Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why is America propping up an unelected dictator in Ukraine?

Is that foreshadowing the next Biden administration?

[Moderation4ever]

We are supporting the Ukrainian people not the leader.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

By giving their dictator billions?

Is that how we supported Saddam Hussein? Well... yes, yes that's exactly what the US does...

[David Nieporent]

We are not giving their "dictator" any money. We are delivering weapons to the country.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol good one, David.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, we ARE giving that dictator money.

[David Nieporent]

Well, since you lied in capital letters, it must be true.

[Armchair]

Ed is correct. We are giving Ukraine billions of dollars worth of direct financial assistance (ie $$$) in addition to the weapons shipments.

You may wish to apologize.

[Reallynotbob]

Actually we ARE sending the money to Texas and other states with military contractors. (The shells go to Ukraine.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We are not giving their “dictator” any money. We are delivering weapons to the country.

While I don't know that it's accurate to say we've given Zalenskyy himself any money, we have at a minimum provided Ukraine with aid in the form of financial assistance.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-aid-ukraine-money-equipment-714688682747

That's from 2023. I haven't yet been able to find anything similar regarding more recent aid packages.

[Don Nico]

Because that is necessary in the proxy war against Putin.
Yesterday Blinken says the administration is considering (means it is almost a done deal) letting Ukraine use American weapons in Russia. At the same time the US is speeding up weapons production to send them to Ukraine.

[Nige]

Or to put it another way, because Ukraine is an ally, they were invaded by Russia, but other countries can't get involved militarily without risking escalation, so they provide support.

[ThePublius]

"Ukraine is an ally"

I don't think that's technically correct. We established diplomatic relations with them in 1991, but as far as I am aware we haven't executed a treaty of any kind with them, and they are not a NATO member.

[Nige]

Compared to Russia, they're an ally.

[ThePublius]

That's why I said "technically." We have no treaty with Ukraine, and they are not a member of a mutual defense alliance to which we belong.

In this war we just picked a side.

[Nige]

Oh I think there was more thought put into it than that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Right, we had to protect the political graft and the illegal US bio weapon labs that are there.

[Nige]

Haha good one!

[hobie]

Can't argue with that level of research

[jimc5499]

When the former Soviet Union broke up, the United States guaranteed the safety of the Ukraine if the Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons that were within it's borders. The Ukraine gave up it's nukes. The person guaranteeing the Ukraine's safety was Bill Clinton.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

"the United States guaranteed the safety of the Ukraine"

is in conflict with

"The person guaranteeing the Ukraine’s safety was Bill Clinton."

Was there a treaty? No? Then the "US" didn't guarantee squat, Bill Clinton did; let him follow through on his guarantee.

[David Nieporent]

When the former Soviet Union broke up, the United States guaranteed the safety of the Ukraine if the Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons that were within it’s borders.

This is incorrect. There is nothing in the Budapest Memorandum in which we guaranteed their safety. We guaranteed, of course, that we would respect their independence and sovereignty. But we did not agree to take any action on their behalf, except to commit to seek UN action if Ukraine became the target of nuclear aggression.

[Don Nico]

David,
Thanks for mentioning the Budapest memorandum. It is not a treaty; it is not an agreement. It is very unclear what force a Memorandum should be thought to have.
Moreover many political scientist express the opinion that if Ukraine did not give up those weapons, Russia would have invaded to get them.

[Magister]

The various agreements and security assurances between the US and Ukraine would seem to be a kind of treaty, although I expect that "treaty of any kind" will quickly be made more specific.

[Commenter_XY]

If it wasn't ratified by the Senate, it doesn't mean very much.

[Don Nico]

It is worse than that C_XY.
A Memorandum has no force under any legal regime.

[Nige]

The only force it needs is the willingness of the participants to follow through.

[Bwaaah]

Do words have meanings, in any particular sense?

[Nige]

Yes, and so do actions.

[Magister]

"treaty of any kind" made more specific, as predicted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, both we and Russia did when they gave up their nukes.

[Commenter_XY]

The Budapest Memorandum of understanding =/= treaty

[David Nieporent]

You are correct that we do not have a formal mutual defense treaty with them or the like, but I don't know why you think that "ally" is synonymous with that. Any two (or more) people, groups, or countries working towards a common goal, typically against a common entity, can be described as allies.

[Davedave]

Yes, look at Nige and Blonde Eyed Jesus for an example; they won't admit they are on the same side in a million years, and yet they're still obviously allies. The bar is low enough even that pair of Nazi jokers can get over it, so obviously Ukraine is an ally of the west when Putin invades.

[Nige]

Keep your fan-fiction to yourself.

[Davedave]

Now Nige describes Ukraine being a NATO ally as 'fan fiction'. Iran stooge, Putin stooge, neo-Nazi. The far-right trifecta.

[Nige]

You honed in on the one true thing you said in that comment, acknowledging that the rest is made up.

[Davedave]

Whut? You've watched so much Iranian propaganda your brain has actually melted and dribbled out through your ears. You are making less sense than even Dr Ed the typing horse, at this point.

[Nige]

If I started 'making sense' to you, I'd be worried at this point.

[Commenter_XY]

UKR is not an ally of the USA, in any legal sense. It is a corrupt kleptocracy that we should shun. They are not a formal EU member, they are not a NATO ally. There is no treaty between the US and UKR (ratified by the US Senate). UKR does not represent a vital US national interest.

POTUS Biden has yet to articulate a coherent case on why we are involved there, and why we are now 'losing'.

The US needs to find the nearest 'exit ramp' wrt UKR and take it. This will escalate beyond our ability to manage it.

[David Nieporent]

Ukraine does represent a vital US interest. (Much more so than, say, Israel, who I assume you think we should continue to support.)

[Commenter_XY]

Name it = vital US national interest

[David Nieporent]

Containing Russia — who, as Mitt Romney explained in 2012 to mockery from Obama, is an actual enemy — who otherwise threatens our formal allies as well as the global order.

[Mr. Bumble]

So cannon fodder for the rest of Europe?

[David Nieporent]

No. Ukraine is doing this for itself, not for us or for the rest of Europe.

[bernard11]

Not only are we containing Russia, we, or rather Western support of Ukraine, has significantly diminished Russia's military capabilities, and continues to do so.

And we get this on the cheap.

[Don Nico]

To the extent that a price of $150B is cheap.
What you really mean is without Americans coming home in a bodybag.

[bernard11]

Whether any price is "cheap" depends on what you get for your money. Just throwing around zeroes and complaining doesn't provide much insight. And your point about body bags is also critical, of course.

I'd say $150B is cheap for protecting our allies, - not just Ukraine in the long run - degrading the Russian military, and demonstrating to Putin that NATO is a firm and strong alliance that will fight him.

You know Don, the last time someone decided it was no big deal to let an imperial-minded dictator with a big army run loose in Europe it didn't turn out so well.

[David Nieporent]

I’d say $150B is cheap for protecting our allies, – not just Ukraine in the long run – degrading the Russian military, and demonstrating to Putin that NATO is a firm and strong alliance that will fight him.

Also, the $150B number sounds huge, but it's a small percentage of our defense budget over that time.

[Don Nico]

Then you agree that we are in a proxy war with Russia.

[bernard11]

Then you agree that we are in a proxy war with Russia

Yes. No. Don't care. I'm not big on arguing about definitions. They are, IMO, way too often used to obscure matters rather than clarify them.

Take "proxy war." It's easy to imagine an argument:

Are we in a proxy war with Russia?

Yes.

Then why aren't we doing XYZ, because that's what you do in a proxy war?

Because XYZ would be dumb.

So then you don't really believe we're in a proxy war.

Oh STFU.

The whole idea that our policies should be based on the definition of "proxy war" rather than what is best given the actual situation is silly.

[David Nieporent]

Then you agree that we are in a proxy war with Russia.

Nope. That dog still won't hunt. Ukraine is not our proxy. It is defending itself against Russia. We are assisting it. That's not what a proxy war is.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not to mention the fact that Russia still insists it's not at war...

[Commenter_XY]

Containment of Russia is a vital US national interest. What exactly is containment, David? Please define it.

[bernard11]

What exactly is containment, David? Please define it.

More definitions.

I don't dare speak for David, but I'd say it is in in our national interest to prevent Russian territorial expansion (among other things), both short and long-term.

Wasn't that an important part of US foreign policy for decades?

[Don Nico]

Bernard, you should care, since our NATO allies and especially Russia think that we are. What Russia thinks does influence how they view escalation scenarios and what scenarios they will be willing to play out.
My impression is that what I read most is an appeal to US nationalism and hegemony and a refusal to try to understand events from the perspective of our adversaries. If you cannot see their perspective dealings with them are likely doomed to failure of perpetual conflict.
That does not mean that the US concedes at every challenge, but that an educated public understands the actual implications of chosen policy rather than chanting slogans.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, Russia fighting UKR is not a vital US national interest. If (more likely when) Russia defeats UKR on the battlefield, America will quietly acquiesce. How many American troops are you willing to kill in order to defend UKR, a corrupt kleptocracy with a Nazi sympathizing past. If it is a number greater than zero, I'd question your patriotism. UKR is not worth a single American life.

It is a vital US national interest not to become embroiled in a shooting war with Russia. UKR is not important enough to give up LA or Seattle in an unconventional exchange of hostilities.

[bernard11]

Don,

Let me clarify. Of course it matters what Putin thinks and does, and if we are convinced that his actions will be based on his thoughts that we are in a proxy war we should take that into account. Absolutely.

And the same for NATO. But there are two different arguments getting mixed up here.

1. Putin thinks we are in a proxy war, and therefore may well do X. Thus we should prepare for that eventuality. Perfectly reasonable, and of course what any sensible person involved in a conflict does.

2. We are in a proxy war and therefore should do X. Makes no sense to me.

We should do those things that we think will help us achieve our objectives, and foil Putin.

Maybe I'm being pedantic here, and of course a term like that is sometimes useful as a way to provide a broad framework for events. But I see these sorts of definitional/categorization arguments far too often. They are weak when rely on the category to define action, and not actual events.

[bernard11]

If (more likely when) Russia defeats UKR on the battlefield, America will quietly acquiesce.

And it is your side of the aisle that has increased the likelihood of that, by catering unthinkingly and dishonorably to the odious Trump.

How many American troops are you willing to kill in order to defend UKR, a corrupt kleptocracy with a Nazi sympathizing past.

Nobody is killing any American troops in Ukraine. Haven’t you noticed that?

You are awfully adamant about the “corrupt kleptocracy” business. Details?

You make a big deal about the “Nazi-sympathizing past”. Heard of Hungary, a corrupt kleptocracy with not only a Nazi past but a borderline (at best) antisemitic autocrat as president? Hungary is in NATO. How many American troops are you willing to kill in order to defend them?

What about Germany? NATO member. Very important ally. They did a good bit more than sympathize, you may recall. How many American troops are you willing to kill in order to defend them?

Do you know any relevant history at all? A very large share of NATO members have “Nazi-sympathizing” pasts. Italy? Spain? Vichy France? IOW, that point you insist on making repeatedly is crap. Unadulterated crap. Have you ever even thought about it, or did it just sound good when some TV screamer or RW nutcase said it?

[Nige]

There were plenty of Nazi sympathisers in the US, come to that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As many times as you've offered your opinion on Ukraine, you've been wrong. The only data point that you base your idiotic perspective on is a grudge from 80 years ago, and no matter how many reasons are given, or experts cited, you're too pig-headed to change your mind.

Get over it.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh huh. Weren't you (and Professor Post and a bunch of others) braying about how this would be a short and quick defeat for Russia? I know I said explicitly at the time: It is not our fight, we should not involve ourselves. And it will not be quick or easy. Yet, here we are 2.5 years later, hundreds of thousands dead and millions more refugees (btw, this was a 'brain drain' from UKR, who do you think left UKR?) in Europe. I was not wrong then, or now.

Nothing in the intervening 2.5 years has changed my assessment that UKR is not a vital US national interest. It is past time to find a face saving exit ramp while the opportunity is still there. UKR is destroyed; fine, now Russia can rebuild it. It is a task of generations (plural) to rebuild and restore it.

Jason, just remember that I am the guy telling you a) it is not worth the fight, because b) UKR is not a vital US (or European) national interest, and c) to make peace before an unconventional exchange happens.

OTOH, the US must now prepare for hostilities in Taiwan. Because of Taiwan's worldwide (and esp US) share of semiconductor sales, Taiwan actually does represent a vital US national interest, Jason. Unless you don't want very many computers, cars or appliances. China just rehearsed their second blockade of Taiwan, coordinating the activities of 5 different battle groups. They are ready. The question is, are we?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Weren’t you (and Professor Post and a bunch of others) braying about how this would be a short and quick defeat for Russia?"

I don't recall ever saying such a thing. I doubt you have any evidence of it either. Unlike you, I am ready to admit error should my memory be faulty on that and you manage to provide the receipts.

We all know that expert opinions haven't changed your mind, there was no need to repeat yourself. It is beyond foolish to claim Ukraine is not only not a national interest of the US, but to Europe at large. Such a statement demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

A nuclear exchange is not going to happen.

The US should have been preparing for a war with China for decades, yes. As it stands right now, China would win the naval contest quite easily.

[David Nieporent]

Uh huh. Weren’t you (and Professor Post and a bunch of others) braying about how this would be a short and quick defeat for Russia?

I do not believe anyone¹ thought that Russia would lose quickly. I heard lots of people saying that Ukraine would lose quickly.
​
​
¹Yes, with 8 billion people on the planet, I'm sure you can find some instances of people saying that.

[Commenter_XY]

David, I am not going to tangle with you. 🙂

[Drewski]

I checked the receipts. Post did, indeed, predict a quick end to the war, with Ukraine making concessions rather than a Russian defeat. Post even offered a bet: To XY's credit, he is one of two commenters to accept it. However, Post's position got near-zero support in the comments and some pushback. A few people thought it was possible but unlikely, and only one believed it was plausible without crippling concessions.

Also of note: Certain MAGAs ranting that Biden didn't help Ukraine soon enough, who are now angry that we helped at all. AmosArch was the most vocal there.

[Commenter_XY]

Drewski, thank you. I am glad you checked the record. I won't comment further on the wager with Professor Post.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

C_XY Now that you've been proven wrong again, when will you actually admit it? What does your little religious book say about false accusations?

Isn't it odd how I predicted that you wouldn't admit it?

Just like your lie further down the page that you won't follow-up on, when you're proven wrong you disappear like a fart in the wind.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, if I mistaken attributed something to you, I apologize. That is wrong.

[Bwaaah]

And the win goes to…Commenter_XY!!!!

(Sorry, JC. Facts are important. And so is genuine discourse. In that regard, your well doth run dry.)

C_XY: I had Raising Cane’s chicken yesterday. Their “Box Combo” was EXCELLENT. The chicken was beautifully succulent and yet not in the least greasy. Their crinkle cut fries are a decent throw-back to a classic style. They put in a piece of thick slice Texas Toast that’s rich, deep buttered and as good as any biscuit. And their fountains include sweet teas that, if you like sweet tea, is another unusual pleasure.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh, he should get credit for an apology which ccame a full day after it should have, and after being called out for not doing it in the first place?

Since I'm entirely convinced of his sincerity, sure let's give him the credit he's rightfully due.

As to your tone policing: You're a fucking Trump supporter.

Perhaps you'd prefer I say C_XY is poisoning the blood of our country?

Perhaps I should just call him vermin?

Perhaps I should start being racist?

Perhaps I should start being misogynistic?

Perhaps I should lie every time I open my mouth?

Perhaps I should just run for President, and then you'd happily ignore anything that would normally offend even a half-decent person.

Perhaps you should just take a few steps back and go fuck yourself, hypocrite. I'm uncivil to those who have demonstrated they don't deserve otherwise, and that isn't going to change because of your pearl-clutching hypocrisy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Try to identify a vital American national interest with respect to Israel, clinger. Your old-timey superstition doesn't count.

[Armchair]

"Ukraine does represent a vital US interest."

It does not. If Ukraine fell tomorrow, the US would not be directly threatened. Vital interests are often described as "those we are willing to go directly to war for"

Hurting Russia is nice to have. But not vital. Russia (and its precursor, the USSR) have often extended their influence to other countries...Georgia, Afghanistan, etc via military methods. And the US has opposed those. But they were not "vital" to US national interests.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We have “shared interests” with Ukraine. We have spent trillions preparing for a war with Russia and now Ukraine is degrading Russia’s military and we are helping them do that. We have also become energy dominant thanks to Putin’s asinine invasion AND we have strengthened and expanded NATO which all serve vital security interests.

Btw, did the 1991 Persian Gulf War concern “vital national interests”?? And if so what was it??

[bernard11]

why we are now ‘losing’.

I'm not sure what you mean by "losing" here. If you are referring to recent setbacks, it doesn't need Biden to explain it.

Ask your asshole Republican leaders - Mike Johnson for starters. If Russia does overrun Ukraine, as you seem to be cheering for, a good deal of the "credit" goes to that worthless POS.

[Don Nico]

"as you seem to be cheering for"
That is a pretty cheap shot.
The only explanations given here are jingoistic slogans rather than actual situational analysis.

[Commenter_XY]

He is incapable because he is too angry, Don Nico.

[bernard11]

Well, I am angry. XY used to strike me as a reasonably sane commenter, despite our disagreements. But, to be blunt, Trumpism seems to have eaten his brain.

I'm not the one with no situational analysis. All XY does is yell about Ukrainian corruption and its "Nazi-sympathizing past." Oh, occasionally he does his (D)ifferent shtick.

Not very incisive. And he has clearly thrown his lot in with the more extreme, foolish, elements of his party. Why I don't know, and I may well have been too harsh, but there is no doubt he has sunk in my estimation.

[bernard11]

Well, XY.

What do you think about all those "Nazi-sympathizing," not to mention outright Nazi, countries?

Should we abandon them all, NATO notwithstanding, to Putin's tender mercies? Because that's the logical conclusion from your comments.

Well?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh no! Don Putin doesn't inherently understand that it's hard to win a war when one side has ammunition and the other side doesn't!

During the ~6 month lapse that Speaker Johnson refused to bring any Ukraine bills to the floor, and Ukrainian defenders were faced with critical ammunition shortages, they had to abandon their most fortified defensive lines. Even then, they managed to generally inflict heavy losses on Russian forces. I wonder what could have been accomplished if they had sufficient air defense supplies and artillery shells?

Actually there's no need to wonder, experts criticized the holdup of Western (US) aid on a daily basis and pointed to that as a direct cause of Russian advances.

You aren't one to talk about situational analysis, and your constant shilling of Russian propaganda should indicate to any rational person that your commentary on that war is to simply be ignored.

[Commenter_XY]

What’s the situation? Analyze this: Russia is making advances weekly, at a cost of hundreds of dead bodies at a time. They are gaining ground and steadily escalating the weaponry they are using, and where it is being used. UKR is being systematically destroyed in a war they cannot win.

If your policy is to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, you are doing splendidly. Revel in your success. Sleep well.

[bernard11]

Russia is making advances weekly,

Can you at least admit that Russia might not be making these advances if Johnson et al had not refused to supply Ukraine with ammunition for six months? Show some self-awareness.

As to fighting to the last Ukrainian, another of your favorites, that's Ukraine's call,not ours, not NATO's. They can surrender any time. The US isn't going to stop them.

The problem is they know what will happen to them if they do. You either don't know or don't care.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The situation is that Ukraine is generally still holding their lines of defense, and as Western aid actually arrives, that will solidify and give way for the chance to counterattack.

Russia is making tactically insignificant gains at the moment, again due to Ukraine's lack of ammunition and idiotic policies such as not being allowed to attack concentrations of Russian troops if they are inside Russia. Many of the Western countries which required that hand to be tied behind Ukraine's back are finally realizing the stupidity of that decision and releasing their restrictions on such.

Russia is absolutely not 'escalating the weaponry they are using.' That's pure fucking fiction from a guy who only reads headlines and is stupid enough to claim that Ukraine isn't even a European interest. Check the satellite photos of the WWII weaponry Russia has been pulling out of storage because of the lack of modern equipment for months and get back to me when you aren't going to lie through your teeth.

As Bernard pointed out, your "fighting to the last Ukrainian" remark is nothing more than right-wing idiot talking points. Were Ukraine to surrender right now, Russia would simply erase their culture and finish the genocide they've been working on since Feb. 2022. Your careless stupidity in bandying about talking points from Putin is noted, as is your cluelessness as to what Russia has been doing with the Ukrainians in the territory they currently hold.

You and Don Nico have no business talking about Ukraine at all, because you're both willing to ignore people who know what they're talking about, and pull your heads out of your asses only to spew retarded bullshit that has no basis in reality before sticking them back into your rectums.

Try reading more than headlines once in a while and educate yourself before thinking you have anything useful to say on the situation.

[bernard11]

XY deserves a cheap shot or two. But maybe you will agree that it is at least accurate to say they would not be unhappy with it, the carnage among Ukrainians notwithstanding.

Besides, hos main arguments seem to be an unsupported claim about kleptocracy and repeatedly yelling "Nazi-sympathizing past."

If we are unwilling to defend countries with Nazi-sympathizing pasts we should just quit NATO now, which XY probably thiks is a great idea, until Trump changes his tune.

[Commenter_XY]

An unsupported claim of kleptocracy. You're joking, right? They're as corrupt as the Russians. They deserve each other.

[bernard11]

Still unsupported.

Like the "Biden Crime Family" you enjoy citing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Have Ukrainians committed a substantial fraction of the war crimes that Israel has committed?

[bernard11]

Still unsupported.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If Russia does overrun Ukraine, as you seem to be cheering for

And you have the nerve to refer to anyone else as an asshole?

[bernard11]

Lots of Putin sympathizers and admirers around, wuz.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The natural gas we export to Europe now comes from Speaker Johnson’s district…and the export terminals that cost tens of billions of dollars are in SW Louisiana. Oh, and all of the ESG crap…American energy companies are so flush with windfall profits from 2022 that they don’t need loans from banks. Putin gets the George W Bush Award for being a dumbass on a global scale!!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I wonder why Sacraptastic isn't here finger-wagging at you for saying "proxy war"?

That's one of the no-no words the Cognitive Infrastructure Protectors have banned.

[hobie]

He probably has to work during the daytime

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol he works for the government. They aren't a meritocracy.

[Don Nico]

And there are rules about de minimus personal activities on the government's time and resources.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Rules don't really matter if you can't be fired, now do they?

[Don Nico]

Because he is at work?
Besides which he is just wrong.

[damikesc]

Biden wanted to undo ALL of Trump’s policies.

Clearly, global peace was a big one he wanted to do away with.

[not me]

"Proxy war against Putin"

Close. Proxy war against China.
Ukraine is our proxy. Russia is theirs.

[hobie]

Ouch! Touche

[JasonT20]

Why is America propping up an unelected dictator in Ukraine?

Because Ukraine doesn't have an unelected dictator?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Zelenskey's term expired and he annointed himself President for Life (allegedly just during The Troubles).

[Nige]

Wait'll you hear about Netanyahu.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Netanyahu is an enemy of America, whatever happens to him won't be enough.

[Nige]

He's a hard-right extremist and a crook, I'd have thought you'd get on.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He's a Zionist Jew. Which means he isn't a Globalist Jew like the ones destroying the world today, but he's still a Moloch Worshipper and mass murderer.

[Nige]

Haha. Fuck all the way off you fuck.

[Frank Drackman]

I asked Jay-hey to throw his Cancer wand your way, when you feel that twinge in your belly that’s Pancreatic Cancer, and by the time you feel it it’s to late.

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't you pray 3x a day for all Christians to die? And believe that Jesus is boiling in hell in a vat of piss?

Isn't that what Jews do and believe?

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions. However, I'm happy to pray for Nazis like yourself to die.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Netanyahu's religion is irrelevant. His revolting right-wing belligerence and corrupt record are relevant.

[Krayt]

Facetious concern when one really supports the invading dictator.

Also, assuming Ukraine is a dictatorship, thwarting a larger dictatorship from amassing more victims by the millions, increasing its might a tad (not too much, as dictatorships are economically broken and underpowered) is a good thing. It’s called “containment”, a policy from the Cold War.

One contains the virulant metastasizing of dictatorship.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Whose containing the one forming around DC right now?

[Roger S]

The USA Deep State provoked the Ukraine War in order to bring back the Cold War. Russia is not any better than Ukraine.

[Krayt]

There's a thing called US derangement syndrome, where the US's actions are thought to be much more powerful than they are. It is usually the province of people in the US attacking their own nation for pleasing domestic politics reasons.

Also, it could be a meme by Hitler, Jr., for his lackies to lap up in this case.

[Don Nico]

"as dictatorships are economically broken and underpowered"
Sure, just like China is

[Krayt]

China has a cute refurbished aircraft carrier with a little jumpy ramp on it.

[Don Nico]

You are in for a rude awakening

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So even though the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe declared the initial 2019 Ukrainian election and the subsequent run-off as "Free and fair," you still want to call Zelensky an "Unelected dictator?" Out of idle curiosity, what mythology does your lie service? Some kind of weird pro-Putin, pro-Trump thing?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/16/volodymyr-zelenskys-presidential-term-expires-on-may-20th

Guess whose still President without an election? Are you ashamed or embarrassed for being so low-information?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do you even read the articles you link to? Not an unelected dictator, by the terms of the Ukrainian constitution. The only thing I'm embarrassed by is that I haven't yet muted your lying, partisan drivel and pathetic personal insults.

[Ed Grinberg]

If I muted every commenter spouting "lying, partisan drivel" and engaging in "pathetic personal insults," that would cover most (all?) leftist commenters here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

For me, I only mute for the insults part, not the lying partisan drivel. As I recall, that's why I muted you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I only mute for the insults part, not the lying partisan drivel

Ah, so partisan bullshit is A-OK. You just don't like mean tweets.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, basically.

[Davedave]

That you think there are 'leftist' commenters here only proves just how far right you are.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That you think there are ‘leftist’ commenters here only proves just how far right you are.

That you don't only proves how clueless you are.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So you're saying he's been reelected?

[myself]

So, are you a Poe (satire) or an poster so racist that you insist Jesus was aryan?

[Sarcastr0]

I’m reading The Fourth Wing.

It’s like Harry Potter, if magic were dragons and Harry Potter were a 20-year-old very horny girl.
And Draco were a good guy.

You want to talk gender brains, it is absolutely not for men.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for sharing.

[Sarcastr0]

"Fourth Wing became a viral phenomenon on BookTok, where the hashtags "#FourthWing" and "#RebeccaYarros" have more than a billion views combined. Its popularity led it to reach No. 1 on Amazon's bestseller list as well as the No. 1 spot on The New York Times Bestseller list, where it stayed for 18 weeks"

Probably a Chinese plot.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Probably perfect for you then.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I'm secure enough in my identity that I can like some stuff not written for manly men.
Sorry if you cut yourself off from fun times because it might not be manly enough.

To be fair, it can be pretty cringe with the horny longing. Not gonna make it to my personal bookshelf.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I’ll leave the pillow-fighting, girl-power fun of the Twilight series and the Fourth Wing to manly government men like yourself.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And we'll leave all the right wing lying and lame insults to pathetic keyboard warriors such as yourself.

[Bored Lawyer]

It’s like Harry Potter, if magic were dragons and Harry Potter were a 20-year-old very horny girl.
And Draco were a good guy.

Sounds like the Old Man and the Sea. If the girl was an aging fisherman, the dragon a marlin fish, and the sea calm and welcoming.

[Sarcastr0]

It takes place at a fantasy school, and the main character is a Chosen One with a nontraditional background but famous parents.

[Don Nico]

BL,
Could be. Certain themes have a vey long staying power and are reworked many times.

[Nige]

I just started listening to Jack Of Shadows by Roger Zelazny. I've only ever read Lord Of Light a long time ago, and bounced off the Amber books a few times. I'm quite keen to try A Night In The Lonesome October, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I had a huge Zelazny phase as a high-schooler. That's about where Chronicles of Amber fits IMO.

Jack of Shadows was built around a good premise.

Lord of Light I read recently for a book club I'm in. I liked it back in the day, but a couple of years ago it came up against my dislike of nonchronological storytelling. I get what it was doing, and it was very clever, but it was not my jam.

In general I'd say Zelazny was a very skilled pulp author but with plot and worldbuilding ideas a cut above pulp.

[Nige]

Yeah, I remember some nice writing in LoL, but that's all I really remember. I like the opening of JoS so far, anyway.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Like many SF writers, Zelazny's best stuff was his short fiction. Although I have to admit I like the Amber books more than you two seem to. But track down some of his many short story collections, if you are of a mind.

[bernard11]

A question for the science fiction fans in the crowd.

I used to read quite a bit of it in High School and college - better than studying - but no longer do.

What would you recommend to someone like me who has some liking for the genre but is certainly not going to turn into a giant SF addict. Just some enjoyable casual reading is what I'm looking for.

Thanks.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read/like the book Starship Troopers?
There’s an ongoing genre that’s basically just ‘military sci-fi in dialogue with Starship Troopers’ Forever War, Old Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight, The Light Brigade. Not all good, but none of it too out there.

Hunter’s Run by Daniel Abraham, Gardner Dozois and George R. R. Martin

The Murderbot Diaries. Everyone loves these, me included. And they are nice and short.

I like 'To be Taught, if Fortunate' by Becky Chambers. Light, but throughtful.

Makes me think of a new genre called Solarpunk. Cozy books about a humanity that is less ambitious and more in harmony with nature. Not a ton of tension, but...comfy reads. Half-Built Guarden by Ruthanna Emrys is in there, as is Becky Chambers' Monk & Robot.

If you're a Treckie, I had a fun time reading 'Articles of Federation' by Keith R.A. DeCandido which is West Wing Star Trek. Two competency porn genres mashed together!

[bernard11]

I read some Heinlein, but didn't care for it, IIRC. Don't remember if it included "Starship Troopers."

I read some Zelazny short stories I liked, and was a fan of Robert Sheckley. Also some standard stuff - Foundation Trilogy, etc. My reaction to the fantasy side of stuff is either very bad or very favorable.

Anyway, thanks to all for comments.

[Nige]

MurderBot Diaries are fun, and short. Iain M Banks' Culture books - they share a setting but are self-contained - combine big ideas, large scale space opera and fairly literary writing. The Mountain Under The Sea by Ray Nayler is the best recent sci fi I've read. Ann Leckie is very readable, Ian McDonald's Luna trilogy is a wild ride, Paul McAuley's War Of The Maps is great, too.

[Drewski]

Misfired my reply.

[Mark Regan]

I'd think that for people on this blog who lean Libertarian, Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed would be a good book to have, and to read and re-read.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes!

[shawn_dude]

If you don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about the science in the fiction, I'd recommend anything by David Brin. The "Uplift" series is good and the first book, "Sundiver" is basically dolphins in space. What I like best about the author is that I found his writing style to be very natural and easy to read. The story is colorful and fun but doesn't require a lot of introspection to enjoy.

If you want something that is based in real science (as of the mid-90s), I'd recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's series "Red Mars," "Blue Mars," "Green Mars," which is nominally about the colonization of Mars. The author's initial premise was to use current technology--either in practice or solid theory--to start the story. The series won a glut of awards and the author won the Heinlein Award for his entire body of works. I enjoyed the what-if nature of the colonization techniques at first but stayed for the socio-economic topics that followed from scientific advances.

I was a voracious reader in high school, my year station in South Korea, and up to grad school but then haven't read much for fun since. I've also been thinking about setting up a good space in the house to read from and away from the TV and computers to decompress from the constant onslaught of negativity. Nothing like a good galactic war to do that.

[Drewski]

Andy Weir is worth a look. Hard sci-fi but light reading. You may be familiar with The Martian from the movie with Matt Damon – it was a very close adaptation. Project Hail Mary is my favorite of his works to date.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Bernard, a good starting place might be googling Hugo Awards and Nebula Awards for best novel, and see if you can score some of those. Not just the winner, but the nominees also. Just off the top of my head, Joe Haldeman's The Forever War and Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness (or anything by her, really) are both great. My favorite classic SF writer is Cordwainer Smith, but his stuff is almost all short fiction, and can be hard to find. His complete short fiction was collected in one volume called The Rediscovery of Man, and if you can get your hands on that it is very highly recommended.

[SRG2]

Zelazny was decidedly hit or miss but his hits were very good indeed. e.g., “he Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth” – which contains a phrase that has stayed with me these 50 years, “mysterious inner rottings”.

I very much enjoyed Jack of Shadows.

But of course I read most of his stuff in my teens, and it is said that the Golden Age of SF is what you were reading when you were 15.

[Nige]

You've reminded my that I read Damnation Alley in my teens.

[SRG2]

Made into a crap film. Due for a remake, I think.

[shawn_dude]

Normally, I avoid remakes. But Damnation Alley was one of my favorite post-apocalyptic movies as a kid. I watched it again a few years ago and realized it didn't hold up to time well. A remake would be welcome. (And Logan's Run falls into the same category.)

[SRG2]

I never liked Logan's Run, even if it did have Jenny Agutter in it.

[Armchair]

"You want to talk gender brains, it is absolutely not for men."

What? You're spouting inanities again.

Fourth Wing (not "The Fourth Wing") is basically Harry Potter in Dragon School with a female protagonist. It's fine for men or women. It has a couple very mild sexual scenes, the main character is not that horny.

Laura K Hamilton this is not. If you honestly thought Fourth Wing was "very horny" you have not read nearly enough.

[Sarcastr0]

It's fine for men and women of course.
But the love interest is a mysterious bad-boy ready to be fixed that is tailored for women.
The gaze is both horny and female. No boobs, all abs and lats and mens' lips.
The sex scenes revolve around the female orgasm.

And horny does not mean erotic. The protagonist's horny longing starts in chapter 2 and continues until at last the banging can begin, at which point it's about does he love her yet.

I had a good time, but I did notice that it was catering to women's taste.

[santamonica811]

Thanks to all for the various suggestions. I'm grudgingly going on my first cruise in June, and want lots of light reading. So far, most of your suggestions are not showing up on my Kindle (via Libby), but you've all given me some great starting points.

[Sarcastr0]

We expect some reviews!

[Armchair]

I mean...it's a female protagonist. Of course it's going to focus on that in the "very" mild scenes. Straight girls don't fantasize about boobs.

That is in no way "catering" to women's tastes. It's normal, run of the mill stuff.

You're acting pretty sexist if those are your honest impressions of the book, and that's what you take away. This type of thing is VERY normal for many major fantasy writers. Laura K. Hamilton gets rather more raunchy, but Fourth Wing is tame even for major authors like Sarah J. Maas. Naomi Novik comes close in some of her work, as does Mercedes Lackey. Let alone someone like Stephen Meyer or Anne Rice, both far far more descriptive in their romanic affairs.

[Nige]

Why are you mad at the suggestion that a book might be written to cater to female readers? Why do you think books like that can't be read and enjoyed by male readers?

[Armchair]

"Why are you mad at the suggestion that a book might be written to cater to female readers?"

Again, this type of writing is normal. It's not catering.

"Why do you think books like that can’t be read and enjoyed by male readers?"

I didn't suggest that at all. SARCASTR0 did, and I took him to town for it. This was his quote "You want to talk gender brains, it is absolutely not for men."

Why am I upset?

Because what Sarcastr0 is demonstrating by his actions and words is a form of sexism, where certain very common styles are suddenly "only OK for women...and "enlightened" men like himself. It is disrespectful and acts to discriminate against female and other writers who use this style. It "locks off" some of the most major writers in science fiction and fantasy behind a "woman-only" wall...and it's wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

I said nothing about women only, I said nothing about what's normal, I said nothing about who is enlightened.

You're bringing a shitload of baggage into this.

Laura K. Hamilton is a romance writer, my dude!

[Moderation4ever]

A couple of articles in the Business section of my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, caught my eye. The first was the demise of Red Lobster. The article lays the blame on one small decision, the all-you-can-eat shrimp promotion. Rather than bringing in a bunch of new customers it brought in a smaller number determine to see how many shrimp they could eat. If you don't believe that TikTok is bad, you will when you know their part in taking down the chain. Apparently, people would go on the app to brag about their shrimp conquests. One woman eating 108 shrimp in one setting. The Chinese government has dirty hands in the loss of a great American Restaurant chain.

The second article is about slump in bike sales. Bike sales boomed in the early part of the COVID pandemic. No doubt spurred by Arnold Schwarzenegger's Youtube videos where he told people that if they could not go to the gym they could get on their bikes ride around get exercise, fresh air and still practice social distancing. Well the bike buying surge is over. Not surprising as bike will last a long time. I gone through many cars but still have my 50-year-old bike. Well still the same frame at least, everything else has been replaced several times.

[ThePublius]

Blaming Tik Tok for an asinine business decision? Seems to me they should have done some research on that promotion; like, how many shrimp can one person eat, and what does it cost, and so forth. Pretty basic. Also, I wonder what they were hoping to accomplish - did they think it would drive other, more profitable sales?

I think some locations are still open, no? But it appears they've dropped the all you can eat promotion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Red Lobster’s problem was the result of their owner thinking the all you can eat shrimp promotion would bolster sale of their Thai shrimp operations.
Tik Tok sucks but that wasn’t the problem.

[Nige]

Yes, the problem wasn't a private equity buy-out that saddled them with massive debt.

[Krayt]

They converted corporate to a real estate company that leased out the buildings to the local restaurants.

[Nige]

Fucked the company, made out like bandits. All completely legal!

[Davedave]

Come on, Nige, if you're going to blame the Jews for the closure of a shell-fish chain, surely it makes more sense (such as it is) to come right out and blame Leviticus?

[Nige]

Come on, Dave, if you think 'private equity' = Jews you need to have a long hard look at yourself.

[Davedave]

We all know it's what you meant, including you. Why bother denying it? You've referenced the same conspiracy theory twice in two comments in this thread.

[Nige]

No, clearly that's what YOU mean, you're just puzzled and angry it doesn't mean the same to me.

You actually think private equity buying companies and saddling them with debt is a 'conspiracy theory?'

[Davedave]

Repeating the Nazi propaganda you've referenced doesn't mean it's true, Nige. It means you're a Nazi conspiracy nut.

[Nige]

Just saying private equity buying companies and loading them with debt is Nazi propaganda doesn't make it so, and strongly implies you don't know what Nazis OR propaganda actually are.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

My local laundromat had all you can eat Tide pods…and they went out of business. Tik Tok is very powerful!!

[Don Nico]

"great American Restaurant chain"
great restaurant chain is an oxymoron

[ThePublius]

I understand your comment, but I took it as great, among chains.

There is value to chains. Consistency: you know what you're going to get. Economy of scale. Comfort, familiarity.

I love fine dining, but that can be hit or miss. And, there are chains I love. I like Red Lobster, but there are none where I do these days, and I now live in the seafood capital of North America. I love Fudruckers - best burgers and shakes, fresh beef, etc. I used to like Outback Steakhouse, but I think they've slipped a bit lately.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico is right about fast casual chain restaurants; post pandemic, it is hit or miss, and mostly miss. Damned few good restaurant chains.

Naf Naf Grill surprised me; pretty good. On the road on a Sunday morning, and need a quick breakfast...not chik-fil-a? Try Bojangles, the biscuit is superior.

Outback went downhill, bigly. Longhorn in my area light years better.

[Don Nico]

"that can be hit or miss"
Indeed it can be and when one pays much more, one gets more picky about the place meeting expectations.

Also, I agree with C_XY that Longhorn has done well in maintaining quality.

[Magister]

Sure, blame the shrimp promotion.

When a private-equity firm bought the iconic seafood chain in 2014, it sold the real estate under the restaurants for $1.5 billion. Then the restaurants struggled to pay the rents.

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes, I remember now. Thanks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like many brands it has changed hands several times. Thai Union bought a stake in 2016 (25%) and the balance in 2020 (not a good time for restaurants).

[bernard11]

Right.

Blaming the shrimp promotion, which was an incredibly bad idea, for the fundamentally untenable financing decision is fun, but doesn't get at the real issue.

The shrimp business didn't help, of course, and why they didn't stop it when it turned out to be a disaster I don't understand, but that's not what brought the company down.

[damikesc]

When you run a money-losing promo, not temporarily, but PERMANENTLY, then your business decisions are already unbelievably spurious.

Darden wanted to dump them for a reason.

[Sarcastr0]

Red Lobster should know better:
https://www.mashed.com/416019/what-really-happened-to-red-lobsters-endless-snow-crab-promotion/

In fact, I'll be they do.
Pure speculation, but to me this smells like a desperation ploy of a failing franchise. They're too rare to be Olive Garden ubiquitous brand, but national enough to be an expensive enterprise.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

In general, I'll never understand why people go to Red Lobster or Olive Garden, instead of eating at the local seafood or Italian restaurants, where the food is much much better. I can understand the quick and usually not terrible fast food popularity, and I have a personal weakness for Popeye's. But chain restaurants? I don't get it.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree here. I do eat at chains but try to go local whenever possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"where the food is much much better"

Sometimes.

Chains are attractive because you get consistent quality from location to location. Just because a place is local does not mean it is better.

I haven't eaten at Red Lobster in decades but Olive Garden is not bad at all.

[Michael P]

It's one thing to go to a chain for consistency when one is traveling, but usually it's well worth learning which local places near your own home are consistently good. I know a lot of local restaurants near my home and workplace that are consistently much better than Olive Garden and Red Lobster.

[Bob from Ohio]

Some people don't go out much, they just want something familiar when they do.

[bernard11]

Some people don’t go out much, they just want something familiar when they do.

I think this is right.

The chains offer familiarity and safety. No wondering what you're going to get. No surprise versions of a dish you thought was one thing and the restaurant thinks is something else. No wondering exactly how much food you need to order. Price levels as expected. etc.

[David Nieporent]

Some people don’t go out much, they just want something familiar when they do.

That's correct. Also, people with kids. Kids can be quite picky eaters, and the last thing most parents want is for their kid to have a meltdown when he sees the menu. You know you're not getting 3-star Michelin food at a chain restaurant, but you know that they're going to have something that's proven to be acceptable to your kids.

[Don Nico]

"Olive Garden is not bad at all"
As long as you are not expecting to eat Italian cuisine.

[Bob from Ohio]

Please, its mainly pasta with sauce. As Italian as most local places.

You are just a food snob.

[Davedave]

"As Italian as most local places."

So, not Italian at all, in any way?

I'm not a food snob, I'm quite happy to concede that Italian-American is a cuisine, and that it can be pretty good. The one time I tried Olive Garden, though, it was even worse than typical American restaurants, and by quite a wide margin - a comparable level in the UK would be Wetherspoons, perhaps. The simple reality is American cuisine caters more to the gourmand than the gourmet - though of course in a big country, even a handful of exceptions proportionally make up a large number absolutely.

[Don Nico]

"You are just a food snob."
No, I eat in Italy several dozens of times a year. I know the difference.
You probably think that putting ketchup on spaghetti is Italian food.

[bernard11]

I think there's a line to that effect inGoodfellas or some other mob movie, where protagonist ends up in the witness protection program in some small midwestern town, and complains about the quality of the Italian food.

Many of us grew up with Chef Boy-Ar-Dee. Some outgrew it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Chains are attractive because you get consistent quality from location to location. Just because a place is local does not mean it is better.

I haven’t eaten at Red Lobster in decades but Olive Garden is not bad at all.

I have rarely been to local restaurant anywhere in the country that wasn't at least as good as a chain, and I don't think I've ever been to one if I spent a minute or two looking at online reviews first that wasn't significantly better. And even if the food is the same, getting some of the local color seems much more enjoyable and interesting than the kind of experience a chain has to offer, which I just find vaguely depressing. Obviously not everyone feels the same way, or these places wouldn't still be in business. But I share Alpheus W Drinkwater's confusion as to why and how.

[Sarcastr0]

I ate at Olive Garden on the way back from a road trip. First time since college.

I remembered some very salty food.

I was pleasantly surprised with some al dente angel hair in a deeply flavorful sauce.

Wasn't what I'd get locally where I know the place, but they are in business for a reason.

[Armchair]

"In general, I’ll never understand why people go to Red Lobster or Olive Garden, instead of eating at the local seafood or Italian restaurants"

Depends where you are, but often there aren't local seafood or Italian restaurants...or nothing worth the name.

Red Lobster got its start bringing seafood to the masses, especially in the center of the country. Because Kansas City may have great steak...but it's not exactly seafood country. And a local seafood restaurant may as well not have existed there. Red Lobster brought something half-reasonable that didn't exist there before.

Other areas of the country (or world) have their own gaps. There is a dearth of decent BBQ in the SF bay area. I remember like just one place in Oakland. Mexican in Australia is an abomination....boiled chicken on a flour tortilla with tabasco added. A decent On the Border would clean up there.

Many times the chains are able to take what's good in one place, and translate a half reasonable imitation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Red Lobster got its start bringing seafood to the masses, especially in the center of the country"

Central Florida isn't exactly "the center of the country."

Not that facts seem to matter anymore.

[Magister]

Not that facts seem to matter anymore.

It can now be reported that Dr. Ed 2 does not own a mirror.

[ThePublius]

Good article on Red Lobster:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/25/business/red-lobster-bankruptcy-thai-union/index.html

[Martinned2]

Yes, that Red Lobster story is amazing. (Or at least the version that some people are alleging is.)

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-05-20/the-endless-shrimp-investigation

[Don Nico]

Those in the greater Boston area can look forward on another year of very cheap plentiful lobster.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not so sure Don — the lobster industry itself is in serious trouble right now for two reasons. First the boat price of lobster has not kept pace with inflation, it still is largely what it was 40 years ago when Diesel fuel was 90 cents/gallon, etc.

Where the lobstermen of 50 years ago started as boys in rowboats and self-financed what is a small business, the guys of today are deep into bank loans. The boats are so much more expensive, the electronics on the boat are worth more than the boat, and you can't go out into the woods and literally cut down Spruce boughs for your traps anymore. Wire traps come from a factory and cost money.

It's much more capital intensive with a lot of guys way upside down.

And then there is the attempt to ban the fishery outright to save the whales, which somehow aren’t bright enough to avoid pot warps but would never run into a windmill. And if you believe this, then you probably also believe that Trump got a fair trial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Always store/serve a cooked lobster UPSIDE DOWN.

Otherwise, the liver (tomalley) will drain down into the tail meat -- and body meat for those who know how to pick it out. Tomalley, which is green, is an acquired taste but that was a century ago -- it is now best avoided for two reasons.

First is heavy metals, e.g. Mercury. Even though they eat dead stuff, they are the top of the food chain and hence concentrate the heavy metals in the hundreds of fish they eat, and they concentrate it in their tomalley.

There is an amazing amount of mercury in coastal waters because it was somehow used in the manufacture of chlorine bleach from salt water (mostly NaCl).

Second is Red Tide and PSP. The FDA has formally warned people not to eat the tomalley due to concerns about potentially lethal levels of PSP toxin being contained in the tomalley. I don't know about the rest of the country, but the way the State of Maine determines the lethal level of PSP in clams is they grind the clams up and inject them into mice, and if the mice die, then the clams are toxic.

https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/food-safety-health/fda-warns-consumers-to-avoid-eating-lobster-tomalley

[Dr. Ed 2]

What struck me in this was the waitresses complaining how they had gone from making $200 in tips down to $60/$70 because of the Endless Shrimp.

That would mean that the restaurant's receipts were down by a similar percentage -- not only were their costs increasing but their gross income was declining.

But more than this, $200 a night is $1000 a week (if you are working 5 days) and that's roughly $50,000 a year -- pretty damn good for unskilled labor, and even better because much of it is in cash and never declared.

What this does is create a sense of unfairness between the front of the house (serving staff) and the back of the house (kitchen) and that very quickly can degrade quality.

[ThePublius]

Lots of tip money is on credit cards, so must be declared. It seems to me that few people tip in cash anymore.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How DOES credit card tip money work?

The waitress is not a vendor so the credit card company can't sent money directly to her -- it has to be routed through the actual vendor, the restaurant, and what prevents them from taking a cut of it?

The big difference between local restaurants and chains is the lack of a corporate HR department -- and the local owners can largely do whatever they want to do, with some (not all) engaging in some really unethical practices with vulnerable young people.

[David Nieporent]

what prevents them from taking a cut of it?

The same thing that prevents them from taking a cut of the waitress's wages: the law and/or their conscience. (They're typically allowed to take an amount equal to the processing fee charged by the credit card company, but no more.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some operators charge employees a fee -- sometimes an egregious fee -- for credit carded tips. I try to leave cash.

[bernard11]

To take one example, I tip Uber drivers in cash.

Put it on the card and Uber takes an undeserved, IMO, cut.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The article lays the blame on one small decision, the all-you-can-eat shrimp promotion.

Which is a pretty clear indication of the piss-poor journalism behind that story.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It woudn't be the first time that a promotion gone bad took out the company. More importantly, it wouldn't be the first time that an ill-advised promotion took out a company that was already circulating the drain.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People in the hospitality industry seem to ascribe Red Lobster's problems largely to (1) being controlled by the Thai shrimping industry, which infiltrated the company and (2) a related, disastrous change in management that chased good people and installed chuckleheads. Some of my acquaintances in hospitality predicted recent developments (bankruptcy, flaming shitstorm) some time ago, beginning not long after Red Lobster left the Darden system, which is sound.

(I vaguely disliked Darden, probably because a number of my friends disliked competing with Darden, for years, until I worked with (some would say against) Darden. Maybe not the top-of-class act the Cheesecake Factory is, but an unusually good company.)

I have never heard Tik Tok be blamed for Red Lobster's failures, but I don't spend a lot of time watching low-grade amateur videos.

[Krychek_2]

It's probably a given that all presidents of both parties lie at least occasionally. Reagan lied about Iran Contra, Bush lied to get us into war, Clinton lied about sex and golf, and Biden makes stuff up about his past.

But it strikes me that Trump's lies are qualitatively different from anything we've seen before. His lies, it seems to me, more closely resemble holding up four fingers while expecting his base to fall into line when he says there are five. (That's a reference to Orwell's 1984.) In other words, rather than just tell tall tales about himself to aggrandize himself, or to try to get out of trouble, or to get policies he couldn't get otherwise, he's effectively telling lies designed to undermine the concept of truth itself.

And he's not even bothering to try to cover it up, which is the really scary part. At least when Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman, he was still giving lip service to the concept that there is such a thing as truth, even if he wasn't telling it. The Clinton equivalent would have been to deny having sex with her after a video of the two of them having sex had surfaced and been given wide publicity. Asking people to disbelieve their own eyes and ears and believe that truth is whatever he says it is.

And for all the reasons not to vote for Trump, that strikes me as a pretty big one. That's a line we can't afford to cross.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Agreed, K2!

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you would.

[Bob from Ohio]

All the libs here agree that the man they hate more than anything else is the worst-est liar of all time!

Such a surprise.

[Nige]

Why do you hate this inveterate liar so much? You must just be a hater!

[hobie]

That we hate him is no big revelation. But as to the OP's request...what about them lies?

[Krychek_2]

I actually hate Trump far less than I hate the fact that we have a system that allows someone like Trump to be a viable presidential candidate in the first place. In a sane, rational world he'd be polling at 5% and have about the same chance of actually getting elected that I would.

[Nige]

I'm not sure there are limits you can put in place to preclude someone ike Trump that wouldn't preclude other, more blameless candidates. On the other hand, trying to fraudulently overturn an election really ought to be more of an impediment.

[Commenter_XY]

What system alternative do you see that is so much better?

[Martinned2]

Any democratic system.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dude, you don't even have a government six months [and counting] after the election.

So maybe take the mote out of your eye about good systems.

[Martinned2]

Sure we do. We have a government now, we've had a government throughout, and it continues to collaborate with parliament to run the country. (Assuming you're referring to the Netherlands. The UK, where I live, as of today has no parliament. But it still has a government.)

I think ignorance about how other democracies work is one of the reasons why Americans think they have the best system in the world.

[hobie]

Martin, try not to judge us by the 45% who are angry lunatics

[Davedave]

No surprise to see Martin praising a Dutch government that will 'collaborate'...

[Bob from Ohio]

"We have a government now,"

A caretaker, repudiated in the last election.

Its like Biden won in 2020 but Trump was left in charge until the next November.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No surprise to see Martin praising a Dutch government that will ‘collaborate’…"

Unfair, the Dutch resisted for 5 whole days in 1940.

[Martinned2]

@Bob: The caretaker government runs the country and proposes legislation as/when needed. The only consequence of it being a caretaker government is that it cannot act in areas that parliament has declared to be "controversial". But those are not many.

And yes, I'm sure fighting World War II was easier from the other side of the ocean, safely away from any actual German threat. At least we didn't panic to the point of locking up masses of our own citizens in concentration camps.

As for collaboration, yes, as noted below, the US system of government has too many veto points, so nothing gets done and everyone blames everyone else for the inaction. If US politicians had any sense they'd use the bi-annual lame duck period of November-December to hammer out a plan of government for the next two years, agreeing between the incoming Senate majority, House majority, and (incoming) president which bills to pass in the next two years, what to do with the budget, etc. But that would require some genuine bipartisanship which, in the US election system, would get punished ruthlessly in the next elections.

[Commenter_XY]

Try naming one, please.

[Martinned2]

How about the 23 countries listed as "full democracies" in the Economist Democracy Index?

Norway, New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Taiwan, Luxembourg, Germany, Canada, Uruguay, Australia, Japan, Costa Rica, Austria, United Kingdom, Greece, Mauritius, South Korea, France, Spain

(It ranks the US as a flawed democracy on number 29.)

These countries have a variety of systems, from France's semi-presidential system to Ireland's multi-member districts to the Dutch full proportionality constitutional monarchy. They are all more democratic than the US.

[Bob from Ohio]

Some magazine ranks countries. Nobody cares.

Take Taiwan:

"Member of Taiwan’s parliament steals bill to prevent its passage
by Lauren Irwin - 05/18/24 8:27 AM ET"

An example to live by!

[Commenter_XY]

And they are better how?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Canada is a democracy?!?

After having observed what they did to the truckers?

ROTF, L....

[David Nieporent]

After having observed what they did to the truckers?

Did they run over them with snowplows?

[Magister]

I am so sad that I was not first to ask about snowplow murders.

[Bwaaah]

Wait. Snowplow murders. Is that a thing?

I can’t keep up with this stuff anymore.

[Magister]

Lately, snowplow murders are Dr. Ed 2's favorite fantasy.

[Krychek_2]

Well, let me see if I can identify what I believe the root of the problem to be. One of the problems with anti-democratic institutions, like the electoral college and two senators per state, is that they greatly diminish any political accountability for anything. That has not always been true, but it's true now. We have a polarized country in which both parties play to their extreme base and elections are won or lost in a few handful of places. The presidency is decided in four or five states, and congressional control is also decided in four or five states. That being the case, both parties know that there will be no real accountability for any malfeasance or misfeasance that they create.

So the way Trump became viable in the first place was that when the entirely predictable results of globalization happened -- millions of American jobs lost, massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich, large sections of the country becoming economic basket cases, the resulting meth and fentanyl epidemics as people self medicated to alleviate their despair -- Trump showed to and convinced all those hurting people that he was on their side. Of course he's not, but the fact that he was willing to hate on the people they blamed for their troubles -- immigrants, China, the "elites", the establishment -- and voila! he's got a ready made base of support. And, thanks to the electoral college, that base of support has disproportionate say in who is president.

And the thing is, they're right that neither party ever really did care about them. Where they're wrong is that Trump does either.

I don't know that there's a single solution, but one thing that would be a big help would be to abolish the institutions that reduce political accountability. Like the electoral college and two senators per state and gerrymandered House seats.

[Martinned2]

Too many veto points. Veto points are typically good, because they force compromise, which should lead to solutions that are supported by a large supermajority of the people. But where they lead to blockages and inaction, they undermine democracy (because the President ends up ruling by decree) and result in everyone blaming everyone else for all the things that don't get done.

[hobie]

All this

[David Nieporent]

So the way Trump became viable in the first place was that when the entirely predictable results of globalization happened — millions of American jobs lost, massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich, large sections of the country becoming economic basket cases,

If I wanted Bernie Sanders fanfic I'd go to Jacobin.

[Krychek_2]

David, if globalization worked out for you, then I'm happy for you. There are a lot of people for whom it did not, and they are a big part of the reason Trump is a viable candidate.

[David Nieporent]

Objectively, millions of jobs were not lost and there was no massive transfer of wealth from the mile class to the rich. That does not mean that each and every American citizen is better off. We could have magic unicorns that generated unlimited carbon-free electricity from their horns just by feeding them daisies, and some people would suffer as a result; that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an unalloyed good.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What, in your judgment, caused our rural and southern stretches to become such economically inadequate, addicted, superstitious, bigoted. ignorant, disaffected, dysfunctional drains on our nation?

I think much of the problem has been bright flight, but I doubt that's all of it.

[damikesc]

"I don’t know that there’s a single solution, but one thing that would be a big help would be to abolish the institutions that reduce political accountability. Like the electoral college and two senators per state and gerrymandered House seats."

Kill off the entire civil service system. Bury it, burn it, salt the ground.

Want to discuss eliminating accountability? That is it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anti-government cranks are among my favorite resentful, worthless culture war casualties.

[Bwaaah]

GooooOOOOO ZONING BOARDS!!!!!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

We've gone from big states to big cities, but the genius of the Electoral College still works -- one has to both win big cities and flyover country in order to be President. Either side, one still has to get *some* big cities and *some* flyover country to win, and that is what has kept us out of a shooting civil war so far.

Now post Trump lynching -- the "big city" version of firing on Fort Sumter (which was done by what was then very much a "flyover" state) -- I'm not so sure.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Trump the evil genius is trying to do to the word "truth" what you people are trying to do to the word "woman"!

STOP THE MAN! JUDGE MERCHAN (D), SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY!

[Dr. Ed 2]

As "Rule of Law" no longer exists in this country, I'd love to see some Red State AG issue an arrest warrant for Merchan.

Fabricate the charges, just like he did.

And then if he's ever on an airplane that has to divert due to weather or mechanical or a disruptive passenger, it will truly suck to be him because he'll be in the jurisdiction of a state with an active warrant for his arrest, and there are computers today...

[not guilty]

“As ‘Rule of Law’ no longer exists in this country, I’d love to see some Red State AG issue an arrest warrant for Merchan.”

A warrant based on what Red State statute(s), and based on what facts evincing territorial jurisdiction in that Red State?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

We're rapidly approaching the point where they won't bother basing their warrants on statutes or facts.

[Nige]

‘Reagan lied about Iran Contra, Bush lied to get us into war, Clinton lied about sex and golf, and Biden makes stuff up about his past.’

For the purposes of both-sidesing, these are all exactly the same.

[Davedave]

Says a man who believes Holocaust-denial, stooging for Iran, and debunking climate-science-denial are equal...

[Nige]

Speaking of someone completely making shit up for the purposes of... actually, no idea what your endgame is here.

[Magister]

Reagan lied about Iran Contra, Bush lied to get us into war, Clinton lied about sex and golf, and Biden makes stuff up about his past.

Even before Trump, Republican presidential lies were qualitatively different than Democratic presidential lies.

[Krychek_2]

Nige, and Magister, I don't disagree with you. My point, though, is that even with a generous helping of inapposite both-sidesing, Trump's lies are still of a type we really haven't seen before.

[Nige]

Absolutely.

[JasonT20]

Trump is a kind of person we have never seen before in high office, let alone the White House. He is literally a reality-show host, real estate magnate with a record of failures that should have left him personally bankrupt multiple times, but because he is such a good self-promoting huckster, he avoided that while leaving other investors on the hook. He has literally invented a personal assistant that he pretended to be as he talked to reporters to brag to them about how great he was and how many women wanted to be with him.

I think it likely that successful politicians need at least a little narcissism to do what they do. But no one before Trump near that level of politics would look at a list of traits of those with narcissistic personality disorder and think, "Challenge accepted!"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Trump is a billionaire TV star golf pro that bangs hookers and porn stars. The only thing that keeps him from being the personification of the American Male is he isn’t also a Navy Seal Astronaut Doctor like that one Jap guy.

[Nige]

Trump has the power to make anti-semitic idiots think he's the personification of the American male, which really says more about the idiots than it does about Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

"anti-semitic idiots"

Princeton and Georgetown students?

[Sarcastr0]

Actually the numbnuts anti-Semite he was replying to, Bob. Who you never seem to take issue with.

[Bob from Ohio]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes just comments on a blog, the Ivy pro-Hamas contingent are going to occupy positions of power.

[Nige]

The people in favour of killing thousands of people for nothing are IN power, though.

[Sarcastr0]

the Ivy pro-Hamas contingent are going to occupy positions of power

These protesters are not going to be the CEOs nor the politicians. They might be the actors.

[Bwaaah]

You don't think protesty Ivy League students will go on to be CEOs or politicians?

Just because you got stuck in your thinking doesn't mean all foolishly idealistic kids will suffer the same fate.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm speculating. But if you make your identity radicalism, I don't think you're gonna be climbing the corporate ladder very well.
See: Boomer Vietnam protesters. Plenty were successful, not many in public positions. (But see Clarence Thomas)

And if you change yourself to conform, then, well, you're no longer the protester you once were.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to Lyndon Johnson?

[Magister]

Johnson did a lot of things domestically that demonstrated compassion for disadvantaged Americans; Trump gave tax cuts to rich people. Johnson, from his Senate experience, got things done; Trump couldn't get his party to do anything they didn't already want to do (judicial appointments, tax cuts).

The Vietnam War and the Gulf of Tonkin especially were his great failings, and he deserves to rank lower among presidents just for those than he usually does.

[Magister]

I'll concur as well.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This thread is an amazing documentary of the term, I think, is called “cope”.

This is what empty minds to do to retain their belief system. Come up with absurd parses like “My politician’s lies are Good and Noble, while your politicians lies are evil and design to UNRAVEL REALITY! QUALATITIVELY DIFFERENT!!!”

lmao, I hope they aren’t training any LLMs on these comments.

[Krychek_2]

I'm sorry, but who is claiming that my politician's lies are good and noble?

[Ed Grinberg]

So, why no condemnation of Biden's lies? You know, like "There isn't any inflation!"? Or "U.S. is systemically racist!"? Or, for that matter, his personal corruption? Nothing at all to say about that? Fucking hypocrites...

[Krychek_2]

Because the subject of this specific thread is Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Looks like you lost the thread.

The OP: "Trump’s lies are qualitatively different from anything we’ve seen before."

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/30/thursday-open-thread-193/?comments=true#comment-10581853

[bernard11]

Or, for that matter, his personal corruption?

OK Bob. I despise Biden's personal corruption. I would despise it even more if you told me what it was and showed me some evidence.

Not, mind you, Fox News and the like ranting about "the Biden Crime Family" or "the Big Guy" or the other BS you guys repeat endlessly. Then I'll compare it with Trump's and see where that comes out.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Those are Noble Lies.

They help Save Our Sacred Democracy.

[Magister]

I am indifferent to lies about golf, whether Clinton's or Trump's, because it really doesn't matter to the job of presidency (although Trump cheating at golf does reflect on his character, it still wouldn't matter by itself).

Lying about weapons of mass destruction, lying about weapons sales to the nation's enemies, lying about the Watergate break in, lying about election fraud - these make the world more dangerous and/or undermine the United States itself.

[Kazinski]

The biggest lie ever was Gulf of Tonkin.

Which just shows how selective and biased your memory is.

[Krychek_2]

The fact that I gave a few examples does not obligate me to give every possible example. My list was illustrative, not exhaustive. And given how long an exhaustive list would be, that's a good thing.

[Kazinski]

But you did say: "But it strikes me that Trump’s lies are qualitatively different from anything we’ve seen before."

I'm not sure though how you are measuring qualitative: tawdry insignificant, doesn't get anyone killed? Versus a massive deception that gets us into an almost decade long war?

[Krychek_2]

OK, so the central point of what I said whooshed right over your head.

The qualitative difference to which I refer does not go to how much damage any specific lie causes, and I would agree with you that Vietnam was a lot of damage and that the Tonkin lie was a major contributing factor to it. Rather, it goes to the fact that Trump has moved from merely lying, which is bad enough, to a world view in which truth doesn’t even exist. Or if it does, it’s whatever he says it is.

It’s like the joke that’s been circulating: We have gone from Honest Abe, who never told a lie, to Richard Nixon, who never told the truth, to Donald Trump, who never knew the difference.

And that’s the qualitative difference. It’s not whether it’s a big lie or a little lie, or whether it does a lot of damage versus no damage at all. You can tell all of those lies while still playing lip service to the concept of truth. At this point, Trump’s not even bothering to do that any more.

[Kazinski]

Ok, then call me old fashioned, I think lies that matter are much worse.

Although I agree relatively harmless lies that have no basis in reality and everyone knows its a lie can be irritating:
Inflation was 9% when I came into office.
I used to drive an 18 Wheeler.
I got arrested trying to see Mandela.
I was first in my class in law school.
I was raised in the Puerto Rican/Jewish/Black community.
I was a full professor.

Now your turn, those were hardly Joe's worst lies, but why don't you tell me what you think Trumps worst lies are or that most support your thesis.

[Krychek_2]

Because you're still not getting my central point. It's not which lies are big and which are little; it's the failure to acknowledge that truth even exists.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

When has Biden acknowledged any truths behind his repeated and rampant lies?

[Kazinski]

Ok, which one of these acknowledges the truth exists?

Inflation was 9% when I came into office.
I used to drive an 18 Wheeler.
I got arrested trying to see Mandela.
I was first in my class in law school.
I was raised in the Puerto Rican/Jewish/Black community.
I was a full professor.

[Armchair]

Or you can have the really big lies.

1. The entire Russia collusion story.
2. The fact that COVID really did leak out of that Wuhan Lab.

[David Nieporent]

Trumpkins certainly have been lying about those two things, yes. Still not one shred of evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, and "the entire Russia collusion story" was real, though there were of course individual claims that were not.

[bernard11]

30,000 to 9.

[Nige]

Are you still on those alleged lies? Trump throws out twice as many in any given morning.

[sparkstable]

The only way to 'lie' in such a way as to reject the existence of truth is to believe the lie yourself. That's delusion and could arguably be far less of an issue of lying in an attempt to convince others of something that you know not to be true (which requires a recognition of truth).

One is repeating something you wrongly believe. The other is to maliciously control others for a selfish gain.

If you are right about Trump... he's option 1. All other politicians are much worse as they are option 2.

[bernard11]

Kazinski,

Trump told more lies than that just today.

If XY wants to know why I'm angry it's partly because so many people post this kind of shit, but not only give Trump a pass no matter what he says, but actually defend it. Smugly, even.

[damikesc]

Krychek, we get it.

It's worse because you REALLY do not like Trump.

Your hatred of him, mind you, speaks very highly of him.

[JasonT20]

Your hatred of him, mind you, speaks very highly of him.

Ah, so you hate Krychek so much, that anyone that he hates must be good?

Is it an enemy of my enemy kind of thing you're going with? That saying was always way overstating something that can be useful to keep in mind. The enemy of my enemy might be a useful ally against that common enemy. But I should never think that our shared enmity is sufficient basis to form a friendship that will go beyond the conflict with that common enemy.

By the same token, if someone you dislike and distrust and think poorly of hates someone else, it would be extremely foolish to think that that alone means anything positive about that third person. But then, Trump fans were never known for their logical thinking.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pearl Harbor was an even bigger lie. FDR KNEW that the Japanese would either attack Pearl or Midway, and warned neither.

He only won re-election in 1940 on a promise to keep America out of war -- "I tell you time and time again, I will not send your boys to fight in a foreign war."

My grandmother had his photo out in the outhouse, framed with a toilet seat.

[Magister]

Another debunked conspiracy theory from Dr. Ed 2.

Perhaps Dr. Ed 2 would have preferred to surrender to the Axis nations when they declared war. World War II was not a foreign war once the US was attacked.

[David Nieporent]

Not only is it a conspiracy theory, but a non-sequitur; nothing about what he said, even if accurate, would have made Pearl Harbor a "lie."

[JasonT20]

But it strikes me that Trump’s lies are qualitatively different from anything we’ve seen before. His lies, it seems to me, more closely resemble holding up four fingers while expecting his base to fall into line when he says there are five.

"There...are...four...lights!!!"

[Nige]

"Oh, you know what it is? Bloody bulb was gone on the fifth all along. Hang on."

[Krayt]

I don’t know they’re qualitatively different. They’re all cynical manipulations to gain power.

They’re exactly the same.

And the lie there would be no inflation is a much bigger effect than Trump’s lies.

Indeed, the reason to not elect Trump again is a truth: He will abandon Ukraine. This is also a massively important item. We don't need someone standing there waving a checkered flag for Putin's tanks somewhere west of Poland.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He will abandon Ukraine."

He supported the recent appropriation bill though. So maybe you are mistaken.

[Kleppe]

"Indeed, the reason to not elect Trump again is a truth: He will abandon Ukraine."

Uh, that's precisely why I'm voting for him.

[myself]

We'll be sure to remember that if you're ever subject to an unprovoked attack and are in desperate need of assistance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We crossed it in 1997 when feminists ignored how Clinton personally treated women in hopes of advancing feminist legislation.

[Armchair]

You say all this...but...what lies are these? What exactly are you referring to? What "cover up"?

[myself]

I'm not sure the intent is that deliberate. The story is much simpler, Trump is a bullsh***er.

Lying is hard, more people get really uncomfortable and evasive doing it. A bullsh***er does it with confidence and authority, so even when we understand the statement can't be literally true we feel it must be true otherwise the speaker wouldn't believe it.

When you deal with a bullsh***er directly you eventually start feeling betrayed when the lies are exposed. This is evidenced by so many people in Trump's immediate orbit turning on him.

But Trump isn't talking to members of his base one-on-one, so they don't feel betrayed and the BS keeps feeling true.

[Mr. Bumble]

On Monday I posted the following:

Mr. Bumble 3 days ago

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.

Seems like that is just what Judge Juan "Roy Bean" Merchan did.

[Bored Lawyer]

"You Honor, we find Donald Trump guilty. Of being Egg Foo Yung."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Could you elaborate on your thinking and what you think should have been done differently?

[Ska]

Should have ordered the xiao long bao not the crab rangoons?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Require all 12 jurors to agree that Trump committed a specific crime.

Hypothetically a defendant is accused of rape, murder (of the victim), and auto theft (of the victim's car). A jury can't go 4, 4, & 4 and call that 12...

[SRG2]

No. The hypothetical is that he covered up a crime but 4 jurors think he covered up a rape, 4 thought he covered up a murder, and 4 think he covered up the car theft. All agree that he covered up a crime.

I suspect that if Trump be convicted, when it gets to the Supreme Court, the majority will rule that a conviction for such offences require unanimity on the underlying offence.

[not guilty]

"I suspect that if Trump be convicted, when it gets to the Supreme Court, the majority will rule that a conviction for such offences require unanimity on the underlying offence."

How would New York courts' construction of a New York statute present a federal question for SCOTUS review?

[Bob from Ohio]

Due process?

[Kazinski]

Why were they looking at Florida's 6 person jury scheme?

[not guilty]

That implicates the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Not a state court's construction of a state statute.

[SRG2]

As Bob says, due process is a possibility. Also, there's selective prosecution, and the Trump Exception.

[not guilty]

Where is there any arguable due process violation in New York courts construing New York criminal statutes? What process is due?

Selective prosecution is a non-starter. Has anyone not named Yick Wo ever obtained relief from SCOTUS on a selective prosecution claim? Who is “similarly situated” to Donald Trump as to falsifying business records, that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has not prosecuted? How has any decision to prosecute pr not to do so been “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification”? Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985), quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978), and Oyler v. Boles 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962).

And what on earth is “the Trump Exception”?

[JasonT20]

The Trump Exception is that any accusation that he has committed a crime is Fake News. Any grand jury indictment for alleged crimes is persecution by Democrats and Never-Trumpers that just hate our country. Therefore, he will be found innocent or it will just be proof of how rigged the system is [against Trump].

[SRG2]

You're proceeding on the assumption that the Supremes will follow the law as you quite correctly understand it, rather than carving out some case-specific exception "good for one day only"

That the SC slow-walked Trump's immunity claim, and that Alito and Thomas, absurdly, dissented from the denial of Texas's election suit does not lead me to suppose that there is, in fact, no Trump Exception.

[David Nieporent]

dissented from the denial of Texas’s election suit

That is unfair. They dissented only from the denial of Texas's right to file the suit, on the grounds — which they had previously argued in other cases — that they believed that SCOTUS did not have discretion to prevent states from filing such suits. They didn't say the case had any merit.

[Drewski]

A selective prosecution claim is now waived. If Trump's people thought they could even plead it, they would have - but they didn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"How would New York courts’ construction of a New York statute present a federal question for SCOTUS review?"

The same way that all-White juries did.

[Reallynotbob]

I'm not sure I agree with that prediction.

Hypothetical: Defendant intentionally remains in Target long after closing hours, which constitutes a trespass (misdemeanor). The trespass becomes a felony if done with intent to commit another crime while in the premises (3d degree burglary). 7 jurors believe the defendant wanted to steal a great many Tide Pods (petit larceny, misdemeanor). 5 jurors believe the defendant didn't care about Tide Pods or stealing, but was there to lurk for his ex wife, whom he wanted to beat up when she arrived for third shift (3d degree assault, misdemeanor).

I believe the jury can return a valid conviction on burglary-3, a felony, without agreeing which underlying crime was intended.

[myself]

No. The hypothetical is that he covered up a crime but 4 jurors think he covered up a rape, 4 thought he covered up a murder, and 4 think he covered up the car theft. All agree that he covered up a crime.

I suspect that if Trump be convicted, when it gets to the Supreme Court, the majority will rule that a conviction for such offences require unanimity on the underlying offence.

Why? He wasn't convicted for the underlying offence, he was convicted for the falsification of business records.

It's the exact same standard that every jury uses. Assume the crime was a suspected murder (with no body), four jurors might think the defendant strangled the victim, two might think they shot them, and the remaining six might think poison. But if all 12 agree that the defendant killed the victim then the verdict is guilty.

[jb]

The jury instructions are very long so I admit I haven't read through them all.

But, seems like you need to have all of the items from Column A (i.e., the prosecution must establish that Trump made or caused a false business entry) and then any item from Column B (there must be another crime that is aided or concealed). Column B isn't limited to any particular crime, so I don't see a problem with allowing the prosecution to offer various options here, any of which is sufficient to establish that element of the law here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

12 have to agree it's the SAME item.

[Moderation4ever]

The indictment is on the business fraud to support another crime. On that the 12 must agree but there is no real requirement that there is agreement on what unlaying crime Trump was hiding. What should worry Trump is that he has given the jury so many unlaying crimes to pick from.

[ducksalad]

Let’s take this method to its limit.

You are observed driving around your friend Smith, letting him stay overnight at your house, and loaning him $500 in cash.

Smith is charged with DUI. In addition, the prosecutors go into the state and federal unsolved murder files, and charge Smith with every unsolved murder in the United States for the last 10 years.They offer him a plea bargain: he pleads guilty to DUI and all
7,478 counts of murder. He is sentenced to 1 year probation on the DUI and deferred adjudication on all the counts of murder, subject to cooperating with prosecutors.

The prosecutors then put you on trial as an accessory to murder. They tell the jury that they have to believe that (a) you helped Smith by giving him money, transport, and a place to stay, and (b) Smith committed any one of 7,478 murders he has already pled guilty to, and you knew about it.

Smith shows up at your trial and testilies he regaled you over and over again with thousands of murders he committed. When your defense lawyer points out to Smith that some of the murders were thousands of miles apart and on the same day, the judge sternly interrupts and informs the jury that doesn’t matter, because only one of the 7,478 murders has to be true and it doesn’t matter which one and Smith confessed to all of them.

Would you consider that a fair proceeding?

[jb]

No, but it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion here since the jury instructions in the Trump trial allow the jury to consider all of the following:

- Whether the testimony was plausible and likely to be true
- Whether the witness received some benefit for testifying, and
- If the witness makes inconsistent statements, the jury can consider how that affects the overall credibility of their testimony

[Moderation4ever]

Where did you get this mess? This read like something written during a psychotic episode. If you think this is like Trump's NY case you are really out of it.

[Reallynotbob]

There are a lot of big assumptions and holes in your hypothetical.

1. What is the standard of knowledge being required for conviction? Are we talking proof of agreement (i.e. conspiracy) or accessorial responsibility (i.e. act in furtherance, which has additional mens rea requirements of its own).

2. How did any court take Smith’s allocution to 7,478 counts of murder without any corroboration? In the states where I practice, that is impermissible.

3. What ruling did the Court make about letting my plea-bargained “accomplice” testify against me to demonstrate knowledge? There’s an entire body of law (NY calls it the corroboration rule) that grew up around protecting you, at least in part, from that sort of self-dealing testimony. Setting aside the corroboration needed for Smith to allocute to the murders, you are entitled to an instruction that the jury needs independent corroboration of your mens rea (knowledge or intent) in order to convict.

4. The evidence that Smith could not have performed all the murders he claimed to commit is relevant and admissible to undermine Smith’s testimony. The judge’s stern interruption in your hypothetical is probably reversible error.

[ducksalad]

First, thanks for taking the time to explain all this.

It was an intentionally extreme scenario to understanding what the limits are to this kind of thing. I understand that the defense gets to rebut the "accomplice", and undermine their credibility.

The part that disturbs me, and I think other people, is that the pick-any-crime-from-this-list effectively reduces the standard of proof, from

"All 12 jurors agree beyond a reasonable doubt that you were an accomplice to Murder #3673"

to

"3 out of 12 jurors say guilty for Murder #3673, 9 out of 12 say not guilty. But 4 others say guilty for Murder #4698, while 8 say not guilty. And 5 other say....."

Yes, I realize they don't poll it that way, but it's effectively the same thing. You are basically taking a non-unanimous verdict and making it unanimous by lumping together completely different things with the question "Do you think he did anything wrong?"

Would it matter if the different theories the jurors used were literally incompatible, like the murders on the same day? Each juror is independently rational, but as a whole they've come to an impossible result.

Suppose 6 jurors say a politician is guilty of spending personal money on a campaign expense, while another 6 jurors say the same payment was spending campaign money on a personal expense, and the result of 6+6=12 guilty of "generic campaign finance violation".

[Kenneth Almquist]

The converse is that requiring the jury to agree on every detail of what occurred raises the level of proof, and raises it to a level that most people would consider unreasonable. Suppose that someone is accused of murdering his wife, and the evidence clear establishes that he did, but there is some question about exactly where he committed the murder. Some jurors think the wife was killed in the living room; others think she was killed in the dining room. Should the jury be required to acquit if they can’t decide beyond a reasonable doubt which one of those two alternatives is true? Most people would say no--if we are convinced the he murdered his wife he should be punished for it, even if we don’t know the precise details.

In the Trump case, the jury had to reach unanimous agreement on the major facts. They had to agree that business records were falsified. They had to agree on precisely which business records were falsified. They had to agree that the business records were falsified with the intent to conceal another crime. They had to agree that the crime intended to be concealed was a violation of New York Election Law § 17-152, which makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

They did not have to determine or agree on whether or not a violation of § 17-152 actually occurred. (It is possible to intend to conceal a nonexistent crime if you believe that the nonexistent crime occurred.) They did not have to agree on the nature of the violation of § 17-152 that Trump though he was concealing.

The thing to keep in mind about intent is that it is, generally speaking, hard to prove what is going on in someone else’s mind. There is no way we will ever know *exactly* what was going on in Trump’s mind when he falsified those business records. So to say that the jury shouldn’t convict if it can’t agree on every detail of what was going on in Trump’s mind definitely raises the standard of proof, but it raises it to the point where Trump could be unquestionably guilty and still impossible to convict.

The level of detail that the jury has to agree on is ultimately up to the legislature. The reason that the hypothetical in your last paragraph does not occur is that Congress has not passed a law making it a crime to commit a “generic campaign finance violation.” I’m quite confident that Congress never will.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly.

[Magister]

How many decades has it been since Chinese restaurants actually had menus like that? Last one I encountered was in the 1970s.

[Sarcastr0]

Detectorist unearths bronze age hoard after getting lost on treasure hunt

Belgrave said: “I knew when I saw the axe head that it was a bronze age hoard. My head was in a spin. The blade of the sword was still sharp. The view of the British Museum is that it was deliberately broken and deposited in the ground as part of a ritual burial and offering.”

[Don Nico]

Some people get very lucky

[Mr. Bumble]

All such finds belong to the state.

[Sarcastr0]

"Dorset Museum and Art Gallery raised £17,000 to buy the objects, with the proceeds shared between Belgrave and the landowner."

[Mr. Bumble]

Subject to the Treasure Act of 1996:
"The Act is designed to deal with finds of treasure in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It legally obliges finders of objects which constitute treasure (as defined in the Act) to report their find to their local coroner within 14 days. An inquest led by the coroner then determines whether the find constitutes treasure or not. If it is declared to be treasure then the finder must offer the item for sale to a museum at a price set by an independent board of antiquities experts known as the Treasure Valuation Committee. Only if a museum expresses no interest in the item, or is unable to purchase it, can the finder retain it. "

[Noscitur a sociis]

So… you agree with Sarcastr0 that your initial comment was mistaken?

Big of you to admit it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks. Unlike some who comment here, I don't think I know everything.
The issue as I see it though, is that you must report the find to the government, they have first dibs on it and they set the value.

[SRG2]

they set the value
No - the independent Treasure Valuation Committee sets the valuation.

[Davedave]

Do note that the finder (assuming they have permission of the landowner) is never uncompensated; they are paid the fair (independently determined) value of the find. The point is to preserve items of value to the national heritage, not to make money for the government/state.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fair (independently determined) value "

Sure. Sure. Government appointed bureaucrats are always completely fair.

The current government never owned the buried stuff.

[Davedave]

There are no 'government-appointed bureaucrats' involved:

https://www.gov.uk/treasure#:~:text=The%20Treasure%20Valuation%20Committee%20will,a%20share%20of%20a%20reward.

Cases where the value is disputed are vanishingly rare, because the appointed valuers are the same people who'd be selling it, usually. The government gets first-refusal at a fair value, that's all. No idea why you're getting your panties in a twist over a system for preserving items of national historical value that everyone else is quite happy with.

[Bob from Ohio]

The government appoints them.

You are quibbling over the word "bureaucrats", fine, try apparatchik

[Michael Ejercito]

In a triple murder trial, if a jury fails to unanimously conclude that the defendant murdered any of the particular victims, even if all twelve jurors concluded the defendant murdered at least one victim- they just disagree on which one- what is the verdict?

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. Good one.

[Michael Ejercito]

You got that right!

[not guilty]

Why would a prosecutor name three separate victims in one count of a murder indictment? Each victim should be named in a distinct count, with the identity of the victim being an essential element of the offense to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury.

[bacchys]

In that case, they'd be hung on all counts.

It's an inapt analogy to the Trump trial, however. The element is that the records were falsified to facilitate another crime. The element doesn't require all the jurors to agree on which specific crime, only that all agree the element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Several New York criminal defense lawyers, including Steven Greenfield, have pointed out that's what the law is in NY. The don't like it, but Merchan is following the law as it is.

[Balisane]

That doesn't make sense. What if one intended to falsify records to facilitate another crime, but what he thought was a crime wasn't. That is, a mistake of law.

[Reallynotbob]

Intent to commit a crime, without an actual crime, does not ordinarily create criminal liability.

The exception, I suppose, would be where a criminal conspiracy is the indicted charge. The agreement to commit crime is present, and an act in furtherance of the conspiracy might not need to be independently criminal.

[not guilty]

I like the analogy made by Glenn Kirschner. Suppose three defendants were charged jointly with conspiracy to commit a residential burglary. To get a conviction for burglary, the prosecution must prove that the offender entered the habitation of another, with the intent to commit a felony of theft therein.

Suppose the government's proof at the conspiracy trial showed that one defendant entered the victim's house intending to steal property, another conspirator entered intending to cause serious bodily injury to the victim by beating him, and the other conspirator entered intending to burn the house down. So long as all three intended to commit a felony or theft when they crossed the threshold, the jury would not have to unanimously agree on what felony they intended.

[Josh R]

There is case law that supports Kirschner’s interpretation of NY’s burglary statute. This article details the issue and how it applies to Trump's case.

[Michael Ejercito]

This is not a burglary case though.

[not guilty]

Well, duh. That's why I called it an analogy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s not a triple murder case either!

[Noscitur a sociis]

A more instructive example

Suppose someone fires a gun into a group of three people, killing one. For a murder conviction, the prosecution would have to prove (and the jury would need to find unanimously) that the defendant intended to kill another person. But they wouldn’t have to prove (and the jury wouldn’t have to agree) which other person the defendant intended to kill. Does anything about that strike you as unfair?

[bernard11]

Suppose someone fires a gun into a group of three people, killing one. For a murder conviction, the prosecution would have to prove (and the jury would need to find unanimously) that the defendant intended to kill another person. But they wouldn’t have to prove (and the jury wouldn’t have to agree) which other person the defendant intended to kill.Suppose someone fires a gun into a group of three people, killing one. For a murder conviction, the prosecution would have to prove (and the jury would need to find unanimously) that the defendant intended to kill another person. But they wouldn’t have to prove (and the jury wouldn’t have to agree) which other person the defendant intended to kill.

Don't understand. Why "another person" rather than the one who got killed?

[Davedave]

Another person - that is, not the shooter.

[bernard11]

Thanks.

[not guilty]

"Suppose someone fires a gun into a group of three people, killing one. For a murder conviction, the prosecution would have to prove (and the jury would need to find unanimously) that the defendant intended to kill another person. But they wouldn’t have to prove (and the jury wouldn’t have to agree) which other person the defendant intended to kill. Does anything about that strike you as unfair?"

Why would the prosecution have to prove that the defendant intended to kill another person? Are you familiar with the doctrine of transferred intent?

[mse326]

The intent is required for murder (usually). In this example you can probably get depraved indifference, or definitely felony murder. But if you wanted to charge with traditionally defined murder intent to kill is required. And of course you can't have transferred intent without out initial intent.

[Reallynotbob]

This is the correct answer.

Depraved indifference murder does not require specific intent to kill. The classic example is pushing a paint can off a skyscraper ledge onto a busy street. You know you’re probably going to kill someone, but you don’t know who. If no death, you get lucky and it’s just reckless endangerment. But if you kill someone, it’s this type of murder.

Depraved indifference is the best fit for “fires a gun into a crowd.”

One could try to show specific intent murder because the defendant shot at person A with intent to kill, but person B dies by the bullet intended for A. The jury would not have to resolve “which murder was intended” because there is only one dead guy. The issue is whether the intent to murder A transferred to B when the shooter missed. And the answer is yes.

So the hypothetical about firing into a group of three is easily resolved. The DA indicts the shooter for the murder of the dead person, then shows either depraved indifference (“welp, somebody’s gunna die that’s fer sure”) or transferred intent (“ah cannot buhLEVE I missed Leroy”).

*Edited to add that these would be two separate counts of the indictment.

[Roger S]

The prosecution would at least have to prove that someone got killed. In the Trump case, there is no election crime, tax crime, or other crime. Those were just presented as possibilities.

[not guilty]

Unclear on the concept of inchoate offenses? The distinction between misdemeanor falsifying business records in the second degree and felony falsifying business records in the first degree is that the latter requires the prosecution to prove that the accused's intent to defraud, at the time of the falsification, included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

The actual commission or concealment of the object offense is not an element; the focus is on the accused's state of mind. The Court of Appeals of New York has opined:

Because intent is an “ ‘invisible operation of [the] mind’ ” ( People v. Samuels, 99 N.Y.2d 20, 24, 750 N.Y.S.2d 828, 780 N.E.2d 513 [2002] [citation omitted] ), direct evidence is rarely available (in the absence of an admission) and is unnecessary where there is legally sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent (see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 [1977] [noting that “intent can also ‘be inferred from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances' ” (citation omitted) ] ).

People v. Rodriguez, 933 N.Y.S.2d 631, 632-633 (N.Y. 2011).

[Roger S]

Those 12 jurors must have some remarkable mind-reading skills.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, well if the failson of a minor political celebrity from 40 years ago says that there weren't any other crimes, who can argue with that?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Suppose someone fires a gun into a group of three people, killing one. For a murder conviction, the prosecution would have to prove (and the jury would need to find unanimously) that the defendant intended to kill another person. But they wouldn’t have to prove (and the jury wouldn’t have to agree) which other person the defendant intended to kill. Does anything about that strike you as unfair?

No, but it does strike me as a really shitty analogy for a case where the requirement isn't that the defendant intended to commit some other crime, but that he actually did commit one. So it would seem logical that the jury would have to agree on what additional crime was committed in order for there to be a conclusion that one was, in fact, committed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, but it does strike me as a really shitty analogy for a case where the requirement isn’t that the defendant intended to commit some other crime, but that he actually did commit one.

The statute does not require that Trump either committed or intended to commit another crime, only that he intended to "aid or conceal the commission" of another crime.

[sparkstable]

How can I be guilty of concealing the commission of something that was not committed?

I can't cover up a bank robbery that didn't happen. If I can, why not just convict me of robbing the bank while you're at it?

[David Nieporent]

You don't have to have concealed it. Under this law you only had to have the intent to conceal it. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[Bored Lawyer]

That does not prove as much as you think it does. To show such intent, the State has to prove (a) the person knew about the facts that constituted what (b) he believed was a crime and (c) was in fact a crime. (And, of course, he did some act to try to conceal it or aid it.)

Let’s say a defendant was trying to conceal something, and he even thought it was a crime, but in fact it’s not a crime. E.g., he pays someone off to conceal that he or someone else committed “Fraud rape,*” which it turns out in NY is not a crime. And then he, like Trump, falsifies business records to cover up the pay-off. I don’t think that satisfies the statute.

_______________
*For those who are interested, fraud rape, or rape-by-deception, is where someone obtains consent to sex by fraud, e.g., misrepresenting some fact, to obtain the consent. In NY, that is not a crime.

[Voize]

and (c) was in fact a crime

Do you know of caselaw supporting that construction? Because on its face "intent to conceal a crime" only requires intent, not actual concealment or an actual crime.

[Bored Lawyer]

I didn't say there has to be an actual crime committed. I said what the person intended to conceal was a crime. Whether or not it happened.

[Voize]

No, I understand that. I meant a false record created with the intent to conceal an act that the concealer thought was a crime, but the concealer misunderstood the law and the act he intended to conceal was missing one or more elements of the assumed crime.

[David Nieporent]

but it does strike me as a really shitty analogy for a case where the requirement isn’t that the defendant intended to commit some other crime, but that he actually did commit one.

What the fuck are you talking about? Trump having committed another crime is not an element in any way of the crimes for which he was prosecuted and convicted.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/05/27/libertarian-party-chooses-nominee-supports-open-borders-drag-queen-story-hour/
I guess we know who Prof. Somin will be voting for...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Whoa! Thanks for that, I might have to vote for him too. See, who says Breitbart doesn't provide a valuable service?

[Krayt]

Sounds like a plan.

[Bored Lawyer]

Reposting this from the other day.

See this article, in off all places, the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/israel-hamas-female-captives-sabaya-translation/678505/?utm_source=apple_news

It centers around Hamas operatives calling women they capture sabaya. As the article demonstrates, it basically means that a woman captured in war is a slave, whom the master can force to have sex with him. IOW, rape. After a review of the history of the word, the author writes: “I cannot stress enough that such relationships—that is, having sex with someone you own—constitute rape in all modern interpretations of the word, and they are frowned upon whether they occur in the Levant, the Hejaz, or Monticello.”
“Is there a word in English that conveys that one views the battered women in one’s control as potentially sexually available? I think probably not. I would be very careful before speaking up to defend the user of such a word.”

That’s whom the pro-Palestinians are supporting: people who believe women captured in war are to be treated as slaves, potentially forced to have sex with their masters.

What was that about war crimes and the Geneva Convention again?

[Nige]

'As the article demonstrates, it basically means that a woman captured in war is a slave, whom the master can force to have sex with him.'

Except this is not what that word means.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What does it mean, in your view?

[Bored Lawyer]

Sabaya is an 2021 Swedish documentary film, directed, shot and edited by Hogir Hirori. It follows a group who risk their lives to save sex slaves held captive by ISIS in Al-Hawl, Syria. It had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on 30 January 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaya_(film)

[Nige]

And if the film had been called 'female captive' that would have absolutely no bearing on the womens' experiences, but you want to claim that unreleased hostages are being sexually abused based on no evidence other than the use of a word.

[Davedave]

No, Nige, you want to deny well-established facts because that facilitates your spreading of Jew-hatred with genocidal aims. It's OK, you can stop pretending, you've outed yourself enough times on here.

[Nige]

I've outed myself so many times in your head it's upsetting you that it doesn't match reality.

[Davedave]

Nige denies reality yet again, not news.

[Nige]

N'est ce pas un pipe.

[Davedave]

Seriously, have you had a stroke recently? You used to at least be coherent.

[Nige]

I'm not sure you'd know coherence if it sat on you.

[Bored Lawyer]

This systematic slavery is dated in August 2014, when ISIS captured several families and completely destroyed whole villages of the Southern Iraq. Generally speaking, ISIS has been able to create a “bureaucracy of slavery”. Each woman, who is taken in captivity, is usually bought and sold by fighters. From the moment of the purchase, there is a special contract, which is in fact notarized by Islamic State court. All those women in captivity are called “sabaya” which means a slave. It has become an official term among ISIS.

https://www.iir.cz/institutionalization-of-sexual-slavery-within-the-isis-territory#:~:text=All%20those%20women%20in%20captivity,an%20official%20term%20among%20ISIS.

[jb]

I'm not standing up for Hamas in any context, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were treating captives terribly. But I'm struggling pretty hard with the logic you're trying to use here.

You're saying that because Hamas uses the same word that ISIS did, it necessarily implies that Hamas is treating the women the same? Of course, this is the same trick you're trying to play generally here, which is "people are made Palestinian civilians are being killed, Hamas is Palestinians, therefore those people must like what Hamas is doing". Hard to imagine you passed the LSAT with logic like that.

[Bored Lawyer]

Gee, you are pretty dense if you think life is a logic game like the LSAT.
Hamas and ISIS are both fundamentalist Moslem organization, both engage in terrorism. Both use Arabic and both capture prisoners, including female prisoners. The term at issue derives from the Koran and has a long history in Islam. And Hamas, like ISIS, has raped female prisoners.
Try researching the difference between inductive and deductive logic. You might learn something.
Or as the standard federal jury instructions state, if someone walks into the courtroom wearing a raincoat, carrying an umbrella, and is soaked with water, that is strong evidence that it is raining outside.

[Bored Lawyer]

https://www.instagram.com/sharonsrose13/p/C7a6i7UOvgs/

[Bored Lawyer]

In the clips that destiny where he is talking about the lady being taken prisoner as to what the Hamas guys where calling her. I wanted to clarify where the confusion is:
سبايا:
sabaya: which is in Islamic literature a female prisoners of war. Female prisoners of war are commonly subjected to become part of war trophies, and thus a slave to a soldier or others. The action of taking women and girls as slaves is referred to as sabi or sab-yi :سبي
This is what the Hamas guy called that woman!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1b8m9ev/just_to_clarify_on_what_sabaya_means_and_the/

[Nige]

'Female prisoners of war are commonly subjected to become part of war trophies'

So they could have been called 'female prisoners of war' and it would potentially have exactly the same connotations.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What does 'sabaya' mean, Nige?

[Nige]

I believe it means, wait for it, 'a captive woman.'

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wait, so you said it doesn't mean what he claimed, but you don't really know the definition yourself?

lol wtf is wrong with ppl like u

[Nige]

It doesn't mean what he claimed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes, it absolutely does. The term was made famous from a sex slave international documentary of the same name.

[Nige]

The film being called 'female captive' does not detract one iota from the horror of their sexual abuse. Presumably the point of this is to insist that female hostages are being sexually abused, based on no actual evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

So you agree, your original comment was mistaken.

Mighty big of you to man up and admit it.

[Nige]

So you're agreeing with me that the point of this is to insist that female hostages are being sexually abused, based on no actual evidence, just on a mis-translated word.

[Davedave]

Why bother lying so blatantly when even your fellow Nazis think you're making a fool of yourself?

The rapes are well-established and fully documented. But you aren't interested in facts, only in stooging for Iran, and doing anything you can to push the genocide of all Jews everywhere.

[Nige]

The rapes of the women who are still hostages have been well established? Does anything you say have any connection to reality?

[Davedave]

Why do you deny established facts, Nige? Did your Iranian propaganda viewing not leave you time to keep up with the news?

[Nige]

Davedave got Clockwork Oranged with Iranian propaganda.

[Davedave]

What the fuck are you on about now? Are you denying the widespread reports?

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/un-finds-clear-convincing-information-hostages-raped-gaza-rcna141789

Or were you just too busy stooging for Iran to read any actual news? The rapes of hostages are as well-established as any fact of that kind can ever be. Your denial is not only depraved, but raving lunacy.

[Nige]

a) You know we're talking about the unfreed hostages, right?
b) That's bad enough, why fuck around over a word?

[David Nieporent]

Except this is not what that word means.

It is in fact what the word means. We can get into a linguistic debate about what words "mean" in some formal sense, but that's what it refers to.

[Nige]

Well, let's hope you're wrong, for the hostages' sake.

[Sarcastr0]

"Hamas operatives"
...
"That’s whom the pro-Palestinians are supporting"

I see what you did there.

[Bored Lawyer]

Right. People who demonstrate for "Palestine Shall Be Free, From The River to the Sea" are supporting a geography cleansed of Jews and run by Hamas. If they get their way, that is what will happen. The pretense that they mean something else is just that -- a pretense.

It would be like a right-wing group chanting "Arbeit Macht Frei" and then claiming they only are supporting the Protestant work ethic.

[Nige]

Linking the freedom of Palestinians to genocide really helps fuel the potential genocide of the Palestinians.

[Commenter_XY]

Saying it does not make it so = genocide of palestinians

[Nige]

Killing thousands and thousands of them is what's making it so.

[Davedave]

Nope, Iranian propaganda is not fact. It's just convenient propaganda that happens to align with your cause. Fucking Nazi scum.

[Nige]

Now you think nobody is dying in Gaza. Your head is quite the place!

[Davedave]

What kind of blithering moronicity is this? You are repeating rancid Iranian propaganda, which bears no relation to reality, and every relation to Nazism. There is no genocide taking place, as agreed by everyone who isn't a complete nut, a raving antisemite, a neo-Nazi, or some combination of the three, but you wish there was, which is why you push these naked lies.

[Nige]

So it's a lie that thousands and thousands of men women and children have been killed in Gaza?

[Davedave]

No, Nige. No-one has said anything of the sort. Seriously, have you been to hospital to get checked over for a stroke? You're absolutely raving today.

[Nige]

Then what are you actually disagreeing with me about?

Oh right. They're killing tens of thousands of people but if you're worried that's building to a genocide, you're a Nazi.

[Sarcastr0]

And now a third group enters your massive conflation.

According to BL
Hamas operatives = who protesters who chant 'From The River to the Sea' support = who pro-Palestinians support.

Don't broad brush

[Commenter_XY]

They all support the extinction of the Jews.

Of course, you'll defend them.

[Nige]

You're explicitly supporting the slaughter of men, women and children.

[Davedave]

You're outright lying about words in the preceding comment. You've gone completely cuckoo, you're so desperate to further your actually-genocidal cause.

[Nige]

The preceding comment was Sarcastro, so you've gone completely random in your fantasy life.

[Davedave]

You've done it again. Are you unaware that we can all scroll up a few lines and see that you're lying, or do you just not care?

[Nige]

Your lack of specificity is sadly typical.

[Davedave]

What are you babbling about now? How could I be any more specific? You made _one claim_ in the comment I replied to, and I pointed out that it's an absurd lie, refuted by, as I said, scrolling up a few lines..

[Nige]

You never refer to things I actually say, only to words you say that you attribute to me. (And you love to say those words, they really come naturally to you.) Its very easy to refute someone when you make no actual reference to the things they actually say.

[Bwaaah]

Nige: You wrote regarding C_XY: “You’re explicitly supporting the slaughter of men, women and children.”

Please copy/paste the remark(s) that C_XY made that you interpret as supporting your statement.

[Nige]

Does he support the current IDF campaign or not?

[Bwaaah]

So few parade such weak intellect with such pride as you do, Nige.

Put on some clothes. You look stupid when you're naked.

[Ed Grinberg]

"You’ve gone completely cuckoo..."
I challenge you to link a single comment of his that isn't "completely cuckoo." This is not a one-off.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No they don't. Most of them are just trying to defend people they see as unjustly oppressed, and aren't really mature or knowledgable enough to understand the full import or context of their chants. Some of them support the extinction of the Jews, though.

[Ed Grinberg]

"Most of them are just trying to defend people they see as unjustly oppressed"
You know, the Nazis and their supporters were 100%-sincerely convinced that Germans were "unjustly oppressed" by the Jews. Your claim does not absolve the "pro-Palestinians" of anything.

[Don Nico]

Most as in the Columbia SJP and JVP who issued proclamations of solidarity a couple of days after the pogram?

[Don Nico]

Excellent analogy, BL

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

Right. People who demonstrate for “Palestine Shall Be Free, From The River to the Sea” are supporting a geography cleansed of Jews and run by Hamas. If they get their way, that is what will happen. The pretense that they mean something else is just that — a pretense.

They’re starting to drop the pretense now too. The “All Eyes On Rafah” meme is empowering groups which say that supporters “should not condemn October 7th.” The death of innocents is bad, unless they’re Jewish or Israeli, then it’s not just ok, it’s laudable.

[Nige]

“Is there a word in English that conveys that one views the battered women in one’s control as potentially sexually available?"

This word used to be "wife" but we've come along a ways recently.

[Magister]

+1

[David Nieporent]

This word used to be “wife” but we’ve come along a ways recently.

I mean, that's actually a good example that utterly undermines your position, so it's kind of failed snark. The formal meaning of "wife" — which merely derives from the word for "woman" — does not include anything about forced sex. But millennia of actual practice caused it to mean — at least in Christian culture — a woman who was handed off by her father to a man, with whom she could then not refuse to have sex.

[Nige]

See, that's my point. It doesn't mean that, it just has that association due to practice, but not every wife experienced that, and simply being called a 'wife' is not sufficent to determine whether they did or not. The connotation is unavoidable, just as it is with *any* 'female captive.'

[Reallynotbob]

There were, even in this century, state laws on the books that exempted "wife" from the definition of "woman" for the purpose of rape statutes. They were abrogated by court decisions, but let's acknowledge that "can't rape your wife" had a legal existence in America.

[John F. Carr]

According to a dictionary, the Arabic word sabaya means "girls" including but not limited to "slave girls". It's the feminine plural of صبي; see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/صبي#Arabic.

Also in the news this week, Russians are raping Ukrainian prisoners of war. It's how some wars are fought. One of the major treaties was amended earlier in this century to specifically outlaw rape as a weapon of war. The words on paper are as effective as the words saying Hamas can't take hostages and Israel can't kill too many civilians. Who will enforce them?

[Nige]

There's another word, different pronunciation, that just means 'female captive.' Inasmuch as that is suggestive of sexual exploitation and abuse, it pertains to pretty much any descriptive term for 'female captives.' There's *always* that connotation with any female being held captive.

[Bob from Ohio]

"different pronunciation"

Native Arabic speaker, right?

[Nige]

No more than you lot.

[Bwaaah]

And yet, while Bob just asks a question, you, admitting ignorance, speak with authority.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's his programming.

[Nige]

And yet, I'm one of several people doing exactly the same, but you take offence at me!

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm not asserting subtle pronunciation differences in a foreign language I don't speak.

Those boys in the video just murdered other women and beat the survivors but using "sex slave" is just a bridge too far.

[Commenter_XY]

Their illogic is what makes me shake my head.

[Nige]

I'm sorry pronunciation matters in word meaning.

Isn't that bad enough without trying to gin up fear and loathing over a word?

[Michael P]

That reminds me of the leftist darling Pope accidentally using the Italian word for "faggotry" in explaining why he didn't want gay priests: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/28/world/pope-francis-apologizes-reports-anti-gay-slur-intl/index.html

[Sarcastr0]

So are you advocating for the the cancel culture 'say one thing wrong' stuff you generally rail against?

[Nige]

I'm just fascinated that the Pope is up on gay Italian slang.

[Krayt]

I regularly hammer the American concept that rights are inherent to you and not a gift from anyone else, the rich, the powerful, even democracy itself. This is before any government is even formed, to secure those rights, if you are wise.

There are detractors, who think it otherwise. If I am wrong and they are right, if master chooses not to gift you with the right to your own body, is there a foul here?

[Martinned2]

What was that about war crimes and the Geneva Convention again?

Who do you think are defending the crimes you described? Did you overlook the fact that the ICC prosecutor is also seeking arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders?

[Davedave]

You and Nige do, at every opportunity, because you couldn't give a fuck about Palestinians, and you really, really hate Jews.

[Nige]

More likely you just REALLY hate Palestinians.

[Davedave]

Projecting again. Unlike you, I'm actually pro-Palestinian, not pretending to be because it's a convenient excuse for expressing genocidal antisemitism.

[Nige]

So pro-Palestinian that you accuse anyone who thinks that it would be a good thing if the IDF wasn't killing so many of them of genocidal antisemitism. Similar weird dynamic to your attitude to climate change.

[Davedave]

You're lying again. I've accused you, a man who has repeatedly expressed openly neo-Nazi sentiments, of not giving a fuck about Palestinians - which is plainly the case, given you have never expressed any actual concern for Palestinians - and of hating Jews and calling for a new Holocaust.

Of course it's the typical response of an antisemite who has outed themselves to claim that they're 'just pro-Palestinian, not antisemitic', and that there is a Jew conspiracy to manufacture false allegations of antisemitism in the service of political subversion, but that is in and of itself an outright Nazi conspiracy theory, so when you say it you merely prove you're a Nazi shithead.

[Nige]

‘I’ve accused you’

I mean, you’ve not accused me of being the Zodiac Killer, but who knows? Give it time.

You really, really have the most amazing arguments with Mirror Universe me, entirely in your head, and you know what? I’m beginning to think you lose those, too.

'calling for a new Holocaust.'

For example. Can you point to where I did this? Because it's actually kind of an evil fucking slander, you shithead.

[damikesc]

"Who do you think are defending the crimes you described? Did you overlook the fact that the ICC prosecutor is also seeking arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders?"

WHAT? Courts can undertake utterly political prosecutions?

Get the fuck outta town!

If the ICC gets one penny from the USA, that should end. Immediately.

[Reallynotbob]

Because "pro-Palestinian" means "pro-rapist"?

You mean like how "pro-Christian" means "pro-pedophile"?

Got it. Understanding the world is easy when you paint with a big enough brush.

[shawn_dude]

People can support Palestinian civilians as they're being bombed in their homes, schools, and hospitals without supporting atrocities committed by Hamas or the Israeli government and military. Attempts to equate Palestinian innocents with terrorism are obvious and reprehensible.

[apedad]

States Expand Antitrust Muscle to Keep Pressure on Big Business

“States can and have played a historically critical role: when federal enforcement has wavered state and private enforcement can fill the void,” (Randy Stutz, president of American Antitrust Institute) said. “The states have been swept up in the nationwide momentum about the importance of antitrust enforcement and how essential it is to our democratic system.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/states-expand-antitrust-muscle-to-keep-pressure-on-big-business

Big business was usually worried about the feds (FTC, SEC, etc), and it was easier for them to fight against one entity.

But now the states are ganging up (bi-partisan too), to protect their citizens' interests.

[John F. Carr]

Romance Writers of America has declared bankruptcy because there are not enough members to pay the cost of its conventions. Membership dropped from 10,000 members to 2,000 (per Reuters) or 3,000 (per Bloomberg Law) in the past five years. The problem is part pandemic but mostly "due to disputes concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion issues between some members of a prior RWA board and others in the larger romance writing community.” I think this means the woke new board of directors is unpopular with members.

Hotels will have to write off the cost of reserved rooms that were not booked.

Science fiction went through this about a decade ago. A faction wanted spaceships and blasters and a faction wanted lesbians and such. A convention had to be moved because hotel staff mocked the code of conduct some liberal writers insisted on.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think the cultural conflict is what’s driving the economic pressure in genre fiction.

Amazon self-publishing is pressuring publishers, who are consolidating and doing some oligopolistic stuff.

And brace for AI to get good enough to at least meet the need of the 'I like tropey books on in the background' crowd.

[John F. Carr]

I can buy a long term trend, but losing 3/4 of membership in a few years is hard to blame on Amazon.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I do want to back off a bit. I was tracking romance publishing generally rather than a particular group.
I am sure woke toxicity is an element. I've seen it happen, and I will not pretend there's not a certain self-oriented purity crusader cropping up that drives people out.

The trajectory of 'economic downward pressure preexisting pandemic;' crashing a population is also a thing. Though that would be a second order effect on authors' orgs.

[Nige]

'I think this means the woke new board of directors is unpopular with members.'

No, it means there was a racism problem and that pissed a lot of people off.

‘A faction wanted spaceships and blasters and a faction wanted lesbians and such.’

Turns out you can have both. Or either. Or neither. It was a weird thing for sad edgelords to get mad at.

[Krayt]

Thanks, why not both?

Rey is clearly a lesbian. Her romance with Kylo Ren was always strained and like forcing a kid to eat his spinach. This in spite of the fact he was, by traditional women’s romance novels, the ultimate saveable bad boy.

This humor mocked to you by the idea there even has to be romance in a story at all. Look what happened when Lucas tried it!

Attempt one: incest!

Attempt two: A wildly unbelievable romance a woman will fall in love with an angry man, and not well after the fact.

[Balisane]

Unanimous decision in the NRA 1st Amendment case out of New York. Proof positive that Judge Chin on the 2nd Circuit was acting in bad faith.

[Ed Grinberg]

The Second Circuit appellate decision was unanimous. We should give “credit” to all three judges on the panel:
– Denny Chin
– Rosemary Pooler
– Susan Carney

[Balisane]

Right, so a Chinese man married to a Japanese woman appointed by Obama, a Jewish woman appointed by Clinton, and another woman appointed by Obama. The ruling was a foregone conclusion.

[not guilty]

The full text of the jury instructions in Donald Trump's New York case is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24699539/people-v-djt-jury-instructions-and-charges-final-5-23-24.pdf

The instructions are straightforward and unremarkable. I wonder why Team Trump did not request an instruction on misdemeanor falsifying business records in the second degree as a lesser included offense of the indicted offense.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is 55 pages of instruction normal in a case like this?
The jury seems to have some confusion over the instructions.
Why hasn't the judge allowed the jurors a printed version of his instructions?

[Magister]

My understanding is that New York law does not allow that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's not true. It is legal, the judge just decided not to.

I'm sure he think it advantages the prosecution in someway.

[Magister]

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Written_Instructions_to_Jury.pdf

It is possible, if the defense does not object, but I suspect that the defense would refuse unless the instructions contain specific verbiage they want. The actual knowledge and experience of lawyers, especially those in New York, would be helpful.

From a New York Times report on the trial:

The prohibition against jurors being provided with a copy of the written legal instructions stems from a 1987 decision by the New York Court of Appeals — the state’s highest court — in a case called People v. Owens, which involved a drug sale.

The court found that “the distribution of written instructions to the jury is not expressly authorized by law, and error in such submissions cannot be deemed harmless,” meaning that providing the instructions would result in a conviction being overturned.

Marc F. Scholl, who served in the Manhattan district attorney’s office for nearly four decades, specializing in white-collar crimes and appeals, said: “Recently, there has been some slight loosening about whether it can be done with the defense’s consent, but it remains a minefield that judges do not want to risk.”

[Dan Schiavetta]

First, you have to remember that trial lawyers tend to 1) not be sophisticated in the law, except maybe the law of evidence, and 2) tend to defend “how things are done at trial” as if it was some mystic rite. They are used to lecturing people who can’t ask questions and can’t talk back (juries) so tend not to be particularly deep thinkers.

The Owens case only holds that it’s error to give only part of the instructions to the jury (which has heard the other parts only verbally).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Because Merchan (D) wouldn't allow anything favorable to the defense.

Just like during the arguments.

[tylertusta]

The only way the defense can do that is if they allow the state to convict beyond the statute of limitations on the misdemeanor charge.

Lesser included offense would only work if you think the jury might use it as an off-ramp, so perhaps the defense didn’t think that a jury would go for it, so they want to preserve the SoL argument for appeal.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump moved to Florida in 2018 and thereafter remained outside New York, which tolled the statutes of limitations.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any port in a storm.

[tylertusta]

Trump seems to want to dispute that. He might challenge Cuomo's executive order along with the NY courts' interpretation of tolling for "continuous absence."

If you plan to challenge under SoL grounds, you don't give it up. And Trump hasn't.

[David Nieporent]

Trump moved to Florida in 2019.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's illegal?

[Magister]

No, it's correcting the date in the previous comment (Trump changed his primary residence from New York to Florida in 2019, not 2018).

It may not seem like it, Dr. Ed 2, but you're not the only commenter whose factual errors are corrected in these threads.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I think it is abundantly clear that POTUS Trump will be convicted of something. Once I read about the Stormy sniffling on the stand crying about being intimidated (lol) by The Donald, I figured the jury had what it needed.

I am curious about jury instructions. Do counsel jointly draft instructions, and then the judge edits and finalizes? Is that SOP?

[apedad]

Ex-POTUS....

[Bob from Ohio]

Future POTUS

[bernard11]

I think you're trying for the Once and Future Potus.

Heaven help us.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

FPOTUS actually, if we're using acronyms.

Don't expect C_XY to ever respect the difference.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense it is more disaffectedness than illiteracy.

[not guilty]

The judge drafts the jury instructions, often aided by preexisting pattern instructions. Most judges will entertain requests from the parties, especially requests for special instructions.

I recall one civil case where the judge asked the parties to separately submit drafts of the complete charge, but that is very much the exception.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trying again:
Is 55 pages of instruction normal in a case like this?
The jury seems to have some confusion over the instructions.
Why hasn’t the judge allowed the jurors a printed version of his instructions?

[not guilty]

Yes, 55 pages of instructions is normal where dozens of counts of the same substantive offense are charged. (Keep in mind that several pages include only a brief, single paragraph of instructions, plus white space on the remainder of the page.

I don't know why the judge did not send a copy of instructions to the jury room. He did emphasize that he would read the instructions back to the jury in whole or in part as many times as the jury may wish.

[David Nieporent]

NY law makes it reversible error to give written instructions unless both sides want it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It is really stupid for trial lawyers to object to giving the jury copies of the instructions. The judge has a copy, the lawyers have a copy -- everyone has a copy of the instructions except the people who have the responsibility for applying them.

Not only is the objection by trial lawyers stupid, the resulting rule as to reversible error is equally stupid. I say this as a trial lawyer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Joining the list of things that make NY stupid or at least "different; like the trial court being named the Supreme Court or having the defense go first in closing with no rebuttal among others.

[David Nieporent]

It is really stupid for trial lawyers to object to giving the jury copies of the instructions.

That sort of depends who has the burden of proof and how one feels about the jury makeup itself. One side or the other may feel that jury confusion benefits it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That is why lawyers should not be allowed to object.

[David Nieporent]

The claim was that it was stupid for them to object; I was disagreeing with that. If you meant (as you now say) that it's stupid to allow them to object, I agree with you.

It should be standard to give jurors the jury charges in writing. (It should also be standard to allow them to take notes, but lots of places don't allow that, either.)

[Commenter_XY]

Why is that a reversible error? That sounds odd.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The case in question (People v. Owens) held only that it was error for the judge to give copies of only part of the instructions (while giving the rest of the instructions only verbally). Given the bureaucratic mentality within D.A. offices (where one is not allowed to point that out) and the interest in defense attorneys in having confused juries, the actual holding has been over-stated.

[David Nieporent]

There are other cases besides Owens. People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980, 982(1993) also held it was reversible error, and that involved delivery of the complete jury charge.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In that case the instructions included improper “statutory material” so I don’t know what to make of that holding. Thanks for pointing it out though.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow....Thx for that cite. So giving the jury the whole megillah (heh) is fine, but giving just parts is not. I can see that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The bitch should be tried for treason and executed.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder why Team Trump did not request an instruction on misdemeanor falsifying business records in the second degree as a lesser included offense of the indicted offense.

Why would a court be willing to issue an instruction on a crime of which Trump can't be convicted because it's indisputably time-barred?

[not guilty]

It is not time barred. Donald Trump relocated from New York to Florida in 2018, tolling the statute of limitations.

I don't know what New York law provides, but in some states a defendant's request for an instruction on an otherwise time barred lesser included offense waives the statute of limitations.

[damikesc]

You're pretty clearly incorrect in re statute of limitations.

[santamonica811]

Thought experiment: Donald Trump is better off with a conviction than he'd be with a hung jury.

Now, of course, he's hoping for an acquittal on all counts. Duh. But, here's my theory, based on the possible outcomes:

a. Conviction on all counts. Or, conviction on some, and acquittal on others. Trump will try to spin as a win for him. "Rage against the injustice of the Justice Dept. Etc." The TDS pro-Trump MAGAs will go along with this. The Never-Trumpers will penalize him for now being a convicted felon (but would never have voted for him anyway.) And maybe a tiny strip of undecided will tilt away from Trump. (And, perhaps, a really tiny group of I-guess-I'll-hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-Trump Republicans will even go over to Biden...or will go to a third party). I expect that the number of voters who have said to pollsters that they will never vote for a convicted felon is GROSSLY exaggerated . . . that, as the election nears, almost all of them will come back to Trump.

b. Acquittal on all counts. Trump will, of course, see this as a victory, and as validation that it was a BS prosecution from the start. His supporters will all agree, and since they were all going to go out and vote for him; a tiny positive effect for him. The Never-Trumpers will still not support Trump, so little or no effect there. Maybe a small tilt towards Trump from the same tiny group that is a subset of Undecided, as discussed, above. Might make a difference in a razor-close election. But probably not.

I expect that the effect will be about 1% at the low end, and 2-3% at the high end. This, of course, could be significant in the fistful of states that will decide this election, so it's nothing to ignore. It will almost certainly be a smaller effect than polls so far have suggested. BUT, the third possibility:

c. Trump has a hung jury on all, or many, or some of the counts. I presume that, REGARDLESS of the verdicts on the other counts; the DA will immediately announce it is retrying him. Its office tells the judge, on the same day as the decision to call a mistrial on all the counts where a verdict could not be reached, “Your Honor; we're ready to proceed with Trial Two as soon as the court is ready. Next month? Fine. Two months from now? Fine as well.”

So, this means that Trump will be tied up in trial. Before the election! AGAIN. For another 5 weeks. Maybe a bit shorter, if witnesses are trimmed down. Maybe a bit longer, if the prosecution calls additional witnesses. Or if Trump puts on an actual meaningful defense.

In real life, in almost all cases, a hung jury is seen as a win for the defense. The prosecution often decides not to go through the time and expense of another trial. The defense has seen the govt's case and would be better prepared. Etc, etc. But here? I think that, while Trump has benefited some from being in trial (mostly because it's really limited the amount of his typical lying out on the stump and the resulting negative press), I think it turns into a disadvantage as the election cycle gets closer and closer to Nov.

(How the public would view a second trial—other than the die-hards on both sides [and we all know how they both extremes will react to ANY Trump-related news]--I think will largely depend on what the vote breakdown is on this speculative hung jury. If it's, say, 10-2 or 11-1 in favor of conviction, then most people in the middle will see it as a legitimate retrial. But, if it's 1-11, in favor of acquittal, then it will be seen as bogus and a waste of time & money, and as unfair to Trump and his supporters. My opinion only.)

I haven't seen or heard any analysts talk about the effects of a hung jury or its aftermath. And this surprises me, as almost all commentators think that a hung jury is the likely result . . . or a very possible result, at the very least. (Although even Trump thinks he will be convicted, and is publicly announcing this; which is an interesting look.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They are going to convict him. Merchan (D) made sure of it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In real life, in almost all cases, a hung jury is seen as a win for the defense. The prosecution often decides not to go through the time and expense of another trial. The defense has seen the govt’s case and would be better prepared. Etc, etc. But here?

As I me mentioned last time you brought this up, this is at a minimum very overstated. In particular, getting to do a second trial is pretty much always seen as more helpful for the prosecution (part of why we have that whole double jeopardy rule).

(Although even Trump thinks he will be convicted, and is publicly announcing this; which is an interesting look.)

I’m not sure this demonstrates much in terms of his actual expectations versus a rare display of good judgment in managing expectations: laying out a “fix-is-in, victim-of-a-corrupt-framejob” narrative now can only help minimize any damage if he is convicted, and makes any better result look all the more impressive (“even with the system rigged against me that much, I still won!”).

[Commenter_XY]

The best result for the country is an acquittal. Followed by some self-reflection.

We (America) are a path that leads to a bad place, historically. It is not as bad the the 1964-75 time period, but it isn't too far off from that time, either.

A hung jury is a huge loss for the country and merely prolongs the agony.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Accountability is the best result for the country. If he's guilty, he should be convicted.

Suggesting otherwise demonstrates a lack of respect for the law, and a lack of morality.

[Kazinski]

I don't think the trials are factors anymore in Trump's popularity, they are already baked in.

Joe Biden is 95% of the reason Trump will win, from Politico:

Dems in full-blown ‘freakout’ over Biden

"A pervasive sense of fear has settled in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party over President Joe Biden’s reelection prospects, even among officeholders and strategists who had previously expressed confidence about the coming battle with Donald Trump.

All year, Democrats had been on a joyless and exhausting grind through the 2024 election. But now, nearly five months from the election, anxiety has morphed into palpable trepidation, according to more than a dozen party leaders and operatives. And the gap between what Democrats will say on TV or in print, and what they’ll text their friends, has only grown as worries have surged about Biden’s prospects.

“You don’t want to be that guy who is on the record saying we’re doomed, or the campaign’s bad or Biden’s making mistakes. Nobody wants to be that guy,” said a Democratic operative in close touch with the White House and granted anonymity to speak freely.

But Biden’s stubbornly poor polling and the stakes of the election “are creating the freakout,” he said."

And after that article the first polling in Virginia in 5 months came out, showing Biden and Trump tied. So that now leaves 6 states where Trump and Biden are within 3 points of each other: PA, MI, MN, WI, NH, VA, and possibly MN, and Biden has to win every single one of them, and that still won't be enough if Trump takes NE2, where he's ahead by 3 in the only poll.

[damikesc]

Odds Biden backs his dementia-addled ass out of the debates now?

[santamonica811]

Much much lower than the odds of Trump backing his stroke-addled ass out of the debates.

Biden, due to physical decline? Perhaps.
Trump, due to his own physical decline? Perhaps. Between 0-1% for each. Trump, because he's a cowardly piece of shit, who was so afraid in 2020 that he refused to participate in the second scheduled debate against Biden (I trust you've managed to forget that humiliating decision, yes?), and also was such a pussy that he refused to debate Republican challengers this year during the primaries? Odds of this--Trump dropping out due to a yellow streak on his back--about 5-10%.

[damikesc]

Yes, Trump --- the guy who can give 2 hour long speeches without a teleprompter --- is the problem. Not Joe Biden who required 5 takes to do a 13 second social media ad about the debates.

The President is an imbecile. He was an idiot when he was younger. He's much dumber now.

[Martinned2]

the guy who can give 2 hour long speeches without a teleprompter

I think a string of words requires a minimum level of coherence before it can be called a "speech". If you asked Biden to spend two hours saying random words, I'm sure he'd be able to do that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is there anything more embarrassing than that $500M Democrat Pentagon dock to nowhere that's showing up in pieces along Israeli beaches?

I bet Pentagon geniuses made sure the project's leadership hierarchy checked all the DIE boxes.

[OtisAH]

Yes. Living your life as a pathetic loser is far more embarrassing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If I really and truly was a pathetic loser, I'd be some famous Democrat or Pentagon general, or some other government muckity muck.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes - we also had four boats wash ashore.

"A landing craft and a warping tug were beached on the coast of Israel near Ashkelon on Saturday. According to the Times of Israel, the landing craft attempted to recover the tug after it broke free of its moorings."

This is the Mediterranean, not the North Atlantic, and it's May, not February. That's calm water by Maine standards. This is gross incompetence.

https://news.usni.org/2024/05/28/u-s-gaza-aid-pier-shut-down-after-damage-from-heavy-weather

[Bob from Ohio]

"showing up in pieces along Israeli beaches"

10 days is "temporary" so Biden didn't lie

Its ok, the Jews will fix it.

"@DepPentPressSec says that earlier today #Israel Defense Force engineers removed the anchor portion of the US pier from the #Gaza beach. "So as of this afternoon, all sections of the Trident pier has been relocated to the port of Ashdod for rebuilding and repairing."
2:35 PM · May 30, 2024" Carla Babb @CarlaBabbVOA

[Longtobefree]

Who could have possibly foresee (remember?) that eventuality?

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

[Michael Ejercito]

Start watching Glenn Greenwals at 34:00.

https://rumble.com/v4yaeyc-system-update-show-274.html

I do not remember news commentators talking about Taylor Swift or Rihanna like that!

[Nige]

No. Transcript, quote, or gtfo.

[Bwaaah]

Andrew Weissmann (prosecutor in Mueller investigation) regarding Judge Juan Merchan: "I am now...I like have a man crush on him."

[Nige]

Aw. He's in touch with his feelings.

[David Nieporent]

With respect to Trump's current trial, an ill-informed tweet by a Fox News person¹ caused MAGAland to think — and rant all over social media — that Merchan ruled that the jury need not be unanimous to convict Trump. That is completely incorrect, based on a common MAGAland misunderstanding of what the actual charge against Trump is and what its elements are.

Trump is charged only with falsifying business records, not any other crime. The elements of that charge are (a) that the records were in fact falsified; and (b) that this was done with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. Intent, not the other crime, is the latter element. Thus, the jury must (unanimously) find each of those two things: that the records were falsified, and that Trump possessed the requisite intent.

What the jury does not need to find unanimously, because it is not an element of a 175.10 charge, is what crime Trump was intending to aid, commit, or conceal. This is based on longstanding New York law, and is not some special "get Trump" rule as MAGA pretends to believe. The same principle applies to all analogous laws.² Burglary is a common example in NY. Burglary has as an element an intent to commit another crime. The jury must unanimously find such intent, but need not unanimously agree on what that other crime was.
​
​
​
¹He subsequently clarified it, but as is always true with respect to social media, the initial clickbait gets zillions of views and retweets and such, while the correction results in crickets chirping.

²Some MAGA people mindlessly cite to a U.S. Supreme Court case — Richardson — that they think forbids this. But they've never read the case; they're just repeating what they saw elsewhere. And that case was interpreting a specific federal law, not announcing a policy that juries must always be unanimous on non-elemental matters.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do those MAGA people include Jonathan Turley and Andy McCarthy?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what McCarthy said, but it absolutely includes Turley. To be clear, Turley isn't ideologically MAGA; he's just economically such. He'll say whatever gets him attention. (I would call him a whore, but I don't think that's quite right. He's not being paid by Trump to say the things he says; he's just saying whatever will get him clicks. If the winds shifted so that criticizing Trump was the way to bring attention to oneself, he'd be lining up to throw the first pie in Trump's face. But the criticizing-Trump field is crowded and so it's hard to stand out there, so he's on the defend Trump side.)

[Davedave]

Since MAGA is a grift, that would make Turley fully MAGA, surely?

[damikesc]

So, he's you except people care what he says, David?

[OtisAH]

Probably. They’re both pretty bad at what they do.

[tylertusta]

Welcome to social media, where a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can put its pants on.

If there's something all sides can agree on, it's that.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the Kafkaesque component to it all = The jury does not need to agree on what other crime POTUS Trump was intending to commit

[David Nieporent]

1) Once again, Trump intending to commit a crime isn't even an accurate description of the law. It's intend to commit, aid, or conceal anybody's commission of a crime.
2) That is not in fact Kafkaesque.
3) Yes, and as I explained, that's perfectly normal. If they wanted to prosecute him for that other offense, then the jury would need to agree.

[Commenter_XY]

David, we have a difference of opinion. I mean, the law is the law as written. I do not dispute that. Loki13 linked to an article last week I think that laid out the case nicely. The jury can convict POTUS Trump merely on their belief he intended some crime, not that he actually committed a crime or was convicted (or fined civilly) of a crime, mind you, but belief of intent.

I am certain that this unbiased NYC jury will impartially and accurately judge intent. I know you are certain of that too. Hopefully, the jury will indicate what crime they believe POTUS Trump intended to commit when the guilty verdict is announced. I do not think that is a requirement, though.

[jb]

"I am certain that this unbiased NYC jury will impartially and accurately judge intent. I know you are certain of that too. Hopefully, the jury will indicate what crime they believe POTUS Trump intended to commit when the guilty verdict is announced. I do not think that is a requirement, though."

Is it even a possibility? Does the jury get to do anything but answer the questions on the jury form?

Theoretically if they gave interviews after the fact we might learn more about their thinking in an unofficial context.

[Bored Lawyer]

The intent point works in both directions, though. Whatever Trump intended to aid or conceal has to (a) actually be a crime and (b) he believed it WAS a crime.

(a) is relevant because an NDA by itself is not a crime.

(b) is relevant because it is debatable whether what Cohen did was an election law violation. The head of the FEC opined in writing it was not.

[Sarcastr0]

Did the defense argue any of that?

They mostly seemed to be arguing against the alleged facts and credibility of the witnesses. Probably at their client's insistence.

[Bored Lawyer]

Can't say what they argued. Trump's attorneys in general have not impressed me with their competence.

Point is, if the prosecution theory is that Trump was trying to cover up something that may or may not be a crime, I have a hard time seeing how you one can convict.

[jb]

It's up to the jury to decide whether they think that there was a separate crime. Lots of things may or may not be a crime depending on circumstances.

[Bored Lawyer]

No. It's not up to the jury. It's a question of law.

[Josh R]

The jury applies the facts to the law, with the latter explained by the judge. The jury had to conclude there was an intent to commit an object crime in order to convict.

[Commenter_XY]

The defense was not permitted to call their desired witness to discuss election law. Judge Merchan did not allow that testimony.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Unsurprisingly, that's a lie.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/20/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/judge-limits-trumps-expert-00158857

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Where'd you go buddy? You had plenty of stupid shit to say about Ukraine, but can't admit that you lied about this?

I'm shocked!

[Sarcastr0]

if the prosecution theory is that Trump was trying to cover up something that may or may not be a crime

I don't think that burden is on the prosecution at default.
The jury can always think otherwise, but unless there's an attempted rebuttal, the prosecution can just move along with a bare citation.

[damikesc]

"Did the defense argue any of that?"

Well, Merchan blocked their FEC expert witness.

[David Nieporent]

He did not. He merely blocked their attempt to have their FEC expert witness explain the law to the jury. It is a well-settled principle that judges, not experts, instruct the jury on the law.

[damikesc]

Blocking an expert from offering expert testimony is blocking the witness.

Shame the judge could not risk getting actual information from somebody who knew what the hell they are talking about.

[David Nieporent]

He didn't block the witness from offering expert testimony. Smith was not forbidden from testifying. He was just forbidden from testifying as to his opinion of the law, which is not permissible expert testimony in any context.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"but need not unanimously agree on what that other crime was."

Has SCOTUS ever upheld that?

[not guilty]

State courts' construction of a state statute is not a federal question reviewable by SCOTUS.

[tylertusta]

However, whether that construction is constitutional is reviewable.

[not guilty]

What would the potential federal constitutional infirmity be?

[tylertusta]

One possibility is what I wrote about below:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/30/thursday-open-thread-193/?comments=true#comment-10582743

[David Nieporent]

Not for this specific statute, but absolutely. In fact, in 1999 SCOTUS called it a "long-established rule of the criminal law."

[Dr. Ed 2]

citation?

[Magister]

I had little trouble finding the court saying "Our cases reflect a long-established rule of the criminal law that an indictment need not specify which overt act, among several named, was the means by which a crime was committed." in Schad v. Arizona (1991, so David Nieporent may be referencing another case with a more specific holding). It goes on to state that "We have never suggested that, in returning general verdicts in such cases, the jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify one alone."

[David Nieporent]

I was indeed quoting Schad, but you’re right that I miscited the year. I had a couple of browser tabs open and looked at the wrong one when typing that. It was 1991; a case that cited Schad was in 1999.

[tylertusta]

The jury must unanimously find such intent, but need not unanimously agree on what that other crime was.

NY might find this interpretation of its statute at odds with the 5th Amendment should this go to SCOTUS.

Federal Courts don’t operate this way on all cases. For example, jury instructions for federal conspiracy cases actually require agreement on the particular crimes that they agreed to commit. Here’s the model jury instructions (emphasis mine):

For a conspiracy to have existed, it is not necessary that the conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough, however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find that there was a plan to commit at least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an object of the conspiracy with all of you agreeing as to the particular crime which the conspirators agreed to commit.

As one knowledgeable person put it, burglary is malum in se, while the records offense is not, so the standard should arguably be higher.

Furthermore, Merchan has built a branch here with the tenuous connection of the offenses. If Merchan's is wrong in one of his views of the crimes that Trump is alleged to have intended to conceal/commit, then the whole thing could end up being tossed.

For example, if Merchan is later wrong about an intent to violate FECA instruction, then the whole conviction might have to be tossed because the appellate judges won't know which predicate crime was actually relied upon.

[Josh R]

I think Merchan's instructions may make it harder to appeal the veridct under Schad, but still can be appealed if he got the law wrong on FECA.

The instructions did not say the jury can consider more than one object crime. The only object crime was NY 171-52, which proscribes promoting the election of a person by unlawful means. The possible unlawful means were FECA, tax law violations and falsifying other business records.

Schad held that jury unanimty is not required on the means of a crime, with the caveat that the differences in the means must not be so important that they need to be treated as separate offenses rather than alternatives to a common end. If there were separate object crimes, it might make it easier on appeal to argue they are not alternatives to a common end. But with the common end being intent to commit 17-152, they are more likely to stand up as means.

Yet since we cannot know which means the jury relied on, if any of the law governing any one of the means was wrong, the verdict could be vacated.

[tylertusta]

Yet since we cannot know which means the jury relied on, if any of the law governing any one of the means was wrong, the verdict could be vacated.

Completely agreed. The government won't have any wiggle room to argue that any jury instruction error is harmless- the branch that Merchan built will be sawwed off and the convictions tossed.

[not guilty]

Senator J. D. Vance has written a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland calling for a criminal investigation of Justice Juan Merchan for his conduct of the trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan, suggesting that Merchan has violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Merchan-Investigation-Letter-5.29.2024.pdf

Among other things, Vance complains of Merchan’s issuance of a gag order upon Trump, his refusal to dismiss prospective jurors during voir dire, admission and exclusion of evidence at trial, and restriction of defense lawyers’ argument. Vance contends that prosecutors in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg—from Christopher Conroy to Matthew Colangelo to Bragg himself—have also shown themselves to be plausible coconspirators.

This is shameless grandstanding. Decisional law construing §§ 241 and 242 has held that criminal liability under these statutes requires fair warning to prospective defendants may be imposed for deprivation of a constitutional right if, but only if, in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness under the Constitution is apparent, United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271-272 (1997).

Nothing in the application of §§ 241 and 242 would put a state trial court judge on notice that routine, discretionary judicial decisions made during the course of a criminal trial would give rise to criminal liability. I suspect that J. D. Vance is auditioning here for consideration as Donald Trump’s running mate.

[Balisane]

Merchan should be stripped of his citizenship and deported to Colombia. His father was probably a member of FARC, so not a huge surprise that criminality runs in the family.

Also, it should be noted for the record that he went to the garbage law school, Hofstra, which means that he probably got a 152 on his LSAT, and is borderline retarded.

[Frank Drackman]

Trying to remember last time anyone asked my MCAT scores (top 10% of a group that’s in the top 10% to start with, you think I got in because of my charming personality?) let’s see, never ( Med Schools got them direct from the MCAT crooks)

Frank

[MoreCurious]

Dear Frank: Do you think anyone who follows the VC believes you had high MCAT scores? Actually, let me re-phrase that: Do you think anyone who follows the VC believes you even attended college, much less medical school?

[Bob from Ohio]

"shameless grandstanding"

From a politician? The deuce you say!

[hobie]

Ah, J.D. Vance. Served proudly in the Public Affairs office of the USMC, Yale lawyer, author, venture capitalist, Never-Trumper, Always-Trumper, politician, human windsock. To further diversify ala Justin Bieber, will he have his own fragrance line soon? But, yeah, whatever J.D. says should be quite credible

[Frank Drackman]

What combat zone did you serve in Fuckface?

[Kazinski]

That'll be as effective as Schumer and Durbin's is letter to Roberts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Moved

[Martinned2]

I know there are one or two people here who claim that it's too difficult for candidates to run as independents or 3rd party candidates. But clearly it isn't that difficult, if Bob Menendez can get on the ballot.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-bob-menendez-signatures-run-independent-bribery-trial-rcna154656

[Mr. Bumble]

Well he only needs 800 signatures, so there's that.

[David Nieporent]

And he's also the incumbent.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you meant inscumbent.

[ducksalad]

Considering how long he's been in public office and the scale of his corruption, there are at least 800 people in New Jersey he could threaten to expose if they don't sign.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob 'Sticky Fingers' Menendez is throwing his own wife under the bus. What kind of guy tosses his wife under the 'legal' bus?

I am all in for 'Sticky Fingers'. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Bob "The Torch" Torricelli, except it was his girlfriend not his wife when he got stopped for drunk driving.

[hobie]

After reading some of the testimony, I must say the wife was heavily involved...in the least

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ted Cruz. Sam Alito.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hot off the digital presses:
Supreme Court holds NRA has plausibly pleaded a First Amendment violation when NY authorities threatened regulated industries.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf

Unanimous decision. Written by Sotamayor. (Two concurrences)

Have not yet read the opinion. But any attempt to spin this as a right-wing hack job should be met with derision.

[Bwaaah]

"Held: The NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy."

[Martinned2]

Glad to hear that the magic post-9/11 pleading standard of Iqbal is being rowed back a bit.

[Bored Lawyer]

What are you talking about? They applied Iqbal to this very case.

[Martinned2]

Sorry, should have read past the first line.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing about this decision in any way walks back Iqbal. Iqbal merely stands for the proposition that one has to plead facts rather than legal conclusions. That wasn't at issue here.

[Martinned2]

Well, it also stands for the proposition that it's OK for the authorities to torture a Pakistani-American man a bit, as long as the nation is really, really upset.

[loki13]

You might not like that case, but Iqbal/Twombly is much better than the old standard (Conley v. Gibson).

[David Nieporent]

Good ol' "no set of facts."

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/05/aclu-on-nra-v-vullo/

You get the NRA and ACLU on the same side...Yeah the 2A messed up seems like.

[Sarcastr0]

2C.

[Longtobefree]

Easy call, because there will never be consequences.
QI and all that jazz - - - - - - - - - -

[Frank Drackman]

Just breaking on Drudge,
!!!!!!!!!!!!TRUMP INNOCENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let the head exploding begin

Frank

[Michael P]

Link?

[Mr. Bumble]

Chain yank.

[Bwaaah]

I felt it, and ran to check. It was a fun what-if moment.

Giving Drackman some credit, that may be as close as I'll ever get to that feeling.

[Frank Drackman]

WWW. DeezNutz/blowme

[Michael P]

Question for a friend: Is it still red-baiting to call people commies when they self-identify as reds? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/3017886/democrat-rick-krajewski-tipped-off-anti-israel-encampment-protesters/

[Sarcastr0]

"The term “Reds” apparently refers to the subgroup of UPenn anti-Israel protesters who do not care if they get arrested, one of the students explained to the Washington Examiner. There are also “Greens” and “Yellows.” These distinctions have reportedly been used by various groups in the past."

So yeah, it is still red-baiting. Don't be cute.

[Frank Drackman]

Call them what they are, Terrorists.

[hobie]

The lines are starting to blur as to which party is more pro-communist

[Ed Grinberg]

How so?

[shawn_dude]

Don't the Republicans refer to themselves as "red" as in "red state?"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only in the US could the obvious historical association of communism with the color red be so utterly and completely ignored.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alito had an opinion announcement today, but it was nothing too significant. It involved a habeas claim and the liberals briefly dissented. Jackson continues her stronger voice in some cases:

“I agree with JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR that we are not the right tribunal to parse the extensive factual record in this case in the first instance. That is doubly true where the Ninth Circuit committed no legal error in reviewing that record to begin with.”

The “factual record” comment might have aided force after the controversy over Alito’s parsing of the record in the racial discrimination case last week.

[Joe_dallas]

Gaza
It is now becoming clear—based on investigations by both the media and the IDF—that the fire that killed Palestinian civilians in Rafah was caused by weapons stored by Hamas next to a UN shelter and not by the Israeli munitions.

[Frank Drackman]

What are you, a Zionist International Hey-Zeus killer?

[Moderation4ever]

Got a citation for this or just pulling it out of the air?

[ThePublius]

Read the news. The IDF and Israeli government are investigating, and making a compelling case that two 17kg bombs couldn't have cause a fire like that. But, then, you could believe the Palestinian Health Ministry if you like, or perhaps, UNRWA. Ha, ha.

[Nige]

But... you believe the IDF and the Israeli government?

[Commenter_XY]

I believe Israel more than I do Hamas. Unlike you.

[Nige]

Yes, but you think everything you don't like is Hamas.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe that the IDF used small targeted munitions. What I not sure about is the calm that Hamas had a munitions dump nearby. Any number of things might have exploded and burned, like stored fuel. This is why the IDF needs to be doubly careful and why this strike seems to be poorly thought out.

[Joe_dallas]

Typical pro hamas
Israel is to blame for hamas starting a war
Israel is to blame for hamas using civilians for human shields
Israel is to blame for placing ammo dumps in civilian neighborhoods

Israel is the most heavily integrated country in the middle east - yet they are called the aparthied state

[Nige]

Pretty sure Israel is to blame when Israel shells a refugee camp 'safe zone.'

[David Nieporent]

This was outside the safe zone!

[Nige]

Oh, mixing incidents, sorry.

[Davedave]

But you're pretty sure Israel is to blame for every single thing in the world you object to, so who gives a fuck? It only says something about you, not Israel.

[Nige]

Are you really this stupid? If I call you stupid do you think I'm blaming Israel for you being stupid? Is your stupidity proof that I'm calling for a new Holocaust?

[Joe_dallas]

Israel did not shell a refuge camp safe zone. Facts do matter - except to nige

[Nige]

https://www.ft.com/content/eeb22b28-cbb2-443b-83ef-588b3254772d

[Moderation4ever]

Again, do you have proof it was an ammunitions stockpile?

[Harvey Mosley]

If Hamas said it wasn't an ammo stockpile that is proof that it was.

[Joe_dallas]

any other explanation for multiple explosions from a single shot from the IDF

[Frank Drackman]

Divine Intervention

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The GBU-39 is a 250lb bomb, and the effective fragmentation range of a high explosive bomb is usually up to approximately 3000', regardless of bomb size. (This value is different than the lethal fragmentation radius.) About half of a GP bomb's explosive content is used up inside the weapon to create overpressure to turn the casing into shrapnel, the other half becomes the blast effect.

One clue that you're probably being fed bullshit by the IDF is the fact they're trying to refer to the bomb size by it's explosive payload. Nobody does that.

A Mk. 82 is not an "87kg bomb," it is a 500lb bomb. A Mk. 84 is not an "429kg bomb," it is a 2000lb bomb.

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

3000 feet? Says who? You're a fucking idiot. The thing can barely take out a HMMV.

https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/News/Video/mod/61713/player/0/GBU-39/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your inability to understand the words I use is not my problem.

Had you not been kicked out of the Marines, you might have learned the difference between effective fragmentation range and lethal fragmentation range.

Hint: One of them refers to the distance at which fragments still carry enough kinetic energy to be (wait for it) effective, even if one is statistically unlikely to be actually hit by those fragments. The other is the radius where exposed personnel are expected to die.

Poor baby!

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

http://characterisationexplosiveweapons.org/studies/annex-e-mk82-aircraft-bombs/

10% incapacitation at 250m, 0.1% at 425m, and that's the 500lb Mk 82.

Go be a Hamas-Nazi somewhere else, moron

[Frank Drackman]

Should be a time limit on Jury Deliberations, took less time than this to Acquit OJ

Frank “Would you give OJs wife a foot massage?(I wouldn’t, and anyone who did would only do it once)

[Moderation4ever]

In fact, the jury came back pretty quick. As is the rule of thumb the quick verdict was for conviction.

[Frank Drackman]

Just Breaking on USA Today

!!!!!!!!!! THE DONALD WALKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Must have been an early addition, I read that Trump asked to change his plea to guilty and Judge Merchan accepted.

[F.D. Wolf]

If there is a Trump supporter on that jury, he will never vote to convict. That leaves the question of whether Judge Merchan would try to replace any holdout with an alternate juror, which would violate New York law, but he seems to have little regard for that.

[Kazinski]

By my math there is a 72% chance of one Trump supporter on the jury.

If Manhattan is 90-10 Democratic, then there is a 90% chance each individual juror is anti Trump so .9^12 = 28.2% chance all are Democrats.

[John F. Carr]

That's if that jury matches the adult or voting adult population. The jury selection process is likely to skew the numbers. Jurors must be able to take a month off work. Retirees are good. If jurors have something else important to do with their time they must be able to take a month off that. They must appear unbiased during jury selection. If I had to guess, the jury is closer to average because the strong partisans on both sides have been weeded out.

[jb]

The NYT had a feature right after the jury was empaneled that had some interesting information about them. It turns out Juror 2 exclusively uses X and Truth Social to get their news (or at least none of the other media sources listed, including all of the usual suspects in both the mainstream media as well as more conservative outlets like Fox News). Juror 1 seems to get a good mix, including both Fox News and the NYT.

So I think it's pretty likely there's a Trump supporter on the jury. I'm a bit more optimistic than the conservative commentariat about our civic institutions and think that the jury is going to take their mission seriously and not just decide based on political convictions, but this is also why I said that a hung jury is the most likely outcome in the Monday Open Thread.

[loki13]

Jury dynamics are a weird thing.

While I am not a huge fan of juries, I do believe that the majority of juries do their best in aggregate, and take their civic responsibility very seriously.

[Moderation4ever]

Don't you mean that if there is a Trump cultist. A Trump supporter who accepts that Trump is a scumball but like his policies could be overwhelmed by the evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

What has the judge done in violation of NY law?

[loki13]

"That leaves the question of whether Judge Merchan would try to replace any holdout with an alternate juror, which would violate New York law, but he seems to have little regard for that."

While criminal law isn't my thing, based on what I've seen, and the written documents, Judge Merchan has been scrupulous in terms of following the applicable law.

As a general rule, it's best not to make bizarre and spurious accusations.

[shawn_dude]

Convicted on all 34 felony charges in 9.5 hours of deliberation.

Moot point now.

[F.D. Wolf]

Chicago woman who, while naked, stole police officer's squad car, put it in reverse, and ran him over, found not guilty by reason of insanity. While the case was pending, the city hired her as an accountant.

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/whitley-temple-acquitted-insanity-defense-police-officer-dragged-stolen-squad-car/

[John F. Carr]

She should have gone to work for Crazy Eddie ("his prices are insane!") but alas too late.

[Bored Lawyer]

Kafka is jealous.

[Moderation4ever]

They also fired her before the trial. This is silly, the woman likely was having a psychotic episode at the time of the crime. She could appear quite normal when she not having an episode and hiring her does not seem unreasonable if she had the qualifications.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She appeared to be wearing pants:

https://cwbchicago.com/2024/05/not-guilty-woman-who-stole-squad-car-and-backed-over-a-chicago-cop-was-insane-judge-rules.html

You can also see why she was hired -- and fired in March

[Sarcastr0]

We need more accountants who know how to have fun.

[shawn_dude]

Accountancy self-selects "fun" out of students at the freshman level.

[Krayt]

[Frank Drackman]

Curiouser and Curiouser….,
The “Illegal Alien shot by Army Soldier in NC”
Turns out to be a Chechen, just incidentally taking photos of a Special Forces Colonels home….
Oh yes, with 2 Confedetates(not race-ist, it’s an actual word) also Chechens

Frank “nothing to see folks, just Arabs learning to fly Airliners”

[Krayt]

A few years back, NY did some regulation by raised eyebrow, pondering loudly banks losing government business if they, disreputatedlytastically, continued to do business with gun makers.

The SC just ruled unanymously they could not do that, and the NRA’s lawsuit against the officials can procede, hopefully until they wear a barrel.

Apparently it was more than just pondering. From the CNN article (on front page)
At the center of the dispute was a meeting Vullo had with insurance market Lloyd’s of London in 2018 in which the NRA claims she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with the campaign against gun groups.

This was a First Amendment case, by the way, aided by the ACLU, making you all card-carrying members of the ACLU, just like Rush Limbaugh, who had their help when people wanted to dig through his medical records to see if his deeeefness was caused by too much Oxycontin.

[David Nieporent]

The SC just ruled unanymously they could not do that,

The SC just ruled unanimously that the NRA's case could go forward; it was not a ruling on the merits of the case.

[loki13]

As a believer in the First Amendment, I supported the NRA's position on this.

Again, the FA (despite Alito) does not exist to protect the speech we like. In fact, the core protection of the FA is to protect the speech we do not like- the speech that offends, provokes, and shocks, and is likely to lead to government action against it.

[Harvey Mosley]

The law of unintended consequences has struck in California. The state's ban on single use plastic bags has resulted in more plastic going to landfills because the public is treating the reinforced (thicker) reusable bags as disposable ones. Next step: ban all plastic bags in stores.

I want to assume that this was the intent all along but there is no way that my lords and masters in Sacramento are that smart.
As Hanlon says, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[Davedave]

It's easy enough to solve: raise the price of plastic bags. Everywhere else has managed to make it work, so it clearly isn't that hard to get right.

I would note that in any case the policy isn't about reducing plastic use, it's about reducing non-biodegradable litter. In that respect it has very noticeably worked here in the UK, and in many other countries. Most people, most of the time, are using proper re-usable shopping bags. There aren't carrier bags blowing about all over the place now. (Also, I've found it quite surprising how useful having a bunch of decently strong, large bags around the house has turned out to be.)

[shawn_dude]

I don't understand the "unintended consequences" here. The only difference between single use and "reusable" was additional plastic. If the goal is to avoid plastic going into landfills, the solution could only be to ban plastic bags. Cloth bags made from recycled plastic work just as well and people generally don't throw those away. This is largely a nothingburger except to say that California should have just banned plastic bags from the start rather than try to create a compromise.

[Frank Drackman]

Those Cloth Condoms work really well.

[loki13]

I am dropping in to make this remark. The other day, ThePublius and I had a very pleasant conversation about, inter alia, the joys of good sausage (the food, no hidden meaning there) and how wonderful New Orleans is.

I think that a lot of us get caught up in ideas about “the other,” especially on the internet (whether it’s the left, or the right, or whatever). Part of this is because of the increased nationalization of political issues, and part of this is because people often treat politics as a sports event, rooting for their own team and against the other.

But while there can be real and distinct policy differences that separate people, I still find that when it comes to other issues- the vast majority of Americans can find common ground. In addition, once you strip away the overheated rhetoric and angry language of the internet, it helps to remember that most people want what’s best for the country, even if they disagree on how it should be done.

Except for Yankees fans, of course. They suck.

Anyway, I truly hope for that at some point, politics becomes boring enough that we don’t have to argue about it incessantly. Life is too short.

[Don Nico]

"Except for Yankees fans, of course. They suck. "
Whoa, whoa, whoa! It's the Red Sox fans who suck.

[loki13]

"What are y'all saying? Both Red Sox and Yankees fans suck!"

-Love, everyone else in the country outside of New York and Boston.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We're in the early throes of a Neo-Marxist revolution.

It's going to be a generation before we return to normal, where Leftists are ashamed of their murderous, villainous, and evil beliefs.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL this antisemite guy is all 'NO! You will NEVAR humanize me!'

I'm like 90% in the real world he's like aggressively normal.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Haha yeah, Marxism is just being human!

haha yeah, good contribution ScarpaciO

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, loki was talking about talking about sausage and relating to people in ways other than partisan politics.

You came in hot with some neo-Marxist schtick basically to reject that.

It's all quite performative.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Another great Kibitz, from the thoughtful and revered Scrapsticr0

[Balisane]

Nonsense. Non-whites largely don't want what's best for this country. They want what's best for their race.

[loki13]

Wow. Okay, blocked. I have better things to do than read this nonsense.

[Frank Drackman]

Truth is painful

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're a bigot, Frank . . . and the reason guys like Prof. Kerr, Prof. Somin, and Prof. Post don't get to wave of their association with this white, male, right-wing blog by pretending there is nothing wrong with being part of a bigot-magnet flaming shitstorm. Their failure to address the everyday bigotry at their blog is shameful. Every day.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. I thought for sure the sausage would pull the right strings.

Don't despair. There's still a lot of humor in the world, and in the U.S. in particular. Your point was dead-on. Just unlucky timing...too many cockroaches in the room.

I have a prediction: there will be little or no political violence in the U.S. over then next 24 hours. And even if there's a nutter or three, there's 350 million others who will carry on, almost all quite respectfully despite great political differences. That's a fantastic fact, and an indication that though politics in the U.S. may be loud, it's still more noise than substance. Just look out a window and behold your local truth. It's pretty freakin' stable, and it's springtime.

This is not to glaze over the great personal challenges that so many people face. But with few exceptions, those challenges are only distantly connected to politics, if connected at all.

May god bless you all (even though I don't believe in god). That includes those of you whose positions I can't stand. This is as much your place as it is mine.

[loki13]

Well said, Bwaah.

I have found that I get along with a lot of people whose politics I don't share in real life. Because there is so much that fundamentally unites us. And yes, it's summer. We should be out and enjoying the weather!!!!!

[Harvey Mosley]

100% agree. The Yankees and their fans are the worst.

[Don Nico]

Inflation as seen at Stanford:
"Under the new budget, tuition rates will increase by 5% for undergraduates and 4% for most graduate programs. Room and board will increase by 7%."
Stanford Daily News

[Frank Drackman]

Well its expensive flying all those sports teams cross country

[Nelson]

Donald Trump found guilty on all 34 counts.

[Michael P]

Escape From New York was not meant as an instruction manual, Manhattan.

[shawn_dude]

Like NY actually wants him there?!

[Balisane]

New York doesn't want any white men unless they're Jews or homosexuals.

[Frank Drackman]

Technically (not even "Technically" Iran is the origin of the work "Aryan") A-rabs are White.

[Balisane]

What else did you expect from a kangaroo trial? Hopefully, when Trump is reelected and takes office, he orders the USAF to detonate a nuclear warhead in the middle of midtown Manhattan. How funny would that be? Within a few weeks, 10 million savage and "diverse" New York liberals would be dying of radiation poisoning. LOL!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Typical violent fantasies from the right. Any right wingers want to call out these homicidal maniacs or do you accept them as your people?

[Balisane]

It would be just as funny if Trump did the same to your area of Virginia.

Virginia is a proud state of patriots, except for NOVA which is filled with lazy government bureaucrats and parasitic non-European immigrants.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Mass murder is always hilarious! Mao was a comedic genius. Stalin too!

[Balisane]

It's not murder if it's during war. Do you consider America to have murdered 100k Japanese in August of 1945?

[NOVA Lawyer]

A lovely example of a non sequitur. Kudos to you!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There's that famous interview with that one Spanish dude:

"How does it feel to kill so many people?"

...

"I don't know, I've only killed communists".

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No one expected any different.

I expect that Merchan (D) will find some way to elevate the charges and go over the max 4 year term.

[Balisane]

Merchan should be removed from this country along with his 50 million fellow spics that have been squatting in a land that's not theirs.

[Nige]

'No one expected any different.'

You were so sure he was guilty!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I was 100% positive that a Democrat judge, a Democrat prosecutor, and a bunch of Democrats on a jury will find a political opponent guilty no matter what.

That's just how things work in shithole 3rd world Democrat countries.

[Nige]

You knew he was guilty!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I knew he was going to be found guilty by Democrats. Yes. Nige. I did know that.

[Nige]

You knew he was guilty!

[SRG2]

If the activities he was accused of were crimes, there's no doubt he was guilty.

[Frank Drackman]

we're not talking about Hunter

[Michael P]

The activities he was accused of were legal.

[SRG2]

Let's see how the appeals fare. But you agree that he did actually perform those activities, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Hunter Biden lied on his Form 4473, a Felony people have actually been prosecuted for previously.

[Michael P]

I said "accused of", you illiterate troll.

[Frank Drackman]

Get the guy who uses indefinite pronouns call someone illiterate.

[SRG2]

I am neither illiterate nor a troll. Your original defence of Trump's position was limited to whether the activities were criminal - not that he didn't perform them. Had you thought then that he didn't perform them, you would have said so.

And later, your pro-Trump zealotry required a ridiculous response from you, you Fifth Avenuer.

[Commenter_XY]

I am ashamed for our country.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I am ashamed too that we have such a disgraced former president who stands a chance of returning to office despite all the disqualifying things he's done. Trump is the misconceived experiment in electing a blowhard, shady salesman with no relevant experience to the most powerful office in the land.

The damage he has done to our international reputation and our internal politics is incalculable.

[Bwaaah]

Incalculable! It's like the worst ever!

[Nige]

Well, you're going to vote for him, so it's actually what you want!

[bernard11]

Why? Because a criminal was convicted?

[OtisAH]

You should redirect that shame inwards considering your stated support for corrupt politicians such as Convicted Felon Trump and Bob “Sticky Fingers” Menendez. You won’t, but you should seriously consider it. Jackass.

[MoreCurious]

Removed as duplicative.

[not guilty]

The jury has found Donald Trump guilty as charged on all 34 counts!! https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/30/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/jury-returns-00160779

As Groucho Marx observed, time wounds all heels.

[Frank Drackman]

As Stalin said, Revenge is a Dish best served Cold.

[Jmaie]

Now we know why Florida adopted Amendment 4 back in 2018. Foresight!

[Nelson]

As a convicted felon, can Donald Trump vote?

[NOVA Lawyer]

From a quick look, his right to vote in the case of a New York conviction is governed by New York law (I think that is pursuant to Florida law) and New York does not prohibit felons from voting unless they are incarcerated.

So, yes, I believe the answer is he will be able to vote in November except in the very unlikely event he is sent to prison and remains in prison on election day.

https://www.aclufl.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/florida_voting_rights_amendment_4_one_pager_august_2022_final.pdf

("If you were convicted outside Florida, your voting rights are governed by the state where you were convicted.")

https://www.nyclu.org/resources/know-your-rights/voting-criminal-record

("n New York, you CAN vote with a criminal record if you: ...are on parole; or are on probation; or were not sentenced to prison or had your prison sentence suspended;...")

[Frank Drackman]

Where do you think Judge Frito Bandito is going to send "45"?, Stupido.

Frank

[NOVA Lawyer]

Probation.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No way. Merchin (D) is going to imprison him.

[Frank Drackman]

Really? the Double-Secret kind??

[not guilty]

For a typical defendant with no prior convictions, the punishment for a low grade felony is usually probation. That having been said, it was unwise for Donald Trump and his counsel to go out of their way to piss off the judge who will now sentence him.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There is no benefit to a prison sentence. It will have to be self-report due to safety and secret service logistics. No way is he remanded immediately. (And that’s also the norm for white collar stuff) Appeals division is going to get a stay request/post an appellate bond to remain out pending. If he’s re-elected then I think they’ll have to release him, for federalism reasons. I can imagine a federal court issuing a writ on that basis. Also if he loses it matters much less what he does. So to avoid all that: probation is the best option from a practical and political standpoint in addition to all the legal/philosophical reasons it’s the most appropriate sentence .

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump will be sentenced to prison, NG.

[not guilty]

I don't expect a prison sentence in New York, although it would not surprise me. It is unlikely to happen, but Trump could help himself at sentencing with a contrite and remorseful allocution. He could craft it carefully so as to avoid expressly admitting the offending conduct, but a show of respect for the jury verdict and the judicial process would be beneficial at sentencing.

An outright apology for the gag order violations would be helpful as well.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. Donald Trump has to just bow down to his enemies.

I wish I could characterize it as showing respect for the system. But it would be respect for the people who are taking him down.

I don’t see it. I wouldn’t recommend it. To come this far and just fall in line? Donald Trump? Sounds to me like that’d be pretty self-destructive.

Sounds like good legal advice. But probably lousy political advice.

[Josh R]

It's not about politics. Contrition and remorse are not part of Trump’s DNA. Trump’s defintion of “rigged”: anything that goes against him.

[Nige]

Oh he should definitely viciously attack the Judge's daughter some more. That might help.

[bernard11]

POTUS Trump will be sentenced to prison, NG.

Who is this Potus Trump of whom you speak?

[OtisAH]

He lives in Florida. Has for a few years now. It was in all the papers. New York’s election rules do not apply to Convicted Felon Trump unless he moves back there.

[Martinned2]

Does Florida allow people to vote if they've been convicted of a felony in another state? This summary doesn't suggest that it matters where you were convicted: https://www.usvotefoundation.org/voting-rights-restoration/florida

[David Nieporent]

Actually, that's wrong. I had assumed that was the case also, but it's not. Florida law says that the laws of the state of conviction determine one's voting rights in Florida. Since New York would not make Trump ineligible to vote — except while incarcerated (which seems unlikely) — Florida won't either.

[OtisAH]

Good note!

[Martinned2]

Florida consolidated statutes 97.041:

97.041 Qualifications to register or vote.—
(1)(a) A person may become a registered voter only if that person:
1. Is at least 18 years of age;
2. Is a citizen of the United States;
3. Is a legal resident of the State of Florida;
4. Is a legal resident of the county in which that person seeks to be registered; and
5. Registers pursuant to the Florida Election Code.
(b) A person who is otherwise qualified may preregister on or after that person’s 16th birthday and may vote in any election occurring on or after that person’s 18th birthday.
(2) The following persons, who might be otherwise qualified, are not entitled to register or vote:
(a) A person who has been adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting in this or any other state and who has not had his or her right to vote restored pursuant to law.
(b) A person who has been convicted of any felony by any court of record and who has not had his or her right to vote restored pursuant to law.
(3) A person who is not registered may not vote.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0097/Sections/0097.041.html

I guess if the state of New York doesn't take away Trump's right to vote in the first place, he's had it "restored pursuant to law", but it's not great drafting.

[Frank Drackman]

As a confirmed Idiot, you can, unfortunately.

[loki13]

Welp. I will say this- I think that the defense made two unforced errors that were big in the trial.

The first was their witness.
The second was their closing. They had a lot of good arguments that they could have made, but didn't. It seemed (from what I have been able to put together from multiple sources) that the closing was focused more on pleasing the client that getting at specific holes in the prosecution's case that they could exploit.

While there will be appellate issues, of course, the prosecution did a good job presenting its case. Finally, while Cohen was attacked (and the defense scored some good hits), the issue that the defense had was that his testimony was corroborated, and more importantly, as the prosecution noted during closing- this was Trump's guy. This was the person he was paying "legal fees" to. So the attacks on Cohen ended up impugning not just Cohen, but Trump as well.

Next will be sentencing. I think most people believe that Trump won't be sentenced to prison. It will be fascinating to see what happens next.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did you not hear about all the restrictions the judge put on the defense?

Marchin (D) is going to sentence Trump above the legal maximum. They'll find some novel workaround that people like not guilty will trumpet as brilliant legal reading and totally normal and constitutional.

[Moderation4ever]

"Did you not hear about all the restrictions the judge put on the defense?"

Like what? Or better yet what did the judge do that was different than any other case?

[Frank Drackman]

Gag rule on the Defendant for one, you stupid fuck

[loki13]

This may surprise you, but rules like this that bind the parties are commonplace.

What is unusual is that Merchan allowed Trump a lot of play .... had Trump been Joe Sickpack, doing the same things during his trial, he would likely faced more serious consequences for the repeated violations.

Put more simply- there are rules. Trump was actually allowed far more than you or I would have gotten away with. And yet ... it's somehow seen as Trump being the one treated unfairly.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Gag rules also help the defendant if they follow them tbh.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Play like when the prosecution was allowed to say repeatedly that Trump's actions were felonies, but then the Judge forbade the defense from countering the claims?

Is that giving Trump alot of play?

[not guilty]

The defense could have requested that the jury be instructed as to the lesser included misdemeanor of falsifying business records in the second degree, which would have enabled defense counsel to dispute the felonious nature of the prosecution claims. Instead, the defense took an all or nothing approach.

[M L]

I hear you, but . . . Had Trump been Joe "Sickpack" . . . or a Democrat politician, or another Republican politician, or really anyone else on Earth - these charges would have never been brought or dreamed up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

But he also wouldn’t have been in a position to do the charged acts if he was someone else. Joe Six Pack also isn’t getting charged with gold bar related bribery in their role as chair of the senate foreign relations committee.

[M L]

Or any other politician, businessman, or person.

Just like the state civil fraud case. Totally novel and bogus legal theory brought and ruled on by ravenous soldiers of lawfare in a corrupt one party system.

[Vryedni]

*whoosh*

[Sarcastr0]

It was a jury trial ML.

Not soldiers of lawfare you sad little man.

[Nige]

Everybody forgets Edwards.

[not guilty]

The gag order was appealed (and upheld by the appellate court) separately from any posttrial appeal.

[Moderation4ever]

What does the gag rule have to do with defending the client? The gag rule is for outside the courtroom and not inside. Why was Donald Trump so happy to run his mouth off outside the courtroom but afraid to take the stand in his defense? Donald Trump run off at the mouth on so many subjects, but never when he is under oath, then he keeps quite.

[not guilty]

"Marchin [sic] (D) is going to sentence Trump above the legal maximum. They’ll find some novel workaround that people like not guilty will trumpet as brilliant legal reading and totally normal and constitutional."

Why would Justice Merchan need to exceed the legal maximum? With the number of conviction counts and a 77 year old defendant, imposing a sentence of confinement with several counts to be served consecutively could result in an aggregate sentence longer than Trump's life expectancy.

I don't expect that to happen, but it is among the possibilities.

[Moderation4ever]

I might add a third the defense seemed to do a poor job of cross examination. I would say this again was done more to please the client and cost the defense opportunities.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I didn’t follow super closely but doing any cross of Stormy, much less a combative cross was really unnecessary.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree. The cross of Stormy did seem unnecessary and likely hurt their case.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The lying liar who lies is lying about a hush money scheme is much better than trying to attack the underlying sex scandal.

[LawTalkingGuy]

But really what it boils down to is that his political ambitions and general character as a human were at cross-purposes with an effective defense. He obviously couldn’t take a plea deal. Trump pleas to misdemeanors could have been a thing! And his lawyers couldn’t put forward a case of: my dumb asshole client is a dumb asshole but the state didn’t prove all the specific elements of these very specific crimes BARD. Which I think would be the effective strategies.

[NOVA Lawyer]

my dumb asshole client is a dumb asshole but the state didn’t prove all the specific elements of these very specific crimes BARD.

This would have been the best legal strategy.

Instead, they made an issue of denying stupid stuff, like having sex with Stormy, and otherwise tanked their credibility while making it more of a do you believe them or us? That's a bad strategy with a dumb asshole client who surrounded himself with lowlifes. Jury's gonna go with the prosecutor.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sentencing strategy will be interesting. Ordinarily it should be:

Trump declines allocution to protect his rights since he disagrees with the verdict.

Defense counsel doesn’t concede the correctness, notes their plan to appeal/file post-trial motions. But does highlight all the very good reasons for a light sentence.

Should they go into political theater about overly punishing a presidential candidate? Not sure! It could backfire, but it could give a judge pause at least on imposing a custodial sentence of some sort.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree with your best strategy.

I think it would be a mistake to go into political theater. Merchan is aware of the stakes and knows what the ordinary sentences for similar crimes are, so probation unless Trump and/or his counsel somehow push him to have to put him in custody. Making a big deal about how Trump is the victim of a corrupt system might be the thing that does get him custody. The client is definitely going to want the histrionics, I think.

I still think it'll be probation, but I'm sure Trump won't help himself.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Agreed. I wonder if the prosecutor also has the sense to defer to the court? Maybe a quick speech about the rule of law or something. If I were them I also wouldn’t go over the top in advocating for something custodial or doing too much speechifying.

Lol if it were me, I’d just cut him down to size a little: your honor as you know, our office typically defers to the court or agrees with a non-custodial sentence for crimes such as drug possession or simple theft. We view the defendant as a similar type of offender. We defer to the court’s judgment.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I did hear on CNN, I think, a commentator said that these charges often (I think he said usually) do get prison time. But I really doubt that here.

I kind of like your prosecutor line. lol.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you would hear that on CNN.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Apparently they need a pre-sentence investigation report. Which will require he sits down with a PO. Will be interesting to see if that document leaks

He also shouldn’t be sentenced to prison. Not an NY law expert but first time offense for low level nonviolent felonies would typically have a presumption against prison.

As a moral matter prison doesn’t really advance any normative theory of punishment in this case.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

> Will be interesting to see if that document leaks

If it's damaging to Trump it will leak. If it's not, it won't. Pretty easy to figure that one out.

[not guilty]

I don't know if state court presentence reports are public records in New York. (In federal court they are not.) Does another commenter know?

[Michael P]

Cohen "was" Trump's guy? When did that stop: before or after Cohen defrauded Trump of fix or six figures because Cohen decided he deserved a bigger bonus than he actually got?

[Nige]

That Trump works with a lot of crooks. If he's put on probation, he won't be able to mix with most of his old pals.

[hobie]

Most everyone who's done Trumps bidding has gone to prison so far. I think the count is in the thousands now. That doesn't seem to register with the rubes

[Frank Drackman]

Stolen Valor much? It’s a felony also.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Before, during, and after. It’s not uncommon for criminals to backstab each other. It might be that Allen Weisselberg wrongfully dipped into the corporate pot too, he’s still Trump’s guy.

Felons in Trump’s circle:

Trump
Manafort
Weisselberg
Cohen
Stone
Flynn
Bannon
Gates

Also Trump University fraud, Trumps abused their charity so can’t run a charity in New York anymore, and sexual assault.

Birds of a feather……

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree, without having watched terribly closely or read the transcripts, but it definitely seemed like those two mistakes were critical and likely were due to trying to please the client rather than being as effective as possible.

Also, just generally, the in court petulance, from reports, likely turned off jurors who, everyone seemed to think, the jurors very much liked and respected. And needlessly contesting whether Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels just undercut their general credibility. That also was likely to please the client.

[Mr. Hook]

Just a quick note of thanks to you and the other lawyers for your analysis. As a non-lawyer, all of you have been valuable for cutting thru the political spin.

That said, I agree very much with your second point. The defence seemed driven more by satisfying their client's self-image rather than maximizing the possibilities of an acquittal. It's fascinating that, for a guy who emphasizes winning—being a winner—so much, he self-sabotages to preserve his ego.

[shawn_dude]

Trump, like everyone else, gets to decide what "winning" means to them. And the guy has a knack for instinctively playing to his audience. They didn't ditch him after he spun up an insurrection so, as much as the guy gives me the hives, I wouldn't necessarily call this a "loss." I'd love it if 34 felony counts would be enough to convince the MAGAsphere to return to sanity but they don't seem to be slowing down their march over the cliff.

[David Nieporent]

The other error was that the defense was seemingly trying to rely on a quasi-advice-of-counsel strategy but without even attempting to satisfy the elements of it. (Indeed, in written submissions they explicitly disclaimed the advice-of-counsel defense.)

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, I would like to ask a different kind of question; hope you see this. When you lose a big case, what happens, emotionally, to the attorney?

What do you feel when the verdict is announced? It is one thing to imagine; quite another to experience. From an emotional standpoint, what is happening with Todd Blanche, defense counsel for POTUS Trump?

[loki13]

Well, it depends. I like to joke that I'm never wrong, but sometimes juries and judges are.

But it's always disappointing. You've invested so much time and energy into the case that you can't help but take it on the chin a little.

Plus, there's the additional factor that when you've been advocating for one side for so long, you often (not always!) tend to identify with that side- after all, these are your arguments, and you become invested in them. Some times, this can blind the attorney (because they lose the ability to understand the other side's arguments).

But there's no simple answer, as it depends on the case and the client. I've lost some cases where it stung for a second, but life moves on.* And then - well, there are those cases that still linger, years later.

*I've even lost a few cases where I've been, "Yep, that's the right call." But that's because I've told the client and there have been other issues going on.

[Bwaaah]

I’m not an attorney. But I was a prosecutor in a mock trial in high school in 1976. The defense surprised us at trial by bringing in a “surprise” “witness” who testified to a completely fabricated alternate theory of the case. I was totally flustered by the defense's cheating spirit. With non-existent cross-examination skills, I/we lost the case miserably.

I never got over it. (And I, too, have never been wrong.)

[loki13]

That sucks, Bwaah.

I do a lot of work with a local high school trial team, and I feel your pain. We always do incredibly well, but while we consistently advance every year to the top level competition, there is a natural ceiling to our success.

I've realized it's because I'm a stickler for ethics and playing by the rules, and teach that to the students. There are other teams that are not as ethical or rule-bound (the phrase "unfair extrapolation" is what you are looking for), and use that to their advantage.

I am okay with it, because I think it is better to teach the kids to be ethical and have integrity ("officers of the court") than to try and instill the lesson that winning is the main goal.

To sum up- you might have lost that case, but you were the real winner.

[Mr. Bumble]

All well and good but what about the client?

[loki13]

So I took you off mute.

To answer your question, lawyers are supposed to be zealous advocates. But they are also officers of the court. We have ethical obligations not just to the client, but to the law.

I have withdrawn from cases where I felt that my client's instructions were (expressly or impliedly) causing me to question my ethical obligations or integrity.

Put another way, I will do everything and anything within the rules and my ethical obligations for my client, but I will not sacrifice my ethics or integrity for a client.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, I appreciate the responses. Being a lawyer calls for an enormous sense of resiliency; to bounce back from a setback.

[Bwaaah]

I share your view of ethics and rules, pretty uncompromisingly, in myself and those who have ever been employed under me. That applies under all circumstances, even where I may lose personally as a result.

It's good that you teach that in mock trials, especially with students. The seemingly innocuous situations in which it's easy to cut corners are very helpful exercises for examining ethics in oneself. Those exercises encourage mindfulness, and the notion that every situation has an ethical context (though in cases like a walk in the woods, not always a concerning one).

A company I worked for arranged a management training seminar for me and a bunch of people under me. I had a good working relationship with those people, and they enjoyed working under my ethical view. (Most people do.) In the seminar, there was an exercise in negotiation. One of my people negotiated an agreement with me, and then scored a major advantage by breaking the agreement. He proudly gloated to everyone how he had taken me. I just shook my head in disappointment. I never penalized him for it.

Though it was only an exercise, his reputation among his peers was severely damaged as a result, and never recovered. Ethics can be important. Ethics should be important. With that in mind, you can understand why I maintain a great sense of humor about life and humanity. Humor serves as a very flexible bridge between my hopes and reality, which is too often disappointing.

Cheers.

[Commenter_XY]

"Unfair extrapolation" - I love that phrase.

[OtisAH]

No prosecutor with eyes on a long career in law (or politics) would bring charges against a former president, particularly a person like Turnip, without as airtight a case as is humanly possible. Imo, the only way he is acquitted of any of the remaining 44 charges across three jurisdictions is jury nullification.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you have a good point. The prosecution would not have moved forward without a good case. I think the biggest mistake the defense made was not going for a plea bargain and clearing this case early.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think a plea bargain would've satisfied anyone. The biggest mistake the defense made was (stop me if you've heard this before) playing to Donald Trump's ego instead of actually treating it like a real prosecution.

For example, the decision to deny the affair with Stormy Daniels was just stupid. It opened the door to a bunch of negative testimony, while not being in any way necessary to Trump's defense. And then putting Costello on the stand to try to impeach Cohen, solely because Trump hates Cohen and wanted to attack him, was a terrible one. Costello's testimony ended up being really harmful to Trump.

[OtisAH]

Accepting a plea bargain is contrary to Convicted Felon Trump’s entire worldview anyway. If the subject was ever brought up in his presence it was the first and last time. And the defense’s charge was simple: No fancy legal arguments. Delay, deny, attack, and everything will work out. That’s his entire understanding of the world and he will never accept any alternatives.

[Martinned2]

Plea bargaining seems like an excellent example of the Art of the Deal to me...

[OtisAH]

Then you’ve never read Art of the Deal and have learned nothing about a man who’s been in the public eye for 50 years and served as the single most visible human in the world for four.

[Martinned2]

I haven't read it, no.

[Kazinski]

I hadn't heard they offered a plea deal. If they did it probably wouldn't have been for a misdemeanor, which is.probably the minimal acceptable deal, because even a conviction shouldn't require jail time.

[F.D. Wolf]

I don't know if this conviction will have its desired effect. If Trump's poll numbers keep rising, the Democrats will just have to murder him.

To save democracy.™

[shawn_dude]

Projection.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

On Fifth Avenue?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is an absolutely historic moment. Biden has become the first US president to have his political opposition jailed.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you know how federalism works?

[Frank Drackman]

Do you know how Bitch Slaps work?

[Roger S]

Yes. Two of the criminal prosecutions are under Biden's direct authority. The others are done by his Democrat lackeys.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So Biden didn’t jail Trump at all is what you’re saying? Also he’s not in jail.

[Roger S]

The Biden campaign has already put out a statement gloating about the conviction, just in case you have any doubt about where Biden stands.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m sure he’s happy. Doesn’t mean he had anything to do with it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Its just people from his orbit on the prosecution team.

No bigs.

[Nige]

Wait'll you find out about all the felons in Trump's orbit.

[David Nieporent]

The Biden campaign has already put out a statement gloating about the conviction, just in case you have any doubt about where Biden stands.

What do you get out of lying like this? I understand what the professional MAGA people do: it's their job, and/or they're hoping to be hired by Trump. But why do you do it? What psychological purpose does it serve in your life?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/05/30/biden-campaign-blasts-trump-after-historic-felony-conviction-no-one-is-above-the-law/

Low information moron. How can you keep on living like that?

[David Nieporent]

Do you just not know what the word "gloating" means?

[Nelson]

Well, he thinks someone who lived the Middle East 2000 years ago had blond hair and blue eyes, so anything is possible.

Also, he's just a wee bit of a Trumpkin. It's subtle.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

A letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar:

"I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions!"

I don't know why I continue to be surprised at how ignorant most liberals are.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why I continue to be surprised that you rely on fabrications. This "letter" is something of recent vintage, and is not even logical within Christian mythology. (If Jesus looked nothing at all like the people around him, why would it have been necessary to pay Judas to identify him? "The blond guy.")

[Vryedni]

What do you get out of lying like this?

He’s angling for a gig at Conservapedia.

[Nige]

The explicitly racist anti-semites are real upset about this, guys.

[Frank Drackman]

So are the non-race-ist semites

[not guilty]

"This is an absolutely historic moment. Biden has become the first US president to have his political opposition jailed."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes? Donald Trump has not been jailed. Yet.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

1) Trump v. Biden – who is the better choice?

2) The Supreme Court: defender of constitutional freedom or right-wing engine of lawlessness?

3) Which is better, liberalism or conservatism?

[Nelson]

1) Biden, but it's like choosing who has the worst breath between the guy who just ate raw garlic or the guy who just ate raw onions.

2) Neither, but it's definitely leaning away from protecting individual rights recently.

3) Culturally? Liberalism. Fiscally? Conservatism.

[Nige]

How many times do conservatives have to crash the economy, or turn their states into basket-cases, for this myth to die?

[Frank Drackman]

Well, Jim Morrision was convicted of some bullshit charge, and look how he turned out.
OK, bad example, but as a Tee-total-er, if "45" ends up dead in a Paris bathtub I'm gonna be suspicious.

Frank

[loki13]

....have to admit, was not expecting the Jim Morrison comparison.

I can't even add to that. I mean ... literally speechless.

Well played.

[Mr. Bumble]

TO BE CONTINUED....

[not guilty]

Keep hope alive, Mr. Bumble!

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you think it is over?

[Zarniwoop]

I expect there will be a lot more whinging from the party that used to support law-n-order, and is now all-in with a convicted felon.

Also, appeals. DJT has 30 days to file a notice of appeal and a longer time (taking it past the election) to make substantive filings. I'd bet real money that he'll drag out the filings, so that there are relatively fewer reminders to the electorate that he's a convicted felon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, largely faded academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots
as modern America passes them by —
has operated for no more than

THIRTEEN (13)

days without publishing at least
one explicit 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 stage and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile, from someone who overcame scarring at Kent State. The other tunes in that video are good; one of the singers is Tom Johnston's daughter (Doobie Brothers, inventor of the Johnston Shuffle).

This one is good, too, also from a Kent Stater.

I'd add a Devo song, but . . . link limit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones moments:

First, an Exile outtake. Can you identify the warhorse this became?

Next, ,a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oyRB0Mhoqg">a precursor from 1968 -- its descendant might be known from the first or second chord.

If you're in Boston, still time to catch tonight's show if you hurry. It will change your life!

[BrotherMovesOn]

Too easy. Tumbling Dice.

[Frank Drackman]

yes, getting bu-fooed by Jerry Sandusky will do that

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Import the Third World, become the Third World. That’s what we just saw. This won’t stop Trump. He’ll win the election if he’s not killed first. But it does mark the end of the fairest justice system in the world. Anyone who defends this verdict is a danger to you and your family.

Powerful.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's sentencing is scheduled for Thursday, July 11. That should make for an interesting Republican National Convention beginning on July 15.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No it won't.

[Frank Drackman]

Will President Common-Law-Willie-Brown-Harris show up for the sentencing?

[OtisAH]

Incoherent references are Dennis Miller’s bit, piece of shit. Time to find your own voice.

[Frank Drackman]

Otis! My man! Now shut the fuck up and Play Shama-lama-ding-dong

[Mr. Bumble]

Surprise, surprise, surprise. More stagecraft from Judge Machiavelli.

[DaveM]

If the Democrats FORCE me to vote for Trump, I will never forgive them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You can always tell a person pretending not to be a Trump supporter who was always a Trump supporter by their use of allcaps.

Yes, the Democrats are forcing you to vote for a rapist and felon, to say nothing of the more important fact that he lied about a “stolen election”. If he didn’t lose you over repeatedly lying that he actually won the 2020 election, regardless of whether you think he committed any crime when he tried to pressure the Georgia SoS to “find” more votes, then you were never against Trump or for democracy in the first place.

You pretending to be outraged by Trump being held accountable for some very sleazy dealings, even if you think there wasn’t a crime, is just sad and pathetic.

[Sarcastr0]

https://images.dailykos.com/images/574802/story_image/1350.png?1533664371

[NOVA Lawyer]

+1000

[Vryedni]

It also hearkens back, albeit somewhat tangentially, to this.

[Vryedni]

This platform is so fucked up. I keep plugging in an external link, and what comes back is just a link to this open thread. I doubt this try will be any more successful, but here goes: LINK

[Vryedni]

Wow, for no explicable reason, this time it worked!

Mysteries abound.

[Frank Drackman]

if Judge Merchan has an "Accident" who does the sentencing?

[hobie]

JD Vance (he supposedly has a law degree, folks):

"This decision is a disgrace to the rule of law and our Constitution," Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance wrote on X. "Dems invented a felony to ‘get Trump,’ with the help of a Soros-funded prosecutor and a Biden donor Judge, who rigged the entire case to get this outcome. This isn't justice, it's election interference."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He makes good points. Very powerful statement. We need more voices like his speaking out.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, what war zone did you serve in, Fuck Face?

[hobie]

So Vance, in one small statement got in: Ignorance of the law; antisemitism; and multiple lies. I'll have to put the 'Biden-donor judge' in the back pocket to see if any Justices or judges involved in other proceeding have donated to Trump. Seems fair, wouldn't you say?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many wars did you help America lose, Drackman. Guys like you are much of the reason we haven’t won one in 75 years or so. Thanks for posting the Ls despite enormous taxpayer-funded resource advantages.

[Frank Drackman]

If it’s “We” who lost, that includes Revolting Arthur and Fuckface, I didn’t decide to go to war on my own shithead.
And BTW, Gulf War 1, supported by almost all of your “Bettors” isn’t considered an “L”

Frank
PS: it was Barry Hussein who went back into Afghanistan, one of your “Bettors” and certainly an “L”

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

lol, you supported bailing out the Kuwaiti Muslim monarch!!

[Frank Drackman]

If you weren't a fucking faggot you'd know the military doesn't make policy, it carries out the policy made by fucking faggots like you,
Capice??

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does Mr. Volokh pay you by the slur, Drackman?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I like how he says "Biden donor judge" with a straight face.

It was $15.

[not guilty]

Professors Blackman and Calabresi have not weighed in on the jury verdict. I wonder what those clowns will cavil about now.

[Frank Drackman]

You tell us Clown

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At least they may have the courage Volokh and a few other Conspirators lack.

[Nige]

Let the Cavil Wars begin.

[loki13]

I am sure that the Germans have a word for the feeling I have regarding the next Calabresi post.

It's both dread of how terrible it will be, but also gleeful anticipation? As in, how much more bad can his posts become? With a slight worry that any joy I take from it will be counteracted by learning that he truly has been experiencing some kind of mental health episode, and will make be feel like a terrible person.

[Martinned2]

Ersatzscham, at least that's how I feel about all of his posts.

[Bwaaah]

I have accepted that his conversion is real. I look forward to it with glee. Look...I'm seriously contemplating voting for DJT, so I've already had to reconcile myself as a grossly imperfect and dirty human being. But if Calabresi delivers as I hope, I can hold his post up as evidence that I'm not *that* bad.

[loki13]

Well, I somewhat understand the feeling. I am not happy with Biden, but will vote for him.

That said, I hope you change your mind. Biden is bad, but bad in a traditional way. Trump? Well, I truly long for the day when he's no longer part of the political discourse.

Honestly, I truly hope for the day when politics goes back to being mostly boring.

[Don Nico]

As Jeffrey Sachs wrote today quoting JFK, " '...nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the world.' Yet this is exactly what Biden is doing today, carrying out a bankrupt and reckless policy."

I cannot vote for such a jingoist, especially not with Kamela Harris as VP with a better than 30% chance of her becoming POTUS before the 2028 election. Better a nutjob, like RFK.

[loki13]

I disagree with that analysis.

Putin understands both strength and weakness; he is, to quote the Chappelle show, an habitual line stepper.

He assumes that we will quickly tire of Ukraine. And then he will have Ukraine, and Belarus, and he will move on to the next line. If Trump is in office, why not the Baltic states and Moldova? What, you think Trump would provide any credible deterrent given his statements?

It is both bizarre and disheartening to see how quickly the GOP has pivoted on Russia, simply because of Trump.

[David Nieporent]

I am sure that the Germans have a word for the feeling I have regarding the next Calabresi post.

Some mashup of schadenfreude and masochism.

[Frank Drackman]

So ""45"(and soon to be "47") is a Convicted Felon?
Like 33% of the Black Male Population, wow, that conviction is really gonna hurt him with that group.
and speaking of Black Male Felons, anyone notice how DA Bragg looks like Mr. Potato Head??

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

“Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things!”

President Don John Trump referring to PP handing out free birth control in black neighborhoods.

[Frank Drackman]

Breaking News!
Grand Jury in Hayden Lake Idaho has just indicted President Barry Hussein Osama on charges of Mopery with Intent to Creep, Impersonating an Afro-Amurican, and In-flagrante Delicto.
All punishable by Death (by Unga-Bunga) in Idaho.
Sure he'll get an impartial jury of his Peers.

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I did the thought experiment—imagine how Republicans would behave if Obama were convicted of a felony?? They would be celebrating and calling for a new holiday to replace MLK Day!! A few would probably shoot themselves accidentally in celebration so it wouldn’t be all bad. The black guy that had the audacity to run for president and actually be a good president has been convicted!! I can sleep better knowing he won’t impregnate my wife!! Now we won’t have another black president!! Our long national nightmare is over!!!

[Estragon]

I have to admit— I’m excited to see what calabresi has to say… in ALL CAPS!

[Bwaaah]

Well, I was hoping for an acquittal, just for the fun of seeing the long faces on New Yorkers again like when DJT was elected in 2016. (Downright humorless people when it comes to DJT. Downright humorless.)

Then came the verdict. There would be no such fun. I felt slightly disappointed in the humor camp.

But then it occurred to me: Looks like I may be voting for my first felon! Now *that's* funny!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Such a weird spiteful way to think. Just one bit of petty will it own the libs to another.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is funny is the whining, blustering, whimpering, crying, and lying of Trump and his un-American, worthless supporters. Fox and Newsmax are having strokes. Which is great!

[NvEric]

Come on, Man ...
If anyone here does that it's you my friend !
Gloaters never prosper.
A jury made a decision, as did a judge made more too.
Now it's cleanup time, but I'll not wait for results, because they will not matter as this last Trump "trial" does not matter either. It never did, nor will anything come of value to the other 3.

The People will focus their will, if they have any, to express their desires. It's going to be another summer of heat, maybe like '68 was. But those were different times, however, these are not as volatile yet, and I hope they will not be as violent, because that would be wrong and dangerous too.

Up for grabs, this system has devolved into, more so, but health and wisdom are wiser today and enabled with knowing. Sleep well, Live heartily, for random Capitalization is not random.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Open wider, wingnut. Your betters are not done shoving progress down your bigoted, whining, powerless throat. Not nearly.

Hearing a bunch of half-educated, superstition-addled, low-character, bigoted right-wingers boast about how they are going to reverse the half-century tide of the American culture war is quite entertaining.

It's almost as funny as the Volokh Conspirators acting as if they are going to make conservative law professors anything other than a laughingstock on mainstream, strong law faculties. UCLA put a cherry atop that sundae.

[Nige]

Look at this fool, voting for a felon.

[Frank Drackman]

Not all Felons are convicted, LBJ for one

[John F. Carr]

Not for the first time in recent years I thought of Edwin Edwards winning an election on the unofficial slogan "Vote for the crook. It's important." Americans these days dislike the other team that much.

[not guilty]

Well, in the context of Governor Edwards's opponent being David Duke, the slogan made sense.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

An acquittal would have been the worst possible outcome for Trump. The justice system is not corrupt? He got a fair trial in New York? A Manhattan jury voted in his favor? How could that be!

[David Nieporent]

Since neither truth, logic, nor consistency matter to these people, it would've not posed a problem for him. "See, the corrupt Democrats went so far that even a Manhattan Democrat jury knew how absurd and unjust and unfair it was!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are felon Trump and his deplorable fans tired of winning yet?

[Frank Drackman]

The winning comes in November when “45” Stomps(ht Reverend Revolting) Common-Law Harris all the way back to San Fran Sissy-Co

Frank

[OtisAH]

You can tell piece of shit is nonplussed at the news of Turnip’s conviction on the first 36 of his 88 charges by his manic posting of totally non-forced hilarious jokes and genuine really real optimistic bombast. Piece of shit isn’t bothered, you’re bothered. Not piece of shit. Nuh-uh. No way.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No one but dyed in the wool TDS'ers think yesterday mattered.

You know, morons and idiots.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe, maybe not.

But you sure seem miserable, which is fun.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your Schadenfreude is noted.

[Sarcastr0]

It is a human emotion to have. I won’t orient my life around it like many in the own the libs set seem to.

[Nige]

I love how snippy you are - imagine the gloatfest from you guys if he'd got off, though.

[Frank Drackman]

its coming in November, get your lube ready

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I seem miserable? lol wtf

No I don't. Democrats being Democrats doesn't make me sad or miserable.

I'll put it in context that you might understand:

I'm Team Edward and you're Team Jacob. I don't get sad when Bella sees you being a werewolf.

[Sarcastr0]

and another thing: im not mad. please dont put in the newspaper that i got mad.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Team Jacob!

Newspaper? lol you must be a Fed.

Your wishcasting about the impact of the trail is as hilarious as it is pathetic.

[Nige]

You must be very happy, he finally got a real majority of the votes.

[grb]

Ouch!

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol

[loki13]

/thread

[Sarcastr0]

I explicitly said I didn't know the impact, except for you being mad.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's the impact on me.

Holy shit. What a midwit. No wonder you're a civil servant.

[Bwaaah]

"No wonder you’re a civil servant."

JeyHay:
Though I favor restraint in government and its reach, I take issue with your civil servant slur. Is that all it takes to run afoul of your ideology? Service in government?

Your hate is overpowering. Your moral vision sounds bankrupt. Are you another freakin' revolutionary with excuses to throw it all away? How many people would have to be destroyed to get the problems out of the way? Or is it all spontaneously resolved in a come-to-Jesus moment? I'm interested in a brief summary of your solution, which I suspect you have.

[Nige]

So, you sparkle?

[Frank Drackman]

Like Sleepy Joe says about the Knee-Grows who didn't support him, "You ain't Black" so you don't get that having a Felony conviction is a badge of honor among Black Men, I think there was even an "Entourage" episode with that plot (or was it "Californication"?) Remember Marion Berry?? That Crack conviction really hurt him didn't it? Like the Roosh-uns, "45" plays the long game, which is why he'll be "47" this time next year, and Sleepy can become our Resident Ex-Potus in Hospice (is Jimmuh Cartuh still alive????)

Frank

[ReaderY]

Just back from another cross-burning?

[Frank Drackman]

It’s “Cross Lighting” and no, my tribe isn’t really welcome at Klan rallies, it’s a DemoKkkratic group

Frank

[Martinned2]

Oddschecker still has Trump as odds-on favourite (at 10/11), so yeah?

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics

[NOVA Lawyer]

RealClearPolitics betting average showed Trump at +16 immediately before the verdict, down 10 to +6 today.

Which seems to me meaningless, but if you're talking about odds.

In other news, I need to look into whether I can bet against Michelle Obama winning the election. The odds are only 25/1 against. It's gotta be at least 10,000/1 in reality, so that's free money....lol. I assume you can only bet for her winning, which is basically just the betting company's way of saying how dumb are you?

[SRG2]

I think the BBC's post mortem of the trial is pretty good: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c288wpj1glyo

[Martinned2]

I like this OpinioJuris blog post about the threats made by US senators to the ICC prosecutor and other ICC officials: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/05/30/wait-a-minute-mr-postman-legal-implications-of-threats-issued-by-u-s-republican-senators/

What makes it worth reading isn't the question of whether US senators might be prosecuted in the ICC, because that's never going to happen. (If no one got prosecuted for literal torture, the ICC OTP is certainly not going to prosecute anyone for writing an angry letter.) But what makes it interesting is the analysis of objective and subjective territoriality. As in: where is the alleged offence of interfering with the administration of justice by threatening ICC officials committed? It's a variation of the classic law school hypo about a guy standing on the German side of the Rhine shooting someone on the French side. Very amusing.

[NvEric]

Decisions, Tick

Clarity Increases
Dangers Accepted
Doubts Resolved

Focus Refined
Variables Defined
Values Assigned

Targets Aquired
Actions Dispatched
Results Gathered

Decisions, Tock

[apedad]

You got nothing but wet dreams because you're a wannabe loser.

What does "Actions Dispatched" mean anyway?

You shot at cans of Coors Light in your backyard?

Loser.

[grb]

I'm guessing Bud Lite (until they went all tranny)

[Frank Drackman]

Odds on Jimmuh Cartuh becoming our first POTUS to make it to the Century Mark?? Only has to make it to October 1.
I'm betting against him, Jimmuh never could do anything right.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Marion Barry was released from prison in 1992, and two months later filed papers to run for the Ward 8 city council seat in that year's election. Barry ran under the slogan "He May Not Be Perfect, But He's Perfect for D.C." He defeated the four-term incumbent, Wilhelmina Rolark, in the Democratic primary, winning 70 percent of the vote, saying he was "not interested in being mayor", and went on to win the general election easily.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I just realized something.

These Trump trials are about as authentic and pure as the 2020 election.

The Democrats have definitely crossed the Rubicon. I’m guessing after they steal 2024, they’ll probably start the mass murders sometime before their 5 Year Plan is up.

[Balisane]

They just have to hope that patriots don't finally have enough.

[Sarcastr0]

It's pretty funny how often the Dems have crossed that rubicon according the the right.

Ever wonder what's across the Rubicon? You guessed it, more Rubicons!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What were all the other times you're referring to?

[Sarcastr0]

A quick Google search for stories published before yesterday with the search: ‘The Democrats have crossed the Rubicon’

These are from reading the summaries of the articles (not clikcing through) in the first 2 pages:

The indictments
The impeachments
Gay marriage
The Jan 06 committee
The Jan 06 prosecutions
Indicting Trump’s lawyers for election fraud
The search of Mara Lago
The 2020 election being stolen
Gay marriage
Obamacare
George Floyd

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The common refrain from conservatives about gays getting gay married was civil war?

You have as much integrity as you have shame.

[apedad]

Is there ANY reason you think we should have a civil war?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL

https://x.com/drmistercody/status/1796310394010788131

The Rubicon simply cannot stop being crossed.
[posts from Ian Miles Cheong since 2020 declaring the Rubicon has been crossed over and over again.]

Oh dear I hope I didn't dox you, JHBJBE!

[loki13]

At this point, they need to hand out punch cards out the Rubicon.

Every ten crossings, your next one is free!

[Bwaaah]

The Rubicon isn't what it used to be. Or maybe it is?

The same can't be said for hyperbole. It certainly is what it has always been.

[ReaderY]

You just realized?

You didn’t read the talking points they sent you months ago until just now? Or was “I just realized” one of the taling points?

[grb]

Kevin Drum has updated his list of Trump court cases. I note he now qualifies them as “major” to keep the tally of comical failure & criminal mischief managable. By a glance, the record is:

(76) Losses
(08) Ongoing
(01) Win – (against Mary Trump)

A commentator asks how Soros managed to engineer all that! Please give the record a galance, and ask yourself how anyone could vote for such a sleazy huckster buffoon.

https://jabberwocking.com/updated-all-the-major-trump-court-cases-since-2016/

[Commenter_XY]

Order is messed up;

1 - 8- 76 I think is the correct order. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Wrong. Ask a sports fan to explain it.

[ThePublius]

I think I'll have a hot Italian sausage and pasta with fresh, grated Parmigiano Reggiano (real imported Italian cheese, not that sawdust they sell as grated Parmesan) and a glass of Chianti for lunch on my patio, as I say F the World and the country today.

Then maybe I'll resolve to pay my mortgage and taxes and other bills, and just stop paying attention to all of this B.S. and the people commenting on it. Play my sax and my piano, sail my boat, hang on the beach, tend my garden....

I will probably be much happier.

[apedad]

I have a meat grinder and made hot Italian sausages once - magical!

But I don't have a good sausage maker so don't do it often.

[loki13]

Enjoy the day!

As my mother always used to tell me, "No matter how bad you're feeling inside, smile, so girls will like you and invite you to parties."

No, wait.

"This too shall pass." The sun will rise, the sun will set, and you find your happiness over the things around you - not over the events that happen elsewhere over which you have no control.

[ThePublius]

As my mother always used to tell me, “No matter how bad you’re feeling inside, smile, so girls will like you and invite you to parties.”

That's great! Ha, ha.

[Bwaaah]

Nice! 🙂

[Don Nico]

"I think I’ll have a hot Italian sausage and pasta with fresh, grated Parmigiano Reggiano."

What a great idea! My gas grill is finally hooked up, so my plan for the weekend is barbecued ribs.

[ThePublius]

Oh, nice! I love ribs. I smoke them and then finish on the grill.

[M L]

I started smoking on a regular ol’ kettle. Done ribs a few times. Did a pork shoulder overnight last weekend for my first time, snaking the charcoal around the edge. Temps held pretty consistent while I slept and it turned out excellent with great bark. Took 14 hours before it reached ~203. Going to upgrade to something that requires less active management.

[Don Nico]

~203 is a good temperature, by then the collagen has broken down. Good smoking does take time and efforts,but the results are worth it.

[ThePublius]

I would love to get one of those kettles and do the "snake" thing. 🙂

I have two electric smokers, both high quality Cookshack units. But, at the end of the day, they are just outdoor electric ovens with wood drawers. BTW, I use wood chunks, not chips, and I don't soak them. The smoke is only important for the first 30 minutes or so.

I think I currently have apple, hickory, and mesquite on hand.

Hmmmm, maybe I'll fire one up today. I have a rack of ribs in the fridge, and a brisket in the freezer....

[M L]

Nice! I am considering some of the high end "pellet grills." These are not for the purist, I gather, but you can go fishing or whatever all day and monitor/control it from your phone. Apparently they have been getting pretty good and there is a model that allows you to add real wood chunks above the pellet flame.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's funny that Americans think Chianti is a "fine wine". For the record, anything famous for being packaged in straw-covered bottles is not a "fine wine". Now, if you'd said, "Brunello di Montalcino", that would have been at least striving in the right direction.

(That said, you can sometimes find Brunello in Lidl in Italy. Bought two!)

[Don Nico]

Not so fast ONS,
Chianti can be a fine wine. Not the stuff in the straw covered flasks, but the riserva from the best producers, especially suitable for aging a dozen years.
As for "at least striving in the right direction," that is a pretty pretentious comment unless you are used to consuming DRCs if you can ever find any to buy.

[Bwaaah]

Another thumbs up here for a good Chianti. ONS is trippin' on some fighting words there.

[ThePublius]

Have you been to Italy? I have, many times. I know good Chianti.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, yes. I’ve lived in Europe for 30+ years.

However, I probably was the only person in the cinema to laugh when Dr. Lecter mentioned, “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice key-ann-tee.”

[Frank Drackman]

what about fumundna nuts?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, dispirited, worthless conservatives are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[hobie]

"If we speak about Trump, the fact that there is simply the elimination, in effect, of political rivals by all possible means, legal and illegal, is obvious", Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a news briefing.

Trump Media Stock Swings After Guilty Verdict

"One poster [on Truth Social] said: “We are all disgusted by this sham verdict and want to live in a world with a better and strong America so we are donating to Trumps campaign and buying shares.”"

[David Nieporent]

EDITOR'S NOTE: In fact, while there was a brief spike, the stock is trading below where it was before the verdict.

[hobie]

It would be a special kind of stupid to be holding Trump Media shares after September when he can legally sell his own. In fact, David, I'll wager you 20,000 Trump Media shares in October (pink sheets baby!) in whatever you care to bet on today

[Frank Drackman]

I'll bet you don't even know what a DD214 is, much less have one.

[Frank Drackman]

So is the whole market, stupid.

[M L]

The main Reason site has published a number of pieces in recent weeks with headlines characterizing the New York criminal charges against Trump as “nonsensical,” “twisty,” “misdirection,” “not a crime,” “dubious,” “a hodgepodge of dubious legal theories,” etc.

I haven’t been following this other than scrolling past headlines. The main Reason site is generally pretty anti-Trump. Is there a fair amount of general agreement on their characterizations of this case?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Reason is not "anti-Trump". The editorial position is not sufficiently MAGA, however, which means they are Marxists.

[M L]

Addendum– Their latest headline adds “logically impossible.”

[David Nieporent]

It's arguing that because the records weren't falsified until after the election, that couldn't have affected the election. But Sullum — who wrote that piece (though perhaps not the headline) — is confused. The arrangement with Stormy Daniels was before the election, and thus could have (and indeed was designed to) affect the election. The falsifying records was to conceal that arrangement.

[M L]

Right but according to the piece (which seems to rely on a quote from Bragg and a NYT editorial) the concealment you mention, not the original arrangement, is what was supposed to have been done to affect the election.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Unless I am mistaken, the jury could have found that Michael Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels (i.e. the campaign contribution) prior to the election in violation of federal election law and that the acts afterwards were part of the conspiracy to cover up that unlawful contribution. It really doesn't matter that Trump intended to pay him back and Cohen expected to be paid back. From the jury instructions:

The terms CONTRIBUTION and EXPENDITURE include anything of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.

The advance was to influence the election in violation of federal election law, the covering up of the repayment was to hide this violation of federal election law. It didn't have to occur before the election.

The verdict will not be challenged or overturned on this "logical impossibility" argument. It is not a sound argument for reversal.

[shawn_dude]

The original arrangement (the NDA and payoff) was intended to conceal the affair. The subsequent effort to obscure the payoff was designed to conceal the concealment.

It's like a Russian doll... if the doll was fat, orange, and liked to get peed on.

[Magister]

Nixon learned that "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." even though the crime might have been enough without any cover-up.

[Frank Drackman]

What crime? ending JFK/LBJ's Defense Industry Support Act of 1965, AKA Vietnam War? ending the Draft? Getting our POW's home?

Frank

[loki13]

Wait, I missed that argument!

Wow. That's not just bad, that's, like really bad.

[OtisAH]

In surprising news, a neo-nazi named Stephen Thomas Farrea, a man who has a lot to say about drag queen story hours and the alleged grooming of children, was arrested on child pornography charges. The surprising part is that Mr. Farrea does not appear to have also been a Christian evangelical youth leader or pastor.

Also, if you missed it, Convicted Felon Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Unclear whether he is also in possession of child pornography like many of his supporters are.

https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/05/30/rhode-island-man-neo-nazi-group-child-pornography-charge/

[hobie]

It's always a shame when good neo-Nazis turn bad

[Frank Drackman]

Notice you're quiet about what combat zone you served in, fuck-face. Surprisingly wise of you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many wars did you help win, Drackman?

Despite the tremendous taxpayer-provided resource advantage you and your mates had?

Loser. And, apparently, proud of it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Donald Trump is a Justice Impacted Individual, don't be such a racist bigot and use racist bigotted terms like "felon".

In 10 years the term will just be "Individual" like how they morphed illegal alien all the way to migrant. next up y'all be calling them "citizens who lost their papers".

[Nige]

Yeah, he's been impacted by justice alright.

[OtisAH]

What a stupid thing to write. Like all the other stupid things you write. Which is everything you write. I don’t know if Loki is at some ayahuasca retreat or what, but you can go fuck yourself.

[loki13]

Naw. I can't see who you are responding to because I have them muted.

Life is too short and all that.

(There are a lot of people here who aren't as disagreeable in real life. And I try and remember that. But some people? Aren't worth the reactions they are trying to provoke.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Biden is out there now saying it’s “dangerous” to say the Trump trial was rigged.

You know what that means. The full force of the federal government is going to work to punish and censor anyone who says otherwise. It’s a National Security matter now!
The DOJ should immediately open an investigation into this so every outside accountability group can be stonewalled and blocked on their investigations.

Just like with Russian collusion hoax, Hunter laptop Russian disinfo hoax, 2020 and the Fauci-Funded Wu-flu.

[Sarcastr0]

So the thing you posted before, about this being an unserious Twilight-like saga?

That sure makes this post seem like utter bullshit. Drama from a drama queen, for no other purpose than drama.

[not guilty]

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a January 6 defendant’s contention that the trial court should have ordered a change of venue, positing that he could not get a fair trial because the District of Columbia overwhelmingly voted for President Biden and historically votes for Democratic candidates. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/5B0C69B2DB59634985258B2B005274B8/$file/22-3064-2056407.pdf The Court of Appeals wrote:

[T]he political inclinations of a populace writ large say nothing about an individual’s ability to serve impartially in adjudicating the criminal conduct of an individual. See Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 414 (1895) (“The law assumes that every citizen is equally interested in the enforcement of the [law] * * * and that his political opinions or affiliations will not stand in the way of an honest discharge of his duty as a juror[.]”). Indeed, we have held that District juries could impartially adjudicate other criminal cases arising out of political matters, including Watergate. See [United States v.] Haldeman, [559 F.2d 31,] 59-64 [(D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc) (per curiam)] (holding that a District jury could try President Nixon’s aides for attempting to cover up Watergate).

[loki13]

Unsurprising and correct.

While you could certainly do it for pre-trial publicity and other similar factors, just saying, "I don't like the partisan makeup of this place," is, and always should be, a loser.

[David Nieporent]

And for the record: two Trump appointees on the three-judge panel.

[Nige]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-supporters-try-doxx-jurors-post-violent-threats-conviction-rcna154882

[hobie]

From your link:

“I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” another user wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform Thursday. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!”

One Jan. 6 defendant who already served time in prison for his role in the Capitol attack also weighed in on X, posting a photo of Bragg and a photo of a noose. “January 20, 2025 traitors Get The Rope,” he wrote, referring to the date of the next presidential inauguration.

[Roger S]

I do not agree with that, and I hope it does not happen, but I would like to hear some explanation of their verdict. It is hard to believe that they really thought that Trump committed a crime. My guess is that they would not be able to explain it.

[David Nieporent]

My guess is that you would not be able to understand the explanation.

[Nige]

https://www.mediaite.com/news/the-federalist-ceo-calls-for-republicans-to-draw-up-lists-of-democrats-to-put-in-prison-after-trump-verdict/

[Bwaaah]

If there were any significant relationship between the speech and actions of politicos, you would be more than a feckless nothing.

[Nige]

Today I learned that there is no significant connection between the speech and actions of polticos, which is, like, wow, is that the mind/body divide? Also, this means that some politicos can say what they like and it doesn't matter! But only some.

[Bwaaah]

And by the way…there’s nothing illegal about producing a list of your political enemies that you want to prosecute. The next step would be to identify plausible crimes, indict and convict. That would all be quite legal.

Of course, all that suggests bad faith to me. But for partisans, for the most part, bad faith only exists on the other team. You wouldn’t know that.

[Sarcastr0]

“In 2024, I want to see lists of which Democrat officials are going to be put in prison.”

No due process here. Just partisan authoritarianism.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. That’s only on day one, when Trump will be a dictator.

I’ll repeat myself, more respectfully to you than to Nige…

If there were any significant relationship between the speech and actions of politicos, there would be no civil society as we know it.

The sky isn't falling. Seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

Full on 'Take it seriously but not literally' mode. How casual you are with this shit!

This is not within the normal way political people speak.

I’m sure there are occasional exceptions, but this is not ordinary, so do not pretend it is.

You are normalizing deviance so you can defend your authoritarian libs owning felon.

[Nige]

When you're voting for Trump, it suddenly becomes incumbent to insist that it's wrong to judge some people by the things they say. But only some.

[Bwaaah]

Consider my perspective...

With each federal election season, the heads of hundreds of elected and appointed officials come and go. There, they attempt to steer the 2.8 million career people who are employed by the federal government at any time.

If you'll accept my "steering" metaphor and imagine taking hold of that wheel, tug as hard as you may, you'll have trouble determining if it's changing direction at all.

I presume those 2.8 million people are like you and me, Sarc. Despite our political differences, we have a lot in common. And that which we have in common is actually of much greater substance than that which divides us, which is more abstract, philosophical, and emotional in nature.

Very few of us want our political enemies thrown in jail, much though in the passions of speech, we too easily suggest otherwise.

Our country survived four years of a Trump administration not by the grace of Donald Trump, but by the substantially immovable mass and integrity of the vast bureaucracy over which he attempted to preside. Another four years won't change that. There are just too many people doing an honest day's work there, Sarc. People like you. As a matter of fact, almost all of this psycho bullshit emanates from the political class in government, not the career class.

Talk is cheap, and our bureaucracy is so much more than talk. Believe in the substance of our government, imbued with the substance of the American working people who animate it. It really is our government, our country, yours and mine.

And shit talk is just shit talk.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah, can't buy it. Purely politically, I am more opposed to Liz Cheney than to Donald Trump. More opposed to Cheney than to any of the current batch of MAGAs trying to trash respect for the rule of law. But I would vote for Cheney to keep any of those other oath-breaking assholes from power. If they commit crimes, and get convicted, I am all for putting them in prison. That's what the rule of law looks like: alleged crime, due process, exoneration or punishment. You are arguing against that. Is it possible you do not understand that is what you are doing?

[Nige]

Bwaaah, attempting to justify voting for people who want to imprison their political enemies.

('Yes, I'll vote for him, but the Deep State will save us!')

[Commenter_XY]

Nevermind the Drama Queens, Bwaaaah.

[Nige]

What, the THE LAW HAS BEEN WEAPONISED AGAINST AN INNOCENT FELON drama queens?

[Nige]

Well done, you've gone full fascist apologist.