Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel has filed its brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the prosecution of Donald Trump for wrongfully retaining documents at Mar-a-Lago. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.18.0_2.pdf

The brief includes a masterful takedown of Judge Cannon's wrongheaded treatment of United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

I am surprised that the government did not ask that the Court direct that on remand the case be reassigned to a different district judge. That does not prevent the Court of Appeals from doing so sua sponte. Judge Cannon has previously been reversed twice in this matter, and her slipshod work here has embarrassed the federal judiciary.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to the excellence in judicial thought we are seeing in the swamp known as DC.

They only get reversed by SCOTUS….

TRUE Judicial reform would be to abolish the DC District Court and assign all its cases to Maryland, and to expand the DC Circuit court to include both MD & VA.

Or better -- assign all DC Circuit cases to another circuit picked at random.

[Riva]

If there is a fair panel in the 11th Circuit, I would expect crazy thug Smith to lose handily. The brief was a mess. It failed to address the flaws in the statutory analysis identified by Judge Cannon and his ridiculous argument on Nixon will not cut it. In the end he reinforces Cannon's opinion. She finally exposed the nothing underlying the DOJ special counsel regulations and that can't be unseen with Smith's crap brief.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're right it will break ng's brain.

[Ilya Snowman]

Does Smith care, or is he only following orders?

If Trump wins, how can Smith be held accountable, legally, for his abuse of office?

[David Nieporent]

For real lawyers, Smith's brief systematically demolished Canon's opinion.

[Riva]

I think I will discount the opinion of a deranged lunatic who believes that the assassination of President Trump would benefit the country. Go play somewhere else crazy clown.

[David Nieporent]

Still hallucinating the existence of imaginary people and imaginary posts.

[Riva]

“It’s possible to conclude that Trump being killed could benefit the country” - David Nieoporent

[David Nieporent]

Can't spell my name correctly, so I guess it's not surprising that you can't read, either. Notice how those words are nothing like what you claimed above that I wrote?

[Riva]

You are deranged.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is buying the misreading you're using to deflect from DMN wrecking you over and over.

[Ilya Snowman]

Don't waste your time with David. He's a child with Asbergers, one who always misses the forest for the trees, isn't well informed, and treats economic dogmas as if they operate like the rules of physics. He doesn't have the emotional bandwidth to accept that Santa Clause isn't real.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel proving him wrong; there's no satisfaction. And when you demand that he put his money where his mouth is, to defend his claims, he invariably backs down because he's a coward.

[David Nieporent]

This guy is kind of a comedian. Anonymous poster living in a foreign country demanded to bet my house (!) that he — I forget the details, something silly, knew a lot of foreign judges or something. Surprised that I didn't leap at the chance to do something that I couldn't legally do even if I wanted to (I don't gamble), which of course would be a mug's game since he's anonymous, he's been spending the last week or two following me around acting as if saying "Chicken" would get me to change my mind.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's Notimportant.

[jb]

https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)

DC Circuit doesn't seem to standout in terms of either number of rate of reversals.

[shawn_dude]

Just make DC a state, like Maryland or Virginia, and move on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. Virginia already took its part back, that's why DC is not square like it was intended. So you have what is essentially Maryland, to the point where the DC/MD state line runs down the middle of the street in some neighborhoods.

It makes much more sense to simply give these residential neighborhoods back to Maryland and then treat the actual Federal land like a military base. Or the Congressionally-administered district that the Constitution intended -- it never anticipated the residential neighborhoods.

[Kazinski]

Its over, Trump has run out the clock on all the cases. Florida is over until after the election. DC may keep churning for a while, but no way its making any real progress. Even if Merchan ignores Braggs cue to punt on that case, its immediately appealable in federal court (Bragg: "reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question.”).

As I said in the earlier thread:

If Trump wins the election its all moot.

If Trump loses the election, well I never liked losers anyway. I think Trump would understand.

[not guilty]

"Even if Merchan ignores Braggs cue to punt on that case, its immediately appealable in federal court (Bragg: “reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question.”)."

I agree that Donald Trump's fate is contingent upon his winning election to another term. But what is your authority that a criminal conviction and sentence in a state trial court is immediately appealable to federal court?

Federal courts exercise only the jurisdiction that Congress has conferred. What federal statute(s) do you claim authorize federal jurisdiction prior to exhaustion of state remedies?

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” (Often attributed to Mark Twain.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's distressing that everyone seems to shrug their shoulders at the idea that Trump winning the election will make the federal prosecution moot. It's a given that Trump will thereby be guilty of a far greater obstruction of justice than what forced Nixon to resign. No one cares. Trump gets away with it because he's Trump. Which pretty much is the story of his life.

[Commenter_XY]

It’s distressing that everyone seems to shrug their shoulders at the idea that [insert any POTUS name here] winning the election will make the federal prosecution moot.

Take out Trump's name, and insert any POTUS, and I would feel the same way. It should not be that winning an election stops a federal prosecution, just on general principle*. That is not a good path for the country. It smacks of an inappropriate application of 'Might Makes Right'. So in that sense, capt, I agree with you.

*note: I don't want to re-litigate the validity of Trump's cases.

[Armchair]

It's a political prosecution. Wouldn't happen if it wasn't Trump running for office. The real purpose of the prosecution is to prevent Trump from being president.

If Trump doesn't win the election, it's pretty much mission accomplished, and no one will really care anymore. (In fact, it sets a horrible precedent for the future President, so likely will be quietly downplayed).

If Trump does win, they'll try to keep it going to hamstring him, but then he becomes President and can shut it down.

[Brett Bellmore]

Precisely. It's really hard to get people outraged over politically quashing a political prosecution.

[SimonP]

It's really pathetic that you're more outraged over the prosecutions than the underlying conduct. Which include, to refresh, defrauding the U.S. Congress so as to enable his allies in Congress to put him into office directly, secreting out classified materials from the White House and obstructing multiple efforts to have them returned, and conspiring with multiple parties to try to reverse the outcome of the presidential election in Georgia.

You can wave your hands at the Bragg prosecution and the NY civil case. Those have more than a little political tinge to them. But the indictments in DC and Georgia, are existential. What happened on January 6 was unforgivable and should never happen again. By minimizing those events and trying to excuse them as "no harm, no foul," you are making yourself a traitor to the republic.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't LIKE the underlying conduct, but it's still a political prosecution, that never would have been undertaken if Trump had simply retired in 2021.

[Martinned2]

At the time the investigations started, there was every reason to think Trump would retire.

That's actually an interesting question: When is the last time someone ran for president, lost, and then got the nomination again? Nixon?

And I'm pretty sure there's no precedent for a president to be voted out of office, only to run again subsequently? Even John Quincy Adams did lots of things after leaving office, but I don't think he ran for president again.

[David Nieporent]

And I’m pretty sure there’s no precedent for a president to be voted out of office, only to run again subsequently?

You're mistaken. Grover Cleveland.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martin had one too many at lunch today.

[Noscitur a sociis]

When is the last time someone ran for president, lost, and then got the nomination again?

You mean like the current president?

[not guilty]

I suspect that Martinned2 meant to refer to someone being nominated for president, losing, and then being nominated again. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Al Gore, Robert Dole, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson all had run unsuccessfully for president and were later nominated.

[Martinned2]

Apologies, yes. I meant someone who actually got the nomination. I didn't formulate my question very carefully.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You’re mistaken. Grover Cleveland."

Van Buren was nominated and ran for the Free Soil Party in 1848 after losing in 1840

[SimonP]

Please, Brett. I’m smarter than this.

“I don’t LIKE the underlying conduct,” while intimating evasively that Trump should never have been prosecuted for engaging in criminal behavior, is a transparent dodge.

Simply put: Do you think he should be prosecuted for his criminal conduct, or not? If not, why not? If so, then what is the point in saying that the prosecution is “political”?

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

For his criminal conduct, when you identify some. Not the BS that you listed above. You're obviously not "smarter than this". You're not smarter than a 5th grader.

[Kazinski]

I don't know, i haven't seen the evidence yet.

But if they were going to prosecute him the indictments should have come August of 2021, not August of 2023.

Waiting until the 2024 political season was well underway and Trump was the clear frontrunner made it brazenly political for me and not worthy of any further consideration.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I don’t know, i haven’t seen the evidence yet."

If you actually gave a shit about law and justice, you'd have read the indictments. As it stands, your craven, vermin-filled cult just waves their hands and pretends that it's all nonsense because it's "political" to you, which is just a convenient excuse to avoid admitting that you're all traitorous cunts who care nothing about the law or Constitution.

Fact: You can't argue it's just political persecution when you don't bother to review the evidence in the first place.

[SimonP]

But if they were going to prosecute him the indictments should have come August of 2021, not August of 2023.

Trump never stopped running for re-election, Ted. It was always going to be in "campaign season." Couldn't do it more than a year ahead of the 2024 election? Couldn't do it during the midterms? Couldn't do it at any time after Trump announced his intention to seek re-election? MAGA complains that Trump's impeachment was set from the day he entered office, notwithstanding that it took years for the political consensus to build in support of impeachment. But once he's out of office, the failure to act immediately - August 2021 was barely after all of his obstructive conduct in Mar-a-Lago, after all! - is itself taken as an indication of the political motives.

You're pointing to a calendar to justify paying no attention to any of this. Perhaps we should point to your inability to reach any other conclusion as justifying paying no attention to your complaints.

[jb]

Kazinski--I've pointed this out repeatedly, but have yet to hear any rebuttal:

If you look at the prosecution of other significant political figures (Menendez, Cuellar, Edwards, Householder, etc.) it's generally 2-3 years between the alleged conduct and when an indictment is filed. The timelines of the Trump indictments seem totally consistent with what we've seen in the past for other politicians, and for contemporary prosecutions of Congresspeople in the sitting President's own party. Do you have counter examples of where indictments have been brought in 12 or 18 months?

Beyond that, most of the conduct alleged in the Florida case occurred after August 2021. I'm not sure how you think Trump could be prosecuted in August 2021 in that case. Trump didn't even return the first batch of boxes to the Archives until January 2022.

[Kazinski]

Jb, sure it’s not uncommon for it to take that long for some crimes, but what Trump was accused of was on the front pages of all the papers the day it was happening.

Menendez, et al, were not live-streaming their crimes, they were covering their tracks as carefully as they could.

The “Hawaiian Electors” signed and presented affidavits to public officials, and issued press releases. Trump spoke publicly about his 12th amendment theory first proposed in the 1876 Hayes-Tilman election.

Nobody was indicted over the 1960 Hawaiian electors gambit, or the 1876 12th amendment scheme, the prospect of which was used to install Hayes, even though he probably lost to Tilman.

[jb]

So I guess we agree that the Florida timeline at least was totally normal?

As for the January 6th case, the indictment relies on a lot more than just Trump's comments on January 6th. There was a lot of behavior in terms of attempting to influence the totality of the election process that needed to be investigated. As is often the case with these things, there's an event that triggers the investigation and then a lot of followup due diligence required. Surely your assertion isn't that Trump's comments on January 6th were so indisuptably felonious that there was no need for any other evidence to bring an indictment and successful prosecution?

The Hawaii electors are easily distinguishable from even the fake electors in 2020 (mostly because there was a bona fide dispute and the governor ended up certifying that slate before votes were presented to Congress), but is irrelevant to the question of timeline in any case.

[Josh R]

Better yet, should Trump have been convicted by, and barred from running for office, by the Senate for his conduct?

[Kazinski]

The Senate didn't think so

[Josh R]

That's because many GOP were cowards who didn't want to suffer the Liz Cheney fate. I'll bet Trump is easily convicted by secret ballot.

On top of that you had McConnell who gave a great speech ahead of the vote, but voted to acquit because Trump was no longer in office. Did he not realize a conviction could be followed by a vote to bar Trump from holding office? Truly, a profile in cowardice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would expect that he'd be easily convicted by a secret ballot, too. Republican voters like him, the Republican establishment hates his guts.

[Josh R]

Republican voters like him because they believe the establishment of both parties have abandoned their needs (applying more to blue-collar, lesser educated voters). Trump is seen as a hero because he trashes the establishment and has celebrity-level charisma (bluntly speaking your mind even when it seems like a gaffe has gone a long way for Trump).

These voters have been duped. Trump neither cares about them or has helped them. But because they still believe he does and has, they have swallowed whole any accussations he hurls, including about the 2020 election. It’s very sad for our country that so many people are unable to accept the basic fact that Trump tried to steal the election and block the peaceful transfer of power.

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

defrauding the U.S. Congress so as to enable his allies in Congress to put him into office directly, secreting out classified materials from the White House and obstructing multiple efforts to have them returned, and conspiring with multiple parties to try to reverse the outcome of the presidential election in Georgia.

Living in a world of Leftist make-believe.

[ducksalad]

Why would Trump losing end anything? It didn't stop him or them in 2020 and it's not too soon to start prepping for 2028.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is clearly losing it, physically and mentally, now. While I certainly think he would want to run in 2028 if he lost, I doubt he'd be capable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, he's probably at least as capable now as Biden still was in 2020, but the idea that he'd be fit to even run by 2028 is ridiculous.

As it is, if he does get elected, I expect he'll retire just past the halfway point in favor of Vance.

[ducksalad]

I expect he’ll retire just past the halfway point in favor of Vance.

Trying to decide if this would be a point in favor or a point against, if true. On the one hand, Vance sounds somewhat more sane and self-aware than Trump. On the other hand, we know that Trump's bark is much worse than his bite; Vance has a bit of zealot in his eyes and might be the reverse.

But my feeling is that POTUS Trump would never step down voluntarily, unless he was so far gone that Melania was having to speak for him. If he was threatened with a 25th, like we all suspect Biden was, Trump would force them to go through the process, while taking his own countermeasures like firing cabinet secretaries.

[Voize]

No, but he might be capable of further destroying the Republican party. As long as his acuity doesn't regress beyond a mental age of 5 he will be able to maintain his usual output of whines, conspiracies, and schoolyard taunts.

[Ilya Snowman]

They’ve done something quit fascinating: pre-emptively out themselves:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/16/us/politics/trump-2025-democratic-resistance.html

What kind of legal and political measures can and will your side take against these lawfare warriors?

[not guilty]

"It’s distressing that everyone seems to shrug their shoulders at the idea that Trump winning the election will make the federal prosecution moot."

It is indeed distressing, but it brings to mind the following exchange:

Margaret Fuller: I accept the Universe.
Thomas Carlyle: Gad! she'd better!

If Trump is elected to another term, he will no doubt appoint a sycophant as Attorney General who will direct the Department of Justice to seek dismissal of the D.C. prosecution and to seek dismissal of the government's appeal of Judge Cannon's dismissal of the Florida indictment.

That illustrates what is at stake in this fall's general election. The way to continue to seek justice as to Donald Trump is to defeat him at the polls.

[Ilya Snowman]

There is justice beyond law, too, of course.

What sort of justice will the American people seek against you?

[Bob from Ohio]

"sycophant"

How dare the President order the Attorney General to do something!

[Kazinski]

Its long time policy at the DOJ that the president is immune from prosecution while he is in office. Its not exactly clear why the rules should be different for Trump, although many people think its a given that there is a separate set of Trump rules.

The other factor is that the American people are aware of the charges against Trump, had months of congressional hearings, news coverage, etc. In fact the Democrats just had their convention televised nationally that's main order of business was talking about Trump and his every transgression and shortcoming, although they did diverge occasionally to other topics. If the American people, as well informed as they ever have been about a Presidential candidate elects him to another term then a verdict has already been rendered, and its not clear to me why 12 people in Washington DC, of all places, should overrule them.

If he is reelected then he is in Congress' jurisdiction, not DOJ's.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Trump is elected to another term, he will no doubt appoint a sycophant as Attorney General who will direct the Department of Justice to seek dismissal of the D.C. prosecution and to seek dismissal of the government’s appeal of Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the Florida indictment.

What, in your view, should a non-sycophantic and public spirited attorney general in a second Trump administration do about the pending cases?

[Dan Schiavetta]

He should let the cases go forward. It's the custom (if nothing else) that a sitting President can't be indicted, but it would be grotesque and destabilizing if one could escape existing prosecutions by becoming President. Even if the case against Trump is dropped, the case against the co-defendants should continue.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The OLC memo does not, to my reading, distinguish between indictment and post-indictment prosecution.

https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline

[Dan Schiavetta]

Think of the implications.

[Kazinski]

It’s up to Congress if something needs to be done.

[Armchair]

"But what is your authority"

Probably a version of the Supremacy Clause.

[Kazinski]

Here is former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy’s take on Bragg’s letter:
“He acknowledges that a court ruling denying presidential immunity is immediately appealable; yet he attempts to distinguish Trump’s case, arguing that the issue is not immunity from prosecution (as it is in the Washington federal case) but rather what Bragg minimizes as prosecutors’ violation “of a brand-new evidentiary rule that derives from official-acts immunity,” and the resulting question of whether this violation was harmless error.

Bragg conveniently omits that (1) Trump’s team asked for a delay in the trial so that Merchan could proceed with the benefit of the Supreme Court’s guidance, which was expected in late June or early July (it came on July 1), (2) defense lawyers vigorously also objected on immunity grounds, and (3) in argument to the jury, Bragg’s prosecutors described as “damaging” and “utterly devastating” the testimony he now suggests was “harmless.”

McCarthy as a formal federal prosecutor does know his way around the factors that will get you into a federal court.

And as he also points out, the issue is immediately appealable in Chutkan’s trial, I really doubt SCOTUS at least would allow Merchan to flout their ruling and jail a presidential candidate right in the middle of the stretch run.

McCarthy points out the setup Merchan is attempting:
“As I noted in the column, Merchan obviously endeavored to make such an appeal difficult by notifying the parties that he would make his immunity ruling on September 16 — leaving Trump as little as a day to attempt to convince an appellate judge to block the sentencing while he appealed.

Bragg’s letter gives Merchan a roadmap to retreat — on public safety and resources grounds — from his avowed determination to sentence Trump on September 18.”

[Sarcastr0]

Obama broke McCarthy's brain; he has long ago left acting as any kind of expert whose opinion may be relied upon as objective.

I would point to the difference between not guilty's recitation of the laws and statutes versus McCarthy's fusillades.
I'm not saying not guilty is right, but I'm saying you might want to hold off on taking McCarthy as your sole expert here.

[Michael P]

McCarthy’s fusillades have a better track record than not guilty’s droning predictions. That's perhaps the most relevant difference.

[Ilya Snowman]

Sarcastro basically always lies. Why would you take his schoolyard answer as being sincere or credible?

[Kazinski]

No, I am reading Braggs letter too where he said a stay, which he is not opposing, would "reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of [the Supreme Court Immunity ruling] question.”

Bragg thinks its a distinct possibility.

The Supreme Court in Anderson made it clear decisions made by a a single state or a handful of states would not be allowed to play havoc with a national election.

Do you really think they are going to sit back and let a single court judge 1) flout their very clear ruling in Trump v US, and 2) imprison a Presidential candidate less than 60 days before the election.

Merchan's only ethical choice is to follow the July 1, decision set aside the not yet final verdict, and order a new trial.

Hope Hicks testimony, over the objection of the defense, poisoned the verdict, and their is no chance it lives on past the next court of review. But Merchan may try to keep it on life support for a few more months hoping its brain dead corpse can impact the election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Have to agree with you in part, Kazinski. The Court does insist that only it has power to play havoc with a national election.

The part I disagree with is your unfounded assumption that a decision against your political preference means, "to play havoc," but a decision to order the conclusion you prefer is all sweetness, light, and neutrality.

At this date, a decision either way could affect the election outcome. It remains mysterious why anyone should suppose that insight should affect a decision properly based on other considerations.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, none of the quotes that you attribute to Andrew McCarthy suggests that any ruling of a New York trial court is appealable to federal court. Any appeal would go first to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department. From there the Court of Appeals of New York (that state's court of last resort) could, but is not required to, hear a second tier appeal.

Only after the New York judicial system issues a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had could Trump petition SCOTUS to review by writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

[Michael P]

Which word in “an appellate judge” made you think McCarthy was talking specifically about a federal appeals court?

Or what did Kazinski write that suggested an immediate appeal to a federal court?

Sure, New York's corrupt courts can delay justice and maybe keep a sentencing order on the books until after November -- but if the while only is to just delay the inevitable, then it's a good sign that the delay is political rather than judicial in motive.

[not guilty]

"Which word in 'an appellate judge' made you think McCarthy was talking specifically about a federal appeals court?"

I don't think that, and I did not say that. I wrote:

Kazinski, none of the quotes that you attribute to Andrew McCarthy suggests that any ruling of a New York trial court is appealable to federal court. Any appeal would go first to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department. From there the Court of Appeals of New York (that state’s court of last resort) could, but is not required to, hear a second tier appeal.

It looks to me that McCarthy was choosing his words carefully to avoid referring to any particular appellate court. I surmise that he knows that any appeal must work its way through the New York judicial system.

"Or what did Kazinski write that suggested an immediate appeal to a federal court?"

Kazinski wrote upthread "Even if Merchan ignores Braggs cue to punt on that case, its immediately appealable in federal court". That assertion is simply untrue.

[Kazinski]

Business Insider:
“Legal scholars believe that Merchan will side with prosecutors. And they expect that Trump will then immediately start swinging his immunity monkey wrench up through the layers of the state’s appellate courts — and the federal appeals courts, too, if necessary.”

MSNBC legal blog:
“ Judge Juan Merchan in New York is set to rule on Trump’s immunity claim on Sept. 16 and sentence him on Sept. 18 if the immunity issue doesn’t stand in the way. But if Merchan rejects the immunity claim, Trump’s lawyers have signaled their intention to appeal immediately before any sentencing can happen — perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Neither one of those two cites rule out the very real possibility that Trump will get a federal court stay.

[not guilty]

"Neither one of those two cites rule out the very real possibility that Trump will get a federal court stay."

In light of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny, how is a federal court stay of pending state criminal proceedings a "very real possibility", Kazinski?

If litigation were easy, more people would become litigators.

[Kazinski]

I hope its not necessary for us to find out.

Let me just say you are always quite certain about the proper result on so many questions these past months, but the courts keep getting it wrong time after time.

Trump v Anderson
Willis v Willis
Trump V United States
and soon to be NY v Trump.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Perhaps without noticing you are doing it, you seem to be gaining insight about the corrupt character of this Supreme Court. If you suppose I speak merely as an opposite-minded partisan, I challenge you to generalize the rulings you mention to cover hypothetical cases involving your political opponents.

Do you want Trump's alleged immunity to apply alike to Joe Biden during the upcoming election? Should Biden take advantage of opportunity to order the Justice Department to seize Trump's election operatives and clap them in jail for the duration? Biden is now well positioned to do that, thanks to a Court opinion you seem to back.

My guess is that the only reason that does not alarm you is because you expect this Court to continue in its corrupt pro-right partisanship. Do you expect this Court to deliver results you favor, while thwarting your political opponents by use of other novel interpretations of law which apply only to the opponents?

Please, allay my cynicism. I expect you to ignore this comment. You can counter with a forthright reply to my challenge. Will you do it?

[not guilty]

IOW, you have no clue regarding Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Why can't you man up and say so?

At the outset of this prosecution, Donald Trump attempted to remove the matter to United States District Court. Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled definitively that the conduct charged in the indictment was personal, not involving Trump's official duties, opining in his order of remand at page 13:

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President-a cover-up of an embarrassing event. Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President's official duties.

https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/23cv3773%20Order%20and%20Opinion%20Granting%20Remand%2007.19.2023.pdf

Trump did not appeal from this order of remand. The order has accordingly become final, and it should have the effect of collateral estoppel.

[Krayt]

If he loses, everybody takes their football and goes home. This is about the ancient use of government to harm a political opponent, not a principled stand for lawfulness.

It's ironic, but the innumerable attempts to jail him or remove him while facetiously maintaining disinterested concern for rule of law much better fit the idea of "corruptly trying to influence an election", full on, than the idiotic wrenching of paying an affair to stfu.

[Krayt]

CNN just yesterday was discussing the larger strategies of gittin' 'im, and noted on a previous conviction, he raised $40 million that night.

"So maybe the President should pardon him so this won't happen?"

"No, Biden would not touch that with a ten foot pole."

Well, of course not, because that would be an admission this is about hurting a political opponent. They continued on, lamenting how nothing was gonna git 'im before the election, and how wickedly evil but successful he was in delaying it all to that point, golly gee drat!

[ducksalad]

If he loses, everybody takes their football and goes home.

Again….in 2020 he lost. No one took their football, no one went home. You people are misunderestimating both him and his opponents.

[Krayt]

I did suggest he may have just retired after the loss, but, as if to prove all this was not about hurting an opponent, the opposition doubled down on it, leaving him in a position where one of his legal options to survive a prosecution was whether he actually believed the election was rigged. As people recall, some of the lawlessness hinged on that point.

And in support of that, he must run again to help mainain that facade, like a figure skater who whacked an opponent on the knee, had her lawyers threaten the US Olympics if they removed her sans a proper conviction, and then she goes and performs and bombs.

[Riva]

Interesting, not guilty, when the reality is exactly the opposite of what you write. The brief is a childishly ridiculous analysis of Nixon. There was no holding on statutory authority in Nixon. The AG’s statutory appointment authority was not raised in the case, no one challenged the special prosecutor’s validity and this was not essential to the Court’s justiciability analysis. That Nixon had delegated authority to the special prosector, via the regulation, was essential. That the regulation had not been revoked was essential. But the passing reference to statutory authority was not essential, as Judge Cannon more than adequately makes clear. Just as she exposes the complete absence of any statutory authority for the Smith appointment.

[windycityattorney]

Quick question: If the Atty Gen believes there is a genuine conflict of interest due to the *parties* in question (citizen running for president on one hand who has been charged with violating federal laws and everybody who could prosecute him appointed by the election opponent on the other hand) WHO COULD prosecute?

If the answer is: "nobody" can without there being an appearance of conflict of interest - -then there might be something missing in the analysis.

[Riva]

It isn’t a question of a conflict of interest. I’m sure counsel that is not conflicted and properly authorized could be found for any case. The question is the unconstitutional appointment of a constitutional officer to exercise executive authority. And if Congress wants to pass another Independent Counsel statute, that’s up to them not the AG to unilaterally assume the power to create constitutional officers.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, there are statutes that expressly authorize it, so the AG hasn't unilaterally assumed anything.

[Riva]

Of course, being a deranged clown who has opined that the assassination of President Trump would be a good thing, I wouldn’t expect from you a clear reasoned assessment of the various statutes relied upon for the Smith appointment. That review can be found in Judge Cannon’s opinion. I encourage anyone interested to read Judge Cannon’s analysis, and to ignore lunatic clowns.

[tylertusta]

I am surprised that the government did not ask that the Court direct that on remand the case be reassigned to a different district judge.

Something tells me you're in store for more- and bigger- surprises before this case is through.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Spineless UMass drops charges yet again...
https://theshoestring.org/2024/08/14/umass-drops-request-for-felony-charges-against-palestine-protestors/

They had over a TON of wood in their barricade, people staged in trees to assault cops, etc... They organized a riot...

[Stephen Lathrop]

There is nearly two tons in a dry cord of split oak stovewood. Even white pine weighs more than a ton per cord. Sounds like a flimsy barricade.

[Dr. Ed 2]

According to the internet, a wooden pallet weighs 35-45 lbs and while they are awkward to carry, I think that is about right for the weight.

So at 40 lbs each, that would be 50 pallets -- wired together into a barricade without any apparent means of entry or exit. Yes, I think that is a legitimate public safety concern.

[David Nieporent]

Spineless UMass drops charges yet again…

For the record, universities do not have any authority to charge or drop charges.

[Krayt]

Does drops request for charges change anything of this understanding? Like on innumerable TV shows where the cop asks the beatling if they wanna press charges?

[Dr. Ed 2]

UMass has it's own cops.

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

Dave, are you being overly pedantic, or just stupid? Aren't you supposedly a lawyer?

[Bob from Ohio]

"overly pedantic"

Have you met David? That is what he does for people he dislikes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, I dare you call the UMass POLICE at 413-545-2121 and tell them that they don't have the right to charge people or not charge people. I double dare you.

Yes, technically, they file an "Application for a Criminal Complaint" -- this is one of the forms and I can't find the other: https://www.mass.gov/doc/statement-of-facts-dc-cr-34/download

But in copspeak, they *do* "charge" people with crimes. And like with many large state universities, the UMPD is the municipal police force for the territory of the campus. There's even a state law that defines UMass Amherst as a "municipality."

And as the Chief of the UMPD "serves at the pleasure of" the Vice Chancellor for A&F, who "serves at the pleasure of" the Chancellor, UMass very much makes the decision to charge or not charge perps in situations like this.

But call them and ask. 413-545-2121....

[Stephen Lathrop]

No point now in my previous advocacy that the wisest legal strategy would have been to consolidate all the Trump federal cases into a single charge of treason. But the new immunity ruling makes me curious about implications for the law of treason.

Famously, treason is defined in the Constitution. There is, I think, no historical ambiguity in reading that definition as both definitive and exhaustive. If that is right, then it seems like there is no legitimate power for the SCOTUS either to add to or subtract from the definition.

So where does that leave presidential immunity? Is it possible that a president could by citing core powers become immune from a charge of treason, or that presidential immunity could be cited to restrict access to testimony which could prove a case of treason?

Any opinions from legal experts?

[Dr. Ed 2]

So which are you arguing? Trump waged war on the US?
Or he gave aid & comfort to the (declared) enemy?

An "enemy" has to be a state we do not have diplomatic relations with, and the only one I can think of is Iran. Now Obama's pallet of cash or Biden's similar deal might just count as "treason" under the second definition -- but none of the wildest accusations against Trump comes close.

[not guilty]

I doubt that Donald Trump's misconduct even arguably amounts to treason.

If a President does commit treason while in office, however, the Trump opinion does indeed present substantial obstacles to criminal prosecution for that offense. The restriction of testimony about acts related to the exercise of core constitutional powers is especially problematic in that regard.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree, ain't no way The Donald gets charged with treason. Seems messy to me - treason charge - for the simple reason that in diplomacy, A POTUS has to deal with a lot of very bad people, and will have to do things like pay them to go away, or even help an avowed enemy perform some act to advance a national foreign policy objective.

For instance, transferring billions to Iran, an avowed enemy of America and whose IEDs have killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers, might cross that lathrop line (in his head). Of course, it was not treason (the bribes to Iran); it was a valid exercise of presidential authority (regardless of the stupidity of the idea) to advance American foreign policy objectives.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Transferring billions to Iran? You mean returning to them the assets that Carter froze in 1980? As part of the deal signed onto by France, Britain, China and Russia?

[Joe_dallas]

Really great idea to assist in the funding of terrorism throughout the middle east , Hamas, hezbollah, houthi. Very effective means to curtail Iran – NOT!

[Magister]

I'm sure there's a lot of bad stuff that could be prevented by depriving someone of their assets without any legal basis.

[Joe_dallas]

There is substantial legal basis to keep those funds impounded

Though absolutely zero reason to provide and/or facilitate the funding of hamas, houthi or hezbollah via the release of funds to Iran.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Transferring billions to Iran? You mean returning to them the assets that Carter froze in 1980? As part of the deal signed onto by France, Britain, China and Russia?"

Why were they frozen? Iran attacked the US, held its citizens hostage. A moral abomination to fund a terrorist theocracy.

[Martinned2]

Very well, I will put you down as an advocate of abolishing sovereign immunity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"advocate of abolishing sovereign immunity."

sovereign immunity for foreign governments is just a courtesy we give states that we recognize

[Krayt]

Which is done for practical reasons. All dictatorships are fundamentally and inherently invalid, and are just hostage situations writ large.

No such nation is "practicing self-determination", any more than a bank taken over by robbers is practicing self-determination.

All free people may choose to free the hostages in such nations, subject to practical matters, but there is no ethical question there as bank robbers have no rights.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look up how the US Coast Guard obtained the sailing vessel it uses for training. I believe it is now called the "Eagle."

It had been called the Horst Wessel...

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Can you suggest a legitimate Constitutional power which encompasses conspiring with others to levy war against the United States, followed by at least one member of the conspiracy performing an act in furtherance of a violent objective?

After reading Chief Justice Marshall's opinions in the Burr treason trials, my layman's impression was that the term, "to levy war," did not then mean to wage war. Still less did it require presence of a foreign enemy, or armies arrayed for battle.

"To levy war," meant instead to initiate by a conspiracy however small, forceful effort, however slight, to accomplish overthrow of some part of the U.S. government. Marshall's view seems to have been that no proof of success, or even of violent effect, was necessary. I think evidence already disclosed to the public strongly suggests proof is available that Trump joined with co-conspirators to satisfy Marshall's carefully parsed requirements.

Is it your view that I have misunderstood the historical definition, or that the definition has somehow changed, or that today's courts would quail from their duty? Or is there some other reason to suppose Trump's present-day conduct does not amount to treason by Marshall's antique definitions?

I understand of course that events have bypassed any opportunity to bring such a charge, but I remain baffled by the apparent consensus among commenters—some of them legal experts—that conditions contrary to those set down by Marshall are actually required. I am tempted to attribute the consensus to a widespread inability to read history in period context—especially including misinterpretation of the antique term, "to levy war."

I recognize that a great deal more than originalist interpretation is required to grasp modern legal interpretations. I would be grateful to finally get a detailed answer to questions I raised previously. I never got anything but dismissive denials, without specificity enough to show those answering even considered whether Marshall's opinions were relevant to today's interpretation, or if they are not relevant, why not.

I would be grateful for anything you can add.

[ReaderY]

I think treason has to be narrowly construed. I don’t think what Trump did amounts to treason. I think the Framers were careful to distinguish treason against the United States, the country, from acts against its government. I don’t think attempting a coup is treason by the constitutional definition.

What Trump did were directed against the government of the United States. It’s completely unlike the Civil War, which involved levying war against the United States as a country, not attempting a coup against its government.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ReaderY, after Shea's Rebellion some of the participants were convicted of treason and hanged. That of course was prior to the Constitution, so not a result constrained by the definition the Constitution imposes. I mention it because I think Shea's Rebellion might fairly be described as falling somewhere between a coup and a civil war, although I think closer to the former.

With regard to the Constitution, the definition divides the possibilities. Aid and comfort to the enemy seems to be the one you have in mind. The other, to levy war against the United States is the mode of treason Burr and his conspirators were charged with.

I take it that you have not yet read Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in the case, EX PARTE BOLLMAN AND EX PARTE SWARTWOUT My layman's reading of that decision is the principal basis for the characterization I offered, which you seem to disagree with—but without sign of any authority except your own notion of what sounds plausible.

I asked explicitly for replies which took Marshall's opinions into account. I suggest you read the opinion mentioned above, and see if it convinces you that I have at least characterized Marshall accurately. If you think not, please explain why.

[David Nieporent]

after Shea’s Rebellion

What did those wacky Mets do now?

[Dr. Ed 2]

TWO were hanged -- John Bly and Charles Rose.
John Hancock trounced Gov. Bowdoin in the next election.
Shay's men won at the ballot box...

[Kazinski]

it would be very difficult for any court to rationalize immunity of the President from a charge of treason.

But alas, no court would find that any of the allegations against Trump constituted treason.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never say never and always avoid always.

[not guilty]

"it would be very difficult for any court to rationalize immunity of the President from a charge of treason."

Oh, really? The current Supreme Court has found a way. The conduct of American foreign policy is a core constitutional power of the presidency. To the extent that a president commits treasonous acts while exercising that function, he would be immune from criminal prosecution, and testimony regarding such acts would be inadmissible at any trial of non-immune conduct.

[Commenter_XY]

SCOTUS 'found' nothing, NG. They did the country a solid.

BTW, thx for the tremendously complete response from Monday to my question about tolling. I appreciate the thorough background.

A POTUS must be free to act to the edge of the outer limits within their constitutionally defined role. That is true whether the POTUS is Washington, Trump, or Biden. The same is true for Congress, and the Courts. The SCOTUS decision seemed to reinforce that idea, to me.

[Sarcastr0]

Would you have let Nixon off the hook?

Do you think Presidential freedom to act has been unduly constrained since he resigned?

[Commenter_XY]

No, and 'it depends on where the freedom to act was constrained' = the most honest answers I can give you

[SRG2]

Translation: a POTUS must be free to break the law at will, when operating within constitutionally defined roles.

[David Nieporent]

A POTUS must be free to act to the edge of the outer limits within their constitutionally defined role

You state that as if it's an obvious truism. It's not. Why? Why shouldn't a POTUS be constrained to only act when and how it's clear and indisputable that he has the right to do so, in the inner core of his constitutionally defined role?

[Commenter_XY]

David, please define 'clear and indisputable'. That is ultimately an arbitrary definition. You might say, "clear as crystal' that something is not an official act, and I might say, "clear as mud' looking at the same act. That isn't necessarily partisan, it is just two people looking at the same situation and seeing something different. Happens in courtrooms every day.

I am looking at this institutionally, not at an individual man. The three branches have to be able to act freely, to the outer limits of their constitutional roles. And what is the dividing line between 'inner' and 'outer' for you?

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

And what is the dividing line between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ for you?

Starts with Trump and ends with (D).

[Drewski]

"SCOTUS ‘found’ nothing"

You of all people have no business calling people out for their phraseology. He was using a normal phrase in the typical way. You, on the other hand, write like someone who has been entirely isolated from society except for texts written by teenagers circa 2005. Textspeak, weird nicknames, idiosyncratic constructions, and inappropriate emojis fill your comments (like smilies whenever you discuss slavery). Suddenly becoming pedantic about language - while also being incorrect - is. . . well, it's about what I expect from you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Famously, treason is defined in the Constitution.

The treason clause limits the acts that can constitute treason. It’s not self-executing: treason is only illegal because congress enacted a statute criminalizing it, which it could narrow or repeal at its pleasure.

So where does that leave presidential immunity? Is it possible that a president could by citing core powers become immune from a charge of treason, or that presidential immunity could be cited to restrict access to testimony which could prove a case of treason?

Yes, I think it’s very possible that a former president could argue successfully (to the extent Trump remains good law) that the conduct underlying a treason prosecution is immune. And it’s certainly easy o see how relevant evidence could be inadmissible. The details would, of course, depend on exactly what scenario you’re hypotheticating.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I think it’s very possible that a former president could argue successfully (to the extent Trump remains good law) that the conduct underlying a treason prosecution is immune. And it’s certainly easy o see how relevant evidence could be inadmissible.

I think that the Trump decision would support that, but I also think it's such an obvious absurdity that SCOTUS would find some way to carve that out of the holding of Trump.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, I think there’s a very good chance that the Trump doctrine ends up looking very different when the next former president raises it, which is the point of my parenthetical. That said, I’m not sure there’s much qualitatively different about asserting it in a treason prosecution that would make it look any worse: the problem (to the extent there is one) is with the doctrine, not the application. So I’m not sure Stephen Lathrop’s inquiry is a particularly interesting one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes, I think there’s a very good chance that the Trump doctrine ends up looking very different when the next former president raises it"

This is complicated by the fact that the next guy gets to rely on it. The next court can't just say "Trump's reversed, off to prison with you."

[not guilty]

"The next court can’t just say 'Trump’s reversed, off to prison with you.'”

That is true, but not for the reason you suggest. The matter would come before SCOTUS only after a future president has been indicted, the indictment is dismissed by the lower federal courts, and the government appeals the dismissal. The next court absolutely can say: "Trump is reversed, the dismissed indictment is reinstated and the matter is remanded for trial."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That is true, but not for the reason you suggest."

Yes, I'm oversimplifying.

"The next court absolutely can say: “Trump is reversed, the dismissed indictment is reinstated and the matter is remanded for trial.”"

No, they can't. There's SCOTUS precedent that says that people are entitled to rely on court precedent that they actions are legal. I'm too lazy to find it now but it's there.

That's the reason all the states with dormant abortion bans, for example, couldn't prosecute all the women who had abortions between Roe and Dobbs.

[David Nieporent]

No, they can’t. There’s SCOTUS precedent that says that people are entitled to rely on court precedent that they actions are legal. I’m too lazy to find it now but it’s there.

Once more: immunity is not a ruling that the conduct is legal. Immunity says that one cannot be prosecuted (or sued, in the civil context) for something even if it is unlawful.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case? At least the 'core' conduct is immune because it's constitutionally incapable of being criminalized; Any law purporting to criminalize it would be unconstitutional as far as the President is concerned.

It would be like Congress enacting a law purporting to criminalize juries voting to acquit, or judges ruling against the government.

[David Nieporent]

That would've been a better ruling, but it's not what SCOTUS did.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, they can’t. There’s SCOTUS precedent that says that people are entitled to rely on court precedent that they actions are legal. I’m too lazy to find it now but it’s there.

When a court issues a decision reversing a prior ruling in a way that expands criminal liability, the new, broader doctrine can generally be applied to that defendant’s case. See Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001).

[Dr. Ed 2]

And as a followup to the Karen Read matter, in the next town over, the US Attorney (and not Commonwealth) is prosecuting a cop for murdering the pregnant girl he had been sleeping with since she was 15. https://howiecarrshow.com/feds-motion-for-pretrial-detention-of-farwell/

Silly me, I always thought that murder was a state offense.

Governor Healey was AG at the time, and I think she has a bit to answer for here…

And Explorers is a Boy Scout program, and the Scouts had such a bad problem with sexual abuse in the 1970s that they have STRICT protocols of no adult ever to be alone with a child. So there are other folk in the Stoughton PD who at least looked the other way when he was sleeping with her, and it's a small department -- he really did this, on duty, without anyone knowing?

And how about the other person in the department who got told by her friend about this? Cops are mandated reporters...

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this: https://howiecarrshow.com/indictment-of-ex-cop-matthew-farwell/

How is the victim "known to the grand jury" when she's been dead for over three years? She didn't testify -- she's dead....

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is a term of art meaning that the grand jury knows who she is, that’s she’a an actual person, etc. It doesn’t mean she and the grand jurors were friends or anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Thanks.

[not guilty]

Murder is primarily a state offense. Numerous federal statutes also prohibit murder, typically requiring the prosecution to prove additional facts over and above how murder was defined at common law. (That may be necessary to bring the offense within the enumerated powers of Congress.)

Here the federal statute charged in the indictment is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C), which requires intent to prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings.

Federal jurisdiction here actually may be a bit of a stretch. How likely is it that the pregnant decedent (who was age 23 or 24 at the time of the killing) would have reported the defendant's activities to federal authorities?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I also saw reference to "violation of civil rights under color of law."

Isn't that a capitol offense if someone dies? Maybe he'll flip to avoid the needle. And would she have had to tell Federal authorities directly -- or merely tell someone who would then lead to them learning? I'm thinking the wire fraud for the pay checks which I think is their most solid charge.

[David Nieporent]

J6 was a capitol offense.

[not guilty]

Uh, Mr. Farwell is not charged with fucking the woman to death under color of law. (Section 242 is identified as an offense that the killing was intended to prevent the reporting to federal authorities.) The charged offense does carry a potential death sentence, but color of law is not an element.

The facts set forth in the indictment do not allege that the woman (or anyone else) was likely to report the defendant's wrongdoing to federal authorities. That is of course a matter of proof and not of pleading, but I am skeptical about whether this matter should be charged federally.

[John F. Carr]

"at least looked the other way"

According to previous reporting, other members of the police department had sex with her too.

Stoughton is one of the bad police departments. It has a history of diverse forms of misconduct and corruption and this is not the first time federal law enforcement has gotten involved. That's what the voters want, it seems. When selectmen refused to extend the contract of a bad chief the voters recalled them. This was about 20 years ago. After that chief was convicted the town tried bringing in an honest chief. He failed to thrive. And the scandals went on.

[John F. Carr]

Based on the facts alleged, I would not likely be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to prevent her from reporting a federal crime as opposed to concealing a state crime or avoiding embarrassment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s not what the statute requires. It’s enough to show that it was reasonably likely that the crime would have been reported to federal authorities. See Fowler v. U.S., 563 U.S. 668 (2011).

[not guilty]

Even by the reasonable likelihood standard, the facts recited in the indictment are thin gruel here. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/media/1365626/dl (I realize that the government's proof is not limited to the facts alleged in the indictment.)

The indictment posits that the potentially applicable federal offenses are Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, Coercion and Enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. It does not allege that the accused had reason to believe that the decedent was likely to contact federal authorities.

The indictment alleges that the sexual relationship began before the decedent turned 16 years of age and continued until in or around early 2021, well into the young woman's adulthood. The woman was born in May 1997, so she would have been 23 when she was killed in February 2021. While there may have been abuse under color of law at the outset, it is less likely to have been the case after she became an adult.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She'd already told one person who told the Stoughton PD.

She may not have known it was wire fraud, but if am intrepid FBI agent saw mention of him sleeping with her "on the clock" in the local paper, then wouldn't that have been revealing a Federal offense to a Federal officer?

She wouldn't be the first person to not know what she knew...

[ReaderY]

It doesn’t seem reasonably likely just from an outside look.

[John F. Carr]

If we're naming officials who might have done something, how about Michael W. Morrissey, Norfolk County DA since 2011? Is he afraid to prosecute a police officer?

From his state web page:

During his legislative tenure, where he chaired six major committees including the Committee on Public Safety, District Attorney Morrissey was instrumental in passing laws that provided the legal tools to prevent and prosecute crime; toughen drunken driving and domestic violence laws; protect seniors from fraud; protect children from sex offenders and cyber bullying and he authored one of the toughest laws against cocaine trafficking.
District Attorney Morrissey is committed to strengthening prevention programs in all areas of crime, having served for 10 years on the Governor’s Anti-Crime Council and on the Board of Directors of DOVE (Domestic Violence Ended) where he was instrumental in helping DOVE acquire their first shelter in Quincy, Massachusetts. In addition, District Attorney Morrissey is committed to both aggressive law enforcement and community-based prevention efforts designed to curb the opiate crisis that has besiege many cities and towns in Massachusetts.

[David Nieporent]

Silly me, I always thought that murder was a state offense.

It is. The answer to your implied question is found in the very first sentence of the document you linked.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Governor Healey was AG at the time, and I think she has a bit to answer for here…

Like what?

[Frank Drackman]

Making a PA at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo today, mid-late afternoon, I'll be the tall short skinny fat blonde dark haired bald guy with the shark nose, picking up the tab for any Vets, even pussies like Sergeant Pepper-Waltz.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

That's Command Sargent Major (acting) Pepper-Waltz to you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is Judge Juan Javert a drama queen? Why hasn't he acted on the request by Trump's attorneys to delay sentencing (unopposed by Fat Alvin)?

[not guilty]

Justice Merchan has previously said that he will announce his ruling on Trump's claim of immunity on September 16. If he rules in Trump's favor and grants a new trial, that would make any sentencing moot.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you think Judge Merchan will order a new trial? I do not. The sense I get is that he wants to pin The Donald's scalp to his chamber door.

Merchan will sentence The Donald to prison.

[not guilty]

I don't think Justice Merchan will order a new trial. And I will be surprised if he sentences Trump -- who is convicted of multiple counts of a low grade felony and who has no prior convictions -- to active incarceration.

[shawn_dude]

Trump is not a victim.

[santamonica811]

Does anyone think that the presidential polls will vary more than 1-2 points between now and the Sept 10 debate? I'm trying to think of any event that could happen between now and then that would move the needle more than an inch? (I mean, any realistically-predictable event. Always the remote possibility of a domestic terrorist attack, a heart attack or stroke suffered by one of the two current candidates, etc.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone care about polls?

[SRG2]

I only care about polls at election time. For example, polls generally showed Biden ahead by 8% on election day in 2020 yet his margin of victory was less than 4%, which tends to support the idea that if there were any electoral chicanery it was to Trump’s benefit.

Indeed, for purposes of debate I will stipulate that the GOP attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election and were reasonably successful in reducing Biden’s margin, but couldn’t overcome the huge popular difference. The Democrats had no need to pursue allegations of election rigging as Biden was the clear winner anyway, but it didn’t stop the GOP’s continued attempts at election theft.

[David Nieporent]

Does anyone care about polls?

Every single person cares about polls.

[Magister]

Yes, polling shows this to be true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yet again speaking for everyone.
Why should the average voter care about a poll? Would they change their vote because of polling?

[David Nieporent]

I think very few people would change their mind about who to vote for in a general election because of polling. They might change their mind about whether to vote, though.

But whether it affects one's vote is an entirely separate question from whether one cares about it. Millions of non-gamblers still want to know who's the favorite to win the Super Bowl.

[Kazinski]

This one seems interesting:
53% of Americans think Kamala Harris is insincere in her message and that she just says what she thinks the American public wants to hear.

Independents think 56-22 think She is insincere. 22 percent are unsure.

53 percent of registered voters say Trump believes what he says, 41 percent think he says what they want to hear.

48 percent of independents think Trump speaks from his own views, 36 percent think he is placating voters.

Full Poll here

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_EQQr3lh.pdf

Too be sure Harris is up 47 to 45, but those results seem to indicate a fruitful line of attack, especially among independents. If a majority of those 22% of undecided independents decide she is insincere that’s enough to decide the election. Currently Trump leads 42-37 with independents.

[Commenter_XY]

Your question is what will move the polls 2 pts in either direction in the next 12 days. If Kamala opens her mouth and starts actually talking about her Mad Magazine economic policies and be questioned about them, her support will erode. That will take a week to manifest.

It is a waiting game now. We all anxiously await Kamala's splendiferous and sharply focused oration. /sarc

[Brett Bellmore]

Early voting in PA starts in about 3 weeks. She doesn't have to delay much longer before she can start banking votes by people who have never heard her positions.

[SimonP]

What does it say about Trump, that Harris can win votes just by being an empty suit who can string a sentence together?

You're all talking out of both sides of your mouth. Repeating the Republican talking point: "She has no positions!" But then somehow blaming her for the fact that people still increasingly like her, and seem to prefer her over the slouch and Twitter-fiend who thinks we should give him unlimited power. Gosh, maybe if your candidate weren't total shit, we'd have a real debate over policy for once.

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

What does it say about Trump that Leftists are standing/cheering/drooling behind Harris now? Umm, nothing. What does it say about them? That they're brainwashed Leftist doofuses, like Simple Simon.

[bernard11]

Some dubious assumptions there, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can look up the dates early voting starts in various states, you know. It starts in PA September 16th.

One of the major downsides of early voting is that it encourages candidates who know they have lurking negatives to try to bank as many votes as possible before they're exposed, and run out the clock. Harris matches this to a T.

[Riva]

And, on top of everything else, it seems likely she lied about working at McDonald’s, a fact absent from her biographies and early job applications. And that only miraculously appeared in 2019 during her failed presidential run, that has evolved from “worked there to go through college” and later “worked there a short time one summer.“ Of course, no mention of exactly where or when. Another lie from an inveterate bunch of liars.

[Kazinski]

Well she is finally doung her first interview, at last, but with a friendly outlet, and bringing a friend a long to save her if she starts to falter.

[CountmontyC]

Also pre-recorded to allow any embarrassing bits to be edited out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Team Hamas antics on college campi could help Trump.

You know they have been planning all summer...

[Ilya Snowman]

Do you believe the polls? If so, why?

[shawn_dude]

Trump's recent performances have been sluggish. If his age-related issues become more obvious and reach the news outlets preferred by independent voters, that would be enough to move the needle a few percentage points. Though I'd note that 2% is well within the margin of error for any national poll.

[Sarcastr0]

The Arlington National Cemetery thing should be fatal to a campaign.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you mean the bit where Harris couldn't be bothered to show up? Maybe it should be, but it won't be.

Oh, wait, you're talking about the part where somebody working for Arlington tried to make sure nobody got to actually SEE that Trump could be bothered to show up, aren't you. That he did show up, and she didn't, didn't even register with you.

[Sarcastr0]

You are at this point posting from a parallel universe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did Harris show up in your universe?

[Kazinski]

Actually I think you are right, in one media universe everything Trump does or thinks is bad, and there is another media universe where Trump is motivated by whats best for the country, and cares about its people.

The two universes don't intersect, but there is a third universe of looking on in the middle and they know they are getting a distorted view from both universes, and have quit paying any attention.

We know what Universe you are stuck in Sarcastro, but the local distortion just doesn't carry any force outside of it anymore.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think Trump is somewhat motivated by his own conception of what's best for the country. Like anybody who runs for President, he thinks that his being President is best for the country, of course. But if he were purely self-interested, the fact that his fortune declined precipitously as a result of being President would have carried more weight with him.

It's clear that Trump DOES do things that are bad, on occasion. This is no less true of Biden, and we can reasonably anticipate it being true of Harris.

So you have to evaluate the plusses and minuses. I've already said that in my ideal world the GOP would have nominated Rand Paul, and in my less ideal world DeSantis. Likewise, in my ideal world, the Democrats would have nominated Tulsi Gabbard.

In the far from ideal world I actually inhabit, I judge a second Trump term as less awful than a Harris Presidency, in part because his being elected anyway might make the Democrats give up on trying to win elections by lawfare. But also because I think his policies are less destructive.

[David Nieporent]

I think Trump is somewhat motivated by his own conception of what’s best for the country.

You're entitled to your delusions.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I think Trump is somewhat motivated by his own conception of what’s best for the country"

1. Note the coping mechanism here. Knowing Trump cares only for himself, Brett composes this argument loop: Trump thinks only about what's good for Trump. Trump thinks he's the yugest president ever. Therefore, Trump cares about the country. Thus, Brett.

2. Note neither Brett or Kazinski deal with the facts about Arlington. Let's recount: Everyone knows Trump see American soldiers and war dead as suckers and losers. General Kelly confirmed those statements with some disgust. Trump's recent comments about metals emphasized Trump's views. So, off to Arlington for damage control, where Trump's aides roughed-up cemetery employees who objected to them filming campaign commercials in a restricted area. No wonder Brett or Kazinski and laying down smoke screens.

[Kazinski]

GRB, see the YouGov poll I posted above, 53%-41% of Registered Voters believe Trump sincerely says what he believes, a much higher percentage than Kamala.

I know you are definitely in the 41%, but don’t state it as a fact, that everyone one else has to believe.

I hadn’t seen that when I said: “ The two universes don’t intersect, but there is a third universe of looking on in the middle and they know they are getting a distorted view from both universes, and have quit paying any attention.”

But it holds up well.

[Magister]

"Says what he believes" may just mean "believes delusional untruths at the moment he spouts them". Many Harris voters (21%) seem willing to credit Trump with believing what he says, even when it contradicts reality or what he said a day before.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose that's fair, since many Harris voters obviously are willing to give Harris the same credit.

[Magister]

You're just peeved that you've got the elderly candidate advancing into senility. The Trump cult is uniquely willing to ignore the failures and broken promises of their god-king.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny you didn't think FJB was elderly or senile in2020.

[Magister]

Because Biden was not senile, Bumble, and still isn't. That's how he stomped Trump in debates and cornered the Republicans (at his 2023 State of the Union address) into denying their plans to sunset Medicare and Social Security ("I love conversion!").

[Mr. Bumble]

Then why isn't he the candidate instead of Kamaltoe?

[Magister]

His age and stamina, obviously. Good enough for presidenting for another 5 months. Not good for presidenting for 5 months while campaigning for another four years, and then presidenting for four more years.

But obviously not senile.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “So you have to evaluate the plusses and minuses”

We’ve all seen Brett do his little pious speech on the evils of federal deficits. Well, here’s the chance to see whether his talk is just performance bullshit. A study was just released on the promises of Trump & Harris. She doesn’t come off well, offering a normal political pandering set of promises that total 1.2 trillion over the next decade.

But Trump’s pledges run almost 5X that: 5.8 trillion. So here’s Brett’s chance to prove he actually believes federal debt is as ruinous as he claims. Who here thinks he will? Who here believes anything he says about deficit and debts? As I’ve noted before, it’s a safe bet Brett has voted pro-federal deficit in every presidential election his entire life.

One of the core themes in his little deficit sermons is “nothing can be done” and “both parties are the same”. But Brett’s own choices regularly belie that and will so this election as well.

Really pretty words tho….

https://jabberwocking.com/trump-plan-blows-up-the-debt-gives-most-money-to-the-rich/

[SimonP]

Brett's usual dodge on things like this is to say: Trump's plan will never become reality, because political moderates in Congress will pull him back; meanwhile, Harris's plan is more likely to win the support of any Democratic majorities in Congress, and so is more likely to come about.

None of it based in any actual facts or, for that matter, experience. Lots of conflicting assumptions baked in and not made explicit (like assuming that a Trump win will be paired with a House Democratic majority or at least establishment Republicans controlling Congress, while a Harris win will be paired with a "blue wave" in Congress, despite these two assumptions on electoral outcomes pulling in different directions).

Now watch him deny that he'd say any of that, in response to me, while confirming it.

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

Trump’s plan will never become reality, because political moderates in Congress will pull him back; meanwhile, Harris’s plan is more likely to win the support of any Democratic majorities in Congress, and so is more likely to come about.

It's a dodge to say something entirely truthful? Sure thing, Simple Simon.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am, frankly, utterly demoralized on the subject of deficits. I think we passed the point of no return more than a decade ago, and that any actions which would spare us a monetary collapse are at this point not going to happen, because they'd be political suicide.

I blame Newt Gingrich for that: He deliberately managed the votes on the balanced budget amendment back in '95 to make sure everybody who needed to could vote for it without any risk of it actually getting sent to the states for ratification. That was probably the last realistic opportunity we had to avert an eventual monetary crash, and the SOB deliberately spiked it. May he rot in hell for that.

I guess I understand your desire that the Republicans die on that hill, in order that Democrats get to dictate what the unavoidable deficits are spent on while we await our inevitable reckoning.

From a deficit perspective, it's too late in the game to really care anymore. We're doomed at this point, we just need to concern ourselves with being best situated to eventually climb out of the wreckage we're approaching.

[SimonP]

And Trump's plan for best situating ourselves for this "wreckage" is - what, exactly? Massive tariffs and a trade war? A Fed subject to political direction? More tax cuts for the wealthy? Mass deporting millions of workers?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, massive tariffs and a trade war. The more self-sufficient we are when our currency becomes worthless outside the country, and our international trade is cash and carry, the better off we are. And moving production onshore IS kind of the point of tariffs, isn't it?

And unleashing our energy sector, so we can maximize our energy exports, and lower the energy driven cost of domestic production.

Ending obstacles to resource extraction in the US.

[Martinned2]

Very well, I will put you down for "doesn't care about inflation".

[bernard11]

Hilarious.

If we've been doomed since the 1990's how is it that today the market is willing to buy 30-year Treasuries at a yield of 4.15%?

And your solution to avoid a hypothetical future disaster is to have one now. Yeah. Great idea.

And if the dollar collapses what are we going to use for domestic trade? How will all this "self-suffiency" be financed?

You've convinced yourself that tariffs are a great idea, even though you know better, even though you profess to be a libertarian, because your cult leader, who doesn't understand the literal first thing about them, likes them.

[SimonP]

Trump wants to "unleash our energy sector" by withdrawing state support for renewable energy and refocusing on fossil fuels - where the US already is a top international producer and still consumes more than it produces. He also wants to unwind efforts to make our economy more energy-efficient and self-sustaining.

So explain to me - how does that help us become self-sufficient? You want to give oil/gas more monopolistic power in the domestic economy and increase our per capita consumption rates. It's like dealing with the costs of medical care and prescriptions by making it illegal to go overseas for medical care and banning the importation of medicine.

Your accelerationism is remarkable. You not only idealize an agrarian way of living, you'd like to push us over the cliff towards it!

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, the debt goes away in a hot war.

[Sarcastr0]

in a hot war
Clancybrained.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “... it’s too late in the game to really care anymore”

Three points :

1. So let’s go back to when it wasn’t “too late”. One of the election contrasts of W Bush v Gore was over the federal deficit. During the Clinton years there had been a long anti-debt process requiring measures from both parties. Both sides made painful compromises to cut spending, raise revenue with broad-based tax hikes, erect structural barriers (like paygo) to make deficit-increasing legislature more difficult, and supress cost increases from Medicare & Medicaid. W Bush campaigned on blowing all that up with massive tax cuts & increased spending. Gore campaigned on preserving it in his so-called “lockbox”.

Of course you voted pro-debt – as you will this election too. Even though it wasn’t “too late” then. Pretty speeches aside, you just didn’t care.

2. Besides, it’s never too late. The same blueprint from the Clinton years will still work. But that involves the same painful compromises such as broad-based tax hikes. And you’ll always say no and vote no. Because talk notwithstanding, you don’t care.

3. Remember the sequester years under Obama? He offered Boehner a much larger Clinton-style deficit reduction package with compromise on both sides, but the Republicans refused. Remember the Clinton-Trump campaign? She was downright parsimonious in her pandering pledges while Trump spewed multi-trillion promises in every direction. He would go on to throw away all the gains of Obama clawing up from the plus-trillion dollar deficit projected on his first day of office. Trump would go on to run trillion dollar yearly deficits in an economic expansion.

Who did you support? Who did you vote for? Tell me you don’t give the slightest damn about federal debt and I’ll accept that. But it’s hard to credit your pieties above. You just don’t care – and that’s the way you’ll always vote.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Damn, Brett. Just absolutely taken down in this thread. And you’re smart enough to realize it.

And, yet, I’ll bet you still stick with Trump’s budget busting, inflation provoking, and nation-harming policies. Is it because you like the red the team jerseys? The elephant mascot? Or have you just been gaslighting us the whole time, like so many "fiscally conservative" Republicans, about caring about budgets and sensible fiscal policy and your real issue is LGBTQ issues or abortion or something, everything else be damned?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's because while both the GOP and Democratic party are leading the country down the road to destruction, even destruction has graduations, and I think the GOP is less awful.

Not good. Just less awful.

I've said it before, and I really mean it: The right may be authoritarian, but the left is totalitarian, and there's a world of difference between authoritarians and totalitarians.

[Magister]

Brett Bellmore appears to be another believer in the Ilya Snowman definition of totalitarian:

By the way, you don’t seem to have a grasp on what the word “totalitarian” means, and are just using it in an Orwell-fascist sense of “something not desirable.”

[NOVA Lawyer]

“It’s because while both the GOP and Democratic party are leading the country down the road to destruction, even destruction has graduations, and I think the GOP is less awful.”

It was pointed out above, and any chart of debt and deficits will show you, Democratic presidents have been better on the debt and deficits. Yet, you keep supporting Republican candidates for President.

It’s telling that, in the face of specific evidence of the superiority of Democrats historical actions and policies vis a vis the debt (as shown by grb and Simon and bernard), you retreat to platitudes.

You may really mean it when you say the right is authoritarian and the left is totalitarian, but you're just as full of shit on that as you are about the debt. Only one side carries Putin’s water and has a weird fetish for Viktor Orban. No one serious on the left plays footsie with leftist authoritarians/totalitarians, the way Trump and many on the right admire and seek to emulate authoritarians and totalitarians.

Only one party holds rallies with people holding up signs saying “Mass Deportation Now!”. And that is in the vein of totalitarianism, not authoritarianism:

“Totalitarianism as an idea is conventionally associated with regimes that involve death camps, the herding up of political opponents and…groups of people that are considered to be, in some sense, reactionary or dangerous or polluting,” says Jeffrey C. Isaac, professor of political science at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has written extensively about Arendt’s work. “[This can include] mass imprisonments, mass starvation as a political tactic, the use of the secret police to engender terror and the effort to suffocate or eliminate all political opposition. Most of the authoritarian regimes in the world today are not properly described as totalitarian in this sense, however oppressive they may be.”

Only Trump regularly talks about exacting revenge and putting political opponents in prison because they are political opponents. Only Trump talks about purging the civil service of people whose politics he doesn’t like. You can pretend all of that is not totalitarian. But it is. And no one on the left is proposing anything similarly totalitarian.

You are right that totalitarianism is worse, but it’s Trump that keeps hinting at it. And his entire personality and history involves punishing personal and political enemies with whatever levers of power he has. You are just as wrong about this as you are about the relative levels of responsibility of Democrats and Republicans on the debt/deficit.

You like to say pretty words, as grb noted, but they don’t match the actual facts. Stop apologizing for the most totalitarian presidential candidate in U.S. history. Own it or disavow it. But apologizing for it is just pathetic.

[Brett Bellmore]

And what the hell is wrong with mass deportation of people who aren't legally in the country to begin with? Wake me when somebody proposes deporting citizens.

As it happens, we have had an administration put citizens in concentration camps. It was a Democratic administration, you may recall.

We HAVE an administration that tried to make somebody who was born and raised in a communist country, and advocated nationalizing everybody's savings, into Comptroller of the Currency.

I stand by that: The left is totalitarian, the right authoritarian.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Wake me when somebody proposes deporting citizens."

There is zero chance that mass deportations will not result in deportation of citizens who don't "look" American. It has happened with ordinary deportations that are far more careful than any mass deportation could be.

"As it happens, we have had an administration put citizens in concentration camps."

It's intellectually dishonest pretending the Democratic Party of FDR has similar view of civil rights as the current Democratic Party. Meanwhile, which party targets ethnic and religious minorities for exclusion and deportation?

"We HAVE an administration that tried to make somebody who was born and raised in a communist country, and advocated nationalizing everybody’s savings, into Comptroller of the Currency."

Thanks for revealing your nativist bigotry by focusing on where some was born. (And, of course, an academic article is not a Biden policy proposal nor would it ever have been.)

Meanwhile, team Trump:

“We pledge to you,” [Trump] told his rally audience in Claremont, New Hampshire, “that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

He had used the identical language in a social media posting earlier that same day.

Trump loyalist Stephen Miller filled in the blanks on Sunday. In a New York Times Magazine interview, he said that the second Trump Administration would build “vast holding facilities” for immigrants “on open land in Texas near the border.” And Miller made clear that, contrary to what the Supreme Court has said about deportation, Trump would try to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport “suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process.”

[Ilya Snowman]

Don’t let Magister try to gaslight you, Brett.

Efforts to police thought and speech. Efforts to recalibrate forms of consciousness.

Squarely totalitarian not just per dictionary definitions, and not only by comparison to historical real-world examples, but also per paradigmatic expressions found in Orwell, and in and Kessler (such as in Darkness at Noon), a reformed commie who knew intimately how such tactics were employed. They were warning us ABOUT exactly such practices and tactics.

Once the tactics are diagnosed, what do you expect them to do? Admit to it? Face up their misdeeds? Apologize?

‘Whoops, we didn’t REALLY mean to try to shift the Overton window by calling everything ‘far right’. We didn’t mean try to institutionalize political correctness to shape political discourses and sneak our political preferences in through the back door as a way to achieve political ends without winning hearts and minds or on the merits. We didn’t mean to mis-frame our contingent political preferences as being fundamental rights and so opponents as rights violators and bad people. We didn’t mean to engage in delegitimization strategies that frame divergent normative preferences as representing forms of ‘phobia’, or engage in other pseudo-psychological tactics offering false reductionist explanations of rivals views. We didn’t mean to consistently project and lie (by going low when we said we go high when they go low). We didn’t mean to render our main news service providers inherently untrustworthy propaganda outlets. We didn’t mean to exert pressure on private social media outlets about what information to convey. ALL those thinks just kind of happened, ACCIDENTALLY.

When the American people come to understand what these people REALLY ARE and what they really do—AND HOW THEY DO SO—they will be fleeing with their families for their lives.

These people are evil to their core and deserve to be treated as such.

THAT BEING SAID, if you and your lot do nothing about this, Brett, then you don’t deserve to have a free society. As I’ve noted to you before, Jefferson said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Well, you’re on right fucking notice now. So, what will you do about it. How will you organise people to defend your basic freedoms from these pseudo-liberals and pseudo-libertarian freaks?

Look even at how the lying weasel, Magister, quotes David’s Nieporent’s mischaracterisation of my view AS BEING MY definition of the term. Look at the shamelessness of his lie. What does it tell you about him as a person?

[Ilya Snowman]

'You are right that totalitarianism is worse, but it’s Trump that keeps hinting at it'.

NOVA: you are parochial moron and a liar.

[David Nieporent]

Note that IS/”Frosty” is just whining that people use words to communicate and try to convince and persuade. His comment is nothing more than a long-winded lamentation that someone else is winning those rhetorical contests, and that his ideology is widely regarded as bankrupt, in the U.S. as well as around the world. (Except, ironically, in the Muslim world he hates so much.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"he said that the second Trump Administration would build “vast holding facilities” for immigrants “on open land in Texas near the border.” "

There's a reason why you placed the quotes where you did: Trump didn't say the "for immigrants" part of it.

This is characteristic of most hostile reporting on Trump: Vast expanses of paraphrases, with the actual words he spoke dropped in like a precious flavoring that has to be economized on.

Seriously, just TRY finding what he actually said, instead of mangled paraphrases. Go ahead, try. Best of luck!

I am absolutely disgusted with what passes for news media today. They're relentless in their determination to hide what people actually said from their readers, lest it not agree with their paraphrases.

[Sarcastr0]

When Brett tells is what Trump means, it's him being reasonable.

Whenever anyone else doesn't exactly quote the man, it's the worst media bias evil.

[Magister]

Only Brett Bellmore could be sufficiently stupid and dishonest to imagine that the "vast holding facilities" that Stephen Miller told the New York Times about (after the Trump campaign referred them to him to answer questions) were for something other than people awaiting deportation.

The comment with that quote referred to statements by Team Trump, although one would expect that someone in the Trump campaign would have raised an objection to an article that appeared last November if the Miller quotes were taken out of context, and it's hard to imagine any other topic Stephen Miller would have been talking about. But if the Project 2025 immigration plan is unpopular enough, Trump will demote Miller to coffee boy.

While every administration has used detention facilities, because of the magnitude of deportations being contemplated, the Trump team plans to build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for migrants waiting to be flown to other countries, Mr. Miller said. Such an undertaking would be fast-tracked, he said, “by bringing in the right kinds of attorneys and the right kinds of policy thinkers” — taking what is typically a methodical process “and making it radically more quick and efficient.”

Mr. Miller said the new camps would likely be built “on open land in Texas near the border.” He said the military would construct them under the authority and control of the Department of Homeland Security. While he cautioned that there were no specific blueprints yet, he said the camps would look professional and similar to other facilities for migrants that have been built near the border.

[Ilya Snowman]

I take it that Brett (and the Trump folks) meant the facilities are for illegals, not ‘immigrants’ as such. Magister, though, being as stupid and dishonest as he is, thinks he can treat ‘illegal aliens’, ‘people awaiting deportation’, and ‘immigrants’ as being identical or co-terminous, and so make a cogent point against Brett.

Magister, where do your kids go to school?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"There’s a reason why you placed the quotes where you did: Trump didn’t say the “for immigrants” part of it."

Brett apologizing, as ever, for an authoritarian wannabe totalitarian.

First, I didn't put the quotes anywhere. Those were in the article quoted.

Second, work on your reading comprehension, the "vast facilities" part was a quote of Stephen Miller, close advisor to Trump, explaining how the fantasized mass deportations would work.

Third, who do you think would be put in the "vast facilities" if not immigrants? Fair, if you answer "communists", of whom, as a quote I provided shows, Trump also promises to rid the country (and who he calls "vermin" in a call back to Hitler's rhetoric).

Fourth, how do you envision mass deportations to work without "vast facilities" to house, however temporarily, the people rounded up by Trump-authorized agents asking to see "papers, please"? Or you think a mass deportation will work by sending people one by one via Uber over to Tijuana?

What a flailing, ethically unmoored mess you are, Brett.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Third, who do you think would be put in the “vast facilities” if not immigrants?’.

Making the same duplicitous move as Magister now, yeah? Do you think it could SOMEHOW be more convincing the second time round, once the ruse was exposed? Are you really that dumb, or do you just not even care that what you write is stupid because you’re not truth-oriented anyway?

‘What a flailing, ethically unmoored mess you are, Brett’.

Granted that you’re a parochial American moron, NOVA, can you nonetheless get an inkling of why your claim is ironic?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Third, who do you think would be put in the “vast facilities” if not immigrants? "

ILLEGAL immigrants, dipshit.

I know you want to pretend that every measure aimed at illegals is actually intended to impact legal immigrants, too, but at least show a little honesty. He doesn't want to deport legal immigrants, just the illegal ones.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“ILLEGAL immigrants, dipshit.”

Undocumented immigrants are immigrants.

No one said all immigrants. No one pretended anything. Anyone with a reading comprehension above third grade understood the conversation. We'll dumb it down for you in the future.

No wonder you feel so misled by the media. You don't understand half of what you read. And this from the guy who possesses a Trump decoder ring. Weird how you can understand all his secret messages that are not at all offensive although he uses offensive words which would ordinarily indicate an offensive meaning, but you will happily interpret anything anyone else says or write in the least plausible, most outrageous way possible.

You're a joke, Brett. A sad, pathetic joke.

[David Nieporent]

I know you want to pretend that every measure aimed at illegals is actually intended to impact legal immigrants, too, but at least show a little honesty. He doesn’t want to deport legal immigrants, just the illegal ones.

I know you've been deluding yourself about this for years, but even if simply paying attention to anti-"illegal immigrant" people didn't make it clear that it was the immigrant part they opposed, the fact that they are just as hostile to asylum seekers and refugees as to illegal immigrants disproves your claim.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Belmore acts as if he doesn't know the Trump team has been promising to get rid of birthright citizenship. Whether he knows it or not, I think Bellmore is in favor of that. A lot of Bellmore's personal immigration policy seems to be based on intent to curate an enduring white Republican majority.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Undocumented immigrants are immigrants. No one said all immigrants. No one pretended anything'.

What a fucking moron this NOVA is. Not all illegal aliens are attempting to immigrate; some simply seek to infiltrate a country for various purposes.

More importantly, NOVA uses 'undocumented' rather than 'illegal' as a legitimisation tactic, to somehow claim that they've a right (moral or legal) to enter and at least be considered to be permitted to state. There's nothing wrong with the term 'illegal aliens'. After all they're aliens who have entered illegally. Just as there's nothing wrong with term 'legal alien'.

The entire world is wary and contemptuous of duplicitous American pigs like NOVA now. They are more cautious, and rightfully suspicious, of how such Americans choose and misuse words in order to frame matters (such as in terms setting terms of acceptability/politeness/decency) and in order to manipulate.

It's not enough to call NOVA a said pathetic joke. For NOVA is rather an evil, lying, piece of dog shit, one who doesn't deserve to be treated as having even a shred of integrity, let alone someone who has two brain cells to rub together.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘A lot of Bellmore’s personal immigration policy seems to be based on intent to curate an enduring white Republican majority’.

Much of America’s immigration policy seems to be based upon creating a post-ethnic, post-religious, post-cultural society by ANY means necessary—including through mass illegal immigration and exploitation of central and south Americans (who are exploited as neo-serfs, including in every blue city, in every blue state). This, in furtherance of a megalomaniacal social re-engineering project—one undertaken by ‘sanctoramuses’ who lack the empirical knowledge and skills to actually accomplish the task.

So, when parochial, under-educated buffoons like Stephen Lathrop lay down their personal views about immigration, debt, foreign policy, there are good prima facie reasons to interpret all of those things through the lens of that re-engineering aspiration AND SO to distrust the surface-level, proffered reasons for his supporting a given policy, interpretation, etc.

Stephen Lathrop is a cheerleader for the third-worlding of America, and the systematic undermining of immigration laws—IN WAYS that no civilised Western democracies would tolerate. Stephen is a barbarian and a fool, one who thinks it is morally righteous to undermine the rule of law and the basic ideas of a republic or a democracy. He is unquestionably an ENEMY of the United Constitution and the republic to which it stands.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘ A lot of Bellmore’s personal immigration policy seems to be based on intent to curate an enduring white Republican majority’.

This is another great example of a false reductionist explanation—one aimed to try to trick a guy with a half-Asian kid.

Were he not an imbecile, Stephen would realize that younger Americans are to the left of him. THEY are the ones who are more class conscious and sensitive (about inequities, about power imbalances, etc). And so once they are forced to confront the FACT that they use ideas and arguments about ‘race’ in order to further class conflict, that they promote policies that, given their own economic dogmas, help to explain the shrinking of the middle class, the poor getting poorer, it is they who be forced to come clean about America’s policy regarding mass illegal immigration.

Stephen et al need to frame this in terms of red team vs blue team, of right vs left. Some do so because they’re dumb dinosaurs. Others do so because it’s a divide-and-conquer strategy for the empire, one that’s nevertheless falling apart now as the blue team and red team voters no longer treat their own party leaders and media sources as credible epistemic authorities.

Sic Semper Tyrannis, Stephen Lathrop. You’re on the side of the bad guys. You will be treated as such by your fellow Americans henceforth.

[ReaderY]

I think Trump’s general attitude can be summarized by “Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you.” It’s his general attitude towards pretty much everything else, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should hope so; People don't exist to serve the interests of countries, countries, ideally anyway, exist to serve the interests of people.

Of course Kennedy was going to push a slogan like, "ask not what your country can do for you"; He was running to head up the country he was encouraging you to live for the sake of. He didn't want a bunch of uppity peons wondering what was in it for them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“I should hope so; People don’t exist to serve the interests of countries, countries, ideally anyway, exist to serve the interests of people.”

So you’re just a selfish, greedy citizen wondering what the country can do for you and scoffing at the idea that citizens have any duty to try to improve the country? Presumably, you agree that the Medal of Freedom is better than the Medal of Honor because only a sucker and loser would give anything, much less their life, for their country.

Or are you going to back off what you just fucking said?

Assuming you don’t retract, that explains your posts here. I apologize for ever thinking better of you.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not going to back off one inch. If the existence of governments is to be in any way morally defensible, they have to exist for the benefit of the people, not the other way around.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You understand that a country is not simply to benefit you, though? That’s the point.

A country is made of up many people. It’s impossible for everyone to benefit with no one giving. Each person automatically gets all sorts of benefits by simply existing in the U.S. And human nature is to look for what you can get. People tend to be good at looking out for themselves. Anyone with anything beyond a childish, rudimentary ethics understands that being a good citizen of a country, as with being a part of any community, requires not only having an eye for what you can get from the community (organization), but what you provide.

Decent people certainly and necessarily ask themselves what they can do for the community/organization of which they are a part as any useful, just society/community/organization cannot exist without people giving of themselves to make it work, to make it just, to make it effective.

Selfish assholes ask only what they can get and always demand that they get more than they give.

Which is why, the likes of you scorn the Medal of Honor as a loser's award. Medal of Honor recipients never asked what was in it for them. They sacrificed for their country, their military, their unit. Something other than and bigger than themselves without asking what was in it for them. They are the prime repudiation of you and your Trumpian view of the duties of a citizen.

It is duly noted where you stand. You are Trump. I truly had thought better of you.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Anyone with anything beyond a childish, rudimentary ethics understands that being a good citizen of a country...'

Non-Americans, who understand and appreciate irony, can detect it easily in NOVA's claims, especially since his own espoused policy preferences directly undermine the very notion and core norms of citizenship in favour of alienation of the existing population (the citizen base) and the prioritisation of ulterior social re-engineering schemes that undermine citizenship.

You're not a good or honest person, NOVA. Cease and desist from misrepresenting yourself otherwise.

[Ilya Snowman]

Are you misquoting the guy who stole the 1960 American presidential election?

I wonder if he and his family stole it for himself or for the country's sake?

[Magister]

More precisely (and maybe what ReaderY intended), Trump is only interested in "Ask what your country can do for Trump", or more succinctly, "What's in it for Donald Trump?"

[Ilya Snowman]

That must be why Donald is facing all the recent lawfare campaigns against him...

And, surely, these cases are being lodged for America's sake: both to make it look like a banana republic to the rest of the world, and to render it in fact a banana republic.

So too, Magister's dishonest, hypocritical, petulant comments on the VC must be being offered for the greater good of the United States of America, and not just because he's a lying piece of garbage.

[David Nieporent]

The rest of the world is actually saying, "What the hell is wrong with these people that they haven't already locked the guy up and disqualified him from running for office?"

[Mr. Bumble]

"The rest of the world" should look in their own back yards first.

[Frank Drackman]

How Parkinsonian Joe didn't show up? I heard he's not running

Frank

[ThePublius]

So, I guess you believe everything NPR makes up?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not a serious response.

[Mr. Bumble]

You aren't serious.

[Moderation4ever]

Well the Trump campaign says it has video to show the confrontation never happened so let them show it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I am amazed at the stupidity of veterans who cheer on Trump even after so many examples of disrespecting their dead brethren, which no other politician has ever done. They really should be ashamed of themselves.

[Armchair]

Disrespecting them by laying a wreath down?

[David Nieporent]

Disrespecting them by using their deaths as a photo op for his campaign. Also calling them suckers and losers. And mocking the ones who sacrificed for their country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like the families of those who died don't feel that way.
Any pictures of him looking at his watch?

[Estragon]

“We fully support Staff Sergeant Darin Hoover’s family and the other families in their quest for answers and accountability regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal and the tragedy at Abbey Gate. However, according to our conversation with Arlington National Cemetery, the Trump campaign staffers did not adhere to the rules that were set in place for this visit to Staff Sergeant Hoover’s gravesite in Section 60, which lays directly next to my brother’s grave. We hope that those visiting this sacred site understand that these were real people who sacrificed for our freedom and that they are honored and respected accordingly.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"using their deaths as a photo op for his campaign."

He was invited by the families of the dead. They posed for pictures with him. They wanted the publicity for their forgotten dead.

[Estragon]

Families plural? See above

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, 5 families.

[Armchair]

A "photo op" joined by the families of the deceased?

You can think lots of things. But laying a wreath down for the deceased isn't disrespecting them. Even if a photo is taken.

[Stephen Lathrop]

From Trump, who has repeatedly mocked self-sacrifice in the military? A wreath from TYrump is a cynical piece of crap. Fortunately, Trump is powerless to dishonor those he despises, but he has also been brutally exploiting some of their families.

Armchair, your Trump support is shameful. You are wise to hide behind a pseudonym.

[Ilya Snowman]

I'm surprised that the veterans aren't up in arms against folks like you yet.

Give it another couple of years, though...

[SRG2]

IMO veterans who support Trump richly deserve the labels of suckers and losers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well put.

[Bob from Ohio]

"veterans who support Trump richly deserve the labels of suckers and losers."

Oh, only vets who align with your political beliefs are acceptable. Nice.

[SRG2]

Are you aware that the range of political beliefs is broader than the sum of what Trump followers believe and what I believe? Apparently not.

[NOVA Lawyer]

At least he didn't say they hate their religion! Amiright?

[Ilya Snowman]

But, as the abundant evidence, found in your various comments, demonstrates, your opinion is worse than garbage.

So the labels are inapt.

Why don’t you move to Russia? Why should your fellow Americans even tolerate you anymore?

[Frank Drackman]

Well you’re obviously not a Veteran and should STFU(do I tell you how to bugger your Interns?)
“We” (Me, my Dad, my Mom(who took care of me and my sister while Dad was bombing Gooks) both daughters (Marine Corpse Reserves and Air Farce) appreciated “45” not getting us killed in Bullshit “wars” like Parkinsonian Joe, (why are there troops in Syria? I could understand having some in Israel where they might learn how to kick the enemies Ass)
I know, you were a Homo (much better now!)

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I doubt it is fatal, but what it does show is a lost opportunity. The Trump campaign was trying to score point and instead ended in up controversy. With Trump's record of low respect for the military this doesn't help. The Trump campaign is looking like the gang that cannot shoot straight.

[ThePublius]

Trump’s supposed record of low respect for the military is manufactured by Dems and their compliant media, and is not so.

[shawn_dude]

Trump's record of disrespecting the military is recorded and can be viewed in context by anyone with a desire to do so. In addition, there are his private remarks regarding John McCain and others.

I think the "bone spurs" are in his brain.

[Frank Drackman]

At least “45” has some Brain left, the “Red Phone” rings at 3am, do they even tell Parkinsonian Joe?

[Brett Bellmore]

The Trump campaign scored a point, and somebody at Arlington set out to create a controversy in order to take that point off the board. Meanwhile the compliant media highlight the artificial controversy, and stay quite about Harris being a no-show.

[Sarcastr0]

Campaigns are not allowed to do photo ops in the Cemetary.

He brought his campaign people. It was a campaign stop.

That is illegal, and disrespectful.

Trump did this himself. And he will suffer no consequences because his followers are willing to twist themselves pretzels to shamefully cover for their guy's utter disrespect for anyone or anything that is not him, or certain foreign strongmen.

[ThePublius]

He did not! He was given permission to have one photographer present, and the families that invited him approved of it. He didn't break the law, and he didn't disrespect anyone. Why do you lie?

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Why do you lie?’.

What’s the inference to the best explanation, given his comments and posts here over many years? That that’s his ROLE here. Haven’t you noticed how rarely he tells the truth? The guy’s responsibility here is to be a propagandist and disinformation purveyor.

It’s certainly not to be an honest academic…

[David Nieporent]

He was given permission to have one photographer present,

He was not given permission by anyone with authority to give permission. The families had the right to invite him; they did not have the right to approve the campaign stunt. He did in fact break the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "law"?

[Magister]

32 CFR § 553.32 is the law forbidding partisan political activity at Army National Military Cemeteries.

[Mr. Bumble]

§ 553.32 Conduct of memorial services and ceremonies.

(a) The Executive Director shall ensure the sanctity of public and private memorial and ceremonial events.

(b) All memorial services and ceremonies within Army National Military Cemeteries, other than official ceremonies, shall be purely memorial in purpose and may be dedicated only to:

(1) The memory of all those interred, inurned, or memorialized in Army National Military Cemeteries;

(2) The memory of all those who died in the military service of the United States while serving during a particular conflict or while serving in a particular military unit or units; or

(3) The memory of the individual or individuals to be interred, inurned, or memorialized at the particular site at which the service or ceremony is held.

(c) Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.

(d) Private memorial services may be closed to the media and public as determined by the decedent's primary next of kin.

(e) Public memorial services and public wreath-laying ceremonies shall be open to all members of the public to observe.
What partisan political activity occurred? He was there at the invitation of families of the deceased.

[Magister]

What partisan political activity occurred? He was there at the invitation of families of the deceased.

Trump campaign aides were there (and shoved a federal employee); the purpose was to create a campaign video.

https://www.tiktok.com/@realdonaldtrump/video/7407571442088430878?lang=en
"We didn’t lose one person in 18 months and then they took over that disaster, the leaving of Afghanistan."

(The first part is a lie unless you think he means non-contiguous months; there were deaths in Operation Freedom's Sentinel in every year Trump was in office. But Trump negotiated that disaster, so the second part is actually a surprisingly honest statement.)

[Magister]

JD Vance tells the media, "you're acting like Donald Trump filmed a TV commercial at a grave site." Which is of course what Donald Trump did.

Vance's account of the deaths at Abbey Road is the greatest tragedy since the Bowling Green Massacre.

[Drewski]

"What partisan political activity occurred? He was there at the invitation of families of the deceased."

At the expense of his campaign, which exists only to promote partisan political activity. If it weren't partisan political activity, it would be improper use of campaign funds for personal use. Either way, he broke the law.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"32 CFR § 553.32 is the law forbidding partisan political activity at Army National Military Cemeteries."

Sounds like a First Amendment violation. If people think Trump violated some law, they can charge him and convict him. They've done it before.

[Moderation4ever]

I doubt a first amendment violation as there are first amendment limits where electioneering is concerned. There are places where electioneering is not allowed and I am not aware that has been challenged.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I doubt a first amendment violation as there are first amendment limits where electioneering is concerned."

"Electioneering" is at the top of the free speech hierarchy. Bans on wearing campaign buttons inside a polling place have been struck downs, for example.

Here's what SCOTUS said in case about the solicitation of votes and the distribution of campaign materials at polling places:

a) The section is a facially content-based restriction on political speech in a public forum and, thus, must be subjected to exacting scrutiny: The State must show that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. This case presents a particularly difficult reconciliation, since it involves a conflict between the exercise of the right to engage in political discourse and the fundamental right to vote, which is at the heart of this country's democracy. Pp. 196-198.

(b) Section 2-7-111(b) advances Tennessee's compelling interests in preventing voter intimidation and election fraud. There is a substantial and long-lived consensus among the 50 States that some restricted zone around polling places is necessary to serve the interest in protecting the right to vote freely and effectively.

I don't see a similar interest here.

[David Nieporent]

“Electioneering” is at the top of the free speech hierarchy. Bans on wearing campaign buttons inside a polling place have been struck downs, for example.

But bans on staging campaign events at polling places haven't been.

OOC, do you think the Hatch Act violates the 1A?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But bans on staging campaign events at polling places haven’t been."
Yes, I quoted a case upholding such a ban in my comment. What part of the reasoning do you think applies to military cemeteries?

"OOC, do you think the Hatch Act violates the 1A?"

Could be. IICU similar restrictions on judicial branch employes have been struck down.

In the Letter Carriers case, the Hatch Act was upheld because the government has a compelling interest in making sure the laws are executed without bias, etc. I don't necessarily buy it, but that wouldn't apply here anyway.

Is your position that the application of these laws in Military Cemeteries doesn't get heightened scrutiny, that it would survive heightened scrutiny, or something else?

[not guilty]

TwelveInchPianist, do you have a citation to any decision where a bans on wearing campaign buttons inside a polling place has been struck down? I am unaware of any such decision.

You quoted from the syllabus in Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), where a plurality of the Court applied strict scrutiny to uphold a statute which prohibits the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place against a First Amendment challenge. The controlling opinion there, however, was Justice Scalia's opinion concurring in the judgment, which concluded that the challenged statute is constitutional because it is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation of a nonpublic forum. Scalia there rejected use of strict scrutiny. Id., at 214.

When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sounds like a viewpoint-neutral, time-and-place restriction.

Which means you're full of shit. Amazing how none of you fucking cunts can bother to just say "Trump did wrong, and he shouldn't haver disrespected the military and nation like that."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TwelveInchPianist, do you have a citation to any decision where a bans on wearing campaign buttons inside a polling place has been struck down? I am unaware of any such decision."
Yup

[SRG2]

Trump followers apparently believe that Trump has immunity for all acts, so it doesn't matter what law you cite or what evidence you adduce, if Trump did it, it's not illegal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sounds like a viewpoint-neutral, time-and-place restriction.

Which means you’re full of shit."

Now there's a non-sequitur for you.

[jb]

"Sounds like a First Amendment violation. If people think Trump violated some law, they can charge him and convict him. They’ve done it before."

Another thing that is often done is that if there's a law in place, people in charge of enforcing it will try to prevent the law from being broken. Sounds like they tried to do that in this case and Trump's staff got into a physical altercation with them rather than just doing as asked.

So another thing that could have happened: Trump's staff could have just acquiesced to the requests of the folks at Arlington and then sued to have the law overturned and/or for damages.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It sounds like Trump and the family of a fallen Marine were having a perfectly respectable ceremony at Arlington, and Trump's photographer didn't allow The Man to put his boot on his neck.

Good for him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch, have you ever visited Arlington Cemetery? I ask because I want to better understand whether your nihilism is well-informed and deliberate, or just ignorant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kissing babies and honoring dead servicemen are not partisan political activities -- no more than going to church is.

A similar non-partisan activity is the candidate going to vote, even if the candidate's election staff facilitates media coverage of it. And back when we had an election *day*, the media often covered both candidates casting their own vote, presumably for themselves...

[Bob from Ohio]

"the law."

Is this regulation a law?

[Martinned2]

Yes

[Bob from Ohio]

Better arrest Biden then, he used pictures of him at Arlington [with an officer in dress uniform] in his 2020 campaign.

[shawn_dude]

The law aside, he didn't get permission from the families of all the gravesites that were filmed in his campaign event. Other families have come forward to complain about their children's graves being used as campaign fodder.

You claim that he didn't break the law, disrespect anyone, and that Sarcastr0 lied. Magister posts the law in question but you don't retract your accusation?

[ThePublius]

"“The president and his team conducted themselves with nothing but the utmost respect and dignity for all of our service members, especially our beloved children,” the five family members said."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4851481-trump-arlington-cemetery-incident/

The knives are out for Trump, by the Dems, the press, and anyone they can rile up against him. Beware their fictions!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't you have a handgun to lick clean?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/us-army-rebukes-trump-campaign-arlington-incident/index.html

“Participants in the August 26th ceremony and the subsequent Section 60 visit were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds. An ANC employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside,” the Army spokesperson said in the statement on Thursday. Section 60 is an area in the cemetery largely reserved for the graves of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked. ANC is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve,” the statement said.

Go fuck yourself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The Marine's family didn't have a problem with anything Trump did.

You guys are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that some bureaucrat got pissy because a dumb rule wasn't being followed.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, after the third time you posted this I can see that you're trolling.

You don't believe this, you don't believe in anything beyond freaking the non-MAGA squares.

What a dick.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Back to name calling, I see.

There's no way a minor incident of this nature is going to have any effect on any campaign, especially when the rule involved is probably unconstitutional and the family of the fallen Marine is supporting the candidate.

The fact that you think this should be a big deal is the TDS talking.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Not a single one of you shit-stain cultists can so much as utter the condemnation that every decent human being should feel at his entitled law-breaking.

Not here, in your little safe space, with your anonymous names, can you even find the shred of a fucking spine to actually pretend like any of you have any morals whatsoever.

Never mind that he broke the law. Never mind that his 'people' think they're entitled to assault employees. Never mind that he's exploiting ANC -where actual heroes who served more than themselves lay fallen. Never mind that he has no concept of service beyond what he can extract or extort from anyone he comes in contact with.

You'll excuse anything he does, because you're all pieces of shit.

[Moderation4ever]

The Trump campaign blow this one big. The only news coverage is about their violation of the decorum and rules for behavior in a military cemetery. Calling cemetery staff members mentally ill is just digging deeper.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be fake news coverage.

[Joe_dallas]

Harris at the DNC convention stated she wants the most lethal military, yet the military spending is down during the Biden / harris administration and is heavily infected with DEI policies that degrade military effectiveness.

Her support of the military is very fake.

[SRG2]

You're conflating spending on the military, which the Democrats like, with spending on the defence industry, which the GOP like.

[Joe_dallas]

SRG2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You’re conflating spending on the military, which the Democrats like"

the last democrat that took the military seriously was Sam Nunn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Jimmy Carter did after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
It's a pity that it took him 3 years to realize the necessity, but he actually -- eventually -- did.

As a percentage increase, at the tail end of his term he increased the DOD budget more than Reagan ever did.

[Mr. Bumble]

She was referring to the Taliban military and their $8 billion of US arms.

[jb]

"heavily infected with DEI policies that degrade military effectiveness"

citation needed

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Please cite the studies indicating the "DEI policies" in question and their demonstrated impact on efficacy.

Oh, is that something you're going to claim is "common knowledge" again, you lying sack of shit?

[SimonP]

I don’t share the strange secular religion that the U.S. has over veterans, so I can’t pretend to much care about Trump’s stunt for what it was intended to be.

But it serves as a useful reminder to voters that Trump embodies chaos, dysfunction, and crassness in everything he does. He couldn’t just have a respectful moment at Arlington, taking photos where permitted, and issuing a statement or a tweet or whatever about his visit. He had to do the illegal thing. He had to have his staff rough up someone trying to stop him from doing the illegal thing. They had to lie about what happened as details came out. They had to spin their own releases about it.

These people are self-entitled thugs and chaos agents. They belong nowhere near power.

[Dan Schiavetta]

From the Times story:

“A woman who works at the cemetery filed an incident report with the military authorities over the altercation. But the official, who has not been identified, later declined to press charges. Military officials said she feared Mr. Trump’s supporters pursuing retaliation.”

A reasonable fear, considering past incidents of harassment and physical threats.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Also:

"Two Trump campaign officials, Mr. Cheung and Chris LaCivita, had insulted the cemetery worker in public statements on Tuesday. Mr. Cheung asserted that she was “suffering from a mental health episode” while Mr. LaCivita said that she was a “despicable individual” who “does not deserve to represent the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.”"

Classy guys.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Were you there?

Maybe they are accurately describing her.

[SimonP]

This is the kind of impunity that drives extremism.

[Estragon]

Just wait until the video comes out

[Frank Drackman]

Of Setgeant Pepper-Waltz Bu-fooing one of his players? Or Son? (I’m not an Abuse Counselor, but there’s a few “Red Flags” there)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why?

I seem to remember Presidents setting wreaths there before.
So this was an ex-President doing so.

[Magister]

This was for partisan political purposes.

And smiling with a thumbs up over anyone's grave is in poor taste, even for someone like Trump who thinks the deceased was a sucker and a loser.

But this is just among the latest things that Trump has done that should be fatal to a campaign, so probably little will come of it; his cultists won't care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"smiling with a thumbs up over anyone’s grave is in poor taste,"

I count 5 of the family members with thumps up as well, several smiling.

[Magister]

Do you think they were emulating Trump, or that Trump was emulating them? The picture I saw, first to come up in a Google image search, had only Trump with a thumbs up, but like chants of "lock her up" we can reliably expect inappropriate behavior from Trump supporters.

Here is a more disturbing grinning/thumbs up photo opportunity, with a baby orphaned by the 2019 El Paso shooting that targeted Hispanics. (A fitting match for Trump's thumbs up "I love Hispanics" over a taco bowl.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"we can reliably expect inappropriate behavior from Trump supporters."

If they thought it was disrespectful, they would not have done it.

Your disrespect for them is noted though.

[Magister]

I didn't say they would find it disrespectful. They are clearly Trump supporters or they wouldn't have cooperated with his publicity stunt. It is difficult to respect Trump supporters but especially those who would use deceased family members as campaign donations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"use deceased family members as campaign donations"

Oh, is that what they did?

Its always deplorables with you guys isn't it.

[Magister]

I have no reason to believe these people are deplorable (in the sense of Clinton's basket).

(Say, did you go back and find the special assistants to the president in that letter? It's not exactly where's Waldo level of difficulty.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

If a President was to lay a wreath for non-political (not "non-partisan") purposes, he'd do it at 3 AM and in the middle of a thunderstorm if possible so that no one other than God would ever knew he'd done it.

[SRG2]

When a president lays a wreath, he is doing so nominally as commander-in-chief and head of state. An ex-president generally known for avoiding visits to military cemeteries? Not so much.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Arlington National Cemetery thing should be fatal to a campaign."

Trump exercising his First Amendment rights should be fatal to his campaign?

You really do only support Free Speech when it suits your purpose.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of things that are free speech can be fatal to a political campaign.

Of course

Cheapening a memorial with electioneering bullshit should be one of them.

It won’t be. Because of tools like you that hide behind excuses so bad it’s clear nothing matters to them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Lots of things that are free speech can be fatal to a political campaign."

Certainly true, but your main claim above was that it was illegal. Now you're shifting the goalposts.

"Cheapening a memorial with electioneering bullshit should be one of them."

Weasel wording aside, it's hard to see why someone should avoid voting for an otherwise desirable candidate because he took a picture at a memorial.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It *IS* illegal, you dumb fuck.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/553.32

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not constitutionally enforceable, you stupid shit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Look who’s backpedaling and shifting goalposts now!

I and other have already rejected your Constitutional argument. You’re just a pathetic cultist looking to excuse objectionable behavior because you aren’t man enough to call it out and admit your cult leader is a giant douchebag.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I and other have already rejected your Constitutional argument."

Well jeez, I guess that settles it then.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Remember when you accused Sarcastr0 of shifting goalposts because you thought it wasn't illegal, and then I cited the actual law to you and, ironically, you ran away and shifted your goalposts like a cowardly bitch immediately?

Remember that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jason, Massachusetts has (at least) two sodomy statutes still on the books, along with a blasphemy statute as well.

Are you saying that sodomy and blasphemy are illegal in Massachusetts (you dumb fuck)?

[Magister]

Rule of Goats. Or maybe it should be Rule of Goat, since the original joke involved only a single goat, but it should be viewed as just the tipping point.

Usually a thing like this just reinforces or reinvigorates previous impressions of a candidate - here, Trump's disdain for the military; or Jeb Bush's "Please clap"; or Dukakis in a tank; - but sometimes it stands out by itself - Howard Dean's scream, for example.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I said nothing about illegal: "The Arlington National Cemetery thing should be fatal to a campaign." You seem to have misread me.

2. Legal or not is immaterial to respectful or appropriate.

3. Your take on the 1A doesn't actually say anything about what the law is.

4. Why do you think there is a law about that? Any sense of why it might be important?

5. Minimizing what he did as 'took a picture at a memorial' is about the level of minimization I expected from an utter soilless tool.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“I said nothing about illegal:”

You said, “That is illegal…”

“2. Legal or not is immaterial to respectful or appropriate.”

He was invited to participate in a ceremony at the grave of a Marine by the family, and he accepted. That sounds respectful to me. The fact that the DOD people interrupted the ceremony is what was disrespectful.

And the Marine’s family seems to think Trump behaved respectfully. The people who are complaining are just a couple of stupid bureaucrats.

[Sarcastr0]

I said, "That is illegal, and disrespectful" which you cut off presumably because you are a disingenuous piece of shit.

If you're going to posit what my "main claim" is, don't take it from part of a sentence in reply to Brett's comment well down the thread.

You're basically strawmanning.

You leave out where this was, and act like this family owns the cemetery. Which is itself a tellingly fucked up way to view Arlington National Cemetery.

[Commenter_XY]

The incompetent boob otherwise known as Nat Sec Advisor Sullivan is now in China. First mtg of Nat Sec Adv with Xi in 8 years (who last met with Rice in 2016). Hopefully, the incompetent numbnut won't get us into a shooting war. His track record (UKR, ISR) leaves much to be desired.

The Philippines are going south wrt China. Our carriers are otherwise occupied in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Arabian seas. One carrier in Yokahama. The Chinese have watched the USN go down to defeat wrt the Houthis; they achieved nothing and Suez canal is shut down.

This is not a good situation. I am relieved they are talking, for now.

[Sarcastr0]

Thinks the world revolves around the US.
Thinks random stuff is US defeats, and China is about to strike in a moment of weakness only they and he can see.

Clancybrained.

[Commenter_XY]

As I said....wonderful track record here with Sullivan: UKR, ISR are in hot wars. The Iran bribes did not work, and Afghanistan was a mess.

Stay stupid, and never change. Well, stopping false accusations against Israel (e.g. accusing them of indiscriminate bombing of palestinian civilians) would be a good change for you, and probably good for your black soul.

[David Nieporent]

As I said….wonderful track record here with Sullivan: UKR, ISR are in hot wars.

I am pretty sure that Sullivan is the national security advisor for neither Benjamin Netanyahu nor Volodymyr Zelensky.

[Commenter_XY]

David, I am pretty sure Sullivan was taking some direction from his feeble-minded (your term, I think) boss, and provided him with notoriously bad advice. So yeah, incompetent boob, and a feeble-minded boss (I errantly left that part out). 🙂

[David Nieporent]

1) My term was in fact feeble — not feeble-minded. Those have very different meanings.
2) And what "bad advice"? Biden has handled those two situations about as well as it's possible to have handled them.

[Commenter_XY]

The fact the situations even happened (UKR, ISR) is Exhibit#1, 2 to their (POTUS Biden, incompetent boob Sullivan) collective incompetence, David.

BTW, I am still chuckling at the '7 deadly sins as a to do list' crack. That was hilarious.

[Josh R]

Perhaps Putin would have held off invading Ukraine if Trump had won because he was hopeful the US would pull out of NATO - and then he would march in.

Hamas did not choose Oct 7 because Biden was in power.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Putin didn't invade Ukraine when Trump was in office. He waited until Biden was elected, and until Biden had signaled risk aversion during his withdrawal from Afghanistan.

[Josh R]

Again, Putin waited because he was hopeful Trump (after being reelected) would pull the US out of NATO.

Biden's response to the invasion (a master stroke in keeping the NATO allinace together) was something Putin didn't count on.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If true, that would have been a big risk.

"Biden’s response to the invasion (a master stroke in keeping the NATO alliance together)"

How's that a master stroke? Every President has kept Nato together. Is there any evidence Biden did anything to keep it together?

[Josh R]

There could easily been cracks in the alliance over providing support to Ukraine. There are cracks forming right now (e.g., Germany). Plus, you have hostile NATO members like Hungary. Biden was at the forefront of the diplomacy to keep things intact. With Trump at the helm, we would have stopped funding Ukraine by now.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Putin waited because he was hopeful Trump (after being reelected) would pull the US out of NATO."

Putin tell you this personally?

Timing of invasion is factual Your analysis is not.

[David Nieporent]

Putin tell you this personally?

No. John Bolton did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"John Bolton did."

Putin told him?

Its just speculation, the date of the Russian invasion is fact.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So your "master stroke" claim was just vibes?

[Josh R]

Vibes? The results (NATO sticking together) are not vibes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 1973, Nixon asked Kissinger what Israel needed, and then told Kissinger to "double it" and give it to them.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of situations happen without the US somehow causing or failing to prevent them.

That this causally dodgy nonsense is the best you got says a lot of good things about the improvement of the state of American foreign policy. Plenty more you could have said for every Admin since 9-11.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Biden has handled those two situations about as well as it’s possible to have handled them."

Biden has allowed Ukraine to turn into a bloody stalemate by forcing the Ukrainians to avoid striking necessary targets.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Ukraine was expected to be annihilated in a few weeks, but don't let facts stop you from your ignorant proclamations of bullshit.

[apedad]

Three Owners of Notorious Prostitution Website Backpage.com Sentenced

Michael Lacey, 76, of Paradise Valley, Arizona, was sentenced to five years in prison and three years of supervised release; Scott Spear, 73, of Phoenix, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and three years of supervised release; and John “Jed” Brunst, 72, of Phoenix, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and three years of supervised release. The Court also ordered that all defendants turn themselves in to the U.S. Marshals Service by noon on Sept. 11.

“The defendants and their conspirators obtained more than $500 million from operating an online forum that facilitated the sexual exploitation of countless victims . . . . "

In an effort to preserve the money earned, Lacey, Spear, and Brunst laundered the money through numerous shell companies they created in multiple foreign countries.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-owners-notorious-prostitution-website-backpagecom-sentenced

Wow, $500M earned hosting a forum?!?

Also, the article points out they were mainly guilty of money laundering conspiracy and concealment of money laundering - not the sex stuff.

[Commenter_XY]

Elizabeth Nolan Brown hardest hit, and weeps…

[Longtobefree]

"In an effort to preserve the money earned, Lacey, Spear, and Brunst laundered the money through numerous shell companies they created in multiple foreign countries."

I think you misspelled "Biden" - - - - - - - - - -

[apedad]

Nebraska spars with ACLU over felon voting rights

The Nebraska Legislature twice violated the state constitution when it restored voting rights to felons who had not been pardoned, once in 2005 and again earlier this year, the state argued in front of the Nebraska Supreme Court on Wednesday.

“They unconstitutionally exercise the Board of Pardon’s exclusive authority to grant clemency,” Nebraska Solicitor General Eric Hamilton told justices, defending Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen's July 17 instruction to local election officials to stop registering voters with past felony convictions. “These statutes are unconstitutional.”

The bill eliminated the waiting period previously required for people with felony convictions under the terms of LB 53, which was enacted in 2005 and allowed Nebraskans to vote two years after completing a criminal sentence.

And prior case law shows the restoration of voting rights is implemented through statute, (American Civil Liberties Union attorney Jane) Seu said. She argued the restoration of voting rights granted by the bill does not amount to a pardon.

https://www.courthousenews.com/nebraska-spars-with-aclu-over-felon-voting-rights/

We often have discussions here at the VC about restoring rights to felons and this seems like a new discussion about who actually restores a right after the sentence has been completed; the legislature or the executive.

I'd say that's the legislature's prerogative.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree on Legislature prerogative. They are the representatives closest to the People. But it seems they already addressed the question, no? The Legislature voted that a felon can vote again, 2 years after serving sentence.

[apedad]

Right but the NE gov is saying, no only I can restore their rights.

[Commenter_XY]

I think the NE Gov and Sec State are mistaken. The Legislature acted in 2005, some 19 years ago. And no governor or sec state said 'boo' in that time.

It is not like NE has some whacko Legislature (unicameral, I think). Pretty much salt of the earth types, from what I gather.

Is there a principle of the law (something like tolling) that says....Nuh uh, you boys and girls in the executive branch took too long to register your objection.

[Krayt]

I suppose a pardon covers the downside of not being able to vote among its benefits, but that only a governor can do that seems silly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You have to amend a constitution to change it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The case is absurd. This disability only exists in the first place thanks to a statute. Of course the legislature can remove the disability by statute. They can, by statute, deprive the executive branch of any lawful authority to enforce the disability.

It's not a grant of clemency, which is a discretionary removal of a statutory penalty. It's the basis for the penalty itself being removed.

[Absaroka]

The Nebraska constitution explicitly creates the disability: "No person shall be qualified to vote who is non compos mentis, or who has been convicted of treason or felony under the laws of the state or of the United States, unless restored to civil rights".

The controversy is about who gets to restore civil rights; the guv says only the executive has the ability, while the leg says it can do so by statue.

(My very quick scan didn't show anything in the constitution that is explicit one way or the other, so the NE supreme court gets to decide)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Good, cogent analysis.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://nypost.com/2024/08/27/us-news/united-airlines-staffers-palestinian-flag-pin-sparks-furor-but-company-stands-by-policy-allowing-displays-of-pride/

The [Jewish] group is calling on airlines to prohibit such symbols — but United [Airlines] isn’t budging on its policy to allow flight staff to wear Palestinian or other flag pins “that represent their pride.”
“Our uniform policy has long included an option for flight attendants to wear flag pins to designate specific language skills so that our customers who are more comfortable in a language other than English can know who on our crew speaks their preferred language,” the airline said in a statement.
“We also allow flight attendants to wear flag pins that represent their pride in a place to which they may have a special connection,” the statement added.

Hmmm... Do you think they'd allow a proud Russian to wear a Russian flag pin? I bet they wouldn't! (They wouldn't want to appear to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine.) But appearing to support this doesn't bother them quite as much for some reason...
Political correctness is rather selective... (Just ask your average Ivy League college president.)

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual hypocrisy is the easiest to find.

[Commenter_XY]

Ed, wearing hama badges (e.g. palestinian flag) is bad for business. I know if I saw a flight attendant wearing a hamas badge, and I was wearing my kippa, I would not want to be served by the incipient terror supporter. I would specifically ask for someone else, or not have anything at all....and then never fly United again until they tell their staff to stop wearing hamas badges.

Delta figured that out already, they only allow the wearing of US flag pin.

[Ilya Snowman]

And if they wore a hijab and thought you deserve to be a dhimmi or beheaded, would you still trust the food they served you?

Why is it problematic only when they have political expressions of animus and not when the animus is religiously-rooted?

[David Nieporent]

Can you show us on the doll where the Muslim touched you?

[Mr. Bumble]

We're not talking about Bacha bāzī .

[David Nieporent]

Obviously not, since that isn't Muslim at all; the Taliban are strongly opposed to it.

[Martinned2]

Out of curiosity, what do you imagine a "Hamas badge" would look like?

[Ilya Snowman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#/media/File:Emblem_of_Hamas.svg

[Commenter_XY]

A palestinian flag.

Ilya showed you the emblem.

[Martinned2]

A Palestinian flag is in no way a "Hamas badge". It was in use for decades before Hamas was even founded, and Hamas has always had its own flag. Which looks like this: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/islamic-isis-flags-black-banners-hamas/

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a PLO flag then. Hardly better.

[Martinned2]

Given that the PLO has had a ceasefire with Israel for 30 years now, that's quite a big difference.

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

And no, it's not the PLO flag either. The Palestinian flag predates the PLO too. It's the flag of the Palestinian authority, not the flag of the political party that happens to run the Palestinian authority at the moment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it was officially adopted as the Palestinian people's flag when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964." wikipedia

The swastika predates Hitler.

[Commenter_XY]

The palestinians broadly support hamas; their flag is a hamas badge. They can fly it proudly.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey you know how you accused me of blood libel?

Did you just say all Palestine and Palestinians are Hamas?

[shawn_dude]

Dehumanizing an entire people in order to excuse their wholesale slaughter by an oppressive government.

Huh. Where have I seen that political playbook before....?

[Bob from Ohio]

"designate specific language skills"

What language is "Palestinian"? Seems like a pin in Arabic that says "I speak Arabic" would designate specific language skills, not a flag from one "country". If you were picking an Arab country, Saudi Arabia actually has Arabic on its flag.

The airlines response is very, very stupid.

[Martinned2]

I think the relevant bit from the statement isn't the language bit, which is obiter dicta, but this:

“We also allow flight attendants to wear flag pins that represent their pride in a place to which they may have a special connection,”

[Bob from Ohio]

"also allow"

The first justification is obiter dicta,, huh?

People usually lead with the main reason. "also" means its a secondary reason

[SRG2]

So, for example, an employee whose grandfather was a guard at Auschwitz can wear a swastika pin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about a Nazi flag to indicate fluency in German?

I'm sure that would be OK...

[Bored Lawyer]

Interesting Section 230 Case. Anderson v. Tiktok (3d Cir. 2024)

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-3061/22-3061-2024-08-27.pdf?ts=1724792413

Third Circuit's summary:

TikTok, Inc., via its algorithm, recommended and promoted videos posted by third parties to ten-year-old Nylah Anderson on her uniquely curated “For You Page.” One video depicted the “Blackout Challenge,” which encourages viewers to record themselves engaging in acts of self-asphyxiation.
After watching the video, Nylah attempted the conduct depicted in the challenge and unintentionally hanged herself. Nylah’s mother, Tawainna Anderson, sued TikTok and its corporate relative ByteDance, Inc., (collectively, “TikTok”) for violations of state law. The District Court dismissed her complaint, holding that the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunizes TikTok. For the following reasons, we will reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Third Circuit holds that Section 230 immunity does not apply. Tiktok's algorithm, which "recommended" the blackout video, among others in a compilation, constitutes Tiktok's own speech, not third party speech, and so does not enjoy Section 230 immunity. It relies on Moody v. Netchoice (2024), which held that such “expressive activity includes presenting
a curated compilation of speech originally created by others[,]” The platforms enjoyed First Amendment protection to this compilaition and recommendation. The corollary, Third Circuit holds, is that is the platform's own speech, and not immune under Section 230.

[Commenter_XY]

What a human tragedy; a 10-year old kills herself? For what?

BL, where do you come out on this. Is TikTok liable?

[Bored Lawyer]

It's pretty novel, so can't be sure. But I do think there is a strong case of negligence. That she was only 10 weighs heavily that it was negligent. Telling a 10-year-old to engage in highly risky activity strikes me as negligent.

They also have to prove causation. Was her death caused by Tiktok's recommendation, or by the video itself (for which Tiktok is still not liable under Section 230)? Not sure. I can see both ways.

As usual, expect a settlement. (Possible a SCOTUS petition.)

[Commenter_XY]

It is horrifying. And I agree about negligent. Deliberately pushing an algorithm and then related explicit content to a 10-year old child to perform acts that could (and did) kill her? No way.

It is not child porn, but it sure in hell looks like child endangerment. I suppose one could make a case for parental irresponsibility, also, when you stop and think about it.

Nylah will never know of any of this. That is the tragedy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It IS child porn -- it's called "autoerotic asphyxiation" -- see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_asphyxiation

[John F. Carr]

She may have had to lie about her age. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act strongly makes it inconvenient to offer social media type services to anybody under 13.

[John F. Carr]

Strike "strongly". I wrote "strongly discourages" and changed it to "makes it inconvenient to" after thinking about the part of YouTube that caters to children. No comments allowed on videos for children.

[hobie]

This is a tough one to call. I think it could go either way. I think TikTok should prevail because the algorithm is only reflecting the previous viewing preferences of the 10 year old and not TikTok's

[Bored Lawyer]

How specific are "viewing preferences" though? If she sought out blackout videos before, then you may have a point. If the algorithm recommended it because it's popular among 10-year-olds, then not so much.

Youtube does the same thing, and I have gotten some pretty bizarre recommendations that are only tangentially related to my viewing habits.

[David Nieporent]

Note that your question speaks to whether TikTok should be liable, not whether it should be subject to suit in the first place.

[Kazinski]

I’d forgo a lawsuit, the consequences aren’t dire enough, apprehension, rendition, and waterboarding seem about right.

The only question is what you do with the bodies afterwards, disapear forever, or found to make it apparent exactly what happened.

Not only the TikTok executives, the creep that made the challenge video, especially the creep.

[Krayt]

I thought the point of 230 was you can't be sued if you goof in your own curation. Redeclaring curation as speech to work around this seems too tricky by half.

[Brett Bellmore]

"(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)"

Pushing content is hardly "restricting access or availability"; If anything, it's the exact opposite.

[Josh R]

Section 1 is at issue:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Is curated inofrmation provided by others covered by this language? I would think so, even though the First Amendment treats the curation as protected speech by the provider. As David N points out, the First Amendment and statute don't have to reach the same conclusion.

[Bored Lawyer]

See my comment below to DN.

[Brett Bellmore]

You won't find the word "curate" in Section 230. You will find the phrase "restrict access to or availability of".

And they did the precise opposite of what Section 230 aims to protect.

They are protected for the actual content. They are not protected for their decision to recommend it.

[shawn_dude]

I believe there is also an understanding that if a site is heavily moderated, that weakens 230 protection because the host is actively involved in choosing what gets published. If that is correct, and IANAL, then this seems like a similar situation where the host is involved in promoting specific content published by other forum users.

The promotion algorithm is likely a type of AI and these kinds of cases are going to grow in number as AI errors become more commonplace. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Brett Bellmore]

They'd be best off just giving up their own moderation, and providing users the ability to moderate what they see themselves, to their own tastes. But their business model is selling unwilling eyeballs, so that's a non-starter.

[David Nieporent]

I believe there is also an understanding that if a site is heavily moderated, that weakens 230 protection because the host is actively involved in choosing what gets published. If that is correct,

That is not correct. Indeed, it flips the statute on its head. The entire point of 230 was to encourage active moderation.

[shawn_dude]

Thank you, David.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe there is also an understanding that if a site is heavily moderated, that weakens 230 protection because the host is actively involved in choosing what gets published.

No, there was a concern (based on a court saying so) that this would be the result without a special rule. Section 230 was expressly designed (among other things) to encourage hosts to moderate aggressively without needing to worry that that could render them vicariously liable for their users’ content.

[David Nieporent]

I haven't read the opinion, but based on the summary above that seems clearly wrong. Whether something is deemed the company's speech for 1A purposes has no bearing on whether it is deemed the company's speech for § 230 purposes.

[Bored Lawyer]

Have to disagree. That Tiktok allows millions of videos to be posted on its site is clearly protected by Section 230. That it suggests to a particular user that these 25 videos would be of particular interest to the user is Tiktok's speech. Same reason that it's protected by the First Amendment is why it's first-party speech for Section 230.

That's the nub. Tiktok is making a suggestion to the user that these particular videos out of millions would interest him or her. That suggestion is a result of a Tiktok algorithm, not those who posted the videos in the first place.

[Josh R]

Perhaps "information provided by another information content provider" refers to the original content proivder regardless of who suggested viewing it?

[Bored Lawyer]

That's a causation argument. Tiktok pointed her to this particular video, and then she was influenced by its content.

Consider the following. A bookstore has thousands of books. There's an adult section with pornographic materials. A clerk directs children to that section. Who is at fault -- the clerk, or the publishers of the porn?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's essentially it. If these platforms just carried content, and left the users to pick what content they looked at, they'd be in the clear. But they don't: They push content to people.

[Josh R]

It's not a matter of fault. It's a matter of interpreting the text of the statute. Who is the "content provider"?

[David Nieporent]

That it suggests to a particular user that these 25 videos would be of particular interest to the user is Tiktok’s speech.

Yes, but "these videos might be of interest to you" is not an actionable statement in any planet in any universe. The only way to even potentially get some liability for Tiktok is to look at the actual content of the videos. And § 230 says that they cannot be treated as the publisher of that content.

[Bored Lawyer]

Still disagree. "These videos" is referencing a particular subset of videos. That's Tiktok's speech about those videos, based on their content.

[shawn_dude]

Section 230 doesn't protect illegal or harmful speech, either. "Harmful" here might be a legal term of art but my layperson's perspective is that videos encouraging people to suffocate themselves would qualify. Regardless of whether it is TikTok's speech in question, in this case it seems obvious to me that they aren't protected by section 230 or the First Amendment. I also believe that speech produced by an AI owned by TikTok is TikTok's speech.

[David Nieporent]

Section 230 doesn’t protect illegal or harmful speech, either. “Harmful” here might be a legal term of art

Not only is not a legal term of art, but it's not part of the statute at all.

[shawn_dude]

David, according to the EFF, section 230 does not protect harmful content. While that may not be specifically called out in the law, other legal decisions would certainly clarify where section 230 does and does not apply.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, according to the EFF, it doesn’t “protect companies that create illegal or harmful content.” That’s the key point they’re trying to make: it doesn’t immunize companies for their own speech or content.

[Armchair]

Tulsi Gabbard has endorsed Trump.

Interesting how many bigger name ex-Democrats are endorsing Trump.

[apedad]

Ok I'll bite; how many (and who are they)?

Here's the list from 2020 (six): https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/18/these-are-the-top-democrats-who-have-endorsed-trumps-reelection/

As opposed to, "(m)ore than 200 former Republican presidential staffers sign open letter endorsing Harris over Trump."

[Armchair]

There's a difference between a no-name staffer and individuals who have national name recognition.

[apedad]

Ok I’ll bite; how many (and who are they)?

[Michael P]

Trump has Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk.

Harris has, um, Adam Kinzinger?

[Magister]

Those three are ex-Democrats, and now get promoted by Republicans rather than Democrats.

Republicans other than Kinzinger spoke at the Democratic National Convention. The more significant list may be major Republicans who have not supported Trump and those who say they will not vote for him. Are there any prominent Democrats who have said they won't vote for Harris?

[MoreCurious]

I hate to break the news to you, but the number of Democrats who are influenced by Gabbard, Kennedy, and Musk is exactly zero.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gabbard was elected to Congress and qualified for the Dem debate in 2020. That's more support than you have.

[Magister]

But less support than every living Democratic president and Democratic presidential nominee, who have all endorsed Harris. By contrast, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush have declined to support Donald Trump (Romney voted to remove Trump in both his impeachments).

[Kazinski]

RFK jr, and Gabbard (the former congresswoman who almost singlehandedly knocked Kamala out of the 2020 race, with a big assist from Kamala of course) are pretty big names, and far outweigh the names on your 2020 list, and outweigh all the former GOPs endorsing Kamala.

[SRG2]

"My list is more important than your list because it's my list"

Senior people who've actually worked closely with Trump are not an insignificant group.

[Kazinski]

No, they aren't insignificant, but they aren't another Presidential candidate who is polling above the probable margin of victory, or a former Democratic congresswoman and Presidential candidate who did much better among voters than the current democratic candidate just 4 years ago.

[SRG2]

I think that for anyone with a brain, an endorsement of one candidate by a large number of senior people with an intimate knowledge of the other carries more weight than an endorsement from someone who was basically kicked out of the other party. I am not sure you meet the qualification.

[Armchair]

Look at the list. These aren't senior people with intimate knowledge of the other candidate (Trump).

You've got Chad Adler, Finance Intern for the Romney 2012 campaign. Or Windsor Mann, Youth Coordinator, Students for Bush, Bush 2004. Or Rebecca Ratliff Texas Planning Council for Developmental Disabilities Appointee, George W. Bush Administration.

These are the Republicans they found to sign this letter. Not "senior people" with intimate knowledge of Trump. But random, no-name people who played marginal (or unpaid) roles, for GOP candidate from like 20 years ago. They've got no more knowledge of Trump than you or I.

It's a sad letter.

[NOVA Lawyer]

RFK Jr. and Gabbard are not "pretty big names", at least compared to former Vice President Pence (who hasn't endorsed Harris but says Trump is unfit) and multiple of Trump's cabinet members or top officials (who also call Trump unfit), and both RFK Jr. and Gabbard have hopes of obtaining a position in a Trump administration with their pandering obsequiousness.

Pence is a bigger deal than RFK Jr. and he actually worked with the guy and was hand-picked by him.

Kinzinger is at least equal to Gabbard. Both were representatives. Gabbard left the party, so isn't even a Democrat. You seem to put a lot of weight on a failed, and unimpressive, presidential campaign, which isn't an accomplishment so much as vanity project and self-promotion tour. Unlike Gabbard, Kinzinger hasn't changed his underlying politics and only then endorsed the candidate from the other party. (Gabbard endorsed Biden over Trump in 2020, left the party, changed her views on abortion, transgender, and other issues.)

Plus, there are 15 other former Republican House members who have endorsed Harris.

So, the RFK Jr. / Gabbard thing is wholly unimpressive compared to the Republicans endorsing Harris. But wait, there's more.

Four Republicans who are former governors endorse Harris.

Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (and former Republican Senator) (more impressive than either Gabbard or RFK Jr., both of whom can't even dream of parlaying their ass-kissing to such a prestigious position).

Former Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (and former Congressman, endorsed McCain over Obama but still got tagged by Obama for a spot, would Trump ever do that?)

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Michael Luttig (far more impressive than either RFK Jr. or Gabbard and far more authentically conservative than either of them are liberal).

Add the scores of staffers who worked with Trump as well as copious other Republicans, including Nikki Haley and John Kelly and Mattis, who say Trump is mentally unfit for the job. One starts to wonder if there are any former Trump cabinet members who haven't said he is some combination of unfit and incompetent for the position?

"Former defense secretary Mark Esper told CNN in an interview earlier this month that he doesn’t plan on endorsing anyone and believes Trump is not 'fit for office because he puts himself first and I think anybody running for office should put the country first.'"

(Yes, Haley, too, changed her tune when her future job prospects depended on it....but, undoubtedly, you find her more credible now than when she was calling him unfit at every opportunity).

Find me any Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, or Biden cabinet members who said the president under whom they served was unfit for office? It just doesn't happen. But with Trump, his own Vice President says so, his former defense secretary says so, and plenty of others. The delusions you have to have to think RFK Jr. and Gabbard are anywhere near equal to that is unfathomable. Only Dr. Ed is that deranged and possibly only Brett that conspiracy-minded. So what's your excuse for implying it, Kazinski?

[Armchair]

Who can forget Emily Abel? Or the famous Chad Adler? or the historic Anne Wisniewski

[bernard11]

I'll give you decent odds on Gabbard's "national name recognition."

[Bob from Ohio]

Harris sure knows who she is.

[Frank Drackman]

She still has Tulsi’s high heel marks on her back(I’d like to have them also)

[Armchair]

You certainly know her name.

Do you know Chad Adler as well?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Chuck Hagel? Mark Esper? Michael Luttig? All much bigger deals than Tulsi "Not a Democrat" Gabbard.

[Ilya Snowman]

I'll bite too: if the 200 former Red Team staffers are Neocons, Never-Trumpers, etc, then why wouldn't that look GOOD for Trump amongst his base, amongst independents, and others?

If Dick Cheney speaks out against Trump, do you think that that works AGAINST Trump?

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/08/04/dick-cheney-calls-trump-coward-political-ad-liz-cheney-walsh-brownstein-nr-vpx.cnn

[Bob from Ohio]

"“(m)ore than 200 former Republican presidential staffers sign open letter endorsing Harris over Trump.”"

LOL

Did you read the names and titles? A campaign volunteer, several interns, clerks, and other low level people. No Assistants to the President, no Deputy Assistants or anything similar.

Its unlikely any of these people have ever met a President.

[Magister]

There's a US Attorney and several Undersecretaries, if you want Senate confirmed positions. I counted 11 Deputy Assistants (three of them to the President), and another four Special Assistants to the President. (Skipping past ex-Democrats Gabbard and Kennedy, the only prominent Democrat endorsing Trump would be former Illinois Governor Blagojevich, whose sentence, for trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, was commuted by Trump.)

There are a number of campaign staffers in the list, and beyond that it's difficult to rank deputies, assistants, associates and combinations of those. The letter was obviously intended to impress with numbers rather than titles; higher ranking people, like former Cabinet members or Republican governors, would be more likely to endorse individually. (Or they might not want to join the specific statement in that letter beyond endorsing Harris.) But Bob from Ohio definitely overstates the case with outright falsehoods.

[shawn_dude]

Uh, the same Tulsi Gabbard that associated Obama with being Muslim during his presidency? The same Gabbard that Fox chose to fill in for Tucker Carlson and engage his audience? The same Gabbard that is vocally anti-abortion, anti-trans, and pro-Russia?

She, like Trump, was a Democrat when it suited her and now she's touring at CPAC and riling up racists on FOX. It's not interesting; it's always been in her nature.

[Bob from Ohio]

The same Tulsi Gabbard who skinned Harris in a debate.

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein did thank McCain for not making an Ish-yew of “My Moose-lum Faith” before Gorgeous Snuffaluffagus corrected him “you mean your Christian Faith”
And I don’t get it, if it’s OK for Mullah I’ll-hand Omar and Priapism Slap-a-Jap to be Moose/lum, why not Barry Hussein?

Frank

[MoreCurious]

Still trying -- and succeeding -- in proving how stupid you are. Congratulations, Drackman!

[Voize]

Gabbard was a Democrat by necessity not by inclination. She entered politics in Hawaii and in Hawaii if you are a conservative who values getting elected more than you value your principles you better join the Ds.

[hobie]

I was surprised to learn that Trump had engaged in his least favorite activity: honoring America's dead suckers and losers. Then I learned it was just to honor a very specific set of soldiers killed or wounded in Afghanistan and to get filmed doing it

[ThePublius]

You persist in repeating the 'suckers and losers'' fiction? Have you no shame?

[Michael P]

No, he does not. Neither does Moderation4ever (up-thread) repeating the same libel.

[hobie]

In 2017, Trump held a meeting with his joint chiefs of staff to get them to throw him a Soviet-style parade. But he specifically said he didn't want any wounded veterans, saying:

"“I don’t want them,” Trump repeated. “It doesn’t look good for me.”"

In a 2018 visit to Paris, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed, and called the dead soldiers in Aisne-Marne American Cemetery as "losers"

The Atlantic also reported that while standing by the grave of Robert Kelly, Mark Kelly’s son who was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2010, Mr. Trump had asked: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”

When senator John McCain died in 2018, Mr. Trump said, “We’re not going to support that loser’s funeral.”

At a 2015 campaign event, Mr. Trump said of Mr. McCain: “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

[ThePublius]

Lies.

For example, the 'suckers nd losers' thing has been well debunked.

[SRG2]

Nope.

[Moderation4ever]

"well debunked" got a citation for that?

[Mr. Bumble]

According to the Snopes Archives, the claim that former President Donald Trump called veterans or fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers" originated from a 2020 article in The Atlantic. The article cited anonymous sources who alleged Trump made these comments during a 2018 trip to Paris.

While the claim has been repeated by President Joe Biden and others, there is no audio or video evidence of Trump actually making these statements. Trump and his allies have consistently denied the accusation.

Several reputable news outlets reported on the alleged comments, but they relied entirely on anonymous sources. Former Trump administration officials like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have denied hearing Trump make such remarks.

In 2023, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly appeared to confirm the claim in an interview with CNN, stating that Trump referred to those who defend the country as "suckers" because "there is nothing in it for them." However, it's unclear if Kelly witnessed these comments firsthand or heard about them secondhand.

It's worth noting that Trump has publicly made disparaging comments about some veterans, such as calling John McCain "not a war hero" and saying "I like people who weren't captured."

While the claim has been widely reported and discussed, Snopes was unable to independently verify whether Trump actually called veterans or fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers" due to the lack of direct evidence.

[David Nieporent]

Note that Trump more recently than the Snopes assessment said that being given the Presidential Medal of Freedom for donating lots of money to Donald Trump was better than getting the Medal of Honor for sacrificing in war.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite the source for your deflection.

[David Nieporent]

Um, Trump's attitude towards the military is the topic, so providing more evidence about that attitude is not a "deflection."

And you're sealioning as a form of ankle-biting here. There's no way that someone as terminally online as you did not hear about this story.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-medal-of-freedom-medal-of-honor/

[SimonP]

Bumbler - "confirmed by anonymous sources" does not mean "debunked."

In order to get that result, you have to apply the special MAGA filter, which assumes that anonymously-sourced reporting is simply "fantasy," despite the number of times that anonymously-sourced reporting during the Trump administration led to open scandals.

It's all just so tiresome. MAGA applies different truth standards to different materials, depending solely on whether it affirms their desired narrative. A PR statement put out by Zuckerberg isn't read but assumed without further scrutiny to confirm a vast federal conspiracy to censor speech. The conspiracy is bizarrely attributed to Biden despite beginning under Trump. But then in another thread a widely-reported and confirmed report about something Trump said is tossed out as "debunked" simply because you haven't personally heard a recording of Trump saying it.

We spend all our time debating reality. And then you MAGA fucks have the temerity to complain that the Harris/Trump contest isn't discussing policy! How is it possible to talk "policy" when one candidate is lying about crime and is personally responsible for exacerbating the immigrant crisis? How is it possible to debate or choose between these two candidates, when one of them will just say whatever he needs to, in order to win the news cycle?

[Brett Bellmore]

It seems pretty straightforward that anonymously sourced accounts denied on the record by people present ought to be treated as fantasy. We have no way of knowing the news outlet didn't just make them up, and we have a history of them being just fantasy.

[SimonP]

It seems pretty straightforward that anonymously sourced accounts denied on the record by people present ought to be treated as fantasy.

By "people present" you mean, people with a vested interest in denying the story?

We have no way of knowing the news outlet didn’t just make them up, and we have a history of them being just fantasy.

We have no reason to believe the news outlet just made the sources up, and no, we don't have a history of them just making anonymous sources up, not so frequently that we ought to doubt every anonymous source cited.

Again with the doublethink, with you. Trump has a history of making shit up, constantly. His entire orbit has an established reputation for fabulism. But you'll believe his word over what professional reporters write about his behind-the-scenes discussions. Because of what? Some source cited in a high-profile story by one particular outlet, that didn't pan out, years ago?

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

LOL

[hobie]

Brett gets his news from militia podcasts and rightwing cranks where chicanery and free-flowing lies are the only way they can fill content. So Brett may be assuming that all news organizations operate the same way

[David Nieporent]

It seems pretty straightforward that anonymously sourced accounts denied on the record by people present ought to be treated as fantasy.

That’s just incredibly stupid. If one were going to make a categorical rule — and one shouldn’t — one could just as easily say that we should dismiss people who are speaking on the record, since they need to protect their relationships and jobs, whereas anonymous people can speak freely and truthfully.

And that doesn't even address the fact that most of the denials were not actually denials, but were non-denials like "I didn't hear that."

[TwelveInchPianist]

So should we credit the anonymous source who said that Harris threatened to invoke the 25th Amendment, or not?

[Moderation4ever]

So, your the source has not refuted the statements but rather have not also confirmed them. I do take the point that the statement is from anonymous sources, but suggest it has not been well debunked either. We do have plenty of examples of Trump having little respect for the military. The statement about John McCain, his remarks about the parents of Humayun Khan, his recent statement comparing the Medal of Honor to the Presidential medal of freedom. All suggest you need more than provided here to debunk the report of Trumps statement on soldiers.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it's based on anonymous sources, it hasn't been "bunked" in the first place, to even NEED debunking. In terms of evidence, anonymous sources are stuck at "Take my word for it."

[SRG2]

The absence of independent verification is not the same as "debunked".

[Frank Drackman]

Besides that it’s total Bullshit?

[grb]

ThePublius : "Lies"

That must be a self-comment. General Kelly confirmed Trump's comments.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/john-kelly-confirms-trump-privately-disparaged-us-service-members-vete-rcna118543

[Bob from Ohio]

Nothing in that article was a confirmation that he heard the alleged comment.

" person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family — for all Gold Star families — on TV during the 2016 campaign,"

Kelly accepted a post from Trump after 2016.

[grb]

Wow! Let’s get this straight :

1. General Kelly releases a public statement saying Trump is an unfit leader.

2. He quotes Trump word-for-word, and those quotes exactly match prominent news accounts of discussions between Kelly & Trump.

3. But you say that doesn’t confirm those accounts.

Such a frenzied desperate thing, being a Trump supporter. You have to twist yourself in wild knots to defend his latest humiliating scandal. And it’s kinda like the guy with pan & broom following the elephant in a parade : Cleanup of the latest reeking mess may be needed any moment.

But Bob – your effort here is even more pathetic than usual.

[Bob from Ohio]

Disgruntled fired staffer says things.

[SRG2]

Ohio resident doesn't understand Bayesian reasoning.

[Brett Bellmore]

"2. He quotes Trump word-for-word, and those quotes exactly match prominent news accounts of discussions between Kelly & Trump."

You know, if he'd released his statement before the anonymous accounts, that might actually count as confirmation.

[grb]

Here’s what everyone sees:

grb : Kelly confirmed Trump said it.
Bob : Nothing he said did that.
grb : That’s crazy. It’s exactly what he did.
Bob & Brett : Kelly is lying.

Please note the first Bob claim doesn’t match the last. As for Bob & Brett calling General Kelly a liar, two points: First, no one on the planet Earth would bet real money on Kelly being the liar, not Trump. Even MAGA cultists wouldn’t throw cash to the wind like that.

Second, when this story first appeared, I remember one Brett Bellmore saying it was safe to discount because Kelly wouldn’t confirm. I should have known he had an easy out prepared as fallback position.

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

Leftists are really trying hard to out-evil each other these days.

[SRG2]

Are you a sucker or a loser?

[hobie]

SRG2, let's find out which one.

Hey, Vinni! Do you own a Trump bible or Trump sneakers? Have you contributed to the Trump legal fu...er...campaign?

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

Since I don't expect you to recall, or even have read, everything I've ever posted, I'll assume you don't know (and disregard that you're just being a stupid asshole).

No, no and no. The only campaign I've ever donated to was Ron Paul. I've never voted for Trump. I'm not sure your simple mind can handle the thought that even if you don't prefer someone, it's possible to be unbiased about it.

[SRG2]

Okay, what do you think is being evilled here?

[hobie]

Basically, Trump is, once again, appropriating dead soldiers for political gain

I honestly wish we could extend the national election until December because watching Trump implode his campaign daily is highly entertaining.

I've been ruminating about what October Surprise the democrats have been keeping on ice. But I think Trump's mouth is going to create the October Surprise

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

Who made those dead soldiers for political gain? Biden-Harris and the Botched Pullout. (Coincidentally, the title of Harris’ sex tape.) Why isn’t that campaign ending for Biden or Harris?

[Magister]

Trump negotiated the withdrawal but I'm sure you believe he would have executed it flawlessly, even though the President doesn't micromanage such operations. Realistically, it would have gone the same under Trump but he would have blamed any and all generals (and he himself complains about the generals he chose for positions in his administration, so it's not like he would have been able to choose better people than Biden did) and Trump would of course not care about the suckers and losers who died except that they made him look bad.

[hobie]

Well, today the Army officially expressed outrage over the desecration of the graveyard and the unkind things said about the female custodian. Like I said, Vinni, imploding by the day

[Michael P]

https://www.peta.org/blog/cows-milk-perfect-drink-supremacists/

PETA claims that drinking milk is somehow evidence of white supremacy, based on such notorious real-world examples as “Inglorious Bastards” (sic) and “Get Out”.

I infer they have not — at least in their own memories — seen a human lactating, thus reinforcing the stereotype of childless cat/liberated-animal weirdos on the left.

[ThePublius]

I only drink chocolate milk.

[Mr. Bumble]

From brown cows, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, the weirdo thing really has you in a spin if you're reaching all the way down to PETA to pretend they're mainstream left.

[ThePublius]

One could make the argument that PETA is to the right on what's now mainstream left.

[bernard11]

Sure. Except no one but an idiot would do that.

[Kazinski]

i didn't see him mention left or right, but i get the point now since you mention it.

I will take your word for it that they are an example of the crazy left.

[Sarcastr0]

"reinforcing the stereotype of childless cat/liberated-animal weirdos on the left."

Reed better

[Michael P]

Oh, they're definitely an exaggeration of the mainstream left, but the mainstream left is catching up with them quite quickly.

[Krayt]

Someone makes a joke decades ago about how white it is to drink milk and eat Wonderbread, in a context having nothing to do with white supremacy, and these people treat that as prescriptive?

[Michael P]

Kamala Harris apparently needs supervision by the ostensible "America's Dad" in her upcoming job interview, on top of the interview being edited before America sees it. What is she afraid of? Or should we be asking that about her handlers?

[hobie]

Yes, I was listening to talk radio yesterday and all of them were synced on the same talking point: Harris has to have Walz along because she can't handle an interview. And here you are this morning Michael. Like the dutiful little sponge that you are, you soaked up the pablum and have regurgitated it for us here.

[Michael P]

I note that you don't even try to refute the point. I conclude you cannot.

[hobie]

My impression is that they're using the opportunity to get the views of both candidates out at the same time. Seems practical to me

[ThePublius]

It's silly. It's because she's a blithering, babbling, kackling idiot, and requires a counterpoise in a liver interview.

[ThePublius]

"live"

[Mr. Bumble]

Taped.

[Michael P]

Is Harris in such poor health that Walz’s views matter a lick? The format seems set up to encourage him mansplaining what she “really” meant.

[hobie]

Well, I suppose we will find out. Because right now neither you nor I knows shit about it

[grb]

Michael P : "I note that you don’t even try to refute the point. I conclude you cannot"

What point? You guys have been howling Harris can't do interviews and now she is. You're now whining she can't do one alone, and soon she will. You're talking points reek of desperation and have the shortest of life spans.

Of course that's typical of flailing campaigns. Better start boning-up on your "election fraud" malarkey, Michael. It's looking ever more likely you're gonna need it.

[David Nieporent]

What's to "refute"? It's not an argument; it's just name calling. Presidential and vice presidential candidates — including Trump/Pence — have routinely done joint interviews during the campaign.

[Mr. Bumble]

Point to one.

[Martinned2]

It took me 5 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTL7LriRZJQ

[David Nieporent]

More ankle-biting/sealioning.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/18/donald-trump-mike-pence-60-minutes-interview-bad

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-bob-schieffer-60-minutes-cbs-barack-obama-361137/

I can only do two links per comment here, and I'm not doing all your homework for you, but every one of Obama/Biden, Kerry/Edwards, Clinton/Kaine, and Biden/Harris did one.

I assume you will now move the goalposts in some fashion.

[Life of Brian]

Your squabble with Bumble aside, I do find it a bit amusing that your first article lambastes Trump for not giving Pence a chance to talk. That’s pretty much the polar opposite of the concern at play here.

[grb]

Life of Brian : “That’s pretty much the polar opposite of the concern at play here.”

But there’s no “concern at play” here. Harris and Walz will do their interview and Harris will do more than her share of talking.

Your latest bit of hysterical concern trolling will have a mayfly’s lifespan, just like all your others. Aside from fear and desperation over the Harris polling, I’m not sure why you raise faux issues knowing they’ll vanish into nothingness in hours, not days.

If your guy wasn’t a criminal huckster buffoon (or Harris less an obvious winner) then maybe you’d do better. Instead you wail about Harris not giving interviews (knowing she will), or Walz’s lies (knowing they’re not). It all seems pointless with November so near.

[Life of Brian]

Hmmm.... since I've posted precisely one sentence on this topic, I can only presume your rather histrionic reply was directed to someone else.

But since it appears you've already seen the tape of the joint interview, please do forward so the rest of us can enjoy it too!

[grb]

Life of Brian : “But since it appears you’ve already seen the tape of the joint interview…”

Hey – roll with that. In just a few hours it will be proven nonsense, but time is precious for Trump supporters these days. Each fake issue or faux concern must be enjoyed fully for its few minutes of existence.

[Michael P]

This piece explains why your comparison is disingenuous: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/29/kamala-harris-cnn-interview-tim-walz-joint-appearance/74982054007/

For my second link, this interview is just a continuation of selling Harris as this: https://www.homedepot.com/p/ProHT-100-in-Portable-Projection-Screen-05358/206660026

[grb]

Why risk Walz "overshadowing her"?

Because he won't, and she isn't so insecure as to think otherwise. After all, it's not like Kamala Harris is some scared little boy who needs a round of scripted praise for Dear Leader from every cabinet member to start every meeting. She's not the one obssessed with hand size or crowd size or size anything. She's not the who needs to puff herself up with a constant stream of pathetic lying. That's your guy, still traumatized by daddy's abuse after all these years.

Besides, Walz is a plus for the campaign and wildly popular. As first major choice of an aspiring president, she probably wants to show him off. Poor Trump is hardly so lucky, having picked weirdo Vance and welcomed freak RFK Jr. You "are who you associate with" was never so apt a truism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What’s to “refute”? It’s not an argument; it’s just name calling. Presidential and vice presidential candidates — including Trump/Pence — have routinely done joint interviews during the campaign."

Certainly true. But Presidential candidates have also routinely done solo interviews, and Kamala seems to be having trouble with that.

[Commenter_XY]

Let's just see what Candidate Word Salad has to say. She wants the job, I would like to hear her pitch for the job.

[bernard11]

Word salad? Listened to Trump lately?

[Sarcastr0]

He was calling her a whore so he’s really improving lately.

[Commenter_XY]

Truth hurts. Besides, is there a politician who isn't a whore?

I could make an exception for entirely self-funded, wealthy candidates who are beholden to no one. They would not be whores.

[hobie]

XY! Did you call Harris a whore or something like that? Oh geez, I don't know how to break some news to you gently about your candidate

[Commenter_XY]

He (assume you mean Pres Trump) whores after votes, too. 😉

[Longtobefree]

"What is she afraid of?"

Democracy.
Freedom.
Truth.
Etc.

[SimonP]

Trump has done a number of pre-recorded, edited, sit-down interviews with FoxNews personalities. What do you suppose he's trying to hide?

[shawn_dude]

Standard right-wing misogyny. "Woman needs to be guided by a man." Bleah.

Do better.

[Armchair]

Is the US Government censoring people online? By putting pressure on social media organizations?

Evidence suggests yes.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/28/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-needs-to-spill-all-on-how-fbi-censored-americans/

What do we need to do to ensure free speech is safe in this country?

[Michael P]

I feel kind of sorry for all the propagandists here who insisted that Facebook et al. were simply enforcing their own interpretations of their terms of service, rather than carrying out state acts. There was never good evidence for those claims, and now even Mark Zuckerberg has dynamited them.

[ThePublius]

There's some lib/Dem spin on this out there saying that Zuck is lying! Ha, ha.

[Michael P]

What's the mental model of Zuckerberg that leads to that conclusion? Zuck is so convinced of a Trump win and some adverse policy or decision that he needs to curry favor now, rather than after the election?

[Krayt]

As opposed to currying favor years past, to Congress, who made him come in and stand tall before committees on why they weren’t censoring harrassment, and what did he think, should they clobber 230 for companies that don’t?

[Michael P]

I don't follow. Do you suggest he was telling the truth or lying before, in trying to curry favor with Congress? Is he lying now in order to curry favor with Republicans in the House, who will ______ (please fill in the blank) because of his current lies? How do the Democrat-controlled Senate and White House factor into your theory of his current behavior?

[Krayt]

Iirc, he said, during the 2016 race, that he would censor harrassment, but would not censor politicians’ speech, because The People need to know what their politicians and wannabees were actually thinking., even if said speech could be claimed as harrassing, which it was, which was why this was even an issue (and why I humbly submit it was done, and frothed into a frenzy, right before an election.)

Which position, by the way, he caught hell for.

[Ska]

Watching his peers in similar roles getting threatened and/or arrested by various government authorities from different countries for not being vigilant enough in their monitoring, censoring, and cessation of service for parties he has no control over?

[David Nieporent]

The "good evidence" is the actual communications between the companies and administration that were released, showing that what you claim happen didn't happen. (Zuckerberg's statement does not actually say otherwise.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

What do we need to do to ensure free speech is safe in this country?

Get the government out of it. Restore to the private sector the task to regulate internet content, by means of a decentralized, multi-polar, cohort of private editors, charged to read everything prior to publication. At least hundreds of thousands of editors will be required. Resources to pay them will have to be raised from the proceeds of a myriad of profitable private publishing activities.

Those editors will be encouraged—and legally protected—to monitor content at pleasure, without government constraint on behalf of, or against, any constitutionally protected expressions. Those editors will compete with each other for content to publish, based on the tastes of various audiences their publications choose to curate. Collectively, the entire spectrum of constitutionally protected public discourse will be served.

Would-be authors frustrated by rejection at one outlet will find ready acceptance elsewhere, or remain at liberty to start a new outlet and turn to publishing themselves. Some will fail. Some will succeed. Some will get rich. The free market, not the government, will be the arbiter of outcomes.

All that is necessary to accomplish the above is to repeal Section 230. Section 230 is the well-meaning but disastrous legislative blunder which destroyed exactly the kind of freedom-serving private marketplace of ideas described above. It had thrived for more than a century in that form, so we know already that it works.

Here is what you must not do if you want expressive freedom to flourish and survive. You must not demand for every person a private power to publish anything at all, anonymously, without cost, world-wide, without prior review, or post-publication moderation by anyone.

That demands a publishing power greater than anyone on earth has ever enjoyed, or ever can enjoy. It is a pipe dream incompatible with expressive freedom. Any attempt to implement it, by government fiat, or by private bad judgment, will in the long term destroy the means of private publication necessary to make expressive freedom happen. And as long terms go, that one will be shorter than most. Ignore that warning, and the most likely outcome will be expressive competition mediated by battles to access government-controlled levers regulating expressive activity of all kinds. We already know that can happen, because we see it happening now.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're clinically insane. Really, I think you are at this point.

"Get the government out of it. Restore to the private sector the task to regulate internet content, by means of a decentralized, multi-polar, cohort of private editors, charged to read everything prior to publication."

How do they get to read everybody's comments before they're published without the government being involved? What's to stop pretty much everybody from just flat out ignoring them, without the government involved?

You think people are going to volunteer to have everything they post preemptively reviewed for wrongthink?

And have you even started to think about the kind of manpower your proposal would require? How many billions of words and images get posted every day?

OK, I get that you dearly miss the time when newspapers could spoon feed people information, and shut out anybody they didn't want disagreeing with them. Must have been fun occupying that choke point, if you're the kind of guy who wants to lord it over other people.

But you're just insane, at this point. Not happening.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes Brett, you are seeing 'peak lathrop'. It is something to behold, lmao.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What’s to stop pretty much everybody from just flat out ignoring them, without the government involved?

That, in a nutshell, shows the root cause of the idiocy I call internet utopianism. Bellmore apparently thinks he publishes his spittle-spray without assistance from a publisher.

You are mistaken, Bellmore. Your ability to get your stuff on the internet depends on the self-interest of private publishers.

They organize and pay for the mechanisms of distribution you require to accomplish publication. They curate an audience for you to address.

Those efforts are gigantic, far more ambitious and demanding than any attempted previously—even during the heyday of ink-on-paper, when the Los Angeles Times Sunday edition weighed in the aggregate about as much as a navy cruiser.

If you think of that at all, you must suppose it a trivial aspect of a miracle inherent in technology—but also mysteriously akin to a natural resource freely available to you for the taking. It is nothing of the sort. Those publishing activities are the entire internet ballgame, at least with regard to commentary such as yours. And with regard to better commentary too.

As of now, blunders committed by Congress have delivered a mal-organized media environment characterized by the tightest choke points ever to afflict expressive freedom. You seem not to notice.

You think the editors at the NYT are a choke point? They are small fry compared to the managers at Facebook. Tiny by comparison.

If the publisher you rely upon chooses to employ a private editor to review your would-be contributions, no action by government would be necessary to prevent that publisher from blocking you. Facebook, or any other internet platform, can do that to you right now. But you, irrationally, think a reorganized publishing environment featuring orders of magnitude more publishers for you to choose from, would somehow prove more restrictive.

Under the system I posited above private editing would not in the least create any choke points. If I were an editor who blocked your would-be contribution because I did not like it, that would not mean you were thwarted. You would enjoy access to many thousands of other publishers, with other editors, some of whom would unaccountably see fit to publish your twaddle. I could do nothing at all to prevent that. Nor could any of the others. There would be too many of them.

Only diversity and profusion among a myriad of private publishers can protect expressive freedom. The government cannot do it. Giantistic media platforms will not do it. And powerless pipsqueaks like you and me have no capacity to affect those unavoidable realities, except by joining together to demand correction of the foundational political blunder.

Otherwise, needlessly restrictive choke points will remain built into any system of internet publishing which pretends to offer to everyone more publishing power than anyone on earth has ever actually enjoyed. Nobody, not one person in history, has ever enjoyed power to publish anything at all, anonymously, world-wide, cost free, without prior editing or post-publication moderation. It has never happened because to accomplish it is an impossibility.

You are a fool to keep demanding it. And you are misguided to suppose a present publishing regime organized to award dominance to giantistic platforms will ever afford you a share of expressive freedom as secure as one characterized by decentralization, vast numbers of alternatives, and far lower barriers to entry for would-be competitors.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Bellmore apparently thinks he publishes his spittle-spray without assistance from a publisher."

I mostly publish it with the assistance of Reason. Now, seriously: Do you think Reason is going to have any interest in participating in your scheme?

I also publish on MeWe. Which was created specifically to NOT engage in the sort of censorship regime you're proposing.

Even FB, which IS interested in censoring content, isn't going to be interested in a "human editing before content posts" scheme of your sort. It's logistically impossible to pull off.

[Martinned2]

Is the US Government censoring people online? By putting pressure on social media organizations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

If Mark Zuckerberg comes crying that he was bullied by the mean US government he can fuck right off. That's like Hamas terrorists complaining that the Israelis are mean to them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

wut?

[Martinned2]

I thought I'd use an analogy that might resonate with people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

CNN falsely claiming that SCOTUS said that such pressure never happened.

[ThePublius]

Now Kamala wants to build the wall.

Previously:

- In declaring her candidacy in her first run for president in 2019, Harris called the wall Trump's "medieval vanity project" that wasn't going to stop transnational gangs from entering the U.S.
- In February 2020, Harris wrote on Facebook that "Trump's border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won't make us any safer."
- In April 2017, soon after joining the Senate, Harris said the wall was a "stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it."

Other things she's recently flipped on:
- banning fracking
- gun confiscation
- decriminalizing illegal border crossings
- decreasing funding for the Border Patrol
- eliminating private health insurance
- Medicare for All
- court-packing SCOTUS
- defunding police
- Green New Deal
- EV mandates
- a federal jobs guarantee.

She's framing herself as an outsider, and Trump as the incumbent:
- Inflation? Trump's fault
- Record house prices? Trump's fault
- Slouching towards World War III? Trump's fault
- Border chaos? Trump's fault.

Someone please get her a MAGA hat!

[Michael P]

I don't know how she expects anyone to trust what she says now. She's taken positions on both sides of a huge number of issues, and any promises she makes now won't bind her after the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

But mentioning previous positions is officially off the table, remember? She's expecting people to trust her because most media outlets won't be reporting that she's flip flopped.

The headwind Republicans are running against due to most media outlets being run by Democrats has increased to gale force this year.

[David Nieporent]

Now Kamala wants to build the wall.

No, she doesn't want to build the wall. That's just based on bizarre clickbait tweeting by Axios. At no point did Harris say she wanted to build a wall.

The "logic" went:

1. Harris endorsed the compromise immigration bill negotiated by Senate Dems and Republicans (the one Trump torpedoed expressly because he was afraid that an immigration deal would deprive him of a campaign issue.)
2. That bill contained some modest funding for a wall.
3. Therefore, Harris wants to build a wall.

Even the dumbest posters, like Dr. Ed or Riva, should be able to see the flaw in that: endorsing a compromise does not mean that one "wants" to do all the things contained in that compromise. It means that one is willing to accept those things.

[grb]

Damn. That's one hundred percent true. All this bloviating on Harris flip flopping is based on zero substance beyond Harris saying she'd accept the immigration compromise worked out between congressional Democrats and Republican.

Do people like ThePublius, Michael P, or Brett understand they're being played for fools? Or are they in on the lie?

[Commenter_XY]

Personally, I think Kamala's 'Banana Republic Formula' (BARF, for short) of introducing price controls to 'fix' the economy (that she has had 3.5 years to do something about with her feebleminded boss) says it all.

Who wants to vote for a candidate that emulates Cuba and Venezuela. It's bananas.

[Martinned2]

Who wants to vote for a candidate that emulates Cuba and Venezuela. It’s bananas.

I'm assuming that's why they proposed it. Because it's wildly unpopular among the American electorate. I mean, it's not as if people on this blog ever complain about food prices, never mind the general public.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey Mr. Economist, what is the history of price controls?

[Martinned2]

That they come in all sorts and sizes, including in the US.

That the crude versions are usually counterproductive, or at least involve serious trade-offs. (A politician may legitimately take the view that a supply shortage is less bad than having product X availably only to rich people, but it's a serious trade-off all the same.)

That it is (intentionally) unclear what, if anything, Harris actually proposed. And that she (intentionally) didn't say anything about "price controls". That's spin/misrepresentation from the press.

[Magister]

Richard Nixon instituted price controls and then won a huge landslide victory. His subsequent resignation was not because of the price controls.

Also, the Biden-Harris administration did fix the economy, bringing the country back from the disaster left behind by Trump mishandling the pandemic, steadily bringing down unemployment and resolving high inflation without a recession.

[Frank Drackman]

The Price Controls were Bullshit, my participation in the 1971 Economy was limited to Comic Books and Candy, Comic Books went from 15cents/month to Bi/monthly Ish-yews at 40 cents, more pages than the monthly version but not 40cents worth, but as a “new product” they could set a new price

[Michael P]

California and Minnesota are two of the three states expected to see 50+% increases in car insurance costs this year: https://insurify.com/car-insurance/report/

California and Minnesota... California and Minnesota... Why do I associate those two states with each other? I am drawing a blank right now. Hopefully I remember before November 5th.

[ThePublius]

I'm in Massachusetts. Mine just went up 38%.

[Mr. Bumble]

Inflation; is there anything it can't do?

[Commenter_XY]

The question is why. I don't suppose we have a bunch of illegals driving around and getting into car crashes, thus driving up liability (and premiums) for all. Naaaaah.

[Magister]

Do you have evidence for a correlation between car insurance rate increases and undocumented immigrant populations?

The link Michael P gave (which includes Missouri among those with greater than 50% increases expected) gives several other explanations:

Insurer losses result from a combination of inflationary pressures — like the rising cost of vehicle repairs and the skyrocketing price of new cars — and unprecedented climate catastrophes that drive weather-related claims in states that haven’t historically seen as much of this type of damage. These costs strain insurers’ budgets as they pay out more than they earn in profit.

Additionally, legislative changes in states like South Carolina and Maryland have increased insurers’ financial responsibility, leading them to charge higher premiums. In California, which froze insurance rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, some insurers are requesting double-digit hikes as they struggle to return to profitability, while others are exiting the state entirely.

Vehicle theft rates, traffic congestion from high population density, and an increase in car accidents contribute to higher rates, too.

Notably, California, Missouri and Minnesota are not listed among the 10 most expensive states, so they may just be catching up with other states.

[Brett Bellmore]

" and unprecedented climate catastrophes that drive weather-related claims in states that haven’t historically seen as much of this type of damage."

That's imaginary. Extreme weather events have not gone up in frequency. Naturally if you build more houses, more houses get hit by tornadoes. If you build more beach front mansions, hurricane damage goes up.

But extreme weather events increased? Sure, if the planet warms a little, 'record' heat waves become slightly more common. And the far more deadly extreme cold spells less common.

Don't ask me, ask NOAA.

[Magister]

I was quoting from the link given by Michael P, who was just looking for a cheap shot on Harris and Walz (whose home states are not among the highest in car insurance rates); take it up with the authors of that report. The insurance industry may just be charging more because of the uncertainty associated with climate change. More houses and more cars may mean higher claims, but it should also mean more people buying insurance, so that alone shouldn't drive rate increases.

Brett Bellmore's link is better than his usual evidence, but it's specifically about tornadoes, and even it includes this:

In general, human-caused climate change is expected to increase atmospheric instability by increasing temperature and humidity in the lower atmosphere, while simultaneously weakening vertical wind shear through a reduction in the surface pole-to-Equator temperature gradient.

We could also ask NASA. Rocket scientists are exemplars of smart people, and they seem to think it's a thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, there's theory, which you are appealing to, and there's evidence, which I'm appealing to. In theory, theory is supposed to be adjusted to conform to evidence, not the other way around.

The actual evidence is that there hasn't been an increase in extreme weather events, once you account for better observation, and don't confuse an increase in insurance payouts with a change in the weather.

With the exception of an increase in heat waves, and a reduction in cold waves, which I acknowledged, and pointed out that cold waves kill more people, so it's a positive trade.

Wild fires, of course, are more a product of forestry practices than of temperature.

[Magister]

I'm citing evidence of what insurance companies believe, which is what determines rates. And I'm going to believe insurance industry actuaries over Brett Bellmore, famed conspiracy theorist and mind reader, who probably pulled some muscles from the unfamiliar activity of trying to produce actual evidence. One wonders if Brett even bothered to read the link I provided, to "Extreme Makeover: Human Activities Are Making Some Extreme Events More Frequent or Intense". Wildfires are of course more destructive in hotter, drier and windier conditions, regardless of forestry management.

But, some more evidence:

Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html

Sea surface temperature increased during the 20th century and continues to rise.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
It doesn't matter if the temperature change is caused by human activity or not.

[bernard11]

You are making shit up.

Why would "a bunch of illegals driving around and getting into car crashes" increase liability rates?

What evidence do you have other than your own prejudices that illegals are having all these crashes?

[jb]

I'm sure if you want to engage in some confirmation bias you can.

Or you could read the report:

Insurify predicts California, Missouri, and Minnesota could see car insurance costs increase by more than 50% in 2024. Damage from severe storms and wildfires contributes to rising rates in the states.

Seems like there's been something driving the increase of severe storms and wildfires that people have been talking about for a decade or two now. Maybe we should try to figure out if there's anything we can do about that before November. Or we can ignore the data and decide it's somehow about immigration, I guess.

[ThePublius]

This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic:

"From 'Israel Has a Right To Defend Itself' to 'Immediate Ceasefire': Rep. Susan Wild Caught Sending Contradictory Letters to Constituents, Stating Dueling Views on War"

She expresses contradictory views on the topic depending upon who's she's talking to.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/from-israel-has-a-right-to-defend-itself-to-immediate-ceasefire-rep-susan-wild-caught-sending-contradictory-letters-to-constituents-stating-dueling-views-on-war/

[Michael P]

She's from PA, so maybe her staffers just want the public to know that they don't agree with the Congressperson who employs them.

[Ed Grinberg]

When the various "anti-Zionists" start attacking American Jews, what do you think Rep. Wild will do? (I think she'll go along.)

[Commenter_XY]

They already have, in Philly. Didn't hear anything from Rep Wild.

She is a spitting serpent.

[grb]

ThePublius : "She expresses contradictory views on the topic depending upon who’s she’s talking to"

Why contradiction? A large segment of the Israeli population is equally adamant in demanding a ceasefire. They believe the war is well into the point of diminishing returns, is harming Israel more than increasing its security, and is driven by Netanyahu's personal need for endless war. The minute the conflict ends, the clock starts ticking towards elections that will oust his deeply unpopular coalition from power. And like Trump, Netanyahu needs political power & immunity to hold off criminal corruption charges.

Meanwhile, this: Israel's Channel 12 television reported this week that Netanyahu had been bitterly critical of the negotiating team, led by David Barnea, the chief of the Mossad intelligence service, for being willing to make too many concessions.

Maybe Mossad is "contradictory" too?

[shawn_dude]

I’m guessing you aren’t familiar with the concept of “going too far?”

There is no contradiction between defending oneself from a terrorist attack and being restrained by the Geneva Conventions in how you carry out that defense.

Using the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians to score a cheap political point is sad. And weird. And definitely not funny.

[ThePublius]

"Many law schools operate in a manner that reinforces ideological orthodoxy and chills dissenting views."

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2024/08/california-law-schools-must-encourage-viewpoint-diversity.html

[hobie]

So? The schools will invite liberal legal scholars like Lawrence Tribe, but not unserious bomb throwers like Ann Coulter. Boo-fucking-hoo

[Don Nico]

Pro-HAMAS activities resume at MIT
MIT President Kornbluth sent a public announcement of a highly disturbing antisemitic incident at Monday's orientation event for incoming students.

To quote Pres. Kornbluth
"several other students were handing out flyers. “Welcome to MIT!” ... The flyers go on to comment on the conflict in the Middle East and the State of Israel in particular, and they list more than 20 additional resources.
while I have repeatedly defended freedom of expression, I must tell you that I found some of the websites cited on the flyers deeply concerning. I was particularly disturbed to see that the flyers featured a URL for something called the Mapping Project, which catalogs hundreds of Jewish and other organizations in the Boston area – from a council of synagogues to universities, businesses and museums – and then provides their addresses and, in some cases, lists the names of key officials. The goal of this effort is, in its own words, “to reveal the local entities and networks that enact devastation, so we can dismantle them. Every entity has an address, every network can be disrupted. I believe the Mapping Project promotes antisemitism."

Given the public announcements of Hezbollah's and Iran's intent to carry out reprisal attacks on Israel's supporter in other countries, the Mapping Project is hardly an innocent activity. Hopefully the FBI will take note.

[Ilya Snowman]

Do you have the courage to respond in kind?

Or will you just try to silence such efforts?

[Don Nico]

What do you think is a response in kind? Doxing protesters?

[SimonP]

Frosty is talking about physical violence. He is trying to prod people like you into thinking that it is appropriate to attack and kill people like those you've described in your comment. He is very, very eager to see political violence become a norm in the U.S.

One of his favorite taunts is to tell me that I'll eventually be slaughtered by my "betters" in a coming civil war.

[Ilya Snowman]

Is that a response ‘in kind’?

What does that have to do with you getting slaughtered by your betters for your totalitarianism and imperialism?

Why can't you own up to your gay ressentiment? Why can't you admit you're unequal?

[SimonP]

Is that a response ‘in kind’?

You're welcome to clarify what you meant. You clearly meant something beyond just using state power to stifle free speech.

What does that have to do... [blah, blah, blah]

Get help, Frosty.

[Ilya Snowman]

I don’t owe you anything, you lying, unequal, evolutionary dud. Further, in order to go ‘beyond’ state power one would have to invoke, implicate, or suggest that power in the first place.

YOU, on the other hand, owe your fellow Americans, and the world, a major apology—in the least.

I don’t need help, SimonP. Soon, the American people will engage in SELF-help by taking care you, themselves. In so doing, they will, of course, be doing the entire world a favour.

In that vein, what’s it like know that your gay rights movement has zenithed, that the Global South will (re-)criminalize you now, and that your moment of trying to trick people into thinking that you’re equal has passed and is gone forever?

[SimonP]

I don’t owe you anything,...

And yet the responses keep coming.

You challenged Nicky in response to his comment, encouraging him to "respond in kind." It's still not clear what you meant by that. I supplied a presumed meaning; you appear to be objecting to that meaning, but refuse to refute or even contradict it directly. In any event, it is not me to whom you owe a clarification. It is yourself, as well as anyone else you think would benefit from your views, like the imaginary audience you pretend to be performing for.

... evolutionary dud ...

I disregard the remainder of your screeching, only to pause on this bit. I'll confess that I don't understand your (or certain other VC commenters') preoccupation with my sexuality. I do not frequently bring it up - it's not relevant most of the time - but you seem to be very interested in bringing it up in every rant you leave for me. Why is that?

Others might be inclined to describe it as simple "hate speech" - that is, speech that is intended to inflict a kind of emotional harm, serving no purpose other than that. But as I've said before, even so-construed, you don't seem to understand how powerless it is. You're an anonymous psychopath sputtering with rage across half the globe, at someone you don't know and have no power over. Your read of American politics and geopolitics are so unmoored of reality that they do not threaten confidence in my own beliefs or have persuasive power for others.

The only thing you have to offer me or others, Frosty, is the simple entertainment of engaging someone with different views. If you cannot do even that - and instead resort to tiresomely repetitive diatribes like the Rev. Kirkland employs - then you have really nothing to offer at all.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘And yet the responses keep coming’.

Not out of a debt, moron.

‘In any event, it is not me to whom you owe a clarification. It is yourself…’.

You can pretend to prescribe an onus, but one isn’t actually owed. And imaginary audience…? Speaking of someone needing help, SimonP…

It’s important to keep mentioning that you’re a totalitarian unequal evolutionary dud who pretends that those things don’t matter when they do; especially when it speaks to your lack of moral standing, worth, and integrity. It shows how you colour your propaganda, misrepresenting yourself as an honest interlocutor. The corollary is that you NEVER answer the queries about your methods, and about your gay ressentiment being the dominant reason why you don’t deconstruct your own core ideas and normative commitments, etc. (And I know how your lot ACTUALLY operates in its goals to try and grab power and to try to normalise yourself, across the West and the world.) The purpose isn’t hate speech to make you feel bad: it’s to pull the rug out from underneath your duplicitous agenda and EXPOSE your rhetorical and conceptual tactics.

You’re also lying about the geopolitical take—which is no surprise, since lying is your MO. Your attempt to gaslight me could only work if I didn’t have working, professional knowledge of what’s actually being done, in terms of legislative developments, in Africa, the ME, etc.

Keep telling yourself about your fellow countrymen, too, SimonP, if that’s what helps you sleep at night. Scores of millions will vote for Trump. If he wins, scores of millions will be completely disappointed in Trump. And THEN the fun will begin.

Let me also add that it IS amusing to point the basic logical flaws in your claims, too.

[SimonP]

Not out of a debt...

Out of an unhealthy, obsessive compulsion, then.

And imaginary audience…?

Yes, the one you referred to, some number of comment threads back, when you implicitly conceded that your arguments were neither for me nor the typical level of commenters here.

It’s important to keep mentioning...

The word vomit that follows is just a rambling justification for an ad hominem.

You’re also lying about the geopolitical take...

Is there some confusion about which one? Because I was referring to your repeated assertion that the population of Western Europe has come to hate American Democrats, viewing them as "totalitarian." What you seem to be referring to here are resurgent efforts to crack down on the LGBT community in Africa and the Middle East. Remind me - which of those governments are not corrupt autocracies, verging on totalitarian?

Let me also add that it IS amusing to point the basic logical flaws in your claims, too.

That you think you have ever successfully done this is remarkable to me, and just amusing. And you continue to evade the main point of this thread, which was to clarify what you meant, above, by "respond in kind."

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Out of an unhealthy, obsessive compulsion, then’.

Another pseudo-psychological approach, I see (offered by a creature which keeps responding to me…). Who do you think you are fooling?

‘implicitly conceded that…’

Do you understand what the words ‘implicit’ or ‘concession’ mean? Just kidding; I know your tricks. And yes, we find your posts amusing. Still, it additionally helps people here to see that you lie and manipulate incessantly. There’s some evidence of the comments doing so, in terms of certain ideas being adopted by other commenters here now.

‘The word vomit that follows is just a rambling justification for an ad hominem’.

I KNEW you would write that in response! It isn’t. That fallacy involves invoking irrelevant (purported) facts about a person/interlocutor’s identity as a basis for impugning their argument. ‘Bill is wrong that the moon is made of cheese because Bill is a smelly Spaniard’. That’s fallacious because those identity claims, even if they true, are irrelevant for ascertaining the truth or falsity of the proposition(s) in question. Not so here, by contrast: what I’ve done is provide reasons for impugning your honesty and integrity, your dubious epistemic claims, and for not trusting your psychological assertions, and reasons that establish your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy (eg your gay ressentiment). Those AREN’T examples of ad hominem fallacies or moves in furtherance of any. You may find them INSULTING, but they aren’t FALLACIOUS. They are reasons for believing YOU to be untrustworthy and for distrusting your claims. There are good reasons to think that your identity, and your behaviour, are integral for assessing your credibility when offering claims.

‘Because I was referring to your repeated assertion that the population of Western Europe has come to hate American Democrats, viewing them as “totalitarian.” What you seem to be referring to here are resurgent efforts’ IN REFERENCE TO: ‘Your read of American politics and geopolitics are so unmoored of reality that they do not threaten confidence in my own beliefs or have persuasive power for others’.

You’re just post hoc retrofitting (and doing a poor job of it as well). But thank you for providing further evidence of what was noted in my previous paragraph about you. Regardless, you should come to Western Europe now and tell people your REAL politics—if you can stomach honesty for even one moment. No doubt you’ll be delighted by their responses. And HOW DARE YOU insult those Africans and middle easterners and their values! After all, your lot not only wants to import them in the millions but to silence opposition to their mass importation as simply being the function of a ‘phobia’ (a pseudo-reductionist account).

‘That you think you have ever successfully done this is remarkable to me, and just amusing’.

That you deny this is just further evidence of your being a pathological liar. (It was already clear that you’re unequal and a lightweight.)

If you could take a single pill, one that had no side effects, which would make you heterosexual forever, would you take it?

[SimonP]

Another pseudo-psychological approach, I see (offered by a creature which keeps responding to me…). Who do you think you are fooling?

Your behavior speaks for itself - as does mine.

And yes, we find your posts amusing.

What a sorry bunch of losers.

I KNEW you would write that in response! ... [blah blah blah]

And I knew that you would misunderstand what I was actually saying, because you continually underestimate my capabilities. I had asked why you keep bringing up my sexuality in your comments. You responded by asserting that my gay "ressentiment" underscored every comment I wrote, so that people should read and discount my comments with that in mind. That is a "justification for an ad hominem."

And HOW DARE YOU insult those Africans and middle easterners and their values!

I've done no such thing. I just asked you to point to a single example of an African or Middle Eastern country that (i) has opted to crack down on the LGBT community in recent years and (ii) has not veered towards being, or has not already long been, a corrupt autocracy, verging on totalitarian. Because as far as I'm aware there seems to be a close correspondence between the two traits.

It would be odd to castigate me for my presumed "woke totalitarianism" (despite my disavowing it) while holding up these corrupt autocrats as models. I am not sure that it is really "totalitarianism" that bothers you, as it turns out.

If you could take a single pill, one that had no side effects, which would make you heterosexual forever, would you take it?

No, I don't think so. Why would I?

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Your behavior speaks for itself – as does mine’.

Yes, yours demonstrates that are a duplicitous, hypocritical piece of trash. It shows that you lie, even when you’re called out on it, even when you characterise me and others, and even when it comes to even classifying something properly as being an instance of a fallacy!

‘,And I knew that you would misunderstand what I was actually saying, because you continually underestimate my capabilities. I had asked why you keep bringing up my sexuality in your comments. You responded by asserting that my gay “ressentiment” underscored every comment I wrote, so that people should read and discount my comments with that in mind. That is a “justification for an ad hominem.”.

See how this demonstrates you’re LYING about what an ad hominem fallacy even is? Even when the fallacy’s structure was pointed out? That your gay ressentiment IS a valid prima facie reason to doubt your credibility; that it ISN’T an entirely irrelevant identity characteristic, one that’s orthogonal to the propositions you put forward. It also underpins your inconsistency, ie for not deconstructing your preferred notions of equality, personhood, etc, which underpin your normative preferences. LOL!

‘Because as far as I’m aware there seems to be a close correspondence between the two traits’.

Correlation isn’t causation. They’re anti-imperialist—at least anti-Western imperialism. And your gay agenda is NOTHING but an expression of that. It is also your tactics which have been correctly diagnosed, BY THEM as being totalitarian. It is that which are to be condemned, to be crushed. It just remains for the scales to fall from the eyes of people across the West, to see how they’ve been manipulated, disciplined, controlled.

You want to claim to be equal? Go right ahead. You want to fight for equal treatment under the law? Go right ahead. But what your lot ACTUALLY does to try to actualize your interests, within the West and internationally, is disgraceful.

Again, the backlash against you, from the Global South particularly, will be tremendous. You are screwed—and you probably only have only the foggiest notion that that’s so. 🙂

[SimonP]

Frosty, I’m disappointed. The only reason I’ve been digging through the VC back to this increasingly-stale open thread has been that I felt that there was, behind the vitriol, some kind of thinking brain on your end. Someone, I had thought, who would be capable of appreciating irony, acknowledging a concession, discerning the logical structure of an argument – even if, they don’t want to be patent about any of that, for rhetorical purposes. It was, for a moment, more entertaining than engaging with the MAGA-bots that populate more active and recent threads.

But now I see that you lack that sophistication. You’ve read Foucault, you have some appreciation for the nuanced distinction of meaning between “resentment” and “ressentiment.” But here I see that I must patiently explain to a sophist that attacking my “credibility” is relevant only insofar as I am making claims that rely on that credibility (whereas most of my arguments do not rely on my personal credibility); that you are just as easily triggered as the MAGA-bots by keywords (you do not seem to understand that I was just acknowledging I have my own obsessive-compulsive tendencies); and that you will just refuse to respond to points that are put directly to you (your bizarre triumphalism over the emergence of an autocratic, kleptocratic, and increasingly totalitarian “global south,” and that triumphalism’s tension with your repeated and apparently false opposition to what you call “totalitarianism,” remains unresolved).

Frosty, I have never expected you to concede any point, and I do not expect you to try to convince me. But I had thought that the brain behind these rants was capable of recognizing the weaknesses and inconsistencies in your own arguments, as well as understanding what I was actually saying. But I see now that I have given you entirely too much credit.

Ah, well. Moving on.

[Ilya Snowman]

You don't respond on the merits because you CAN'T.

🙂

[Sarcastr0]

'while I have repeatedly defended freedom of expression...'

Either you do when it's hard or you don't.

[Don Nico]

What a lame response. Typical of you with respect to antisemitic activities on campus.
I guess "so we can dismantle them" is just free expression. The FBI should have its eyes open.

[Commenter_XY]

He is blind, Don Nico. He chooses not see it.

[Don Nico]

Maybe he thinks that the protesters just want to send Shana Tova cards to the addresses.

[Sarcastr0]

Shitty people are talking shit is a price you pay for free speech.

You don't get to be selective.

It's not easy! But nothing good ever is.

[Don Nico]

Threats of violence is not just shitty speech. But you don't seem to care.
A president is not going to message the entire university community about every speech issue that arises. Contrary to your foolishness. Nobody comments about everything– not even you.

The reason for her doing so this time, at the beginning of the semester, was the gross antisemitism of the threatened activity, "dismantling" Jewish activities. But you don't care.

[Sarcastr0]

True threats are not protected.

Abstaining from not headed calls for government intervention is taking things seriously.

You are the one being unserious.

Shit sucks. There are ways to deal more positively without getting authoritarian.

[Ed Grinberg]

Sigh.
As has been pointed out ad nauseam: No, our colleges and universities have not been "defending freedom of expression"; instead, they've been enforcing a very strict mode of political correctness ... until last fall, when, suddenly, they discovered the virtue of "freedom of expression." Of course, the fact that it happened at the precise moment when various students & faculty came out in support of mass slaughter of Jews is purely coincidental!

[shawn_dude]

Current estimates are that 40,000 Palestinians, most of them civilian bystanders, have died during Israel's attacks.
1,139 Israelis were killed by Hamas and 251 were taken hostage, some of whom have since died.

It's a sick world that sees those numbers and justifies the 40,000 deaths by labeling the 1,139 as a "mass slaughter."

41,139 is "mass slaughter."

Also, about 25% of the Israeli population is non-Jewish. How certain are you that only Jews were targeted? Was this an attack on just Jews or on all Israelis? What does it say about you that you don't consider the non-Jewish Israelis impacted by this tragedy?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Current estimates"

Hamas estimates.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There's a 75% chance that you are upset that Hamas is gathering incomplete statistics because you want the number to be higher.

[Don Nico]

Shawn, of those 40,000, 15,000 to 20,000 were Hamas combatants or active collaborators.

What does it say about you that you don’t consider the non-Jewish Israelis impacted by this tragedy? It says nothing about your false outrage. In that instance, “jews” is a synecdoche.
Of course, non-Jews are affected such as the Druze kids in Golan.

Since you commented in this thread tell us what part of dismantle "a council of synagogues" would not be a hate crime.

[shawn_dude]

"Jews" is not a synecdoche for "Israeli." Would Israeli Arabs agree that "Jew" includes them? Do you expect anyone to seriously believe that? Nice try trying to twist this back on me, though.

[Don Nico]

It was in that comment. Sorry.
There are many instances when Arabs in Israel are treated more poorly than most Israelis. But this was not one of them.
And what about the Druze children. Thee has been plenty of talk about them in the Israeli media.

[David Nieporent]

most of them civilian bystanders

No.

[shawn_dude]

"During the “Call Me Back” podcast hosted by the former U.S. government advisor Dan Senor, Netanyahu said that about 30,000 people had been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, of those he said 14,000 were “combatants” and “around 16,000 civilians have been killed.” " Times reporting

Netanyahu's own numbers say most were civilians. Or, are you quibbling with "bystander?"

[Don Nico]

So the ratio of civilians to combatants is less that 1.4 to 1. When has any other country done as well at minimizing collateral damage. The US has never come close in its urban warfare
Let’s face it.
It rubs you the wrong way that Jews are not accepting being murdered, raped, and kidnapped.
Let Hamas come out of hiding and fight like an honorable army rather than literally hiding behind children and their mothers.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a shame that palestinian civilians have died. Really, it is. Sadder still, they strongly support hamas, who cynically uses them as cheap propaganda. What a waste of life. But that is hamas, and the hamas homies who support them.

That is entirely the fault of hamas, who can end the war today by releasing the hostages, and surrendering to face Israeli justice. Otherwise, they (hamas) will die, being hunted down and killed like the human animals they are. Sadly, others will die as well (meaning, IDF soldiers).

[shawn_dude]

It's like an abusive husband who punches his wife and then says "look what you made me do!" A cheap deflection of responsibility for one's actions.

[Don Nico]

Your analogy is bullshit, and you know it. Savage rape and murder is how Hamas began the war, with the definite intent to start a war.
Their express view is that it is good for their cause that there are many unintentional martyrs. Hamas can stop the war in Gaza any time that it want. Sinwar simply needs to take off his burka and give up.

[not guilty]

Here's an interview with a leading opponent of abortion remaining safe and legal regarding Donald Trump's going sideways on that issue: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/29/lila-rose-abortion-trump-interview-00176619

Trump has so far refused to say how he will vote on Florida's abortion rights referendum. I suspect that Trump is just as opposed to abortion as Strom Thurmond was opposed to miscegenation back in the day.

[Moderation4ever]

The antiabortion movement has no other way to go than to vote for Trump. It like the Palestinian supporters don't really have any place to go other than Harris. Both groups can stay home but they risk losing bigger by not voting.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The strongly anti-abortion side can avoid Trump & try to ensure the Republicans win Congress, at least the Senate.

If Trump loses, supporting Trump's "don't care, just let the states decide" sentiment by voting for him & supporting him overall strongly, makes them look like hypocrites.

They also have to tone down their anti-abortion rhetoric to some respect, at least accept opposition to national abortion bans.

Palestinians can see Trump is much worse & Kamala Harris has supported their cause directly in certain ways. They would want her to go much further, but she is not coming off as an unserious hypocrite. Harris/Walz also respected the Uncommitted campaign & Biden said they had a point.

The anti-abortion side knows Trump's statements now are b.s. but it is hard for them to trust what he will do later. Also, you have to be fairly sure that he will win. If he is going to lose, sacrificing your values for his campaign is dubious.

[Ed Grinberg]

Palestinians can see Trump is much worse & Kamala Harris has supported their cause directly in certain ways. They would want her to go much further, but she is not coming off as an unserious hypocrite. Harris/Walz also respected the Uncommitted campaign & Biden said they had a point.

You know, Palestinians aren't the only people who see all this...
https://nypost.com/2024/07/16/opinion/bidens-loss-of-jewish-support-could-cost-dems-the-presidency-and-more/
https://nypost.com/2024/08/11/us-news/trump-gop-eye-record-share-of-jewish-vote-over-antisemitism-a-real-issue/

[apedad]

For the lawyers!

Lawyers Must Consider the Court of Public Opinion in Litigation

(Last line in the article)

In sum, the legal profession needs to return to what Anthony Kronman, former dean of Yale Law School, called the ideal of the lawyer-statesperson. As he wrote in his 1993 book, “The Lost Lawyer,” an “outstanding lawyer—the one who serves as a model for the rest—is not simply an accomplished technician, but a person of prudence or practical wisdom as well.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/lawyers-must-consider-the-court-of-public-opinion-in-litigation

The article gives a recent example when Disney filed a motion to compel arbitration to avoid a public jury trial because the person who died had signed up for a free trial of the Disney+ streaming service that contained a mandatory arbitration provision.

So the lawyers were “technically” correct but as this article suggests, the lawyers should have considered other options, e.g., taking a more humanitarian approach (which Disney backtracked and did).

[Krayt]

My favorite such anecdote was Dr. Laura, a radio advice host, had a bunch of nudes taken by her BF way back in the day when she was studying to be a gym teacher.

The lawyers claimed those were not her in the pictures, and that she owned the copyrights for them. When asked why she owned copyrights on nudes of a woman who wasn’t herself*, they said, you know, lawyers cover all their bases.

* She was a small, slender redhead, and this woman was a small, slender, umm redhead.

[SimonP]

I have zero respect for David Lat, whose primary contribution to legal journalism was running a gossip rag obsessed with law firm salary practices, and who has since gone on to write bland, unoriginal op-eds for Bloomberg. It's no surprise that Eugene is a fan.

This piece is more of Lat's typical pablum. He cites some recent high profile cases - gossipy! - but totally omits mention of examples like red-state and business-group litigation opposing numerous Biden regulations that protect workers and consumers or the kinds of culture war litigation being sponsored by MAGA think tanks and legal advocacy groups. Those examples demonstrate what "courting public opinion" can actually look like, or not look like, depending on whose ox you're trying to gore. In other words, is anyone counseling business groups that maybe they shouldn't litigate in favor of non-compete agreements for low-wage sandwich workers, or AGs that maybe they shouldn't litigate in favor of keeping student loan payments flowing, or culture warfare adherents that maybe they shouldn't be litigating against grant programs for minority businesses? Or is it the case, instead, that people are advising these groups to do this very thing, precisely because a certain portion of the public would be very much in favor of seeing them succeed?

This op-ed is a bit like writing about tort reform after a splashy jury award for damages. Missing the forest for the easy-to-pick trees. He's calling for lawyers to abide by a soft ethical standard while overlooking some of the more egregious examples - or, perhaps, some notable examples for why lawyers shouldn't be so focused on the "court of public opinion."

[Martinned2]

A friend told me about this story over lunch just now, and I agree with him that this is not OK.

A British rabbi detained in Ireland and accused of performing illegal circumcisions has been granted bail and permission to return to the UK.

Rabbi Jonathan Abraham, 47, was arrested late last month when police officers found him scalpel in hand at a property in Dublin.
(...)
While mohels perform circumcisions in line with Jewish tradition in Ireland and are legally allowed to do so, non-religious circumcision is considered a medical procedure rather than a religious ritual and requires a separate medical license.

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/rabbi-arrested-in-ireland-over-illegal-circumcision-granted-bail-eycmiwgt

My initial understanding was that non-doctors are not allowed to perform circumcisions in Ireland, which wouldn't have been OK either, but at least would have made a certain kind of sense. But this distinction between religious and non-religious circumcisions seems hard to justify.

[hobie]

They should at least impose a 3 day waiting period, require the Rabbi to have surgical admission to a local hospital, and force the parents to view pictures of mutilated baby penises and of live, healthy, fully intact baby penises

[Don Nico]

"force the parents to view pictures of"
do you take that position of forced viewing with respect to abortions?

[Martinned2]

I think hobie probably thinks that the woman should be present for her abortion, yes.

[Don Nico]

But should she be forced to view pictures of aborted fetuses? That was the question.

[hobie]

"do you take that position of forced viewing with respect to abortions?"

No. Hence the sarcasm

[Moderation4ever]

It is interesting because I near as I can tell the Rabbi was not performing a circumcision for religious reasons in the case. It appears that the law does not allow him to these nonreligious operations. I think the Rabbi is in the wrong here. Maybe the laws should be changed but that is not the case here.

[Martinned2]

I guess, but it's not a distinction that makes much sense. (It's not mentioned in the article, but I gather the circumcision in question was of a Muslim boy, so it was a religious circumcision, just not a Jewish religious circumcision.)

[Moderation4ever]

Not sure why you suggest that the boy was a Muslim. The fact is that circumcision is commonly done for secular reasons. There is no indication this was a religious circumcision. While trained Rabbis may be as well qualified as medical staff the Irish law does not view that to case. So the Rabbi here is in the wrong, but maybe the law needs review.

[Martinned2]

The reason I suggested that is that that's what my friend told me over lunch. He'd been reading about this story more widely before I had. I assume if you search for information about the story, you will see this fact reported.

[Moderation4ever]

I check the Irish Times and Israeli Times stories on the case and you are correct one of the children was from a Moslem family and another Christian. As none of the children were Jewish it does not seem to be a religious circumcision.

[Martinned2]

Presumably the Muslim family wanted their children circumcised for religious reasons. How is that not a religious circumcision?

[Bob from Ohio]

"none of the children were Jewish it does not seem to be a religious circumcision"

Muslims get circumcised for religious reasons. Nearly all Muslim males are circumcised.

A Rabbi trained in circumcision would be a logical choice for a Muslim if necessary.

[Ed Grinberg]

compare (from Wikipedia):

Jewish ritual circumcision was forbidden in the Soviet Union.

Say, are there any other Soviet-like recent developments in Ireland? Why, yes!
https://adfinternational.org/news/1-in-4-irish-worried-about-losing-right-to-free-speech
Hmmm...

[Martinned2]

Both the Soviet Union and Ireland forbid/forbade carrying out medical procedures without proper training and licensing. I guess Ireland truly is communist...

[ReaderY]

It’s very straightforward to justify. Religious circumcisions get an exemption from medical licensure requirement on Free Exercise pronciples. Mon-religious circumcisions have no basis for an exemptions.

It’s the same reason religious Jews can ask for Saturday’s off, but non-religious people can’t.

Perhaps you think Free Exercise is hard to justify. But it’s there.

[shawn_dude]

Thanks... that's my take as well.
+1

[Martinned2]

If you're going to allow someone to perform circumcisions, you're presumably saying that they can be trusted to do so reliably. Because no amount of free exercise rights would justify letting some hack mutilate children. And if someone can be trusted to perform circumcisions, there is no rational basis for only letting them circumcise children of certain religions.

The free exercise aspect is in letting person X who is not a doctor perform circumcisions. Having the state decide what is and isn't a religious circumcision seems hinky and in any case lacking in rational basis.

[Bob from Ohio]

A trained mohel is better at it than most doctors

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Perhaps you think Free Exercise is hard to justify. But it’s there.

It’s not a violation of free exercise to apply neutral medical licensing requirements. The harm to medical procedures, especially to babies, is more of a state concern than a day off.

The argument is that there is not enough harm present to deny religious exemptions. But, I don’t think it is necessarily compelling.

A rabbi can be required to be trained and get the licensing, applied neutrally. It depends on what a "registered medical practitioner" entails. If they are so skillful, shouldn't be too hard if the policy is applied sensibly.

[ReaderY]

Many people in Britain prefer mohels because they are beleived, rightly or wrongly, to be more skilled at it. Male members of the Royal Family are circumcized by mohels by longstanding royal tradition.

Although the mohel Queen Elizabeth used to circumcize then-Prince Charles was also a licensed physician.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Snowman

[Martinned2]

The CEO of Telegram has now been charged with six crimes, and released on a bail of €5m.

https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-08-28%20-%20CP%20TELEGRAM%20mise%20en%20examen.pdf

The charges include abetting in the administration of an online platform to enable an illicit transaction, abetting in the distribution of a program, without a legitimate motive, for the distribution of child sexual abuse images, drug trafficking, organized criminal scams and criminal conspiracy to commit crimes. Other charges include the white-washing of crimes by organized gangs and the provision of a cryptographic device that doesn't exclusively perform authentication or integrity control without prior declaration.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like Macaroon is taking a page from US Democrat lawfare.
By the way, when will he allow a new government to be formed?

[Martinned2]

If you want to engage in fact-free bloviating about things you know nothing about, why don't you just go to Twitter? That's what it's for!

[Mr. Bumble]

Which is "fact free"; the lawfare comment or the failure to choose
a PM?

[Martinned2]

That's only two of the things you squeezed in a two-line comment that are not only inaccurate, but reflecting an utter lack of interest in even discovering the truth.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh huh, do you want to tell us how Mr. Bumble is wrong about Macron, or the failure to reconstitute a FR government, post election.

As for the former Telegram CEO, it is lawfare by FR. Free speech is lost in europe.

[Martinned2]

1. He intentionally wrote the man's name wrong.
2. He made a link to US politics that makes no sense at all.
3. There is no lawfare here, just law enforcement.
4. The president of France has no involvement in (day-to-day) law enforcement.
5. In France a decision to prosecute is taken by a magistrate, and the charges that have now been filed are likewise signed off by a magistrate. A judge.
6. There is no majority in the French parliament for any specific prime minister. So there is no person that Macron is refusing to appoint.
7. In the absence of a majority coalition in the assembly willing to support the same candidate for prime minister, negotiations between the liberals and the left are ongoing.

That's seven intentional misrepresentations in Bumble's comment. He didn't particularly give the impression that he wanted to be educated about French law or politics. (And neither did you, for that matter.) It's just shouting about how the US is great and everywhere else is a dictatorship. Whatever you need to tell yourself to survive the US hellhole, I guess...

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you get your dick caught in your zipper this morning?
...and yes the US is such a hellhole that half the world is trying to get here.

[Martinned2]

the US is such a hellhole that half the world is trying to get here.

You have an excessive sense of your own importance. You're not the only one. Here in the UK they're also complaining about massive numbers of immigrants coming in on small boats when the numbers are, like in the hundreds or low thousands.

[Mr. Bumble]

Shorter trip.

[ThePublius]

So says the King (Queen?) of bloviation!

How about substantiating your criticism? Or are you just taking a page from Sarcastr0's book?

[jb]

Seems like "lawfare" is now just a fun term to throw at any prosecution you don't like.

There's reasons to be concerned about this case, mostly depending on whether Telegram was actually doing anything to encourage/allow CSM on the platform versus just being a neutral platform with strong privacy protections. But it's hard to see the relationship to the purported motivations of "lawfare" against Trump and friends. (Also seems like some of the charges are related to specific French rules on cryptography, which I think are stupid but also if I were going to let French users use my product I'd probably want to pay attention to.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I watched "The Best Man" (1964) after reading a post about it here. The former president in the film gave a speech including this part:

We have had some bad old customs in this country. And one of them was that a Jew or a Negro or a Catholic, couldn't get to be President. Well, a Catholic can now be elected President. And someday we're going to have a Jewish President and we're going to have Negro President. Then, when all the minorities have been heard from, we're going to do something for the downtrodden majority of this country - and I mean the ladies!

There was a film about the first female president in 1964 with Fred MacMurray as the husband. She resigned when she found out she was pregnant.

[Moderation4ever]

I have seen the film but too long ago to really remember. I do remember that based on the times the film would seem quite sexist today. Especially the ending. Most woman candidates for President today are either at the end or past their childbearing years. Having said that should a woman President become pregnant I see no reason she could not remain as President.

[Voize]

"Kisses For My President". Polly Bergen, who had the role of the lady prez in that picture, was cast 40 years later in the TV series Commander in Chief as the mother of the first woman president, played by Geena Davis.

[John F. Carr]

Late August is the tenth anniversary of the start of the Market Basket protests, when thousands of workers and customers walked out in solidarity with good billionaire Arthur Demoulas against evil billionaire Arthur Demoulas. And got their way. The good cousin bought out the evil cousin's interest. Market Basket is doing well. The debt associated with the deal will soon be paid off. The whole affair was anomalous in the modern business world with so many corporate raiders and so little loyalty. What might have been regional news turned into national news.

[Paladin_44]

Usually by now (300+ comments) Rev. Arthur Kirkland would have chimed in. Where is he?
The world wonders!

[Martinned2]

Maybe he's on vacation?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I think he was found taking the Long Sleep on top of a roof in PA a few weeks ago.

[loki13]

Random thoughts for today!

1. I help out various groups locally. Yesterday, I was doing so when I overheard two teens talking. One said that they were looking forward to Labor Day weekend, and the other replied that they didn't understand why pregnancy got a holiday. In fairness to the yung 'uns, the first teen was as gobsmacked as I was.

2. Anyone have exciting Labor Day plans? I hope to spend at least one day on a boat. Not mine, of course. I am familiar with the wisdom that boats are awesome things for your friends to own, not you.

3. Finally, I brought up the topic in another thread. So I'll let people have at it now. We all can agree that nothing is better than good BBQ with friends. But ... what is the BEST BBQ?

Let me know what you think?
Region? (Texas, Carolina, KC, Memphis ... NEW YORK?)
Meat? (Beef, Pork, Chicken .... TOFU?)
Other? (Dry or Sauce, etc.)

I fully expect and hope that this will be more heated than this political nonsense y'all are trapped in.

PS- aside to Florida State fans ... HA HA!

[Brett Bellmore]

We’re going on a guided fly fishing trip in the Smokies. As a life long bait fisherman, I expect it to be an interesting experience. Aside from that, a lot of hiking, and probably some swimming, given that we’re hiking to a swimming hole.

I’m hoping like heck this isn’t one of those catch and release deals…

In my experience so far? Memphis.

[loki13]

When I was younger (so much younger than today), I had ribs in Memphis that were so amazing. Kind of like Proust's madeleine, to go highfalutin' on BBQ.

Unfortunately, the place is no more. But Memphis has some good BBQ.

[Paladin_44]

BBQ: KC followed by Texas
re Free Shoes U - Ga Tech alum here, so yeah, HA HA. The irony of an Irish FG kick holder to ice it makes it even better.

[loki13]

"re Free Shoes U"

I miss Spurrier's zings. They were fun, and it seems like the college coaches today just don't do that. It's all the Saban/Belichick "We're working hard, looking at the next game," pabulum.

Still, while it doesn't make sense to people today, the best one was always, "You can't spell Citrus without UT."

[Frank Drackman]

Even as an Auburn (84’ Poultry Science)Grad I laughed at his comment after the Auburn Library caught on fire “what a shame so many Books were lost, some hadn’t even been colored in yet”

Frank

[Ridgeway]

I grew up in the Northeast in the 70s and 80s, before the advent of the Food Network and regional-cuisine cooking shows. "Barbecue" meant a grill, or grilling.

So when I went down South for law school, eating barbecue was a whole new experience for me and blew me away. When they served it to us at a Welcome-New-Students picnic, I thought they were serving cheap tuna salad. I was hungry, though, so I tried it and I am glad I did.

As a consequence, I am partial to Eastern NC-style pork barbecue.

[loki13]

"Carolina Gold" aka mustard-based BBQ sauces, tend to be a love it or hate it thing.

Personally, I really like them.

People ask me how I want to die. My answer? "By going to a BBQ joint in Lockhart, Texas, ordering the food, sitting down, and pulling out a bottle of mustard-based BBQ sauce and slathering it all over the brisket." Pretty pretty sure that would result in my death.

[Ridgeway]

Mustard-based sauce is a South Carolina thing (I think). Eastern NC is vinegar-based (no tomato), and usually whole hog, rather than just shoulder.

I do like Carolina Gold sauces, but that was not my first BBQ love.

[loki13]

"but that was not my first BBQ love."

Fair! We never forget our first love!

Which is unfortunate, because when I was a kid, I had a McRib.

Damn you, formative memories!

[not guilty]

I make a quite tasty Alabama style barbecue sauce, combining mayonnaise, white vinegar, lemon juice and sugar. It also makes a yummy coleslaw dressing.

[Commenter_XY]

I've had that...it is good.

[shawn_dude]

1. The two teens must have been male. (As am I) I defer to Carol Burnett -- "Giving birth is like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head." I think giving women a holiday for that sort of sacrifice is appropriate and, thankfully, we do have Mother's Day.

2. My parents had a boat. I have minor scars on my knuckles from having to scrape barnacles off the waterline on a few of my Summer weekends. But I do appreciate the memories of camping in the boat at the Channel Islands and eating fresh lobster and abalone when I was a teen.

3. The best BBQ is Santa Maria style with a tri-tip marinated in an acidic salsa and slow-cooked over oak coals.

We'll be doing the most "American" of things this Labor Day weekend -- buying new appliances. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

All electric?

[loki13]

So I am not going to get into the broader debate, but I will say this-

Had a gas range in the last home. It was great! I thought I'd be a forever gas cooker.

Current home has electric (induction). It took a little adjustment, but now I love it. And I wouldn't go back to gas.

Admittedly, it's high-end induction, but still. It works perfectly for cooking, and I don't have to worry about gas supplies, paying for gas, gas leaks, or cleaning.

This is my experience, and others may have different experiences, but when it comes to indoor cooking, induction has converted me. Sometimes I think that when people think of electric, they are thinking about those coils ... which, ugh.

Then again, when it comes to BBQ ... but I'm not cooking that on the range.

[Ridgeway]

If you do your own slow-cooked BBQ, the oven can be handy. I usually smoke mine outside until the heat goes below 180 or so -- One load of charcoal will give 2-3 hours before going below this, which is plenty of time to get good smoke flavor.

Then I pop it (usually a pork shoulder) in the oven at 225 until it is done. No need to keep checking the cooker temp -- just use a probe thermometer and alarm, and it is pretty much idiot proof.

[shawn_dude]

I often sou vide my meat first and then finish on the grill with coals to get the smokiness. The upside to that is you can leave it in the water bath for an hour or two after it's ready with little to no degradation in quality. That makes it easier to manage for a larger group of people and the meat finishes on the grill fairly quickly.

Best pork I've ever had was a Canary Island style roast. Love pork ribs either dry-rubbed or heavily sauced in the Southern style.

[jb]

Induction is great, but is still quite a bit more expensive than the electric coils (which we can all agree are the worst). Hopefully prices will continue to improve which will make most of this conversation pretty silly, I think.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got a glass top stove, I hate the way the 'burners' only heat the part of the frying pan directly above them, so that when you're frying you have uneven heat across the pan. And I'm not about to give up my pre-Civil war cast iron frying pans, even if I'm glad to use Alclad for my pots. But it came with the house, so the price was right.

I must admit it has held up well, despite my deliberately not babying it. That's some tough glass.

We're shopping around now for a new, gas stove. I have in mind a GE model with 5 burners on top, and a convection oven. I like the fact that gas stoves can work during power outages, as I'm anticipating they'll get considerably more common as 'renewable' energy grows as a portion of the grid.

[shawn_dude]

I know you can buy a non-electric fridge, but they're pretty rare and don't perform as well. 😉 But yes, I'm also buying an induction range to replace my failing gas range. I've never not had a gas range because I enjoy cooking and electric, until recently, has always sucked. My favorite was a dual fuel range/oven at my last house. Gas ovens suck at drying and crisping because there's so much water vapor released during the cooking process. I prefer electric ovens. The issue I'm having with my current range that leads to replace rather than repair is that the gas cooktop gets filthy and I have to disassemble the grates and the disks that distribute the flame every time I'm done cooking (and I cook often.) Whereas, an induction top, which I had at a temporary rental house, wiped clean like a dream and it boils water and heats my wok a lot faster. So... long story longer... yes, electric slide-in range with an induction top and electric oven. I'm partial to the GE Cafe for it's high wattage and double convection fans but am also looking at the Bertazzoni ... mostly because I want a black range and GE Cafe doesn't offer that in the single oven configuration.

[Jmaie]

Every region has it's charms, I've had great BBQ in Manhattan and crappy BBQ in Houston. Recently in KC, was not impressed but it WAS a chain restaurant so...

Nah to the tofu, and chicken breast is too delicate, anything else is fair game. I am partial to baby back ribs myself...

Cheers.

[Ridgeway]

Charlotte NC is a surprisingly bad city for barbecue

[Jmaie]

My company's headquarters is there, I would fully agree. Could be the large number of transplants dilutes the southern-ness of the place. (A rare example where immigrants don't improve the food scene ;<))

[Ridgeway]

Mine too, in a previous life. So I havent been down there in a decade.

I remember there was also a famous drive in that served fried chicken dipped in hot sauce. I was not a fan of that either. I like fried chicken, and I like spicy food, but if found the combo to be less than the sum of its parts. That salty, crunchy, slightly greasy deliciousness that makes fried chicken so good (and heart healthy!) is overpowered by the hot sauce.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nashville hot is better; The 'hot sauce' is oil based, not water based, so it doesn't mess with the crunch.

[Jacob Grimes]

Any BBQ that isn't packed with sugar, honey, or molasses is good. Where I live, it's hard to find BBQ that isn't sweet.

I'd also add Korean BBQ as a contender.

[Commenter_XY]

Region (best): NC, TN (sorry TX, I just messed with you)

Meat: Brisket is my first choice, followed by pork shoulder.

NC vinegar BBQ sauce, made with apple cider vinegar, is easily the best sauce. No other serious competition, although diablo sauce from the black powder mill smokehouse in NC is awfully good.

[Don Nico]

Loki, I'll bite.

For beef:DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS.
For pork: KC
For Tofu (?): that has to be California.
For style: dry.

[loki13]

I was joking about the tofu!

I mean, I guess if someone knows a good BBQ Tofu place, I'll try it once. I'll try anything once!

But something tells me I won't be trying it twice.

(I have had good tofu / tempeh dishes, but BBQ? Unless I'm missing something, that's a big hell to the naw.)

[shawn_dude]

California has a great BBQ style... but it's not tofu, it's beef. Though most of the cattle areas when I was a kid are now vineyards.

[ducksalad]

3. Texas beef, no sauce but the meat itself should be moist to the point of dripping. Other regions, especially NC, have some very delicious stuff but it's not barbecue.

Side note: You shouldn't do vegan meat barbecue, but if you just have to, the best option is seitan, not tofu.

[grb]

Got a strong stomach? Then I invite you to click on the below link and watch Trump’s huckster pitch for his new “digital trading cards”. They cost $99 each and supporters who purchase 15 or more (cost : $1,485) will receive a physical card with a snippet cut from the suit he wore for the presidential debate in June.

All of which raises an interesting question: In love with Trump’s entertainment value owning the libs, the cult is willing to ignore his gross behavior, deep ignorance, pathological lying, and lifelong criminality. They shrug their shoulders at his attacks on the core of America’s democracy : Meaningful elections where voters decide their leaders.

But doesn’t the cult care about humiliating the United States? If the “leader” of any other country made such an ludicrous spectacle of himself, they’d be rolling on the floor laughing. Somehow they aren't bothered “Make America Great Again” is actually “Make America a Laughingstock Around the World”

They just don’t seem to care. Entertainment must come first. Maybe if MALAW fit on their spiffy red caps…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cvP1JWYQNE

[Moderation4ever]

While I think Donald Trump is incompetent at governing, he is a master at hocking junk. I would say he rivals the late Ron Popeil. Every Sunday my local paper has an ad for some new Trump Trinket. Last week a miniature Christmas Tree and week before a model Trump Woody wagon. Trump is not just out looking for people's vote, he wants their vote and every single dollar he can squeeze out of them.

[Jmaie]

Can't remember who said it but I got a chuckle from, "For two thousand years you've been warned about the coming of the antichrist, now you're buying bibles from him?"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's less humiliating than:
- Biden shitting his pants at G8
- Topless trannies at the WH
- Kamala Harris speaking without a teleprompter

[ReaderY]

You’d never think it from the folks who keep saying here that Israelis are all settler-colonialist racists. But the most recent hostage rescued was an Arab Muslim.

But then again, there wasn’t such an uproar this time about how many Palestinian “civilians” were killed in the process of the rescue. Maybe killing Palestinians is just fine as long as it’s done for the sake of an Arab, or perhaps anybody not Jewish.

[Michael P]

I saw an interesting comment on Substack from an Arab who was incensed about that. He was not outraged because Israel rescued the guy or that Netanyahu welcomed him home, but that other Arab countries would never treat one of their own citizens so well. (Of course, the writer's profile pic could have been a fake and the actual writer could have been a dog. Online, nobody knows for sure.)

[Martinned2]

Maybe killing Palestinians is just fine as long as it’s done for the sake of an Arab, or perhaps anybody not Jewish.

Or maybe, just hear me out, there was no indication of (excessive) civilian deaths this time?

[Jacob Grimes]

Hamas abandoned him in a tunnel to die and told him it was booby-trapped to prevent him from leaving, so yes, their cruelty did have the positive effect of preventing civilian casualties.

[shawn_dude]

You’re proving too much here. Are you saying that the IDF not going overboard on killing Palestinians to rescue an Arab citizen doesn’t tilt in favor of claims that Israel treats its non-Jewish residents as lesser?

[Jacob Grimes]

The rescues aren't comparable. The Arab was abandoned in a tunnel. The Israelis were being held in residential buildings with guards and the rescuers came under fire.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone who wasn't intimately involved at the tactical level of these hostage rescues can claim the number of civilian casualties was excessive. All we have to go on is a number of dead that doesn't distinguish between combatants and civilians, given to us by a group that is either controlled by or heavily intertwined with a terrorist organization. Maybe you have some eyewitness accounts from Gazans that are inherently questionable because Hamas has publicly punished those who have spoken out against them during this conflict.

[shawn_dude]

As I've quoted above, Netanyahu has stated that the number of civilian deaths was greater than Hamas fighters. So if I use his numbers, which are also untrustworthy, I still end up in the same place. Further, urban warfare, as a general rule, kills far more civilians than rural, and this is before one starts to include starvation and disease. Even if you distrust both sides of this conflict--and there are good reasons to--it's a safe assumption that bombing urban centers will kill non-combatants in large numbers. Bombing schools and hospitals to reach a handful of combatants will do that and the Israelis are bombing schools and hospitals. I think killing more than one civilian for every Hamas member killed is "excessive." Hell, they even kill their own hostages by mistake which doesn't support claims that they're moving carefully to avoid unnecessary deaths.

[SimonP]

When the IDF deigns to give numbers of estimated civilian casualties, they generally land at a ratio of about 10:1, civilian-to-terrorist. I think that's their rule of thumb, for deciding whether to go ahead with a strike - or how many "militants" they should claim to have also killed, after a particularly egregious civilian massacre.

[Michael P]

You don't cite any examples of your supposed rule of thumb. That's because it is a huge lie.

[SimonP]

I'm not doing a research project, Mikey. I've just noticed patterns in the coverage I've read over the past several months, and I don't have the benefit of relying on easy heuristics like, "The IDF can do no wrong, and anything reported by Palestinian agencies can be dismissed out of hand," like you do.

[Michael P]

Antisemite_Dude, what was the ratio of combatant to civilian deaths during Hamas's October 7th terror rampage?

[Martinned2]

About infinity? Which is why three senior Hamas leaders are currently being prosecuted in the ICC.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they should consider surrendering to the ICC before the IDF finds them.

[Martinned2]

Fair suggestion. Although at the moment no arrest warrant has been issued yet, because the pre-trial chamber is still working its way through the pile of amicus curiae briefs about the Netanyahu arrest warrant application.

[Jmaie]

I generally don't buy into the Trump-will-be-end-of-Democracy script, but his claiming that God saved him from being shot because God wants him to save the USA from illegal immigrants was...breathtaking...

[ducksalad]

You're slightly misstating his role in God's Plan. He said God saved him to save the USA in general. The chart on illegal immigration was merely the Divine Instrument of Salvation that prevented him from being shot.

[shawn_dude]

American democracy rests on a few basic concepts, including the peaceful transfer of power and the winner of an election is the next President. Trump has already attempted to dismantle this in order to remain in power after losing an election. There is ample reason to believe he'd do the same thing again and no reason to believe he would accept a future loss or, having won his second term, accept that he cannot have a third. He is already on record as saying the only way he'll lose the election is if the Democrats cheat; basically, he's saying he's won already. And, of course, that he'll fix it so we don't need to vote any more.

But I would agree that he wouldn't be the end of democracy since the US isn't the only democracy in the world.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The DOJ is threatening to sue two counties in WI for using paper ballots saying it violates disabled people's rights.

That's weird.

[jb]

Seems pretty normal to want to make sure there's a way for disabled people to vote. DOJ isn't saying they can't use paper ballots for most people, just that there also needs some accessible mechanism to vote. For example, you could probably have paper ballots for blind people if they had braille versions with some way to mark them, but it doesn't seem like there's been any attempt to actually provide an accessible alternative which is pretty clearly a violation of the Help America Vote Act.

[Moderation4ever]

What weird is your take on disabled people. Four Wisconsin voters, Disability Rights Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters have filed suit to allow disabled voters to vote absentee. To do this requires the disabled to allowed to use electronic voting systems rather than a mailed paper ballot. This system can already be used by overseas military voters.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don't consider women to be disabled, but hearing this I'm open to changing my mind

[Moderation4ever]

Are you really this uninformed? The League of Women Voters have advocated for the right to vote for all citizens for years. I guess you are just another uniformed American. But you know what, the LWV wants you to be able to vote just like it wants all citizens to be able to vote. So just thank them and move on.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There was a reference to the charms of barbecue.

I never was that into that sort of thing too much but it's a fine choice taste-wise. Autumn Reeser did a film entitled "Season for Love" with a barbecue plot.

But, yeah, I'll say that tofu is fine if you make it the right way, including in barbecue dishes.

[shawn_dude]

(I think your comment escaped the BBQ thread accidentally.)

There are so many veggies that BBQ nicely that I'm not sure I'd want to mess with tofu on a grill. I'd go for Halloumi cheese on the grill before tofu.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I decided to make it a freestanding comment.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW this just popped up:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13794943/Texas-food-best-BBQ-restaurants.html

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Democracy Protectors:

We must take Biden off the ballot and put Kamala on!

Also Democracy Protectors:
We must keep RFK, Jr. on the ballot even though he's not running!

Also Democracy Protectors:

We must take Cornell West off the ballot even though he is running!

Weird.

[David Nieporent]

I know you're not very smart, but Joe Biden was not on the ballot, so he could not be "taken off."

[Commenter_XY]

Kudos to Kamala for such a scintillating interview. She was clearly unburdened by what once was, and set a new standard for what is, and what might be. LMFAO.

Keep talking, Kamala. Please. Don't stop! 🙂

[Michael P]

Her values, which have not changed, are important to her and to voters. She especially has not changed in wanting to build consensus on issues, because that is something she values, and that has not changed. She, like CNN, also values not releasing the transcript of the unedited interview. Regarding the Green New Deal, she believes in the importance of holding ourselves to deadlines around time, but I guess not the other kind of deadlines, whatever kind don’t relate to time. Her values have not changed, which is why she promised to ban fracking before she voted to expand fracking.

Were her notes a script? Did she get a copy of the questions in advance? She seems to be following the same old, tired playbook.

[SimonP]

The media criticism has been merely that Harris wasn't "punchy."

Here's your guy, from earlier this year:

You have vowed to launch the largest deportation operation in American history. Your advisors say that includes—

Trump: Because we have no choice. I don't believe this is sustainable for a country, what's happening to us, with probably 15 million and maybe as many as 20 million by the time Biden's out. [20 million what?] Twenty million people, many of them from jails, many of them from prisons, many of them from mental institutions. [what is he talking about?] I mean, you see what's going on in Venezuela and other countries. They're becoming a lot safer. [what? Are they? Which "other countries" is he talking about, and what does he mean they're "becoming a lot safer"?]

Well, let's just talk—so you have said you're gonna do this massive deportation operation. I want to know specifically how you plan to do that.

Trump: So if you look back into the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower, he's not known for that, you know, you don't think of him that way. [not known for what?] Because you see, Ike, but Dwight Eisenhower was very big on illegal immigration not coming into our country. And he did a massive deportation of people. He was doing it for a long time. He got very proficient at it. He was bringing them just to the other side of the border. And they would be back in the country within a matter of days. And then he started bringing them 3,000 miles away— [so his plan didn't work, or...?]

What’s your plan, sir?

Trump: We will be using local law enforcement. [is this a "plan"?] And we will absolutely start with the criminals that are coming in. And they're coming in in numbers that we've never seen before. And we do have a new category of crime. It's called migrant crime. [a "new category" of crime?] It's, ugh, you see it all the time. You see it in New York City where they're having fistfights with police. [he was responding to a recent news story that was broadly misreported in right-wing media] And far worse than that. You see it all the time. And you're seeing it in all of the cities, especially the Democratic-run cities, which is a lot of the big ones, but you're seeing it in Chicago, you're seeing it in New York and L.A. and getting worse than in other places. [so what was the "plan," again?]

Does that include using the U.S. military?

Trump: It would. [note how Trump just riffs on the questions the interviewer gives him] When we talk military, generally speaking, I talk National Guard. I've used the National Guard in Minneapolis. And if I didn't use it, I don't think you'd have Minneapolis standing right now, because it was really bad. But I think in terms of the National Guard. [an amusing lie, now that Walz is in the race and we've all become re-familiarized with what happened] But if I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military, per se. We have to have safety in our country. We have to have law and order in our country. And whichever gets us there, but I think the National Guard will do the job. You know, had Nancy Pelosi used the National Guard. [pivoting to J6, for some reason? And what authority did Pelosi have to "use" the National Guard?] You know, I offered them whatever they wanted, but I often—

Harris comes off as someone who has difficulty organizing her thoughts extemporaneously to provide a succinct, punchy response to unscripted questions. Trump comes off as someone who rambles incoherently, stream-of-conscious, to fill the air.

[Brett Bellmore]

"[20 million what?]"

Illegal aliens, obviously. You don't deport kumquats.

"[so his plan didn’t work, or…?]"

He's saying that it's not enough to just kick them over the border, you have to deport them to somewhere around Tierra Del Fuego.

I guess Trump does sound incoherent to somebody whose mind simply refuses to interpret the words...

[David Nieporent]

Kind of like how he didn't incite the attack on the capitol, to someone whose mind simply refuses to interpret his words. Or didn't call Nazis fine people, to someone whose mind simply refuses to interpret his words.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Look at you repeating those debunked talking points.

How Talmudic of you.

[SimonP]

Brett, the purpose of my running commentary was to evaluate the coherence of what he was saying, as one would experience it, so as to draw a comparison to the way Kamala speaks.

But you're helpfully illustrating the fact that Trump's statements make sense only if you really fill in the blanks for him, to say whatever it is you wanted him to have said. Examples:

Illegal aliens, obviously. You don’t deport kumquats.

You think he means just "illegal aliens?" Why would you think that? There are only just over 10 million of them. Also, so far most of Trump's "policy positions" on immigration include deporting not just undocumented immigrants but a number of immigrants who are here legally. You can describe many of those immigrants as being unworthy of legal status and appropriately subject to deportation, if you like. But they are not "illegal aliens," and deporting many of them would not actually be legal.

He’s saying that it’s not enough to just kick them over the border, you have to deport them to somewhere around Tierra Del Fuego.

That's not actually what he said, at all.

I guess Trump does sound incoherent to somebody whose mind simply refuses to interpret the words…

So what's the plan? "Mass deportation." How executed? "Police and military." Citing what legal authorities, employing what process, using what policy levers? Who can say? Let's focus on what can be, unburdened by what has been.

[Josh R]

She was fine on style. Those her paint her as an empty suit that can't think without a teleprompter were proven wrong by the interview.

She wasn't good on substance, but these are the hardest positions for her to defend (no one could be good on them). The same applies to Trump on abortion, health care and Jan 6.

[Jmaie]

“She wasn’t good on substance, but these are the hardest positions for her to defend (no one could be good on them). ”

Maybe it's me but I could use some clarification - are you saying that no one could be good explaining/defending the positions she’s previously taken? (I didn’t watch the interview, could be I’m missing context.)

Thanks.

[Josh R]

I’m saying it is hard to explain why she changed positions (fracking, decriiminalizing border crossings). It’s also hard to defend the record on inflation.

But on all of these, she answered directly and very comfortably (good on style). No word salads, no problems answering without a teleprompter or notes.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think it's that hard to defend the record on inflation. "Inflation was a worldwide phenomenon that was the result of dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic and its effects on the global economy. But thanks to our policies, it came down faster and further in the U.S. than in any other major country. And over the last two years we have seen robust wage growth that has outstripped inflation."

[Josh R]

I agree she did better with inflation than fracking and illegal border crossings. But, I suspect it won't be a winner with the voters. It may however be enough to stem the losses.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...If you think Kamala did well, then I absolutely want Kamala to keep talking. And by all means, she should bring Uncle Fester (the New Age grammarian) as a chaperone.

You missed the boat on POTUS Biden; you are missing it here as well. The more Kamala opens her mouth, the more votes she loses. It is a terrible dilemma. 🙂

[Josh R]

I’ll make you a bet. Harris will lose no ground in the polls in the wake of this interview.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, by all means, be focused on the immediate polls. I am looking at the start of Sept voting in ~2 weeks, and the likelihood Kamala will have to speak beforehand for days and days, losing votes in PA.

BTW....I'll take the bet, Josh R. Name the time period Kamala loses no ground in the polls, and what we use to determine who won the bet. I'll even spot you that the poll movement must be outside the MOE. 🙂

[Josh R]

You are on. The source is Nate Silver's analysis. The baseline is today. Harris leads in the national number by 3.3%-points. She leads by an average of 1.4%-points in AZ/GA/MI/NV/NC/PA/WI.

I win if Harris is ahead by at least 2.5%-points nationally and 0.5%-points on average in the swing states on 9/9 (the day before the debate).

[Sarcastr0]

TRUMP: Arrest Zuck
FBI Director 1: No. Illegal.
TRUMP: You're fired. [Turning to next guy.] Arrest Zuck.
FBI Director 2: OK. [Arrests Zuck.]
JUDGE: Illegal. Release Zuck.
FBI Director 2: [turns to Trump]
TRUMP: You're pardoned for everything.
FBI Director 2: [turns back to judge] No.
JUDGE: ...

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

teehee that's exactly like it happened!!!

S*rcastr0 the Truth Teller, I always say!

[Life of Brian]

"You are at this point posting from a parallel universe."

-Sarc

[Sarcastr0]

Pretending the clear hypothetical wasn’t clear to you is like accusing Walz of lying about his dog because once he was photographed near a different dog.

[Michael P]

You are getting ever more incoherent. Seek help.

[Life of Brian]

"clear"

[Sarcastr0]

This is what happens when you cargo cult an argument.

Yeah, that was clearly a hypothetical. If you don't think it was clear, say so, and everyone can make fun of you for that.

[Josh R]

Trump says a 6-week abortion ban is too short. Will this stance help or hurt him in the election. Will attract more pro-choice voters or turn-pff more pro-life voters?

[Michael P]

Presumably the former. He's made his position very clear that legislation about abortion should be left to the states, so his personal preferences for how long it should be legal are almost entirely irrelevant. (Obviously, he might vote on state referenda like any other citizen can.)

[David Nieporent]

He’s made his position very clear that

…he has no actual opinion and will just say whatever he thinks that his audience on any particular day wants to hear.

[not guilty]

Right. As I have said before, Donald Trump is just as opposed to abortion as Strom Thurmond was opposed to miscegenation. Both are/were pandering to the rubes.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P eats it up though. Remarkable to me how such an obvious charlatan is able to manipulate so many into pretending the emperor has a soul.

[Sarcastr0]

You misapprehend Michael's position. Trump's words are not to convince Mikey of anything. They are for Mikey to cite as proof of whatever he wants to proov to whomever he wants to prove it to.

[Michael P]

Even if that were true, that would still put me one up on you, who never cites anything in support of your assertions.

[Sarcastr0]

Feel free to call me out when I make such assertions.

Like my recent assertion that your issues of choice are not consistent, only your support for Trump is.
Suddenly abortion is meh.
Suddenly Gabbard, RFK Jr and Elon Musk will move the populace by endosing Trump.
Suddenly you care what PETA says.

General hand-waiving 'U are bad' is just childish.

[SimonP]

Even if that were true,...

Mikey - the test for determining how genuine your belief is, in Trump's announcements on abortion, is the following:

Congress passes a law to ban abortion nationwide. Do you think that Trump will veto that law?

Trump appoints officials to his Cabinet who say that the administration should do more to enforce the Comstock Act and discourage abortion through federal policy making. Does Trump tell them not to do so?

We know what Trump has said, in the middle of a campaign for re-election occurring after several elections at the state level that have shown a strengthening in support for the legal protection of abortion rights. The question is what you genuinely think he would do, if he were actually to be elected.

What is your read of this man and his character? Does he feel strongly enough about abortion rights being settled only at the state level, that he would bring his administration in line with that view, and use his political leverage over Congress to block a national law? If you believe that he does, what is the basis of your belief, given the way his position has shifted, and given the way he has bragged about the death of Roe?

[Josh R]

Assuming you are correct that his personal prefences are not relevant, why would his position on leaving it to the states attract more pro-choice voters?

[Michael P]

You asked about his pronouncement that 6 weeks is too early to ban abortion.

[grb]

A quote from Trump yesterday. By now, it’s clear his brain has rotted to the consistency of worm-ridden mush.

“She destroyed the city of San Francisco. And I own a big building there. It’s no … I shouldn’t talk about this, but that’s OK. I don’t give a damn, because this is what I’m doing. I should say it’s the finest city in the world! Sell and get the hell out of there, but I can’t do that. I don’t care. Billions of dollars. You know, someone said, ‘What do you think you lost?’ I said, ‘Probably two-three billion.’ That’s OK, I don’t care. They said, ‘Do you think you’d do it again?’ And that’s the least of it. Nobody! They always say … I don’t know if you know. Lincoln was horribly treated. Jefferson was pretty horribly. Andrew Jackson, they say, was the worst of all – that he was treated worse than any other president. And I said, ‘Do that study again,’ because I think there’s nobody close to Trump. I even got shot! And who the hell knows where that came from, right?”

Who the hell knows where that came from indeed! Dementia is an ugly spectacle.