Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Here we go again.

[Joe_dallas]

Cannon dismisses Smith as unconstitutional appointment

I have no current opinion on the merits -

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-trump-documents-case-135928486.html

[not guilty]

Here is the order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.672.0_2.pdf

I will comment after reading it.

[windycityattorney]

So I read a little bit of it (main summary points) and I see what she is saying. There are 3 ways to appoint independent counsel's who exercise the same authority as a US Attorney. None of which were followed here. Mainly, its because a statute that authorized independent counsel's expired and hasn't been replaced.

Regardless of that; I am trying to figure out a situation wherein the Atty Gen feels like there is a conflict of interest. If the Atty Gen is conflicted, then presumably so could also the existing US Attorneys (all appointed by Pres Biden) since the source of the conflict stems from the current President running for re-election prosecuting his main political rival (and former president).

How does the Atty General proceed under a conflict? If they cannot appoint someone from outside the DOJ and all US Attorneys within the DOJ are also possibly conflicted, there is nothing they can do? What the fuck? In my state, if the D.A. has a conflict every attorney in her office has a conflict (they are treated like a lawfirm for conflict purposes) and they bring in someone from the appellate prosecutors office as conflict counsel. Does the DOJ have something similar?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Unlike most states (if memory serves, the exceptions are Alaska, Delaware, and Rhode Island), all federal prosecution is under the supervision of the attorney general. If the U.S. Attorney is conflicted from a case, DOJ will assign it to a different U.S. Attorney's Office or litigating component (as with a recent high-profile murder for hire and corruption trial in Hawaii). Also note that special counsels like Mueller, Smith, or Hur are not the independent counsels like Ken Starr: they're still supervised by DOJ/the AG. Also note that no one (except Profs. Blackman and Tillman) disputes that Congress could easily authorize the appointment of special counsels: the only issue here, as far as I can see, is whether it has.

[Kazinski]

I don’t see how Smith is less conflicted than Garland.

Both of them would crawl over broken glass to convict Trump and send him to jail.

But I am a little surprised, Josh must be he’ll on wheels in oral argument. Although Thomas giving her cover, hijacking the Immunity opinion to lay out the case in his concurrence was probably more decisive.

Big win for both Blackman, and Calabresi.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This order is based on Prof. Calabresi’s argument, not Prof. Blackman’s (much sillier) one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Big win for both Blackman, and Calabresi."

Until it isn't. The bright side is neither has much reputation among mainstream legal academics that could be diminished.

Their clingerverse cred, of course, is safe.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘ The bright side is neither has much reputation among mainstream legal academics that could be diminished’.

We just had another faculty meeting that made fun of American (‘mainstream’) legal academics and their scholarship. We all had a good laugh.

Yours aren’t merely the simulacrum of genuine university faculties and departments. They’re a threat to the core mandates of a university as a centre of knowledge production and the pursuit of truth. Yours are literally regressive.

Reputations are often made in ‘mainstream’ American law faculties upon grounds that real academics, in civilised countries with far better unis and law schools, deem to be preposterous, childish, amateurish, and unscholarly.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t see how Smith is less conflicted than Garland.

Both of them would crawl over broken glass to convict Trump and send him to jail.

That is not, in fact, a conflict of interest.

[Joe_dallas]

In the coming weeks, there is a very real possibility that the federal district court in Florida will rule that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith as a special counsel (SC) violated the Constitution’s appointments clause (Art. II, §2, cl.2).

He reasoned:

Attorneys who authorize the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes must be officers of the United States because they wield significant government power. Under the clause, there are just two ways of qualifying as an officer of the United States: the appointee must either be (a) nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, or (b) appointed to a position that “shall be established by law” — which is to say, by a congressional statute.

Smith, who has run the Trump investigations since his SC appointment by Garland on November 18, 2022, was not appointed under either of those procedures. To the contrary, he was purportedly appointed under the Justice Department’s SC regulations.

[not guilty]

As I have written elsewhere on this thread, the language of 28 U.S.C. § 533 is clear and impossible for any objective reader to misunderstand:

The Attorney General may appoint officials—
(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States;
* * *
(4) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General.

That is precisely what Merrick Garland did here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Neal Katyal has an opinion. He published it in The New York Times. With receipts.

I would trust Katyal over that deer-in-the-headlights lightweight Cannon with respect to anything, including the date of Cannon's mobbed-up marriage, the proper spelling of Cannon's name, or the current location of Cannon's MAGA hat collection. I blame my education, character, judgment, and experience for that.

[Theendoftheleft]

Conditioning, not proper education. Your conditioning.

You’re a good little drone, so you don’t even understand that your identity (as an American with the ‘correct’ views) is shaped by the IDEA that you are well-educated, a critical thinker, a discerning sceptic, a reflective person, etc. These are nothing more than the pretenses of your culture. You’ve provided more than abundant evidence here on VC that you aren’t those things. You don’t even understand basic logic. You don’t revise your views in the face of counterexamples, in the face of objective scientific empirical data, etc.

Most likely you do not do so because you cannot do so. You lack the capacity and aptitude.

Manufactured consent. Manufactured ideological frame, leading you to wrongly exclude data that doesn’t comport with your conditioning.

Good little drone.

Carry on, AIDS. Till everyone you love goes down when your culture war turns hot.

[AmosArch]

I’d speak but I’m afraid a leftist here might try to bump me off for having a different political opinion or at the very least stand on the sidelines and cheer on the attempt, all but try to justify it with a longwinded ‘bothsides’ post, or say I concocted the attack myself as a publicity stunt.

[Krychek_2]

Far more likely they'd just roll their eyes at your usual silliness.

[Krychek_2]

By the way, does it occur to you that if you are truly concerned about wanting to lower the volume on violent political rhetoric, one place to start would be for you to stop blaming "the left" for the acts of a single deranged individual, especially when it's far from clear that he was even a leftist himself? At age 17 he made a one-time $15 donation to a leftist organization; are your politics defined by everything you said and did when you were 17? Don't know about you, but my own politics were in a state of flux at the time. And three years later he was a registered Republican.

This is not about you being truly concerned about reducing hostilities. This is about you smearing an entire movement over far from clear facts. If you want to reduce hostilities, maybe stop with your own rhetoric.

[Frank Drackman]

Stop being such a Pussy, you've said "45" is an "Existential" Threat to our way of life, what do you do with Existential Threats?

Frank

[Krychek_2]

You don’t re-elect them. Sorry your world is such that your immediate answer to that question would be violence.

Just to be clear, I do not want Trump re-elected, but I don't want him shot either. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Armchair]

An "existential" threat is one that threatens existence. Such a threat, if was truly existential, would justify many actions, including those that would be considered crimes.

For example, imagine a madman had their finger on a button that would launch a number of nuclear weapons at major cities. Many would consider this an "existential" threat, one that would justify killing the madman.

If, however, the threat is such that killing a single person to stop it wouldn't be justified, perhaps that threat isn't actually existential.

[Krychek_2]

This is a much longer discussion than a single post here, but my suspicion is that Western Civilization is on the way out due to factors beyond the control of any American president, and of which Trump is symptom rather than a cause. I think we're living in 1930s Berlin. Keeping Trump out of the White House again may buy us some time but probably not much time. So what I really think is that (1) he’s an existential threat and (2) there’s not much to be done about it.

That said, even if I otherwise agreed with your premise, shooting someone is a last resort rather than a first resort. Let’s try first to keep him out of power through the normal democratic processes. If that fails, then let’s try minimizing the damage he can do through such checks and balances as still remain. Failing all that, if shooting him really is the only thing that will work, then I guess we cross that bridge when we come to it. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near that bridge yet. And I hope it remains that way.

[Armchair]

That sounds like you are justifying assassinating the president.

"If we can keep him out of the white house through the electoral system, great. If not...well, assassination may be called for".

[Krychek_2]

That’s because you were predisposed to believe that’s what I was going to say. You blew right past my qualifier that “even if I agreed with your premise.” If you read something, looking for it to say that, then that’s what you’ll find. It’s called confirmation bias.

Suppose, using your own illustration, he is that madman with his finger on the button that's going to nuke multiple large cities. As I read your own hypo, you yourself would acknowledge that in such a case assassination might be justified. Fortunately such situations rarely arise in the real world.

[Armchair]

As I mentioned, given your wording, it sounds like you're justifying assassinating the president. Your qualifier was rather modest.

But thank you for clarifying. You may want clearer wording in the future. Something along the lines of "absolute last resort, only in the most severe of situations".

[Sarcastr0]

Threat is not certainty.

You don't really believe that the only response to an existential threat to ignore all rules and laws to wipe it out; there are some on here that extreme, you are not one of them.

You just want to argue libs into being that extreme. I suspect your argument will only convince yourself.

[Riva]

Argue libs into being extreme? All one need do is look at past comments here, or anywhere you scunge write your dribble.

[Krychek_2]

Riva, it's "drivel." "Dribble" is what you do to a basketball.

[Sarcastr0]

I've never, ever argued for political violence. And I'm not sure I've seen any of the liberals/lefties on here argue for such.

On the other hand, from the righties on here there has been plenty of cheering of Rittenhouse, Abbot for pardoning that other guy who killed libs. Explicit calls for concentration camps, for gassing...
And that's not even including Dr. Ed's bloody minded craziness.

Oh, and the threats of Civil War 2. Soooo many threats of Civil War 2. Coming from the right.

[Riva]

Krychek_2, it also means to drool, like rabid liberal ranters here and virtually everywhere else. But I’ll be magnanimous and give you drivel too, you ignorant moron.

[Riva]

Yeah, right Sarcastr0, you might want to look a little more closely. And while you’re at it, peruse the media you clowns adore. And what did Biden say before this assassination attempt? Time to put a bullseye on him, among other crazy extreme rhetoric from the Charlottesville lie he continues to use to asinine comments about dictatorships and threats to democracy.

[Krychek_2]

Riva, just curious: Who taught you a four-syllable word?

[Sarcastr0]

You: "All one need do is look at past comments here"

No new goalposts.

[Riva]

Based on the responses here, it appears that self-reflection is beyond the capacity of the modern progressive so I expect the asinine Hitler analogies to resume soon. You buffoons can’t help yourselves.

[Krychek_2]

Riva, I would never compare you to Hitler. Hitler could actually put together a coherent sentence.

[Riva]

From a guy who can’t define “dribble.” Like I said, no ability for self-reflection.

[Krychek_2]

*I* didn't define dribble; I relied on the dictionary definition. Maybe you should try the same.

[Riva]

If you want to continue to dispute the meaning of “dribble” feel free. I can almost picture the saliva dribbling from your mouth.

[Krychek_2]

I'm not continuing to dispute anything. I already told you how the dictionary defines it. You're the one whose initial sloppy use of language generated this conversation.

[Riva]

That you are ignorant on the meaning of a word does not make me sloppy. It just makes you, well, ignorant. Dialing the lack of self-reflection up to 11.

[Krychek_2]

No, you being sloppy makes you sloppy.

[Don Nico]

"an existential threat"
That is simply inflammatory hogwash and fear-mongering. Grow up

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, Don. Anyone who doesn't want to sit back, relax, and enjoy the Trumping is fearmongering.

I think you're wrong, based on Trump's past behavior, current rhetoric, and his advisors' actions.

The future is as of yet unwritten, but I don't like the risk. Your ignoring of the risk, and anger at all who are not ignoring the risk, seems dumb and bad to me.

[PLP 2]

Nonsense. No sane person here is advocating assignation!!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's something of a perfect storm of causes, so it's hard to pinpoint any one cause.

Western political classes have developed something of a monoculture, which was on display during Covid; They're all tending to make the same mistakes at the same time, and because they tend to agree with each other, they find it very easy to treat out-group opinions as simply illegitimate, and not deserving of representation in government.

At the same time, you have a loss of humility about governance; People are losing the idea that modest majorities should have modest aims, and instead set out to do massive an irreversible things based on the thinnest and most ephemeral majorities. Getting wins that can't be reversed even if you lose the next election is seen as clever, not as violating the basic principles of democracy.

Making things worse in the US is that we've gone a very long time compared to Europe without any sort of political "reset", so our entrenched elites are REALLY entrenched, and are massively gaming the system to keep themselves that way.

Finally, in the US we have a small government constitution, and yet we have massive government. This requires staffing the government with people who are comfortable swearing to uphold a constitution that, honestly interpreted, doesn't permit most of what they'll be doing. You can't cabin that sort of fundamental dishonesty into just one area of life, so we get a lot of corruption.

[Stephen Lathrop]

People are losing the idea that modest majorities should have modest aims, and instead set out to do massive an irreversible things based on the thinnest and most ephemeral majorities.

That, coming from an advocate for governance by actual minorities, is peculiar.

[Brett Bellmore]

Considering that what I mean by "governance" is mostly leaving people the hell alone and letting them keep their own money, no.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Finally, in the US we have a small government constitution, and yet we have massive government.

Neither American constitutionalism, nor the Constitution itself, has anything to say about the size of government, except for leaving the People at liberty to decide that question themselves. If after trying it out for a while, they decide they don't like what they decided previously, they remain at perfect liberty to try whatever they think they prefer next, and so on.

There is not even a hint of corruption required for that. On the other hand, to advocate as you do, that the size of government must be forced into a smaller mold for no constitutional reason at all, and without political resort to Constitutional process, does require corruption to accomplish.

[Brett Bellmore]

The US Constitution has a hell of a lot to say about the scope of the federal government. Starting with the 10th amendment. The entire modern administrative state depends on ignoring what it has to say about that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

blockquote>The entire modern administrative state depends on ignoring what it has to say about that.

Not sure I follow. What does the Tenth Amendment have to say about whether the federal government makes rules through an executive agency versus Congress?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Bellmore, you are reading the 10A as if you think it is a repetition of the 9A. It is not.

Confusion among those unschooled in founding era history leads to a lot of misunderstanding about that, especially among would-be libertarians. Notice that the word is, “powers,” not, “rights.” Powers are not in the context of governance attributes of individuals; they are attributes of governments, or of a sovereign.

Notice that, “or,”; it does not imply, “either to the states, or to individuals acting privately.” It refers instead to the two levels of joint sovereignty at work in American constitutionalism, state and federal. Powers left unenumerated are thus not by the Constitution purported to be extinguished. If the joint sovereigns of the states, or of the nation, wish to deploy or constrain those powers via government, they retain the power to do either by joint sovereign action, just as they did with other enumerated powers.

The 9A is where you look for unenumerated rights, but those do not include any right to decree the size of government. Conceivably that could happen as a sovereign power under the 10A, but it has not happened.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Bellmore, you are reading the 10A as if you think it is a repetition of the 9A. It is not. ... The 9A is where you look for unenumerated rights, but those do not include any right to decree the size of government."

Yes, and that's why I specified the 10th amendment, because I was discussing the topic of which powers the federal government is, and isn't, constitutionally entitled to exercise. Rather that what rights individuals have.

Practically the whole of the modern federal administrative state is regulating matters outside of the federal government's enumerated powers to regulate, by means of a gross misinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause, effectively rendering everything after "To regulate" moot.

This is, of course, a separate issue from the matter of the unconstitutionality of Congress delegating a portion of it's law making power to the executive branch.

[Sarcastr0]

To Krycheck and Brett –
It is a symptom of being somewhat on the fringe to think your society is doomed as-is.

And nothing wrong with that thinking, except to think you're for sure correct.
You could be right! Nothing lasts forever. But one thing history does tell us is doomsayers are wrong vastly more often than they are right.

Don't go on the presumption your sense of doom is right; that can lead to some weird places.

[Krychek_2]

Sarcastro, I see you posted this just before I posted my comment below. Let me know if anything I said changes your mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Not really. Though my biases are like tailor made to miss a darker shift in our country, including both status quo bias and a general optimism about humanity.

Humans are fickle and changeable; plenty of the hard core Trump voters now were progressives 60 years ago. These things go in cycles (until they don't).
And a society changes as humans die off; I'm optimistic about the younger generations waiting in the wings.
And, finally, a state is a third thing that doesn't quite act human. Who is to say what behaviors will emerge?

Just because you (and I) don't see how it'll swing back in a continuous and not discontinuous/revolutionary way does not mean it won't.

[Krychek_2]

No, Brett, that's not it.

The whole idea of civilization is getting people to do things that don't benefit themselves personally. Sometimes, as with the Roman empire, this was imposed by force of arms, but we decided to take a different tack in which an appeal would be made to the better angels of our nature. And, also, to appeal to those same better angels to get past our religious, racial, and sex-based stereotypes so that we could, if not be one big happy family, at least live in peace and share civil society with one another.

Well, it hasn't worked. What we have learned from Trump is that a significant percentage of the population doesn't have better angels, and Trump's primary accomplishment was to organize them and bring them together into a critical mass. And that's why our society is falling apart. Because the people who never really were on board with progress or communitarianism or treating others as they wish to be treated were always there; they had simply been lurking in the background. Now that they've been organized and given a voice, they intend to tear down 200 years of progress. And you needn't take my word for it; they are very plainly saying so. Have a look at this, just for starters:

https://warhornmedia.com/2024/07/10/christian-nationalist-party-a-simple-biblical-platform/

And it's not just in the United States. Country after country is moving away from small-l liberal values and back in the direction of authoritarianism, raw racism, religious prejudice, intolerance, and violence as a means to resolve social issues.

I think we are about to enter a very dark period. Half of me is happy that I'm old enough that I probably won't live long enough to see the results.

[Don Nico]

Wow!. If you are that pessimistic you need to go into the desert to pray

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Because superstitious nonsense improves anything?

[ducksalad]

The whole idea of civilization is getting people to do things that don’t benefit themselves personally.

Got to stop you there. That's the definition of civilization the priestly/royal/political classes have always promoted to the suckers they lead. Do lots of giving and don't worry about who's doing the taking.

A better definition of civilization is getting people to realize that they personally benefit from having some rules and taking the long view of things.

As far as this "dark period" boaf sidez are wailing about, everyone get a grip. Every major historical record is filled with assassinations, the world kept turning. The US alone has survived four completed ones and this was just an attempt.

...authoritarianism, raw racism, religious prejudice, intolerance, and violence as a means to resolve social issues.

There never were any good old days when we were free of that stuff. Don't confuse increased awareness of the problem with increased amount of the problem.

[Krychek_2]

ducksalad, there are taxes I pay for government services from which I benefit only very indirectly, if at all, and also for government services that I could take care of on my own more cheaply. And, there are times when my personal self interest would be better served by completely ignoring the rules.

Yet society is better off for having me contribute to the whole shebang rather than try to opt out of this or that program. So at least some of the time, being part of civil society means setting my personal interests aside because *we* are better off for having the structure.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea of civilization as being solely based on personal benefit is pretty bad.
It can be both personal benefit and some of our higher desires.

As other posts I have here, I don't think wester civilization is in danger of imminent collapse.
But I do think there's risk to America's institutional foundation from this populist nonsense. And it's needless, which is frustrating.

Risk is not assured. It is also not to be ignored.

[ducksalad]

Krychek, viewing altruism and the collective good as your highest personal goal is fine. I don't think it's what distinguishes civilized from uncivilized.

Civilization means having rules and structures (both physical and social) that enable division of labor.

[JasonT20]

So what I really think is that (1) he’s an existential threat and (2) there’s not much to be done about it.

I disagree with both of those statements, with some qualifiers.

(1) For me, and existential threat needs to be fairly imminent. If I’m driving toward a cliff, but I am half a mile away, is the cliff an existential threat? If the cliff is on the other side of a barrier, and a well marked road with good visibility turns away from the cliff, then I wouldn’t think of the cliff as much of a danger at all. I would just need to be a normally attentive and competent driver to avoid the danger entirely, and only extremely unlikely circumstances would make the danger existential (such as mechanical failure of my vehicle’s steering or an oncoming vehicle swerving at me just as I approach the curve, and the failure of the barrier to stop my vehicle from going over the cliff).

It is not that certain that Trump’s reelection would pose an existential threat to American democratic government or the security of the country from foreign and domestic threats. As you say yourself, there would still be guardrails, if nothing else to potentially limit the damage. The dangers are very real, but they don’t rise to the level of being existential. It is more that Trump and MAGA are symptoms, as you and many others say, of a larger trend of weakening the confidence of the population in democracy and their desire for it.

(2) I also disagree that there is nothing much to be done about it. Now, there is not much that any one of us can do about it on our own, for sure. Nor can people that oppose Trump do much more than they already are doing. But what needs to happen is for enough people to reflect on what democracy is and why it is important.

Trump and MAGA are antithetical to that first principle of the Founding – Our individual rights are protected by a government that is fully accountable to us, and it is through elections that we hold our government accountable. Libertarians and conservatives are predisposed to fail to recognize this, because of their skepticism of government power. But it is a fundamental truth that the danger of government abuse of power is not solved by eliminating government. That just creates anarchy where our rights are only secured by our own ability to protect them with force. And there will always be someone with bigger or more guns than ours. [Edit: It also does nothing to solve government abuse of power to make sure that we are the ones in control of the power, by any means necessary, so that we can enforce our ideas of what is just on everyone else when we can't convince a majority to agree on what is just. That just makes us the dictator, even if we view ourselves as a benevolent one.]

The difficult part of democracy is the trust we have to place in our fellow citizens that they will vote to protect our rights in the same way that we vote to protect their rights. Democracy is government on hard mode, no question about it. The goal of all of our political discourse has to be to convince everyone else that protecting democracy itself must always be the highest priority in how to vote. Beyond that, we just have to be sure we act on that ourselves, even if we don’t believe others will do the same. But the Golden Rule is called that for a very good reason. You do what is right because it is right, not because it benefits you.

[M L]

Krychek_2 wrote:

Let’s try first to keep him out of power through the normal democratic processes. If that fails, then let’s try minimizing the damage he can do through such checks and balances as still remain. Failing all that, if shooting him really is the only thing that will work, then I guess we cross that bridge when we come to it. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near that bridge yet.

Wow.

So you might support assassinating the President, under some circumstances, if it’s the only thing that will “work.” If I am misconstruing your position then please correct me.

Can you describe this a bit more? What do you mean by “work,” and what would be an example of not working? For example, if the President closes the border and stops illegal immigration, is that the level of evil you have in mind? Or if he goes after abortion?

Of course, we did have a revolution here, back at the founding. Our founders would not have entertained murdering King George and pulling a coup to take over the British monarchy, though. Not because they couldn’t, but because such a move would be abhorrent to the moral philosophy that guided their actions. Instead, they simply rejected British governance and declared independence. This would be like a state or states leaving the Union now.

Compare this with your ghastly alternative of murder and coups – the stuff of actual civil wars, where two sides are fighting for control of the same country, rather than fighting to achieve or prevent independence of some part. By comparison, secession is potentially quite elegant, graceful, and morally sound, not to mention legally and historically legitimate.

[Krychek_2]

ML, there is a difference between what I might support under extreme circumstances that are extremely unlikely to ever actually happen in the real world, versus what I would support under circumstances that are ever actually likely to arise. If we had a situation in which the president were on North Korea's payroll and passing them our nuclear launch codes, and had put sycophants in charge of the Pentagon who refused to do anything about it, and Congress was controlled by members of his own party that wouldn't impeach him, might an assassination be appropriate? Maybe, though even then I would first look for alternative means.

Is that likely to happen any time soon? Nope.

The question to which I was responding was whether there was any theoretically possible set of circumstances under which it might be appropriate to assassinate the president. If I set my fertile imagination to it, might I come up with such a circumstance? Of course. Likely? No.

There's an old joke about a man and a woman talking at a party. He asks her if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She said sure. He said what about for $20. She said what do I look like, a hooker? He said we've already established that; now we're just dickering over the price.

I've never found the point of that joke persuasive. I think that there are things one might do in extremis that would not define what they do as a normal matter of course. Same principle here.

Did that answer your question?

[M L]

Wait, in your example you “try first to keep him out of power through the normal democratic processes" ? So, did this president campaign on passing North Korea our “nuclear launch codes” and the people decided that was OK and elected him? And since opposing him by democratic processes didn't work, that's when you go to the last resort option? Or was this a new development after he became president, in which case do you try to defeat him at the ballot box first when he is up for reelection, pointing out to the public that he gave codes to North Korea, but then if that doesn’t work and the people reelect him anyway, that’s when you do the murder and coup part?

[JasonT20]

So you might support assassinating the President, under some circumstances, if it’s the only thing that will “work.” If I am misconstruing your position then please correct me.

You and others seem to be arguing with Krychek over whether or when it is justified to try and assassinate a political leader. I find that discussion to be fairly pointless. As Krychek points out, the kinds of extreme circumstances where that question could be become a "maybe" are so far down the road toward dystopia that it belongs in dystopian fiction, not a serious debate about American politics.

I have been trying to make the case that the best way, by far, to avoid concerns about how to deal with an out of control political system is to focus on strengthening people's confidence in and respect for the results of elections. When people can trust that they will have the opportunity to change the government when it starts to go too far, then we're a long way from having to consider any "2nd Amendment solutions" to the problems.

That's not an easy task, but it is an essential one and should always be everyone's highest priority of governance.

[M L]

Krycheck lays out a framework for when it is OK to assassinate a US president in modern day USA.

1. Let’s try first to keep him out of power through the normal democratic processes.

2. If that fails, then let’s try minimizing the damage he can do through such checks and balances as still remain.

3. Failing all that, if shooting him really is the only thing that will work, then I guess we cross that bridge when we come to it.

He adds - But I don’t think we’re anywhere near that bridge yet. And I hope it remains that way.

That's his comment. There's actually quite a lot to it, and a lot that can be said about it.

For my part, I don't agree with it at all. Do you?

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord that’s sweaty.

Noscitur a sociis said it well:
“the only people here who seem to be upset are Trump partisans disappointed that the liberals aren’t reacting as gracelessly as they’d hoped.”

No one is as frustrated as a partisan finding their planned demonization of the other side to have evaporated.

[JasonT20]

I told you. I find this discussion to be pointless, and I won't engage in these hypotheticals. For your part, you seem to be working really hard to force this discussion along this path. I suggesting finding something more practical and relevant to argue about.

[M L]

Sarcastro - No, that's not remotely accurate, I didn't expect any liberals here to support assassination or otherwise comport themselves with any more or less grace than usual.

Jason - That's fine. I think Krychek's comment was troubling on its face, without the need for getting into any hypotheticals.

[Armchair]

" my suspicion is that Western Civilization is on the way out due to factors beyond the control of any American president,"

Well, let's offer a different explanation.

You have an elite class which has increasingly centered power, resources, and finances towards that elite class at the expense of the rest of the populous. And because of that, the common populous is "fed up." Here's a nice link of "inequality" and how it's risen in various countries. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time/

Many of the people in the democracies across the world are upset at this growing inequality, and putting people into power they think will fix it, while voting out the elites who have been perpetrating it.

[JasonT20]

That could be part of the explanation of what we see, but then it would be unfortunate that so many of the ordinary people that are "fed up" are turning to right-wing populists and their not-so-subtle rhetoric that amounts to the Great Replacement Theory. That is because the right-wing populism in the U.S. will not lead to "voting out the elites who have been perpetrating it," because Republicans have been knee deep in the policies that have helped inequality worsen over the last few decades. And they will continue to do so, but it is hard to see when they do such a great job of convincing people that the "cultural marxists" are coming to turn everyone gay and/or trans.

[Theendoftheleft]

Many of the people in the democracies across the world are upset at this growing inequality, and putting people into power they think will fix it, while voting out the elites who have been perpetrating it.

Emphasis on ‘think’.

That also isn’t the best explanation for what’s happened in France, though, the rest of the Continent, or in the Anglosphere aside from Blighty and Oz.

Regardless, American (and the Continent) is due for a reckoning when it comes to worrying about growing inequality, collapsing birthrates, and the fundamental reliance on the mass ‘illegal’ importation of poor unskilled illiterate labour. This is bad here in Europe. But it far worse in the USA, where your blue states systematically violate their own labour, health, and safety laws when it comes to your illegal aliens. An overcoming of these fundamental contradictions is coming, and it won’t bode well for blue teamers’ identities being wrapped up in the ideas of being the ones who are ‘socially aware’, ‘inclusive’, promoters of ‘equity’ or 'equality', etc.

[Theendoftheleft]

You're not living in 1930s Berlin.

You're living in pre-WWI.

Your empire wants to maintain itself in the face of its first real threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union. (The argument is being made, in unis and elsewhere, that today's is a far larger threat than the Soviets and their bloc ever were.) It's looking ever more doubtful that you'll win this new cold war/world war.

You're also not facing real fascism or authoritarianism at home. That's just a delegitimization tactic. Indeed, your Trumpian red teamers, we your allies in the rest of the West, and the entire Global South, can now see that your side is totalitarian. This is something the far left, too, has probably understood for quite some time. I do not say this to insult you or denigrate you. You are not fascists per se (though there is room for debate about how your media, corporations, and unis REALLY operate when it comes to identity issues). You are totalitarian, and your global project is such as well.

To be clear, we, your allies in the rest of the West, will not fight or die for you and your ill-considered global agenda and empire. Further, all the data shows that your traditional sources for your military will not enlist either. They finally understand what your elites are REALLY all about and they won't let their children die for you. So, like the Romans long ago, you're now dependent upon foreigners to fill the ranks. You can try the conscription route, but you're not in the right cultural frame of mind for people to comply. Indeed, rather than people burning draft cards as during the Vietnam War, the whites and working poor will likely respond with large-scale violence to such prospects.

If you shoot Trump, by the way, you should also expect a large-scale civil violence. It won't be a 'civil war' because one side lacks the weapons, training, competency, and will. It will be a bloodbath in every blue city and every blue state. My friends have been discussing this prospect since 2005. We will have a get-together and watch it all on television.

[Your Public Name Here]

1930s Berlin wasn't on its way out, but rather in its ascendancy, right? That doesn't seem like a good example of a society in decline (even if the ethos is awful). More like the late Roman Empire or Weimar Germany.

[OtisAH]

Oh look, piece of shit is suddenly very concerned about rhetoric. No surprise here, though. Piece of shit is gonna piece of shit no matter what.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't forget that video of him screaming about cutting the heads off every Republican.

That definitely suggests he's a mainstream Democrat.

[Krychek_2]

And from which conspiracy theory Web site did you pull that little nugget? Let me guess: The same one that is reporting that Hillary Clinton is having an affair with Elvis.

[darkknight9]

That *can't* be true.

Elvis would never hit that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I've posted a link to the video in the other thread.

You can watch it for yourself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Check your facts — I think this was registration as a 14 year old as I have seen mention that 2024 would have been the first election that the perp could have voted in. Some schools are doing this now, I think it is asinine.

I give more creedence to the more recent $15 donation. It is the act not the amount — Obama is on YouTube asking for $5 donations.

[Malika the Maiz]

"I think this was registration as a 14 year old as I have seen mention that 2024 would have been the first election that the perp could have voted in. "

Crooks was a registered Republican,[1][8][11][30] and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18.[1] Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.[4]

Also, “To register to vote in Pennsylvania, you must:
Be at least 18 years of age on or before the day of the next primary, special, municipal, or general election.”

https://www.pa.gov/en/agencies/vote/voter-registration/voter-registration-requirements.html

[Kazinski]

At this point, I'm not seeing Cross as a committed leftist being the motivation.

I haven't completed my full psychological profile yet for the FBI, but here are the highlights:

Friendless loner (not an incel, most 20 year olds aren't getting much)
Likes guns, but frustrated marksman
Obsessed with Kennedy assassination
Read Catcher in the Rye over a dozen times (I haven't confirmed this l detail yet).

And of course wanted to be seen as a hero on 2/3 of the cable networks for ridding America of an "Existential Threat".

[jslinner]

Shooter was a conservative republican.

[not guilty]

As I wrote on another comment thread, I am a proudly partisan Democrat. I understand motivated reasoning. That having been said, for the commenters on this blog to try to wring partisan advantage out of the tragic shooting of Donald Trump and the death of a bystander is grotesque. There is a time for politics. This isn’t it.

It matters not one whit whether the shooter was a Republican or a Democrat.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does it matter whether he was a gun nut and socially inept misfit living in a downscale Republican backwater?

[Theendoftheleft]

Yes, obviously. His race, politics, and other identity-features were crucial to whether there would have been large-scale blowback had Trump been killed.

It’s exciting, n’est pas, AIDS?

[darkknight9]

Who cares about politics! Its the Summer Basho of Sumo for the next two weeks, there's two WRC events coming up, hot but I have AC, Hockey starts in 9-10 weeks, Its dark, and I'm wearing sunglasses.

[Mr. Bumble]

You on a mission from God?

[darkknight9]

Isn't everyone? I mean, I don't want to get ruler whipped by the penguin any more than the next guy... 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

I'd come but I traded my car for a microphone

[AmosArch]

Never really got Sumo. Its a fighting sport you have to get fat for it limiting your mobility to perform other everyday tasks and it doesn't even make you all that great a fighter. Other disciplines kick sumo wrestlers all across the mat. And you give up your life for it in a way you don't for other disciplines because it makes you and the guys you need to take care of fat. All but the top in stables are like indentured servants.

[Kazinski]

Well physically it makes as much since as football, both shorten life spans by a couple of decades.

Baseball, now that's a sport for a long lifetime.

[darkknight9]

You don't need to get fat for it. The archetype for the past few Yokozunas is 6' 3" 400 lbs with a little tummy thanks to 3-4 hours of working out every morning. Rikishi's vary in size from the tiny to the huge but your smaller technicians are hella tough if they know what they are doing. This guy picked up a 400lbs man and threw him down earlier in the year and after missing a bit is back.

The "indentured servants" are entirely dependent on which heya you belong to. Futagoyama for instance has a proud set of lads that have a very positive community. Much has changed since Konishiki and Akebono. There are more old school schools out there but they are few since you get to choose where you want to belong.

A great example is shown in video form on youtube channel "SUMO FOOD"

Its a grind as any sport is a grind. Its been around and organized a bit longer than most "fighting sport" types. Its different from all but Greco Roman, Mongolian, etc wrestling. The objective isn't to pound. Its literally to throw down or push out.

Sacrificing your body is the cost. Comradery is part of the reward. Aside from western sports, eastern sports nearly all have a hierarchy of rank or seniority. You get healthcare, room and board, and if you're in it long enough a retirement benefit. Plus if you do well (top 2 divisions) you draw a salary. Start out of high school or college, make your way up the ranks, get cheered by the fans and brotherhood from your stable mates.

(puts hands into the air, looks skyward) Tradition!!! (/Tevye)

Its organized. Its got rules. Break them and you lose. Better luck next time. No weight classes. No penalties, no breaks from hits below the belt, no ties, no split decisions, just 6 sets of eyes and a replay booth. There are no controversial venues or judges delivering a score. You either win or you lose. Don't break the rules and try not to kill any of the old people who sit right up close to the action.

As someone who used to move pool tables by day and do martial arts at night (and slept a lot on Sundays) it appeals to me. Especially guys like Ura who perform some of the rarer finishers that are acrobatically fun to see.

Its not for everyone. There's no metered round or one fight, one night and done. Its the national sport of a nation that loves rules, regulations, picking up garbage, and being polite all the time. They've considered their rikishi's samurais since samurais were a thing. Besides. Its Japan. Its either that or baseball. Those folks do love their baseball.

[Don Nico]

It is a superb sport. I look forward every two months to watching the basho. I find the absence of weight classes very appealing. Those that make the rank of yokozuna are typically no larger than a guard in American football 6’3″ to 6’5″ and 300 pounds.
I find the modesty in their speaking when interviewed a very welcome contrast to the trash-talk and loud bravado of many in US sports.

[darkknight9]

I want to go and see at least a day in person one day. Just spectacular. 🙂

Did you see Ura's monster pushout tonight?

[Don Nico]

I did not watch the day one matches yet. Please no spoilers. Ura is a highly entertaining rikishi, but I don't like his very sneaky style.
I feel lucky to have gotten interested in time to see Hakuho wrestle for a few years.

[darkknight9]

I'm watching day 2 live right now. Last match of the night.

I will spoil nothing. Its been a great night.

[Malika the Maiz]

And with the thrilling Euro soccer final last night.

[Commenter_XY]

So was the ARG v COL game.

[Malika the Maiz]

Not a big fan of defensive soccer struggles. That Euro second half was great, plenty of scoring and saves, great pace.

[Commenter_XY]

It was an excellent game; Yamal, in particular, has a great career ahead. I was rooting for ESP.

[Ridgeway]

Soccer and Sumo?!!?! Luckily curling season hasn't started, or I'd be at risk of dying from excitement overload.

[SRG2]

I see that there's only one current yokozuna and there's an open ozeki slot as well.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/sumo/nagoya-basho-rankings-2024/

[Don Nico]

There could actually be 5 ozeki but that number could drop to 2 by the end of this basho. Right now, no one is going to be promoted to yokozuna for at least a couple of years.

[SRG2]

The supply of Mongolian rikishi is evidently dwindling - and AFAICT Hokkaido rikishi seem very under-represented.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Pretty weird that the MAGA types rush to give martyr treatment to their favorite slightly-injured bully. Remember how Trump condemned John McCain, for being being shot down, and badly injured? Remember how McCain voluntarily endured years of brutal imprisonment, to avoid taking special treatment offered to induce him to give his North Vietnamese captors a propaganda victory?

MAGA's celebration of Trump's shooting is a propaganda victory completely unearned.

[Kazinski]

We are celebrating he didn't get killed, it was by about an inch.

Probably the best way to keep candidates from getting a post assassination poll bounce is not to try to shoot them in the first place.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — But just a few minutes ago, you were celebrating what you took to be a huge political advantage from the shooting. For a guy who expressed contempt for a genuine hero who endured far, far worse—in what was, come to think of it, another vile attempt to reap political advantage for Trump.

[Kazinski]

Well first of all, I didn't say that I thought it would be a huge political advantage, its senior democrats on Capitol Hill, what I thought was strange is it looks like its completely reversed all the momentum to replace Joe.

But say you are correct, and my primary focus on the assassination attempt, and the murder of a father protecting his family, is how it will affect the presidential race, well then we would just be on opposite sides of the mirror then wouldn't we?

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Kazinski, we share no mirror relationship. In politics, you are an ideologue, an opportunist, and a tribalist. My politics are anti-rationalist, pragmatic, and institutionalist. That does not make us reflections of each other. That puts us in different universes.

[Kazinski]

Just the part about your primary concern is how the assassination attempt will affect the election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not my primary concern about the assassination attempt. That ranks far below my concern that the nation teeters on the edge of generalized armed violence, mainly instigated by MAGAS whose primary concerns revolve around losing elections. But I concede that if the interval between Election Day and January 20 devolves into a violent contest to see which party can seize power, I want the winner to be the Ds, for the reason that I judge them to be more institutionalist, and less committed to tyranny than the MAGAs.

I remain mindful that Lincoln resorted to tyrannical methods to preserve American constitutionalism from existential threat, and that the nation succeeded in restoring non-tyrannical rule afterwards. That shows it can happen. I concede that with emergency measures there is always a threat they will over-continue. I judge that a notably smaller risk than the risk that those who intend tyranny will use the powers it bestows to continue it. That's how the MAGAs look to me.

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

"anti-rationalist"

Well, anti-rational definitely describes you.

[JasonT20]

My politics are anti-rationalist, pragmatic, and institutionalist. That does not make us reflections of each other.

Is "anti-rationalist" what you meant to write? I'm not seeing how that fits with the other two descriptors you use for yourself, and I find it a concerning position to hold on its own.

[Stephen Lathrop]

JasonT20, thanks for the useful question.

I am not anti-rationalist generally, just in matters of politics. By that I mean that I oppose a notion of policy-making based on rationalist ideologies, as opposed to policy-making based on posited experience, managed with an eye to accumulating more experience, followed by modifications tailored to improve what works, and to discard what does not work.

I do not think pure reason has much power to rival such an experience-based method to tailor actual policies to the needs and preferences of a government constituency. Reading the comments on this blog is practically a tutorial to demonstrate how over-reliance on rationalist ideologies becomes a method to deliver stupidity and benighted outcomes.

In all that I follow insights taught by Michael Oakeshott, a conservative historian and political philosopher born in England in 1901. Specifically Oakeshott's extended essay, Rationalism in Politics, delivers devastating critique of ideological approaches featured in movements such as capitalism, socialism, communism, and libertarianism—or for that matter, originalism, although that one came after Oakeshott's death. Oakeshott showed how extensively all those movements—and others—have relied on posited fallacies treated as axioms, and rationalist conclusions derived from them. And thus, he showed ways in which all such movements are intellectually similar, and similarly vulnerable.

I cannot recommend highly enough, Rationalism in Politics. It remains in print in an inexpensive paper back edition, available from Amazon.

Oakeshott authored also a supremely rigorous analysis of historiography, On History, which almost anyone will have to read slowly and carefully several times before fully grasping the insights on offer. It is far more than worth the effort to tackle it.

[JasonT20]

I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this sooner. It is hard to keep track of all of the comments at times.

I see what you mean, now. I was thinking that by anti-rationalist, you might have meant not using reason or rational analysis. I see now that you mean being against ideologies that start with premises and values and try and built logically consistent policy preferences from there. You would have policy be crafted more by real-world experience and evidence. Is that about right?

If so, that is a position that I totally agree with. I have never identified with any ideology, even though I have, at different times in my life, supported one party over others. As well as thinking that ideology puts the premises of their worldview ahead of evidence, history, and practical governing, I find that it tends to lead to cognitive biases far too often.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I like candidates who don't get shot, OK?

Trump fans can't be replaced too quickly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fuck you.

There is a man dead and two more on death's door and a schmuck like you thinks it is funny?

This was a terrorist attack -- not *just* an attempted assassination but an outright terrorist attack because the other three victims weren't anywhere nearwhere Trump was.

This is a first in this country -- the first time people have been murdered for merely supporting a candidate, and it is not a good precedent because it will (not can, but inevitably WILL) be applied to those supporting leftist candidates as well. It did used to be like that.

John McCain was a terrible pilot -- he would have been grounded long before that incident over NVN if his name had been Trump and you know that...

[santamonica811]

Ed,
You're responding to SL like he made a joke, or that he told us that the situation was funny. I think you might be projecting...I think what he wrote was that it was sort of sick to give Trump credit for having the amazing luck (grace of God; whatevs) of being 2 inches to the correct side, IN LIGHT OF Trump's truly reprehensible comment about American hero John McCain. Not to mention Trump's horrific comments about American soldiers being suckers and losers. (Yeah, I think I'll go with the multitude of witnesses, rather than believe Trump's self-serving denial, especially since treating veterans and POWs with contempt is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in line with what he has said in the past.)

I've looked again at both of SL's comments, and I don't see anything remotely approaching a joke or an attempt at humour, Can you specify what in his writings triggered you?

[Stephen Lathrop]

santamonica811 — Trump's luck was not, of course, to be in any particular place or posture. Trump's luck was to have been the object of an attack by an over-armed assailant who turned out to be a bad shot.

By the way, can anyone think of any other commonly available firearm which would enable an inexperienced and unskilled shooter to carry out such a lethal attack on a venue actively guarded by the U.S. Secret Service, plus legions of local enforcement officers? Thank the gods that guy did not have a bump stock. It might not have made killing Trump much more likely, but in the few tens of seconds he had before he died, that shooter might have inflicted many times the deaths and injuries on the crowd.

[Don Nico]

SL,
How do you know that the man was an "an inexperienced and unskilled shooter." As he belonged to a gun club, what makes you claim that absent no hard facts. He shot from an open position ~120 m away without a rifle support like the SS counter-sniper.
I'd say Trump was very lucky and that the SS security set-up and execution was negligent; that will be thoroughly investigated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently it was something of a snap shot; He was spotted, a police officer climbed a ladder to the same roof, and then retreated rather engaging when the assassin pointed his rifle at him. The shot was taken a few seconds after.

[Commenter_XY]

Let's review the scene. Crooks climbed on top of a roof, with an elevation close to 35'. His target was approximately 400' away, at an elevation of about 9' off the ground. The temperature was 93, the humidity close to 50%, winds were variable under 10mph. Crooks got three shots off in a fairly small area (meaning the size of a body), in under 5 seconds. Anyone who says that isn't good shooting doesn't know WTF they are talking about. By way of comparison, the USSS countersniper who nailed him did it from ~1,400' (whole different class of shooter).

The USSS has many questions to answer.

[Riva]

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw The gunman tried to join the gun club team at school but did not make the school team. That was likely at age 16 or 17. very possible that he had additional practice after not making the team.

As I previously stated, too much is unknown and speculative on the part of partisans who are jumping to conclusions.

[DrCoke]

He didn't get into the rifle club at high school; reports mention that it was the JV squad, and that he only tried out once and surprisingly never again. That makes it sound like it was years ago.

However, more recently it's reported that he was practicing like crazy at a commercial range that features long-distance targets.

So , yes, he had lots of practice.

Here's how I read his insane mind, given what we know. He's a geek who is good at match and science, not so much at personal relationships. He tries to get into the gun club but is rejected because he doesn't know how to shoot. Fast forward a couple years and he is out of high school. He is supposed to be a smart STEM-type kid but he is not going to college or anything. He is working a very menial job. He feels bad about all of it. He feels like a loser and he doesn't understand why he's failed. His less-smart popular classmates are all doing fine.

He decides he will show them what a loser he is. How bad a shot he is. He will do something they will ALL SEE. He will show them. He starts an intense program to learn to shoot from a distance. To kill from a distance. He'll show them.

He gets to be about as good as a typical basic Marine rifleman. (Which is all Marines. We're not talking about sharpshooters here.)

Then one day Donald Trump, the existential threat, suddenly comes to town.

He showed them all.

[Kazinski]

I'll say Trump was lucky, he moved his head about an inch to the left a half second before the bullet hit his right ear. And if he was facing directly to his front the head movement wouldn't have made any difference.

Its also worth noting that both Jill Biden and Kamala Harris had events in PA on Saturday, so the Secret Service was probably spread pretty thin.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump agrees that he was absurdly lucky:

Trump: ‘I’m not supposed to be here’

“The most incredible thing was that I happened to not only turn but to turn at the exact right time and in just the right amount,” Trump said Sunday afternoon in a talk aboard his Boeing 757 as he flew to Milwaukee for the start of the Republican National Convention. “If I only half-turn, it hits the back of the brain. The other way goes right through [the skull]. And because the sign was high, I’m looking up. The chances of my making a perfect turn are probably one-tenth of 1%, so I’m not supposed to be here.”

“I had to be at the exact right angle,” Trump said at another point in the conversation, which included the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin. “Because the thing was an eighth of an inch away. That I would turn exactly at that second, where he [the gunman] wouldn’t stop the shot is pretty amazing. Pretty amazing. I’m really not supposed to be here.”

Also, he's radically changed tonight's speech as a result:

"Trump explained that before Saturday night, he had finished the speech he planned to give later this week at the Republican convention. “I basically had a speech that was an unbelievable rip-roarer,” he said. “It was brutal — really good, really tough. [Last night] I threw it out. I think it would be very bad if I got up and started going wild about how horrible everybody is and how corrupt and crooked, even if it’s true. Had this not happened, we had a speech that was pretty well set that was extremely tough. Now, we have a speech that is more unifying.”"

[Frank Drackman]

If he’d had a Remington 700 30:06, a simple Bolt Action Rifle, with a Scope “45” would be dead. 30:06 much better round for distance, weighing over 3x as much as your typical 5.56 round. Can you at least use AlGores Interwebs and get yourself to an Elmer Fudd level of Firearms knowledge?

Frank

[DrCoke]

AR-15 is the most powerful weapon of war, designed for mass killings. It is painted black, can't you tell?

I don't know what all your talk about bolt action rifles is about. Those are hunting rifles. But I guess if you are a super marksman or something, you could use one to maybe kill someone.

Real killers use an AR-15.

Did you know you can put a rubber band on an AR-15 and turn it into a 3D-printed fully auto-seeing auto-killing machine gun? Most criminals get theirs at gun shows.

[Riva]

Desperately looking for a way to denigrate President Trump. you really are a POS aren’t you Stephen?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is no need to look for a way to denigrate President Trump.

Trump is a liar, a cheat, and an adulterer. He is a longtime bigot, hypocrite, and a vainglorious and vulgar silver-spooned boor. He is a convicted felon and a convicted sexual abuser. He is a deadbeat and a slob.

His fans are worthless, un-American stains on our nation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oswald got off three shots under more difficult circumstances and with a moving vehicle. He used a bolt-action a 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 38 infantry carbine (described by the Warren Commission as a "Mannlicher–Carcano."

And the roof was not actively guarded.

[Noscitur a sociis]

By the way, can anyone think of any other commonly available firearm which would enable an inexperienced and unskilled shooter to carry out such a lethal attack on a venue actively guarded by the U.S. Secret Service, plus legions of local enforcement officers?

Yes? A simple bolt action hunting rifle with a scope seems like it would be much more effective at hitting a target in this scenario, at basically any level of shooter skill.

hank the gods that guy did not have a bump stock. It might not have made killing Trump much more likely, but in the few tens of seconds he had before he died, that shooter might have inflicted many times the deaths and injuries on the crowd.

Likewise, it's hard to imagine a scenario where a bump stock would be less effective at magnifying the lethality of the attack.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yes? A simple bolt action hunting rifle with a scope seems like it would be much more effective at hitting a target in this scenario, at basically any level of shooter skill.

Only for a marksman trained enough, and insightful enough, to understand that the job of an assassin is to deliver one killing shot. That contrasts with the rapid-fire technique of this inexperienced, under-trained, would-be assassin. For which the nation is fortunate.

On the other hand, there can be little doubt the nation lost grievously by the death and injuries which that indiscriminate style of shooting inflicted on apparently honorable bystanders. They should lead any discussion of firearms policies related to this incident, not be relegated to footnotes.

Your comment on bump stocks may be garbled. If not, it baffles me.

[JasonT20]

You’re responding to SL like he made a joke, or that he told us that the situation was funny. I think you might be projecting…I think what he wrote was that it was sort of sick to give Trump credit for having the amazing luck (grace of God; whatevs) of being 2 inches to the correct side, IN LIGHT OF Trump’s truly reprehensible comment about American hero John McCain. Not to mention Trump’s horrific comments about American soldiers being suckers and losers. (Yeah, I think I’ll go with the multitude of witnesses, rather than believe Trump’s self-serving denial, especially since treating veterans and POWs with contempt is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in line with what he has said in the past.)

When I heard Trump's comment about McCain, I was not offended on McCain's behalf. I was offended on behalf of every person that ever served in uniform in a combat zone or with the knowledge that they might have to serve in a combat zone. To say that he liked people that "weren't captured" meant that he only admired "winners," where he must define "winner" as meaning someone that killed the enemy without getting significantly hurt. Anyone that had to be carried off the battlefield, was captured and endured torture at the hands of war criminals, or was killed is a "loser" to him. But those are things that everyone in the military risks. Their courage is in accepting that risk and serving honorably anyway, or for those that served when there was a draft, that they didn't try and dodge the draft for someone else to have to take their place. Capt. Bone Spurs wouldn't understand that kind of courage.

I'm very glad that Trump wasn't hurt worse. That would have been bad for the country in ways I wouldn't know how we could fix, not to mention that I don't wish harm on anyone, even someone I personally loathe as much as I do Donald Trump, or the collateral emotional damage to his family. I hope that the others that were seriously hurt fully recover, and I extend my condolences, inadequate as they are, to the family of the man killed as he protected them.

But none of what happened changes anything about the calculations voters make to decide whom they should vote for. How Trump, Biden, and their political allies respond to the events will factor into those decisions, but not the fact that it happened. Perhaps the events will humble Trump and change how he thinks about a great many things. That remains to be seen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm glad Trump wasn't seriously injured, too. He did not deserve to be shot for expressing opinions.

He deserves to die in prison for his crimes, though, and I hope better Americans arrange that.

[Theendoftheleft]

'Crimes'. Fixed it for you again, totalitarian.

[not guilty]

John McCain did a bangup job as a pilot. Multiple times.

[Frank Drackman]

Getting shot down was the best career move McCain ever made.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, convert to English -- 5.53 mm is 0.223 inch wide while the 30-06 is .30 inch wide and that would have hit his head.
Also mention that a bolt action rifle is inherently more accurate than a gas operated rifle because of how it seats the round.

Or look at the US Army study from the 1950s that found that it would take 3 M-16 rounds on average to kill a soldier while one M-1 round would do it.

[tylertusta]

Also mention that a bolt action rifle is inherently more accurate than a gas operated rifle because of how it seats the round.

I don't agree with this statement. A bolt-action 5.56 will sit in the chamber just like any semi-auto 5.56.

[JasonT20]

I don't see many bolt action rifles made in that caliber. Do you?

[tylertusta]

My comment was about firearms generally.

Pick any ammunition that has both bolt-action and semi-auto rifles made for it. The rounds are "seated" the exact same in both.

The idea that semi-autos are inherently less accurate because of how things are "seated" is a myth that was probably popularized by Tom Clancy.

[JasonT20]

Fair enough, but the general point that bolt-action rifles tend to be more precise than semi-auto rifles seems to be valid.

https://gundigest.com/article/bolt-action-vs-semi-auto-rifle-for-precision-shooting

I'm no expert, so if you take issue with my statement, it is the guy that wrote the article you would be arguing with. I don't particularly care one way or another, I just had never seen a modern bolt action with a small caliber like a .223/5.56 mm. But I don't shoot or hunt as a hobby or anything. I'm just a casual and occasional gun owner.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s 5.56mm, as you’d know if you’d served a second in the military, really, the bill-wet missed “45” by .077 of an inch? Have you ever fired either round? At least I know the “Ought 6” in 30:06 has nothin to do with bull-wet diameter

Frank

[Don Nico]

But he made the world's worst decision picking the stupid Palin woman as his running mate. She paved the way for DJT.
He could have chosen Joe Lieberman and at least lost with honor

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah the Republican way; losing with honor.

[Malika the Maiz]

Bumble prefers winning without honor. Sweep the leg!

[Drewski]

"This is a first in this country — the first time people have been murdered for merely supporting a candidate"

An obviously false claim. You can tell by the first line where it says "Dr. Ed 2." The Opelousas Massacre comes to mind, but there are numerous examples in history of people being murdered for supporting a particular candidate or party in the US. Heck, in 1856 in Baltimore, partisans had a shootout at the polling place when the American Party tried to prevent Democrats from voting.

[David Nieporent]

He has also apparently not heard of the Wilmington coup, or even Gabby Giffords.

[PLP 2]

People were NOT MURDERED for supporting a candidate!!
They were unintended victims. That is a fact, at this early stage.
"John McCain was a terrible pilot — he would have been grounded long before that incident over NVN if his name had been Trump and you know that…"
That is not the point (his piloting abilities), the point was McCain was disparaged for being captured. Does not matter how, he was a POW and no POW should be disparaged, particularly by someone that refused to serve.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You can reason with, or expect morality from, Trump fans. Especially not at this wingnut blog.

[OtisAH]

Oh, I thought you were going to mention Convicted Felon Trump’s comments on the failed attack on Nancy Pelosi and assault on her husband. Anyway, maybe we all should go back and review the comments on that incident from the usual band of regulars who will be clutching their pearls about violent language and respect and civility today and probably on and off for the next few months.

[Malika the Maiz]

+1

[Frank Drackman]

Comparing Paul Pelosi getting beat up by a male prostitute to an attempted political assassination? just keep slinging your shit and maybe you'll type King Lear one day.

[Malika the Maiz]

"On October 28, 2022, Canadian far-right conspiracy theorist[6] David DePape attacked Paul Pelosi, the husband of Nancy Pelosi, the 52nd Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. He beat Pelosi with a hammer during a home invasion of the couple's Pacific Heights, San Francisco residence, leaving him seriously injured. Mr. Pelosi required surgery for a fractured skull.

San Francisco police arrested DePape, age 42, at the scene. He planned to take Speaker Pelosi hostage and interrogate her. Prosecutors believed the attack to be politically motivated. "

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

Do we need to capitalize every other adjective for you to read it?

[Armchair]

DePape grew up in Powell River, British Columbia. At the time of the attack, he was present in the United States illegally, having overstayed his six-month temporary visitor B-2 visa issued in March 2008 when he entered at San Ysidro.[45][46]

DePape as being part of a subgroup of "extremely aggressive and creepy" public nudists though DePape never appeared nude in public on grounds of being uncomfortable.[51][54][55]

"is online posts were also often delusional, once attacking Jesus as "the antichrist" and included references to communication with invisible fairies and the occult"

"Party affiliation records note DePape to be a Green Party member as of 2014; according to Taub, he was "more on the far left than the far right" during their relationship.[66][55] Experts on extremism and terrorism say that such shifts in views – from left-wing fringe movements to the far-right – can be held as "side switching", a fairly common phenomenon among persons who are radicalized online, who shift between "mutually exclusive or hostile ideologies" through "bridging areas" such as antisemitism, anti-government stance, and misogynist beliefs.[66]"

[Malika the Maiz]

Dude, it's right there in your excerpt!

*Experts on extremism and terrorism say that such shifts in views – from left-wing fringe movements to the far-right – can be held as “side switching”, a fairly common phenomenon among persons who are radicalized online*

Now, with that in mind, do the math about when he was in the Green Party and when he did the below excerpt, and see how the above comment applies. You really need to try harder rather than just be a kneejerk partisan here.

After being Mirandized, DePape gave an interview to San Francisco Police Department officers in which he said he planned to hold Nancy hostage and that he saw her as the "leader of the pack" of lies told by the Democratic Party. He said that he considered himself to be fighting "tyranny" and likened himself to the American founding fathers.[7] DePape told the police that he planned to kidnap and interrogate Nancy, and would break her kneecaps if she "lied" to him, believing that by doing so, "she would then have to be wheeled into Congress" as a "warning" to other members of Congress.[23][41] He also told police that he was on a "suicide mission" and had additional targets in mind,[33] naming California Governor Gavin Newsom, actor Tom Hanks, and Hunter Biden as prospective targets.[42]

[Armchair]

He was crazy. Nuts. Bouncing back and forth between various extremes.

[Kazinski]

DePape was not far right, he was far crazy,

Śure he believed the election stolen he also was a committed nudist enthusiast in Berkley and the Castro district:

"DePape once lived in a public storage unit and he was estranged from his children and partner, according to Linda Schneider.

Schneider said DePape helped out with her urban farm, housesat for her friend, and struggled with communicating. “David was excessively shy, and he reported to me that he had a history of not being able to communicate with anybody at all. He was terrified of speaking. He (was) likely a mindless follower of something he saw on social media because I don’t think he had the courage to be part of any political or terrorist group,” said Schneider, who was also interviewed by CNN.

DePape’s drug use caused Schneider to later distance herself from him. “His drug use began again and he went off his rocker,” she told KRON4."
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/who-is-david-depape-pelosi-attack-suspect-reveled-in-conspiracy-theories/

[OtisAH]

Piece of shit still piece of shitting.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

MAGA’s celebration of Trump’s shooting is...

...a figment of your fevered imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at you and your tear of outrage-posting.

You aren't celebrating, but boy are you having a good time.

Which, early days, emotions will be what they are for a bit. But forbearance is not denial.

[EscherEnigma]

Eh. Trump's contempt for "losers" (including KIA, MIA, and disabled veterans) is well-known at this point. So Republicans squared that one of their heroes really doesn't like their other heroes a long time ago.

Which is to say... there is no underlying principle or value here, it's just cult of personality.

[Kazinski]

Strangely the Trump assassination attempt seems to have just frozen the Democrats in place in regards to replacing Joe with Harris or another Democrat. Looking at the RCP betting average Joe is a 65% bet to remain as the nominee, When just a few days ago it was 40%, basically tied with Harris. Harris has dropped 23% to ~17%.

Axios explains why in this story where they quote several high ranking Democratic Congressman, mostly anonymously, of course.

Trump rally shooting upends Democrats' Biden crisis
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/14/house-democrats-biden-trump-rally-shooting

This sounds high minded:
""It would be unpatriotic and unprincipled to direct energy to anything other than yesterday's national tragedy over the coming days. The only conversation about President Biden should be about how he can console our country, address the anger, and meet the moment."

But it looks like its more than just that:
"But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency."

[Dr. Ed 2]

You gotta admit that Trump showed character with that fist.

His ears had to be ringing, he may have a concussion, but he kept fighting. Thay will play well in the battlegroung states.

[Kazinski]

Well, I’m going to put on my Dr’s hat here and say, I doubt his ears were ringing, although he would definitely hear the whizz of the bullet going by, but I doubt it was that loud.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you're wrong. At that range the bullet was probably still supersonic, and so he got a sonic boom in contact with his ear. No question at all his ear was ringing, probably got permanent hearing damage in that ear.

[tylertusta]

I would sound like a loud snap, but it wouldn’t be deafening. It sounds like someone threw a snap fireworks on the ground nearby.

[Brett Bellmore]

Try to remember that it actually passed through his external ear, and consider the implications of the inverse square law. You wouldn't want even the smallest firecracker going off that close to your ear.

[tylertusta]

I've had 5.56 whiz past my head before, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

How's the ear? Any scarring?

[tylertusta]

All it did was make my tinnitus slightly worse.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

All it did was make my tinnitus slightly worse.

So a round just whizzing past your head was enough to cause at least some hearing damage. Now imagine that round actually contacting your ear.

[tylertusta]

Yes. It made Trump's hearing slightly worse.

In this case, the damage is going to be mostly from the physical damage to his outer ear and not from the sound. Morbid fact: when bullets hit soft tissue it actually dampens the sound.

In case you continue to doubt me, just look at Trump's statement: he heard wizzing, not an ear-deafening explosion in his ear.

Link to Trump's comment:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112782066045321247

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

when bullets hit soft tissue it actually dampens the sound

Even ignoring the essentially unmeasurable effect grazing his hear would have had the bullet's velocity and the sound that created, the bullet didn't contact his outer ear until it had just passed the opening to the ear canal.

[tylertusta]

I'm sorry, do you have firsthand experience with firearms being fired past your head? Because the snap isn't as loud as you're attributing it to be, as anyone who has experienced it will attest (like myself).

As I said, it sounds like a snap pop firework- the little things you throw on the ground to make them pop on impact. But they aren't nearly as loud as those.

Here's some YT video explaining the sounds:

https://youtu.be/rRvRG7tMCdA?t=196
https://youtu.be/lduyitPDQjY

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’m sorry, do you have firsthand experience with firearms being fired past your head? Because the snap isn’t as loud as you’re attributing it to be, as anyone who has experienced it will attest (like myself).

Of the two of us, only YOU have attributed any particular sound level to the passage of a supersonic bullet past one’s head. And in fact it is your attribution that I quoted and accepted:

“All it did was make my tinnitus slightly worse.”

Here you indicated that the round passing by your head (but not close enough to actually graze you) caused at least some damage to your hearing. All I did was speculate that the damage might be worse if the round were close enough to your ear to actually strike it in passing.

So it would appear that you don’t really know what it is that you’re arguing against.

[tylertusta]

Are you familiar with tinnitus? Based on your reply, you probably aren't, but I'll offer an explanation.

Besides old age and genetics, there are two common occupational ways of getting it.

The first is through a very acute, very large boom. I don't mean bullets. I mean the kind of explosions you get from being near an exploding artillery shell. This ruptures your ear drums and leaves your ears bleeding. You'll hopefully recover, but often times your hearing will never be the same. Usually when you're subjected to those kinds of explosions you have other more critical injuries to worry about, like TBIs or other internal organ damage.

The other method of getting tinnitis is through repetitive injury. Typically found in factories, drummers, people who crank up earphones on music all of the time, or folks who use firearms, this builds over time as the damage accumulates.

That's when I said "it made my hearing worse" comes in. Having worked at the rifle range in the Corps, it made my pre-existing tinnitus worse as each bullet just piled onto my problems.

But it's not an acute injury. You don't hear one rifle bullet however close and suddenly you have a noticeable drop in your hearing. You typically only see the consequences years down the road. In my case, I only noticed it about ten years since my service ended, and after I left I was very careful to not be around loud noises without hearing protection.

If Trump has tinnitis- which he might, as the elderly often do- he might notice his hearing getting worse a couple of years from now. Or not.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Are you familiar with tinnitus? Based on your reply, you probably aren’t

You know, you could save yourself from writing a lot of pompous nonsense if you would pause for a second and just read and understand what has been written instead of rushing ahead relying on ignorance-based assumptions about what has been written.

[tylertusta]

You seem to have a problem with something I wrote. What is it?

[Frank Drackman]

You probably would sound more like a fucking idiot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget that it was also spinning -- and ripped away a portion of his ear. It's gone.

That's trauma and it also will make shock waves which are essentially the same thing as loud noise in this case.

[tylertusta]

Unless it actually hit his inner ear, that wouldn't happen. From what I can see, it clipped the top of his right ear. Trump likely felt like he was stung by an insect for a brief moment until he connected the dots between the "whizzing" sound, the pain in his ear, and the report of the gun shots all around him.

The spinning of the round is imperceptible. You are only going to hear that if a round is tumbling, and 5.56/.223 doesn't tumble in the air until it gets to the end of its trajectory.

[Frank Drackman]

You've had 5.56 bullets pass inches from your ear? And the 50 cal rifle the SS guys returned fire with will certainly make your ears ring. Maybe try googling before making yourself look like a complete fucking Idiot.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is certainly in a position to confirm the truth of that Churchill quote: “There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at with no result.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why the hell was the USSS lugging a 50 cal up onto the roof?
I can think of a dozen weapons that would be more useful, starting with the Uzi which is what they pulled out when Reagan was shot.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I can think of a dozen weapons that would be more useful, starting with the Uzi which is what they pulled out when Reagan was shot.

I can think of few firearms that would be LESS useful from an elevated firing position than a pistol caliber submachinegun. But you can't imagine why a far more powerful long-range rifle that fires a round capable of penetrating an engine block would be useful?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you're going to be doing long range snipping, there are few better choices, and if you want to be able to be effective even in the face of body armor, or to be able to immobilize vehicles? Basically none. If all they'd had were Uzis, Trump would be dead today.

A better question is what the hell were they doing not being on that roof, too? And the answer to that is that Trump's SS team have been systematically starved for resources.

[tylertusta]

The US military has been moving away from using the .50BMG as a long range precision round. While the .50BMG had superior ballistic performance to contemporary rounds of the 60s and 70s, there has been a lot of development on sub-.50BMG rounds that offer superior performance despite being smaller.

It looks like the counter-sniper team had rifles chambered in .300 Win Mag, which is more than enough gun.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is certainly enough for any human target, that's for sure.

[tylertusta]

Indeed. It's more than enough for any commercially available body armor, too.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm because it’s the Sniper Rifle of choice, especially if the bad guys wearing body armor. Uzis good for clearing a motel room of Terrorists (and looking cool) that’s about it

Frank

[DrCoke]

For clearing hotel rooms of one 11 year old boy, the MP5 is the weapon of choice!

[Kazinski]

Ed you don’t know what you are talking about.

The 50 cal rifle is the one of the longest range, most accurate rifles in the world. The Uzi would be useless in a crowd, it would be great for clearing a room or a street. But Cross would still be shooting now if they were trying to hit him with an Uzi at that range. Uzi’s are submachine guns meaning they shoot handgun rounds not high-powered long range rifle rounds.

And sure they have gone to other smaller round sniper rifles, but that’s because of size and weight considerations, not range and performance.

This one has a 2000 meter range:
https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Equipment/Equipment-Portfolio/Project-Manager-Soldier-Lethality-Portfolio/M107-Semi-Automatic-Long-Range-Sniper-Rifle/

[Sarcastr0]

It is some comfort to see that all the pettiness and sniping may not be driven by partisanship; it's just in the air.

[Malika the Maiz]

"You gotta admit that Trump showed character with that fist."

It was a great display of political instincts, I will grant.

[Jmaie]

I like the meme with Teddy Roosevelt saying, “What, he didn’t even finish the speech?”

[David Nieporent]

You gotta admit that Trump showed character with that fist.

I do not, in fact, gotta admit that. Showmanship, sure. Nobody has ever denied that Trump has celebrity instincts. But nothing about it has anything to do with "character."

but he kept fighting.

What does that mean? You know it was the Secret Service, not Trump, who took out the shooter, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

“We’ve all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency.”
Does that mean they are now making plans to disrupt it at every turn like they did the first time around?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or have they realized that breeding Antifa leafs to assassins?

[Krayt]

One hopes. At least using normal political fighting, and not 24 more initiatives to investigate a political opponent.

The Dems actually did well fighting most of his stuff to a standstill this way.

[Sabedi1]

Yeah, they did well because they had a corrupt judiciary on his side, happy to issue permanent injunctions on the grounds that his executive actions were "arbitrary and capricious," which everyone who is intellectually honest recognizes were bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

Does that mean they are now making plans to disrupt it at every turn like they did the first time around?

I assume you were very upset when Mitch McConnell said that the congressional GOP's number one goal was to make Obama a one-term president.

[Drewski]

“But the second senior House Democrat offered one reason for why it might: “We’ve all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency.”

Although I want to see Biden replaced on the ticket, this is probably where the smart money sits. The party would be wise to focus on Congress and state elections.

[Frank Drackman]

"Replaced"?? are you the Revolting Reverend?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the large part of what froze them was Biden's defiance, and the realization that they have no practical way of denying him the nomination if he refuses to give it up.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I think it is not over yet = Team D. No need for me to offer up advice to Team D on what to do with a clearly adilpated and feebleminded old man their candidate.

I don't think it matters who they run, anymore.

[Moderation4ever]

The continuation of Joe Biden as the Democrat candidate may be the biggest outcome of the attempted assassination. It has changed the story line and helped Joe Biden. Donald Trump benefits in three ways, he was not killed, the attempt will boost his candidacy and Joe Biden will likely stay his opponent. All that being said get shot at is never good, no matter how much you benefit.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Strangely the Trump assassination attempt seems to have just frozen the Democrats in place in regards to replacing Joe with Harris or another Democrat."

Wouldn't betting averages =/= what Democrats are thinking or planning? It's more of a guess at the latter, right?

[darkknight9]

Oh, and don't you think I wasn't paying attention when I heard he got shot...

#teamcashew

[Kazinski]

By the way the NY Times has confirmed the picture of Trump does show the bullet right after it passed him by, it was their photographer who took it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html

[Frank Drackman]

If the NY Times says it it's usually bullshit, guess even they can't try and cover up this one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog of Bigoted Clingers Who Disdain The New York Times and Trust The Epoch Times.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, it took the National Enquirer to expose John Edwards, who came within a few thousand votes in Ohio of being VPOTUS(last I heard he’s still fucking that crazy Rielle cunt)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember the good old days, former professor Volokh, when you censored liberals and libertarians for using terms such as "p_ssy," "c_p succ_r," and "sl_ck-jaw_ed" -- and could claim you were doing so not because of partisanship and hypocrisy but instead because you were merely enforcing "civility standards?"

Those days are over, much like . . . you know.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Consider two possibilities.

First, a shooter with an AR-15 who actually killed Trump.

Second, a shooter with an AR-15 and a bump stock who did not even attempt to kill Trump, but instead sprayed bullets into the crowd to kill and injure as many other people as possible.

Which of those scenarios would have inflicted worse political damage on the MAGA movement?

[Frank Drackman]

Consider a third possibility, an Illegal Immigrant (who had been "Caught and Released" at the border, and in NY City) rapes and murders a Nursing Student in Athens GA.
Parkinsonian Joe, not only gets her name wrong calling her "Lincoln Riley" minimizes her rape/murder because women are murdered and raped by Legal Amurican Citizens also.
A few days later Nancy Pelosi makes Joe apologize for his insensitive remark.
Calling her Rapist/Murderer an "Ill-legal"

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Oh, look, a Squirrel.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh look, a fucking idiot with no response

[Malika the Maiz]

Don't you mean Response?

[MoreCurious]

Oh look, a fucking idiot whose comments here prove beyond a reasonable doubt many times a day that he is a fucking idiot, is calling someone else a fucking idiot.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, why don’t you stop doing it?

[Malika the Maiz]

Don't you mean "It?"

[MoreCurious]

Hey, brilliant retort, man! Up until now I was sure you never made it past seventh grade, but every once in a while you give us a hint that your education level might be as high as eighth grade. Except for the spelling and grammar, that is.

[Kleppe]

Please take your political violence fan-fic elsewhere.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS has remanded the prosecution of Donald Trump to the D.C. District Court with instructions to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in regard to the fraudulent elector scheme qualifies as official or unofficial. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18 (pp. 24-28.) Please indulge me a thought exercise in suggesting what the Special Counsel should do in the event that Trump's conduct is found to be official conduct to which immunity attaches.

Step 1 -- indict those persons whom the Trump indictment references as co-conspirators in the District Court of D.C. for engaging in criminal conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512(k) and 241.

Step 2 -- Call Trump as a prosecution witness at trial or, if applicable, at a pretrial hearing. If he is immune from prosecution for his conduct for official acts taken while President, he cannot assert a privilege against self-incrimination. See, e.g., Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972).

Step 3 -- If and when Trump testifies falsely under oath as to any material matters, prosecute him for perjury under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 or 1623.

[tylertusta]

I see you're still auditioning to be a member of Jack Smith's prosecution team.

[not guilty]

I have never wanted to become a prosecutor. Not that I couldn't do the job -- a decent lawyer can litigate from either side of the aisle with roughly equal facility.

I just didn't think I could get used to the stick up the butt.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many of the best people from your law school class became prosecutors?

In my experience, mediocre law students and lawyers become prosecutors and military lawyers.

Then Republicans make them judges.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't think Mr. mediocrity Smith will become a judge anytime soon.

[Paladin_44]

+1

[David Nieporent]

In my experience,

Which to all appearances is none.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, is it your view that this corrupt Supreme Court interprets a president’s immunity as limited to his jeopardy of criminal prosecution. I think this Court simply says, “Nope, he’s immune completely, not just criminally immune. Nobody can touch him with a subpoena.”

To which I would reply, nobody in government is immune to a grand jury subpoena, because a grand jury enjoys sovereign power greater than that of any branch of government, including the Supreme Court.

[Krayt]

Does that mean a grand jury can be lead around by a teamster to investigate the teamster's political opponent? But the point of this kind of immunity is that there's no possible infraction to uncover.

In any case, we wouldn't be here but for large numbers of initiatives to hurt an opponent using the power of government, all the while lying it's disinterested concern for rule of law, like mafia thugs gut punching someone, then, when someone looks, they pick him up, tossle his hair, and say, '"We wuz only playin'! I mean, only had disinterested concer for rule of law."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — Your contempt for the nation's sovereign mirrors actual practices widely followed beginning a bit more than a hundred years ago. That does not make your comment any less cynical and benighted, however.

[not guilty]

Chief Justice Roberts opined that “when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, we have consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity. He cited United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807), and United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703, 707 (1974), with approval. Each involved a subpoena issued to a sitting President.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - Obvious that you still havent read the opinion -

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — I have read the ambiguous and vague opinion. The gravamen seemed to be that the corrupt Supreme Court, having abandoned the text of the Constitution, and decided to ignore precedent, has resolved to do whatever it takes to keep Trump safe from accountability for crimes charged in multiple indictments against him. The Court threw in dicta to reassure and distract suckers. Those dicta seem intended to make the decision appear less lawless than the opinion's specifics announce that it is.

I note that the dissenters—following opportunity to deliberate with the majority—have arrived at conclusions similar to mine.

We will all at some point in the distant future have a chance to judge the Court's actual intent, based on observation whether Trump is indeed held accountable, or not, for anything. What's your bet on the chances of a criminal conviction for Trump?

Before answering, note that assertion that Trump will not be convicted because he has done nothing wrong will be mere question-begging absent a trial and a verdict. Logically, I expected that Trump backers who believed in his innocence would have pressed for an early trial and quick verdict. I take it that the countless MAGA types applauding delays—including you—did that because they understood Trump would indeed be convicted if tried.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - you may have read the opinion, but you certainly did not understand it.

If you did understand the opinion, then you would have recognized how badly sotomayor distorted the opinion when she made her inane claims.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas? Is it your opinion that the Court did follow the text of the Constitution. Is it your opinion that the Court did not abandon precedent?

Have you been urging prompt trials, to exonerate Trump? Or delays to help him escape not only legal accountability, but accountability at the polls?

I mentioned the Court's care to emit squid ink to distract suckers. Perhaps you should consider whether you have been distracted.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - You still havent read the opinion - At least not at a level you shows you understand the opinion.
Both Sotomayor and you are dead wrong on the holding.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, I asked questions, touching on the opinion. You ignored them repeatedly, in favor of empty denials. I am confident you believe Trump would have been convicted, had he been tried.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop still going SovCit, thinking random people can declare themselves above the government.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Stop lying Nieporent, it gets old. I have advocated consistently the exact opposite of your allegation. Here it is again:

Under American constitutionalism, people of all sorts act in a dual capacity. As random people (your term), they are subjects of government. When they act institutionally, in their capacity as the nation's joint popular sovereign, then they indeed do rank above the government.

That is what sovereignty means. Its defining power is capacity to constitute, empower, and constrain government at pleasure, without constraint by anyone, and certainly without constraint by the government.

As a libertarian, you are ideologically committed to deny altogether any notion of sovereign power. The impracticality to advocate such nonsense accounts for why libertarians are justly counted as cranks.

[David Nieporent]

Under American constitutionalism, people of all sorts act in a dual capacity. As random people (your term), they are subjects of government. When they act institutionally, in their capacity as the nation’s joint popular sovereign, then they indeed do rank above the government.

A "grand jury" not called by a court is random people. Only a grand jury acting pursuant to the court's authority is acting institutionally — and then, of course, they are acting pursuant to the court's authority.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — No. The court acts pursuant to the People’s authority—announced in the 5A—when it impanels a grand jury. In doing so, of course the Court acquires no power to constrain the People’s authority. As it says in so many words in the federal Handbook for grand jurors, the grand jury is not subject to supervision by the government, including the Court. Thus:

Over the years, the hallmarks of our modern grand jury developed in England. For example, grand jury proceedings became secret, and the grand jury became independent of the Crown. As a result, a grand jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the recommendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person. This independence from the will of the government was achieved only after a long hard fight.

Wherever your notion came from of random people declaring themselves a grand jury, it is no part of my advocacy. The question of grand jury independence arises if one of the routinely sitting federal grand juries decides on its own authority—which it is explicitly entitled to do—to investigate a subject not put before it by a prosecutor or a court.

[John F. Carr]

Step 1. It's a mystery why we have not seen federal indictments for clearly easier to convict people like David Shafer.

Step 2. Unless all his election-related conduct is immune he still has a legitimate claim of privilege as to some testimony. The prosecution would likely need an explicit grant of use immunity.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, if you are looking for Jack Smith to bring that case, you might want to rethink that. 😉

[Kleppe]

"Please indulge me a thought exercise in suggesting what the Special Counsel should do"

Unfortunately, this comment has been overtaken by current events. Jack Smith is a private citizen, running an office that doesn't exist and spending money that hasn't been appropriated.

[Doug Huffman]

God Bless Donald J. TRUMP. God Blessed US and TRUMP with his survival.

I found it amusing that the last of the ‘oxygen’ was sucked from the US mainly lamestream media and that Sky News Oz stepped so firmly into the breach.

My commitment to be always armed (with wits and guns and the truth) is renewed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like a great day for a half-educated, bigoted, superstition-addled wingnut

[McSmith]

[Commenter_XY]

We have lost our way. Our politics are toxic, and we are governed by the corrupt. Assassination has now been legitimized as a political act; even law professors apparently have a '...but Trump' exception. It is (D)ifferent this time, because extra special (R)easons, is what they tell us. A divided American society is now falling apart.

Progressives (and it is obvious who they are, just look at their social media) and their ilk are more upset that Crooks missed rather than the fact that someone just tried to assassinate a US President. Take that in for a moment. If you think that progressives will be satisfied with the assassination of a political opponent and then just call it a day and leave you alone; you are sadly mistaken. Did the Stasi leave the East Germans alone? Did the KGB leave ordinary Russians alone? They did not. Were your rights respected during the pandemic? They were not, and think for a moment where your rights were respected the least (CA, NJ, NY, IL, RI, CT, MA, MD, etc); all progressive paradises.

We have much further to fall. That is the saddest part of all.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

'Please hold my hair back while I weep at what those evil Progressives have done to our country.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go vote for Trump, as I like his messages of retribution and Nazi rhetoric.

Curse you, Progressives!'

[Malika the Maiz]

Existential threats much?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are a disaffected, bigoted, un-American, superstitious right-wing write-off who hates modern America and all of this damned progress, reason, science, modernity, and inclusiveness, XY. The distilled essence of this blog’s target audience

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like "Morning Joe" has been pre-empted by an "NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT"
I'm not for Presidential Assassination attempts, but too bad this didn't happen 10 years ago.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ten years ago.

This guy is your target audience, Mr. Volokh. And the reason you are a former professor no longer positioned to hurl racial slurs at law students. You have been replaced.

[Frank Drackman]

I know my remark flew way over your CTE riddled brain, I meant that if a failed “45” assassination attempt happened 10 years ago the world would have been spared 10 years of Morning Schmoe

[apedad]

US Judge Shared Confidential Details of Criminal Investigation

A federal trial judge won’t be disciplined after being found to have disclosed information about an ongoing criminal probe that may have helped the target obstruct the investigation.

According to a recently published order from the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit, the unnamed judge was accused by a law enforcement agency of sharing “sensitive and confidential information regarding a law-enforcement public corruption investigation” with a family member, after learning it during a sealed proceeding in a criminal case.

The information was alleged to have then been shared with the target of the investigation, “and that the disclosure allowed the target to attempt to obstruct the investigation and brought the investigation to an early end,” according to the order. The unnamed target of the investigation was later convicted of charges including obstruction of justice.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/us-judge-shared-confidential-details-of-criminal-investigation

1. Not even a slap on the wrist.
2. They won't even release the judge's name.

No wonder they grow up to be Supreme Court Justices who feel untouchable and teflonic.

[Commenter_XY]

I am confused, apedad. There are no current SCOTUS Justices who came from the Fifth circuit.

[apedad]

Think large scale, in general.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I definitely think the judge should be named, and disciplined (which could be impeachment).

Who is on the Judicial Council? What did they see that we did not see?

[Armchair]

I honestly don't understand why people Hate (capital H) Trump so much.

Is he my favorite person in the world? Of course not. He's a braggart, he's brash, difficult to work for, and so on. But...there are lots of people like that. Lots of politicians like that. And I may disagree with their policies, but "Hate" them...no.

I don't "Hate" Biden. I think he may be mentally unfit to be president, but that doesn't mean I hate him.

I don't "Hate" Obama. I think he made many poor choices as President, but "hate"? No.

I don't "Hate" Clinton. I think he made many poor moral choices as President, using his authority to obtain sexual favors. But "Hate" him...no.

So, why do so many people "Hate" Trump? What's the reason?

[Malika the Maiz]

Oh, come on. You don't think lots of your fellow conservatives hate Biden and hated Clinton and Obama? This is a stunning lack of awareness of a movement you're a part of.

[Armchair]

No, I don't think they "Hate" those people.

[Sarcastr0]

Obama the Communist Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator and possible Anti-Christ?

Biden, the senile crime lord who sold us out to China and Ukraine?

Hillary, the Hildabeast, who thinks the entire right are deplorables and sold secrets and Uranium to Russia?

Yeah, the right hates. They will make up stories to turn opposition politicians into existential threats to justify their hate.

You only look left.

[Armchair]

It's pretty clear you don't actually know any conservatives.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying Free Republic and gab and whatnot are all just massive false flag operations?

Yeah, the conservatives I know personally are not of that kind (with one notable exception). But the Internet is a thing that exists.

[Moderation4ever]

There is a lot of hate going around and while you may not hate Biden, Obama, or Clinton, too many people feel that way. As for Trump my feelings are apathy. I wish he would retire to the golf course and leave politics alone. I don't feel he enhances our politics nor that he has the skill set to handle the job of the Presidency.

[Armchair]

See, that's a moderate response.

Now, like I said, Trump isn't my favorite person. But, in my view, simply comparing Trump and Biden, Trump is a better choice. Biden simply isn't there mentally anymore. There are questions if he has the mental capability to be President for 6 more months, let alone 4 more years. Trump at least is more mentally aware.

[Moderation4ever]

But Trump is also slipping, and he is the age Biden first took office. It is not a question of whether Biden can do another four years but rather can either of them do another four years? The vast majority of this country wants different candidates. I think the Democrats were on their way to a different candidate and I fear that drive will stall now that it got pushed off the front page.

[Armchair]

Regardless of whether "Trump is also slipping", it is a comparison. It's a binary choice, between two people. And Trump currently is doing much better mentally than Biden.

[Commenter_XY]

He is doing physically better, too. Plays a couple rounds weekly.

[David Nieporent]

And Trump currently is doing much better mentally than Biden.

Not at all. He's stronger than Biden, so he can ramble senilely with more force, but he's routinely non compos mentis. Whereas Biden trails off as he loses his train of thought, Trump just keeps talking completely nonsensically.

[Joe_dallas]

Trump's mental cognitive skills are vastly above where Bidens cognitive skills were at the same age. Biden was showing the early stages of dementia during the summer of 2020. The media and democrat operatives did a good job keeping it under wraps

[Magister]

But Trump four years ago got his ass handed to him in debates by a guy you claim had dementia? That doesn't suggest someone who could handle the presidency.

[Sarcastr0]

Alas, a dude who says something as confident but redundant as 'mental cognitive skills' is just too smart to argue with.

[David Nieporent]

Trump’s mental cognitive skills are vastly above where Bidens cognitive skills were at the same age. Biden was showing the early stages of dementia during the summer of 2020. The media and democrat operatives did a good job keeping it under wraps.

Joe_dallas is showing late stages of dementia, because he keeps on hallucinating about this.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, what mental incapacity do you think Biden suffers from? I think he suffers from age, fatigues readily, and evinces the kind of slowed cognitive response typical of those conditions—with a further disadvantage that a life-long stutter compounds the appearance of difficulty from those causes.

I see no evidence Biden suffers from dementia. Biden's much maligned reliance on a teleprompter demonstrates that, I think. Do you suppose an actual Alzheimer's-afflicted person could be transformed the way Biden is by use of a teleprompter?

[Frank Drackman]

He’s got Parkinson’s Disease, that’s usually why you consult a Neurologist who sub specializes in treating Parkinson’s patients

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

He never had a stutter. Another bullshit story amplified by the stenographic press to try to explain the decent of a stupid man into dementia.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure I 100% agree with your Police work there, he does the occasional Spider from Goodfellas stutter, but nowhere near Barry Hussein Osama’s level, I-I-I-I, can’t believe people still think he’s smart

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

A quick search doesn't return any hits about Joe Biden and stuttering prior to 2020.

[David Nieporent]

He cleverly laid the groundwork for his campaigns against Trump by talking about his stuttering at least as far back as 1986.

Also, the word you're looking for is "descent," and misspelling it as "decent" just highlights the fact that you aren't.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, Biden's stuttering has, of course, been a life-long affliction. People who knew him in high school report he was tormented for it.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 47 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I see no evidence Biden suffers from dementia. Biden’s much maligned reliance on a teleprompter demonstrates that, I think. Do you suppose an actual Alzheimer’s-afflicted person could be transformed the way Biden is by use of a teleprompter?"

SL - willfully blind or are just believing the media and democrat party propaganda?

[Sarcastr0]

As usual, you not only make confident pronouncements well outside any area of potential expertise, you attack all who disagree or even withhold judgement awaiting actual expertise.

How does this relentlessly hubristic attitude work out for you in real life?

[Joe_dallas]

The current level of mental decline exhibited by Biden is typically 4-6 years in the making.
Go ahead and ignore commonly known facts to suit your partisan fantasies.

The rest of us deal with reality.

[Sarcastr0]

Your history of commonly known facts that come out of your ass is quite a long one.

We don't know Biden's level of mental decline; that you think you do is a red flag you're making shit up again.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - Sarcastr0 9 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"We don’t know Biden’s level of mental decline"

feigning ignorance of what is obviously before your eyes and everyone else -
displaying ignorance of basic commonly known facts.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/alzheimers-disease/stages-of-alzheimer-disease

[Malika the Maiz]

Care to explain how you think this citation establishes your claim "The current level of mental decline exhibited by Biden is typically 4-6 years in the making."?

[Joe_dallas]

Malika the Maiz 3 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Care to explain how you think this citation establishes your claim “The current level of mental decline exhibited by Biden is typically 4-6 years in the making.”?

Are you likewise ignoring the obvious. What stage of alzhemiers or dementia do you think he is at? the very early onset - get serious and honest.

[Malika the Maiz]

So you are unwilling or unable to point to what in this cite establishes your conclusion?

I would think a polymath like yourself would find this easy....

[Malika the Maiz]

This is typical of joe-dallas, boy-expert.

He, with his biased self, sees something (Biden).

He, then simply looks up something on the internet.

He, then "reasons" a conclusion.
He ignores things *from his own citations* which would undermine his confident conclusions.

"The early signs of Alzheimer disease may not be obvious to anyone except the person with the disease and the people closest to them. Even then, the symptoms may be confused with normal changes that come with age."

He read some stuff that made him think some stuff. He looked up some stuff to support what he already thought. He didn't look for countervailing sources *or even read the undercutting things in the one he chose.* He just posts confidently: he's an expert epidemiologist, climatologist, diagnostician, etc.

It's all simple to him. He doesn't think it's him that is simple.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - Is that the best response when you demonstrate your ignorance of commonly known facts -

https://www.healthline.com/health/dementia/stages#middle

[Sarcastr0]

You truly have no idea the distinction between opinion and fact.

Hint - I'm not disputing what you linked. I didn't even get to what you linked to dispute it; my issue is well earlier in your hot take.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - name one statement above that is factually incorrect -
Are you trying to deny that Biden isnt having serious mental cognitive decline.

[Sarcastr0]

I dispute that you or I or anyone here has sufficient info to even make a useful guess as to the current level of Biden's mental abilities.

You can quote all the medical textbooks you want - diagnosis of public figures from afar is a fool's errand.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I dispute that you or I or anyone here has sufficient info to even make a useful guess as to the current level of Biden’s mental abilities.

Seems like the whole world saw Biden's mental decline in the last debate and Stepanopolis interview - but Not gaslight O - apparrantly neither did Makila.

Do you think biden has a case of sudden onset of dementia vs something that is 4-5 years in the making - You are just making yourself look stupid - and woke

[Sarcastr0]

You're not just talking the existence of some issues, you're positing a quantitative threshold: "The current level of mental decline."

You are also calling it dimentia.

Your information appears to be a debate performance and an interview. Seen via the television.
And you're not trained as a doctor.

So scanty info, viewed through a limited lens, interpreted by someone who doesn't have any training.

All you're doing is bullshitting.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastro - you continue to deny the obvious - it makes you look stupid. If you want to play stupid, that is your business.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden's lost a step? Obvious. Too big a risk and thus not fit to be President? Not obvious, but an opinion I agree with many on.

Specifically dementia? Alzheimer’s? Started in summer 2020?

No, that's not obvious. That's you bullshitting. Using the word obvious doesn't really cover the bullshittery, it just makes you look agro.

[Joe_dallas]

arcastr0 16 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Specifically dementia? Alzheimer’s? Started in summer 2020?

No, that’s not obvious.

Yes it is obvious - quit living in your woke echo bubble - you saw the debate.

[David Nieporent]

The current level of mental decline exhibited by Biden is typically 4-6 years in the making.

Joe the virologist/climatologist/neurologist strikes again!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, less than a decade ago I dragged my aging carcass up to an elevation of nearly 9000 feet, with an eye to camping there. Based on experience as a younger man, that was a modest ambition.

Turns out, my older metabolism did not react as it had previously. I suffered a symptom of altitude sickness which some medical practitioners are familiar with, and most never heard of. I started to pee incessantly.

Cognizant that I risked dehydration, I conscientiously replaced from a pure natural supply every drop of the outgoing water. That went on for several days. Then I fell into a state of cognitive collapse that would have been indistinguishable to you or anyone else from the way Biden looked on debate night. Worse for me, if anything.

Before I was rescued by others, I remember sitting on the edge of my cot, staring for about 5 minutes at my boots, which were only 12 inches from my feet. I wondered by what process I could get them on my feet before I had to go out of the tent to pee again. I simply could not figure out how to begin the process to put the boots on.

I was hospitalized. A blood test disclosed dangerously low levels of salt had disrupted my cognition, and brought me to the brink of a seizure. The water I used to replace my lost urine had no salt in it, so I ended up in a state of cognitive disorientation exactly like what Biden—looking exhausted—showed the nation on debate night—slow, halting responses, inability to think coherently, and speech capacity reduced to little more than mono-syllabic grunts.

Strangely, I remember all that clearly enough, even though I was utterly baffled about what was happening at the time. Of course, after 48 hours of intravenous fluids got my salt levels back to normal, my cognition recovered completely.

Nobody thinks I have Alzheimers, or any other progressive neurological impairment. But because my responses have slowed a bit with age, I am less consistent than previously at beating Jeopardy champions to the right answers. So it goes for all of us.

I do not think Biden suffered altitude sickness, but he did appear exhausted to me. I do not pretend to diagnose what troubled him on debate night. Since then, I have seen him deliver strong oratory by reliance on a teleprompter. Not everyone can do that; not even most people can do that.

That said, I do not believe I retain today the physical toughness and endurance to do the job of POTUS. I do not believe Biden does either.

But you are full of beans. You have no basis to believe you have reliable insight into the state of Biden's cognition. I think you know that, but prefer that Democrats suffer the disruption to choose someone else, and maybe come up with a candidate politically weaker than the one who already beat Trump previously. Your pretend concern for Biden's mental state does not come across as forthright.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe-dallas — No answer to the question how a teleprompter cures dementia? How do you think that works? I think a teleprompter is a terrific aide to keeping a stutter from interfering with verbal fluency—which leaves Biden's age-slowed brain free to think and respond with the considerable cognitive capacity he retains.

As I have said before, I would prefer Biden's replacement with a younger candidate. I worry that Biden will lose, partly because fools like you are incompetent judges—and there are so many of you. Partly because it is time for generational change in presidential leadership, I think Maryland governor Wes Moore would beat Trump easily. I doubt the capacity of the geriatric-led D party to recognize what it needs, however. I doubt they would ever look to a genuinely youthful candidate who might also feature politics which would challenge the likes of Nancy Pelosi—however much they would be celebrated by younger voters.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - you are living in a woke bubble.

Biden has is suffering from a serious level cognitive mental decline.
You saw his debate , you have seen many other serious missteps, etc.
Talk to any doctor, medical professional - his level of mental decline is 4-6 years in the making.

Quit living in the woke denial bubble.

[Armchair]

President of the United State is a hard job. If his age is such that he can only schedule events between 10 AM and 4 PM...Well....maybe he's not cut out for it.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/28/bidens-30-hour-workweek-how-presidents-age-has-cut-down-schedule/

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, I hate very few people, it's a destructive emotion I advise people not to cultivate. In fact, I'd be hard put to identify anybody I actually "hate", as opposed to maybe despise.

Maybe people on crowded roads who come to a stop before turning into driveways? I get passionate about them on occasion, but it's a momentary thing.

My general opinion is that politicians as a class are pretty awful people, with rare exceptions. We have a system that effectively filters out of politics people with normal moral limits. By the time you get to DC, almost everybody is morally compromised in one way or another, the people who won't compromise have dropped out. Almost everybody, mind you. But Rand Paul didn't get too far in the primaries, did he?

So I'm not terribly impressed with Trump's morals. He has his good moments, plenty of them, but he does cut a lot of ethical corners. I do think that you could trust him to babysit your kid, if your kid wasn't a hot looking 17 year old girl, which is more than you can say about a lot of politicians, but I would count my fingers if he shook my hand.

But, he's not running against a saint! He's running against Joe Biden. And he doesn't come off terrible in that comparison. Nor conspicuously great, either, but not terrible.

So it comes down to policy, and I like his policies better. Ilya purely hates his policies, and I get that. But I think he's letting that color his perceptions of their relative morals.

[Armchair]

That's the problem. "Hate" is a destructive emotion that leads people to think irrationally.

If you're looking at policy, that's fine. But many are taking those policy choices and putting them onto the person. And the nuances and potential compromises to be made to get real change done with the policies is ignored.

[Malika the Maiz]

What's irrational is to think the Right doesn't have a good share of hate for major left figures. You don't recall that "let's go Brandon" meme (and lots of merchandise proudly exhibited by many conservatives) came from a crowd of Trump fans screaming "Fuck you Biden?" This is either incredible ignorance or bad faith.

[bernard11]

But I think he’s letting that color his perceptions of their relative morals.

This is nonsense. Sure, Biden is no saint either - few people are - but I'd say he's about average on the morality scale. Even if you think he's a bit worse than that (why?) Trump is off the charts.

Just based on his business career he's a swindler, a liar, a deadbeat. By his own admission he's happy to commit sexual assault. And you really do have to be a slimeball to spend as much time in court as he does. And did I mention that he's a convicted felon?

[Armchair]

"Just based on his business career he’s a swindler, a liar, a deadbeat. By his own admission he’s happy to commit sexual assault. "

Yeah, that's Biden.

[Krayt]

The politicians know you hate each other. They breed and nurse these feelings. Then go out to dinner together.

Just like religion, the people on the other side are, at best, mislead hellbound dupes, lead by actively evil demons.

The techniques are the same, and the purpose is the same, to gain critical mass to seize the brass ring of power, so they no longer have to rely on proselytization.

[Sarcastr0]

I've worked on Congress. No, they do not go out to dinner together.

Your bothsides government as conspiracy hate fiction continues to just be you echoing back at yourself.

[Krayt]

No, it's bothsides corrupt government. "Hate" is just one of multitudes of tools to gain and maintain power so you can be corrupt.

[Sarcastr0]

Your proof for this is just your personal idiosyncratic ideology.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair cheers on Rittenhouse. Calls the FBI "evil" (https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/22/monday-open-thread/?comments=true#comment-10074580), and accused me of blood libel.

He may wonder about hating those running for President, but he's quite happy to hate just about everyone else.

[Armchair]

Well, when you commit blood libel against the Jews, you're going to get called out for your hatred. Don't be upset if it's real.

Jews are people too. Stop calling for their deaths.

[Sarcastr0]

Bring the receipts or apologize.

Hate and lies, this is what you're really about.

[Armchair]

Just take a look at any of your past posts involving Jews or Israel. You always come down on the other side.

Sorry if I haven't bookmarked all your antisemitism.

[Sarcastr0]

You have no standing to talk about calming things down, and then make such unsourced attacks.

And refuse to back them up.

[Armchair]

Also, note I called certain actions evil. Not the FBI as a whole. There’s a difference between the two.

What's evil is not firing someone (which could be appealed), but also not letting them work a second job and also suspending them without pay. Basically running out their finances while simultaneously denying them access to legal action.

That's an action which is evil.

[Sarcastr0]

You're splitting hairs, and you know it.

Coming in and asking for calm, with the tone you have spent years setting, is hypocritical.

[Armchair]

"You’re splitting hairs,"

ie, "Being accurate about the difference between actions and individuals"

[Sarcastr0]

Here’s you not talking about actions: “it’s actually pretty stunning from the report how…evil…the FBI management is here.”

Here’s you not talking about actions: “FBI just sat on or denied the applications.”

So even if you want to pretend your hairsplitting is material, you did not specify actions not individuals. Rather the opposite, in fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

Evil is common in this world, and more common in government, unless you set a very high threshold for recognizing it.

Take, for instance, the FBI's policy of not recording interviews, instead 'memorializing' them after the fact in written notes. There's no GOOD explanation for that policy, it's clearly intended to allow them to lie about what got said. Isn't that "evil"?

The FBI has policies and practices which are evil. Armchair cited another. Defend them if you care to, right now you're just demanding people ignore them.

[Sarcastr0]

I do think evil is a pretty high bar, though. It's a superlative word. Those who use it otherwise are either being dramatic or are ideological extremists with the concomitant Manichean worldview.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, that's the problem, thinking that recognizing evil in people means that they're just evil. That IS Manichean. It makes you reluctant to see evil in people even when it's on display, and once you do recognize evil in somebody, you flip and stop seeing the good in them.

In reality evil is a scale from 1 to 10, (By which I mean, you won't find any normal person at zero.) we've all got varying amounts of evil in our makeup.

It's as important to see the evil as it is the good, because if you can't see the evil in otherwise good people, you can't notice when they're getting LESS good.

Like the FBI has been for decades, for instance.

[Malika the Maiz]

Every accusation....

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Armchair cheers on Rittenhouse."

What's wrong with cheering on someone who defended himself against people trying to kill him?

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0 believes that people who are assaulted with deadly force shouldn't defend themselves. Like the Israelis. They should just stand there and be massacred by Hamas. And he'll feel "really bad" after seeing all the dead Jews.

But God forbid they defend themselves.

[not guilty]

The Kyle Rittenhouse jury verdict was fully justified. The defense raised a legitimate claim of self-defense, and the prosecution failed to negate or rebut that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

That having been said, there is nothing noble or praiseworthy about what Mr. Rittenhouse did. He armed himself and went searching for trouble. He injected himself into a volatile situation, fully prepared to use lethal force in defense of property in which he had no interest. That is foolhardy and reckless, at best.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a free country, he had just as much right to be in the volatile situation as anyone else did. And it's a good thing for him that he was (legally) armed.

How come the guy that attacked him, that was illegally carrying a concealed weapon, was never charged?

[hobie]

"I like soldiers that didn't get their ears dinged"

Donald J Trump

[Frank Drackman]

You keep Stealing Valor you’re going to run into a Veteran who’s not as nice as I am

Frank

[David Nieporent]

So, why do so many people “Hate” Trump? What’s the reason?

I can speak for myself, not for "so many people."

Trump is a sociopath with no redeeming characteristics as a human being. He is the only president of my lifetime, and the only one I'm aware of in American history, who actually hates the country and everything it stands for. We've had crooks and incompetents, but never someone who actively wants to destroy the country. And to get there, he's happy to tear down any and every institution in the country — the media, the church, the courts, and of course elections themselves — if he thinks it will benefit him. He wants to destroy the liberal international order because he doesn't see how it benefits him personally..

On a personal level, he's corrupt; he has lied and cheated his whole life to get where he was. As far as I know he's never killed anyone, but that's the most one can say. He has pretty much covered the gamut of the rest of the criminal code. He's aggressively stupid — not just dumb; we've had other dumb presidents — but proudly so. He has no fidelity to truth, but he's not merely a liar; he's a bullshitter. He says whatever he thinks will benefit him at the moment without even knowing or caring whether it's true. He's disloyal, both on a personal and institutional level. He's driven by hate and spite. He's lazy. He views the Seven Deadly Sins as a to do list. He's a bully and coward, not to mention a bigot and a demagogue.

Oh, and on a pure policy level, all of his positions are awful.

That's off the top of my head; I'm sure I can come up with more with a bit of effort.

[Moderation4ever]

If any good come from the assassination attempt, I hope it will be that Democrats focus more on fact that Donald Trump did not do a good job as President. I think there has been far too much of a focus on the idea of Trump as an authoritarian leader. There has been too much selling of fear, and this has created the climate where violence happens. I also don't think fears sells as well as some people think it does. In 2020, President Trump did not try to sell his record but rather ran on grievance and lost the election.
If Democrats pass over their achievements and try to sell fear, they will lose in 2024. I have said and continue to believe that Trump lacks the skill set to be President. That should be the focus.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, please, run on your fucking "Achievements", when Sleepy was making his appearance with the Colored People's Convention in Filthydelphia, he even mentioned "Free Screw-el Lunches" it's like he's stuck in 1984. Let's see, dead Marines/Soldiers/Sailors(Air Farce always gets the best deal) in Kabul, that Sleepy couldn't even remember, 10,000,000 (at least) more Ill-legals, Gas $6/gallon in California, yeah, run on your Achievements,

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I think the Biden campaign can do a little better than you have here. Maybe they can show Tommy Tuberville and other Republican praising infrastructure developments in their states and then point out those infrastructure developments are part of bipartisan bills signed by President Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh yes, no other president has sent the taxpayers own money back to them to pave Interstates, you been on the LIE recently?, fucking 3rd World roads are better, I was expecting to see Sambo passing me on an Elephant

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I don't know about other Presidents, but I do know that former President Trump routinely had infrastructure weeks in which nothing was done. I still stand by my statement that the Biden administration can make a case for doing a good job and that will be more effective that trying to scare people about a second Trump Presidency.

[Don Nico]

Bravo! Unfortunately the Dem machine is unlikely to take your advice. Fear-mongering is too deeply embedded in its modus operandi.

[Sarcastr0]

Meanwhile, look at your reaction here. Ask yourself, since you seem to think this kind of self-censorship is a worthy act - are you doing your part to tone down the rhetoric?

[Don Nico]

My self-control does not mean that I won't identify inflammatory rhetoric for what it is or that i swallow holier-than-thou partisanship.
I did not call for anyone's elimination. I did not call Mr Biden an existential threat or any of that crap.
Ask your self if YOU have not been heaping coals on the fire.
Fearmongering has been standard Dem rhetoric my entire life. They will break your unions; they will take away your social security; they will take away Medicare; they will send your sons to war; they are an existential threat.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be openly not abiding by your own principles?

Going on about the Dem machine's fearmongering ways doesn't really seem to be practicing what you preach.

Though if what you preach is for people not to say what they believe because you think it's to hot, that seems to me like you're the one in the wrong, trying to replace other people's opinions with your own.

[Don Nico]

There is a very big difference between citing historical practice and wild claims about existential threats to be perpetrated by a current candidate. If yo cannot see that, you are blind.
"trying to replace other people’s opinions with your own." Say you. You're wrong.

You can't stand ideas contrary to your own. man up for a change.

[Sarcastr0]

"the Dem machine is unlikely to take your advice. Fear-mongering is too deeply embedded in its modus operandi."

That is not citing historical practice; that is ranting about Dems. You have confused partisan opinion for fact, as so many partisans do.

I could be wrong! Hence my saying 'seems to me like you’re the one in the wrong.'
But one thing that is undeniable is that your contempt for people who do not share your sanguine opinion for Trump is not some higher level of rationality than those you're attacking. It's just you wishing they had your opinion, and being angry they do not.

You can’t stand ideas contrary to your own. man up for a change.
THE IRONY

[Don Nico]

"That is not citing historical practice; that is ranting about Dems. You have confused partisan opinion for fact, as so many partisans do."
No it is that I witnessed in every national election since my childhood.

"our contempt for people who do not share your sanguine opinion for Trump"
Here is your usual LIE. You put words never spoken into the mouths of others. I am not angry with anyone. But obviously you are. You rant, rave and stamp your feet just to be argumentative. You do that with nearly every post from Brett, for example.

Your BS about existential threats is calling for "any means possible" to stop Mr Trump. That is destructive of the democracy you claim to want to protect. That is the IRONY.

I am neither voting for Mr Trump nor the Biden/Harris ticket. I live in MA now, hence I can save myself the trouble of voting or I can vote for RFK.

[Sarcastr0]

No it is that I witnessed in every national election since my childhood.
You're not some objective arbiter of events

Great example: "Your BS about existential threats is calling for “any means possible” to stop Mr Trump."

That's the opposite of what I've said (e.g. "I’ve never, ever argued for political violence."
You truly become illiterate where my commenting is involved. And you think your take on Democratic political tactics is any more objective than anyone else's?

Have some humility.

And cool it on the contempt for people with different ideas from yours.

And telling people on a public form no one asked them. Imperiousness does not become.

[Malika the Maiz]

You're engaging in your own demonizing generalization, it's hypocrisy.

[Don Nico]

No one is talking to you.
Hypocricy seems to be your middle name.

[Magister]

Malika the Maiz's middle name appears to be "the".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fear that Rs will cointinue to attack reproductive freedoms has been a big election winner recently.

[Don Nico]

Exactly, SL. Another standard line.

[Joe_dallas]

SL Those aborted babies would like to keep their reproductive lives.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, how do you claim to know what aborted "babies" would or would not like?

[Joe_dallas]

Is that the best response you have to justify killing the innocent

[not guilty]

I'm not attempting to justify anything. You made a metaphysically impossible claim, and I asked for your supporting facts.

[Joe_dallas]

how is that a metaphysically impossible claim? Because the aborted baby cant express their thoughts in words? Most babies cant express their thoughts in words until 12-18 months.

[not guilty]

Well, duh. A "baby" which has been aborted is not a sentient being. It is incapable of liking or disliking anything.

[Joe_dallas]

Of course a baby that has been aborted and is incapable of liking or disliking anything - because its been killed. Did you flunk basic biology?

Fetus feel pain at 12 weeks
Brain is functioning at a fairly advanced level by 6 months.

Again is that the best you can do to justify killing the innocent.

[Sarcastr0]

So what level of action would you say is justified to protect these innocents?

[not guilty]

Hey doofus, you are the one who introduced aborted "babies" (past tense) into the thread.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 27 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Hey doofus, you are the one who introduced aborted “babies” (past tense) into the thread.

NG - Lathrop introduced reproductive rights - one of those code words for abortion rights - the right to kill the innocent.

[David Nieporent]

Fetus feel pain at 12 weeks

This must be the climatologist speaking.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, lets bring in pro life rhetoric to talk about tone.

You're so bad at this!

[Don Nico]

Move those goalposts!

[Sarcastr0]

Joe_dallas: "SL Those aborted babies would like to keep their reproductive lives."

Not sure what goalposts you think I've moved that Joe didn't set.

[Joe_dallas]

Most people want to live - What makes you think the aborted babies want to die. What ever excuse you can come up with to justify the murder of the innocent.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes Joe, that's what I'm saying: that aborted babies want to die.

the murder of the innocent.
Nice toned down rhetoric.

Next talk about treason and what the penalty for that is; sure to cool things off.

[Don Nico]

"that’s what I’m saying: that aborted babies want to die."
Finally the truth.

[David Nieporent]

What makes you think the aborted babies want to die.

What makes you think fetuses want anything at all? What makes you think fetuses have the capacity to feel desire?

[Malika the Maiz]

If someone handed you an embryo would you say "oh, what a lovely baby!"?

[OtisAH]

Those are reactions to actions already taken by MAGAGOP and stated intentions for future actions, not “fears.” They are going after reproductive rights, and a slew of other rights, the moment they get the opportunity.

[Moderation4ever]

Again, I think a positive message that emphasizes the right of patient and doctors to make necessary decisions will be more effective that scare tactics.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

More on that recent 4th Cir. case covered on this blog

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/07/the-fourth-circuit-approves-warrantless.html

[Commenter_XY]

Why have a 4A, with that kind of decision.

[Malika the Maiz]

So, it looks like the shooter didn't turn out to be a Chinese national as some commenters here reported on earlier threads. Jumping to conclusions, it's the internet way!

[Bwaaah]

Yes. Let us reiterate that which we know to be false. Like how "the right" is trying to hide their "Project 2025" plan.

Wouldn't want to encourage misinformation, would we?

[Malika the Maiz]

Whataboutism!

[Magister]

So Trump will absolutely commit to excluding everyone credited with Project 2025 from his administration if he were to win the election? Not that anyone should ever expect Trump to keep a promise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would he need to? He doesn't disagree with the Project 2025 people about EVERYTHING. They'll just have to give up the points he disagrees with if they want to work for him.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump disagrees with something he knows nothing about? Remarkable.

Trump knows 'nothing' about the dozens of people who worked for him? Remarkable

Brett believes Trump without a moment's hesitation? Typical.

[Bwaaah]

Brett didn't say any of those dumb-ass things you said there.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation project. It is not a project sponsored by Trump. It is not a project sponsored by conservatives. It's a sweeping detailed policy document that, as a whole, is probably not embraced by a single human being in the world.

Democrats, including you, pretend there's a hidden conspiracy by Republicans, Trump and political conservative to embrace Heritage Foundation's project. That's totally fabricated B.S.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump said those things in the same breath that he said what Brett did mention.

At least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration have their hands in Project 2025. The biggest liar in US President history claims he knows nothing about it? Yeah, right.

I never have been, nor will I ever be a Democrat. Nothing good is said about your observational skills to try and claim otherwise.

[Bwaaah]

Here's Biden's plan, as represented by the Democratic Socialists of America. Check out how many of their officers and supporters are not only registered Democrats, but members of congress too. Here's my dumb-ass fake message: Joe Biden and the Democrats are behind the Democratic Socialists of America Political Platform. Discuss amongst your dumb-ass selves the absurdity of my assertions here.

[Magister]

It's another case of Trump insisting he never met people, doesn't know them, doesn't know what they look like; then photos, video, transcripts or what not show up. (Dementia or dishonesty? Probably both.)

Trump gave a keynote speech at a Heritage Foundation event where he praised them and said, "They’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do, when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America".

Now he's running away the same way he ran away from his endorsement of birth control restrictions; not because of the policy but because it proved unpopular.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" It is not a project sponsored by conservatives. "

Who, if not conservatives, from your bigoted dumbass perspective, is conducting that Heritage Foundation project (to which more than 100 Trumpers and wingnuts have contributed, likely including a few Volokh Conspirators)?

Liberals?

Libertarians?

Angels?

Demons?

Lee Greenwood?

Ingrid Andress?

[hobie]

The opening of the convention today should be epic. They'll loop Lee Greenwood for about 30 minutes straight causing mass erections. Trump will toddle out with his doberman ear wrap seeping ivermectin and a little halo on a stick. Mass weeping and prostrations will commence

[Don Nico]

You lowered your credibility with every passing word in that post.

[hobie]

Did I get the Lee Greenwood part wrong?

[Frank Drackman]

To bad your deadbeat dad didn’t get the “Sticking his Dick in your Whore Mothers Cunt” wrong
See, THATs how you insult somebody

Frank

[Don Nico]

Well, that is crude exaggeration.

[Sarcastr0]

It's satire.

You may not like it, but credibility is not really in the mix.

I am amused by the notion that you are concerned people will actually think mass erections are in the offing at the convention.

[Don Nico]

Buzz off, no one was talking to you.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like a public political forum may not be where you want to be posting, then.

[Don Nico]

No one was talking to you.

[Malika the Maiz]

Don's post appearing right below Frank's is pure gold. It's just those darn, intemperate leftists he sees!

[Don Nico]

Where is Frank's post? Your eyes are tricking you.
And who said anything about leftists?

[hobie]

Also, how's security supposed to accommodate everyone's pathological need to have their guns on them at all times with Trump's need to keep his toupee straight?

[Ed Grinberg]

If ever there was a less propitious time to make fun of Republicans' "pathological need to have their guns on them at all times"...

[hobie]

Ironic, isn't it?

[Swede425]

SO many salty libs this morning.
I get it. This is a very confusing time.
You're super sad your boy couldn't shoot straight, but you can't really say it out loud or it would confirm what we already know about you.
And God knows we couldn't have THAT.
You're transitioning from Denial to Anger.
You're moving from "It wasn't us" to "Well, maybe it was BUT...", and that can be really difficult for folks who aren't used to having their world view challenged.
It's going to be ok.

[OtisAH]

Oh look everybody, one of our regular douchenozzles made himself another alt. So edgy, too!

[Swede425]

Oh, c'mon man! There's no edges here.
Just the soft curves of empathy and commiseration.
I feel for you. I do!
You guys have gone through a lot lately. No shame in that.
A president "exposed" as a dementia patient. Nobody saw that coming! The electorate was tricked! The press was lied to!
And now, because of the stochastic terrorism that you're all implicitly involved with, one of your team just tried to assassinate the next President of the United States.
And that's a bummer. And I recognize that.

[OtisAH]

And he writes like piece of shit writes. But all these losers read and listen to the same stuff so it could be any of them.

[Swede425]

Regular coffee isn't for everybody.
Have you considered decaf?

[Malika the Maiz]

Don't you mean Regular Coffee and Decaf?

[Malika the Maiz]

"from Denial to Anger"

Lol, yes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you point to some of the comments here that you think best illustrate what you’re talking about? Because the only people here who seem to be upset are Trump partisans disappointed that the liberals aren’t reacting as gracelessly as they’d hoped.

[Malika the Maiz]

There's a lot of debate about mental infirmities and evil on this blog, but some things on this topic are beyond debate. It's crazy to grill a hot dog. Instead, they should be slow cooked with generous onions in a little oil on the stove top for about a half an hour.

Also, people that push down on their burgers while cooking them are monsters.

[Sarcastr0]

I grew up in NY and escaped without becoming a pizza snob. I dud not escape, however, becomig a hotdog snob.

Kosher only is a must. Mustard and sauerkraut is optimal, but can be compromised on.

I used to be a bagel snob but bagel tech seems to have made it out here to the National Capitol Region surprisingly well by this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally I go for Johnsonville's Beddar with Cheddar. Not technically a hotdog, because it's smoked. But, sure, if it's going to be a straight hotdog, Hebrew National with saurkraut and mustard.

[hobie]

The king of all hotdogs are Costco's all-beef franks

[Brett Bellmore]

Had some recently that we'd bought for a party, and they were decent, but only decent. I'll stick with my Johnsonvilles and Hebrew National.

[hobie]

I only buy brisket for burgers. Have the butcher course grind it. At least 30% fat

[Commenter_XY]

Do you have a KitchenAid mixer, hobie? If so, may I recommend the meat grinding attachment. You can preseason before grinding, and eyeball the fat content you want. I am close to swearing off any hamburger I don't grind myself. I do not restrict myself to just brisket, btw; just saying. 😉

It is not hard to do. It really is quite inexpensive to have the best if you have the tools.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gotta love this thread; from Trump as an existential threat to cooking tips.

[Commenter_XY]

It is America, in a microcosm.

[Krayt]

Even hellbound demons on the other side might know a trick or two, given they live in hell where meat sizzles.

[hobie]

The one gadget I don't have. But I like keeping butchers employed

[defaultdotxbe]

You can still buy the meat from the butcher. If you do go the Kitchenaid grinder route make sure you get the metal one, not the plastic. I just ground a bunch of pork with mine the other day.

[Commenter_XY]

hobie....you should give it a whirl (default is right, get steel version for meat); once you've had it, you are hard-pressed to get a burger out anywhere.

[BadLib]

I was tempted to buy the meat grinding attachment for my KA mixer but too many reviews said it broke on them after just a little use. What I couldn't tell was if those complaining were mistaking it for a commercial meat grinder trying to cram an entire cow through it in 30 seconds.

How is yours holding up?

[Commenter_XY]

I've read the same reviews. If you are not a total doofus, you can use the meat grinder attachment without issue. Mine is 5 years strong.

[Frank Drackman]

Hard to believe but the experts say boiling is best.
I’m a Neanderthal though, I’ll eat them cold, right out of the Fridge, with only some Texas Pete to spice it up

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Boiling hotdogs is redundant, they're boiled when they're made. I'll keep charcoal grilling them, myself.

Though fried philly style with onions and peppers can be good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Steamed in beer alla Lums.

Also deep fried as at Rutt's Hut:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutt%27s_Hut

[Commenter_XY]

Yes to Rutt's Hut. It is the best, and it is not close.

I went there weekly. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

(Charcoal) grilled is best, but don’t sleep on boiling – it mellows out the saltiness that can overwhelm the depth of flavor a well made hotdog can bring to the table.

[Ridgeway]

This is the point a lot of people miss. Kosher dogs in particular are extremely salty to begin with, and grilling them concentrates that saltiness to the point where it can be unpleasant. Boiling them leaches out some salt, but still leaves a very flavorful dog. That is why dirty water dogs are so good.

OTOH, milder dogs benefit from charcoal grilling, because it adds a bunch of good flavors.

Lastly, don't underestimate the importance of casings. Most supermarket hot dogs these days, including Nathans, Hebrew National and Sabrett, are sold without casings. That deprives the hot-dog eating public of the satisfying snap they deserve!

[Bwaaah]

My father loved grilling hot dogs until they split wide open with black edged wounds. I thought it was a travesty.

I admit to loving the convenience of a microwave to heat up a hot dog through and through without any burn.

It's all about the bun, and what you put on it.

Martin's Potato Rolls are unbeatable for a soft, rich, full bun. And that leaves room for many wonderful toppings. Chili is my favorite. Sauerkraut works well too. Onions, raw or fried, are great. Relishes are fun. Anything but ketchup on my hot dogs, which is how I started in life but have since moved along.

[Brett Bellmore]

As a teen, I spent a couple summers working at a Vlasic's plant, that put me off store bought relish for years. Not just over-exposure to the smell, seeing some details of its manufacture.

I've since gotten over that, but it's still not my first go-to as a condiment.

[Frank Drackman]

Hot dogs, Germanys gift to the world, probably killed more than Zyklon B, still love them though (Hot Dogs, not Cyanide)
I actually like the cheap pork/chicken ones best, brings back childhood memories, that and canned Corned Beef/Sardines and crackers??? Ummmm good!

Frank

[DrCoke]

Two words.

Rutt's Hut

[ThePublius]

What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

[defaultdotxbe]

Make me one with everything.

[ThePublius]

Ding, ding, ding! A winner!

[Jmaie]

"Instead, they should be slow cooked with generous onions in a little oil on the stove top for about a half an hour."

I'll bite, what does it add to slow cook a fully cooked meat product?

"Also, people that push down on their burgers while cooking them are monsters."

Agreed...

As to comments down thread, brisket is good but try grinding ribeye...

[Drewski]

That photographer deserves his inevitable Pulizer.

[Bwaaah]

Nobody deserves excess credit for the luck of a moment like that and the magical image captured. There has to be a measure of demoralization that comes when one has to wrestle with such an iconic image in the context of one's own contempt for the person in it. You can't un-see it. You can't deny its crispness. All you can do is focus on what you'll call "the fist of Hitler," and ignore the unavoidable allusion to "the blood of Christ."

Of course, those words are silly hyperbole. The vision stands as it was, as it is, in our brains. It can't be un-seen.

[Drewski]

Wow. Just wow. The photographer heard gunfire and went to work, did his job with chaos raging. It's an incredible photo. But you have to pooh-pooh it because he was assigned to a Trump rally by his job. What a small mind you have.

[Bwaaah]

Which picture are you talking about? Which one is at the hand of the Pulitzer-level photographer? LOL

[Drewski]

Funny how you immediately knew which photo I meant until you found it rhetorically useful to act disingenuous. The only points you scored were against yourself.

[Bwaaah]

*I* was referring to the moment, the image in our heads: Donald Trump, fissures of blood travelling down his face, his fist raised high with a resolved gaze and grimace.

*You* are talking about *which* picture? Or is it a particular photographer you’re talking about? Or is it the “Pulitzer” organization (or 16 Nobel laureates) or whatever infatuation with brand-name authority you have that makes you the bigger thinker than me?

[Kazinski]

Here's an article reviewing that photograph.

https://theconversation.com/elevation-colour-and-the-american-flag-heres-what-makes-evan-vuccis-trump-photograph-so-powerful-234662

That's Hobie's favorite photo by the way, he thinks it exposes Trump as a narcissisist, selfishly exposing the Secret Service when he should have meekly allowed himself to be led away, and left the crowd wondering how badly he had been wounded.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for answering my question. Is it a sure thing that that's the one Drewski is talking about? (Is this one of those "everybody knows" things, so I'm a liar or an ignoramus if I don't?)

[Malika the Maiz]

"until you found it rhetorically useful to act disingenuous. "

I see you've met Bwwaah.

[Bwaaah]

I am often facetious, and when I am, I am typically quite overtly so. But I don't recall ever having been disingenuous.

Do you do employ a disingenuous voice? Is that part of your repertoire? It's dishonest and manipulative.

[Bwaaah]

Let's pretend I know which photo you're actually talking about, and I'm being disingenuous. So we'll let this be about me for a moment.

When you're done, I'm interested in knowing which photo is the "Pulitzer" winner, and why it, presumably, is the one that clearly stands above the others. More pointedly, I'd be interested in why you think the photographer's role in that particular photo, unlike the others, marks the differentiating skill that's missing from the other photographers.

I really don't know which one you're talking about. And I'm not being disingenuous.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Anticipation, image composition, flawless technical execution. When you see that combination executed perfectly, the result is a visual design which seems so perfect and so natural that lots of folks discount the skill it took to deliver it. To do that reliably under adrenalin-pumped conditions takes it to another level.

[ReaderY]

The IDF struck a villa containing two senior Hamas commander. Hams tells us 90 “civilians” were killed with no mention of any military personnel. What exactly were these “civilians” doing in a compound with two senior Hamas commanders?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps this blog’s Hamas shills can enlighten us. Of course, in the view of our Hamas shills, EVERYBODY’s a civilian. Hamas is not an official military. And they use an interpretation of international law by which people who are not members of an official military, i.e. everyone in Hamas, are considered combatants only if they are actually shooting; they are non-combatants, civilians, at all other times.

It’s a very convenient definition. To avoid being accused of genocide, Israel can never use the element of surprise. It has to announce its presence and let the Hamas people get their weapons and start firing before it can kill anyone witjout it being a war crime. Any use of surprise means everyone killed is a civilian and is a war crime. Very convenient.

Remember these crazy and highly convenient interpretations of international law these shills are using when you hear them get on their high heinies and start passing gas about “genocide.”

[hobie]

Them darn kids posing as civilians again? But, yes, I'm with you on the hamas fighters. If they're cowardly enough to embed with civilians, then all's fair in my book

[Frank Drackman]

I’m sure the IDF was waiting with baited breath for your approval

[ducksalad]

If they’re cowardly enough to embed with civilians, then all’s fair in my book.

So, if a couple Hamas infiltrators managed to embed themselves among several dozen Jewish children, it’s “all fair” to just blow up the whole place?

I doubt you’d really go there. It’s certainly not what the Israeli leadership does or thinks. Your unspoken ethics here (along with ReaderY, the Israeli government, and really everyone short of a saint) is that it’s less bad, meaning acceptable, to knowingly kill children near combatants if - and only if - they’re somehow “on the other side”. Even though you know, or should know, that preteen kids can’t really have a side.

We even use different terminology to make the same thing sound different: “hostages” when we’ve decided we don’t want to kill the kids, “human shields” when we’ve decided what the hell let’s just kill the kids too.

Anyway, not claiming you or ReaderY are particularly monstrous. Just pointing out that you’re not doing some high principled thing here. It’s the usual Us versus Them.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ll answer your question Seriatim
“Yes”

Frank

[ducksalad]

Well sure, you would, Frank. That's why I only speculated on hobie and the Israeli governments' answer.

[hobie]

I honestly have no preference in this conflict. Israelis and Palestinians, like all groups of peoples, are self-interested savages playing at nobility. I do, however, believe everyone should be given a fair shake. And the apartheid regime the Palestinians are forced to endure must end and the lands being stolen from them to this very day must be returned

[Bob from Ohio]

"apartheid regime" " lands being stolen"

All those with "no preference" agree!

[Frank Drackman]

Like Wayne Gretzky said when asked “Bo Knows Hockey?”

“No”
Now you’re an expert on the Mideast? You’re free to volunteer and go die for your Sand Niggers,
Yeah, right I didn’t think so

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Hopefully Mohammed Deif is riding the one way train to a hot afterlife.

[John F. Carr]

Bloggers like to dub "Highway to Hell" over Ukraine war footage.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, that is bad. But perfect. Maybe Deif can join them on that Highway to Hell.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Of course, in the view of our Hamas shills, EVERYBODY’s a civilian."

Lead with the strawman!

[Frank Drackman]

I love the smell of Palestinian Strawmen burning in the morning

Frank

[ReaderY]

In the 2020 election, there were people on the Democrstic left who refused to suppoet Biden. In their view, if you didn’t support free tuition, universal heath care, and free abortion for all, you were a fascist. They just disn’t see any meaningful difference between Biden and Trump.

One consistent feature of extrmists of the left is that they often tend to have far greater problems with, and animosity towards, people slightly to the right of them than people much further to the right. They perhaps regard them as people who ought to know better and being willful traitors.

This tendency has had tragic consequences. In Germany in the early 1930s, there were people on the left who saw no meaningful difference between the Social Democrats and Hitler. If not my way, who cares where the highway’s going?

Perhaps this explains the vitriol towards Israel and the repeated excuses of its enemies. After all, lots of countries in the world today have de facto annexed territory gained in a war to the detriment of citizens of the loser countries and nobody is saying boo, from India’s crackdown in disputed Kashmir to Turkey’s effective annexation of eastern Cyprus to Azerbaijan’s crackdown in its disputed Armenian enclave to China’s active cultural crackdown on Tibetans, Muslims, etc. in multiple territories, to wholesale behavior after WWI and WWII. The United States in its various wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. has killed literally millions of civilians over several decades on a scale that utterly dwarfs anything Israel has done, and few have said much of anything. The United States is dotted with towns and counties that still have alcohol prohibition, Sunday closing laws, etc., and few people care.

So why Israel? Somehow it seems that people expect perfection of Israel, so if it behaves like most ordinary countries behave in similar situations, somehow that makes it a monster. And why do they embrace Hamas and its slogans and openly root for Hamas to conquor it?

Perhaps, like the Communists who supported Hitler to stick it to the Social Democrats, the leftist Democrats who ended up supporting Trump to stick it to Biden, and many more tragic examples from world history, the left-wing folks rooting for Hamas to stick it to Israel have a sort of death wish, preferring to be right than to do any good or have any success. But perhaps, despite their professions of love and justice, they actually admire cruelty and power. Perhaps in their heart of hearts they actually secretly admire and look up to Hitler, Trump, and Hamas, and are taking the route of claiming to spite the people nominally on their side because they can’t bring themselves to admit it.

Or perhaps they just like whomever they regard as the underdog. The Klu Klux Klan and Hitler all rose to power largely by claiming to be persecuted. Trump may do the same. Perhaps they buy the message of an underdog against the establishment, whoever that underdog might be and whatever the underdog might do if attaining power.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've remarked before on Haidt's study, where he had people identify themselves politically, answer a bunch of questions, and then asked them to answer the questions as though they were a liberal, moderate, or conservative.

The only group that couldn't do a decent job of modeling people holding other political views? The hard left. Everybody else could do it decently well.

But, there have also been studies of self-censoring on campus, who's afraid to openly express their opinions. It's not just the conservatives, the moderates and liberals are also reporting self censoring. They only group that isn't afraid to say what they think?

The hard left. Because they're the ones everyone else is afraid of!

The hard left really are categorically different from the rest of the political spectrum. Demonstrably so, and not in good ways.

[Sarcastr0]

It's just hilariously on point that Brett's take includes the assumption that no one is afraid of the hard right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, this WAS a survey on campus. How many hard right do you think there are on today's college campuses, anyway? Does Harvard have a campus branch of The Proud Boys?

[Sarcastr0]

1. You’re making a point broader than just campuses.
2. Campus culture is not the same as whatever violence you’re assuming
3. ‘the left can’t predict how the right thinks…therefore the hard left is who everyone is afraid of’ this does not follow.

Oh the left can suck. Bullies, protests designed to outrage, insufferable smug righteousness.

Yet again, you spin out the world you want with this unanchored kind of speculation. And it says a lot that your worldview is just a world haunted by your political opposites being violent and evil. Whether you realize it or not, that is the world you want.

But your asymmetry based on this one study is way overplayed compared to what the study says.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’ll concede the irony of Brett Bellmore critiquing other people for being unable to comprehend what motivates their political opponents, but I do think you’re misconstruing his point here.

[Sarcastr0]

This has been known to happen from time to time, aye.

I'm taking issue with his last two lines: "The hard left. Because they’re the ones everyone else is afraid of!

The hard left really are categorically different from the rest of the political spectrum. Demonstrably so, and not in good ways."

And I don't think the asymmetry is supported; on campus where you have a seriously skewed population. And then going to fear as a cause puts you in the ridiculous position of saying no one fears the hard right.

[Don Nico]

Move them goalposts when ypou don't have a real answer.

[Sarcastr0]

I've looked into it, and don't see any moved goalposts. Looks like your Sarcastr0-based illiteracy is acting up again!

[Malika the Maiz]

Which campus? Liberty? BYU? Trump University?

[Bwaaah]

“It’s just hilariously on point that Brett’s take includes the assumption that no one is afraid of the hard right.”

I’ve never met a person who is scared to criticize the hard right. I’m not aware of any college settings, or corporate settings, where people are concerned about repercussions if they criticize the hard right. And though there are undoubtedly isolated stories, I haven’t seen any such repercussions.

On the other hand, many people have described their self-censorship to me and it is invariably out of fear of repercussions from the left. (I’ve heard that fear, of the left, from the left as much as the right.)

You can pretend there is partisan symmetry in that which is sometimes called “cancel culture.” But people on the right and the left, very much alike, know the problem, how it feels, and what drives it. Your pretense that self-censorship isn’t being mainly driven by the hard left is laughable.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you ever met someone scared to criticize communism?

And fear as the motive for self censorship is not at all right.

I'm in a D&D group that's got at least a few vocal Trump supporters. I don't talk politics. That's arguably self censorship. But I don't keep quiet out of a fear of violence, just a desire for commity and to focus on rolling some crits.

[Malika the Maiz]

That's why so many GOP politicians are so easily critical of Trump!

What a hilarious phony you are. You're that guy who used to pretend to be from another country and go on about how the whole world sees our decline, but never identify what country you're from, right?

[Bwaaah]

You thought this was about politicians self-censoring themselves? I was that guy who said what?

Get your feet back on the ground.

[Malika the Maiz]

He used to dodge where he was from too.

The party of "RINO's" and Trump's revenge is, of course, the party opposing self-censorship!
Lol.

[Bwaaah]

I don't oppose self-censorship. I oppose, with very few real world exceptions, seeking punishment and retribution in response to people merely expressing their point of view.

Do you feel otherwise?

[Bwaaah]

(silence)

[Malika the Maiz]

"One consistent feature of extrmists of the left is that they often tend to have far greater problems with, and animosity towards, people slightly to the right of them than people much further to the right. They perhaps regard them as people who ought to know better and being willful traitors."

LMFAO. Yeah, "DINOs" is so common a term on the left!

What a hack.

[Bob from Ohio]

"“DINOs” is so common a term on the left!"

"Neo-liberal" is the left's RINO

[ducksalad]

Re Israel I think your explanation is overly complicated, and also has a bit of recency bias.

You say “The United States in its various wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. has killed literally millions of civilians over several decades on a scale that utterly dwarfs anything Israel has done, and few have said much of anything.” I think you’re just forgetting. The antiwar protests in 1990 and 2003 were literally tens of thousands of people. The anti-Israel protests of 2024 are groups of a few hundred at a few dozen campuses. The Iraq War was a major campaign issue in 2004; in 2024 Trump and Biden only mention Gaza as a brief aside.

IMO the reason lefty kids obsess about Gaza is because support for Israel has become mapped onto conservatism and nationalism here, at least how lefties see it, and they are unthinkingly against US conservatism and nationalism. (Yes, there are paleocons who aren’t big fans of Israel, but as Brett points out lefties aren’t very good about understanding the different parts of conservatism.)

So, for example, you mentioned India-Kashmir and Turkey-Cyprus. We didn’t have hundreds of Republicans and centrist Democrats saying “We Stand with India” or “We Stand with Turkey”. They weren’t having themselves photographed with Indian or Turkish flags, or bragging about how much money we sent them (even though we did send some), or going on junkets over there.

And therefore, there was nothing to push back against.

[EscherEnigma]

I think it's the videos of people holding their dismembered children, and the fact that Israel, more then any of those other examples you gave, is dependent on US military aid.

If Israel wasn't such a tight US ally, I don't think Americans would care as much.

[John F. Carr]

Last week we learned why Judge Kindred of the District of Alaska resigned: sex, lies, and nudes. One day later a prosecutor who sent him nude photos lost her position as "senior litigation counsel" and is back to being a plain old Assistant US Attorney. This according to Bloomberg Law citing anonymous sources. The defense bar is looking to see if her conduct affects any cases. Judge Kindred does seem to have recused in cases where she was listed as counsel. Her advisory position may have given her a role in other cases. Note that there were two Assistant US Attorneys involved with him and this story is about only one of them.

This is municipal court level behavior. I expected better from a U.S. District Court.

[John F. Carr]

Do you think Trump remembers the ending of The Dead Zone where the evil candidate appears to be a coward when the bullets fly?

[defaultdotxbe]

I think that Trump has rehearsed, at least in his mind, what he would do if there was ever an assassination attempt. Either way though, he definitely got his Bull Moose moment and photo op.

[Frank Drackman]

I did, I love all of SK’s stuff, except for those awful “Dark Tower” books, even if he is a huge Scrotum, who else incorporates Blue Oyster Cult lyrics into a horror Novel?

Frank

[hobie]

Lol! Good remembrance. Except in our reality, the candidate is holding up his brogans

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone catch Sleepy’s “Statement” last night? He had that creepy expression people get when they realize they’re about to die, which at this point would be the best strategy for Common-law Harris-Willie-Brown to win in November

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many times did Trump get caught sleeping in court en route to his conviction(s)?

(How many crimes must one commit to be that bored at a criminal trial?)

Bruce is back on stage . . . catch him when you can!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD
(Northern California edition)

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

TWO (2)

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

THIRTY-THREE (33)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 33 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 33 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

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

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions. At this
rate, the Volokh Conspiracy would
become the Babe Ruth of Bigotry.

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

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

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

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling GemStones:

First, from Some Girls, a Bill Wyman showcase.

Next, this one is not a prediction (as Fool to Cry was), but it's a new one that could show up on a setlist on the next leg.

Enjoy!

[Swede425]

Is this guy ok?
I mean, this is approaching manifesto level.
I hope there aren't any Christian schools near him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many racial slurs would it take to persuade you that a white, male, bigot-hugging, right-wing blog might have a problem involving racial issues?

Are you a fan of nonsense-based education?

Carry on, clinger. So far as your betters permit.

[Swede425]

Guys, it's talking to me.
Like directly to me.
What's the protocol here?
Do I soothe it with gentle words?
I don't wanna poke it with a stick because that's mean and I'm Lutheran, so that's just not an option.
Alright, I'm going to attempt to soothe it with gentle words:
"There, there. There, there".
Now, we wait and see.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Observing a bunch of socially inept, disaffected, on-the-spectrum, right-wing, STEMmer misfits as they try to communicate with and navigate the modern American mainstream has been a silver lining to the Volokh Conspiracy.

It does not offset the xenophobia, racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, antisemitism, Islamophobia, transphobia, and other flavors of conservative bigotry found every day at this white, male blog, or the antisocial delusions of adequacy exhibited by the culture war's casualties, but it has been . . . interesting to watch.

Carry on, clingers.

[Swede425]

So you're saying I'm interesting?
Why, Arthur, you sweet talker.
I bet you say that to all the boys.
Flatterer.
But I'm afraid I'm already taken.
I'm not here to break hearts, but I want to be very clear about that.
Hopefully, you can respect my boundaries.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I didn't say you are interesting. I said being exposed to so many disaffected, bigoted, autistic societal misfits, and watching them try to navigate normal people, social cues, political developments, etc., has been interesting. And illuminating. Until I read this blog, I never encountered nearly so many of these awkward, strange people (although I now recognize I knew a few in college).

[Z Crazy]

I've been thinking about the debt crisis, and how it's foundation is that there's simply no constituency for austerity, for cutting spending to raise surpluses.

And I was thinking, why not use the arguments environmentalists use. I mean, environmentalists want us to cut down on the use of natural resources to save the environment.

Why not call on people to support conserving money? I mean, all those arguments that the poor would suffer by cutting social spending can be answered that cutting spending now ensures there's more money for social services next year, just like conserving water now ensures there's water next year.

and of course, austerity means that the U.S> will consume fewer natural resources. I've heard the complaint that the U.S. is only 6% of the world's population and consumes 25% of the world's resources, and we're financing this by borrowing and printing money, which isn't sustainable. High interest rates would also encourage people to save instead of consuming natrual resources.

How about this? Is there a political party allied with the environmentalist movement?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a new observation that deficit spending is democracy's fundamental weakness: Once borrowing money to buy votes becomes acceptable, nobody who refuses to do it can compete. So if you become serious about budget balancing, you're serious from the outside.

As a result, once this dynamic gets going, politicians stop trying to balance the budget, and pursue other ends.

And yet, the public generally supports balanced budgets, and if you can take borrowing off the table, the pubic is behind you. But the politicians are conditioned by now to deficit spend, and don't want to face a world where they can't. So they won't give the public a balanced budget amendment, though it's wildly popular.

So, we're basically doomed to keep borrowing until things crash, and austerity is no longer a choice.

I don't think you can get the environmental movement on board, as it currently stands: Their infatuation with 'renewables' requires massive subsidies to stay viable, and so is utterly incompatible with any degree of budget restraint.

[Krayt]

"Bread and circuses" goes back at least to the Roman days.

[Malika the Maiz]

A quick Google search seemed to say that the 16 billion in renewable energy subsidy and almost twice that on farm subsidies.

Why does the former come to your mind when expressing anger about spending?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not a big fan of farm subsidies, but at least they're not subsidizing farmers adopting practices that are likely to lead to unpredictable famines.

[Malika the Maiz]

Like any conservative, Brett differentiates between the "deserving" welfare and the not.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should hope so!

Like I said, I'm not a fan of farm subsidies, but I do distinguish between "wasteful" and "actively destructive". Most, (But not all!) farm subsidies are merely wasteful. Subsidies to replace reliable sources of power with unreliable ones are actively destructive.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — GMO agricultural technology leads directly to predictable famines, delivered by classical Malthusian processes sure to deliver catastrophe when the GMO methods fail.

[Brett Bellmore]

So predictably that we have yet to experience the first of them...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, there is considerable difference between what the ignorant experience, and what the observant can notice. If you wish to do it, you can see the incipient failure of GMO agriculture in process now. Just drive your vehicle down any unpaved farm lane surrounded by GMO crops. Get out, and see how much evidence of natural life you can observe, except of course the desired crop. Do you really suppose that human survival is possible, if it is based on a biome no broader than than the list of crop species chosen for GMO modification?

[Bwaaah]

Wow. Do you understand there have been decades of global GMO development/deployment that have observably improved global agricultural productivity while having revealed NO significant evidence of any of the problems you imagine?

What of empirical integration of scientific information? It goes right over your head. You, Stephen, exhibit a kind of baseless, anti-science dogma that infects so many people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah, GMO agriculture is a technique which relies entirely on a method to kill annually almost every living thing within the area under cultivation, except the desired crop. Considered nationally, that mass environmental extirpation is currently being applied annually to an area approximately equivalent to the entire area— not just the crop land—of the following states combined: California, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The area thus affected continues to increase.

Within the boundaries of GMO-affected land, not only weeds and insects get subjected to mass death. You will find almost zero mammals, zero reptiles, zero amphibians. You will hear little birdsong or insect noise. To anyone familiar with previous manifestations of rural ecology, the silence is eerie and disturbing.

If you are curious, just go out and see for yourself. Drive down any unpaved farm lane, stop your vehicle, get out, and see what you can observe and hear around you. Note also that you will have great difficulty to observe directly evidence of what changes will necessarily be under way in the soil biome—but that is likely the most threatening manifestation of all.

This all happened without the slightest consideration of environmental policy. It simply crept in as a much-applauded free market phenomenon, sold for its obvious virtues, and otherwise unconsidered. Had that infliction of annual mass destruction of the nation's biome ever come up for consideration as policy, there is no chance whatever that it would have passed, either legislatively or administratively. The reckless folly of inflicting annual mass death on that scale would have brought even the ignorant up short.

GMO agriculture is insane policy which is being followed only because it has proved profitable, and because it has never been subject to ecological review. It will be ecological catastrophe which brings it to a halt, but likely only after mass dependence on its bounty of food has multiplied human populations in many nations beyond sustainable levels. Too bad almost no one is considering now about how to deal with that eventuality as a policy question.

[David Nieporent]

GMO agriculture is a technique which relies entirely on a method to kill annually almost every living thing within the area under cultivation,

No, it isn't. You don't even understand the technology under discussion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — So explain the technology under discussion to me, in terms of ecological impacts. Insight from a dedicated indoorsman such as yourself will provide rare, and doubtless diverting, new perspectives.

What about this topic is such a goad to you that you step again and again away from every pretension of personal competence, to deny something you never bothered even to notice? Are you arguing on behalf of some GMO-related client interest?

Here is a hint for you. It is happening. No one capable of ordinary sight, and who enjoys sensitivity to sound, needs professional training to observe it. You do not need comparative studies over time. Or any studies at all. It is a contrast so imposing that anyone with ordinary powers of observation can grasp it instantly.

Here for anyone who cares to do it, is a way to confirm for yourself what I have claimed. In Delaware, not far from most of the major population centers along the east coast—and no more than a few hours drive from Nieporent—is a national wildlife refuge, called Bombay Hook. It has the advantage for this purpose to be surrounded on three sides by intensive and extensive GMO farming operations. Bombay Hook is an island of natural ecology amounting to 25 square miles, amidst an ocean of GMO cropland, with the Delaware River estuary running along the 4th side.

Visit Bombay Hook in high summer. Experiment with a walk along a forest path in the refuge. Use all the bug repellent you can find, and see how long you can stand what happens anyway. Then do no more than step foot outside the refuge, maybe a few hundred yards from the entrance. Don't bother with bug repellent. You won't need any. There will be no bugs, nor any birds, nor animals that eat bugs, nor animals that eat other animals that eat bugs. No reptiles, no amphibians, no voles, no foxes. Nor, for that matter, any plants that the vast majority of bug species can eat, whether in their adult or larval stages. Hang out for as long as you care to do it among the GMO crops, and the weirdly sterile-looking dirt they grow out of.

If that experience does not scare the piss out of you, then you are probably, like Nieporent, a dedicated indoorsman with habitual disregard for what natural phenomena must continue to enable him to put food on his table.

People who live almost exclusively in cities have a hard time grasping this peril. If you are one of them, get out and look around.

[David Nieporent]

GMO agricultural technology leads directly to predictable famines,

GMO agricultural technology leads directly to vast food surpluses.

(Now it's your turn to claim that you remember that there used to be more bugs on windshields 70 years ago.)

[Absaroka]

"GMO agricultural technology leads directly to vast food surpluses"

I'm not sure he disagrees with that. His reference to Malthus makes me think his argument is that GMO leads to food surpluses, so we increase the human population, so if GMO stops working we'll have a famine.

Of course this also applies to all other modern farming techniques - tractors instead of mules, steel plows, irrigation, fertilizer, hybrids and other plant breeding efforts, etc. It applies equally to anything that increases the food supply.

(rant: people object to 'GMO' when, usually, it sounds like they actually object to BT corn and Roundup Ready anything. But 'GMO' just refers to developing new varieties with genetic engineering rather than traditional breeding. The folks who inserted a freeze resistance gene into tomatoes were also doing GMO. I think people are trying to bring back American Chestnut trees by swapping in genes from blight resistant varieties, etc. It's fine to object to any specific use of the the technology, but objecting to the technology regardless of what is being changed seems ... uninformed)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, you grasp my meaning better than Neiporent. But you remain wide of the mark. You write:

It applies equally to anything that increases the food supply.

That is slightly true. Very slightly true. You would have been closer to the mark if you had not left chemical pesticides and ordinary weed killers off your list. But you did leave those off, and they are the best points of comparison.

What are the results of the comparison? It does not show anything like the equality you claim. GMO agricultural techniques are vastly more efficient killers, and broader spectrum killers, than the former methods. That is why agriculturists have flocked to GMO, and disregarded their former favorites.

Commercial farmers, at least, have for a long time wanted to kill whatever got in the way of maximizing crop yields. GMO techniques are far and away the most efficient universal killers they have ever seen. So the older, less efficient, chemical methods have gone by the wayside, with that replacement sold as an advantage of GMO. Insofar as GMO techniques somewhat reduce the likelihood of poisoning people who eat the food, there is basis to claim that advantage. Problem is, it tells us nothing about comparative ecological effects, and those are potentially more important even than diseases or deaths induced by chemical poisoning of the food supply by those traditional techniques.

I have focused on GMO as an integrated agricultural method, and not as a plant modification method, as you point out. Given the vast disparity in scale between the integrated agricultural method, and the experimental technologies you mention, I think ignoring the experiments as trivial is justified in most cases—with nutritional improvements in cereal grains as a standout exception.

But permit me to add a note of caution, even in the cases of actually beneficial GMO experiments in nutritional improvement. Those are not, as you seem to suppose, typically ecologically alike with other time-honored plant breeding techniques, such as the hybridization methods you mention.

The older techniques have a saving advantage. They rarely stray far from possibilities which had almost certainly been tested by nature for ecological soundness, via the sieve of natural selection. Chance gene combinations which result in the destruction of entire ecosystems probably tend to die out. And with multi-millions of years of evolution, a lot of what has proved hybridizable in traditional agricultural practice has probably already been tried naturally without delivering notable ecological damage. Hybridization among wild species is known to be commonplace.

Modern laboratory gene swaps do not come with that natural selection backstop. If someone wants to put a codfish gene in a tomato plant, to see what the lab can do that nature never would have done, they can do it. A problem is that the authors of such novelties work without erasers on their pencils. If something they create escapes their control, they have no techniques reliably to extirpate it and start over.

If the results of one of their experiments achieves heritability, and thus escapes into the wild, nobody knows what can happen, or how to undo what happens if it delivers a catastrophic ecological result.

Without natural selection standing as an eons-long historical safeguard behind breeding experiments both natural and purposeful, no one can be sure what ecological perils the plant engineers might unleash. However long the odds of such an accident might appear, the stakes of that game could prove ruinously high. Of course, those experimenters are drawn selectivity toward tinkering with species important to the human food supply. It is hard to imagine that none of them will ever make a dangerous mistake.

[EscherEnigma]

You could give it a try, but the fundamental problem is that anytime someone starts pushing austerity measures, it always happens to be the other guy's ox that has to be gored "for the good the country".

Until you find politicians willing to gore their own ox? It's not going to work.

[gVOR08]

Loose Cannon just dismissed the trump documents case, taking Thomas' gratuitous advice in the immunity decision that Smith wasn't properly appointed. The king is above the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

So? If they'd gone after Biden and Pence, too, I might believe there was something principled going on here. As they didn't, it's clearly just lawfare.

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly!

[gVOR08]

Your total lack of comprehension of the differences between theTrump case and the Biden and Pence cases is perhaps not the compelling argument you think it is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, as Vice Presidents (and in Biden’s case as a Senator) neither were entitled to be in possession of classified documents.

[David Nieporent]

Of course vice presidents are entitled to be in possession of classified documents. What a crazy suggestion.

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand the differences here, but they only set in AFTER the decision was made to go after Trump, and ONLY Trump, for common practices in DC.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There's the fucking liar we all know and loathe!

Trump was charged precisely because his behavior was not 'common practice' in DC. He stole, he obstructed, he lied, he obstructed more, all the while flipping the finger to the law and the morals that the rest of us (read: not you) have and cherish.

This has been explained at least a hundred times to you by now.

Fuck you and your lies.

[Malika the Maiz]

Did Pence and Biden arguably obstruct as much?

[Mr. Bumble]

Paging not guilty, paging Mr. not guilty.

[not guilty]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bumble. I like to actually read a judicial order before commenting on it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fair enough. 93 pages takes a while.

[CountmontyC]

Some cue up Queen and play "Another One Bites the Dust" as another lawfare case against the once and future POTUS bites the dust.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When Trump reports to prison, better Americans will toast our nation's improvement.

[CountmontyC]

Trump is going to the White House not the big house.
Soak it up fool.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He might go to both. Which is more likely might be a coin flip.

Don't forget that Trump's supporters are modern America's rejects and write-offs, and that losing a culture war has consequences, especially over the medium to long term.

[CountmontyC]

The document case is over and the DC and the Georgia cases are on life support. Your only hope now is that the New York case isn't overturned on appeal ( which I strongly suspect it will).
Your hopes are being dashed one by one. Loser.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The document case is over? Where did you get your law degree -- a Cracker Jack box, or maybe South Texas College of Law Houston?

Try not to let your adoration of Trump's criminal conduct, grifting, bigotry, and un-American boorishness interfere with your view of the reality-based world quite so much, clinger.

[CountmontyC]

Did you miss the news? It was just tossed and I sincerely doubt that it comes back.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The record of Judge Cannon's rulings on appeal make you optimistic?

She's in over her head, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss the prospect of calculated partisanship.

[Bwaaah]

Arthur? Hello? Clinging?

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe, maybe not! But regardless what do you have to gain by doing this lame-ass Mr. T preemptive gloating?

[CountmontyC]

You mean like the preemptive gloating that the not so Reverend Arthur Kirkland did by
saying that Trump was assuredly going to prison?
I don't see you calling him out for that. Maybe police your own side.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha I haven't seen an RAK comment in years. Yeah, probably - you should try and do better than using him as a bar.

[CountmontyC]

So your claim is that you didn't see Kirkland's post that I was responding to but decided to get involved despite that lack of information?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes; I don't think "Trump is going to the White House not the big house. Soak it up fool." needs a lot of context.

I also repeat that if you've set your bar of okay commenting at 'equal to or better than RAK' you're doing it wrong.

[Malika the Maiz]

I would think All Hail the King would be more your style.

[CountmontyC]

My tastes are eclectic.
Since you are a leftist and after this weekend I suspect you identify with this song
https://youtu.be/Dm_BrGu1sHM?si=26WPeciU7EJTgJxU

[hobie]

Holy fucking shit!

[John F. Carr]

See docket entry 672 at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?page=4

[John F. Carr]

These are the statutory provisions found inadequate. Note that subsection 515(a) applies to an "officer" or "attorney appointed ... under law". It does not standing alone authorize Garland to drag some guy in off the street. (I've heard of judges literally doing that to fill out a jury pool, sending court officials out into the street like an old fashioned press gang.)

28 USC §515. Authority for legal proceedings; commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys

(a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.
(b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney.

28 USC §533. Investigative and other officials; appointment

The Attorney General may appoint officials—
(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States;
(2) to assist in the protection of the person of the President; and 1
(3) to assist in the protection of the person of the Attorney General.2
(4) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General.
This section does not limit the authority of departments and agencies to investigate crimes against the United States when investigative jurisdiction has been assigned by law to such departments and agencies.

[John F. Carr]

I copied the footnotes references but not the footnotes. Here are the notes.
1 So in original. The word "and" probably should not appear.
2 So in original. The period probably should be "; and".

[not guilty]

What I find most remarkable about the order of dismissal is that there is no principled discussion of dismissal of the superseding indictment being an available remedy.

Jack Smith did not indict Donald Trump; the federal grand jury for the Southern District of Florida indicted him. "An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits." Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956) [footnote omitted].

Even assuming arguendo that the Attorney General's appointment of the Special Counsel is defective, the validity of the grand jury indictment is unaffected thereby. There is no contention that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida was not regularly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There should be no impediment to his assuming control of the prosecution.

Hell, he could even hire Jack Smith and his staff as AUSAs.

[hobie]

Notguilty , do you think this ruling could be used to trigger collateral estoppel in the DC case?

[not guilty]

No. A nonfinal order does not have collateral estoppel effect.

[hobie]

That was my thought as well, but who knows what laws or norms are safe after this fucking year

[Noscitur a sociis]

In what sense do you think this is a non-final order?

[not guilty]

It is a final decision of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but it is nonfinal for purposes of issue preclusion or claim preclusion because it remains subject to appeal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.”

Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1), a federal indictment must be signed by an attorney for the government. I believe the authority is that this is a substantive requirement showing that a duly-authorized representative of the government endorses the prosecution. There is a First Circuit case saying that the fact that the indictment was signed by an AUSA whose law license was temporarily suspended is not a basis for dismissal, but I believe it relied on the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that other, senior officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office supported and approved the prosecution. Here, (as far as I know) there is nothing to indicate that anything has been endorsed by anyone other than Smith, so I while it's not the only possible conclusion, if you accept the Appointment clause analysis I don't think the remedy is too outlandish.

(I agree, of course, that there's no bar to immediate reindictment, including by Smith himself should his appointment be shored up, although I would be shocked if he doesn't appeal instead.)

[not guilty]

Presentment by a grand jury has fallen into disuse in the federal system, but it remains within the power of the grand jury, which can act independently of the prosecuting attorney. See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 65-66 (1906).

Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1) cannot create a procedural obstacle so as to override the grand jury's function under the Fifth Amendment.

[Kleppe]

"What I find most remarkable about the order of dismissal is that there is no principled discussion of dismissal of the superseding indictment being an available remedy."

It sounds like the "Special Counsel" should have done a better job arguing his case. It isn't the judge's job to make the government's arguments for them. I saw a couple different instances in the order where the judge remarked that the "Special Counsel" had declined to confront various arguments.

[not guilty]

I suspect that when the legal writing instructor at the University of Michigan encouraged 1Ls to make their writings pithy, Aileen Cannon mistakenly thought that he was thpeaking with a lithp.

[hobie]

Perhaps the government didn't want to give credence to bullshit Trump legal shenanigans. Plus they mistakenly may have hoped this judge wasn't fully in the tank for Trump. Wrong

[Roger S]

They would need to get a new indictment. And use a US attorney, not a private citizen.

[Bored Lawyer]

"The king is above the law."

Given that that the US attorney can step in, I think not. This ruling is of less importance than either side thinks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well it certainly seems to preclude any chance of a trial before the election (which starts in September in some places).

[EscherEnigma]

Cannon had already seen to that.

[not guilty]

"Given that that the US attorney can step in, I think not. This ruling is of less importance than either side thinks."

Except the pending, superseding indictment has now been dismissed. For the U. S. Attorney to proceed would require reindictment by the grand jury or reversal of the order of dismissal by the Court of Appeals.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, that part seems odd. I would have given the government 30 days to substitute proper counsel, and then dismissed after. It's similar to finding out your lawyer is not admitted to practice.

[John F. Carr]

The right action depends on whether in her opinion the defect can be cured. If a Senate-confirmed attorney can ratify the indictment the case should resume as soon as one does. It's the same if the "de facto officer" doctrine applies to Smith's acts up until he was officially disqualified. If the indictment is void ab initio then dismissal is the appropriate action and the government should seek a fresh indictment.

As a matter of grace, judges in civil cases in my state's courts are likely to allow a new attorney to take over the case as it stands. Technically the complaint was never filed or the defendant can be defaulted for failure to answer the complaint.

Without Smith the prosecution would be led by Markenzy Lapointe, US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. If he does take over we can expect even louder calls of "witch hunt!" because he is a Biden appointee.

[Mr. Bumble]

93 page decision but no mention as to whether with or without prejudice.

[Bored Lawyer]

Which means without.

[Mr. Bumble]

I assumed so since a with prejudice decision would have littered the country with brain matter from all of the exploding heads.

[not guilty]

Judge Cannon's order of dismissal is here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.672.0_2.pdf

The statutory distinctions she makes are finer than frog hair.

The order amounts to a punt that Ray Guy would envy. At least the matter will go to the Eleventh Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals, which has already reversed Judge Cannon twice at the investigative stage of the case.

[Kleppe]

I'm confused -- are you misusing the "finer than frog hair" expression, or are you actually satisfied with the order of dismissal?

[hobie]

I thought the correct saying was 'finer than a cunt hair'

[Mr. Bumble]

...a red cunt hair.

[not guilty]

No. A fine distinction is a narrow, slender one. A frog has no hair, so the distinction here is so trifling as to be nonexistent.

[Kleppe]

All right, thank you for clarifying. I am not a prescriptivist when it comes to language usage but you should be aware that the way you used the frog's hair expression is not how it is typically understood, and likely to confuse readers.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/finer+than+frog+hair

[not guilty]

I am somewhat satisfied with the order of dismissal. Judge Cannon has been assiduously avoiding issuing any order that the Special Counsel can appeal. Here the dismissal of the indictment is a final decision of the District Court, appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The reasoning of the decision is weak, inviting reversal by the appellate court.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has twice reversed Judge Cannon at the investigative stage of this case. In other cases where that court has reversed the same district court multiple times in the same case, the Court of Appeals has ordered that upon remand the matter be reassigned to a different judge. United States v. Plate, 839 F.3d 950, 958 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 577 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 696 (11th Cir. 1988).

[Kleppe]

"The reasoning of the decision is weak"

Is your opinion that both the Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause arguments are meritless, or that there may have been merit but the judge didn't explain it persuasively in her order?

[not guilty]

I think it is a result oriented opinion that should have been foreclosed by United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974) ("[Congress] has also vested in [the Attorney General] the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533.") As the D.C. Circuit opined in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2019), that language is not dictum.

Even if the applicable language from Nixon were dicta, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly recognized that "there is dicta and then there is dicta, and then there is Supreme Court dicta." Schwab v. Crosby, 451 F.3d 1308, 1325 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. F.E.B. Corp., 52 F.4th 916, 929 (11th Cir. 2022). "[D]icta from the Supreme Court is not something to be lightly cast aside." Schwab, at 1325; Georgia v. Meadows, 88 F.4th 1331, 1348 (11th Cir. 2023).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, Justice Thomas’ concurrence in the immunity case discussed both the Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause. Some have cynically called it a road map. Others might call it fortuitous timing.

Do you think Judge Cannon ‘took the hint’ from Justice Thomas’ concurrence, and if so, would that be wrong?

[not guilty]

Justice Thomas's so-called "concurring opinion" was in fact an advisory opinion on a question not raised by any party, not litigated by below and not briefed at all. It was a valentine to Judge Cannon.

I may be giving Judge Cannon undue credit for self-awareness, but she may have seen this issue as an exit ramp to get off of a case where she was in way over her head.

[Commenter_XY]

LMAO = valentine comment....pretty funny.

[Mr. Bumble]

At least the matter will go to the Eleventh Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals, ...
...and if it does, eventually to the SC unless Trump's election to the presidency moot the whole thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Eleventh Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals"

Decided sometime in 2026 at best.

[not guilty]

I wouldn't count on that, Bob. The Eleventh Circuit has moved expeditiously in twice reversing Judge Cannon heretofore.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because "speedy trial" you know.

[not guilty]

The prior reversals came in a civil action, purportedly sounding in equity, in which Donald Trump was the plaintiff. Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689 (11th Cir. 2022). No Sixth Amendment speedy trial guaranty ever applied.

The Court of Appeals found that Judge Cannon abused her discretion by exercising jurisdiction in the first place, such that dismissal of the entire proceeding was required. Id., at 701-702.

Judge Cannon was in the tank for Trump then, and she remains in the tank now. I anticipate that the Eleventh Circuit will reverse her judgment and direct that on remand the matter be assigned to a different district judge. See e.g., United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

[Bob from Ohio]

"Eleventh Circuit has moved expeditiously"

Different case posture, those were at the investigation stage.

This is an appeal from a final order terminating a case. No legal [as opposed to political] reason to rush it. Will it even have orals this calendar year?

[Commenter_XY]

Perhaps Judges Pryor and Brasher will be empaneled to decide, along with Judge Lagoa.

[not guilty]

There are two Eleventh Circuit judges named Pryor. Do you mean Chief Judge William Pryor? How did you happen to mention Judges Brasher and Lagoa?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I meant Chief Judge Pryor.

[DaveM]

These distinctions don't seem very "fine" to me -- frogs hair or otherwise:

"Both the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in the Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no. None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment — 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533 — gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith. Nor do the Special Counsel’s strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise."

It is no small matter who an Attorney General may appoint as a federal officer, and with what powers of prosecution.

I get that it's not the decision you wanted, but calling it obscure and making too-fine a distinction (on a legal blog comment board, no less!) seems like sour grapes.

[not guilty]

The language of 28 U.S.C. § 533 is clear and impossible for any objective reader to misunderstand:

The Attorney General may appoint officials—
(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States;
* * *
(4) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General.

That is precisely what Merrick Garland did here.

[tylertusta]

I wish Jack Smith all of the best. The last couple of months have been pretty rocky for him and his team, so I'll pour out a cold one in their honor tonight.

[Z Crazy]

Trump did have the right to remove the papers.

The dispute is more like a tenant who refuses to leave, instead of a squatter who lies about being a tenant. (there were stories of people coming home from vacation and finding out that squatters occupied their primary residence, with the cops telling the homeowners they couldn't remove the squatters because the squatters said they were tenants and it was a civil dispute.)

As for the election case, maybe Smith would have had more luck if he only alleged acts of perjury and forgery and identity theft in connection with the alternate electors scheme.

[tylertusta]

...maybe Smith would have had more luck if he only alleged acts of perjury and forgery and identity theft in connection with the alternate electors scheme.

Smith brought the DC indictment to satiate a desire by Democrats and the White House to get Trump for something related to J6. It was an attempt to utilize the judicial process as a substitute for political accountability, with a sprinkling of trying to harm Trump's future reelection chances. (And no small amount of worry that the FL case wasn't going to trial before the election).

Politically, there was no way that Smith could indict Trump on narrower, firmer legal grounds. So instead Smith ignored the obvious constitutional concerns and ordered a charge right into a legal minefield.

[PLP 2]

Bwhahahahahahahaha

[Stephen Lathrop]

tylertusta — Your comment overlooks the fact that no court, including the Supreme Court, has legitimate power to brush aside a federal grand jury indictment. Whatever Smith's status might be, the indictment must stand. Or be struck down by yet another outrageous abuse of power by the corrupt Supreme Court. What might happen then is anyone's guess. My guess is that it might take the Court so far out on a limb that someone in the administration would be emboldened to saw off the limb.

[tylertusta]

including the Supreme Court, has legitimate power to brush aside a federal grand jury indictment

Of course they do. There's even a law about it!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cite the law.

[not guilty]

Asking a MAGAt to cite legal authority is a mug's game.

[David Nieporent]

Trump did have the right to remove the papers.

Trump was not charged with removing the papers, so his alleged right to do so was not implicated by the prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

I doubt Smith is an attorney who can't handle the court handing him some pretty losses.

There's no shame in it, especially when the judge goes out of their way to demonstrate that they are a biased tool.

[tylertusta]

Except this isn't just another case where a judge ruled against him. It ends what remains of his hopes to achieve his political goal of bringing this to trial by a certain date.

After getting the DC judges to play along with his expeditious trial farce he was probably accustomed to rubber stamps for his prosecutorial decisions.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure do have a version of Smith in your head.

[tylertusta]

Yeah.

The real version.

[Sarcastr0]

...Did you think this comment through?

[tylertusta]

Did you?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I doubt Smith is an attorney who can’t handle the court handing him some pretty losses."

Yes, Arthur Anderson and the McConnell bribery case got him used to them.

Super-egotistical and reckless. Just what you want in a prosecutor!

[tylertusta]

I don't think Smith was part of the team that prosecuted Arthur Andersen.

You're probably thinking of the other flunky who helped a special counsel: Andrew Weissman.

[Bob from Ohio]

Looks like you are right, faulty memory.

One Javert looks like another.

[Mr. Bumble]

He was involved in the John Edwards case, which is what I think you're referring to (another loss).

[Kleppe]

Which part of the order of dismissal is giving you the vapors?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know enough federal practice, but everyone here with experience in that area has found Cannon's rulings (and lack of rulings) over this past year to be remarkable, and almost universally departing from the norm in favor of Trump.

She's already gotten a pretty hard slap from the 11C for such behavior.

No one is surprised by this; just disgusted.

[DaveM]

This is rather weak sauce, don't you think, though? If you know so little about the particulars, probably best to not comment at all.

[Sarcastr0]

There aren’t many, but there are people on here whose experience and opinions I trust, based on their depth of knowledge, track record, and ability to ding either side if the facts call for it.

Or do you think it isn’t possible to have an opinion in an area where you’re not an expert?

[PaulS]

If Judge Cannon's ruling is upheld (big if) would that open up Smith to any personal liability (ie recovery of legal fees etc)?

[John F. Carr]

The United States does not pay costs in its own courts. If Smith is sued the government will protect him, for example by invoking the Westfall Act.

[not guilty]

"If Judge Cannon’s ruling is upheld (big if) would that open up Smith to any personal liability (ie recovery of legal fees etc)?"

No. Prosecuting attorneys are absolutely immune from suit for damages for initiating a prosecution and presenting the government's case, per Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), and its progeny.

[PaulS]

Wouldn't one be suing him for committing fraud on the court - or some such thing? I have heard of cases where the other side is given their legal fees - my question is would this be one of those cases? In this case the judge ruled he had no right to prosecute/present the government's case

[John F. Carr]

Smith is a government employee even if he is not a Senate-confirmed officer. The government must provide a defense to federal employees sued over official acts. Even under a Trump administration he would be represented by government lawyers and would most likely win. He had a good faith belief that he was authorized to prosecute. A Democratic administration would go further and have him dismissed from the case entirely. If you sue a government employee the Attorney General may, and usually does, have the employee dismissed from the case with the government substituted as defendant.

[John F. Carr]

Alberto Fujimori, who is older than Biden and more criminal than Trump, is running for president again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many felony convictions? How many pending criminal charges?

He apparently has spent more time in prison that Donald Trump has.

So far.

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t know Jerry, how many were you convicted of?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who says Dems aren't crazy?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13635665/trump-assassination-attempt-democrat-mayor-washington.html

[SRG2]

I would be interested to know whether there was any correspondence - direct or indirect - between Thomas and Cannon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why don't you file FOIA request?

[Kleppe]

It was in Thomas's concurrence in Trump v. United States. "The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding" and "[...] there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed."

[SRG2]

Indeed - an entirely gratuitous comment by Thomas directed at Cannon. The question is whether either Cannon had prior knowledge and started writing her decision before that or that she was prompted directly by Thomas or indirectly after Thomas's concurrence.

Regardless, she stands as the current worst example of the politicisation of the nonSC judiciary.,

[Kleppe]

"Regardless, she stands as the current worst example of the politicisation of the nonSC judiciary."

That was and remains Emmet G. Sullivan.

[tylertusta]

He's easily my most recent example of a contemptible piece of shit Federal judge.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I would be interested to know whether there was any correspondence – direct or indirect – between Thomas and Cannon."

I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric certainty that correspondence did exist!

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is indirect correspondence?

[SRG2]

Communication via an intermediary - or a cut-out, if you prefer

[Commenter_XY]

Like secret notes and stuff?

[Bwaaah]

By way of a "cut-out."

[Bob from Ohio]

On microfilm no doubt. Left in a pumpkin.

[Bwaaah]

"What is indirect correspondence?"

If you don't know, then you might be engaged in it right now. I'm just wondering why you ask the question that way.

SRG2 and I are wise to the subtext...to the evidence, direct and indirect. Just because we can't see the facts doesn't mean we don't know them.

(Note: I don't know what the hell I'm talking about here.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Judge Cannon did her job, as she perceived it.

That perception was shaped, of course by her nature -- an overmatched partisan hack and an obsolete, fringe culture war casualty.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think if you asked the average person on the street "should a judge appointed by X decide a case involving X" they'd say no.

I think it's a complicated issue, but that initial instinct speaks to something powerful, I'd say.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your instinct about what other people would think?

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think most would say "sure, the judge appointed by X should hear X's case?"

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think you would get a huge swing among the general public depending on how you phrased the question, and that among informed and sensible people, the argument has basically zero traction.

[apedad]

Delaware Weapons Ban Can Stay in Effect for Now, 3rd Cir. Says

Delaware’s ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines can stay in place as gun groups challenge its constitutionality, the Third Circuit said Monday.

The gun groups hadn’t shown they’d suffer the necessary irreparable injury without the preliminary injunction they sought, Judge Stephanos Bibas said. “Tradition and precedent have long reserved [preliminary injunctions] for extraordinary situations,” Bibas wrote. “We see nothing extraordinary here.”

The Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club challenged a district court’s denial of their request to temporarily block the Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022 while they seek a permanent injunction against the statute. The law at issue prohibits the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of listed firearms, including AR-15s and AK-47s, and outlaws ammunition-feeding devices capable of holding more than 17 rounds. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was skeptical of the challenge at oral argument.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/delaware-weapons-ban-can-stay-in-effect-for-now-3rd-cir-says

Judge Bibas is a Trump appointee.

[Sarcastr0]

The Supreme Court's project to redo rights jurisprudence in an originalist and consistent way has sure been bad for clarity and direction to lower courts!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah: Because when they were clear, the lower courts didn't like the direction, and when it came back up to them, they had second thoughts, but didn't want to admit they hadn't really meant it.

So now everybody has to guess how much of it they really meant.

[Jmaie]

So there's a wide range of opinion on conspicuous consumption. Would $600,000,000 for a child's wedding count as excessive?

[Commenter_XY]

That Indian guy's son, right? The 4 day wedding? That....was opulent.

[BadLib]

It would be excessive for someone with a net worth of $600,000,000 but not necessarily for someone with a net worth of $60,000,000,000 - after all, you can't take it with you.

All that money went to provide jobs, likely many to fairly low income individuals, that otherwise would not have existed. That seems as moral as any other use for spare cash.

[Frank Drackman]

Breaking on Faux News,

BEN CARSON TRUMP VP PICK!!!!!!!
Watch out for Exploding DemoKKKrat Heads

Frank

[M L]

Vance.

I liked Ben Carson the best, but not sure if he really gets a lot done or if that would be the smart choice.

[Frank Drackman]

Faux News got it wrong? What a Faux Pas!

Frank

[M L]

A little review of Democrats calling for violence.

https://x.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1812394330457612423

[M L]

Biden has pulled some attack ads and issued a call to “lower the temperature in our politics.”

Biden should immediately announce that the Trump cases are dropped and that he will stop trying to to put Trump in jail.

[Purple Martin]

Why don't you just say Biden should just pardon Trump of all past and future crimes? As opposed to your suggestion, it's a thing he can't withdraw from his own consideration.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm waiting for ML to insist that only seppuku can cleanse Biden's dishonor.

[Roger S]

Right. The lawfare prosecutions are the main thing raising the temperature. Biden refuses to drop them, even as the courts ruled them illegal.

[EscherEnigma]

If you think that's something that Biden can do, then you're confused about who it is prosecuting Trump, and what their chains of command are.

[M L]

Maybe you can clarify that for me then?

Starting with the first sentence, Section 1, Article II of the US Constitution.

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump picked JD Vance for his VP slot. Apparently ass-kissing is his most endearing quality. That certainly moves the needle against Trump for me. (Had he picked DeSantis, I would very reluctantly have gone with him.)

[Frank Drackman]

Vance opposed “45” at some point, sounds like you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. JD’s a Marine(no such thing as “Former Marines”) they kick ass, not kiss it

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Vance's military experience consisted of working as a cub reporter for a shitty newsletter.

Right-wing hicks might be impressed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That certainly moves the needle against Trump for me."

I'm sure Trump is heart broken.

[Commenter_XY]

So, Senator JD Vance is Pres Trump's pick for VP. Not much of a DC record to critique. Hope he has millions for the inevitable lawfare coming his way.

[santamonica811]

XY,
I think there will be zero lawfare coming his way. I doubt you'll apologize when it turns out you're wildly wrong. (I do promise to do public mea culpas if it does happen.)

On the other hand; my fellow Republicans shouted from the rooftops 4 years ago about how Kamala Harris was unqualified to be selected as VP by Biden. Maybe she was; maybe she wasn't . . . but it's clear that she was--at that time--10 times as qualified as JD currently is. I suspect that we will hear dead silence from the TDS Maga whores, and few or no admissions along the lines of, "Yeah, this is an embarrassing pick...Trump could have done much much better."

[Commenter_XY]

I would like you to be right, in all honesty = I think there will be zero lawfare coming his way.

That is a pernicious development = lawfare

[zztop8970]

Well admittedly he does not have the social skills to sleep with people in power to get to the top, I'll give you that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"she was–at that time–10 times as qualified"

LOL I'm whelmed at this pick but Harris had only credentials, not qualifications. As we have seen with her performance this last 4 years.

Of course the sole credential which mattered was her skin color.

[Roger S]

Whatever her credentials, Harris says dopey things all the time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Son of a bitch.

[santamonica811]

Meh. I think her performance has been perfectly adequate. (By which, I mean that she has accomplished as much as every other VP [again, excepting Dick Chaney] over the past 40 or 50 or 60 years).

A bucket of warm piss/spit is what we should and do expect every 4 years, and it's what we invariably end up getting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of course the sole credential which mattered was her skin color."

As demonstrated by the fact that so many Dems were scrambling to find a white person to replace her as soon as it looked like she might have to serve.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Of course the sole credential which mattered was her skin color. "

As was the case with Vance, and Pence, and nearly all Trump judicial nominees.

Carry on, bigoted, worthless, doomed clingers.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The FBI has probably preparing to open up a secret investigation into him to spy on him and look for team members to entrap.

Once we see the inevitable WAPO or NYT article smearing him planted by the FBI, then the FBI will take that to the secret FISA court filled with friendly judges to start spying on him.

I'm guessing we'll see some entrapment operations and some process crime charges.

[tylertusta]

Preparing?

He's a Senator. They probably had a team already watching him. The only change is that now he's going to get a task force and a "Crossfire" investigation name.

They probably have FISA warrants being written as I type this.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

but it’s clear that she was–at that time–10 times as qualified as JD currently is

Do you at least have the excuse of having been drunk when you typed that?

[CountmontyC]

To be drunk enough to type that he would have to be passed out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hope he has millions"

Hillbilly Elegy must have made him a fortune.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump picked the inexperienced, bigoted, superstitious, culture-warring, sycophantic hillbilly.

It’s Dan Quayle without the residual drawl.

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit! I knew you were gonna take the Hillbilly cheap shot, let’s see? Looks like you’re in the “Anger” stage, wait till you have to “Comply”

Frank “It doesn’t get any Bettor”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's not a cheap shot. It's a fact. He was born a hillbilly. He is still a hillbilly. A superstition-addled, roundly bigoted hillbilly who manages to suppress the drawl a bit and is probably one or two bad evenings from getting hooked on smack, street pills, or booze again.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You sound upset, are you okay?

[Mr. Bumble]

By the way which law school did you attend? Which branch of the service were you in? How many best sellers have you written?

[santamonica811]

I think the criticisms of Vance are not that he has not accomplished anything in his life. That's a falsifiable statement, and would clearly be inaccurate. I think the criticisms are that--for someone 2 inches from being President--he has zero qualifications, other than a year in the Senate. If you think that a year or so in Congress is sufficient, then that's a position. If you think that mere service in the military is sufficient experience, then *that's* a position. Same with his writing a wildly successful book (which I quite enjoyed, for the most part).

Those are all qualifications for some positions...for some jobs. But, I think almost everyone would agree, NOT for becoming President. (ie, therefore, not for VP) There are, of course, lots of existing Senators (Rubio, Cruz, etc) and governors (Perry, DeSandis) where their opponents would have said, "Man, I hate their positions on X, Y, and Z. But they're definitely ready to assume the Presidency on day one, if--God Forbid!--something were to happen."

Look, if you think Vance is super-qualified and is a great pick . . . bully for you. We all are entitled to our own opinions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why ignore Vance's right-wing bigotry, conservative sycophancy, vivid hypocrisy, and childish, adult-onset superstition?

[Absaroka]

"I think the criticisms are that–for someone 2 inches from being President–he has zero qualifications, other than a year in the Senate. If you think that a year or so in Congress is sufficient, then that’s a position."

I'm not a fan of Vance, but his resume doesn't compare that unfavorably with Obama's ... Obama's is academia+5 years in the state senate+3 years in the senate. Vance's is military(1)+business+1.5 years in the senate.

There are advantages to more experience in the govt, and to business and military experience.

I'm sensitive to the argument - I voted against Obama the first time around largely because of his inexperience, and voted for him the second time, because at that point inexperience was obviously no longer an issue. But he and Vance don't look all that different up front, and Vance is running for veep, not POTUS.

(1)during a war, but not a combat MOS

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Vance's military service consisted of working as a cub reporter for a newsletter. Maybe the equivalent of a year at a good college newspaper. Maybe not.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Al Gore?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe. I don't recall Gore's circumstances, other than thinking that as the son of a senator (or something similar) he probably had soft service ready and waiting.

Vance, though, probably had to strive to get his softie gig. Who knows what he had to do.

[not guilty]

Albert Gore, Jr. (as many of us in Middle Tennessee remember him calling himself) had experience before being elected to Congress both as a news reporter at The Tennessean and serving in the Army, (including briefly in Vietnam,) having voluntarily enlisted in 1969.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like Al Gore's voluntarily enlistment genuinely was voluntary.

Vance was just another uneducated hillbilly who lacked marketable skills and opted for the military as a step up in life. It sounds like someone explained military benefits in a manner a drawling hick could understand, so he became an affirmative action baby at Ohio State, then at Yale.

Still a superstitious, bigoted, right-wing hillbilly, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is the advantage of military service? You figure sucking at the taxpayer teat in a low-grade government clerical job is superior to working as a law professor?

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do Obama when he ran for the presidency. Community organizer from Chicago.
You are some strange "Republican".

[santamonica811]

As others have already pointed out; Obama had years and years and years of service in state and federal government. You may not have liked his experience. But it's sort of idiotic to say that many years of experience in federal AND state government is not real substantive experience. Again, if you want to say that being a mayor of a huge city or a governor of a state is *better* experience...I'm not gonna argue with that. But saying that Vance's year or two of experience makes him just as qualified as Obama was, is . . . um, a stretch. (Obama also chaired an important Foreign Relations subcommittee in the Senate.)

Can you point to the accomplishments of Vance in the Senate, so far, that you find especially impressive or noteworthy?

[Voize]

What Trump wants with Vance is to not repeat the mistake he made with Mike Pence. This time around he doesn't need a VP who will give his campaign conservative credibility so he is selecting for loyalty instead. When Trump asks Vance to do something illegal, he'll do it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" When Trump asks Vance to do something illegal, he’ll do it. "

Great. That way, because Vance is younger, he'll spend more time in prison than Trump will.

Vance, the hillbilly, will probably adapt to cellblock life much better than Trump will. Vance knows what it's like to drink homemade hootch, scrounge for street pills, live on a shitty diet, live without hair dye, and spend all day among half-educated criminals.

[Commenter_XY]

JD Vance is just as qualified as Barack Obama when he ran for POTUS. More so, I would argue. Whats the problem?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's just your conservative bigotry talking.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is 538's content as of a minute ago:

Biden wins 51 times out of 100
in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
Trump wins 48 times out of 100.
There is a less than 1-in-100 chance of no Electoral College winner.

1,000 simulations

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There is zero chance the Democrats aren't going to cheat again.

[MoreCurious]

There is zero chance that JHBHBE will submit a non-stupid comment to the VC.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I just read that former president Trump will attend the funeral of Corey Comperatore, who was murdered at the rally. Because Mr. Comperatore was killed by a bullet meant for Trump, that seems reasonable.

No American should be killed for attending a political rally; Gov. Josh Shapiro was right to say nice things about Mr. Comperatore as a father, husband, and churchgoer.

It also should be acknowledged, however, that Mr. Comperatore's statements indicate he was a bigoted, un-American, MAGA hayseed who seemed to have a particular fondness for Vladimir Putin and Russia. If he was a gun nut, I wonder whether he might have reconsidered that position had he known his fate -- leaving his family consequent to a fellow gun nut's rifle -- in advance.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are such a piece of shit!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's what mainstream Americans think about Mr. Comperatore after reading his bigoted, illiterate, un-American tweets.

Replacement has occurred.

[Theendoftheleft]

How soon till your loved ones are replaced, AIDS?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This Comperatore's widow is telling right-wing outlets that she refused a call from President Biden. Sounds like she is as big an un-American dumbass as her husband was. Maybe Putin will fly in for the funeral and she can sit between her two political heroes.

[santamonica811]

1. I don't love the idea of speaking ill of the dead. Certainly not the recently dead. Certainly not when it's the result of a crime of violence.
2. He sounds like he was not a lovely person. His widow may feel proud for the rest of her days that she publicly snubbed the overture from President Biden. She might have significant second thoughts.
3. When I think of this man, I will look past his bigotry and poor life choices. I will remember that (according to every report I've seen so far) his first instinct was to shield and protect his family. That is heroic, and something that should and will be forever part of his legacy. I see nothing to honor in the way he lived his life. But I see something profoundly moving and wonderful about how he was willing to risk his life to protect the lives of those he loved. I will remember this man for his better angels, and not for his worst ones.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That’s the Republican in you, disregarding reality — conservative bigotry, right-wing ignorance, etc. — in search of myth that for some reason comforts you.

It doesn’t make you a bad person, but it makes you somewhat unhelpful in the reality-based world.

[Theendoftheleft]

Your 'president' isn't compos mentis. Why would anyone waste their time listening to his incompetent semi-ramblings over the telephone?

We're almost certain that our national leader, here in a civilised Western country that American liberal-progressives fetishize, doesn't listen to Biden either. Probably most leaders put him on speaker phone these days whilst busying themselves with more important things.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘No American should be killed for attending a political rally…’

You’re afraid now.

Good. You should be.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Afraid? Of Trump fans?

Trump fans have never accomplished or stuck with much of anything worthwhile throughout their worthless lives. They live shambling lives in shitty communities, subsidized in myriad ways by better Americans. They cling to guns, religion, and bigotry because they can't keep up. They will continue to be defeated in our culture war by better Americans, relying mostly on the magnanimity of the culture war winners for any scraps thrown their way as our nation continues to improve against conservatives' efforts and preferences.

[Theendoftheleft]

Who are you trying to deceive, AIDS? It's not me.

Your blue cities are imploding and being loaded up with ever more USELESS global poor. They cannot and will not keep up with competing economies, globally. You are third-worlding your home.

The domestics in those cities don't breed and cannot afford to live there, either. Most of them are unproductive as well. They are now becoming refugees in their own countries and states.

You will lose your domestic culture war because your side will be outbred; you will lose the global culture war because the world is united in thinking your values are dog shit.

The people, whose culture you despise, can see clearly now that your lot is a bunch of mindless totalitarian ideologues who have no credible grounds for their political dogmas, and who are helping to third-world their country in the name of those dogmas. You are an existential threat to them, their way of life, and their childrens' socio-economic futures.

You do not have to respect them to be afraid of them. And you will be if you're not already.

Go back to Russia now, whilst you still can.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have never been a criminal lawyer, but I hope Attorney General Garland could personally file criminal charges against Donald Trump and the co-conspirators in the District of Columbia, New Jersey, or another jurisdiction for the document-withholding crimes without delay.

I also hope the Department of Justice extends no courtesies and arrests the defendants without notice, taking them right to fucking jail.

(Here is the entire Oscar-worthy opening statement. I am still waiting for that talentless hack Ted Kramer (or was it Ed Kramer? Ned Kramer? Jed Kramer? who gives a shit?) to accomplish anything nearly that good.)

[Theendoftheleft]

Department of 'Justice'. Fixed it for you, Yankee Doodle dipshit.

Your lot has turned your country and its core institutions into a banana republic. You can project and cast blame elsewhere all you want. Educated, civilised, reasoning people across the globe will not be deceived by you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is instructive that the foremost fans and defenders of these disaffected right-wing law professors include this guy, Drackman, and a few fungible bigoted clingers.

That UCLA campus improvement project did not occur a moment too soon. Let's hope other mainstream schools follow that lead.

[Theendoftheleft]

By purging its faculty of its Americans? By replacing the whole lot with properly trained scholars who are truth orientated rather than fixated on producing second-rate drivel that would not pass muster in other countries' journals? Academics who actual engage in critical scholarship rather than ideological blather and paltry defenses of their political preferences?

Do have even the slightest idea how most American 'liberal' and 'progressive' legal scholarship is actually perceived outside the United States? Do you understand how sophomoric and poorly researched most of it is?

Your conception of improvement tracks Lysenkoism. It is amusing how you can simultaneously talk (erroneously) about a 'liberal-libertarian mainstream' whilst lauding this Foucauldian/fascistic power grab in the faculties. Whatever you might believe about your American culture war, you're on the losing side of global history, AIDS. Yours are the ideological deadweights that are helping to flush the United States down the toilet.

[not guilty]

A fellow Superior Court judge in Atlanta has disqualified Judge Ural Glanville from further participation in the Young Thug case. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24811126/order-on-motion-to-recuse-judge-glanville-final.pdf

The order inappropriately minimizes the impropriety of the trial judge, attorneys for the State, a prosecution witness that then had already been sworn and the witness's counsel meeting surreptitiously and ex parte and the subsequent failure to disclose such communications on the record.

[tylertusta]

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment.

I can only hope that when the State Supreme Court takes up Brian Steel's contempt order that they (again) telegraph that the Superior Court Judges had better clean up this crap themselves

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, looks like Biden has taken up the cause of Court packing, after disclaiming it earlier when it proved to have too little support in his own party to be viable.

Biden tells Democratic lawmakers he is weighing big reforms to the Supreme Court

Of course, doing anything about this would require, not just Biden winning this fall, but also Democrats retaking the House and getting a non-trivial majority in the Senate. Neither looks terribly likely at this time, but neither is wildly impossible, either.

[tylertusta]

I think it's very illuminating about the thought processes happening inside of the White House.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're getting more and more tired of pretending they think anybody but Democrats can legitimately exercise power in government, sure. But I think it's also that Biden is losing what sense of restraint he used to have, as he ceases to have enough processing power to remember why he used to show restraint.

But, anyway, I keep warning: The Democrats ARE going to pack the Court the first time they find they have the votes. Lack of votes is the only thing that's been stopping them from doing it, for some time now.

It's not a question of whether, but when, at this point.

I really think that if the Republicans manage to hold onto the House, and reclaim the Senate, (At present they're projected to narrowly accomplish both.) they need to stop dithering, and do something proactive and radical.

The only way to block Court packing is amending the Constitution, and the only practical way to amend the Constitution at this point is by calling a constitutional convention. Republicans could do that easily enough; Enough states HAVE asked for one, if you add them all up and don't quibble about how the individual requests are worded.

Republicans have nothing to fear from a convention; They control enough states that no amendment they really dislike has any chance of ratification, even if the convention were to originate it. But a lot of amendments Republicans in principle approve of, such as term limits, or a balanced budget amendment, look like shoe-ins to be ratified.

I think locking in the size of the Court to prevent Court packing would have a good chance of ratification.

[tylertusta]

All good points, Brett, but I was thinking more tactically in regards to the current election. Biden resisted previous calls to pack the court, but now he's reportedly going to embrace them.

Why the change? And why now? In the past, I've observed that the Biden administration will do a 180 on an issue when he needs to shore up his left flank. When Biden's polling among the affluent left was sinking, his team worked pretty quickly to come up with their (later found to be unconstitutional) plan to wipe out student loan debt.

I think this is another instance of it, but with a twist. Biden probably see's himself sinking across all demographics, but the most worrying losses are among enthusiasm from leftists in the Dem coalition.

These are base, highly enthusiastic voters. They're also the bloc voters with the most pull within the Party, and if there's going to be a move to replace Biden, it's going to come from the left.

So I look at this policy proposal as Biden attempting to forestall him being pushed out of the race by throwing red meat to his base.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's quite likely. The party establishment is trying to force through an early vote to nail his nomination down before the drive to replace him can get any further. They're trying to pretend it's to comply with Ohio law for ballot access, but Ohio already changed the state's ballot access law to accommodate them, so that's a bogus excuse.

They just want his nomination to become irreversible before the push to replace him can gather any more steam.

But he really does need to retain at least a certain level of in party support to keep the nomination, even if what it takes to guarantee that dooms him in the general election. I think at this point he either can't believe he's headed towards a defeat, or just doesn't care.