Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Some people just can't give it a rest.

Politico has jumped in with a story about ... Well I've learned my lesson, I will just quote Politico rather than offer my own comments:

Biden insists he’s not involved in his family’s business dealings. But his aides are a different story.
"The overlapping roles are under scrutiny as the president distances himself from his family’s dealings."

In one instance, Jim Biden testified that he hired the former head of his brother’s Secret Service detail, Dale Pupillo, to investigate a Chinese executive that Hunter Biden was doing business with in 2017.

Jim Biden said during his February impeachment inquiry interview that he commissioned Pupillo in advance of accompanying Hunter Biden to Hong Kong so that his nephew could meet with the executive, Patrick Ho.

Despite hiring a private investigator and traveling halfway around the world for the meeting, Jim Biden said he never asked Hunter Biden what Ho — then on the cusp of being arrested, and later convicted, on federal corruption charges — and his nephew were meeting about. He said the decision not to inquire about the meeting came down to a desire to quarantine his affairs from those of his nephew’s.

“That may be hard for you to believe,” he told an incredulous Republican staffer. “But that’s the way we operate in my family.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/08/joe-biden-aides-family-business-dealings-00161476

[Dr. Ed 2]

And we're supposed to believe this...

[Martinned2]

It is perpetually annoying that there is no English equivalent for the Dutch expression "Zoals de waard is vertrouwt hij zijn gasten." The basic meaning of the expression is that people assume that others think like they do, and you see that time and again in the (American) political debate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But others DO think like I do, at least in this regard -- no one would ever believe me were I to say something like this.

[Magister]

Also if Dr. Ed 2 said something unlike this.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Seven fewer words: projection.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I was under the impression that, after what we saw with Ivanka and Jared, we no longer care about families of a President using the connection to enrich themselves.

[Kazinski]

Unlike the Biden's the Kushner's were very rich before assuming public office and actually have a business other than selling influence.

This is from a 2016 article in Forbes which pegs the entire Kushner family net worth at 1.6b then. Hardly a stretch to think its feasible that they could sell the Real Estate for 2billion 5 years later.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2016/12/18/jared-josh-kushner-fortune-donald-trump-real-estate/

Its also worth noting that Josh Kushner Jared's brother runs the family venture capital firm now which is worth 3.6 billion, and that Josh is a liberal who made a significant amount of money from an Obamacare related venture before Trump became President.

https://www.forbes.com/profile/josh-kushner/

[Longtobefree]

Damn it, this is the Reason comments section; why do you continue to post facts?

[Martinned2]

No need to get worried until he starts posting relevant facts.

[Malika the Maiz]

What's the argument supposed to be here? Kushner, who inherited his company from his father (who was convicted of illegal contributions to politicians, among other things), came from money. This means claims of influence peddling while he had an official position in an administration (which Hunter does not) are less credible?

[bernard11]

That seems to be it.

Meanwhile Jushner himself seems to have a dismal record in real estate, as the Saudi investment advisory group pointed out. He also is charging abnormally high fees.

That his father was rich (also a crook) is no defense at all.

[Balisane]

Yeah, you are only tolerant of crookery when your fellow liberal Jewish traitors, like Sheldon Silver, do it.

[Kazinski]

Well then what's the allegation?

He started a investment firm after the end of the administration and 6 months later the Saudi's put 2b in it for him to invest?

[bernard11]

The allegation is that the Saudis wouldn't have done that but for the family connection to Trump and Kushner's past and potential future influence on US Middle Eastern policy.

This was, by conventional standards, a bad investment:

A panel that screens investments for the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund cited concerns about the proposed deal with Mr. Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, previously undisclosed documents show.

Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30.

[bernard11]

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."

[Nelson]

Apparently the argument is people with generational/inherited wealth never do anything illegal, nor do they buy or sell influence.

It's the "rich people aren't criminals" argument. Which, given how dirty both Trump's and Kushner's fathers were, is an insane thing to believe, let alone say out loud.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I mean seriously. That Kushner carried a lot of water for MBS as a government official and that MBS then overrode his own advisors to give the billions to Kushner doesn't even register because Kushner was already wealthy?

You said it well, the "rich people aren't criminals" argument is an instance to believe and say out loud. Shame is dead.

[Sarcastr0]

Rich people cease seeking money, and are therefore incorruptible according to Kaz.

Thus, rich people should always be the ones you seek to put into public office!

"Some people just can’t give it a rest" indeed.

[jb]

Wait, you're saying that since the Kushner crime family already crimed their way to a bunch of money that they're now purely virtuous and not corrupt, whereas with Biden we found some "evidence" that looks kind of crime-adjacent so that's bad?

While we're at it, though, if we are paying attention to when people are in office, Biden was not in office when the trip to China that you refer to in your original post happened. So unclear why you think we're supposed to care about that and not the $2B that Kushner got.

[Nige]

It's ok for RICH people to be corrupt and get handed immense governmental power because they're family!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some of us weren't exactly happy with Ivanka & Jared, either.

At least Billy Carter was entertaining.

[Riva]

Kinda hard to justify the Big Guy’s 10 percent if he’s not involved.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is there a citation for Joe Biden getting 10% of one of Hunter's business deals?

[Riva]

Yup. Emails from the laptop abandoned by his crackhead bagman son.

[Malika the Maiz]

Please provide this citation.

[Riva]

The system may block any links but here’s one. There are many, many many other references. I doubt you’re ignorant of this but here it is anyway:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-acknowledged-joe-was-the-big-guy-in-5m-china-deal/ar-BB1j7xYE

[David Nieporent]

Once more:
1) The NYP is lying; Hunter Biden did not "acknowledge" that his father was "the big guy." In fact he expressly said in his deposition that he had no idea what this meant. (Note that Hunter Biden didn't write that email, so he isn't the right person to ask in the first place. The guy who wrote the email is the one to ask what he meant by it. That's James Gilliar.)

2) The part about 10% for the big guy was a question, not a statement.

3) There is no dispute that this email was about a transaction that never actually happened, so Joe Biden couldn't have gotten any money from it.

4) Joe Biden was a private citizen at the time this email was sent. His vice presidential term was over, he was retired.

[Riva]

I see. The NY Post is lying. Not the 50 plus intel pukes. And there’s also corroborating witnesses. I guess they’re lying too. Everyone is lying except corrupt former intel guys, the crackhead and the Big Guy.

[David Nieporent]

I see. The NY Post is lying.

They are indeed. You can read the Hunter Biden deposition for yourself; he never "acknowledges" what they claim he acknowledged:

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Hunter-Biden-Transcript_Redacted.pdf

What "lie" is in the letter from the former intelligence professionals?

What "corroborating witnesses" do you think said, well, any of these things?

[Riva]

You’re beclowning yourself again. You, and maybe some deranged MSNBC hosts, are probably the only ones defending the integrity of the lying intel pukes. As for witnesses, Tony Bobulinski comes to mind. But he’s lying too right?

[David Nieporent]

You, and maybe some deranged MSNBC hosts, are probably the only ones defending the integrity of the lying intel pukes.

Notice how, whenever asked for actual facts to support any of your claims, you just lash out with insults? I asked a very simple question: what "lie" is in the letter from the former intelligence professionals?

[Riva]

Notice how, when confronted with the evidence, Dave changes the topic?

And, I add, your continuted defense of the intel officer disgraces merits nothing but ridicule and contempt.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Riva then: I see. The NY Post is lying. Not the 50 plus intel pukes.

David's question: I asked a very simple question: what “lie” is in the letter from the former intelligence professionals?

Riva now: Dave changes the topic

Riva, you brought them up. Or did you mean some other "intel pukes"? if there was a misunderstanding, clarify who you meant. But by all appearances, you brought up the letter and claimed there were lies.

Also, you are the one dodging by leaning into whether the NY Post was lying, but you didn't quote the part of the transcript where Hunter Biden "acknowledged" what the NY Post said he acknowledged.

You just throw out half-truths and untruths and then retreat to insults and dodges when called on it. Par for the course for you, but not a good look.

[Riva]

Not really sure I understand the stupid gaslighting game you clowns are tag teaming on. What lie? Fundamentally that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Every f’ing serious media outlet has had to grudgingly admit that it was not. The whole crap lie from the 52 intel pukes was a Biden orchestrated campaign lie and distraction that apparently successfully deceived a lot of people. You leftists goons don’t seem to want to let it go though. Fine with me if you want to make fools of yourselves. Keep it up.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Fundamentally that the laptop was Russian disinformation.

Yet, you don’t quote the statement in the letter that you paraphrase in that way.

Every f’ing serious media outlet has had to grudgingly admit that it was not.

You quote nobody from a serious media outlet saying that.

You seem to think the letter made a definitive statement that has been proven false. It didn’t. Just for context, here’s what would seem to be a key part of the letter – identify the lie:

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

(emphasis mine)

As you can see, they did not make an assertion regarding whether the emails were genuine or not. They also did not make an affirmative assertion that Russia was involved. In fact, they specifically indicated that they didn't know the answer to either. So, again, where’s the lie?

You either don’t know the facts or you are gaslighting (pretending the letter said something when you know it didn’t). I’m guessing you just consume unreliable media that coddles you by confirming your priors regardless of facts and, so, were ignorant of the actual contents of the letter.

[Riva]

Your’re a joke. The insinuation that the Russian government “played a significant role in this case” was the f’ing lie. And it was used by various media to ignore or censor any reference to the laptop. The Post even had its Twitter account suspended for a time. Yet you and the other clowns are still trying to lie about it. Truly repulsive.

[David Nieporent]

Fundamentally that the laptop was Russian disinformation.

Ah, so you never actually read their letter. Hint: it doesn't say that. It explicitly says that they don't know.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The insinuation that the Russian government “played a significant role in this case” was the f’ing lie.

lol. It's not a lie when that "insinuation" (though not an actual statement of fact which is required for a lie) was preceded by:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails...are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.

But glad to clear up that all of your accusations are built on the fact that the authors of the letter actually told the truth (e.g. "we do not have evidence of Russian involvement") and acknowledging they don't know whether the emails "are genuine or not." At this point, when you repeat that the intel people were "lying", then you are the liar. Before you could claim ignorance, now you've read at least the key sentences, so you know better. Be better.

[Riva]

Ah, so David you never actually read my comment. Hint: I quoted the f’ing letter which insinuated it was Russian disinformation and then I noted that that was the excuse must biased lazy ass media and social media sites used to censor any mention of it, including censoring the NY Post which reported the story. You really are quite the lying little shit, aren’t you?

As for your little buddy NOVA lawyer, the point is the intel pukes lied and mislead the public, there was no Russian disinformation. As noted, the media/social media used the lie as an excuse to censor any reference to the laptop.

[NOVA Lawyer]

the point is the intel pukes lied

Sure, except for they didn’t as it’s been shown that they explicitly told their audience the actual facts that you say they lied about, as my quotes from the letter demonstrate. Your supporting quotes or sources, meanwhile, are nowhere to be found.

[Riva]

So the story wasn't censored? The media didn't report it as "Russian disinformation"? The NY Post's Twitter account wasn't suspended? The creep Biden himself didn't state, uncontradicted by the media, in debates and other forums that it was Russian disinformation based on this crap letter? There was no basis to lead the public to believe this could be Russian disinformation. It was a lie originating from efforts of the crooked Biden campaign. Be better.

[David Nieporent]

Ah, so David you never actually read my comment. Hint: I quoted the f’ing letter

You did? Where? NOVA Lawyer quoted it.

which insinuated it was Russian disinformation

I don't think you know what the word "insinuate" means. "This looks like Russian disinformation" is not insinuation. Nor, of course, is it a lie.

and then I noted that that was the excuse must biased lazy ass media and social media sites used to censor any mention of it, including censoring the NY Post which reported the story.

Literally not one media or social media site — not one, anywhere on the planet — censored mention of it. There are remote tribes in the Amazon rainforest with no contact with outside civilization, and even they were aware of and discussing it.

As for your little buddy NOVA lawyer, the point is the intel pukes lied

What. Lie. Did. They. Tell?

As noted, the media/social media used the lie as an excuse to censor any reference to the laptop.

As noted, nobody censored references to the laptop. Nobody anywhere. Ever. You are the liar here.

[Riva]

The NY Post suspended its own Twitter account? You need a time out.

[David Nieporent]

So the story wasn’t censored?

Correct. The story was not censored. Period. It was published in print and on the web and then linked and discussed everywhere. Every media outlet in the United States wrote stories about it.

There was no basis to lead the public to believe this could be Russian disinformation.

There was a lot of basis for that. (At lot more than there is for talking about Biden corruption.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

“I shut it down, and the evidence of me shutting it down is the actual things you have as evidence,” the younger Biden said. “Remember that. The agreement, the executed agreement, the executed agreement to create a company that was never operated, that’s what happened. That’s the evidence you have … Nothing to do with my dad, zero.”

So the signed agreement, for the company discussed in the 2017 email but which never actually operated, did not actually include "10% for the Big Guy". Thanks for confirming.

(By the way, why do they keep saying, "first son" in the linked story? Is that some kind of sick joke?)

[Riva]

Wonder what that 40k check was for? I think the Big Guy got his 10 percent for something.

[Nelson]

Are you talking about the loan repayments? Because everything the wingnuts claim are bribes to Joe Biden ... never are.

[Riva]

Yeah. Loan repayment. That's believable. Capone would probably have been too embarrassed to try that crap. MSNBC will probably buy it though.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you claiming that the $40k was related to the "10% for the Big Guy" email/arrangement?

Or are you just attempting to make an "argument from ignorance"?

[Riva]

Loan repayment? Uh no, no I don’t believe that corrupt influence peddling child sniffling clown was just honestly receiving a loan repayment. Whether it was part of the 10 percent or other monies perhaps is debatable remains. Something for Congress and the next Trump DOJ to look into.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Loan repayment?

Elsewhere in this thread, it's been pointed out that a few months prior to the loan repayment of $40k, there is record of payment going the other way in the amount of......$40k. So, yeah, you have to squint really hard to think A gives B $40k, then B gives A $40k, and that latter payment is a kickback to A rather than a loan repayment.

You seem to only know a bunch of half truths which is why you are so incensed the rest of us don't share your alternate reality.

[Riva]

BS. What record verifying the “loan”? In legal parlance, you are full of shit.

[NOVA Lawyer]

PolitiFact reviewed the records for two bank wires, one for $40,000 and one for $200,000, from an account linked to Joe Biden to James Biden. The records were not explicit documentation of outgoing loans.

Checks the Oversight Committee released show that James Biden then appeared to repay his brother in full, without interest, within two months of each alleged loan.

And from Comer himself: “It’s certainly plausible" that the $40,000 check was a loan repayment, said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the House Oversight Committee’s chair.

Even Comer has a more nuanced complaint than you are purveying, Riva.

This is what happens when you run with half-truths. You end up just lying. Sometimes, the simplest explanation fed to you by Newsmax that fits your priors is exactly the wrong explanation. Kind of a revers Occam’s Razor. They keep it simple and you gullible to perpetuate the lie. Stop being the embarrassing part of that tactic.

[Riva]

WTF? Politicfact supposedly reviewed 2 records of a bank wire. How the fuck does that substantiate a legitimate loan?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Riva,

As you know from elsewhere in the thread, the fact of the wire transfers was established by the Republican led committee. Attacking the messenger doesn't save you. As David pointed out, The Washington Examiner reviewed the same records and, yes, there were wire transfers one direction, then a month or two later, in the other direction. For the same amount, labeled as loan repayments. From one brother to another, while both were private citizens.

I'm sure facts won't interfere with your certainty, but, again, even the execrable Comer admitted it was plausible the $40k was a loan repayment. Think about that: You have less integrity than Rep. James Comer.

[Riva]

Nova Lawyer,

As you well know, from elsewhere in this thread, the Biden and democrats’ assertions that this money was a legitimate loan repayment is highly questionable given that the “proof” coming from a Biden affiliated law firm didn’t make clear what accounts monies were wired from. Not to mention that there are no records clearly showing that Joe Biden did indeed loan his brother large sums of money. But the 40k is itself a joke and hardly representative of the take of the Biden crime family as recently subpoenaed bank records show. 18 million from foreign sources going to the creepy Bidens since the Big Guy was VP. I wonder if the demented creep will forget to pardon himself when he leaves office? Let’s hope so. Try to be better.

[David Nieporent]

But the 40k is itself a joke and hardly representative of the take of the Biden crime family as recently subpoenaed bank records show. 18 million from foreign sources going to the creepy Bidens since the Big Guy was VP.

I'm honestly not sure at this point whether Riva is a bot or just the stupidest person alive.

Riva: The Biden family is corrupt!!!!!!! Look at these multi-million dollar transactions!!!!!!!¹
Me: In fact, there's no evidence Joe Biden got a penny from any of these transactions.
Riva: What about this $40,000 payment?
Me: First of all, that's not from any of these transactions; that's from his brother. Second, that was a loan repayment.
Riva: Do you have any proof of that?
Me: Yeah. Even the House GOP admits it.
Riva: Well, but what about the multimillion dollar transactions?
​​
​​
¹Note: none of the transactions show corruption by the other Bidens, either. Other than Hunter Biden not paying taxes on some of his earnings — which is personal to him — nothing about any of them has been shown to be criminal, illegal, or illicit in any way.

[Riva]

Let's put aside that the evidence hardly establishes an innocent loan repayment, which in and of itself is a laughably small example of the Biden family take. Perhaps you could explain, more basically, what exactly is the Biden family business again? They don't produce anything, they don't develop property, they certainly have no knowledge of the E. European energy industry. They know crack, and child sniffing but cracks not a money maker on the consumption side and I don't believe child sniffing could be monetized so how did they make all those millions? What did they need that Byzantine web of LLCs for?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Let’s put aside that the evidence hardly establishes an innocent loan repayment....

Yes, of course, you want to put it aside because there is significant evidence that it was a loan repayment, such that even Comer admitted it was, at least, plausible. And there is only wild speculation that it was not a loan repayment and you have cited zero evidence otherwise. So, yeah, let's put that aside.

...which in and of itself is a laughably small example of the Biden family take.

Yes, a laughably small example of the Biden family take, but literally the only example you have provided of a payment to Joe Biden....

I don't think even a bot is this evidence free and pathetic. Riva, just go live in your fantasy world where evidence is not evidence and no evidence is strong evidence. The rest of us prefer to live in reality where evidence is evidence and the absence of evidence is not proof of a diabolical conspiracy.

what exactly is the Biden family business again?

This is one of the dumbest memes out there: That Trump and Kushner are in business, so of course they do corrupt business which is totally not corrupt because they are businessmen. Meanwhile, the Bidens are political family, so are not business people, so why would they have businesses and if they have businesses they must be corrupt because they are a political family.

The Bidens are not a political family. Joe Biden has been a politician. Moreover, it's not only the case that business people can become politicians, but politicians not infrequently become business people. His son Beau, after his military career, became a politician. The other Bidens (including his grandfather, father, and brother) were/are....guess what? Business people.

it's not hard to find what any of their businesses are. Google is your friend.

[Riva]

No, there is significant evidence that Biden is corrupt. But to get back to the Biden family "business" question, I see you can't identify a legitimate one either. At least, with all the whining about naming "sources" in this section here, you got nothing. Be better.

[David Nieporent]

what exactly is the Biden family business again? They don’t produce anything, they don’t develop property, they certainly have no knowledge of the E. European energy industry.

The premise of your question is nonsensical. There is no "Biden family business" in the first place. Hunter Biden does stuff, Jim Biden does stuff. Sometimes they do stuff together. There's no overarching "Biden Organization" the way there is a Trump Organization.

Hunter Biden is a lawyer and an fund manager that puts together investments. (You probably thought you were clever when you repeated the thing you had read online about him not being an expert on Eastern European energy, but he was not the vice president of operations of Burisma. He was a board member, brought on for corporate governance issues, not industry issues. You are apparently unfamiliar how corporations work; boards of directors do not manage the operations of a company; they hire the management.)

[Riva]

Close. There is no legitimate Biden family business. But we do have years of influence peddling laundered through the web of LLCs and family members, including his crackhead bagman son Hunter. At least $18 million, but that’s probably understating the take.

[Riva]

And the 40k is just scrapping the surface of the Big Guy’s take. It is hardly all that creep has vacuumed in with years of influence peddling.

[David Nieporent]

There. Is. No. Evidence. Joe. Biden. Got. One. Penny.

[Riva]

If we ignore all the evidence, sure. Just like there was no censorship of the laptop when we ignore all the censorship. I would say, in your view, there's no illegal immigration either, or inflation. Certainly no lawfare. Not sure what you're on but you better cut back, for your own health.

[David Nieporent]

Pro tip: voices in your head are not "evidence."

[Riva]

Nope the laptop contents are. So is Congressional testimony and other records that corroborate the laptop contents. More to come to light soon I expect when the next Trump DOJ begins serious investigations. Let’s hope some accountability finally comes to the Big Guy.

[David Nieporent]

Nope the laptop contents are.

The laptop contents do not show Joe Biden getting a single penny. Are you gullible or dishonest?

[Riva]

Are you saying the Big Guy’s not getting his 10 percent? Yeah I suspect that the creepy Biden crime family probably regularly screw themselves. Let’s hope it’s only figuratively.

[David Nieporent]

Kinda hard to justify claiming that Joe Biden got 10% of anything when Joe Biden didn't get 10% of anything.

[Frank Drackman]

Brains obviously

[Riva]

You think more was laundered through the Biden crime family’s web of LLCs? You’re probably right.

[David Nieporent]

You still are too dumb to know that people with different first names are different people, even if they have the same last name.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Nothing to see here. Apart from all that documentary evidence about the Biden crime family corroborated by witnesses.

[Malika the Maiz]

Which you still won't source?

[Riva]

I frankly think your’e feigning ignorance but do a simple search on NY post articles if you really are that oblivious. I sent you one link that was probably blocked by this site.

[Malika the Maiz]

Which you still won’t source (NY Post, lol)? You’ve got these critical goods, provide them.

[Riva]

Uh you asked for a source. I gave you one. The NY post didn’t create the laptop, they’re just one of the few media outlets that had the integrity to report it instead of relying on the garage intel letter lies. And there’s even congressional testimony (https://www.c-span.org/video/?534302-2/hearing-biden-family-business-dealings-part-1).

Keep your head up your ass and continue to ignore it if you want. Seems like you have a lot of practice with that.

[David Nieporent]

There is zero — nada, nil, none, zilch, rien, nichego, niente, nic, null, niets — "documentary evidence" showing Joe Biden receiving any money from anyone from any of these deals.

[Riva]

The emails are documents. And witnesses have more emails. And there are cancelled checks. A whole lot for the next Trump DOJ and Congress to look into.

[David Nieporent]

There are no emails or cancelled checks showing Joe Biden getting money from any of these deals.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And even if he did, in 2017 he was a private citizen who was (frankly, at that time) not obviously likely to ever have another government job. Book deals, speaking engagements and figurehead consulting gigs was all he was likely to ever do. And then Trump happened--possibly the only Republican candidate Joe Biden could ever have beaten.

We have his tax returns, so despite what James Gilliar's email had proposed, we know that Joe Biden didn't receive any money in the end. Unless you're accusing him of fax fraud, too...

[Riva]

You repulsive leftists get awful upset at any mention of the Biden family corruption if there's no underlying criminaltiy to be found. Almost like you're afraid of something.

[John Rohan]

Still going with the "private citizen" excuse? The deals were made while Biden was VP. The reimbursements came afterwards to avoid scrutiny.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not a “leftist”.
Not “upset”.
"Repulsive"... Well, repelling TDS sufferers does have its benefits.

But I do wonder why you keep beclowning yourself with baseless accusations of corruption if there is, indeed, no underlying criminality to be found? How much more time do you need? Maybe an American Inquisition would produce the evidence you seek...

[David Nieporent]

Still going with the “private citizen” excuse? The deals were made while Biden was VP. The reimbursements came afterwards to avoid scrutiny.

The email that MAGA rely on, the sole thing that might possibly hint of Joe Biden's involvement in Hunter's business, was written in 2017 about a potential deal that never happened. In 2017, Biden was not VP. And there was no "reimbursement."

[Nige]

'Almost like you’re afraid of something.'

What Riva's got is better than evidence: it's VIBES!

[Riva]

Like I said, you leftist goons get awful upset at the mere mention of the Biden crime families antics. Not sure why you get so panicked if there were no evidence. Wait…there’s a shit load of evidence, emails, witnesses, documents. Ok I can see why you’re worried.

[Nige]

As much evidence as there was about the election being stolen. Which must be why you get absolutely furious when this is pointed out.

[Riva]

I forgot to mention the 40k check. So, emails, testimony, check.
You’re going to need a new deceitful letter from your intel guys Dave.

[David Nieporent]

The only "40k check" to Joe Biden is from Joe Biden's brother Jim — not from a Ukrainian, Russian, or Chinese person or company, or any other country — and it was a loan repayment. We know it was for a loan repayment because

1) The undisputed testimony is that it was for a loan repayment.
2) There are records of Joe sending $40k to Jim a few months earlier, constituting the loan that was repaid.
3) Jim Comer dropped the whole matter after he released this "finding," because he was laughed at by everyone including other Republicans for trying to spin an intra-family loan repayment as a scandal.

The last part is key. Even if one were gullible enough to think that there were actual evidence of payments to Joe, the fact that the House GOP isn't doing anything with the alleged evidence should kind of clue one in that there's nothing there.

[Riva]

Yeah, that’s believable. Undisputed testimony or maybe perjury? And that’s not the only evidence of the massive creepy Biden family corruption. Emails, documents, testimony. And the investigations have only begun.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Riva,

Cute how you only respond to #1, ignoring #2 and #3. Yes, the undisputed testimony was back up by actual records. Unsurprising you ignore that. $40k out, $40k in and Riva is sure it's not net zero. Somehow.

But Jim Comer's on it. Only, he's not. You just keep running with half-baked theories the nuttiest of the nuts put out there. They make you look like a fool. Maybe stop believing them and get a fuller picture? Or just keep leaning in hard to half-truths and forget trying to rebuild your reputation.

[Riva]

Again BS. What records?

[David Nieporent]

And the investigations have only begun.

You didn't, of course, respond to any of the points. But you did nevertheless find time to write this lie. The House GOP began investigating Biden the moment they took office; in other words, the investigations have been going on for 18 months (just a few months shy of the Mueller investigation). And they've still got nothing.

[David Nieporent]

Again BS. What records?

I'd say that the problem is that Riva only gets his information from right wing sources, ignoring actual news outlets, but the actual problem is that Riva doesn't get any information at all:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2571227/joe-biden-may-have-lent-james-biden-money-to-justify-loan-repayments-bank-records-show/

Bank records suggest President Joe Biden may have paid his brother $240,000 in two installments a year apart, each just weeks before James Biden wrote his brother a check for the same amount.

The records, obtained by the Washington Examiner, support the White House’s claim that the checks James Biden wrote to Joe Biden in 2017 and 2018, respectively, appear to be intended to pay back loans.

...

But the pair of wire transfers in the possession of the House Oversight Committee appear to indicate that Joe Biden, through an account controlled by his attorneys, was owed the money James Biden sent him.

...

The first wire transfer was for $40,000 and came on July 28, 2017, from the account controlled by Joe Biden’s attorneys. James Biden then paid the exact amount, $40,000, back to Joe Biden on Sep. 3, 2017, 37 days later. On the check that James Biden used to pay his brother back, it said it was for “loan repayment,” and the back of the check indicated it was deposited by the same law firm and into the same bank account as the original payment came from.

[Riva]

I’d say David is full of shit and didn’t read the article he linked to, which goes on to note “But an Oversight Committee aide pushed back on the claim that the wire transfers show the money was a loan, saying that the White House and Democrats’ assertion “that the committee already has information in its possession proving the $200,000 and $40,000 checks to Joe Biden were loan repayments is flawed” for a number of reasons.” The article goes on to elaborate more fully, if anyone actually wants to learn more.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The article goes on to elaborate more fully

Not really, unless you mean it elaborates more fully on evidence free speculation that it may not have been a loan because [mumble mumble], but the Republicans on the committee basically conceded it was a loan and instead tried to spin it as improper anyway because it was repaid with money made in a business deal in China when all involved parties were private citizens.

It's crazy how upset you are by this, but not a word from you on Jared Kushner and his sweetheart deal from MBS (after having done a lot of PR for MBS during his time as a U.S. government official). Or are you one of those peddling the "it's okay because he was already rich" excuse?

[Riva]

No, NOVA lawyer, it's crazy how you and your little buddy Dave twist yourself in knots over a mere 40k when this is only the tip of the corrupt Biden crime family iceberg. Recently subpoenaed bank records show the Biden creeps hauled in more than 18 million since the Big Guy was VP. Hell, the corrupt snake would hardly even notice the 40k.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Riva just faithfully repeats, though often adding inaccuracies of his own, what people like Rep. Comer tell him to say:

Riva in this thread: “They don’t produce anything, they don’t develop property,”

Comer in August 2023: “they don’t make anything. They don’t produce anything. They don’t provide a good or service.”

Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post, when discussing the memos by the House Oversight Committee related to the Biden “investigation”, puts it like this:

The memos themselves have careful language that is often hedged. Then Comer and other GOP lawmakers…go on Twitter or speak to conservative media using hyperbolic language that goes well beyond what the memos say. Over time, the reporting on the memos in conservative media becomes untethered from the documentation in the reports.

Riva is the bot who relays the reporting on the memos that is untethered from documentation while often deleting or adding info making the statements even more disconnected from reality.

Riva, you’re getting played and you haven’t yet realized it.

You brought up the $40k, now you want to go look somewhere else when your talking point was proven to be bullshit. The $18 million number, for example, doesn’t represent, even in the worst light, payments to any of the Bidens (singly or collectively) and represents precisely zero dollars that went to Joe Biden. Which is why you brought up the $40k check. And were wrong that it represented anything sinister other than one brother loaning another brother money.

Riva, you are the perfect sucker. You half-remember the half-truths politicos are spewing at you and then you share those quarter-truths with us. You’re just being conned into being outraged and into spreading lies, Riva.

[David Nieporent]

Riva just faithfully repeats, though often adding inaccuracies of his own, what people like Rep. Comer tell him to say:

Some of the other MAGA posters here come up with original arguments. Often wrong, often racist, often stupid, but they have some arguments to make. But 100% of the time when Riva posts a legal or factual argument, it's word-for-word what he saw or heard on Fox or Twitter or whatever. But he never is honest enough to admit that; he never says, "As MTG said…" or "As Julie Kelly wrote…" He presents their 'arguments' as if they were his own.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure Hunter's met with lots of Ho's

[Riva]

Rather why no one ever hired the crackhead bagman for anything. They were buying influence from his creepy corrupt father.

[grb]

Here's a link to the Burisma announcement on hiring Hunter. Even allowing the man lived off his father's name, how does his resume compare to yours, Riva?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5980032-Burisma-Announces-Hunter-Biden-s-Appointment-to

[Frank Drackman]

His Naval Service is very impressive

[Riva]

Yeah I was really impressed by the administrative discharge after testing positive for cocaine. Good thing he knew the Big Guy and was able to avoid a dishonorable discharge.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your link returns a blank page when I click on it but if it is from Burisma I think it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Based on his Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden
He doesn't ever seem to have had a real job that wasn't somehow connected to his father's influence.

[Riva]

You really want to argue that the crackhead was hired on his merits? That’s a new one. F’ing stupid but bold.

[David Nieporent]

Even allowing the man lived off his father’s name, how does his resume compare to yours, Riva?

[Riva]

Well I don’t know the Big Guy and never did crack so I guess I confess I can’t really compete.

[Malika the Maiz]

Georgetown Community College maybe?

[Riva]

Yeah, I probably wouldn’t be paid millions to sit on the Burisma board. But then again I don’t have the discharged crackhead’s indisputable knowledge of E. European energy infrastructure and Ukraine.

[grb]

Riva : “You really want to argue that the crackhead was hired on his merits?”

On the contrary: As I’ve noted several times previously, Hunter was clearly brought-in for his last name. This is similar to another Burisma hire at the the same time, Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former Polish president. He freely admits his board position was for prestige alone:

“I understand that if someone asks me to be part of some project it’s not only because I’m so good, it’s also because I am Kwasniewski and I am a former president of Poland,” he said. “And this is all inter-connected. No-names are a nobody. Being Biden is not bad. It’s a good name.”

As Kwasniewski said, that’s just how businesses work. You see the same thing everywhere. Shaquille O’Neal didn’t get on the board of Papa Johns Pizza due to his culinary insights or business management acumen.

And it’s part of the overall pattern of Burisma actions at the time. The company named Alan Apter – a financier well known in Europe and the U.S. – as its new Chairman of the Board and hired an internationally respected accounting firm to handle their books. They sought to buy respectability, and purchasing the Biden name for their board letterhead was probably pennies on the dollar compared to the other moves.

https://apnews.com/article/37424b8a0a994c1a935c5831643a84e3

[Bob from Ohio]

"how does his resume compare to yours, Riva?"

He cannot criticize his "betters"?

Donald Trump has POTUS on his resume. Let's compare yours.

[Malika the Maiz]

"He cannot criticize his “betters”?

If his argument is he's unqualified?

[Bob from Ohio]

Riva either having a 3rd grade education or a Nobel Prize or anything in between would not be relevant at all to Hunter's qualifications.

[Nige]

If 'look he has the *right* to say this dumb shit' is the best defence that can be mustered for Riva's passionate denunciations, well...

[Bob from Ohio]

"dumb shit"

Hunter became an executive VP at MBNA in 2 years.

Just coincidence that MBNA was a major Delaware company and ol'Joe was called Joseph Biden (D-MBNA)

Riva's entire point is Hunter is an unqualified nepo baby. Riva's personal resume does not matter, at all.

[David Nieporent]

Riva's not smart or knowledgeable enough to have a point. You know that "unqualified" and "nepo baby" are not synonymous, right? Nobody denies that Hunter Biden's last name opened doors for him. (Wait 'til you find out where Donald Trump Jr. works!) That is not the same thing as saying he was unqualified.

Nobody denies that Hunter Biden's life is a mess, that he has squandered his privileges by becoming a dissolute drug addict. But that's (1) an after the fact evaluation; and (2) also doesn't mean he's unqualified.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's a Yale trained lawyer; will/would you hire him?

[Nige]

He needs to get 'better' criticisms.

[Nige]

Why do you weirdos act like these elevated business circles are drug-free zones, such that taking drugs is in some way disqualifying?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Hunter goes to prison, he'd have the same USSS detail that Trump would have, at least until January.

Could a judge order the detail extended a few months until the end of the sentence?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hunter is not going to prison. Guilty verdict or not.

[John F. Carr]

I do not think the judge has authority to order Secret Service protection for a criminal defendant. Prison conditions in general are not the sentencing judge's responsibility. Unusual vulnerability in prison is a legitimate consideration in sentencing.

[David Nieporent]

Could a judge order the detail extended a few months until the end of the sentence?

No.

[Nelson]

Why would Hunter have Secret Service protection? He's never had it before, as far as I know.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is the aide here Jim Biden or the former SS employee?

[Kazinski]

Read the article, there is a half dozen of Joes former aides and associates mentioned.

[Malika the Maiz]

In the excerpt you posted with the heading "his aides are a different story" who is the aide? "Former aide" is what you're hanging your hat on?

[Kazinski]

Read the link, I'm not going to explain it to you.

[Nige]

You can't explain in simple terms what damning evidence about the Biden Crime Family is revealed?

[Kazinski]

He hasn't read the article, otherwise he wouldn't be asking, if he can't be bothered to read it I can't be bothered to waste my time explaining it.

But here is a summary:

"Eric Schwerin was Joe Biden's personal bookkeeper during his vice presidency at a time when Schwerin was also Hunter Biden's business partner and personal bookkeeper

In recent years, Mel Monzack was personal attorney for both Joe and Jim Biden

Fran Person was Joe Biden's body man, then after going into work with a Chinese real estate developer sought to do business with Hunter Biden and offered him the developer's personal largesse

White House physician Kevin O'Connor, who was also Joe Biden's doctor as vice president, pursued a potential health care deal alongside Jim Biden in 2017

Dale Pupillo oversaw Joe Biden's Secret Service detail during his vice presidency, then worked as a private investigator for Jim Biden"

[Nige]

....and?

[jb]

I haven't read the whole article yet, but looking at the diagram it seems like most of these connections are of the form "had the same accountant" or "had the same lawyer".

When I read the headline I was expecting something like Biden's chief of staff was also negotiating with a Chinese venture on behalf of Jim, or something where there would be a pretty obvious conflict with the claim that Joe doesn't get involved with Jim's or Hunter's business dealings, but just based on biographical history it doesn't look obvious that there's a problem.

[Kazinski]

The EU Elections were today and its being painted as a big win for.the far right, but I’m not so certain for two reasons:

1. Europe’s idea of far right does quite match my view of what constitutes far right.
2. The largest vote getter is Ursula von der Leyen’s PP Christian Democrats which is definitely Uni-Party and perfectly at home in Davos and Brussels.

On the other hand the signs indicating it was a big win for the right are:

1. Macron got beaten so badly by LePen’s party that he called for new French Elections next month.
2. Belgium’s PM’s party got about 6% of the vote and he has tendered his resignation.

I maybe reading it a little differently though, and perhaps through an American lens. Dems here are complaining that Biden is being blamed unfairly for inflation and the post pandemic pains. It looks like incumbents everywhere are getting their asses kicked by voters who don’t like the Great Reset and don’t want open borders and net zero. And that includes the conservatives in the UK.

In fact it includes almost everyone currently in power except Georgia Meloni who came in as the pandemic was ending, and was being called a fascist. Now she is decidedly mainstream and a major EU powerbroker.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/06/10/italy-pm-meloni-established-as-kingmaker-as-party-secures-win-in-elections

But who knows, maybe it is all about us and the Europeans are just making a self serving pivot before Trumps second term, maybe they could care less about us and are shifting right, except in the UK just because the left in in power.

[Martinned2]

Lots of different far right won in different places, some of which is definitely to the right of even Trump.

The Belgian prime minister had to resign anyway, because there were Belgian national (and regional) elections at the same time as the EU elections. But yes, his Flemish liberals didn't do well. (In Wallonia, on the other hand, the socialists who are traditionally the biggest party there were beaten by the Walloon liberals, the MR.)

[loki13]

"The Belgian prime minister had to resign anyway"

So, it was a Wednesday?

[Martinned2]

De Croo had been in office since 1 October 2020, so he basically served a full four year term.

[Martinned2]

In France, incidentally, it's interesting to see the difference between a two-round system, like they use for their national parliamentary elections, and a PR system that they use for the European Parliament. Both give voice to the range of opinion among the electorate in a better way than a UK-style plurality wins system does, but the optics are very different.

For example, in the 2022 parliamentary election Macron's party got 26% of the vote in the first round, and 39% in the second round, which got them 245 out of 577 seats. Compared to that, the 15% they got yesterday is bad, but not unprecedented. (It is not unusual for voters to use EU elections to vote against the government.) Similarly, the fact that Le Pen got 31% yesterday doesn't mean she'll get a majority in July, because at this point everyone who doesn't already vote for her probably thinks she's their last choice. So a large majority of voters for Macron's centrist party and for the Left would vote for the non-Le Pen candidate in the second round. (Less so the extreme left, obviously.)

[Mr. Bumble]

So if his party loses will Macaroon stay on as a lame duck or will he resign?

[Martinned2]

He will stay on, and not (entirely) as a lame duck either. There is ample precedent in France for what they call "cohabitation", i.e. combining a president and a cabinet of different parties. Under the French constitution, the president has lots of power independent from cabinet, so even if he has to work with prime minister Le Pen he won't get bored. (But he'd probably end up focusing more on foreign policy.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_(government)

[Kazinski]

Its not much different than a president losing control.of Congress in the midterms.

[Martinned2]

It's worse than that. During cohabitation, the president has to appoint a cabinet that has the support of the majority of the assembly. He can't just keep appointing ministers from his own party. France has a semi-presidential system, not a full presidential system like in the US.

[Martinned2]

The first poll is just in. It's forecasting that (at the end of the 2nd round) Macron's party will have 125-155 seats left, while Le Pen will have 235-265. In that scenario, a full non-Le Pen coalition would still have a majority, but that would require Macron to do business with the far left of Melenchon, who are almost as evil as Le Pen.

https://x.com/remiclement_/status/1800198271111192906/photo/1

[Bob from Ohio]

The devious thing would be to make Le Pen prime minister, governing would weaken her for the future president's race.

[Martinned2]

Yes. The most plausible explanation for why Macron called this election is that he figures the outcome will either be:
- Le Pen is defeated, which weakens her for the 2027 Presidential election; or
- Le Pen is not defeated, which means she'll be prime minister and can't run against the government in 2027.

Whether that's a sensible strategy is an exercise left for the reader.

[Martinned2]

Here is a blog post discussing it all in more detail: https://verfassungsblog.de/macron-le-pen-and-the-future-of-france-and-the-eu/

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's time for MAGA to fight back --- legally.

[Kazinski]

I couldn't disagree more.

If Trump wins a second term it really has to be about governing conservatively and competently, and the primary focus should be about securing his successor another 4-8 years, and I don't want to jeopardize that by getting a taunting penalty right after the touchdown.

DeSantis should be a good example in Florida, while there has been plenty of spiking the football he has concentrated on nuts and bolts governing. Even where he has taken the gloves of as with Disney, he's also kept it within bounds to give Disney confidence to announce 17 billion of new investment in Florida, knowing DeSantis will be perfectly happy if they make a ton of money doing so.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/disney-set-to-invest-up-to-17-billion-in-florida-parks-after-fight-with-desantis-appointees-ends

[NvEric]

Elise Stefanik is not a lawyer, so she'll work out fine as a VP who can hold any conversion worthy of a greater office, such as President.

[Martinned2]

I gather the main objective of a second Trump term will be to work towards post-constitutional government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/08/russ-vought-trump-second-term-radical-constitutional/

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess the shakeup at Wapo hasn't taken effect yet.

[Martinned2]

Feel free to stick to OANN if you think the MSM is an anti-Trump conspiracy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't know OANN and get back to me when the MSM (what a misnomer) gives back the awards and takes back all the stories about Russian collusion etc.

[Martinned2]

Why would they do that?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because they weren't awards for fiction?

[Martinned2]

Who wrote fiction? (Other than Stephen King, etc.)

[Bwaaah]

You know…the “Pee Tapes,” a very small chapter of the much-fabricated Steele Dossier, secretly funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. DNC and Clinton were fined $113,000 by the Federal Election Commission for having hidden from voters that scam of theirs, that kicked off the “Russian Collusion” story.

Fiction.

Democrat take: “Nothing to see….Russian disinformation.”

Since when did they start calling Democrats "Russians?"

[Sarcastr0]

Yes it is only this year you have been forced to vote for Trump.

[Nige]

‘Democrat take: “Nothing to see….Russian disinformation.”’

Amazing how people who vote for Trump but hate to becalled MAGA become indistinguishable from MAGA – Trump’s own plans and the plans of his advisers must be treated as ‘fiction.’ Change the subject back to RUSSIAHOAX!

[Bwaaah]

No hoax. It's real. It's a Democrat sponsored, anti-Trump misinformation campaign ("opposition research," they called it) that pitches Trump as a Russian stooge, and to whatever extent the facts of the campaign are unclear, Democrats attribute that lack of clarity to "Russian misinformation."

What'd I get wrong?

[Sarcastr0]

Hey have you read the Mueller Report, or is that more anti-Trump disinformation?

You appear to think that opposition research was actually the DNC knowingly funding lies. Expensive lies.
Which seems kind of unneeded where Trump is concerned. Methinks your conspiracy theory needs a bit more time in the oven.

[Bwaaah]

What conspiracy theory? I didn’t say what you said.

Democrats/Hillary bought opposition research. Result: pee tapes. A Trump smear.

Democrats say the story is littered with Russian disinformation.

Copy/paste the part of the Mueller Report that you think shows me wrong in what I’ve said here, and if it looks legit, I’ll check further.

[Nige]

‘What’d I get wrong?’

Pitch-perfect MAGA version of events. Little to do with reality. You’re fitting right in.

'Result: pee tapes.'

Two things - the Dossier was leaked by a Republican after the election. The Clinton campaign never used any of it.

There was a pee tape - a Russian-made fake one Trump sent someone to suppress with a payoff.

Still nothing to say about the actual plans of the guy you're going to vote for. Exactly like every single other Trump voter here.

[Bwaaah]

BuzzFee publishing the Steele Dossier was a Republican double-PSYOPs operation, eh? That's your theory? (Deep tricky strategists, those Republicans, eh?)

Well...all the major left leaning media outlets immediately used their authority to repeat the findings of that very real, very credible ex-British MI6 intelligence agent, reporting every salacious unconfirmed fact in ubiquitous "What We Know" stories (and what we don't).

Why did you leave out the role of the Russians? I mean, they're the ones who really hoodwinked us, no? Or was it all Republican PSYOPs?

Wait. I think I get your theory: Bad information paid for by Democrats, swallowed by Republicans. What Russians?

No. That's not your point. Take a shot: what's your point, beside MAGA MAGA MAGA?

[Bwaaah]

Nige: It’s not hard to determine your real identity. You, of all people, know what it’s like to read stories in the media about yourself, like what they reported you did to that 9-year-old girl.

The girl is still in counseling. You never apologized for what happened. You just deny it all, and then go and lecture people like it never happened.

You hurt real people, Nige. Can you show just a shred of respect for her family, if not the girl? How can you be so cold?

I know the media accounts weren’t confirmed and it's "all made up." But that doesn’t change the facts about what you did, Nige. She has to live with what happened for the rest of her life.

[Kazinski]

You’d be wrong.

One reason the Post is in such dire straits bleeding cash and readers is articles like this nobody reads for takes seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

Trumps said stuff. The people in his cabinet have said stuff. Heritages is all in on an ideological purge and then more.

But you think it’s not worth worrying about,

And you say worrying about it is why a print newspaper is struggling.

[Riva]

Could be worse. They could be the repulsive NY Times.

[Malika the Maiz]

Which I hear is doing well, which is not convenient for the theory that the Post's issues are due to ideological bias.

[Riva]

Well of course everyone knows The NY Times is an exemplary example of first class objective reporting. Not sure what you’re on but for your own health you better slow down. Not everyone can handle the crack like Hunter.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not convenient for the theory that the Post’s issues are due to ideological bias."

Only room for one TDS paper at the national level. If you live in Michigan, you can get all the TDS high you can handle from the NYT.

WaPo is a local paper which thinks its national because its in DC. It should focus on DC, Va. and Maryland, not compete with the NYT.

[Nige]

When Trump's in charge he'll put a stop to nasty newspapers criticising him.

[Riva]

What we have here is the projection of the misconduct of the Biden administration onto a future Trump administration. Sad. Projection is all you guys do. It's getting a little tedious. Find something new.

[Nige]

Yeah, no criticism of Biden in newspapers. Unlike Trump endlessly threatening newspapers for criticising him.

[Nige]

Is that what you're counting on? The stuff Trump says, the stuff his advisors say, MUST NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. It’s a weird situation when your major strategy is to deny that what the candidate and his team are promising is what you’re voting for.

[Michael P]

Joe Biden has already blazed that trail. Remember his boast that he gave away billions of dollars to student borrowers even after the September Court said he didn't have that power?

[Martinned2]

Every accusation is an admission...

[Michael P]

That’s just as stupid as when you wrote it yesterday. Why are you projecting your own feelings of guilt on everyone else?

[Martinned2]

Because it's an empirical fact. You are willing to condone ignoring judgments of the Supreme Court as long as it suits your policy preferences. One of the reasons why you are willing to condone such things is because you've convinced yourself that the Democrats did it first.

But that's OK, you're not the only one. Populists all over the world are in the same boat.

[Michael P]

When did I "condone ignoring judgments of the Supreme Court" for any reason?

[Martinned2]

In the very comment I responded to, which supported Ed's "MAGA fight back" approach.

[Michael P]

I pointed out that Joe Biden has already put us in post-constitutional government. I didn't endorse such a situation.

No wonder you say that every accusation is an admission: It's true for you, and you think other people think the same way you do.

[Malika the Maiz]

"No wonder you say that every accusation is an admission: It’s true for you, and you think other people think the same way you do."

I know you are, but what am I?

[Michael P]

He's the one who keeps saying it, and by his own argument it's an admission.

It amazes me that the leftist NPCs who have that in their script never think to apply what they say to themselves.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, but you just said it back, hence "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Michael P]

He's the one who wrote "every", repeatedly. And I paraphrased a Dutch saying he quoted elsewhere in today's open thread. I already pointed out that I was only applying his argument to itself. The only "I know you are, so what am I" going on here is him.

[Malika the Maiz]

Your refutation of my charge of you were engaging in "I know you are, but what am I" is "I was only applying his argument to itself"?

OK.

[Michael P]

Yes. “I know you are but what am I” is, in fact, the essence of “every accusation is an admission”. They're both insubstantial attempts to turn around a charge by accusing the other person of hypocrisy on top of whatever the underlying argument is about. However, "every accusation is an admission" goes even farther by undermining itself.

I remain amazed that leftist NPCs are so dense about this.

[Bwaaah]

Martinned: Please copy/paste Michael P's remark in which he "condone[d] ignoring judgments of the Supreme Court."

[Sarcastr0]

“Joe Biden already blazed that trail.”

If your response to ‘thing is bad’ is ‘you did it first’ you are arguing it’s okay now to do that thing.

Michael is more reactive than he is smart so maybe he didn’t mean it. But he did say it.

[Malika the Maiz]

"They’re both insubstantial attempts to turn around a charge by accusing the other person of hypocrisy on top of whatever the underlying argument is about."

Would this be like responding to a report of Trump's unconstitutional plans with a citation of an example of Biden's unconstitutional actions?

[Michael P]

No. What's your next stupid question?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>You are willing to condone ignoring judgments of the Supreme Court as long as it suits your policy preferences.

Can you give contemporary examples of a Republican President flipping a bird to SCOTUS and conservative's applauding?

[Malika the Maiz]

This is fairly similar.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-07-16/trump-refuses-new-daca-supreme-court

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's not similar at all.

First of all, that's "experts say". Trump didn't say.

Secondly, it even concedes in the article "The court did not decide on Trump’s executive authority to rescind DACA, and offered the administration a road map for how to try to end it for good."

[Malika the Maiz]

How is that different than Biden's alleged action above?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I already explained it once, and you didn’t read it.

I don’t think if I copy and pasted my answer again, you’ll read that either.

But I'll dumb it down even more.

SCOTUS said "Biden, you don't have the authority to do that."
Biden does it anyways.

SCOTUS never said "Trump, you don't have the authority to do that."
Trump does it anyways.

[Malika the Maiz]

Did SCOTUS say “Biden, you don’t have the authority to do that.”?

I thought they said "Biden, you don't have the authority to do that under this provision here."

But, hey, you're so smart, maybe you know better?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's not that I'm so smart, but they are clearly playing games with creative legal interpretations, just like they do when applying laws against J6'ers and conservatives. Which they also made illegal for conservatives to do.

They know another case probably can't percolate up to SCOTUS before the election. Which, all this goes away afterwards and makes this all moot, since it's just a vote buying strategy and this issue will get dropped until 2028.

[Malika the Maiz]

Could have saved time by saying "I have no answer, but lots of feelings!"

[David Nieporent]

even after the September Court said he didn’t have that power?

That is not what SCOTUS said.

[Riva]

Post constitutional government? One issue where Biden is clearly a leader.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz wants competence; morality and character need not apply because morality is Marxist and Marxism is Pol Pot:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/27/monday-open-thread-55/?comments=true#comment-10578073

"That the historical record is replete with examples of people draping themselves in the fabric of morals and ethics, that turn out to be wisps of nothing more than peoples fantasies.

God, isn’t that all Marxism is fantasies of moralistic concern for the people that ended up with people slaughtered?

I’ve related this before , but my mother in law, who is younger than me in years, but decades older in wear and tear and experience, was sent to the killing fields in Cambodia at 13 with her 3 younger siblings. That was about a year or so after I was registering for the draft and anxiously awaiting my draft number.

Spare me the morals and the aspirations."

[Riva]

Yeah, that’s a believable story you weave for yourself. Where in Canada were you waiting?

[OtisAH]

Had you bothered to click the link you’d have learned the quote — indicated by the quotation marks — is a Kazinski tale.

[Riva]

Sarcastr0 is not worth the effort. So I really don’t give a rat’s ass.

[Malika the Maiz]

I made a dumb response because he's not worth it. Checkmate!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh yeah, the Biden era has been a shining example of morality and character.

You constantly beclown yourself, Sarcraptisc0.

[Kazinski]

And the conversation was about personal morals, not public corruption.

And I stand by my remarks, I'm not going to base my vote on whether Trump slept with Stormy.

[Nige]

No, you want that post-constitutional presidency.

[Sarcastr0]

No system of government can be purely based on the law - it must be based on norms as well. Internal controls.

Morals, if you will.

It is profoundly naive to think that an individual bereft of morals is gonna be a good President because he'll follow the rules to get you good policy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you honestly think Trump will have more of a chance to govern during his 2nd term than he did his first?

All he can do is drain the swamp and flush out the rats.

[Mr. Bumble]

In part depends it on how the Congressional election shakes out.

First time around he didn't get much help and made a lot of poor choices for cabinet positions.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump cannot fail, he can only be failed!

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you failed or never took a civics class.
Contrary to claims from the left Trump will not be a dictator (well except for day one).

[Nige]

You mean, contrary to claims from Trump and his circle.

[bernard11]

SO the basic strategy of Trump supporters is to deny he's going to do any of the things he says he will do.

Instead, per the cultists, he will wave his hand there will be peace and prosperity worldwide.

[JD85]

Trump had a completely republican house and senate for two years. What more do you want him to have to “drain the swamp”? There was complete control of government, could have passed any budget he wanted. No need for any democrat votes.

If he was going to "drain the swamp" like you think he should have, he would have.

[Martinned2]

LOL. Trump is the swamp.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, but he couldn't do anything because the Deep State opposed him--and forced him to appoint numerous idiots to his Cabinet. Trump is the real victim here!

[Kazinski]

He did get a major tax bill through.

But he was also handicapped by the Mueller investigation.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and a bogus impeachment.

[bernard11]

He did get a major tax bill through.

He did, and he's going to try for another.

I guess all the deficit hawks and inflation worriers around here think that's just wonderful. Buffoons.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you file under the old tax rules?

[bernard11]

So you file under the old tax rules?

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Don NIco, why am I angry? because there are far too many fools like Bumble who promote these inane arguments.

[bernard11]

If Trump wins a second term it really has to be about governing conservatively and competently,

Get serious. By his own statements Trump plans to blow up the deficit, increase inflation, and put millions of people in concentration camps preparatory to deporting them.

And some people wonder why I'm angry.

[JD85]

But he'll keep the tax cuts on the wealthy and let those lower and middle class tax cuts expire! Just like it was planned when the republicans passed the tax cuts the first time!

[shawn_dude]

It was planned to have them expire after his sequential, second term. Then the tax repercussions would be a poison pill for the next president, presumably a Democrat. But that's not how things went, as we know, so he's got that time bomb sitting there. He'll be forced to re-implement the lesser tax cuts on the poor, middle, and professional classes in order to not poison the well for Republicans.

Assuming he gets reelected--which I sincerely hope he does not.

[Kazinski]

I know why you're angry, you are frustrated because your candidate is a train wreck and is going to lose badly to someone any competent candidate should beat.

[Nige]

No, he told you why he's angry, don't rewrite what he said to justify your affected complascency over what you're explicitly voting for.

[Frank Drackman]

I wouldn't call Sleepy a train wreck, more like a bicycle crash.

[bernard11]

If Trump wins it will be because people like you, Kaz, who should know better, believe and spread a lot of BS.

"Train wreck?" Trump has wrecked more trains than Biden has ridden.

[Nige]

'If Trump wins a second term it really has to be about governing conservatively and competently,'

Who, exactly, are you trying to kid?

[hobie]

Is Trump whispering for you to fight like hell again? You'll need a good lawyer. Ask around here. Or hire Calabresi...he'll be unemployed soon

[Frank Drackman]

Did your mother have any children that lived? Now I know you're a Shyster.

[AmosArch]

After Starship is finished some average schmuck working in fast food or retail will (at least in terms of theoretical weight cost) be able to afford a trip to space. And not just kiddy league suborbital space. Real honest orbital space.

Its absolutely mindblowing how far we’ve come in such a short time.

[Frank Drackman]

Not really, it's just a metal tube on top of 7million pounds of Liquid Oxygen/Methane. Only 200 years or so and we'll have Transporters like on Star Trek.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And producing something like 4 million pounds of Carbon Dioxide, along with Oxides of Nitrogen (from the heat) and Lord knows what else. The flame is yellow because *something* is incandescent, in a candle it is carbon, here -- who knows.

No one is mentioning the Carbon Dioxide these things are producing.

They are amazing only in the way that the flying wing (B2) is amazing -- computers able to make millions of minor course and balance corrections the way a human never could.

And no, we will never have Star Trek Transporters. Merely assembling a human body does not mean that the body is alive. You have to have lots of electrochemical signals on the neural network and not just the heart, how do you start them?

[Krayt]

It's more a cellular thing. A living cell isn't like a house or car. It's more like a million jugglers with all their balls in the air in motion. When it dies, they all fall to the ground. You can't just shoot lightning into neck bolts and expect all the balls to fly back up into what they were doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biologically, that's completely wrong. You can shut cells down by cooling them to the point that chemical reactions stop, you can freeze them, you can dehydrate them, and when you restore normal conditions they start right back up again

[Nige]

If they haven't turned to mush.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Amos Arch — Google, Grover Loening. I knew his son. I never met the dad, but he lived until 1976. If chance had permitted, I could have met someone who worked with the Wright Brothers.

I have been told my mother met George C. Marshall, whose grandmother spoke with George Washington.

I had a friend born the same day I was born, whose grandfather was born the year Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died—on the same day—July 4, 1826—which was the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

I myself have spoken with Alexander Kerensky, who headed the Russian Government deposed by Lenin.

Given surprisingly durable webs of human contact, it is unsurprising to discover great events remain culturally and politically salient during longer intervals than we customarily reckon or expect. We do not so much suppose we have come far in a short time, as we share for a longer time than we usually suppose cultural memories that come to us more directly than we are accustomed to notice. Thus it is that our politics today remain under baleful influence of the Civil War.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, six degrees of Stephen Lathrop.

[Frank Drackman]

Got MLB Player Jim Wohlford's (the actual source of the "Baseball is 90% Half Mental" quote, Yogi Berra didn't say everything) Autograph when he was at Triple A Omaha in 1972.
50 years later saw that he was a Stock Broker in Visalia CA, sent him an E-mail with a pic of the Autographed Omaha Royals Scorecard. He actually had some good Stock Picks, but I stick with mutual funds, so 90% of the potential profits were half wasted...

Frank "CT Scans of Biden's Brain showed nothing"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Have you read the Psychology of Money? He has a good take on investing. One I wish I had read before I spent 3 years day trading, just to learn that the stock market is as rigged as our political system.

They've spent years corrupting the plumbing of the system to favor certain groups. People out there who think they can find alpha in a system that's designed to squeeze them dry so the power players can rake in billions are the same kinds of people who buy lottery tickets hoping they can make rent.

[Don Nico]

SL,
For perspective I recommend "Funes the Memorious"

[Brett Bellmore]

The significant point here is that Starship will lower launch costs enough to increase traffic to orbit to the point where high infrastructure/low cost non-rocketry approaches such as mass drivers, launch loops, or even orbital rings become economically feasible. These non-rocketry approaches can potentially lower the cost to orbit to about the same as air travel, or lower.

They can't really replace rockets past LEO, but just to get to space? Starship is creating the conditions for its own obsolescence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, the canals carried the rails for the railroads that replaced them. But two words: Carbon Dioxide.

[Mr. Bumble]

So stop breathing and contributing CO2.

[Nige]

Congratulations. You said something even stupider than Dr Ed, to a Dr Ed comment.

[Frank Drackman]

CO2's actually a great Anesthetic, stimulates respiration, you just have to keep the levels from getting too high.

[Longtobefree]

Two more words: plant food.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I agree -- I am not one of the people freaking out about it.
But others are -- and they won't ignore 400 ton doses of it.

[Nige]

Like when you're drowning, two words: lifegiving water.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “The significant point here is that Starship will lower launch costs enough to increase traffic to orbit….”

Short-term, Starship’s low cost and increased rate of launch allows refueling in orbit and that’s its real innovation. Take going to the Moon as an example: Both the Apollo program and the current SLS/Orion component of Artemis depends on lifting hardware into space with enough fuel to travel to the lunar surface and return back to Earth. With Apollo, that included the lander itself.

With Starship, SpaceX assumes a use rate that allows 6-10 launches to refuel an individual Starship. The massive spacecraft will then be topped-off after it paid the heavy penalty of getting mass into orbit.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my point is that once you have high traffic to orbit, there are cheaper ways to put mass into orbit. Ways that are infrastructure intensive, but cheap per marginal kg.

Like trains vs stage coaches. Trains are great at high traffic levels to fixed destinations, they suck for low traffic to variable destinations.

This is so even if the mass you're putting into orbit is rocket fuel. For the rockets that make more sense going other places from orbit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I assume a jail sentence for Trump is at least possible. I do not know enough about criminal law to understand what might follow. Suppose that Trump at least initially is left at liberty to campaign, but remains under some sort of probationary regime. Suppose that Trump thereafter continues his practice to stochastically terrorize his perceived enemies, or the people who testified against him. Suppose Trump threatens retribution against workers in the justice system, or threatens government overthrow. Does Trump get to do any of that with impunity, or can he be ordered to jail? If the answer to that is yes, what legal process follows?

[not guilty]

In the event that a probationer violates his conditions of release, the sentence of confinement can be imposed in whole or in part. The probationer is entitled to notice of the alleged violation and an reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing.

In New York, the hearing must be a summary one by the court without a jury and the court may receive any relevant evidence not legally privileged. The defendant may cross-examine witnesses and may present evidence on his own behalf. A finding that the defendant has violated a condition of his sentence must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant is entitled to counsel at all stages of any proceeding.

https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._criminal_procedure_law_section_410.70

[Kazinski]

And its certainly not unprecedented for a federal court to decide the conditions of probation violate the first amendment and enjoin them.

Probation isn't a blank check to stop a major party candidate from conducting his campaign.

[Martinned2]

No, but an election campaign isn't a blank check to get out of normal probation conditions either. As long as the probation conditions are consistent with what they'd be for any other convicted felon, it would be a classic example of a content-neutral rule that has an incidental effect on speech. Trump will have to do his campaigning over the internet.

[Michael P]

I'm sure that argument made sense in your head, but there's no way to decouple the effects on his speech from his campaign and make the effects "incidental".

[Martinned2]

Taxes on fuel make travelling around the United States more costly. That increases the costs of running a political campaign. But that doesn't make them unconstitutional.

[Michael P]

Please let us know when a judge imposes fuel taxes specifically on Donald Trump as an individual.

[Martinned2]

That's my point. Probation is not a phenomenon that is imposed specifically on Donald Trump as an individual. It's a general system of laws that happens to apply to Donald Trump as well.

[Michael P]

Can you please point to the standard, non-individualized terms of probation that you're thinking of? As far as I know, terms of probation in New York are particularized to the individual rather than being uniform.

[Balisane]

Even though you know full well that the bullshit charges would have never been brought against anyone other than Trump.

[SRG2]

Many sentences have tangential effects on other freedoms. That's partly why one is well-advised not to commit felonies.

[Bwaaah]

That’s partly why one is well-advised not to commit felonies.

Nope. That's why one is well-advised to plea a felonious act down to a misdemeanor conviction. You get to do the dirty and live free as if you were clean. And, extra credit for the prosecutor when he/she gets to say, "Felonious crime is down!"

[Sarcastr0]

You are coming against plea deals?

[Stephen Lathrop]

A proper originalist would do that. And for more reasons than you might suppose.

[Brett Bellmore]

Plea deals are a corruption of the Justice system.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Has it been confirmed anywhere that Trump declined such a plea deal?

[Nige]

It will affect his speech the same it affects the speech of every felon.

[not guilty]

I don't expect it to happen, nor do I think it should happen, but Justice Merchan arguably could impose a prohibition on running for political office as a condition of probation.

In United States v. Tonry, 605 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1979), the Court of Appeals upheld conditions of probation on a defendant convicted of misdemeanor campaign finance violations which prohibited the probationer from running for any state or local political office or engaging in political activity during the term of his probation. (The defendant had served briefly in Congress and in the Louisiana state legislature.)

The Court of Appeals recognized that if confined, the defendant could have offered himself as a candidate for state office:

Tonry was not required to refrain from running for office; he might have accepted a lawful term of confinement and from his cell engaged in any political activity that was practicable. Under the standard we have adopted, the mere fact that an offender may obey a condition and thus avert its consequences does not make all conditions lawful; however, neither does the fact that observance of a probation condition means that the offender must refrain from something he could do in prison demonstrate its illegality.

605 F.2d at 151.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And elections would no longer be held in America.

[JD85]

The US Supreme court ruled in the Colorado case that they couldn't keep Trump off the ballot. I can't imagine a world where they let a single judge in a state district court keep him off the state ballot, or prevent him from running nationally.

I'd also be surprised if the judge even made it a requirement.

[not guilty]

The Colorado case was before SCOTUS on a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado. There is no “reachdown” jurisdiction for SCOTUS or any other federal court to alter a state trial court judgment that is still in the state appellate pipeline.

My scenario was hypothetical and is not going to happen. But as a theoretical matter, the state trial judge could prohibit running for office as a condition of probation, as the federal district court did with Rep. Tonry. Donald Trump could avoid the prohibition and appear on the ballot by rejecting the sentence of probation and running for office from jail. That would be Trump choosing between having his name on the ballot or having his feet on the street.

[JD85]

I imagine Trump would appeal such an order, and eventually that appeal would get to the Supreme Court.

I guess the concern would be time for the appeal to reach the federal courts?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has one appeal as of right available to him, and that is to New York's intermediate appellate court. Beyond that it is discretionary as to whether the Court of Appeals of New York (the state court of last resort) hears the case or not. Only after that court hears the case on the merits or denies discretionary review can Trump petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari as to federal issues which he has presented at every level of state court proceedings. Whether to grant or deny such petition is discretionary, requiring the assent of four justices.

Whether a condition of probation comports with New York law is not reviewable by SCOTUS. Whether such condition of probation violates federal constitutional guaranties is potentially reviewable.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW regarding an appeal to federal court for a restraining order:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/06/what-next-for-trump-in-court.php

[not guilty]

Per 28 U.S.C. § 2283, “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”

The Powerline blog post linked by Mr. Bumble conspicuously omits any discussion of the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny.

Suing in federal court for an injunction to halt a state court’s entry of a judgment of guilt would risk Rule 11 sanctions.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't attribute anything other than the link to me.
This was the thinking of a Yale law professor.
Is irreparable harm a thing that might involve a federal court?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Such a condition would violate the right of every citizen to vote for Donald Trump, and if they sued the state of New York, it would come under SCOTUS’s original jurisdiction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, I know.

[not guilty]

“Such a condition would violate the right of every citizen to vote for Donald Trump, and if they sued the state of New York, it would come under SCOTUS’s original jurisdiction.”

TwelveInchPianist, you may want to check out the Eleventh Amendment. Even if that hurdle could be surmounted, any citizen otherwise eligible to vote could still cast a vote for Trump, so there is no injury in fact and accordingly no Article III standing.

[Kazinski]

He could put a restriction on Trump that he couldn't run for office, or campaign for one.

For about 5 minutes.

And the more restrictions he tries to put on Trump, the more suspect the prosecution becomes.

Wild right wing claim "The whole trial was designed to keep Trump from running and campaigning for President".

The Left: "No its wasn't, but jail or probation restrictions should be imposed to keep Trump from running for President or campaigning."

[not guilty]

Which federal court do you claim has jurisdiction to do that, Kazinski?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Whichever one is tasked with protecting our civil and human rights from abuses by psychotic, despotic, tyrannical Marxists.

[not guilty]

Federal courts exercise only the subject matter jurisdiction that Congress has authorized. Which federal court do you claim has jurisdiction to invalidate a state court condition of probation while the case remains pending in the state court system, JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes?

Please cite (by number) the specific federal statute which you claim creates federal jurisdiction in that situation.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Whichever one is tasked with protecting our civil and human rights from abuses by psychotic, despotic, tyrannical Marxists who are State officials.

The premise of your comment seems to be that a State can violate your rights however they see fit, and there is no recourse.

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, if you don't know the answer to a question, there should be no shame in admitting so.

What federal statute do you claim authorizes a federal court to invalidate a state court condition of probation while the case remains pending in the state court system?

(Hint: there is no such statute.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You don’t need to give a hint. You think your pedantry schtick isn’t transparent?

People have recourse against State encroachments on their rights in Federal Court.

There doesn’t have to be a specific statute for every single possible rights violation in order for people to petition a federal court for relief.

It’s bizarre that you seem to think that’s necessary. That there are gaps in our legal system where human rights and civil rights abuses can occur if Congress hasn't foreseen all possible violations and written specific laws against them.

How dumb has your dogmatic partisanship made you look time and time again?

[not guilty]

"There doesn’t have to be a specific statute for every single possible rights violation in order for people to petition a federal court for relief."

Sure, anyone can petition a federal court for relief, just as anyone can sue the Pope for bastardy. There does have to be such a specific federal statute to avoid a sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, however.

What authority do you have to the contrary, JHBHBE?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Marc Levine, a former US DOJ guy, was raising the concept of a common law suit directly to SCOTUS. He thinks it's possible.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Sure, anyone can petition a federal court for relief,

So why the fuck are you arguing with me and asking me to prepare a the case?

For real, do you ever feel embarrassed or ashamed about your comments?

[David Nieporent]

Marc Levine, a former US DOJ guy, was raising the concept of a common law suit directly to SCOTUS. He thinks it’s possible.

His name is Mark Levin, you iilliterate buffoon. And, no, he doesn't think it's possible. He just needs something to say to keep his ill-informed audience — and by that I mean you — listening.

[not guilty]

"Marc Levine, a former US DOJ guy, was raising the concept of a common law suit directly to SCOTUS. He thinks it’s possible."

Marc Levine? Give me a break. Per Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. And nothing here implicates original jurisdiction -- the case has already been tried in state court.

"So why the fuck are you arguing with me and asking me to prepare a the [sic] case?"

I am not asking you to prepare any case. I am challenging you to acknowledge how full of shit you are.

[David Nieporent]

And nothing here implicates original jurisdiction — the case has already been tried in state court.

Ah, but you don't appreciate the genius of Mark Levin. His proposal isn't that Trump bring the case to SCOTUS. His proposal¹ is that other states sue New York in SCOTUS. That gets around the original jurisdiction problem. I mean, sure, it doesn't get around the they-lack-standing-and-this-lawsuit-is-utterly-frivolous-and-fails-to-state-a-cause-of-action problem, but beggars can't be choosers. His "notion" is that states can sue on the grounds that the conviction might persuade voters not to vote for Trump's electors, which somehow harms… well, that's not clear. But he repeated "election interference" several times, which is almost like a legal argument.

​
​
¹I haven't listened to his show in 30 years; I saw it because he posted it on twitter.

[not guilty]

Thank you, David. I wasn’t familiar with that theory. Quite outré, and designed to deliver radio listeners’ eardrums to advertisers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Voting Rights Act for one.

[not guilty]

"And its [sic] certainly not unprecedented for a federal court to decide the conditions of probation violate the first amendment and enjoin them."

That is "not unprecedented"? Go ahead and cite any precedent(s) that you have of a federal court enjoining conditions of probation imposed by a state court judgment while the case remains pending in the state judicial system, Kazinski.

[not guilty]

Don't run away like a scalded dog, Kazinski? Show us your precedents.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Kazinski.

[Kazinski]

You think I'm at you beck and call? I certainly don't have an AI bot reading the comments and notifying me when I have an assignment.

But since you ask,. I think "28 U.S. Code § 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts" might serve, and while there is this:

"(A)the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or"

There is also this:
"(ii)circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant."

Trump could file an emergency petition in the 11th circuit and he certainly has a very good argument that restricting the ability of a candidate for federal office from campaigning would be such circumstances.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, the First Rule of Holes (sometimes attributed to the late Molly Ivins) is: STOP DIGGING!!

A criminal defendant who is on probation (not incarcerated) is not in custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Moreover, requiring a state defendant to raise his federal issues first in the state court system does not constitute irreparable injury for purposes of injunctive relief. See, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny. Donald Trump has an adequate remedy at law in that the appellate courts of New York are just as able as federal courts to adjudicate any federal claims Trump may have in the first instance. As Justice Black wrote for the Court in Younger:

One . . . basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence [is] that courts of equity should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.

401 U.S. at 43-44.

"Trump could file an emergency petition in the 11th circuit and he certainly has a very good argument that restricting the ability of a candidate for federal office from campaigning would be such circumstances."

Think so, Kazinski? The jurisdiction of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, is appellate only. What do you claim would authorize that court to entertain an emergency petition for injunctive relief which has not been first presented to a district court?

[Kazinski]

I said 11th circuit, not the 11th circuit court of appeals since you asked.

You didn’t address 28 U.S.C. § 2283, (b) (1) (B)(ii) which gives jurisdiction which grants jurisdiction where “(ii)circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”

[not guilty]

You lie. I quoted 28 U.S.C. § 2283 upthread: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”

Contrary to what you write, that statute has no subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii).

If you meant to cite 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii), I did address that. Younger v. Harris, which I cited, stands for the proposition that state courts are indeed effective to protect the rights of the state criminal defendant.

“[T]he Federal court cannot, of course, interfere in a case where the proceedings were already pending in a state court.” Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 162 (1908). Where a litigant has an opportunity to present his federal claims in the state proceedings, no more is required to invoke Younger abstention. Judice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977).

You cavil, “I said 11th circuit, not the 11th circuit court of appeals since you asked.” What “11th circuit” in the federal judiciary do you claim exists other than the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit?

[Kazinski]

Sorry, I quoted “28 U.S. Code § 2254 – State custody; remedies in Federal courts”
See here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2254

[not guilty]

What circumstances do you claim exist that render the appellate process in the courts of New York ineffective to protect the rights of Donald Trump regarding conditions of probation? State courts routinely adjudicate issues of federal law.

If the sentence is probated and Trump remains at liberty, how is he in custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254? (Answer: he's not.) No custody, no § 2254 petition.

[Kazinski]

Probably this isn't the right time to remind you that you said the odds that the Georgia Court of appeals would stay Trump's trial were slim and none too.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/21/thursday-open-thread-182/?comments=true#comment-10492501

Or that Section 3 could only be enforced civilly not through the Insurrection statute.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And its certainly not unprecedented for a federal court to decide the conditions of probation violate the first amendment and enjoin them.

I would say that it is, at a minimum, highly unusual for a federal court to conduct a collateral review of state probation or parole conditions. What is the precedent you have in mind?

[Kazinski]

Daily there are lawsuits filed that conditions of state incarceration violate the 8th amendment and some win, here is an example:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/judge-determines-nc-department-of-adult-correction-violated-transgender-womans-eighth-amendment-right

I don't know why 1st amendment rights on state probation should take a backseat to the right to get transgender surgery in prison.

Anytime the state violates someone's constitutional rights federal courts can address it, under the 14th amendment, even on probation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is not, to put it mildly, at all how it works.

[not guilty]

"Daily there are lawsuits filed that conditions of state incarceration violate the 8th amendment and some win[.]"

Federal district courts have jurisdiction to entertain lawsuits such as civil actions challenging conditions of confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a). Congress has passed enabling legislation authorizing such suits, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983. None of these statutes authorizes federal courts to grant relief to state court probationers while state court litigation is still in the pipeline.

"Anytime the state violates someone’s constitutional rights federal courts can address it, under the 14th amendment, even on probation."

Uh, no. Enabling legislation by Congress is necessary, and Congress has not authorized suit in federal courts by state court probationers to challenge the conditions of probation without first exhausting available state remedies.

[Kazinski]

Also don't forget:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[not guilty]

18 U.S.C. § 242 is a federal criminal statute. That raises an issue between the United States government and the accused. It does not authorize suit in federal courts by state court probationers to challenge the conditions of probation.

Are you suggesting that the Department of Justice should prosecute anyone for deprivation of civil rights? If so, which defendant(s)? What federal rights? What underlying conduct? Please be specific.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Burn, baby, burn...

It's what WILL happen...

[Noscitur a sociis]

As a general rule, courts have broad authority to fashion conditions of probation to the particular case. These can include restrictions on the defendant’s constitutional rights, but the more direct those are, the more well tailored to the specific offense and needs of the case they must be.

What conditions do you think the judge should impose to ameliorate your concerns?

[NvEric]

Again I shall state, there will be no sentencing of Trump in July for the recent trail in NYC. Besides of Bragg and Merchant committing seditious conspiracy and actual judicial insurrection, for which their trials will be adjudicated at some point, this latest tidbit of "Potential Juror Misconduct" may just be nothing or the start of these insurrectionists grasping for a way out of their fraudulent trial. More weight will be forthcoming this week to challenge the illegitimacy of a state trying to try an obvious federal issue.

Knowing the gravity of their seditious conspiracy, Merchant and Bragg will seek and exploit a way out of facing serious charges which can be brought against them. Official acts are one thing, but not separate and illegal actions outside of law.

Parallel will be Trump's team with greater efforts at forbearance of the trial's "result". Seeking relief for obvious state malpractice will be granted. State misfeasance is another matter for others to pursue.

[Kazinski]

Get a grip.

Between you and Lathrop and your theories of treason and sedition its going to be a long summer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bragg has already been subpoenaed,

[Kazinski]

By Congress, and we don't have bills of attainder.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump has a virtual probation hearing scheduled for today.

[Frank Drackman]

He should send a Virtual Donald Trump

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — I posited hypotheticals, all of them based on provable and widely acknowledged experience. I asked a reasonable question. Do you have anything besides baseless denial to contribute in response?

[Kazinski]

We've discussed many times how ridiculous your Treason hypothesis is. And it's just as ridiculous as NVE's sedition hypothesis.

Just as a start, who are the two witnesses to the "same overt act"?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Witnesses? Do the permutations with Cassidy Hutchinson and however many others strike your fancy. Same for Mike Pence and others. Or look to Georgia, or to other states in the fake electors part of the plot. Or charge Bannon with any among a number of serious felonies and he would deliver proof of a link between Trump and the militia violence at the Capitol. You can be sure of that because Bannon predicted it days before it happened. Put Bannon's ass in legal jeopardy and he would fill in the details—not that it would be necessary. I'm just giving you a few choices among multiple sources for the proof you demand.

[Martinned2]

seditious conspiracy

Are you somehow under the impression that Trump is the King of America?

[Michael P]

I have been told that every accusation is an admission. Why do you think Trump is the King of America?

[Martinned2]

I have a feeling that you're misunderstanding my point. (Intentionally so, in fact.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Has there been any unusual pause in release of Supreme Court decisions? I expected to hear more than I have during the last two weeks.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure John Roberts and the gang will take your concern under advisement.

[Frank Drackman]

It's hard for the Conservatives to spend time on Opinions when they're out getting lap dances every night, or at least that's what the Marxist Stream Media is saying.

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey, is your mom still working the pole? I recently came into a pile of $1s and I'm up for making it rain again!

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, she’s pretty hot for 82, but out of your price range

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Only because half-cent coins are hard to come by these days and she only accepts exact change.

[Kazinski]

There is nothing unusual, it always goes in fits and starts. And they just announced Vullo and a few.other cases May 30.

[Michael P]

Which protest was worse and more deserving of denunciation, a bunch of people with no chins chanting "Jews will not replace us" around a statue in Charlottesville, or a bunch of people hiding their faces chanting "kill another soldier now" and "kill another Zionist now", and carrying a bloody effigy of the President, around the White House?

[Ed Grinberg]

"The same progressive-imbued media that melted down when moral degenerates marched in Charlottesville treat the thousands of moral degenerates who participate in hundreds of Charlottesvilles across the country as innocuous 'protesters.'"
(source)

[Malika the Maiz]

Did someone run a murderously run a car into a crowd of people in that one?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Was he sane?
Do sane young men, with fancy cars, intentionally demolish said cars?

[Malika the Maiz]

"Was he sane?"

Are you? People with fancy cars engage in all kinds of stupid and intentional behavior which damages them (it's maybe why insurance rates for young men with sporty cars are higher?).

[David Nieporent]

It wasn't a "fancy car" anyway. It was a seven year old Dodge Challenger, purchased used. Nothing wrong with that, but not exactly a Lamborghini.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha! Based solely on the fact that Dr. Ed said it, I assumed it wasn't actually a fancy car; thanks for saving me the time of actually looking it up.

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest that both protests are made up of poorly informed people.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Aren't these both examples of constitutionally protected free speech?

Why are you asking us to "choose" between them?

[jb]

They both seem pretty bad!

Of course what's missing in the comparison is Biden saying that there were some very fine people calling for murdering soldiers.

[Nige]

Only the latter, according to you with your sudden newfound zeal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is anyone giving odds on the outcome of Hunter's trial, which should go to the jury this week?

[Martinned2]

Who cares?

[Mr. Bumble]

Joe Biden for one, I would guess and of course Hunter.

[Martinned2]

Yes. Family members of accused criminals typically do care about how a criminal trial turns out. But I don't think they comment on this blog.

[David Nieporent]

Family members of accused criminals typically do care about how a criminal trial turns out.

Yes. That's why they typically show up to their family members' trials. Unlike Melania.

[Zarniwoop]

snap!

[Stella Link the dog]

Does that make her a WINO? aka wife in name only.

[David Nieporent]

One of the many nutty MAGA complaints about the search of Mar-a-Lago is that the FBI supposedly exceeded the scope of the warrant (it did not) by searching his son's bedroom and his wife's bedroom. Legally wrong, but also: why does Melania have a different bedroom?

[Stella Link the dog]

Perhaps so that El Puerco can have guests.

[Mr. Bumble]

Love it when you play stupid to think you've scored a point.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://people.howstuffworks.com/couples-sleep-separate-beds.htm

[John F. Carr]

NPR, at least. The Biden trial was mentioned about two minutes into the usually four minute long national news summary today. Not that there was any news. Listeners were informed that the trial would resume this morning.

If NPR needs to use scarce airtime to remind us that nothing happened over the weekend the Whole Foods demographic probably cares.

[ThePublius]

Nothing would surprise me. I think it's an open and shut case, but juries can be so biased that they may acquit because they think a conviction will hurt Biden's election chances.

[Moderation4ever]

How would you feel if you were the prosecutor and had a conviction, on a plea deal, and then you were forced to take the case to trial were you lost? If Hunter gets off it is not the jury or the prosecutors, it the Republican who gave up a sure thing.

[shawn_dude]

The only "sure thing" here is the ability of the right wing to make hay of any decision and spin it into months of golden propaganda.

[Frank Drackman]

I've heard rumors it's "rigged". Better for "45/47" if Hunter gets off (I mean acquitted, I know Hunter's "getting off" every day) I predict some BS conviction where he doesn't get a Felony or Jail Time.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

"I’ve heard rumors it’s “rigged”."

People are saying!

[bernard11]

You've heard fucking "rumors." Sure you have.

Tell us again what state you are licensed in, under what name?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Ain't nothing going to happen to him.

[SRG2]

The verdict won't affect the fact that I refuse to vote for Hunter in November.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure this trial matters, I hope a guilty verdict is struck down on appeal anyway. The prohibition against drug users owning guns is unconstitutional unless they've been found incompetent in a hearing that considers actual evidence of incompetence.

And if the prohibition isn't constitutional then lying on the form isn't material.

But the tax charges trial at the end of the summer will will matter.

[not guilty]

"And if the prohibition isn’t constitutional then lying on the form isn’t material."

The prohibition on possession of a firearm while addicted to drugs, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), may well violate the Second Amendment. The false statement charge, however, is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), which does not include a materiality requirement. The different offenses are accordingly subject to different analysis.

[Bob from Ohio]

“prohibition against drug users owning guns is unconstitutional unless they’ve been found incompetent in a hearing that considers actual evidence of incompetence.”

Does not follow.

Addicts are not banned because they are “incompetent”, they are banned because they are too dangerous to be allowed to own guns.

And a court will decide if an addict was an addict at the time based on "actual evidence" at a criminal trial.

[Kazinski]

Rahimi is at.the Supreme Court now the key issue is whether gun rights can be removed without a hearing with a specific factual determination that the subject is dangerous.

Now I agree they could criminalize possession of a firearm while intoxicated with illegal narcotics, but that’s not what he is being charged with. And there is no evidence he actually had the gun in his immediate possession when actually on drugs.

I can't believe I'm being accused of defending Hunter on spurious grounds.

[Stella Link the dog]

Three charges:
1. lying on the form
2. lying to the gun dealer
3. Possession while using.
So, you’re wrong.

As to evidence for charge 3, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to substantiate the charge. Whether it's sufficient or not is likely a determinatiion for the jury to make. Is there any evidence extant to counter the weight of that circumstantial evidence?

[Brett Bellmore]

4) Complete and utter lack of any enumerated powers basis for federal jurisdiction.

Not that the judiciary care about such trifles anymore.

[Kazinski]

One of the major constraints for EV's and batteries for storing alternative energy is the available supply of Lithium (Li). In great news it turns out the 400m year old Marcellus Shale that underlies major portions of.NY and Pennsylvania is a major.source of Lithium that can be economically mined. The.process for mining extremely low concentrations of lithium form almost solid rock consists of injecting water and other fluids or gasses under high pressure and this leaches significant quantities of lithium out of the rock.

By itself this.process would not be economically feasible, but it turns out the process, called tracking is already being used to recover significant quantities of methane from the same formations.

"A promising domestic source of Li is PW from Marcellus Formation, a late Paleozoic (Middle-Devonian) aged unconventional natural gas field that underlies significant portions of central Appalachia (Fig. 1). Unconventional formations, such as the Marcellus, require substantial amounts of water to hydraulically fracture the formation to produce hydrocarbons.

Moreover, the drilling boom and subsequent active wells have culminated in large volumes of PW being generated with limited options for beneficial reuse8,9. Currently, ~ 95% of the PW co-produced with natural gas from the Marcellus is recycled in ongoing fracking operations8, however this fluid is hypersaline, with total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations exceeding 100,000 mg/L10,11 and requires some treatment prior to reinjection12. Significantly, this fluid is enriched in Li relative to other formations of comparable TDS13,14. Marcellus Shale was deposited contemporaneous to Middle Devonian volcanism and contains interlayered beds of volcanic ash that, through diagenesis, partitioned Li from the volcanic ash into formation pore fluids making it a suitable target for Li extraction"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58887-x

Maybe now even NY will start allowing its Marcellus Shale to be mined, at least for the Li, and maybe they can find someone willing to take the methane off their hands for proper.disposal via high temperature oxidation.

[JD85]

It's "Fracking". It's still unsure if it is economical. Lithium is pretty hard to get out of water, let alone water full of other chemicals (fracking uses proprietary chemical slurries). Not to say it isn't, but I'd take that article with a huge grain of salt.

[Armchair]

" Lithium is pretty hard to get out of water,"

Not that hard. It's how they mine it in South America. Pump the briny solution to the surface, allow it to evaporate, then collect and separate.

[shawn_dude]

LOL! Chemistry humor!

+1

[Kazinski]

Well it is a peer reviewed paper, unlike my spelling, which was mangled by autocorrect.

And the study was funded by the department of energy.

But the one of the things that makes this economically feasible is the water needs to be cleaned anyway before its recycled for more fracking or otherwise disposed of. After all this data comes from actual wastewater samples from drilling operations:
"This study uses chemical and production compliance data reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) to predict Li mass yields from the Middle-Devonian Marcellus Shale PW25,26"

[Zarniwoop]

Shouldn’t the proponents of EVs be addressing this issue? I see nothing on this.

A few-weeks old Nature article (16 Apr 2024) does not require every EV proponent in the world to jump to attention and issue press releases. The gap between a Nature article and commercially-viable production is ... non-zero. And as you note, the commercial viability is marginal, depending on other industries.

Using this 3 week old article to bash EV proponents is weak, man, weak. Interesting science, though!

(also, "PW" is "produced water" from fracking operations, undefined in the above post. I have a degree in geology and exp in environmental engineering, and I had to pull the abstract to confirm my guess that PW meant recovered fracking water.)

[Nige]

I mean, it’s precisely concerns like these that have moved a lot of people away from EVs as simply a way to keep power-guzzling single occupancy vehicles clogging the roads at the expense of public transport and sustainably designed cities. Introducing the process of fracking will only exacerbate the disenchantment.

[shawn_dude]

"One of the major constraints for EV’s and batteries for storing alternative energy is the available supply of Lithium (Li)."

Lithium is good for high power density/weight applications like EVs. It is not needed for stationary batteries where size/weight are less important. While more EVs are a net gain for the environment that we rely on to grow our food, stationary batteries for storing intermittent power (solar/wind/etc) is equally important and lagging behind EVs in market penetration.

The Salton Sea in California is another rich resource for this famous salt. And there’s the existing mine in Nevada.

Fracking can contaminate fresh drinking water. Where it’s already happening, the damage is done and maybe that’s a resource for lithium. But where fracking hasn’t ruined fresh water aquifers, the clean water is probably worth more in the long run than any fossil fuel or lithium salts you can pump out of it.

[Kazinski]

That might be true but Biden's Inflation reduction act requires all lithium for EV batteries be domestically sourced by 2030.

We can hardly ignore a large technically and economically viable source in a climate emergency.

[Frank Drackman]

Watched one of my favorite Movies "American Gigolo" (Paramount, 1980) the other Day,
People used to say I looked like Richard Gere when I still had hair, noted 2 things
1: the "Older Woman" was played by Lauren Hutton (I still got Blista's on mah Fingas!) who was a washed up 35 yrs old when it was filmed
2: Theme song by the even hotter Debbie Harry, original choice was Stevie Nicks, yes Stevie Nicks! that Stevie Nicks! put that in your spank bank for later.

Frank "Call Me"

[ThePublius]

One of the many obstacles to electric vehicles is the value of the copper in the charging cables and its scrap value. There are many salvagers of metals who are less than scrupulous and won't hesitate to steal a charging cord - or a bronze memorial plaque or statute, for that matter. In Massachusetts, in my anecdotal experience, this has accelerated with the influx of immigrants from Brazil, where, apparently, criminal scrapping is so common that the phone companies couldn't keep copper wire on the poles, and even labeled fiber optic cable saying it wasn't copper, to prevent its theft; and which led to the fact that Brazil built out a cell phone network quicker than that in the U.S.

So, how to deal with this? I think the answer is that car owners need carry their own cables, and plug them in to cable-less charging outlets; and that those cables need be theft or vandalism resistant somehow. I don't know that this technology exists, or that anyone is working on it.

Shouldn't the proponents of EVs be addressing this issue? I see nothing on this.

There are those talking about wireless EV charging, both static and dynamic, but I see those as utopian, "Jetson" technologies. But perhaps wireless is the only viable, long term alternative.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't worry, Mayor Pete is on it or will be as soon as he can figure out how to get charging stations built.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He needs another $100B to build the next 3 stations.

Good Government ™

[Frank Drackman]

Haven't you heard? Booty-Judge and Chaz are "Expecting" or at least some 16 year Guatemalan girl is.

[Sarcastr0]

Why aren't liberals going to address your racism against Brazilians as copper thieves?

There's a Ea-Nasir joke in here somewhere,

[ThePublius]

It's not racism. I said nothing about the ethnicity or race of these people. It's cultural. They could well be Brazilians of German extraction, of which there are a large number in Brazil.

Why do you play the race card? Oh, right, you're a liberal.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course. It’s the culture.

[ThePublius]

"Two years ago, a Brazilian gang arrived in Massachusetts: Here are some of the robberies, kidnappings authorities say the gang committed"

https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/04/two-years-ago-a-brazilian-gang-arrived-in-massachusetts-here-are-some-of-the-robberies-kidnappings-authorities-say-the-gang-committed.html

So, is it racist on their part to report accurately that this gang is from Brazil???

[Frank Drackman]

Blame it on Rio!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why are we buying uranium from Russia while complaining about other countries buying natural gas from Russia?

(I know technically why we are buying uranium from Russia, because Hillary corruptly sold all our uranium mines to them, I’m talking specifically about the sheer hypocrisy.)

How does being such a massive filthy hypocrite help our standing in the world which the Left seems to hold sacrosanct?

[David Nieporent]

(I know technically why we are buying uranium from Russia, because Hillary corruptly sold all our uranium mines to them, I’m talking specifically about the sheer hypocrisy.)

Hillary Clinton did not own any uranium mines, so its not clear how she could have sold any uranium mines.

[shawn_dude]

Further, large swaths of Western US are loaded with uranium, not to mention the huge amount of processed uranium trapped inside spent fuel rods all over the country.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in news you can use:
Buc-ees set to open it's largest location to date in Texas.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/06/04/worlds-largest-buc-ees-opening-in-texas-this-week/

[Zarniwoop]

Only time I've been to a Buc-ees was because I had ~25mins to kill while my car charged. Did not see the appeal. I used the bathroom - it was fairly well maintained.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure they didn't build 75,000 square feet and 120 pumps with you in mind.

[Zarniwoop]

You did read the part where they also built out EV chargers, right? That’s kind of the opposite of “not interested in EV customers”.

I’ve got two ICE vehicles too. My lack of interest in the Buc-ees phenom is not a function of which vehicle I’m driving.

Now, if your point is that I’m personally a customer who’s less interested in a soulless customer experience of “overcrowded wal-mart-esque gas stations”, sure, guilty as charged.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, I've only got my ZO6, and YOU'RE the "Green" one? And Where do you live with independent Gas Stations?
OK, I've never been to Buc-ees either, I'm a Qwik Trip/Racetrack guy

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

I watched the US Mens Soccer Team get embarrassed by Colombia on TNT over the weekend. What was more troubling was that in this "home" game for the US team the crowd was about 70% wearing Colombia's colors. And this was in Landover, Maryland, not San Jose. It should give one pause about assimilation of immigrants imho.

[Krayt]

Seems more like an assimilation of soccer into US culture. There's still a long way to go before the average person cares.

[David Nieporent]

It should give one pause about assimilation of immigrants imho.

What does sports fandom have to do with assimilation? That's like saying that one should change religions if one moves to a new country to match the majority religion.

[Malika the Maiz]

When it's the US national team vs. a foreign national team?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. You don't change your rooting allegiance. If I moved to, I dunno, France, I might mildly root for some French team success in the abstract — but not against the U.S..

Or to be less hypothetical: when I moved from Maryland, where I grew up, to New Jersey, I didn't start rooting for the Y*nkees or Giants, because I am not a soulless monster.

[Commenter_XY]

Only a Red Sux fan disses The NY Y*nkees like that.

Say it ain't so, David. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Did you miss the "moved from Maryland" in my comment? Let's go O's.

[Commenter_XY]

Whew....Orioles fan. They're tolerable. Camden Yards is beautiful. I really thought I would have to write you off on account of being a Red Sux fan. I feel better now. 🙂

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m of two minds. On the one hand, we don’t think it’s weird for someone who grew up in, say, Philadelphia, to still root for the Eagles or Phillies, even if they’re playing the Seahawks; indeed, they might be judged worse if they switch teams. We don’t even think it’s weird if their kids who grow up in Seattle keep the Philadelphia allegiance.

On the other hand, I agree with you that it does seem feel different somehow when it’s a national team. Not sure why.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a reason why immigration was banned in 1924. And should be again...

[Malika the Maiz]

Immigration was not banned in 1924.

[Ridgeway]

According to Prof Somin it was, and it was worse than Dred Scott, Korematsu and Euclid rolled into one!

[bernard11]

There was indeed a reason, and it was a lousy one.

No need to make the same mistake today.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I watched the US Mens Soccer Team get embarrassed by Colombia on TNT over the weekend.

I get that they’re embarrassed to have people find out that they’re professional soccer players, but I don’t think there’s much that can be done about it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I watched the US Mens Soccer Team"

Grass stopped growing in your front yard?

[ReaderY]

One of the notable and incontrovertible facts about yesterday’s hostage extraction in Gaza was the deep personal involvement of so-called Gazan “civilians” in the kidnapping and massecring of Israeli civilians. Every one of the 4 hostages rescued was kept in a private home surrounded by large numbers of “civilians” who were deeply involved in their confinement. The “civilians” were all deliberately deployed for purposes of making propaganda claims in the event Israelis attempted to rescue them.

The Israelis had every right to extract these hostages. Nobody complained about the Bin Ladin family members shot during the Bin Ladin raid under Obama, and unlike Bin Laden’s wives and children, these “civilians” were mostly armed undercover Hamas collaborators.

These “civilians” are no more innocent than the large crowds of “civilians” that used to come to and cheer on lynchings. Surrounding lynchees by large crowds, as Hamas learned from Klan tactics to do, does not turn efforts to rescue them into any “genocide” of the lynchers. Since before the days the US marines stormed the shores of Tripoli and freed several hundred Americans among tens of thousands of other white slaves captured in Barbary raids and sold om the slave markets of Tripoli, sovereign governments have maintained the right and duty to rescue their citizens by all military force necessary to achieve the goal.

The Union had every right to undertake operations inevitably resulting in incidental killing of civilians, even in latge numbers, as it repeatedly had to do to defeat the Confederacy. The Civil war involved plenty of seiges, urban warfare, and raids to destroy supplies. If Africans had organized nations with the power at the time, they would have had every right under international law to send military force to US shores to extract their nationals if it meant shooting every man, woman, and child crowding the slave markets to do so.

To say it ain’t so is merely to pander to slavers and lynchers, and basically to say that the use of military force to stop slavery and (although done only rarely) lynching was immoral, wrong, and a “genocide” of Southern Confederates and ex-Confederates. It is to repeat exactly what the Ku Klux Klan, which was as careful as Hamas to surround its lynchings with crowds of civilians, was saying. Hamas merely adapted its tactics. And with good reason. Just as the Klan succeeded in portraying Confederates as victims of that horribly oppressive military occupation and having to live under that horribly thieving and vengeful Negro Rule,

Hamas has succeeded in portraying itself as the horrible victims of a military occupation and Jewish rule - despite both having ended in Gaza 20 years ago. If the Gazans had just followed up on the experiment in peace, had just focused on building a nation instead of immediately using their newly de-occupied territory as a launching pad to wage war, had just used all that donated concrete to build homes and buildings instead of secret tunnels for fighters, peace and further territorial concessions might have been possible. The idea that Israel never wanted peace is highly suspect. I am frankly as unhappy with the current Israeli Government as Benny Gantz is. But it has to be acknowledged that the Israelis voted in right-wing hardliners only after years of trying. Israel gave back Gaza as a down payment on peace, and got only war in return. THAT, not some inherent Israeli evil, is responsible for the electorate increasingly turning to a government against making concessions for peace

The folks who have been making these shrill claims of deliberate “genocide” really ought to be ashamed of themselves for prostituting their morals to Hamas and lending themselves to defending lynching and, if what they say is really to be taken seriously, slavery. The idea that it is immoral to conduct mitary operations that result in civilian deaths is merely to say it is immoral to wage war. If one wants to preach universal pacifism, great. But Israel is hardly in a position to follow such an approach if it values its citizens lives. As George Orwell, a converted pacifist himself, explained, pacifism inevitably results in conquerors winning. Isrealis have the right to want to be living ordinary people, not dead morally superior saints. Those who will only accept a saintly Israel in reality will only accept a dead Israel.

[Martinned2]

The Israelis had every right to extract these hostages. Nobody complained about the Bin Ladin family members shot during the Bin Ladin raid under Obama

We would have done if there were hundreds of them.

and these “civilians” were mostly armed undercover Hamas collaborators.

Were they? All "fewer than 100" (dixit IDF) of them? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw44ve90dppo

[ThePublius]

So, you're quoting the BBC who are quoting the Gaza Health Ministry. That's laughable. The GHM is an arm of Hamas, and has been proven to regularly lie about the civilian death toll during this war.

Few Palestinians in Gaza are not complicit with Hamas. Who do you think was doing all of the shooting at the Israeli hostage rescuers? Who was holding and housing the hostages?

[Martinned2]

No, I'm quoting the BBC quoting the IDF.

[ThePublius]

Yes you are, that's literally what you are doing by supplying that link! What did you think you were doing?

[Martinned2]

I quoted the IDF's number, as quoted in the BBC article, not the Hamas number in the headline. What part of that is confusing?

[ThePublius]

From the article:
"The Israeli military has estimated that fewer than 100 people died in the operation.
But the latest figures from the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza would, if confirmed, make it one of the deadliest days of the conflict so far."

Uh, one of the deadliest days? How about Oct. 7, 2023?

[Michael P]

You're exchanging comments with someone who confuses "hundreds" with "fewer than 100", you may need to spell that out more clearly for him to understand.

[Martinned2]

From my comment: "All “fewer than 100” (dixit IDF) of them?"

I put that in, with the explanation in brackets, exactly because I didn't want to have an argument about numbers, sources for numbers, etc.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yes, the silliest thing on the internet is "it's not 240 killed, it's somewhere under a hundred, so take that!" The worst pedanticism.

If some criticizing the operation there said "well, maybe don't kill a few score kids" it's pedantic to counter "a-ha, there were only 25 children killed, CHECKMATE!"

The point is everyone should be concerned about children killed. Heck, the IDF's defense of themselves is not that they don't care about children killed, it's that they are trying to reduce that but Hamas uses them as shields. Unfortunately, many of the IDF's more ardent supporters seem indifferent or bloodthirsty when it comes to Palestinian lives.

[Ed Grinberg]

After 10/7/23, accusing Israelis (and their supporters) of being "bloodthirsty" ... takes a special kind of moral depravity.

[Malika the Maiz]

It's a good thing I didn't do that. I said "*many* of the IDF’s *more ardent supporters* seem indifferent *or* bloodthirsty"

You're not guilty of a failure to get nuance, you're guilty of a failure to get basic English.

[bernard11]

I'm neither indifferent nor bloodthirsty, but why let Hamas off the hook for the deaths?

Would they have released the four hostages to save the lives?

[shawn_dude]

If they had cared about the lives of innocents, they would have held the hostages elsewhere.

[Michael P]

Let us know when you learn the difference between “mostly” and “all”, and then we’ll help you understand what else you got wrong.

[Martinned2]

Few Palestinians in Gaza are not complicit with Hamas.

That's a convenient way to justify mass casualties. Why not go full-Ed and advocate nuking them all?

[ThePublius]

No, it's not, it's a fact. If those people didn't want to get killed, they should have not been shooting at the Israeli rescuers, and/or they should have gotten out of the f'ing way, taken cover, while the rescue was taking place. But they didn't. They shot at the Israelis, or didn't get out of the f'ing way. Tough.

[Martinned2]

That assumes that the only people who were killed are people who were shooting at the IDF, which seems like the sort of thing that would require some evidence. I don't even think the IDF is claiming that.

[ThePublius]

No, it doesn't assume that, can't you read and accurately respond to what I said? It's shooting at, OR NOT GETTING OUT OF THE F'ING WAY. I said it twice. Yet you select part one and say that's the only way....

The hostages were apparently being held by a 'journalist,' and by so-called civilians. Can you respond to that?

So-called civilians or journalists holding hostages are not civilians or journalists, in my book; they are combatants.

[Malika the Maiz]

The civilians who were caught up in a sudden attack were at fault because they didn't get out of the way...

Wow.

[ThePublius]

What sudden attack would that be? Do you think the IDF just went in there, guns blazing, shooting up civilians? Or did they go in there to rescue hostages, and shoot back when shot at?

[Nige]

It takes a bit of effort to shoot up to a hundred civilians, so, probably the first.

[Nige]

You think people deliberately get in the fucking way you utter fucking twit?

'Can you respond to that?'

The IDF have killed so many Gazan journalists and civilians, it was obviously intended to put the hostages in the maximum amount of danger.

[ThePublius]

O.K., the IDF has released video - like, helmet cam video - of the rescue of the three hostages from the "journalist's" house. Watch it. Who's doing all of the shooting as the IDF are trying to get the hostages out??? Duh!

[Nige]

Wow, it shows everyone who died was shooting? Some video.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, "hands up, don't shoot"?

[ThePublius]

It turns out the IDF is claiming that when one of their vehicles got stuck, they starting taking fire from nearby "civilians."

And there's this:

"An innocent doctor and an innocent journalist were killed by Israel yesterday. Dr. Ahmed Al-Jamal (right) and journalist Abdullah Al-Jamal (left) were brutally murdered.

Their only crime was holding Israeli hostages in their home."

Innocent. Their only crime. Brutally murdered. Holy cow.

This is what they are up against.

https://x.com/DrEliDavid/status/1799735654030709082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1799823686847152190%7Ctwgr%5Ea53f9b3d059ffab53b07319ab796a07ce4fafc26%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fstephen-kruiser%2F2024%2F06%2F10%2Fthe-morning-briefing-the-morning-briefing-hostage-rescue-brings-out-the-worst-in-the-worst-people-on-earth-n4929744

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, Two Americans are holding hostages in their house -- in Peoria -- and the FBI's HRT goes in to rescue them. How do you think that ends???

[ThePublius]

I don't get your point, Ed.

[Zarniwoop]

A stopped clock is occasionally correct, and Ed has something of a point.

The folks holding hostages don't get to complain when they are shot in the process of the HRT extracting the hostages.

That said:

Two Americans are holding hostages in their house — in Peoria — and the FBI’s HRT goes in to rescue them.

is a lame, typically brainless-Ed comment.

It doesn't relate to leveling a neighborhood around the houses and killing lots and lots of people. So we're back to the contentious point about how many of the other deceased were actively involved, versus unknowing bystanders. On that point I have no particular opinion, because no one involved has any particularly strong credibility.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, there was Waco.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And in any event, we don't know how many people were killed by the IDF. There was an active firefight, for all we know, some or all of any non-combatants that were killed were killed by Palestinians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or ricochet rounds?

If you have lots of bullets bouncing around, bouncing off concrete, etc., some are going to hit people you don't want to.

[Michael P]

I forget, has the BBC been caught yet employing Hamas members, or at this point only Hamas sympathizers? I know one of the hostage holders killed during this rescue was paid by a foreign outfit for "journalism".

[Bob from Ohio]

"paid by a foreign outfit for “journalism”."

Paid by a US based 501c3 outfit for “journalism”. The Palestine Chronicle

[Nige]

Yeah, that's how journalism works, you pay people to write stuff.

[ThePublius]

So, Martinned2, let me put it this way. My view. Holding hostages is an act of war. Hostage rescuers have every moral right to kill anyone who is holding hostages and refuses to release them, or anyone getting in the way of freeing the hostages. Period.

You seem to object to the number of Gazans killed in this operation. Why do you think they were killed? And if some number of killed Gazans is acceptable, what is that number, and why?

To reiterate my view, the Israelis could say, 'look, we're going to come in and get those hostages. If you try to stop us, you will be shot. If you shoot at us, you will be shot. So, let them go, and get out of the way, or we will shoot you. Any questions?'

This is perfectly reasonable, legal, and moral, in my opinion.

The fact that Israel found it necessary to use surprise, deception, and diversion to accomplish this should demonstrate that they are at war! This is not some isolated hostage taking, ransom kind of situation.

Tell me, do you think that Hamas' taking of hostages is justified, moral, legal? Do you think it's wrong for Israel to rescue them? What do you think?

[Martinned2]

Why do you think they were killed?

Because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And if some number of killed Gazans is acceptable, what is that number, and why?

Some number that is in vague proportion to the military objective of the mission, in this case the number of hostages. The law doesn't tell us what the cut-off is.

To reiterate my view, the Israelis could say, ‘look, we’re going to come in and get those hostages. If you try to stop us, you will be shot. If you shoot at us, you will be shot. So, let them go, and get out of the way, or we will shoot you. Any questions?’

None. That would be perfectly fine. They wouldn't even have to actually say it.

Tell me, do you think that Hamas’ taking of hostages is justified, moral, legal?

Not even a little bit.

Do you think it’s wrong for Israel to rescue them? What do you think?

I think that Israel rescued the hostages without caring how many non-combatant civilians got shot. And that is not OK.

[ThePublius]

"I think that Israel rescued the hostages without caring how many non-combatant civilians got shot. "

How do you know what's in their head, how do you know that they didn't care? That's just such nonsense. You have no idea. You just don't like Israel and Israelis.

Let's not lose track of the fact that these hostages could have been freed with absolutely no casualties if Hamas had just released them.

[shawn_dude]

"Few Palestinians in Gaza are not complicit with Hamas."

Because you apparently know what's in their heads?

[Don Nico]

Of course, one doesn't but one can see how people act. Some will be complicit out of fear, some out of convenience, and some out of sympathy

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think that Israel rescued the hostages without caring how many non-combatant civilians got shot. And that is not OK."

How is Israel to know ahead of time how many non-combatants will be shot? If Hamas doesn't resist, they could go in and extract the hostages with minimal civilian casualties.

If Hamas shoots at the hostage rescuers (probably a war crime itself if it creates risk for civilians) then the IDF's returning fire very likely to be a proportionate response.

But given a series of such proportionate responses, it's likely that civilian casualties could stack up pretty clearly.

[Nige]

'Why do you think they were killed?'

It's rather obviously because Gazan lives are viewed as worthless. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to paint a rescue operation that killed so many as anything other than a disaster.

'Tell me, do you think that Hamas’ taking of hostages is justified, moral, legal?'

It's obviously appalling. Have you by any chance looked in to the Israeli detention of Palestinians?

[Bob from Ohio]

"other than a disaster"

It rescued 4 innocent kidnap victims. A rousing success, except for Hamas-simps.

[Nige]

'Gazan lives are viewed as worthless.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

And to the extent that is was a disaster, the disaster was attributable to Hamas.

Do you really expect Israel to leave its own people in captivity because Hamas might start a firefight that gets its civilians caught in the crossfire?

[Nige]

It doesn't matter what I think. A rescue that leaves somewhere in the region of a hundred people dead is a disaster. Macho jingoism like Bob's might say otherwise, but that's homicidal insanity.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. But Israel has a responsibility to rescue its own people. It has no responsibility to prevent Hamas from inflicting a disaster on Hamas's own people in response to the rescue.

So sure. It was a disaster from the Palestinian POV, but Israel got their hostages back. And it sucks that Hamas got a bunch of Palestinians killed as a result, but Israel can't be expected to refrain from rescuing its hostages because Hamas is holding its own people hostage.

[Nige]

‘So sure. It was a disaster from the Palestinian POV,’

It was a disaster for anyone who values human life.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If Noa Argamani and the rest of the hostages and their families view it as a net positive, do you think that means that they don't value human life?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, it was a disaster, and that disaster is entirely the fault of Hamas, who deliberately keep themselves and their hostages among the Palestinian civilian population. It isn't clear to me from your comments exactly what you think Israel should do in this situation.

[David Nieporent]

A rescue that leaves somewhere in the region of a hundred people dead is a disaster.

That depends who those people are. If they're enemy combatants, then it isn't. It's a good thing to rescue your own people and kill enemy fighters.

[bernard11]

A rescue that leaves somewhere in the region of a hundred people dead is a disaster.

Why? And who is responsible for the disaster? Start by recognizing that taking and holding the hostages is itself a crime. Then consider that the 100 people were either complicit in the crime, or coerced into cooperating.

If the former they are criminals as well. If the latter their deaths are unfortunate, but should be laid at the feet of Hamas, not the IDF.

[Krayt]

The west wiped entire cities towards the end of WWII. This turned Germany and Japan into peace loving, productive, free nations that were both terrified to even create something similar to a real army.

I don’t have a great solution. But I know Hamas’ business model is still on track: assume dictator/kleptocrat role in a newborn Palestine, in general, and rely on useful idiots in the west to cow down Israel’s response in this particular instance.

(Insert quote here of Lebanese Hamas leader joyfully looking forward to Israel clobbering them, killing civilians, should they start launching things, too.)

Getting the current leadership of Hamas, which is to say all those who fancy themselves nascant emperorlings in well-appointed palaces, is not in the cards as an outcomr for thrm.

[Martinned2]

The west wiped entire cities towards the end of WWII.

Yes, and then we decided that was wrong and should be unlawful going forward.

[ReaderY]

Just a few years ago, the West leveled entire cities defeating the Islamic state and its aftermath. The New Yorker (see link) estimated that 80% of Raqaa, among other cities leveled, was completely destroyed Nobody said boo.

Is there any actual place, outside Israel and fairyland, where this supposed “law” even purports to apply or be taken seriously by anyone? It certainly isn’t taken seriously by anyone in the West when their own actions are concerned.

This supposed “law” is no different from the rules that were enforced only on black people during Jim Crow. Everybody knows international human rights law requires you to be able to have memorized the Constitution backwards to be allowed to vote and if you can’t you’re a crimnal for even being near a polling place on election sat. Don’t worry what the law for white people is. Worry about the law for YOU!

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/12/21/americas-war-on-syrian-civilians#:~:text=For%20four%20months%20in%202017,three%20hundred%20thousand%2C%20was%20destroyed.

[shawn_dude]

Yes... we went a bit insane after 9/11, just like the Israelis did after their own massacre.

That makes their current rampage through Gaza understandable and relatable and all the more regrettable.

[Nige]

'The west wiped entire cities towards the end of WWII.'

I've got a great idea: let's not do that again!

'I don’t have a great solution.'

Neither does anyone currently in charge of Israel or the US, for that matter. This seems like a very bad thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’ve got a great idea: let’s not do that again!"

So you think we should just let the future nazis keep gassing Jews? Color me unshocked.

[Nige]

Unlike you, I tend to think that when fascists start talking about rounding people up into camps, the way to avoid it is to vote against them before blowing up cities becomes a side-effect.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We would have done if there were hundreds of them."

Who is "we"?

We could have killed everyone in Pakistan and about 10 Americans would have cared.

People "care" because the dirty Jews did this weekend.

[Nige]

'and about 10 Americans would have cared.'

Not you, obviously.

[Commenter_XY]

First and foremost: Four more captives are free. Whenever we can, we must bring them home.

There is nothing to negotiate with Hamas, a Judeocidal terror group.

Unless and until Hamas is defeated, and seen as utterly defeated across the arab world, peace won't happen. Regardless of what you think of PM Netanyahu personally, he is right about the necessity of defeating Hamas. Hamas members must be hunted down, and face Israeli justice. Or death. That is typically the choice given by their muslim neighbors when they fight wars.

There sure are a lot of civilian collaborators; doctors, journalists, UNRWA members. Any civilian in the vicinity of Hamas is there because they probably want to be.

Under the laws of war, a perfectly legit raid. Hope there are more successful raids in the future, only more lethal to Hamas members.

[Martinned2]

Any civilian in the vicinity of Hamas is there because they probably want to be.

I agreed with you until that point. The Palestinians in Gaza don't want to be there, and don't want to be governed by a Hamas dictatorship. But they don't have a choice.

[zztop8970]

They voted for that dictatorship.

[Martinned2]

No they didn't. What part of "dictatorship" do you not understand?

[zztop8970]

I understand there was an election in 2006 in which Hamas won the majority. Actions have consequences.
They voted for a party that was explicit about their ideology and the kind of rule they were going to put in place.

And lest you think they were disillusioned by the actual way Hamas rules, it turns out they still support it, even today - the most recent Palestinian opinion poll , from March 2024, after 15+ years of Hamas rule and well into the current conflict says "if new parliamentary elections were held today with the participation of all political forces that participated in the 2006 election...Among the voters, support for Hamas stands at 47%, Fatah 22%, third parties 9%. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969

[Martinned2]

I, on the other hand, understand there was an election in 2006 in which Hamas won 44% of the vote across the West Bank and Gaza, which was a plurality but not a majority. More people opposed them than supported them. And that's before they abolished democracy.

[zztop8970]

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable hearing it straight from Al Jazeera's mouth: "Hamas wins huge majority" https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/1/26/hamas-wins-huge-majority

It was 44.5% of the vote across both the WB and Gaza, but in Gaza it was 15/24 in the district seats (62.5%), and in the proportional voting in Gaza it was a whopping 88% for Hamas.

And as to the "before they abolished democracy" nonsense- I already provided you with a recent (March 2024) poll that shows the results would be very similar today

[Nige]

'Unless and until Hamas is defeated, and seen as utterly defeated across the arab world, peace won’t happen'

If you kill everyone in the Arab world, that's a kind of peace.

'There sure are a lot of civilian collaborators;'

Thousands and thousands and thousands of them.

[shawn_dude]

Sure, if you define "Hamas collaborator" as anyone who "captures" an Israeli bullet in their chest and refused to give it back.

[Malika the Maiz]

This is the problem with ardent defenders of Israel. ReaderY couldn't stop with the reasonable claim that Hamas, having hidden the hostages in high civilian areas, is ultimately to blame for most civilian casualties. No, he (Publius below does the same) has to claim there really weren't any actual civilians so they all had it coming. Because, for example, those sneaky Palestinian infants are one crawl away from blowing up Israeli buses!

[Michael P]

My area has managed to avoid being subject to hostage-recovery raids by the IDF. Probably because we don't take or keep hostages. Maybe also because we are smart enough to distinguish between "mostly" and "all".

[Malika the Maiz]

The infants in your area, or their area, are not part of any "we" that "don't" do or "know" things that make them deserving of death and maiming.

[Michael P]

That's some real pretzel logic that you twist yourself into.

[Ed Grinberg]

"My area has managed to avoid being subject to hostage-recovery raids by the IDF. Probably because we don’t take or keep hostages."
Well put.
compare:
"[M]y advice to them would be: If you don’t want your people killed in hostage rescue missions, then you shouldn’t take hostages in the first place … and you certainly shouldn’t hide them in civilian areas."
source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jun/9/tom-cotton-hold-hamas-responsible-palestinian-casu/

[Malika the Maiz]

The entire point of the concerns is the "you" killed =/= the "you" who take hostages and hide them in civilian areas*

*notice how this concedes there are areas with persons who are not the "you" who take hostages and hide them.

Why do you think in such collectivist ways about people (or is it only Palestinians you think that way about)?

[Nige]

But you haven't avoided the killing of massive amounts of civlians in the wars fought by your military, some for the most spurious of reasons.

[ThePublius]

Were the people holding the hostages, including the journalist, civilians or Hamas combatants, in your view?

[Malika the Maiz]

The people holding the hostages were certainly Hamas combatants. Do you think the infants injured in the rescue were Hamas combatants or civilians?

[ThePublius]

I haven't seen any reports of infants being killed in this mission. Can you provide a citation that's not B.S. from the Gaza Health Ministry or UNRWA?

[ThePublius]

By the way, bring a baby to a gun fight and the baby gets hurt or killed - your fault, not mine.

As I said before, don't shoot and get out of the way.

[Malika the Maiz]

Decent people still, and should, feel a strong duty to avoid the hurting or killing of babies even if the responsibility for the baby being there is someone else's. This is why the MOVE bombing, Waco operation, etc., were controversial, you know?

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

You don't get to hold a baby while shooting at me for the purpose of preventing me from defending myself. You brought the baby into it. You are the one who is morally bankrupt.

People like you seem to think the only thing Jews are allowed to do is submit to being raped and killed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Decent people still, and should, feel a strong duty to avoid the hurting or killing of babies even if the responsibility for the baby being there is someone else’s."

Should Israel feel a duty to avoid killing Palestinian babies to the point where it leaves its own citizens as hostages, when the responsibility of killing the babies is Hamas's?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I agree in general, but there must be a line somewhere. Would Israel be justified in killing 100,000 Palestinian civilians to save four hostages? If the answer is no, then it's at least a valid discussion whether Israel's specific actions here are moral and/or justified.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you think the infants injured in the rescue were Hamas combatants or civilians?"

The people responsible for the deaths of the infants were the people keeping infants near hostages.

[Malika the Maiz]

That's entirely reasonable, as I've said. What's not reasonable is to say the infants were combatants, not "civilians."

[Martinned2]

Morally, yes, but legally that's not how this works. As a matter of law you don't get to free hostages without regard for civilian casualties.

[Bob from Ohio]

They had already freed the hostages, Hamas attacked the extraction. IDF defended its troops.

The raid was completely legal. If it wasn't then the law is an a**.

[Martinned2]

The law may be an ass, but Israel still has to follow it. That's what rule of law means.

[Bob from Ohio]

Naw, its a sovereign state with a powerful military and intelligence operation. Also a good friend of the US. International "law" is voluntary then.

It was still 100% legal.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Your problem, Martin, is that you insist upon viewing real world events through the lens of the law. (I sometimes suffer from the same problem.)

Lay persons have the luxury of putting their emotions first (or their psychoses, in Ed's case). It's a shame when they can't tell the difference, though...

[Martinned2]

On a legal blog, I tend to assume people want to discuss the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Monday Open Thread
What's on your mind?

You know what they say when you "assume".

No qualifier in that post heading.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As a matter of law you don’t get to free hostages without regard for civilian casualties."

And is there any evidence that anyone freed hostages without regard for civilian casualties?

[Bob from Ohio]

Nope, he's just assuming the Jews are heartless killers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As a matter of law you don’t get to free hostages without regard for civilian casualties."

1. This statement may be broader than you intend. Is there any support for the idea that Israel has to consider civilian casualties resulting from a Hamas counterattack in its decision to free hostages?

[Nige]

The people responsible for killing people are the people doing the killing. That doesn't absolve Hamas, but if you suspend all responsibility for killing on one side, then they have licence to kill whoever the fuck they want.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"but if you suspend all responsibility for killing on one side, then they have licence to kill whoever the fuck they want."

Nobody's suspending responsibility for all killing, just killing that might be necessary to rescue hostages or eliminate Hamas.

[Nige]

So, you're absolving them of responsibility for all killing in the current conflict.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So, you're conceding that all killing in the current conflict is necessary to rescue hostages or eliminate Hamas.

Good talk.

[Nige]

So, that's your stance? ALL killing. No matter how many.

[ThePublius]

So, you're claiming that Gazan infants were killed during this hostage rescue. Do you have a citation for that, other than the Gazan Health Ministry, or the UNRWA (know Hamas collaborator)?

And if so, how were those infants killed, and by whom?

Know that the rescuers were met with throngs of folks in civilian attire wielding AK-47s and RPGs. There was lots of gunfire. Who's bullets struck these infants who were supposedly killed?

Methinks you are full of it.

[Malika the Maiz]

This is a profoundly stupid game you are playing. The IDF conceded "under 100" Palestinians were killed. You don't think a single one of them were children?

What's profoundly stupid about this is that it's entirely reasonable to use the usual IDF line that Hamas, by holding the hostages in places where Palestinian children were, put those lives in jeopardy. But no, fundamentalist Israel supporters like yourself have to go further and make incredible claims such as that everyone killed in an operation involving a bombardment in a densely populated area were combatants. It's ridiculous claims like this that are making so many more people skeptical of Israel these days. Maybe stop helping?

[ThePublius]

"profoundly stupid"

So now you have to resort to name calling, because your don't have any other argument. Ha, ha.

Do you have any evidence or an infant being killed in this raid? Why must one assume that among 100 killed at least one must have been an infant? That's what you're saying.

And, by the way, if Hamas is holding hostages in a day care for infants and some infants get killed during a hostage rescue mission - tough shit! It's tragic, but what is Israel to do?

[Malika the Maiz]

I said you were being profoundly stupid because you are being profoundly stupid. So profoundly stupid in fact that you obviously didn't comprehend that I made an argument, as you simply doubled down on your numbers game.

If you need some proof of infants injured, you can see pictures here: https://www.newstribune.com/news/2024/jun/10/israeli-raid-kills-274-palestinians-rescues-4/

Of course you're in this non-falsifiable space where the pictures were faked or something I'm sure, and no infants were or ever are injured in any IDF operations (but you need to add it's never the IDF's fault if they were!).

And at least we know have you saying if it happened it was "tragic." Baby steps!

[ThePublius]

"At least 274 Palestinians, including dozens of children, were killed, and hundreds more were wounded, in the Israeli raid that rescued four hostages held by Hamas, Gaza's Health Ministry said Sunday."

Emphasis mine. Ha, ha. They lie.

[Malika the Maiz]

Good lord you are oblivious to what I've been saying the past few comments. You're still arguing the precise number!

It's interesting that the same people who one day (heck, sometimes in the same day!) go on about how Hamas uses civilian human shields then go one the next with "how can we assume any civilians were killed?" It's a non-falsifiable world where Israeli forces can never be at fault for anything.

[Commenter_XY]

The only thing Israel is at fault for, is not killing more Hamas members on the way out.

[Nige]

None more macho, and did somebody say 'bloodthirsty?"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Bloodthirsty for Hamas members?

Of course! Their stated goal is to eliminate Hamas. Is that a problem?

[Nige]

You'll note that 'bloodthirsty for Hamas members' is indistinguishable from 'bloodthirsty for thousands and thousands of civilians.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

Interesting concession.

[Malika the Maiz]

Israel can't be guilty of killing too many non-Hamas members in the operation?

I mean, this is what I'm talking about.

[Commenter_XY]

Rob Misek's niece has entered the building.

[Michael P]

Yes, you often talk about things you have imagined. It's not a good look for you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is there any evidence that Israel killed any non-Hamas members during the operation. The Palestinians were shooting too.

And if non-combatants were killed by IDF in a crossfire caused by Hamas or others attacking them? No, I'd say they can't be guilty of killing to many non-Hamas members in the course of defending themselves.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

The folks who have been making these shrill claims of deliberate “genocide” really ought to be ashamed of themselves...

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/08/the-left-wing-attack-on-judicial-independence-and-on-justice-alito/?comments=true#comment-10596579

[John F. Carr]

Can any of us determine from reporting whether Israeli forces used more force against civilians than was justified under the circumstances of the rescue? Or did we already know which side should take the blame?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

We have no idea. There is a monstrous lack of objective information available in that area right now, which makes it highly irresponsible to speculate.

Historically, however, we do know that Hamas are bloodthirsty terrorists, and that the IDF hardly gives a shit about killing civilians.

The killing will eventually stop, or at least slow down. Until it starts again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is why I say "Nuke Gaza" -- there aren't any innocent civilians there, they all support Hamas and they all need to die.

Kill them like the rabid dogs they are -- taking hostages is never a legitimate tactic in any war.

[bernard11]

Well said, ReaderY.

No doubt some innocent Gazans were killed, but that is Hamas' fault, not Israel's. As are many of the other problems in Gaza.

There has been far too little attention paid to its decades of misrule and corruption.

[Martinned2]

No doubt some innocent Gazans were killed, but that is Hamas’ fault, not Israel’s.

Why not both? In a human shield situation, the person who deploys the shield and the person who shoots at it are both responsible for the resulting casualties.

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

... are both responsible for the resulting casualties.

No, they're not. Fuck off Nazi scum.

[bernard11]

Do the would-be rescuers have no right to use violence?

Even if the hostages' lives are in danger?

And while we are talking legalities, isn't hostage-taking a war crime? Rape, kidnapping, and murder are certainly crimes under any country's law, so Israel must have a right to arrest and try the perpetrators and planners of the Oct. 7 raid.

Do you think the international community will support such efforts?

[bernard11]

Well, Martined2?

Does Israel have the right to arrest and try those plausibly accused of undisputable crimes on its territory, or not?

[Martinned2]

Of course it does. Do you think that's what Israel was trying to do?

[Martinned2]

Do the would-be rescuers have no right to use violence?

Of course they do.

And while we are talking legalities, isn’t hostage-taking a war crime?

It is. In fact it's one of the war crimes that the OTP of the ICC wants to prosecute the Hamas leadership for.

Rape, kidnapping, and murder are certainly crimes under any country’s law, so Israel must have a right to arrest and try the perpetrators and planners of the Oct. 7 raid.

That's not necessarily the case. That depends on whether Israel has jurisdiction over the crimes in question. But under the Lotus case, Israel could base jurisdiction on the fact that the victims were its citizens, so let's let that one go.

Do you think the international community will support such efforts?

It already is.

[bernard11]

That depends on whether Israel has jurisdiction over the crimes in question.

But the crimes were committed in Israel. Why wouldn't that automatically give Israel jurisdiction? Why is that even open for discussion?

[the international community] already is supporting efforts [to arrest and try the perpetrators and planners of the Oct. 7 raid.]

We'll see what comes of that.

It already is.

[Martinned2]

But the crimes were committed in Israel. Why wouldn’t that automatically give Israel jurisdiction? Why is that even open for discussion?

If you're referring to the October 7 crimes, then yes, Israel obviously has jurisdiction.

[Nige]

'One of the notable and incontrovertible facts about yesterday’s hostage extraction in Gaza was the deep personal involvement of so-called Gazan “civilians” in the kidnapping and massecring of Israeli civilians.'

Ah. Somone's looking for arguments to justify enormous civilian casualties.

'Nobody complained about the Bin Ladin family members shot during the Bin Ladin raid under Obama'

I'm pretty sure people did, actually.

'The “civilians” were all deliberately deployed for purposes of making propaganda claims in the event Israelis attempted to rescue them.'

It's hardly propaganda - they actually killed them. They kill civilians all the time.

'These “civilians” are no more innocent than the large crowds of “civilians” that used to come to and cheer on lynchings.'

Seems like they're the ones that got lynched, and you're the one cheering it on.

'To say it ain’t so is merely to pander to slavers and lynchers'

You have these civilians accused and condemned and executed without process of law - what's the word for that again?

'If the Gazans had just followed up on the experiment in peace'

Pity about all the hands on the scales, eh? Including Netanyahu and his support of Hamas.

'Israel gave back Gaza as a down payment on peace'

I'm sorry, peace requires actual effort, by both sides.

'increasingly turning to a government against making concessions for peace'

A goverment against making concession for peace not bringing about peace? Shocking.

'if what they say is really to be taken seriously, slavery.'

I wonder what you call it when you justify the slaughter of a group of people by labeling them all as evil, such as being basically a lynch mob and slavers?

'it is immoral to wage war.'

As a general rule, yes, it is immoral to wage war.

'pacifism inevitably results in conquerors winning'

What a good thing that thinking war is immoral and pacifism are not the same thing.

'Those who will only accept a saintly Israel in reality will only accept a dead Israel.'

The way you keep absolving Israel of all its sins, they're downright godly.

[ThePublius]

Biden and his administration are calling for Israeli negotiations with Hamas toward releasing hostages, etc., including the five American hostages.

First, how and why does one negotiate with a designated terrorist organization that has a history of reneging on deals and cease fires?

Second, and more important: if Trump or Reagan or any other president with brains and balls was in office, we'd have implemented a rescue mission of our own, coordinated with Israel, and not unlike Israel's rescue of this weekend, to get our hostages back.

It's sickening that we are being so passive and accommodating to a terrorist organization. Where is our strength, our resolve? Why is the U.S., a superpower, taking this from a piddling terrorist organization? Shameful.

[Sarcastr0]

if Trump or Reagan or any other president with brains and balls was in office, we’d have implemented a rescue mission of our own, coordinated with Israel.

No one takes a second seat to conservatives when it comes to fan fiction about their cult of personality figures.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Reagan performed poorly against Hezbollah in Lebanon. That is a fact. There were hostages taken during his tenure. Some were tortured to death. I attribute his failure here as trying to impose a western style solution on an middle eastern culture. And as we have seen subsequently, this fails badly every time.

No POTUS gets it 100% right.

[Malika the Maiz]

Reagan didn't negotiate for US hostages?

[OtisAH]

Yes, he negotiated “for” to have them remain hostages until after the election.

[bernard11]

Second, and more important: if Trump or Reagan or any other president with brains and balls was in office, we’d have implemented a rescue mission of our own, coordinated with Israel, and not unlike Israel’s rescue of this weekend, to get our hostages back.

You have a vivid imagination. How do you know we are not working with Israel to coordinate such a mission? Do you not trust the Israelis to carry one out?

Isn't it likely that the hostages are not separated by nationality, so a raid to rescue one group will rescue/endanger the other?

IOW, you don't have a clue what is going on behind the scenes, so you make shit up.

[Martinned2]

It seems risky to work with the IDF on this, which is why the US army expressly denied doing so. The last thing you want is for Hamas to shoot at US military personnel deployed at the pier.

https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/1799578307001717226

[Don Nico]

Makes good sense especially if POTUS does not want to fall into a trap

[bernard11]

You can work on planning and so on, and maybe some technical help, without putting our troops in, which is probably unnecessary in any case.

Even just maintaining communications might help.

[Martinned2]

The troops are already at the pier, where they are within shooting range of Hamas rockets.

[Martinned2]

Interesting:

Google today succeeded in convincing a US federal judge that the government's adtech monopoly lawsuit against it shouldn't be heard by a jury, with the court ruling that a $2.3 million check the tech giant tendered to the Department of Justice satisfies the damages claim.

US District Judge Leonie Brinkema said Google will face a bench trial in September over allegations by the DOJ and multiple states that it has corrupted legitimate competition in the digital advertising technology industry. Google is accused of having engaged in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising.

In case you're wondering about the relevance of that $2.3m cheque, here is how (lefty antitrust pundit) Matt Stoller summarised it:

The right to a jury trial is in the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution, but there are certain requirements for a jury trial, like damages or potential criminal liability. Merger trials, for instance, don’t involve damages, so they cannot have juries. In this case, the Antitrust Division alleged that Google had robbed advertisers through monopolization, and since the U.S. government is an advertiser, it alleged it has suffered monetary damages. As such, it asked for a jury trial. Kanter’s view is that antitrust law should have to be accountable to the public, and jury trials are a way of accomplishing that.

Google’s response last week was astonishing. They just cut a check for all proposed harms, tripled it in accordance with the Sherman Act’s treble damages charge, and claimed that the point is moot. But beyond that, the search monopolist argued that the United States government “has no right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, even for its damages claim,” and argued that “particularly complex cases should be resolved by judges rather than juries,” aka normal people cannot decide hard cases. Google hired a fancy medieval scholar, a guy at a Scottish university named Professor John Hudson, to explain how the founders were libertarians who thought the public was dumb.

I'm inclined to agree with Google that the government doesn't have 7th amendment rights, even when it is suing as a commercial customer, but it sounds as if the judge went with the other argument against a jury trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess Google had the cleaning crew check the furniture for chump change to cover the check.

[Martinned2]

It only had to cover the government's triple damages to work, not other customers'.

[Michael P]

Was the best expert Google could find "a fancy medieval scholar, a guy at a Scottish university named Professor John Hudson" (who specializes in Anglo-Norman history and translating Latin)? They couldn't find any US legal scholar or historian to opine on US legal history?

[Malika the Maiz]

Seth Tillman was not available?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Indeed, it’s a little odd that they hired anyone. All he does is quote Blackstone and a case reporter. Seems like it would have made more sense to plug that research into the brief directly.

[Krayt]

Nobody has a right to a jury trial if their response to all your demands is “here’s all your money you wanted.”

And the government’s complaint here is equally astonishing, saying this on the one hand, while the other hand are regulatory agencies and states withdrawing lawsuits at the last second to avoid jury trials, trials that actual members of We The People unarguably have the honor of using.

[SRG2]

Such clever, so coherence.

"It must be because of M.I.T., my relationship with M.I.T., very smart, I say, what would happen if the boat sank from its weight, and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery is now underwater and there's a shark that's approximately 10 yards over there ... by the way, a lot of shark attacks lately,"

Guess who?

[Moderation4ever]

Anyone know the size of the batteries on US submarines and aircraft carriers? What if one of these ships started sinking in shark infested waters?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Bilge Pump.

Buoyancy involves displacing a weight of water greater than the weight of your vessel.

[Zarniwoop]

Maybe you should apply to be Trump's science advisor. Even you are more informed than him ... and that's a pretty frackin' low bar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Buoyancy involves displacing a weight of water greater than the weight of your vessel"

And if the batteries exceeds the weight of the displaced water, the vessel will sink. And the heavier the vessel, the slower it moves and harder it is to turn.

[grb]

SRG2 : "Such clever, so coherence"

Trump is getting ahead of Biden on the whole Sinking Electric Boat / Shark thing prior to the debates.

[bernard11]

Remind me, which candidate is demented?

What do you think, XY?

[Commenter_XY]

The guy who evidently shit his pants got lost looking for a chair in Normandy on the world stage. Even Macron's wife could not hide her reaction. That guy. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

You're really bottom feeding for your sources lately.

[bernard11]

Here's the thing, XY.

That fucking didn't happen.

You think it did because you're gullible fool who believes all the crap you see on RW media. You embarrass yourself, which I don't really care about, but it's idiots like you who are going to vote for one of the worst human beings in the country for President.

Oh. And you're cute strikethrough doesn't do you any credit.

[Commenter_XY]

Uncle Bosie sends his regards, bernard11.

You know, the uncle that POTUS Biden told the entire world who was eaten by cannibals during WW2. Yeah, that uncle. Nah, no cognition problem at all. Just a diplomatic mess to clean up with New Guinea. No biggie.

And I am the gullible one. ROTFLMAO!

[Sarcastr0]

What a whole new subject you've brought up, after being called on your bullshit.

Bernard didn't say anything about whatever you're on about now.

And of course Biden didn't say what you claim.

You're becoming indistinguishable from Bumble. Is that how you want to be?

[bernard11]

No real response to my comment, XY? No defense of your lies and willful ignorance or, more appropriate, a retraction and apology? Of course not. You don't regard spreading slander as wrong. Pretty selective piety.

Instead you offer a misrepresentation of something Biden, not I, said, to dodge the issue of your own lies and slanders.

[bernard11]

You know, XY, there is a concept I learned about many years ago. I didn't recall the whole thing, so I had to look it up.

It is called Haatsot shem ra, and refers to the evil of spreading falsehoods about another.

And if you want, stupidly, to claim that your statemets are true,there is the notion of lashon hara, which basically condemns nasty gossip, even if true.

In this very subthread you have spread three patent lies about Biden. Just think about it. Ask yourself whether avoiding bacon absolves you from these sins.

[Zarniwoop]

As an actual MIT grad, I want to entirely dissociate myself from this line of alleged "thinking" and/or "reasoning". No way that guy could pass 8.01.

once source:
https://x.com/JReinerMD/status/1799913746250276909

Wow ... just wow.

[Roger S]

Trump would score better than Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s what it looks like when you transcribe people speaking spontaneously, PAUSE.
“45” spoke for an hour in the Vegas heat with no teleprompter and even got the crowd to chant “Bullshit”, it’s going to be the “Let’s go Brandon” of 2024. Meanwhile Sleepy’s shitting himself and stealing Reagan speeches

Frank

[bernard11]

You're as demented as Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"As" demented?

[Frank Drackman]

Embarrassing when Shysters try to use Doctor-ese, I may be pre-verted, but not demented. Try defining it without looking it up

Frank

[bernard11]

Here's the passage

Read it and tell us the man is all there.

[Moderation4ever]

The former President didn't speak he rambled. He said that devoted MAGA supporter would choose suicide over another Biden term. God, I hope you are not a devoted MAGA supporter. Trump was channeling Jim Jones the only thing missing was the Cool - Aid. Which given the heat would likely have gone quickly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Such clever, so coherence."

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all in debt to Donald Trump for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.

[SRG2]

Ruwruwhh!

[Zarniwoop]

I have to assume you're talking about Trump's frontier gibberish, as the Doge (such/so) meme is over a decade old and quite well understood by people with more than two brain cells. Heck, I'm in my 50s, and even I know about it.

You do too, right? ... right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)

But maybe you'll learn something from VC today.

[Bob from Ohio]

I've seen that dog, did not realize what it was because there was no dog.

Yes, I was talking about Trump. I should not have quoted srg's incoherence but Trump's.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I have to assume you’re talking about Trump’s frontier gibberish..."

Why assume?

" I think we’re all in debt to Donald Trump for stating what needed to be said."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

1. Boats don't sink from their weight.
2. Batteries don't electrocute you in water.
3. False and incoherent: Just a typical Trump speech!

[hobie]

So Stormy was right, he does have a fear of sharks...but how would she know?!!

[shawn_dude]

Isn't it "shark week?" Or maybe he got a plastic shark in his latest Happy Meal.

[Moderation4ever]

MAWF - Make America Whine Free.

Don't vote for Trump.

[Roger S]

You will also have to get rid of all the whining Trump-haters.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

One takes care of the other.

[Frank Drackman]

Who’s the one who finds any excuse to bring up his dead son (who died in Bethesda Maryland, not Iraq)
Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Likely any father who has lost a son or daughter. Nothing can be worse for a parent than to bury their own child. President Biden has had to do this twice.

[ReaderY]

It’s worth seeing exactly what Hamas’ defenders on this blog are defending. It could not make the point more clearly.

The Israelis had carefully planned the raid to limit civilian categories despite raiding mid-day to increase the likelihood of surprise. The problem happened when one of their vehicles got stuck in the middle of a refugee camp. Gunmen opened fire on them. The Israelis fired back. This Israeli fire caused most of the civilian casualties.

So this is what Hamas’ defenders are justifying. EXISTENCE IS GENOCIDE. It’s really what they are saying once the smoke gets cleared. Any – ANY – act of self-defense, however justifiable if done by anyone other than a Jew, will be labeled genocide. The only way to avoid the world’s condemnation is to just sit there and be slaughtered like nice good little sheep should. A sheep who won’t sit and be slaughtered is a genocidal sheep.

And they call this morality.

The Confederates and the Klan may have expected Negros to be haply little slaves. But even they never expected Negros to turn the other cheek to being killed. A slave was valuable property, a commodity that could be cashed in. This made the life of a Negro under slavety worth far more than that of the Jew today.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Welcome to what the Democrats have been doing to people who defend themselves for the past two decades.

They find self-defense horrific.

[SRG2]

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

[grb]

The Troll of the Baskervilles ?!?

[Zarniwoop]

You win the VC today, everyone else should log off and resume commenting tomorrow.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/09/david-boazs-final-speech-the-rise-of-illiberalism-in-the-shadow-of-liberal-triumph/?comments=true#comment-10597420

The nearly-100% overlap between people who deny Israel (the innocent party) the right to defend itself, and try to prevent / punish Americans from/for defending themselves against criminal aggression is not a coincidence.

[ReaderY]

[Malika the Maiz]

Even way before "Progressives" or Marxists the common law had points where self-defense defenses were negated by going too far.

[Martinned2]

It’s worth seeing exactly what Hamas’ defenders on this blog are defending.

There are no defenders of Hamas on this blog.

[bernard11]

There do seem to be.

Does Hamas itself bear any responsibility for civilian deaths? If you think it doesn't than are you not defending Hamas?

[Martinned2]

Does Hamas itself bear any responsibility for civilian deaths?

Yes. There is no one here who disputes that.

[bernard11]

I guess I missed the condemnations and calls for justice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"There are no defenders of Hamas on this blog."

Yes, there are, Randal and Kirkland at least.

[Commenter_XY]

Martinned2, Misek, Affleck

[Martinned2]

When did I ever defend Hamas?

[Frank Drackman]

That’s like asking when Sleepy Joe said something stupid

[Malika the Maiz]

There are multiple problems with your comment imo.

1. I'm not sure I see any "Hamas defender" posts you could be referring to. I'm not even sure I see any posts critical of Israel! This conversation started when you posted that there was an obvious double standard in there being concerns or criticisms about the civilian toll of the recent hostage rescue compared to the civilian toll in the Bin Laden execution. Martinned2 retorted that the answer could be in the different number of civilian casualties (five people were reportedly killed in the Bin Laden raid, the IDF claimed "under 100" were killed in the hostage rescue). There ensued a silly debate about exactly how many civilians were killed in the hostage rescue. Which comment did you find to be pro-Hamas? I only see explanations of why some people might have reacted differently to the two situations (which were different).

2. "The only way to avoid the world’s condemnation is to just sit there and be slaughtered like nice good little sheep should." You equate any criticism of IDF actions as meaning that Israelis or Jews should be sheep happy to be slaughtered. This is like saying that any criticism of US forces actions in Vietnam or Iraq or whatever is "un-American." You seem to really, really, really like your Civil War Confederate/KKK analogy. But, yes, if someone reacted to a crowd at a lynching, with women and children there, by dropping a bunker buster on that crowd, I think people could criticize the response without being a KKK supporter. I really detest the Confederacy (so much so that I actually take the radical step that we should not continue to celebrate it's heroes!), but I think it's fine to question some Union tactics in defeating it. That does not make me a Confederate sympathizer.

[ReaderY]

I said this blog, not just this post. Look at some past posts. They shouldn’t be hard to find.

As to this action, there is a great deal of condemnation of Israel for this incident, for anything from inflicting excessive casualties to deliberate genocide. Consider this claim of “perfidious tactics.”

https://www.jns.org/un-officials-criticize-perfidious-idf-hostage-rescue/

[Malika the Maiz]

With all due respect, this isn't even a half-assed response, maybe not even quarter assed.

[ReaderY]

Admitted. But it’s a very adequate one for people who use their heads.

[John F. Carr]

The coverage I read did not say that Israel timed the raid to limit civilian casualties. Surprise was key. The rescuers didn't want to go in making a lot of noise by shooting everything in sight. On the way out, a firefight is also bad because the hostages might die. When hostages are not thought to be present IDF delivers a large bomb.

[Malika the Maiz]

"The coverage I read did not say that Israel timed the raid to limit civilian casualties. Surprise was key."

All of which is reasonably defensible to me, btw.

[ReaderY]

What I said was, quote,”Israel planned the raid to limit civilian causualities despite raiding mid-day to increase the likelihood of surprise.”

There are reports of the IDF immediately opening fire in a crowded marketplace. That didn’t happen. As I noted above, the main Palestinian casualties were when an Israeli convey got ambushed after a vehicle got stuck in the middle of a refugee camp. Note that Hamas has stopped even attempting to distinguish civilians from combatants when it describes casualities. It just says “Palestinians.”

[Nige]

'Israel planned the raid to limit civilian causualities'

Good job, no notes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This Israeli fire caused most of the civilian casualties."

We don't know this. Half trained Hamas thugs are not known for exact aim. My guess is a significant percentage was "friendly" fire.

[Nige]

'It’s worth seeing exactly what Hamas’ defenders on this blog are defending'

There are no Hamas defenders on this blog, unless I've got them all blocked, and I tend to block right-wing anti-semites and racists. There was one guy, but he hasn't been around in a while.

[shawn_dude]

"Hamas defenders"

LOL.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump's teleprompters did not work at the Sunday rally in Las Vegas and Trump threatened to not pay the company supplying the equipment. Or did the teleprompters not work because Trump had not yet paid for the company?

[John F. Carr]

"If I am elected I will finish the wall and I will pay $35.17 to unlock 2,000 more words of prompts."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump threatening not to pay for something is like the sun threatening to rise from the east tomorrow.

[hobie]

Paying for goods and services is for losers and suckers

[Frank Drackman]

Like those who serve in the military? Let me guess, you're one of those chicken hawks who want to send other peoples kids to fight for You-Crane?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What are all the hot takes on the Merchan letter about the "possible" corrupted jury?

[not guilty]

Do you mean the communication from the self-proclaimed "professional shitposter"? https://www.thedailybeast.com/sean-hannity-pushes-trump-trial-and-judge-merchan-claim-by-professional-shitposter

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No, I meant what I asked. Hot takes on the letter.

I wonder why Merchan didn't wait for The DailyBeast to debunk it for him before sending that letter?

Was his Bat Signal not working?

P.S. I love how you linked to the "Republicans Pounce" article and not the original source. lmao pathetic

[Malika the Maiz]

"I wonder why Merchan didn’t wait for The DailyBeast to debunk it for him before sending that letter?"

I thought Merchan was in on the fix?

Conspiracy theories are so wonderfully non-falsifiable!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don’t even understand what you’re saying.

Merchan is clearly corrupt and had his thumb on the scale. So what is his motivation for this letter over this event that could lead to a mistrial AND that was allegedly already discredit in mere minutes by the DailyBeast?

How is it three people are too stupid to understand my question? Is it because they are all Democrats?

[David Nieporent]

Merchan is clearly corrupt

Real lawyers learn in law school that there are two tracks one can take to make a successful argument. One can supply a whole bunch of evidence, or one can just say, "clearly."

So what is his motivation for this letter over this event

His motivation is that it's his job. And conscientious people — I understand why this would escape you — do their jobs.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You mean like that whole bunch of “evidence” that Trump raped that rape fetishist 78 years ago?

>His motivation is that it’s his job. And conscientious people — I understand why this would escape you — do their jobs.

Ah yes, the grand myth of the Noble Democrat Civil Servant, whom we can trust with our ballots, our courts, our sacred democracy, and even our very lives!

lmao, now do Judge Cannon

[David Nieporent]

You mean like that whole bunch of “evidence” that Trump raped that rape fetishist 78 years ago?

I don't think anyone has alleged that Donald Trump committed a rape in 1946.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder why Merchan didn’t wait for The DailyBeast to debunk it for him before sending that letter?

You mean, besides the unidirectional nature of time?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

T0 - Facebook commenter makes salacious claim about jury bias.
T1 - Merchan writes letter notifying parties of event.
T2 - DailyBeast "allegedly" discredits Facebook commenter.

I speculated, why didn't Merchan wait for the DailyBeast to debunk it before writing the letter. This would look like this:

T0 - Facebook commenter makes salacious claim about jury bias.
T1 - DailyBeast "allegedly" discredits Facebook commenter.
T2 - Merchan has to do nothing.

You replied:
"besides the unidirectional nature of time?"

What an incredibly stupid, and I mean gobsmackingly stupid, retort.

Even for you.

[David Nieporent]

I'll try speaking slower: how would the Daily Beast have debunked something that the Daily Beast didn't know about? How would the Daily Beast have known about it without Merchan first writing the letter?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's what the fucking Bat Signal, comment was. He could just shake the tree at the WH and tell them was found.

[Roger S]

I don't think Judge Merchan accepts the unidirectional nature of time. He blamed Trump for stealing the 2016 election based on records that were created in 2017.

[David Nieporent]

He did not. I know you thought this was clever, but you're not really equipped for clever.

[Roger S]

That is how everyone understands what the judge did.

Lawrence Tribe: "We now know Trump committed 34 felonies to win that election."
Washington Post editorial: "guilty of felony falsification of business records in order to influence the 2016 election."
New York Times editorial: "guilty of falsifying business records to prevent voters from learning about a sexual encounter that he believed would have been politically damaging."
https://reason.com/2024/06/07/laurence-tribe-bizarrely-claims-trump-won-the-2016-election-by-falsifying-business-records-in-2017/

[hobie]

Comment of the day, David.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The letter seems totally routine, so the only question is whether Todd Blanche will try to argue that this means that the verdict should be set aside. Blanche’s strategy so far has looked a lot like throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks, but I’ll go out on a limb and predict that this is too weak for even Blanche to try to make something of it.

[John F. Carr]

Adobe took a lot of heat this month after people noticed that its terms of service allowed its employees to look at user documents stored on cloud servers. Some writers were mollified by reassurances that Adobe employees are looking for child porn and phishing scams rather than stealing your work. The infrastructure is there. It will be abused.

Meanwhile, European regulators don't want end to end encryption to be legal. They want your data to be insecure in transit so governments can make sure you think what your betters want you to think.

[Frank Drackman]

Note to self. If any Ham-Ass terrorists take hostages in my neighborhood, move.

[Zarniwoop]

Rare point of agreement with this fake doctor. That's a good plan.

IF that knowledge was universally public, which it almost certainly wasn't. I would assume that some people in the area knew, but most didn't - after all, the more people who know a hostage's location, the more the Israelis are likely to acquire intel, then raid the location with overwhelming force. And maybe that's what happened - the neighborhood knew, and someone told Israel. They got the intel from somewhere ...

But from Israel's perspective ... it didn't matter. And I'm fine with that. If you're a non-Hamas Palestinian, don't support them and don't live near their safe houses. Which might have leaders (get bombed) or hostages (get raided).

Kinda like living near Hitler's bunker in 1945 was also a bad plan, even if you weren't a Nazi.

[John F. Carr]

The UN is said to have put Israel and Hamas on a list of groups that commit violence against children. Israel's envoy to the UN published a recording of the phone call notifying him of this outrageous slander against the most moral army in the world. Apparently his act was a breach of protocol. The list, I gather, has the same effect as any other strongly worded letter not backed by a vote of the Security Council. According to Al Jazeera, which would be expected to spin the news as bad for Israel:

The blacklist is meant to call out parties engaged in abuses against children. But other countries can use it to restrict arms sales to the offenders.

Former honorees include Russia and Syria, both of which still exist.
The Security Council will discuss the report soon. Nothing will come of it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Something may come of it. Something to be celebrated with a bacon cheeseburger, shrimp cocktail, crabmeat Hoelzel, and candied bacon.

Some people didn't see desegregated schools, the marginalization of bigots, environmental protections, decent treatment of gays, consumer protections, alliances with Germany and Japan, women voting, or a series of tubes coming, either.

[Commenter_XY]

Why Arthur, are you catering something for your StormFront friends again? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your devotion to international pariahs, war criminals, land-stealing bigots, selfish and corrupt warmongers, and superstition-driven right-wing belligerents will be counterproductive, but you are too blinded by bloodlust, childish religion, bigotry, and wingnuttery to recognize that.

Huge mistake. But you get to make it. It’s your side’s funeral.

[Don Nico]

Translation anyone?
"actions, which may be perceived by some as pseudo-goliardic, are contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect..."

[John F. Carr]

I did not recognize the word. Per Wikipedia, "[Goliardic] poems, or lyrics, focus on two overarching themes: depictions of the lusty lifestyle of the vagrant and satirical criticisms of society and the church."

[Commenter_XY]

No more one night stands?? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, faded academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots
as modern America passes them by,
as well as to providing a platform for
conservative bigots and bigotry —
has operated for no more than

TWENTY-FOUR (24)

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
deplorable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

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

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

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones inspirationals:

First, as the Stones set a stage in Philadelphia, here is an example of the magic that can be generated from the Stones' special guests. (Most guest spots are pedestrian; this one was great.)

Second, a lesson: uptight, then satisfaction.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez-Us, let Mick's Cock get some sunlight.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That comment was sponsored by the Society for Destruction of Standard English.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: here's an excellent bit from a piece which (IMHO) the Nazis didn't understand very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzPmGblA4Wo

[apedad]

Candidate convicted of Jan. 6 charge walks out of Georgia congressional debate

“I’m Chuck Hand, lifelong resident of the 2nd District. I’ve worked side by side with the people of the 2nd District solving problems since 2018. I’ve only seen this man (Wayne Johnson, who won a plurality of support [44 percent]), next to me come around when it’s election time, wanting to run for office,” Hand said, gesturing toward Johnson.
~~~
What a tool.

He agrees to a debate then pulls this stunt.

But he's a good boy; let's hear about him from the man himself.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.241873/gov.uscourts.dcd.241873.41.3.pdf

[shawn_dude]

Man with a history of making poor choices makes another one.

or

Grown man-child loudly takes his toys and goes home.

or

Yet another Maga Karen.

[apedad]

Tesla Urges Rejection of $5.6 Billion Legal Fee in Musk Pay Case

Tesla Inc. urged a Delaware judge to reject an unusual proposal by the lawyers who defeated Elon Musk’s $56 billion compensation package and now want their legal fees paid with about $5.6 billion of stock in the electric-car maker.

Instead, Tesla argued in a court filing late Friday that the lawyers should be entitled to just $13.6 million after successfully challenging the company’s decision to award Musk what would have been the largest executive payout ever.

Lawyers for shareholder Richard Tornetta, who brought the lawsuit, argued that they should receive more than 29 million Tesla shares as compensation from the company rather than cash.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/tesla-urges-rejection-of-5-6-billion-legal-fee-in-musk-pay-case

MAN! You lawyers got some chutzpah!!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

[deleted, wrong place]

[Bob from Ohio]

ThePublica@ThePublicaNow
The pride flag crosswalk in Spokane, Washington, has now been designated a "no-go zone" by Lime scooters following the arrest of multiple teens for leaving "skid marks" on the mural.

The scooters will now shut down if they are driven over the pride flag."

[Roger S]

Actually the crosswalk is painted like a progressive pride flag, which is explicitly anti-White and anti-straight. It is a hate symbol.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are Mr. Volokh’s target audience. The other Conspirators love you, too.

[John F. Carr]

I was surprised a few years ago to learn that rented scooters in the LA area were programmed or commanded to shut down when entering a city that doesn't like scooters. I was not surprised by the technology. I was surprised that companies wanted to go there. Customers do not like their robodevices acting like HAL. Scooter riders are less important than car drivers.

[shawn_dude]

Looks like Lime isn't interested in having its brand associated with homophobia. Seems like a reasonable decision. I presume homophobic teens will just find another way to be stupid.

[John F. Carr]

A Spanish court has sentenced three unnamed football fans to eight months in prison for aggravated immorality. (El Pais: "una acusación contra la integridad moral con un agravante de odio".) They were accused of shouting unspecified "racist" insults at star Vinicius Junior during a match last year. Vinicius Junior is a dark-skinned Brazilian who plays for Real Madrid. He seems to attract the wrong sort of attention.

The sentence is likely to be suspended. The fans also face a two year ban from stadiums.

[apedad]

"He seems to attract the wrong sort of attention."

Blaming the victim is OK now?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots gonna bigot. Right-wingers gonna cling..

[bernard11]

I don't read John as approving the "attention."

[Commenter_XY]

The prison sentence may be suspended; the 2 year stadium ban will not be suspended. Nor should it be. Vinicius Jr has raised awareness of the problem, and has spoke openly of the emotional and psychological impact of racist taunts. He is not alone in this. Racist taunts are a problem for LaLiga, which they acknowledge.

Vinicius Jr is arguably the best football player in Europe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"best football player in Europe"

Zero SEC championships.

[Frank Drackman]

No Daytona 500 Winners either

[Commenter_XY]

Sigh. Yes, no college football championships. That is true.

OTOH, he does have another Champion's League trophy. And he really is a tremendous player. I've very rarely seen anyone of that overall skill level.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sigh. Yes, no college football championships."

Its a joke from the "Three Year Letterman" twitter account.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Probably financed your waterbed too.

[Roger S]

Prison for some fan trash talk is extreme. Europe has no free speech.

[ReaderY]

Question.

One of the “civilians” who was “murdered” while innocently holding Israeli civilians captive was labeled a “journalist.”

If he was paid by Western media to pass them Hamas propaganda, can those who paid him be prosecuted or sued for intentionally or negligently giving material aid to a terrorist organization? Can they at least be outed for passing on Hamas propaganda as “journalism?”

Who are they?

[ThePublius]

I would think that if he was paid by a U.S. media company they should be prosecuted. But I sincerely doubt that will happen, given the current DoJ and executive administration.

[John F. Carr]

There are two laws that come into play, both in 18 USC Chapter 113B.

One of them prohibits support of terrorist acts by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. It has a list of predicate crimes including hostage taking (18 USC 1203). An American news organization would have to know it was paying somebody to take hostages. This law is basically a variant on aiding and abetting, a well established form of criminal liability.

The other prohibits support for a designated terrorist organization regardless of whether the support promotes terrorism. The Supreme Court said advising a designated terrorist organization on how to make peace comes within the scope of this law. Agreeing to translate videos by a designated terrorist organization can get you charged with a felony. Translating videos is not too far removed from passing on propaganda, which in turn is not too far removed from traditional reporting. The Supreme Court did not draw the line between First Amendment speech and pro-terrorist speech.

[Nige]

The IDF have killed so many Gazan journalists that there just aren't enough left and they have to make do, I guess.

[ReaderY]

And that Hamas has let slip that “journalist” is simply a code word for a hostage guard who propagandizes Western media on the side, we can all sincerely hope they kill a lot more.

Anyone except people who support Hamas murderers.

[Nige]

They have? Presumably anyone reporting from inside Gaza is going to look like a Hamas propagandist because it's so fucking awful. Or are you justifying more murder?

[ReaderY]

I suppose we also ought to presume that James Wilkes Boothe was at the theatre just to get an acting part, right?

You have such supreme confidence that nobody is going to take a Jew’s word over yours that even being caught read-handed doesn’t phase you. You just keep bullshitting past it. He was guarding the hostages to “cover” them my ass!

Lets cut the bullshit. Game’s over. The “Gaza Ministry of health” describes every Hamas fighter and every Gazan Hamas executes, and there have been many, as a civilian killed by Israel. Stop shilling for them.

[Nige]

I was talking about journalists over the course of the war, not this one incident, though I know you like to jump on any pretext to murder civilians, even retroactively

‘You have such supreme confidence that nobody is going to take a Jew’s word over yours’

On the contrary, the IDF’s word is gospel round these parts.

[shawn_dude]

Scare-quotes doing all the work there.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

More Alito reporting. Did Josh Blackman get the bat signal yet?

[loki13]

What do you think? Water ain't gonna carry itself!

(That said, I happen to think that recordings like that are poor form.)

[Kazinski]

Interesting recap of the April hearings on the delay in deploying the National Guard Jan 6th.

Turns out that the National Guard commander was given unique and specific orders not to deploy unless he was given specific orders to deploy by Army Secretary McCarthy.

Part of the delay is also attributed CJCS Milley who feared the loyalty of the national guard troops and a Reichstag moment.

The actual order to deploy wasn’t actually given to 5:09pm. Where was McCarthy while they were waiting for the order? At DC police headquarters conferring on the phone with congressional leaders.

Then they tried to blame it on Trump and the National Guard.
https://www.declassified.live/p/the-silent-insurrection-general-milleys

Watch the embedded clip of the congressional hearing.

[David Nieporent]

At what time on 1/6 did Trump give the order for the National Guard to deploy to Capitol Hill?

[Kazinski]

He gave the OK to deploy on 1/3, per both the IG report, and the Pentagon after action report.

And if you watch the hearings the National guard staff said specifically the order they were waiting for was from McCarthy, not the President. And that those were unusual orders they received from McCarthy himself not to deploy without his personal order.

Do you think its typical for Nat Guard commanders to require a personal order from the President before acting?

Here are the actual facts : everyone at the Pentagon in the chain of command acknowledges that they had full authorization from the President to deploy the National Guard as needed days before Jan. 6th. No one has testified that they were waiting for any additional authorization from the President before deploying on Jan. 6th.

There has also been lots of testimony and books and articles that Milley was paranoid about a "Reichstag moment", and any additional direct orders from Trump might have just further fueled his paranoia and caused further delays.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Do you think its typical for Nat Guard commanders to require a personal order from the President before acting?"

I'll raise your ignorant question with a question: To whom does the DC National Guard directly report to?

[Mr. Bumble]

See chain of command.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I know you're another Keyboard Warrior who's closest experience with "Combat" has been fighting your toenail fungus.
Do you think the National Guard has thousands of Combat Ready Troops, ready to spring into action at a moment's notice?
While there are some full time Guard, most of them drill one weekend a month, if that, and 2 weeks during the summer. Yes, the DOD has deployed the shit out them the last 20+ years, and screwed them at the same time, "Oh, You're an Air Traffic Controller? You can do Convoy Security"
You have 20,000+ Active Duty Military at the Pentagon, what were they doing? Of course, nothing useful as usual, but some of them aren't Fat Fucks like Milley, and have actually fired their weapons.
Air Guard is probably the most combat ready, but almost all of their pilots are flying Airliners full time

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

This is stupid, Kaz. Trump didn't act. He wasn't overridden by some secret order from Milley. He couldn't have been.

Are you implying some kid of Congressional-McCarthy false flag?

[Kazinski]

Trump acted Jan. 3rd, as requested by Pentagon authorities.

Has anybody from the Pentagon testified that they were waiting for further authorization?

No.

Did the National Guard testify they were waiting for authorization from Trump?

No. They said they were waiting for authorization from Army Secretary McCarthy.

Did McCarthy testify he was waiting for or needed further authorization from Trump to give the order?

No.

[Commenter_XY]

That is very interesting, Kaz.

You know what I can't figure out. How is it our alphabet agencies know the location where Iranian terrorists generals fart (and how loud the fart was) in the middle of bumfuck Syria, but we don't know shit about the RNC/DNC bomber right here in America? That is amazing to me.

You know what else I can't figure out. Exactly how many employees of those very same alphabet agencies (that can ID Iranian general farts in the middle of bumfuck Syria) were running around on Jan 6th, and what were they doing? Amazing we have no answers to that. We got nuthin.

Over time, the truth will come out. People talk.

[Sarcastr0]

It is amazing to you we don’t surveillance our own citizens to stop crime?

And how our military can’t act without its civilian leadership?

You need to brush up on elementary civics.
Or quit straining for a conspiracy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It was on camera, remember?

lol

The CIA operates inside our borders all the time. No one stops them.

[SRG2]

A classic from Marjorie Trailer-Queen:

If you think gas prices are high now, just wait until you’re forced to drive an electric vehicle.

[ThePublius]

She obviously meant energy costs, Einstein. And, she's right.

[shawn_dude]

She's a politician with a reputation for saying dumb things and then doubling down. She gets away with it because people who support her silently translate what she says into what they want to believe. (This, I think, is Trump's superpower as well.)

But she's wrong, even if we pretend she mean the cost of electricity in a high-demand future. Supply will follow demand and new plants will come online with improved LCoE compared to what's currently operating. Grid issues are real but solvable through various approaches, not all of which require massive amounts of construction. And, with a reduction in fossil fuel use, we can shift the exceptionally large amount of taxes we spend on subsidizing oil and gas to meeting those costs.

[JasonT20]

Electric vehicles have lower maintenance costs over the first 10 years compared to internal combustion, I believe. I've seen claims that they are close to even with gasoline-only powered passenger vehicles now, without the tax subsidies. Higher up-front costs, lower operating costs.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow! funny that more people aren't buying them

[JasonT20]

She obviously meant energy costs, Einstein. And, she’s right.

As shawn points out, your translation may or may not be what she meant. Or, it could be that she just didn't think it through before she said it. Whether the energy costs of operating an electric vehicle are higher or lower or the same as for a similarly-sized gas powered vehicle is something that data would show. I'm sure that the data exists, so if you're so sure that this assertion is right, go find that data and get back to us.

Something she is definitely wrong about, though. No politicians I have heard of have proposed forcing anyone to drive electric vehicles. If there are proposals around them that she disagrees with, she'd make more sound arguments focusing on them instead of some straw man. But then, the Trump/MTG/MAGA brand is all about bringing in bogeymen to scare people.

"They are coming for your hamburgers! Your pickup trucks! They are going make everyone drive little electric putt-putt cars! They are going to make dogs and cats live together and change genders!"

[ThePublius]

"No politicians I have heard of have proposed forcing anyone to drive electric vehicles."

In what fantasy land do you live?

Aren't you aware that Biden, et.al., are pushing for the replacement of ICE cars with EVs by 2030? Isn't that "forcing?"

What about Newsom? No diesel trucks at ports? "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently adopted “Advanced Clean Cars II,” set to take effect January 1, 2025, which would require 100% of new cars sold in Model Year 2035 to be electric vehicles."

Pay attention!

[Nige]

‘Isn’t that “forcing?”’

Is it? Seems more like a change in infrastructure and transport policy. Like when they took lead out of fuel.

[shawn_dude]

No, it’s not forcing. Even if they prohibit selling new ICE cars from dealerships, all the proposals so far let people keep, buy, and sell used ICE vehicles through and beyond 2030.

“Pay attention!”

Indeed.

[SRG2]

Ah yes, because her actual words made her look like an idiot, which is entirely consistent with past utterances, she must have meant something else.

[Frank Drackman]

Just jealous you've never fucked anyone as hot as MTG

[Stella Link the dog]

"you’ve never fucked [...] MTG"

Unlike many residents of Rising Fawn.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She resembles a horse. After 20 years in a trailer park. And ridden hard.

Guys named Clem and Cletus might go for her, though.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the video of Fancy Nancy P and Chucky Cheese Schumer demanding to know "Where's the National Guard!?!?!?!"
Umm, same place they were on September 11, working their Civilian Jobs, that whole "Citizen Soldier" thang.
I hear there's this 5 sided building near the Capitol that has lots of Military, some of whom have actually been in combat

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is that the video where she confessed she was the one responsible for the security on J6?

[not guilty]

Judge Scott McAfee has issued an order declining to stay proceedings in Fulton County as to the six defendants (Eastman, Smith, Still, Lee, Kutti, and Hampton) who have not appealed from the order regarding disqualification of the District Attorney. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24740740/20240610-order-on-motion-for-stay-trump-et-al.pdf

[TwelveInchPianist]

In other Fulton county news, a defense lawyer was arrested for refusing to disclose how he got information about an ex-parte meeting between the judge, the state, and a witness.

Word is he's being represented by a certain shapely blonde lawyer.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don't know all the alleged facts. But would love to hear not guilty's take on this. Is there any circumstance where an ex parte meeting between the prosecution, a witness, and the judge is kosher? Georgia Code of Judicial 2.9 seems to indicate not. Again, not sure the context of this (other than the Jeffery Williams aka Young Thug trial), but it looks bad to me for the judge and/or prosecution.

And holding him in contempt and putting him in jail for a portion of the time during the trial.....this seems unusual and pretty strong grounds for a mistrial. Obviously, he won't be able to prepare the same as he otherwise would have. The potential impropriety (but is it? if there were any such discussions, the Code on its face puts a duty on the judge to disclose the communications.) of getting info on ex parte discussions in judge's chambers could be dealt with after the trial, it seems.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It looks terrible for the judge: "Mr. Steel, can I interrupt you for just a second? I'm kind of disturbed because that's ex-parte. All that was an ex-parte conversation. How did you find out about any of that?"
I mean, IANAL but that seems along the same lines as a judge being being disturbed that someone found out about his cocaine use.

And at around 9:00:00 in the same video, when Ashleigh Merchant is defending Steel, the judge seems not to understand the difference between civil and criminal contempt.

[NOVA Lawyer]

All that was an ex-parte conversation.

Seems like an admission. Again, not aware of any reason why that would be okay without at least informing defense counsel and providing the substance of any communications (including if the witness said in the ex parte convo that he would plead the Fifth.).

I agree, based on the facts I know, it does look terrible for the judge. And, yes, when your immediate concern is that these "ex parte conversation[s]" were told to defense counsel rather than, I don't know, that defense counsel wasn't told, indicates he likely knows he looks bad. The Code seems pretty clear to me, the judge cannot have "an ex parte conversation".

[David Nieporent]

Right. The important thing isn't who told the defense counsel; the important thing is why it wasn't the judge who told the defense counsel.

As someone analogized this judge's reaction, it's like a spouse accusing his/her partner of cheating and the accused's reaction is, "How did you find out?!"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Interesting. I had assumed that that someone catered to a non-attorney audience.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It sounds like the judge is confusing "ex parte" with "in camera". He tends to be imprecise with language. At one point he claimed that Steel has acquired proprietary information.

[not guilty]

I don't know the details, but this is definitely not a good look for the trial judge. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24740782/brian-steel-contempt-order.pdf The order finding Mr. Steel in criminal contempt acknowledges that the court engaged in ex parte communications: "The only parties present for this ex parte matter were the Court, the Court’s official court reporter, representatives from the State, the State’s witness Mr. Kenneth Copeland, and counsel for Mr. Copeland."

There are some circumstances where ex parte communications are permissible, but the judge should promptly disclose on the record the substance of what took place. Rule 2.9 of Georgia's Code of Judicial Conduct is pretty self-explanatory. https://aocdev4.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2021/06/Code-of-Judicial-Conduct-2020.pdf

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thanks. Definitely not looking good for the judge and unless that pans out for him, I don't see how there isn't a mistrial for interfering with defense counsel's prep for the case by jailing him....to say nothing of whatever remedy would apply if, in fact, the judge had substantive ex parte communications with the prosecution, a prosecution's witness, and the witness's attorney that were not disclosed and in violation of court rules.

[not guilty]

The judge’s reported conduct is inexplicable and indefensible. https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/he-became-a-bully-ysl-judges-conduct-outrages-atlanta-lawyers/GPBEBIE3FBCD5PZUGVQRSF6WZY/ I haven’t followed the trial closely enough to have an opinion, but I would not be surprised if this were grounds for a mistrial and the judge’s recusal.

The conduct of the prosecutors and Mr. Copeland’s counsel for participating in the ex parte conference with the judge is also suspect.

I expect that the defense attorney will quickly be granted bail pending appeal of the contempt order.

[David Nieporent]

The judge is doubling down; he today issued an order to show cause to everyone in the room during his illicit ex parte communication why they shouldn't be held in contempt for disclosing information from his illicit ex parte communication.

[not guilty]

Southern folk wisdom holds that the hit dog hollers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ng, is that an invitation for those other now to seek a stay. Or are they barred from doing so? Does it mean their trial can go forward on something approximating a prompt schedule?

[not guilty]

Judge McAfee's order states:

The undersigned therefore believes that the six Defendants not parties to the interlocutory appeal (Eastman, Smith, Still, Lee, Kutti, and Hampton) do not fall within the order’s command. Any party that disagrees with this finding is welcome to seek clarity directly with the Court of Appeals. See Ga. Ct. App. Rule 40(b) (“Emergency Motions”).

No one is barred from seeking a stay.

As I have said before, if I were representing the State, I would move the trial court to sever the six non-appealing defendants for a separate trial and request a trial setting for August or September. That would alleviate any speedy trial concerns for those six. The full range of evidence of the alleged RICO conspiracy and all overt acts in support thereof that would be admissible at a joint trial of all defendants would be admissible at the trial of the six.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once again, thanks for the help.