Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In the prosecution of Donald Trump in the Southern District of Florida, Trump has sought leave to file supplemental briefing regarding the implications of Trump v. United States for the pending Presidential-immunity motion to dismiss the indictment and a partial stay of further proceedings. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.664.0_5.pdf The District Court has stayed certain deadlines and ordered additional briefing.

The conduct alleged in the Florida superseding indictment to be criminal all occurred after Trump left office as President. The superseding indictment accordingly does not allege offenses involving presidential acts at all, and Trump has no colorable claim of immunity for his acts undertaken as a private citizen.

[Krayt]

You’ll git ‘im! Keep at it, there’s a political opponent to jail before the election!

Seriously, all this is arguing how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. All involved have already failed, and are doing the bidding of power brokers. “Just tell ’em nobody is above the law.” “Heh heh, the rubes!”

This statement might anger you. You’re no rube, much less someone in on the secret lying deliberately.

I think intelligence evolved not to figure out technical things, but to put one over on others.

How many come up with clever arguments, sit back, and think "that's something that can be believed!"

[Frank Drackman]

You are Correct Sir! (HT E McMahon)
"Not Guilty" is no "Rube".
He'd have to go up another 50 IQ points to even be in "Rube" territory

Frank "I knew Rubes, I served with Rubes, and you Sir, are no Rube!"

[Malika the Maiz]

Would these IQ points instruct him that "correct" should not be capitalized in the sentence "You are correct, sir?"

Idiotic clown.

[Frank Drackman]

Rules are for Slaves, Free Men make their own Rules.
Have fun obeying the Rules, Slave.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Please FeEl FreE to BreAk the Rule AboUt Driving on tHe Wrong SiDe of The Road, FoOl.

[Kazinski]

Come on Queenie, I think engaging with Drackman was.the cause of your downfall before.

Just step away from the keyboard.

[Riva]

Now let's be more understanding. They had pinned a lot of hopes on the repulsive lawfare abuses. They're in the denial stage of grief at the collapse. Give them time to manufature some new lies and legal disgraces.

[Kazinski]

Do you really think any of the trials are going to start before the election? You seem perpetually outraged about Cannon, but place no blame on Chutkan, who isn't making any more progress than Cannon.

In terms of sheer entertainment value, I'd like to seen Cannon disqualify Smith, citing Tillman and Blackman, and Thomas' concurrence in the immunity case. I don't doubt the 11th would reverse it, but they would have to take it seriously for fear Thomas could round up 3 more votes to grant cert.

[not guilty]

It is highly unlikely that any jury trial will begin before election day. Judge Chutkan moved things along quite expeditiously before proceedings were stayed pending the interlocutory appeal. I surmise that she will move quickly on remand.

Judge Chutkan's first order of business will be to sort out what conduct alleged in the indictment involves official acts for which Donald Trump is immune from prosecution. Conduct involving unofficial acts is not subject to immunity at all. As to acts initially determined to be official, the District Court must analyze whether each act is or is not within the “core constitutional powers” of the presidency. As to presidential acts which are official but outside the scope of “core constitutional powers,” the District Court must determine whether the Special Counsel can show that prosecution for the act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18 (Slip op., p. 14.)

Such pretrial determinations will necessitate evidentiary hearings before Judge Chutkan. Those hearings, which will occur before election day, will be broad ranging and will not be pretty to MAGA supporters. To that extent, SCOTUS has thrown Jack Smith into the briar patch.

[Commenter_XY]

How long do those evidentiary hearings take?
Is it pro forma, or something else?

[not guilty]

I would anticipate such hearings taking several weeks to hear proof and several days thereafter for an order to issue.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, this case is effectively 'iced' until after the election.

[not guilty]

No, the case is not "iced." The evidentiary hearings on Donald Trump's entitlement vel non to immunity from prosecution can proceed apace. Those hearings will lay bare Trump's myriad abuses of power.

In a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article entitled “What Publicity Can Do,” Louis Brandeis observed that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

[Bwaaah]

Finally, the stories about Trump will see the light of day.

[tylertusta]

It's like watching a rerun of the J6 committee. Except this won't be televised, and there won't be a TV executive producing it.

[Frank Drackman]

Can it at least have Uncle Remus in charge again?

[Riva]

Well Not Guilty, I still feel far better now that your insane lawfare radicalism is just relegated to stupidly irresponsible reflexions in a comments section, instead of playing out in court proceedings. Criminal lawfare is basically over. Cheer up, you still have the civil courts to abuse. And of course, more possible future shenanigans in Congress.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Those hearings will lay bare Trump’s myriad abuses of power."

Well, I'd like to see ol Donny Trump wriggle his way out of THIS jam!
*Trump wriggles his way out of the jam easily
Ah! Well. Nevertheless,

[Kazinski]

Keep hope alive.

But don't forget all those pretrial rulings will be appealable, at least according to Garrett's concurrence.

[not guilty]

I would anticipate a single omnibus order of the District Court determining in detail what acts are subject to prosecution and what acts are not. Controlling D.C. Circuit precedent sets forth the analytical framework for distinguishing a president’s official acts from private, unofficial acts. Under Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023), Donald Trump must demonstrate his entitlement to immunity. That burden will be met if, based on an appropriately objective, context-specific assessment, his alleged actions can reasonably be understood as the official actions of an office-holder rather than the unofficial actions of an office-seeker. Per Blassingame:

When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act. The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office.

Id., at 4 [italics in original.] The Court of Appeals elaborated:

It follows that, when a sitting President acts in his capacity as a candidate for re-election, he acts as office-seeker, not office-holder. The presidency itself has no institutional interest in who will occupy the office next. Campaigning to attain that office thus is not an official function of the office. Rather, an incumbent President’s interests in winning re-election have the same purely private character as those of his challengers—i.e., “substantial personal interests as a candidate” to attain (or retain) the office. . . . Accordingly, a President acts in a private, unofficial capacity when engaged in re-election campaign activity.

Id., at 17 [italics in original.] There is substantial overlap between the conduct for which Trump is being prosecuted in the D.C. indictment and for which he is being sued for damages in Blassingame.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Donald Trump must demonstrate his entitlement to immunity

I think that underestimates this corrupt Supreme Court's capacity for presumption.

[not guilty]

Well, last Monday's opinion of the Court nowhere disapproved of Blassingame. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts cited that D.C. Circuit decision with approval at page 17 of his opinion. The Blassingame court made clear that the burden of establishing that he is entitled to official-act immunity rests on Donald Trump. 87 F.4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

[Joe_dallas]

Lathrop - your analysis is quite similar to Jackson's and sotomayor's dissents. All three grossly distorting the majority opinion far beyond anything the opinion actually held.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A meaningful substantive analysis would require that he take the time and effort to learn what the decision actually says, as opposed to just accepting the word of his favorite propaganda outlets and the many voices in his head...and ain't nobody got time for that!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Comment moved.

[Z Crazy]

What's he being sued for?

[not guilty]

Trump is being sued for damages for, among other things, civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The D.C. Circuit explained:

Each of the complaints asserts a claim against President Trump under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which prohibits conspiring to prevent anyone from holding a federal office or from performing the duties of a federal office. Blassingame Compl. ¶¶ 213-24, J.A. 63-67; Swalwell Compl. ¶¶ 166-84, J.A. 114-19; Thompson Compl. ¶¶ 259-67, J.A. 199-200. The Section 1985 claims are generally based on the contention that President Trump engaged with others in a plan to prevent Congress from discharging its duty to count electoral votes and to prevent then-President-elect Biden and then-Vice-President-elect Harris from assuming office.

Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

[not guilty]

"But don’t forget all those pretrial rulings will be appealable, at least according to Garrett’s [sic] concurrence."

As I wrote last week, the black robed wardheelers of SCOTUS will do what they choose to do, but I am not at all persuaded that a pretrial order granting immunity as to some official conduct while denying immunity as to unofficial acts (and such official acts as to which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity) qualifies as an immediately appealable collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), and its progeny.

The collateral order exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 considers as “final judgments,” even though they do not “end the litigation on the merits,” decisions “which finally determine claims of right separate from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate jurisdiction be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989), quoting Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546. To fall within the limited class of final collateral orders, an order must (1) “conclusively determine the disputed question,” (2) “resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action,” and (3) “be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Midland Asphalt, at 799, quoting Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). SCOTUS has interpreted the collateral order exception “with the utmost strictness” in criminal cases. Ibid.

Donald Trump asserted a claim that he was entitled not to stand trial at all in the lead up to this week’s decision. Since last Monday, however, Trump can make no such claim of immunity as to avoiding trial for his unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts slammed that door shut at page 42 of the slip opinion: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

That means that going forward, Trump can no longer satisfy the third characteristic of an immediately appealable collateral order under Coopers Lybrand. A pretrial order recognizing immunity as to some official acts, denying immunity as to official acts as to which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity, and denying immunity entirely as to unofficial acts is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. As the Midland Asphalt Court opined:

[T]he third prong of the Coopers Lybrand test is satisfied only where the order at issue involves “an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial.” United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 860 (1978).

489 U.S. at 800. Given that Trump must stand trial for the unofficial acts averred in the indictment, a denial of immunity as to some or all official acts can be reviewed just as effectively in a posttrial appeal as it could be on a pretrial appeal. A ruling that a particular act is unofficial is just as reviewable posttrial as pretrial, just as is a ruling that another act is official but not within the "core constitutional powers? of the President and that, as to that act, the prosecution had rebutted the presumption of immunity.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That sounds like a lot of ways to say precedents require results the MAGA majority doesn't like. This corrupt Court will not in Trump's case ever announce anything the MAGA majority does not like.

Having committed to defy the Constitution, why would they stoop to be ensnared by precedent?

[Krayt]

Noted. Speaking of corruption, have the high level Democrats reported the hundreds of millions spent trying to jail a political opponent? That has a dollar value, and benefits their campaigns, and so must be reported as a donation.

Oooooh, all joking aside, if any insider cracks and admits the real reason everyone knows, that's a problem for the above.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for these instructive comments.

[not guilty]

You are quite welcome.

[Commenter_XY]

Same here NG, I appreciate the background. I learn a lot.

[Armchair]

I can't say the same. NG is a self-admitted rabid partisan, and has a habit of "leaving out" inconvenient details.

[Bob from Ohio]

He posts long quotes from cases. He must know a lot!

He was wrong on the immunity case, wrong on Anderson, wrong on the Georgia disqualification case. Has he ever been right?

[not guilty]

Bob, I cite relevant legal authorities out of respect for other readers, who can check my work in real time. You may want to try that sometime. I promise that it won't break your keyboard.

Armchair, I have always "self-admitted" being a partisan Democrat, but you lie when you say I have admitted having rabies. Why am I unsurprised?

[Bob from Ohio]

"relevant"

You cite stuff, true.

[Armchair]

"but you lie when you say I have admitted having rabies. "

See, that's the dishonestly I've come to accept from ng.

Rabid has multiple definition. Including "going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion" But ng deliberately picks the incorrect definition, given the context, then accuses the individual of lying. Simple dishonesty.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rabid#:~:text=%3A%20extremely%20violent%20%3A%20furious,rabid%20editorials

[NOVA Lawyer]

See, that’s the dishonestly I’ve come to accept...

Even under your offered definition, it was dishonest to say he is a "self-admitted rapid partisan."

But the bigger point is you missed ng's cheekiness. Everyone understands the metaphorical sense, ng and his audience included, no one but you missed his point.

[Kazinski]

Just don't believe it all. As DN, points out he is likely wrong, and of course Barrett was directly on point with the opposite view in her concurring opinion.

He is always certain, and often wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

He is always certain, and often wrong.

Hmmmmm.

[David Nieporent]

NG, can you cite any case in which a denial of a claim of immunity has not been deemed immediately appealable? The entire point of immunity is that it's immunity from trial, not merely from punishment; otherwise it's just a defense, not an immunity. That's true in both the civil and criminal context. So a denial of immunity is not effectively reviewable posttrial, because the harm — forcing the defendant to stand trial on those claims — is already complete.

And we see all the time in the QI context the appellate court entertaining an interlocutory appeal as to some counts but not others.

[Riva]

Kinda having a hard time citing any case in the history of this republic where the sitting president sought to jail his opponent in criminal proceedings. Good thing he’s got such clear cut serious violations not vague statutes and conspiracy theories and archival matters that have always been handled administratively under a federal statute that has no criminal enforcement mechanism. Otherwise, employing an attack dog civilian "special counsel" with a history of error involving, shall we say creative statutory interpretation, might look bad.

[Mr. Bumble]

Riva,
You forgot the Neosporin rule (same as the SarcastrO rule:
1. Neosporin is always right.
2. If Neosporin is wrong see rule 1.

[David Nieporent]

Kinda having a hard time citing any case in the history of this republic where the sitting president sought to jail his opponent in criminal proceedings.

How fucking incompetent do the programmers of the Riva bot have to be that the best they could cause it to recite is this moronic argument?

First of all, it's not even true. See Eugene Debs.

Second, major parties generally do not nominate sociopathic criminals for the presidency, so this situation rarely arises. But — not to sound like a fortune cookie — there has to be a first time something happens, so "this is the first time" is not even an argument.

[Riva]

Back to the bot nonsense again. You should get in touch with the 51 intel backwashes who lied about the crackhead bagman’s laptop on behalf of the Biden campaign and ask them to write another letter. They might conclude that my comments show the hallmarks of Russian intelligence too.

[Malika the Maiz]

Doesn't show any intelligence that I can see.

[Riva]

If your this disturbed now, wait until President Trump is reelected and some accountability is brought to the lawfare abusers. Could you post a photo of your impotent primal scream when he’s sworn in?

[not guilty]

"NG, can you cite any case in which a denial of a claim of immunity has not been deemed immediately appealable? The entire point of immunity is that it’s immunity from trial, not merely from punishment; otherwise it’s just a defense, not an immunity. That’s true in both the civil and criminal context. So a denial of immunity is not effectively reviewable posttrial, because the harm — forcing the defendant to stand trial on those claims — is already complete."

In the civil context, SCOTUS has expressly held “that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified-immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-320 (1995). Accord: Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 188 (2011). See also Moore v. Hartman, 644 F.3d 415, 421 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Barham v. Salazar, 556 F.3d 844, 848 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Oscarson v. Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, 550 F.3d 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Watts v. Harrison, 279 F. App’x 11, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Arrington v. United States, 473 F.3d 329, 339 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 571-572 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Here, SCOTUS itself has determined that the indictment includes allegations of unofficial acts to which no immunity attaches. That determination is the law of the case which the District Court and Court of Appeals must apply on remand. Donald Trump has no right not to stand trial for his unofficial acts. In that posture, the District Court's determination of what official acts are or are not within the "core constitutional powers" of the presidency, as well as what other official acts the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity, are easily reviewable posttrial.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive.

SCOTUS is not letting a district judge decide the immunity issue for POTUS.

[not guilty]

Uh, SCOTUS has itself ruled definitively that Donald Trump is not entitled to immunity from prosecution for his unofficial acts and private conduct. The District Court will make rulings on remand. Those rulings will be reviewable de novo as to matters of law and for clear error as to factual determinations.

Since Trump, per SCOTUS, has no ability to avoid trial, appellate review of the District Court's determinations should occur posttrial.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hope dies last.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Indeed, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that there is a right to interlocutory review of a denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds and speech and debate clause immunity. See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) and Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (1979). As you note, the justification is that immunity is designed to protect people "not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves." Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967). If you accept that Trump has a potential immunity claim (and since the Supreme Court just said that he does, lower courts are supposed to), I don't see how there's even a colorable argument that he can't immediately appeal an order rejecting it.

[not guilty]

The point of allowing interlocutory appellate review of a district court's denial of a defendant's claim of immunity is that, absent review of that denial as a collateral order, the defendant would lose his claimed right to avoid standing trial at all. Donald Trump made such a claim of immunity, and SCOTUS ruled definitively that he has no right to avoid standing trial for his unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts slammed that door shut at page 42 of the slip opinion: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

Up until June 30, 2024 Donald Trump could assert that he arguably had a right to avoid standing trial in the first place. Since July 1, 2024 he can no longer assert that claim. The district court is duty bound to determine which of the prosecution's claims will go to trial and which will not, based on the averments of the indictment, any evidence adduced on which acts are official or not and the analytical framework set forth by SCOTUS. That order should result in Donald Trump standing trial on the issues to which immunity does not attach, come hell or high water.

The black robed wardheelers of SCOTUS may play Calvinball. But I have explained upthread how the district court's order on remand regarding immunity should not be deemed an immediately appealable collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949), Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978), and Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798-799 (1989).

I can explain it to you; I can't understand it for you.

[Josh R]

I understand your legal argument. But, it sure seems weird from a layman's perspective that Trump has to stand trial, only to learn later (when it is too late) he shouldn't have done so because the trial judge mistook official acts for unoffical ones. The result defeats the purpose of resolving immunity disputes before trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

The only purpose of these trials is to put Trump in jail.

[David Nieporent]

The purpose of any criminal trial is to put the defendant in jail.

[KenveeB]

But you're assuming the conclusion, that Trump's actions were unofficial acts. The proper way to go about things is for Trump to file a motion saying these were official acts, I've got immunity. Then the trial court makes the determination of whether the acts were official or not. That decision can be appealed -- by Trump for what the judge determines are unofficial acts or non-core official acts not covered by the presumption, and by the prosecution for what the judge determines are official acts covered by the presumption. After the appellate court has ruled, then Trump goes to trial on anything he was found not to have immunity on and doesn't go to trial on the things he was found to have immunity on. The whole point of immunity is not having to go to trial, so unless Trump's team concedes that none of the actions involved were official duties, you're going to have an interlocutory appeal on it.

[Kazinski]

Barrett page 4:
"An important difference in this context is that the
President is entitled to an interlocutory appeal of the trial
court’s ruling. See ante, at 36. A criminal defendant in fed￾eral court normally must wait until after trial to seek re￾view of the trial court’s refusal to dismiss charges. See
United States v. MacDonald, 435 U. S. 850, 853–854 (1978);
see also 18 U. S. C. §3731. But where trial itself threatens
certain constitutional interests, we have treated the trial
court’s resolution of the issue as a “final decision” for pur￾poses of appellate jurisdiction. MacDonald, 435 U. S., at
854–856; see 28 U. S. C. §1291; see also §1257.

[not guilty]

Uh, Justice Bear It's "concurring" opinion is an explanation of why she is unable to join Part III--C of the opinion of the Court. As such, it binds no one.

Donald Trump's standing trial for his unofficial acts threatens no constitutional interests. When the President acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens to be the President. Rather, as the Supreme Court made clear in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), a President's official-act immunity by nature does not extend to his unofficial actions. Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F,4th 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2023). SCOTUS has recognized that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 754 n.37 (1982). Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution can accordingly rise no higher than his civil immunity from suit for damages.

[Kazinski]

So, that's a reason to listen to you and not her?

Look at it this way, if they deny interlocutory appeal on the issue there is at least one vote for cert to accept it, and you can bet Barrett can round up 3 more.

You can bet Chutkan will not go out of her way to ignore Barrett's opinion because she might be a gettable vote or a negative cert vote on the substance of the ruling. But denying the right to appeal will be a clear loser.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Donald Trump’s standing trial for his unofficial acts threatens no constitutional interests.

Sure, according to SCOTUS, so long as nothing proposed to be admitted into evidence implicates in the slightest any communication with anyone close enough to Trump to advise, to learn about, or to be affected by official business. In those instances no subpoenas will withstand appeal.

How much evidence do you suppose will make it to the jury? My prediction is for extremely lengthy pre-trial wrangling, followed by near-instantaneous trials, with nary a sign of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With almost all the evidence under wraps, how bad a lawyer would you have to be to fail to raise doubts in jurors’ minds.

[tylertusta]

…a denial of immunity as to some or all official acts can be reviewed just as effectively in a posttrial appeal as it could be on a pretrial appeal

I think our friend Mr. Guilty may not be aware of who won the case in Trump v United States.

What Mr. Guilty is referring to here is the stance of the Special Counsel, who argued that Trump was entitled to a post-trial as-applied Article II challenge. The Court did not endorse such chicanery and in fact rejected it. As the Court said (citations omitted):

Yet the Government contends that the President should not be considered immune from prosecution for those official acts. On the Government’s view, as-applied challenges in the course of the trial suffice to protect Article II interests, and review of a district court’s decisions on such challenges should be deferred until after trial. If the President is instead immune from prosecution, a district court’s denial of immunity would be appealable before trial …

… These safeguards, though important, do not alleviate the need for pretrial review. They fail to address the fact that under our system of separated powers, criminal prohibitions cannot apply to certain Presidential conduct to begin with.

Chutkan and the DC Circuit’s rulings that immunity did not apply were just vacated by the Supreme Court to consider in light of the new precedent. Chutkan has to go back to square one on the immunity question, which also resets Trump’s appeal (with caveats).

As the Court said, it's the first instance on an immunity question. An interlocutory appeal (with caveats) is permitted.

[Magister]

Trump did not get the absolute immunity he sought, and can still be prosecuted for unofficial acts.

The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28.
They also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by Trump in his unofficial capacity.

[tylertusta]

The Special Counsel argued that Presidents had no immunity whatsoever, especially pre-trial immunity. Smith did not prevail.

Trump didn't completely win, true, but he got 90% of what he wanted.

[Magister]

Trump wanted absolute immunity. He won only if the Supreme Court is even more corrupt than this ruling and revise it as needed; otherwise he can still be prosecuted for the unofficial acts.

[tylertusta]

Trump never asked for immunity for non-official acts. He argued for absolute immunity for official acts.

Instead, he got absolute immunity for core acts, and presumptive immunity for all other official acts.

[Magister]

He moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of presidential immunity, official and unofficial alike.

[Josh R]

His motion to dismiss did not claim immunity for unofficial acts.

[tylertusta]

Magister: Like I said, he got 90% of what he wanted. The indictment wasn't dismissed, but Trump also got the Court to recognize that Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution exists, and that immunity has a high bar, making any continued prosecution of Trump in DC very difficult.

[David Nieporent]

His motion to dismiss did not claim immunity for unofficial acts.

Well, true, but… he doesn't really admit that much of anything is an unofficial act.

[Kazinski]

The big win for Trump was the court ruled that testimony from executive officials about communications with Trump while he was president can not be introduced because all of Trump’s communications within the executive branch are official acts.

That means any conversations between Walt Nauta and Trump when he was packing boxes at the Whitehouse are privileged.

That means the conversation Hope Hicks testified about in the Hush Money trial, and Trumps lawyers objected to, was covered by immunity. That guilty verdict is on life support.

Roberts:
“The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “beheld criminally liable” based on those acts.”

“But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts“for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a
prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is
immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge. But “[t]he Constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” And the Government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined. If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.

“Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decision making will be distorted.”

[not guilty]

tylertusta, Donald Trump was claiming that he had a right to dismissal of the indictment in toto. SCOTUS explained why it was exercising interlocutory review of that claim. In the process, the Court declared at page 42 of the slip opinion: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

That kiboshes Trump's claim that he has any right not to stand trial at all. Since Trump must stand trial, posttrial review of the remaining immunity issues will actually be more effective and a better use of judicial resources than a second interlocutory appeal followed by the eventual trial.

Judge Chutkan's initial denial of Trump's motion to dismiss was properly considered a "final judgment" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Last week, however, SCOTUS foreclosed any possibility of a ruling on remand that Trump has any right not to stand trial for his unofficial acts/private conduct. That ruling precludes entry of a pretrial "final judgment" upon remand.

[tylertusta]

As a former litigator yourself, surely you can appreciate that there are different grades of victory. For example, you might not win a motion in limine, but the judge may put conditions on the inclusion of evidence that hamstrings the other side.

That ruling precludes entry of a pretrial “final judgment” upon remand.

You're saying that if Chutkan rules that all of the conduct contained in the indictment is unofficial, then Trump has no interlocutory appeal? Even if Trump disputes Chutkan's findings?

[not guilty]

"You’re saying that if Chutkan rules that all of the conduct contained in the indictment is unofficial, then Trump has no interlocutory appeal? Even if Trump disputes Chutkan’s findings?"

No, I am not saying that, because such a ruling would not comport with the determination by SCOTUS that some of the conduct alleged in the indictment impinges on core constitutional powers of the presidency. The SCOTUS determinations to that effect are the law of the case, binding upon the lower courts after remand, just as the ruling that Trump is not entitled to immunity for unofficial acts is the law of the case. If such a ruling as you hypothecate were to be entered, (it won't be,) Trump would be entitled to a writ of mandamus.

Such a ruling, however, would not be a "final judgment" appealable as of right as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), just as a trial court order denying a defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a civil damages action because of factual disputes is not an appealable collateral order. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 310-312 (1995).

[Josh R]

I don't undertsand. I thought you argued whether an act is official or not is a finding of fact that is not permitted an interlocutory appeal (except perhaps for clear error)? But, now it appears you said a ruling that all acts were unofficial is entitled to interlocutory appeal?

[not guilty]

No, I said that such a ruling would be subject to a writ of mandamus, which is a different matter from a “final judgment” appealable as of right as a collateral order under Cohen and its progeny. Mandamus proceedings are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1361, while the collateral order doctrine is a narrow exception to the "final decision" requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

[Josh R]

Can you translate that into layman's terms?

In particular, if Chutkan rules that some (or all) acts in the indictment are unofficial acts, and thus the trial may proceed (perhaps with a modified indictment to excise official acts), can Trump appeal that ruling in any manner before trial?

[Josh R]

Upon further review of your comments and the SCOTUS opinion, perhaps you are saying:

1) If Chutkin rules that either the interactions Trump had with the DOJ or Pence are unofficial acts, Trump can immediately appeal (and easily win, since SCOTUS resolved these issues in favor of Trump).

2) If Chutkin rules that interactions with all others and his acts on Jan 6 are unofficial, Trump caanot appeal until after the trial is complete.

And, for the intermediate case where Chutkin may rule that the interactions with Pence are offical but the government has met its burden overcoming presumptive immunity, can Trump appeal before trial?

[not guilty]

"In particular, if Chutkan rules that some (or all) acts in the indictment are unofficial acts, and thus the trial may proceed (perhaps with a modified indictment to excise official acts), can Trump appeal that ruling in any manner before trial?"

I'll be glad to break it down. Judge Chutkan is bound to follow the Supreme Court's analysis insofar as the Court ruled some acts averred in the indictment to be within the core constitutional powers of the presidency. She is similarly bound to rule that some acts in the indictment are unofficial acts to which immunity does not attach. The upshot is that Donald Trump will stand trial on some, but not all of the government's claims.

SCOTUS tasked Judge Chutkan with analyzing, in the first instance, what acts averred in the indictment are official or unofficial. Immunity from prosecution does not attach to unofficial acts, such that a trial as to whether the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed the unofficial acts he is accused of.

As to acts deemed official, Judge Chutkan must determine whether each such act falls within the core constitutional powers of the presidency. If so, Trump is entitled to absolute immunity, and evidence of these official acts cannot be received in evidence at trial. Official acts falling outside core constitutional powers are presumptively immune from prosecution, with the prosecution having the opportunity to rebut the presumption by showing that prosecution therefor will pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Upon such pretrial showing by the government, Trump will stand trial as to these official acts.

Trump is entitled to appellate review of the district court's determination of what acts are official or unofficial. He is entitled to appellate review of what official acts fall within core constitutional powers of the presidency. He is entitled to appellate review of whether the prosecution has rebutted any presumptive immunity as to official acts. In the event of conviction, the government is similarly entitled to appellate review of these issues.

My position is that, since last week's SCOTUS ruling plainly contemplates a trial, at least as to unofficial acts, the Court of Appeals and, in its discretion, the Supreme Court, can review these issues just as effectively after trial and conviction as they can prior to trial. If so, there is no collateral order appealable as of right prior to trial.

I hope this is helpful.

[Josh R]

.

Trump is entitled to appellate review of the district court’s determination of what acts are official or unofficial. He is entitled to appellate review of what official acts fall within core constitutional powers of the presidency. He is entitled to appellate review of whether the prosecution has rebutted any presumptive immunity as to official acts.

Are any of Trump's appeals permitted to be interlocutory under any set of circumstances?

[not guilty]

"Are any of Trump’s appeals permitted to be interlocutory under any set of circumstances?"

If Trump's bail were revoked or his conditions of release were made more stringent, that would give rise to an interlocutory appeal.

[Josh R]

Apart from those very unlikely possibilities, your answer is "no." As I stated below, that's seems illogical to a layman.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS has interpreted the collateral order exception “with the utmost strictness” in criminal cases. Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989), quoting Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265 (1984).

The clowns of SCOTUS may once again graft the IOKIYDT asterisk onto the exception here, but they shouldn’t.

[Josh R]

A determination by Chutkan that Trump’s acts were unofficial is an effectively unreviewable final judgment on appeal (justifying interlocutory appeal under Cohen) because it would lead to a trial even though Trump would have been immune had the acts been deemed official.

You stated that interlocutory appeals because of factual disputes are precluded by Johnson v. Jones. But, the factual dispute in that case was whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial. That factual dispute had no bearing on the legal determination of whether the officers were immune under the clearly established law doctrine.

In contrast in Mitchell v. Forsyth, interlocutory appeal was granted because the dispute was whether the facts led to the conclusion that the officers violated clearly established law, which goes directly to whether immunity applied. Similarly in Trump’s case, the dispute is whether the facts lead to the conclusion that Trump acts were unofficial, which goes directly to whether immunity applies.

[not guilty]

"Similarly in Trump’s case, the dispute is whether the facts lead to the conclusion that Trump acts were unofficial, which goes directly to whether immunity applies."

That dispute, Josh R, is what got Donald Trump before SCOTUS in the first instance. Now Trump has been there, done that, got the T shirt. SCOTUS has ruled that the indictment includes unofficial acts for which Trump must stand trial. On remand, the District Court (and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals) must regard that finding as the law of the case.

SCOTUS did not modify Blassingame v. Trump 87 F. 4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts cited that decision with approval at page 17 of the opinion of the Court. Blassingame remains controlling precedent that Trump's acts in an unofficial, private capacity as an office-seeker (which constitutes the bulk of the facts averred in the indictment) and not in an official capacity as an office holder, 87 F.4th at 5, are unofficial acts for which Trump enjoys no immunity, whether civil or criminal. "And actions taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify for official-act immunity." Ibid., (italics in original). Last Monday's SCOTUS ruling extends that principle to the pending criminal proceedings against Trump.

To relitigate these matters after remand under the rubric of an interlocutory appeal of a collateral order would frustrate, rather than advance, the doctrine recognized in Cohen and applied in Coopers Lybrand and Midland Asphalt.

[Josh R]

.

SCOTUS has ruled that the indictment includes unofficial acts for which Trump must stand trial.

No. To the contrary, SCOTUS said (my emphasis):

We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.

The only mention of Blassingame in the opinion was:

the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump

That citation does not recognize Blassingame as precedent for Trump having engaged in unofficial acts. And it can't given the instructions on remand for the district court to determine that in the first instance.

To litigate the question of whether Trump engaged in unofficial acts, and if so what those acts are, as ordered by SCOTUS in the first instance without an interlocutory appeal would frustrate the Cohen doctrine as applied in Mitchell.

[not guilty]

The language from page 28 of the opinion that you quote related to Donald Trump's interaction with state legislative officials and his and his co-conspirators' participation in the fake elector scam. At page 5 the Chief Justice opined:

The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. They also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by Trump in his unofficial capacity. See id., at 28–30, 36–37, 124.

At page 15 the Court reiterated that "Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct" and "The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts." [Italics in original.]

My reference to Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023), was intended to show that SCOTUS is aware that, upon remand, the District Court will apply that controlling D.C. Circuit precedent in analyzing what acts are official and what acts are unofficial. Nothing in last week's opinion authorizes Judge Chutkan to depart from the Court of Appeals ruling that Trump’s acts in an unofficial, private capacity as an office-seeker (which here constitutes the bulk of the facts averred in the indictment) and not in an official capacity as an office holder, 87 F.4th at 5, are unofficial acts for which Trump enjoys no immunity. Judge Chutkan must determine on remand what acts alleged in the indictment are official and what acts are unofficial, but stare decisis requires that she do so within the analytical framework of Blassingame.

If on remand Judge Chutkan enters an order specifying that some of Trump's conduct amounts to official acts for which he is immune from prosecution, some of Trump's conduct amounts to official acts for which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity such that Trump must stand trial, and the balance of Trump's conduct amounts to official acts for which he must stand trial, that order would not qualify as an immediately appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen and its progeny.

As Justice Scalia opined in Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989):

To fall within the limited class of final collateral orders, an order must (1) "conclusively determine the disputed question," (2) "resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action," and (3) "be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay, [437 U.S. 463,] 468 [(1978).]

The third prong of the Coopers Lybrand test is satisfied only where the order at issue involves "an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial." Midland Asphalt, at 799, quoting United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 860 (1978). "A right not to be tried in the sense relevant to the Cohen exception rests upon an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur[.]" Id., at 801.

An order on remand that the Trump indictment avers some official acts for which the defendant shall not be tried, some official acts for which he shall be tried, and some unofficial acts for which he shall be tried is not by any stretch of the imagination an order that the trial will not occur. Appellate review of the District Court's determinations there should accordingly await posttrial appeal in the event of conviction.

[Josh R]

Having reread the oral arguments, there are acts in the indictment which Trump has conceded are not official. Of course, those counts can proceed to trial, and can do so even where there is disagreement over what evidence is admissible (that disagreement must await a post-trial appeal).

On the other hand, for the counts where Trump disputes the acts are unofficial, those should not proceed tp trial under Mitchell.

[not guilty]

“Having reread the oral arguments, there are acts in the indictment which Trump has conceded are not official. Of course, those counts can proceed to trial, and can do so even where there is disagreement over what evidence is admissible (that disagreement must await a post-trial appeal).

“On the other hand, for the counts where Trump disputes the acts are unofficial, those should not proceed tp [sic] trial under Mitchell.”

The analysis on remand is what acts by Donald Trump are official and if so, whether the prosecution can successfully rebut the presumption of immunity that attaches to official acts which are outside the scope of core constitutional powers of the presidency, as well as what acts are unofficial.

The indictment includes four counts of criminal offenses, but scores or perhaps hundreds of acts by Trump and/or his co-conspirators. Each such act should be analyzed as official or unofficial. Team Trump cannot self-select which acts he will concede as being unofficial. That will require evidence based analysis by Judge Chutkan on remand.

As I understand prior Supreme Court precedents in the context of immunity from civil suits for damages, the initial burden of showing that a particular act is official is on the former president. “[F]ederal officials who seek absolute exemption from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope.” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 506 (1978). “The burden of justifying absolute immunity rests on the official asserting the claim.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 (1982). Accord: Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

If Trump satisfies the initial burden of showing that a particular act is official, immunity presumptively attaches and the burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut the presumption by “show[ing] that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” (Opinion of the Court, p. 14, citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 754 (1982).)

[Josh R]

Of course Trump can't self-select which acts the judge deems unofficial. But, he can contest what acts are unofficial. The only question we are answering is whether he can contest them in an appeal before trial.

Likely, each count will consist of acts Trump concedes are unofficial and acts which only the judge thinks are unofficial ("contested acts"). As I see it, an appeal before trial can be denied only if the judge instructs the jury that the contested acts may not be considered elements of the crime (again under Mitchell).

[not guilty]

Under your scenario, how is the third element of the Coopers Lybrand test satisfied prior to trial? The point of appealing a collateral order prior to trial is to avoid a trial if the appellant is successful.

What constitutes essential elements of the offense as defined by statute is an entirely separate analysis.

If the District Court erroneously determines that an act committed by a former president is official or that the prosecution has successfully rebutted the presumption of immunity as to an official act, and the case thereafter proceeds to trial, how is that determination less effectively analyzed posttrial (with the benefit of a complete evidentiary record) than it is prior to trial (with a more truncated record)?

[Josh R]

.

What constitutes essential elements of the offense as defined by statute is an entirely separate analysis.

I disagree. When one of the elements of the crime is conduct for which you have immunity, then you should not have been put on trial based on that conduct in the first place. So again, the third prong in Coopers is satisifed as it was in Mitchell.

[Kazinski]

Robert's doesn't much care about efficient use of resources:

"These safeguards, though important, do not alleviate the
need for pretrial review. They fail to address the fact that
under our system of separated powers, criminal prohibitions cannot apply to certain Presidential conduct to begin with."

"Questions about whether the President may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding.
Even if the President were ultimately not found liable for
certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the dis￾charge of his official duties.”

You are clearly wrong.

[KenveeB]

"That kiboshes Trump’s claim that he has any right not to stand trial at all. Since Trump must stand trial, posttrial review of the remaining immunity issues will actually be more effective and a better use of judicial resources than a second interlocutory appeal followed by the eventual trial."

No, Trump has a right not to stand trial on the acts he has immunity for *even if he has to go to trial on other, non-immune acts.* That's how immunity works. You don't have the jury go ahead and decide everything and then pick out what the person was immune for after the fact. The courts determine immunity first so the jury is only considering the actual relevant acts.

[Sabedi1]

She'll find anything she wants Trump to be prosecuted for to be "unofficial." That's how these people operate.

[David Nieporent]

but place no blame on Chutkan, who isn’t making any more progress than Cannon.

Chutkan was divested of authority by Trump's appeal; she couldn't proceed. Cannon is simply slow-walking everything.

[Armchair]

"Cannon is simply slow-walking everything"

Now David, you know these types of trials take a while, especially concerning classified information. Cannon may not be going at lightning speed, but do you have any evidence she's going any slower than average for these types of trials?

[David Nieporent]

What types of trials are those? Cannon herself set a May trial date. And then just refused to rule on anything, preventing it from happening.

Just to take one example: Trump made a frivolous argument about the presidential records act. Did Cannon rule it was frivolous? No. But did she grant it? Also no. Instead, she issued a batshit order telling the parties to assume that the PRA applied in one of two ways (one of which would be an automatic win for Trump) and each submit hypothetical jury instructions based on either of those assumptions. (But, notably, not on the prosecution's theory of the law.) And then… she just never ruled. Not then, and not in the three months since.

She schedules oral arguments on everything, and — as I noted the other day — that's just not how federal court normally works. It's not against any rules or anything — she's been careful, after her search warrant debacle, not to make any such obviously wrong decisions that could be appealed — but it's not normal practice. In federal court almost all motions are decided on the papers. But by scheduling oral arguments weeks or months after submissions, she causes further delays before it even gets to the point where she can decide.

[Armchair]

You say the argument is frivolous. But...you're not a judge. And you're biased. So....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem quite unfamiliar with the issues about which you are opining. All armchair, no lawyer.

[Commenter_XY]

David, what is the difference between slow walking a case, and a district court judge building a complete trial record?

[David Nieporent]

One involves actually making progress.

[Commenter_XY]

Building a complete trial record is not progress?

What tells you (or loki13) that something is dilatory? Is there some objective measure?

[loki13]

I am confused by what you are saying. Honestly.

What do you mean by "a complete trial record" in this context? Because, and I want to emphasize this ... there is no trial. We are so far from a trial, that I can't even see it.

If you mean, "A complete record for appellate purposes of all possible issues," then I think you might be closer.

Except that we have a lot of different problems going on. Let's examine a few of them-
1. The judge is having oral arguments and hearings on EVERYTHING. This doesn't happen in federal court. It ... doesn't. And this slows everything down.

2. The judge is scheduling multi-day hearings on frivolous issues, and asking outside people to argue these issues. Again, what?

3. The judge isn't actually making rulings. The thing is ... a complete record requires RULINGS. If the judge is sitting on things, then there isn't actually a record, is there? Not until the judge makes a decision, which the judge isn't doing.

4. The judge is making truly bizarre decisions; DMN pointed one of those out; instead of ruling on the PRA issue (which is simple), the judge instead punted the issue, and then asked that the parties draft proposed jury instructions on the issue (???), with the proposed and hypothetical jury instructions assuming that something that doesn't apply, applies???

5. Importantly, while she continues to demand briefing and hearings (SO... MANY.... HEARINGS...) on bizarre and even frivolous issues that most courts would deal with in a paperless order, she won't actually issue a ruling. You know, something that could be appealed!

6. And it continues on. Next, we have three more days of HEARINGS on assertions by the defense that they should be allowed to get discovery from the "entire prosecution team" which the defense asserts includes the White House, the Secret Service, and others as part of a grand conspiracy.

No one can look at all of this and think that this is normal.

[tylertusta]

"Trial record" also refers to the record of the trial court as a whole, and not just what happens after jurors are selected.

[David Nieporent]

By "trial record" C_XY could be intending to refer to the various pretrial decisions she has made, too. But that doesn't help any, because the whole point is that she has been stalling on all of those. There are dozens of outstanding motions.

[tylertusta]

David, declining to summarily grant every government motion is not stalling.

Histrionics in the service of getting this to a Democratic judge fools no one.

[David Nieporent]

David, declining to summarily grant every government motion is not stalling.

She's not denying the motions either! Nor granting nor denying any substantive defense motions. And not deciding them is pretty much the definition of stalling.

And I reiterate: if one is at all familiar with federal practice, one would realize that the number of hearings she's been scheduling on motions is (dare I say it) unprecedented.

[tylertusta]

Judges take motions under advisement All. Of. The Time. If she was stalling, she wouldn't be having any proceedings at all. Instead, Cannon is working through them one at a time.

If Smith didn't want his prosecution to slog through the district court, he should have brought a different case. He also should have been better prepared for the inevitable discovery dispute.

Or he should have brought his case sooner than he did.

[Noscitur a sociis]

One common failure mode of appellate practitioners who end up as trial judges is an inability to acclimate to the need to move a case along. For instance, I once tried a case in front of a court of appeals judge sitting by designation for the first time: the trial should have taken perhaps two or three hours, but ended up lasting four days. Cannon was primarily an appellate attorney, and a charitable reading of her handling of the case along these lines is perhaps available. But no one who has any idea what they're talking about would suggest that what she's doing is normal.

[tylertusta]

When was the last time you participated in an Espionage Act trial involving a former President?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s another, somewhat less charitable, reading: that Judge Cannon recognizes the stakes and is too scared of getting something wrong to make a decision. But that still doesn’t make what she’s doing normal.

[loki13]

DMN has explained this.

Any person with experience in federal court (which excludes a lot of our more ... ahem ... colorful commenters here) knows that Cannon's conduct is bizarre.

It's beyond the point where you can say it is inexperience, because if that was the case, then the mistakes would cut both ways. Instead, the only explanation is dilatory.

If you look around at other reputable legal sources, you will see that this is a common opinion. So many of her decisions are so bizarre, and all of them have caused delay. Any one of them would be strange, but all of them?

(Of course, Cannon has the additional issue of her exceedingly strange conduct in the prior Trump evidentiary issue, which the 11th Circuit had to correct.)

I think that Cannon is making a gamble; if Trump wins, she gets an appellate court position after Trump's DOJ deep-sixes the case. If he loses, then she can continue the trial afterwards.

[Moderation4ever]

I think Judge Cannon is making a gamble that Trump wins and that she doesn't have to take the case to trial. The case is showing her limited ability to oversee a case and that will not look any better if the case goes to trial. Cannon will be the next Lance Ito if the case goes to trial.

[Bob from Ohio]

"case is showing her limited ability to oversee a case"

On the contrary, she's showing significant ability. She's "slow walking" it brilliantly, never giving Javert any legitimate hook to go to the 11th circuit.

[Commenter_XY]

You, and David and not guilty have all explained various aspects with this case (and many others). I am following along, closely (no bullshit, I am). Some things I see, in no special order.

I have never seen a trial of a US President for an Espionage Act violation; have you? There are novel legal issues. The judge is newer, has already had one decision reversed by the circuit court. Was it a bench slap from above....who knows? But it could well have been. On top of that, SCOTUS is complaining that cases need to 'ripen' and 'percolate' which I took to mean that the record SCOTUS saw was incomplete. Judges read that and they respond, don't they (You tell me)? Adding it up: This judge could just be gun shy and is determined to present a very ripe case record for the appellate courts (pun was intended). Every box gets checked for appellate review.

On top of all that, reportedly the Judge is annoyed with counsel, for a variety of reasons. So now the Judge insists this counsel painstakingly and scrupulously follows every jot and tittle of process in her courtroom. The term 'ball busting' comes to mind.

Let's see what her decisions actually say when they are written. I'll be interested in your take (along with DMN, not guilty and a few others).

[tylertusta]

I think you can get four votes in favor of cert. Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh are all shoe-ins. In my view, it's a toss of of whether Gorsuch or Alito joins them, and possibly both.

[Bob from Ohio]

SCOTUS is not letting the lower courts have the final word on the immunity question.

Hysterical retired lawyers need to understand this but won't.

[tylertusta]

Bingo.

Seeing all of their heads explode at each step of the Court's handling of the case will remain a cherished memory of mine for years to come.

[not guilty]

Bob, I doubt that you would know legal analysis if it jumped up and bit you in the backside.

I am curious. Have you ever litigated a jury trial to verdict or an appeal to its conclusion? As the first President Roosevelt observed:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

[not guilty]

What about it, Bob? Have you ever litigated a jury trial to verdict or an appeal to its conclusion?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Bob. Your silence speaks loudly.

[John F. Carr]

See paragraph 25 of the superseding indictment.

In January 2021, as he was preparing to leave the White House, TRUMP and his White House staff, including NAUTA, packed items, including some of TRUMP's boxes. TRUMP was personally involved in this process. TRUMP caused his boxes, containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transported from the White House to the Mar-a-Lago Club.

The prosecution may be barred from introducing its best evidence that Trump knew what was packed in the boxes.

[not guilty]

The Florida superseding indictment, by way of background, does minimally reference acts occurring while Trump was in office, including the following:

1. Defendant DONALD J. TRUMP was the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. He held office from January 20, 20 17, until January 20, 202 1. As president, TRUMP had lawful access to the most sensitive classified documents and national defense information gathered and owned by the United States government. including information from the agencies that comprise the United States Intelligence Community and the United States Department of Defense.

2. Over the course of his presidency, TRUMP gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials in cardboard boxes that he kept in the White House. Among the materials TRUMP stored in his boxes were hundreds of classified documents.

3. The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.

20. As part of his official duties as president, TRUMP received intelligence briefings from high-level United States government officials, including briefings from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Chairnan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior White House officials, and a designated briefer. He regularly received a collection of classified intelligence from the United States Intelligence Community (”USIC”) known as the ”President’s Daily Brief.”

24. As President of the United States, on July 26, 2018, TRUMP issued the following statement about classified information:

As the head of the executive branch and Commander in Chief, I have a unique, Constitutional responsibility to protect the Nation’s classified information, including by controlling access to it. . .. More broadly, the issue of [a former executive branch official’s] security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our Nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in Government has ended. Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks. Any access granted to our Nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.

25. In January 2021, as he was preparing to leave the White House, TRUMP and his White House staff, including NAUTA, packed items, including some of TRUMP’s boxes. TRUMP was personally involved in this process. TRUMP caused his boxes, containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transported from the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club.

The remainder of the 60 page superseding indictment’s references to Trump’s conduct avers acts or omissions occurring before Trump took office or after he left office as president.

I seriously doubt that causing documents to be removed from the White House is a “core constitutional power” of the presidency. And I have little doubt that ” the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18 (Slip op., p. 14.)

[Armchair]

"I seriously doubt that causing documents to be removed from the White House is a “core constitutional power” of the presidency."

Really? I'd argue such powers are instrumental and essential to carrying out the office of the Presidency, and would be included in his powers.

Imagine if Congress was to pass a law that prevented the President or his officers from "moving or transmitting any documents from the White House" (presumably to limit the President's power). Would such a law be considered Unconstitutional? Why or why not?

[David Nieporent]

Trump's defense is based on the notion that these were personal, not presidential, records. How can taking his personal belongings with him when he leaves office be an official act?

[Michael P]

The relevant theory is the one alleging that Trump acted criminally, not a theory that he acted innocently.

[Armchair]

If the documents were Trump's personal property, then the government has no authority to request them returned. They are "his" property.

If the documents were government property, then Trump's authority as President allows him to move the documents pursuant to his power to run the executive branch.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, that's wrong but it's also irrelevant, because he has not been charged for anything he did with the documents while he was president. He was charged for what he did with them after his term ended, when "Trump's authority as president" was the same as my authority as Pope, which is to say, none.

[David Nieporent]

The prosecution may be barred from introducing its best evidence that Trump knew what was packed in the boxes.

First, packing personal items up is obviously not an official act. So, ironically, the only way this could benefit Trump is if his defense is, "As president, I made the decision to take classified documents with me even though I knew they were government property."

Second, Smith, either deliberately or luckily, did not charge Trump with taking classified documents. So whether Trump knew what was in the documents when they were packed is irrelevant to the case. All they need to show is that he knew the documents were there after he was president, and refused to return them, and lied about it. And that's not tough because he admitted on national TV that he did that.

[Brett Bellmore]

More like, “As president, I made the decision to take classified documents with me even though I knew they were government property" as I was legally entitled to having full power to dispose of classified documents at the time.", no?

[hobie]

Over the weekend, a former solicitor general said that because of the immunity ruling, Trump's ridiculous claim that he declassified all the docs via thought is now, believe it or not, in play. Apart from Harlan Thomas, would any of the other justices twist law and reality to accept that?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the claim is less that he declassified them by thought, so much as it is that he declassified them verbally, and then flunkies decided that since he was on his way out they didn't need to act on the order.

[David Nieporent]

No, there's no such claim. And of course your "flunkies" claim is just another Brett Conspiracy Delusion. Trump has never formally claimed that he declassified these documents in any manner. Nor do any of the charges against him turn on whether he declassified anything, so that's irrelevant.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there's such a claim. Why are you continually denying things that are easily demonstrated?

Trump’s self-proclaimed ‘standing order’ remains a mystery as U.S. stays silent

"“As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time,” Solomon said, reading a statement on Sean Hannity’s talk show. “American presidents are no different. President Trump, in order to prepare the work for the next day, often took documents, including classified documents, to the residence. He had a standing order … that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them.”"

Thus the scenario: He verbally orders documents declassified, and his flunkies ignore the order, and pretend he didn't issue it:

Trump ‘Standing Order’ to Declassify Not Found by DOJ, Intelligence Agency

"A “standing order” that former President Donald Trump has claimed authorized him to instantly declassify documents removed from the Oval Office could not be found by either the Justice Department or Office of Director of National Intelligence."

Now, is this an after the fact excuse? Possibly. But even if it is, it IS what he's claiming.

[David Nieporent]

““As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time,” Solomon said, reading a statement on Sean Hannity’s talk show. “American presidents are no different. President Trump, in order to prepare the work for the next day, often took documents, including classified documents, to the residence. He had a standing order … that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them.””

That's what John Solomon said. On a TV show. Not what Donald Trump said, let alone what Donald Trump said in court. You can tell it's not a quote from Donald Trump, because the quote refers to him in the third person.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that's what the guy "reading a statement" on a TV show said. Now, dare you ask, whose statement was he reading?

Fox News Guest Reads Statement from Trump’s Office Claiming He Had a ‘Standing Order’ Automatically Declassifying All Documents He Took Home with Him

Again, why do you so reflexively deny things that are easily confirmed?

[David Nieporent]

Thank you for confirming my conclusion: you can tell it’s not a quote from Donald Trump, because the quote refers to him in the third person.

[Magister]

Trump and his team have not provided any proof that Trump actually conducted some sort of broad declassification of the documents that ended up at Mar-a-Lago – and, so far, his lawyers notably have not argued in their court filings that Trump did so. Eighteen former top Trump administration officials, including two former White House chiefs of staff who spoke on the record, told CNN in August that they never heard of a standing Trump declassification order when they were serving in the administration and that they now believe the claim is false. The former officials used words like “ludicrous,” “ridiculous” and “bullsh*t.”

Trump's legal team also did not formally assert anything about election fraud in the 2020 election litigation, despite all the non-court claims they were making.

[Magister]

"Solomon said" is pretty conclusive, but not:

You can tell it’s not a quote from Donald Trump, because the quote refers to him in the third person.

Trump has often referred to himself in the third person, and not just when pretending to be his own publicist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIV-RwYbWio

[hobie]

Yeah, but the court said that official acts cannot be considered at all as evidence in a potential trial. So shouldn't that cut both ways? Meaning Trump cannot enter into evidence his official act of verbally declassifying? What a fucking mess this partisan court has made of the law

[Brett Bellmore]

Unclear as to the concept of "privilege", are we?

[John F. Carr]

I think the better argument is that President Trump authorized Donald Trump to keep the classified documents indefinitely without changing their classification status. The subsection he was charged under, 18 USC 793(e), requires proof of unauthorized possession. A different subsection, 18 USC 793(d), criminalizes failure to return documents on demand. Trump was not charged under subsection (d).

The parties have submitted proposed jury instructions on what "unauthorized possession" means in this case. Not surprisingly the prosecution's proposed instructions would allow the jury to convict on the facts charged in the indictment.

[neurodoc]

EV named in lawsuit as discriminated on the basis of religion by Northwestern Law: https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/07/05/explosive-lawsuit-accuses-northwestern-university-reverse-racism-hiring/

[Kazinski]

As a right winger I can't help but admire the aggrandizement of power for just its own sake, so I'm having trouble not having at least a little admiration for the Biden clan clinging to power when there is little rationale to hang on. I suppose they could be holding out for some mega donors making a substantial contribution to Biden's Foundation with all the salaries and expense accounts it can fund.

Of course it isn't Joe calling the shots anymore, its Hunter and Jill, but my hats off to them, they've got all of the Democratic establishment, and press rooms around the country in a tizzy trying to figure out what it will take to make them leave.

[Malika the Maiz]

I've heard wanting to stay as President makes people do goofy things.

In fact, I've heard it makes people do unprecedented things like refuse to concede a loss for years, push lots of wacky charges easily dismissed even by friendly courts, pressure state SOS's to "find" the votes they want, ask their VPs to throw out entire state's votes, pump up a mob which attacks Congress while it certifies someone else and then sulk for hours before asking that mob to quit and such.

I certainly think an old fool who has every legal entitlement to his party's nomination trying to hold on to that is totes the same.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, That AlGore still thinks he won in 2000, and if he'd had his wish, and they'd only re-counted strongly DemoKKKrat Counties he probably would have won. Gore should consider himself lucky, as an Ex-VPOTUS he had no compunctions about diddlying his Hispanic Housekeeper and getting divorced from that Shrew Tipper. You remember Tipper, the bee-otch who had the "Explicit Lyrics!" stickers put on Rap Albums, aiding young Wiggers as to which ones they should purchase. (Remember when people actually bought Albums?) As a POTUS no way that would have happened, he'd still be Mr. Tipper Gore and even more miserable than he already is.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Idiot clown makes idiotic, clownish response.

[Mr. Bumble]

How long before you start up again with the "yo' momma" shit?

[Malika the Maiz]

The "young Wiggers" shit, is, of course, not even noticed by Bumbly. Fish don't notice water.

[Mr. Bumble]

Waiting for you and the brothers to stop using the "vile slur" (H/T Rev, Costco). Lead by example.

[Malika the Maiz]

Non-responsive. I didn't use the slur.

You're not that smart, are you?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Don't feed the trolls.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, AlGores strategy in the 2000 Erection was idiotic and clownish. That and his Morbid Obesity (and diddlying the Hispanic Maid) was probably why Tipper Divorced his fat lard ass.

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

Some other losing candidate said, "The Russians®™ did it", and paid for a fake dossier and labeled it as a legal expense.

[Bwaaah]

"Everything you say was long ago disproven as being completely false."

        David Nieporent

[Don Nico]

The politicians and donors who have had the nerve to call for Mr. Biden's withdrawal, have not the courage to dump Ms. Harris. Unfortunately she is touted as the best and only alternative
Having seen his public appearances this past week, I still have far more confidence in Mr. Biden as he will be in two years than in Ms. Harris.
Let's see how the NATO summit fares this week.

[Malika the Maiz]

"The politicians and donors who have had the nerve to call for Mr. Biden’s withdrawal, have not the courage to dump Ms. Harris."

Denying the incumbent President who easily won all the primaries is a big lift, doing so and then denying their VP is a bigger one.

[Brett Bellmore]

They ran as a team, it's not like she won any primaries herself, he just carried her the whole way. So in theory it ought to be the very same lift.

[Malika the Maiz]

"he just carried her the whole way."

If they ran as a team how can this be assumed? Maybe his success would have been less without her.

[Brett Bellmore]

The primary results from the 2000 election season really don't make that very plausible. Biden won easily, Harris was down in the rounding error.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sorry, 2020. But the point remains. Past performance does not support the idea that she contributed to his win.

[Malika the Maiz]

She was on the 2020 general election ticket, you have no way of separating how that helped or didn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

I just cited that way: Past performance.

[Malika the Maiz]

Biden himself did terrible in Presidential nomination contests until he was a VP.

[Commenter_XY]

Memo to Team D: Absolutely run Heels Up Harris instead of Slow Joe POTUS Biden....LOL. By all means, please proceed.

A hit tip to Congressman Clyburne. 🙂

[Malika the Maiz]

"Heels Up Harris"
Only candidates who were born into inherited wealth are ok with this guy!

Pathetic.

[bernard11]

Heels Up Harris

Loyal Trump cultist sneering at another candidate's sexual conduct.

Un-fucking-believable.

[Michael P]

More like a conservative sneering at Kamala Harris's only qualification for advanced office.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Loyal Trump cultist sneering at another candidate’s sexual conduct.

Un-fucking-believable.

Not nearly as astounding as the fact that you haven't drowned in the shower yet.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I will try to remember XY’s frequent juvenile disparagement of liberal women while savoring that bacon cheeseburger and celebrating the demise of Israel’s war-criming, bigoted, violent right-wing belligerents.

The last laugh will be the better one in this case

Shrimp cocktail for everyone! At the appropriate time.

[Frank Drackman]

LBJ actually won the New Hampshire primary in 1968, like Parkinsonian Joe, refusing to debate his rivals, (and unlike Parkinsonian Joe, not umm, Parkinsonian, he was “Myocardial Infarction Lyndon”) 19 days later he did the world a favor and dropped out (if you ever have the misfortune to be caught in South Central Texas, make a trip to the LBJ Ranch, still has the Lockheed Jet Star he used to fly in and out, as the regular Air Force 1 was too large for the runway. in his slightly under 4 post POTUS years, LBJ went back to smoking, let his hair grow to Willie Nelson-esque lengths, and still insisted he saw the Ghost, I mean that Vietnam could be won, if only Milhouse was more aggressive (like bombing North Vietnam to the Stone Age wasn’t enough) LBJ’s grave is right down the road, small family graveyard, don’t mind the signs, you can hop right over the low stone wall and “Pay your Respects”

Frank “when you gotta go you gotta go”

[Don Nico]

How a bigger one?
Harris brought nothing to the electoral success of the ticket. She is an incompetent with no gravitas as compared with Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro, and several others.

[Kazinski]

But she could hardly do worse than Joe at the polls.

Emerson came out with a new swing state poll today confirming that Biden is way behind and getting behinder, especially in PA. MI is the only good news, Biden is only down by 1.

Sunday, July 7
Arizona: Trump 46, Biden 42
Georgia: Trump 47, Biden 42
Michigan: Trump 45, Biden 44
Nevada: Trump 47, Biden 41
Pennsylvania: Trump 48, Biden 43
Wisconsin: Trump 47, Biden 44

Bloomberg did have Biden up in both MI and WI in their Friday release, but down by 7 in PA. Without PA Biden cannot win, since AZ, NV, and GA are all out of reach.

[Josh R]

As Nate Silver suggested, we should we wait for more state polls before concluding what the debate’s effect on them were.

As of now, Biden has lost a net of 1.5%-points nationally, nothing in MI, 0.5%-points in WI, 0.2%-points in PA, 1.2%-points in AZ and NV, and has improved 0.3%-points in GA (Silver’s model the source for all).

I have to admit, that's a lot better than I expected for Biden. And as I noted below, makes the decision to dump him a hard one.

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't Nate Silver just demand POTUS Biden resign the office because of his cognitive impairment?

[Josh R]

Silver wanted Biden to announce he would not seek reelection last year. That opinion has no relevance (we hope) to Silver's model results.

[Commenter_XY]

So IOW, the answer is: Yes, he did.

After 2016, Silver is just one voice in a very large pack. He has a dedicated following within the NYT crowd. Silver has parlayed his talent, skill and ability into a decent living. More power to him. There is nothing magical to the math he is doing. Silver makes arbitrary choices (that reflect his bias) in his modeling; that does not make him wrong, it merely makes him one voice of many.

The polls are irrelevant now, Josh R, post-debate. The entire country sees the danger with a POTUS they now know is cognitively diminished; R and D alike (if polling is to be believed).

[Josh R]

.

So IOW, the answer is: Yes, he did

Did what?

Silver makes arbitrary choices (that reflect his bias) in his modeling

If by ‘bias” you mean his desired outcome, then if he’s doing that, his models are shit (but per his record, they are good models)

The polls are irrelevant now, Josh R, post-debate. The entire country sees the danger with a POTUS they now know is cognitively diminished; R and D alike

Yes, polls clearly show Americans think Biden is too old and in decline and don’t want him to run. And yet, Biden lost only 1.5%-points or so in the horse race. How do you explain that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that Biden is too old and decrepit to be President wasn't news to most people, so the debate only moved people on the margin.

[David Nieporent]

And as I noted below, makes the decision to dump him a hard one.

That's why I said that we should ignore the polls and just focus on the core issue: is he fit to be president? (And I don't mean that in a "Does he clear the absolute lowest bar of eligibility?" sense, but rather whether would we feel comfortable with him calling the shots, not just on a daily basis but in emergency situations?) If the answer is no — and I think it is, after his debate showing and his less than stellar George Stephanopoulos interview — then we should dump him with a clear conscience.

(Unless what you mean is that it makes the ability to convince him to drop out a hard one, in which case I agree.)
​
​
And again, it goes without saying that he's better than Donald Trump, who is not cognitively or morally fit to be president.

[Josh R]

I was thinking of a decision based on the chances of beating Trump. Changing horses has risk. To be sure, staying with this horse does too. But, the modest drop in the polls makes the analysis harder.

[Kazinski]

June 28 the RCP average had Trump up 2.8 in PA, now it is 5.3, with Bloomberg and Emerson both showing Trump up by +5.

0.2 change in PA? Its a swing of 2.5.

RCP agrees the national shift is 1.6 to +3.4, so there is agreement there.

But I guess you are missing the point, Biden went into the debate behind, now he is still behind and fading further.

[Josh R]

I double checked PA. It’s 1.4%-points using Silver’s model (he weights polls by pollster performance and other factors). Fivethrityeight has it 2.4%-points.

See my above response to Neiporent for the bigger picture.

[Kazinski]

Well what you are saying is you prefer Joe as a campaigner to Harris, because win or lose he can't go on much longer, and then its Harris.

[Commenter_XY]

This one is simple. POTUS Biden lost the election with that debate performance. Nothing will change that dynamic. He cannot 'un-dementia' himself, or stop calling lids by Noon. It is over.

If Team D leaves him on the ticket, it will be an electoral blowout, on par with 1984. And Team R will have the Congress.

Let's hope he doesn't shit his pants onstage totally 'F things up' this week at NATO summit; one cannot underestimate that possibility.

[John F. Carr]

The media will make sure he doesn't do too badly with NATO. Remember the media was all over Trump's failure to lean on Article 5.

We will not have another 1984 if candidate Biden continues to decline. There are too many states that would vote for a vegetable over Trump even without the prospect of the VP taking over.

[Malika the Maiz]

The media currently relentlessly attacking Biden every headline?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what "media" is that?

[Malika the Maiz]

Which isn't, troll?

[Krayt]

Some fell early, but even CNN is only half-assedly carrying his water now.

[bernard11]

Both the NYT and the Boston Globe have called for Biden to withdraw. For starters.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed. The New York Times, for one, has a constant drumbeat of articles about increasing pressure on Biden to step aside, and stories of his loss of grip the past few months.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

and stories of his loss of grip the past few months

And by that you mean, "a progressive decline that was evident beginning even before the 2020 election (to all but the most willingly blind) and that has slowly continued to this day until an unedited live televised event made it so absolutely undeniable that even those who have been willing dupes all this time were forced to recognize it".

[David Nieporent]

The 2020 election, of course, was when Biden cleaned Trump's clock at the presidential debates.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So he had a couple of "good nights"? You're right...that COMPLETELY negates any and all evidence of any incidents demonstrating decline!

[Kazinski]

They aren't attacking him, they just quit covering up for him, on this one issue.

Two weeks ago they were claiming unaltered video clips were "cheap fakes", that became untenable after the debate.

I.want the press to be great again, that's why I'm voting for Trump.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lame, non-falsifiable stuff.

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr, the MSM cannot hide objective reality. The world sees what is obvious: An 81-year old man in serious cognitive decline. One could say a cognitive mess.

I'll check back around Labor Day. We will have the candidates finalized by then.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

John F Carr, the MSM cannot hide objective reality.

But that certainly isn't for lack of trying.

The world sees what is obvious

Those who weren't willing dupes/participants in the dissemination of propaganda always saw what was obvious. Some of those who were are being forced to claim that they're just now seeing it (see attempts by some in the media to now blame the White House for "covering up" what has been in plain sight for nearly 5 years now).

[Don Nico]

"what you are saying is you prefer Joe as a campaigner to Harris"
What I am saying is that Harris is unfit to be POTUS while Biden is lucid most of the time.

[Sarcastr0]

Unfit?

She’s not a great retail politician but other than sexism and blind cites to affirmative action I don’t see any sign she’s bad.

But then you are gonna go for the anti vax guy so not sure what counts as fit to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Other than sexism and racism I'm missing any sign that she isn't bad.

[Ska]

Democrats have sure changed since 2016. They were all racists and sexists forcing out Harris before any voting even took place, but they've changed their ways and it's everyone else who won't vote for her that are racist and sexist. That's the ticket.

[Malika the Maiz]

How'd they force her out before any voting even took place?

[Don Nico]

Yes, S_0. She is unfit.
How dare you give that sexism, racism, etc. crappola. It is your typical attempt at gaslighting. But you could not resist.

As I wrote earlier, Two years from now Biden will still be far more competent and able.
As for RFK, whether I vote for him or no one in MA will not make any difference. But you prefer to vote for a complete incompetent.
I watched Harris as a CA politician for years in CA where she proved to be a bully. I have listened to her recent appearances in which she speaks in circular drivel. She failed the bar the first time out.
Sorry Democrats can do much better

[Sarcastr0]

Heels up Harris? Sorry our fellows are sexist pigs, but that's not on me.

You made the statement, and you have the burden to demonstrate it.
Table pounding how dare you's and 'I watched Harris in CA' hot takes doesn't cut it.

I watched Harris as a CA politician for years in CA where she proved to be a bully. I have listened to her recent appearances in which she speaks in circular drivel.
The other guy's Trump, and call Harris a bully.

You very much appear to have nothing other than emotion.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The conservatives who operate and are the target audience of this blog are bigots. This white, male, faux libertarian blog publishes an everyday stream of multifaceted bigotry. Misogyny is a large element of that bigotry. Perhaps not surprising at a blog that attracts and caters to incels, on-the-spectrum and awkward males, white nationalists, superstitious gay-bashers, etc.

[David Nieporent]

As for RFK, whether I vote for him or no one in MA will not make any difference. But you prefer to vote for a complete incompetent.

Complete incompetent >>>> complete batshit crazy incompetent.

[Josh R]

How did you conclude she is unfit?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How did you conclude she is unfit?

By not having his head lodged up his own ass for the past 5-6 years?

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, we don't actually have any reason to believe that he's lucid most of the time; That assurance comes from the very same people who were formerly telling us he wasn't compromised all.

[David Nieporent]

That assurance comes from the very same people who were formerly telling us he wasn’t compromised all.

No, it comes from everyone. While people like Trump and his circle have been insulting Biden for some time — oh, five years or so now — people who deal with him, foreign and domestic, including those who aren't part of his administration, have not been saying, "Yeah, he started rambling about sharks and batteries in the middle of a discussion," or "he went off and peed in a corner during a summit meeting" or the like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, everyone meets him on a daily basis? No wonder he's tired, that's grueling.

[Josh R]

If this article is accurate, it’s damning on the effort to cover up Biden’s decline.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, it comes from everyone.

Sorry, Nieporent...but the voices in your head aren't anyone, let alone "everyone".

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m certainly not going to defend Kamala Harris (or vote for her!). But under what possible definition of “fit” do you rate her lower than RFK?

[Z Crazy]

I was expecting Brandon to announce around late January/early February that he WASN'T seeking re-election.

I suspect most of the Dem voters and even the DNC was expecting this announcement.

Instead, here we are.

[Sabedi1]

No one reasonable thinks that the Democrats didn't cheat in 2020.

Imagine that, Trump is ahead, and then suddenly, black poll workers in black districts in inner cities find tens of thousands of votes in sealed off rooms in the middle of the night.

[David Nieporent]

One would have to imagine that, because none of it remotely happened.

[Malika the Maiz]

Should married couples be forced by law to stay together even if one of them wants to leave? That’s the position of a number of conservative activists, Republican commentators and even elected politicians who, in the wake of abortion rights being stripped from American women, now want to strip divorce rights, too.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/opinions/no-fault-divorce-conservatives-filipovic/index.html

[Kazinski]

I think that's a fringe issue that won't get much traction, but when you are desperate to dig up wedge issues to motivate a listless voter base then you go with what you can find.

I can guarantee Trump doesn't endorse the proposal.

[Malika the Maiz]

If Vance is VP, it's a "fringe issue?"

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes? What role do you think the vice president (or the federal government at all, for that matter) can play on this issue?

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, it is like watching toddlers reach into their diapers and fingerpaint the wall with their bullshit. Hilarious, and sad to see; not surprising at all.

As the election gets closer, the accusations will fly fast and furious.

[Malika the Maiz]

"reach into their diapers and fingerpaint the wall with their bullshit."

"Let’s hope he doesn’t shit his pants onstage"

You're in a weird place commenter_xy.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter sure has gone down a path these past 4 years!

[Commenter_XY]

I will never sink as low as an antisemitic piece of trash.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That statement demonstrates two things irrefutably:

1) You're a liar.
2) Your ethical considerations are just as biased, pathetic, and pitiful as your calls for genocide.

[Sarcastr0]

What have I said that you found antisemitic?

Eh, never mind. You’re on mute.

You’re all feels no thinks nowadays. Even your questions on legal process drip with agenda.

And like so many of your ilk, the feels seem all of the petty own the libs variety.

The trajectory from thoughtful to a Mr. Bumble level threadshitter has been a pretty sad testimony of the conservative-to-unthinking-MAGA pipeline.

[Life of Brian]

Hey, at this rate of echo chamber shrinkage, pretty soon Sarc will literally just be talking to himself instead of even pretending to respond to others!

[Sarcastr0]

You...you think the VC is becoming a *liberal* echo chamber?

[Kazinski]

Do you feel owned?

[Sarcastr0]

From the above, it seems clear I'm disappointed.
A sharp mind, left to wallow in the devils of its worst nature.

You still think and try and engage, and even if I think you fall short in reason and morality, I'd rather VC were filled up with your type or Commenter from 4 years ago.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are a deplorable right-wing bigot, XY. A deserving culture war casualty and a disaffected loser. And that is before we get to the bacon cheeseburgers.

[Kazinski]

At least he hasn't gotten into the chicken fucking thing.

[Bwaaah]

Oh, look...NigeSarcastr0 is back.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump may not endorse the plan, but I suspect he will sign it if put in front of him. How many of the Justices in the Dobbs decision majority said Roe was settled law? When the Voting Rights Act was rolled back how many states quickly enacted voting restrictions? It may be a wedge issue but I would be cautious about giving Republicans the opportunity.

[Bob from Ohio]

Divorce law is a state issue. There will be no federal law for Trump to sign, even if the filibuster magically disappears.

You actually think that a man who has twice turned in used wives for younger models wants to get rid of no fault divorce?

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn't require a law, just look at William Juffuhson Clinton and Hillary Rodman.

[Brett Bellmore]

Should people who enter into contracts and induce others to make largely irreversible and expensive alterations to their lives in reliance on those contracts, be required to at least show cause in order to unilaterally break those contracts?

Say, with a great deal of encouragement from her, I marry a woman, and in all sincerity promise to be faithful to her in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, until death parts us. (She made the exact same promise, I heard it from her lips. *I* meant it...) I then refinance my home on 16 acres in the country, on the land I grew up on, 30 foot trees I planted myself as a child, in order to pay off her high interest credit cards. Then she decides to divorce me, empties out our joint accounts, THEN tells me, and proceeds to continue to live in my home for another three months rent free until the divorce is final. Yeah, that’s how awful our marriage was in her opinion: She didn’t even feel any need to move out right away.

Leaving me with massive debts, no savings, suicidally depressed, and eventually losing my home. Spending what could have been the best years of my life fighting the urge to just end it all. While she could finally afford a house of her own, having gotten rid of all her debts in just a year. Well, at least she ended up filling it with cats…

It’s all well and good to look at this from the perspective of the woman, who gets to enjoy all the benefits of calling the shots, and none of the costs. Freedom without responsibility. Create a life together with somebody else, end it unilaterally, reap all the benefits and leave all the costs behind. Why keep a bargain when you can walk away with your gains and leave the other party with their losses?

Why do you suppose marriage rates are cratering? Maybe because you’ve succeeded in making it a bad deal for a particular half of the population?

Marriage is a bargain, a trade, a deal, and deals are impossible if they can’t be enforced. Ever think of that?

[Malika the Maiz]

What does "show cause" look like here? The person doesn't want to be with you anymore. What more "cause" must be "shown" that a marriage is over?

[Brett Bellmore]

Does that work with any other contract? "Oh, I don't feel like observing my end of this contract anymore, it's over. By the way, I keep my gains and you keep your losses."?

Marriage unavoidably involves massive changes to people's lives, there are huge reliance costs when one party to a marriage just decides to call it quits. And we know from various statistics that those costs are usually borne by the men.

Marriage as an institution can't survive no fault divorce, not long term it can't. Because it really is an exchange, and exchanges that can't be enforced don't happen.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don't think you answered my question.

"And we know from various statistics that those costs are usually borne by the men."

Here, you maybe did. Tribalism, as usual.

[Krychek_2]

Since the marriage contract incorporates state marriage statutes, which includes no-fault divorce, you knew walking into it that divorce was a possibility. So the real question is whether the state should protect you from entering into a high-risk contract.

And the problem is there's no good solution here since there is no way to predict in advance whether a marriage will be a good marriage or not. For that matter, there isn't even an objective definition of a bad marriage. It's largely subjective. And back in the days before no-fault divorce there were a lot of people trapped in really bad situations with no real means to extricate themselves.

I think no-fault is the lesser of two evils, though I will concede Brett's point that it often results in horribly unfair outcomes.

[Brett Bellmore]

No fault divorce would probably be less horrific if it weren't coupled with the judiciary's near automatic bias towards women in the divorce proceedings. The notion that a marriage could last only a year, and the party initiating the divorce would get to keep the proceeds from emptying all joint accounts, while the party who didn't initiate it got to keep all the joint marital debts, (Most of which she'd brought to the marriage.) is pretty crazy. But at the same time fairly routine.

That sort of thing is why the suicide rate for recently divorced men is so incredibly high: 8-9 times higher than recently divorced women. (Accounting for most of the overall difference between male and female divorce rates.) Not only do they have to deal with the emotional fallout, they have to deal with being financially ruined, too.

[Krychek_2]

I would be open to changing the marital property distribution laws so that if one party has financially disadvantaged the marriage, that party takes less. My sister married a gambler who dissipated most of the martial assets at the race track; I would have been fine with telling him that he already spent his portion and doesn't get anything further. In the example you cite in which one party cleans out the accounts, I would consider that that party already got their share of the marital assets.

I remember someone years ago who came to see me about a divorce. He had made the mistake of marrying a financial wrecking ball who thoroughly destroyed any chance of financial security or a secure retirement and he wanted out. The problem was that she would have taken half of their only remaining asset -- the house -- so he would have been even worse off with a divorce, so he decided to stay because it was the least-bad option. I remember him telling me that he was beginning to understand why some men kill their wives.

But all of these are problems with the distribution of martial assets, not with the concept of no-fault divorce. Go after distribution laws, not no-fault divorce.

[Commenter_XY]

What of 'Covenant Marriage'? My understanding is the man and woman sign away their rights to divorce, with Noahide exceptions only (i.e. adultery). Is that even legal, to sigh away rights like that?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's legal under the law of three states, because divorce laws are state laws. It's not like no fault divorce is constitutionally mandated, you know.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think the distribution rules and no fault can be separated that neatly; If the default on divorce proceedings was restoring the status quo ante, rather than more or less automatically giving the woman everything she asks for, we would probably see a lot fewer divorces, because divorce would, on average, be much less financially advantageous to women, and women initiate most divorces.

If divorcing me had meant going back to drowning in credit card debt and having to return half the money she'd emptied from our joint savings, rather than ending up debt free with a flush bank account, divorce likely wouldn't have seemed such a good option to my first wife. Of course, that probably would have meant she wouldn't have married me in the first place.

[Krychek_2]

Well, Brett, I don't entirely disagree with you. Don't forget, though, that those rules are the residual effects of sexist ideas about women and the family, and doing a more thorough job of having egalitarian family law would be a big step forward. This is a situation in which misogyny hurts men too.

[Brett Bellmore]

The former 'patriarchal' system wasn't all downsides for women, they had advantages under it, too. The current imbalance is due to feminists' success at getting rid of the disadvantages of patriarchy, while retaining the advantages.

[Krychek_2]

And restoring the status quo ante would also depend on factors like the length of the marriage. If you paid off her credit card debt and then continued to be married for another 20 years after that, I think she's in a better position than if she filed for divorce six months later.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, three months, but, yeah.

[Sabedi1]

Then why should women be advantaged in asset distribution and child custody?

Why is a woman who initiates a divorce entitled to "retain the lifestyle to which she has grown accustomed?"

[Ed Grinberg]

Uh, isn't there more to it than that though? Like: property division, alimony, child support, etc.? Having the person who pledged to be with you "till death us do part" just walk away is bad enough. But what if, in addition, you lose everything you've worked for your entire life, and have to pay through the nose the rest of your life, and can't see your kids? I wonder why men think twice before getting married...

[David Nieporent]

Say, with a great deal of encouragement from her, I marry a woman, and in all sincerity promise to be faithful to her in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, until death parts us. (She made the exact same promise, I heard it from her lips. *I* meant it…)

Even pretending that marriage is a contractual relationship, you know that none of that is actually part of the marriage contract, right? It’s just a speech you decided to give at a religious ceremony you staged.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Even pretending that marriage is a contractual relationship

There's no need to pretend. It is explicitly referred to as such by a number of legal sources.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/family-law/marital-agreements/
https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/family-law/marriage-is-a-contract/
https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/marriage-law-overview.html

[Sarcastr0]

Call me a romantic, but I don’t think contract law is the best way to think of marriage.

[Sabedi1]

Yeah, you think of marriage as a mentally disordered man putting his diseased pecker into another man's backside.

[Brett Bellmore]

Contract law is a better way to think of something with such huge financial implications, than a mashup between a lifelong commitment and something that can be unilaterally voided on a whim.

[Don Nico]

But it is and that is one reason that people use pre-nups.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd argue the controversy and need for a pre-nup shows the opposite of marriage as being handled via contract law.

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, for a few generations after the current marriage laws were introduced men kept up the “romantic” view of marriage. But they are starting to realize that for them marriage is a losing proposition (by design). (In the video I linked below, the presenter illustrates this with a chess-board where one side has all queens.)

[Sarcastr0]

As a wise man said, if marriage were a plane, nobody’d get on - it has a helluva crash rate.

Cost-benefit is not why people get married these days, by-and-large.

[bernard11]

Brett,

I'm sorry all that happened to you.

There is one thing you might want to think about: Would you be happier today without the divorce?

Apparently you remarried, had a son, have a job that is at least somewhat satisfactory and interesting, bought a new house...

Without the divorce where would you be? Remember, the comparison is not with "a happy lasting marriage to my first wife," but with the likely reality of how things would have been.

[santamonica811]

This! This is the second part of the calculation that, somehow, seems to be ignored by most "traditional" proponents of marriage.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's true that, in the hypothetical world where my ex hadn't divorced me, I'd never have met my current wife. I'd be patiently resigned to the fact that the dice had come up "sick" and "worse", I'd have no children. My life would be objectively worse in many ways, just not financially.

But, in the hypothetical world with fair divorce proceedings, I'd likely never have married my first wife in the first place, since our marriage was just a get out of debt quick scheme.

[Sabedi1]

One of the primary arguments leftists use to support same sex "marriage" is that "If you really cared about the sanctity of marriage, you'd do something about the country's divorce rate."

When conservatives try to do that exact thing, you accuse them of being mean spirited.

Bad faith from you people, all around.

[Ed Grinberg]

Good point.
Come to think of it, anything conservatives do is likely to be attacked by leftists ("liberals") as "mean-spirited" -- maintaining law & order, keeping the border closed, outlawing "Affirmative Action," reducing the size of government, etc, etc.

[Krychek_2]

I wasn’t going to feed the troll, but since someone else already did . . .

I don’t think the argument has ever been that conservatives should “do something about the country’s divorce rate.” I think the argument was that high divorce rates (and people living together without bothering to get married) does far more to harm the institution of marriage than letting gay people into it ever would.

And as a practical matter, I’m not sure what the government could do about it anyway. The only thing a divorce gets you is the right to remarry. Not having a divorce doesn’t stop one partner or the other from simply moving out and in with their new partner. It doesn’t stop people from re-arranging their financial affairs to exclude their spouse. Even if divorce became a complete legal impossibility, you’d still have people leaving and starting new relationships; they would just shack up with their new partners. If anything, divorce is a good thing because it forces people to make arrangements for the support of their children. If the marriage is over, the marriage is over.

[Armchair]

"And as a practical matter, I’m not sure what the government could do about it anyway. "

Incentivize marriage. Discourage "cohabitation" and divorce.

From a practical standpoint, the studies are pretty clear. Children do better when raised by married couples than single parent households or divorced individuals. Children doing better helps the long term growth of the country as a whole.

[ThePublius]

I have always thought that marriage licenses should expire, as do most other licenses, and be subject to renewal - or not. In the event of an expiration, there would be fixed rules regarding division of assets, living arrangements, child custody and child support, and so on. Perhaps these rules could be negotiated and established when the marriage is initiated.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think if you were going to do that, you'd at least want to put off the expiration until the last child achieved majority. Going from no-fault divorce to periodic default divorce if you don't act to put it off? You must really dislike stable households.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

IMHO, official state sanctioning of marriage serves two primary public policy ends:

1) Encouragement of societal stability via encouragement of family stability (though the latter is no longer achieved as effectively as it used to be), and
2) Providing the legal foundation for the state's governing of financial, parenting and other related issues upon termination of a marriage.

#1 above has already been well undercut by several shifts in societal values and norms over the past few decades, and I suspect that your proposal would come pretty close to eliminating it altogether.

[Ed Grinberg]

The current marriage laws have done wonders for encouraging the creation of stable families! There's no need whatsoever to even consider changing them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhde8MSwBA

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Should married couples be forced by law to stay together even if one of them wants to leave?”

Does the right to leave include the right to sever financial ties resulting from marriage as well, or are women wanting to have it both ways here?

And should men be forced by law to work more than necessary to provide their children with more support than they need?

Especially when the support doesn't actually go to the children?

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like the Revolting Reverend hasn't been able to extricate himself from Mick Jagger's Scrotum, how long until he starts the thread with a "Klingers/Bettors/Stomping/Replacement/Stones Selections" Post, I know that decrepit Poof better than he does.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Decrepit? Poof?

I enjoyed a recent Stones concert next to Mick Jagger's partner (life partner, not songwriting partner) and seven-year-old son (quite the dancer, that one). They are vivid evidence of his circumstances, as is this.

[Malika the Maiz]

Sen. J.D. Vance said Sunday a president must have immunity from prosecution for his actions in office while also saying that it would be up to a future “Attorney General” to determine whether to prosecute President Joe Biden for unspecified criminal activity.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/30/vance-president-immunity-biden-trump-00165948

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

J.D. Vance -- still a hillbilly.

Maybe the street pills will take him out of our misery.

[Mr. Bumble]

How long before the Biden family blanket pardon is issued?

[Malika the Maiz]

Ah, you assert a blanket pardon is on the way. Care to put your money where your mouth is? If no "Biden family blanket pardon is issued" will you post here that you were stupidly wrong?

Or are you just throwing stuff on the wall?

[John F. Carr]

There is no reason for mass pardons before the election unless Biden is about to resign.

Nixon didn't pardon all the President's men on his way out the door, but Nixon was by modern standards a good man.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the complication here: If Biden issues mass pardons on his way out before the election, the electoral impact on whoever replaces him could be substantial. If he does it without bowing out a Mondale scale blowout is possible.

So he really has to stay in office past the election, and just cede the nomination.

[Commenter_XY]

One way out of the current political impasse is mass pardoning. This has been done in the past in different contexts: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Carter.

It is one of the reasons the Executive has pardon power. A well-timed pardon can make a difference to the Republic.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't particularly expect Trump to be part of the mass pardoning, just his family and business partners.

[Frank Drackman]

Tricky Penis knew if he pardoned his peoples he wouldn't get his own pardon from Ford (Ford had TBI before TBI was cool)

[Mr. Bumble]

"There is no reason for mass pardons before the election unless Biden is about to resign."

That goes without saying as it would be another nail in the coffin of Biden's re-election chances. However, should he be forced out....

[Stephen Lathrop]

Since the decision in Trump v United States, this blog has seemed, “confused and stunned like a duck hit on the head.”

Are lawyers previously certain the Constitution and precedent left no room for SCOTUS even to take Trump’s appeal, now satisfied to subordinate their commentary—and the nation’s fate—to a flagrantly corrupt decision? Is it now the dominant legal opinion that American constitutionalism decrees at the very least an election lopsidedly rigged in favor of insurrection, if not treason?

[Mr. Bumble]

Between Biden's political and health problems and Trump's multiple court cases, every day between now and election day (and probably beyond) will be an adventure.

[not guilty]

"Are lawyers previously certain the Constitution and precedent left no room for SCOTUS even to take Trump’s appeal, now satisfied to subordinate their commentary—and the nation’s fate—to a flagrantly corrupt decision? Is it now the dominant legal opinion that American constitutionalism decrees at the very least an election lopsidedly rigged in favor of insurrection, if not treason?"

Justice Robert Jackson said of his brethren on SCOTUS, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result). The solution is to elect Democrats as President and to both houses of Congress.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The solution is to elect Democrats as President and to both houses of Congress."

Yes, that's the ticket; then the US can be just like California.

[Frank Drackman]

Spoke with an Army Veteran who moved to Baja California a few years ago, says its way safer than Pasadena.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Remember Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco? Check out what’s left of it now that contemporary leftist notions of civil rights favor criminals as the people most in need of increased protection. (Sorry…alleged criminals.)

[Commenter_XY]

Nevermind Fisherman's Wharf, take a walk in Haight-Ashbury.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In the face of an ongoing attempted coup, actively abetted by the Supreme Court, that is little better than despair, or a taunt from the coup-plotters. The latter do not intend to let election legal contests get fair adjudication this time around. Isn't that obvious, not guilty?

[Michael Ejercito]

Which coup would that be?

[Michael Ejercito]

Like it or not, there was plenty of precedent regarding absolute immunity and qualified immunity for other officials.

Like it or not, no party asked the Supreme Court to sweep away those precedents.

[David Nieporent]

He's still doing it, folks! There was no such precedent. And how and why could a case about prosecuting a president "sweep away" precedents about non-presidents?

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, because it's equally atextual, so a Supreme court ruling that privilege has to be textual would be pretty hard on judges and prosecutors, to say nothing of police?

[David Nieporent]

That's not how court cases work.

First, only SCOTUS can overrule former SCOTUS cases — and that by saying, "They're overruled." SCOTUS has explicitly instructed lower courts, "Even you think one of our decisions undermines the logic of a previous decision, it's our prerogative, not yours, to decide that the earlier one is overruled. Otherwise, you must still follow it."

Second, the cases have entirely different bases, so one doesn't even implicate the other. The presidential immunity case is a constitutional case; the AI/QI cases are statutory.

[David Nieporent]

Are lawyers previously certain the Constitution and precedent left no room for SCOTUS even to take Trump’s appeal,

That makes no sense. There was no reason for SCOTUS to take Trump's appeal, but of course neither the constitution nor precedent prevented SCOTUS from taking Trump's appeal.

[tylertusta]

No reason? I can think of two reasons:

1. It was an important case.
2. The DC Circuit got it wrong.

See Rule 10(c).

You might be interested to note that Fitzgerald had a similar trajectory. Nixon lost at the district court and at the DC Circuit, but it was only when he got to SCOTUS that immunity was found to exist.

It's almost as if the Supreme Court has bigger considerations that just in the instant case.

[Bob from Ohio]

Roberts et al. realize that there will be future Presidents and the DC opinion would mean every future one was getting prosecuted if succeeded by a different party.

[David Nieporent]

Roberts et al. realize that there will be future Presidents and the DC opinion would mean every future one was getting prosecuted if succeeded by a different party.

Why would that happen? First, not everyone is like Donald Trump; most people generally operate in good faith. Second, even if they were all as utterly amoral as the orange sociopath, don't you think future presidents would realize that prosecuting their predecessors in bad faith would just lead to the same thing happening to them? It's MAD. (The nuclear doctrine, not a psychological diagnosis.) And third: in any case, what profit would there be for a president in prosecuting a former president? As I mentioned last week, there's only been 2 or 3 times in the last 200 years that a former president becomes a candidate for president again. So what, other than spite, would even motivate such a prosecution?

[Michael Ejercito]

There are probably a Hamasshole fanboi or two, serving as local prosecutors, who would not hesitate to charge FJB for complicity with genocide.

This ruling will at least place a very high bar to such a prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

If by "local prosecutor" you're talking about an individual U.S. Attorney, that ultimately leads back to the president. If you actually mean a state/city/county DA, (a) what jurisdiction would they have to charge such a crime?; and (b) 28 USC 1442 would allow that to be immediately removed to federal court, where the Supremacy Clause is a much better fit for such a situation than "presidential immunity."

[tylertusta]

... most people generally operate in good faith.

Good faith, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. After all, it's corrupt when Republicans do something, but noble when Democrats do it.

Like the fiery but mostly peaceful protests.

It’s MAD.

And that's why a majority of the Court stepped in: to save Democrats from themselves.

...what profit would there be for a president in prosecuting a former president?

I presume that you mean a political benefit and not just a direct financial benefit with your use of the the word "profit."

There are several advantages. Certainly you can think of several reasons why regimes like Venezuela find it helpful to prosecute their opposition parties.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I meant profit in the Mark 8:36 sense. And you seem to have missed the point: roughly 175 million people¹ could run for president against Biden.¹ Under this ruling, 174,999,995 of them could still be prosecuted by Biden. This ruling protects Bill Clinton, GWB, Obama, Carter (for a bit longer!) and Trump, and nobody else. (And three of those can't even run b/c of the 22nd amendment.) If you're worried about the U.S. being some kind of Venezuelan non-democracy, this ruling does nothing meaningful to prevent it.
​​
​​
¹There are about 190 million people in the U.S. over 35. But we do have to exclude the non-natural born. And it doesn't really matter so I just made up a number.

[tylertusta]

You don’t see the value in making political hay out of delegitimizing your opposition? Or using an investigation/prosecution of a former President to also go after their employees, who will be the next generation of leaders?

I guess you were the one who missed the point after all.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Or using an investigation/prosecution of a former President to also go after their employees, who will be the next generation of leaders?

In what way does this decision hinder "go[ing] after" a president's employees?

[tylertusta]

It's a question unresolved from the opinion, but it doesn't take a giant leap to get there:

If the point of Presidential immunity is to prevent the "effective discharge of a President's powers," including core powers like seeking advice from his subordinates, then it stands to reason that they must also carry some amount of immunity for that communication lest they not be able to provide that advice.

[Sarcastr0]

Good faith, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

This is an extremely telling statement. The right's slide to postmodernist 'reality is perception' continues.

You thinking bad faith very hard does not mean there is actually bad faith. Facts matter.

[tylertusta]

Democrats have long ago adopted a relativist, nihilist worldview. And yet you complain when Republicans throw it back at them.

How ironic.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As I've said before, bad behavior by your opponent is an opportunity to showcase your superiority, not a license to sink just as low.

At least, it is for good people.

[Commenter_XY]

Still waiting for someone in DC to try it....

[tylertusta]

If only that's how the real world works.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would agree that there are a lot of not good people out there! That doesn’t mean it’s too late to choose not to be one of them.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

what profit would there be for a president in prosecuting a former president?

A former president who is also your opponent in an upcoming election....and who is beating you in most polls? Yeah, that's a real head-scratcher there!

[Noscitur a sociis]

David Nieporent’s point, as I take it, is that a scenario where an incumbent president’s principal opponent is a former president is pretty unusual—and that if the principal opponent is literally anybody else, as they are almost certain to be, the incumbent is completely unrestricted in politically prosecuting them. Whereas if the former president isn't actively vying for a politcal position—which, again, is almost always the case—why would the incumbent bother prosecuting them at all?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

David Nieporent’s point, as I take it, is that a scenario where an incumbent president’s principal opponent is a former president is pretty unusual

And yet, that's exactly the scenario we're in.

[Krayt]

Crocodile tears, for concerns of abuse of power, by people championing initiative after initiative after initiative to use the investigative power of government against a rival.

It was a clumsy decision, but we wouldn't be here but for Herculean efforts of Rube Goldbergian chains of arguments to get a political opponent. The sheer nuber of initiatives alone points to squirrely motivations.

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

I found the Leftist version of QAnon... r/WhitePeopleTwitter. What a cesspool. Almost as bad as the WaPo commenters.

"Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity, therefore, Biden must declare Trump a terrorist and drone strike him. For democracy!" -Typical Leftist fascist who in the next breath calls Trump a dictator.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol, seek and ye shall find!

[Michael Ejercito]

You can find oiutlier opinions if you look hard enough.

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

Is that where you get all of your news?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like you might have more fine hate-posting there?

[Jerry B.]

Oh, come on. Nothing is as bad as the WaPo commentariat.

But it's so much fun to poke them with a stick.

[Armchair]

Historical analogs for current US Presidential Candidates.

Prof. Volohk noted a post asking "what was going on" with the current nominees. When asking this question, I find it useful to look into history to see analogous situations.

The President who most closely matches that of Biden is: William Henry Harrison.

Harrison was elected in 1841, and would be the oldest US president ever elected to office, until Ronald Reagan, more than 100 years later. His election was primarily driven by a "non-controversial" candidate from the party and primarily opposition to Van Buren.

When Harrison took ill

"No official announcements were made concerning Harrison's illness, which fueled public speculation and concern the longer he remained out of public view.[120] Washington society had noticed his uncharacteristic absence from church on Sunday.[113] Conflicting and unconfirmed newspaper reports were based on leaks by people with contacts in the White House.[119] A Washington paper reported on Thursday, April 1, that Harrison's health was decidedly better. In fact, Harrison's condition had seriously weakened,"

--Sound familiar?

Why all this? The Whig party was a coalition party of "entrepreneurs, professionals, planters, social reformers," It had much less backing from poor farmers and unskilled workers.

This coalition was doomed to failure, as the coalition's internal elements would struggle against one another, as opposed to the broad-based appeal of the Democratic party of the time to the working class people. This led to more institutionalized-party line measures needing to be made.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, to presume facts necessary to create a conflation is not persuasive. What Biden's current condition may be is a topic in controversy, not a settled question.

Whatever you may expect to find out about that, there is currently no evidence at all that Biden's condition has suffered a, "seriously weakened," tendency since his debate debacle. More the contrary. During every subsequent public appearance, Biden has appeared notably stronger than during the debate.

I say that as someone extremely skeptical that Biden should continue in the race. The only reason I remain unwilling to join others to demand Biden's replacement is that no plausible alternative candidate has received consensus support.

To demand that Biden get out without a named replacement in waiting is tantamount to asserting irrationally that Biden is the worst possible candidate. Several of the bruited names strike me as less capable than Biden to beat Trump. Among those I number Harris, Newsom, and Whitmer. Harris is deeply unpopular among mainstream Democrats. I judge Newsom and Whitmer unlikely to command enough support from urban blacks in swing states to prevent Trump from winning them, and thus taking the election—especially if to head the ticket either Newsom or Whitmer would first have to shoulder aside Harris.

The principal difference I see between a Biden/Harris ticket and a Harris/Anyone ticket is that Biden's half-century political chops are deeper rooted and more reliable. On the other hand, if Biden is indeed destined for medical incapacity, then the result in either case is President Harris—so no difference to think about except capacity to beat Trump.

I suggest that folks who want President Harris ought to recognize that. The most likely way to make that happen is to let Harris campaign for Biden's vice presidency.

I am not one of those, however. I want more youth, and more political change. And I want a better campaigner against Trump than either Harris or Biden will be.

I think it obvious that the best way to cope with the political problems attending Harris in the race is to find another candidate who better inspires whatever identity loyalty Harris can command. I have no doubt that if Barrack Obama were eligible, he would beat Trump in a landslide. So I suggest looking to an alternative candidate as reminiscent as possible of Obama.

Governor Wes Moore of Maryland fits that bill, and maybe adds luster to it. At this political moment it is better that Moore is younger than Obama was. Moore is a governor, not a member of Congress. And Moore served in combat, in Afghanistan, as a Captain in the 82nd Airborne Division. Moore's brief term as Governor has appeared conspicuously successful. Moore is a Rhodes Scholar.

If Wes Moore is the alternative candidate, I say Biden should step aside. That name would not exhaust my list, but it would lead it.

[Don Nico]

Something is wrong here. I have to admit that once again I agree with Lathrop and all of his points.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop,

Neither you, nor me, nor Nate Silver, nor anyone else, is or can be informed enough to make an accurate prediction of how the race would go with various candidates. We do not know whether Harris is stronger than Biden — current Harris, and current Biden — in the general election. We don't know whether Harris is stronger than Moore,¹ or Whitmer, or Newsom, or Hillary fucking Clinton for that matter.

In the absence of any foreknowledge about the future, I default to: what's the objectively right thing to do.² I do not believe that Biden is "senile" or has "dementia." But I do believe, based on reporting and my own eyes, that he has slowed down — not just noticeably, but significantly — physically and mentally. You can accept all of Biden's explanations — sick, jetlagged, etc. — for his debate performance, and it doesn't change the fact that said performance was miserable.​ And he's going to have to deal with illness and jet lag as president; his inability to do so means he can't handle the job. It is a terrible idea to elect someone who can't handle the job. Therefore, the Democrats should replace Biden. (And whatever you think would be a good idea, I guarantee that Harris will be said replacement.) To be sure, I would vote for Inanimate Carbon Rod over Trump, so even if Biden is incapacitated and yet stays in the race, that would not change my decision on the general election. But the right thing to do is to replace the old Biden with someone more vigorous.
​​
​
¹I do think "Barack Obama was a strong candidate. Barack Obama was a black man. Wes Moore is also a black man. Therefore Wes Moore is a strong candidate" is incredibly silly, though.

²As I've said before, I applied the same logic to Impeachment #1, when some pundits/Dems fretted over whether impeaching Trump would help or hurt him politically. My answer was simple: I don't have any idea. Therefore, do the right thing, which is impeach him for his obvious abuses of power.

[David Nieporent]

To be sure, I would vote for Inanimate Carbon Rod over Trump, so even if Biden is incapacitated and yet stays in the race, that would not change my decision on the general election.

I do want to clarify one point: since I live in NJ, my vote for any of these Dems will be unnecessary and I will not be voting for them; I am not a Democrat. Now, if it turned out that the race in NJ was close, I would vote for whichever of them was the Democratic nominee — but if the race in NJ is close, then we're talking a 1984-style GOP landslide, so it would still be moot.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We are not supposed to assume we can “accurately predict” (which is a fair call) but it is conclusive that he is “unable to do the job.”

I don’t think either is true. It is unclear to me whether he has significantly “slowed down” physically or mentally — hey maybe he has, but it is far from clear — since 2020. He has continued to campaign, having multiple events since the debate.

(Not that DN doesn’t know, but for everyone else, there is good evidence that Trump has declined mentally and physically & has reduced his appearances, etc. to factor it in.)

A person willing to vote for an inanimate carbon rod is someone who is here to beat Trump. Realistically, Biden stepping down is a big risk. I agree the likely choice is Harris. She will have various burdens, including that many voters don’t want a woman or non-white person (a major reason Biden was probably the best call in 2016, if possible, was that people in relevant states liked an old white guy). So, unless compelled, it is not strategically a good call.

[Brett Bellmore]

"She will have various burdens, including that many voters don’t want a woman or non-white person"

It's kind of strange to describe that as a burden, when being a non-white woman is literally the only reason she's in this position in the first place. But, sure, it's true, in the exact same sense that one of Trump's burdens is that many voters don't want a man or a white person. It's just that the latter we're supposed to politely ignore for some reason.

[Sarcastr0]

The only reason?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, literally he picked a also-ran who couldn't get above the rounding errors in the primaries, on account of having promised to pick a black woman.

[not guilty]

Joe Biden did not promise to pick a black woman as vice-president. That promise was for a SCOTUS nomination.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For someone incapable to peer into the future, your certainty about Harris as the candidate is impressive.

[David Nieporent]

You understand that predicting how 150 million people will vote is very different than predicting how a few hundred professionals will handle a given situation, right? Yes, I am quite certain that if Biden steps aside, Harris will be the nominee.

Of course, Harris could get run over by Dr. Ed's snowplow tomorrow, so it's not a literal guarantee. She could get arrested for being Hunter Biden's cocaine dealer. A secret recording of her pledging allegiance to Hamas could come out. But barring crazy events like those, the Democrats won't — can't — nominate anyone else. Not politically, not logistically.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Neiporent — See today's Op-Ed by James Carville in the NYT. It lays out a method for Ds to nominate someone else. Apparently a method you had not considered, while looking forward even for 24 hours. Pay particular attention to the readers' comments. I have literally never seen comparable rave reviews from the public on any politically-related topic.

Of course, I had not thought of Carville's suggestion either. I would back it today with enthusiasm similar to the others'.

[David Nieporent]

I considered it, when I heard the basic outlines of it two or three days ago from someone else. My conclusion then, as now, was that it was loony. Setting aside that it would tear the party apart to bypass Harris, it's absurd to think that a new candidate can launch himself/herself into the national consciousness at this late date. Harris is the sitting vice president. She doesn't impress me overly much, but a gimmicky reboot is not the answer. Unless Harris decides that she can't beat Trump, why would she ever agree to this? (And she has to, because all the money raised so far is hers to control if Biden drops out.)

Ah, here: https://twitter.com/benjysarlin/status/1810033142067315195?s=12

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — The money issue is a red herring. There will be more than a billion raised and spent between now and the election. That money need not go to Biden/Harris.

The, “tear the party apart,” thing is baked in, either way. Even a Biden/Harris victory will not assure continued leadership power for the Pelosi generation. They have taken customary generational over-reach past the point of no return. The Democratic Party’s need for younger leadership has become desperate.

Consider for a moment what it would do to change the campaign, if Trump suddenly confronted a capable opponent under 50-years-old, on the attack over Trump’s geriatric unreliability. Trump loses his best weapon, and sees it directed back against him. While Trump opponents in ecstasies of relief swarm to the cause—many of them convinced for the first time that American constitutionalism actually can be saved by an election.

[Kazinski]

Its starting to come out:

Biden’s doctor reportedly met with top neurologist at White House
Parkinson’s expert at Walter Reed medical center has visited White House eight times since August 2023 – report

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/06/joe-biden-neurologist-doctor-meeting

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose nothing stops Biden from having Parkinson's in addition to dementia. It would explain his difficulty with stairs. And late stage Parkinson's can involve memory loss and dementia, about 80% of the time, in fact.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, he obviously doesn't have dementia, and what "came out" was that Biden was evaluated for Parkinsons and did not have it. We'll just file this with your "Fetterman can't possibly recover; trust me, I'm an engineer" diagnosis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he obviously doesn’t have dementia"

Obviously!

Seems like you might though. You should see a neurologist

[Michael P]

Joe Biden has just been doing the goodest job he can, and if that made him look like he has dementia, that doesn't mean he can't keep doing, you know, the thing, as long as he is testing himself every day.

As the "intellectually, analytically" best-version-ever of Biden might say, at least.

[Kazinski]

He doesn't have to have dementia to not be up to handling the job.

You are setting a mighty low bar for a president.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Of course, he obviously doesn’t have dementia

We'll just file this under, "Trust me, I'm a lawyer".

[Kazinski]

8 visits to figure out he didn't have Parkinson's? Whatever his symptoms were to require 8 visits, Parkinson's might not be the worst diagnosis he could get.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It came out Kazinski. Completely. During his time in the White House Biden has been examined by that doctor 3 times, during annual physicals, with results that were reported publicly. Most of the visits referred to in the story you so gleefully swallowed occurred at times when Biden's travel schedule showed he was not in Washington. Turns out the doc was making regular visits to treat neurology symptoms among military personnel who get examined at the White House because their assignments involve presidential duties. Unsurprisingly, combat veterans sometimes show neurological symptoms.

The NYT owes Biden an apology, for blatantly incompetent journalism. You owe an apology too, to everyone, for your gullibility.

[Don Nico]

But that need not be the case. Cases are highly individualized. My mom had Parkinson's for 18 years, before any signs of dementia appeared, and those were completely controlled by pimavanserin.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would actually be a positive thing for Biden if it's Parkinson's related dementia; It's treatable!

[Sarcastr0]

What is the compulsion for this armchair diagnostician shit?

It was stupid when all those articles about malignant narcissism and Trump came out, and it's not less stupid now.

He can just be old and not up for the job for fuck's sake.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, and you think "too old" operates without any biological mechanism, maybe?

Seriously, how dare we speculate about his having Parkinson's just because he has a Parkinson's expert repeatedly visiting him, and publicly displays symptoms? The nerve of us!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, old people lose a step without a particular disease being present. How in the world can you think otherwise?

Speculation by a non expert based on limited data at a distance seems a great way to wishcasting and not a great way to have a relationship with actual reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How in the world can you think otherwise?"

Already said so: Repeated visits to the White House by a Parkinson's specialist. I understand that, in your world, nothing can actually be evidence for something you don't want to acknowledge, but get real.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You are a loon. Turns out the inference you drew was completely false. The doc was treating other patients. Most of the times those visits occurred, Biden’s travel schedule showed he was not even in Washington.

When you think about it, on what basis would anyone suppose that a doctor on a visit to the White House absolutely must be there to treat the President? How many people are associated with the White House? More than I would have supposed, actually. Thousands, apparently. Many of whom turn out to be military personnel—some with combat-related neurology symptoms.

Or not, just as you please. Probably they faked Biden’s travel schedule. Just to make you look bad.

[Michael Ejercito]

I wrote this answer on Quora regarding Trump v. United States, No. 23–939 (Jul. 1, 2024).

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Supreme-Court-ruling-on-presidential-immunity-affect-any-potential-prosecution-of-Brandon-for-complicity-in-genocide/answer/Michael-Ejercito

As such, an argument that pardoning someone suspected of or convicted of genocide, signing legislation approving the provision of funds and materiel to an allied state engaging in genocide, or firing a federal employee who spoke out against genocide, violates laws against complicity in genocide, would be rejected by Trump, for it would seek to criminalize a core power of the Presidency. Any remedy against such acts must remain solely in the political sphere.

Conversely, an accusation that the President, in his private actions, engaged in conduct that constitutes complicity in genocide, there would be no immunity arising from Trump.

But what about acts falling within the outer perimeter of the President’s duties? id. at 17, quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 755–756 (1982) Would an allegation of organizing and plotting genocide survive an immunity challenge? What about merely alleging that the President armed an allied state indisputably engaging in (let alone suspected of) acts of genocide? Or what about refusing to put American troops at risk to stop an ongoing genocide (real or imagined)? The Supreme Court ruled there is some immunity, but did not decide what level of immunity is required, allowing lower courts to decide the question on the first instance.

[Krenn]

What happens if Biden wins re-election, but Kamala invokes the 25th one day prior to inauguration day? Does she have to re-invoke it after inauguration day?

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing about the 25th amendment is that, while the VP and a majority of the cabinet can invoke it, the President can cancel it. At which point you get an expedited vote in Congress, and it takes a supermajority of both chambers to override the President. It is NOT intended to deal with cases where the President isn't cooperating, it's mean to deal with cases where the President is basically out of commission.

It's actually easier to impeach a President, than use the 25th amendment, if the President isn't totally out of it, and unwilling to cooperate.

[Krenn]

Yes, I know. and 1 day before inauguration isn't enough time to convene congress until AFTER inauguration, so...

[Krayt]

She can invoke it, but a majority of the cabinet has to agree, or it does nothing.

It's carefully designed to require the president's supporters to decide he's so bad he needs to go even if he doesn't want to.

Like impeachment, the Congress as a whole has to supermajority it, again reflecting buy in from supporters, not just opposition.

[Brett Bellmore]

NOT like impeachment, worse; Impeachment only requires a majority vote in the House to indict, and a super majority in the Senate to convict. The 25th amendment require a super majority in BOTH chambers of Congress!

[Armchair]

"Historical analogs for current US Presidential Candidates."

Prof. Volohk noted a post asking “what was going on” with the current nominees. When asking this question, I find it useful to look into history to see analogous situations.

The President who most closely matches that of Trump is: Andrew Jackson.

Jackson was originally a stalking horse candidate, simply meant to draw off Tennessee's votes. But then, surprisingly, he found broader based populist appeal. (Sound familiar?). Jackson was accused of adultery (Sound familiar). Jackson was an outsider to the political elite in Washington, while allowing the public into the White House. Jackson was faced with rebellious Secretaries who wouldn't carry out his wishes.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Jackson was the first of the big Democrat spenders. Federal spending doubled under his tenure.

POTUS Jackson was a lot more vindictive to his opponents than POTUS Trump.

[Sabedi1]

Jackson was an American hero by pushing the degenerate undesirables off of prime land.

Too bad we have a 14th Amendment today preventing that.

[Kazinski]

Not a bad analogy, not least because of the disdain of the establish!ent, and the enthusiast support of the common man (although Jackson's support was much wider and deeper).

[Ed Grinberg]

old news: "Who-Whom-ism"

news: https://thepostmillennial.com/andy-ngo-reports-so-cal-antifa-members-all-sentenced-to-prison-or-jail-over-2021-san-diego-attack

Maybe things are turning around... Let us hope so!

[Mr. Bumble]

moved

[tylertusta]

Jack Smith has some strategic decisions to make in his two cases. Smith ran headline into foreseeable quagmires of pretrial disputes and has found that his plan to bring Trump to trial swiftly has so far failed.

The press is now reporting that Smith's actual deadline is now inauguration day, not election day. I'm doubtful that Smith can achieve that as the cases currently stand, but there may be a path forward for him: Smith may decide to slim down his indictments to make his cases simpler.

What could that look like? I'll speculate on some possibilities.

In the FL case, Smith can drop the Espionage Act counts and instead focus on the obstruction charges. That removes some but not all of the morass that Smith finds himself in. The dispute over discovery would still remain, but the immunity question would probably evaporate.

In the DC case, Smith has a more straightforward path to going to trial, but doing so might tie his hands and cause him to lose. Smith can concede almost every one of Trump's forthcoming objections on evidence on immunity and only stick to what Trump's attorneys conceded to at SCOTUS about acts that were private and therefore not immune.

Smith can also preempt Trump's attack on the 1512 counts by getting a superseding indictment that more plainly spells out the legal theory of how 1512 applies to the case.

However, a "slim" indictment in the DC case may cause a lot of problems in actually proving the charges at trial, depending on what Smith can get in front of a jury.

There's also the political aspect of Smith choosing to charge how he's bringing these cases. Dropping counts may be a political non-starter at the DOJ as it would be seen as a partial vindication of Trump, who has been arguing that he's innocent this whole time.

The other consideration is Smith's personality and his background in the DOJ. Backing down from a difficulty isn't something that Smith is known for- he's taken a maximalist perspective and charged right into legal minefields that didn't blow up until he was far into them.

[Mr. Bumble]

…and of course there is the question as to whether he has the authority to do any of this.

[tylertusta]

A dismissal would throw a wrench into any timetable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Smith’s actual deadline is now inauguration day"

Not if Trump wins the election. A fantasy that the DOJ even with Special Counsel Javert will go to trial with the President-Elect.

[John F. Carr]

The deadline is to have Trump sentenced before he is inaugurated. At the normal pace of a federal felony trial sentencing would not happen by January 2025 if the trial started today. The judge is expected to wait several months after the jury verdict for a presentence report.

Before sentence is imposed the prosecution can change its mind. Once sentence is imposed Trump is officially guilty and judicial action is required to undo the conviction. The prosecutor can not simply say "we changed our mind and think Trump is innocent."

[not guilty]

"Before sentence is imposed the prosecution can change its mind. Once sentence is imposed Trump is officially guilty and judicial action is required to undo the conviction."

True, the prosecution can change its mind. The government can move for dismissal of charges pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a), but actual dismissal requires an order from the court. Such a motion is ordinarily granted, but not always, as Gen. Flynn found out when he attempted to withdraw his guilty plea.

[tylertusta]

It's a shame the case didn't stick around for Judge Sullivan to get slapped down by the DC Circuit Fokker Services-style.

[SRG2]

If Trump wins in November, I think he will immediately file to suspend or block any trial on the grounds that it will burden his ability to be involved in the transfer of power which is a necessary action by an incoming president, and so, blah blah blah. stays are denied by district and appellate court, but granted by the SC for a limited period which will take him past his inauguration, whereupon the cases will be dropped.

[tylertusta]

That may not matter if Smith can't bring the trials to a conclusion before inauguration day.

[ThePublius]

Let's talk about sales tax. I know it varies by state, so there's that. But, in states that have sales tax, they usually tax things that they can track, like cars and boats, things that require some kind of registration, even though they are used.

I think that's wrong. Consider that they can garner tax for something that's been sold multiple times. Why is that right? And who does it effect? Mostly people of lesser means, who aren't buying new cars or boats.

Is this right or just? Can it be argued it's not even legal?

[Sabedi1]

Sales tax is the only form of tax many people pay.

[ThePublius]

Wow, I wish I lived in that world.

I pay:
Federal income tax on my social security;
Federal income tax on my IRA distributions;
State income tax on my social security;
State income tax on my IRA distributions;
Town real estate tax on my house;
Town excise tax on my car and my boat;
Sales tax on my purchases, only excluding food, and clothing items under $250;
Gasoline tax;
in addition to taxes buried in the price of other things I buy, like alcoholic beverages, etc.

So, unless those people live in some magical kingdom in the U.S., I call b.s. on that assertion!

[Longtobefree]

Retired or on the dole or just poor, no income tax.
Renter, no real estate tax.
Not buying expensive clothes, no sales tax. (per your example)
Public transportation, no gasoline tax.
Many live in you 'magical kingdom'.

(and, oh by the way, your IRA deposit was tax free)

[Michael P]

He listed income tax on Social Security and IRA distribution, but not on employment income. You think that means that is he were retired, he wouldn't pay the income taxes he mentioned?

[BadLib]

Renters pay property tax – the landlord just collects it instead of the government. Of course in California due to Prop 13 et seq the the landlord may not have to collect much if they owned the property for a long time.

[ThePublius]

"Retired or on the dole or just poor, no income tax."
Oh, really? Where is that?
"Renter, no real estate tax."
Baloney. The owner pays real estate tax, and it is built into your rent.
"Not buying expensive clothes, no sales tax. (per your example)"
Suit yourself..

"Public transportation, no gasoline tax."
Cool, if it works for you.
"Many live in you ‘magical kingdom’."
Not really.
"(and, oh by the way, your IRA deposit was tax free)"
Thank you, Sherlock! But not if it's a Roth IRA. But I was talking about paying taxes, not WHEN I pay taxes, in case you didn't notice.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Renter, no real estate tax.

Not directly, but indirectly via the cost of that tax being passed along in rental rates.

(and, oh by the way, your IRA deposit was tax free)

For a conventional IRA (but not a Roth IRA) the deposit was, but withdrawals are likely to not be in most (but certainly not all) cases. But people who have enough income to contribute to IRAs are usually not those who are completely avoiding income tax.

[DaveM]

Sales taxes are not nearly as progressive as income taxes, that is true. However, they are simple to calculate and collect, and they spread the tax burden over the largest number of people.

Various solutions have been proposed to make them more progressive, such as giving tax credits, excluding basics such as groceries, etc.

My vote would be to not do any of those things, but just keep the rates low enough so everyone can afford them. You want to encourage people to buy, since that earns you tax revenue. Remove any barrier that might make them think twice.

[ThePublius]

In Massachusetts groceries are excluded, as are clothing purchases for items less than $250; over that, you pay tax on the overage.

Note some states have no sales tax, like New Hampshire.

[ThePublius]

Oh, and Rhode Island has no sales tax on boats! They encourage marine recreation. That's how Kerry got into trouble in the press, taking delivery of a multi-million dollar yacht in R.I. He ended up paying Mass sales tax, but I think he shouldn't have had to.

[santamonica811]

California has no sales tax on food. I thought all states had this policy (well, I assume it, anyway). [I'm talking about food bought from grocery stores, not from restaurants.]

[M L]

We should get rid of income tax and only have sales tax.

[Armchair]

Consider that they can garner tax for something that’s been sold multiple times. "Is this right or just?"

Yes. Consider two examples, a sales tax and an income tax.
-With the sales tax, I buy a car from the dealer. The government taxes that sale. I sell that car to a lawyer. The lawyer taxes that sale. The lawyer sells the car to a childcare worker. The government taxes that sale.
-The Government taxes my income. I use that to pay a lawyer. That lawyer considers that pay part of his income. That gets taxed. That lawyer pays a childcare worker with part of his income. That childcare worker has her income taxed.

See how that works.

Can it be argued it’s not even legal?
-No. There is an argument to be made for a "value added" tax, in the context of sales.

[DaveM]

As I understand it, if Biden voluntarily withdraws from the election, then all the campaign funds, staff, and pledged delegates earned thus far remain where they are, and Harris takes control over them. She was part of a combined ticket, and earned them as much as Biden did.

If that's the case, then of course Harris is going to be the successor. All that's required is to convince one man to step down. That man is a kindly, elderly person with a poor memory who elicits a very sympathetic response, so it shouldn't be that hard to do.

[ThePublius]

Could the DNC broker a deal where both Biden and Harris step down, and split the campaign war chest?

[DaveM]

I don’t think so. The delegates and the money have been pledged to the ticket. If you remove both Biden and Harris, you no longer have the ticket that was pledged to.

[David Nieporent]

What do you mean by "split the campaign war chest?" Split it among whom? Biden and Harris? No. Candidates for federal office cannot convert campaign funds to personal use. Split it among some other candidates? Sure. Biden/Harris can turn the funds over to the DNC if they both drop out.

[Krayt]

This seemed wrong to me, but I had heard several elections back candidates could keep their war chest if they dropped out.

[David Nieporent]

That was the old rule, decades ago. (I'm not even sure whether it applied to a presidential candidate, but it did apply to congressional candidates.) But it no longer applies. (To be sure, they could keep control of it and donate it to other PACs/candidates. But they can't keep it for themselves.)

[ducksalad]

Just a side note – even if a campaign is utterly and obviously hopeless, it’s legal to spend the money on candidate travel expenses: staying in hotels, buying plane tickets, eating out in restaurants, and throwing campaign parties at bars and high-end barbecues.

There were some vague suspicions that some LP nominees (Marrou, Badnarik, maybe Browne) were running partly just to have food and a place to sleep every night paid off an expense account. Which was fine with me, BTW, as long as they did their job.

If he’s still up to it, Joe and Jill could do a 2028 campaign focusing on vacation spots. Virgin Islands hold a presidential primary so it’s a valid place to go.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that was my suspicion, frankly, in regards to Browne. Looking back at his campaign later while reading his book, "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World", was a bit of an eye opener, really solidified those suspicions.

Sadly, I don't think he DID do his job.

[David Nieporent]

Just a side note – even if a campaign is utterly and obviously hopeless, it’s legal to spend the money on candidate travel expenses: staying in hotels, buying plane tickets, eating out in restaurants, and throwing campaign parties at bars and high-end barbecues.

A non-incumbent candidate is allowed to pay himself a salary from campaign funds. (This first came to my attention when Alan Keyes ran for senate from Maryland, and did that.) The amount is limited,

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/candidate-salary/

[ducksalad]

Interesting, thanks.

Those limits are too low to interest the Bidens but might suit someone like Keyes or an LP POTUS nominee just fine. Especially if it's salary on top of free meals and hotel rooms.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, if they didn't allow the less wealthy candidates to pay themselves a living wage during the campaign, when they can't be otherwise employed, only the wealthy could run for most offices.

[John F. Carr]

According to an article citing unnamed election law experts, the money from the dead campaign could go to the DNC or a Super PAC. The new ticket would start fundraising and should see a pretty good intake because it has a whole new campaign contribution limit.

[DaveM]

Interesting

[ducksalad]

Yes, it’s allowable to give it to the DNC or a super PAC. But Biden would have to make that decision, and if he lost the nomination involuntarily, or felt he’d been unfairly pressured, he might decide to do something else with the money.

It’s also allowable to give it to a charity. For example, the ASPBS (American Society for the Prevention of Bullying of Seniors).

It’s also allowable to use it to make (federally limited $2K) contributions to other candidates. For example, any state and local candidates who came out in favor of him staying on, or are running against someone who came out in favor of him being replaced.

And finally of course, if the delusion runs deep, losing the nomination this time leaves him eligible to run in 2028, and he could save the money for that.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what happens if he decides on the latter course, and croaks before 2028?

[ducksalad]

According to this site:

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/79445/who-controls-campaign-funds-when-a-candidate-dies

it’s the campaign committee that makes the call.

The names I can find on the form are Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, Keana Spencer (treasurer), and Taryn Vogel (assistant treasuer).

[ducksalad]

Deleted

[John F. Carr]

Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 USC 371) in the ongoing case over the 737 MAX certification process. The court must approve the plea because it includes a binding sentencing agreement. Most importantly, the parties agree that Boeing made $243.6 million from the fraud and will be required to pay this amount. Formally, the fine is $487.2 million but Boeing already paid $243.6 million to get a deferred prosecution agreement. Paul Cassell's clients will be entitled to restitution. Boeing's customers will have to sue Boeing on their own. The agreement is silent on the consequences to Boeing in its status as a federal contractor. I expect the company is too big to fail and strings will be pulled.

[DaveM]

Wow.

[loki13]

"The agreement is silent on the consequences to Boeing in its status as a federal contractor. I expect the company is too big to fail and strings will be pulled."

I have serious issues with Boeing, and as I have said before, I think that they can be traced back to the merger with McDonnell Douglas. It would be great if there was some way to "enforce" a return to the engineering culture, but that can't happen. AFAIK.

Given that, what you write is true. Boeing is one of the crown jewels of American manufacturing. Not just for the defense aspects (which is important!) but because of the civil aerospace aspects. I don't have a great answer for that, either. I am not comfortable saying that a company is so important to the country that we will let them get away with unlawful behavior.

There needs to be some way of severely penalizing the corporate actors (aka, the PEOPLE) who allowed this to happen. Not just white collar stuff, real jail time.

[Commenter_XY]

Completely agree re: accountability. A fine won't do it. Jail time will.

Behavior will not change until a person in a Brooks Brothers suit does time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So you figure Trump going to prison would improve behavior?

[John F. Carr]

See docket entry 204 and following at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29089563/united-states-v-the-boeing-company/?page=2

[John F. Carr]

Paul Cassell's response:

The families intend to argue that the plea deal with Boeing unfairly makes concessions to Boeing that other criminal defendants would never receive and fails to hold Boeing accountable for the deaths of 346 persons.

He has previously requested a larger fine and more aggressive supervision.

[Michael P]

Compare and contrast this $243.6M fine with the $355M fine levied against Donald Trump by Arthur Engoron and Letitia James, especially in the context of what Boeing and Trump were accused of doing.

[loki13]

I was just thinking about how Labour won in the UK. And Brexit.

For those keeping track, the people pushing Brexit promised that it would lead to less immigration, a better economy, and more money for services like the NHS.

Instead, it ended up leading to a worse economy, less money for the NHS, and ... shockingly ... much higher immigration. All those "Polish plumbers" had to be replaced!

Lies lead to actions. And actions have consequences. I thought about that, because for a long time I used to think that a lot of the Trumpist machinery was just a grift, and that the "GOP Elite" was simply using it to get what they want. But over the last few years, I have realized that many of the things I thought were absurd (comically so) were actually believed. Even by the GOP Elite. And that worries me. It's possible to have policy disagreements about shared facts; it is much harder to have those discussions when there are no shared facts.

I guess I am just feeling particularly burnt out by political discourse right now. That, and I see the end of mango season.

I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday!

[Moderation4ever]

I think there was a lot of reasons Labour won and Brexit was likely one of those. We all live in a world economy and the idea that you can sit outside that economy and do well is foolish.

[SRG2]

I think there was a lot of reasons Labour won and Brexit was likely one of those.

IMO, and I said it at the time of the referendum, the reason that Jeremy Corbyn campaigned so feebly for Remain was that he thought that Brexit would be a disaster and Labour would hence benefit - as would he as imagined Labour PM.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think so. Although Labor¹ itself was anti-Brexit, my sense is that Corbyn himself was not. He was much farther left than most of Labor, and he ultimately viewed the EU project as part of the Evil Neoliberal Agenda.

¹We fought a war — two of them — so that we wouldn't have to put extraneous 'u's in words!

[SRG2]

¹We fought a war — two of them — so that we wouldn’t have to put extraneous ‘u’s in words!

Sadly, the resulting mission creep also led to an impoverished vocabulary and a superstitious belief in the evil of dependent clauses and run-on sentences. 🙂

[Vryedni]

That’s the same… well, similar… justification Republicans use for deleting “ic” from “Democratic Party.” “Labour” is a name, not a description. When used as the latter, I agree that a decent respect for the sacrifice of our forebears demands omission of the “u.”

Yeah, I know you were being tongue in cheek, so apologies. It just drives me mildly crazy that “Democrat Party,” instead of becoming a perpetual reminder of the juvenile stupidity of GOP activists, has burrowed its way into our lexicon as a virtually unobjectionable substitute for the real name. I’ve lost count of how many idiot Democrats I’ve seen use it. And though I long ago stopped reacting to that now ubiquitous offense, adjacent examples like yours, even though an obvious joke, can set me off. Sorry.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd reserve my ire for "Demonrat" and "Rethuglican", if I were you.

[Vryedni]

They're too obvious for anyone to take seriously. No ire required.

[ducksalad]

Shared facts, you say? Unless you're some kind of mango snob, or shop at a really low end grocery, you should be able to get imported ones anytime.

[loki13]

I have a more ... available source.

Which, alas, has provided the last mangoes of the season to me.

And compared to that, I don't do imported mangoes. Once you've had the good stuff, it's hard to go back.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, nothing like fruit off your own tree.

Tried planting nursery mango trees here twice, but it’s both too hot and too cold. Just enough frost to damage them in winter, but they struggle in the summer heat. Same problem with avocados.

We do well with citrus, but citrus doesn’t have to be particularly fresh. It can “store” on the tree for three months or for three weeks in a bag with no loss of quality.

[Theendoftheleft]

'It' led to those things, or the Tories response to Brexit did so? You understand that the Tory elites didn't want Brexit, yeah? That's why they put in May after Cameron, etc.

Have you read Braverman's letter to Sunak? There was no change in immigration because of the governing party, not because of Brexit. The leadership lied repeatedly to its own voting base.

Every Tory I know despises their own party. (This phenomenon is observable in other Anglophonic countries as well.) That's precisely why some four million people voted Reform. Talk on the street is of the Conservative Party's demise. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Josh R]

The Stephanapolous interview and the recent state-level Bloomberg polls put Democrats in a tough spot. Both were OK news for Biden, but not clearly good, leaving Democrats with no clear path.

Had he performed comparably in the debate as he did in the interview, we wouldn't be discussing replacing him. But neither was his interview performance reassuring to those who had doubts before the debate or those who had doubts because of the debate.

The state-level Bloomberg polls could save him if they aren't outliers. But, at this point they likely are.

[Josh R]

If I were the Lord (and we know Biden will take a hint from the Lord), I would first find out whether the White House and the family have been intentionally hiding his decline. If so, out he goes. If not, then I would do what Sanjay Gupta suggests: an indpendent, full medical evaluation (he should have that anyway for his health, apart from the campaign). That result might boot him as well. If he passes that, on to unscripted live events (e.g., news conferences) in the next couple of weeks.

Putting it another way, the onus ought to be on him to show is viable.

[Krayt]

If I were the Lord, I’d have Wonder Woman tie up all politicians with her magic lasso and say, “Tell me all your corruptions.”

It would be a fun evening TV show that would go on for years.

It's the Lasso of Truth, not the Lasso of Rationalizations, Reasonable Doubt Stories, and Plausible Deniability.

[Krayt]

That's make a funny headline for The Daily Planet

50 Years No Takers
It's been 50 years since Wonder Woman put out her famous standing offer to all politicians, be bound by her magic lasso and asked to spill the beans on all their corrupt acts, and still no takers...

[David Nieporent]

Prof Bernstein tweeted something that I generally agreed with, as a second best option to him dropping out:

https://twitter.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1809539196727570904

What if Biden said, "I know there are some concerns about my health. I feel fine, and my doctors say that I'm up to the job. Meanwhile, I'm the nominee, millions of people voted for me, and there is no turning back on that. But I know I'm old, older than any previous president. So starting in Jan. 2025, I will take cognitive tests monthly given by a team, not tied to me in any way, at Walter Reed Medical Center. And if at any point they tell me I'm no longer fit for the job, I will immediately turn things over to Kamala, in whom I have full confidence."

My only friendly amendment would be to change "in Jan. 2025" to "immediately."

[Sarcastr0]

1. Anyone diagnosing Biden with Alzheimer's, dementia, etc. remains as silly now as ever.

2. That being said, Presidents are a single person because of the agility that gets you, and Biden's failure in a high-stakes moment to shows an unacceptable risk; he should step down. Plenty of time in the campaign to switch it up.

3. Trump is still way worse and I'll vote for Biden, unacceptable risk and all, over the rambling yelling authoritarian with his authoritarian followers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Anyone diagnosing Biden with Alzheimer’s, dementia, etc. remains as silly now as ever."

Amazing.

[Sarcastr0]

Dr. Bob in the house.

[Bob from Ohio]

Mr. Pangloss responds.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not really. Biden always had the blind, moron vote.

[David Nieporent]

Bumble comes out as a Democrat? So your posting here is just an attempt to make conservatives look bad? Because it's working!

[ducksalad]

Sarc, you’re right, it might be silly to specify Alzheimer’s vs dementia vs ministrokes.

But only in the sense that it would be silly to say whether a person with a 106F fever has cholera vs typhoid vs Ebola, without further tests. The important point is that they’ve got something awful and totally disabling and they need to not go in to the office.

[Commenter_XY]

Fine, we can just call it extreme feeblemindedness. 🙂

And he IS feebleminded.

Biden's interview on Morning Joe was appalling.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t need to assume a specific pathology; you can just say he’s demonstrated he’s not up for the job. That we have information on. The rest we do not. It is silly.

Totally disabling is not only not established, it’s full-on disproven. Quit with the hyperbole.

And the alternative is also there and worse on policy, character, mental fitness, and support system. I hope Biden drops out and hands the baton to someone else; but we aren’t electing in a vacuum here.

[Bwaaah]

He has demonstrated he’s not up for the job.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree!

[Theendoftheleft]

So, you prefer totalitarianism.

Unsurprising.

Go back to Russia.

[OtisAH]

“Writing speeches for Biden” is an emerging sub-genre of literature. I’m partial to the long form resignation speeches written by folks on the left and right who never name the “Alternate, Acceptable to All” but are absolutely sure they exist, whoever they are.

But short fiction like Bernstein’s involving Biden committing to monthly cognitive tests has its charms too.

[Moderation4ever]

Joe Biden will be under an extraordinary scrutiny for as long as he remains a candidate. Any mistake will be magnified. He will have to bow out it is a matter of time.

[Brett Bellmore]

His mistakes don't need to be magnified, to destroy him. They just need to not be minimized, the way they were before. Biden can't survive a normal level of scrutiny, he hasn't faced it in years.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I don’t even think this is a big compliment—Biden has been the most correct on foreign policy as any major politician this century.

[Moderation4ever]

I am always surprised by the ignorance of Republican politicians. They seem to know little about Project 2025 when asked. Are they so dumb they don't know what Project 2025 is or so dumb we think we will believe they know nothing? If this is the conservative's idea why not embrace it and sell the idea. Instead, they expected to get elected and then implement it after telling us they know nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Last time I looked at it, seemed fairly reasonable to me. Mind, I only scanned it, but what offended you?

[Moderation4ever]

What offends me Brett is the Republicans refusing to embrace or deny a conservative program and claiming ignorance of the idea. I would like some honesty. If this is a conservative idea then support it but don't try to put it past me with stealth.

[Michael P]

Unlike the left, the right is a relatively big tent, and some right-wing groups do their own thing. When that happens, random other right-wingers don’t necessarily have a position on the 1000-page tomes that result from “do their own thing” efforts.

[Brett Bellmore]

That. Project 2025 isn't a Trump campaign document, it's not the GOP platform, (Though large parts of it are suitable for either role.)

It's just a collection of proposals by various conservatives, who aren't even guaranteed to agree with what each other are suggesting, let alone be agreed to by all other conservatives.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL. OK dude, Stephen Miller has no connections to the Trump campaign.

Says a lot how much time Trump supporters are already spending telling us he doesn't believe the stuff *they themselves argue they support Trump for.*

[Brett Bellmore]

So what if he has connections to the Trump campaign? Doesn't make everything he does a Trump campaign document.

[Sarcastr0]

Hiding behind formalism will get you nowhere. Trump’s running away from it, but it’s not only got his people intimately involved in it, *it’s stuff you - Brett Bellmore - say is a great idea to go after the libs like you always wanted!*

Why the hell are you running away from this – this is the radical own the libs stuff that’s why you support Trump! Own it!

[Brett Bellmore]

Any evidence you're wrong is just "running away from it"?

Trump isn't associated with the Miller campaign, it's the other way around. Trump doesn't have any obligation to agree with occasional employees.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's people wrote it; it aligns with what he's said he would do; it aligns with what MAGA wants.

Given Trump's level of honesty, his note that he knows nothing about it is not really very good evidence of much other than that it's unpopular at the moment.

You've become a full-on tool if you're going to keep going around with 'Trump doesn't agree with this thing that instantiates the things I support him for.'

This may be an actual correct use of gaslighting!

[Brett Bellmore]

See, you're simply incapable of reason when it comes to Trump. It doesn't matter to you that he explicitly rejects something, it doesn't matter that he'd adopted contrary positions on multiple issues. He must secretly be 100% behind this document because somebody who'd worked for him was part of creating it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here’s Trump’s ACTUAL agenda. I’d suggest if you want to attack Trump’s policies, attack his actual policies, not some separate document that had a bit of input from one of his former employees.

“1 SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION
2 CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY
3 END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN
4 MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR
5 STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO A MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER
6 LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS
7 DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
8 PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY—ALL MADE IN AMERICA
9 END THE WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
10 STOP THE MIGRANT CRIME EPIDEMIC, DEMOLISH THE FOREIGN DRUG CARTELS, CRUSH GANG VIOLENCE, AND LOCK UP VIOLENT OFFENDERS
11 REBUILD OUR CITIES, INCLUDING WASHINGTON D.C., MAKING THEM SAFE, CLEAN, AND BEAUTIFUL AGAIN.
12 STRENGTHEN AND MODERNIZE OUR MILITARY, MAKING IT, WITHOUT QUESTION, THE STRONGEST AND MOST POWERFUL IN THE WORLD
13 KEEP THE U.S. DOLLAR AS THE WORLD’S RESERVE CURRENCY
14 FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE
15 CANCEL THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATE AND CUT COSTLY AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS
16 CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ANY SCHOOL PUSHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY, AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE RACIAL, SEXUAL, OR POLITICAL CONTENT ON OUR CHILDREN
17 KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS
18 DEPORT PRO-HAMAS RADICALS AND MAKE OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES SAFE AND PATRIOTIC AGAIN
19 SECURE OUR ELECTIONS, INCLUDING SAME-DAY VOTING, VOTER IDENTIFICATION, PAPER BALLOTS, AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP
20 UNITE OUR COUNTRY BY BRINGING IT TO NEW AND RECORD LEVELS OF SUCCESS”

It’s worth looking at this year’s GOP platform, because unlike 2020, when the party establishment refused to generate a new platform in order to deny Trump any input, it actually IS a Trump platform. New Republican party platform

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, when Trump says something insane or radical: 'Don't believe him. He just talks.'
Brett, when Trump distances himself from Project 2025: 'this is gospel. No other evidence can gainsay this.'

Brett, Project 2025's advisors and staff include a lot of familiar names: Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli (both named authors), Mark Meddows, Peter Navaro, and of course Stephen Miller.

Trump's SuperPAC promoted the Project, calling it 'Trump's Project 2025.'
Trump White House adviser John McEntee says he's working to integrate Project 2025 with the Trump campaign.

Oh, and that listicle of the GOP platform you shared? Russ Vought and Ed Martin, wo drafted it, also 2025 advisors and contributors.

Again, Project 2025 *does all the things you want Trump to do* and you're covering for him shows you don't want Trump to be elected based on an honest assessment of his plans - the one he tells his donors and supporters.
What does that say about your faith in our Republican form of government?

[Brett Bellmore]

It’s an interesting document. Freedom to mine bitcoin, for instance. Sounds like they’re also planning on reinstituting homesteading, to start shifting federal lands into the private sector.

One thing you can say about it, it doesn’t mince words.

Sarcastr0, the difference is that you can fully pin the platform on Trump, while he has disowned the project 2025. Read the platform, it's refreshingly short and direct, not 1000 pages.

[Theendoftheleft]

'Hiding behind formalism will get you nowhere'.

This isn't a credible response to Brett's retort. Miller's statement isn't necessarily a Trump campaign document. You'd just be begging the question otherwise.

[Michael P]

If you think it is full of bad ideas that Trump supporters nevertheless love, then answer Brett's earlier question: "Mind, I only scanned it, but what offended you?"

[Sarcastr0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

Political appointees checking NIH study outcomes for political alignment.

The Comstock Act to prosecute people using the mail to send contraceptives.

Criminalizing pornography.

"the DOJ's Civil Rights Division would "prosecute all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers" with DEI or affirmative action programs."

Use the military to hunt down and capture undocumented immigrants within our borders, as well as other domestic law enforcement.

And do all of this by remaking the administrative state to be a fully political instrument of the President.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Political appointees checking NIH study outcomes for political alignment.

Your characterization.

>”Conservatives consider the NIH corrupt and politically biased.”

Wiki’s characterization.

Have you no shame? You clearly do not have any integrity.

edit:

"And do all of this by remaking the administrative state to be a fully political instrument of the President."

As opposed to a fully political instrument of the Democrats as it has been.

Your gaslighting is beyond sickening. You should be criminally prosecuted for how you constantly undermine our Sacred Democracy with your verbal insurrections and violence.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do not neglect the second American revolution. Which will be bloodless if the left remains docile about it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Here's to hoping they don't!

*fingers crossed*

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Dumbass guilt by association.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Of course it seems reasonable to a disaffected, on-the-spectrum, conspiracy theory- and superstition-addled, right-wing bigot -- it was designed for that audience.

[Krayt]

I scanned the list of items for that. Some seem so idiotic the whole thing looks like a plant.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a product of a committee, and more of a combined wish list than a program, actually.

Again, exactly what are you taking exception to? As I said, I’ve just briefly scanned it. (It’s almost a thousand pages!)

So, looking at what the BBC said, I did find the references to banning porn, which, yes, would be more than a bit unconstitutional. So I can’t say anymore I don’t see anything problematic about it.

I see Trump isn’t too keen on it.

“In early July, Trump said on his social media platform that he knows “nothing about Project 2025”.

“I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote.

“Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.””

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would bet my best car that Mr. Bellmore is gullible, dumb, and partisan enough to believe Trump’s lies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This is the most important news of the day:

"Just in time for summer, Cup Noodles introduces S’mores-flavored ramen"

[DaveM]

Actually, the difference between factory-made graham crackers with cinnamon and 5 teaspoons of sugar, and a factory-made noodle soup with cinnamon and 5 teaspoons of sugar is not that wide.

Bake your own breads from scratch. Ridiculously easy and the increase in quality is amazing.

[ducksalad]

"Ridiculously easy"

Ours seem to fail about 40% of the time. It's like the yeast has bipolar syndrome.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's usually the result of badly controlled rising conditions. You need a proofing box.

[ducksalad]

Looks like they start at $15 or so. You think those low end ones would work?

[Jmaie]

Your oven will work very nicely as a proofing box. Is the consistency Of temperature that gives good results. At least in my humble opinion.

[ducksalad]

My understanding is you want something like 85F, our oven can't hold that consistently.

$15 isn't a big risk. Less than the pizza we call in when the main plan fails.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the lowest temperature my oven will hold is 160, I've tried putting it on "warm" for a short while, then using the oven light to keep it warm, but it's hit and miss. No substitute for a proofing box if you're going to be baking bread.

When we remodel the kitchen next year, one of my wish list items is a built in proofing cabinet.

[Brett Bellmore]

Consistency AND temperature. You can kill the yeast at a consistent temperature that still won't cook the dough.

[DaveM]

Also, watch the heat of the water you add to yeast. Warm, not hot! Don’t kill your little friends, and visually confirm they’re multiplying. See this video, she explains all:

https://youtu.be/jFsjf7LevEU?si=iW6odiJgeihayGYV

Works every time.

[Don Nico]

Bakers in Italy recommend a water temperature 0f ~27°C. Let the dough ferment longer at lower temperatures to develop flavor.
Exactly what you do depends a great deal on the level of hydration of the dough. In other words, there is no one single procedure.

[Commenter_XY]

It is the water temp of the water you are using to proof the yeast, in all likelihood. Use a digital thermometer and make sure the water is 105F (for dry yeast). Proof for 10 minutes. Then incorporate.

That should reduce the yeasty bipolar episodes to a more manageable level. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

Churn your own ice cream. We went berry picking, brought back about 12 pounds of blackberries and 10 lbs of blueberries. Then a friend went on vacation, and asked us to harvest his peaches while he was gone, so they wouldn’t go to waste.

So far we’ve enjoyed hand churned blueberry, blackberry, and peach ice cream. With plenty of fruit prepped in the freezer for future batches. And about half the blackberries are going into my next batch of blackberry mead.

makes about a half gallon:
6 cups fruit
1/2 cup sugar.

Cook to a thick compote and let cool.

16 egg yolks, whisked.
3/4 cup buttermilk
2 teaspoons vanilla
1 pinch salt
4 cups heavy cream
1 1/2 cups sugar.

Dissolve the sugar in the cream, and gradually heat while stirring until hot to the touch.
Whisk the yolks while slowly pouring in a third of the cream, to temper them. Then add the yolk/cream mix back to the cream while whisking.
Heat, continually stirring, until the mix just begins to thicken. Then mix in the remaining ingredients, and pour into a bowl set in ice to cool. Transfer to the refrigerator after the it’s been cooled to room temperature. Cool in fridge for 4 hours, then churn.

With the blackberries you’d best use a food mill on them first, unless you like high fiber ice cream…

[Commenter_XY]

What do you do with the leftover egg whites?

[Brett Bellmore]

We’ve been freezing them so far in case we want to make angelfood cake. It's about the right quantity.

[Don Nico]

Make meringues. The are a number of whites-only cakes besides angel food, for example walnut torte

[John F. Carr]

The Karen Read case is in still in the news for legal reasons.

Prosecutors are working out the Brady issues with a police officer who was thoroughly embarrassed on the witness stand but not convicted of anything. Does his performance have to be disclosed whenever he shows up on a witness list? It may not matter. The officer has been reassigned and may never investigate a case again. He will have to testify at any retrial of Read. Her lawyers already know his secrets.

The jury was hung and a mistrial was declared with no partial verdict entered. The judge did not ask if jurors had reached agreement on individual charges. The defense attorneys heard that all the jurors agreed the defendant was not guilty of murder. They want the murder charge dismissed as if a partial not guilty verdict had been returned. But state law says jurors may not testify about deliberations.

[ThePublius]

I heard that today, that the jurors were unanimous on not guilty on two of the charges, including the top charge. Weird.

[ReaderY]

It’s consistently been argued on this blog that the number of civilians Israel has killed has been grossly disproportionate to civilian deaths in other recent wars waged by Western countries in the area.

In support of this claim, proponents have regularly compared Hamas’ estimates of all Gazan deaths to the US military’s own reports of confirmed deaths directly caused by US soldiers.

To illustrate just how much this is a comparison of raisins to watermellons, it’s worth pointing out this Washington Post estimate at deaths in the US’s post 9/11 21st wars in the airaq and Afganistan at 4.5, million, nearly all civilians.

This estimate, which includes more plausible estimates of direct deaths than the US military’s confirmed reports and also estimates of indirect deaths, is much closer to an apples-to-apples estimate. It much better reflects the true comparability of what Israel has done to what similar Western countries have done.

This ballpark ought to be the working ballpark for any discussion comparing Israel to other countries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terror-911-deaths-afghanistan-iraq/

[tylertusta]

I don't think any aggregate breakdown of civilian deaths is necessarily indicative of the occurrence of war crimes (I'm sure the Hamas sophists here will dispute this).

War is highly contextual, and collateral casualties among the civilian population depends on the nature of the engagement(s) and tactical situation when those casualties occurred.

There is no hard rule that says that X people or more is a war crime. It can be one civilian killed is a war crime. It may be that 50 civilians killed is not a war crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

And when the casualties are innocent shields, their deaths are war crimes by the side using innocent shields, not by the side that killed them, so long as it was in the context of a legitimate military objective.

That's what a lot of Hamas apologists willfully ignore. A lot of those innocent Palestinian deaths are on Hamas' side of the ledger, per international law.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, if there are any 'innocent' civilians in the vicinity of hamas, by and large, it is because they want to be there (in the vicinity of hamas).

[Josh R]

WTF? Gaza is a densely populated urban location. Just about everyone is in the vicinity of something controlled by Hamas.

And your putting innocent in quotes is disgusting.

[tylertusta]

It's not about innocence (or guilt). What matters are whether they are a combatant or non-combatant.

[ReaderY]

Every Hamas fighter is a civilian under Hamas’ definition.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Commenter XY is a disaffected, lying, right-wing bigot who would do or say anything to try to defend or help the lying war criminals, violent bigots, superstitious theocrats, and parasitic assholes of Israel’s right-wing government. He seems to delight in blaming and criticizing the innocent victims of right-wing Israeli belligerents in Gaza and the West Bank. Guys like him, Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben-Givr will be responsible for Israel’s demise.

[Vryedni]

Every innocent shield death is on Hamas' side of the ledger, but some may also be on Israel's side. It isn't zero sum.

[Don Nico]

Jason,
Now do the US supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine.
And while you're at it explain why Hamas destroyed much of the infrastructure that Israel left behind in Gaza in 2006, and just how did HAMAS leaders become billionaires living in luxury in Qatar.

[Vryedni]

No doubt there was a place you meant to leave that comment, and I doubt this was it.

[Don Nico]

It was just above your comment.

[Vryedni]

Well, below on my screen, but yeah, that makes more sense.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You rarely get US law correct, therefore I'd strongly suggest you keep your trap shut about international law.

Israel's choice of munitions has repeatedly been in violated of the Laws of Armed Combat, and demonstrated that civilian deaths are simply not a factor in their decision to bomb anything they feel like.

Open your fucking eyes. Israel has used this as nothing more than an excuse to bomb and mutilate people they (and your good buddy C_XY) consider to be less than human, and to take sovereign territory from another country.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel (at least, as currently constituted) should and likely will pay for its various crimes and wrongs with its national life. Let’s hope better Israelis emigrate to the United States while they still can. They would likely become great Americans.

[ReaderY]

I notice you haven’t bothered to dispute that what Israel does is no different from every other western country. Nor have you bothered to dispute the figures by which thhe number of civilian deaths involved, even by Hamas’ inflated estimates, is tiny compared to the civilian deaths caused by the US wars on terror after 9/11. Nor have you bothered to dispute that no actual Western combatant in any actual war has ever given a shit about, let alone followed, what you claim to be “international law.”

Let’s emphasize that last point. Congress passed a law making it a crime for anyone associated with the International Court of Justice to arrest or interfere with any US service member. Congress has declared the US has no intention of foollowimg its opinions, let alone Hamas’ opinikns, on “International law.” That’s how much respect your shitty “international law” gets internationally.

Let’s stop this bullshit business where outlaw countries can feel completely free to invade other countries, while any attempt by the target countries to fight back or defend themselves gets huge amounts of bullshit whining about how “international law” is being violated.

Worried about civilian deaths incident to Israel’s attempts to root out Hamas fighters dug into urban areas? Urge Hamas to surrender and release the hostages. The war, and the frankly tiny number of civilian deaths compared to what the US caused in its wars against terrorists, will stop.

There are several wars currently going on in the world causing lots of civilian deaths. If you actually care about civilian deaths and are not just engaging in Lawfare propaganda on Hamas’ behalf, consider tallkijg about civilian deaths caused by someone other than Israel for a change.

And that bullshit “international law” rule where “civilians” who “occassionally” fight are conbatants only when actually shooting, and civilians at all other times? You do realize that Hamas claims to have no combatants at all under its interpretation of that definition, right? Every single one is counted as and claimed to be a civilian.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I've repeatedly brought up Israel's prolific use of unguided, 2,000lb bombs in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Other Western countries don't do that shit to the extent Israel has, and instead use guided munitions.

You compare civilian deaths without any regard to the period of time. You make absolute bullshit assertions without a shred of evidence and then post your laughable diatribes about how nobody's disputing your evidence-free claims.

Your complaint about Congress has nothing to do with Israel's actions whatsoever.

If you bring up Israel, I'm going to talk about Israel. I've long supported Ukraine's defense against Russia, and I've criticized Russian aggression and targeting decisions dozens of times. If you want to talk about Russia's deliberate targeting of civilians, let's have that conversation, otherwise you can fuck off with your complaint that I'm talking about the country YOU BROUGHT UP.

As to your addendum below, I suppose it's only my imagination that Israel has taken control of Gaza, and continues to seize territory in the West Bank for their illegal settlements.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for your forceful reply to that hypocrite, Jason C

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh no! Putin's propaganda czar thinks I'm a hypocrite!

Of course, you can't actually point to anything as evidence to support that accusation, but when has the absence of proof stopped you from ignorantly running your mouth previously?

[ReaderY]

What sovereign territory has Israel taken from another sovereign country that was not renounced by that country in a peace treaty? Please specify. Both Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties ceding their claims on all of their former territories that were not returned to them.

For example, the peace treaty with Jordan specifies that Jordan’s western border follows the Jordan River, Dead Sea, and Arava wadi. Jordan accepted the loss of its territory.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the Golan Heights?

[tylertusta]

As an aside, if Syria was willing to negotiate a peace treaty with Israel that included security guarantees, Israel would probably be willing to relinquish the Golan Heights.

[Martinned2]

What sovereign territory has Israel taken from another sovereign country that was not renounced by that country in a peace treaty?

That's not how this works. Israel doesn't just get to take East Jerusalem just because Jordan says it doesn't want it anymore.

[Don Nico]

After Syria lost the 6-day war. It is on al-Assad.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s exactly how “it works”
Frank

[ReaderY]

The Economist, a publication not known for shrill anti-science right-wing conspiracy screeds, recently published an article questioning the science behind providing trans therapy to youths early and suggesting the summaries of the science presented by advocates of trans therapy have to courts been biased and inaccurate.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am interested in science- and other reality-based information and opinions concerning transgender treatment and issues.

I am not interested in information deriving from old-timey bigotry or older-timey superstition in that context.

[Theendoftheleft]

No, you pretend to be interested in it. When scientific data doesn't comport with your ideological biases, such as it being a matter of dysmorphia, you ignore or downplay it. Again, that's because of your commitment to vestigial concepts from the old-timey superstitious cults, such as equality and the dignity of personhood.

Indeed, your lot lot actually tries to suppress such data and label it 'harmful', no doubt because it threatens your dogmas.

This is, of course, true for other areas too: on free will, on IQ, etc.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's not surprising. Several European countries have started hitting the breaks on those sorts of "therapies" for minors for a reason.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Karen McDonald, pioneer and hero. An inspiration concerning the good that can be produced with a law degree. Every day the Crumbleys -- all of them -- are off the public streets is a better day for America.

James Crumbley, in particular, should die in prison. I hope he does the longest, hardest time that can lawfully and reasonably be arranged.

"Kick out the freaks." Words to live by.

Congratulations, Karen McDonald!

[MoreCurious]

We need more heroes like that prosecution team. What they accomplished should be striking fear in the hearts of all gun-hugging parents. Putting parents like the Crumbleys in jail will not bring back the murdered children, but it will make the world safer for children who would like to exercise their right to go to school and return home safe at the end of the day.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's too bad they weren't parents of a tranny like all those other recent mass murderers, then the FBI and some corrupt Affirmative Action judges would've pulled out all the stops to cover up and protect them.

[MoreCurious]

You're sick, you need help, and whatever you were trying to say when you wrote those words is unintelligible (sort of like Drackman). I hope your family and friends don't allow you anywhere near firearms, motor vehicles, or sharp implements.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The FBI did try to cover up that tranny manifesto in Nashville and some diverse judge did just rule that all that tranny's material was "copyrighted" therefore can't be released.

You are just a low-information, angry bigot. Not a good look.

[hobie]

Heh. Bigot. Irony

[MoreCurious]

Thank for your constant reminders that you're an uneducated, inarticulate, low-life moron. Your constant ignorant comments make it certain that no one on this blog will ever take you seriously. But don't stop now, we can all use a good laugh.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://nypost.com/2023/08/02/tn-gov-fbi-hiding-nashville-shooter-manifesto-ramaswamy/

https://nypost.com/2024/07/05/us-news/nashville-school-shooters-manifesto-cant-be-released-judge/

You low-information idiot.

[MoreCurious]

Pretty pathetic. You apparently think you're making a point when all you're doing is making a fool of yourself. Keep up the good work.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I did a pretty good job of making the point that you're severely lacking in the information category.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He also is the target audience of this white, male, faux libertarian, movement conservative blog.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I see you're a fan. Would you like to subscribe to my substack?

[Stephen Lathrop]

MoreCurious — Not all of us. To me, you look like you are attempting dialogue with a grey box.

It’s a shame what has happened to this blog since the pre-WaPo days. For a while I attempted to ignore the ongoing decline, but unaccountably did not make much use of the mute function.

That ended up just making me ashamed to be spending discretionary time among idiots. So in frustration I decided to make liberal use of the mute function, to get the idiots out of sight. It worked!

That bit of self-deception is the only thing enabling me to continue commenting here. But I have had to caution my wife and son never to disclose to anyone in the extended family that I do it. Can’t risk it. They would see all the swill I have muted. My in-laws are tactful people, who keep their adverse judgments to themselves.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I say he was a 2A nut.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Part of it is just fundamental justice. Those parents are lousy people whose recklessness, negligence, stupidity, and antisocial nature caused egregious harm and deserves severe punishment. If the example inclines some gun nuts to be less dumb, disaffected, and dangerous, that’s great, too.

[M L]

Really underscores the importance of teaching your kids from a young age how to handle firearms responsibly and effectively.

[Theendoftheleft]

“Kick out the freaks.”

Do you go around the gaybourhoods of SF and NY, or around Dearborn Michigan, chanting this?

[hobie]

Yes, when you see people arming their children, with their unformed child brains, and placing them in Christmas card photos holding their weapons, and basically using their children as a 'fuck you' to society, what could go wrong?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those assholes are no problem the culture war and natural course replacement are not already solving

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, thanks for reminding me: I promised my son I'd start taking him to the range regularly when he turns 16 this fall.

[ThePublius]

When I was one of the coaches for our club's junior shooting program we had children younger than 16; I think we started at 12 or so. My son was the Mass State Junior Champion at 16, and was invited to the Olympic development camp in Colorado Springs that summer.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would have started long ago, if I still lived in a rural area. Sadly, I'm no longer living on 16 acres, with a 100m shooting range starting at my porch rail. When we moved down South back in '08, my wife wanted someplace closer to shopping.

[Frank Drackman]

I earned my “Rifle & Shotgun Shooting” Boy Scouts Merit Badge when I was 11, got my first Rifle “Ted Williams” 22LR semi auto when I was 10, 38 special revolver (S&W Model 10) on my 13th Birthday, Remington Model 700ADL 30:06 on my 16th, 3 pretty decent guns but they wouldn’t let me have a motorcycle and had to buy my own first car

Frank

[Don Nico]

You're right. Arming children in Africa destroys countless lives, young and old.

[Frank Drackman]

And like in Amurica, most of them deserve it. How many People’s of Color were shot in Atlanta, Chicago, and the District of Colored Peoples over July 4th holiday?

Frank

[M L]

Biden is doing orange spray tan now and griping about “the elites.” Hm.

[Don Nico]

Finally, he is learning from Mr Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Naw, Parkinsonian Joe saw the light on Tarrifs before he did anything about his cadaverous hue

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

In light of Biden bragging about his golf game, and assertions that there's nothing wrong with him, Trump just challenged Biden to, not just another debate, but also a charity golf match, spotting Biden 20 holes, and promising $1M to the charity of Biden's choice if he wins.

The Biden campaign's response was kind of pathetic.