implement the project, although they may operate it when its complete.

[Don Nico]

"Your criticism appears to be that it hasn’t been implemented fast enough."
Assuming Publius' arithmetic is accurate, his critics is NOT that the work has gone to slowly, but that the legislative mandate signed by POTUS was never possible to meet.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's sure not how I would read it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I doubt Publius has any interest in this topic beyond whether any of it stuck to the wall after he threw it.

[Frank Drackman]

And the biggest reason, the “Clean” energy is still mostly from burning Fossil Fuels(what else you gonna do with Gasoline? OK, you can clean weapons with it in a pinch (and singe your Eyebrows, used to like smoking a Cigar after a day at the range) Funny to see if one of those Charging Stations is for Booty-Judges Vibrator(pretty sure he’s the “Top”!in that relationship)
Frank

[jb]

It would be interesting to see if there's actual project plans, etc. to compare against. But it's completely unsurprising that "completed chargers" are way slower at the start of a program than in steady state.

Maybe permitting generally takes about 24 months, in which case any chargers already built would be examples where for some reason it was possible to do faster than usual permitting. Are there 50 chargers actually being constructed right now or 50K? How many are going through permitting, etc.? But yes, obviously they're going to have to eventually be building a lot to get anywhere near that 500K goal. I presume most of this is not going to be federal employees doing the work or building them so you're really asking broader contracting/supply chain issues.

[Nige]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/climate/the-biden-clean-energy-boom.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uU0.dnY4.dQJePMUoUc3B&smid=url-share

[ThePublius]

Just a couple of facts:

1. Hunter Biden's laptop is real;
2. Ashley Biden's diary is real.

How do we know this? Well, the DoJ is using Hunter's laptop as evidence in his gun trial. And, a woman is doing time for stealing and selling Ashley's diary. So, the government is saying they are real.

That means:

1. Hunter lied on his form when he bought the guns;
2. Joe Biden took showers with his teenage daughter.

O.K., got it?

[Jerry B.]

Even Snopes says the diary is real.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-leaked-diary-accusation/

[bernard11]

Publius apparently doesn't grasp the difference between a box and its contents.

[ThePublius]

I confess I don't get that comment. But I'm not surprised that you would refute anything negative about Joe and his family, regardless of the evidence.

[Michael P]

bernard11 has taken up the effort to insist that it's raining when his fellow leftists piss on our legs.

Also, you meant rebut rather than refute. bernard11 didn't actually refute anything.

[Nige]

You guys keep presenting already-established things as sudden new revelations that have been strenuously denied then jump around all over the place waving your arms and spouting random crap. The utter shite you guys have been claiming about either the laptop or the diary has not actually been proved.

[bernard11]

I confess I don’t get that comment.

I'm not surprised.

It happens that I have a safety deposit box at a nearby bank.

Some idiot comes along and claims it's full of child pornography and national security material. I deny that I have any of that.

Along comes Publius who learns that the bank has confirmed I have a box there. To his peanut brain that means it's obviously full of all sorts of stuff I shouldn't have.

Got it now?

[bernard11]

Coming from a Trump cultist this is laughable.

[Kazinski]

Ashley hasn't repudiated its contents.

The FBI validated the contents of Hunters laptop using icloud backups.

[Mr. Bumble]

,,,and in more Biden family news:

Guess who paid a visit to his ex-daughter-in-law ( key witness in Hunter's upcoming trial) this weekend? Wonder what the conversation was about?

[Mr. Bumble]

https://nypost.com/2024/05/27/us-news/joe-biden-visits-hallie-biden-days-before-she-testifies-in-hunter-biden-gun-trial/

Should Hallie consider witness protection if it's offered?

[Nige]

Make something up, you usually do.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

She has repudiated the allegations made by third parties about its contents, most recently in her letter to the judge prior to the sentencing of one of the thieves:

"Repeatedly, I hear others grossly misinterpret my once private writings and lob false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love."

[Nige]

'How do we know this'

You sure are building slimy castles in the air.

[David Nieporent]

How do we know this? Well, the DoJ is using Hunter’s laptop as evidence in his gun trial. And, a woman is doing time for stealing and selling Ashley’s diary. So, the government is saying they are real.

1. The DOJ is not using "Hunter's laptop." It would be using specific documents from Hunter's laptop. Assuming you decide to credit the DOJ — something you don't seem to do when Trump is on trial — then those specific documents are real. That doesn't mean that every document on it, let alone every document that someone claims was on it, is real.

2. Similarly, that a woman stole Ashley Biden's diary does not mean everything some Internet rando claims was in it, is actually in it.

2. Joe Biden took showers with his teenage daughter.

Where do you see that in the diary? Hint: the thing you're referring to doesn't say that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It does mention "showers with my dad", but it doesn't provide any context, it doesn't suggest any sexual motive or molestation, and it does not says she was "teenage" at the time.

I've already quoted above one completely false meme allegedly taken from the diary--I'm sure there are others. The people who are doing this cannot help themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

She recalls the showers so was not an infant or pre-K toddler at least.

When do you think its appropriate for a man to be naked with his daughter? 6? 8? 10? 12? 14? Younger? Older?

[ReaderY]

The New York Times’ lead article today suggests that one reason why China has gotten way ahead of the US in manufacturing and exports is its skill in the use of government industrial policy.

The argument is basically that the United States’ commitment to free markets is a bit like the Ottoman Empire’s committment to the feudal system. Prior to the 30 Years War in the mid-17th century, the Ottomans had a better feudal army than the Europeans and had been mostly beating them for hundreds of years. They had a number of advantages including better artillery. But during the 30 Years War, European militaries switched from feudal to professional armies, with more intense training, more sophisticated tactics, and professional logistics and supply corps. The Ottomans however, basing their form of social organization on religious ideology which they firmly believed to be superior to all others, continued to rely on mostly feudal armies with little training on large formation manouevres and which had to rely on forage for supplies. As a result, following the 30 years war the Europeans began gaining the upper hand and started slowly pushing the Ottomans back.

Are we doing the same with industrial policy? This blog has been an oracle for ideologically, axiomatically based views of economics, views that have tend to be as self-convinced of their innate superiority and as impervious to considering what actually works and doesn’t work as the Ottomans were.

Is that way of thinking handicapping us?

[hobie]

"Is that way of thinking handicapping us?"

For me, yes, it is. China has proven that putting the weight of the government's thumb on the scales has succeeded big time: propping up industries until they dominate the globe. I think we'll need to adopt some hybrid system of incentives to be competitive.

[bernard11]

I don't think that's proven at all.

It might be true, or it might be that China was going to grow rapidly if it followed any sort of semi-reasonable economic policies - no Great Leap Forward, no backyard foundries, etc. It's a big country, you know, so they can put an awful lot of people to work designing and making things.

As for our policies, I agree with Don. Tariffs on steel, for example, don't actually help us. In fact, they hurt, and if you're truly concerned about inflation you ought to be fiercely opposed to that kind of thing.

We do need to improve our policies, but I'd say that's for national security reasons, not that the stuff we've been doing, and talk about doing, are going to help our economy.

[Bwaaah]

^yes^

[Brett Bellmore]

For a long while, (Far longer than it should have been!) US China policy was premised on the notion that China would liberalize and cease to be a threat if they became wealthier and more integrated with Western economies. So OUR industrial policy aimed at promoting THEIR economy. Not our own.

[Don Nico]

The problem with your argument is that the US does not have an industrial policy. It has a political policy of promoting disparate special interests promise political advantage.

[bernard11]

So OUR industrial policy aimed at promoting THEIR economy. Not our own.

Trade is not a zero-sum game, Brett. When your employer pays you for your work it's not like he's losing and you're winning.

[Armchair]

Of course, this isn't just "trade". It's also power dynamics.

Trade works fine...until the other partner suddenly says "yeah, I don't want to trade food with you anymore...unless you give me your daughter"

And then you look around, and you realize that all the food you used to grow...well, you stopped that by getting it in trade. And no one else has any food. And then you look back at your trade "partner" and realize what was really going on.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Hey, for once I agree with something you say.

Which is not to say I am for tariffs, particularly on the order Trump is talking about (or the haphazard, self-interested way he implemented them when he was President), but we do need a coherent policy to ensure we have what we need if/when China tries to put the squeeze on us in the event of conflict over Taiwan or directly with us.

It’s just stupid to have our primary supplier of any essential be a authoritarian regime, particularly one with ambitions to dominate the globe. I think the nation is waking up to this (and we did get the CHIPS and Science Act through), but this should be a priority as the problem with getting artillery shells to Ukraine makes obvious. We have to be able to compete with China during a war with China. That’s so obvious, it shouldn’t have to be said. And the free market does not reward that sort of long-term, strategic planning for the benefit of the nation as opposed to individual companies.

We absolutely have to find innovative ways to advance our long-term strategic interests while also utilizing the power of the free market (which, of course, means it can't all just be left to capitalism and free trade; the government is going to have to do some nudging, at least).

[bernard11]

Did you miss the part where I said:

We do need to improve our policies, but I’d say that’s for national security reasons, not that the stuff we’ve been doing, and talk about doing, are going to help our economy.

[bernard11]

Sure, Armchair, but tell me something.

Why did only 24 House Republicans, including pariahs like Kinzinger, vote for the CHIPS ACT?

Pretty shameful, isn't it. Maybe you shouldn't be supporting a party that shows so little understanding of security issues.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
(which until recently possessed a
thin academic veneer) has operated
for no more than

TEN (10)

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

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 28 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 28 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)
This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

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

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

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

This one is great, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cut Sunday services short so you could post your usual crap?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is nothing usual about the frequency at which this blog publishes racial slurs and other bigoted, right-wing trash.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today’s Rolling Stones brighteners:

First, a standout from the Taylor-Preston period, resurrected (fan vote) at last night’s second New York-New Jersey performance.

Next, a tour debut, straight from MetLife II.

The Stones are hitting the population centers — Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Denver, Orlando, Chicago — during the next month, before reaching Los Angeles and San Francisco in July. Tickets can be had for a little over a hundred dollars. No excuse for missing this one.

(The Stones have added a nearly inexplicable show in Missouri after the Santa Clara show, complicating plans for those wish to see the final performance of this tour. It has made me far less likely to travel to Santa Clara, although visiting San Francisco is never a bad idea. I hope they add a Vegas show or two after the hayseed payday.)

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly Arthur, the show in Philly coincides with the start of Shavuot.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I expect you to make the wrong choice, for silly reasons.

Different strokes.

[Roger S]

If you do not like free speech, then switch to a platform that heavily censors opinions. You have a lot to choose from.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's a strange position to advance at a blog (the Volokh Conspiracy) with a record of partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship.

When Volokh admitted his censorship and said he would do it again, his disaffected right-wing fans loved him all the more.

Embrace the hypocrisy, clingers!

[Bored Lawyer]

Number of days since RAK posted something antisemitic: 0. See above.

How many so far this year: two since I started counting. (I count each post as one, even if they contain multiple statements.)

BTW, learn this Arabic word: kafir. An Arabic term in Islam which refers to a person who disbelieves the God in Islam, denies His authority, rejects the tenets of Islam, or simply is not Muslim and does not believe in the guidance of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. 'Cuz that is why they will punish you, not what you do in the bedroom.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you consider dreaming of enjoying a delicious bacon cheeseburger to celebrate accountability for a bunch of war-crimping right-wing assholes antisemitic, you bigoted conservative write-off?

Don’t forget the shrimp cocktail. Nothing like shrimp cocktail to celebrate bringing a bunch of worthless right-wing assholes to heel.

[Bored Lawyer]

QED.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Karen Read Charade continues:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/27/howie-carr-kiss-only-tells-part-of-atf-agents-story-in-karen-read-case/

https://howiecarrshow.com/brian-higgins-puts-the-a-in-atf/

Wow....

[hobie]

Conspiracists will believe anything except the most obvious truths. I suppose it keeps you busy though, Ed.

[ThePublius]

You obviously are unaware of this trial, and haven't been following it, and just have a thing against Ed, or anyone else who espouses conservative opinions.

Check it out. It's obviously a case of framing Karen Read. I've been following this case for over a year, and following the trial since it began. This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That seems to be the disaffected, half-educated conservative loser perspective.

[David Nieporent]

I haven't been following it in the slightest, but a good heuristic is that if Dr. Ed says something, it's false.

[loki13]

Random legal thought.

Let's assume Trump gets convicted in New York. What would plausibly happen?

While there would be a lot of commotion, I can't imagine much. Given his age, the non-violent nature of the crimes, and the high costs to the prison system, I find it hard to believe that he would get a prison sentence - even with the aggravating factor of repeatedly violating the court's order.

That said, criminal law is not my thing. But I was wondering, for those of you who might actually know a little more (and no, that doesn't mean people who "know" because they have opinions) what you think.

Assuming Trump is convicted, and even assuming it's a clean sweep, do you think that Merchan would sentence him to any time?

Also, what are the rules in NY for remaining out pending appeal?

[Roger S]

Trump is going to be acquitted. He has already been acquitted by the public. Any sentence would be so obviously unreasonable that it would increase his popularity.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How is that a concern of the jury, or indeed, of the court?

[Roger S]

It is a concern of the judge. His daughter is profiting from the trial. There is a gag order against Trump commenting on that, but none against me.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The only judges Trump thinks are fair are the ones he's personally appointed--and only when they're ruling in his favor, like they're supposed to!

[Roger S]

He is right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Was your mother as big as asshole as she seemed to be?

[Mr. Bumble]

Channeling Queenie?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just reciting the facts. She was a deplorable loser.

[Bwaaah]

Channeling Queenie?

[Nige]

Brave little soldier.

[David Nieporent]

His daughter is profiting from the trial.

No, she isn't, you lying SOB.

[loki13]

Roger,

I am going to put this in the nicest way possible. Did you even read what I wrote? I was asking a hypothetical question ("Let's assume ...") and then wondering about the possibilities.

Moreover, I was interested in what people with actual legal knowledge might be able to contribute. Because while I am pretty handy with a lot of things, criminal sentencing isn't one of them.

Given that, what did you actually contribute, other than your feels and desire to pontificate about your (well-noted and repeated) love of all things Trump?

[bernard11]

your (well-noted and repeated) love of all things Trump?

Don't call him a cultist, or XY will be angry at you.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is going to be acquitted.

I thought that he couldn't get a fair trial in NYC.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He is more likely to spend a few hours in jail for contempt of court than he is to spend any time in prison as a convicted felon.

This applies to all four of his criminal trials.

[not guilty]

"Assuming Trump is convicted, and even assuming it’s a clean sweep, do you think that Merchan would sentence him to any time?"

I doubt it. For a defendant with no prior criminal convictions who is found guilty of a low grade felony, a sentence of probation is the norm. Donald Trump's ability/willingness to comply with the conditions of probation, though, may prove to be problematic.

[Bored Lawyer]

Let’s assume Trump gets convicted in New York. What would plausibly happen?

His lawyers will ask for bail to be continued pending appeal, and that will be granted.

Now let's ask the reverse. What happens if the jury acquits?

The amount of brain matter that will have to be cleaned up from exploding heads will be enough to keep medical waste disposers busy for a year. Figuratively speaking.

[Mr. Bumble]

Starting with ng.

[not guilty]

Don't worry about me, Mr. Bumble. I learned long ago to make allowance for a jury reaching an unexpected result.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meant in jest.

[loki13]

Well, that's actually not very interesting from a legal perspective.

Also not sure why you think heads would explode. If anyone is paying the slight bit of attention (and has a whiff of legal knowledge), they know that state court convictions of defendants with ability to hire competent counsel are hardly a sure thing.

In other words, no heads will explode either way. People will just go on believing what they already believe.

[Bored Lawyer]

Also not sure why you think heads would explode. If anyone is paying the slight bit of attention (and has a whiff of legal knowledge), they know that state court convictions of defendants with ability to hire competent counsel are hardly a sure thing.

Because there are many people who have an irrational hatred of Donald Trump AND who are emotionally invested in seeing him convicted. They have talked themselves into believing that his conviction is a sure thing -- you have a political prosecutor, a biased judge, a liberal jury pool. This is their best shot,* and if this fails, people will be screaming.

____________________
*When I say their best shot, I mean if you have little legal acumen. Some of the other charges are far weightier, IMO, but the Georgia case was torpedoed by Fanni Willis' overreach and then utter stupidity, and the federal claims are stalled.

[David Nieporent]

They have talked themselves into believing that his conviction is a sure thing

The only people who have said that are MAGA types.

[tylertusta]

David,

There's an entire media ecosystem built around investigations and prosecutions of Donald Trump.

All run by lefty types, all positively gushing over every bit of news that brings a conviction a little bit closer.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, the media builds ecosystems fast!

Or maybe it's just covering stuff that's been happening, like the media's done with trials for well over a century.

[tylertusta]

It's been around since Trump's presidency, Peanut.

As a start, look up "Mueller She Wrote" and all of the related podcasts.

[Nige]

My God, they covered the presidency when Trump was president! They were supposed to just stop!

[tylertusta]

Hello Nige!

Did you have a good Memorial Day holiday?

[Nige]

Phew, you remembered your schtick just in time!

[Sarcastr0]

"Mueller She Wrote" is, as the kids say, cringe. She hasn't been a thing since like 2019, and I think she's even gotten in trouble for something or other (grifting or plagiarism? I'm guessing).

[David Nieporent]

IIRC the person was caught fabricating her bio.

[David Nieporent]

All run by lefty types, all positively gushing over every bit of news that brings a conviction a little bit closer.

That's all well and good, but that's not responsive to what I wrote. Most non-MAGA may think Trump is guilty. Most non-MAGA may want Trump convicted. Most may think a conviction is likely. But the only people who "believ[e] that his conviction is a sure thing" are the MAGA types who've said that a NYC jury guarantees a conviction and that this is therefore an inherently unfair proceeding.

[tylertusta]

No, I was directly replying to what you wrote:

But the only people who “believ[e] that his conviction is a sure thing”

The number of lefty types who think Trump will certainly be convicted in NY is definitely not zero. Typically, they're frothing-at-the-mouth leftists like Elie Mystal or IC-uber-alles folks like Andrew Weissman.

[Sarcastr0]

The number of lefty types who think Trump will certainly be convicted in NY is definitely not zero

This is a very low bar.

DMN is right, at least based on the sample around here. People who think Trump is guilty are not making predictions on how the jury will go. People who think Trump is an innocent victim are very sure of the verdict, albeit split on how.

[loki13]

"Because there are many people who have an irrational hatred of Donald Trump AND who are emotionally invested in seeing him convicted."

Sure. and there are many people who have an irrational love of Trump. Who comment here.

But I am not overly interested in the opinions of irrational people.

[Bored Lawyer]

You asked why I thought some heads would explode (metaphorically). I answered you.

[loki13]

Again, claiming that a given result will cause "heads to explode" on the other side isn't very interesting.

I am just as certain that "heads will explode" no matter what happens, because whatever happens will go against what people already know to be true(tm).

Put it this way- I'd like to see someone saying that people ON THEIR OWN SIDE will have their heads explode. That would be interesting! But I have yet to see it. Since I haven't seen it, I will just file it along with all the, "The other side so dumb, and this will totally pwn them" clickbait-y videos on the youtube.

Probably with a snapshot of a woman with an incredulous expression and a big red arrow.

[bernard11]

the federal claims are stalled.

Yes. Wonder how that happened.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I believe the actual moment of figurative head explosion is encapsulated by the young lady in this video. Priceless.

One day, I would like to hear directly from her on this question....what exactly were you thinking as you took in that deep breath and let out the primal scream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1IrRxoRkbQ

[Bwaaah]

To self: Make this look good, and no matter what, don't look into the camera.

That was a bit much, I think.

I was young and foolish too, but thankfully, in the pre-vid-cam days. She will hopefully be successful, grow old, and look back and laugh at herself.

[Bwaaah]

I took some time, on Trump election night 2016, in Washington Square Park in NYC, to console two college age women who were crying (literally) about the Trump win. I told them they’d probably be surprised at how stable our system of government is, and how little the world would likely change as a result of any one person, even a President.

It’s almost eight years later now. They’re probably gainfully employed and nearing 30 years of age. Hopefully, probably, they’re vesting their souls in more valuable endeavors like work, family, music, food, exercise, maybe even a nice dog (or cat).

It’s not hard to find better things than politics, and therein, to rise above all this.

[loki13]

"Yes, I believe the actual moment of figurative head explosion is encapsulated by the young lady in this video. Priceless."

It is a common feature of both the left and the right that they love watching videos of people "on the other side" that show exactly how stupid the other side is. Jordan Klepper made a career out of it.

Which, yeah, a lot of people are stupid. Look at these threads!

[Armchair]

"do you think that Merchan would sentence him to any time?"

Absolutely. Based on Merchan's past actions with regards to Trump (notably the civil trial), I believe the maximum possible sentence will be passed down.

[not guilty]

Uh, what civil trial involving Donald Trump did Judge Juan Merchan preside over?

[Armchair]

Perhaps they were criminal trials in regards to the Trump Organization.

New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan is a seasoned jurist who is no stranger to Trump’s orbit. He has presided over the Trump Organization tax fraud trial, sentenced the former president’s close confidant Allen Weisselberg to prison over his role in the scheme and overseen former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s criminal fraud case.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/juan-merchan-judge-nyc/index.html

Merchan has no problem sentencing a 75 year old man, with no criminal record, to prison for non-violent crimes. And that's with a guilty plea. Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday said had he not already promised a five-month sentence to Weisselberg, he would have issued a stiffer sentence “much greater” than five months after listening to evidence at trial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interesting: https://www.highereddive.com/news/sonoma-state-leader-resigns-after-unapproved-deal-student-protesters-palestinian-cal-state/716624/

Unlike with every other issue in the past 40 years, the Left isn't being appeased this time. Interesting...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It has been reported that Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force is likely to highlight Allen Weisselberg's absence from the prosecution's witness list.

Could (or should) prosecutors tell the jury that they did not call Weisselberg because the record indicated vividly that Weisselberg would (1) invoke the Fifth Amendment or (2) lie again (after two convictions for lying under oath about Trump)?

[Paladin_44]

Has he factored importantly in any testimony (prosecution or defense) so far? NY Times has some thoughts on this today: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/27/nyregion/trump-trial-hush-money-weisselberg.html
Sorry, might be pay-walled...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have a loose recollection that Weisselberg was mentioned in testimony concerning the arrangement, purpose, and characterization of the relevant payments. That was nor surprising, given his longstanding proximity to Trump's money.

I genuinely don't know whether the prosecution or defense would be permitted, entitled, wise, foolish, or forbidden to mention Weisselberg's conspicuous absence. It seems obvious Weisselberg would have been an important witness were he not such a readily demonstrable low-life (liar, tax cheat, liar again, convict, tax cheat again, liar again, jailbird again, antisocial loser, etc.) that neither side would chance it.

[hobie]

What court rule would allow such a mention?

[not guilty]

"Could (or should) prosecutors tell the jury that they did not call Weisselberg because the record indicated vividly that Weisselberg would (1) invoke the Fifth Amendment or (2) lie again (after two convictions for lying under oath about Trump)?"

No. Closing argument (for both sides) should be confined to facts which have been adduced in evidence, the inferences which can be drawn from such facts and the application of law to the facts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You don't see a chance the defense might try to raise doubt with a 'where's Weisselberg?' argument?

Or that the prosecution might respond with a 'we didn't call a multiconvicted liar and Trump toady who likely would have taken the Fifth to try to avoid yet another round of incarceration' explanation?

[not guilty]

"You don’t see a chance the defense might try to raise doubt with a ‘where’s Weisselberg?’ argument?"

I don't know what New York law permits or prohibits, but some courts prohibit argument of the missing witness inference where the prospective witness was equally available to be called by both sides. It is unethical to call a witness solely to have him invoke the Fifth Amendment in the presence of the jury.

"Or that the prosecution might respond with a ‘we didn’t call a multiconvicted liar and Trump toady who likely would have taken the Fifth to try to avoid yet another round of incarceration’ explanation?"

I don't know for certain, but I doubt that Weisselberg's perjury convictions are in evidence. And in this case, that is a double edged sword, since the prosecution's most critical witness has himself been convicted of perjury.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Could (or should) prosecutors tell the jury that they did not call Weisselberg because the record indicated vividly that Weisselberg would (1) invoke the Fifth Amendment or (2) lie again (after two convictions for lying under oath about Trump)?

They cannot, and accordingly should not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not even if the defense makes an issue of it?

I am not a trial lawyer, but it seems strange that the prosecution would not be permitted to respond at closing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Respond by referring to information that isn’t in evidence, including someone’s valid invocation of a privilege?

Yeah, they can’t do that.

[MoreCurious]

Once upon a time most of us — at least those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s — were taught by our parents and our teachers that presidents should be people of the highest ethical and moral standards. In other words, they should be people we could respect, look up to, and emulate. Obviously many presidents have been personally flawed, but it wasn’t until 2016 that we elected a man who essentially bragged about and shamelessly embraced his moral and ethical failings. It now appears that a lot of us are inclined to vote for the same man. What has happened to us? What happened to our collective acceptance of the difference between right and wrong and good and evil? What happened to the common goal of being good, decent people? And what message are we sending to our children and grandchildren?

[Nige]

Look, Trump is what was and is needed to halt the moral and ethical decline of the United States. His own lack of ethics and morals are entirely essential for the repairing of the ethical and moral failures of the country. Only someone with no morals or ethics can restore morals and ethics to this once-great nation. To prove how moral and ethical we are, we lie and invent crimes to smear Biden as also having no morals or ethics, which proves our point. The only way to get what we want, which is the restoration of proper moral and ethical standards, is by compleyely abandoning all the morals and ethics we hadn't already abandoned, which actually weren't very many.

[Paladin_44]

"...and the pig got up and slowly walked away..."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That we no longer want the "elites" ruling over us?

Just crooked billionaires who care about nothing but themselves...

[Don Nico]

We enjoyed obviously crooked politicians for many decades, why not crooked billionaires?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, morally bankrupt, superstition-addled, bigoted right-wing misfits are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Nige]

Usually when the corruption is exposed, that's it for the politician. With a would-be oligarch like Trump, the corruption is baked in.

[Kazinski]

Well of course that's the most surprising thing to me about the entire Trump saga: after 8 years of leaked income taxes, his personal lawyer flipping on him, pouring over every entry in his books, an army for prosecutors in NY and DOJ and a special prosecutor hunting diligently for something to put him away with and this is all they could find?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's about where I am: If this sort of thing is the worst they could come up with, he's cleaner than I ever suspected.

[MoreCurious]

So your answer to young people would be that his disrespect for and abuse of women, the multiple affairs and marriages, the tax cheating, the failure to pay his bills, the racism and bigotry, and the vulgar, nasty streak that runs through everything he does shouldn't matter at all?

[BrotherMovesOn]

God sometimes sends flawed, imperfect vessels to do his work on earth.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is no god, you worthless, bigoted, gullible yokel.

[BrotherMovesOn]

RAK that post was a paraphrase of a comment/defense I've heard made by fundamentalists for Trump.
I do not agree with that defense.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Hey I'm on your side dammit

[Bwaaah]

You said “god.”

And you put forth a poetic justification for imperfect people.

And everything you’ve ever said before makes no difference to idiots.

But, yes, you *are* on "their side."

[Nige]

So every person you hate becuase they're flawed and imperfect could actually be doing the Lord's work? Like Biden?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Nige, if that is directed at me, please see above.

[Kazinski]

No.

It should be balanced against his much more meaningful record of providing economic security, future growth and freedom to Americans.

If his record and Biden's were equal in that regard I would probably vote for Biden.

But they are decidedly are not.

And of course don't bring up tax cheating, you don't suppose Hunter was cheating on his taxes for just his own benefit do you?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's policies have provided none of these things. You yell about some random time series of some very specific number when Biden's in office, but ignore Trump.

But also look at what you're rationalizing. 'Sure, Trump is a horrible person, but he makes numbers go up!" That's a profoundly immoral way to see politics.

But I now see you're on the train accusing Biden of child molestation, and into Tom 'lets sic the military on protesters' Cotton, so your vision for America fully is a military dictatorship lead by a moral monster.

[Kazinski]

I’ll repeat what I pointed out a few days ago, under Trump median family real net worth was up 16%, under 3 years of Biden its up 0.7%.

I am not going to bother searching out the link again but Michael Barone cited it in a recent column and there was an article about a published paper where the original research came from in the WSJ.

I can’t think of a number more meaningful to families than real net worth

[Nige]

And again, Trump inherited a booming economy, Biden inherited the aftermath of a pandemic, just as he and Obama inherited a wrecked global economy from the previous Republican administration.

[Magister]

18% median growth reported in "Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2016 to 2019: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances" from the Federal Reserve. The 2019 to 2022 report says the median increased 37%. Inflation baked in by the Trump tax cut and mishandling of the pandemic can make the current improvements seem small, but it's important to assign the blame for that appropriately. While Trump benefited from Obama fixing the economy, he still averaged higher inflation than Obama, despite the economic shock of the 2020 pandemic.

[Nige]

'It should be balanced against his much more meaningful record of providing economic security, future growth and freedom to Americans.'

Weird that he inherited a booming economy from Obama/Biden after a Republican admin left the global economy inruins doesn't factor in, andnnor does the fact the Biden has presided over the economic recovery after the pandemic. Also, that he's promising to round up millions of people and put them in camps and stamp down on protests.

'Hunter was cheating on his taxes for just his own benefit do you?'

Absent evidence otherwise, why wouldn't we?

[bernard11]

his much more meaningful record of providing economic security, future growth and freedom to Americans.

WTF???

If his record and Biden’s were equal in that regard I would probably vote for Biden.

So I guess the fact that Biden’s record is better forces you to vote for Trump, then?

you don’t suppose Hunter was cheating on his taxes for just his own benefit do you?

Yes. Why wouldn’t you? Isn’t self-enrichment the objective of most financial crimes?

[bernard11]

The problem is not the wealth of the crook but the extent of the crookedness.

[hobie]

The pandemic opened my eyes on how deep-seatedly crazy half of humanity is. This veneer we call 'civilization' hangs by a thread. The kooks seem to now believe and act as they please

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What happened?

Conservatives became disaffected, delusional, and desperate as modern American society increasingly rejected white privilege, superstition, racism, misogyny, antisemitism, unearned privilege, Republican politics, gay-bashing, Islamophobia, and other core conservative preferences.

The culture war is what happened. It placed right-wingers outside the modern American mainstream. Conservatives responded by withdrawing into small, guarded, desolate corners; by disdaining morality, reason, and truth; and by flashing figurative middle fingers at better Americans.

[Kazinski]

It turns out we decided we wanted competence, and more importantly rational policies more than moral forthrightness.

That and after finding out that much of the public face of politicians like the Kennedy's was a facade it became less important. Compare for instance Nixon and John Kennedy. Kennedy was a serial adulterer sharing a girlfriend with a mob boss. Nixon was a austere, monogamous, humorless drudge. Neither was particularly moral, neither was Johnson. Carter, Ford, Reagan were very moral in their personal lives. Clinton was not. The Bushes were.

One might come to the conclusion looking at just those examples since the 60's that personal morals were less predictive of performance than their policies and competence.

We are electing a President, not a parson.

[MoreCurious]

You forgot to answer my last question: What, if anything, do you teach your children, grandchildren, and other young people about the importance of electing presidents who have strong standards of ethics and morality?

[Kazinski]

Well I don't teach my kids anything about electing presidents, but we argue about it occasionally.

[MoreCurious]

Let me try again. Just suppose for the sake of argument that some young person with whom you're familiar -- a child, a niece or nephew, a neighbor -- asked you what you believed were important attributes for a president of the United States. What would you tell that person? And if the young person asked if morals and ethics were important, what would you say?

[Kazinski]

I would say they most important things are respect and understanding for the constitution and the free market system. And a respect for peoples right to order their own lives.

And to look out at America from the Whitehouse and realize "government didn't build that".

[MoreCurious]

And if the young person asked if morals and ethics were important, what would you say?

[Kazinski]

That the historical record is replete with examples of people draping themselves in the fabric of morals and ethics, that turn out to be wisps of nothing more than peoples fantasies.

God, isn't that all Marxism is fantasies of moralistic concern for the people that ended up with people slaughtered?

I've related this before , but my mother in law, who is younger than me in years, but decades older in wear and tear and experience, was sent to the killing fields in Cambodia at 13 with her 3 younger siblings. That was about a year or so after I was registering for the draft and anxiously awaiting my draft number.

Spare me the morals and the aspirations.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How is the mail order bride? Are you satisfied with your purchase? Get your money’s worth?

Have fun in the hermit shack, loser.

[Kazinski]

Damn comments system logged me out again otherwise I’d never have seen your comment, but as long as I’m here ill tell you.

She wasn’t a mail order bride, I knew her 4 years before we got married, 4 years we spent traveling China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Lao, and as patriotic as I am I made a conscious decision that I wanted no part of marrying another American Woman (the song was right). And we just had our 6th anniversary in April.

As for my shack, I got my building permit reinstated after I retired, and got my final inspection completed last summer on my 2300sqft house on 15 acres of fir pine and incense cedar with a year round creek and my own private 48′ cascading waterfall bordering the national forest.

I have to say I felt quite a sense of accomplishment building largely by myself, including wiring, plumbing, and roofing a 2 story 3 bed, 2 bath off the grid home with 17 skylights, and getting it built to code. Thanks for asking.

And just a word of personal advice Rev, fat drunk and bitter is no way to go through retirement, get a life.

Now back on mute.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

I wanted no part of marrying another American Woman

That went without saying, at least among the non-spectrum audience.

You don't consider yourself a bitter misfit, Kazinski? You see yourself as part of the modern American mainstream?

What happened to you?

[Bwaaah]

Kaz: I really appreciate your clarification for Arthur. His bitter allusions to your wife are prime examples of his nothing-but-nasty comments.

A whole house, to code. That goes straight to my heart, as do “fir pine and incense cedar with a year round creek.” Sounds like feet firmly planted on the ground, with god’s green earth holding you up there.

That’s a beautiful story (which I presume to be quite accurate).

I do admit, however, that you’re closer to a Ted Kaczynski than Arthur is to any reverend. But then, you’re a long way off from a shack and bombs, and all things considered, Arthur’s bitterness gets him much closer to Ted Kaczynski than you’ll ever be.

Arthur: Kazinski is wrong. Bitter *is* a way to go through life. But you can do better than that.

[Sarcastr0]

Spare me the morals and the aspirations.

I thought you just had bad critical thinking. Turns out you're a fucking moral void, invoking a family member's experiences in Cambodia so you can provide moral cover for Donald fucking Trump.

People on this blog continue to be very good at disappointing my already very low expectations for them.

[Kazinski]

What's my mother in law got to do with Trump?

My point was in the mid 70's when a lot of my fellow students and peers were pushing Marxism as more moral than capitalism the moral Marxists of Cambodia were showing just where an overweening sense of self righteousness leads to.

Adam Smith had it right, when everyone is looking out for number 1, and their families of course, everyone is happier more prosperous and society benefits, despite not being absolutely perfect.

And if someone gets something on the side, well so be it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're as un-American as those Alito flags, Kazinski.

Stay off the grid. Everyone will be happier . . . except your mail order bride, who, much like Melania, is hoping for some leniency from those actuarial tables.

[Bwaaah]

Indeed, moral intentions and utterances are the way for many. It is sufficient to have wanted a better world.

I'll take a better world, and forgive people for how they get there.

Spare me the morals and the aspirations. It's the results that count.

[Sarcastr0]

The executive is the only one of the three branches that is set up to be swift and reactive to rapidly evolving events.

For that alone you want some standards for character.

If you focus purely on what policy outcomes you want, you miss a huge requirement for the job.

Though also what Trump wants to do to protesters and the media and our institutions and asylum seekers and Russia etc. are not outcomes you should be into.

He’s openly running in revenge; utopia justifies the means is not just morally fallacious, it’s flat wrong in the facts of who Trump is.

[Bwaaah]

You really don't get it.

Spare me the morals and the aspirations, and the lectures about "character." It’s the results that count. (For some of us.)

For you, it's apparently something else.

[Kazinski]

Oh lay off Sarcastro, if he wants to indulge himself in virtue signalling and think his high minded concerns about morals are saving the republic that's his right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here are the results, in the making for decades:

The culture war is settled, clingers. You're the deplorable roadkill. Your obsolete, bigoted, emotionally stunted right-wing thinking has lost at the modern American marketplace of ideas. You -- and your conservative preferences -- will be replaced.

Trump pulling off another trick shot at the Electoral College would not change that. It would delay things for a few years, but likely precipitate a much more severe reckoning for America's vestigial right-wing misfits.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The Presidency is not solely a policy office, so looking only at results is wrong.

2. Trump has promised some fucking awful results; your handwaving about good things does not stand up to the facts.

3. As has been pointed out elsewhere, most of your drive does not seem to be policy, but liberals saying bad things.
You're just another own the libs MAGA

4. Even if all that were not true, 'All I care about is results' is just saying the ends justify the means. Standing on your high horse and then committing like everyone's first moral fallacy we learn is bad in like 2nd grade is a helluva choice.

[Nige]

‘I’ll take a better world, and forgive people for how they get there.’

The ends justify the means?

Of course, this vison of the ‘end’ Trump wants to bring about generally precludes the promises to go after political enemies and put millions into camps.

[Nige]

'Spare me the morals and the aspirations.'

You want to vote for the immoral person with no real aspirations, so, I guess that makes sense.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you think your children aspire to mail order brides and off-the-grid hermit shacks?

[Kazinski]

Well my children aspire to a lot of things, but I'll tell you one thing I got right, they schedule their vacations in the winter to come visit me in Arizona for mountain biking and hiking in the desert, and in the summer to come to my cabin Sierras for more biking and hiking. At both of my houses they can step out the front door and hike or ride all day for miles across undeveloped open space without crossing a single paved street. And they bring their friends and significant others.

Honestly rev, usually you're on mute (because you have nothing substantive to say on the issues and you are a broken record), so I had no idea you were so obsessed with me, but I'm flattered.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jealous is more like it.

[Kazinski]

Well he's back on mute so I'll probably never know.

Once in a while when someone replies to him in a way that indicates he might have said something worth responding to I take him off mute to see, but I am almost always disappointed, its his usual bitter repetitive dreck.

Nobody can accuse me of not willing to listen to and engage contrary viewpoints, but honestly he just has nothing interesting to say, and that's sad.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"It turns out we decided we wanted competence, and more importantly rational policies more than moral forthrightness."

Haha! How many of his businesses have filed for bankruptcy again?

What you really meant to say is that he hates the people you hate, so you don't give a fuck whether he possesses even an ounce of morality.

[Kazinski]

The only businesses Biden has ever run are shell companies for collecting unearned influence payments.

So yeah, I prefer Trump's mixed record of bankruptcies and successes to Biden's "record".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Even if we assume your fantasies are actually real, by your own statement Biden would be more competent than Trump.

Of course nobody who knows you believes a word out of your mouth about how you only support Trump begrudgingly. You people are just as morally bankrupt as he is, which is why you can't bring yourselves to do the right thing.

[David Nieporent]

It turns out we decided we wanted competence,

Huh? The guy who inherited his fortune and failed to make anything of it, with his only actual success in life being the hosting of a game show, was supposed to represent competence?

[Kazinski]

Well I don't measure his competence by his hotel empire because it doesn't affect me.

I've never watched a single episode of his game show, I'm not a reality TV series fan (not entirely true I like gold mining and logging themed shows sometimes, but that's different).

I measure his competence solely by what he did when he got into office, and I was quite surprised. In fact I remember posting on the WaPo in the run up before the election in a thread that had a lot of Trump boosters, I told them the campaign theme song should be the Who's 'We Won't get fooled Again" because they were being fooled again.

I was wrong. He wasn't fooling.

[Nige]

What were you impressed by? His jailing of Hilary Clinton? His banning of Muslims? His building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? The way he fixed healthcare? Infrastructure week(s)? His escalation of drone warfare while reducing reporting and accountability? His bizarre tarrifs? His abdication of responsibility for the pandemic by refusing to respond on a federal level and letting his son in law dole out PPE like they were party favours? When he tried to fraudulently overturn the election?

[bernard11]

It turns out we decided we wanted competence, and more importantly rational policies more than moral forthrightness.

Well, Trump gave us neither.

That aside, there is some truth to what you say, but the nature of the misconduct matters. I think we give something of a pass to some kinds of sexual misconduct, though that's nothing new. Of course much of that was historically concealed by the press. I mean, it goes back to Jefferson, anyway.

Financial or political misconduct is treated a little more harshly.

[Nige]

'It turns out we decided we wanted competence,'

But why vote for Trump?

'We are electing a President, not a parson.'

Given his Christian fundamentalist backers and advisors, we might as well be. And being a parson? Nothing to do with personal morals. At all.

[Michael P]

You elected the kind of person you complain about in 1992, and again in 1896, 2008, 2012 and 2020.

[Nige]

This is obviously a massive lie, but it should be pointed out that Republicans are the party of Christian family values and law and order. Supposedly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What happened to the common goal of being good, decent people? "

Bill Clinton happened. Your side rallied around a sleazy corrupt sexual predator.

The lesson got learned that "morality" was just a cudgel Dems use.

[Sarcastr0]

Most folks don't learn their lessons based on some weird envy for what they used to see as the failings of the other side.

[Nige]

The party of family values and law and order dislike morals being used as a cudgel? When the fuck did that ever happen? You're saying 'we HATE Bill Clinton let's vote for someone even WORSE, also way stupider.'

[Magister]

Democrats pushed Al Franken to resign, and Menendez (who hasn't resigned but is not running for re-election). Republicans seem unwilling to do the same with their least moral members, preferring to kick out Liz Cheney for having too many scruples.

[Mr. Bumble]

Menendez is seeking signatures to run as an independent.

[Magister]

He only needs 800 signatures, so if he had any expectation of winning election he wouldn't still be seeking signatures. (In a grievous blow to the evil duopoly, it turns out that Republicans and Democrats need more signatures.)

[Mr. Bumble]

It is New Jersey, so you never know.

[Magister]

It appears that no independent has ever won a statewide election in New Jersey. He could be a spoiler, I suppose, but New Jersey Senate elections have not been close in several decades.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Democrats pushed Al Franken to resign, and Menendez "

What about Northam and his Lt. Gov. in Virginia? Northam just opened the Biden campaign HQ in Virginia.

Get back to me when they push someone out when they can't guarantee a Dem replacement.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob with a flawless pivot. 'Yes, well, nevertheless...'

[Magister]

Can you point to Republicans ejecting anyone to resign over morals where the replacement was certain to be a Republican? I'd say Liz Cheney was ejected for having good morals, so not counting that one; anyone since Richard Nixon, from whom the Republicans only learned the importance of plausible deniability?

Republicans routinely nominate terrible candidates who cannot win their general election; but for Russian interference in 2016, Trump would probably have ended in that group.

[Bob from Ohio]

"so not counting that on"

Convenient!

But betrayal is a bad mortal so she qualifies.

George Santos.

" but for Russian interference in 2016"

A 2016 truther I see. A few facebook ads beat the great woman!

[Magister]

The majority of Republicans voted to keep Santos, though. Republicans typically outsource consequences for their lack of morals to Democrats.

Which of Trump and Pence was more the betrayer? Pence, for favoring the Constitution over aiding Trump's coup, or Trump, who wanted his vice president hanged?

[Commenter_XY]

The Libertarian Party has done it once again, meaning, nominated a democrat as their standard bearer for the presidential election. His professional background is 'the restaurant business for 13 years'. Now I suppose that is a strong point in his favor, he has had to interact directly with customers, help make a payroll. He understands that.

Chase Oliver never did time in DC (in Congress), another strong point in his favor. He is not 75+ years old, yet another strong point in his favor. He is not cognitively or physically challenged, still another point in his favor.

I am not exactly overwhelmed by the Team L candidate, and want to hear more. He hasn't closed the deal with this voter. We'll see.

But now it is a three way race: POTUS Biden, POTUS Trump, and Chase Oliver. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A three-way "race" in what sense?

For your vote?

On the ballot (which will likely include more than those three names)?

With respect to realistic prospects to win?

I perceive no reality-based context in which it is a three-way race.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, realistic prospect to win. That is a different matter.

The election is POTUS Biden's to lose. That is the reality.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You think the Libertarian candidate has a realistic chance? That the level of dumbshit judgment that precipitated your adult-onset superstition.

Try to become a competent adult.

[Kazinski]

The Libertarians should have nominated Oliver Anthony rather than Chase Oliver.
https://youtu.be/sqSA-SY5Hro

He might actually have gotten them some votes.

[ReaderY]

I think it is possible to make coherent sense out of the Supreme Court’s districting cases after Anderson v SC NAACP if we posit that the bare 14th and 15th Amendments by themselves have a lower standard than the Voting Rights Act. Interpreted that way, this case wouldn’t affect the Supreme Courts’ cases under the Voting Rights Act, and the result migbt simply be a warning to prospective plaintiffs to use the Voting Rights Act, not the bare Constitution, if they want to challenge legislative redistrincting decisions. It might be in league with the other recent “don’t do stupid stuff” decisions that initially appear to be significant changes in the law but turn out not to simply identify minor pitfalls people should avoid if they want to accomplish their objectives.

However, the opinion doesn’t seem to do that. It doesn’t discuss the specific provisions of the Constitution involved. It doesn’t distinguish the bare constitutional standard from the Voting Rights Act standard. It uses Voting Rights Act cases as precedent willy-nilly. Somewhat like Trump v. Anderson, it glosses over obvious differences between the legal context before it and the legal context its supposed precedents were decided under by speaking in the same sorts of vague, oracular generalities that were the hallmark of liberal decisions of an earlier era. After all, the Voting Rights Act, being an act of Congress, a legislature, would seem to be consistent with its expressed view that legislatures should make the key decisions.

If this case applies to Voting Rights Act interpretation, then it completely sucks the air out of that Act as traditionally interpreted. The whole point of Voting Rights Act’s application to districting was to ensure that voting could lead to representation.

Consider a state with two parties, the NAACP and the White People’s Power Party, the WPPP. The WPPP controls the legislature and so arranges the districts as to keep its members maximally in power. Under Anderson v. SC NAACP, there’s no problem, because the WPPP’s desire to keep its members and constituents in power is strictly political, not racial, in character, and any racial effects are excused by the political purposes.

The problem is that was always the case. The Democratic Party in Alabama had the motto “white supremacy” into the 1960s. Racial supremacy, and the use of voting rules to enforce it, was always political in character, and the racial element could never be distinguished from the political element.

The reeasoning in this case is a little bit too close to Williams v. Mississippi, an 1898 case which upheld a grab bag of poll taxes, standardless literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that effectively disenfranchised Mississippi’s black population. Each provision considered individually could have legitimate, non-racial motives. And these legitimate motives excused any racially discriminatory effects.

The Court has moved from the idea that political gerrymandering is an evil that the Court doesn’t yet have an appropriate standard to measure to the idea that it is a positive good, normal and natural, that excuses racially biased effects. That’s a huge sea change. Even separate from the racial implications, the fact that the Court here has endorsed, blessed, political gerrymandering as something normal and natural and American – a worthy motive – gives a sense of where the Court is compared to the days when “gerrymandering” was a highly pejorative term. It gives a sense of just how low the Court’s expectations, and ethics, have sunk.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like it might be time for California and New York (and, perhaps, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, etc.) to draw Congressional district maps that pitch shutouts.

[hobie]

We cannot fight antidemocracy with more of them same. Need to be able to live with a clean conscience

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps Democrats should have crusaded against "gerrymandering" as traditionally understood, rather than trying to redefine it as being any failure to negate their problem with inefficiently distributed voters. I think they managed to convince the Court's majority that the whole topic was hopelessly political, with no neutrally applicable standards.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Four conservatives opposed partisan gerrymandering claims since the 1980s. The traditional conservative sentiment was it was overall a "political thicket." Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy, who never firmly joined the four. Kavanaugh gave Roberts his majority.

The Court generally wants to take a new path. They want to make new precedent. Republicans made sure the right judges was on the Supreme Court for that very reason. They are not interested in applying Warren Court precedents if only those darn Democrats didn't try to change the rules.

The alleged chance of an open mind, if only the rascally Democrats acted differently [both parties btw used the courts to battle over gerrymandering as useful], is as silly as thinking they were going to convince Alito et. al. on abortion if they just handled it differently.

[Nige]

Perhaps Republicans shouldn't make their gerrymandering so nakedly racist as well as insultingly obvious. How is it possible to be 'neutral' towards people in power who have shown themselves so completely committed to disenfranchising entire groups of people? That those groups of people happen to vote Democratic means it's 'political' for Democrats to crusade for their rights?

[Kazinski]

The problem is the Democrats want to mandate racial gerrymandering, where it benefits them, and outlaw it when it disadvantages them.

That doesn't leave a firm principle for the court to apply.

For the most part they do allow racial gerrymandering where it does benefit Democrats, but haven't gone so far as to mandate it when its as extreme as say the old FL-5 that snaked almost all the way through northern Florida from Jacksonville to Tallahassee to create a deep blue Black Majority district but used parts of 5 counties and 4 whole counties over 200 miles from end to end rather than try for geographic and political cohesiveness.

[Nige]

The problem is that fixing racial gerrymandering helps Democrats because Republicans target their racial gerrymandering to benefit Republicans. Therefore, theyre the same thing. How dare they seek to enfranchise voters in areas where it has been shown they are beseiged by politicans and officials out to completely disenfranchise them.

[Commenter_XY]

Team D learned from their shared history, and then applied to present circumstances; the Team D position in NJ, NY and MD is
gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

(Team R isn’t different, btw)

[Nige]

Yeah, enfranchising black people is actually worse than disenfranchising, them, apparently.

[hobie]

Politicians shouldn't be allowed to choose their own voters. Non-partisan commissions in each state should administer districting

[bernard11]

That's it of course.

The court has performed very badly on gerrymandering. They keep talking about "standards" but were provided with two or three easily understood and reasonable options. They rejected those because arithmetic gives Roberts the willies.

And what they simply refuse to understand is that gerrymandering, especially to the degree and precision it is practiced today, is seriously damaging democracy by allowing parties to entrench themselves in power.

Calling it a political issue is silly, because the whole point is to remove redistricting entirely from any sort of sensible democratic process.

The only real solution, IMO is choosing representatives in a statewide at-large election.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The only real solution, IMO is choosing representatives in a statewide at-large election."

That might work in smaller states but it's hard to imagine it working well in large states (both geographically and in population).

[David Nieporent]

The court has performed very badly on gerrymandering. They keep talking about “standards” but were provided with two or three easily understood and reasonable options. They rejected those because arithmetic gives Roberts the willies.

I think you misunderstand. There are various algorithms that one can use to calculate how partisanly gerrymandered a state is; nobody disputes that. But even assuming that all these algorithms measure the same thing and lead to the same calculation (which is not the case), there is no legal standard to assess how much partisan gerrymandering is too much partisan gerrymandering.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would you object to a California or New York map that prevented Republicans from electing a single representative? Or a Texas map (the Republicans might be able to do it for another cycle or two) shutting out Democrats? Do you contend those maps would or should be lawful?

Thank you.

[David Nieporent]

I would object to all of those things, but not on constitutional grounds.

[Magister]

The only real solution, IMO is choosing representatives in a statewide at-large election.

The Uniform Congressional District Act forbids this for federal representatives. In the present polarized politics, at-large would seem to guarantee for most states that all its representatives would be of one party.

[James Alp]

Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina on CNN yesterday: “I will say I saw the video of the SWAT team from the FBI raiding Mar-a-Lago. I have not seen the same video of them raiding Joe Biden’s garage. So I’d love to have that comparison.”
Isn't it a problem that a United States Senator is claiming to remember things that did not happen? There was no SWAT team involved in the Mar-a-Lago search, there was no live news coverage (in fact, no one in the public or the news media seems to have even been aware that a search warrant was executed on the morning of August 8, 2022, until Trump posted about it on social media that evening), and as far as I can tell no video of the search has ever been made public. Senator Scott's bizarre statement reminds me of the stories of President Reagan sharing vivid recollections of having fought in World War II and helping to liberate Nazi concentration camps. (Turned out, he was remembering scenes from old movies he had watched.) Does anyone know what Senator Scott might have seen, which he is now misremembering as video of a SWAT team raiding Mar-a-Lago?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Do you understand my boy Tim Scott just became a man a few months ago?? If you were tapping fine unwed mother ass you might forget a few things that happened recently too!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How could Scott have seen any of that from inside his closet?

[bernard11]

Well, it's not easy kissing enough ass to get the VP nomination, especially since Haley just jumped into the ring.

[Mr. Bumble]

Chances of Halley are slim and none.

[Kazinski]

I am a Tom Cotton VP man.

He kisses no asses and is the destroyer of NY Times editorial rooms.

[santamonica811]

I guess you and I were watching different Tom Cottons in the near and distant aftermath of the Jan 6 attempted insurrection. Covered himself in glory; he did not.

[Kazinski]

Did he get this wrong?

I thought he got it exactly right:

“Last summer, as insurrection gripped the streets, I called to send in the troops if necessary to restore order. Today, insurrectionists occupied our Capitol. Fortunately, the Capitol Police and other law-enforcement agencies restored order without the need for federal troops. But the principle remains the same: no quarter for insurrectionists. Those who attacked the Capitol today should face the full extent of federal law.

It’s past time for the president to accept the results of the election, quit misleading the American people, and repudiate mob violence. And the senators and representatives who fanned the flames by encouraging the president and leading their supporters to believe that their objections could reverse the election results should withdraw those objections. In any event, the Congress will complete its constitutional responsibilities tonight.”

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cotton-statement-on-violence-at-capitol

[Commenter_XY]

He did get it exactly right, Kaz.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His partisan, cowardly retreat has been just what one would expect of a drawling, superstition-addled, right-wing hayseed. Big talk at first, then a shameful display of conservative cowardice and ignorance. Un-American piece of shit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not exactly a reason for Trump to make him his VP, is it?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why should you care?

[Sarcastr0]

Cotton kisses Trump's ass a great deal, Kaz.
re: Trump's well known shithole country comment, Cotton just lied to cover for him: "I did not hear derogatory comments about individuals or persons, no...I didn't hear it, and I was sitting no further away from Donald Trump than Dick Durbin was"

You're an authoritarian apologizer, so of course you love Cotton.

"I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way."

-He put out a bill to cut our *legal* immigration by 40%.

"Meeting with the CEO of TikTok is "no better than meeting with Hamas"

And of course his call to set the military on BLM.

His foreign policy has zero morality, or even sense of who is trustworthy. It's all about propping up illiberal states if they kiss up to us:
"what matters, in the end, is less whether a country is democratic or non-democratic, and more whether the country is pro-American or anti-American"

He wants us to propagandize up some anti-Chinese hate:
"Have you noticed that there hasn’t been a movie with a Chinese villain in more than a decade? That’s because the studios are desperate for access to the Chinese market...from Red Dawn to Rocky IV, Hollywood churned out patriotic, anti-Soviet hits."

If you want America to become an imperialist police state blight upon the world, you want Tom Cotton.

[bernard11]

Has he watched all the movies made over the past decade+?

Of course that doesn't matter to a guy who was harshly critical of the Jan. 6 hearings despite having not watched them.

That said, it's a good statement. McConnell made a strong statement also. How have they done since?

[Bob from Ohio]

"If you want America to become an imperialist police state blight upon the world, you want Tom Cotton."

Oh dear. Such hyperbole.

[Sarcastr0]

He wrote a book about his brand of amoral American imperialism, no need to just go with knee-jerk ignorance.

[Bob from Ohio]

You misstate his op-ed so why should I believe your interpretation of his book?

But nothing "amoral" about a realistic foreign policy.

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
Winston Churchill

Wilsonian morality is just dumb when applied to foreign relations.

[bernard11]

When did he “destroy” the NY Times editorial room?

And he has endorsed Trumpwhich, after that statement, is pretty close to ass-kissing.

[Bob from Ohio]

His op-ed led to the dismissal of its editor.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Publishing anything from that drawling, bigoted, backwater affirmative action case constituted an egregious error.

(Other that quotations in news reports, of course -- and even it should be rare.)

[Michael P]

A professor at UCLA declared that the university was using "torture" against protesters who illegally occupied a building because the university did not allow others to bring food and water into the building: https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/professor-denounces-ucla-of-torturing-pro-palestinian-protesters/

Leftists here should remember that this is what they're defending.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is anyone here defending that?

[apedad]

First New US Judgeships in Decades Gain Momentum in Congress

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider bipartisan legislation next month that would authorize more than 60 new judgeships at trial courts across the US over several years. The House panel is expected to consider a similar version in late summer or early fall. Judiciary leaders in both parties and in both chambers support the effort.

The anticipated movement on the bills signifies a renewed urgency on an issue that has languished for years, amid growing alarms from the judiciary about worsening caseloads in federal courts in Delaware, California, Texas, and other states.

Similar efforts in recent years stalled in both chambers.

“We believe it’ll move this year,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif), lead Republican sponsor of the bill in the House and chair of the Judiciary Committee’s panel on courts and intellectual property. “The need has gotten greater.”

Critically, both bills (S.4199, H.R. 7597) introduced this year would spread the additional judgeships so that the next few presidents could fill them.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/first-new-us-judgeships-in-decades-gain-momentum-in-congress

Seems like our Congress can do good things sometimes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Until Trump weighs in, and then it's over.

[Bob from Ohio]

"spread the additional judgeships so that the next few presidents could fill them"

Oh, so not truly an "urgency".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob from Ohio keeps saying he graduated from a law school, but I’m not seeing even Ohio Northern-level reasoning from him.

Maybe South Texas, I guess.

[Noscitur a sociis]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024” or the “JUDGES Act of 2024”.

Everyone who signed off on this needs to lose their next election, and ideally go to prison.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't need to share this monstrosity and thus blast all of our sanities.

[Frank Drackman]

Rumor is that one of the Trump Jurors was at his Bronx rally Saturday night, Prosecution's gonna try to get him dismissed, but they're not sure if the alternate would be any better.

Frank

[Don Nico]

Rather than wasting time, spend a minute enjoying "Scanning the Dark Universe, Euclid Finds Scenes of Cosmic Light" in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/science/euclid-telescope-images.html

[Mr. Bumble]

From Instapundit:

HOW’S BIDEN’S HAMAS PIER GOING? ABOUT AS WELL AS EVERYTHING ELSE HE TOUCHES:

Sad times for Mr Pier. Operating beyond sea state limits, no wave attenuation devices, and little in situ ability to manage, it seems. pic.twitter.com/Kgw7p38lMC

— Think Defence (@thinkdefence) May 27, 2024

Noah Pollack: “Update on the Biden admin’s Gaza pier to nowhere: Parts of it have broken free and washed up in Israel. And virtually all of the aid that was delivered was stolen by Hamas. A $320M fleecing of the US taxpayer. There should be hearings.”

More: 4 Army Vessels Run Aground Near Floating Gaza Pier.

To be fair, Biden promised “no boots on the ground” and said nothing about boats.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): With a possible war in the Pacific looming, a logistics/engineering failure of this magnitude bodes poorly. We were great at this stuff in WWII, and as recently as twenty years ago. What are we great at now?

Pronouns, I guess.
Posted at 8:35 am by Stephen Green

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing pleases those Instapunditeers more than starving Palestinian children.

Do those asswipes still pretend to be libertarian?

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you still pretend to be human?

[Nige]

It was always a stupid thing to try given that the major problem is the ally Biden's suplying with billons in aid is the actual reason food supplies are difficult to get in.

'Pronouns, I guess.'

One joke.

[bernard11]

Bad weather causes delays, problems, in construction project.

Film at 11:00

Maybe we should have put Donald "Infrastructure" Trump in charge.

I bet he would have managed to steal more than a paltry $320M.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to mention “climate change" as a contributing factor.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Migrant gets arrested for the 10th time in 10 months
May 27, 2024 5:07 PM CWBChicago"

migrants Don't commit Crimes!

[Sarcastr0]

Has anyone ever argued this, or are you just really bad at statistics?

[David Nieporent]

The latter. (BTW, note how they insinuate "illegal," but don't actually say that.) Also, most of the charges — which were generally for shoplifting — were dropped, one was for "selling clothes without a permit," and it wasn't until a cop got an ouchie while trying to arrest him that they decided he was some terrible criminal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Also, most of the charges — which were generally for shoplifting — were dropped,

That also seems like a problem!

[David Nieporent]

That also seems like a problem!

Depends why they were dropped — for lack of evidence, or because the city has just decided not to prosecute shoplifting. I agree the latter is a problem.

Even so, though, "we need to cut down on immigration because some immigrant in Chicago shoplifted two 23.5-ounce Four Lokos from a convenience store" seems kind of silly.

[M L]

In the Language Wars thread last week, I asked for a definition of “woman.”

Josh R said that the definition of “woman” is “based on self-reported gender identity”. In other words, a “woman” is a person who identifies as a woman. But what exactly is the thing that they are identifying as – what does it mean?

Asked to explain further, Josh R said “It means the personal sense of one’s own gender. That is, they feel like a woman..” So, “woman” is a person who “feels like a woman.” But – what is that thing they feel like, again?

Josh R then explained that a “woman” is someone who feels stress “if they don’t live as a woman.” If they don’t live as a . . . what?

Josh then explained that they feel stress if they are excluded from women’s groups, don’t have “female” on their driver’s license, aren’t referred to by their preferred pronouns, or don’t have access to hormones and surgery to change their appearance. In other words, a “woman” is someone who wants to be considered a woman by society.

In summary, I have learned that a woman is:

1. A person who identifies as a woman
2. A person who feels like a woman
3. A person who wants to live as a woman
4. A person who wants to be identified as a woman

But each of these definitions is circular and uses the word being defined. So I’m still left with the question, what is a woman?

[Nige]

You poor thing. It must be so difficult for you.

[M L]

To understand opposing viewpoints? I'd wager I'm better at it than you are.

[Magister]

Dunning-Kruger would predict that wager.

[M L]

As would Jonathan Haidt, as I recall.

[Nige]

You would lose. You would lose so badly. You know how I know? You keep asking 'what is a woman?'

[M L]

It's a rhetorical question. In a recent trend, leftists have pursued a new line of nonsensical thought which makes them unable to formulate a coherent, non-circular definition of "woman." Silly, isn't it? What's your definition?

[Nige]

It's a dumb, tedious bad-faith question posed by transphobes who saw it on the internet and have no ideas of their own. As for my defintion, it's absolutely whatever definition you fancy. With 'and trans women' added to it.

[M L]

Dumb, tedious, and bad-faith. A perfect description of all your posts, this is projection.

[Sarcastr0]

The world being complicated has always been something a certain strain of person has trouble with. I actually think it's somewhat symmetrical, but I'm not really sure.

But those bothered by complexity tend towards radical authoritarianism.

They also don't much like science, as the latest science tends to be finding new complexities more than underlying simplicity these days

[M L]

*suddenly becomes unable to define basic words like woman due to embracing new mentally ill ideology*

“oh the world is just commmplicated you sssee”

*waves hands and twinkles fingers*

something something symmetrical science authoritarian, low IQ trying to sound smart word salad

[Bwaaah]

It is evident that vocabulary, syntax and even grammar can be taken to a fairly refined level with a relatively low IQ. All those things can be present in a technically correct form with only the the thinnest of conceptual cohesion. It’s best understood as a form of mimicry, and can be a great source of pride for those who can’t muster greater intellectual depth than that. It’s like being smart, and in their own view, contains all that is contained in being smart.

That said, qualities of leadership, influence, technical innovation and strategic planning require layering of cohesive conceptual models on top of language mechanics, and that’s where these paper-thin thinkers fail in real life. They see their inability to rise in social structures, particular in work situations, and it frustrates them because they see no apparent difference between their superficial perspective and the perspectives of others who perform more ably. They explain that discrepancy as being rooted in unfairness…a baseless arbitrary systemic cultural bias that favors others while disfavoring themselves for no good reason (or for malicious reasons).

That said, there are many lower IQ people who, having been blessed with some modesty, perform not only competently within their intellectual limits, but maintain a reliable level of conceptual cohesiveness on which trust can be built with others. They are rewarded socially for that cohesiveness as it fits in quite dependably and predictably in social groups despite its modest reach. But the low IQ people who don’t rein in that which they attempt to grasp, the ones who overreach their conceptual limits, screw up routinely. They make endless mistakes, learn little from the resulting failures, and chalk that up to unavoidable, unforeseeable, unfortunate circumstances.

To wit can be a person who asserts: 1) I can’t tell you what a woman is, 2) the definition of a woman is too complicated to pinpoint, 3) I just told you what a woman is, and 4) these four statements are not logically inconsistent.

The coup de grace of all this, in these immodest low IQ people, is their final declaration: “You’re too stupid to understand these things.” This is a manifestation of the Dunning Kruger effect, and quite stingingly in our age of education, some of those low IQ people learn and parrot the term “Dunning Kruger” without ever correctly placing themselves within that paradigm.

But again, in defense of low IQ people, not nearly all of them manifest the Dunning Kruger effect. Only the immodest overreaching ones manifest that ironic phenomenon.

In conclusion, M L, you are an idiot. And so am I. And that’s all it takes to resolve the differences evident in this discussion.

[bernard11]

Proposed provisions in the TX state GOP platform:

Republican Party of Texas delegates voted Saturday on a platform that called for new laws to require the Bible to be taught in public schools and a constitutional amendment that would require statewide elected leaders to win the popular vote in a majority of Texas counties.

Also:

Other proposed planks of the 50-page platform included proclamations that “abortion is not healthcare it is homicide”; that gender-transition treatment for children is “child abuse”; calls to reverse recent name changes to military bases and “publicly honor the southern heroes”; support for declaring gold and silver as legal tender;

These people are nuts.

[M L]

I assume the Bible has been taught at some general level in public schools for most of this nation's history?

"a constitutional amendment that would require statewide elected leaders to win the popular vote in a majority of Texas counties."

That's an intriguing idea. Sort of like a mini electoral college at the state level?

[bernard11]

I assume the Bible has been taught at some general level in public schools for most of this nation’s history?

And?

That’s an intriguing idea. Sort of like a mini electoral college at the state level?

Intriguing? No. It's insane.

Not even the EC requires candidates to win the popular vote in a majority of the states.

And what is "intriguing" about a rule that lets the popular vote in small rural county have the same weight as that in a major city. Unless of course you are one of those who likes to talk about "real Americans."

It's stupid and indefensible by anyone with an IQ over 88.

[M L]

It could be defensible if the state level didn't matter too much because you let locales govern themselves, i.e. self-government. In other words, let the rural county do what they want. And let the urban county do what they want. The rural counties would be OK with this arrangement. The urban counties are the ones that want to domineer everyone else and appropriate their resources.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what is “intriguing”

It deeply cements GOP state control. That certainly engages my interest!

[David Nieporent]

Intriguing? No. It’s insane.

And clearly unconstitutional under existing precedent. See Baker v. Carr and its progeny, including Gray v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris.

To be sure, Clarence Thomas wants to throw all of that precedent out, but he got no justices to agree with him in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

[Magister]

I assume the Bible has been taught at some general level in public schools for most of this nation’s history?

You'd probably not be happy with the full list of everything treated differently in most of this nation's history but which the majority of modern Americans think should not be treated that way: African-Americans and women, for two obvious examples.

[Kenneth Almquist]

ury instructions for Trump’s trial in Manhattan are here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

The alleged crime is laid out more clearly than in any of the press reports I have seen. Trump is accused of falsifying business records in the first degree (New York Penal Law § 175.10). The prosecution must prove that the falsification was done with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, but does not need to prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

The “other crime” in this case is a violation of New York Election Law § 17-152, which makes it illegal for two or more persons to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. The unlawful means suggested by the prosecution are:

1) Violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. A third party payment of a candidate’s expenses does not count as a campaign expenditure if the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, so the testimony that Trump only wanted to keep Stormy Daniels from talking prior to the election is important here.

2) Falsification of other business records. Cohen falsified business records to disguise the initial payment to Stormy Daniels; the subsequent falsifications surrounding the reimbursement by Trump could have been intended to cover up Cohen’s falsifications.

3) Violation of federal, state, and/or local tax laws. Under all of these laws, falsehoods on tax returns are prohibited even if the falsehood doesn’t result in underpayment of taxes. I don’t know how this applies.

The jurors need to agree unanimously that unlawful means were involved, but not on what those unlawful means were.