Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Jack Smith wasted no time in filing the notice of appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon's batshit crazy order of dismissal. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.673.0.pdf

Judge Cannon uses legal authorities like a drunk uses lampposts: for support rather than for illumination.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey, maybe she's no better than you in her legal reasoning... a goal-seeking hyperpartisan.

[not guilty]

I have never pretended to be anything other than a partisan Democrat and an advocate. The public has a right to expect impartiality, however, from a federal court judge.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

And to you, evidence of her acting with bias is that she doesn't come to the same conclusions as you, a motivated partisan and advocate.

lol good one

[santamonica811]

Jesus,
Well, we'll see if the appellate court agrees with your take, or with Not Guilty's take. (I know which one I'd be betting on.)

[Commenter_XY]

I don't know what to 'bet' on. All of these Trump cases have taken unexpected twists and turns.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Political cases are determined by the leanings of the judge, not any neutral reading of the law.

So it all depends on which judges hear the appeal.

[David Nieporent]

Political cases are determined by the leanings of the judge, not any neutral reading of the law.

So you agree that former presidential immunity is a farce invented solely to protect Donald Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I do not agree. It protects all POTUS' when they leave office, as it should. Choirboys are not elected POTUS. Very flawed men are.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Strip away the dumb aphorism and what you're left with is weak rationalization and an acknowledgment that SCOTUS completely fabricated "Presidential Immunity" for the sole benefit of one man, without any textual support from the Constitution whatsoever.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, I'll go out on a limb and engage with you. We want immunity for a POTUS for their official acts in office, period. The party label is irrelevant. A POTUS must be free to act in what s/he perceives is in the national interest at that time.

I want immunity for Carter, and Clinton, and Bush, and Obama, and Trump, and Biden for any and all of their official acts. You should too.

The Courts of law can determine if an act is official or not, at trial. That is how we are supposed to do it, I thought.

The alternative is a descent into anarchy and eventual totalitarianism.

[David Nieporent]

A POTUS must be free to act in what s/he perceives is in the national interest at that time.

I do not agree with respect to civil immunity for cops and other govt officials, and I do not agree with respect to POTUS. I want POTUS to not do things that are illegal, regardless of how he "perceives" things — and if these things are truly vital and so time-sensitive that he can't get the law changed, he can argue that to a jury if necessary. (But of course nobody is going to prosecute a president who acted reasonably, in good faith.)

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

Sure Dave, there's nothing that a POTUS might do entirely legitimately that might be illegal for others.

[Commenter_XY]

David, a POTUS will order the deaths of people. And they will die. That is accessory to murder, no? I am not talking about war.

A POTUS is going to make very legally questionable decisions and order actions that serve our national interest. They must be free to do so, without outside hindrance. Yes, you are relying on the judgment of the man (or woman) who occupies the chair.

It is the lesser of evils.

[David Nieporent]

A POTUS is going to make very legally questionable decisions and order actions that serve our national interest. They must be free to do so, without outside hindrance. Yes, you are relying on the judgment of the man (or woman) who occupies the chair.

It is the lesser of evils.

And you are ignoring the fact that a prosecution of a former president for such an action would be a judgment call of the man (or woman) who occupied the chair after the president in question did.

If this person you describe cannot convince his successor that his action was legitimate (such that the successor chooses not to prosecute), and also cannot convince a jury that his action was legitimate, then it probably wasn't legitimate and he should be punished for it.

But — if your theory is correct that such actions are necessary from time to time — then there's another solution: Congress can make such actions legal. Presumably you're talking about the president ordering the assassination of a foreign leader or terrorist or something like that. Congress can carve an exception out of whatever murder statute might otherwise apply saying that it does not apply under certain circumstances.

[shawn_dude]

"David, a POTUS will order the deaths of people. And they will die. That is accessory to murder, no? I am not talking about war."

And juries order the death of people and they will die and it won't be related to a war, either.

[shawn_dude]

"I want immunity for Carter, and Clinton, and Bush, and Obama, and Trump, and Biden for any and all of their official acts. You should too."

"I want" is a good reason to write and attempt to pass a bill to grant that power. "I want" is not a valid framework for pretending the Constitution grants this power.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

C_XY,

No, "we" do not want immunity for Presidents, invented entirely out of the imaginations of SCOTUS, with absolutely no textual support from the Constitution whatsoever.

In fact, the only text in the Constitution which addresses this issue specifically calls out that impeachment can be followed by criminal indictment.

Presidents should not be doing anything illegal, as their Oath of Office specifically cites that they will take care that the laws be "faithfully executed." Breaking those laws is precisely the opposite of ensuring they are faithfully executed.

That's how you get totalitarianism. By ignoring the Constitution and placing someone above the same laws which govern the rest of the country.

Your argument is the idiotic cries of someone declaring "I want it" over and over, without a shred of historical or legal support.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, every POTUS has to have the freedom to do the job, and part of the job will involve approving acts that are illegal, in service to the national interest. When performing official acts, a POTUS must have absolute immunity.

Think about the pragmatic aspects of the job.

You say there is no constitutional support for that; SCOTUS disagrees. As a result, I would say in this instance that I am more in the right on this question than you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, “we” do not want immunity for Presidents, invented entirely out of the imaginations of SCOTUS, with absolutely no textual support from the Constitution whatsoever."

The constitution gives the president powers, which implies that he has a right to exercise those powers. You don't think Congress could make it a crime for the President to veto a bill, do you?

Congress could, I suppose, institute a maximum 30 hour workweek. If they did, and didn't exempt the President, would that mean that he couldn't work more than 30 hours a week?

[Sarcastr0]

part of the job will involve approving acts that are illegal, in service to the national interest

I don’t think we live such an action-packed world.
Snap decisions in a crisis, sure. But Presidents up until this point have not really had the issue of approving acts that are not just illegal, but so beyond the pale that they will be prosecuted and convicted for them.

OTOH, we do live in a world where no American is above the law. And where a President’s respect our laws and institutions is part of our no aristrocrats civic order.

Or was. Now there’s a lot of people who have decided those value are unimportant. Some include the Supreme Court. That’s the law. It doesn’t make it right.

[David Nieporent]

The constitution gives the president powers, which implies that he has a right to exercise those powers. You don’t think Congress could make it a crime for the President to veto a bill, do you?

I don't, but I also don't think that has anything to do with immunity.

I don't think Congress could make it a crime to criticize the president, but if it passed a law that purported to do so and you were to be prosecuted for it, I wouldn't say that you had "immunity" with respect to that law; I would just say that the law itself is unconstitutional.

[David Nieporent]

While I recognize that this is a public discussion in which anyone can participate, rather than a private conversation, I used the term "you." Meaning I was directing it at the person to whom I was responding.

[Commenter_XY]

David, you are right. And you are being very patient with me, which I appreciate.

What did you think of the bean ball? When it happened, I thought of you immediately...I thought to myself, "Man, DMN is gonna be pissed at all Yankees fans". 😉

[David Nieporent]

What did you think of the bean ball? When it happened, I thought of you immediately…I thought to myself, “Man, DMN is gonna be pissed at all Yankees fans”. ????

It's kind of like being mad at Putin for killing Navalny: yeah, it's bad, but the evil in question is already overdetermined.

[Malika the Maiz]

You perhaps have too low standards for your leaders.

[Commenter_XY]

Queenie, I am a realist. Politics is a dirty business, no matter what the country.

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

Ohhh, is that who this is? Queenie, is that you?

[Riva]

The Constitution is not a farce invented solely to protect President Trump. The only farce on display of late is the Biden SS’s management of President Trump’s protection.

[Malika the Maiz]

Pathetic Whataboutism.

[David Nieporent]

Of course not. But immunity, which isn't in the constitution and which nobody for 230 years suggested was in the constitution, is a farce.

[Riva]

Your ignorance on the structure of the constitution does not render any informed views of it farcical. It makes your comments farcical.

[Sarcastr0]

Since Justice Douglass, there has been no one who loves Constitutional penumbras formed by emanations as much as Riva.

[Riva]

The executive vesting clause and separation of powers are actually part of the text and structure of the constitution, but at least good to know you believe the reasoning underlying Griswold and Roe was a farce.

[David Nieporent]

Separation of powers is not actually anywhere in the text of the constitution. And neither the executive vesting clause nor separation of powers compel, or even imply, immunity.

[Riva]

That it is inherent in the structure of the Constitution and has been so recognized since there was a Supreme Court to recognize anything is apparently way over your head, Dave.

[David Nieporent]

Immunity was never even conceived of until 2024, so claiming it's "inherent" in the structure of the constitution is insane.

[Riva]

Uh no, the separation of powers principles underlying immunity are not new, what is new are the lawfare abuses instigated by the sitting president against his political opponent.

[Sarcastr0]

Uh no, the separation of powers principles underlying immunity are not new.

Reads right outta the Warren Court.
The rest is persecution complex nonsense, but Riva is just an angry version of like the most vibesy untextual Warren Court opinion you could imagine.

[Riva]

No, that would make it the opposite of the Warren court, but again, good to know you reject the extra-constitutional garbage coming out of the Warren court, Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think because I’m liberal I gotta think every Warren Court opinion is a banger of rock-solid Constitutional doctrine?

No – it did a lot of atextual vibesy stuff, often quite outcome-oriented. And then defended it by invoking grand phrases about What Our Country Is.

Just like you.

[Riva]

Uh huh, OK Sarcastr0, I’ll play your stupid game, What Warren court decisions do you object to?

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do how the SC will weigh in.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(I know which one I’d be betting on.)"

I bet they never decide it. Briefs need to be filed, oral argument date set and happen.

Trump wins and the appeal is withdrawn.

[Frank Drackman]

Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

[Kazinski]

Well just for my edification, can you cite the statute where Congress gave the AG the power to appoint Special Counsels?

[not guilty]

As I posted previously on another thread, try 28 U.S.C. § 515(a):

(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.

Also 28 U.S.C. § 533 plainly states:

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 
(3) to assist in the protection of the person of the Attorney General.
(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.

See also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974):

Under the authority of Art. II, § 2, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government. 28 U.S.C. § 516. It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, 515, 533. Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attorney General has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a Special Prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.

[Footnote omitted.]

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So according to your cherry picked cites, the AG has authority to appoint his mother as Special Prosecuter. And that somehow makes sense to you?

[not guilty]

Is your claim that I said that as true as everything else you have said, JHBJBE?

Kazinski asked me to cite a statute "just for [his] edification." That is exactly what I did, (plus an applicable SCOTUS precedent,) without comment.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why didn't you answer my question? Does the AG have the authority to appoint, and fund, a Special Prosecutor office held by his mother?

[not guilty]

You didn't pose a question. You made an inaccurate, ipse dixit assertion that I said something that I didn't, and you asked rhetorically whether that mischaracterization of my position somehow makes sense to me.

In your hypothetical is the mother licensed to practice law?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>And that somehow makes sense to you?

Do you see that squiggly character at the end of that string of words? To English speaking humans, that indicates a question.

>In your hypothetical is the mother licensed to practice law?
Your citations didn't require it, can you amend your citations to include the requirement that Ms. Garland be licensed?

[not guilty]

Look up 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), which I did cite, thank you very much. It refers specifically to "any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, . . . which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct."

Federal courts have inherent authority to prohibit the unauthorized practice of law before such courts and to impose sanctions therefor. See United States v. Johnson, 327 F.3d 554, 559-561 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied sub nom. Robinson v. United States, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004). Representing the United States in federal court requires a license to practice law.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

OK thanks. Then yes, in my hypo Garlands MeeMaw is licensed.

And according to you can be appointed Special Counsel since the AG has the power to hire staff attorneys at the FBI...

lol

[not guilty]

You are quite welcome.

In your hypothetical is the mother living? According to Wikipedia, Merrick Carland's mother died in 2016.

As an aside, I often wonder if George H. W. Bush would have nominated Clarence Thomas to the D.C. Circuit and to SCOTUS if Lincoln Perry hadn't died in 1985.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Scratch a Democrat, find a disgusting racist they always say…

[David Nieporent]

Then yes, in my hypo Garlands MeeMaw is licensed.

And according to you can be appointed Special Counsel since the AG has the power to hire staff attorneys at the FBI…

No. 5 U.S.C. § 3110 would prohibit it.

[David Nieporent]

I'm mystified here by the use of the phrase "cherry picked." If someone asks, "What statutes provide for X?" and someone lists a few statutes that provide for X, how is that "cherry picking"?

[OtisAH]

Like “lawfare” and “gaslighting” and a dozen other words, “cherry-picking” is a term the regular VC jokers have seen and seen used against the cherry-picked arguments they make. So they use it whenever and wherever they think it sounds right. That’s all this is.

[Malika the Maiz]

You can teach a parrot to say a word, but you can't teach it to understand it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They were cherry picking hiring attorneys for the FBI, removing the FBI context and pretending the statutes generalize.

That's a model of cherry picking.

[Artifex]

I think you have gone off the rails a bit here. Of course cherry picking occurs in politics as it does in any area of subjective preference. How could it be any other way ? You select the things you like while discarding those that you do not.

We avoid cherry picking in the areas of exploration where we are seeking objective truth and attempting to remove subjective bias like the sciences. Accusing legalists of cherry picking is more than a little silly. It is fundamentally built into their system.

Think about it a bit. While we consider the scientist who cherry picks facts to arrive at a rationalised conclusion to be a piss poor scientist or more likely a pseudo-scientist with political goals, do you really want your defence attorney to make a convincing argument to convict you if that is what the objective facts indicate ?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Good point, and I believe yours is the better view.

The stripping away of context in this case seems particularly dishonest.

[Kazinski]

Well the first cite doesn't give any power to appoint a special counsel, it merely says when someone like Weiss has already been appointed "under law" they can conduct any kind of legal proceding.

28 533 is pretty plain, but Cannon's response is:
"Section 533 is housed within a chapter (Chapter 33) devoted to the FBI. 28 U.S.C. §§ 531–540d. See infra pp. 50–52.
It is titled “Investigative and other officials; appointment,”

She goes on:
As a preliminary point, the Appointment Order issued in November 2022 is the first appointment order or regulation that has cited Section 533 as a source of special-counsel￾appointing authority. The Special Counsel Regulations promulgated in 1999, which replaced the
Independent Counsel regime of the Independent Counsel Act, did not cite Section 533 as a source
of authority. 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1 et seq. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 301; 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515–519). Nor did the regulation appointing the Special Prosecutor in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683
(1974). 38 Fed. Reg. 30738, as amended by 38 Fed. Reg. 32805(citing 5 U.S.C. § 301; 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510). Nor did the Order appointing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or any preceding special counsel appointing order."

"Special Counsel Smith argues that Section 533(1) confers on the Attorney General the authority to appoint special counsels, specifically, constitutional officers wielding the “full power and independent authority . . . of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6. After careful review, the Court is convinced that it does not. Congress “does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes.”

"Smith’s interpretation would shoehorn appointment authority for United States Attorney￾equivalents into a statute that permits the hiring of FBI law enforcement personnel. Such a reading
is unsupported by Section 533’s plain language and statutory context; inconsistent with Congress’s usual legislative practice;"

Blackman went into why Nixon may not apply, so I won't address that, and we are talking about statutes now anyway.

[not guilty]

Do you surmise that you have a point? Judge Cannon got it wrong. Sections 515(a) and 533 of Title 28, read in pari materia, support Merrick Garland's appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel.

Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government. 28 U.S.C. § 516. Appointment of officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States and to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 533, subsections (1) and (4). These statutes provide authority for the Attorney General to appoint "any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General . . . [to] 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."

[Kazinski]

Yes, I have a point, Cannon addressed section 533, and gave her reasons about why it didn’t say what Smith claimed.

Most telling to me is its never been cited before Smith as authorization to appoint a Special Counsel.

So you disagree, great. But I don’t see any reason to dispute Cannon’s analysis. If 533 were under a different chapter that didn’t deal exclusively with the FBI then I would probably agree with you.

But here is all the sections in Chapter 33, and you can see 533 in context:
28 U.S. Code Chapter 33 – FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION<

U.S. Code
§ 531. Federal Bureau of Investigation
§ 532. Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
§ 533. Investigative and other officials; appointment
§ 534. Acquisition, preservation, and exchange of identification records and information; appointment of officials
§ 535. Investigation of crimes involving Government officers and employees; limitations
§ 536. Positions in excepted service
§ 537. Expenses of unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character
§ 538. Investigation of aircraft piracy and related violations
§ 539. Counterintelligence official reception and representation expenses
§ 540. Investigation of felonious killings of State or local law enforcement officers
§ 540A. Investigation of violent crimes against travelers
§ 540B. Investigation of serial killings
§ 540C. FBI police
§ 540D. Multidisciplinary teams

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-II/chapter-33

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Who needs Senate confirmed USDAs when we have FBI Super Attorneys!

These people are so stupid.

[MoreCurious]

Let me see if I've got this right -- the stupidest commenter on the VC is calling someone else stupid. Have you even once stopped to think a little bit before you write your incomprehensible drivel?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Just mute the guy already. His comments aren't worth the time it takes you to respond.

[not guilty]

"If 533 were under a different chapter that didn’t deal exclusively with the FBI then I would probably agree with you."

Kazinski, do you attach any significance to the Supreme Court's listing of 28 U.S.C. § 533 among the statutes that authorized the Attorney General to appoint Leon Jaworski as Special Prosecutor in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974)?

[Riva]

I would say he and judge cannon found the dicta there to be an unconvincing source of authority on the issue.

[not guilty]

Riva, have you actually read United States v. Nixon? Yes or no? The passage at issue from Nixon reads:

Our starting point is the nature of the proceeding for which the evidence is sought — here a pending criminal prosecution. It is a judicial proceeding in a federal court alleging violation of federal laws and is brought in the name of the United States as sovereign. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Under the authority of Art. II, § 2, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government. 28 U.S.C. § 516. It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, 515, 533. Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attorney General has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a Special Prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.

418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974) [footnote omitted].

The Court in that section of the opinion ruled against Nixon's contention that the matter was nonjusticiable -- that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the subpoena because the matter was an intra-branch dispute between a subordinate and superior officer of the Executive Branch and hence not subject to judicial resolution. Nixon further urged the dispute does not present a "case" or "controversy" which can be adjudicated in the federal courts. Id., at 692. Resolution of this issue was essential to the Supreme Court's determination that the lawsuit was properly before them in the first place. That is not, and indeed cannot be, obiter dictum.

The D.C. Circuit has rejected the suggestion that the language of Nixon is dictum:

Miller contends, unpersuasively, that the quoted sentence in Nixon, 418 U.S. at 694, 94 S.Ct. 3090, is dictum because the issue whether the Attorney General had statutory authority to appoint a special prosecutor was not directly presented and the Supreme Court did not analyze the text of the specific statutes. . . . But Miller misreads Nixon , for the Supreme Court was presented with the question whether a justiciable controversy existed. When the Special Prosecutor issued a subpoena to the President to produce certain recordings and documents, the President moved to quash the subpoena, asserting a claim of executive privilege, id. at 688, 94 S.Ct. 3090, and maintained the claim was nonjusticiable because it was "intra-executive" in character, id. at 689, 94 S.Ct. 3090. The Supreme Court held there was a justiciable controversy because the regulations issued by the Attorney General gave the Special Prosecutor authority to contest the President's invocation of executive privilege during the investigation. Id. at 695–97, 94 S.Ct. 3090. In this analysis, the Attorney General's statutory authority to issue the regulations was a necessary antecedent to determining whether the regulations were valid, and, therefore, was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed. The Supreme Court's quoted statement regarding the Attorney General's power to appoint subordinate officers is, therefore, not dictum.

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

[Riva]

Have you actually read the Judge Cannon opinion you’re incessantly railing against here? Judge Cannon dedicated 14 pages to the subject of the Nixon dicta. Here are some excerpts:

“The Court often grants certiorari to decide particular legal issues while assuming without deciding the validity of antecedent propositions, and such assumptions—even on jurisdictional issues—are not binding in future cases that directly raise the questions.” Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 272 (internal citations omitted); Garner et al., supra at 84 (“Judicial opinions are always premised on a series of assumptions about what the law is. Yet those assumptions—whether implicit or explicit—aren’t generally considered precedential.”)
The issue of the Attorney General’s appointment authority was not raised, briefed, argued, or disputed before the Nixon Court….. Nixon’s passing remarks on that point are not binding precedent in “future cases,” as here, “that directly raise the question[].” Id. Giving these remarks precedential weight runs the risk that “stray language” from the Nixon opinion “will take on importance in a new context that its drafters could not have anticipated.” Rudolph v. United States, 92 F.4th 1038, 1045 (11th Cir. 2024).
[T]he Attorney General’s statutory appointment authority [was] a peripheral subject that was not raised in the case. Across hundreds of pages of briefing (and hours of oral argument) in Nixon, neither party challenged the Special Prosecutor’s validity or the Attorney General’s appointment authority.
The Nixon dictum is neither “thoroughly reasoned” nor “of recent vintage.” Id. at 1325–26. For these reasons, the Court concludes it is not entitled to considerable weight… Nixon does not engage in any statutory analysis of the cited provisions….and Nixon was decided in 1974. In the subsequent half century, the Supreme Court has placed a renewed emphasis on structural principles underpinning the Appointments Clause, beginning with Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and continuing through various other important cases.

[not guilty]

Yes, Riva, I have read Judge Cannon’s opinion. (I note that you avoid my question about whether you have actually read Nixon.) Determining what portions of a judicial decision are dicta is first semester law school stuff, and Judge Cannon got it egregiously wrong. The Persian proverb, “he who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him” applies equally to black robed females.

Judge Cannon cites United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019), for the proposition that dicta is “a statement that neither constitutes the holding of a case, nor arises from a part of the opinion that is necessary to the holding of the case.” She then proceeded to ignore that the subject language from Nixon arises from a part of the opinion that not only is necessary to the holding of the case, it is the sine qua non of the lawsuit being before the federal courts at all. What a federal court says about subject matter jurisdiction, standing and justiciability can never be dicta -- those threshold matters are always necessary to the holding of the case.

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies.” A federal court’s first order of business is determining whether the lawsuit is properly in federal court to begin with. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684, ___, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2393-2494 (2019):

Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies.” We have understood that limitation to mean that federal courts can address only questions “historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). In these cases we are asked to decide an important question of constitutional law. “But before we do so, we must find that the question is presented in a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ that is, in James Madison’s words, ‘of a Judiciary Nature.’ ” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) (quoting 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 430 (M. Farrand ed. 1966)).

If I had had a law clerk do work as shoddy as Judge Cannon turned out here, I would have fired her. She does for jurisprudence what Christian Szell did for dentistry.

[kramartini]

Interesting that we wouldn't even be having this conversation if Trump had attended Biden's inauguration. Jack Smith wanted to prosecute this in DC, but realized that he had to indict in Florida because Trump was in Palm Beach at the moment that he ceased serving as President.

[Riva]

Not Guilty, you are reading too much into too little and erring by concluding that the Nixon court’s aside comment on statutory authority was essential to its justiciability analysis. Some additional excerpts from Judge Cannon’s opinion explain:
The disputed passage is located within a prefatory, stage-setting paragraph which merely served to tee up the case-or-controversy analysis that followed. As recap, President Nixon argued that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question by virtue of the intra-branch nature of the dispute. See supra p. 58 n.48. The Nixon Court disagreed…
To be sure, two features were essential to the justiciability holding: (1) the nature of the parties’ relationship as defined in the very broad delegation of authority in the regulation; and (2) the fact that the regulation had not been revoked. But Nixon’s passing reference to statutory authority was not essential to the analysis, and nothing in the remainder of the decision suggests that the Supreme Court was reasoning from its earlier passing remark….
As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, the decisions in In re Sealed Case and In re Grand Jury Investigation relied on “presuppositions” and “antecedents” to determine that Nixon— which itself did not engage with the applicable statutory text—was dispositive and foreclosed any statutory challenge. But as explained above, the Supreme Court has cautioned that “presuppositions” and “antecedents” of this sort “are not binding in future cases that directly raise the questions.”

[not guilty]

Whether Leon Jaworski had authority to cause issuance of the subpoena for then-President Nixon was essential to SCOTUS entertaining the action at all. If he lacked that authority because he had not been validly appointed by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court would have vacated the district court order and remanded with instructions to quash the subpoena.

As the Eleventh Circuit opined in United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019):

In contrast, dicta is “a statement that neither constitutes the holding of a case, nor arises from a part of the opinion that is necessary to the holding of the case.” Black v. United States, 373 F.3d 1140, 1144 (11th Cir. 2004). Stated another way, “dicta is defined as those portions of an opinion that are not necessary to deciding the case then before us.” [United States v.] Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d [1233,] 1244 [(11th Cir. 2017),] (quoting [United States v.] Kaley, 579 F.3d [1246,] 1253 n.10 [(11th Cir. 2009)]); Obiter Dictum, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (explaining that a statement is dictum if it is “unnecessary to the decision in the case”); Bryan A. Garner, et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent 46 (2016) (“Generally, a dictum is a statement in a judicial opinion that is unnecessary to the case’s resolution.”)

Whatever the Supreme Court says in a particular case about subject matter jurisdiction, standing and justiciability is always necessary to the decision in the case. Absent those threshold requirements, there is no case or controversy and no federal court can entertain the lawsuit to begin with.

And Riva, you still have not answered as to whether you actually read United States v. Nixon.

[Riva]

Because it’s childish and not a serious question. Also not serious is ignoring virtually every point made in Judge Cannon’s opinion and falling back on a ridiculous blanket assertion that everything said by the Court in this context becomes precedential. That is absurd. The Court wasn't making a holding regarding statutory authority.

[not guilty]

Riva, what part of "necessary to the holding of the case" do you not understand? The legitimacy of Leon Jaworski's appointment was a sine qua non of the Nixon Court's holding that Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum.

The subject matter of the lawsuit being justiciable is an essential part of there being a case or controversy for a federal court to adjudicate.

In what universe could the Supreme Court have ruled that the Attorney General's appointment of Jaworski was contrary to law, but Richard Nixon nevertheless must comply with Jaworski's subpoena?

As a Wilson County preacher from my youth was fond of saying, "That doesn't make good sense. In fact, it doesn't even make good nonsense."

[Riva]

"To be sure, that President Nixon delegated to the Special Prosecutor (via the regulation) the power to “determin[e] whether or not to contest the assertion of ‘Executive Privilege’ or any other testimonial privilege,” 38 Fed. Reg. 30,739, amended by 38 Fed. Reg. 32,805, was integral to Nixon’s justiciability holding. 418 U.S. at 694–97. This delegation assured the Supreme Court that “concrete adverseness” existed between the parties. Id. at 697 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. at 204); see id. at 696 (explaining that “[s]o long as this regulation remains in force the Executive Branch is bound by it”). In other words, two features were essential to the justiciability holding: (1) the nature of the parties’ relationship as defined in the very broad delegation of authority in the regulation; and (2) the fact that the regulation had not been revoked. But Nixon’s passing reference to statutory authority was not essential to the analysis, and nothing in the remainder of the decision suggests that the Supreme Court was reasoning from its earlier passing remark."

[Riva]

In essence, not guilty, your real problem with Nixon is you believe they should have decided the issue of statutory authority, although the legal reality is that they didn’t.

[Kazinski]

Probably about as much significance as you attach to the DOJ not ever citing section 533 in any special.counsel appointment before 2022.

[Voize]

If 533 were under a different chapter that didn’t deal exclusively with the FBI then I would probably agree with you.

It wasn't originally, in the 1964 Code it was in section 300 of Title 5 Chapter 5 "Department of Justice" and only got shuffled into an FBI chapter when that content was reorganized into Title 28. So even if you believe the dubious argument that chapter titles are limiting you should be skeptical when that limit reflects a clerical rather than legislative intent.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It seems upon reading that text having Senate confirmed USDAs are unnecessary. Any old attorney picked by Garland can conduct any kind of legal proceeding.

I wonder why they even bother with Senate confirmations when the AG already has all the authority he needs.

[not guilty]

Check out 28 U.S. Code § 541, JHBHBE.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That’s unnecessary. The statutes you cited are sufficient to cover those powers. The AG can just appoint any attorney he wants.

“any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General . . . [to] 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.”

[not guilty]

Uh, the phrase, "The President shall appoint" in 28 U.S.C. § 541(a) should be applied as written. Sic lex scripta.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for the appointment in each judicial district of a "Person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States...whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney The more recent statutes that I have cited did not work a repeal by implication.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I read that. Did you read my comment?

In your framework, there is no functional difference between a USDA and a Special Prosecutor, which one requires Presidential appointment/Senate confirmation and the other only requires the AG’s whims.

If the DOJ had zero USDA’s and only AG hand-selected FBI attorneys it wouldn’t lose any capabilities.

Surely you aren’t insisting there’s some greater distinction, other than this superficial necessity of origination, right?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, you think Judge Cannon got it all wrong.

Isn't Judge Cannon developing the case for appellate and SCOTUS review...making the case 'percolate' (meaning, litigating all novel issues identified) as Justice Barrett has written in a number of her decisions. I do not see that as batshit crazy.

You tell me. How do you know a judge is being thorough and complete (because the case is novel, and involves a US President) and not dragging out proceedings to frustrate the process? No one has really answered that question, what's the objective indicator?

[not guilty]

There is no novel issue involved here. As her rulings during 2022 demonstrated earlier, Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 702 (11th Cir. 2022), Judge Cannon is in the tank for Donald Trump. She never had any intention of allowing Trump to stand trial.

I suspect that Judge Cannon slow walked the case long enough to ensure that it could not be tried this year (despite Team Trump proposing an August trial date), and then she issued an order which is certain to be reversed, but less likely to be fully adjudicated on appeal until after the presidential election.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

She's so in the tank for Team Trump, that she rejected their request!!!

lol, how can people be this stupid?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, hold on a second. No novel issues in this case? C'mon man. 🙂

[not guilty]

I didn't say there is no novel issue in the case. I said there is no novel issue involved here, that is, with regard to the Attorney General's authority to appoint the Special Counsel.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, like any good partisan, you are making your case, and telling us the (R)easons that this is (D)ifferent.

That chapter 33 in section 533 is addressing FBI staff, no? How does the DOJ stretch that to authorize a Special Counsel? The way it reads to me is that the DOJ over-reached on argument. It isn't the first time. We have seen similar overreaches on other Trump cases. Judge Cannon shot that maneuver down.

Next up, 11th circuit. Who will hear the case, NG? How do they pick the panel?

[not guilty]

Fifty years ago SCOTUS cited 28 U.S.C. § 533 among the statutes that authorized the Attorney General to hire Leon Jaworski as Special Prosecutor. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974). Statutes dealing with the same subject matter should be read in pari materia.

Per § 533(1), the Attorney General is expressly authorized to hire officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States. Detection of crimes is within the ambit of FBI Special Agents' duties. Prosecution of crimes in the federal courts is not.

[Commenter_XY]

Understood. The points you are making will now be litigated at the 11th circuit. Who will hear the case?

[kramartini]

“Prosecute” has meanings other than try to convict in court.

The FBI prosecutes crimes once detected in the same way that the navy prosecutes submarines once detected. That is, it gather more information and chases down the target. (Of course, the FBI arrests the target rather than sinking it with torpedoes or depth charges.)

See FBI website:
https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/where-is-the-fbis-authority-written-down#:~:text=Federal%20law%20gives%20the%20FBI,crimes%20against%20the%20United%20States.

[not guilty]

A three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit will be picked at random. When the panel decision is rendered, either party has the option of petitioning for rehearing before the full Court.

[tylertusta]

Any delay in the Florida trial rests mostly on the shoulders of Smith, who tried to manipulate Cannon's docket late last year/early this year in order to bring the DC case to trial first.

[Sarcastr0]

Do…do you read the news at all? Because the idea that Cannon hasn’t been the driver of the delays in the trial is an incredible take.

Like Dr. Ed level. Well, with a bit less liberal murder yearning.

[tylertusta]

Yes, I read the news.

I also follow the case.

And it's rather interesting how the how the case is reported and what actually happens in it are very different.

Did you know that Smith delayed the production of discovery in October of 2023? And that in turn upended the entire timetable that the Cannon already laid out?

(I bet you didn't)

[Sarcastr0]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-special-counsels-investigation-trumps-handling-classified-documents/story?id=101768329

June 20, 2023
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon sets a tentative date of Aug. 14 for the start of Trump's trial

June 23, 2021
The special counsel asks Judge Cannon to delay the start of the trial until December

July 10, 2023
In a court filing, lawyers for Trump ask Judge Canon for a lengthy delay to Trump's trial, suggesting it would not be possible to try the case prior to the 2024 election. [obviating your complaint above.]

July 21, 2023
Striking a compromise between the special counsel and Trump's attorneys, Judge Cannon schedules Trump's classified documents trial to start on May 20.

Aug. 7, 2023
Judge Cannon raises questions about Smith's use of another grand jury

Aug. 9, 2023
Trump's attorneys ask Judge Cannon to approve a special facility at Mar-a-Lago for him to be able to discuss classified evidence with his legal team

Oct. 6, 2023
Judge Cannon pauses any litigation involving the classified materials at the center of the case as she considers a request from Trump to extend deadlines in the case, according to a court order.

Nov. 10, 2023
Judge Cannon grants a request from Trump's legal team to push back some pretrial deadlines, but keeps the trial's May start date for the time being.

May 7, 2024
Judge Cannon indefinitely postpones Trump's classified documents trial pending the resolution of the outstanding pretrial litigation,

June 27, 2024
Following three days of hearings, Judge Cannon orders an additional hearing to determine whether prosecutors improperly used evidence protected by attorney-client privilege

July 15, 2024
In a surprising ruling, the classified documents case against former President Trump is dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon on the grounds that Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel overseeing the case was unconstitutional because he was not appointed by the president or confirmed by Congress.
----
And this doesn't count all the delays by just not ruling on stuff in the normal timeline.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh please, driver of delay. What nonsense. SC Smith waited an awfully long time to file charges, that is your original sin. That was Smith's decision, not Judge Cannon.

The (D)OJ picked the process. Now live with it.

[tylertusta]

If you're so sure about that, then why did Smith delay giving discovery to Trump's team in October of 2023? Why did they not give Trump's team access to view other evidence?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you could read the motion to see why they asked for the delay.

I will note it seems utterly immaterial as compared to the delays that Trump's folks asked for, and the additional delays Cannon added all on her own.

Your theory that whatever delay you're talking about the primary cause of the slow timeline seems pretty weak compared to the actual timeline.

[tylertusta]

I’m not convinced you read Trump’s motion, Peanut.

Smith Did. Not. Give. Access. To. All. Of. The. Discovery.

This fact isn't in dispute.

Smith’s actions makes sense in the context of trying to get Cannon to get off of the May trial date, which was quickly becoming an obstacle to bringing Trump to trial in DC before the election.

[Sarcastr0]

So that's not how discovery works. There is no 'all of the discover' there is more a negotiation.

Don't take motions for truth - they are arguments. *especially* Trump's litigation team, who angles their motions towards politics.

[tylertusta]

You got one thing correct: It's a negotiation.

An easy way to make the process a protracted one is to just be difficult. Trump was not in control of what Smith provided. All he can do is ask Smith. If Smith doesn't provide it, then Trump has to ask the Court to compel Smith to give it up.

In the instance I'm referring to, Smith gave Trump discovery that Trump couldn't access.

Why would that be, Peanut?

[Krayt]

If you are concerned for rule of law, instead of gittin’ him, delays should carry no weight. For rule of law, getting a crook for his crime, the difference between now, and a few months from now, is of little importance.

A college professor tried to compensate for that, by releasing a piece on how it was important for The People to see timely prosecutions of crime. In no other circumstance would such ever make that statement, especially in death penalty cases, where delays for the purpose of delay are perfectly fine. Something I agree with BTW.

Since he is being prosecuted as a political opponent for the purpose of hurting him, he’s actually ethically entitled to try to delay it for any reason.

[Sarcastr0]

If you are concerned for rule of law, instead of gittin’ him, delays should carry no weight.

1. That's not true; trials avoid unnecessary delays just generally.

2. Exigency is a thing in trial timing. I don't have any examples, but would you find it outrageous if a coming hurricane changed the timing of a trial?

3. The timing of a trial isn't all about burden. The court also has Are you arguing the Trump team's requests for delay were all in good faith?

4. I don't think that the event that has rule of law in it is Trump taking office and then shutting down all the criminal trials he's in.

[David Nieporent]

Congress “does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes.”

That is true, but why is this a metaphorical elephant?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Because metaphorical figures become popular and reused in proportion to their ambiguity. The one has been a great favorite among legal minds (especially on the Supreme Court!) ever in need of a one-cite-covers everything authority.

[Riva]

Because Congress would not hide as significant a power as the authority to appoint a "special counsel" with more power than a US Attorney amid a mundane statutory scheme outlining the AGs management of DOJ personnel given the clear and plain language normally used to grant such authority.

[Riva]

Judge Cannon, unlike other lazy sloppy courts, carefully considered the Nixon dicta and found it to be unconvincing. As for the statutory scheme governing the AGs management of personnel, she parsed through the language very carefully and found no new magical power bestowed upon the AG to create a special counsel with more power than a presidentially nominated and senate approved US Attorney. Congress doesn’t hide elephants in mouseholes.

[kramartini]

You might want to add SCOTUS as one of the lazy, sloppy courts that failed to analyze the statutes it cites. This may have to do with the fact that Nixon was a rushed case (decided in 2 weeks!!!) driven by politics.

[Riva]

Not sure about that but I would say that a reliance on the Nixon dicta has lead some courts to error.

[kramartini]

It was sloppy of the Court to cite statutes that clearly don't support its statement. But the Court was on a tight deadline and no one appears to have noticed this clear error.

[kramartini]

Read carefully.
515 does not grant the authority to hire anyone, only to direct those who have already been hired.
533 relates to the hiring of FBI agents.
The one sentence ipse dixit in Nixon is not a statute passed by Congress and is thus non-responsive to Kazinski 's question.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"533 relates to the hiring of FBI agents."

This is what someone who's too stupid for their own good would say.

Does the FBI prosecute crimes?

[kramartini]

Yes. Investigation of crimes and gathering evidence of those crimes by the FBI is also known as prosecution. It is a term of art with a separate meaning from prosecution in court by a lawyer.

Your reading would allow the FBI to detect crimes and do nothing else once it has been determined that there is a crime.

Maybe you’re the one who’s not that bright…

[Jason Cavanaugh]

When you have to stretch the plain meaning of words to try and make a point, you've already lost.

The FBI does not prosecute crimes - they investigate, and the DOJ prosecutes.

I suggest that you lurk for a while before thinking you have something useful to add to the discussions.

[kramartini]

You are doubling down on your ignorance.

[Sarcastr0]

Hold up - you think the police prosecute crimes?

[kramartini]

Absolutely, in a similar manner as the navy prosecutes submarine contacts. Once a crime is detected, the case is pursued (prosecuted) until there is an arrest.

Consider that the definition of "prosecute" is much broader than trying to convict someone in court:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute

The relevant definition is "pursue until finished". Note that if an FBI agent could not prosecute a crime, the agent would have to stop after detecting the crime. Also, see:

https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/where-is-the-fbis-authority-written-down#:~:text=Federal%20law%20gives%20the%20FBI,crimes%20against%20the%20United%20States

[Voize]

kramartini, if you read "prosecute crimes" like "prosecute wars" it would have the absurd meaning that the DoJ was authorized to appoint officials to commit crimes.

And, if you are still hung up on the "FBI" caption, here's some guidance from Railroad Trainmen v. B. & OR CO., 331 US 519 (1947) (citations omitted):

[T]he title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text. For interpretative purposes, they are of use only when they shed light on some ambiguous word or phrase. They are but tools available for the resolution of a doubt. But they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes plain.

[kramartini]

This whole discussion is silly. Prosecute generally means pursue, which is what the FBI does.

It is amusing how desperate people are to defend an obviously incorrect line of reasoning based on one sentence in a hastily written Supreme Court decision 50 years ago.

Section 533 does not authorize the hiring of any DOJ attorney. This is a sloppy error that was not caught in the rush to get the Nixon decision handed down in 16 days. And in any event it was not at issue, since no party challenged the appointment of the Special Counsel in that case.

One thought does occur to me. Given that the opinion was written hastily, perhaps “533” is a typo and the Court really meant “543”. That section addresses the hiring of special attorneys. Of course, we can’t know what the Court meant since everyone on the Court in 1974 is dead. Which is why, when handing down precedential decisions, the Court explains itself, which it did not do in this case.

[Voize]

Next I suppose we'll be told that murder in the first degree refers to a group of closely-related crows.

[kramartini]

Perhaps if the term were used in a publication of the Audubon Society...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Kramartini,

You're too stupid to have any business posting comments here, although you will fit in nicely with the other right-wing dipshits.

When lawyers make laws, the appropriate definition of a word is the one that, when applicable, actually references the law.

"3
a
: to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law
b
: to institute legal proceedings with reference to
prosecute a claim"

Now sit down, shut up, and pray that you actually learn a thing or two before commenting again.

[NvEric]

28 U.S.C. § 515(a)
"any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law"
Does not work, Smith not valid under law. Smith not validly vetted.

28 U.S.C. § 533
Irrelevant, Smith not an FBI employee.

28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, 515, 533
509, Irrelevant
510, Irrelevant, Smith not part of government
515, Irrelevant, see above
533 Irrelevant, see above

[Malika the Maiz]

It's a tough pill to swallow, but you're going to get a healthy dose of legal realism, I'm afraid.

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

Oh goodie, ng is still here to cry about Judge Cannon.

Tell us ng, when you heard, was it anger or crying that came first?

[not guilty]

I was not angry when I heard, nor have I shed a tear. I have been predicting all along that Judge Cannon would make a boneheaded ruling of this type, which will get her reversed (for the third time) by the Eleventh Circuit, likely with instructions to assign another district judge upon remand.

The Special Counsel team was born and raised in that briar patch.

[shawn_dude]

Do you think Cannon will be Trump's AG pick?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why would she give up a Federal judgeship to be the AG?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, suppose the 11th circuit says: Reassign case to another judge.

Isn't it back to Square 1?

[not guilty]

Not necessarily. The new judge would step in where Judge Cannon left off. Some of her rulings might be revisited, but that is not inevitable. The first order of business would likely be a status conference to determine a schedule for further proceedings.

[Commenter_XY]

Now I am curious. How does reassignment work? Does Chief Judge Pryor walk into Judge Cannon's chambers and say, "You're fired....from this case". How do they pick the replacement?

[not guilty]

The appellate court would likely remand with the direction to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida that the case be reassigned to a different district judge for further proceedings. See e.g., United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989).

[kramartini]

What exactly is wrong with the substance of Cannon’s statutory analysis?

[not guilty]

It ignores the plain language of 28 U.S.C. §§ 515(a) and 533(1) and (4).

[Riva]

No, that would be the DOJ’s attempt to twist a statutory framework designed to effectuate the AGs management of attorneys, FBI, and employees into a Congressional authorization to appoint a new type of Constitutional officer with more power than a US Attorney, absent any reference to such a power.

[Kleppe]

Private citizen Jack Smith continues expropriating the power of the Executive Branch without appointment and filching the Treasury without appropriation. I can only hope he will one day be held accountable for his crimes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nothing he's done is a crime. Sit down and shut the fuck up.

[not guilty]

Kleppe, what "crimes" do you claim that Jack Smith has committed? Please cite statutes by number and give the facts supporting each alleged violation.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Kleppe.

[shawn_dude]

Oh hey... Hunter Biden's case was also brought by a special prosecutor assigned by the AG just like Trump's. His lawyers are already attempting to take advantage of that ruling.

[Commenter_XY]

Fair is fair, shawn_dude. The law applies to all, equally. If Hunter Biden's case was done the same way, then yeah...dismissal. But doesn't that leave Weiss able to charge Hunter again?

[kramartini]

Weiss is a Senate-confirmed US Attorney. No Appointments Clause issue.

[kramartini]

Setting aside Cannon's use of legal authority, no one can deny that her statutory analysis is spot on.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Actually we can, and most of the legal professionals who've given comments about her 'analysis' disagree with your idiotic remark.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Austin Private Wealth, LLC took out a massive short position on $DJT a day before the assassination attempt then mysteriously amended the filings to make it go away afterwards claiming it was a recording error.

A couple of things of note;
- it was their only activity in over a year
- their favorite charities are the ADL and a bunch of other Jew charities
- they are majority owned by Soros and Blackrock

Neat.

[Malika the Maiz]

Someone certainly wants attention today.

[David Nieporent]

Not only are your facts wrong, but — as with all conspiracy theories — it makes no sense. (Either they purchased the puts or they didn't. If they did, amending the disclosure wouldn't actually undo that transaction.)

[Bwaaah]

They bought contracts for 1,200 shares on June 28, not the 12 million shares mistakenly reported on July 12 (see here). It was an immaterial transaction at an immaterial time.

But, yes, Jey-hay....the Jews, again.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Neat mistake! Just a little oopsie doodle!

[Bwaaah]

Jew hater reports an immaterial event that he relates to Jews as being material. Oopsie doodle!

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: I don't usually buy conspiracy theories, but in the case of the Trump "shooting", the alternative hypothesis (the "no conspiracy" theory) seems many times more implausible and absurd than the conspiracy theories.

[not guilty]

Why do you put the word shooting in scare quotes? Is there any question that Donald Trump and at least three bystanders were shot?

Whether there were accomplices or conspirators is worth investigating, but any conclusions should follow the evidence (or absence of evidence), not vice-versa.

[Riva]

Because it wasn’t merely a “shooting “ you Jacobin clown, it was an attempted assassination.

[Malika the Maiz]

What makes the shooting of a political figure =/= an assassination?

[Mr. Bumble]

See # 2.
assassination
noun

The act of assassinating;
1.a killing by treacherous violence.
2. Killing or murder for political reasons.
3. An attack intended to ruin someone's reputation.

The GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English • More at Wordnik

[Malika the Maiz]

So how does that differentiate from the shooting of a political figure?

[David Nieporent]

What makes the shooting of a political figure =/= an assassination?

Motive. If someone comes up behind a politician and tries to steal his wallet, and shoots him in the course of the mugging, that would not be an assassination attempt.

[Malika the Maiz]

If Travis Bickle tries to or kills Senator Palantine would that be an assassination?

[Krayt]

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy of two or more to be an assassination attempt, just the intent to kill him because of his political power.

As far as was anyone else involved, we will see. At this point we may have heard a peep or two if so, so I'm doubting it.

[Kazinski]

You might have a case if it weren't for the 3 or 4 bystanders shot, which it should be a matter of routine law enforcement to not only link the bullets definitively to the alleged shooters rifle, and conclusively confirm that the angle and direction of the bullets came from the shooters position.

Then for your conspiracy to work, Trump would have needed to trust a 20 year old amateur who wasn't good enough to male his high school shooting team whizz bullets by his head, while he is standing up checking his ear out, before the Secret Service surrounded him.

Then not only the Secret Service is in on the conspiracy, but also the FBI, and its all pulled off in front of thousands of witnesses.

[Bwaaah]

So you're sayin' there's a chance!

[Kazinski]

On the other hand there is a video circulating on X that could actually be the Secret Service doing a dry run of the assassination before the fact, but to my mind it looks like a forensic re-enactment.

https://x.com/justin_hart/status/1813575419549061450?t=g4-T3LfgHB8rp_kR00Vh-Q&s=19

[Malika the Maiz]

So the shooter ended up not being Chinese as you initially reported, huh?

[Kazinski]

Well.I quoted the NYpost report, which was wrong, and I noted it was wrong a few hours later in the same thread after seeing a closeup.of the dead shooter, before he was identified.

As I remember it was in a paragraph I quoted that said the gunman was about several hundred yards away, which also was a slight exaggeration. That's generally how things work in the first couple of hours after a chaotic event.

[Malika the Maiz]

"As I remember it was in a paragraph I quoted that said the gunman was about several hundred yards away, which also was a slight exaggeration. That’s generally how things work in the first couple of hours after a chaotic event."

Ever think about waiting carefully before sounding off?

[Sarcastr0]

As everyone told you that day, you should do better at waiting.

https://media.wnyc.org/i/raw/1/HANDBOOK.JPG

[Kazinski]

In a rapid reaction thread where everyone is sharing tidbits of news as they come out?

Come on man, everybody knows half the details the media is reporting turn out to be false and pass them on anyway.

We just don't know what half turn out to be true.

For instance we were told the Secret Service didn't have manpower to cover the building the shooter climbed on the roof of. Then we find out they had a team in the building.

Lots of details turn out wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

everybody knows half the details the media is reporting turn out to be false and pass them on anyway.

If you read the thread, I think you'll find not so many people were indulging that bit of nonsense. Plenty were withholding judgement on the details till the facts were nailed down.

[bernard11]

Lots of details turn out wrong.

Especially those reported by the NY Post.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Great excuse.

[Brett Bellmore]

I’m not sure which conspiracy theory you’re assessing here; Is it the “Trump faked it” theory, or the “The SS were in on it” theory?

The “Trump faked it” theory is facially absurd, of course, it was just thrown out there by Democrats to muddy the water and take the edge off the political effect of the assassination attempt.

The “SS were in on it” theory has a remarkably amount of evidence for it, since this attempt was almost a perfect storm of errors and at best bad judgment. At best it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump’s security was being deliberately shorted. At worst it looks like they let the guy through, and take his shot, and then took him out to silence him.

I’m tentatively inclined to the view that they WERE deliberately shorting his security, and staffing it from the bottom of the barrel, and maybe sort of wistfully hoping that somebody would take advantage of it, but that’s all that was really going on. Doing anything more risked being nailed on a murder conspiracy that would be politically destructive on a massive level.

[Malika the Maiz]

I am shocked, shocked to find Brett suspects a conspiracy theory!

[David Nieporent]

No, no. Brett dismisses a conspiracy theory that makes Trump look bad, while embracing a lunatic one that doesn't.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, no. Brett dismisses a conspiracy theory that makes Trump look bad, while embracing a lunatic one that doesn’t.

Holy crap. Your TDS is even worse than anyone could have imagined.

[Malika the Maiz]

It's a common thing for a troll to post "you're wrong" without saying why. DN's description certainly isn't obviously wrong (Brett clearly dismisses the conspiracy theory that makes Trump look bad [he faked it] while embracing one that doesn't [the SS intentionally shorted him coverage]). Where's the "TDS" there?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It's even more common for dishonest assholes like you to intentionally misrepresent what they're commenting on. For instance, you omit the "lunatic" descriptor Nieporent applied to the SS conspiracy theory, while describing the other one as simply one that "makes Trump look bad", implying that he doesn't consider THAT one to be a "lunatic" theory.

[Malika the Maiz]

LOL, this guy tries to dismiss a charge of pedanticism by saying “well, he called one conspiracy theory lunatic and not another [which I admit is probably wrong]! So he's clearly deranged!”

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You really are as dumb as a box of rocks.

[Malika the Maiz]

"It’s a common thing for a troll to post “you’re wrong” without saying why."

Lol.

[jb]

Wuz probably wins the prize for most ad hominem attack and least substance added to the conversation (performing poorly even against the Rev in this regard). Not sure it's going to be productive to try to change that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So you read the petty sniping responses to my comments (most of which are quite substantive) and concluded that I'm the one contributing the most ad hominems and least substance?

So you're just here to contribute stupidity, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I dismiss both crazy conspiracies, and embrace the theory that's consistent with the evidence.

To be sure, never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence, but this was just TOO MUCH incompetence to be innocent. Every day something more outrageous comes out.

[David Nieporent]

As I said, embraces a lunatic conspiracy theory.

[Riva]

Unclear how this could happen and of course more facts are needed but that Biden officials were derelict to the point it seems they couldn’t care less about the President Trump’s safety doesn’t appear all that implausible.

[Malika the Maiz]

People do bad jobs all the time. This is Bircherism.

[Riva]

Given President Trump's likely threat profile and what is apparent from the lack of obvious security precautions, it's a Chernobyl level "bad job," if that's all it is.

[Malika the Maiz]

You've some history in protecting people who regularly engage in mass public events?

Of course you don't. What you do have a history of is spouting off confidently about things you know little about if, and only if, it satisfies some partisan leaning of yours.

[Riva]

I would say that when the security lapses are blatant even a layman, something is seriously wrong. And, rather a stupid lie to try to discredit my comments by claiming I wrote something to suggest I had any professional insight into the management of security details when my comments plainly say no such thing. But I would never accuse you of being smart.

[Malika the Maiz]

If you don't know how question marks work, I doubt even more your assessment of high-level national security details.

Typical of conspiracy nuts.

[Riva]

Not actually looking any smarter after that response. But keep digging your stupid hole deeper.

[Don Nico]

That is a mighty flimsy excuse for gross negligence by the SS.

[bernard11]

If you want to talk about negligence by the SS (couldn't we have a nicer name for them?), fine. That's a sensible conversation.

But the argument above is about whether the SS was part of a plot to assassinate Trump, or maybe just stood by on purpose. That's from Fantasyland.

Which is where this comment section, especially the open threads, increasingly live.

[David Nieporent]

If you want to talk about negligence by the SS (couldn’t we have a nicer name for them?), fine. That’s a sensible conversation.

It's a sensible conversation, but that’s not what people want to have. What they want to do is skip the investigation, skip the conversation, and go right to the verdict.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's funny coming from you; "right to the verdict" sounds like your opinion of Trump's legal issues.

I agree that there should be an investigation but who should run it? That there was a failure is beyond doubt.

[David Nieporent]

Um, there are essentially no facts in dispute in Trump's cases. Trump's defenses are not "I didn't do these things," but "It's okay that I did these things." If there were actual factual disputes, then I would wait to see how they were resolved.

Here, of course, we know almost nothing about who made what decisions and why.

[Don Nico]

One my colleagues whose brother is Secret Service used the phrase gross negligence. I think the word "incompetence" is nonsense. The agents are competent, but they were not well unprepared or well staffed.

All the conspiracy stuff is bullshit.

[Joe_dallas]

Don Nico 10 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"One my colleagues whose brother is Secret Service used the phrase gross negligence."

Nico - that is similar to the comment made by a former secret service agent I deal with, though his comment was much are guarded. His commentary has always remained very guarded / professional/ confidential with respect to any of his work.

[David Nieporent]

Biden officials

Project 2025 hasn't (yet) been enacted. Secret Service agents are government employees, not people who report to the president.

[Riva]

Project 2025? Is this going to be the new laptop letter lie? Yeah, try harder, not going to work.

[Sarcastr0]

Love to see the authoritarians running away from the authoritarian plan as fast as they can.

Is there anything in Project 2025 you wouldn't be excited to see the Trump admin enact?

[Malika the Maiz]

"Is this going to be the new laptop letter lie?"

Lol, for fun, how about you explain how this is a relevant answer to David?

[Riva]

Biden's campaign engaged intel hacks to lie that Hunter's laptop had the "hallmarks" of Russian intelligence in 2020. Now democrats are using lies about about the content of Project 2025 and claiming that it is somehow President Trump's project, as opposed to the work of a private thinktank. If they wanted to honestly debate President Trump's agenda, they would challenge the Republican platform. But they're too inherently dishonest.

[jb]

Worth noting that David made no attempt to link Project 2025 to President Trump; just noted that it wasn't actually in effect so therefore career professionals are the ones running security at the Secret Service.

Seems like you're feeling a bit defensive about the Project, though?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Delusional, autistic, bigoted right-wingers gonna Brett.

[Malika the Maiz]

"I'm aware of the common sense maxim, but I reject it in favor of exactly what it prescribes against, in line with my usual behavior!"

[Kazinski]

Well it wasn't all incompetence, it was also laziness, the second squad of counter snipers were just more comfortable in the building than on the roof.

Which also explains why the other sniper team was so slow to shoot, they probably thought someone on the other team finally went up on the roof where they should have been in the first place. It would be hard to imagine they let somebody up on the roof of their own building without knowing it.

It would be rejected as a Reno 911 script as too absurd for belief.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett is dismissing the conspiracy theory
And pointing out how incompetently the Secret service performed.

nothing more nothing less

[Sarcastr0]

"I’m tentatively inclined to the view that they WERE deliberately shorting his security, and staffing it from the bottom of the barrel, and maybe sort of wistfully hoping that somebody would take advantage of it, but that’s all that was really going on."

I know it's hard for someone beating the experts in so many fields to read an entire comment, but seems you missed this bit where Brett thinks it was intentional. By 'they.'

[Joe_dallas]

Brett does have a valid point - It takes a serious level of incompetence for the secret service to screw up that bad.

Whether it is intentionally shorting the personnel or serious incompetence it doesnt matter.
I am not into the conspiracy that others have raised, though bottom line it reflects very poorly on the secret service and remarkably consistent with the rest of the biden adminstration.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. I had forgotten about your expertise in security services.

You said Brett was 'pointing out how incompetently the Secret service performed.

nothing more nothing less'

You were wrong.

Dunno if I'm going to take after-the-fact evaluations of the Secret Service's behavior from someone who can't reed good.

[David Nieporent]

Whether it is intentionally shorting the personnel or serious incompetence it doesnt matter.

Whether someone tried to have Trump killed "doesn't matter"? That's certainly a take.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just how bad is your reading comprehension, anyway? He said it doesn't matter if it's incompetence or deliberate shorting of personnel. The latter isn't trying to have Trump killed, it's 'merely' not regarding preventing it as an important goal. Both result in deficient security, so they're largely indistinguishable in result.

Like I've said myself, I don't think they were actively trying to get him killed, they just didn't particularly mind if he got killed. You know, like they didn't mind if Kennedy got killed, and so denied him protection until this attempt made that policy politically toxic?

The only candidate this administration really was concerned with protecting was Biden. Everybody else was just something they had to make a show of doing.

[Sarcastr0]

You're backpeddaling.

You tried to do a just the tip conspiracy by saying they intentionally did a bad job and wistfully *hoped* he'd get killed.

Now you're trying to say what you meant was just negligence and not caring if he got killed.

I mean both are unsupported, but they are also not the same.

[Sarcastr0]

Also:
*At worst it looks like they let the guy through, and take his shot, and then took him out to silence him.
*they WERE deliberately shorting his security
*they just didn’t particularly mind if [Trump] got killed
*they didn’t mind if Kennedy got killed

I ask again: who the fuck is they?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I ask again: who the fuck is they?"

Why the hell should I answer that question a second time, when you wouldn't accept my answer the first? It's not like the answer is going to change.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you were covering then and you're tapdancing now.

Was it the (somehow plural) same lady when Kennedy was shot as well?

The point here is you've got a shadowy cabal so ingrained in your psyche it just naturally shows up in your speculation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Secret Service's org chart is "shadowy"?

[Sarcastr0]

*At worst it looks like they let the guy through, and take his shot, and then took him out to silence him.
*they WERE deliberately shorting his security
*they just didn’t particularly mind if [Trump] got killed
*they didn’t mind if Kennedy got killed

The head of the Secret Service does not fit these references to 'they' and you know it. It's pretty sad how you're trying to pretend otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

The “SS were in on it” theory has a remarkably amount of evidence for it,

I guess "zero" is a remarkable amount of evidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it is zero if you ignore all of it. I suppose you think it's impossibly dangerous for the Secret Service to stand on a 5 degree sloped roof, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Your standard for evidence continues to be when you speculate something that fits the facts, that counts as evidence.

Ever wonder why you posit like 4x more conspiracies than almost anyone else on here not counting the pure shitposters?

[David Nieporent]

Your standard for evidence continues to be when you speculate something that fits the facts, that counts as evidence.

Right; he uses his conspiracy theorizing as evidence of his conspiracy theory.

[Krychek_2]

There are things about the official narrative that I find troubling, but so far there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for a conspiracy. However, if we're going to do conspiracy theories then the first question is who benefits. In this case, Trump did. It increased (albeit slightly) his chances of getting elected, it gave him the opportunity to look strong on national television, and it further energized his base. Further, had it been successful -- had Trump actually been killed -- it would have been a huge political benefit to the Republicans since almost any Republican who would then have been nominated would be a stronger general election candidate.

[ThePublius]

So, you are saying, by omission, that Trump's death wouldn't have benefitted Biden or the Dem party? I mean, isn't that the most obvious? I mean, they've tried other means to keep him off the ballot.

[Malika the Maiz]

Would it? Trump has high disapproval ratings, someone else would probably win more easily.

[Krychek_2]

Trump's death would not have benefitted Biden since any other Republican who would then have been nominated would have been a stronger general election candidate.

And if you're talking about the lawsuit to keep him off the ballot, that was brought by Republicans.

[David Nieporent]

Trump's death would've benefitted the country, since it would remove any chance he'd be elected, but it wouldn't have benefitted Biden. Trump's the only plausible GOP nominee that Biden has any hope of beating at this point; nominate anyone sane and normal and "At least he's not a fascist who wants to overthrow the government" ceases to be the prime argument in Biden's favor.

[Krychek_2]

And, I forgot to mention, it's given the right a chance to smear the left by passing this off as a left wing conspiracy. On the pure politics of it, Biden is worse off for this having happened.

[CountmontyC]

Your first sentence sounds like you approve of assassinating Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

If you assume DMN has no virtue or principles, and is some kind of robotic utilitarian, it might seem that way.

[David Nieporent]

Well, then let me clarify:

1) I'm not sure that assassinating a mere candidate can ever be justified; by definition, a mere candidate is not in power and therefore the harm he can do is limited.
2) Assassinating an actual government leader can be justified — who thinks it wrong that von Stauffenberg tried to kill Hitler? — but only if two conditions hold:
a) There must be no lawful peaceful way to remove the leader; and
b)
a) The leader must be unpopular enough that the inevitable chaos and backlash will be minimized. I think Xi Jinping is evil, but I do not think that him being killed (whether by outsiders or by a Chinese person) would lead to a good outcome for China or the world.

Trump doesn't fit any of the criteria at this point. Hopefully he never will.

[jb]

Yes, at this point basically no one is voting *for* Biden. A lot of people will vote against Trump. If Trump is off the R ticket and Biden is on the D ticket, team R wins in a landslide.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not if the R candidate is sufficiently establishment that the GOP base ends up totally demoralized.

[Brett Bellmore]

" In this case, Trump did."

See, this is the literally insane "Trump did it" theory.

The guy had a bullet pass close enough to his skull to graze his ear, while his head was moving. It was just dumb luck that he didn't die on the spot.

Does Trump strike you as the sort of guy who'd have a 20 something amateur rifleman snipe him expecting to be reliably missed? Even Mission Impossible didn't go in for scenarios that risky.

The "GOP establishment planned it" scenario is slightly less stupid, but suffers from at least two critical flaws:

1) The SS isn't under GOP control right now, and the guy only got in his shot because of at best massive incompetence. The GOP wasn't in a position to arrange that incompetence, or to arrange for the FBI to fail to follow up any leads.
2) If it ever got out that the GOP establishment had Trump killed, that's it, game over, the GOP is history, and it's leadership are in hiding.

The same is true if the Democratic party had him killed, obviously. Game over.

We're talking about people who are too risk averse, all around, to sic a hitman on somebody as important as Trump.

While just under-staffing Trump's security from the bottom of the barrel and hoping some random nutcase to exploits the hole is at least deniable. It doesn't even require them to consciously intend Trump die, it's psychologically deniable, too.

[Krychek_2]

As I said earlier, I doubt it was a conspiracy, and my sole point is that Republicans would have had more to gain from it than the Democrats did, so that must be taken into account if we're going to discuss a conspiracy.

But I must disagree with your "Trump wouldn't have done it because it would have been stupid" argument. Years of practicing law have taught me that people do all kinds of things that in hindsight were monumentally stupid. Many, many plans are not well thought out. So the mere fact that it would have been a really dumb idea doesn't mean Trump, someone working for him, or someone working for the GOP establishment, didn't do it.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's stupid because it won't work, and there's stupid because it's suicidal risky. And Trump doesn't act like somebody who likes taking huge physical risks.

[Magister]

It's unlikely that Trump would approve a plan that involved someone shooting at Trump, but I can see other GOP deciding without Trump that the Secret Service would apprehend or kill the guy with a rifle before he ever got in position or got a chance to shoot, and that an assassination attempt that never got close to being carried out would be a huge PR opportunity.

(Compare the guy who turned himself in before actually trying to kill Kavanaugh, which we hear endlessly about; the guy who actually shot family members of a federal judge and had Sotomayor on his list is one we rarely hear about.)

[David Nieporent]

” In this case, Trump did.”

See, this is the literally insane “Trump did it” theory.

The guy had a bullet pass close enough to his skull to graze his ear, while his head was moving. It was just dumb luck that he didn’t die on the spot.

The conspiracy theory (which I am describing, not endorsing) is that this never happened at all. That he wasn't hit and that his injury is fake; the blood was special effects.

Does Trump strike you as the sort of guy who’d have a 20 something amateur rifleman snipe him expecting to be reliably missed?

Missing is the overwhelmingly likely outcome — it was dumb luck that the guy hit Trump's ear, not that he didn't kill Trump — but, no, Trump doesn't strike me as that sort of guy. He's far too cowardly for that; he has no interest in being a possible martyr. He strikes me as the sort of guy who would arrange for Donald Trump jr. to be shot so that he (Sr., that is) could get the sympathy. (And since that didn't happen either, I am not even remotely claiming Trump did any such thing, I am just discussing his psychology as I perceive it.)

[OtisAH]

Exactly. Convicted Felon Trump isn’t that good an actor. And there’s no way he would ever knowingly participate in anything that would cause him the slightest discomfort. If, in the 0.01% chance this was a Bob Roberts event, it would have to be put together and executed without his involvement. And nobody does anything without Convicted Felon Trump’s approval first.

I *could* see this as a Junior conceived deal, though, as brought to him by some Proud Boy kook or another. He’s desperate enough for daddy’s attention he might could talk himself into thinking this was a spectacular idea.

“I’m helping!”
- Ralph “Don Jr.” Wiggum

[Magister]

Donald Trump as President was so disengaged and surrounded himself with incompetent people so much that plenty of stuff was done without his awareness, so I doubt the last sentence of the first paragraph.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so it was a different utterly implausible conspiracy theory. Thanks for clarifying that.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett Bellmore dinging people for conspiracy theories may be the funniest content the VC has produced in all it's decades.

[Krychek_2]

Hear, hear.

Besides which, it can be a conspiracy even if all the details aren't fully known.

[David Nieporent]

What is that supposed to be evidence of?

[ThePublius]

No, David, if this was simply incompetence, then it's a staggering degree of incompetence, incompetence at a level that truly strains credulity.

Imagine you were in charge of security, overall. You locate the podium on a map or overhead photo and draw a, say, 600 yard radius circle around it; draw rays emanating from the podium towards vantage points with clear views, i.e., lines of sight. Now what? Yes, secure those vantage points. The one Crooks used was so obvious it should certainly be at least secured, but more sensibly, the rooftop occupied with law enforcement or USSS, in direct communication with the security team.

How could this have been missed? How? Is the USSS just that stone cold stupid? I don't think so.

[ThePublius]

Just to supplement this:

1. Crooks was only 130 yards from Trump. That's an easy shot with an AR-15. I don't know if he had optics, i.e., a scope; but even with iron sights it's an easy shot;

2. 600 yards is about the practical limit of effective use of a rifle chambered in 5.56x45. Note the USSS counter snipers appear to be armed with Barrett .50 sniper rifles; these are effective and accurate out to 1,000 yards and beyond.

3. too bad the LEO who saw Crooks didn't have a flash-bang grenade to toss up there.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Crooks was only 130 yards from Trump. That’s an easy shot with just about any rifle chambered for a centerfire rifle round.

FIFY.

[Sarcastr0]

They call this Monday morning quarterbacking.

[ThePublius]

What is that supposed to mean? All analysis of events occurs after the event. It's impossible to "Saturday evening quarterback" a Sunday game, isn't it?

What's your analysis, or are you just going to troll people?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah you can say what a team should do before they play the game.

You're taking after-the-fact information and formulating from that a list of things it's unconscionable weren't done. Except you didn't say boo the day before.

I mean, how could you? You couldn't neck down all the many possible security measures for all the possible threats.

And so, here you are, Monday morning, sudden expert on security based on hindsight.

[Don Nico]

"Except you didn’t say boo the day before."
Because the day before, nothing about the Secret service plans and procedures had been revealed. Gross errors are made even by highly competent professionals in every field. Are we speaking about errors in judgement, errors in review of plans, failure in execution? That is the job of an in-depth investigation to find out. It is probably that some people are 'fired' or transferred to east Buttfuck as a result. Certainly the only thing that the general public knows is that such clear failures require in depth investigation and holding managers as well as field agents accountable

[David Nieporent]

It’s impossible to “Saturday evening quarterback” a Sunday game, isn’t it?

No, of course it's not. In fact, every team spends all week before Sunday doing that sort of analysis, studying tendencies, game film, etc., and preparing a game plan to respond to those.

[Malika the Maiz]

Some people think that having to protect a bunch of people walking around in a public full of nuts is a very, very hard job, and that any poor performance must, must! then be evidence of malice.

I've always thought "it's a miracle how well they protect people given what their challenges are!"

But, here's a possible tell, the former people see conspiracies *all the time around them,* and, maybe more importantly, *in a direction that falls into their pre-existing political beliefs.*

[CountmontyC]

The evidence of malice is not that they did a bad job but that they did just about the worst possible jo and only luck really kept the assassination attempt from being successful.
1) Crooks was spotted up to an hour before the attempt and reported as suspicious and nothing was done.
2) Rally goers saw Crooks on the roof minutes before he took his shot and loudly tried to get police attention and were ignored.
3) A rooftop a mere 130 yards away with a direct line of sight of the podium was left unsecured.
4) Trump's Secret Service detail was left short handed despite asking for additional resources.
Perhaps you can explain why these issues occurred? At the very least it shows incredible incompetence on the part of the Secret Service and it's director if not outright malice.

[Malika the Maiz]

"but that they did just about the worst possible jo "

Guy can't even spell "job" but is sure, so sure, in a way that *of course* reinforces his partisan leanings, that this mistake *must* be *conclusive* evidence of a malicious conspiracy.

Thank you for being the best internet example in a long time!

[CountmontyC]

Wow you found a typo and that totally invalidates my whole post.
Perhaps you can answer the question I posed in my previous post. That is if you want a serious discussion instead of just insults.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I guess “zero” is a remarkable amount of evidence.

While none of the following is compelling evidence for any such "conspiracy", and Occam's Razor still strongly suggests that incompetence is the culprit...to claim that there is "zero evidence" of malicious behavior is to have your head so far up your own ass that you can peek out through your navel.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-assassination-attempt-investigation-continues-new-details/story?id=112020474

"Law enforcement officials investigating the assassination attempt on Donald Trump told lawmakers Wednesday that 20 minutes passed between the time U.S. Secret Service snipers first spotted the gunman on a rooftop and the time shots were fired at the former president, according to several law enforcement officials and lawmakers briefed on the matter."

"The FBI director, his deputy director and the head of the Secret Service told lawmakers Crooks was identified as a person of interest a full 62 minutes before the shooting took place, according to the law enforcement officials and lawmakers briefed.

According to the sources, the timeline presented in the briefing was as follows:

5:10 p.m. Crooks was first identified as a person of interest
5:30 p.m. Crooks was spotted with a rangefinder
5:52 p.m. Crooks was spotted on the roof by Secret Service
6:02 p.m. Trump takes the stage
6:12 p.m. Crooks fires first shots"

[Malika the Maiz]

What a typical pedantic, troll internet comment.

I don't think this is true, but to claim *zero* evidence....

At JesusHadBlondeHairAndIMissMyDaddy has the courage of his convictions.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What a typical pedantic, troll internet comment.

I don’t think this is true, but to claim *zero* evidence….

What a typical simple-minded asshole internet comment. Are you really so stupid that you can’t comprehend that there can be evidence for something that isn’t true? Here’s a little hint: In a legal case, both sides present evidence that supports their contrary positions, even though only one of those positions represents the truth.

[Malika the Maiz]

This poor, autistic buffoon really doesn't understand how pedanticism works.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You either have the IQ of whatever it was I scraped off the bottom of my shoe this morning, or you’re just another garden variety dishonest asshole…or both. Either way, you’re to be ignored.

[Malika the Maiz]

“It’s a common thing for a troll to post “you’re wrong” without saying why.”

Lol.

[CountmontyC]

That is exactly what you have been doing this whole thread.

[Malika the Maiz]

"While none of the following is compelling evidence for any such “conspiracy”, and Occam’s Razor still strongly suggests that incompetence is the culprit"

I've been reminding this troll of his initial post in context. Those are a lot of hard words for you, I'm sure, maybe run along and buy your favorite MAGA t-shirt?

[Krayt]

Because nothing says genius conspiracy planning like designing a scenario where they’d have to explain why they let a guy lie on a rooftop for minutes and didn’t keep him under observation, much less make him get down.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Because nothing says genius conspiracy planning like designing a scenario where they’d have to explain why they let a guy lie on a rooftop for minutes and didn’t keep him under observation, much less make him get down.

So they're as stunningly incompetent as the those things suggest, but it's lunacy to think those involved would be incompetent when it comes to doing something intentionally?

[Malika the Maiz]

"While none of the following is compelling evidence for any such “conspiracy”, and Occam’s Razor still strongly suggests that incompetence is the culprit"

"These people are almost surely wrong, but as they are my comrades, let me post a dozen times to defend them in their wrongness, just not that it's crazy wrong! And don't call me a pedant!"

[TwelveInchPianist]

The problem with dismissing the 'SS were in on it' theory is that you have to believe that the SS were afraid to position themselves on a slightly slanted roof.

Does anybody believe that?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The problem with dismissing the ‘SS were in on it’ theory is that you have to believe that the SS were afraid to position themselves on a slightly slanted roof.

I don't know that it points to an "in on it" theory, but that does seem like an invalid excuse:

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/15/multimedia/15DC-SECRETSERVICE-TOP-gpmt/15DC-SECRETSERVICE-TOP-gpmt-articleLarge.jpg

[David Nieporent]

The problem with the 'SS were in on it' theory is that it's mindbogglingly stupid. Did they want Trump killed? If so, why would they use someone utterly unqualified and unlikely to succeed? Where and how did they find this young man? Why would Crooks have agreed to do this? Or was he a patsy and there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll? (But if so, this second shooter was even worse than Crooks.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The problem with the ‘SS were in on it’ theory is that it’s mindbogglingly stupid. "

It sure is! Is it less stupid that the alternative?

[Roger S]

Why is it that no one at SS has been fired? Apparently letting Trump get killed is acceptable to the Biden administration.

[David Nieporent]

Um, Trump wasn't killed, so your accuracy is par for the course.

Also, this isn't Trump's game show; if someone deserves to get fired, fine, but we don't have that information at this time.

[Life of Brian]

The sole and simple reason Trump wasn't killed is because the shooter had poor aim. Giving SS every benefit of the doubt, the most flattering take is that as an organization, they were utterly worthless and failed in their sole mission in the most fundamental of ways.

Anything beyond that is just haggling over who goes -- management or some unfortunate fall guy(s).

[Roger S]

The SS Director said: "That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof." She should be fired.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, she should get fired for not even noticing that the two-man SS sniper team depicted in nearly all the photos of the shooting was also perched on a "sloped roof".

[Kazinski]

I'm kind of reminded of the scene in Serpico where the other vice detectives have decided to off Serpico, but don't want to get their hands dirty so they stand back while Serpico is stuck half in and half out of the doorway of a drug den, and they just wait, and wait, and wait, until he gets shot in the face.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lYu_8OE3sCE

They let Trump go out on the stage after they spotted Crooks on the roof, and waited, and waited, and waited .

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-assassination-attempt-investigation-continues-new-details/story

5:10 p.m. Crooks was first identified as a person of interest
5:30 p.m. Crooks was spotted with a rangefinder
5:52 p.m. Crooks was spotted on the roof by Secret Service
6:02 p.m. Trump takes the stage
6:12 p.m. Crooks fires first shots

From the time Crooks fired his first shot to the gunman being killed was just 26 seconds, according to law enforcement officials. Eleven seconds after the first shot, Secret Service counter snipers acquired their target -- and 15 seconds after that, Crooks was shot dead."

I'm not drawing any conclusions, except that would be remarkable incompetence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lol, you have drawn your conclusions already. This is how it starts.

[Kazinski]

At this point in time my conclusion would be it was a remarkable level of incompetence.

But the facts in the timeline definitely need further investigation as to why it takes 26 seconds to shoot a sniper who is actually trying to kill the once and future President, and a full 15 seconds after they acquired the target.

[Sarcastr0]

At worst it looks like they let the guy through, and take his shot, and then took him out to silence him.

they WERE deliberately shorting his security, and staffing it from the bottom of the barrel, and maybe sort of wistfully hoping that somebody would take advantage of it,

Who the fuck is they?

Poor Brett really having to do some work now that it was just a random one-off from a bullied weirdo and there's no partisan gain to be had.

So then it must have been a Secret Service conspiracy!

[Brett Bellmore]

"They" is Kimberly Cheatle, and everybody who didn't tell her to her face that what she was doing was nuts.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Some people claim that there's a woman to blame"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are you claiming that there’s not a woman to blame?

That’s DEI as implemented by the left. You pick unqualified people based on their genitals, and then you can’t hold them accountable for their failures because that would be sexist.

This lines up nicely with y'all bending over backwards to nominate a black woman as VP, then scrambling to replace her with a white person when it looks like she might actually be President. But it looks like the Dems will come to their senses and not do that.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A) He wasn't claiming anything, he was making a Jimmy Buffet joke. I hate that song, by the way.

B) On what basis do you claim that Cheatle was unqualified to be director of the Secret Service?

[Michael P]

The Secret Service director (misgendered by POTUS Biden as “him”) accepted the responsibility, so she seemed to think a woman was to blame. But not enough so to resign over the failure to perform.

[Sarcastr0]

Nonsense, Brett. You're retconning your own post.

You said 'they' and you did not mean the head of the Secret Service.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, this from the guy who regularly complains about "telepathy".

[Sarcastr0]

Less telepathy and more I understand singular versus plural.

And who was there to ‘let the guy through.’

And I've seen your posting before and know you jump to a network of deeply embedded leftists at the drop of a hat.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, see my reply to David, above.

[Sarcastr0]

Your retroactive shoulda argument to incompetence has nothing to do with Brett's argument of intent.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, it does resolve the "Secret Service anomaly", which had previously exempted the SS from the list of branches of federal law enforcement which had been supposedly corrupted by Joe Biden.

Now we know: they're Deep State, too.

[BadLib]

Is the following a conspiracy?

Twenty year old social outcast who was embarrassed by, among other things, being rejected by his high school rifle team because he couldn't hit a barn door at 20 yards looks for a way to prove that he is a good shot and is relevant.

He searches for opportunities and eventually discovers a Trump rally is scheduled less than an hour's drive from his home. He plans to assassinate Trump in order to make himself relevant and prove that the rifle team coach was wrong about his shooting skills.

He then executes on that plan - albeit poorly.

Rifle team coach turns out to be right and a bystander dies as a result.

That's my theory but as it only involves one person, I don't think it's a "conspiracy" even if Crooks suffered from multiple personality disorder (or "dissociative identity disorder" to be politically correct).

[Kazinski]

The NYTimes must have also been part of the conspiracy, or at least their photographer:
"Trump saw Doug Mills — the New York Times photographer who took the photo of him with the bullet — and asked him how he captured the photo. When Mills explained that the bullet's hitting his ear may have slowed it down enough to make it visible in the photo, Trump seemed interested in the detail."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

New photos are emerging of the shooter, Ree Tardy Oswald and you'll never guess what they show...

https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1813824560283709928?t=MPO35MHJPOFVKEWFtkNOnA&s=19

https://x.com/PaulHook_em/status/1813784250032005376?t=OSUGtuJxSVoQgy03bTF7qw&s=19

Another tranny.

[jb]

Probably helpful to read the community note on the second one...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It wasn’t there this morning, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it.

I'm well known for honest accounting of the facts.

[Nelson]

Best sarcasm ever.

You were being sarcastic, roght?

[MoreCurious]

He doesn't know how to be sarcastic. He only knows how to be stupid, and he reminds us of that with every comment that he posts.

[Kazinski]

Well after last weeks pause, it appears Biden is back on his way out.

Schumer, and Pelosi have reportedly told him its time to go. Schiff has come out publicly that he needs to go. Jeffries and Schumer successfully delayed the virtual convention to nominate Biden until at least the beginning of August.

From Axios:

"What we're hearing: Schumer and Jeffries spoke and agreed to both push back against a virtual roll call vote in July, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Dozens of rank-and-file Democrats had signed on to a letter urging the DNC not to hold an early virtual roll call vote, but that effort was scrapped on Wednesday.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the organizer of the letter, touted the DNC's delay as a victory while adding, "We will continue to see how this evolves."
Zoom out: After a brief moratorium in the aftermath of Saturday's assassination attempt against former President Trump, Biden skeptics on Capitol Hill are once again speaking out.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) released a statement Wednesday afternoon calling for the president to "pass the torch," becoming the most high-profile Democratic lawmaker urging Biden to drop out."

I think Biden is toast.

And in unrelated news, Biden prematurely ended his campaign swing in Nevada, went back to Delaware again and said he had Covid.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I hope Jill refuses to step down. The Democrat infighting is just so delicious and satisfying. It's the same satisfaction one gets when here of all the suffering Democrat voters have from living in Democrat shitholes.

[PaulS]

If they make Jill the nominee then they won't even need to reprint any signs. The ticket can still be Biden - Harris

[Kazinski]

Jill Biden - Kamala Harris would be the billing for a cage match, not a presidential ticket.

[Commenter_XY]

Say it ain't so, Joe. 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

went back to Delaware again and said he had Covid.

You figure he is lying about that, Kazinski?

[David Nieporent]

Jeffries and Schumer successfully delayed the virtual convention to nominate Biden until at least the beginning of August.

Since it was scheduled for the beginning of August since May, that's an odd claim.

[Kazinski]

That's what Axios is reporting, I haven't been following it that closely, but I assume they do.

[Kazinski]

It looks like its not quite over yet, Biden forces are mounting a vicious counterattack:

"A source close to Biden* is blaming senior Democratic leaders for "[giving] us Donald Trump," as calls for Biden to step aside grow.

“Can we all just remember for a minute that these same people who are trying to push Joe Biden out are the same people who literally gave us all Donald Trump? In 2015, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer pushed Biden aside in favor of Hillary; they were wrong then, and they are wrong now,” the source told NBC News.

The source pointed to polling in the 2016 election that found Hillary Clinton leading by as much as 9 points.

“How did all this work out for everyone in 2016? Perhaps we should learn a few lessons from 2016; one of them is polls are BS, just ask Sec. Clinton. And two, maybe, just maybe, Joe Biden is more in touch with actual Americans than Obama-Pelosi-Schumer?” the source added.

That is unusually blunt language representing the views of the people closest to Biden, who are increasingly frustrated with the lack of loyalty from party leaders. It shows that the scars of 2015, when Biden felt pushed aside by Obama in favor of Clinton, are still showing."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/rnc-trump-republican-convention-live-updates-rcna161245/rcrd46801?canonicalCard=true

*I wonder if that was Hunter or Jill?

[Mr. Bumble]

"I wonder if that was Hunter or Jill?"
Most likely both.

[Kazinski]

I've updated my election model which currently gives Joe Biden a 3% chance to win the election.

I suppose I should disclose my proprietary methodology because its so far off what the other prediction models show. My data source is the RCP averages, which shows a polling average, and the daily 270 to Win Battleground simulation ( https://www.270towin.com/2024-simulation/battleground-270) which lists the % chance each candidate could take the state.

Of the State is either +5% in the RCP averages, or > 70% for either candidate in the 270toWin simulation I put it in the Lead Pipe Cinch bucket for either candidate (Virginia is the sole exception, which Is 71% Biden to win, but +0.4 Trump in the polling averages)

Based on the Lead Pipe Cinch the EC vote is 261-199 Trump.

So then I put most of the rest of the states into the Must Win for Biden bucket, Which is PA (66% Trump), MI(57% Trump), WI(63% Trump), MN(60% Biden), and VA(71%) Biden. If any of those states go for Trump, he is over 270, since the smallest is WI and MN at 10EV. I ignore NV, ME, NH, for this model because none individually can decide the election.

So now that my model has identified the 5 states Biden must win to deny Trump the 270 he needs, then its simple math to multiply all the Biden win percentages together to find his percentage chance of winning all 5 states which is 3%.

The weakness in the model is it only works if Trump needs only one more state to win, and it doesn't take into account the chance Trump takes a combination of NV(6), NH(3), ME(2), NE2(1) to get the 9 votes he needs without any of the must win states.

And if any of the formerly tossup states like GA, NC, or AZ move back in the tossup range the model would have to be reworked.

[Josh R]

its simple math to multiply all the Biden win percentages together to find his percentage chance of winning all 5 states which is 3%.

You are making the same mistake most of the poll aggregators did in 2016. Silver stood out by assuming polling errors would be correlated in similar states such as PA, WI and MI.

[bernard11]

its simple math to multiply all the Biden win percentages together to find his percentage chance of winning all 5 states which is 3%.

It's also stupid math. Extremely so. The implicit assumption that the outcomes in these states are independent of one another is idiotic.

[Kazinski]

I'm not the only one that's thinking the numbers are looking extremely dismal for Biden.

WSJ:
"WASHINGTON—President Biden’s re-election bid moved into a perilous stretch as allies and donors began looking to a future where a new candidate sits atop the ticket and data showed him losing in a landslide."

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/top-democrats-prepare-for-campaign-without-biden-b57946a8

[Josh R]

That conclusion is not based on your faulty computation. It’s based on a candidate that is incapable of making the case that will move the polls and could easily make them worse with more severe senior moments.

[Kazinski]

Wow!!! They independently reached the same conclusion I did using my model.

My model must be at least halfway decent.

[Josh R]

Your logic: A predicts C will happen. B, for competely different reasons predicts C will happen. Therefore, A must be sound.

Total nonsense.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is it weird that DIE heifers haven’t ever been assigned to Joe or Jill Biden’s protection teams?

Are the Biden’s bigots and refuse to be protected by strong, independent womyn?

[Malika the Maiz]

1. It's funny to see conservative MAGA trolls keep rolling out the "heifer" line when they support an obese nominee.

2. It's also fun to see them roll out the "DEI" line. Guess that explains the JFK assassination!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

1. It’s funny to see conservative MAGA trolls keep rolling out the “heifer” line when they support an obese nominee.

The definition for "obese" is having a BMI of 30 or higher. His last published height and weight were 6'3" and 215 lbs (per his booking in Atlanta), which yields a BMI of 26. So, "overweight", but not "obese".

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump's hair might weigh 215 pounds. Donald Trump does not.

[Frank Drackman]

I defer to the Carnival Weight Guesser, do you what time the Girl who can kiss her tailbone comes on?

[Malika the Maiz]

Pathetic. "He's not obese, just overweight!" is the kind of pedantic silliness of an internet troll.

But, if troll wants to play, the booking numbers are questionable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/24/trump-height-weight/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

pedantic

I see someone gave you a Word-A-Day calendar this year.

[Malika the Maiz]

I see someone keeps doing what that word describes, usual trollish behavior.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie changing her name again, trying to get those "New Donor" Bonuses down at the Talacris Plasma Center?

[Mr. Bumble]

Unless your link is truncated what's questionable?
?Former president Donald Trump surrendered at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta on Thursday amid speculation that the world would finally learn how tall he is and how much he weighs.

Trump’s booking record declared the former president’s height to be 6-foot-3 and his weight 215 pounds — nearly 30 pounds lighter than his disclosed weight at the time of his last official White House physical."

[Malika the Maiz]

You think he lost 30 pounds between then? And an inch from his driver license height? Etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

I have no idea except to go by an official government record listing his weight at the time of his booking as 215 lbs.
As for his height it would depend on when his drivers license was issued. People generally tend to lose height as they age.

[Malika the Maiz]

Didn't read the article?

[Mr. Bumble]

Didn't read my comment above? I posted all that was available to me at your link.

[not guilty]

I doubt that the Fulton County Sheriff's Department had Donald Trump step onto a scale to see how much he weighed. It is more likely they asked him and recorded whatever he said.

[Frank Drackman]

You ever seen a Fulton County Deputy Sheriff? most are near 400lbs with their body armor. "45" would look like Twiggy standing next to one of them.

Frank

[hobie]

Yeah, I hear you kooks are now using the assassination as a segue to belittle the participation of women in the Secret Service AND the military. You've already got the nation's ladies ready to give you a thumping in November so, yeah, keep running with this one

[Krychek_2]

Oh, have a look at this:

https://warhornmedia.com/2024/07/14/the-secret-service-and-americas-sexual-insanity/

[hobie]

Are articles like that how you form your worldview, krychek? Pretty misogynistic stuff. I like the part where it says that women teachers, lawyers, judges and doctors are an affront to God's commands

[Krychek_2]

No, I posted the link to ridicule it, not because I agree with it. As in, look what these crazy nut-job right wingers are saying, and aren’t they funny.

[hobie]

My bad. Let's see if any of these hillbillies take the bait

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

Poor hobie, not very bright. The "hillbillies" take the bait? After your fumble here? Moron.

[Frank Drackman]

It's talking like Hobie that got Matt Shepherd his Pickup ride.

[hobie]

My Jewish girlfriend in high school elected to enlist for her year in the IDF when she turned 18. She also broke up with me because I was not Jewish, which was my first experience at being rejected for not being a certain race or creed. Unfortunately she was gang raped by other servicemen in Tel Aviv. Yet she still completed her enlistment. Women want to serve and defend their country same as men. Being likened to inferior creatures or to boys who are slaughtered and tied to fences is reprehensible. I think you said the other day your accomplished daughters were primed to be pilots in the armed forces. I expect you told them to shut the fuck up and learn their place lest they end up murdered and tied to a fence in Wyoming.

[Ed Grinberg]

Women don’t belong in the military. Period. If me saying this causes “the nation’s ladies…to give [Republicans] a thumping in November,” so be it. An insane policy (such as putting women in the military) doesn’t become less insane just because lots of people like it. If GOP stops objecting to / adopts insane policies “to avoid antagonizing female voters,” they might as well join the Democrats.

[Frank Drackman]

As the father of 2 daughters in the Military, well 1 anyway, not sure if the Air Farce qualifies as the "Military" I agree with you, but do you know how much 300 Hours of Jet flight training costs? (plus nearly that much in Simulator training) plus the Jet Fuel? It cost them nothing, and get this, they get paid to fly Jets in the Military (well, Marine Corpse)
During my time(admittedly 30 years ago) Split-Tails made up 10% of the Marine Corpse, but a minimum of 50% of Marines at sickcall, they get way more stress fractures, ACL tears, and last time I checked, a Male Marine's never got Pregnant, had an Abortion, a Miscarriage, Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy, Tubo-Ovarian Abscess, and where do you send a Pap Smear to get read in Saudi Arabia? (they read them right to left)
As Rush Limbo used to say, the purpose of the Military is to Kill people and break things, not to give Haitian kids Covid shots, build roads, deliver the mail, or fly at Airshows.

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wow. You still exist!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don't know if the other female agents did anything wrong/embarrassing (except maybe the one that kept turning back and forth by the black SUV, apparently confused about what to do), but the one that was unable to locate her own holster will never live that down.

[Bob from Ohio]

I like the pony tailed one who was more interested in putting her sunglasses back on.

[BadLib]

Why go through the selection and training process if you can't look like an SS agent? She had to be ready for her head shot (in the sense of an actor, not in the sense of a sniper).

[Mr. Bumble]

Any SS agents that look like Rene Russo in "Line of Fire"?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm still not sure where she kept her weapon. Pretty sure Clint found out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Are the Biden’s bigots and refuse to be protected by strong, independent womyn?"

Miss Trumbull and the rest of Cheatle's Angels don't seem to be assigned to Trump at the RNC.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Dreams From My Mamaw is such a great book! Btw, has anyone checked JD Soleimani Vance’s birth certificate?? WTF does he have so many names?? I’m just asking questions.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is four names so many?

[hobie]

He could be Mexican

[not guilty]

"Is it weird that DIE heifers haven’t ever been assigned to Joe or Jill Biden’s protection teams?"

How do you claim to know whether they have or have not been?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Because I am a human, and us humans generally have two eyes (note human eyes are binary and not on a spectrum... for now).

With these two magical organs I have been able observe and then using another fantastical power God gave some humans, like me, I was able to detect patterns and make inferences.

How about you? How do these things work with your kind?

[Malika the Maiz]

Your eyes observe all SS details covering Jill and Joe Biden?

Silly troll.

[Krayt]

Said heifers would have had nothing to do with not making him get down off the roof, or wrestling him to the ground. Even with a worst case DEI disasterbation, it would have had nothing to do with it.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, another open thread and the shit just keeps on coming.
Biden has the Covid again and the long knives are out all around him. Can Dr.Jill save him?
Krazy Eyez Smith has filed an appeal of Judge Cannon's dismissal. What and when will the 11th Circus do?
Appeal to remove Miss Fanny will be heard after the election.
Can Judge Chutkan manage to bring Trump to trial prior to the election (which begins on Sept. 9 in Alabama)?
If not Biden, who will the Dem's choose? If Harris who will the VP candidate be?
So many loose threads.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Roy Cooper is the obvious VP pick…he found the best balance during Covid. Had DeSantis and Kemp followed his lead around 30,000 fewer people would have died in GA and FL.

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone want to try to explain if the "60 day rule" is applicable in proceedings against Trump?
While you're at it please explain the infield fly rule.
Thanks.

[not guilty]

Here is a pretty decent explanation: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dojs-60-day-rule-role-play-trump-trial/story?id=107789927

[David Nieporent]

Anyone want to try to explain if the “60 day rule” is applicable in proceedings against Trump?

It isn't, for several reasons including that there isn't such a rule. It's an internal DOJ guideline.

[Mr. Bumble]

So a search of "60 day rule" will bring up no hits?

[Sarcastr0]

I searched Google for "Mr Bumble sucks" and it got About 7,850,000 results.

[Bob from Ohio]

Funny, I got a trillion hits for "Sarcstro sucks”.

[Sarcastr0]

Why do sarcos suck so much?
I love them, but they have to be in the top 5 worst carnivores in the game. Can't fight, can't maneuver worth a damn. It is unfortunate to me that you end up having to run from stupid shit like pirahnas or fucking meganeura because the croc's area of attack is about the size of a piece of paper stapled to its snout. In the water it has one speed - ludicrous speed. It seems to have no niche apart from being IMO the suckiest carnivore on the island! Pathetic considering crocodilians are still around today unlike most of the menagerie.

(sorry just lost a 188 sarco to a 35 plesi :/).

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a "guideline" not a "rule", Bumble, how can you be so dumb!

Even though "a general rule" is a definition of "guideline" and the article "not guilty" posted uses "rule", you lose!

[David Nieporent]

You're not a good lawyer, so you might not know the difference between a binding rule and a general guideline.

[Mr. Bumble]

So why issue a "guideline"?

[David Nieporent]

I cannot believe anyone would ask that question in good faith. Have you never run any organization of any sort? You don't want your employees going off half-cocked, so you give them general guidelines about how they should (e.g.) deal with disgruntled clients/customers. But that's all those are: guidelines. If there's a situation that calls for treating a particular customer differently, then you can just go ahead and do that.

[Mr. Bumble]

You never cease to amaze.
The question was asked in good faith.
No I have never run an organization and doubt that I am alone in that respect among those who comment here.
What organization/s have you run? You've claimed you a member of a two party law firm with no employees.
The reason for the original question was: What effect (if any) will the "60 day rule/guideline" have on any prosecution of Trump in the remaining Jan. 6 case?

[Frank Drackman]

As a Lefty I was regelated to Pitching or Outfield, (tried first a few times but just when I'd be doing well I'd drop a routine throw from an infielder and end up back in the Outfield.)
Can't give you the rulebook version, but it's when you have men on first and second, less than 2 outs, where an infielder could intentionally drop a fly ball and get a double or triple play. Never caught a pop fly while pitching, I was that guy pointing to the infielder to catch it.
Worst was when I caught what I thought was out 3 on a high fly ball to center, pulled it in, and jogged in with my head down, until I noticed everyone was yelling at me and the guy who'd been on 1st was rounding 3rd, almost like there were only 2 outs...

Frank

[bernard11]

but it’s when you have men on first and second, less than 2 outs, where an infielder could intentionally drop a fly ball and get a double or triple play.

Pretty much it, though it also applies with the bases loaded. If an infielder could reasonably catch the ball the batter is out.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden has contracted Covid-19; I wish him a speedy recovery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden is 81, 26% of Covid deaths were in the 75-84 age range, although people in that age range are under 5% of the population. Covid fatality rates go up VERY steeply with age, because people Biden's age are typically medically fragile, it doesn't take much to kill them.

OTOH, Biden has access to some pretty powerful treatments, such as transfusions of convalescent plasma, so he's much better situated than the average 81 year old. I think he'll probably be OK.

It does give him a handy no embarrassment excuse to drop out of the race, if he's looking for one, though.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You left out the most plausible reason Biden is likely to do well. He seems unlikely to be an anti-vaxer. Folks who get vaccinations are far more likely to recover from Covid without major problems than the others are.

[Moderation4ever]

Good point I had a relative in very poor health develop Covid twice. Being vaccinated he recovered both times with only minor symptoms.

[hobie]

I think it was the Times reporting yesterday that vaccinations reduce the risks of long COVID dramatically. MRNA technology is really cool science

[Brett Bellmore]

My only complaints regarding the Covid vaccine were side issues: The irrational determination to pretend that natural immunity wasn't a thing, and treat people who'd already had Covid as though they were immunologically naive. The failure to keep updating the vaccine as new variants appeared. (Easy updating is one of the virtues of MRNA vaccines.) The push to vaccinate people at very low risk from Covid.

[Krayt]

No one pretended natural immunity wasn't a thing. Getting there from here, where "here" was when it started, would have had many more deaths without vaccines than with.

The plan always was hold up so as to not overwhelm hospitals, and hemorrhage cash to yank vaccines into existence at an unheard of pace, cross your fingers for them, and in either case tough it out until then.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No one pretended natural immunity wasn’t a thing."

BS.

1. They were pushing to vaccinate people regardless of whether or not they'd had Covid.
2. The fact that you'd had Covid wouldn't let you get the booster instead of the full vaccination.

In every way that mattered, policy was made as though having had Covid didn't confer any immunity to the disease.

[ducksalad]

Yup. It was another one of the “noble lies”, or to be more charitable noble pooh-poohing of natural immunity. They’ve admitted the reason, it’s the usual public health ethic that a simple lie is more effective in gaining compliance than complicated truth:

… initiated conversations about offering a fingerprick antibody screen for people with suspected exposure before vaccination, so that doses could be used more judiciously. But “everyone concluded it was just too complicated”…. “It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do”…

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101

[Sarcastr0]

Covid immunity is a continuum not a step function. We knew this before the first vaccine rolled out.

That’s why getting Covid doesn’t mean you no longer need the vaccine.
All the rot about natural immunity is more robust or what not is asking the wrong question in addition to relying on a pretty thin set of studies.

[ducksalad]

Very true that it’s not a step function.

But keep in mind that at the time this came out they were rationing vaccines. Many people that actually wanted it were denied.

What was the basis for the denial: age, occupation, or prior existing health condition. Whereas prior infection was dismissed as a factor, both if you wanted it, or if you wanted to refuse it.

Those aren’t step functions either, but they were saying those made all the difference, while natural immunity was not considered in the rationing. Do you claim that the Science justifies the distinction? If you do, the CDC disagrees with you. They’ve openly admitted that the Science was wrong, but it was about making it simple so the subjects would be more likely to comply.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad — Anti-vax fools are the people worried about being forced to, "comply." Public health advocates, including especially public heath experts, want to keep it simple to make people more likely to, "cooperate." In that distinction—between, "comply," and, "cooperate,"—there resides more than a century of hard-won public health wisdom. Heavily politicized attempts to undermine public health expertise are folly of the stupidest kind.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, Stephen, now that you mention it, in the movies the bad guys usually instruct the hostages to "cooperate", rather than "comply".

Thanks for helping me to remember these subtle connotations.

[Don Nico]

"Covid immunity is a continuum not a step function."
Wow whee! you got wise about virology all of a sudden.

The whole story of the natural immunity and vaccine based immunity is far more complex than your comment.

[Sarcastr0]

Not so far as public health policy is concerned, it’s not.

Have you never been in a public-facing situation where you had to be reductive in your messaging and/or policy?

[ducksalad]

That’s the word now?

“At that last debate, Donald Trump was reductive.”

“The police officer was reductive in the warrant application.”

“You reductive dog-faced pony soldier!”

Have you never been in a public-facing situation where you had to be reductive in your messaging and/or policy?

The situation arose, but I didn’t want the promotion, or the compliance, badly enough to do that.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
Not only are you wrong, your "reply" is just a lame excuse for dishonest, unprofessional behavior.
With respect to your question, the answer is "yes." One does not LIE in that situation. Unfortunately the CDC did lie and lost credibility with the public as a consequence.

[Sarcastr0]

Unprofessional, Don? Oh my stars and garters.

You seem to be appealing to your own authority, and pounding the table a little. And yelling about lies. I suppose I should be glad you're not howling abut tyranny. Or whatever ducksalad's vocab fail is down there.

You're not spitting facts, you're spitting the standard right-wing party line you think are facts. No point in talking further about it.

[OtisAH]

Great, thanks a lot Sarcastro. Now we have to read months and months of the local clowns and trolls misusing the word “reductive.” I’m not mad, but you need to be more careful with the language you use.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Oh my your favorite little excuses for having no answer. You continually pound on the table and stamp your feet in a highly unprofessional manner. No wonder you did not make it as a physicist or a lawyer.
Instead you come back with childish nonsense with no content.
As for my authority, I have published two, peer review research papers on SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology based on worldwide data in a medical journal. So I am not listen to you psuedo defense of CDC misinformation.

[Joe_dallas]

Krayt 58 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"No one pretended natural immunity wasn’t a thing. "

Actually - the CDC was quite active in pushing that line. Its also one of the points I made on another thread. The amateurs such as myself got a lot of things correct where as the "experts " / advocates got a lot of stuff wrong.

[Krayt]

No one said natural immunity wasn't a thing. But arguing it's fine to rely on it to exclude getting vaccinated is silly.

[Don Nico]

Nonsense, public health officials did that for at least a year. The demands for proof of vaccination for people who had be ill with the Wuhan variant was based on stubbornness to correct previous mandates than on any science.

[David Nieporent]

You may know a lot about the science, but you don't seem to understand human nature very well. It's easy to establish whether someone was vaccinated. It's not easy to establish whether someone was previously sick, or whether they're just claiming that because they're assholes who don't want to get vaccinated. (I mean, sure, you can test for past infection, but that's not efficient.)

[Joe_dallas]

DN - Nico is pointing out that The cdc/experts were either wrong or knew natural infection provided equal or better immunity. It was also pretty well established by that point in time that the addition immunity gained from the vax after already acquiring immunity from natural infection was exceedingly slim, not zero but slim.

[ducksalad]

David, in that case the right thing to do would’ve been to announce that we’re not accepting prior infection as an out because (a) we don’t trust you won’t lie, (b) we don’t trust that you weren’t mistaken, and most importantly (c) the efficiency of state operations is more important than personal autonomy.

That would have been an honest way to present it.

But you utilitarians are missing a main point: for the noble lie to be utilitarian, you have to not get caught. Getting caught loses far more trust and compliance than you gained from the lie, at least in the long run.

[Don Nico]

David,
I know human nature well enough. You did not read my comment carefully. The UK and EU required proof from a physician concerning previous infection and recovery. I was not left to the imagination or duplicity of individuals. It work perfectly well across the pond and could have worked in the US.

The fact that the US was able to come up with acceptable procedures to show whether a person was infected befor e boarding a flight shows that honest procedures can work nad need not assume that people are trustworthy.

[Magister]

If vaccines have to be updated for new variants, why would "natural immunity" not have to be? Reinfection with COVID was already recognized in 2020. Vaccination against COVID is expected at regular intervals, even without updating for new variants; reinfection with COVID at regular intervals sounds a lot worse and can't really be scheduled, unless you seek out a source of infection.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course it would be better if your natural immunity could update, too. It doesn’t have a means of doing that except for suffering additional infections. Which isn’t ideal, but do tend to be less severe than the original infection.

The point is, the vaccine COULD easily be updated, and they couldn’t be bothered to do it, instead insisting that people keep getting boosted over and over with an increasingly out of date vaccine.

I actually after the new variants started coming out, made the rational decision to go and get boosted. Which is when I found out you couldn't get the damned booster unless you'd been previously vaccinated, and never mind that you'd actually had Covid.

Which was utterly irrational from a medical perspective; The reasons you would give a low dose booster instead of a full injection series to somebody who'd previously been vaccinated are exactly as applicable to somebody who'd previously been infected.

But they were refusing to treat previous infection as having any medical significance.

[Magister]

People wanted to claim that they had COVID and many of them had not, and even if they had, there was no evidence of what level of immunity they had. People who got the vaccine had a known dose with a predictable level of immunity. There are undoubtedly people who think they could do plumbing, practice law or whatever, but the appropriate certification is still required to do it where someone else would suffer the consequences of incompetence; being vaccinated is like that. Someone who claimed previous infection and got only a booster would likely present themselves as fully vaccinated, and it's not clear that they would be (or the original vaccination dose would have been lower).

It might have been a good idea to accept testing for antibodies that met some standard, but nobody had set a standard and resistance to vaccination was largely some brand of nuttiness. Everywhere I knew of with vaccination requirements accepted weekly negative tests instead (and supplied the tests).

[Don Nico]

In Europe and the UK, people had to show evidence of previous infection and recovery. It was not based on ipse dixit

[Magister]

In the US, antivaxxers doubted the veracity of death certificates that listed COVID, so I'm not sure it would have worked here.

[Don Nico]

Magister,
One may not be able to convince many nutjobs, but that does not mean that you given up on reasonable approach that will work with the general public. In any case it is better than lies to the public. That only erodes trust.

[Magister]

Were forged vaccination cards as big a problem in Europe and the UK? In this country nutjobs have just learned to whine about their sincere religious beliefs that formed the moment they saw an advantage in it.

[Don Nico]

Magister,
You are supporting a false policy of the CDC, because others commit forgery. Why? what skin do you have in the game to try such a bogus defence?

[Magister]

A policy aimed at preventing super spreader events can limit what it considers acceptable to allow people back to work or whatever; that could include statements from medical professionals regarding antibody presence. But in any case vaccination immunity is better than natural immunity, even ignoring that someone might have documentation that they had COVID which was actually based on a false positive.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - the study published in the NEJM - does not provide access to the underlying data which the study bases the conclusions. Further, the definition of long covid has been very subjective.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2403211

[ducksalad]

Stephen, hobie.... are you two still getting COVID vaccines? I didn't even realize they were still offering them.

The effects are time limited, which is why they pushed boosters. Can't imagine a vaccine Biden took back in 2021 or 2022 would have much effect now.

[Sarcastr0]

I got my last one at the same time as I got my flu shot about 8 months ago.

[ducksalad]

I guess we live in very different cultures.

[Commenter_XY]

But he follows the science, ducksalad!

[Don Nico]

I did the same.

[Magister]

Biden has received multiple Covid-19 vaccine booster shots, most recently in September 2023, according to a memo from his physician.

Memo at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Letter-9.23.23.pdf

[ducksalad]

Different worlds. My doctor pushes the flu vaccine but has a (badly aged and frayed) sign up that they no longer do Covid. It was "over" two years ago.

[Magister]

Tired of the death threats from MAGAmites, I guess, or maybe just a lot of trouble to store it for little demand. Do you have local pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS? If so, do they offer the vaccine?

[Frank Drackman]

Did nobody read my post hours ago? I got the last one at a CVS on Long Goy-land, had to pay out of pocket, Pharmacist said I was the first to get it and it'd been out for weeks. I got it because it's required for my VA gig, well it's not "required" but it's required, Nome Sane?, and Vaccines don't cause Autism, because nothing causes Autism, it's a made up condition like Fibromyalgia, and IBS.
That being said, why should I care about anyone elses Vaccine status? Get it, don't get it, I don't give a fuck.
Want to fuck with a Vaccine Acceptor? ask them if they've had their Hepatitis C Vaccine, or FeLV

Frank

Frank

[ducksalad]

Or maybe my doctor merely weighs health risks against expense, hassle, and possible side effects by using the actual numbers for the Covid that is circulating today.

Allow me to point out that my doctor is, in fact, one of those “medical experts” we’re supposed to defer to. He’s also an expert that is ultimately judged by his success in keeping his patients healthy, rather than one who is judged by compliance stats or getting policy made into legislation.

Don't know about Walgreen's. I don't go asking for medications not recommended by my doctor just because some heavily politicized person tells me to. That goes for both the vaccine and ivermectin.

[Magister]

I wasn't suggesting you seek out the vaccine; I was asking whether it is available otherwise in your area. Doctors are more judged by regulators (usually responding to complaints) rather than by some objective metric of overall health of their patients, libertarian fantasies notwithstanding.

[Don Nico]

Magister,
Both Walgreen's and CVS have been offering both COVID and flu vaccines. I got my last shot at a Walgreen's

[Magister]

I am aware of that; almost all of my vaccinations and boosters were at a Walgreens, and some others at my doctor's office (not just COVID but flu, tetanus, shingles, etc.). My question was whether ducksalad lives in the vicinity of a pharmacy that offers COVID vaccines; it would be pretty easy to check online. If so, ducksalad can't really be said to occupy a different world.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So Biden got Covid by time travel?

[ducksalad]

By Covid being "over", I mean the moral panic was over. And that's the right word, because about a year in the fear and hatred was less directed the virus and more directed at dissenters.

"Over" means realizing that the later waves were less serious than the earliest ones, and that a sober-minded look at the statistics indicates that there's no longer reason to worry about Covid more that about half a dozen other diseases we shrug off as a normal part of life.

[Magister]

The later waves hospitalized and killed a lot of people, and were less serious precisely because many people were vaccinated.

[Brett Bellmore]

As of September '22, 96% of Americans had circulating antibodies against Covid. That wasn't a result of 96% of Americans having been vaccinated.

23% had it solely from a prior infection, 26% solely from vaccination, and 48% from both.

Which is to say, 71% of the population had prior infection immunity, and 74% from vaccines.

I guess that's enough to give the vaccine top billing, but it hardly justifies ignoring the contribution natural immunity made to making the later waves less serious.

But you should also consider that respiratory zooviruses tend to start out really virulent and evolve towards being less serious. So the later waves being less serious was to be expected. (This is because you have to be well enough to be out and about to effectively pass on a respiratory virus.)

[Magister]

Debunking the idea viruses always evolve to become less virulent

Do pathogens always evolve to be less virulent? The virulence–transmission trade-off in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

The direction the evolution of virulence takes in connection with any pathogen is a long-standing question. Formerly, it was theorized that pathogens should always evolve to be less virulent. As observations were not in line with this theoretical outcome, new theories emerged, chief among them the transmission–virulence trade-off hypotheses, which predicts an intermediate level of virulence as the endpoint of evolution. At the moment, we are very much interested in the future evolution of COVID-19’s virulence. Here, we show that the disease does not fulfill all the assumptions of the hypothesis. In the case of COVID-19, a higher viral load does not mean a higher risk of death; immunity is not long-lasting; other hosts can act as reservoirs for the virus; and death as a consequence of viral infection does not shorten the infectious period. Consequently, we cannot predict the short- or long-term evolution of the virulence of COVID-19.

[Brett Bellmore]

True; People at advanced ages or with other comorbidities are clearly better off getting the vaccine, because the risk to them of actually getting Covid is so high. The cost/benefit ratio is more dubious for young people in good health, or who have already had Covid.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Age matters much more on the low end. At the high end it would be very difficult to pick a cutoff date. And young people still get myocarditis from Covid. Remember, the median age of death declined during the southeast Delta death surge after the vaccine had been easily accessible.

[Don Nico]

SL,
The vaccine has very limited effectiveness against the present variant. However, the present variant has very low virulence.
Mr Biden will recover.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - one of the comments I got from epidemiologists - as he explained it, one of the reasons for the frequent reinfections was the the human immune system was fairly smart and would cease creating and maintaining a high level of immunity as the variants later became less virulent and thus the human body was not going to waste resources for variants that were very low threats. Apologies for any poor framing of his statement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not exactly. You have to have dropping antibody levels with time, because if you kept the initial high level forever, as you encountered more and more pathogens, your blood would have more and more antibodies in it, and by the time you were middle aged your blood would be as thick as molasses.

So after the initial concentration needed to beat back the infection, you just keep enough of them around to make detecting a reinfection quick enough that your reaction the second time curb stomps the pathogen before you get symptomatic.

[ThePublius]

I wonder if he really has covid, or if it's an excuse to retreat to the basement while they sort out if he stays in the race; and if he doesn't, they can use covid, or complications due to covid, as the reason.

[Kazinski]

Plausible, they've been pushing him pretty hard since the debate to prove he is up to it.

He is probably exhausted, and if he does have covid, maybe that's why he was susceptible to it.

[Malika the Maiz]

He has been complaining, and showing, cold like symptoms for a while now.

[Kazinski]

Which would actually argue against covid, you don't have symptoms for a few weeks before you test positive.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, when you push hard during political campaigning you get face-to-face contact with a lot of potential disease vectors. If you do get Covid, being exhausted is a principal symptom.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you do get Covid, being exhausted is a principal symptom.

He suffers from jet lag 2 weeks after concluding international travel, so it would seem that normal health rules don't apply to him.

[DaveM]

"I regret that I must renounce my candidacy due to complications from COVID" would be plausible.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I really should pay more attention to usernames...

[Brett Bellmore]

I've had the same thought: If he wanted an excuse to drop out of the race without admitting to having dementia, "long Covid" would be a perfect one.

The problem is, I don't think he's looking for an excuse.

[Michael P]

Me too. I hope he recovers quickly enough that he is able to continue his campaign for re-election.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Someone put together an interesting piece on the history of the LGBTQ liberation movement(s).

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1813712101812117751.html

Interesting noticings there.

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

Holy stupid, Batman. Go join Herr Misek, mtrueman, martin, and the others in a big vat of acid.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What's stupid about noticing things?

[apedad]

Vinni, JHBHBE notices a lot of things about LGBTQ people and he seems to be hyper-focused on the issue.

I bet he even watches videos to better understand the issue(s).

[MoreCurious]

JHBHBE's main problem is that he is dumber than a rock. Every comment he posts is stupider than the one before. Someday maybe he'll learn to write in a thoughtful, intelligent way, but he clearly has a long way to go before he looks like anything other than a middle-schooler.

[apedad]

Scenario

Trump wins in November and days (hours?) before he assumes office, Biden pardons himself, his cabinet, all family members, personal lawyers/tax team, staff (govt and personal), etc., etc., just about anyone that he’s dealt with the past 60 years (see link).

This would effectively make the Trump immunity decision irrelevant since it wouldn’t matter if the president’s act(s) was official or unofficial; the president pardons himself of all criminal acts (official and unofficial). (And yes this is at the federal level only; states still can investigate/prosecute if appropriate.)

It would also nullify any of Trump’s revenge lawfare ideas since there would be no crime Trump could investigate.

And actually, I could see all future presidents simply pardoning themselves and the only thing to prevent this would be a constitutional amendment prohibiting a president from pardoning themselves.

One background note: In Ex parte Garland (1866), the Supreme Court stated that pardons of a federal offense “may be extended at any time after its commission.” A pardon issued for a hypothetical, not-have-occurred crime is meaningless (and since conspiracy is a crime, that could be pardoned). So a president (or one of the people he wants to pardon), would have had to committed some crime.

BUT!!!

Remember that Ford’s pardon of Nixon occurred BEFORE any charges were brought. So although a crime has to have occurred (and the public or investigators/prosecutors may not even know that a crime has occurred), the pardon doesn’t have to wait for the criminal justice system to produce a guilty decision.

Thoughts?

Here’s some other people Biden could pardon: Trump and Christopher Steele are slugging it out yet again https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/utter-lack-of-a-legal-or-factual-basis-company-owned-by-christopher-steele-accuses-trump-of-trying-to-weaponize-legal-process-in-hillary-clinton-rico-lawsuit-appeal/#disqus_thread

[apedad]

Ford's pardon: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-4311-granting-pardon-richard-nixon

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been taking it as a given that Biden would do this on the way out.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, lots of people believe stupid shit. Or in your case, pretend to believe stupid shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty unusual for Presidents to NOT do a bunch of pardons on the way out, and there we're talking Presidents who don't have criminal sons with a lot of legal exposure.

But one way or another we'll know soon enough; Either by next January if Trump wins, or four years later if Biden does.

Though Biden might not want to wait until the end of his second term if he gets one, he might not be totally in denial about the odds of stroking out without warning.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden will not be the candidate. If by some miracle he stays on the ticket, he cannot win. The country will not elect a cognitively deficient man.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wish I were as confident as you of that.

[Nelson]

I agree with XY, but for different reasons. I think that Ds can prove to Biden that he can't beat Trump (the battleground state polls indicate this). He's smart enough (and a savvy enough politician) to understand that his debate performance reinforced the narrative the right has been pushing since he took office and there isn't enough time (nor enough opportunities) to reverse that trend.

Of course, powerful people never want to surrender their power. If Biden doesn't choose to step down, no one can force him to. If he doesn't, he will join Ruth Bader Ginsburg in assuring a generation of cultural.conservative repression by refusing to retire.

In that case, they will be the heroes of the self-righteous right and betrayers of all that is good and decent.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe one of the arguments in favor of Biden is actually that every plausible replacement does worse against Trump, so that even if Biden is doomed, he's the least doomed among them, and should be retained to minimize their losses.

Of course, this assumes that Biden's current state is stable, rather than declining; We still have three months before the election in which Biden can get conspicuously worse.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, the country elected Trump, and there's definitely something wrong with his brain. (Well, not a majority of the country, but he was still elected in 2016.)

[bernard11]

I'll take that bet.

How much?

[Moderation4ever]

I don't favor any pardons before a conviction. A court and a jury should have a say in the matter first and the public should know the person's status. So, a pardon of the existing convictions would be acceptable but not for any not yet adjudicated.

[Brett Bellmore]

I get where you're coming from, but the precedent in favor of pardons before convictions is staggeringly massive. For instance, how many of these guys do you suppose had been convicted of anything?

[Moderation4ever]

Would you not say that pardoning large groups of people such as the Confederate soldiers or Vietnam draft resistors is different from an individual charged with a crime? I think it is the case.

[Commenter_XY]

No, not at all. The effect is the same. Why they are being pardoned is irrelevant, because of the many reasons (spoken, and unspoken) the pardon is occurring.

[Brett Bellmore]

Conceptually different? Sure.

Legally different? Not in the slightest.

[hobie]

Or Biden could exercise a core power and send Trump to GITMO for a couple of years for interrogation about the coup involving the fake electors

[Mr. Bumble]

What "core power" is that?

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

The same "core power" that Leftists want Biden to invoke to declare Trump a terrorist and execute him. But, Trump is definitely the dictator, they say.

[Frank Drackman]

Or you could pull a Hemingway and stop contributing to Global Warming, follow Parkinsonian Joe's advice
"Get a Shotgun!"

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, there have been several instances in US history where a strategically timed pardon has made a material difference in a positive way to America; Washington, Monroe and Lincoln used the pardon power to great positive effect.

POTUS Biden could theoretically pardon everyone, and say "Go and sin no more", and exit the stage.

Is that a 'bad' outcome? I would say, "No, it is not a bad outcome. But can we please get our shit together as a country and practice some toleration?"

[apedad]

" . . . practice some toleration?"

I have a long track record here at the VC of abhorring violence - on both sides.

However, I have no problem not practicing toleration and encourage everyone to be involved in the political process.

[Bwaaah]

GoooooOOOO INTOLERANCE!!!!!!

Tolerance? Magnanimity? Bygones?

No.

Hate. (errrr, I mean, "political" hate.)

[DaveM]

A pardon can only be granted for a conviction. I certainly don't recall any convictions of Biden administration staffers or family members, so this is a non-starter.

[not guilty]

"A pardon can only be granted for a conviction."

Not so. Think Richard Nixon, who was pardoned preemptively without having been charged, and Caspar Weinberger, who was pardoned after indictment but before going to trial.

[apedad]

C'mon DaveM - I actually posted Ford's pardon of Nixon where he wrote:

Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

So no, a conviction is NOT a requirement to issue a pardon.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Going to have to go with "not sarcasm" now...)

[Krayt]

A self pardon by either president would probably lead to an amendment to forbid that, and it would be the last and only time.

[Magister]

One would also think that Trump's attempt to seize power in 2021 would have quickly led to his permanent disqualification (by new amendment or the numerous existing mechanisms, including his party rejecting him), but one would be wrong.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Alternatively, he could pardon everyone but himself.

It would be a Navalny-like act, to be sure...

[Swede425]

Uh oh.
Biden's got covid again (wink wink). I mean, even though he was doddering around without a mask.
With so many in Hollywood and his own party trying to axe him, Dr. Jill might want to keep him under very close surveillance. You know how accident prone dementia patients are.
I hope he recovers his health and his astounding debating skills. I'd hate to think that covid would keep him away from the press and deprive us of his words of wisdom.

[DaveM]

There are two other possibilities: 1) He really does have COVID (most likely, in spite of his having taken five so-called "boosters"), and 2) He can use COVID as a way to abandon ship on his reelection.

[Sarcastr0]

So-called “boosters”?

[Malika the Maiz]

Caitlin Clark had a record breaking night last night.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10128680-caitlin-clark-breaks-wnba-record-with-19-assists-wows-fans-amid-fever-loss-vs-wings

The US Womens Soccer Team looked less than impressive in Olympic warm up exhibitions. Still better than the Men's Team, I guess. Let's hope both bounce back strong.

[Stella Link the dog]

We watched that game. The Wings played a great game and Indiana got off to a very slow start with a dismal FG performance early. They failed to score on almost all their long shot attempts early in the game and even failed on too many close-in shots.

It appeared as though their strategy changed as the game progressed concentrating on more drives to the basket and more setups into the "paint" resulting in the tightening of the score.

Very exciting and fast-paced game.

[Frank Drackman]

how many dunks?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I remain unimpressed with a Democratic Party with leaders who demand Biden step down, without first specifying a proposed replacement, or agreeing to an open process to re-involve the party rank and file. It looks increasingly like a rerun of D-insider antics designed to put Hillary on an unacknowledged inside track—presumably not with Hillary in mind this time.

What happens next? Massive disorder and infighting within the party? Or the leaders spring their preferred choice on everyone, despite reluctance to confess who it is beforehand? Neither prospect looks better than just letting Biden go ahead.

Speaking as someone who also wants Biden out the race, I think he and the party would be crazy to drop his candidacy without a clear idea that there exists an alternative path forward with better prospects.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a problem with a President Harris?

[hobie]

I do. She's not an effective person

[Frank Drackman]

Is that a new way to say "Stupid"?

[Michael P]

Stupid, incompetent, abrasive, mistaken, etc. She reminds me of a lot of the people I argue with here!

[Longtobefree]

Same one I have with President Biden; the democrat party platform.

[not guilty]

"Got a problem with a President Harris?"

Do you mean Harris succeeding to office upon Biden resigning the presidency? I have a big problem with that.

The House of Representatives would likely not confirm any vice-presidential nominee put forward by Harris. And Mike Johnson being an assassin's bullet away from the Oval Office would be disastrous.

[Mr. Bumble]

Let me rephrase.
Got a problem with Harris being the presidential candidate if Biden should choose not to run?

[Commenter_XY]

Not.At.All. 🙂

[not guilty]

The problem with Kamala Harris as a standard bearer is that she has not shown vote getting ability outside of California.

I want to see Joe Biden release his delegates and let the Democratic National Convention pick from a variety of contenders.

[Mr. Bumble]

So she was good enough to be VP as long as she never got near the White House as president.
What fucking hypocrites you Dems are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's starting to look like the Dems picked an unqualified person to be VP because of her race and sex.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInchPianist — Plenty of people who lack political skills necessary to win a presidential election probably have skills that would enable excellent performance in office. Harris may be a person of that sort. If so, that qualifies her as a reasonable vice presidential pick, but disqualifies her as a candidate to replace Biden in this year's election contest.

[Michael P]

I disagree. Joe Biden made it clear in 2020 that his priority was identity rather than competence. The main goal of nominating Harris as VP was to make it unpalatable to impeach and remove him for his various high crimes and misdemeanors.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did that work?

[Michael P]

So far, obviously yes. The rumor mill says that a lot of the resistance to him giving up the nomination is animus against Harris.

[bernard11]

TiP is shocked there is politics going on.

An unqualified (he thinks) person to be VP? No! Tell me it ain't so, Joe.

No presidential candidate in history has ever picked a running mate based on their appeal to particular constituencies, rather than their qualifications. Have they?

You people are pathetic.

[not guilty]

"So she was good enough to be VP as long as she never got near the White House as president."

The purpose of a nominating convention is to select someone to beat the opposing party's nominee. I am not persuaded that Kamala Harris is the person best situated to do that.

[Mr. Bumble]

“The purpose of a nominating convention is to select someone to beat the opposing party’s nominee.”
And you did assuring us that Joe was fine and competent to be president for the next four years.
Oh wait you lied.
Now you are ready to throw the token DEI VP under the bus because she isn’t electable.
So who is?
Live by the lie, die by the lie.

[not guilty]

I haven't lied about anything, Mr. Bumble. I have heretofore acknowledged that my doubts about whether Joe Biden should continue his run for President are recently developed. And such doubts have less to do with his competence to serve in office -- I think he should complete his current term -- than with his ability to clean Donald Trump's clock. Biden on his worst day is far preferable to Trump on his best day.

Opinions are not capable of being true or false. And it is my opinion about Biden's electability for a second term that has changed. As Tommy Duncan sang with Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, time changes everything.

[Commenter_XY]

Run Kamala run. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bring on the bacon cheeseburgers!

[Frank Drackman]

I want that to, it'd make 1968 Chicago look like a church social.

[Swede425]

What even are you talking about?
There is already somebody to replace Doddering Joe.
And that's Word Salad Kamala. Remember her?
I mean, they're on the ticket together. Surely you can't be considering anybody else?
Remember, Biden chose her for all the great qualities that she possesses. Let's see, what were those again? Oh yeah, she's black and owns a vagina. I seem to remember those 2 qualities were extremely important at the time. And so, here we are. And here she is. Your next President of the United States!

[Malika the Maiz]

Kamala Harris
-BA Howard, JD UC Hastings
-Assistant DA, around 8 years
-DA, around 7 years
-AG for CA, around 6 years
-US Senator, around 4 years
-VPOTUS-2020-present

JD Vance
-US Marine Corp, around 4
- BA, Ohio State, JD Yale
-Law clerk, 1 year
-Venture capitalist, 2016-2022
-US Senator, around two years

[Armchair]

Sounds like Vance is a much smarter person.

[Malika the Maiz]

How do you figure that?

[Kazinski]

I've heard both of them talk.

[Malika the Maiz]

Well, that's conclusive!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Vance was a newsletter preparer in the Marines. Maybe a half-step above a secretary, messenger, or receptionist.

[Swede425]

Um, that's COMBAT newsletter preparer to you, you uninitiated swine.

[hobie]

Did they lug around a printing press at the forward operating base?

[Swede425]

He was a Marine, so I wouldn't put it past them.

Go Army! Beat Navy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The American military hasn't won a war in 75 years.

Instead, a series of vague draws with ragtag irregulars.

Despite staggering taxpayer-provided resource advantages.

Maybe we need fewer military personnel from can't-keep-up backwaters?

[Swede425]

Good news!
Your dream is coming true.
For some strange, completely unknown reason recruiting is way down. Which makes no sense. The military is super inclusive now! Hardly any restrictions anymore. They even reduced the physical standards! Very few roles that are not open to everybody. But for some reason, after all that effort, gays and trannies didn't fill up the ranks. Nobody showed up. Including the people who traditionally filled those ranks. It's a real head scratcher. Thankfully, there's still the draft. Which will impact everybody, including the kids of the people who thought all of this was a great idea. So, the military's got that going for them.

[Malika the Maiz]

You're a bit of a goof, aren't you?

US military recruitment was down 58% from 1980 to 2020 *when Trump was President.*

Must of been all those trannies!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It must be a transgender problem. It couldn't have been eight years of Reagan, twelve years of Bush, and four years of Trump . . . right?

[Swede425]

Trannies were never going to be a significant number in the military.
Do you know who is, though? A broad spectrum of straight, young people. I'm postulating that many of them are not going to join an organization that will require them to to deny an objective truth; that men can't be women, and women can't be men.
Not only require them to deny this, but actually punish them under UCMJ for not pretending this truth doesn't exist. There are lots of people who won't accept this reasoning as the cause of the current recruitment shortfall. They're free to do so. But I think they fail to understand those who have traditionally made up the bulk of the military. And there isn't a viable replacement for these people.

[Theendoftheleft]

75 years? What about in Granada and Panama?

Do you think the world believes that, after two decades in Afghanistan, your aim was actually to win there? The scholarly consensus is otherwise.

Perhaps American law schools need fewer unreconstructed Soviets as personnel.

[Kazinski]

Spent a year in Iraq in 2006, everywhere was a potential combat zone.

[Swede425]

Very true. I was there, too.
Jan 04 to Jan 05
Sep 06 to Sep 07
Oct 09 to Oct 10

[Bob from Ohio]

"Spent a year in Iraq in 2006, everywhere was a potential combat zone."

Even if he never went to Iraq, any honorable service is honorable. Not every marine serves in combat.

[Kazinski]

Watch 'Full Metal Jacket' to see the easy life of a marine journalist.

Yeah, I know its fiction.

[Armchair]

Whoops, so much for RAK's support for Ivy league schools.

Funny how that changed.

[apedad]

You realize that 'support' doesn't mean 'blind support.'

Oh wait, I forgot; you don't realize.

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

Yeah, Artie's blind support is Team Blue!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Reason. Education. Inclusiveness. Modernity. Science. Freedom. Progress. The reality-based world.

[Theendoftheleft]

Pretenses for you, AIDS. As established by your own words here on this site time and again, mere pretenses.

‘Inclusiveness’ is also your new American totalitarian slogan. You MUST virtue signal to each other by stating it incessantly. That’s not progress; it’s totalitarian and regressive. So, too, when asked to precisify what is actually meant by ‘inclusion’ (who to include, what beliefs to include, etc). ‘Cause you don’t even really mean it, AIDS. You don’t REALLY want to include a whole bunch of people, a whole bunch of ideas, and you want to include and validate a whole lot of shitty ones.

It’s your liberal-progressive lot, after all, that is trying to normalize alternative epistemologies in unis now. Groundless ALTERNATIVES to the scientific method. This proves, without a shadow of doubt, that your lot are an existential threat to science, to modernity, to reason, to the very notion of universities as genuine knowledge producers, and the real progress. You LITERALLY prioritize unreality IN THE NAME OF INCLUSION.

You’re evil, you’re retarded, you’re regressive, and you’re toast. It no longer matters what labels you affix to yourselves (or to others), because your credibility is shot.

You’ve become psychotic evil morons, AIDS. You know nothing about the real world, and you don’t care that you don’t either.

Real freedom will come with liberation from your ill-conceived dogmas and global policies. Scientific progress will be possible once liberated from your ideological dogmas, thereby helping to ensure the death of equality forever.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Like Sgt. Joker? Maybe he learned about the duality of man in Iraq.

[Bob from Ohio]

James Buchanan
Dickinson College
lawyer
5 terms in US House
US Minister to Russia
US Secy of State
US Minister to UK

Abe Lincoln
no college
lawyer
1 term in US House

[Theendoftheleft]

Lincoln was America's worst president, hands down.

[Roger S]

And what has Harris actually accomplished, besides jailing parents for truancy?

[Frank Drackman]

You left out being Willie Brown's Cum-Receptacle
I'm talking about Common-Law Harris, not JD (does anyone know his real name?)

Frank

[Don Nico]

You missed the part about her failing the bar exam the first time out. You did not note that Hastings is the second tier UC law school. Boalt Hall is the top tier school. You did not comment on her word-salad speech.
As for votes in a primary, I'll quote Bill Maher. "You can count the number on one hand, if your hand has no fingers.

[OtisAH]

She “owns” a vagina?

[Malika the Maiz]

People that have never seen one in person talk funny about them.

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

Does someone else own her vagina? Why do you hate women?

Has also means owns. Do you take umbrage at "she has a vagina"?

[Malika the Maiz]

Bad faith example a million.

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

Sarc sock?

[Sarcastr0]

My network grows....

[TwelveInchPianist]

It used to be leftist PC terminology, for example.

But now it's transphobic to say vagina at all, you have to say "front hole."

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought it was "bonus hole".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or vote for Trump.

[Moderation4ever]

The first problem is to get Joe Biden to step back and that has not yet been accomplished. The next is a plan of action and hopefully that is prepared by the time Joe steps back. This will be a process that will be heavily influenced by Democrat insiders, but this is expected under the circumstances. The time for a big primary season is lost and cannot be recovered. Primaries are also not always the best way to pick a candidate and several of the last elections have shown that to be true. If you doubt that, ask yourself if Dr. Oz was the best choice for PA Senatorial candidate?

[Mr. Bumble]

If Joe steps aside the only question left should be who will be Harris' VP candidate.

[Swede425]

Mayor Pete.
Or that bald klepto dude in a dress.
Or that dude in the admiral's dress.
Or that dude that was getting railed in the Senate chambers.
I guess my point is that there are TONS of opportunities to select all the best people for this extremely important position.
The Democrat bench overfloweth.

[Malika the Maiz]

You seem really fixated on gender roles issues. Having women trouble?

[Swede425]

What are you? Some kind of biologist?
You think you can define what a woman is?
If you think you can, then you must be smarter than a sitting Supreme Court Justice who can't even do that!
Braggart!

[Malika the Maiz]

To repeat, having women issues?

[Swede425]

LOL!
Those aren't women.
Those are dudes. In dresses.

[Malika the Maiz]

Worried about that, are you?

[Swede425]

I mean, from an objective truth perspective, certainly.
Imagine supposedly rational people insisting that a man can, in fact, be a woman. Simply by saying so. Then imagine even further actually punishing people who refuse to accept that.
Except you don't have to imagine it. The government actually pushes it. For now.
But, in the end, there are four lights.

[Riva]

Women in locker rooms are as well as women with expensive clothing in their luggage.

[Theendoftheleft]

Totalitarian efforts to re-engineer key concepts and police word usage in order to advance perverse and stupid normative preferences is indeed worrisome.

Fortunately, most of the rest of the world (save for Iran and India, oddly enough) aren't going to go along with this bullshit. It'll die down as Western power wanes and your cultural influence on the Global South withers away.

[shawn_dude]

Mayor Pete is a "dude in a dress" ?!

Seems like you're fixated on LGBT people.

[Moderation4ever]

I think Democrats have a good bench for the VP pick.

[Kazinski]

I agree, its much better than their bench for potential presidential picks.

[Commenter_XY]

Who is a good Team D VP candidate to Kamala? Who is additive?

[Josh R]

No one adds. But, whoever the choice is will have a leg up on the 2028 nomination if Harris loses. I endorse Wes Moore (based on nothing else than his public persona after the Key bridge collapse).

[Kazinski]

I'm not that familiar with him, but I am hearing good things about Josh Shapiro, although I can't help but wonder if that might bring some blowback from a certain segment of their base. But on the other hand PA is is must win state.

Andy Beshear Is the most popular Democratic governor, but a moderate cis white male from a conservative state they are not going to put into play may also not be popular among the base.

There is also Polis in Colorado who being gay might tick a box for the base, but Colorado is already a firmly blue state.

I can't think of anyone in the House or Senate, which is maybe why they'd pick them, so they don't outshine Kamala.

[David Nieporent]

Roy Cooper's name has been floated.

Anyone who could help deliver one of the Great Lakes swing states — PA/MI/WI — would be a top choice, but they're not going to pick Whitmer (an all-women ticket? not likely). Fetterman would be an interesting choice, but I don't think it would happen.

[Commenter_XY]

My money is on Shapiro.

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

Never mind that those two women would be Harris and Whitmer. That they are women is light years away from all the other reasons to avoid that ticket.

[shawn_dude]

Sen Kelly. AZ has a Dem governor to appoint a replacement. He's a war veteran, astronaut, and husband to Gabby Giffords which balances out the GOP's NRA-worship. He's 60, a former independent, and has a strong reputation as a centrist who can earn bi-partisan support.

[OtisAH]

Buttigieg

[shawn_dude]

I'm a huge fan of Buttigieg. That dude is smart. But, political realities say that the VP candidate needs to balance out the ticket. Biden was the old white centrist that was used to balance the first (winning) black presidential ticket. Kamala needs her own centrist white dude.

I read an analysis that showed polling on various candidates and a Harris/Kelly ticket did well. However, a Clinton/Harris ticket did better.

[Frank Drackman]

they certainly didn't in 2020

[Riva]

Hey I’m with you. The superannuated corrupt crook should stick it out. I’m hoping for another big boy press conference, very amusing. But the democrat party machine is already setting the stage for his withdrawal with more covid nonsense. So much for the democratic primary process. But covid sure is proving versatile to democrats in presidential election seasons.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think COVID is a made up thing this summer?

Poor Buckley, he didn't know the Bircher's won after all.

[Riva]

Would I ever insinuate that democrat would stoop to manufacture some a reason to get the Big Guy to step down? That would be crazy when Democrats have no history of lying about things for political gain, like Russian collusion or laptops or very good neo-nazis coming out of fields with tiki torches.

[Malika the Maiz]

You shouldn't own goal, fool.

[Riva]

You strike me as the kind of moron who would like soccer but the expression actually makes no sense here. But as noted, you are a moron.

[David Nieporent]

I remain unimpressed with a Democratic Party with leaders who demand Biden step down, without first specifying a proposed replacement,

Some pundits who are interested in the entertainment value are proposing some sort of open convention with a "blitz primary" or other gimmick. Everyone else agrees that if Biden steps down, Kamala Harris becomes the nominee.

[Moderation4ever]

You are right there no way around a Harris pick.

[Krayt]

Why? Are smoke-filled back rooms now illegal? I don't even see how they could be, as they derive from free people gathering together to organize a campaign for whoever they want.

[kramartini]

Different kind of smoke nowadays...

[kramartini]

Did Harris win a primary?

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, as she was on the ticket with Joe Biden.

[kramartini]

There are no tickets in primaries...

[David Nieporent]

She dropped out in 2020 before Iowa.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — As you will see, a Harris pick will prove divisive in the Democratic Party until she wins the election, and more divisive for much longer if she loses.

Harris is wrong generationally, wrong geographically, and wrongly-positioned to add voting strength to the ticket. Biden is a more effective candidate to turn out black voters in swing states than Harris will ever be. So exactly what strength does Harris bring that Biden does not already enjoy? She is younger, but not young enough. And she is a woman. Are either of those actual electoral advantages? I suppose the former is, given Biden's age. But that is a bar so low than any other D candidate could get over it, with many clearing it by more than Harris.

Harris will not bring peace to the D party. Why is she a good choice?

[David Nieporent]

So exactly what strength does Harris bring that Biden does not already enjoy?

She can stay awake past 4 p.m.

I am in no way suggesting that Harris is some sort of sure thing. But when you're behind by 2 touchdowns late in the fourth quarter, you don't run the ball up the middle three times and then punt.

Harris will not bring peace to the D party. Why is she a good choice?

She is in fact the only one who can do so at this point. She is also the only one who has already been nationally vetted (okay, other than Hillary), the only one who wouldn’t need to start a campaign from ground zero three months before the election, the only one legally entitled to the funds raised by the campaign to date, and the only one who can claim even partial credit for the accomplishments of the Biden administration.

[OtisAH]

“But when you’re behind by 2 touchdowns late in the fourth quarter, you don’t run the ball up the middle three times and then punt.”

I can’t tell, are you or are you not a Raiders fan?

[Moderation4ever]

"Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan". This will also be true of a Harris candidacy. What you miss is that Kamala Harris biggest problem is that she is a woman and there are people in this country who are not going to vote for a woman President. Hopefully almost all of those people will be in the MAGA camp. It should surprise no one that JD Vance is a white male. There was no room on the MAGA ticket for anything else. It will also be interesting to see if the Vance's wife remains prominent or is moved to the background as the campaign progresses.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Some pundits who are interested in the entertainment value are proposing some sort of open convention with a “blitz primary” or other gimmick. Everyone else agrees that if Biden steps down, Kamala Harris becomes the nominee."

This comment isn't aging as well as one might hope.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If the Party was absolutely controlled by one man (as the Republicans are) decisions would be made simply and effectively. The Democrats however are not like that.

[DaveM]

"What happens next? Massive disorder and infighting within the party?"

The Party is already there with the disorderly infighting, I'm afraid. Whoever has been making things happen in Biden's mental absence, it isn't just one person, clearly. If it were just one person, there wouldn't be any disorder.

As it is, the Party is looking like a marionette show where someone ran across the backstage with a pair of scissors, cutting every other string.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I have a prediction for you. If Team D has the party elders choose the candidate, the primary system where Democrat party voters choose the candidate will disappear. The smoke filled rooms will return.

I think that is better for the country, in all honesty, meaning the party elders pick the party candidate in the smoke filled room.

[Michael P]

It's extremely hard to square that approach with their insistence on Trump being the existential threat to Our Democracy, although Dems have never much cared about intellectual consistency over hypocrisy in the past. They just pivot to a retcon'ed rationale for whatever.

[Josh R]

Firstly, the Democrats don't want to go back to smoke-filled rooms. Biden should have declared he was not running a year ago. The current smoke-filled room is out of necessity, not choice.

Secondly, going back to smoke-filled rooms is not anywhere close to trying to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power.

[OtisAH]

Yes, why didn’t Biden make himself a lame duck president with a year to go in his first term? What was he thinking?! If you’re not currently leading someone’s campaign for high office, you need to start making calls immediately. Someone will want to snatch you up.

[Josh R]

Biden should have known, and his closest advisors and family almost certainly knew, his mental decline made hin unelectable last year.

[David Nieporent]

The off-the-record stuff is that there's been a noticeable decline this year.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of which, watch the (very short) video in this tweet:

https://x.com/yashar/status/1814075868421177532

[Don Nico]

"with leaders who demand Biden step down, without first specifying a proposed replacement, or agreeing to an open process to re-involve the party rank and file."
It's amazing. I once again agree with you.

[Armchair]

In other news, Bob Menendez has been convicted on multiple counts. This makes things...interesting...in a 50/50 Senate. As now it is more like 50/49* against the Democrats. (* depending how and when Menendez can vote if he's in prison or not)

So, what happens now?
1) Democratic leaders have asked for Menendez to resign. He has declined to so far. This would be ideal for Democrats, as they could promptly get a new Democratic Senator from NJ in place. But there's no benefit for Menendez to do so.
2) The Senate could try to expel Menendez. But they need the GOP to help. While morally correct for the GOP to help, from a voting perspective it's disadvantageous, as it would give the Democrats control of the Senate again.
3) Menendez could "bargain" for a commutation or pardon of his sentence with Biden. Depending how bad Biden needs Menendez's vote...this is quite possible. Especially after the election.

[OtisAH]

Check back here for updates on this comprehensive list of democrats and other members of The Left who insist Menendez was railroaded, that he was indicted on phony charges, and calling for an immediate investigation of the investigators (also, Menendez has resigned):

1.

[Mr. Bumble]

“also, Menendez has resigned):"

Has he? Only reports I have seen say he is considering it.

[David Nieporent]

In other news, Bob Menendez has been convicted on multiple counts. This makes things…interesting…in a 50/50 Senate. As now it is more like 50/49* against the Democrats. (* depending how and when Menendez can vote if he’s in prison or not)

The senate is not 50/50. It is 51/49. If Menendez resigns it becomes 50-49. Not 49-50. If you think Manchin is unreliable (which is not a crazy assessment) then it's currently 50-1-49, and Menendez's resignation makes it 49-49-1.

Of course, Murphy is prepared to name a replacement in 24 hours or less after Menendez steps down, so it should return to 51-49 (or 50-1-49) in short order.

[OtisAH]

Manchin (and Sinema) are both *very* reliable. Fortunately there is not likely to be any senate action before the election that will offer them opportunities to reliably ratfuck a dem effort.

[Commenter_XY]

I am so disappointed....Sticky Fingers Menendez was my man for the November vote, lol. Now what do I do? /sarc

The libertarian NJ US Senate candidate now: Ken Kaplan. He has run and lost political races at least 3X in NJ. He has many of the right ideas, but he is the wrong messenger. Too old, and has the telegenicity of decaying Egyptian mummy.

[apedad]

Here are the 10 states with the poorest quality of life

States with the poorest quality of life are mainly clustered in the South.

1. Texas
2. Indiana
3. Alabama
4. Oklahoma
5. Arkansas
6. Tennessee
7. Missouri
8. Louisiana
9. Kansas
10. Arizona

"Texas ranks near the bottom in primary care providers per 100,000 residents at 182, according to the United Health Foundation. According to The Commonwealth Fund, Texas leads the nation — by far — in residents without health insurance, and a staggering 19% of all people with a credit score in Texas have medical debt that has gone to collections."

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/13/10-states-worst-quality-of-life-america.html

The story notes that, "(s)ome 220,000 educated workers moved there in 2022 alone, according to the Census Bureau," which hopefully will move Texas into the blue zone eventually.

[Armchair]

I thought Obamacare fixed that. Everyone has health insurance....

[jb]

Hey, coincidentally there's 10 states that have rejected the ACA's Medicaid expansion:

https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/

Texas being one of them (and about half of the 10 states that have rejected it also being on the bottom 10 in health outcomes.)

[Longtobefree]

Define 'quality of life'.
Then do the study again factoring out the illegals.

[Jerry B.]

Quality of life is the number of public shooting ranges, a long deer season, and plenty of dive bars

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Well, if a CNBC "study" says it, it must be true.

Someone needs to let the stream of people who have been pouring in here from (mostly) blue states just how poor their lives are going to be here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where quality of life is defined as getting things Democrats like to hand out, and NOT in terms of your government staying out of your face?

It's like they never heard of "revealed preferences".

[Krayt]

Good thing The South is not synonymous with Republicans.

Also, I wonder if the wealthier, better off northern states, if the only voters were those who generate the wealth, would fare in the red/blue orientation. The business men, factory workers.

Best not go there.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you know what it tells me? A civil war can have lasting effects.

[jb]

Well someone just bought into CRT after all, I see!

[Frank Drackman]

You just listed states with lots of Black/Brown Peoples, I don't think an actual Ape would have been that stupid. I'll give you 10 states with worse "Quality of Life"(Criteria? it's CNBC, it's like MSNBC but even more boring) New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, Michigan, Washington, District of Colored Peoples (It's not a State? what are you, a Race-ist???)

Frank

[Armchair]

Why do liberals hate Trump so much. Part 2.

Last time we discussed that liberals REALLY hate Trump, and it's a little baffling. But, looking back, we have this article from February 2016 on why Liberals should support Trump. And using that as a basis, we can understand why liberals really hate Trump.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html

1. Trump was supposed to lose. This was really the beginning of it. Trump was supposed to LOSE dammit!. He was a horrible candidate. A TV star. Liberals had the election locked up, the GOP had a horrible candidate. Like when you pay a boxer to take a fall, and the damn idiot then goes and wins anyway. It's infuriating.

2. Trump was an outsider. It would be one thing if a Romney or McCain won. They knew how the game was played in DC. Same players, slightly different leadership, and the elites and bureaucrats and lobbyists would just have gone as as normal, with a slightly different set of rules. But Trump threatened all that. He was new and didn't know how things worked and might upset the gravy cart. And you'd show him.

3. Trump "burned down" the GOP like the liberals were hoping. But...it didn't end up like they thought it would. Liberals had essentially abandoned the working class 20 years ago, but so long as the GOP didn't try to pick them up everything was fine. And the GOP was slowly getting more into a working class party. But Trump accelerated that. And...the math doesn't work for the Liberals if the GOP wins the working class consistently. There just aren't enough liberal college educated elites. You need someone else. And without that...the long term prospects for the Democrats were dim.

[hobie]

I don't like Trump because he lies, like, a lot. And he tried to nullify the votes of millions of people in seven states. Which is, you know, kinda undemocratic.

[Frank Drackman]

Did he steal honor like you did? Did he claim he "lost his Son in Iraq?" Beat up "Cornpop" with a Bicycle Chain? "Beat Medicare"? Abandoned Amurican Hostages in Gaza (how is that not a daily story in the Marxist Stream Media like the Ear-Ron hostages were? oh, right, it'd make Parkinsonian Joe look bad)
and why the sudden rush to put Sleepy on an Icefloe? Joe Scarborough just said "Sleepy's better than ever! and if you can't accept that, Fuck you!" He won your Party's joke of a Primary (aren't you glad you fucked over RFK Jr?) Go ahead, run Common-Law Harris and watch JD slap her around like Iron Mike did with Michael Spinks, oh wait, it'll be "45" exposing her Affirmative Action Candidacy. (But hey, she'll help carry California!)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

No one is going to take you seriously on this who didn't already agree with you given you willfully acknowledge the incredibly high levels of hate of many political figures by your side.

[David Nieporent]

I posted this in the other thread, but it had already moved on by the time I did, so I don't know if anyone saw it. So I'll repost it here:

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.

[tylertusta]

Ironic.

You see, David, you're also a terrible piece of shit and a poor excuse for a human being.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you see how in contrast to DMN's fact-and-conclusions post, your shallow ankle biting serves only to make you look impotently mad on the Internet that someone insulted a politician you like?

[tylertusta]

So quick to jump to his defense, Peanut? And yet you don’t know why I’m mad at David.

I’m not mad that he insulted Trump. I don’t care about that. I even have a secret I’m willing to share: I’m not fond of Trump either. He’s a lot of the things that David said.

I’m mad at David because he has a fetish for wanting to kill Trump, and he’s not even shy about sharing it publicly.

And guess what? Someone tried to assassinate the former President, wounding Trump, killing an innocent bystander, and wounding others.

So, yes. David is truly a despicable piece of shit.

Do you think Trump should be ripped apart by a pack of hyenas? Do you think that Trump should be murdered by an injection with a fatal illness?

Your answer will determine whether you, too, are a piece of human excrement or just a loudmouth with differing opinions.

[Sarcastr0]

You're pretty mad at a dude made of straw.

[tylertusta]

I kinda was hoping for “torn apart by a pack of wild hyenas” for him. - David Nieporent, July 11, 2024.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/11/thursday-open-thread-199/?comments=true#comment-10636038

You don't know what you're talking about. But at least you didn't condone murder, so you're (so far) just a loudmouth.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and I also talked about a cartoon anvil falling on Biden's head. Which might indicate that I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in that discussion.

[OtisAH]

Straw is lengthier and girthier than he is, that’s why.

[Malika the Maiz]

Answered

[Malika the Maiz]

This is embarrassing for you. You've been holding on to this thing that David said about Trump for a while. Weird, but ok.

But you agree with a lot of what he said about how awful Trump is? So, where's your comments during the primary about how we have got to have someone better? Point to them.

[tylertusta]

A while? No. It was Saturday after the assassination attempt when I remembered all of the little "this is how Trump should die" comments he's made over time did it click:

David is a contemptible pile of human excrement.

So, where’s your comments during the primary about how we have got to have someone better?

Huh?

What does that have to do with the price of cheese in Switzerland?

[Sarcastr0]

I remembered all of the little “this is how Trump should die” comments he’s made over time

Receipts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Someone tried to assassinate the former President "

That someone was a conservative white, male, Republican gun nut and disaffected, awkward, antisocial loser from a white, Republican, downscale community.

This conservative misfit lived in a tiny house (with his substandard parents, one of them a right-winger registered as a Libertarian) that had 20-some guns and explosives inside and Trump/MAGA signs in the yard. He died wearing a gun nut shirt.

It is emerging that he searched for details on the Democratic National Convention and prominent Democrats as well as for Trump's schedule. He (or his family) began to purchase explosives months before the Trump rally in his vicinity was scheduled or announced.

[Frank Drackman]

Was he also a Pediofile like you?

[hobie]

I don't see the 'kill him' part. Or are you making shit up again?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, David's comment illustrates the problem.

"Trump is a sociopath with no redeeming characteristics as a human being."

What, none whatsoever? He doesn't like kittens, has never donated to charity, you name it? He's all bad traits, nothing good about him AT ALL?

This isn't why he hates Trump. This is an expression OF his hate of Trump.

[David Nieporent]

What, none whatsoever? He doesn’t like kittens, has never donated to charity, you name it?

As is undisputed, he's the first president without a pet in like 150 years. He doesn't donate his own money to charity, and indeed has tried to misappropriate other charitable funds for himself.

He’s all bad traits, nothing good about him AT ALL?

Well, as I said: as far as I know he has never killed anyone. (Rape is another story, of course.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you saying that his presidential salary (which he donated to charity) wasn't his own money?

[Kenneth Almquist]

Trump donated his presidential salary to the Federal government, which isn’t typically described as a charity. But I suppose the fact that he actually kept one of his campaign promises (he had promised to donated his salary) is a redeeming feature.

[Frank Drackman]

Jimmuh Cartuh shot and killed his neighbors Cat in Plains Jaw Jaw, because the poor Feline was eating Squirells, Jimmuh even wrote the Neighbor a “Sorry I killed your Cat note” don’t have the link, Google “Jimmy Carter Cat Killer” but I don’t care how many Ethiopians he saved from the Guinea Worm(you know how you don’t get Guinea Worm? Wear shoes) he’s going to Hell for that one

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Brett has this issue where he selectively cannot read like a human being, and takes all rhetoric as direct factual assertions.

[hobie]

You noticed that too?

[Theendoftheleft]

Fuck off, Somin. That's basically all you do here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for re-posting to remind us what a callow, self-important fucktard you really are.

[David Nieporent]

Ankle biting stalker bites ankles again.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like I said, self-important fucktard.

[apedad]

"Trump is a sociopath with no redeeming characteristics as a human being."

I dunno . . . he does seem to have a thing about supporting eastern European women.

[Frank Drackman]

Because he’s rich and fucking normal, Sleepy has a thing for sniffing young girls hair and showering with his daughter

[Commenter_XY]

David, all human beings have at least one redeeming characteristic; we are all created in the image of God.

I have to say, this line made me chuckle = He views the Seven Deadly Sins as a to do list. That was pretty funny. I gotta use that line, but will give you the credit.

[Josh R]

He's good at selling his name. His charisma was why The Apprentice was successful.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which God?

Your God? Another person's God? Your enemy's God?

Even less likely . . . a God who is not illusory.

[Theendoftheleft]

Aren't you supposed to be 'inclusive', fuckwit?

You desperate to normalize Islam in America and eliminate any 'phobia' surrounding that faith. So, you better get used to Allah being akbar, Somin.

I expect to see a zebiba on your forehead within six months, as a sign of your solidarity and inclusiveness.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They said the same things about Franklin Roosevelt.

[DaveM]

OK, so let's dig a little deeper. You've made some sweeping generalizations, which we presume you can back up with specific examples.

Trump has no redeeming characteristics as a human being. Not one?

He is the only president I’m aware of in American history, who actually hates the country and everything it stands for. And what is your evidence for hatred? There is literally nothing the country stands for that Trump loves?

We’ve had crooks and incompetents, but never someone who actively wants to destroy the country. Please cite the specific examples of Trump wanting to destroy the entire country. No skimping, now, your examples have to be literally destructive.

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. OK, now its getting boring asking you to back up all this hyperbole. You can't possibly mean "any and every" institution.

He wants to destroy the liberal international order because he doesn’t see how it benefits him personally.. This at least isn't entirely categorical, so we have some hope of getting to specifics. First, please define what you mean by a "liberal" international order. And then please provide specific examples of how Trump wants to literally destroy it.

OK, OK, so this is not an entirely serious objection, but only because your venom is so broad-brush as to render any serious discussion impossible.

I will say one thing: I'm no longer content with just letting people vent their spleens like this about any candidate anymore. A lunatic with a rifle took a shot at a political candidate. It's past time to tone the heck down.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"A lunatic with a rifle took a shot at a political candidate. It’s past time to tone the heck down."

Uh, no. Trump doesn't get a free pass because someone failed to assassinate him.

[Frank Drackman]

and Sleepy doesn't get one because you're just realizing now he's been demented for the last 6 years (Remember the Marxist Stream Media trying to explain his "Dog Faced Pony Soldier" remark in 2019? "He was referring to a John Wayne Movie!" "He was joking!" "He's got Dementia!"

Frank

[Theendoftheleft]

Do you know how American blue teamers and their preferred press sound to the rest of the world?

They've become completely hysterical.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, clearly Trump loves an America that lets him get away with whatever he wants.

"Hates America" sounds much too right wing, anyway.

[David Nieporent]

OK, so let’s dig a little deeper. You’ve made some sweeping generalizations, which we presume you can back up with specific examples.

I mean, if i were writing something to be published, sure, I'd do that. But this was a comment on a blog post, on a website where you can't even put more than 2 links without the software eating it, and where the entire thing is going to scroll off people's screens by tomorrow. The cost/benefit ratio there doesn't really do it for me.

[Roger S]

In other words, Trump was a great President for 4 years, but you do not like his personality.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no redeeming characteristics as a human being"

He has met all his grand kids, unlike other old politicians.

You need help David.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Funny you didn’t deny the sociopath part.

[Roger S]

Maybe Trump has the whole Dark Triad of personality characteristics, but he was a much better President than Biden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would we bother denying something he has in common with Biden?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Better up your dose of reality pills Brett. You've regressed back to your usual partisan stupidity.

[Frank Drackman]

I feel the same way about Parkinsonian Joe, at least "45" doesn't claim he "Lost his son in Iraq" and let me know when "45" leaves 19 Soldiers/Sailors/Marines to die in Afghanistan and is still doing nothing for the Amurican Hostages in Gaza (Don't worry, the IDF will save the few that might still be alive) and why the rush to send Sleepy to the Memory Care Home? I thought he was "The Best Sleepy Ever" just a few weeks ago?

Frank

[Armchair]

I want to thank David here for his response, as it neatly demonstrates the attempted rationalization strategies for an irrational emotion (hatred).

David goes through 3 classic rationalizations.
1) The imposition of motive on the target (ie, Trump thinks, Trump wants...)
2) The uneven treatment of negative attributes
3) The overly broad swath.

Let's demonstrate how this is used with a different case example that is often prone to hatred. That of a hypothetical arab citizen of Egypt, against the Jews. Many Arab citizens "hate" the Jews or Israel, but it's generally not rational. Here's how they often respond.

1) The Jews want to make us suffer.
2) The Israelis are killing Arabs (in Palestine)
3) The Jews are secretly ruling the world

How is this flawed.
1) The imposition of a motive is generally unfalsifiable. But...not's not accurate. A better, more logical response would be to look at actual actions. But hatred isn't rational, it seeks to demonize. When you see the imposition of motives as a rationale, be cautious. Clear evidence...that's different. But that should be elicudated as the primary cause, and separated from merely imposing motive.

2) Unequal treatment. Yes, Israelis are killing Arabs. But how have you treated other groups? Iraqis or Syrians or Yemeni who have killed many as well? Do they face the same hatred for their actions? Or is there a differential? If there's a differential, consider if the concept you feel is irrational.

3) The overly broad swath: This is typically a simple logical fallacy that can be dismissed with simple examples.

So, going back to David's comments on Trump, let's look at a few examples.

1) "Trump wants...Trump thinks..." Again, you want firm evidence to be the initiator here. Not mere imposition of motive. Because that is flexible and unfalsifiable. Instead lead with the evidence of Trump "destroying" America, and evaluate the evidence. This of course isn't done.

2) Unequal treatment. Trump "lies a lot." How does that compare to other politicians though? Joe Biden? Bill Clinton? Do they also "lie a lot"? (Yes, Joe's infamous for it). Does Joe get the same level of hatred for his actions? If not, why not? Consider again if the concept is irrational

3) "Trump has no redeeming policies or qualities"
-None? Trump's support for a COVID vaccine through Operation Warp Speed wasn't Redeeming? Or his seeking peace in the Middle East? None of that is supported? Again...the overly broad swath. A hallmark of irrationality.

To all this, what I would suggest is if one feels hatred, doing the following.

A: Look at the actions of the individual. Both good and bad. Don't impose motive but purely look at the actions.
B: Compare those negative actions to other people and really see if they are different
C: Don't make sweeping generalizations. If you're going to hate someone, pick specific actions that you "hate" them because of.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you mean "impute" rather than "impose"?

Otherwise, pretty much agree.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump's medium- to long-term effect on the Republican Party and conservatism is likely to benefit the liberal-libertarian mainstream, the Democratic Party, and America substantially.

Plenty of short-term negativity associated with that situation, though.

[Josh R]

I hate Trump becasue he is a malignant narcissist who tried to steal an election and block the peaceful transfer of power. It’s got nothing to do with the issues.

He only cares about three issues: immigration, trade and an isolationist foreign policy. He could have just as easily run as, and taking over, the Democratic party. On all the other issues, he could have been 100% in lockstep with my positions. I still would never have voted for him.

[OtisAH]

Convicted Felon Donald Trump cares about *two* issue#: Convicted Felon Donald Trump and Convicted Felon Donald Trump’s money.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually agree. If it weren't for the fact that Clinton already had the 2016 nomination rigged in her favor, Trump probably could have gotten the Democratic nomination, and run as a Democrat. Everybody assumed he WAS a Democrat, until he announced.

My biggest fear that year was that Trump would be elected, and then pivot to the Democrats. Fortunately the Dems burned all bridges to him before the election.

I sometimes wonder if the reason he didn't run as a Democrat was that he was too familiar with them, and had only been presenting as a liberal because doing anything else as a real estate developer in NY would have been business suicide.

[Josh R]

Maybe he decided that night at the correspondents dinner when Obama roasted him.

[Kenneth Almquist]

At the 2011 White House Correspondents’ dinner where Obama roasted Trump, Seth Meyers said, “I was surprised to hear that Trump was running as a Republican. I had assumed he was running as a joke.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What causes you to claim that Trump's appeals to superstitious bigots and half-educated culture war casualties would have been popular among Democrats?

[Josh R]

He wouldn't have made those appeals had he run as a Democrat. To the contrary, he would have been on the other side of the culture wars (he doesn't give a shit, one way or the other).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Interesting point.

[David Nieporent]

I actually agree. If it weren’t for the fact that Clinton already had the 2016 nomination rigged in her favor, Trump probably could have gotten the Democratic nomination, and run as a Democrat. Everybody assumed he WAS a Democrat, until he announced.

Nobody in fact assumed that. Nobody assumed that at any point. Especially not after 8 years of birtherism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good point. I forgot about the birtherism.

Birther Brett can't say the same.

[Michael P]

I am pretty sure Hillary Clinton stopped with the birtherism to accept the appointment from Obama to sell the US’s uranium reserves to Russian companies. She didn't keep it up for eight years.

[David Nieporent]

Hillary Clinton did not engage in birtherism, ever. Nor, of course, did she sell any uranium to Russia.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is there anything you believe, Michael P, that isn't a fairy tale in the service of ignorance, backwardness, bigotry, and superstition?

[jb]

Hate is a strong word, although I'm sure many Democrats do hate Trump just as many Republicans hate Biden. (In general, I'd say that "Let's Go Brandon/Fuck Biden" seems a lot closer to how I'd expruess hatred than stuff like "Orange Man Bad" or making fun of small hands.). Based on your summary, it seems like you either don't know a lot of liberals or aren't actually trying to understand them, because the analysis feels about as insightful as when liberals reason "Conservatives all like Trump because he's racist and so are they."

Here's my take on why I don't like Trump:

1) As others have noted, he doesn't care about anything but himself. I have policy disagreements with a lot of people, but I think most of them at the end of the day want what's best for society/the country. Trump has no such interest.

2) He's norm breaking not in ways that are actually constructive (e.g., in no way did he actually "drain the swamp" or propose some ambitious policy agenda) but in that he just behaves poorly to his fellow humans and signals that it's fine for others to do so. For some reason people think this makes him an "outsider" (despite being the ultimate insider) rather than an asshole.

3) He's really bad at being President. From a policy perspective, I think this is good, because I disagree with most of the things he tries to do. But when the country actually faces a challenge, he is completely unfit to meet the challenge and did a terrible job of building a leadership apparatus around him that would be able to do so, either.

[Armchair]

One of the things about hatred, is that it's often an irrational emotion. And that those who are doing the hatred don't understand the real reason they hate the individual in the first place.

Ask an Arab in Egypt why they "hate" Jews, and they'll give you a list of reasons. But these will typically be rationalizations, or explanations that apply to lots of other groups the individual doesn't hate. These don't get at the core reasons why it exists

[jb]

Cool, cool. You just go on ignoring what everyone actually says to you so you can impose your preconceived narrative on them. Seems like a real fun conversation!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't hate Trump. I will never ever vote for him, and I think he is an awful human being. I feel sorry for him, more than anything. Someone described him back in 2016 as a sad guy with a hole in his heart. That's Donald Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You should feel sorry for the people who interacted with and were victimized by Trump, not with the silver-spooned, bigoted criminal.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, Armchair wants you to hate Trump.

You must hate Trump.

Not even a teeny weensy little bit?

C'mon, you can tell me. This is a safe space...

Stop lying that you don't hate Trump!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I hate him, and I'm damn proud to admit it, because he's a giant piece of shit, a malignant narcissist, a pathological liar, a sociopath, a rapist, a misogynist, a criminal, and an abuser.

Fuck him.

[apedad]

There seems to be a growing debate on whistleblowing.

Whistleblower Incentives Strengthen Corporate Compliance Programs

- They actually deter fraud.
- They encourage quality systems to detect violations.
- They break the corporate code of silence.
- They incentivize internal whistleblowing. Exchange Act Rule 21F-6(a)(4) authorizes an increase in a whistleblower’s award percentage for reporting the securities violation through internal, legal, or compliance procedures before reporting it to the SEC.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/whistleblower-incentives-strengthen-corporate-compliance-programs?context=search&index=6

Government Whistleblower Programs Undermine Compliance Culture

- First, government whistleblower rewards programs undermine the compliance initiatives that regulators demand.

- Second, although whistleblower rewards programs may lead to more reports, investigations, enforcement actions, and fines, it isn’t clear that more enforcement statistics are a worthwhile standalone goal.

- Third, it has long been recognized in our legal system that paying a witness for information can create incentives for false, shaded, or exaggerated information.

In light of the recent Boeing fiasco, I'd say keep the govt whistleblower programs.

[apedad]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/government-whistleblower-programs-undermine-compliance-culture

[Moderation4ever]

Last night my wife and I had dinner with friend at one of our favorite Wisconsin Supper Clubs. Located in rural Wisconsin in an area dominated by Republicans. As I looked at the wait staff and the kitchen staff, I was thinking about Trump call to deport all undocumented immigrants. Now I think Trump is overpromising and this idea is up there with Mexico paying for a southern border wall. But I was also thinking of how many businesses would be unable to operate without these people.

[Malika the Maiz]

Apart from the small government types calling for a mass deportation, the truly interesting thing will be to see how a mass deportation of low wage workers will solve our inflation problem!

Here's the thing though, anyone who has spent any time talking to conservatives (and the "libertarians" who pretend not to be that) knows what's going on: they see South American immigration as a political threat. They think the US will become California. And with such high levels of immigration they see this as an existential threat, so all other principles floated must defer to addressing this.

[Sabedi1]

The federal government is borrowing trillions every year to subsidize low income people, including illegals. They contribute to inflation, not make it better.

[Mr. Bumble]

And why would you think they were "undocumented"?

[Brett Bellmore]

That occurred to me, too. It's not like you can tell somebody's immigration status just by looking at them.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think one of the criticisms of aggressive enforcement of illegal immigration would likely involve some kind of "profiling".

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you would.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, that's one of their complaints. But they always assume that anything they disapprove of will be done in the most evil, indefensible manner possible.

[bernard11]

they always assume that anything they disapprove of will be done in the most evil, indefensible manner possible.

Trump proposes to round up millions of people, put them in camps, and ultimately deport them, even if they've been here for years, thereby destroying their lives.

And Brett thinks he's going to do that in a benign, defensible, way.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's only got four years to remove the 10-11 million that came in since Biden became president. The rest can wait for President Vance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Obviously he can't do it in any way you'd approve of, because you don't approve of doing it in the first place, so there is literally no way of doing it that you'd consider defensible.

People who actually consider deporting illegal immigrants to be within the range of appropriate policy are actually going to distinguish between different ways to do it, but that's not you.

[Sarcastr0]

Didja notice how you didn't really mention what would be unacceptable? People will distinguish, just not Brett!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, after all, nobody asked me what I'd consider a defensible way to do it. Bernard just asserted that I'd find however it was done defensible.

I've already said in other contexts that you absolutely have to give illegals being deported due process, because that protects actual citizens from the consequences of being falsely accused of being illegals, and deported. So, obviously, I'd require that there be proper hearings.

This wouldn't be a problem if Congress were on board, and willing to properly fund the effort, instead of sabotaging it by starvation.

So, once it's actually established that somebody is an illegal immigrant, by a process sufficient to allow a real citizen to establish their innocence, all that remains is the details of how they get deported.

This becomes tricky in the case of illegals prior administrations deliberately let set down roots, but we don't spare other criminals their trials and penalties just because they have family, do we?

[Moderation4ever]

In this particular case I have no idea, but estimates put the level of undocumented in food service at 25%. That is a large number, and the absence would be noticed.

[ThePublius]

You make a common, typical mistake of thinking you can change one parameter and all others will stay the same.

What would happen in you removed 25% of an industry's staff? They would either reduce service, reduce capacity, or - wait for it - raise wages to attract more workers, with higher prices. It would eventually settle out.

When you dine out on cheap, illegal immigrant labor you are being subsidized by your taxpaying neighbors.

[David Nieporent]

When you dine out on cheap, illegal immigrant labor you are being subsidized by your taxpaying neighbors.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

[OtisAH]

Under Convicted Felon Trump I’s immigration policies we had fruits and veggies rotting in the fields for lack of people to pick them. And CFT I’s immigration policies are likely why we had so many open job slots across many to all industries despite being at or about nominal “full employment.”

[Brett Bellmore]

If you think that's wildly unusual, you've got very little acquaintance with agriculture.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

An evidence-free assertion from Brett? Rightfully dismissed as likely bullshit.

[Swede425]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want the security of our nation to interfere with your Wisconsin Supper Club located in rural Wisconsin.

[Moderation4ever]

Poor people coming to our country to work in dangers our security? Lucky this country made it through the Irish immigration during the Irish famine.

[Brett Bellmore]

Obviously, if they just instantly disappeared in some kind of Thanos snap, the disruption would be incredible.

If the businesses were on notice, and had a couple of years to adapt as the supply of illegal labor dried up? I think we'd see about the same effect as with California's new very high minimum wage: Marginally profitable businesses that could only survive by employing illegal labor would fold, prices would generally rise, but so would incomes in the lower quintile as they stopped having to compete with illegal labor.

Long term, you'd probably see a reduction in income inequality, similar to what happened during the Great Compression, which was the last period when we saw major efforts to reduce immigration and deport illegal immigrants. (Operation Wetback).

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you really want to see something like the California high minimum wage at the federal level?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no. Because I don't see any real upside to it. But it wasn't Armageddon, was it? And they didn't even phase it in over a period of years.

I don't think enforcing immigration laws will be cost free, I just think it's worth doing, net.

[Moderation4ever]

Or we could just improve out immigration system. Allow in the people we need, create a path to citizen ship for that want it. It worked in the past to build this country why will it not work now?

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that you can't fine tune the faucet while the pipe is broken and blasting into the room. Our formal immigration policies barely matter at this point because our informal policy is to keep the border as open as seems politically survivable, so most people moving to our country are entering outside the formal system.

Were that not the case, of course we'd be letting in the people who would contribute the most. And we could have a reasoned debate over who that is.

But how can we argue about best immigration policy when the policy is to actually ignore the policy?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett.

You *never* want to try and reform the system, because any compromise with Dems is unacceptable to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course I want to reform the system: I want the border enforced, illegals deported, and a systematic cream skimming immigration policy put in place. That would be "reform".

I'll remind you that the definition of "reform" is just "change", with a connotation that it's positive. NOT, "change Democrats propose". I'm allowed to have a different idea of what would be positive change than you have. And hence, what would constitute "reform".

I expect that we will in the end have to compromise with Democrats, in the sense of not moving policy in our preferred direction quite as much as we could if they weren't obstructing it. But, yes, there's very little room for actual compromise in the sense of accepting Democrats' proposed changes, because what Democrats want is diametrically opposed to what Republicans want. On this as on so many other issues.

[Sarcastr0]

'I'm fine with reform, just not doing politics to get there!'

You're not actually fine with reform in any way with a practical upshot.

Another way you'll never ever have useful opinions in this or most policy areas:
what Democrats want is diametrically opposed to what Republicans want
This is almost never a true statement because most issues are not 1 dimensional and so don't allow this kind of reduction.
It is what committed partisans think, the first because they're us-vs-them first and foremost.

[Brett Bellmore]

Revealed preferences, Sarcastr0: If you didn't want massive illegal immigration, it wouldn't have shot up the way it did the moment Biden was in charge.

There are plenty of issues where Democrats and Republicans don't have diametrically opposed goals. We don't talk about them because issues where there's consensus aren't interesting.

On some issues, though, such as illegal immigration, gun control, abortion, the two major parties have very different goals, to the point where no policy one approved of would be acceptable to the other. (I'm speaking here of the party base, often the party establishments agree, and one or the other just doesn't dare admit it.)

Once again, I'll point out that when the Court struck down the strictest, most extreme gun law in the entire country in the Heller decision, Democrats went utterly berserk about it. So much for the idea that your views were actually moderate. They actually weren't compatible with the 2nd amendment being an enforced constitutional right AT ALL.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is we can always debate, develop solutions, test and refine. Congress has several times developed plans to address both legal and illegal immigration only to have all the work shot down. The latest attempt only months ago. The immigration problem remains not because people don't want it solved but because it benefits some politicians. Look at last night's speech immigration are not people looking for opportunities. No, we are told they are criminals released from prisons and mental institutions. Over my lifetime I have met so many immigrates from every part of the world. They are people and deserve to be treated as people.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, what got shot down was the usual attempt to cement in place legally as much as possible of the current policy of not enforcing the law.

The first step in any reform of immigration law has to be establishing that existing law will actually be enforced. No compromise is possible prior to that, for the simple reason that nobody on our side would have any basis for thinking that anything they got in return for concessions would actually be delivered.

You can't bargain with people who don't keep bargains!

[Sarcastr0]

The first step in any reform of immigration law has to be establishing that existing law will actually be enforced.
First, there is no reason why that needs to be true.

Second, this is why when you say you're for reform no one believes you.

Third, you are wrong. Our immigration laws are being enforced. No laws are being broken; you are just ignorant about the INA, don't understand discretion, and think as a blanket proposition if you don't like it it's being done in bad faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've explained why it needs to be true: The foundation of any form of trade at all is trust that the terms of the deal will actually be observed. Until the previous deal is observed, there can't be a new compromise, all that can happen is that one side or the other prevails.

You want deals while there is no reason to think you'll uphold your end of them. No, it doesn't work that way.

Yes, Biden doesn't hold a press conference to announce, "Bwahaha! I'm refusing to enforce immigration laws!" He just does it. Your demand we ignore him doing it is noted and dismissed.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘Our immigration laws are being enforced. No laws are being broken; you are just ignorant about the INA, don’t understand discretion, and think as a blanket proposition if you don’t like it it’s being done in bad faith’.

You’re an evil, lying moron. You better have an exit strategy from the United States for you and your family, Somin, because you will NOT be tolerated there any longer.

Tick tock, tick tock.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What is your basis for assuming that they're here illegally? The fact that they're somewhat dark-complected? Racist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Imagine what a second Civil War would do to inflation....

Working class AMERICANS are subsidizing your meal,

[Commenter_XY]

Let's find out = But I was also thinking of how many businesses would be unable to operate without these people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, misappropriated academic
veneer — dedicated to creating and
preserving safe spaces for America’s
vestigial bigots -- has operated for no
more than

FIVE (5)

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.

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
(unless perhaps one schedules a
daily Google alert for racial slurs,
as at least one Conspirator seems
to have done.).

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 stale and ugly thinking,
here is something better.

This one is good, too.

(How she navigates a fretboard with those nails puzzles me.)

[Swede425]

Something tells me that if we were to look in this psycho's basement we'd find a pit with a Senator's daughter in it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What most bothers you most about quantification of this white, male, conservative blog's incessant bigotry -- the bigotry, or the reminder?

[Swede425]

It rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nah, you're a psycho.

You're also a hypocrite, since you're yourself a bigot.

Your time in America is coming to an end, one way or another, as your fellow Americans won't tolerate you any more.

Tick tock, tick tock.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today’s Rolling Stones enlightenment:

First, when heroes collide.

Next, the new one performed in Santa Clara.

No McCartney. No Gaga. No Stevie Wonder. Unless they are traveling to the middle of nowhere this weekend, which I do not expect.

[Frank Drackman]

Revolting, if you’re so smart why don’t you realize nothings more annoying than some pretentious cum-guzzler telling you what music he likes?
See, I like “Going down to Liverpool” by the Bangles(Video has cameo by Leonard Nimoy)
See how annoying that is?

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" some pretentious cum-guzzler "

I understand now why Prof. Kerr chooses this blog, among dozens of legal and academic blogs, for publication of his scholarly work.

And why he doesn't want to talk about that.

[Theendoftheleft]

Amazing how you regularly insult the denizens here as 'clingers', yet want them to know about your musical tastes.

Why would you care about what they listen to?

Why should they care what you listen to, or your views about music, or your views on anything, really?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I try to bring a bit of something better to a shitty, bitter environment.

Some people seem to appreciate it.

The others don't seem to have their disaffected, on-the-spectrum experience affected much by it.

[John F. Carr]

An Italian woman faces a 5,000 euro fine for "body shaming" the Prime Minister, with one of the offending tweets reading “Non mi fai paura Giorgia Meloni. Oltretutto sei alta un metro e venti. Non ti vedo neanche”. "You don't scare me, Giorgia Meloni. Anyway you're only four feet tall. I can't even see you."

Imagine what the "Trump too small" man would owe under such a legal regime. We could have funded the government for a week on the collected online insults to our large-handed leader with his six-pack abs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one having trouble fathoming the depth of the Secret Service's incompetence? I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but....

[apedad]

As someone who has received federal level training as the Secret Service (albeit 30 years ago!), and have worked presidential and vice presidential appearances and motorcades, I 100% agree with Dr. Ed's observation that there was incompetence - just not (yet) ready to place it all* on the Secret Service.

* alot but not all (yet)

The social media vidoes of the guy crawling on the rooftop around 2 minutes before he took the shots are shocking.

Now, there's a lot of questions and there will be answers, and some of the answers will be tough to accept even though they may be true.

For example (just an example - may not be the case here), at these events there are always security on nearby rooftops so the Secret Service snipers may not always know exactly who is legit and who is a threat - especially if local law enforcement was assigned the nearby rooftop and the Secret Service snipers were unfamiliar with the uniforms.

That puts them in a tough spot whether to shoot at someone if they're unsure.

Again, lots of things to be answered.

[Bwaaah]

Secret Service has confirmed:
1) Secret Service, during planning, identified building roof as a risk point.
2) Secret Service assigned responsibility to local police to cover the outside of the building from which the shooter shot.
3) Local police notified Secret Service, well in advance of event, that they lacked the manpower to cover the outside of the building.
4) Local police did have coverage inside the building.
5) Police inside the building identified a "person of concern" outside the building about 20 to 30 minutes before the shooting, and reported that to the Secret Service at that time.

(see Washington Post)

So...Secret Service knew the building was a risk, knew it wasn't being covered, and left that hole open. With that hole open, Secret Service was warned 20+ minutes ahead of time that there was a suspicious person near the building, but failed to close the vulnerability.

[apedad]

You would make a poor investigator since you're making conclusions based on preliminary information without getting into the details, i.e., the whys, whos, hows, etc.

[ThePublius]

"For example (just an example – may not be the case here), at these events there are always security on nearby rooftops so the Secret Service snipers may not always know exactly who is legit and who is a threat – especially if local law enforcement was assigned the nearby rooftop and the Secret Service snipers were unfamiliar with the uniforms."

Well, that would be an instance of incompetent performance, too, wouldn't it? They should all coordinate - in planning, assignments, visually, and via comms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Secret Service snipers were unfamiliar with the uniforms.”

With smartphones, how difficult is it for the snipers to have actual photos?

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, let me ask you this: Should the SS director be fired, at some point (could be post investigation)?

You were in the business. What do you think?

[apedad]

Waaaaaaaaaaaay too early to even think about that never mind making an informed, final decision.

[Bob from Ohio]

What about her stated reason for lack of security on the shooter's roof being the slope? Reported [and looks] as a slight 5 degree slope.

[apedad]

Again, that's just a preliminary fact and we all would like to know:

Is that a standard procedure?
Are there more factors, e.g., the bldg was far enough away?
Were there other security measures that should have addressed this particular area.

Etc., etc., etc.

Can we get all the data, procedures, facts, interviews, etc., before making final decisions?

And as I mentioned (above? below?), YES the Secret Service will have a lot of blame - but let's get the blame on the right things (people, procedure, etc.).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And they didn’t seem to have any problem at all setting up on this roof, which appears to have a little greater than 5° slope:

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/15/multimedia/15election-live-secret-service-questions-1-wklh/15election-live-secret-service-questions-1-wklh-articleLarge.jpg

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm just amazed at how little work she thought necessary to put into that excuse. She really phoned that one in.

I wonder if she was already on notice at that point that she was on her way out?

[Mr. Bumble]

Back to Pepsico?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I have no idea if her failings led to the assassination shots being taken, but I also think she should be fired simply for making such a stupid excuse.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think she's been competently executing her two primary duties:

1. Protecting Biden.
2. Being female.

Normally that would be enough to make her position secure. At this point I think they're just putting off her firing until they can find another woman to replace her, things like that being incredibly important to Democrats for some reason.

[Sarcastr0]

She may be bad (I don't think the facts are in enough myself), but there is no evidence this is a women in the workplace or DEI issue.

It’s a true sign if deep bigotry the right has jumped passed establishing that straight to assuming it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't brag about appointing women, and then say sex wasn't a consideration, Sarcastr0.

Well, I guess you can, it's just nobody believes it.

[Theendoftheleft]

'It’s a true sign if deep bigotry the right has jumped passed establishing that straight to assuming it is'.

THE right did so, or some on the right have done so? Have some on the left? (Hint: yes they have.)

If you weren't a parochial American moron, you'd understand the irony of your charge of bigotry. But you likely can't, since your lot doesn't even understand irony.

And that observation is not ITSELF reflective of bigotry, because it's largely true of you Americans. 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

at these events there are always security on nearby rooftops so the Secret Service snipers may not always know exactly who is legit and who is a threat – especially if local law enforcement was assigned the nearby rooftop and the Secret Service snipers were unfamiliar with the uniforms.

The SS snipers had scopes, and what the shooter was wearing didn’t even remotely resemble a uniform. Plus they had 20 minutes to verify whether or not he was a LEO. Plus…how much of Keystone Kops operation do you have to be running where there’s no coordination regarding who has snipers placed where?

Oh, and the individual who ended up being the shooter had been identified by the SS as a "threat" a full hour before the shooting happened.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The concern I would have would be a bad guy killing one of these snipers, but if we can (supposedly) monitor a Seal Team from a room in the White House, couldn't someone in a van somewhere monitor all the snipers?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me clarify -- the assassin murders one of the good guy snipers, is wearing something similar so no one notices, and thus has a free shot at the protectee.

It's the basic gun control argument -- are we safer with NO snipers?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Media reports (possibly inaccurate) that the local cop who fell off the roof transmitted (over a shared tactical frequency) he had seen a perp with gun up there. Assuming he (a) did, and (b) it wasn't garbled, and (c) someone else wasn't transmitting at the same time --- shouldn't that alone have been enough to get Trump out of there?

And didn't the snipers also have radios? You don't have to shoot -- you can tell your buddies on the ground to yank Trump out of there until -- well, whatever.

Remember back when President Trump was having a press conference in the White House and there was something involving a gun outside, not even on the grounds itself but the adjacent sidewalk (if my memory is correct)? They yanked him out of there until they knew everything was secure, and this was inside the WH.

In fairness, I can see radio discipline breaking down, but how much do you have to hear? An excited/scared cop saying *anything* about a "gun" would get my attention...

[Roger S]

Yes, it is baffling how the SS could screw up so badly. Add to that the facts that SS has no reasonable explanation, and that no one has been fired. Apparently the Biden administration is not willing to take reasonable steps to protect Trump's life.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump fired the SS director in 2019. He also fired Comey only to appoint Wray.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe don’t hire SS Agents who look like Lou Costello

[Swede425]

Disagree.
Chubby soccer moms need jobs, too.

[Frank Drackman]

Fine, find something where incompetence doesn’t get people killed

[Dr. Ed 2]

Chubby soccer moms will get information that your 6' 06" linebackers never will -- citizens will tell them things. This actually is a role that a lot of the *good* female cops assume --because they don't scare people, they will have people approach them with the "I think I saw..." stuff.

Same thing with local police -- they likely will get told stuff that the USSS itself might not because they are known (at least as a department, often personally) and hence trusted.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe stop bullshitting with the Hoi Polloi and notice the guy on the building with a rifle

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was the Hoi Polloi who told them about said guy on the roof with the rifle.

That's documented, there's video of it all over the internet.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s the problem, the SS are supposed to be the ones to make sure nobody’s on a building 150 yards from POTUS in the first place

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? The job was to shield Trump's body from further attack. You have to be tall and broad to do that! Not a job for a chubby, 5'5" soccer mom.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well there are three primary missions -- blocking bullets, observing potential threats, and countersniper.

If someone whose primary job was observing potential threats responded to the blocking mission in extremis, I can live with that. Same thing with a male police officer attempting to counsel a rape victim because he is the only person available, him being better than nothing.

I agree with your underlying principle, but I'd want to know the details and particularly her primary assignment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you a USSS agent? Do you do the hiring? Do you know all of the job requirements as laid out by the agency?

No? Then shut the fuck up with your misogynistic bullshit you fucking coward.

[Sabedi1]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youtube-toughens-policy-gun-videos-google/

The big tech companies are evil. They use their monopolistic power to push liberal ideals, and dishonest leftists are suddenly stalwart supporters of free enterprise when they do this.

But when Masterpiece Bakeshop doesn't want to make a cake to celebrate the "sodomistic love" between perverts like the Rev. Kirkland and Nova Lawyer, then suddenly, "Bake the cake, or else!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Masterpiece was the ONLY bakery in the state, it would have been an AntiTrust case, not a discrimination one.

If UPS or FedEx had refused to ship it (assuming they ship perishable cakes -- they may not), it would be a common carriage case, not a discrimination one.

Do you see the difference?

[Sabedi1]

I see the difference, but I'm not accusing Youtube of discrimination, but of using its monopoly power to restrain trade.

[apedad]

Republican Challenge to Nevada’s Mail-in-Ballot Law Gets Tossed

The Republican National Committee, Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc., and individual Republican voters don’t have standing to challenge a Nevada law that allows ballots mailed before an election to be counted if they arrive up to four days after the vote, a federal court said.

The plaintiffs said that the law violates the federal law that establishes Election Day, the right to stand for office, and the right to vote. But Judge Miranda M. Du of the US District Court for the District of Nevada never looked at the merits of the claims. Instead, she said that the plaintiffs failed to show that she had jurisdiction over the case.

The organizational plaintiffs’ argument that they had organizational standing to bring the suit was rejected by Du because any possible injury they would suffer hinged on the unfettered choices of third-party voters and was purely speculative. They also failed to show that any harm to their electoral prospects would likely be redressed by enjoining Nevada from counting ballots received after election day, the judge said.

Nor did the plaintiffs show that Nevada’s election law forces them to compete under a state-imposed disadvantage, Du said. “Any ‘advantage’ that Democrats may gain from the four-day grace period is one that appears to be equally available to, but simply less often employed by, Republicans,” she said.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/republican-challenge-to-nevadas-mail-in-ballot-law-gets-tossed

Uh oh...she was born in 1969 in Vietnam and appointed by Pres. Obama so (I'll leave it up to Swede425 and JHBHBE to point out why this makes her a poor judge).

[Sabedi1]

This cunt is a dyed in the wool liberal.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Kerr and former Prof. Volokh thank you for your contribution to the Volokh Conspiracy conversation, Sabed1. They don't like to talk about it publicly, but I believe you deserve the recognition.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This kind of comment is what gets you muted. Mindless, abusive and irrelevant.

It should get you deleted, but it's not my blog.

[Theendoftheleft]

'This kind of comment is what gets you muted. Mindless, abusive and irrelevant'.

What an absolutely cuntish thing of you to write.

You should get deleted. Fortunately, the way your domestic culture war is going, that prospect seems ever more probable by the day.

No doubt the world will be a better place for it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No wonder Orin Kerr chooses this forum when he wishes to publish a scholarly observation. These are his people, this is his environment, this is his side of the culture war.

(Most of the other Conspirators are not publishing scholarship nearly so much as right-wing polemics.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's a neat trick.

No standing before and no standing after.

Neat!

[Frank Drackman]

So who gave Sleepy Joe the Covid? Hasn’t he had his Shots? How many are we up to now? 5? 6? Last one I had to pay out of pocket for and the Pharmacist said I was the only one who’d gotten it in weeks and this was on Long Goy- land

Frank

[NvEric]

"So who gave Sleepy Joe the Covid?"
He sniffed one too many minors !

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when Trump killed Herman Cain with a Covid fart?? Stinky and deadly!!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Reference was made to "hating" Trump.

I think David Nieporent, whose political views I surely disagree with in various respects, summarized the case against Trump well.

It is sometimes sneered at that people "hate the orange man" or something as if strong emotional reactions arising from such a bill of particulars are irrational. Why do you "hate" someone who is a horrible person? So silly.

I find Trump a dangerous menace as well as an unpleasant grifter. The facts are present there to a candid world. Not overlapping many people here, of course.

I also don't like overusing "evil" since to me it comes off as a religious concept. Again, I don't begrudge some uses of it. A person who molests a child being called "evil" won't make me mad or something. Still, I don't like the term too much in various respects.

Anyway, I just read "A Year of Biblical Womanhood" by Rachel Held Evans and it is recommended. She was someone with an evangelical background who -- like Orin Kerr (on this issue) -- publicly voted for Hillary Clinton.

[Roger S]

Yes, the main argument against Trump is that you and Nierporent do not like his personality.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His lying personality. His sexually assaulting personality. His felon personality. His cheating personality. His fraudster personality. His tax-cheating personality. His deadbeat personality. His bigoted personality. His adulterous personality. His fat slob personality. His stealing from charities personality. His golf champion personality.

[Theendoftheleft]

American liberals and progressives live to lie. That's why, for example, the rest of the world cannot trust your MSM anymore.

So, is a lying personality a vice or a virtue for you? (Don't worry, I appreciate full well that your answer to this question will itself be a lie. You can't help yourself, after all.)

His 'felony' is no doubt also solely a function of your banana republicanization of your courts and THEIR abuses of the law. Jed Rubenfeld does a reasonable job explicating portions of the various American prosecutors and courts misdeeds. (The reputational damage from this is something anti-Trump Americans seem not to appreciate well either.)

Were Biden a leader here in Europe, he'd undoubtedly have been removed from office for his 'criminal' dealings in Ukraine and China, if not also sentenced. (They're going after Sarko now, for example.) As far as the rest of the globe can tell, the Bidens are a crime family.

Face it, AIDS. Your politics and values are dying. You're a degenerate pig who hides behind moral posturing when you're yourself an immoral swine. The world will be a better place when you're dead.

[David Nieporent]

Guess those rubles are still flowing into your bank account.

[Theendoftheleft]

Why would they pay in rubles? You don't even really try anymore, yeah?

Is it the demoralization from knowing your politics are moribund? That Americans, on the left and right, are leaving you behind?

[shawn_dude]

"Evil" includes the demonization of entire segments of the population as a tool to consolidate political power for oneself and without regard for the cost to others. Trump's effects from his first term are already measurable in the number of women's lives he's thrown into jeopardy by overturning Roe, the book bans, and anti-trans laws that have increased violence against LGBT Americans. This has worked for him and, if reelected, he'll likely turn to this again and choose another target and the costs will grow. Internment camps are already being considered to hold the next round of undesirables. That was "evil" when we did it during WWII, and it was evil when others did it.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘“Evil” includes the demonization of entire segments of the population as a tool to consolidate political power for oneself and without regard for the cost to others’.

This is what you American fuckwits have done for years to large swathes of your own populations. To your flyover people. To your working class. To your whites. To your religious populations. Are you really THAT lacking in self-awareness to see your hypocrisy?

Obviously Americans are dumb, but surely you’re not SO retarded as to not understand this, yeah?

And from a labour law perspective, your blue team has legitimated the systematic exploitation of illegal Aztecs and Mayans in your country as a neo-serf class. You use race to engage in class warfare in every blue city and state.

Will you kill yourself if Trump wins? The world will be a slightly smarter, better place if you do so. (Please don’t be a typical American by being wholly selfish when deliberating about this.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One other thing.

There have been a few orders coming out of the Supreme Court this week.

They held up an execution. Changed special masters in an interstate dispute. They also rejected a stay in a case involving a protest of a Confederate monument.

https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-wills-confederate-monument-protesters-to-jail-despite-appeal/

[bernard11]

Wow. That protest case is a dilly.

If the facts are anything like what the protestors claim the whole case against them is absurd.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It sounds like something that could have been covered here instead of multiple posts on the same topic.

[Kleppe]

From CNN's Stephen Collinson:

In a race Trump has cast as a contrast between strength and weakness, the optics are better than the Republican can have dared hope less than four months before Election Day.

Republicans are lionizing a nominee who escaped a would-be assassin’s bullet and rose, bloodied, to raise his fist with a vow to “fight.” Biden, by comparison, retreated from the campaign trail Wednesday to his Delaware home with a case of Covid-19.

Trump just choreographed one of the most remarkable shows of dominance in any political party of the modern age, requiring his vanquished primary foes to pledge fealty in front of a primetime television audience at the convention on Tuesday. Biden is, meanwhile, losing control of his party, clashing heatedly with lawmakers who warn he’ll cost them the White House, Senate and the House and as party grandees — like California Rep. Adam Schiff — publicly say he should step aside.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

From fivethirtyeight.com, a minute ago:

UPDATED JUL. 18, 2024, AT 2:00 PM

Who Is Favored To Win The 2024 Presidential Election?
538 uses polling, economic and demographic data to explore likely election outcomes.
Biden wins 52 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."

Are there enough uneducated, white, male, evangelical bigots, gun nuts, and anti-abortion absolutists remaining in America's can't-keep-up rural and southern backwaters to position Trump for another Electoral College trick shot? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Josh R]

This is a bizzare model. It has Trump ahead in the swing-state polls on election day, but apparently assumes (for reasons unknown), that the polls are skewed against Biden. Nate Silver (formerly of 538), who has Biden at about 25% (I think) promises to publish comments on the 538 model today. Should be interrsting.

[David Nieporent]

538's model incorporates a lot of stuff besides polls. It assumes that "fundamentals" — which includes a bunch of things (lots of economic data, but other stuff also) — have more predictive value than just polls. In other words, if a current poll has an election at (e.g.) 52-48, but the economy is good, it assumes that by November the race will shift several points towards the incumbent party and will be 55-45. (I say "assumes," but it obviously tries to model this, not just guess.) They explain this on the site, but (since their model is obviously proprietary) only in general terms.

Not only is this too much of a black box for me, but I doubt they have sufficient data to do this for presidential elections.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right = Not only is this too much of a black box for me, but I doubt they have sufficient data to do this for presidential elections

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many obsolete, elderly conservatives will die between now and Election Day -- taking their stale and ugly conservatism to the grave and being replaced by younger Americans in our electorate and populace -- and therefore be unavailable to vote for Trump?

How many old clingers have died during the past four years and also been replaced by younger, better, less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward, more diverse Americans?

There may be enough cranky old right-wingers left to elect Trump (perhaps with yet another three-cushion longshot at the Electoral College), but I would need to see it to believe it. The American tide against gay-bashing, religion, racism, gay-bashing, rural life, misogyny, antisemitism, gun nuttery, Islamophobia, transphobia, anti-abortion absolutism, xenophobia, creationism, etc. is strong and reliable. Trump and the Republicans may be able to overcome it but powerful trends favor Democrats and the liberal-libertarian mainstream that has won the culture war.

[Josh R]

Silver posted his comments. It appears 538 weights fundamentals too much (for now) because it thinks the polls this far out are not wroth much. But Silver argues that has no longer been the case in recent times. Also for Wisconsin, 538 predicts Biden will do better than either the polls are fundamentals show. The reason appears to be polls in other states are better for Biden and influence the outcome in Wisconsin.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's exactly right: There are really too few Presidential elections, and all of them basically unique.

[shawn_dude]

There are if the GOP's voter interference schemes can prevent enough Democrats from voting in swing states.

[Libertatem]

Does anyone ever feel dumber after reading the comments on these threads?

[Ed Grinberg]

The comment are no dumber than the ones I've seen on other forums. And, unlike many other forums, this one doesn't engage in selective censorship.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" this one doesn’t engage in selective censorship "

Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland calls bullshit. Let's see whether any Conspirator -- including Eugene "The Censor" Volokh -- wishes to challenge him on this point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guess not. Carry on, clingers

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does former professor Volokh regret the viewpoint-driven censorship that diminishes his claim to be a champion of free expression?

If so, why has he not apologized?

[MoreCurious]

Yes, but in fairness, it's only a few commenters who drag down the IQ average. For example, I'm still waiting for JHBHBE and Drackman to write something intelligent. Both of them seem to try very hard to convince us of their stupidity. I suspect that neither of them has a college degree and maybe not a high school diploma.

[Frank Drackman]

Only yours

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

A generous dose of muting makes things a lot easier to take.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It does make the threads harder to follow, but I can live with that.

It's not as though I'm likely to miss something insightful and thought-provoking (inadvertently) posted by a greyboxer. Sewage is important, but we don't have to live surrounded by it.

[shawn_dude]

Dumber as an individual? no. But my impression of the average American intelligence has taken quite a few hits over the past decade. OTOH, when I was a kid learning about fascism, I just couldn't understand how it could rise out of a democratic, educated society. Reason has been invaluable in answering that question.

[Brett Bellmore]

Testing actually does say that the Flynn effect maxed out and started declining around the 90's.

The original Flynn effect is thought to be in part due to declining pollution levels, especially ceasing to use leaded gas. It's possible that newer and more subtle toxins are accumulating in the environment, such as micro-plastics. Certainly phthalate plasticizers used to make some plastics less brittle have been shown to migrate into food, and have serious adverse effects.

If this is what's going on, we're going to be many decades in dealing with it once confirmed, because micro-plastics are REALLY persistent. Maybe Mutant 59 will save us.

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, you Yanks probably shouldn’t have imported so many millions of unskilled illiterates from across the globe, or adopted an overly-egalitarian inclusive mass education model.

What’s so fascinating, as well, from a European vantage, is watching obnoxious Americans bandying about the term ‘fascism’ today (and seeing quite superficial literature being produced about it now, such as that by Prof Stanley), without even the SLIGHTEST interest in learning about what fascism was really about: corporatism and the curtailing of capitalism, dictatorship WITH a robust government (especially executive branch), and the attempted purging of existing legal, constitutional, and social orders with new ones.

The fact that that’s not what’s happening AT ALL in America is no bother to your lot because you’re not truth orientated, and you’re not even inclined to learn about the the real history, the real ideologies, etc.

Further, if you weren’t such poorly educated Americans, you’d also know something about totalitarianism. You’d understand what the Jacobins stood for, how they actually operated, and their policies. You’d know what the hell the Munich revolution even was, let alone how IT operated. You’d under how the Soviets and Eastern bloc engaged in efforts to police ‘forms of consciousness’, and manipulate people through concept reconfiguration.

For if you’d knew anything about that, you’d see that your blue team, your ‘liberals’, and your ‘progressives’ fall squarely within the totalitarian camp. I do NOT say this as hyperbole or to insult. It’s easy to demonstrate. Not fascist, not merely authoritarian; totalitarian.

What you should therefore ask yourself is how a supposedly ‘democratic’ society whose self-identity was heavily wrapped up in the notions of liberty and the worth of the individual (more so than the facts on the ground could actually justify) could so quickly and easily because a totalitarian one in the name of equity inclusion and comprehensive social re-engineering efforts.

You will not like what you find.

[ducksalad]

In case anyone’s wondering how the new state level anti-DEI laws are working in field…

Up through 2022 we had mandatory DEI training once a year. Most years it was the same video, apparently produced in the UK. The skits and narrator were insufferable and trotted out all the usual wokish tropes. Fortunately it was online non-interactive so there was no requirement to act like you were enjoying it.

Then in 2023 the Texas legislature passed an anti-DEI law and suddenly the video disappeared from the training list.

Now for 2024 they university has announced new mandatory Anti-DEI training. Really, no joke. (The official title is Senate Bill 17 Training.) Haven’t gone through it yet.

The lesson here is that those people in HR need to get paid to do something. If you were hoping they’d be fired and you’d get a refund check on your taxes, sorry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's one lesson. Another is that Texas is a bigoted, backward, superstition-addled state dominated by worthless culture war casualties in ridiculous hats.

[ducksalad]

Good to see you, Rev. Hope you're having wonderful afternoon.

The new law, like most laws, is a blunt instrument, and could have been done more carefully. However, IMO some - and I stress some - universities were really asking for it. In particular, the one flagship university right next to the state capital was acting out in very stupid ways at very stupid times. So now we're all going to be hit with mandatory Paxtonism to replace the mandatory Kendiism.

Note: the same laws that protect the hijab and the turban also protect the Stetson and the gimme cap. Get used to it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Texas seems not to have changed much since I lived in Austin.

Austin was (mostly) an educated, modern, tolerant, inclusive oasis. It had some greenery; a creek they called a river; a pond they called a river; and some bumps called hill country. A bunch of solid citizens, too — often the smart, ambitious young people from places like Lubbock and McAllen who came to UT and after experiencing modernity were never going back to the sticks.

Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio have become modern cities with some decent schools, infrastructure, citizenry, cultural amenities, medical facilities, etc.

But anything more than 20 miles from any of those cities? Hot, dry, flat, brown, bigoted, drawling, uneducated (including ample nonsense-based education), unskilled, backward, economically shambling (natural resource extraction excepted), Bible-thumping write-off.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Buy land in Appalachia for a summer home…Colorado and Wyoming are already too expensive. Maybe Idaho still has good deals?? People are going to get sick of Texas and Florida very quickly once they realize summers last 6 months!! And the beaches aren’t nice and there are no mountains within a short distance. Atlanta and Charlotte and Nashville and Raleigh have better locations than the Texas cities.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sure . . . Appalachia. Or Idaho.

Then don't get sick or injured, need a good lawyer or architect, hope to find a good school, expect your children or grandchildren to be exposed to smart and educated people, plan to see any good concerts or enjoy other first-level cultural amenities, etc.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Summer home!! Texas in the summer is awful!! Wealthy Texans already summer in Colorado.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You don't think Idaho has good lawyers or architects?

What sort of moron are you?

"plan to see any good concerts or enjoy other first-level cultural amenities, etc."

Like human shit on the streets, or a bunch of illegals raping White women?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You might be thinking of “Idaho potatoes.” Nobody ever said anything about Idaho lawyers.”

[Frank Drackman]

Not everyone there is Robert Francis O'Dork

[M L]

I think I’m not easily fazed or surprised.

This woman saying that a “sloped roof” is a “safety factor” (never mind the roof they were actually on is even more sloped) and therefore we have a catastrophic secret service failure is on another level.

[Roger S]

Plus there is no effort to explain the failures or correct them. The SS spotted the shooter 20 minutes before, but did not raise any alarms or shoot until the boy shot first.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

A local cop could have just fired a round in the air and that would have saved Trump because the SS would cover him and get him off the stage. Btw, the MAGA hat should be bullet proof going forward…should our president be wearing a bright red hat??

[Roger S]

Good point. I was thinking that they should have better radio communications, and better ways to declare an emergency alert. But yes, any cop or even SS agent could have fired a gun, and Trump would be immediately taken to safety.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Where is the round going to go?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

On New Year’s Eve people shoot guns into the air in many American cities…sometimes the falling bullets injure people. But if you angle it a little the chances are close to zero that someone will get injured.

[Brett Bellmore]

Into the ground?

It's hardly the first thing that a cop with access to a radio would think to do. Shouting louder into the radio in the hopes of someone on the other end finally paying attention seems more plausible.

[David Nieporent]

Plus there is no effort to explain the failures or correct them.

It's been less than a week! While it takes precisely zero time to post some wacko conspiracy theory, it takes actual effort to find out what really happened.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did you see how fat and weak those cows were?

How on Earth could they get up on a ladder much less a roof?

[shawn_dude]

"This woman saying..."

I know, right?! The nerve. A Woman!

[John F. Carr]

Actor and comedian Bob Newhart died today. This is the legal content of his AP obituary: "Returning to Chicago after his military service, he entered law school at Loyola, but flunked out."
https://apnews.com/article/bob-newhart-dead-799460b72b3c47e7aaf4eeb246f00b8c

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny how things seem to work out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Years ago, I saw a list of law school washouts who recovered.

Paul Simon, I believe, was included. Also Harper Lee. Vince Lombardi. More than a dozen others.

And the Doors' Ray Manzarek (keyboarder who also contributed bass -- simultaneously). I never was a huge fan of the Doors but when I learned about Manzarek's two-handed wizardry it was easy to be impressed.)l

[hobie]

Then you have those who made it through law school and succeeded admirably like Josh Blackman, Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and Steve Calebresi.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don’t forget Volokh Conspiracy dreamboy and disgraced, un-American former lawyer John Eastman.

Former lawyer. That sounds as great as former professor. I believe a disbarred attorney is permitted, under some circumstances, to work as a paralegal.

[not guilty]

Albert Gore, Jr. didn't do too badly after departing Vanderbilt Law School. He likely would have finished had Rep. Joe Evins not retired from Congress in 1977.

[Mr. Bumble]

So instead of possibly working for a living he began his career of nursing on the public teat.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Lou Dobbs also died.

"Dobbs was named in a lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting systems over lies told on the network about the 2020 presidential election. A mediator in 2023 pushed the two sides toward a $787 million settlement, averting a trial. A mountain of evidence — some damning, some merely embarrassing — showed many Fox executives and on-air talent didn’t believe allegations aired mostly on shows hosted by Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro. At the time, they feared angering Trump fans in the audience with the truth."

https://apnews.com/article/lou-dobbs-obituary-76c799df42c6b7d4912dece5d180b2de

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Secret Service is officially “appalled” that 1776 Americans were disgusted at the DIE dumpster fire.

This is the fallout from letting women vote. Our Secret Service agency has become a thin skinned little DC bitch.

[apedad]

Who’s the bitch?

The folks out there putting their lives on the line or you, you little whiny bitch, posting on some minor blog?

It’s you by the way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have more respect for the people who quit the USSS.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The only line those moo cows are out there on is the buffet line.

Do you recall that interview with that one female SS agent who said she wouldn't protect Trump?

I think she was assigned to his detail.

[santamonica811]

How could it be passed the deadline, when the convention hasn't even happened? I mean, until the convention; a nominee is just the "presumptive" candidate, yes?

[Michael P]

Each state sets its own deadline for its citizens to name candidates on the general election ballots. If a party's convention is after that deadline, the party probably messed up. That almost happened this year for the Democrats in Ohio (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/democrats-virtual-nomination-biden-ohio-ballot-rcna154339), but Ohio moved their deadline out to accommodate the DNC.

[Brett Bellmore]

And then Biden's clique tried to pretend they hadn't, in order to justify holding a snap virtual convention to lock down his nomination before the move to replace him could gather steam.

OK, technically, they weren't pretending the issue hadn't been resolved, they were pretending that Ohio might move the deadline back retroactively after Democrats relied on it. Which was an even stupider justification.

[Frank Drackman]

Ok, so I'm ecstatic that nobody Assassinated Barry Hussein when he was in Orifice (only thing worse than a Demented Sleepy Joe is a Semi-Demented Sleepy Joe) and we've got enough National Holidays already, But............................................
Who the fuck is he to tell Sleepy to get out of the race?, if it wasn't for Sleepy telling Amurica how "Fresh! Articulate! Clean!" Barry was in 2008 he'd still be organizing communities in South Chicago

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If Biden drops out, as is rumored, and it's passed the ballot deadline in many states, what happens to the Dem ballot in those states?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Undocumented immigrants, felons, dead people, and foreign prison inmates get to vote.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So same as 2020.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Exactly. Maybe Volokh, Kerr, Blackman, Barnett, and Bernstein should publish a law review article addressing that issue. The Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, Turning Point, VDARE, Hoover Institution, Leonard Leo, Harlan Crow, Peter Singer, and the 4Chan Foundation likely would agree to fund it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing. The odds of a court letting a major party line for President be empty or occupied by somebody other than their current candidate are negligible.

A third party? They'd do it in a heartbeat. But never for a major party.

[David Nieporent]

It is not "past the ballot deadline" in any state. Biden is not yet the nominee; he is not on any state's ballot. It's the Democratic party that has a ballot line right now. After the convention, when he (or someone else) is formally nominated, the party will formally convey that information to each state and the specific nominee's name will be printed on the ballot.

If the question is just a hypothetical one — "What if this happened?" — well, it will remain hypothetical because everyone recognizes that the practical deadline to replace Biden is before he is formally nominated. But if that hypothetical came to pass, how it's handled is a question of state law.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's one of the excuses being floated for not replacing Biden, though I agree it's an absurd one.

[Jerry B.]

The ever evolving liberal line on the Trump assassination attempt is now that the shooter was mentally ill, wanted to commit suicide by cop, and didn’t care who he shot, as long as it was someone famous who had armed security. The “he was just hit by a shard of teleprompter glass” continues to survive despite Snopes blowing it up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, polls have about a 3rd of Democrats thinking Trump faked the assassination.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In the reality-based world, the shooter was a white, male, antisocial, unaccomplished, friendless, conservative Republican gun nut. Still lived with his parents in a tiny house with 20 guns and plenty of explosives inside and Trump/MAGA signs in the yard. In a white, male, downscale, Republican community. With a right-wing father registered as a Libertarian. This loser was [robably on the spectrum, likely a Volokh Conspiracy fan. Anyone know his screen name here?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You blue-anons and your conspiracies are harming our Sacred Democracies.

[Brett Bellmore]

My son tells me Biden has just now announced he’s stepping down.

No, scratch that, that people in the DNC have said he is. Premature.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You source doesn't sound smart or reliable.

[ReaderY]

It is not possible to foresee or prevent all assassination attempts. The members of zcongress posturing that it is and threatening to fire Secret Service members for failing to foresee this one are merely illustrating their incompetence.

Any idiot can sit on his duff and then throw a shit fit when people who actually do work aren’t perfect. And these duff-sitting shit-throwers ensure they never get caught making mistakes only by being careful to do absolutely nothing except duff-sitting and throwing shit at the people who actually work and accomplish things..

Throw out the lot of them! Flush them down the toilet! What competent person would want to work for such people?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, sure, you can't demand perfection. But this was so far from perfection it's not even in the same time zone.

[MoreCurious]

Is it throwing shit to point out that the Secret Service knew in advance of Trump's speech that there was a person of concern nearby and yet they still allowed him to take the stage before making sure the situation was under control? The head of the agency and the person in charge at the scene need to be fired.

[John F. Carr]

The International Court of Justice says Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal and Israel owes reparations including return of land and any seized property. Settlers must go, or Israel must pay even more.

As the old saying goes, how many divisions does the ICJ have?

[John F. Carr]

Netanyahu has of course protested. Al Jazeera's Arabic feed has the following.

المبعوث الخاص للرئيس الفلسطيني: على كل الدول تحمل واجباتها في عدم الاعتراف بالوجود غير الشرعي لإسرائيل

I quote in in Arabic, which I do not speak, because those who do might get a sense that does not come through in machine translation. One machine translation says

Special Envoy of the Palestinian President: All countries must shoulder their duties in not recognizing Israel’s illegal existence

The ICJ didn't say Israel shouldn't exist. It said Israel is limited to its pre-1967 territory.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" As the old saying goes, how many divisions does the ICJ have? "

Similarly, how much (and how long) of a defense will Israel's right-wing belligerents be able to muster after better Americans stop providing the military, economic, and political skirts Israel has been hiding behind for decades?

Days? Weeks? Months? A year?

Accountability and justice are beautiful things. They deserve tro be celebrated with cheeseburgers, don't you think?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The young men going hard right are uneducated, bigoted, disaffected, mostly useless stains of our society. They tend to reside in economically inadequate, ignorant, parasitic backwaters known for bigotry, addiction, indolence, backwardness, superstition, and guns. The Republican Party can have them. They're worthless losers.

[David Nieporent]

Replace that with ‘left-wing’, plus throw in the word ‘sophomoric’, and that’s how most of the world views American academic legal scholarship.

How does being on Vladimir Putin's payroll give you any insight into what "most of the world" thinks about anything?

[Theendoftheleft]

The EMPIRICAL evidence demonstrates that your claims about those young men is false.

You're ruined, AIDS. 🙂

You should try to run now, whilst you still can.

[Theendoftheleft]

Don't take my word for it, AT ALL, Nieporent. Find out for yourself what academics, across the globe, think of it.

🙂

Why would Putin pay me to say things I happily convey for free?

[Bwaaah]

Good thing the left isn't prone to conspiratorial ideation, eh, David? Or is this part of that category of your rhetoric that's just trash talk? It looks bad, and lacks substance, either way.

Be a bigger person, David.

[David Nieporent]

Don’t take my word for it,

That goes without saying.